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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
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 » 13 May 2019 07:36

AbollonPolweder wrote:
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!"
Distracted or not, a moot point. Guderian talked about tank engines. Moscow is more important. Than Africa, Pyrenees and England. I have the right to such a conclusion and it is logical. DF in the topic VB and Voronezh taught logical inferences.

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 200
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

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

Post by aurelien wolff » 13 May 2019 07:40

what strategic/tactical mistake did german german general make (I wonder because some people are too much in the "muh strategic genius who did nothing wrong").

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 » 13 May 2019 08:03

The question is not if Barbarossa was an insane decision, but if there was a serious alternative for Barbarossa in the given circumstances .
As everyday Germany's political, military and economic situation was worsening vis-á- vis Britain,it was senseless to wait . Germany had to do something, it did something ,and those who say that what it did was insane,should propose something that would give Germany better chances .As since 75 years no-one has been able to propose something else that would give Germany better chances,.....

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 » 13 May 2019 08:07

aurelien wolff wrote:
13 May 2019 07:40
what strategic/tactical mistake did german german general make (I wonder because some people are too much in the "muh strategic genius who did nothing wrong").
Additional questions : what was the impact of the strategic/tactical mistakes the Germans made ( if they made such mistakes ) .And, how to define ''strategic/tactical mistakes ''? (The use of hindsight is not allowed .)

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 » 13 May 2019 09:09

AbollonPolweder wrote:
12 May 2019 19:29
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.
I do not see any coherent or intelligent thought in the strategy of invading the CCCP with 3.5 million men for the purpose of "depriving England of all hope" in relation to the Balkans and the Mediterranean. Utter madness. Completely nonsensical. But since dear leader said it, some will continue to believe it true.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1436
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

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

Post by Cult Icon » 13 May 2019 18:03

aurelien wolff wrote:
13 May 2019 07:40
what strategic/tactical mistake did german german general make (I wonder because some people are too much in the "muh strategic genius who did nothing wrong").
You should spend more time hitting the books and less time on the forums...your threads are very elementary and tend to have a certain bias

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 » 13 May 2019 21:50

Cult Icon wrote:
13 May 2019 18:03
aurelien wolff wrote:
13 May 2019 07:40
what strategic/tactical mistake did german german general make (I wonder because some people are too much in the "muh strategic genius who did nothing wrong").
You should spend more time hitting the books and less time on the forums...your threads are very elementary and tend to have a certain bias
Books are just a storyteller's narrative of what they think is the history the reader needs to know. Books and and the internet are little different: some good and accurate sources, but mostly biased and inaccurate garbage. Most of the internet bias and garbage is derived from book bias and garbage.

Better to go straight to the primary evidence and form your own understanding and opinions.

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 » 13 May 2019 22:52

MarkN wrote:
13 May 2019 21:50
Cult Icon wrote:
13 May 2019 18:03
aurelien wolff wrote:
13 May 2019 07:40
what strategic/tactical mistake did german german general make (I wonder because some people are too much in the "muh strategic genius who did nothing wrong").
You should spend more time hitting the books and less time on the forums...your threads are very elementary and tend to have a certain bias
Books are just a storyteller's narrative of what they think is the history the reader needs to know. Books and and the internet are little different: some good and accurate sources, but mostly biased and inaccurate garbage. Most of the internet bias and garbage is derived from book bias and garbage.

Better to go straight to the primary evidence and form your own understanding and opinions.
Exactly which primary evidence/sources are acceptable?

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 » 14 May 2019 14:13

jesk wrote:
13 May 2019 07:36
...
Distracted or not, a moot point. Guderian talked about tank engines. Moscow is more important. Than Africa, Pyrenees and England. I have the right to such a conclusion and it is logical. DF in the topic VB and Voronezh taught logical inferences.
Of course, you have the right to make logical conclusions, just as I have the right to challenge them. Is not it? The problem is the subject of our discussion. You, as I understand it, claim that Hitler deliberately committed anti-German actions, acted in favor of the USSR and was even an agent of Stalin. One of the proofs is the Fuhrer’s attempt to divert the attention of his generals who are fighting in the East from their immediate problems by referring to possible British military operations. Do I understand you correctly? I assume that Hitler was not so naive as a simpleton to divert the attention of his "eastern" generals and marshals in such a primitive way from their duties. It seems to me that a possible variant of this behavior of Hitler was his real position towards England. He could actually consider it the most important enemy. It is clear that in this case his head was occupied primarily with thoughts about England.
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 » 14 May 2019 14:39

MarkN wrote:
13 May 2019 09:09
AbollonPolweder wrote:
12 May 2019 19:29
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.
I do not see any coherent or intelligent thought in the strategy of invading the CCCP with 3.5 million men for the purpose of "depriving England of all hope" in relation to the Balkans and the Mediterranean. Utter madness. Completely nonsensical. But since dear leader said it, some will continue to believe it true.
1. You absolutely in vain mentioned the words about 3.5 million. This is not proof of Hitler’s madness. If you consider this number as evidence, then all German generals from Marcks to Halder and to Field Marshal Brauchitsch should be considered insane.
2. Mentioning only the Balkans and the Mediterranean, you are a little cunning, not to mention Europe.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

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 » 14 May 2019 18:13

jesk wrote:
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.
There was no thaw in October, but mud . Besides : mud did not stop the Germans .

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 » 14 May 2019 21:04

ljadw wrote:
14 May 2019 18:13
jesk wrote:
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.
There was no thaw in October, but mud . Besides : mud did not stop the Germans .
October 20 came a complete thaw. And only on November 15-18, the Germans were able to attack again. But winter has already arrived. Technique, equipment for the winter campaign, all this was not.
google translate "rasputitsa" as "thaw" or "muddy road".

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 » 15 May 2019 16:37

Kursk was captured on November 3 and Tikhvin on November 8 . Thus the advance direction Moscow was not stopped because of the weather .And,the ''absence '' of winter equipmemt ( which did not exist ) did not prevent the Germans to advance after November 15 .

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 » 15 May 2019 18:15

I think it's impractical for every person who enjoys history to go and look at just primary sources MarkN... What if they do not have more than one language?? Or if no translations exist in there language. Or they are just avid amatuers who only have a few hours around employment..
Are there not authors of secondary sources whose work being so well respected can act as a guide??
And even when primary sources are available each person protects his interpretation as if only they can divine truth ... we have seen it here on the threads about Marcks and Barbarossa....

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 » 15 May 2019 20:21

doogal wrote:
15 May 2019 18:15
I think it's impractical for every person who enjoys history to go and look at just primary sources MarkN... What if they do not have more than one language?? Or if no translations exist in there language. Or they are just avid amatuers who only have a few hours around employment..
Are there not authors of secondary sources whose work being so well respected can act as a guide??
And even when primary sources are available each person protects his interpretation as if only they can divine truth ... we have seen it here on the threads about Marcks and Barbarossa....
AGREED!!!!

I REALLY WISH THIS FORUM WOULD GET A LIKE BUTTON!!!

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”