Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 22 Sep 2023 13:53

Konig_pilsner wrote:
22 Sep 2023 05:52


Delusional. Hitler set a sensible goal (which is what leaders do), and gave guidance on how to achieve it. His guidance was ignored by Paulus and it led to the encirclement. His only fault was putting his faith in a weak man.
This clearly exposes you as a blind admiror of Hitler. Fanatically trying to take a city because it had stalin's name is far from sensible and going for two objectives at the same thing was beyond the capabilities of the german army. Paulus was weak because he obeyed Hitler too much.
Hitler is 100% responsible for the stubbornly trying to take Stalingrad.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 22 Sep 2023 13:56

Konig_pilsner wrote:
22 Sep 2023 05:52
No. The halt order was wrong because it puts the authorisation for retreats at the highest level which is no good as micromanaging from far behind the front does not work. Without the halt order you will have more planned retreats than historically which will work as there were planned retreats before the halt order which succeeded. Army Group center will certainly not collapse.
The halt order was right in that situation. You just proved my point that people are prejudiced against AH, which is more of an indictment on your dishonesty then it is of him.
Consdering somebody to be dishonest because he disagrees with a decision by Hitler only shows your blind admiration for Hitler's military decisions.
The halt order was fundamentally wrong.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 22 Sep 2023 14:05

Konig_pilsner wrote:
22 Sep 2023 05:52
I am going to be nice, since I have enjoyed your postings on logistics in the WW2 in Eastern European Section. The German Army was not in any coherent front when the counter offensive took place. The Russians with their superior mobility in winter conditions didn't fight, they skirted the German lines and threatened their rear supply. In places orderly retreats were possible, in others it was not. The weather was bad, supply was bad, communication was bad. Heavy equipment couldn't be moved, troops had to walk, if you were injured you were pulled on a sled by your comrades. The Mg's had to be warmed at campfires to work, and if they killed a Russian they fought for his winter clothing and boots.

The halt order let the Germans control the roads and villages and deprived shelter from the Russians. The attack burned out with the Russians unable to complete the encirclement taking heavy casualties, and the Germans still with in striking distance to Moscow. I cannot imagine someone in 2023 arguing that somehow the best option was for AGC to flee to Smolensk, leave all the wounded and heavy weapons behind, and that this is what would put Germany is a better position in 1942.

Kp
There are always valid reasons to carry out retreats within military campaigns and so forbidding that except with the autorisation of the commander in chief is fundamentally wrong. Micromanaging from far behind the front does not work.
It was perfectly possible to carry out planned orderly retreats in the winter of 1941 and without the halt order there would have been more than historically which would have left the german army in a better position.
There is no question any flight of AGC.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10061
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 22 Sep 2023 16:05

Aida1 wrote:
21 Sep 2023 15:26
A civilian head of state should generally refrain from intervening in operational and certainly tactical matters. Hitlers growIng tendency to micromanage starting in the winter of 1941 generally worked against the german army.
Arguably it started earlier. if you follow the thesis he directed the use of the "Manstein Plan" be used that could be one example. During May 1940 his frequent badgering of Halder about halting the Panzer Group (12, 14, 16, 18, 22 May & perhaps the 20th) out of fear it was too exposed is another example.

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003 07:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Konig_pilsner » 23 Sep 2023 03:00

Hey KDF33,
What sensible goal?
The goals outlined in Fuhrer Directive 41. You might not like Case Blue, and certainly it failed, but that does not make what was envisioned not sensible.

I think someone was rambling about Hitler being the only one interested in Stalingrad...

From the Halder Diaries Volume VI July 21st 1941, almost a year before :D
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003 07:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Konig_pilsner » 23 Sep 2023 04:26

This clearly exposes you as a blind admiror of Hitler.
Is calling someone a "Hitler admirer" a personnel attack? Or if they are a "Hitler admirer" is it a compliment? Oh well, up for the mods to decide...
Consdering somebody to be dishonest because he disagrees with a decision by Hitler only shows your blind admiration for Hitler's military decisions.
The halt order was fundamentally wrong.
You might have something there. It is possible that you weren't being dishonest, but in fact you are just ignorant.

The Russian counter attack was well planned, extremely well timed, and the execution I guess was ok or so-so. In order for the AGC to retreat it would first take time to plan, time to then coordinate, as well as the logistics to support it in the way envisioned. What you are not acknowledging, for whatever reason, is that the circumstances did not allow such as operation. This was not Rzhev in 1943.

