Barbarossa - what is more flawed?

[steverodgers801]

AGN was suppose to capture Leningrad but didn't because he wasn't capable of taking it. Why do people keep refusing to recognize that Hitler had nothing to do with the stop at Smolensk, it was planned from the beginning by the generals. It was also in the original plan that AGC may have to turn south to assist AGS. It is pointless to blame Hitler or the generals, they both contributed, both made hugely wrong assessments about the Soviets and greatly over estimated German capacity.

[BDV]

So, point being, german generals only got ahead of their enemies as long as they had numerical and quality advantage. Demoralized, outnumbered, unprepared, out of position enemy - they could defeat ... most of the time. Once those conditions were no longer applicable, the Wehrmacht sputtered. As such, once you look at their performance from that perspective, it becomes most mediocre, particularly after the generals got their talented and curageous subordinates (NCOs and junior officers) slaughtered.

I mean the Nazi foremost tactical genius had his opponents issue judgements like:
"A helluva waste of fine infantry", "[Montgomery] discounted the possibility that Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line, and calmly and patiently go about the business..." Oh noes, did Eisenhower just call Rommel an impatient hothead?!?

So, yeah, nezi generalship was most mediocre in an absolute sense. Contrasted to the generals' Munchausenian claims of outstandingness downright imbecilic.

[steverodgers801]

there are two factors, the generals were not imbecils, they did however make the mistake of underestimating all of their opponents intsead of recognizing some were very good. They did have the problem of Hitler not allowing them to do their job as they wanted so its hard to know how they would have don't. On a tactical and operation level the Germans were very good. on a strategic limited.

[AJFFM]

So, point being, german generals only got ahead of their enemies as long as they had numerical and quality advantage. Demoralized, outnumbered, unprepared, out of position enemy - they could defeat ... most of the time. Once those conditions were no longer applicable, the Wehrmacht sputtered. As such, once you look at their performance from that perspective, it becomes most mediocre, particularly after the generals got their talented and curageous subordinates (NCOs and junior officers) slaughtered.

So excuses (no matter how bogus they were) work for the Soviets, French, Poles and British but not for Germans, interesting.

[BDV]

So excuses (no matter how bogus they were) work for the Soviets, French, Poles and British but not for Germans, interesting.

When equipment, force size, and training levels are taken into account, the Nazi generalship performance is mediocre, (average, that is). That of some more vocal ones, in particular Manstein, and in particular during Barbarossa, leaves A LOT to be desired.

[steverodgers801]

its not simply a matter of all generals being mediocre in all situations. Mansteins performance after Stalingrad is a very good example of operational art. Why did the Soviet generals perform so poorly for the most part for a year plus? Stalins interference. I agree the German generals were not the all world performers they portray them selves but the Americans, British and Soviet had their share. Marshall Kulik wanted to abolish all tank forces and have an all cavalry force.

[Appleknocker27]

So, point being, german generals only got ahead of their enemies as long as they had numerical and quality advantage. Demoralized, outnumbered, unprepared, out of position enemy - they could defeat ... most of the time. .

So these same generals deserve no credit for putting their enemies in those positions and then properly using to their advantage?

Once those conditions were no longer applicable, the Wehrmacht sputtered.

As will anyone else.

As such, once you look at their performance from that perspective, it becomes most mediocre, particularly after the generals got their talented and curageous subordinates (NCOs and junior officers) slaughtered.

It is a very slanted perspective and not at all objective or useful.

I mean the Nazi foremost tactical genius had his opponents issue judgements like:
"A helluva waste of fine infantry", "[Montgomery] discounted the possibility that Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line, and calmly and patiently go about the business..." Oh noes, did Eisenhower just call Rommel an impatient hothead?!?

Is that indicative of Montgomery's opinion of Rommel?

So, yeah, nezi generalship was most mediocre in an absolute sense. Contrasted to the generals' Munchausenian claims of outstandingness downright imbecilic

You seem to have very slanted metrics all things considered.

[BDV]

So these same generals deserve no credit for putting their enemies in those positions and then properly using to their advantage?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary achievements. The achievements of the german field generalship in WWII were not extraordinary. They were good at times, they were mediocre at times, and they were bad at times. But after the improvements in training/unit tactics, weaponry, and the numerical balance are accounted for, german field generals do not stand out as outstanding, quite the contrary. They appear as impatient hotheads carelessly wasting a fine fighting force.

It is a very slanted perspective and not at all objective or useful.

It is very useful for cutting through the fog created by german general confabulations.

"[Montgomery] discounted the possibility that Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line, and calmly and patiently go about the business..." Oh noes, did Eisenhower just call Rommel an impatient hothead?!?

Is that indicative of Montgomery's opinion of Rommel?

As reported by Dwight Eisenhower.

You seem to have very slanted metrics all things considered.

It is the german generals who claimed infalibility or at a minimum to be second comings of Davout and Massena.

[Appleknocker27]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary achievements. The achievements of the german field generalship in WWII were not extraordinary. They were good at times, they were mediocre at times, and they were bad at times. But after the improvements in training/unit tactics, weaponry, and the numerical balance are accounted for, german field generals do not stand out as outstanding, quite the contrary. They appear as impatient hotheads carelessly wasting a fine fighting force.

