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

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4821
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 26 Jun 2019 01:23

Dre Foerster wrote:
25 Jun 2019 19:26
I’m not sure what you’re asking in your last point. French is my first language so sometimes it’s a little difficult for me (that’s also most likely why my posts are sometimes difficult to read as well, so my bad on that).
Uh, by the way, in case you haven't realized it yet, you will get a better response arguing with my cat than you will by arguing with ljadw. No one is quite sure whether he/she/it is a real person, a professional troll, or a particularly perverse Russian bot. The best way to handle he/she/it is by putting he/she/it on ignore and only periodically clicking on he/she/it's responses when one requires a dose of mindless fantasy. :welcome:
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 26 Jun 2019 09:12

Dre Foerster wrote:
25 Jun 2019 19:26
I recommend authors because I try to be humble enough to admit I’m not an expert, and that I can’t write a book or article here. And why not propose different works with different opinions to people?
Revisionist proposals and books based on them deserve scrutiny. At their core are specific new primary source discoveries (genuine or otherwise) and/or a reinterpretation of existing information (carefully argued or wildly speculative). It is not necessary to reproduce a book on a forum site such as this in order to be able to present the core of a revisionist argument and, more importantly, the information on which it is based. Until you have done that, your assertion of ‘facts’ that have not been demonstrated will, I’m afraid, draw more than an average level of adverse comment.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12877
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 26 Jun 2019 11:19

Richard Anderson wrote:
26 Jun 2019 01:23
Dre Foerster wrote:
25 Jun 2019 19:26
I’m not sure what you’re asking in your last point. French is my first language so sometimes it’s a little difficult for me (that’s also most likely why my posts are sometimes difficult to read as well, so my bad on that).
Uh, by the way, in case you haven't realized it yet, you will get a better response arguing with my cat than you will by arguing with ljadw. No one is quite sure whether he/she/it is a real person, a professional troll, or a particularly perverse Russian bot. The best way to handle he/she/it is by putting he/she/it on ignore and only periodically clicking on he/she/it's responses when one requires a dose of mindless fantasy. :welcome:
I didn't know you have a cat . :roll:

Boby
Member
Posts: 2713
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

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

Post by Boby » 26 Jun 2019 14:56

Dre Foerster wrote:Hitler didn’t write Mein Kampf, he dictated it to Hess.
No, he wrote it alone. First in Landsberg, later (part II, 1926) in Berchtesgaden.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 27 Jun 2019 11:37

Dre Foerster wrote:
21 Jun 2019 19:10
...
In the end, we cannot say that Barbarossa was either in accordance with or against Hitler's wishes, since these were not completely clear.
...
That is, you admit that Hitler signed Barbarossa at gunpoint Halder or Jodl? :milwink: As far as I know, Hitler was a dictator, and these guys do not sign documents against their wishes.
Dre Foerster wrote: Hitler was, more than anything, concerned with the annihilation of “Judeo-Bolshevism” from the face of the earth.
Oh really? And therefore he concluded in 1939 treaties with "Judeo-bolshevism" about non-aggression and friendship?
And if England had made peace with Germany in the years 1940-41, would Hitler attack "Judeo-bolshevism"?
Read these two documents:
1 - it is the IV point of Barbarossa, where it is written: "... it is a question of precautionary measures in case Russia changes its position in relation to us." Barbarossa is a top secret document, why does it need any extra precautions? Why is there no such item in the plans of Gelb and Seeloewе? Hitler is going to attack France and England unconditionally, and here is some condition! Such a point was in another plan. If you find it, it will become clear to you why Hitler wrote point IV in Barbarossa.
Image

2 – this is an OKW order on the time of the attack on the USSR. Here we are interested in paragraph 3. b) "The code word "Altona." This means stopping the attack and taking into account the full unmasking of the deployment."
What a strange hatred of "Judeo-Bolshevism", don't you think? The Fuhrer is preparing half a year a great attack in deep secrecy, and then, suddenly, 12 days before the beginning, Adolph admits that he can stop the attack and reveal to the enemy the deployment of his troops grouping. Why did Adolf need the word “Altona” if he already in Mein Kampf wrote about the annihilation of “Judeo-Bolshevism” from the face of the earth?
Image
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12877
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 27 Jun 2019 11:42

