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

[ljadw]

This quote from Roberts is interesting (my underlining).

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. When Kleist met Hitler on the airfield at Cambrai a few days later, he had the courage to remark that a great opportunity had been lost at Dunkirk. Hitler replied: "That may be so. But I did not want to send the tanks into the Flanders marshes – and the British won't come back in this war."

And yet, a month or so later he was claiming the invasion of Russia was merely a strategic ploy to knock Britain out of the war!!!!

Treat everything the overpromoted Austrian corporal said with the same degree of credibility as that of ljadw and jesk....

The quote of Roberts is not proved and can be considered as an invention .The only proof is Kleist himself .
Besides : there were no marshes in the region, and Hitler knew it, thus ...

And? Why did Hitler talk about the terrain unfit for tanks?

Did he say this ? The only proof is the post war blahblah by the defeated German generals .
The terrain was NOT unfit for tanks, as there were German tanks in the region .
It was claimed by the usual suspects that Hitler said this because he fought in the Dunkirk region in WWI : this is wrong: he did not fight in the Dunkirk region in WWI, there were no tanks in the Dunkirk region in WWI : there was NOI fighting in Dunkirk in WWI, it was never captured .

[ljadw]

The truth is that the Germans did not lose, but that the Soviets won . And the Soviets won, not because the Germans were too weak or made mistakes, the Soviets also made mistakes, but because the Soviets were too strong .Only a miracle, a Deus ex Machina, could give the Germans victory . And they knew it : Adolf knew it and the monocled brigade knew it .And they put ev erything on it .
They lost after a few weeks, they could have lost after a few days .The initiative was at the Soviet side .

701246 in July, 698580 in August, 989203 in September, 1037778 prisoners in October, strong Soviets? Then why did they fight so badly?

German losses in July : 170000,in August :200000 :Did the Soviets fight badly ?
Besides : the German POW claims were much inflated .At the end of 1941, the Germans decreased the number of Soviet POWs by more than a half million .

[ljadw]

The Germans easily destroyed 40% of the USSR. In the war with the remaining 60%, problems suddenly arose.
And it is strange. I read the memories of a resident of Berlin, she told what rumors were circulating in the city at the end of the war. One of them, Hitler, an agent of Stalin, sent from the Kremlin. The reasons for such conclusions, Hitler gave away first victories very easily. And this is the correct logic and amazing. People walked near the Reich Chancellery who believed that Hitler was sabotaging and wanted to lose the war. But none of the generals close to Hitler, could not make such bold conclusions.

Rumors as argument ?

[ljadw]

This quote from Roberts is interesting (my underlining).

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. When Kleist met Hitler on the airfield at Cambrai a few days later, he had the courage to remark that a great opportunity had been lost at Dunkirk. Hitler replied: "That may be so. But I did not want to send the tanks into the Flanders marshes – and the British won't come back in this war."

And yet, a month or so later he was claiming the invasion of Russia was merely a strategic ploy to knock Britain out of the war!!!!

Treat everything the overpromoted Austrian corporal said with the same degree of credibility as that of ljadw and jesk....

The quote of Roberts is not proved and can be considered as an invention .The only proof is Kleist himself .
Besides : there were no marshes in the region, and Hitler knew it, thus ...
What Kleist and Hitler said on the airfield at Cambrai is as credible as what Guderian claimed he and Kleist told each other when they met at the airfield of Montcornet

Standard response to any evidence that does not fit the ljadw fantasy narrative.... It's a lie!!!
:roll:

Unus testis, nullus testis : One witness is not a witness, especially if this witness has all interest in saying what he claimed .

[ljadw]

The Storm of War is swarming with inaccuracies .

[jesk]

This quote from Roberts is interesting (my underlining).

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. When Kleist met Hitler on the airfield at Cambrai a few days later, he had the courage to remark that a great opportunity had been lost at Dunkirk. Hitler replied: "That may be so. But I did not want to send the tanks into the Flanders marshes – and the British won't come back in this war."

And yet, a month or so later he was claiming the invasion of Russia was merely a strategic ploy to knock Britain out of the war!!!!

Treat everything the overpromoted Austrian corporal said with the same degree of credibility as that of ljadw and jesk....

The quote of Roberts is not proved and can be considered as an invention .The only proof is Kleist himself .
Besides : there were no marshes in the region, and Hitler knew it, thus ...

And? Why did Hitler talk about the terrain unfit for tanks?

Did he say this ? The only proof is the post war blahblah by the defeated German generals .
The terrain was NOT unfit for tanks, as there were German tanks in the region .
It was claimed by the usual suspects that Hitler said this because he fought in the Dunkirk region in WWI : this is wrong: he did not fight in the Dunkirk region in WWI, there were no tanks in the Dunkirk region in WWI : there was NOI fighting in Dunkirk in WWI, it was never captured .

