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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1889
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 18:16

doogal wrote:
07 Mar 2019 20:54
It is worth noting that Mansteins objection of Hitlers direction were based on the lack of a dedicated C in C east. And that Hitler was unable to properly control and direct multiple theatres of conflict due to a tremendous workload.
He disliked Hitler meddling in operational level control but conceded that Germanys overall strategy could only be controlled by a central organising figure. But that individual could not command at both levels.
Halders objections were again different.
Guderians were operational, as we're Rommels.
Von Kleist objections were similar to von Bocks Lists von Leebs and von Runsteds that they should direct there army groups without another authority who could be approached by officers in the chain of command and arbitrarily alter there orders. As to the post war creation of the "listen to the generals" explanation one has to ask which general when and in which situation...
essentially they complained and blamed Hitler for complex reasons... There training for one taught of the separation of the politician and the commander.
They survived and needed a scapegoat.
But truth in situations is always in the middle and they sought to excuse there own failings by adding to Hitlers.
Those few senior commanders that survived the war and wrote books did no more than repeat disagreements that happened during the war.These were not invented post Facto.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1788
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

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

Post by Peter89 » 04 Aug 2019 18:24

Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 15:53

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.
Source?
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1889
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 18:34

Peter89 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 18:24
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 15:53

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.
Source?
You are inverting the argument.You would be hard put to come up with proof of your statement that German commanders backed out or only continued after being bribed. And the long list of German commanders sacked by Hitler is part of Well established history of WW2.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1788
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

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

Post by Peter89 » 04 Aug 2019 19:50

Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 18:34
Peter89 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 18:24
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 15:53

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.
Source?
You are inverting the argument.You would be hard put to come up with proof of your statement that German commanders backed out or only continued after being bribed. And the long list of German commanders sacked by Hitler is part of Well established history of WW2.
Dr. Robert Citino has a lot of thoughts on that:

https://www.amazon.com/Wehrmachts-Last- ... 0700624945
Or: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UI72BLrwqR0

Or Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery ... t_officers

Also, please read my comments above.

Now please support your statement that German officiers had no need of rewards to serve.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1889
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 20:19

Duncan_M wrote:
04 Mar 2019 16:50
[

The fact is that historians relied on diaries of German generals and is only now being addressed/fixed. Some don't like that though, they claim its revisionist. I disagree, I think its good history, which should never just say "History is settled!" We're actually getting a much better understanding of the dynamics of WW2 and especially the German generals that post war claimed it was all Hitler's fault, they were lying. Some of it was his fault, a lot, but a lot of it was their fault too. And they were not only complicit in Hitler's regime (the pay offs), they were also largely in agreement with him, they were proponents for many of the same things they later turned on, and they all mostly relieved because of personal failures, not because of high handed ethics over the Nazis.
I think you have a strange opinion about the sources historians used for their books.They would certainly not base themselves solely on 'diaries' of German commanders.The disagreements between Hitler and his commanders are welldocumented.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1889
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 20:44

Peter89 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 19:50
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 18:34
Peter89 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 18:24
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 15:53

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.
Source?
You are inverting the argument.You would be hard put to come up with proof of your statement that German commanders backed out or only continued after being bribed. And the long list of German commanders sacked by Hitler is part of Well established history of WW2.
Dr. Robert Citino has a lot of thoughts on that:

https://www.amazon.com/Wehrmachts-Last- ... 0700624945
Or: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UI72BLrwqR0

Or Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery ... t_officers

Also, please read my comments above.

Now please support your statement that German officiers had no need of rewards to serve.
Awards to commanders to do the jobs they are supposed to do are never bribes.A bonus given to a manager in a Company is not a bribe either.They are rewards.There is a historical tradition for awarding military commanders rewards for services rendered.That goes back very far in human history.Hitler did not do anything original there.Professional soldiers who are not mercenaries do not need to be given money to make them loyal.And An award given after a commander is sacked would certainly not be very useful if that would be the intent.

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 » 04 Aug 2019 21:05

Aida1 wrote:
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.
Your opinion is completely contrary to the annals of the forum. Here, for example, was discussed. There could be at least 35 more divisions on the Vistula and East Prussia. 30 or 60. What's the difference?

viewtopic.php?p=2213639#p2213639

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1889
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 21:30

jesk wrote:
04 Aug 2019 21:05
Aida1 wrote:
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.
Your opinion is completely contrary to the annals of the forum. Here, for example, was discussed. There could be at least 35 more divisions on the Vistula and East Prussia. 30 or 60. What's the difference?

viewtopic.php?p=2213639#p2213639
How can you even think that Germany would not be outnumbered in Manpower,industrial resources etc.. That more divisions couldbe concentrated on a given front does not change that.Obviously forces we're too spread out and should have been more concentrated but it does not change the outcome of the war.

