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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 09 Mar 2019 15:51

Hi ljadw,

Hitler effectively created the Allies by declaring war on them, or their known allies, thereby bringing each, in turn, into the war against Germany until they reached a critical mass of opposing power that it was virtually impossible for the Third Reich to defeat!

The generals carried out Hitler's orders to fight the enemies he created, they did not create them themselves.

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 09 Mar 2019 20:51

The generals agreed with Barbarossa, because there was nothing else that could give Germany a chance to finish the war undestroyed . And they also agreed to the DoW on the USA,which was a sensible act, the opposite being : doing nothing while US was destroying Japan and after this would attack Germany .
And: the critical mass of opposing power was already reached at the end of June 1940 : Germany could not defeat Britain and the next year the US would help Britain to defeat Germany .LL started before Barbarossa and Barbarossa was the only thing the Germans could do against LL .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

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

Post by Peter89 » 13 Mar 2019 07:25

ljadw wrote:
09 Mar 2019 20:51
The generals agreed with Barbarossa, because there was nothing else that could give Germany a chance to finish the war undestroyed .
Nothing else is not true, but the economy of the Reich was in bad shape in late 1940. Most problems came from irrational civil consumption and the stupid ideology. There was no Hunger Plan for Western Europe, and conquering the USSR could only work out well economically if everything was to be captured unscathed, as Georg Thomas (Head of the Defence Economy and Armament Office in the OKW) pointed out correctly.
The Reich's aim was to create an empire which can compete with the British Empire and for that they needed millions of colonial-like subjects and millions of square kms of land rich in natural resources which they don't really have to pay for. Barbarossa was to create these near-slave labour and cheap resources. (But it was a really bad plan as Soviets were not conditioned to be treated as slaves no matter how harsh conditions they had to endure.) Taking some lightly guarded colonies from the British empire could have been much easier, and many Arab leaders were Nazi supporters, see Iraq... and they were also conditioned to be a colony, the Germans only had to change the allegations of the ruling class.

The problem of the economy of the occupied West was that its economy was fueled by its colonies, and when the sea trade was cut off, they experienced a serious fall in their standard of living.

Afrika and Middle East was a better choice imho...

There were many generals who opposed the Barbarossa initially, but when the political decision was final, they obeyed of course.
And: the critical mass of opposing power was already reached at the end of June 1940 : Germany could not defeat Britain and the next year the US would help Britain to defeat Germany .LL started before Barbarossa and Barbarossa was the only thing the Germans could do against LL .
There were many things the Germans could do eg. consolidating their gains, cutting off Britain, etc. They never really committed themselves against Britain.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9400
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 13 Mar 2019 14:10

Peter89 wrote:
13 Mar 2019 07:25


Nothing else is not true, but the economy of the Reich was in bad shape in late 1940. Most problems came from irrational civil consumption and the stupid ideology. There was no Hunger Plan for Western Europe, and conquering the USSR could only work out well economically if everything was to be captured unscathed, as Georg Thomas (Head of the Defence Economy and Armament Office in the OKW) pointed out correctly.
The Reich's aim was to create an empire which can compete with the British Empire and for that they needed millions of colonial-like subjects and millions of square kms of land rich in natural resources which they don't really have to pay for. Barbarossa was to create these near-slave labour and cheap resources.





There were many generals who opposed the Barbarossa initially, but when the political decision was final, they obeyed of course.


1 I like to see a proof for the claim that the German economy was in bad shape at the end of 1940
2 Hitler's aim was not to create an empire that could rival with the British Empire : the aim of Barbarossa was to force Britain to give up BEFORE the intervention of the US .
You are confounding aim with result .

3 Many generals ? Names please .
PS What Thomas said was wrong : exploiting the USSR could only succeed if everything was captured unscathed , not on conquering : the defeat of the Soviet state would make possible the occupation of a small part of the SU = the territories west of the Wolga .But this defeat would not depend on capturing everything unscathed . It is the opposite : the capture of everything unscathed depended on the defeat of the Soviet state .
Defeat = a ,exploitation = b . a precedes b .











