Hitler the antithesis of clausewitz

[doogal]

So I have been reading Manstein, Hitlers Greatest General by Mungo Melvin, after I had read limitations of the german way of war victories are not enough by Samuel J Newland.

I am struck by the similar conclusions they have about the lack of a joint national strategy in the reich and how it affected Nazi Germanys ability to achieve Strategic level victories. Or that its military could achieve victory on an operational level but not on a strategic level due to a lack of political use of all the instruments of state power. ( I would say that there are ample examples of the use of politics by Hitler prior to his use of force but once he went to the Gun politics was rendered inert)
How then see-ing as this conclusion seems totally rational and logical was this not clear to the High commands of the Nazi Reich, ??? both works talk about a General Staff of great tacticians and operational brains who were apolitical and morally weak but surely they understood the use (even through historical works) of politics and force as complimentary state tools....
Hitler seems to have seen politics solely on a basis of force majeur... used only when he could get something, and a poor substitute for the gun.
It would be hard to call him a political autodidact as he appeared to not understand western political discourse..
Could this generation of German leaders and soldiers be seen as the antithesis to Clausewitzian military/political thought.

[Alixanther]

I cannot answer about the lack of national cohesion of the Deutsches Reich, although I can chime in about what caused it.

First, Hitler's role. Without the military support, he would have been unable to reach the goal of chancellorship. (or to keep it, at least until '38)
He also got the support of the industry owners, who in turn fulfilled the need of war materiel for the army.
It wasn't until his first military successes when he finally got the "vote" of the common man. However, when he reached that level of popularity it would have been extremely hard for the Wehrmacht to extricate and replace him with another military puppet. Hitler clearly outwitted Wehrmacht when he ousted von Blomberg in '38. Until then, he could pass as your regular puppet dictator propped by the military, as long as the military wishes.

Second, the role of the political parties. Many people today believe that Deutsches Reich had a monolitical appearance a la Hollywood, just like bolschewik party in SU. In reality, the NSDAP was a minority faction in Parliament. The biggest faction was the SPD, which was banned shortly after KPD (communist faction) banning. After SPD, next big faction was the "Centrist Party" which was THE catholic party of Germany and leaned towards neither left nor right. Then was Hugenberg's DNVP (the German National Popular Party) which was kind of a combination of traditional conservatives and what is today in Europe the Popular Party (right- somewhat leaning to the far right). Disclaimer: far right both in my view and in traditional conservative view is not fascism or national-socialism (which is, btw, leftism, since socialism is leftist), but absolutist monarchy or imperial tradition. Then was the KPD, then the NSDAP, then the other remnants of parliamentary Germany.

NSDAP rose in power after Hitler's political successes, not the other way around. It wasn't until almost all political parties in Germany shoot themselves in the foot (SPD becoming the party almost always opposing the traditional military leadership, KPD went awol after Thalmann preferred the NSDAP as partners instead of SPD, DNVP practically dissolved when Hugenberg made a fool of himself, and the Centrist Party also went into dissolution after Reich signing the Concordate with the Holy Seal) that NSDAP got the power for themselves. Even after the abrogation of the Parliament, NSDAP was left with less power instead of more. Hitler was like a social connector between the military, the industrialists, the party leadership and the common people. Without him, they would have turn and fight each other. That's why he practically stayed in power unopposed.

I don't think you're right when you say that Hitler's first impulse was the use of force. That's plain wrong. He preferred politics by far, but it was the Western Powers who snided him and left him no other means of diplomatic tool than brute force. Churchill made a joke that they would not dare to present a peace plan to Germany in fear they would accept it. After fall of France, French politicians tried to mediate an amiable solution for peace between Germany and Britain but US influence of further antagonising the warrying parties (with obvious financial gains over both Germany and Britain) was preferred instead.
Most of the time Hitler got anything was by political discourse, not by gun. The only time he accomplished such a thing through military means was the fall of France and the dissollution of the first Western Alliance.

[doogal]

Hitler always intended to use force, its written in Mein Kampf, he stated it many times, his use of political discourse was that of a charlatan, internationally he lied to achieve some aims relying on what he believed were war averse French and British leaders. He was proved right, but this does not change the fact that he was willing to use force at every step if it was required.
How did the western powers leave him no choice but brute force, ?????? the western powers acquiesced over chechoslovakia but he wanted more and took it, he isolated Poland and took it, they declared war upon guarantees they could not keep to the poles, please explain how this is leaving Hitler with no choice... ???????
if Hitler had preferred or would have rather used politics, he would have modified his racial policies, attempted reproach ment, not invaded one country after the other. But it is the lack of the use of the political tool of power once hostilities had commenced, which characterises his failures.

[ChristopherPerrien]

if Hitler had preferred or would have rather used politics, he would have modified his racial policies, attempted reproach ment, not invaded one country after the other.