Personally, I don't paint with such a broad brush and take every instance in proper context. Overall however, I cannot agree with your assessment.

It is very useful for cutting through the fog created by german general confabulations.

I don't believe the myths created about German generalship were created by the Germans however misled and wrong those myths are. Most German memoirs, after action type reports, articles in period journals, etc. are not geared towards self promotion, etc. but more towards constructive and objective assessment. In depth research of actual Wehrmacht material will reveal they were quite critical of themselves.

It is the german generals who claimed infalibility or at a minimum to be second comings of Davout and Massena.

Who exactly has claimed infalibility or claimed themselves to be great? Clearly Guderian was as egoist and has been greatly overrated, but who else is on your list such that you can feel justified in making a blanket statement for all German generalship?

[steverodgers801]

Mansteins memoirs are a bit self serving. Von Mellinthin isn't too bad, they do all share the basic theme of it was all Hitler's fault and give no responsibility to the generals who made their own mistakes.

[cimon_unhipocrisy]

Laziness and incompetence in the highest degree. That that the long range Nazi plan in place past SU not collapsing within 8 weeks appears to be "they'll collapse at the next heave-ho" boggles the mind.

While I agree with the terms, I'm going to criticize the "nazi" stamp put on the high command. Yes, they failed mainly because they were lazy and / or incompetent, but not because they were nazi - or regardless of that status.
Brauchitsch was no nazi, same with Keitel, Jodl, Zeitzler, Halder, Falkenhorst, Runstedt, Hoppner, Kleist or Guderian. These were the most prominent figures abour the early stages of Barbarossa (except Zeitzler who replaced Halder) and they failed plain and simple. Most of them had (if any) a formal training in the NSDAP ideology courses and it's Warlimont himself who witnessed the reaction of the superior officers when a NS trainer proposed such ideas to them: "we have no time for such nonsense".
As I said in some previous posts, Wehrmacht had a pool of appalling short-sighted generals. They even failed to operate in conjecture with one another - there's been cases where 1 Army Group practically sat inactive and witnessed the destruction of a neighbouring Army Group without taking much of a measure. Of course they complained that the strategic reserves were OKW and outside the reach of OKH but they could have re-assembled their forces in order to commision at least some forces in the due time, not waiting for Hitler to react after 1-2 weeks when it was (almost always) too late. It's not as if Hitler never granted them any freedom of initiative, it's just easy to complain their hands were tied instead of admitting their incompetence.

Keitel was a Nazi and a Toady to Hitler ditto for Jodl;otherwise a self respecting OKW would not have allowed Hitler to demote it to Hitler's military secretariat,translating in military proper form the whims(read:orders...) of Hitler even if they were divorced from reality.Rundstedt,Kleist and above all Guderian are no officers that can be marked as incompetent under any harsh standard and were outclassing their western and eastern counterparts by a considerable margin...

Since you are making such accusations against them it would be explanatory if you gave some characteristic examples,don't you think?

[cimon_unhipocrisy]

So, point being, german generals only got ahead of their enemies as long as they had numerical and quality advantage. Demoralized, outnumbered, unprepared, out of position enemy - they could defeat ... most of the time. Once those conditions were no longer applicable, the Wehrmacht sputtered. As such, once you look at their performance from that perspective, it becomes most mediocre, particularly after the generals got their talented and curageous subordinates (NCOs and junior officers) slaughtered.

I mean the Nazi foremost tactical genius had his opponents issue judgements like:
"A helluva waste of fine infantry", "[Montgomery] discounted the possibility that Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line, and calmly and patiently go about the business..." Oh noes, did Eisenhower just call Rommel an impatient hothead?!?

So, yeah, nezi generalship was most mediocre in an absolute sense. Contrasted to the generals' Munchausenian claims of outstandingness downright imbecilic.

[cimon_unhipocrisy]

So, point being, german generals only got ahead of their enemies as long as they had numerical and quality advantage. Demoralized, outnumbered, unprepared, out of position enemy - they could defeat ... most of the time. Once those conditions were no longer applicable, the Wehrmacht sputtered. As such, once you look at their performance from that perspective, it becomes most mediocre, particularly after the generals got their talented and curageous subordinates (NCOs and junior officers) slaughtered.

I mean the Nazi foremost tactical genius had his opponents issue judgements like:
"A helluva waste of fine infantry", "[Montgomery] discounted the possibility that Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line, and calmly and patiently go about the business..." Oh noes, did Eisenhower just call Rommel an impatient hothead?!?

So, yeah, nezi generalship was most mediocre in an absolute sense. Contrasted to the generals' Munchausenian claims of outstandingness downright imbecilic.

I like to hear someone speaking like 100... Napoleons!so the Germans in the west had numerical and qualitative advantage?that must be historical news,ditto about Africa in 1941 and Russia 41-42....

[BDV]

"Above all Guderian".

I think you should sort this one out with the Erich Lewinski Fanbois, and those of the Desert "not calm and patient" Fox.

[Appleknocker27]

"Above all Guderian".

I think you should sort this one out with the Erich Lewinski Fanbois, and those of the Desert "not calm and patient" Fox.

To be fair, calling him a 'fanbois' doesn't refute his claims or prove yours.