Hitler's Military Interference

Incarnations · 05-03-2014 06:04PM #1

Decided to spend my afternoon in work reading about Hitler on wikipedia. From what I've read it seems that Germany would have had a good chance to win world war 2 if had had just let his generals do their jobs.

The major fukc up seemed to be his order to delay the advance to Moscow. Had they not delayed they could well have defeated the Soviet Union and vastly increased their resources in doing so.

So do you think Germany would have won the war if Hitler didn't interfere so much with the military tactical decisions ?

banquo · 05-03-2014 06:05PM

Hitler wasn't all bad. In fairness, he did kill Hitler.

Dyr · 05-03-2014 06:09PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5agLW7fTzBc

basically, Hitler lost because he was Hitler

Duckworth_Luas · 05-03-2014 06:09PM

banquo wrote: »

Hitler wasn't all bad. In fairness, he did kill Hitler.

WRONG! Hitler helped Hitler escape to South America where he died in 1987.

Riskymove · 05-03-2014 06:10PM

Incarnations wrote: »

The major fukc up seemed to be his order to delay the advance to Moscow.

I think deciding to invade Russia was the problem and opening a second front

Fred Swanson · 05-03-2014 06:11PM

This post has been deleted.

Skylinehead · 05-03-2014 06:13PM

Incarnations wrote: »

Decided to spend my afternoon in work reading about Hitler on wikipedia. From what I've read it seems that Germany would have had a good chance to win world war 2 if had had just let his generals do their jobs.

The major fukc up seemed to be his order to delay the advance to Moscow. Had they not delayed they could well have defeated the Soviet Union and vastly increased their resources in doing so.

So do you think Germany would have won the war if Hitler didn't interfere so much with the military tactical decisions ?

It could be argued that invading Russia at all was the main cause. It's hard to tell what would have happened if they had taken Moscow (they were so close they could see the Kremlin) but likely Stalin would have relocated to the east and just done the same thing.

Conall Cernach · 05-03-2014 06:13PM

Incarnations wrote: »

Decided to spend my afternoon in work reading about Hitler on wikipedia. From what I've read it seems that Germany would have had a good chance to win world war 2 if had had just let his generals do their jobs.

The major fukc up seemed to be his order to delay the advance to Moscow. Had they not delayed they could well have defeated the Soviet Union and vastly increased their resources in doing so.

So do you think Germany would have won the war if Hitler didn't interfere so much with the military tactical decisions ?

That is debatable. The other side of the argument is that the Germans could well have arrived in Moscow in the middle of winter to find a couple of undefeated Soviet armies on their flanks.

Gmol · 05-03-2014 06:14PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

War on 2 fronts was his biggest mistake. If he had left the USSR alone be would have won the war easily.

Think the fact he declared war on America was the main thing. Once they got their act together they would have defeated Germany.

topper75 · 05-03-2014 06:14PM

He needed the oil from the Caucasus to fuel the effort in the west. It wasn't all madness or greed. It was necessary for his campaign.

Even if the generals had made a successful push for Moscow... as my old history teacher used to say "one thing to win an empire, and another to hold it".

Artful_Badger · 05-03-2014 06:14PM

It was never gonna work. It was a mad bastard plan that was always gonna end in tears.

darkpagandeath · 05-03-2014 06:14PM

Hitler was the best thing to happen in the 2nd world war he made it a lot shorter in the long run. The generals could have taken Europe and kept it.

Riskymove · 05-03-2014 06:16PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

agreed but I also think a conforntation between the two lunatics would be inevitable at some point and possibly at a time when they had far nastier weapons...may actually have been much worse for europe

Cool Mo D · 05-03-2014 06:17PM

Hitler was never going to win WWII. He couldn't have not invaded the USSR - that was the whole point of the war, to grab Lebensraum in the East by killing/displacing everyone who lived in Eastern Europe to be resettled as a pure German empire.
He also never had a viable plan for invading Britain, and if he had hung on until 1945 by repelling D-day, it would have been Germany who got the nuclear treatment instead of Japan.

Riskymove · 05-03-2014 06:17PM

Gmol wrote: »

Think the fact he declared war on America was the main thing. Once they got their act together they would have defeated Germany.

so it was japan's fault then really!!

kneemos · 05-03-2014 06:19PM

His initial ease of success in conquering western Europe gave him false belief in his armies abilities I've always thought.They did however come damn close to pulling it off and nobody could question the professionalism of the Nazi army.

darkpagandeath · 05-03-2014 06:21PM

kneemos wrote: »

His initial ease of success in conquering western Europe gave him false belief in his armies abilities I've always thought.They did however come damn close to pulling it off and nobody could question the professionalism of the Nazi army.

Don't you mean the German army the SS would have been the Nazi army

RichardoKhan · 05-03-2014 06:21PM

So nothing to do with him being unhinged then...................

MonstaMash · 05-03-2014 06:22PM

In a speech on April 28, 1939, Hitler presented the following list of what he felt were his accomplishments...

"I overcame chaos in Germany, restored order, enormously raised production in all fields of our national economy.

