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
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 250
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 12:40

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.”
...
And in order to prove his words, Adolf will show Stalin the very “orders”, in particular p. IV of Barbarossa. So? Or do you think that Stalin will believe Hitler for the word? :o
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 250
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 13:09

Max Payload wrote:
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.
In the "Case Yellow", the use of the pause button depended mainly on the weather, as the Fuhrer wrote about in Directive No. 6 of 9.10. 1939 "(c) The time of the attack will depend upon the readiness for action of the armoured and motorised units involved. These units are to be made ready with all speed. It will depend also upon the weather conditions obtaining and foreseeable at the time."
"And marking a document secret, does not eliminate the risk of it being leaked." Do you believe that a few phrases of Hitler will guarantee the absence of leaks? Violation of each mark provides for a specific severe punishment, which was known to all Wehrmacht officials.
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 » 30 Jun 2019 23:18

AbollonPolweder wrote:
30 Jun 2019 12:40
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.”
...
And in order to prove his words, Adolf will show Stalin the very “orders”, in particular p. IV of Barbarossa. So? Or do you think that Stalin will believe Hitler for the word? :o
You asked, post #890, “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?”
In response I quoted the whole of section IV, the first part of which was, “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 rest of section IV related to measures to avoid, “the discovery of our preparations”.
I assume that when you write, “Adolf will show Stalin the very “orders”, in particular p. IV of Barbarossa.” you were merely being facetious. Hitler may well have been reasonably confident that the text of Directive 21 would not be seen by Stalin, but a raft of orders would flow from the Directive in the course of its implementation, and the content of those orders may have been less secure. The point about the sentence you quoted in post#890, is that, should any such orders be leaked, those orders would, “clearly indicate that they are precautionary measures”, and hence not related to actual preparations for an attack on the SU.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
30 Jun 2019 13:09
"And marking a document secret, does not eliminate the risk of it being leaked." Do you believe that a few phrases of Hitler will guarantee the absence of leaks?
Clearly not, otherwise I wouldn’t have written the quoted sentence.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
30 Jun 2019 13:09
Violation of each mark provides for a specific severe punishment, which was known to all Wehrmacht officials.
Yes, even to the ones who were Soviet spies.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 03 Jul 2019 13:05

Max Payload wrote:
30 Jun 2019 23:18
...
I assume that when you write, “Adolf will show Stalin the very “orders”, in particular p. IV of Barbarossa.” you were merely being facetious.
This was my reaction to your post # 892:
"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.” "
To whom did Hitler have to apologize in 1941?
Max Payload wrote:
30 Jun 2019 23:18
Hitler may well have been reasonably confident that the text of Directive 21 would not be seen by Stalin, but a raft of orders would flow from the Directive in the course of its implementation, and the content of those orders may have been less secure. The point about the sentence you quoted in post#890, is that, should any such orders be leaked, those orders would, “clearly indicate that they are precautionary measures”, and hence not related to actual preparations for an attack on the SU.
...
OK! Could you give examples of such numerous orders of Wehrmacht 1941, the content of which can be regarded as precautionary measures?
How do you know that Hitler considered the USSR as a 'friendly' state?
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 » 03 Jul 2019 16:23

AbollonPolweder wrote:
03 Jul 2019 13:05
To whom did Hitler have to apologize in 1941?
I didn’t suggest that he had to apologise to anyone. But he may have felt it expedient, and beneficial to the ultimate success of Barbarossa, to have a plausible explanation built into the planning process in order to allay Stalin’s concerns about a German attack should a leak of orders occur.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
03 Jul 2019 13:05
Could you give examples of such numerous orders of Wehrmacht 1941, the content of which can be regarded as precautionary measures?
I did not suggest that the orders were precautionary, only that they could be explained away as precautionary if leaked.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
03 Jul 2019 13:05
How do you know that Hitler considered the USSR as a 'friendly' state?
He didn’t, which is why the word friendly was placed in inverted commas. Yet both sides, for their own reasons, wanted their relations to appear friendly. Hence on the basis of international treaties and public relations exercises, Germany and the Soviet Union were, nominally at least, on friendly terms.

