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
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1489
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

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

Post by Cult Icon » 15 May 2019 20:50

There's no time in the world to "create one's own history" in order to answer the questions he's been asking for quite a while.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1489
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

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

Post by Cult Icon » 15 May 2019 21:00

MarkN wrote:
13 May 2019 21:50
Books are just a storyteller's narrative of what they think is the history the reader needs to know. Books and and the internet are little different: some good and accurate sources, but mostly biased and inaccurate garbage. Most of the internet bias and garbage is derived from book bias and garbage.

Better to go straight to the primary evidence and form your own understanding and opinions.
Most of the internet bias comes from a love/hatred fixation on a certain issue, such as anti-/pro- German bias, fetishism for certain narratives or even inanimate objects, such as certain tanks/aircraft or active hatred/preference for a fanbase (them Wehraboos) or a single individual, etc etc. :lol:

good books on WW2 subjects are not subject to so much drama.

Good books are a worthwhile starting point even if you find that they are 20% wrong over time or have significant gaps.

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

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

Post by aurelien wolff » 15 May 2019 21:07

what are some good book on the subject of my question ?

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 652
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Post by doogal » 15 May 2019 21:45

Which books cover tactical mistakes by German Generals Aurelien wolf is that what u are asking ....



And quite frankly I don't consider any German generals to have taken any real strategic decisions or implemented them .... I believe Hitler was the final arbiter of strategic decisions. ... (maybe in Italy von viettinghoff surrendering or maybe von arnim in Tunisia they had strategic ramifications ???

This will be a matter or interpretation though.
Maybe you should start a new thread with the question dude

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2319
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 » 15 May 2019 23:16

doogal wrote:
15 May 2019 18:15
I think it's impractical for every person who enjoys history to go and look at just primary sources MarkN... What if they do not have more than one language?? Or if no translations exist in there language. Or they are just avid amatuers who only have a few hours around employment..
I'm an amateur with only a few hours to spare on a hobby. I don't even consider myself avid. Nevertheless, l seek my knowledge and understanding of history from primary sources not from books by authors telling their narratives.

It has little to do with practicalities, and everything to do with motivation. More primary material is available on the internet than quality secondary material - although the dross of secondary material trumps all. Language is an excuse for non-engagement not a genuine reason for learning choices. I don't speak German, Russian, Italian or Greek - but I have primary material in all those languages and make the effort to find help where necessary. And, given the existence of online free translators, a complete non-excuse in 2019.
doogal wrote:
15 May 2019 18:15
Are there not authors of secondary sources whose work being so well respected can act as a guide??
Well respected?

My hobby is about learning historical facts and realities not being entertained by well respected authors.
doogal wrote:
15 May 2019 18:15
And even when primary sources are available each person protects his interpretation as if only they can divine truth ... we have seen it here on the threads about Marcks and Barbarossa....
Yep! From primary sources we can each find our own unique understanding. No different to what is divined from secondary sources. But reference to primary sources is reference to historical reality, reference to books is reference to somebody else's opinion. The best a book does is offer one step away from historical reality. Most books are several steps from historical reality.

If one has a genuine interest in a subject, one makes the effort to engage with the primary material in whatever format it exists. If one wants somebody else to put everything on a plate for one, read their book or internet post.

Primary sources are for those interested in researching and understanding history. Books are for those wanting to read a story. Both have their merits and place. We each choose which path suits us. Each to his or her own. Just don't kid oneself which path one is on.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2319
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 » 15 May 2019 23:23

Cult Icon wrote:
15 May 2019 21:00
MarkN wrote:
13 May 2019 21:50
Books are just a storyteller's narrative of what they think is the history the reader needs to know. Books and and the internet are little different: some good and accurate sources, but mostly biased and inaccurate garbage. Most of the internet bias and garbage is derived from book bias and garbage.

Better to go straight to the primary evidence and form your own understanding and opinions.
Most of the internet bias comes from a love/hatred fixation on a certain issue, such as anti-/pro- German bias, fetishism for certain narratives or even inanimate objects, such as certain tanks/aircraft or active hatred/preference for a fanbase (them Wehraboos) or a single individual, etc etc. :lol:

good books on WW2 subjects are not subject to so much drama.

Good books are a worthwhile starting point even if you find that they are 20% wrong over time or have significant gaps.
How does one define good?

An easy read? An enjoyable read? A narrative that confirms a pre-conceived belief? A narrative that appears to answer the questions posed? Etc etc.

For me the definition of good has to be, first and foremost, whether it is historically accurate. And the only way to confirm that is to compare it to primary documentation. So...... :wink:

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

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

Post by Paul Lakowski » 15 May 2019 23:28

how on earth do you determine if something is historically accurate?

