[jonniebgood1]

I will keep this OP short as I would like to get some others opinions before I express my own. My query is in relation to Hitlers role as Commander of the German forces in Russia. His role is often complimented for the early stages, and also he is blamed for the losses that followed. I refer specifically to the war in the East as I see it as being the most decisive battlefield in determining the war but if people wish to disagree with this then work away.

So...
Was he an innovative leader who's unpredictablility lead Germany to the brink of victory in the east, or,
Was he a poor tactician without the requisite knowledge of military affairs that was required in identifying acheivable objectives for his armies.

Examples would help to show where opinions are formed from.

[Stovepipe]

hi there,
His insistence on refusing local commanders tactical freehand, especially to retreat or break out of encirclement. His insistence on committing huge resources to Stalingrad, which stopped the advance to the Caspian oil.

regards
Stovepipe

[HamletOrHecuba]

Hitler could have easily taken out the UK, but choose not too because he wanted to keep the British Empire together forgetting the blood lust and immense injustice of those who rule Britain both in being one of the primary causes of WWI, during it and after. Britain unlike in fairness Stalin's Russia was never interested in peaceful co-existence.

[Nodin]

Originally Posted by HamletOrHecuba

Hitler could have easily taken out the UK, but choose not too because he wanted to keep the British Empire together.

....how? A sourced answer, please.

[indioblack]

Originally Posted by HamletOrHecuba

Hitler could have easily taken out the UK, but choose not too because he wanted to keep the British Empire together forgetting the blood lust and immense injustice of those who rule Britain both in being one of the primary causes of WWI, during it and after. Britain unlike in fairness Stalin's Russia was never interested in peaceful co-existence.

Ah, there's nothing like a bit of blood lust to keep the old empire going - shame Stalin never killed anybody.

[jonniebgood1]

Originally Posted by Stovepipe

hi there,
His insistence on refusing local commanders tactical freehand, especially to retreat or break out of encirclement. His insistence on committing huge resources to Stalingrad, which stopped the advance to the Caspian oil.

regards
Stovepipe

Refusing local commanders tactical freehand could be seen as a proper move in alot of cases. In 1941 it was this that kept the German army intact against the Russian winter offensives and left them in a better position for 1942 than would have happened had retreat been allowed in those conditions. This followed the successes of the German advance in 1941.

[Border-Rat]

The sheer mass and technological advancement of the USSR made victory nigh on impossible. Hitler should have taken his Generals' advice and used chemical weapons. I would have, the whole point of Barbarossa was to pre-empt a Bolshevik invasion of Europe.

[jonniebgood1]

OK then the poll is one sided.
This is German control in 1942.


Things may have been changing at this stage but it seems to me that people give credit to the Wehrmacht for the German success in WWII and then they blame Hitler for German failings. ???

[Tzar Chasm]

I don't think any of the WW2 leadership were up to the task of. Military command
Hitler was responsible for a lot of retarded decisions where vsnity wasted hundreds of thousands of lives
Stain just threw bodied at the problem he was just lucky to have more of them
Mussolini, do I even have to finish that sentence
Churchill may have been a great motivator but he did orchestrate some disastrous campaigns
Rosevelt interred all japanese and german citizens of the US, and condemned eastern europe to soviet occupation

[Border-Rat]

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1

OK then the poll is one sided.
This is German control in 1942.


Things may have been changing at this stage but it seems to me that people give credit to the Wehrmacht for the German success in WWII and then they blame Hitler for German failings. ???

The early successes can attributed to catching the Soviets on a forward posture. This is down to their intention to attack Europe. Hitler himself described Barbarossa as pre-emptive;

Today something like 160 Russian divisions are standing at our frontier. For weeks there have been constant violations of this frontier, not only affecting us but also in the far north [against Finland], as well as Romania. Russian airmen consider it sport nonchalantly to overlook these frontiers, presumably to prove to us that they already feel themselves masters of these territories. During the night of June 17 to 18 Russian patrols again penetrated into Reich territory, and could only be driven back after prolonged exchange of fire.

Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed incapable of defense ... "When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored, motorized and infantry divisions ...
"We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our rear. Nevertheless, the decision in this case was a very difficult one ...
"A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available that confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.
"I may say this today: If the wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion against the Reich, Europe would have been lost ..."

The USSR, in moving into an aggressive posture, exposed itself to extreme danger. E.g. their airfields were moved to within 2km along some areas of the border. Not only does that prove mendacious intention but it exposes them to German aerial attack - well within range. Other proving factors are their conversion of their railcars to meet European gauge, the moving of mountain division so far forward into areas where there are no mountains, massing of more amphibious tanks (An offensive weapon) than the entire armor of French tanks etc.


An aggressive strategy for such a planned invasion by the USSR comes with the hindrance of extreme vulnerability. Stalin was informed of this and chose to ignore it. A similar example is an abandoned plan by Iraq to thwart US Forces in Kuwait at the turn of 2003. The point is that an inferior army can make herculean headway into enemy territory at an opportune time.


In the end I doubt the Axis could've stopped the Red Army. D-Day, throwing it all at Moscow etc... probably moot arguments. The fact is that the capability, numerical strength and technological advancements, not least to mention intentions, of the Red Army, have all been brushed under the carpet. The accounts of German fighter-bombers in for June 1941 alone are extremely disturbing. They speak of bombing so many tanks in forward positions that the enemy had more AFV's than they had actual ammunition per plane. A Turkey shoot that went on for weeks ceaselessly.

[HamletOrHecuba]

Originally Posted by Nodin

....how? A sourced answer, please.

An Irish Republican swallowing the myths of British Imperialists?

Are you forgetting that the scrawny soldiers of Plutocratic Britain crumbled and fled before the healthy and strong German soldiers, having to scramble back across the channel from Dunkirk in whatever type of boats could be found?

You should check out this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitl.../dp/030740515X

[HamletOrHecuba]

Eire's Devalera deserves so much praise for doing his best to prevent the blood bath of WWII happening in the first and when he failed keeping his country out of it.

@ BorderRat; By the period we are talking about the USSR was governed by Great Russian nationalists and not by Internationalist Communists (Stalin had been them all purged), also it is hard to get around the fact that the USSR was unprepared for the war, a fact that both Trotskyists and liberals use to berate it. Hitler deserves a large share of the blame for the blood shed and destruction though he was far from the only guilty party.

[cloud493]

Well its easy enough to remember, Some German generals displayed fear about the attack on the soviet union, before it happened, the argument being that Britain was still unbeaten in the west. When the Soviet armies suffered the shocking losses of 1941-1943, this is what gave Hitler a sense of 'being right' so to speak. But once he started loosing, then the generals turned on hitler and claimed he was leading Germany to defeat, there are few examples of opposition to Hitler in the military before that.

[Nodin]

Originally Posted by HamletOrHecuba

An Irish Republican swallowing the myths of British Imperialists?

Are you forgetting that the scrawny soldiers of Plutocratic Britain crumbled and fled before the healthy and strong German soldiers, having to scramble back across the channel from Dunkirk in whatever type of boats could be found?

You should check out this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitl.../dp/030740515X

I'm sorry, but the extracts from that book available on the web fail to explain how "Hitler could have easily taken out the UK, but choose not too because he wanted to keep the British Empire together.". Nor would the book itself, by the looks of things.

Would you care to explain your statement, please.

[cloud493]

I'd say the more interesting question is 'how could hitler have forced the british government in a negotiating position' rather than 'how Hitler could have taken over the United Kingdom mainland' If you consider had Hitler say, been able to convince Franco to allow German troop movements through spain to attack gibraltar, eliminated Malta, Crete and Alexandria as British bases in 1941 by a dispatch of a larger force to the desert, and intensified the bombings of the UK mainland, while also perhaps planning with the Japanese for the attacks on the British far east.

I mean mostly everyone agrees with the commonly held facts, as long the RAF maintained a presence, if not control, of the southern england skies along with the forces of the royal navy, direct assault would have failed.