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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 9393
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 11 May 2019 08:34

AbollonPolweder wrote:
07 May 2019 16:06
MarkN wrote:
06 May 2019 21:53
...
It is also evidence that Hitler had many obsessions, changed his narrative every time his lips moved and couldn't be trusted as far as he could be thrown.
There is and other evidence, for example:
Image
As you can see, Adolf argues that from the very beginning he spoke of the secondary importance of Moscow.
Brauchitz said the same as Hitler, he said :
Massive frontier battles to be expected;duration up to 4 weeks. But in further development only minor resistance is then still to be reckoned .
In other words : Barbarossa will be decided at last at the end of July . What will happen later is of no importance . As it is obvious that the Germans could not be at Moscow at the end of July, Moscow was not important in the planning . It was a faux probleme, invented after the war by the German apologists .
Barbarossa was planned to be won in 4 weeks ; what would happen later was of no importance .
And,4 weeks is a short war ,besides Halder said the same as Brauchitz

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 11 May 2019 09:53

jesk wrote:
08 May 2019 21:58
...
Tried to divert attention of generals of eastern front. Moscow is nonsense, here is the landing of England in the Pyrenees, something to worry about!
How can we divert attention, for example, von Bock from the USSR, with stories about the possible landing of England in Spain? It's impossible! Von Bock is responsible for his Army Group, and it is near Moscow, and not in the Pyrenees. Your wording “distraction” is not very successful. Using reminder of the threat from England, Hitler could justify the limitation of forces and means necessary in Russia. It would be, in my opinion, more accurate. But in this case, you contradict yourself. If the Wehrmacht achieved such impressive victories with the available forces, then why does it need several hundred new tank engines? :milwink: The USSR had already lost the war in early July, as Hitler thought. So?
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 11 May 2019 10:01

jesk wrote:
09 May 2019 19:46
The Germans easily destroyed 40% of the USSR. In the war with the remaining 60%, problems suddenly arose.
And it is strange. I read the memories of a resident of Berlin, she told what rumors were circulating in the city at the end of the war. One of them, Hitler, an agent of Stalin, sent from the Kremlin. The reasons for such conclusions, Hitler gave away first victories very easily. And this is the correct logic and amazing. People walked near the Reich Chancellery who believed that Hitler was sabotaging and wanted to lose the war. But none of the generals close to Hitler, could not make such bold conclusions.
About the seriousness of the information that the Germans in 1945 began to suspect Adolf of treason. Now, if they accused the Fuhrer of such a crime against the German people, let's say, in 1939 or 1941 - it could be discussed. The usual fate of the loser. In Russia, too, they are beginning to “condemn” Putin for the Crimea, although in 2014 he was considered a real leader. "Akela" should not miss - the law of mass psychology.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 11 May 2019 11:22

MarkN wrote:
09 May 2019 13:21
AbollonPolweder wrote:
07 May 2019 15:56
So far I do not understand for what purpose Hitler as a parrot insists on the USSR as the last hope of England. In top secret documents, not in Felkischer Beobachter.
How do you understand the thoughts and words of any insane person?

Invading Russia believing it will encourage Britain to capitulate is utterly bonkers. The strategy of the insane. And yet evidence exists Hitler repeatedly made such statements.

So, should one take those statements as evidence of insanity or as evidence of a credible and coherent political and military strategy?
As far as I know, Hitler did not use the word “capitulate” in his statements on the subject of Barbarossa’s goals. On July 31, 1940 and August 22, 1941 he expressed himself quite cautiously - "... England damit jede Hoffnung zu nehmen." That is, ".. deprive England of any hope." The devil knows, but this caution may well be proof that Adolf was not completely insane. To deprive England of all sorts of reliance on domination in Europe. Not an impossible task, as it turned out.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

