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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 22 Mar 2019 20:30

MarkN wrote:
22 Mar 2019 20:23
doogal wrote:
22 Mar 2019 19:34
Which was in conflict with the objectives laid out in early June by Hitler ....
What were the objectives laid out by Hitler in early June?
To you pointed to obvious, the analysis of a situation from incomplete information. Only yesterday learned about instructions of the beginning of June, the date much earlier sounded July 22. And now ask what there was told!?

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Post by doogal » 22 Mar 2019 20:38

:thumbsup:

I will submerge myself in data and find
Apologies I had to edit "june" and change to "july" miss type ...... :oops:

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 22 Mar 2019 20:41

Successful search. I think Hitler's idea consisted in the following: to spray forces on the areas. And to arrange sabotage. From the first days of war infinite intervention of Hitler in the course of fighting. Up to the indication on movement separate divisions. Armies entirely on its control.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 22 Mar 2019 20:46

doogal wrote:
22 Mar 2019 20:38
Apologies I had to edit "june" and change to "july" miss type ...... :oops:
The main thing to find it:
{86} On July 22, 1940, for the first time, Brauchich was instructed to begin a preliminary development of a campaign plan against Russia. Draft guidelines on this issue were drawn up by the OKH on the basis of Hitler’s demands put forward by him in early June 1940.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2561
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 22 Mar 2019 20:55

doogal wrote:
22 Mar 2019 20:38
Apologies I had to edit "june" and change to "july" miss type ...... :oops:
Made the same mistake myself earlier today. Caught it and amended in time. :P

I have not seen any evidence that Hitler authorized any specific planning and preparation prior to 21 July. No need for him to. Contingency planning is within the remit of the military to do themselves. Indeed, it would be the sign of incompetence for a professional military not to be on top of contingency planning at all times.

About 20 years ago, Die Zeit ran a piece about Plan OTTO where they laid the initiative right in Halder's lap and no further. Whilst they made a big thing of it politically, I consider it to be exactly where it should have started.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 22 Mar 2019 20:59

Are you crazy or how? Once again, at the beginning of June, Hitler set out a vision of the war in the east.

http://militera.lib.ru/db/halder/app2.html#86

{86} On July 22, 1940, for the first time, Brauchich was instructed to begin a preliminary development of a campaign plan against Russia. Draft guidelines on this issue were drawn up by the OKH on the basis of Hitler’s demands put forward by him in early June 1940. Regarding the military aspects of the planning of Operation Barbarossa, see: Fabru, Ph. (ibid.), p. 249; Weinberg, G. (ibid.), P. 106; Philippi und Heim (ibid.), S. 19; Uhlig, H. Das Einwirkung Hitlers auf Planung und Führung des Ostfeldzuges in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Beilage zur Wochenzeitung "Das Parlament" vom. 16-23. 3 I960. - Approx. him ed. - On this issue, see also: History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941-1945. T. I. M., 1960; P.A. Zhilin. Preparing Germany aggression against the Soviet Union. M., 1966. - Approx. ed.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 23 Mar 2019 02:47

jesk wrote:
20 Mar 2019 18:22
On July 3 in the diary for the first time Halder wrote about need of recognition by Russia of the predominating role of Germany.
AbollonPolweder wrote:
22 Mar 2019 14:30
It’s quite possible that Halder was already "on board." I do not mean the meeting on July 21, but his awareness of the plans for war with the USSR. Look Halder's Diary:
3, July. 1940
...
a) .Operational questions. Britain which must be dealt with separately, and the East are the primary problems now. The latter must be viewed chiefly with reference to the requirements of a military intervention which will compel Russia to recognize Germany's dominant position in.Europe. Special issues such as the Baltic and Balkan countries may introduce some variants.
‘Military intervention’ doesn’t necessarily indicate that an imminent attack on Russia was being contemplated, much less that military preparations for an attack were in preparation.
From the same diary entry - “Some of the specifications of the OKW directive on demobil­isation are utterly impracticable. Continued availability of discharged men assured only on furlough basis, not if demobilised.”
And from two days earlier - “[Fromm] Wants as much time as possible for completion of demobilisation and deactivation. Thinks that deactivations will not give any large boost to production. He is apparently reluctant to have Eastern units deactivated.”

