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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
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 » 28 Mar 2019 18:50

As far as contingency planning and the responsibilities of a General Staff we are of the same mind. It would be counter factual to think otherwise.
And yes lacking other direct evidence 21 st of July appears as the date of officially beginning the process.

To know whether it was Hitler who asked the first question: I'd like to attack Russia, how can we do it or whether it was Brauchitsch who got the ball rolling:
Is it not fair though when looking at Hitler and his social and cultural statements about the east from mein kampf onwards to suggest that (it's a very calculated assumption) he was the driving force and was considering the question prior to 1933...

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 » 28 Mar 2019 21:16

doogal wrote:
28 Mar 2019 18:50
Is it not fair though when looking at Hitler and his social and cultural statements about the east from mein kampf onwards to suggest that (it's a very calculated assumption) he was the driving force and was considering the question prior to 1933...
I believe all the ducks line up to say that Hitler was the initiator of the Russia next conversation on 21 July 1940. I, for one, do not buy into the Dirks and Janssen theory that Brauchitsch initiated that conversation. I am quite comfortable, and have posted such several times in this thread, that it was Hitler's decision to attack the Soviet Union. His initiative on 21 July 1940, his directive on 18 December 1940 and his final say that pantsers crossed the line the following June. If that's what you mean by "driving force", then I consider it difficult for anybody to put together a credible counter-argument in the absence of any evidence.

However, being the initiator and go-ahead decision-maker is NOT the same as being the one who set the objectives of the military plan. Even after the pantsers had rolled across the border, Hitler was still opining his objectives of erasing the Soviet Union and Bolshevism from the geographical and political map and putting in place the tools to eliminate the Russian Slavic race. Unternehmen BARBAROSSA was never intended to deliver any of that - but as the planning process evolved, the Heer and others seem to have deluded themselves into the idea that perhaps it might deliver it. However, it is expicit in Weisung 21 and subsequent Weisungen that a Russian state, almost certainly Bolshevik in organisation, and without any doubt of Slavic blood, would continue to exist, function and present a very real threat on the post-BARBAROSSA eastern border. Some sanity existed within the delusion.

There is no evidence to show Hitler set BARBAROSSA's objectives. There is evidence to show the Heer set BARBAROSSA's objectives.

If somebody comes along with evidence that Hitler, on or prior to 21 July 1940, specifically asked the Heer to develop a plan to attack Russia to a line where Russian bombers cannot reach Germany, then I'll change my understanding.

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 » 28 Mar 2019 23:59

doogal wrote:
28 Mar 2019 16:45
lets look at Halder(who btw INITIATED planning against Russia in june 1940 WITHOUT Hitler's knowledge or approval-see "Mueller, Enemy in the East"
As I have no copy.of this handy which primary source does Mueller cite as showing that Halder initiated planning in June. .....
And does Mueller’s source indicate the extent of that planning?

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 » 29 Mar 2019 00:24

MarkN wrote:
28 Mar 2019 21:16
If somebody comes along with evidence that Hitler, on or prior to 21 July 1940, specifically asked the Heer to develop a plan to attack Russia to a line where Russian bombers cannot reach Germany, then I'll change my understanding.
If somebody comes along with evidence that the Heer, on or prior to 31 July 1940, specifically recommended to Hitler that Kiev should be an initial primary objective of any invasion of the SU, then I'll change my understanding.

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 » 29 Mar 2019 10:50

Max Payload wrote:
29 Mar 2019 00:24
MarkN wrote:
28 Mar 2019 21:16
If somebody comes along with evidence that Hitler, on or prior to 21 July 1940, specifically asked the Heer to develop a plan to attack Russia to a line where Russian bombers cannot reach Germany, then I'll change my understanding.
If somebody comes along with evidence that the Heer, on or prior to 31 July 1940, specifically recommended to Hitler that Kiev should be an initial primary objective of any invasion of the SU, then I'll change my understanding.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Kyiv was not "an initial primary objective" of Unternehmen BARBAROSSA, so you're asking for the impossible.

But, I suspect you know that. Desperate times require desperate measures. When determined not to change one's preconceived opinion and deny any 'unhelpful' historical evidence and/or realities, demand a unicorn be produced.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10157
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 29 Mar 2019 14:18

Hi MarkN,

I would suggest that your last post comes under your own definition of "fact free".

Could you please at least try to address the arguments rather than personalize discussions?

Who was it who said "Emojis are the last resort of someone unable or unwilling to make a reasoned verbal argument"?

Cheers,

Sid.

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

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 29 Mar 2019 17:38

doogal wrote:
28 Mar 2019 18:50
As far as contingency planning and the responsibilities of a General Staff we are of the same mind. It would be counter factual to think otherwise.
And yes lacking other direct evidence 21 st of July appears as the date of officially beginning the process.

To know whether it was Hitler who asked the first question: I'd like to attack Russia, how can we do it or whether it was Brauchitsch who got the ball rolling:
Is it not fair though when looking at Hitler and his social and cultural statements about the east from mein kampf onwards to suggest that (it's a very calculated assumption) he was the driving force and was considering the question prior to 1933...
1. Could you please clarify when, in your opinion, did General Marcks start working on a plan for attacking SU?
2. Barbarossa is not related to the Main Kampf. This is another story. Barbarossa is, as Hitler declared, an attempt to deprive England of "last hope". The strategy of indirect approach in its purest form.
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: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Max Payload » 29 Mar 2019 17:48

MarkN wrote:
29 Mar 2019 10:50
Kyiv was not "an initial primary objective" of Unternehmen BARBAROSSA, so you're asking for the impossible.

