where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#481

Post by ljadw » 21 Apr 2019, 09:16

jesk wrote:
19 Apr 2019, 22:50
When you reach my level of spiritual development, it will be easier for you to understand the scale of the personality of Hitler. One man defeated Germany. He wanted to lose the war in order to create a modern European Union.

Image

So far, another link about the won battle for Britain.

https://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... -mistakes/

In any event though, it is astonishing some of the blunders Hitler made. No wonder the Allied High command sometimes joked that Hitler was their greatest ally:

1. Battle of Britain. When Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to “take out” the Brits, the Luftwaffe sensibly enough began their campaign by trying to destroy the RAF. By the RAF’s admission, they nearly succeeded, in fact they were about two weeks away from pretty much shutting down the RAF and controlling the skies of Britain. Then Hitler got involved and ordered the Luftwaffe to attack the British cities instead, especially London. Which did nothing but piss the British off and freed to RAF to concentrate on regaining control of the skies over Britain. London burned, but German casualties mounted to the point where they had to call off the campaign, and that was that.
Nonsense : the attacks on British cities started already before September : there were air attacks on Birmingham and Liverpool already in August and on Plymouth in July .
And you are linking to a blog ful of nonsense .

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#482

Post by jesk » 21 Apr 2019, 16:04

ljadw wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 08:44
jesk wrote:
20 Apr 2019, 09:49
ljadw wrote:
20 Apr 2019, 09:46
What Rundstedt proposed could not work : see what happened at Salerno ,
What Rommel proposed could also not work : the Germans were to weak to prevent an allied landing ( the Allies landed on a line from Cherbourg to Caen ) and they were to weAK to drive the Allies back after they landed ,what the Germans needed was a miracle and ,even they were going to Lourdes,Fatima and other such places, they would not have a miracle . The landing could only fail if the Allies were messing it up .
Ejection of words into the void. What happened in Salerno? And why should this happen in Normandy? The same with Rommel.
In Salerno a German counter-offensive to eject the allies who had landed,was blocked by allied air superiority .
And Rommel's theory also could not work,because the Allies landed on a broad front of 120 km,and if on one of these sectors the landing was successful,it was over,as the Germans had not the forces to roll up the frontline .Rommel's solution : to split the mobile divisions in stationary batallions,each with the mission to prevent an allied landing in their sector was a desperate solution which could not work .
The big problem and insoluble problem was that the German coast defenses and bodenständige ( = fortress ) divisions were to weak and that there were not enough mobile divisions to intervene on a front of 120 km .
:roll:
Rommel's alternatives are not interesting to me. He had a chief - Rundshtedt ordered the western front. And he offered to give the allies time to accumulate more forces in Normandy, then to destroy them. But Hitler paid much attention to the defense of the coast at Pas-de-Calais, Brest, Marseilles. Because of what the Germans could not create superiority over the enemy. Hitler banned maneuvering defenses.
It's so simple there, too lazy to repeat about global mistakes. Hitler did not waste time on trifles, held 10-20 divisions from fight...


jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#483

Post by jesk » 21 Apr 2019, 16:09

ljadw wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 09:16
jesk wrote:
19 Apr 2019, 22:50
When you reach my level of spiritual development, it will be easier for you to understand the scale of the personality of Hitler. One man defeated Germany. He wanted to lose the war in order to create a modern European Union.

Image

So far, another link about the won battle for Britain.

https://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... -mistakes/

In any event though, it is astonishing some of the blunders Hitler made. No wonder the Allied High command sometimes joked that Hitler was their greatest ally:

1. Battle of Britain. When Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to “take out” the Brits, the Luftwaffe sensibly enough began their campaign by trying to destroy the RAF. By the RAF’s admission, they nearly succeeded, in fact they were about two weeks away from pretty much shutting down the RAF and controlling the skies of Britain. Then Hitler got involved and ordered the Luftwaffe to attack the British cities instead, especially London. Which did nothing but piss the British off and freed to RAF to concentrate on regaining control of the skies over Britain. London burned, but German casualties mounted to the point where they had to call off the campaign, and that was that.
Nonsense : the attacks on British cities started already before September : there were air attacks on Birmingham and Liverpool already in August and on Plymouth in July .
And you are linking to a blog ful of nonsense .
This has already been discussed. On September 7, hundreds of planes appeared in the sky over London. Earlier dozens. Hitler focused entirely on civilian goals.