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 » 11 May 2019 16:57

ljadw wrote:
11 May 2019 08:03
Estimations from Dallin are estimations, not facts .
The only fact is that at the end of 1941 the Germans diminished their number of Soviet POWs because it was too high .
And Dallin is talking from his behind : if a big number of Soviet POWs died in the first weeks, but were not registered,how can Dallin say that their number was 345000 ? And, if they were not registered how can Dallin know that they died in captivity ? Or that they were taken prisoner ?
And : what are RCC data ? It can't be Red Cross Data as the RC was not operating on the Eastern Front .
Thus : what are RCC data ?
RCC is so google translated the OKW

Image

112784+701246+698580+989203+1037778+291934+75440=3906965

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 » 11 May 2019 17:13

AbollonPolweder wrote:
11 May 2019 09:53
jesk wrote:
08 May 2019 21:58
...
Tried to divert attention of generals of eastern front. Moscow is nonsense, here is the landing of England in the Pyrenees, something to worry about!
How can we divert attention, for example, von Bock from the USSR, with stories about the possible landing of England in Spain? It's impossible! Von Bock is responsible for his Army Group, and it is near Moscow, and not in the Pyrenees. Your wording “distraction” is not very successful. Using reminder of the threat from England, Hitler could justify the limitation of forces and means necessary in Russia. It would be, in my opinion, more accurate. But in this case, you contradict yourself. If the Wehrmacht achieved such impressive victories with the available forces, then why does it need several hundred new tank engines? :milwink: The USSR had already lost the war in early July, as Hitler thought. So?
Von Bock on August 4 heard about the Pyrenees, West Africa and England. Why did he need to hear this at a meeting where the fate of Russia was decided? The attack on Moscow in the summer of 1941 led to the collapse of the USSR. It was an attempt by Hitler to divert attention of generals, to reduce the emotional intensity of the meeting. Instead of Moscow, the Germans heard from the Fuhrer - the Pyrenees, England, Africa?! Talking about tank engines also distracted attention. The main thing is to prevent an attack on Moscow earlier than October, when the thaw began.
MarkN wrote:
06 May 2019 21:53
AbollonPolweder wrote:
05 May 2019 14:37
MarkN wrote:
29 Apr 2019 14:21
[I believe Hitler's decision to attack Russia in June 1941 flowed from his ideology. That ideology is to be found in Mein Kampf.
However, real life is different to ideological desires. At times it was stategically prudent to be best of friends with the judeo-bolsheviks. BARBAROSSA was never designed to erase judeo-bolshevism, it was a limited land grab.
ImageWhat does Hitler answer the questions of his generals?
"The Fuhrer: The plans of England at the present time can not be accurately determined. Whether the British enemy will continue to be limited to a war of attrition, or he will try to land his troops on the Iberian Peninsula or in West Africa. Against such attempts at disembarkation or in other necessary cases, mobile reserves must be prepared. For this purpose serve both tank divisions located in Germany, as well as the newly created tank units." And then Hitler promises 400 engines, when all issues are finally resolved. As you can see, even being in Russia, the Fuhrer first of all thinks of England.
It seems to me that Hitler's real ideology was 'love-hatred englandism'.
Yes, I know what the document says.

It seems to me jolly good evidence of the complete lack of coherence in German strategic thought and effort. You do realize that this contradicts the daft narrative that the purpose of BARBAROSSA was to coerce the British to capitulate, don't you?

It is also evidence that Hitler had many obsessions, changed his narrative every time his lips moved and couldn't be trusted as far as he could be thrown.
Last edited by jesk on 11 May 2019 17:19, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 11 May 2019 17:17

AbollonPolweder wrote:
11 May 2019 10:01
jesk wrote:
09 May 2019 19:46
The Germans easily destroyed 40% of the USSR. In the war with the remaining 60%, problems suddenly arose.
And it is strange. I read the memories of a resident of Berlin, she told what rumors were circulating in the city at the end of the war. One of them, Hitler, an agent of Stalin, sent from the Kremlin. The reasons for such conclusions, Hitler gave away first victories very easily. And this is the correct logic and amazing. People walked near the Reich Chancellery who believed that Hitler was sabotaging and wanted to lose the war. But none of the generals close to Hitler, could not make such bold conclusions.
About the seriousness of the information that the Germans in 1945 began to suspect Adolf of treason. Now, if they accused the Fuhrer of such a crime against the German people, let's say, in 1939 or 1941 - it could be discussed. The usual fate of the loser. In Russia, too, they are beginning to “condemn” Putin for the Crimea, although in 2014 he was considered a real leader. "Akela" should not miss - the law of mass psychology.
The parallel with Putin is weak. Hitler personally led the fighting and made hundreds of mistakes. I think no nonsense will allow you to make such mistakes. As near Leningrad in the autumn of 1941, out of a multitude of solutions, 5% do not allow the Germans to win. And Hitler found this solution.