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

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

Post by gracie4241 » 06 Jul 2019 13:33

Please everyone read the Hitler/Molotov transcripts(and Ribbentrop/Molotov) November 12-13, 1940(just google Hitler Molotov November 1940 and a link will appear) which are self-explanatory(particularly Nov 13).So much for "friendly".The fact that Hitler THE VERY NEXT DAY said effectively war was a must is conclusive, and yet that so many seem to know ABSOLUTELY nothing about this all important meeting is stunning." Molotov let the cat out of the bag.He showed which way soviet plans were heading,Now at last its clear that there can no longer be a marriage of convenience after all.I never really had that much hope for it anyway" Sort of covers it.The ridiculous question constantly heard as to when and why Hitler decided on war with Russia is just that; the man himself gave the answer from his own mouth

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 07 Jul 2019 13:17

Max Payload wrote:
03 Jul 2019 16:23
...
I did not suggest that the orders were precautionary, only that they could be explained away as precautionary if leaked.
...
But it seemed to me that in your post # 903 you have written:
Max Payload wrote: The point about the sentence you quoted in post#890, is that, should any such orders be leaked, those orders would, “clearly indicate that they are precautionary measures”, and hence not related to actual preparations for an attack on the SU.
Which means that " ... orders would, “clearly indicate that they are precautionary measures ...”. Words "clearly indicate" don't need any "could be explained". 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 » 08 Jul 2019 08:07

It is entirely possible that, had it come into his possession, Stalin may have been sceptical of the stated precautionary intent included in any such order and may have been inclined to seek further explanation from Ribbentrop or Hitler. Any such further explanation would have been more credible if the order or orders in Stalin’s possession stated that they were precautionary than if they did not.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 08 Jul 2019 14:23

Max Payload wrote:
08 Jul 2019 08:07
It is entirely possible that, had it come into his possession, Stalin may have been sceptical of the stated precautionary intent included in any such order and may have been inclined to seek further explanation from Ribbentrop or Hitler. Any such further explanation would have been more credible if the order or orders in Stalin’s possession stated that they were precautionary than if they did not.
Thus, it turns out that in the end Hitler (Ribbentrop) would have to explain himself to Stalin, for any leak would give him (Stalin) a reason to ask questions, which means that point IV of Barbarossa was useless. Wasn't it?
Could you give me an example of possible option of precautionary intent
if you haven't found them in real orders?
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 » 08 Jul 2019 16:04

AbollonPolweder wrote:
08 Jul 2019 14:23
Thus, it turns out that in the end Hitler (Ribbentrop) would have to explain himself to Stalin
Ribbentrop would do whatever he was told to do and Hitler would do whatever he chose.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
08 Jul 2019 14:23
any leak would give him (Stalin) a reason to ask questions
It would. During the first half of 1941 Stalin had lots of reasons to ask questions.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
08 Jul 2019 14:23
which means that point IV of Barbarossa was useless. Wasn't it?
Section IV had two purposes. One was to minimise the risk of a leak and the other was to provide what it was hoped would be a plausibly innocent explanation for any orders that were leaked. So from Hitler’s perspective, no, it wasn’t useless. In the event Stalin chose to ignore credible evidence of German preparations so it probably didn’t actually matter whether the issued orders contained the required deniability clause.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
08 Jul 2019 14:23
Could you give me an example of possible option of precautionary intent
if you haven't found them in real orders?
I don’t understand the question.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 09 Jul 2019 16:54

Max Payload wrote:
08 Jul 2019 16:04
...
It would. During the first half of 1941 Stalin had lots of reasons to ask questions.
And how many questions did Stalin ask?
Max Payload wrote: ...
Section IV had two purposes. One was to minimise the risk of a leak and the other was to provide what it was hoped would be a plausibly innocent explanation for any orders that were leaked. So from Hitler’s perspective, no, it wasn’t useless. In the event Stalin chose to ignore credible evidence of German preparations so it probably didn’t actually matter whether the issued orders contained the required deniability clause.
The real issued orders didn't contain any " ... required deniability clause". At least you gave me no example of such orders. Right? But in December 1940, Hitler and his commanders could not have known that Stalin would ignore credible evidence of the German preparations. Right? Therefore, in the orders they (required deniability clause) must have been. And they are not in any order of the commanders-in-chief to whom Hitler addresses in Barbarossa.
Max Payload wrote:
AbollonPolweder wrote:
08 Jul 2019 14:23
Could you give me an example of possible option of precautionary intent
if you haven't found them in real orders?
I don’t understand the question.
The orders were supposed to include, as you say, information that Hitler could use to justify in the event of a leak. What kind of information do you think?
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 » 09 Jul 2019 23:05

AbollonPolweder wrote:
09 Jul 2019 16:54
And how many questions did Stalin ask?
Clearly, not enough.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
09 Jul 2019 16:54
The orders were supposed to include, as you say, information that Hitler could use to justify in the event of a leak. What kind of information do you think?
As indicated in Directive 21, a statement to the effect that the issued orders “are precautionary measures for the possibility that Russia should change her present attitude toward us”.