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 » 04 Aug 2019 21:45

Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 21:30
jesk wrote:
04 Aug 2019 21:05
Aida1 wrote:
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.
Your opinion is completely contrary to the annals of the forum. Here, for example, was discussed. There could be at least 35 more divisions on the Vistula and East Prussia. 30 or 60. What's the difference?

viewtopic.php?p=2213639#p2213639
How can you even think that Germany would not be outnumbered in Manpower,industrial resources etc.. That more divisions couldbe concentrated on a given front does not change that.Obviously forces we're too spread out and should have been more concentrated but it does not change the outcome of the war.
In February 1945, Guderian insisted on the evacuation of troops from Norway, Latvia, Italy, Yugoslavia. To go to the counteroffensive against the Soviet forces. And he thought it would help. Hitler said no ...

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1788
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

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

Post by Peter89 » 05 Aug 2019 05:29

Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 20:44
Peter89 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 19:50
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 18:34
Peter89 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 18:24
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 15:53

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.
Source?
You are inverting the argument.You would be hard put to come up with proof of your statement that German commanders backed out or only continued after being bribed. And the long list of German commanders sacked by Hitler is part of Well established history of WW2.
Dr. Robert Citino has a lot of thoughts on that:

https://www.amazon.com/Wehrmachts-Last- ... 0700624945
Or: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UI72BLrwqR0

Or Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery ... t_officers

Also, please read my comments above.

Now please support your statement that German officiers had no need of rewards to serve.
Awards to commanders to do the jobs they are supposed to do are never bribes.A bonus given to a manager in a Company is not a bribe either.They are rewards.There is a historical tradition for awarding military commanders rewards for services rendered.That goes back very far in human history.Hitler did not do anything original there.Professional soldiers who are not mercenaries do not need to be given money to make them loyal.And An award given after a commander is sacked would certainly not be very useful if that would be the intent.

Obviously you didn't care to read / hear any of my sources.
In late June-early July 1941 Leeb, as the commander of Army Group North, had witnessed first-hand the massacres committed by the Einsatzgruppen, Lithuanian auxiliaries, and the men of the 16th Army, outside Kaunas.[34] As a Roman Catholic, Leeb was described as being "moderately disturbed" after seeing the killing fields, and sent in mildly critical reports about the massacres.[34] Leeb approved of the killing of Lithuanian Jewish men, claiming that this was justified by the crimes that they were supposed to have committed during the Soviet occupation of Lithuania; but the killing of women and children might have been taking things too far.[35] In response, Hitler's aide General Rudolf Schmundt told Leeb that he was completely out of line for criticizing the massacres at Kaunas, and should co-operate fully with the SS in "special tasks" in future.[34]

Schmundt asked if Leeb really appreciated his monthly payments from Konto 5, and reminded him that his birthday was coming up in September; the Führer was planning to give him a 250,000 Reichsmark cheque as a present to reward his loyalty. Leeb never said a word in protest of the "Final Solution" again, and duly received a 250,000 Reichsmark cheque in September 1941.[36]
It wasn't a bonus. It was the price of their servitude for nazism.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1889
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 05 Aug 2019 06:23

jesk wrote:
04 Aug 2019 21:45
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 21:30
jesk wrote:
04 Aug 2019 21:05
Aida1 wrote:
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.
Your opinion is completely contrary to the annals of the forum. Here, for example, was discussed. There could be at least 35 more divisions on the Vistula and East Prussia. 30 or 60. What's the difference?

viewtopic.php?p=2213639#p2213639
How can you even think that Germany would not be outnumbered in Manpower,industrial resources etc.. That more divisions couldbe concentrated on a given front does not change that.Obviously forces we're too spread out and should have been more concentrated but it does not change the outcome of the war.
In February 1945, Guderian insisted on the evacuation of troops from Norway, Latvia, Italy, Yugoslavia. To go to the counteroffensive against the Soviet forces. And he thought it would help. Hitler said no ...
Correct but does not change the global ratio of forces.Obviously the one poorer in resources needs to concentrate them.Will make the situation better.So Guderian was right.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1889
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 05 Aug 2019 06:40

Peter89 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 05:29
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 20:44
Peter89 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 19:50
Aida1 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 18:34
Peter89 wrote:
04 Aug 2019 18:24


Source?
You are inverting the argument.You would be hard put to come up with proof of your statement that German commanders backed out or only continued after being bribed. And the long list of German commanders sacked by Hitler is part of Well established history of WW2.
Dr. Robert Citino has a lot of thoughts on that:

https://www.amazon.com/Wehrmachts-Last- ... 0700624945
Or: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UI72BLrwqR0

Or Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery ... t_officers

Also, please read my comments above.

