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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

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

#556

Post by jesk » 01 May 2019, 20:02

MarkN wrote:
01 May 2019, 19:13
BDV wrote:
01 May 2019, 18:16
quote means including sourcing please (author, book).
The author and the source are credible. The problem is either the translation into Russian, or more likely, the idiocy of the other poster.

The author of the book, Andrew Roberts, argues the complete opposite of what the Bjelorossian clown says. Here is a more succinct text by the same author promoting that very book. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/590 ... f-war.html

Roberts clearly states that Hitler didn't make the decision, he supported Rundstedt's decision.

Here's another text on the subject worth reading. https://defenceindepth.co/2016/07/11/th ... alt-order/

Two more cases of Heer generals blaming Hitler after he was dead for operational decision that they made.
I have not seen any of your post with the analysis of the fighting. Only a meaningless theory about the defeat of Barbarossa and the accusations of generals. Your conclusions on the basis of 10% of the picture, so delusional. It is difficult to understand the truth, knowing so little.

As for Roberts, he made a compromise between accusations against Rundstedt and Kleist’s discontent. According to Roberts, Kleist could crush the English outside of Dunkirk. South of Dunkirk all British troops could be captured.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/590 ... f-war.html
However, Kleist was underestimating Rundstedt's important role in the initial decision-making, but with Hitler willing to take the ultimate glory for the campaign, he must also take the ultimate blame for not allowing Kleist to take on the BEF outside Dunkirk.
http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/1 ... voyny.html
Kleist underestimated the role of Rundstedt in decision making. However, Hitler, who was eager to confer victory laurels, of course, was responsible for the fact that he did not allow Kleist to crush the expeditionary forces outside Dunkirk.
In addition, blaming Rundstedt, the author takes events out of context. There was a talk about a technical pause for 10-12 hours. When Halder and Brauchich tried to force Runstedt to attack, Hitler referred to him. Rundstedt does not want to attack! But Rundstedt himself did not know about it and was interested in Halder when he could attack.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

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

#557

Post by jesk » 01 May 2019, 20:09

BDV wrote:
01 May 2019, 19:59
MarkN,

Sounds fair.

Anything "said" by vKleist, not written by his own hand or recorded (on a recording medium) from his own mouth is highly suspicious.
Roberts confidently quotes Kleist. If you do not trust, it is your problems. :lol:


jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

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

#558

Post by jesk » 01 May 2019, 20:16

Roberts has a complicated speech turns.
However, Hitler, who was eager to confer victory laurels, of course, was responsible for the fact that he did not allow Kleist to crush the expeditionary forces outside Dunkirk.
How he wanted to appropriate a victory and how this desire influenced the ban to Kleist to come. It is difficult to understand actually.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

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

#559

Post by BDV » 01 May 2019, 22:05

jesk wrote: Roberts confidently quotes Kleist.

Roberts confidently quotes SOMEONE that that says that SOMEONE ELSE said that "vKleist said blahblahblah." While simultaneously and at the same time translating from early XXth century Prusso-German into end-of-century English into XXIst century Russian and back into XXIst century English.

Anything not written by/dictated by vKleist himself or recorded from his mouth on recording medium (tribunal transcripts OK, with translation and interrogation caveat) is utterly unreliable as "vKleist statement."

FWIW, the Dunkirk stop order was the correct decision.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

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

#560

Post by jesk » 01 May 2019, 23:23

BDV wrote:
01 May 2019, 22:05
FWIW, the Dunkirk stop order was the correct decision.
This decision allowed the British to evacuate. Attempts to argue with Kleist's quotes are irrelevant. Sober up!

Image

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

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

#561

Post by jesk » 01 May 2019, 23:28

Who recognized about belonging to 80% of the population. :milsmile:

https://www.anews.com/p/105944893-makar ... smiritsya/

The leader of the Time Machine group, Andrei Makarevich, stated that “80 percent of the world's population are idiots.”