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

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

Post by aurelien wolff » 16 May 2019 06:49

Paul Lakowski wrote:
15 May 2019 23:28
how on earth do you determine if something is historically accurate?
maybe comparing the source and see if you can find original document about what they said.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 16 May 2019 13:43

aurelien wolff wrote:
16 May 2019 06:49
Paul Lakowski wrote:
15 May 2019 23:28
how on earth do you determine if something is historically accurate?
maybe comparing the source and see if you can find original document about what they said.
Here we can ask a question of Paul Lakowski : how on earth do you determine if it is original document ?
MarkN speaks too radically against the books forgetting that the authors of historical works use primary sources. Of course, if there is an opportunity to appeal to the source, we must do this if we are not Kremlin agitators. But being on this forum I sometimes show sources from the DEUTSCH-RUSSISCHES PROJEKT site. Am I 100% sure that these sources are authentic? Not!
MarkN is absolutely right that working with the source develops ours own thinking. But this is for those who have the desire and ability to think originally.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

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

Post by Paul Lakowski » 16 May 2019 21:02

AbollonPolweder wrote:
16 May 2019 13:43
aurelien wolff wrote:
16 May 2019 06:49
Paul Lakowski wrote:
15 May 2019 23:28
how on earth do you determine if something is historically accurate?
maybe comparing the source and see if you can find original document about what they said.
Here we can ask a question of Paul Lakowski : how on earth do you determine if it is original document ?
MarkN speaks too radically against the books forgetting that the authors of historical works use primary sources. Of course, if there is an opportunity to appeal to the source, we must do this if we are not Kremlin agitators. But being on this forum I sometimes show sources from the DEUTSCH-RUSSISCHES PROJEKT site. Am I 100% sure that these sources are authentic? Not!
MarkN is absolutely right that working with the source develops ours own thinking. But this is for those who have the desire and ability to think originally.
You should be directing this question to Mark ; your self, JESK & ljadw or others .

I don't have a soap box .

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 17 May 2019 12:02

Paul Lakowski wrote:
16 May 2019 21:02
...
You should be directing this question to Mark ; your self, JESK & ljadw or others .

I don't have a soap box .
Why do you need a soap box, sir? We are not in Hyde Park, are we? :) I might not mention your name when asking about original documents, but in that case you could accuse me of violating your copyright. :oops: I do apologize!
I don't need to ask myself this question because I answered it.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

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

Post by Paul Lakowski » 17 May 2019 20:54

The answer is that no one has a monopoly on truth or information. Every ones history is dependent on their POV there education etc. Therefor no one is all right or wrong and every one is entitled to that POV. Best you expect is to state that and move on. Even 'conventional wisdom' is based on contemporary Geo political POV, with out those perspectives , the last 40 pages of argument have been a pointless waste of time.


Back in my day - NATO/WARPAC days of 70s/80s- no one was dumb enough to underestimate their enemies -be it Russians or Germans. War could break out any time and we needed each other. Likewise no one was dumb enough to believe the UK and/or the USA could win WW-II by themselves , let alone without the USSR.

I don't have an "axe to grind" like some around here -so I'm not interested in soapboxes. Some of the posts are worth reading.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2319
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 » 18 May 2019 11:16

doogal wrote:
15 May 2019 21:45
And quite frankly I don't consider any German generals to have taken any real strategic decisions or implemented them .... I believe Hitler was the final arbiter of strategic decisions. ... (maybe in Italy von viettinghoff surrendering or maybe von arnim in Tunisia they had strategic ramifications ???

This will be a matter or interpretation though.
Indeed.

Where is the line drawn between a "real strategic decision" and a decision that is not a "real strategic decision"? Are "real strategic decisions" only those decisions which start or finish a war? I don't believe they are? A decade or so ago, a lot of effort was made in trying to understand and control the "strategic corporal" concept. A deliciously entitled idea given Berlin's very own "strategic corporal". Corporals on the front line, or so the theory goes, could make the most basic of tactical decisions and it have strategic consequences. So, when considering the "where the "Hitler should have listen to his general" come from?" question, is it sensible to restrict the analysis simply to decisions made by Adolf himself? That seems to be nothing short of a deliberate attempt to guarantee a desired result; a self-licking lollipop.

Secondly, when considering this, should one only restrict oneself to the decision itself? Or, as I believe, it is right and proper to consider the various advice and influences that went into making that decision? If decisionmaker X has made a decision based upon advice from Y and Z, then surely Y and Z are no less culpable that X in responsibility for the outcomes. Not so?

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 18 May 2019 11:45

Hi MarkN,

You are absolutely right that it is preferable to use primary sources.

However, I notice that you conspicuously do not claim to have consulted actual primary archival sources, only what is made available, secondarily, on line.

Somebody has selected what appears on line and what does not. What does not is still the vast majority. Your preferred intermediary between you and primary sources may not be an author, but he/she exists nonetheless.

I would also suggest that on-line free translators are not entirely reliable. In my experience it is sometimes difficult to understand from their translations even whether the original had a positive or negative connotation. However, their use is certainly better than not trying to translate at all.

As a self proclaimed amateur, with limited linguistic skills and no direct access to primary material yourself, what you are not in an authoritative position to do is take such a dismissive tone with other posters just because you disagree with them. The hostility to you is less about what you say, than the way you say it. Play nice.

Peace and Love,

Sid.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2319
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 » 18 May 2019 13:29

Sid Guttridge wrote:
18 May 2019 11:45
You are absolutely right that it is preferable to use primary sources.

However, I notice that you conspicuously do not claim to have consulted actual primary archival sources, only what is made available, secondarily, on line.

Somebody has selected what appears on line and what does not. What does not is still the vast majority. Your preferred intermediary between you and primary sources may not be an author, but he/she exists nonetheless.

I would also suggest that on-line free translators are not entirely reliable. In my experience it is sometimes difficult to understand from their translations even whether the original had a positive or negative connotation. However, their use is certainly better than not trying to translate at all.

As a self proclaimed amateur, with limited linguistic skills and no direct access to primary material yourself, what you are not in an authoritative position to do is take such a dismissive tone with other posters just because you disagree with them. The hostility to you is less about what you say, than the way you say it.
:roll:

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”