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

[MarkN]

I too agree that following Germanys defeat surviving prominent Generals did disseminate disinformation.

Are we finally back to the original intent of this thread? Defeated post-war Wehrmacht generals blaming the dead guy for their own military mistakes and failures.

[ljadw]

Ljadw wrote - the responsibles for Stalingrad were the Soviets, not Hitler.

The shape and scope of operation Uranus was devised to exploit the over extended position of the German Southern wing with the express intention of surrounding those German forces in Stalingrad and pushing back and destroying as much of the southern grouping of Germans as was practicable. Please explain what the SU did to make Hilter focus on Stalingrad the city rather than the area of Stalingrad: Please explain how the SU were responsible for the tactical situation caused by splitting AGS into AGA and AGB: Please show how they were responsible for AGA and AGB advancing on divergent fronts:

While I agree that the SU was responsible for planning and carrying out Uranus they did so because of the current operational picture they had, which identified the obvious defensive frailties on the German flanks: The SU was not responsible for this, rather they took advantage of weak dispositions which the Germans had already identified themselves:

Ljadw wrote - And, about Stalingrad : Manstein is a very unreliable witness .Halder was fired because Blau had failed . Manstein had nothing to do with Blau .The splitting of AGS in B and A was very logical : the aim of Blau was AND the oil of the Caucasus and the Wolga til Astrachan .
Melvin is wrong : Manstein was not Hitler's greatest general .

I was not holding Manstein up as "Hitlers Greatest General" I was asking if we should dismiss everything he and other Generals said. If we can corroborate there stories surely it is indicative of holding truth.
As such when Manstein says Halder objected to Hitlers strategy in the south in July 1942 surely we have other witnesses to the disapproval Melvin reports and Manstein speaks of in lost victories.

You jump to conclusions about the intent of my question, I too agree that following Germanys defeat surviving prominent Generals did disseminate disinformation.

I said that the Soviets were responsible for the German defeat at Stalingrad, not Hitler,or a German general .Losers have always the custom to deny that they were deated by the enemy, they look for scape-goats on their side to deprive the enemy of his victory .
Halder blamed FHO in the summer of 1941, after the defeat of MG everyone in Britain and the US were looking for a scape-goat; it was Monty, the paratroopers, the groundforces, the RAF, a traitor,but they all refused to accept that they were defeated by the Germans . This was impossible .
Rommel blamed Hitler and the Italians (allies are always useful if one looks for a scape-goat ).,after the defeat of France,the French blamed the British and the Belgians.
Halder blamed Hitler for everything that went wrong . After the war when Hitler was dead .
We know ( from Germany and WWII ) that in April 1942 Halder approved the campaign in the South ( Weisung 41),although after the war, he denied this .
The opinion of Manstein about Fall Blau is irrelevant, as Manstein was at that moment without work .And we have only his word that Halder disagreed with Hitler . And, for me, the word of a man who wrote a book after the war with the tendentious title Lost Victories ( meaning that Hitler had bartered away the victories of the generals ) that word is not sufficient .
As you said : after the war,the German generals dissiminated desinformation . Manstein was one of them .

[jesk]

That is not the point : the truth is that von Rundstedt was co-responsible for the Halt Order and that after the war,he denied it and said : the decision was Hitler's and Hitler's alone . He lied .

There a technical pause occurred at 10-12 hours. Coincidence of orders, but officially the Fuhrer announced, the terrain under Dunkirk is tank-inaccessible.

[jesk]

We know ( from Germany and WWII ) that in April 1942 Halder approved the campaign in the South ( Weisung 41),although after the war, he denied this .

Halder did not resist in April. But in July 1942, Hitler committed follies ...

[doogal]

Ljadw wrote - We know ( from Germany and WWII ) that in April 1942 Halder approved the campaign in the South ( Weisung 41),although after the war, he denied this .

Did he still agree with the campaign in the south by the time Weisung 45 was published ?? I have no problem with Halder approving Blau and then disapproving once it moved away from the intentional operational development he had envisaged:

[jesk]

The easiest way to conquer the Caucasus, through Stalingrad in the direction of Astrakhan and Baku. Hitler lengthened the path and laid it through the mountains. What is wrong.

[Cult Icon]

You jump to conclusions about the intent of my question, I too agree that following Germanys defeat surviving prominent Generals did disseminate disinformation.

which ones did this?