AbollonPolweder wrote:
27 Jun 2019 11:37
Dre Foerster wrote:
21 Jun 2019 19:10
...
In the end, we cannot say that Barbarossa was either in accordance with or against Hitler's wishes, since these were not completely clear.
...
That is, you admit that Hitler signed Barbarossa at gunpoint Halder or Jodl? :milwink: As far as I know, Hitler was a dictator, and these guys do not sign documents against their wishes.
Dre Foerster wrote: Hitler was, more than anything, concerned with the annihilation of “Judeo-Bolshevism” from the face of the earth.
Oh really? And therefore he concluded in 1939 treaties with "Judeo-bolshevism" about non-aggression and friendship?
And if England had made peace with Germany in the years 1940-41, would Hitler attack "Judeo-bolshevism"?
Read these two documents:
1 - it is the IV point of Barbarossa, where it is written: "... it is a question of precautionary measures in case Russia changes its position in relation to us." Barbarossa is a top secret document, why does it need any extra precautions? Why is there no such item in the plans of Gelb and Seeloewе? Hitler is going to attack France and England unconditionally, and here is some condition! Such a point was in another plan. If you find it, it will become clear to you why Hitler wrote point IV in Barbarossa.
Image

2 – this is an OKW order on the time of the attack on the USSR. Here we are interested in paragraph 3. b) "The code word "Altona." This means stopping the attack and taking into account the full unmasking of the deployment."
What a strange hatred of "Judeo-Bolshevism", don't you think? The Fuhrer is preparing half a year a great attack in deep secrecy, and then, suddenly, 12 days before the beginning, Adolph admits that he can stop the attack and reveal to the enemy the deployment of his troops grouping. Why did Adolf need the word “Altona” if he already in Mein Kampf wrote about the annihilation of “Judeo-Bolshevism” from the face of the earth?
Image
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 27 Jun 2019 13:56

AbollonPolweder wrote:
27 Jun 2019 11:37
IV point of Barbarossa, where it is written: "... it is a question of precautionary measures in case Russia changes its position in relation to us." Barbarossa is a top secret document, why does it need any extra precautions? Why is there no such item in the plans of Gelb and Seeloewе?
The paragraph being referred to stated-

“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. The number of officers to be assigned to the preparatory work at an early date is to be kept as small as possible; additional personnel should be briefed as late as possible and only to the extent required for the activity of each individual. Otherwise, through the discovery of our preparations - the date of their execution has not even been fixed - there is danger that most serious political and military disadvantages may arise.”

Surely this is just Hitler taking precautions to prevent a leak and getting his excuses in early in the event of a leak occurring. “We weren’t really going to attack, the orders clearly indicate these were precautionary measures. We just needed to be ready in case war-mongers took over the Kremlin.”

As for Case Yellow and Sealion, the difference is that Barbarossa was to be a surprise attack against a ‘friendly’ country and the perceived prospects for success would be reduced in the event of a leak.



AbollonPolweder wrote:
27 Jun 2019 11:37
OKW order on the time of the attack on the USSR. Here we are interested in paragraph 3. b) "The code word "Altona." This means stopping the attack and taking into account the full unmasking of the deployment."
What a strange hatred of "Judeo-Bolshevism", don't you think? The Fuhrer is preparing half a year a great attack in deep secrecy, and then, suddenly, 12 days before the beginning, Adolph admits that he can stop the attack and reveal to the enemy the deployment of his troops grouping.

Having a pause button was a sensible precaution against the unexpected. The fact is, he didn’t use it.

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

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

Post by Yuri » 27 Jun 2019 16:00

Max Payload wrote:
27 Jun 2019 13:56
AbollonPolweder wrote:
27 Jun 2019 11:37
IV point of Barbarossa, where it is written: "... it is a question of precautionary measures in case Russia changes its position in relation to us." Barbarossa is a top secret document, why does it need any extra precautions? Why is there no such item in the plans of Gelb and Seeloewе?
The paragraph being referred to stated-

“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. The number of officers to be assigned to the preparatory work at an early date is to be kept as small as possible; additional personnel should be briefed as late as possible and only to the extent required for the activity of each individual. Otherwise, through the discovery of our preparations - the date of their execution has not even been fixed - there is danger that most serious political and military disadvantages may arise.”