Demobilisation while actively planning to attack Russia?

MarkN wrote:
22 Mar 2019 20:23
Moscow was NOT the "primary strategic goal". It's not even mentioned as an objective of Weisung 21.
Section A of Directive 21 - “In the south the rapid occupation of the economically important Donetz Basin, in the north the speedy capture of Moscow. This city is a political and economical center, and is a main railway junction point.”

MarkN wrote:
22 Mar 2019 15:19
To understand Hitler's role, we need evidence to be produced that he actually had a role and to what extent he influenced the planning.
MarkN wrote:
22 Mar 2019 20:55
I have not seen any evidence that Hitler authorized any specific planning and preparation prior to 21 July.
Yet ten days later he he specifically identified Kiev; he specifically identified the Baltic States; and he specifically identified Moscow. That is, offensives N and S of the Pripet with a subsequent “Link-up of northern and southern prongs.” - see post #57
And five days later the Marcks report recommended - division of the operation into two parts either side of the Pripet Marshes ... Later the operation could be unified. The major concentration of forces would be in the north where the objective would be to crush all opposition and capture Moscow. Forces assembled south of the Pripet were to attack in the direction of Kiev and the Dnepr with the main effort on the left with Kiev as the principal objective and forming the southern arm of a pincer movement that would link up east of the upper Dnepr. To the north of the main effort, a secondary attack force would cross the Baltic States toward Leningrad and seize the Russian naval bases.

This represents a remarkable coincidence of objectives if the former did not influence the latter. But that was the way Hitler functioned. He indicated what he wanted (sometimes obliquely - there was no paper trail from him to the Holocaust; sometimes in broad terms; and sometimes quite specifically) and his subordinates went off, prepared plans, and implemented them.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 23 Mar 2019 06:44

jesk wrote:
22 Mar 2019 20:59
Are you crazy or how? Once again, at the beginning of June, Hitler set out a vision of the war in the east.

http://militera.lib.ru/db/halder/app2.html#86

{86} On July 22, 1940, for the first time, Brauchich was instructed to begin a preliminary development of a campaign plan against Russia. Draft guidelines on this issue were drawn up by the OKH on the basis of Hitler’s demands put forward by him in early June 1940. Regarding the military aspects of the planning of Operation Barbarossa, see: Fabru, Ph. (ibid.), p. 249; Weinberg, G. (ibid.), P. 106; Philippi und Heim (ibid.), S. 19; Uhlig, H. Das Einwirkung Hitlers auf Planung und Führung des Ostfeldzuges in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Beilage zur Wochenzeitung "Das Parlament" vom. 16-23. 3 I960. - Approx. him ed. - On this issue, see also: History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941-1945. T. I. M., 1960; P.A. Zhilin. Preparing Germany aggression against the Soviet Union. M., 1966. - Approx. ed.
This may be I misunderstood."Draft guidelines" does not mean military planning. In any case, Hitler listens to his generals - a kindergarten understanding of history. Germany 1933-1945 was a man-state. Hitler's brain and will. Germany only soulless shell.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2561
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 23 Mar 2019 12:05

Max Payload wrote:
23 Mar 2019 02:47
Section A of Directive 21 - “In the south the rapid occupation of the economically important Donetz Basin, in the north the speedy capture of Moscow. This city is a political and economical center, and is a main railway junction point.”

Yet ten days later he he specifically identified Kiev; he specifically identified the Baltic States; and he specifically identified Moscow. That is, offensives N and S of the Pripet with a subsequent “Link-up of northern and southern prongs.” - see post #57
And five days later the Marcks report recommended - division of the operation into two parts either side of the Pripet Marshes ... Later the operation could be unified. The major concentration of forces would be in the north where the objective would be to crush all opposition and capture Moscow. Forces assembled south of the Pripet were to attack in the direction of Kiev and the Dnepr with the main effort on the left with Kiev as the principal objective and forming the southern arm of a pincer movement that would link up east of the upper Dnepr. To the north of the main effort, a secondary attack force would cross the Baltic States toward Leningrad and seize the Russian naval bases.

