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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Max Payload
Member
Posts: 459
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 12 Jul 2019 00:06

AbollonPolweder wrote:
11 Jul 2019 16:39
I need to say that the translation of the 4th chapter of Barbarossa you use is not accurate.
To translate the word "abstimmen", the verb "adjust" fits well, and the word "vorsichtig" or "Vorsicht" in the word "Vorsichtsmassnahmen" has the English equivalent - "careful". That is, for example, the German expression "Sei vorsichtig!" in English will be "Be careful!". "Be precautionary!" means rather "Be preventiv!" Correct me if I'm wrong.
I’m no linguist but I doubt that ‘Vorsichtsmassnahmen handelt’ could be translated as anything other than precautionary measures. And precautionary and preventative do have different meanings.
The phrase ‘müssen eindeutig dahin abgestimmt sein’ is perhaps more ambiguous but in the context, ‘must clearly indicate’ seems to be an accurate translation.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
11 Jul 2019 16:39
Aren't you too exaggerating Hitler's fears about the reaction of the USSR / Stalin to possible leaks? Hitler could easily explain the planning of Barbarossa by the presence of a large number of Soviet divisions on the border with the Reich. There, in late 1940 and early 1941, the superiority of the USSR was overwhelming. For what purpose did the 'friendly' USSR concentrate such a mass of troops? Hitler just had to somehow react to it. Hadn't he?
Leaked orders relating to defensive measures would be radically different to leaked orders relating to preparations for a surprise invasion.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
11 Jul 2019 16:39
You can argue that Hitler in the same 4th paragraph warns of possible serious political and military consequences. But these consequences are in no way connected with the possible active military actions of the USSR. And this is easy to prove, because the Germans planned to destroy the main forces of the Red Army in the western part of the USSR. They were afraid that the Russians would flee to the east. If the USSR attacked Germany, by this he would render the Germans courtesy, as the author of "Operationstugie Ost", Major General Marcks, said.
A preemptive Soviet attack would, at the very least, have disrupted German preparations, with who knows what consequences. It would have had advantages for Germany politically, but I doubt that it is something OKW would have welcomed.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 15 Jul 2019 10:51

Max Payload wrote:
12 Jul 2019 00:06
AbollonPolweder wrote:
11 Jul 2019 16:39
I need to say that the translation of the 4th chapter of Barbarossa you use is not accurate.
To translate the word "abstimmen", the verb "adjust" fits well, and the word "vorsichtig" or "Vorsicht" in the word "Vorsichtsmassnahmen" has the English equivalent - "careful". That is, for example, the German expression "Sei vorsichtig!" in English will be "Be careful!". "Be precautionary!" means rather "Be preventiv!" Correct me if I'm wrong.
I’m no linguist but I doubt that ‘Vorsichtsmassnahmen handelt’ could be translated as anything other than precautionary measures. And precautionary and preventative do have different meanings.
The phrase ‘müssen eindeutig dahin abgestimmt sein’ is perhaps more ambiguous but in the context, ‘must clearly indicate’ seems to be an accurate translation.
AbollonPolweder wrote:
11 Jul 2019 16:39
Aren't you too exaggerating Hitler's fears about the reaction of the USSR / Stalin to possible leaks? Hitler could easily explain the planning of Barbarossa by the presence of a large number of Soviet divisions on the border with the Reich. There, in late 1940 and early 1941, the superiority of the USSR was overwhelming. For what purpose did the 'friendly' USSR concentrate such a mass of troops? Hitler just had to somehow react to it. Hadn't he?
Leaked orders relating to defensive measures would be radically different to leaked orders relating to preparations for a surprise invasion.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
11 Jul 2019 16:39
You can argue that Hitler in the same 4th paragraph warns of possible serious political and military consequences. But these consequences are in no way connected with the possible active military actions of the USSR. And this is easy to prove, because the Germans planned to destroy the main forces of the Red Army in the western part of the USSR. They were afraid that the Russians would flee to the east. If the USSR attacked Germany, by this he would render the Germans courtesy, as the author of "Operationstugie Ost", Major General Marcks, said.
A preemptive Soviet attack would, at the very least, have disrupted German preparations, with who what consequences. It would have had advantages for Germany politically, but I doubt that it is something OKW would have welcomed.
1. You find yourself in a difficult situation, because linguists from Cambridge and Oxford are against you.
Precaution - an action that is done to prevent something unpleasant or dangerous happening ( Cambridge Dictionary)
Precaution (against something) something that is done in advance in order to prevent problems or to avoid danger ( Oxford Learner's Dictionary)
They believe that - "precaution" and "preventive" are synonyms.
The phrase ‘müssen eindeutig dahin abgestimmt sein’ is perhaps more ambiguous but in the context, ‘must clearly indicate’ seems to be an accurate translation.
In my opinion this phrase is quite understandable, it says that precautions are taken in case of a change in the position of Russia. But Hitler does not specify what kind of changes may be. His commanders took this phrase about the changes differently.
A preemptive Soviet attack would, at the very least, have disrupted German preparations, with who what consequences. It would have had advantages for Germany politically, but I doubt that it is something OKW would have welcomed.
It is a pity that Major General Marcks did not guess about this.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 15 Jul 2019 11:05