https://ria.ru/20140908/1023224869.html

Седьмого сентября 1940 года вой сирен и гул немецких самолетов оглушил жителей Лондона. 550 бомбардировщиков Люфтваффе сбросили на британскую столицу в течение нескольких часов более 100 тысяч зажигательных и сотни обычных бомб. Ни один город мира до сих пор не был целью столь яростных бомбардировок.
Впервые немецкие войска применили тактику авиационного террора — начали бомбить мирных жителей, говорит кандидат исторических наук, доцент кафедры истории РГГУ Александр Медведь:

"Если сначала они уничтожали английские радиолокационные станции, бомбили аэродромы, то потом они перешли на бомбардировки по городам, считая, что таким образом они смогут нанести морально-психологический ущерб, то есть снизить волю к сопротивлению. Первые бомбардировки на города были недостаточно массовые. Там участвовали десятки самолетов. Поэтому сами англичане начали даже посмеиваться над сообщениями немецкого радио: вот разбомбили, Лондон горит. Тогда было решено нанести действительно мощный удар по Лондону с участием порядка 600 бомбардировщиков и примерно такого же количества истребителей".

On September 7, 1940, the howling of sirens and the roar of German aircraft stunned the people of London. 550 Luftwaffe bombers dropped over 100,000 incendiary and hundreds of conventional bombs to the British capital in a matter of hours. No other city in the world has ever been the target of such violent bombardments.
For the first time, German troops used aviation terror tactics — they began bombing civilians, says Alexander Medved, Ph.D., associate professor of history at the RSUH:

“If at first they destroyed the British radar stations, bombed airfields, then they switched to bombing the cities, believing that in this way they could cause moral and psychological damage, that is, reduce the will to resist. The first bombing of the cities was not massive enough. Dozens of airplanes took part. Therefore, the British themselves even began to laugh at the reports of German radio: bombed, London was burning. Then it was decided to deliver a really powerful blow to London with the participation of about 600 ships. airborne troops and about the same number of fighters. "

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#484

Post by ljadw » 21 Apr 2019, 19:08

jesk wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 16:04
ljadw wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 08:44
jesk wrote:
20 Apr 2019, 09:49
ljadw wrote:
20 Apr 2019, 09:46
What Rundstedt proposed could not work : see what happened at Salerno ,
What Rommel proposed could also not work : the Germans were to weak to prevent an allied landing ( the Allies landed on a line from Cherbourg to Caen ) and they were to weAK to drive the Allies back after they landed ,what the Germans needed was a miracle and ,even they were going to Lourdes,Fatima and other such places, they would not have a miracle . The landing could only fail if the Allies were messing it up .
Ejection of words into the void. What happened in Salerno? And why should this happen in Normandy? The same with Rommel.
In Salerno a German counter-offensive to eject the allies who had landed,was blocked by allied air superiority .
And Rommel's theory also could not work,because the Allies landed on a broad front of 120 km,and if on one of these sectors the landing was successful,it was over,as the Germans had not the forces to roll up the frontline .Rommel's solution : to split the mobile divisions in stationary batallions,each with the mission to prevent an allied landing in their sector was a desperate solution which could not work .
The big problem and insoluble problem was that the German coast defenses and bodenständige ( = fortress ) divisions were to weak and that there were not enough mobile divisions to intervene on a front of 120 km .
:roll:
Rommel's alternatives are not interesting to me. He had a chief - Rundshtedt ordered the western front. And he offered to give the allies time to accumulate more forces in Normandy, then to destroy them. But Hitler paid much attention to the defense of the coast at Pas-de-Calais, Brest, Marseilles. Because of what the Germans could not create superiority over the enemy. Hitler banned maneuvering defenses.
It's so simple there, too lazy to repeat about global mistakes. Hitler did not waste time on trifles, held 10-20 divisions from fight...
Nonsense .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#485

Post by ljadw » 21 Apr 2019, 19:09

jesk wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 16:09
ljadw wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 09:16
jesk wrote:
19 Apr 2019, 22:50
When you reach my level of spiritual development, it will be easier for you to understand the scale of the personality of Hitler. One man defeated Germany. He wanted to lose the war in order to create a modern European Union.