The reason why people debate Moscow or Kiev in 1941, Case Blue or Moscow 2.0 in 1942, is because no one will ever know for sure and it is a complex puzzle. Not so much for Hitler's December 18th Halt Order. In recent years it has been called into question, not because some new Russian files were released, but because a new narrative was spun to sell books, get attention, or just to bash Hitler. That is dishonest.

The Russian counter attack was absolute chaos. Take the time and skip the wiki, buy one of those $200 old accounts of the battle and then type up a what-if of your perfectly executed withdrawal. And after you are done reading you might find out that it might have been Hoth and three Sturmgeschutz that actually saved an entire Army Group.
Last edited by Konig_pilsner on 23 Sep 2023 06:05, edited 1 time in total.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by KDF33 » 23 Sep 2023 04:54

Konig_pilsner wrote:
23 Sep 2023 04:26
The reason why people debate Moscow or Kiev in 1941, Case Blue or Moscow 2.0 in 1942, is because no one will ever know for sure and it is a complex puzzle.
The correct answers are:

1. Moscow or Kiev (1941): It didn't matter.
2. Case Blue or Moscow 2.0 (1942): Neither. Instead, the Ostheer should have destroyed exposed Red Army groupings in a sequential manner.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by KDF33 » 23 Sep 2023 05:00

Konig_pilsner wrote:
23 Sep 2023 03:00
The goals outlined in Fuhrer Directive 41. You might not like Case Blue, and certainly it failed, but that does not make what was envisioned not sensible.
It wasn't sensible because:

1. To succeed, it required the Soviets to have minimal reserves and low force (re)generation.
2. If the Soviets lacked reserves and had low force (re)generation, then they could be defeated in detail.
3. If the Soviets could be defeated in detail, then Fall Blau was unnecessary.

Beyond that, Führer Directive 45 turned a bad strategy into an operational disaster.

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003 07:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Konig_pilsner » 23 Sep 2023 06:00

The correct answers are:

1. Moscow or Kiev (1941): It didn't matter.
2. Case Blue or Moscow 2.0 (1942): Neither. Instead, the Ostheer should have destroyed exposed Red Army groupings in a sequential manner.
It wasn't sensible because:

1. To succeed, it required the Soviets to have minimal reserves and low force (re)generation.
2. If the Soviets lacked reserves and had low force (re)generation, then they could be defeated in detail.
3. If the Soviets could be defeated in detail, then Fall Blau was unnecessary.
Beyond that, Führer Directive 45 turned a bad strategy into an operational disaster.
Your correct answers get you a grade of F.

Hitler based his strategy from his experience in the Great war. Russia was easily defeated and France/Britain could be defeated/stalemated too without American assistance. He feared the USA. Barbarossa HAD to be a fast campaign before the Americans arrived. As Barbarossa was launched production was already being shifted to account for American involvement. Your strategy MIGHT defeat Russia eventually, but it would be too late.

Barbarossa was designed as a quick war because it had to be. Hitler knew he needed Russian wheat, ore and oil to be able to stand up to America and he needed it fast. None of that could be found in Moscow. Your single minded focus on defeating the Russians by 1950 shows that while Adolf Hitler had a grand operational perspective, others do not.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by KDF33 » 23 Sep 2023 06:18

Konig_pilsner wrote:
23 Sep 2023 06:00
Your single minded focus on defeating the Russians by 1950
What do you mean, 1950?

A strategy focusing on defeating the Red Army in detail would have led to a rapid exhaustion of Soviet means of resistance.

Provided the Germans adopted such a strategy in the spring of 1942, I'd foresee a cascading Soviet collapse sometime in 1943.

Konig_pilsner
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 19 Dec 2003 07:34
Location: Hamilton, Canada

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Konig_pilsner » 23 Sep 2023 07:20

Provided the Germans adopted such a strategy in the spring of 1942, I'd foresee a cascading Soviet collapse sometime in 1943.
Barbarossa failed at Moscow December 1941 (ljadw says in July and that is fair) :) . Hitler declared war against the United States soon after. Why? Because he was losing and there was no more point in pretending. No 1943 oil was going to stop what was coming. This was a global war and Hitler knew the industrial capacity coming his way and that is what decides wars. Hitler was no idiot. The people advising him were not idiots. The idiots are people who think they know better (I am guilty), or have read a little bit and think they are smarter then the people back then.