Max Payload wrote: Leaked orders relating to defensive measures would be radically different to leaked orders relating to preparations for a surprise invasion
This is the theory and your desires. You have not given a single order, in which defensive measures would have been mentioned.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 459
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 15 Jul 2019 15:00

AbollonPolweder wrote:
15 Jul 2019 10:51
A preemptive Soviet attack would, at the very least, have disrupted German preparations, with who what consequences. It would have had advantages for Germany politically, but I doubt that it is something OKW would have welcomed.
It is a pity that Major General Marcks did not guess about this.
But then in August 1940 Marcks hadn’t spent months implementing the invasion preparations.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
15 Jul 2019 10:51
The phrase ‘müssen eindeutig dahin abgestimmt sein’ is perhaps more ambiguous but in the context, ‘must clearly indicate’ seems to be an accurate translation.
In my opinion this phrase is quite understandable, it says that precautions are taken in case of a change in the position of Russia. But Hitler does not specify what kind of changes may be. His commanders took this phrase about the changes differently.
??????

AbollonPolweder wrote:
15 Jul 2019 10:51
linguists from Cambridge and Oxford are against you. ... They believe that - "precaution" and "preventive" are synonyms.
My thesaurus doesn’t have prevention as a synonym for precaution.
Collins English Dictionary Third Edition - precaution n. 1. an action taken to avoid a dangerous or undesirable event.

Precautionary measures are generally actions taken to avoid, mitigate or counter the effects of adverse events that may occur.
Preventative measures are taken to ensure that an event (unusually an undesirable event) does not occur.
Routine health checks are precautionary. Inoculations against common diseases are preventative.
There is some cross-over. Flood defences are preventative, but if they are installed in areas not prone to flooding they could also be described as precautionary.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
15 Jul 2019 11:05
Max Payload wrote: Leaked orders relating to defensive measures would be radically different to leaked orders relating to preparations for a surprise invasion
This is the theory and your desires. You have not given a single order, in which defensive measures would have been mentioned.
There weren’t any. Any orders that had been leaked would have been in relation to offensive measures. That was the point, and it was only raised at all in response to your post (#915) stating, “Hitler could easily explain the planning of Barbarossa by the presence of a large number of Soviet divisions on the border with the Reich. ... Hitler just had to somehow react to it. Hadn't he?” Defensive measures could have been easily explained; the largest surprise invasion in history, less so, but one plausible explanation that could have been advanced was that they were precautionary measures in the event of ‘Russia changing its attitude’, that is, becoming a threat. Otherwise Stalin might reasonably have expected, with the Non-Aggression Pact in place, that any German concerns about Soviet divisions on the border would have been raised at the diplomatic level.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 17 Jul 2019 13:47