“We need to take this as a given,” the musician said in an interview with Lenta.ru, on the work of the musician on the public council of the State Duma Committee on Culture.

At the same time Makarevich attributed himself to the remaining 20% ​​of the population.

“We can look at some things, including political, from a different angle. But, strangely enough, when we speak about culture, we agree in opinions. It's important for me. Being the enemy of all prohibitions, I nevertheless myself asked for one prohibition: let's ban the yelling on TV. We will forbid to shout at the same time to several speakers. Because it just cripples the psyche of people. Forgive me, but generally 80 percent of the world's population are idiots. We must take it as a given. "

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

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

#562

Post by MarkN » 02 May 2019, 00:11

BDV wrote:
01 May 2019, 22:05
Roberts confidently quotes SOMEONE that that says that SOMEONE ELSE said that "vKleist said blahblahblah." While simultaneously and at the same time translating from early XXth century Prusso-German into end-of-century English into XXIst century Russian and back into XXIst century English.

Anything not written by/dictated by vKleist himself or recorded from his mouth on recording medium (tribunal transcripts OK, with translation and interrogation caveat) is utterly unreliable as "vKleist statement."
I appreciate your refusal to believe anybody else. So I suggest you toddle along to the Liddell-Hart archives in London to read Kleist's words yourself.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

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

#563

Post by David Thompson » 02 May 2019, 05:47

MarkN -- Please avoid personal remarks about other members when posting. We strongly discourage them in our AHF discussions.

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1969
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 12:24
Location: Russia

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

#564

Post by Yuri » 02 May 2019, 09:32

Yuri wrote:
30 Apr 2019, 20:43
MarkN wrote:
29 Apr 2019, 15:14
AbollonPolweder wrote:
29 Apr 2019, 13:13
ljadw wrote:
28 Apr 2019, 21:26
In Weisung 21 it is very clearly mentioned that the orderly retreat from intact Soviet units to the east had to be prevented :
in German :der Abzug kampkrächtiger Teile (des Russischen Heeres ) in die Weite des russischen Raumes (soll ) verhindert werden .
You have made great progress! Congratulations! Before you wrote about preventing retreat Soviet units to the east. Now it is about intact Soviet units. It remains for you to bring the numbers of the Soviet divisions that crossed the DD-Line remaining intact. But first I advise you to determine what does the term "intact" mean.
I spotted that too. I'm looking forward to ljadw's analysis of which Red Army formations west of the DD Line managed to escape eastwards "intact". And how it was those formations that caused BARBAROSSA's failure. :lol:
Why the divisions? Two armies (16th and 19th) were withdrawn intact, can point to the airborne corps.
There is no complete data on the number of troops of the 16th and 19th Army, which were withdrawn beyond the Dnieper line.
Such information is available on the Seaside army, which evacuated over the line of Dnieper, on 16 October 1941. The Army of General Petrov acted in the area of Odessa.

Total from Odessa was evacuated:
In August 1941:
a) the civilian population - 58 thousand people;
b) cargo – 67.6 thousand tons.
In September 1941:
a) the civilian population - 67 thousand people;
b) cargo – 44.8 thousand tons.
15 days of October, 1941:
a) civilian population — 18,000;
b) cargo – 18.5 thousand tons.
Total from August 15 to October 15, 1941 evacuated:
a) the civilian population – 143 thousand people;
b) cargo – 130.9 thousand tons

Among the property withdrawn beyond the Dnieper line.
a) industrial equipment
– plant "Bolshevik»;
– machine-tool plant named Lenin;
– shipbuilding and ship repair plants;
– plant of agricultural machines named the October Revolution;
– plant heavy scale production named Starostin ,
– superphosphate plant;
– sugar, canning, and other factorys.
b) locomotives and railway cars;
c) fuel, metal and other raw materials;
d) the museum treasures and art galleries.

