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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why do so many continue the unevidenced narrative today?

Post by MarkN » 19 Mar 2019 17:44

Max Payload wrote:
19 Mar 2019 15:41
MarkN wrote:
19 Mar 2019 10:49
... the fundamentals of the plan which became known as BARBAROSSA were written before Hitler made the policy decision in July to attack Russia.
Were they?
The first intimation of which I am aware of Hitler expressing an imminent interest in attacking the SU (that is within weeks or months) was on 21 July when he asked Brauchitsch to prepare plans for a campaign against the SU. Are you suggesting that specific planning (not mere blue-sky contingency planning) for what evolved into Barbarossa began before that date?
As you pointed out, Hitler is unlikely to be able to pluck from thin air the (farthest) line east that the Heer is capable of reaching; he needed his advisers from the Heer to work it out for him.

Similarly, I would not expect any of the other participants in the 21 July meeting (Keitel, Brauchitsch, Jeschonnek, Raeder or Jodl) to be able to pluck from thin air that information either. But one or more of them may well have been briefed in advance of some broad, outline capabilities.

At that meeting (see Halder Diary), "The Fuehrer was given the following information"
Object: To crush Russian Army or slice as much Russian territory as is necessary to bar enemy air raids on Berlin and Silesian industries. It is desirable to penetrate far enough to enable our Air Force to smash Russia's strategic areas.
Where did that information come from? Perhaps it came from your "mere blue-sky contingency planning".

Marcks' Operationsentwurf Ost of 5 August says (I cut&paste this translation from elsewhere on this forum [and corrected myself one glaring error], I have the original German text):
The purpose of the campaign is to strike the Russian Armed Forces and to make Russia incapable of entering the war as an opponent of Germany in the foreseeable future. In order to protect Germany against Russian bombers Russia must be occupied to the line lower Don - central Volga - north Dvina.
Notice how the objective in geographical terms (Don - Volga - Dvina) is related to the same military objective (protect Germany against Russian bombers) that Hitler was given on 21 July (bar enemy air raids on Berlin and Silesian industries).

Who gave Hitler the information on 21 July? Keitel, Brauchitsch, Jeschonnek, Raeder or Jodl? Where did they get it from?

We know of at least one serious effort to do some "mere blue-sky contingency planning": Plan OTTO. Who was in charge of that?
Max Payload wrote:
19 Mar 2019 15:41
Have I?
Yes?

You quite sensibly observed, and it cannot be ignored, that Hitler didn't have the capacity to come up with the answers to these military questions himself - he relied on his military advisors. The objectives of Unternehmen BARBAROSSA were based upon what the Heer generals believed were their military limitations.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

Re: Why do so many continue the unevidenced narrative today?

Post by AbollonPolweder » 19 Mar 2019 18:35

MarkN wrote:
19 Mar 2019 17:44
...
Marcks' Operationsentwurf Ost of 5 August...
...
Who gave Hitler the information on 21 July? Keitel, Brauchitsch, Jeschonnek, Raeder or Jodl? Where did they get it from?

We know of at least one serious effort to do some "mere blue-sky contingency planning": Plan OTTO. Who was in charge of that?

...
You quite sensibly observed, and it cannot be ignored, that Hitler didn't have the capacity to come up with the answers to these military questions himself - he relied on his military advisors. The objectives of Unternehmen BARBAROSSA were based upon what the Heer generals believed were their military limitations.
You are right. Hitler relied on his military advisors. But I beg your pardon, how could Hitler, on July 21, refer to Marx’s plan if it was completed only on August 5? And what does the OTTO have to do with it?
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7094
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 Mar 2019 18:38

Hi MarkN,

So, if I read you correctly, your contention is that Hitler told his generals to attack the USSR without any particular timetable or objective in mind and then left them to achieve his unspecified aims only so far as their own estimate of their military limitations would allow?

Cheers,

Sid.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Why do so many continue the unevidenced narrative today?