Max Payload wrote:
15 Jul 2019 15:00
...
But then in August 1940 Marcks hadn’t spent months implementing the invasion preparations.
It's right. But Marcks took into account the possibility of a sudden (plötzlich) attack of the USSR, as well as, for example, Lossberg, but considered it extremely unlikely. And as it turned out, his calculations were correct
Max Payload wrote:
15 Jul 2019 15:00
??????
And why are you surprised? Hitler appeals to the gentlemen Oberbefehlshaber. How many such "gentlemen" issued orders on the basis of Barbarossa? Let's count: OKH, OKM, OKL, three army groups, four tank groups, almost 10 armies. In total about 20 Oberbefehlshaber. Have you read at least one order out of 20? Or do you reason purely theoretically?
Max Payload wrote:
15 Jul 2019 15:00
My thesaurus doesn’t have prevention as a synonym for precaution.
Collins English Dictionary Third Edition - precaution n. 1. an action taken to avoid a dangerous or undesirable event.
...
Very good! Now translate the word "avoid". Avoid - to try to prevent something bad from happening. ( Cambridge Dictionary). The circle is closed. Isn't it?
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 459
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 18 Jul 2019 23:59

AbollonPolweder wrote:
17 Jul 2019 13:47
Max Payload wrote:
15 Jul 2019 15:00
??????
And why are you surprised?
Not surprised, just totally unable to understand whatever point you were trying to make.


AbollonPolweder wrote:
17 Jul 2019 13:47
Avoid - to try to prevent something bad from happening. ( Cambridge Dictionary). The circle is closed. Isn't it?
Interesting that you omitted the other cited meanings in that dictionary - to stay away from someone or something; to not allow yourself to do something
Avoid - evade, circumvent, dodge, get or keep away from
The only relationship to ‘prevent’ is that by avoiding something you prevent the consequences of not avoiding it from becoming manifest. That is the meaning of ‘try to prevent’ in your carefully selected dictionary definition.
So no, the circle isn’t closed.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 19 Jul 2019 11:18

Max Payload wrote:
18 Jul 2019 23:59
...
Not surprised, just totally unable to understand whatever point you were trying to make.
My "point" is very simple. It is necessary to find out: whether point 4 was understandable for approximately 20 German commanders. Only one way to answer this question can be - to read their orders. I ask you probably the third time already: have you read at least one such order?
No answer! Why?
Max Payload wrote:
18 Jul 2019 23:59
Interesting that you omitted the other cited meanings in that dictionary - to stay away from someone or something; to not allow yourself to do something
Avoid - evade, circumvent, dodge, get or keep away from
The only relationship to ‘prevent’ is that by avoiding something you prevent the consequences of not avoiding it from becoming manifest. That is the meaning of ‘try to prevent’ in your carefully selected dictionary definition.
So no, the circle isn’t closed.
The dispute began with the accuracy of the English translation. Obviously, the meaning of the English word "precaution" is much broader than the German "Vorsicht".
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 459
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 19 Jul 2019 16:37

AbollonPolweder wrote:
19 Jul 2019 11:18
My "point" is very simple. It is necessary to find out: whether point 4 was understandable for approximately 20 German commanders. Only one way to answer this question can be - to read their orders.
See post #912

AbollonPolweder wrote:
19 Jul 2019 11:18
The dispute began with the accuracy of the English translation. Obviously, the meaning of the English word "precaution" is much broader than the German "Vorsicht".
We were not not discussing ‘Vorsicht’ but the phrase ‘Vorsichtsmassnahmen handelt’ - precautionary measures.
You then questioned the meaning of the word precautionary, and then tried to assert that the word avoid means prevent, which it clearly does not.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 22 Jul 2019 11:31