Evacuation of troops the Seaside Army from Odessa in the period from 1 to 16 October 1941:
a) staff troops – 86 thousand people;
b) tanks and armoured vehicles - 19
c) guns and howitzers – 463;
d) vehicles – 1158;
e) horses – 3 625;
f) the military cargo (ammunition, property) – 25,000 tons.

Losses of the Seaside Army for the period from August 15 to October 16:
a) dead, wounded, missing and prisoners of war – 15,578 person;
b) wounded and sick – 24,690 persons.
Total losses: 40,286 person.

Result:
the total number of soldiers of the Seaside Army – 111 thousand people
of which was 86 thousand people or 77.5% were evacuated beyond the DD line (to Crimea).
We can not say that the Army of General Petrov was evacuated in full one piece.
However, we can not say that it was not a combat-ready army.
By the way, the Petrov's Army has not allowed the 11th army under General Manstein to capture in November 1942, Sevastopol is a strategic point outside the line DD.

The influence of the Seaside Army's fighting on the General course of the war can be seen to some extent here.
Rum_Armee_in_SU_41-06-22_42-12-31.jpg
Together with the Romanian army in Odessa acted Heer and Luftwaffe of the German Wehrmacht (for example, 50th infantry division).

You can tell that in Odessa there were mainly Romanian troops which fighting capacity is lower than German troops. The Germans had assessed the fighting ability of their allies in 50% of their troops. Whether or not to agree with this assessment is a personal matter.
However:
First, Romanian troops were supplied from their resources and at a short distance from their bases;
Second, well, let's assume that the combat capability of Romanians is really 50% of German troops.
In this case – the Germans need to find another 213 thousand only Heer with the same result: the Seaside Army goes beyond the DD line.
To prevent evacuation - it takes more than 213 thousand. How much 250? 300?.
And they were these 250-300 thousand Heer?
And if Heer had these 250, how to supply that fighting capacity was 50% higher than the Romanians?
At the expense of Romanians?
Romania can not provide German troops in the same way as their own – the Germans and Romanians different weapons systems.

There is no such success as the Seaside Army, but for the line of the Dnieper were assigned to the 9th and 18th Armies.
On the combat capability of these armies, you can learn from the memoirs of Manstein, he just in September 1941 was appointed commander of the 11th Army.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

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

#565

Post by BDV » 02 May 2019, 16:35

MarkN wrote: I appreciate your refusal to believe anybody else. So I suggest you toddle along to the Liddell-Hart archives in London to read Kleist's words yourself.
TBF, that is Liddell-Hart's report of vKleist's words (what L-H says vK said).

I cannot stress this enough - if the words are not directly issued by historical figure X (report, memoir, or statement), it is always somebody else's report of what historical figure X said.

In WWII you have the fog of war compounded by the blowing of intra-war and then post-war smoke by all concerned; personally I found german generals the most outrageous exaggerators, but then (due to my personal preconceptions) I did not read much Russian sources, beyond the outstanding "I Remember" website, and the maps section of www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

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

#566

Post by MarkN » 02 May 2019, 17:33

BDV wrote:
02 May 2019, 16:35
MarkN wrote: I appreciate your refusal to believe anybody else. So I suggest you toddle along to the Liddell-Hart archives in London to read Kleist's words yourself.
TBF, that is Liddell-Hart's report of vKleist's words (what L-H says vK said).
No, they're not.

As I said, best you toddle along to the Liddell-Hart archives in London to read Kleist's words yourself rather than just denying what's there.