Post by jesk » 19 Mar 2019 18:48

MarkN wrote:
19 Mar 2019 17:44
The objectives of Unternehmen BARBAROSSA were based upon what the Heer generals believed were their military limitations.
What restrictions are you talking about? Why Russians can come from Vladivostok to Moscow? Germans not? There is no elementary logic in your range thesis.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10192
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why do so many continue the unevidenced narrative today?

Post by ljadw » 19 Mar 2019 21:28

jesk wrote:
19 Mar 2019 18:48
MarkN wrote:
19 Mar 2019 17:44
The objectives of Unternehmen BARBAROSSA were based upon what the Heer generals believed were their military limitations.
What restrictions are you talking about? Why Russians can come from Vladivostok to Moscow? Germans not? There is no elementary logic in your range thesis.
Von Bock said : we can't conquer the USSR .
Besides WHY should the Germans go to Vladivostok ? There was no reason for .

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 504
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: Why do so many continue the unevidenced narrative today?

Post by Max Payload » 19 Mar 2019 23:56

MarkN wrote:
19 Mar 2019 17:44
Hitler is unlikely to be able to pluck from thin air the (farthest) line east that the Heer is capable of reaching; he needed his advisers from the Heer to work it out for him.

Similarly, I would not expect any of the other participants in the 21 July meeting (Keitel, Brauchitsch, Jeschonnek, Raeder or Jodl) to be able to pluck from thin air that information either. But one or more of them may well have been briefed in advance of some broad, outline capabilities.

At that meeting (see Halder Diary), "The Fuehrer was given the following information"
Object: To crush Russian Army or slice as much Russian territory as is necessary to bar enemy air raids on Berlin and Silesian industries. It is desirable to penetrate far enough to enable our Air Force to smash Russia's strategic areas.
Where did that information come from? Perhaps it came from your "mere blue-sky contingency planning".

Marcks' Operationsentwurf Ost of 5 August says (I cut&paste this translation from elsewhere on this forum [and corrected myself one glaring error], I have the original German text):
The purpose of the campaign is to strike the Russian Armed Forces and to make Russia incapable of entering the war as an opponent of Germany in the foreseeable future. In order to protect Germany against Russian bombers Russia must be occupied to the line lower Don - central Volga - north Dvina.
Notice how the objective in geographical terms (Don - Volga - Dvina) is related to the same military objective (protect Germany against Russian bombers) that Hitler was given on 21 July (bar enemy air raids on Berlin and Silesian industries).

Who gave Hitler the information on 21 July? Keitel, Brauchitsch, Jeschonnek, Raeder or Jodl? Where did they get it from?
Your dates are wrong. The diary entry you are quoting is from 22 July. That is when Halder discussed with Brauchitsch the content of the previous day’s meeting with Hitler (item 2). Subsequently (Item 8) Hitler was given the quoted information. It was not AT the 21 July meeting but subsequent to the meeting. Is this what you are using to justify your claim that “the fundamentals of the plan which became known as BARBAROSSA were written before Hitler made the policy decision in July to attack Russia”?

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why do so many continue the unevidenced narrative today?

Post by MarkN » 20 Mar 2019 13:12

Max Payload wrote:
19 Mar 2019 23:56
MarkN wrote:
19 Mar 2019 17:44
Hitler is unlikely to be able to pluck from thin air the (farthest) line east that the Heer is capable of reaching; he needed his advisers from the Heer to work it out for him.

Similarly, I would not expect any of the other participants in the 21 July meeting (Keitel, Brauchitsch, Jeschonnek, Raeder or Jodl) to be able to pluck from thin air that information either. But one or more of them may well have been briefed in advance of some broad, outline capabilities.

At that meeting (see Halder Diary), "The Fuehrer was given the following information"
Object: To crush Russian Army or slice as much Russian territory as is necessary to bar enemy air raids on Berlin and Silesian industries. It is desirable to penetrate far enough to enable our Air Force to smash Russia's strategic areas.
Where did that information come from? Perhaps it came from your "mere blue-sky contingency planning".

