Was Hitler really incompetent as the Supreme Commander

[ljadw]

Besides,Beck was not commander of the army : the commander was Fritsch

[BDV]

The alliance/opening with Japan was irrational. Continuing the relationship with Chiang would have been much more productive and kept some common purpose for Germany and USofA/UK.

OTOH, once Great Britain declared war, Italian involvement into the war could have created (with a modicum of timely German support) enough breathing space for the Reich to deal decisively with Stalin's Bolshevik Russia.

[Leutnant Von Historian]

My opinion is that Hitler did have some military talents. He is also a charismatic leader that able to unified Germany. However he is simply too arrogant to make sensible order in critical situations (Stalingrad, for example). He is also too distrustful of his high commands.Ok, some of them did plot against Hitler but they doesn't plot to make Germany lose. To make him worse as a supreme commander, he simply dismissed any report that tell him that the enemy is very strong when they obviously are. The fact that he mixed up his racial policy during strategy planning also make his strategy worse, like what happen in Dunkirk (ok, it was just one of the possibilities).
About treason. We must remember that in German-Prussian tradition the oath of allegiance to Hitler is very sacred. From what I know Admiral Canaris did warn countries that Hitler are planning to invade. But he didin't tell them Germany battle plans. It was simply just to cancel Hitler plan. Besides, it happen during the early phase of the war when Germany is winning.

[ljadw]

However he is simply too arrogant to make sensible order in critical situations (Stalingrad,

From what I know Admiral Canaris did warn countries that Hitler are planning to invade.


But he didin't tell them Germany battle plans. It was simply just to cancel Hitler plan. Besides, it happen during the early phase of the war when Germany is winning.

1)Stalingrad is a bad exemple for your argument


2)Proof please


3)Canaris did not know the German battle plans :he did not know about Sichelschnitte:there was no reason for him to know the German battle plans .

[steverodgers801]

The German battle plans were changed after the plane went down in
Holland with the original plan.

[steverodgers801]

I meant Belgium

[Leutnant Von Historian]

However he is simply too arrogant to make sensible order in critical situations (Stalingrad,

From what I know Admiral Canaris did warn countries that Hitler are planning to invade.


But he didin't tell them Germany battle plans. It was simply just to cancel Hitler plan. Besides, it happen during the early phase of the war when Germany is winning.

1)Stalingrad is a bad exemple for your argument


2)Proof please


3)Canaris did not know the German battle plans :he did not know about Sichelschnitte:there was no reason for him to know the German battle plans .

1) Why? Fine, if it is a bad example then what about Falaise Pocket?

2) To be honest, I don't know what proof to give (as I said before it was simply what I know, I can't really tell if what I read is right or wrong). But taking into account the personality of Admiral Canaris and the other things that he had done (again, what I read) it is very logical

3) Probably yes. But who knows? Since even a Luftwaffe pilot can have the whole original plan of invasion of the west (not the Manstein's one), why the head of the Abwehr can't have no knowledge of the plans (it early war where people can know other people business). Besides the reason I write that is because people discussed whether the German high commands ( especially Canaris) do treachery.

[ljadw]

1)The question is not if Hitler's order to start an offensive at Falaise was wrong,but,if the alternative (=retreat) was better or even feasable.If the alternative was not better/feasable,then,the Germans had the choice between the plague and the cholera .It was the same for Stalingrad

2)There are no proofs that Canaris was warning neutral countries about an imminent German attack,we have only the proof that Oster warned Holland,but,Oster was not Canaris.

3)The LW officer who was captured in january 1940 in Belgium,had NOT the whole German attack plan with him;but only some pages about the commitment of the FJ division in Belgium (if I am not wrong :a landing at Ghent) and he succeeded to burn a substantial part of the documents .

[doogal]

I do not believe that Hitler was incompetent.
He was irrational, rash, underhand, vicious, and had a distasteful world view: as seen through a contemporary lense: other national leaders have murdered more of there own people and other nations than Hitler did.(I am not sympathiser though)
He was very successful from 1933 - 1942. Without Doubt he made mistakes which accumulated, but without a strong body to reflect and advise on his choices (which he would not have heeded more than likely)the decisions he made were based around his irrationality rather than the strategic position of Germany.
I think it would be better to say that Hitlers competency level lowered from the beginning of the War to the end. his gradual failure though was not a sign of inherent incompetency.