[Cult Icon]

Look at the memoirs of Gamelin, of Manstein (Verlorene Siege ! ), of French, look at what Halder said after the war, at the Rommel diaries, at the attempt of the Schlieffen gang to blame Moltke for the defeat of 1914. Look at the orchestrated campaign in the US after the war against Montgomery,look at the memoirs of Winston, of Napoleon,of Zhukov .Look at Dunkirk, at Market Garden.
The conclusion is always : victory has 100 fathers, defeat is an orphan. Memoirs of defeated generals are as memoirs of defeated politicians . It is the same for victorious generals /politicians .After the war Halder and Manstein claimed both the authorship for Fall Gelb/Fall Rot .But for Stalingrad everyone remained silent ,til the favorable moment that they could blame Hitler .
Look at what Halder said in July 1941 ,when it was obvious that Barbarossa had failed ;he said : the reason is because ''we '' have underestimated the Soviets . Something which was an obvious lie . And with '' we '' he did not meant himself, but the chief of FHO : Kinzel .

There were hundreds of German generals in WW2............ and the war did not end in 1941. It ended in 1945. Guderian, Manstein, and Halder have already been mentioned. Now we have General #4, Rommel who is alleged to have told a lie.

Let me add the memoir of #5, Balck, who IIRC blamed the loss of Typhoon on tanks and other wrong ideas.

This post of yours does not prove your claim and you've been posting this for years on Armchairgeneral. It's an extreme allegation without the evidence to support it. They made excuses for "some things" and in the case of these generals, most of the time they did not.

[ljadw]

Look at the memoirs of Gamelin, of Manstein (Verlorene Siege ! ), of French, look at what Halder said after the war, at the Rommel diaries, at the attempt of the Schlieffen gang to blame Moltke for the defeat of 1914. Look at the orchestrated campaign in the US after the war against Montgomery,look at the memoirs of Winston, of Napoleon,of Zhukov .Look at Dunkirk, at Market Garden.
The conclusion is always : victory has 100 fathers, defeat is an orphan. Memoirs of defeated generals are as memoirs of defeated politicians . It is the same for victorious generals /politicians .After the war Halder and Manstein claimed both the authorship for Fall Gelb/Fall Rot .But for Stalingrad everyone remained silent ,til the favorable moment that they could blame Hitler .
Look at what Halder said in July 1941 ,when it was obvious that Barbarossa had failed ;he said : the reason is because ''we '' have underestimated the Soviets . Something which was an obvious lie . And with '' we '' he did not meant himself, but the chief of FHO : Kinzel .

There were hundreds of German generals in WW2............ and the war did not end in 1941. It ended in 1945. Guderian, Manstein, and Halder have already been mentioned. Now we have General #4, Rommel who is alleged to have told a lie.

Let me add the memoir of #5, Balck, who IIRC blamed the loss of Typhoon on tanks and other wrong ideas.

This post of yours does not prove your claim and you've been posting this for years on Armchairgeneral. It's an extreme allegation without the evidence to support it. They made excuses for "some things" and in the case of these generals, most of the time they did not.

Defeat is an orphan;victory has 100 fathers .
Generals are as politicians: they claim victories,but blame others for defeats .

[ljadw]

You jump to conclusions about the intent of my question, I too agree that following Germanys defeat surviving prominent Generals did disseminate disinformation.

which ones did this?

Rundstedt, Guderian, Halder, Rommel, Manstein, Speidel, Kesselring, Dönitz, Räder,Hausser and the other WSS generals,etc,etc
Rundstedt about Dunkirk and D Day
Guderian about Dunkirk and Beck and Kluge in Panzerleader
Halder as head of the historical division and in ''Hitler als Feldherr ''
Rommel about NA, Italy, Normandy
Manstein in ''Verlorene Siege ''
Steiner in ''Die Armee der Geächteten ''
Hausser in '' Waffen SS in Einsatz'' ,which had a foreword from Guderian !!
Galland
Milch
Thomas
Etc,etc

[ljadw]

I forgot : Paulus !

[Peter89]

Ljdaw I think we can agree the (German) generals wrote and spread historically inaccurate or false statements, but just like you said, they became politicians, as warfare became politics. In WW1 we can hardly memorize the name of a general, because the politics was not played on the generals' level; but in mighty rebellions, etc. the generals could indeed become politicians.