The archive holds the transcripts of three interviews conducted between Liddell-Hart and von Kleist whilst he was being held captive in the UK. It also holds a series of written communication between Liddell-Hart, Kleist and his lawyer whilst he was being held in Belgrade and a manuscript written by Kleist and dated July 1948.
BDV wrote:
02 May 2019, 16:35
I cannot stress this enough - if the words are not directly issued by historical figure X (report, memoir, or statement), it is always somebody else's report of what historical figure X said.
I cannot stress this enough - you are misrepresenting what is held by the Liddell-Hart Archive
BDV wrote:
02 May 2019, 16:35
In WWII you have the fog of war compounded by the blowing of intra-war and then post-war smoke by all concerned; personally I found german generals the most outrageous exaggerators, but then (due to my personal preconceptions) I did not read much Russian sources, beyond the outstanding "I Remember" website, and the maps section of www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2.
The Kleist material held in London has no less historical value than the witness statements from Nuremberg or wherever. It also holds a equal amount of factual accuracy when compared against contemporary documentation.

How Liddell-Hart used that material is another discussion entirely.

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 01:31
Location: france,alsace

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

#567

Post by aurelien wolff » 02 May 2019, 18:35

what about operation citadel? Who was to blame for it's failure and what hitler think about it?

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

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

#568

Post by jesk » 02 May 2019, 18:56

aurelien wolff wrote:
02 May 2019, 18:35
what about operation citadel? Who was to blame for it's failure and what hitler think about it?
10 million times discussed.

In late February, the General Staff drew up a plan for an attack on Kursk, which was to begin immediately after the capture of Kharkov. Approximately March 20. Hitler rejected the plan. He considered the forces insufficient and imposed participation in the offensive of the 9th Army Model. According to the original plans from the north should have attacked the 2 army.
Then Hitler ordered to wait for new tanks until July. July 13, the offensive stopped. Kluge considered it impossible to continue the offensive, but Manstein insisted. Ready to continue alone. Required only reserve 24 tank corps. But Hitler refused to give him because of the expected Soviet attacks in the Donbass. After this, Manstein refused to continue. July 17 issued an official statement on the termination of the "Citadel". July 13-16, Manstein could continue, but learning of impossibility of offensive of the 9th army, the ban on participation of 24 corps. As well as with Hitler’s warning about the early withdrawal of divisions for Italy, Manstein changed plans.
Instead of March 20, the attack on Kursk occurred only on July 5 and already July 13 Hitler showed extreme indifference to the continuation of the “Citadel”.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 12:37
Location: scotland

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

#569

Post by doogal » 02 May 2019, 19:05

BDV wrote -I cannot stress this enough - if the words are not directly issued by historical figure X (report, memoir, or statement), it is always somebody else's report of what historical figure X said.
Fair criteria
Mark N wrote - The archive holds the transcripts of three interviews conducted between Liddell-Hart and von Kleist whilst he was being held captive in the UK. It also holds a series of written communication between Liddell-Hart, Kleist and his lawyer whilst he was being held in Belgrade and a manuscript written by Kleist and dated July 1948.
completely adheres to your criteria BDV
BDV wrote - TBF, that is Liddell-Hart's report of vKleist's words (what L-H says vK said)
i think you should check the source material before you make this kind of assumption:
BDV wrote - Anything "said" by vKleist, not written by his own hand or recorded (on a recording medium) from his own mouth is highly suspicious.
its fair to say then that this material is not suspicious in that it comes directly from Kleist.

Was von Kliest aware of his Army Group commanders involvement in the decision to "halt" the PG`s armour, or did he assign the issuing of the order to Hitler post fact. Is there any record of communication between von Kleist and von Runstedt or was the decision made without his ( von Kleists) direct involvement,( i.e. was von Kleist approached for an opinion).
Last edited by doogal on 02 May 2019, 19:33, edited 1 time in total.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

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

#570

Post by jesk » 02 May 2019, 19:22

Kleist's testimony is interesting by the order to retreat. He (Kleist) already controlled everything, but Hitler ordered to leave the dominant heights.
Between Arras and Dunkirk runs the channel. I have already passed this channel, and my troops occupied the heights that dominate Flanders. My tank group completely controlled Dunkirk and the whole area in which the British were trapped. The British would not have been able to make their way to Dunkirk, since I cut them all the way. And then Hitler personally ordered me to withdraw troops from these heights .

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”