Marcks' Operationsentwurf Ost of 5 August says (I cut&paste this translation from elsewhere on this forum [and corrected myself one glaring error], I have the original German text):
The purpose of the campaign is to strike the Russian Armed Forces and to make Russia incapable of entering the war as an opponent of Germany in the foreseeable future. In order to protect Germany against Russian bombers Russia must be occupied to the line lower Don - central Volga - north Dvina.
Notice how the objective in geographical terms (Don - Volga - Dvina) is related to the same military objective (protect Germany against Russian bombers) that Hitler was given on 21 July (bar enemy air raids on Berlin and Silesian industries).

Who gave Hitler the information on 21 July? Keitel, Brauchitsch, Jeschonnek, Raeder or Jodl? Where did they get it from?
Your dates are wrong. The diary entry you are quoting is from 22 July. That is when Halder discussed with Brauchitsch the content of the previous day’s meeting with Hitler (item 2). Subsequently (Item 8) Hitler was given the quoted information. It was not AT the 21 July meeting but subsequent to the meeting. Is this what you are using to justify your claim that “the fundamentals of the plan which became known as BARBAROSSA were written before Hitler made the policy decision in July to attack Russia”?
Image

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why do so many continue the unevidenced narrative today?

Post by MarkN » 20 Mar 2019 13:48

AbollonPolweder wrote:
19 Mar 2019 18:35
MarkN wrote:
19 Mar 2019 17:44
...
Marcks' Operationsentwurf Ost of 5 August...
...
Who gave Hitler the information on 21 July? Keitel, Brauchitsch, Jeschonnek, Raeder or Jodl? Where did they get it from?

We know of at least one serious effort to do some "mere blue-sky contingency planning": Plan OTTO. Who was in charge of that?

...
You quite sensibly observed, and it cannot be ignored, that Hitler didn't have the capacity to come up with the answers to these military questions himself - he relied on his military advisors. The objectives of Unternehmen BARBAROSSA were based upon what the Heer generals believed were their military limitations.
You are right. Hitler relied on his military advisors. But I beg your pardon, how could Hitler, on July 21, refer to Marx’s plan if it was completed only on August 5? And what does the OTTO have to do with it?
There is no evidence Hitler referred to anything on 21 July. The evidence is that Hitler was informed by his military advisors.

Please note all translations into English below are NOT my own - I have cut&paste them from other sources. I have the original German words.

On 22 July, Brauchitsch had a meeting with Halder to discuss the previous days meeting with Hitler (and other matters). Halder wrote in his diary on the 22 July:
Halder Diary, 22 July 1940 wrote:The Fuehrer was given the following information:
...
Object: To crush Russian Army or slice as much Russian territory as is necessary to bar enemy air raids on Berlin and Silesian industries. It is desirable to penetrate far enough to enable our Air Force to smash Russia's strategic areas.
Now Max Payload, in what seems to be some desperation, is trying to argue that because this information was noted as point 8 and Brauchitsch's telling of the previous days meeting was point 2, Hitler was not told this information at the 21 July meeting but at some other time and date!!!!

I really don't think it matters whether, as the original German states: Dem Fueher ist gemeldet, occured before the grand meeting on 21 July, during that meeting, or sometime after that meeting but before Brauchitsch met Halder on the 22nd.

The key points are:
1) The Heer told Hitler (on or around 21 July) what it could do; Hitler did not set the objectives; and'
2) What the Heer said at that time remained almost a constant right through to the end.