Max Payload wrote:
19 Jul 2019 16:37
...
AbollonPolweder wrote:
19 Jul 2019 11:18
The dispute began with the accuracy of the English translation. Obviously, the meaning of the English word "precaution" is much broader than the German "Vorsicht".
We were not not discussing ‘Vorsicht’ but the phrase ‘Vorsichtsmassnahmen handelt’ - precautionary measures.
You then questioned the meaning of the word precautionary, and then tried to assert that the word avoid means prevent, which it clearly does not.
‘Vorsichtsmassnahmen handelt’ - precautionary measures.
"Precautionary measures" in German means one word "Vorsichtsmassnahmen".
1. You have obvious problems with German. 2. You have not read a single order issued on the basis of Barbarossa. 3. You do not know how Hitler assessed the position of the USSR in relation to Reich 3 before December 18, 1940. Conclusion: your versions from post # 914 11 Jul 2019, 02:41 are absolutely unreliable and doubtful.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 459
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 23 Jul 2019 01:14

AbollonPolweder wrote:
22 Jul 2019 11:31
"Precautionary measures" in German means one word "Vorsichtsmassnahmen".
1. You have obvious problems with German.
It seems that one of us does. Vorsichtsmassnahmen means precautionary. But it least we seem to agree that section 4 requires that, “All orders to be issued by the Commanders in Chief on the basis of this directive must clearly indicate that they are precautionary measures for the possibility that Russia should change her present attitude toward us.”

AbollonPolweder wrote:
22 Jul 2019 11:31
2. You have not read a single order issued on the basis of Barbarossa.
viewtopic.php?t=62192

(Assembly orders were not disseminated until after the 3 February conference, more than six weeks after Directive 21 was signed.)

AbollonPolweder wrote:
22 Jul 2019 11:31
3. You do not know how Hitler assessed the position of the USSR in relation to Reich 3 before December 18, 1940.
But I do known what he put his name to on 18 December.
(And on 12 November - section 5; and the transcript of the Molotov meeting, plus reported side comments; and reported comments/objectives from 21July and 31 July).

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 02 Aug 2019 16:40

Max Payload wrote:
23 Jul 2019 01:14
...
It seems that one of us does. Vorsichtsmassnahmen means precautionary.
Alas, no sir! Vorsichtsmassnahmen - a noun (plural) means precautionary
measures. Precautionary - adjective. :milwink:
...
Max Payload wrote:
23 Jul 2019 01:14
AbollonPolweder wrote:
22 Jul 2019 11:31
3. You do not know how Hitler assessed the position of the USSR in relation to Reich 3 before December 18, 1940.
But I do known what he put his name to on 18 December.
(And on 12 November - section 5; and the transcript of the Molotov meeting, plus reported side comments; and reported comments/objectives from 21July and 31 July).
Russia
A lasting neutrality of Soviet Russia cannot be guaranteed with certainty through any treaty or any agreement. At the present time every--
thing indicates that she will not abandon this neutrality. In six
months, a year, or several years this attitude can change. The insignificant value of treaties has been proved on all sides, especially in
the last years. The greatest, security from any sort of Russian interference lies in unmistakable German superiority and in quickly demonstrating German strength. (Berlin, 9 Oct. 1939
Memorandum and Guiding 'Principles for Directing the War in the West)
How interesting, isn't it? The most important non-aggression and friendship treaties have recently been signed and Hitler writes about the neutrality of the USSR, but he doubts that this neutrality will last a long time.
Look at this:
1. Political conditions and objective
Germany's attitude toward Poland will continue to aim at avoiding incidents. Should Poland change her attitude, which so far has been
based on the same principle, and, adopt a threatening attitude toward the Reich, then in spite of the existing treaty it might be necessary to settle the account for good. (Fall Weiss)
What a strange position of Hitler! If he prepares an attack on the East (Poland, the USSR), then he admits a change in the position of the victims of the attack, and if on the "West" (Norway, Holland, Denmark - neutral too), then he does not expect any changes. Why such segregation? :?
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 02 Aug 2019 20:00