User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Post by doogal » 16 Mar 2019 22:06

The generals agreed with Barbarossa

They had little choice. I do not see how they were in a position to disagree or halt its implementation in 1941. They had no collective power to not agree with.
And they also agreed to the DoW on the USA
They (his General Officers)were hardly consulted (dictated to) during the inception phase outside of Halder, Keitel ,Jodl,Brautisch.
And: the critical mass of opposing power was already reached at the end of June 1940 : Germany could not defeat Britain and the next year the US would help Britain to defeat Germany .LL started before Barbarossa and Barbarossa was the only thing the Germans could do against LL .
It was follwing the declaration of the Atlantic Charter and the Harry Hopkins visit that LL really began to arrive in the SU.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 688
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

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

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 17 Mar 2019 11:18

Sometimes Hitler was betrayed by his generals : like in Voronej july 42 for example : viewtopic.php?f=76&t=239780

Some generals were sneaky !

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2151
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 » 17 Mar 2019 16:03

ljadw wrote:
09 Mar 2019 20:51
The generals agreed with Barbarossa, ...
No they didn't. Unternehman BARBAROSSA was the Heer's plan.
doogal wrote:
16 Mar 2019 22:06
The generals agreed with Barbarossa
They had little choice. I do not see how they were in a position to disagree or halt its implementation in 1941. They had no collective power to not agree with.
The Austrian corporal asked the Wehrmacht to look at an invasion of Russia. The Heer generals came up with Unternehmen BARBAROSSA. The Heer didn't agree to it, they created it. The Heer set the objective that they believed was achievable. They wrote the plan on how to achieve that objective. A bit of a an argument occured between Heer generals as to what intermediary objectives should be prioritised. The Austrian corporal then gave his blessing to the plan presented to him. In otherwords, it was Hitler who agreed to the Heer's Unternehmen BARBAROSSA.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 17 Mar 2019 16:39

Hi Mark ,

Hitler set the objectives. The generals just drew up the plans to achieve those objectives.

Hitler picked the targets and the generals saw to the means.

Hitler decided to attack the USSR, and the generals drew up Barbarossa to achieve HIS aims
.
Cheers,

Sid

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2151
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 » 17 Mar 2019 16:53

Sid Guttridge wrote:
17 Mar 2019 16:39
Hitler decided to attack the USSR, and the generals drew up Barbarossa to achieve HIS aims
That's what I wrote. :roll:

The political decision to attack Russia was Hitler's.

Unternehmen BARBAROSSA was a creation of the Heer.

Hitler agreed to the Heer's Unternehmen BARBAROSSA as the way forward to achieve his political wishes.
Sid Guttridge wrote:
17 Mar 2019 16:39
Hitler set the objectives. The generals just drew up the plans to achieve those objectives.
The objective of Unternehmen BARBAROSSA was set by the Heer; Marcks' original concept with a bit of an extension in the south.
Sid Guttridge wrote:
17 Mar 2019 16:39
Hitler picked the targets and the generals saw to the means.
I don't believe he did. But you may be able to convince me otherwise if you can point me to primary evidence that shows Marcks' plan was written to conform to specific objectives set by Hitler.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 17 Mar 2019 22:39

Hi MarkN,

Hitler was head of state. He set the objectives. Barbarossa was his creation. Its objective was to conquer Russia by the onset of winter 1941. However, its mechanics were, at least initially, down to the generals.

The generals' job was to pursue these objectives in the best way possible, regardless of whether they were realistic, or not.

Cheers,

Sid.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2151
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 » 17 Mar 2019 23:20

Sid Guttridge wrote:
17 Mar 2019 22:39
Hitler was head of state. He set the objectives. Barbarossa was his creation. Its objective was to conquer Russia by the onset of winter 1941. However, its mechanics were, at least initially, down to the generals.