But, I suspect you know that.
From Halder’s diary 31/7/40 quoting Hitler’s requirements -
“First thrust: Kiev and securing flank protection on Dnepr.”

From Directive 21 -
“The army group south of the Pripet Marshes will make its point of main effort from the Lublin area in the general direction of Kiev with the object of driving into the deep flank and rear of the Russian forces with strong armored formations and of then rolling up the enemy along the Dnepr.”

But, I suspect you know that.

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 » 29 Mar 2019 19:13

So I asked. Who changed the plan of Marcks? Hitler or generals? Marcks did not plan an offensive from Lublin.

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 » 29 Mar 2019 19:42

1. Could you please clarify when, in your opinion, did General Marcks start working on a plan for attacking SU?
2. Barbarossa is not related to the Main Kampf. This is another story. Barbarossa is, as Hitler declared, an attempt to deprive England of "last hope". The strategy of indirect approach in its purest form.
the OKH order detailing the reorganisation and relocation of formations OKH Gen St d H OpAbt (Ia) Nr.375/40 g.kdos dated 26 June 1940:

Kuechler and Marcks had a face-2-face interview with Halder on, I think, 3 or 4 July to flesh out the Sonderanweisung.
Would it not be reasonable to assert that the preparatory period for the movement of 18th Army from 26th June and up to the end of July and the meetings of the 21st 22nd and 29th this would be the period date : My mind is open to correction though
And lacking any immediate sources from before the 21st July I am taking a leap. (And I am quoting from a post in this thread)

2. Barbarossa is intellectually connected to Hitlers ideas in mein kampf, That he said it was an attempt to deprive England of its "last hope" I cannot deny, but that decision was influenced not just by the strategic impasse Nazi Germany had created by failing to defeat Britain but also by his personal beliefs that Germanys future lay in the east:

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 » 29 Mar 2019 22:18

Max Payload wrote:
29 Mar 2019 17:48
MarkN wrote:
29 Mar 2019 10:50
Kyiv was not "an initial primary objective" of Unternehmen BARBAROSSA, so you're asking for the impossible.
From Halder’s diary 31/7/40 quoting Hitler’s requirements -
“First thrust: Kiev and securing flank protection on Dnepr.”

From Directive 21 -
“The army group south of the Pripet Marshes will make its point of main effort from the Lublin area in the general direction of Kiev with the object of driving into the deep flank and rear of the Russian forces with strong armored formations and of then rolling up the enemy along the Dnepr.”
Yes, l can read too.

But, unlike you, l don't have selected myopia when it comes to the section of Weisung 21 where the objectives are presented or the part of Hitler's diatribe on 31 July where he opines his objectives. Nor do l misrepresent namechecking of intermediate waypoints as objectives.

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 » 29 Mar 2019 22:21

AbollonPolweder wrote:
29 Mar 2019 17:38
2. Barbarossa is not related to the Main Kampf. This is another story. Barbarossa is, as Hitler declared, an attempt to deprive England of "last hope". The strategy of indirect approach in its purest form.
Perhaps it would be sensible to start a new thread for discussion whether Hitler's decision to attack Russia in July 1940 was based on long standing ideological beliefs or the insane idea that attacking Russia would bring Britain around to his way of thinking...

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 » 30 Mar 2019 00:17

MarkN wrote:
29 Mar 2019 22:18
Yes, l can read too.
But, unlike you, l don't have selected myopia when it comes to the section of Weisung 21 where the objectives are presented or the part of Hitler's diatribe on 31 July where he opines his objectives.
I’m not sure what that even means.

MarkN wrote:
29 Mar 2019 22:18
Nor do l misrepresent namechecking of intermediate waypoints as objectives.
And I’m not sure that semantic hair-splitting serves much purpose. Kiev was clearly identified as an operational objective.

MarkN wrote:
22 Mar 2019 20:23
Moscow was ... not even mentioned as an objective of Weisung 21. It comes up as an intermediate tactical waypoint on the way to the objective.
A tactical waypoint? That’s how you interpret the reference to Moscow in Directive 21?

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10157
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 30 Mar 2019 08:23

As a matter of interest, why was the initial plan for the invasion of the USSR subcontracted out of house by Halder to a relatively peripheral individual such as Marcks?

As far as I can tell, although a trained staff officer, Marcks had never had command of a major formation in peace or war. Was he a particularly distinguished individual that he was given this important task above his contemporaries, or was Halder sidelining the whole exercise by passing it on to a relative nonentity?

In short, Why Marcks?

Cheers,

Sid.

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 » 30 Mar 2019 09:34

As CoS Eighteenth Army he was ‘on the ground’ in the area (based in Bromberg) and had been there for for several weeks prior to 29 July preparing for the arrival and deployment of the Army’s personnel and equipment. In light of Soviet actions in the Baltic States that summer, one could speculate that he may have been asked at his meeting with Halder on 4 July to consider the Polish/Lithuanian frontier area as a potential conflict zone, giving him a degree of advanced preparation for the wider planning task.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”