Surely this is just Hitler taking precautions to prevent a leak and getting his excuses in early in the event of a leak occurring. “We weren’t really going to attack, the orders clearly indicate these were precautionary measures. We just needed to be ready in case war-mongers took over the Kremlin.”
I can only add that a special programme of action on disinformation has been developed to the Barbarossa plan. And very sophisticated programme

Max Payload wrote:
27 Jun 2019 13:56
AbollonPolweder wrote:
27 Jun 2019 11:37
OKW order on the time of the attack on the USSR. Here we are interested in paragraph 3. b) "The code word "Altona." This means stopping the attack and taking into account the full unmasking of the deployment."
What a strange hatred of "Judeo-Bolshevism", don't you think? The Fuhrer is preparing half a year a great attack in deep secrecy, and then, suddenly, 12 days before the beginning, Adolph admits that he can stop the attack and reveal to the enemy the deployment of his troops grouping.

Having a pause button was a sensible precaution against the unexpected. The fact is, he didn’t use it.
And that's what I wanted to say.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 27 Jun 2019 18:50

Max Payload wrote:
27 Jun 2019 13:56
Surely this is just Hitler taking precautions to prevent a leak and getting his excuses in early in the event of a leak occurring. “We weren’t really going to attack, the orders clearly indicate these were precautionary measures. We just needed to be ready in case war-mongers took over the Kremlin.”
I concur. I too read that paragraph as a need to ensure planning security in an attempt to prevent Russia getting wind of it. Naked aggression against a 'friend' that you are supposedly trying to get to join your Pact is quite different to attacking countries that declared war on you 6 months earlier.

Hitler retained the right and the ability to call off BARBAROSSA right up until the troops crossed the border. The Kaiser called off the invasion AFTER troops had already trundled into Luxembourg in 1914. A document outlining the confirmation word is a pretty bog standard affair.

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 367
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 » 28 Jun 2019 09:18

For the attack against the soviet union,did someone talked about the nazi ideology itself? I think this factor should motivate them to attack ussr.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 28 Jun 2019 12:06

Max Payload wrote:
27 Jun 2019 13:56
...
Surely this is just Hitler taking precautions to prevent a leak and getting his excuses in early in the event of a leak occurring. “We weren’t really going to attack, the orders clearly indicate these were precautionary measures. We just needed to be ready in case war-mongers took over the Kremlin.”
...
Having a pause button was a sensible precaution against the unexpected. The fact is, he didn’t use it.
And why on the first page of Barbarossa are marks, like, "Geheime Kommandosache!"? To allow leaks? :milwink:
Image
" ... Having a pause button ..." To have pause button is usefull in any plan, be it Barbarossa, Seelion or Gelb. Right?
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

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

Post by Max Payload » 28 Jun 2019 13:48

AbollonPolweder wrote:
28 Jun 2019 12:06
And why on the first page of Barbarossa are marks, like, "Geheime Kommandosache!"? To allow leaks?

" ... Having a pause button ..." To have pause button is usefull in any plan, be it Barbarossa, Seelion or Gelb. Right?
Right. But not always essential. However, this is from Directive 8 (20/11/39) in relation to Case Yellow -
“The Armed Forces will make their preparations in such a way that the offensive can still be delayed even if orders for this delay reach Commands as late as A-Day-1, 2300 hours. At this hour at the latest Commands will receive the codeword, which will be either:
Danzig (proceed with offensive) or
Augsburg (delay offensive).”

And marking a document secret, does not eliminate the risk of it being leaked.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 28 Jun 2019 13:53

MarkN wrote:
27 Jun 2019 18:50
...
Naked aggression against a 'friend' that you are supposedly trying to get to join your Pact is quite different to attacking countries that declared war on you 6 months earlier.
...
There is a similar paragraph in Plan Weiss. Can I conclude that Hitler considered Poland a friendly state?
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 28 Jun 2019 15:47

AbollonPolweder wrote:
28 Jun 2019 13:53
There is a similar paragraph in Plan Weiss. Can I conclude that Hitler considered Poland a friendly state?
You can conclude whatever you like. However, l'd suggest that would not be one of the more sensible conclusions, would it?

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 30 Jun 2019 11:13

Max Payload wrote:
27 Jun 2019 13:56
...
As for Case Yellow and Sealion, the difference is that Barbarossa was to be a surprise attack against a ‘friendly’ country and the perceived prospects for success would be reduced in the event of a leak.
...
It seems to me that the chances of success are always less if there are leaks regardless of which country you attack - friendly or hostile.I apologize in advance if I misunderstand your thought.
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”