This represents a remarkable coincidence of objectives if the former did not influence the latter. But that was the way Hitler functioned. He indicated what he wanted (sometimes obliquely - there was no paper trail from him to the Holocaust; sometimes in broad terms; and sometimes quite specifically) and his subordinates went off, prepared plans, and implemented them.
Image

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

Re: Why do so many continue the unevidenced narrative today?

Post by AbollonPolweder » 23 Mar 2019 20:17

MarkN wrote:
22 Mar 2019 15:19
...
On 21 July 1940, Hitler's ideological dreams and objectives became foreign policy to which the military was now directed to come up with a solution to make them happen.

Halder was onboard contingency planning up to 21 July 1940, from 22 July 1940 he was onboard the military planning for a specific foreign policy intention.* There is a significant difference in the two: possibly in respect of legality; certainly in respect of morality; and, whilst some military staff work will be able to cross-over, contingency planning is about responding to unknowns and what-ifs, deliberate aggression is about specific actions and objectives. Senior OKH staff would undoubtably have been aware of the broad concepts and capabilities which Kuechler and Marcks were pondering.
...
" ... Hitler's ideological dreams and objectives became foreign policy..." It is rather a poetic comparison. The date July 21, 1940 is not related not only to foreign policy, but even to the internal policy of Germany. On December 18, 1940, the consequences of planning began to have an effect on domestic policy, and on June 22, 1941, on foreign policy. But everything could go so that there would be no influence on foreign policy at all. For example, Hitler signed Directive No. 16 (Sea Lion) on July 16. And? Nothing happened, as if there was no planning for the Sea Lion. But I could be wrong in your interpretation of the stages of planning a war. But one way or another we need to remember that at that moment (July 1940) the main attention was focused on the preparation of the invasion of England.
Another aspect. Marcks began his planning on July 4, when nothing was completely clear, as you say, with a lot of "ifs" in front of him. But the result of this contingency planning had a real impact on foreign policy.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: Why do so many continue the unevidenced narrative today?

Post by Max Payload » 23 Mar 2019 21:48

AbollonPolweder wrote:
23 Mar 2019 20:17
Marcks began his planning on July 4
Other than ‘control of troops, fortifications and administration in the East’ in respect of Eighteenth Army HQ, was there any other planning that Marcks began at this time; because there is nothing I have seen to suggest it involved planning an attack on Russia.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 24 Mar 2019 05:08

Elementary logic suggests that German generals would never strike with large forces in the north of Ukraine. It is need to pass extra 150-200 km with fights and it is impractical. To strike the main blow there could only be an idea of the Führer.
The Ukrainian component of "Barbarossa" is the crudest and disgraceful mistake.

Image

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Post by doogal » 24 Mar 2019 09:41

In the German report series ..... The German campaign in Russia ..1955.....page 4

It alludes to the

"18th Army which had recently been assigned to the Russian border and was preparing plans for defence against a possible Russian attack"
Kinzel is named as providing the data....
So "Marcks planning " at this time was of a more general nature with 18th AOK as its COS .....
When you say "marcks planning" and use the date July 4th without clarification of what he was doing it gives the impression that he is beginning drafting otto prior to the 21 st 22 nd and subsequent 29th July meetings which are the earliest primary dates we have for the Genesis of objectives for Barbarossa.

Jesk your assertion that Hitler laid out objectives in early June needs to be supported by more than just secondary works. As I do not have those you quoted do they refer to a primary source close to Hitler to support your position

I would ask if anyone else has any primary sources concerning the moving of AOK 18 to the east in late June early July and it's official role following its move ???

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 24 Mar 2019 10:48

doogal wrote:
24 Mar 2019 09:41


I would ask if anyone else has any primary sources concerning the moving of AOK 18 to the east in late June early July and it's official role following its move ???
Not exactly a primary source but the Lexikon website has Eighteenth Army assigned to occupation duties in southern France after 20 June with transfer to Poland at the end of July.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Post by doogal » 24 Mar 2019 12:21

AbollonPolweder wrote: ↑ Marcks began his planning on July 4
Source please

Not exactly a primary source but the Lexikon website has Eighteenth Army assigned to occupation duties in southern France after 20 June with transfer to Poland at the end of July.
A source explaning what Marcks planning was in early July would be useful ( was this in preparation for his formations transfer to the east and by this I mean administrative planning for re location )
Rather than operational planning ......

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”