As such your scepticism towards them is founded, but:

1.) The other belligerents' generals and politicians also lied en masse, everybody lied, but it doesn't mean there's no truth or reliable information in the memoirs

2.) There are tons of cases where a battle could have been won but it was lost due to the bad decisions xy commander made

3.) Just like with politicans, we should always cross-reference their statements with their actions, their adversaries' statements and actions, our knowledge independent from their work, and their colleagues' statements and actions. Effective men rarely tend to be men of principles.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

If one wants to saddle the generals with all the later war failures, then one has to give them credit for all the early war successes as well.

However, I would suggest that without Hitler's political drive and aggression it seems very unlikely that any of the successful campaigns of 1938-41 would have been launched if it was just left to the generals.

All the late war battles were fought within parameters set by Hitler, not by them.

The ultimate blame, and credit, is overwhelmingly Hitler's.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Look at the memoirs of Gamelin, of Manstein (Verlorene Siege ! ), of French, look at what Halder said after the war, at the Rommel diaries, at the attempt of the Schlieffen gang to blame Moltke for the defeat of 1914. Look at the orchestrated campaign in the US after the war against Montgomery,look at the memoirs of Winston, of Napoleon,of Zhukov .Look at Dunkirk, at Market Garden.
The conclusion is always : victory has 100 fathers, defeat is an orphan. Memoirs of defeated generals are as memoirs of defeated politicians . It is the same for victorious generals /politicians .After the war Halder and Manstein claimed both the authorship for Fall Gelb/Fall Rot .But for Stalingrad everyone remained silent ,til the favorable moment that they could blame Hitler .
Look at what Halder said in July 1941 ,when it was obvious that Barbarossa had failed ;he said : the reason is because ''we '' have underestimated the Soviets . Something which was an obvious lie . And with '' we '' he did not meant himself, but the chief of FHO : Kinzel .

There were hundreds of German generals in WW2............ and the war did not end in 1941. It ended in 1945. Guderian, Manstein, and Halder have already been mentioned. Now we have General #4, Rommel who is alleged to have told a lie.

Let me add the memoir of #5, Balck, who IIRC blamed the loss of Typhoon on tanks and other wrong ideas.

This post of yours does not prove your claim and you've been posting this for years on Armchairgeneral. It's an extreme allegation without the evidence to support it. They made excuses for "some things" and in the case of these generals, most of the time they did not.

Balck was wrong : the Soviets stopped Typhoon,although they had only a few tanks left .

[ljadw]

Ljdaw I think we can agree the (German) generals wrote and spread historically inaccurate or false statements, but just like you said, they became politicians, as warfare became politics. In WW1 we can hardly memorize the name of a general, because the politics was not played on the generals' level; but in mighty rebellions, etc. the generals could indeed become politicians.

As such your scepticism towards them is founded, but:

1.) The other belligerents' generals and politicians also lied en masse, everybody lied, but it doesn't mean there's no truth or reliable information in the memoirs

2.) There are tons of cases where a battle could have been won but it was lost due to the bad decisions xy commander made

3.) Just like with politicans, we should always cross-reference their statements with their actions, their adversaries' statements and actions, our knowledge independent from their work, and their colleagues' statements and actions. Effective men rarely tend to be men of principles.

1 We must always be very suspicious of memoirs of generals, especially defeated generals . I have to see the first general who was not looking for excuses for his defeat and who admitted that the enemy was ''better '' /stronger .
2 I disagree strongly ,because wars ,even battles are not lost by the incompetence of generals, neither are they won by brilliant generals .Saying that A lost against B,because A made a wrong decision ,is to ignore totally B .It is saying that the Germans lost, while the truth is that their opponents won .The Soviets won at Stalingrad, the Germans did not lose .The Allies did not lose at Arnhem , but the Germans won :the Germans defeated the Allies at Arnhem,the Allies did not defeat themselves .
Every time someone is defeated, his tactic,and the tactic of his side is to say : we were better, the opponents were only Untermenschen, but we lost ,by an incompetent one on our side ( preferably a dead one who could not defend himself ),by a traitor ( classic excuse ),by bad chance,by something supranatural as the weather : general mud and general winter, by a civilian ,by the Jews, by an ally ( allies are very useful as scape-goats : see Rommel ).