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 » 11 May 2019 17:32

AbollonPolweder wrote:
05 May 2019 14:37
And then Hitler promises 400 engines, when all issues are finally resolved. As you can see, even being in Russia, the Fuhrer first of all thinks of England.
Is this a quote about 400 engines or your conclusion? Sometimes it is taken out of context...

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2145
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 » 11 May 2019 17:53

AbollonPolweder wrote:
11 May 2019 11:22
MarkN wrote:
09 May 2019 13:21
AbollonPolweder wrote:
07 May 2019 15:56
So far I do not understand for what purpose Hitler as a parrot insists on the USSR as the last hope of England. In top secret documents, not in Felkischer Beobachter.
How do you understand the thoughts and words of any insane person?

Invading Russia believing it will encourage Britain to capitulate is utterly bonkers. The strategy of the insane. And yet evidence exists Hitler repeatedly made such statements.

So, should one take those statements as evidence of insanity or as evidence of a credible and coherent political and military strategy?
As far as I know, Hitler did not use the word “capitulate” in his statements on the subject of Barbarossa’s goals. On July 31, 1940 and August 22, 1941 he expressed himself quite cautiously - "... England damit jede Hoffnung zu nehmen." That is, ".. deprive England of any hope." The devil knows, but this caution may well be proof that Adolf was not completely insane. To deprive England of all sorts of reliance on domination in Europe. Not an impossible task, as it turned out.
It is an insane strategy to invade CCCP for the purpose of encouraging Britain to capitulate. It is even more insane, if that were possible, to invade the CCCP to "deprive England of any hope". That is not a strategy. It is complete and utter insanity. Not defining the nature of "hope" is not the sign of rational and coherent thought. Quite the opposite.

I know the overpromoted Austrian corporal said it over and over again, but, perhaps, invading CCCP was for some reason. :wink:
Last edited by MarkN on 11 May 2019 17:59, edited 1 time in total.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2145
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 » 11 May 2019 17:56

Richard Anderson wrote:
10 May 2019 19:13
The definition of insanity is replying to ljadw or jesk...or reading anything they post...and expecting coherent arguments in return.
True, but some good sport can be had responding to ljadw's deliberate attempts to falsify history.

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 » 11 May 2019 21:42

Hitler never listened to the generals. Alfred Jodl's testimony.

http://zhistory.org.ua/alfrjodl.htm

Question: What was your relationship with Hitler?

Answer: I have established the closest relations with Hitler since January 1943. Before that there was a period when our relationship was in crisis. The reasons for this were as follows:

In the summer of 1942, I believed that Hitler did not conduct military operations well on the Eastern Front. At that time, Hitler was in Vinnitsa (3) and from there he led military operations. I attributed this to the fact that he did not tolerate the Russian climate badly, he had headaches and increased blood pressure. He always gave conflicting orders. I did not agree with the orders that he gave. I told him that his orders contradict previously given. In this regard, our relationship deteriorated.

At the beginning of the war, I did not agree with Hitler’s military plans. In 1942, I thought that Leningrad should be taken, and not go to the Caucasus.

The most acute crisis came during the Caucasus campaign. Hitler gave the order to move to the Black Sea coast. This order was given to List (4). List asked me to come to him in Vinnitsa. There I met General Conrad (5 (. I was once again convinced of the impossibility of carrying out the operation by the weak forces that we had. The 2nd Mountain Rifle Division was ordered to move south. I thought that it was necessary to halt the offensive in the Caucasus and to concentrate all forces on the Maykop direction. My assumptions were confirmed by the difficulties of transporting troops, weapons and ammunition.