Halder's diary is also doubtful? When will the truth be ??

[jesk]

The truth is that the Germans did not lose, but that the Soviets won . And the Soviets won, not because the Germans were too weak or made mistakes, the Soviets also made mistakes, but because the Soviets were too strong .Only a miracle, a Deus ex Machina, could give the Germans victory . And they knew it : Adolf knew it and the monocled brigade knew it .And they put ev erything on it .
They lost after a few weeks, they could have lost after a few days .The initiative was at the Soviet side .

701246 in July, 698580 in August, 989203 in September, 1037778 prisoners in October, strong Soviets? Then why did they fight so badly?

German losses in July : 170000,in August :200000 :Did the Soviets fight badly ?
Besides : the German POW claims were much inflated .At the end of 1941, the Germans decreased the number of Soviet POWs by more than a half million .

The Russians in 1941 lost up to 4 million pows and the territory where 80 million people lived before the war. German casualties killed and wounded; The Soviets completely lost their armies. Were forced to form new ones. At the end of the year, slush and winter. There was no winter clothing, tanks and cars would not start in the cold.
My logic suggested that the Russian army was unable to stop the Germans.

[jesk]

The Germans easily destroyed 40% of the USSR. In the war with the remaining 60%, problems suddenly arose.
And it is strange. I read the memories of a resident of Berlin, she told what rumors were circulating in the city at the end of the war. One of them, Hitler, an agent of Stalin, sent from the Kremlin. The reasons for such conclusions, Hitler gave away first victories very easily. And this is the correct logic and amazing. People walked near the Reich Chancellery who believed that Hitler was sabotaging and wanted to lose the war. But none of the generals close to Hitler, could not make such bold conclusions.

Rumors as argument ?

Hitler made mistakes and had to be removed in a timely manner.

[jesk]

Hitler gave orders. The Germans were supposed to block these orders. Say: no, we will not carry them out, they are equivalent to sabotage.
Hitler says: I want to keep Italy and Yugoslavia until the fall of Berlin, and this order is carried out.

[MarkN]

This quote from Roberts is interesting (my underlining).

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. When Kleist met Hitler on the airfield at Cambrai a few days later, he had the courage to remark that a great opportunity had been lost at Dunkirk. Hitler replied: "That may be so. But I did not want to send the tanks into the Flanders marshes – and the British won't come back in this war."

And yet, a month or so later he was claiming the invasion of Russia was merely a strategic ploy to knock Britain out of the war!!!!

Treat everything the overpromoted Austrian corporal said with the same degree of credibility as that of ljadw and jesk....

The quote of Roberts is not proved and can be considered as an invention .The only proof is Kleist himself .
Besides : there were no marshes in the region, and Hitler knew it, thus ...
What Kleist and Hitler said on the airfield at Cambrai is as credible as what Guderian claimed he and Kleist told each other when they met at the airfield of Montcornet

Standard response to any evidence that does not fit the ljadw fantasy narrative.... It's a lie!!!

Unus testis, nullus testis : One witness is not a witness, especially if this witness has all interest in saying what he claimed .

Unus testis, nullus testis. That may be true. But if it is, it applies equally to your claim that it's a lie...

[ljadw]

The truth is that the Germans did not lose, but that the Soviets won . And the Soviets won, not because the Germans were too weak or made mistakes, the Soviets also made mistakes, but because the Soviets were too strong .Only a miracle, a Deus ex Machina, could give the Germans victory . And they knew it : Adolf knew it and the monocled brigade knew it .And they put ev erything on it .
They lost after a few weeks, they could have lost after a few days .The initiative was at the Soviet side .

701246 in July, 698580 in August, 989203 in September, 1037778 prisoners in October, strong Soviets? Then why did they fight so badly?

German losses in July : 170000,in August :200000 :Did the Soviets fight badly ?
Besides : the German POW claims were much inflated .At the end of 1941, the Germans decreased the number of Soviet POWs by more than a half million .

The Russians in 1941 lost up to 4 million pows and the territory where 80 million people lived before the war. German casualties killed and wounded; The Soviets completely lost their armies. Were forced to form new ones. At the end of the year, slush and winter. There was no winter clothing, tanks and cars would not start in the cold.
My logic suggested that the Russian army was unable to stop the Germans.

Wrong : Soviet POWs were 3367206which is not up to 4 million .
At the end of 1941 the Red Army was stronger than in June 1941: between June 22 and June 30 the Soviets mobilized 5 million + men .