3.The countries Germany "invaded" :roll: in 1938-1939, had either been primarily German Empire territory before WWI and/or included large numbers of German ethnic people of the former Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Neither Poland nor Czechoslovakia were even countries before 1918. "Took back" would be more accurate. The only war, Hitler ever wanted was to destroy the USSR as a communist entity, That one was inevitable..

2.As to "rapprochement" with Western Countries, This became impossible in 1933 when the WJC (World Jewish Congress) declared war on Germany. No way were the Western Countries going to agree to any of Hitler's "politics" given the views of the international banking system.

1.As to racial policies , The original Nuremberg Laws were passed in reply to the above "Declaration of War".
-----------------------
Note :Items 1 and 2 while relevant to item 3, I don't think are needed as part of this topic, And are highly touchy subjects anyway given their Revisionist viewpoint.

[doogal]

They are off Topic but:

3) Took Back: ?? The Polish state was parcelled out between Russia, Prussia and Austria in 1795, and regained independence in 1918, hardly German territory. Czechoslovakia had 22.95% ethnic Germans what about the other 73.05% that had to live under Nazi rule.
Pre war German thought was that Poland would again have to be eliminated as a state, Seeckt before he retired said this often, Hitler to, to simplistic to say that the War against the SU was the only war Hitler wanted to fight.

2) 1933 well they were willing to deal over Czechoslovakia in 1938.....

1) it was nothing more than an example of the lack of flexibility of Hitlers policies: in light of his agreements with the west and east 38, 40 it would appear that Hitler was prepared to deal politically but this was only if he could get something that he wanted which was in line with internal reich policy and direction. Serving his own purpose, he used fear on the international stage to broker agreements. Even his Allies knew that the stick was right after the carrot. Once Hitler began to use force he did not consider bargaining, he was not pushed into that position or decision.

My original question concerned Clausewitzs words "War must never be seen as having any purpose in itself, but should be seen as an instrument of politik". Death is not an arbiter of political settlement. Hitlers use of the state the people and the army in peacetime shows that he was always looking to fight: his abuse of them afterwards and lack of national interest underlines the lack of understanding he had in such matters.
His adoption of the slogan "total war" and the meaning of it so late in the war: arming civilians in the manner that they did: not making necessary economic changes early in the conflict: etc...The political hierarchy were amateurs occupying professional positions.
But can they be seen as the antithesis of Clausewitz..... as such they were missing the third element of the forces that drive real-world war.
they had "violent emotion"... "the interplay of chance and probability" but there was a lack of "political calculations driven by reason".....
I am not sure.....

[ChristopherPerrien]

Well , this is a deep subject. I will come back to the idea of the Nazi Movement gaining political power all the while being a Pan-German movement. To me Hitler followed Clausewitz's dictums fairly closely, minus Clausewitz's pure Prussin POV, adding Hitler's Southern Pan German POV. The racial and endgame struggle of National Socialism versus communism across national boundaries was nothing Clausewitz envisioned, as that aspect did not exist in his time, i.e. the concept of a "Global World orders" like Capitalism or Communism.

[doogal]

So ill try to show briefly why I think this could be true:

Ok so Clausewitz said "the conduct of war should not be be reduced to universal principles" Were Hitlers tactical orders to defend everything not applied as a universal principle???? And also the use of Flank attacks and envelopments be they single or double began to be over used by the heer, suggesting they began to be applied as such too..??? The Schlieffen esq doctrine which seems to have pervaded the German Heer from his over study of Cannae. contentious one I know but has some validity
Now I know Clausewitz said that there were two main types of war these being war to achieve limited aims and war to render an opponent politically and or militarily impotent. But as they are categories conflicts being waged can mostly fall into these categories.
And war as an instrument of "Politik" I don't believe that Hitler used warfare in that way, as a political instrument. On the surface you can say that he isolated Poland politically, but this was done to facilitate the removal of the Polish state. Rather he used politics as an instrument of warfare.. reversing this dictum.
He also said that Military objectives are meant to support the political objective of a state, if the political objective was the genocide of a cultural group and the occupation of foreign polities to the detriment of the survival of your own state, how can the military and the political be aligned.
Clausewitz also looked at national uprisings(arming a people) but with the French revolution in mind so popular movements becoming militarily involved with the state. The Nazi`s were not a mass popular movement, they appropriated a state which appeared to be weak and directionless.

I think Hitler could well have been the antithesis of Clausewitz.... sorry no refs on a 5 min break at work...

[Alixanther]

So ill try to show briefly why I think this could be true:

And war as an instrument of "Politik" I don't believe that Hitler used warfare in that way, as a political instrument....

You may believe what you want... however Hitler DID use warfare as a political instrument. You know, he was a politician, not an officer.