AbollonPolweder wrote:
09 Jul 2019 16:54
The real issued orders didn't contain any " ... required deniability clause".
If so then either those charged with implementing the Directive failed to follow this particular requirement, or the requirement was subsequently rescinded.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 10 Jul 2019 15:42

Max Payload wrote:
09 Jul 2019 23:05
...
As indicated in Directive 21, a statement to the effect that the issued orders “are precautionary measures for the possibility that Russia should change her present attitude toward us”.
...
Don't you think that the first part of Chapter 4 is not very clear. And if, for example, Russia does not change its position, then Germans should not take any precautions? Can they prepare an attack on Russia openly? Or do not start a war? But how to deprive England of her last hope? Of those documents that I have seen, only in one there is a phrase that the preparation for the attack is
carried out in order to preempt ( zuvorkommen) Russia. The rest simply repeats chapter 4. Such an impression that the German commanders themselves did not understand. what Adolf wanted to say. However, it is quite possible that he himself did not understand. :roll:
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 "

Post by Max Payload » 10 Jul 2019 23:41

AbollonPolweder wrote:
10 Jul 2019 15:42
Don't you think that the first part of Chapter 4 is not very clear.
The English translation of the sentence being referred to is normally quoted as -

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.

Taken in isolation there are three possible interpretations of this sentence -
(1) Germany was not seriously intending to attack the Soviet Union unless it became more threatening (changed her attitude) and the precautionary nature of the preparations must be clearly indicated in any orders issued.
(2) Germany was intending to attack the Soviet Union unless Russia’s attitude changed in some unspecified way, perhaps to a more accommodating stance, and any orders issued must make clear to the recipients the potentially provisional nature of the preparations.
(3) Germany was intending to attack the Soviet Union but, as part of the security and deception planning, issued orders should ‘clearly indicate that they are precautionary measures’ should Russia become a threat (changed her attitude).

However, taken in the context of the document as a whole and the background to its preparation, there is only one reasonable interpretation.
As regards (1), Hitler made clear in all his pronouncements from 21 July to 12 December his intention to invade the Soviet Union. During the third week of July, it had been his expectation that the invasion would take place later that summer. It was only near the end of the month that he accepted would have to be the following spring. So (1) is not a viable interpretation of the sentence.
As regards (2), if this had been the intended meaning, the phase ‘precautionary measures for the possibility that Russia should change ...’ would not have been used. ‘Precautionary measures’ suggests measures that are unlikely to be required. Rather the wording would have been something like, ‘preparatory measures in the event that Russia fails to change ...’
Which, since Hitler states in the introduction to Directive 21, “It is of decisive importance ... that the intention to attack does not become discernible.” makes (3) the most likely interpretation. And the only reason that orders ‘clearly indicate that they are precautionary measures’ would be to assist in the plausible deniability of the true intent of the orders should they be leaked.

And I would suggest that ‘Adolf’ and ‘the German commanders’ understood this perfectly well.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

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

Post by AbollonPolweder » 11 Jul 2019 16:39

Max Payload wrote:
10 Jul 2019 23:41
AbollonPolweder wrote:
10 Jul 2019 15:42
Don't you think that the first part of Chapter 4 is not very clear.
The English translation of the sentence being referred to is normally quoted as -

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.

Taken in isolation there are three possible interpretations of this sentence -
...
1. I need to say that the translation of the 4th chapter of Barbarossa you use is not accurate.
To translate the word "abstimmen", the verb "adjust" fits well, and the word "vorsichtig" or "Vorsicht" in the word "Vorsichtsmassnahmen" has the English equivalent - "careful". That is, for example, the German expression "Sei vorsichtig!" in English will be "Be careful!". "Be precautionary!" means rather "Be preventiv!" Correct me if I'm wrong.

2. Aren't you too exaggerating Hitler's fears about the reaction of the USSR / Stalin to possible leaks? Hitler could easily explain the planning of Barbarossa by the presence of a large number of Soviet divisions on the border with the Reich. There, in late 1940 and early 1941, the superiority of the USSR was overwhelming. For what purpose did the 'friendly' USSR concentrate such a mass of troops? Hitler just had to somehow react to it. Hadn't he?

3. You can argue that Hitler in the same 4th paragraph warns of possible serious political and military consequences. But these consequences are in no way connected with the possible active military actions of the USSR. And this is easy to prove, because the Germans planned to destroy the main forces of the Red Army in the western part of the USSR. They were afraid that the Russians would flee to the east. If the USSR attacked Germany, by this he would render the Germans courtesy, as the author of "Operationstugie Ost", Major General Marcks, said.
4.
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”