The Russians did nothing but counter attack until 1944. You want to imagine a scenario where the Germans just sit there and the Russians attack them and they are countered with these crazy encirclements. Why would Russia attack if Germany wasn't, when they know American bombers are coming for the Reich? The Allies could play the long game, the Axis couldn't.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by KDF33 » 23 Sep 2023 07:33

Konig_pilsner wrote:
23 Sep 2023 07:20
Barbarossa failed at Moscow December 1941 (ljadw says in July and that is fair) :).
Barbarossa, as conceived, simply couldn't succeed. Thus, to seek to identify the precise moment when it failed is a fool's errand.
Hitler declared war against the United States soon after. Why?
Because Japan attacked the U.S.
Because he was losing and there was no more point in pretending.
No. There is no evidence that Hitler thought along those lines.
You want to imagine a scenario where the Germans just sit there and the Russians attack them and they are countered with these crazy encirclements.
You must be confused. On the contrary, I am suggesting that the Germans should have relentlessly attacked.
Why would Russia attack if Germany wasn't, when they know American bombers are coming for the Reich?
Again: why wouldn't Germany attack?
The Allies could play the long game, the Axis couldn't.
So long as the USSR was in the war, yes.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 23 Sep 2023 09:03

Konig_pilsner wrote:
23 Sep 2023 03:00
Hey KDF33,
What sensible goal?
The goals outlined in Fuhrer Directive 41. You might not like Case Blue, and certainly it failed, but that does not make what was envisioned not sensible.

I think someone was rambling about Hitler being the only one interested in Stalingrad...

From the Halder Diaries Volume VI July 21st 1941, almost a year before :D
Not very smart argument as moving in the direction of Stalingrad and fanatically trying to take the city are two entirely different things. Originally even Hitler did not really want to take Stalingrad and certainly not Halder.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 23 Sep 2023 09:08

KDF33 wrote:
23 Sep 2023 06:18
Konig_pilsner wrote:
23 Sep 2023 06:00
Your single minded focus on defeating the Russians by 1950
A strategy focusing on defeating the Red Army in detail would have led to a rapid exhaustion of Soviet means of resistance.

Provided the Germans adopted such a strategy in the spring of 1942, I'd foresee a cascading Soviet collapse sometime in 1943.
Completely ridiculous. Your very un ambitious plan which pales compared with Barbarossa will never achieve that objective. It is a very limited offensive with short pincers which the red army can very easily deal with and the USSR will certainly not collapse, far from it.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4512
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: Hitler doesn't intervene in military strategies/tactics/retreats

Post by Aida1 » 23 Sep 2023 09:12

Konig_pilsner wrote:
23 Sep 2023 06:00
The correct answers are:

1. Moscow or Kiev (1941): It didn't matter.
2. Case Blue or Moscow 2.0 (1942): Neither. Instead, the Ostheer should have destroyed exposed Red Army groupings in a sequential manner.
It wasn't sensible because:

1. To succeed, it required the Soviets to have minimal reserves and low force (re)generation.
2. If the Soviets lacked reserves and had low force (re)generation, then they could be defeated in detail.
3. If the Soviets could be defeated in detail, then Fall Blau was unnecessary.
Beyond that, Führer Directive 45 turned a bad strategy into an operational disaster.
Your correct answers get you a grade of F.

Hitler based his strategy from his experience in the Great war. Russia was easily defeated and France/Britain could be defeated/stalemated too without American assistance. He feared the USA. Barbarossa HAD to be a fast campaign before the Americans arrived. As Barbarossa was launched production was already being shifted to account for American involvement. Your strategy MIGHT defeat Russia eventually, but it would be too late.

Barbarossa was designed as a quick war because it had to be. Hitler knew he needed Russian wheat, ore and oil to be able to stand up to America and he needed it fast. None of that could be found in Moscow. Your single minded focus on defeating the Russians by 1950 shows that while Adolf Hitler had a grand operational perspective, others do not.
Again showcases your blind admiration for Hitler. Not that it is incorrect that Germany needed to try to beat the USSR quick but only the operational thinking of german commanders could try to achieve that which Hitler never really grasped because he was only a civilian who certainly had some understanding of military operations but sometimes too scared of risk.

Return to “What if”