[Richard Anderson]

The definition of insanity is replying to ljadw or jesk...or reading anything they post...and expecting coherent arguments in return.

[jesk]

The truth is that the Germans did not lose, but that the Soviets won . And the Soviets won, not because the Germans were too weak or made mistakes, the Soviets also made mistakes, but because the Soviets were too strong .Only a miracle, a Deus ex Machina, could give the Germans victory . And they knew it : Adolf knew it and the monocled brigade knew it .And they put ev erything on it .
They lost after a few weeks, they could have lost after a few days .The initiative was at the Soviet side .

701246 in July, 698580 in August, 989203 in September, 1037778 prisoners in October, strong Soviets? Then why did they fight so badly?

German losses in July : 170000,in August :200000 :Did the Soviets fight badly ?
Besides : the German POW claims were much inflated .At the end of 1941, the Germans decreased the number of Soviet POWs by more than a half million .

The Russians in 1941 lost up to 4 million pows and the territory where 80 million people lived before the war. German casualties killed and wounded; The Soviets completely lost their armies. Were forced to form new ones. At the end of the year, slush and winter. There was no winter clothing, tanks and cars would not start in the cold.
My logic suggested that the Russian army was unable to stop the Germans.

Wrong : Soviet POWs were 3367206which is not up to 4 million .
At the end of 1941 the Red Army was stronger than in June 1941: between June 22 and June 30 the Soviets mobilized 5 million + men .

Soviet troops in the autumn and winter of 1941 are technically poorly equipped. If the offensive on December 5, 1941 involved 7600 guns and mortars; April 16, 1945 - 41600. Tanks near Moscow 990, in Berlin 6250. Situation after defeat in the summer, almost like the British after Dunkirk. People there, weapons are few.
The number of prisoners is underestimated. The real figure is 3.9 million.

http://www.infran.ru/vovenko/60years_ww ... r8_1.htm#2

In order to determine the total amount of irretrievable losses of the Red Army in a war, we need to establish the total number of Soviet prisoners of war and estimate how many of them did not survive until liberation. According to the final German documents on the Eastern Front, 5754 thousand prisoners of war were taken, distributed among years as follows: 1941 - 3355 thousand, 1942 - 1653 thousand, 1943 - 565 thousand, 1944 - 147 ths., 1945 - 34 ths. The American historian A. Dallin, {26} promulgating this document to the command of the Wehrmacht, considered the data on the number of prisoners incomplete. Indeed, according to earlier RCC data, from June 22 to December 1, 1941, 3,806,861 prisoners of war were captured on the Eastern Front, and according to a statement made by government official Mansfeld on February 19, 1942, there were 3 Soviet prisoners of war in the Economic Chamber of the Reich. , 9 million (almost all of them were captured in 1941). We are inclined to join the highest estimate of the number of Soviet prisoners of war in 1941 at 3.9 million people, {27} because, most likely, the minimum estimate of 3355 thousand prisoners underestimated those 200 thousand who were already enrolled in 1941 for auxiliary services in the ranks of the German armed forces, {28} as well as those who died in the first weeks of captivity without proper registration from starvation, disease, and as a result of German repression. The number of these latter can be estimated (together with those who fled from captivity in 1941) to about 345 thousand people. In 1941, the mortality rate among the prisoners was especially high, and the undercount due to the huge number of them was maximum. The data on the number of prisoners in 1942-1945, when their number and mortality decreased, and the accounting improved, we take close to reality. Then the total number of Soviet prisoners of war for the war can be estimated at 6.3 million.

[ljadw]

Estimations from Dallin are estimations, not facts .
The only fact is that at the end of 1941 the Germans diminished their number of Soviet POWs because it was too high .
And Dallin is talking from his behind : if a big number of Soviet POWs died in the first weeks, but were not registered,how can Dallin say that their number was 345000 ? And, if they were not registered how can Dallin know that they died in captivity ? Or that they were taken prisoner ?
And : what are RCC data ? It can't be Red Cross Data as the RC was not operating on the Eastern Front .
Thus : what are RCC data ?

[ljadw]

So far I do not understand for what purpose Hitler as a parrot insists on the USSR as the last hope of England. In top secret documents, not in Felkischer Beobachter.

How do you understand the thoughts and words of any insane person?

Invading Russia believing it will encourage Britain to capitulate is utterly bonkers. The strategy of the insane. And yet evidence exists Hitler repeatedly made such statements.

So, should one take those statements as evidence of insanity or as evidence of a credible and coherent political and military strategy?

Hitler was not insane . He was intelligent . And also a criminal .
Saying that he wsas insane is exonerating him as someone who is insane can not be a criminal .