The stated objective of the Marcks Plan presented on 5 August:
Marcks: Operationsentwurf Ost, 5 August 1940 wrote:The purpose of the campaign is to strike the Russian Armed Forces and to make Russia incapable of entering the war as an opponent of Germany in the foreseeable future. In order to protect Germany against Russian bombers Russia must be occupied to the line lower Don - central Volga - north Dvina.
When von Paulus took over direction of the planning at the beginning of September 1940, his brief was:
von Paulus post war testimony, 11 February 1946 wrote:Then, in addition, as a basis for the plan which was to be worked out, the aims - the instructions of the OKW - were given: first, the destruction of those parts of the Russian Army stationed in the west of Russia, to prevent the units which were fit for fighting from escaping deep into Russia; second, the reaching of a line from which the Russian air force would be unable to attack German territory eft'ectively, and the final aim was the reaching of the Volga-Archangel line.
Then Unternehmen BARBAROSSA became a reality with Weisung 21:
Weisung 21, 18 Decemeber 1940 wrote:General Purpose:

The mass of the Russian Army in western Russia is to be destroyed in daring operations, by driving forward deep armored wedges, and the retreat of units capable of combat into the vastness of Russian territory is to be prevented.

In quick pursuit a line is then to be reached from which the Russian Air Force will no longer be able to attack the territory of the German Reich. The ultimate objective of the operation is to establish a cover against Asiatic Russia from the general line Volga-Archangel. Then, in case of necessity, the last industrial area left to Russia in the Urals can be eliminated by the Luftwaffe.
You will notice a common thread throughout. The military objective of reaching a line where the Russians are beyond bombing range of Germany remains from start to finish but the geographical line shifts eastwards sometime during August 1940 from lower Don - central Volga - north Dvina to Volga - Archangel. Even the desire to defeat as much of the Red Army as possible before this line is there throughout.

Now, one has to ask oneself whether this information given to Hitler on 21 July was plucked out of thin air at that very moment or whether it was based on some prior thought and planning. Given that it remained a constant, it seems to have been a pretty well thought through idea. Who did that original thinking is open to discussion. I have not seen any evidence to prove beyond doubt which Heer staff officer(s) was/were involved and who briefed one or more from Keitel, Brauchitsch and/or Jodl.

What we do know, however, is that some serious contingency planning and preparation for conflict with Russia was at that very time ongoing. That planning and preparation was being lead by the Chief of Staff of AOK18 under the codename Plan OTTO.

Take away points:
Hitler agreed to the Heer's plan and purpose of attack; the Heer didn't agree to Hitler's plan and purpose of attack.
Unternehmen BARBAROSSA was a military plan created (principally) by the OKH on behalf of the OKW. The objectives of the plan were essentially constant throughout the planning process and were predicated on what the Heer believed was doable.
Unternehmen BARBAROSSA was, of course, a product of Hitler's political decision to attack the Soviet Union. But there is no evidence that any of Hitler's (ideological) objectives and goals are within the military plan, and little to no evidence that his ideas influenced the planning other than to help delude the Heer as to the chance and scale of success.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7094
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Mar 2019 14:33

Hi MarkN,

So, I do read you correctly: your contention is that Hitler told his generals to attack the USSR without any particular timetable or objective in mind and then left them to achieve his unspecified aims only so far as their own estimate of their military limitations would allow.

Interesting proposition.

Do we know what proportion of the documentary material detailing the planning for Barbarossa has come down to us? Or is there a large gap in the archives?

Are we talking with all the facts to hand, or in something of a documentary vacuum?

Cheers,

Sid.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 20 Mar 2019 15:00

Sid Guttridge wrote:
20 Mar 2019 14:33
your contention is that Hitler told his generals to attack the USSR without any particular timetable or objective in mind and then left them to achieve his unspecified aims only so far as their own estimate of their military limitations would allow.

Interesting proposition.

Do we know what proportion of the documentary material detailing the planning for Barbarossa has come down to us? Or is there a large gap in the archives?

Are we talking with all the facts to hand, or in something of a documentary vacuum?
Whilst my "interesting proposition" is founded upon primary evidence, your belief/opinion is predicated upon "a documentary vacuum".