[Boby]

1)The question is not if Hitler's order to start an offensive at Falaise was wrong,but,if the alternative (=retreat) was better or even feasable.If the alternative was not better/feasable,then,the Germans had the choice between the plague and the cholera

The nub of the issue.

Hitler ordered/agree with many retreats after 1942. So, the image we have of him obtusely refusing any retreat whatsoever is simply false. The question is why he ordered or give green light in some places but not others. All of this was connected to military, political and economic calculations, specially in 1944.

I can imagine a different scenario of this "Hitler refused to retreat" explanation for the defeat of Germany if he has agreed to any retreat proposed by his generals. In the post-war would have been all the contrary: "Hitler only ordered retreats, instead of...". One way or another, Hitler would be blamed.

[Graeme Sydney]

He was very successful from 1933 - 1942.

The characteristics that made him successful in 1933-42 are the same characteristics that destroyed him in 1942 -1945. Hitler didn't change but his enemies did. Hitlers irrational behaviour 1933 -42, be it economic, military or diplomatic, worked because of their brashness, unexpectedness or by surprise. Once his enemies came to terms and understood Hitler and became resolved and absolutely committed and unwavering Hitler was as good as dead - it was just a matter of time.

Hitler was a pathological narcissist idiot ex-corporal in 1933 and was a even worst, and physically and mental broken, pathological narcissist idiot ex-corporal in 1945.

[ljadw]

That's a traditional but very questionable POV:IMHO,Hitler was an intelligent and rational criminal,his behaviour between 33-42 was nor irrational .

[Stugbit]

I do not believe that Hitler was incompetent.
He was irrational, rash, underhand, vicious, and had a distasteful world view: as seen through a contemporary lense: other national leaders have murdered more of there own people and other nations than Hitler did.(I am not sympathiser though)
He was very successful from 1933 - 1942. Without Doubt he made mistakes which accumulated, but without a strong body to reflect and advise on his choices (which he would not have heeded more than likely)the decisions he made were based around his irrationality rather than the strategic position of Germany.
I think it would be better to say that Hitlers competency level lowered from the beginning of the War to the end. his gradual failure though was not a sign of inherent incompetency.

I personally don't see Hitler as a good military strategist in many aspects. He did mistakes that shouldn't have been done. And the fact he was successful in 1933-1942 doesn't mean anything. The whole war was connected and the decisions took in the beginning surely influenced in the late part of the war.

On the other hand, as a political strategist we could say that Hitler was no fool.

[Boby]

That's a traditional but very questionable POV:IMHO,Hitler was an intelligent and rational criminal,his behaviour between 33-42 was nor irrational .

You know. It is infinitely more comfortable to portray him as a stupid, irrational fool than searching for other, more sober explanations of his conduct of war.

It is better to close own eyes; reality must be really painful.

[Graeme Sydney]

That's a traditional but very questionable POV:IMHO,Hitler was an intelligent and rational criminal,his behaviour between 33-42 was nor irrational .

You know. It is infinitely more comfortable to portray him as a stupid, irrational fool than searching for other, more sober explanations of his conduct of war.

It is better to close own eyes; reality must be really painful.

Read carefully "pathological narcissist idiot"

pathological = extreme in a way that is not normal or that shows an illness or mental problem.

narcissist = Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a Cluster B personality disorder[1] in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process.

Idiot = someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

That is a very accurate, professionally supported and non-traditional assessment of Hitler. The traditional and superficial view is to attribute some mystical awe and titles like "military genius".

You know. It is infinitely more comfortable to portray him as a stupid, irrational fool than searching for other, more sober explanations of his conduct of war.

It is better to close own eyes; reality must be really painful.

Don't use personal attacks against those you disagree with. It shows more about your own lack of knowledge and judgment, inadequacies and insecurities, than it contributes to any discussion.