Now please support your statement that German officiers had no need of rewards to serve.
Awards to commanders to do the jobs they are supposed to do are never bribes.A bonus given to a manager in a Company is not a bribe either.They are rewards.There is a historical tradition for awarding military commanders rewards for services rendered.That goes back very far in human history.Hitler did not do anything original there.Professional soldiers who are not mercenaries do not need to be given money to make them loyal.And An award given after a commander is sacked would certainly not be very useful if that would be the intent.

Obviously you didn't care to read / hear any of my sources.
In late June-early July 1941 Leeb, as the commander of Army Group North, had witnessed first-hand the massacres committed by the Einsatzgruppen, Lithuanian auxiliaries, and the men of the 16th Army, outside Kaunas.[34] As a Roman Catholic, Leeb was described as being "moderately disturbed" after seeing the killing fields, and sent in mildly critical reports about the massacres.[34] Leeb approved of the killing of Lithuanian Jewish men, claiming that this was justified by the crimes that they were supposed to have committed during the Soviet occupation of Lithuania; but the killing of women and children might have been taking things too far.[35] In response, Hitler's aide General Rudolf Schmundt told Leeb that he was completely out of line for criticizing the massacres at Kaunas, and should co-operate fully with the SS in "special tasks" in future.[34]

Schmundt asked if Leeb really appreciated his monthly payments from Konto 5, and reminded him that his birthday was coming up in September; the Führer was planning to give him a 250,000 Reichsmark cheque as a present to reward his loyalty. Leeb never said a word in protest of the "Final Solution" again, and duly received a 250,000 Reichsmark cheque in September 1941.[36]
It wasn't a bonus. It was the price of their servitude for nazism.
Wrong..Professional soldiers served their country under different political regimes.The older ones had served under the Kaiser,the Weimar Republic and the Thiird Reich.They are loyal to their country,not a particular political system.They did take their oath seriously.Nothing you wrote here contradicts that.You are simply interpreting and making connections that do not exist.Rewards do not become bribes solely when German officers get them.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1788
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

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

Post by Peter89 » 05 Aug 2019 08:19

You obviously don't read / hear my sources and you don't reflect on them (most notably on Citino and on Goda).

All you repeat is that the German general staff was a team of professionals, nothing more. I cited these sources to show you: a lot of them were corrupt and they cooperated with nazism for money and privileges.

Btw your attitude towards "serving the country without question" is smearing the sacrifice and bravery of all those who denied serving nazism.

Please take your time reading and listening my sources, and criticize them in depth. Thank you.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1889
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 05 Aug 2019 09:49

Peter89 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 08:19
You obviously don't read / hear my sources and you don't reflect on them (most notably on Citino and on Goda).

All you repeat is that the German general staff was a team of professionals, nothing more. I cited these sources to show you: a lot of them were corrupt and they cooperated with nazism for money and privileges.

Btw your attitude towards "serving the country without question" is smearing the sacrifice and bravery of all those who denied serving nazism.

Please take your time reading and listening my sources, and criticize them in depth. Thank you.
I disagree with your interpretations.You turn rewards into bribes which they never were.You make connections which do not exist.You would be hard put to find German officers that refused the oath when Hitler became head of state.And they would remain mostly loyal to that oath despite disagreements of a military nature.And given An estate to a sacked commander would not serve much purpose if the intent was not to reward.Professional soldiers are not mercenaries.They serve a country,not a particular gouvernement which needs to bribe them for their service.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13497
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 05 Aug 2019 10:36

Aida1 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 09:49
Peter89 wrote:
05 Aug 2019 08:19
You obviously don't read / hear my sources and you don't reflect on them (most notably on Citino and on Goda).

All you repeat is that the German general staff was a team of professionals, nothing more. I cited these sources to show you: a lot of them were corrupt and they cooperated with nazism for money and privileges.

Btw your attitude towards "serving the country without question" is smearing the sacrifice and bravery of all those who denied serving nazism.

Please take your time reading and listening my sources, and criticize them in depth. Thank you.
I disagree with your interpretations.You turn rewards into bribes which they never were.You make connections which do not exist.You would be hard put to find German officers that refused the oath when Hitler became head of state.And they would remain mostly loyal to that oath despite disagreements of a military nature.And given An estate to a sacked commander would not serve much purpose if the intent was not to reward.Professional soldiers are not mercenaries.They serve a country,not a particular gouvernement which needs to bribe them for their service.
Happy return general . :lol:

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”