Here's a novel idea, why don't you produce some primary evidence to support your belief/opinion that:
Sid Guttridge wrote:
17 Mar 2019 16:39
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
PS. I have no problem with the statement that "Hitler decided to attack the USSR".

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7094
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Mar 2019 15:41

Hi MarkN,

You haven't actually answered my questions.

The questions were:

Do we know what proportion of the documentary material detailing the planning for Barbarossa has come down to us? Or is there a large gap in the archives?

Are we talking with all the facts to hand, or in something of a documentary vacuum?


You may well be talking from documentary evidence, but how complete is it?

If you don't know, simply say so and we can move on.

Cheers,

Sid.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 20 Mar 2019 15:56

Sid Guttridge wrote:
20 Mar 2019 15:41
You haven't actually answered my questions.
No I haven't. Nor do I intend to.

Earlier in this thread you were bemoaning what you considered to be my credibility to post here. My posts being evidenced based. Your posts being devoid of evidence. You pronounce my evidenced based posts as an "interesting proposition". Where does that place your "documentary vacuum" posts on the historical credibility tree?

Where does that leave your credibility?

I have no desire to convince you of anything. I don't care whether you stick with your unevidenced pre-conceived opinions or not.

Do your own homework, your own analysis and draw your own conclusions.

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 » 20 Mar 2019 17:12

So Mark is ur primary evidence the line in Halders diary that says the fuhrer was given the following information? ?? .. Have you cross checked it's translation with other editions of Halders diary.....

What questions had the fuhrer raised to illicit these answers from halder etc .....

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 20 Mar 2019 17:28

doogal wrote:
20 Mar 2019 17:12
So Mark is ur primary evidence the line in Halders diary that says the fuhrer was given the following information? ?? .. Have you cross checked it's translation with other editions of Halders diary.....

What questions had the fuhrer raised to illicit these answers from halder etc .....
See above: The original text is "Dem Fueher ist gemeldet".

Do you have any evidence that Hitler asked anything of anybody regarding Russia that day? But it is worth remembering that Halder wasn't in the room to answer anything. :roll:

I appreciate doogal that you too are desperate to stick to your pre-conceived beliefs. You have already decided to manipulate the evidence to suit those preconceptions:
1) Holding part of the country will not do = I've decided east of the Urals is not part of the country it's the whole of the country;
2) Destruction of Russian manpower = defeating as much of the Red Army as possible

Now you're looking for a way to deny away Halder's comments "Dem Fueher ist gemeldet" presumably hoping to come up with a set of words that you can use to say that "Dem Fueher ist gemeldet" = Hitler told us..... :lol:

You may not like my primary evidence, but at least I've offered some. What have you offered to evidence your opinion? Nothing!

Instead of just using the negative strategy of trying to deny any evidence that you don't like, why not take the positive strategy of putting forward evidence that the objectives of Unternehmen BARBAROSSA were Hitler's not the Heer's.

I can do it, so why can't you?

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 » 20 Mar 2019 18:22

On July 3 in the diary for the first time Halder wrote about need of recognition by Russia of the predominating role of Germany.

http://militera.lib.ru/db/halder/1940_07.html

July 3, 1940

Greifenberg: In the conversation were affected:
a. Operational issues. Currently, the English problem, which should be developed separately, and the Eastern problem are in the foreground.
The main content of the latter: a method of delivering a decisive blow to Russia, in order to force it to recognize the dominant role of Germany in Europe {10}. Along with this, there are minor problems like the Baltic, Balkan and others {11}.

{10} This is the first specific entry in Halder’s diary relating to the preparation of aggression against the Soviet Union. It is clear that the main military-political decision on this matter was made by Hitler earlier, if it is recorded here already in such a peremptory form. The nature of the record suggests that the OKH was already being developed at that time with the aim of drawing up a plan of war. The record is important in the sense that it clearly formulates two strategic goals that the Hitler military leadership set itself at the same time: the “English problem” and the “Eastern problem”. - Approx. ed.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”