Was Hitler really incompetent as the Supreme Commander

[Alixanther]

Yes yes, he was so powerless... So powerless that he was firing most skillful Generals of the German Army. Yeah, right.

Any commander-in-chief has the power to remove a general or a couple of them from the chain of command. It's not like it's unhead of. He did not kill them or torture them, like Stalin. What's your point?

Do you know of any specific situation when he removed a very competent general and replaced it with a complete moron? Please do tell.

[krichter33]

The majority of the Generals he fired were competent, and he replaced them with mostly competent Generals as well. Of course mistakes were made by these Generals, as all Generals do regardless of nationality. However, no matter who was in charge, due to logistics, the end results were inevitable.

[doogal]

Any commander-in-chief has the power to remove a general or a couple of them from the chain of command. It's not like it's unheard of. He did not kill them or torture them, like Stalin. What's your point?

The Wehrmacht like the Soviets and the Allies removed countless General officers for many reasons, Health, Dereliction of duty, Losing, not adhering to orders, tactical defeats, treason, sedition, but there does seem to have been a lack of continuity with favoured Generals (on all sides) not suffering for certain mishaps. Without doubt war tested the mettle of all of these men and some were fairly treated others were not.
Does a list exist of Removed Wehrmacht Generals which were personally handled by Hitler, rather than simply OKH or were all removals carried out by OKW with Hitlers approval.
Failure usually paid a high price in job loss but they should be happy executions of Generals were not a real Nazi priority until 1944:

Do you know of any specific situation when he removed a very competent general and replaced it with a complete moron? Please do tell.

ARMY Group Vistula: Heinrich Himmler instead of von Weichs: not really a removal

[sandeepmukherjee196]

The majority of the Generals he fired were competent, and he replaced them with mostly competent Generals as well. Of course mistakes were made by these Generals, as all Generals do regardless of nationality. However, no matter who was in charge, due to logistics, the end results were inevitable.

Halder was a pedestrian pen pusher who didnt deserve to be the COS of the OKH at a time requiring exceptional skills and imagination like on the Western Front in 1940 or Russia in '41( and for that matter being in a position to throw a monkey wrench into the African Operations) .

Rommel once asked Halder " what had he ever done in war except sit on his backside on a chair "! I am not sure that Hitler should have stood by and let Model commit suicide in the Ruhr. He would have been the best bet as a fire fighter in the Berlin battle.

Ciao
Sandeep

[ljadw]

Any commander-in-chief has the power to remove a general or a couple of them from the chain of command. It's not like it's unheard of. He did not kill them or torture them, like Stalin. What's your point?

The Wehrmacht like the Soviets and the Allies removed countless General officers for many reasons, Health, Dereliction of duty, Losing, not adhering to orders, tactical defeats, treason, sedition, but there does seem to have been a lack of continuity with favoured Generals (on all sides) not suffering for certain mishaps. Without doubt war tested the mettle of all of these men and some were fairly treated others were not.
Does a list exist of Removed Wehrmacht Generals which were personally handled by Hitler, rather than simply OKH or were all removals carried out by OKW with Hitlers approval.
Failure usually paid a high price in job loss but they should be happy executions of Generals were not a real Nazi priority until 1944:

Do you know of any specific situation when he removed a very competent general and replaced it with a complete moron? Please do tell.

ARMY Group Vistula: Heinrich Himmler instead of von Weichs: not really a removal

This was not a removal,because Weichs never was commanding AG Weichsel,which was a new command.Besides,Weichs or Himmler would not have made a difference,and,afaics,Himmler was doing what his staff told him .

[sandeepmukherjee196]

This was not a removal,because Weichs never was commanding AG Weichsel,which was a new command.Besides,Weichs or Himmler would not have made a difference,and,afaics,Himmler was doing what his staff told him .

You are right about Weichs... however Himmler as an AG commander really had no clue. If the staff could run a battle then a commander wouldnt be required. Certain strategic and tactical calls have to be taken by the commander himself. He has to be able to understand and diagnose whats going on under his watch.

Ciao
Sandeep

[ljadw]

There was a lot of protest from the OKH and finaly,Adolf yielded: an army general (Wenck) was appointed chief of staff and would become de facto commander .

[Erwinn]

For me, only removing Manstein during the most critical timeline of the Eastern Front, is enough.

He didn't like Generals complaining or disputing his ideas/orders that's why Manstein was sacked.

[ljadw]

Why was removing Manstein enough ? May I reming you that Manstein was fired after having sufferen big defeats .

[Cult Icon]

IMO, Manstein should have been fired after Kursk, and replaced with Model, the defense specialist. Model's command style was more appropriate for the realities on the front than Manstein, who was more of an offensive general. They also meshed more with Hitler's stand-fast tendencies.

Manstein's survival had a lot to do with his prior successes, his political skills, and his prestige which gave him more leeway than other generals.

[steverodgers801]

Actually Model contributed to the disaster of Bagration by having the armored reserves of AGC transferred to his command.

[Cult Icon]

If Model was command of the Army Group South in 1943, I would expect to see a more efficient use of mobile reserves and less ground given away. But also, basically a tacit surrender of opportunities for a major counteroffensives, especially towards retaking Kiev.

[doogal]

Cult Icon wrote:Manstein should have been fired after Kursk, and replaced with Model,

How exactly would Model have faired any better than von Manstein..?? Model was at Kursk.. Mansteins conduct cannot be seen as inferior after Kursk and i see no way in that Model excelled compared to von Manstein???

Please explain

[Cult Icon]

Model knew that his forces did not have good prospects due to the lack of resources under his command. The Northern face of Kursk was actually stronger than the south, yet Model had much fewer forces.

Beyond that, Model had a more realistic view of prospects of Kursk, what to do that summer, and the situation with the 9th Army than Manstein, who was completely unrealistic during Kursk. Model also predicted the Soviet offensive at Orel before it happened, and shifted units to counteract it. He was in fact shifting units while he was still conducting Citadel.

Manstein's command of AGS from summer 43' to winter of 44' was the opposite of his high reputation in the years prior and showed that he was out of touch with the new soviet trends. Vatutin was basically his professional nemesis, and the ultimate victor.

The two men had different command styles. Manstein was more of a luxury train traveling politician that could convince various bureaucracies to give him resources in which he could later wield together into a complex offensive, which typically required the buildup of a strong reserve. But this required that the front be thread-bare in many sectors, and to give ground as he did when he was in command of AG-Don and AGS.

Model was closer to earth; he built up an intelligence organization, he was at the front studying it. He was a fighter, who was injured several times at the front. He was skilled at maximizing defensive power without giving much ground. This however, entailed creative solutions that broke the unit cohesion of his reserves, which were generally left too weak to perform serious counter-operations.

[krichter33]

Of course Vatutin was successful, how could he not be with all the resources he had at his disposal. He was a good general, but recently, due to the pendulum swinging too far, highly overrated. General Melvin, in his biography of Manstein, claims that the withdrawal behind the Dnieper was masterly. Though I still agree that Model would have been a better prospect at that time.

Also, about Model getting the armored reserves transferred from AGC to his Armee just before Bagration...That is what I'd call a "hindsight mistake." The intelligence in their sector, due to brilliant Soviet deception, suggested the main attack in that sector. Of course Model would want his armored reserves where he believed the attack would take place. He also wasn't the only one who believed it...