The generals' job was to pursue these objectives in the best way possible, regardless of whether they were realistic, or not.
No evidence... just a repeat of your opinion whose veracity l have challenged.

Unternehmen BARBAROSSA was a military plan for a limited land grab of a part of the Soviet Union. The objective of BARBAROSSA clearly was not to conquor Russia as the greater part of Russia would continue to exist after a successful BARBAROSSA.

Hitler had long term designs on Russia and undoubtably had some political aims in mind regarding the population etc etc. It is also documented and accepted history that he gave the political nod for an attack to be planned and executed. There does not appear to be any evidence that he set the set the specific objectives for BARBAROSSA. The political directive to attack Russia is not an objective.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 431
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 18 Mar 2019 00:22

MarkN wrote:
17 Mar 2019 23:20
There does not appear to be any evidence that he set the set the specific objectives for BARBAROSSA.
From Halder’s diary notes of Hitler’s 31/7/40 Berghof conference -

“All that Russia has to do is to hint that she does not care to have a strong Germany, and the British will take hope, like one about to go under, that the situation will undergo a radical change within six or eight months.
With Russia smashed, Britain's last hope would be shattered. Germany then will be master of Europe and the Balkans.

Decision; Russia’s destruction must be made a part of this struggle. Spring 41.

The sooner Russia is crushed the better. Attack achieves its purpose only if Russian State can be shattered to its roots with one blow. Holding part of the country alone will not do. Standing still for the following winter would be perilous. So it is better to wait a little longer but with the resolute determination to eliminate Russia. This is necessary also because of contiguity on the Baltic. It would be awkward to have another major power there. If we start in May 41 we would have five months in which to finish the job. Tackling it this year would still have been the best, but unified action would be impossible at this time.

Objective is destruction of Russian manpower. Operation will be divided into three actions:

First thrust: Kiev and securing flank protection on Dniepr. Air Force will destroy river crossings. Odessa.
Second thrust: Baltic States and drive on Moscow.
Finally: Link-up of northern and southern prongs.
Successively: Limited drive on Baku oil fields.
It will be seen later to what extent Finland and Turkey should be brought in.
Ultimately: Ukraine, White Russia, Baltic States to us. Finland extended to the White Sea.”

Preliminary they may have been, but there were unquestionably specific objectives set by Hitler at this conference for what would become the Barbarossa planning.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1379
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

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

Post by Paul Lakowski » 18 Mar 2019 01:52

When the old BERLIN WALL came down there was a flood of translated article about actual RED ARMY plans for the cold war. The weirdest was a NATO/WARPACT conflict started with a rebellion in Berlin. This triggered a Soviet reaction further triggering a neo-Nazi NATO offensive lead by the Bundeswehr stampeding through Berlin -Warsaw- Minsk-Smolensk to Moscow.

Despite the unrealistic & staggering Hubris this would required from NATO, the WARPACT actually took this scenario seriously. Later I read a Glantz work on Soviet Doctrine. This detailed a 1940 war-game that envisaged Russia being attacked by a Pan-European invasion , leading to a massive Soviet counter attack -one month later-driving these invaders out.

Equating the two scenario got me to thinking these were as equally miss guided as Barbarossa was, suggesting a massive Wehrmacht drive on Moscow just might have worked, if nothing else but for the sheer incompetence on each side.

jesk
Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 18 Mar 2019 05:09

Hitler hundreds of times interfered in the course of fighting. At such deals, discussion of the initial plan is senseless. Plans changed every day...

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 18 Mar 2019 07:21

Hi MarkN,

You say there is "no evidence". Of what?

That Hitler was head of state?

That Hitler, in that capacity, set overall objectives?

That Barbarossa was ordered by him?

That its objective was to conquer Russia?

That the aim was to do this within 5 months?

That the mechanics of Barbarossa were down to the generals?

That the generals' job was to pursue Hitler's objectives whether they were realistic or not?

Cheers,

Sid.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”