Image

So far, another link about the won battle for Britain.

https://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... -mistakes/

In any event though, it is astonishing some of the blunders Hitler made. No wonder the Allied High command sometimes joked that Hitler was their greatest ally:

1. Battle of Britain. When Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to “take out” the Brits, the Luftwaffe sensibly enough began their campaign by trying to destroy the RAF. By the RAF’s admission, they nearly succeeded, in fact they were about two weeks away from pretty much shutting down the RAF and controlling the skies of Britain. Then Hitler got involved and ordered the Luftwaffe to attack the British cities instead, especially London. Which did nothing but piss the British off and freed to RAF to concentrate on regaining control of the skies over Britain. London burned, but German casualties mounted to the point where they had to call off the campaign, and that was that.
Nonsense : the attacks on British cities started already before September : there were air attacks on Birmingham and Liverpool already in August and on Plymouth in July .
And you are linking to a blog ful of nonsense .
This has already been discussed. On September 7, hundreds of planes appeared in the sky over London. Earlier dozens. Hitler focused entirely on civilian goals.

https://ria.ru/20140908/1023224869.html

Седьмого сентября 1940 года вой сирен и гул немецких самолетов оглушил жителей Лондона. 550 бомбардировщиков Люфтваффе сбросили на британскую столицу в течение нескольких часов более 100 тысяч зажигательных и сотни обычных бомб. Ни один город мира до сих пор не был целью столь яростных бомбардировок.
Впервые немецкие войска применили тактику авиационного террора — начали бомбить мирных жителей, говорит кандидат исторических наук, доцент кафедры истории РГГУ Александр Медведь:

"Если сначала они уничтожали английские радиолокационные станции, бомбили аэродромы, то потом они перешли на бомбардировки по городам, считая, что таким образом они смогут нанести морально-психологический ущерб, то есть снизить волю к сопротивлению. Первые бомбардировки на города были недостаточно массовые. Там участвовали десятки самолетов. Поэтому сами англичане начали даже посмеиваться над сообщениями немецкого радио: вот разбомбили, Лондон горит. Тогда было решено нанести действительно мощный удар по Лондону с участием порядка 600 бомбардировщиков и примерно такого же количества истребителей".

On September 7, 1940, the howling of sirens and the roar of German aircraft stunned the people of London. 550 Luftwaffe bombers dropped over 100,000 incendiary and hundreds of conventional bombs to the British capital in a matter of hours. No other city in the world has ever been the target of such violent bombardments.
For the first time, German troops used aviation terror tactics — they began bombing civilians, says Alexander Medved, Ph.D., associate professor of history at the RSUH:

“If at first they destroyed the British radar stations, bombed airfields, then they switched to bombing the cities, believing that in this way they could cause moral and psychological damage, that is, reduce the will to resist. The first bombing of the cities was not massive enough. Dozens of airplanes took part. Therefore, the British themselves even began to laugh at the reports of German radio: bombed, London was burning. Then it was decided to deliver a really powerful blow to London with the participation of about 600 ships. airborne troops and about the same number of fighters. "
Air attacks with ships and airborne troops ? :lol: :P :roll:

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#486

Post by jesk » 21 Apr 2019, 19:35

ljadw wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 19:08
jesk wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 16:04
ljadw wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 08:44
jesk wrote:
20 Apr 2019, 09:49
ljadw wrote:
20 Apr 2019, 09:46
What Rundstedt proposed could not work : see what happened at Salerno ,
What Rommel proposed could also not work : the Germans were to weak to prevent an allied landing ( the Allies landed on a line from Cherbourg to Caen ) and they were to weAK to drive the Allies back after they landed ,what the Germans needed was a miracle and ,even they were going to Lourdes,Fatima and other such places, they would not have a miracle . The landing could only fail if the Allies were messing it up .
Ejection of words into the void. What happened in Salerno? And why should this happen in Normandy? The same with Rommel.
In Salerno a German counter-offensive to eject the allies who had landed,was blocked by allied air superiority .
And Rommel's theory also could not work,because the Allies landed on a broad front of 120 km,and if on one of these sectors the landing was successful,it was over,as the Germans had not the forces to roll up the frontline .Rommel's solution : to split the mobile divisions in stationary batallions,each with the mission to prevent an allied landing in their sector was a desperate solution which could not work .
The big problem and insoluble problem was that the German coast defenses and bodenständige ( = fortress ) divisions were to weak and that there were not enough mobile divisions to intervene on a front of 120 km .
:roll:
Rommel's alternatives are not interesting to me. He had a chief - Rundshtedt ordered the western front. And he offered to give the allies time to accumulate more forces in Normandy, then to destroy them. But Hitler paid much attention to the defense of the coast at Pas-de-Calais, Brest, Marseilles. Because of what the Germans could not create superiority over the enemy. Hitler banned maneuvering defenses.
It's so simple there, too lazy to repeat about global mistakes. Hitler did not waste time on trifles, held 10-20 divisions from fight...
Nonsense .
What is nonsense? Scheme for August 1. At least 4 divisions sat on the Brittany peninsula. Even before the invasion, the fleet command announced that there is a rocky coast; and the landing will not be. Hitler did not believe it. As a result, 100 thousand German soldiers did not kill the Americans. They had machine guns, artillery. Hitler ordered: do not shoot at the Americans!

Image

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#487

Post by jesk » 21 Apr 2019, 19:43

ljadw wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 19:09
jesk wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 16:09
ljadw wrote:
21 Apr 2019, 09:16
jesk wrote:
19 Apr 2019, 22:50
When you reach my level of spiritual development, it will be easier for you to understand the scale of the personality of Hitler. One man defeated Germany. He wanted to lose the war in order to create a modern European Union.

Image

So far, another link about the won battle for Britain.

https://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... -mistakes/

In any event though, it is astonishing some of the blunders Hitler made. No wonder the Allied High command sometimes joked that Hitler was their greatest ally:

1. Battle of Britain. When Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to “take out” the Brits, the Luftwaffe sensibly enough began their campaign by trying to destroy the RAF. By the RAF’s admission, they nearly succeeded, in fact they were about two weeks away from pretty much shutting down the RAF and controlling the skies of Britain. Then Hitler got involved and ordered the Luftwaffe to attack the British cities instead, especially London. Which did nothing but piss the British off and freed to RAF to concentrate on regaining control of the skies over Britain. London burned, but German casualties mounted to the point where they had to call off the campaign, and that was that.
Nonsense : the attacks on British cities started already before September : there were air attacks on Birmingham and Liverpool already in August and on Plymouth in July .
And you are linking to a blog ful of nonsense .
This has already been discussed. On September 7, hundreds of planes appeared in the sky over London. Earlier dozens. Hitler focused entirely on civilian goals.

https://ria.ru/20140908/1023224869.html

Седьмого сентября 1940 года вой сирен и гул немецких самолетов оглушил жителей Лондона. 550 бомбардировщиков Люфтваффе сбросили на британскую столицу в течение нескольких часов более 100 тысяч зажигательных и сотни обычных бомб. Ни один город мира до сих пор не был целью столь яростных бомбардировок.
Впервые немецкие войска применили тактику авиационного террора — начали бомбить мирных жителей, говорит кандидат исторических наук, доцент кафедры истории РГГУ Александр Медведь:

"Если сначала они уничтожали английские радиолокационные станции, бомбили аэродромы, то потом они перешли на бомбардировки по городам, считая, что таким образом они смогут нанести морально-психологический ущерб, то есть снизить волю к сопротивлению. Первые бомбардировки на города были недостаточно массовые. Там участвовали десятки самолетов. Поэтому сами англичане начали даже посмеиваться над сообщениями немецкого радио: вот разбомбили, Лондон горит. Тогда было решено нанести действительно мощный удар по Лондону с участием порядка 600 бомбардировщиков и примерно такого же количества истребителей".