I succeeded in completely resettling in useful production those 7 million unemployed who so touched our hearts.

I have not only politically united the German nation but also rearmed it militarily & I have further tried to liquidate that treaty, sheet by sheet, whose 448 articles contain the vilest rape that nations & human beings have ever been expected to submit to.

I have restored to the Reich the provinces grabbed from us in 1919.

I have led millions of deeply unhappy Germans, who have been snatched away from us, back into the Fatherland.

I have restored the thousand year old historical unity of German living space & I have attempted to accomplish all that without shedding blood & without inflicting the sufferings of war on my people or any other.

I have accomplished all this, as one who 21 years ago still an unknown worker & a soldier of my people, by my own efforts."

A great lad auld Adolph :rolleyes:

Donkey Oaty · 05-03-2014 06:22PM

Incarnations wrote: »

Decided to spend my afternoon in work reading about Hitler on wikipedia.

"All our operators are busy at the moment...."

Karl Stein · 05-03-2014 06:22PM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

It was never gonna work. It was a mad bastard plan that was always gonna end in tears.

I agree with this. Even if he had stayed out of Russia and taken all of western Europe including Britain and Ireland how long would it have lasted in the face of ceaseless resistance?

Tony EH · 05-03-2014 06:28PM

Incarnations wrote: »

Decided to spend my afternoon in work reading about Hitler on wikipedia. From what I've read it seems that Germany would have had a good chance to win world war 2 if had had just let his generals do their jobs.

The major fukc up seemed to be his order to delay the advance to Moscow. Had they not delayed they could well have defeated the Soviet Union and vastly increased their resources in doing so.

So do you think Germany would have won the war if Hitler didn't interfere so much with the military tactical decisions ?

Germany never had a single chance of winning the war. Even if Britain and France never stuck their oar in, at best Germany could only hope for a stalemate with Russia.

BTW, all the major leaders of WWII "interfered" with the progress of their war at some point or another. Churchill was actually told at one point to back off by other members of the cabinet, as his track record (ie the Dardanelles and Norway) weren't all that great.

topper75 · 05-03-2014 06:54PM

I can't accept that the dogged determination and sheer bloody mindedness shown by Stalin/the red army at Stalingrad was all mustered simply because Hitler ordered his generals to hold up for a little while.

ClovenHoof · 05-03-2014 07:06PM

Overstretched himself in the East and ploughed valuable resources into his racial genocide.

Albert Speer knew the war was lost by Summer 1943.

Too be honest the Germans had a lot of good luck in 39-42.

burnhardlanger · 05-03-2014 07:17PM

Wouldn't the US have started to annihilate Germany into a surrender with their new fancy atom bombs anyway?

Elmer Blooker · 05-03-2014 07:18PM

topper75 wrote: »

He needed the oil from the Caucasus to fuel the effort in the west. It wasn't all madness or greed. It was necessary for his campaign.

Even if the generals had made a successful push for Moscow... as my old history teacher used to say "one thing to win an empire, and another to hold it".

Good point, it wasn't all madness.
When the Germans were advancing on Moscow he ordered his generals to turn south towards Kiev and capture Ukraine which was the most industrialized part of the Soviet Union and also the grain growing region or breadbasket of the Soviet Union. Of course the generals wanted the big prize Moscow but generals are not economists.
Thankfully things are done with banks and not tanks these days

Triangla · 05-03-2014 07:21PM

burnhardlanger wrote: »

Wouldn't the US have started to annihilate Germany into a surrender with their new fancy atom bombs anyway?

Which were designed with input from German scientists who had to leave because of Hitler.

Tony EH · 05-03-2014 07:26PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Don't you mean the German army the SS would have been the Nazi army

There's no such thing as a "nazi" army.

Dyr · 05-03-2014 07:32PM

Triangla wrote: »

Which were designed with input from German scientists who had to leave because of Hitler.

Which led to the quote from a british (?) source "we won because our german scientists were better than their german scientists"

quickbeam · 05-03-2014 07:33PM

I think everybody's missing the point here. What the hell kind of job does the OP have that they can spend a whole afternoon online reading up on history? And are there any vacancies?

Tony EH · 05-03-2014 07:34PM

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Overstretched himself in the East and ploughed valuable resources into his racial genocide.

Albert Speer knew the war was lost by Summer 1943.

Too be honest the Germans had a lot of good luck in 39-42.

Germany overstretched themselves in every theatre of war. There wasn't anywhere where the Wehrmacht wasn't lacking in important supplies. In fact, it's in the east where she was the best supplied of all, for the majority of the war.

Also, the functions employed for holocaust were a mere fraction of Germany's resources and wouldn't have made one iota of difference to the outcome.

From 39-41 and during 1942 Germany was successful because she had the better military doctrines and structure of any army she faced. It had little to do with luck. They were just better in the field.

Unfortunately for the Germans their army was a tactical one and not a strategic one. Great for short wars, not so great for long protracted conflicts.

The fact that Germany managed to keep an army in the field until 1945 and throughout a large number of areas is somewhat of a miracle.

Hitler's Military Interference

Comments