Max Payload wrote:
23 Jul 2019 01:14
...
But I do known what he put his name to on 18 December.
(And on 12 November - section 5; and the transcript of the Molotov meeting, plus reported side comments; and reported comments/objectives from 21July and 31 July).
By the way, I would stop quoting Halder when he mentions Hitler. On September 18, 1942, Hitler described Halder as unable to command even a division. If we take into account that this was said in the presence of Keitel and one or two stenographers, then this soon became known to many in OKW. After all, this is a heavy insult. It is hard to expect objectivity from Halder, where he mentions Hitler. Is not it?
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941 ... prilozenia
p.42
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Aida1
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 04 Aug 2019 15:45

ljadw wrote:
03 Mar 2019 17:32
Hitler did as Napoleon ,who made his generals dukes and princes and gave them a lot of money . And their reaction was the same as Hitler's generals : they abandoned him after Waterloo, as Hitler's generals abandoned him after the war .You can't buy fidelity : ingratitude is the way of the world . It was always so, it always will be so .
You can hardly expect a commander to not defend his point of view in disagreements he had had with Hitler during the war,for which they were also sacked.Nothing to do with ingratitude.

Aida1
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 04 Aug 2019 15:53

Peter89 wrote:
04 Mar 2019 07:57
Cult Icon wrote:
04 Mar 2019 02:06
Peter89 wrote:
03 Mar 2019 06:23
You might think it's a joke but it is not; Hitler fired him as Chief of General Staff in March 1945. Some years later he wrote the Erinnerungen eines Soldatens (The memoirs of a soldier), which was a complete crap, complaining about the Polish border which cut him off from his estate.

Postwar senior German officiers never admitted that they were corrupt to the bone. They let their military knowledge be overshadowed by corruption money.
So you name 6? generals...but corruption is life. Which of these Generals wanted Hitler to listen....?! Some of these were fired for military failures and having strong differences in what they wanted their armies/army group to do. Hoepner (Pzgruppe 4) was fired in 1942 and executed in 1944, von Bock (Army group commands) was fired due to his actions in Case Blue, Leeb for AGN 1941, etc.

The firing of Guderian in March 1945 had a lot to do with the failure of Operation Solstice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Solstice

https://www.amazon.com/Under-Himmlers-C ... 1874622434
By 1945 every senior German general lost at least a fight.
It was about loyality; who wants to continue this hopeless war? From 1943 the latest every general knew the war was lost. The more conservative and military-minded generals backed off or demanded huge compensation to carry on, but more ideologically supportive ones (eg. Model, Schörner, Dönitz) came forth.

I can name any number of generals, since they were all receiving money and privileges. Just think of Konto 5. It ensured: had they won the war, they would be social elite.

Corruption is not life. Corruption is decay (it's a bottomless hole), and the senior German generals could not wash themselves out of it.

We can observe a somewhat same situation in present-day Hungary. Those who were fired from the media of an oligarch (who gained all his money from corruption), and they were suppprting our autocrat pm previously, now they all say they were protesting against the tyranny of the pm (while they worked for him) and they were disgusted and discontent, but now they are free and independent and ask for our money. :D Now they deny they knew of the very things they communicated!
Yeah they served the autocrat pm and had they bet on the winning side, they would not be posing as independent professionals, but well-paid independent professionals. It is even more repulsive that they received their salary from corruption money and now they write in their new and independent and professional media that the autocrat is corrupt. :D

Look. The senior German officiers did everything to pose as independent professionals after the war. They denied that they knew of the very things they were participating in. Had they bet on the winning side, they would not simply just be independent professionals, but well-paid independent professionals.
German officers did not need to receive rewards to serve.They took their jobs seriously.No commander backed off or demanded rewards to continue.Hitler sacked many commanders because of disagreements.

Aida1
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 04 Aug 2019 16:03

That Germany was defeated because of the ratio of forces in all aspects which includes industrial capacity is pretty obvious.You would be hard put to find a quote from a senior German commander pretending that Germany could have won despite the ratio of forces .Those German commanders that wrote memoirs simply defended their Points of view in the disagreements they had had with Hitler during the war and which are welldocumented.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”