On September 7, 1940, the howling of sirens and the roar of German aircraft stunned the people of London. 550 Luftwaffe bombers dropped over 100,000 incendiary and hundreds of conventional bombs to the British capital in a matter of hours. No other city in the world has ever been the target of such violent bombardments.
For the first time, German troops used aviation terror tactics — they began bombing civilians, says Alexander Medved, Ph.D., associate professor of history at the RSUH:

“If at first they destroyed the British radar stations, bombed airfields, then they switched to bombing the cities, believing that in this way they could cause moral and psychological damage, that is, reduce the will to resist. The first bombing of the cities was not massive enough. Dozens of airplanes took part. Therefore, the British themselves even began to laugh at the reports of German radio: bombed, London was burning. Then it was decided to deliver a really powerful blow to London with the participation of about 600 ships. airborne troops and about the same number of fighters. "
Air attacks with ships and airborne troops ? :lol: :P :roll:
Like in Dunkirk. The photo shows a suitable vessel for landing operations. The main thing is to get air superiority to make it impossible for the British to attack. Germans understood war better ljadw. :P

Image

About ships. Other translation.

Therefore British began even to laugh at messages of the German radio: here destroyed by bombing, London burns. Then about 600 bombers and approximately the same number of fighters were decided to strike really powerful blow to London with participation".

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#488

Post by jesk » 22 Apr 2019, 07:13

Approximately according to such scenario Germans had to judge Hitler.

https://diletant.media/articles/4524739 ... yandex.com

The court establishes that Shevtsov entered the counter-revolutionary gang as early as 1935. He was involved in it by the director of MTS Koreshkov-Korshikov. Knowing that Shevtsov was expelled from the party and that he was an active White Guard, Koreshkov-Korshikov bravely uncovered all the cards before Shevtsov and gave him a sabotage task: to carry out wrecking work on the most important section of the MTS - to repair tractors and combines.

A White Guard, an enemy of the Soviet people, Shevtsov willingly carried out Koreshkov-Korshikov's sabotage missions. As a result, Grachevskaya MTS from year to year was the most lagging behind in the area and the former North-Don district. MTS tractor fleet systematically failed and became a long re-repair. This led to a breakdown of the timing and quality of field work. The wrecking work of despicable Trotsky-Bukharin spies in 1936-1937 acquired a special scope. In the very first days of spring sowing, 34 out of 65 tractors in the MTS were out of operation and did not actually work. During the spring sowing 24 tons of fuel were consumed, for 18 thousand rubles. The idle time of the working tractors reached a huge size - 26 thousand man-hours.

For the wrecking camber of the tractor park, Shevtsov, on the direct assignments of Koreshkov-Korshikov, systematically put obviously useless parts on tractors: crankshafts, piston rings, bearings. When the workers of the Stakhanovists tried to counteract Shevtsov’s sabotage and complained about it to the director of MTS Koreshkov-Korshikov, this enemy of the people attacked the workers with abuse. “It's not your business to interfere. Do what they tell you, ”shouted the bastard, who had chosen the responsible post of director of MTS. Shevtsov even now, in the dock, remains an unarmed, sworn enemy of the party and the Soviet people. When the prosecutor asks him a question: “If you had not been exposed by the NKVD, would you have continued to harm up to now?” Shevtsov, without thinking, replies: "Of course, I would have continued."

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 01:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#489

Post by aurelien wolff » 22 Apr 2019, 07:44

also please don't go on the "muh poor german civilian mured by the allie in dresden",NEIN dresden war nicht ein war crime: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=240359

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#490

Post by BDV » 23 Apr 2019, 13:22

jesk wrote: A White Guard, an enemy of the Soviet people, Shevtsov willingly carried out Koreshkov-Korshikov's sabotage missions. As a result, Grachevskaya MTS from year to year was the most lagging behind in the area and the former North-Don district. MTS tractor fleet systematically failed and became a long re-repair. This led to a breakdown of the timing and quality of field work. The wrecking work of despicable Trotsky-Bukharin spies in 1936-1937 acquired a special scope. In the very first days of spring sowing, 34 out of 65 tractors in the MTS were out of operation and did not actually work. During the spring sowing 24 tons of fuel were consumed, for 18 thousand rubles. The idle time of the working tractors reached a huge size - 26 thousand man-hours.