He did not isolate Poland. He wanted to ally with Poland. Poland accepted the guarantees instead. He then removes the sovereignty of Poland which is hardly a military fact. It is 100% political fact.
Genocide and removal of cultural and ethnic groups are not military objectives. Look at any genocide in history. None are militarily justified, it would be insane by anyone to say so.
His 2nd book says at the very beginning "politics is history in the making" - what do you think Hitler wanted? He wanted "to make history" aka politics.
I don't know what you're saying about "foreign policies detrimental to the survival of their own state", are you implying that his regime was perceived with more hostility on the world stage? Don't forget that USSR wasn't recognized as a legal state on the international stage while Hitler Germany was, quite the opposite. Same with Italy under Mussollini.
You cannot compare the French revolution to the National Socialist revolution. French revolution is progressivist while NS revolution is reactionary. And what do you understand by "mass popular movement"??? There were fewer people on the streets on the French commune than at NS rallies.

[Graeme Sydney]

I agree that Hitler was the antithesis of Clausewitz not for the above reason but because Clausewitz was an academic analytical rational creative original deep thinker and Hitler was a reactive superficial emotional doer, non-thinker.

Clausewitz and Hitler were on opposite ends of the spectrum, to compere them and to explain Hitler's behaviour and political military chooses using Clausewitz' terminology and references is not helpful in understanding Hitler. It may be helpful understanding Germany's military and political alternatives but I don't think it is helpful in understanding what did happen.

[doogal]

that is fair.. although i am not trying to understand hitler using the ideas and words of clausewitz..... but i do think that germanys military and political choices were linked to hitler as a personality..... while such choices do exist outside of any single person i believe hitlers political and military choices can be analysed using elements which clausewitz identified or reflected upon....

[doogal]

alixanther i believe just after that quote i said i believed hitler used politics as a form of warfare.... rather reversing the idea of warfare as a political tool.... :-):-)

[steverodgers801]

A key antithesis of Hitler and Clausewitz was Hitler's belief in his intuition, this meant Hitler did not like detailed planning.

[Alixanther]

alixanther i believe just after that quote i said i believed hitler used politics as a form of warfare.... rather reversing the idea of warfare as a political tool.... :-):-)

"War is the continuation of Politik by other means" - Clausewitz

[doogal]

So on reflection Hitler appears to be the antithesis of Clausewitz, (not from a structural point of view, i.e the manner in which the war was fought) but rather from his organic intuitive approach which lacked detailed systematic responses to problems.
After re-reading book one I find many epithets which could be construed as supporting the terms of Nazi Germanys approach to WW2 and others which do not. My original conclusion although hasty seems partially true, I do believe that Hitler did not properly measure his means against the end he was hoping to achieve and that he eschewed the Political tools available owing to his lack of any rational process of decision making ... Here was not a logical being using good sense or rational thought.

[Alixanther]

So on reflection Hitler appears to be the antithesis of Clausewitz, (not from a structural point of view, i.e the manner in which the war was fought) but rather from his organic intuitive approach which lacked detailed systematic responses to problems.
After re-reading book one I find many epithets which could be construed as supporting the terms of Nazi Germanys approach to WW2 and others which do not. My original conclusion although hasty seems partially true, I do believe that Hitler did not properly measure his means against the end he was hoping to achieve and that he eschewed the Political tools available owing to his lack of any rational process of decision making ... Here was not a logical being using good sense or rational thought.

Well, if you imply that Hitler the man was the antithesis of Clausewitz the man, then you're right. However, if you equate this with Hitler's principles as being the antithesis of Clausewitz, then you're one step too far.

Hitler repeatedly tried to garner outside support for his regime during the consolidation years. Should he had gathered enough, it's doubtful he would have gone to war (contrary to Stalin, who was the opposite). He used extortion, intimidation and coercion in his attempts to impose his will against political competitors but he hardly was the only one. Show me one dominant power which doesn't, no matter at which time in history.
This thing alone (there are other indications too) shows that Hitler, like Clausewitz, used logical and critical thinking into outwitting political enemies, dividing and separating them, trying to build up a "common front" although his pick were far less inspired (however the lack of choice might have dictated him which and what to chose). Therefore, Deutsches Reich did no achieved Strategic level victories because Hitler did not believed into national-wide strategies to begin with. This might appear ironic for a man who led a so-called nationalist regime.
Hitler wanted to develop a multi-national level Strategy (the only kind which Germany could have realistically opted for, because it was not able to hold its own alone) which he was unable to implement because he had nobody to trust for. Yeah, he was a paranoid, you will say. Well, just being a paranoid that doesn't means you don't have any real enemies.
His personal status (self-educated, simple upbringings, no titles, lack of intellectual expression and / or behaviour) worked against him. He was constantly mistrusted, ridiculed, put under scrutiny and feared all along his political career, long before he became chancellor. Becoming chancellor did alleviate none of the former enmities while adding more to the grievances' bouquet. There's a vicious circle in Hitler's life: his borderline behaviour makes him ostracized and being ostracized makes his behaviour grow even more borderline, this repeats again and again.
He was probably mildly afflicted by a minor mental condition (nothing serious in order to put him in line with real madmen), frustration and anger because of his social condition and inability of pursuing personal dreams. Which of course leads to further problems, again and again.