I flew to the staff and offered the Führer to cancel my plans. This gave rise to a heavy discrepancy between us. He reproached me for not wanting to carry out his plans. An unheard-of scandal occurred between us, such a scandal had never before been bet. I should have been removed from the post. The Fuhrer did not greet me and Keitel anymore, did not come to us, as it happened before, to discuss the military situation, did not dine with us. They talked about my resignation, that I would go to Finland. I think that he wanted to put Paulus in my place, but the latter was bound hand in hand at Stalingrad and wanted to wait for the end of the Stalingrad operation.

This state of alienation lasted until January 1943. In January, Hitler handed me the golden party badge. At the same time, he told me that I did wrong then, but this is already over. He admits that I am a loyal soldier.

--------------------------------------------------------------

In the summer of 1942, I believed that Hitler did not conduct military operations well on the Eastern Front. At that time, Hitler was in Vinnitsa (3) and from there he led military operations. I attributed this to the fact that he did not tolerate the Russian climate badly, he had headaches and increased blood pressure.

No, Alfred - this is sabotage.
Last edited by jesk on 11 May 2019 21:46, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 11 May 2019 21:45

While it might be amusing reading the POV of the other side of the hill, it still has merit. If all the examples of Nazi/Stalinist propaganda were eliminated , future generations would lose valuable yardsticks.

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 » 12 May 2019 07:33

Hitler himself allowed the possibility of sabotage in the military field. Another testimony of Jodl:

At this time, Hitler said at one of the operational meetings: "Better I will lose the Belarusian forests than the Romanian oil."

Nevertheless, the main blow of the Red Army was delivered against the central army group, which was significantly weakened by the transfer of forces to the south. The low mobility and efficiency of General Marshal Bush’s troops (22) and their improper use of reserves can also be considered as a particular reason for the defeat of the CGA (21). He put the reserves too far, and in the conditions of 1944 it was impossible to count on either a counterattack or a counterstrike, but only on counterattacks.

Subsequently, the Führer sought the reasons for the defeat of the СGA in the subversive activities of the traitors - the participants in the conspiracy on July 20. I did not agree with him. The reasons had to be sought not in the traitors, but in the lack of strength.

--------------------------------
In Normandy, when found a shortage of faust cartridges, Hitler suggested the presence of sabotage. This is not a conspiracy, the normal thinking of people who have brains. Hitler was surrounded by idiots. It is not so difficult to understand that his wrecking is intentional.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 12 May 2019 18:40

jesk wrote:
11 May 2019 17:32
AbollonPolweder wrote:
05 May 2019 14:37
And then Hitler promises 400 engines, when all issues are finally resolved. As you can see, even being in Russia, the Fuhrer first of all thinks of England.
Is this a quote about 400 engines or your conclusion? Sometimes it is taken out of context...
Image
Here is Adolf's quote about motors. As you see, Guderian is not distracted by the Spanish "serenades" and says that only his tank group needs 300 engines. Hitler had to understand a simple thing: to divert the attention of the generals with stories about possible English plans was unrealistic. So to say "Generals are fighting here and now!"
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 12 May 2019 19:29

MarkN wrote:
11 May 2019 17:53
...
It is an insane strategy to invade CCCP for the purpose of encouraging Britain to capitulate. It is even more insane, if that were possible, to invade the CCCP to "deprive England of any hope". That is not a strategy. It is complete and utter insanity. Not defining the nature of "hope" is not the sign of rational and coherent thought. Quite the opposite.
I know the overpromoted Austrian corporal said it over and over again, but, perhaps, invading CCCP was for some reason. :wink:
If Russia is defeated, England will lose last hope. Then Germany will dominate Europe and the Balkans.
It seems to me that the nature of english hope was defining July 31 1940 : to dominate Europe and the Balkans . Plans to deprive this hope: the Balkans (Marita) and the Mediterranean ( Felix) plus Barbarossa were not so bad for insane person.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”