For the wrecking camber of the tractor park, Shevtsov, on the direct assignments of Koreshkov-Korshikov, systematically put obviously useless parts on tractors: crankshafts, piston rings, bearings. When the workers of the Stakhanovists tried to counteract Shevtsov’s sabotage and complained about it to the director of MTS Koreshkov-Korshikov, this enemy of the people attacked the workers with abuse. “It's not your business to interfere. Do what they tell you, ”shouted the bastard, who had chosen the responsible post of director of MTS. Shevtsov even now, in the dock, remains an unarmed, sworn enemy of the party and the Soviet people. When the prosecutor asks him a question: “If you had not been exposed by the NKVD, would you have continued to harm up to now?” Shevtsov, without thinking, replies: "Of course, I would have continued."
Nonsense, extracted under torture; abandoned as soon as 1956. Other countries purge by pensioning off, but Stalin's Sovjet Russia purged by bullet to the cerebellum.

Also, while the victims were both russians and non-russians, their replacements were almost 100% russian.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 01:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#491

Post by aurelien wolff » 25 Apr 2019, 13:49

Did Halder spread out myth about the eastern front? Did he lie or make thing to sound like it's not him the problem?

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#492

Post by MarkN » 25 Apr 2019, 14:53

aurelien wolff wrote:
25 Apr 2019, 13:49
Did Halder spread out myth about the eastern front? Did he lie or make thing to sound like it's not him the problem?
Halder's immediate post-war account of the preparation for BARBAROSSA, the principle reason for its failure and who was responsible for the direction and results of the campaign over the first few months is at significant odds with historical reality.

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 01:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#493

Post by aurelien wolff » 25 Apr 2019, 15:40

MarkN wrote:
25 Apr 2019, 14:53
aurelien wolff wrote:
25 Apr 2019, 13:49
Did Halder spread out myth about the eastern front? Did he lie or make thing to sound like it's not him the problem?
Halder's immediate post-war account of the preparation for BARBAROSSA, the principle reason for its failure and who was responsible for the direction and results of the campaign over the first few months is at significant odds with historical reality.
in wich way? Where did he lie? Did he blame everything on Hitler?

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#494

Post by MarkN » 25 Apr 2019, 16:24

aurelien wolff wrote:
25 Apr 2019, 15:40
MarkN wrote:
25 Apr 2019, 14:53
aurelien wolff wrote:
25 Apr 2019, 13:49
Did Halder spread out myth about the eastern front? Did he lie or make thing to sound like it's not him the problem?
Halder's immediate post-war account of the preparation for BARBAROSSA, the principle reason for its failure and who was responsible for the direction and results of the campaign over the first few months is at significant odds with historical reality.
in wich way? Where did he lie? Did he blame everything on Hitler?
"Everything" is an unhelpful catch-all word. But it would be accurate to say Halder went out of his way to come up with plenty of examples and reasons why Hitler was to blame for political, strategic military and tactical military failure.

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 01:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

#495

Post by aurelien wolff » 25 Apr 2019, 18:41

MarkN wrote:
25 Apr 2019, 16:24
aurelien wolff wrote:
25 Apr 2019, 15:40
MarkN wrote:
25 Apr 2019, 14:53
aurelien wolff wrote:
25 Apr 2019, 13:49
Did Halder spread out myth about the eastern front? Did he lie or make thing to sound like it's not him the problem?
Halder's immediate post-war account of the preparation for BARBAROSSA, the principle reason for its failure and who was responsible for the direction and results of the campaign over the first few months is at significant odds with historical reality.
in wich way? Where did he lie? Did he blame everything on Hitler?
"Everything" is an unhelpful catch-all word. But it would be accurate to say Halder went out of his way to come up with plenty of examples and reasons why Hitler was to blame for political, strategic military and tactical military failure.
what about halder himself? What mistake did he make?

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”