Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Hitler to blame?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Rule_Britannia (U2429840) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
you always haer about how Hitler was always interfering, taking away the ariems ability to be flexible etc. but how much was it Hitlers fault for Germany losing.
-
Message 2
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
he controlled the armies mate...
and had every one executed if they so much as took one step back to have a pee against the rubble of a berlin wall... -
Message 3
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
That is very simplistic and largely incorrect. All armies have to conform to the will of the political leadership - albeit up to Napoleon, many armies were led by their political leaddership. The Bush snr administration halted Schwarzkopf's advance on Baghdad in 1991. I saw a prog some time ago, which suggested that up to 1941 Hitler was very lazy and just let his generals get on with it, but began to interefere in the Russian campaign.
-
Message 4
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
LT,
Generals were generally sacked (and usually re-instated) for falling out of favour with Hitler, or suggesting withdrawal, they were not executed. -
Message 5
Posted by capponi (U2444262) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
The most dangerous aspect of Hitler's relationship with his generals was, in my opinion, the Messiah Complex that seemed to infect them all. They felt that without this one man the war was futile and a victory impossible; that society would collapse without their leader and this fearful, obsessive, doting mind set kept many following suicide orders until the final hour.
-
Message 6
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
Mani.
Would you like to state to most generals and senior staff that hitler accused of planting the bomb that nearly killed him in the conference room?
And yes i agree that it was a simplistic post, but sometimes the biggest questions have the smallest, simplest answers... -
Message 7
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
Hi LT,
Having those executed who conspired to assasimnate or did nothing to prevent it isn't quite the same as executing them "if they so much as took one step back to have a pee against the rubble of a berlin wall".
Many field generals did face up to Hitler, and were sacked for it. It was his staff officers (Genrally) who were 'yes' men. -
Message 8
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Thursday, 10th November 2005
hi Mani.
the bunch of 'yes men' said 'yes' to a war that killed approx 60 MILLION peole worldwide.
Would you have said yes?
even the smallest person can change the course of the future... -
Message 9
Posted by empiredown (U1770709) on Thursday, 10th November 2005
There was something very strange about Hitler & his ability to mesmerise people. Somebody should investigate his genetic profile & see if it corresponds to any current world leaders...!
-
Message 10
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Thursday, 10th November 2005
(funny cough sounding funnily like 'Bush and Hussein'!)
-
Message 11
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 11th November 2005
LT,
When I say 'Yes men' I'm referring to his staff Generals in the mid to later stages of the conflict on the Eastern front.
They would agree with Hitlerβs rambling even though they knew them to be incorrect, for example General Keitel.
Men Like Heinz Guderian, real soldiers, were sacked for telling home-truths.
βWould you have said yes?β
Yes to war given public sentiment, or the common view of public sentiment, or yes to Hitler when I knew him to be wrong? -
Message 12
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Friday, 11th November 2005
both. you choose.
I think this may have been another case of 'Lions led by a donkey' do you see what i mean? -
Message 13
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 11th November 2005
you always haer about how Hitler was always interfering, taking away the ariems ability to be flexible etc. but how much was it Hitlers fault for Germany losing.Β
The major problem in Hitler's planning was that Germany did not have an exit strategy from Russia if things went pear-shaped, and the fault there did lie with the political leadership rather than the military. Lots of ifs, buts and maybes can be gone over as to why the Eastern Front was lost. The one I take it you are developing this thread on is the one of 'If Hitler had only listened to Guderain, Battlegroup centre wouldn't have been halted before it got to Moscow and the whole outcome would have been different.'
However, it is equally possible that given a free rein in the East Battlegroup Centre's conquest of Moscow could have proven merely symbolic as it would have had to halt there until Leningrad and Stalingrad were dealt with anyway. The industrial heartland had been moved to far to the east for Guderain to reach without fear of being flanked and encircled without those two cities having fallen. The ultimate military decisions are always political, and the poltical decision to focus on Stalingrad over Moscow did have profound effect on the outcome of that theatre, and ultimately that decision did rest with Hitler.
However, when people try to identify traits or aspects of Hitler's character which singles him out as the root of German failure they generally use events and occurences that come months if not years after these crucial decisions were made. By the time Hitler can be accused of irrationality in his orders to his senior staffers the war was already over. He gambled, as was his wont, and he lost. But he was the leader, and ultimately the call was his. If Stalingrad had fallen, then his decision to halt Guderain's advance would have been vindicated.
As I said, when things started to go sour Hitler had not allowed for any way in which an armistice could be achieved that would have left him, or Germany, with anything. Knowing that one is in the end game, and that the conclusion is as inevitable as it is likely to be total would test the mental strength of any man, and especially one with as fragile an ego as Hitler. If the stories of amphetamine abuse are accurate, then the descent would be hurried. In this light, orders to shot generals if they retreated (if these existed) can be seen from the perspective of a condemned man willing to scarifice everything and everyone in a desperate attempt to dodge the inevitable.
The war was ultimately won and lost in the East, and Hitler was out-thought by Zhukov over the battle of Stalingrad, but whose to say any other leader, be he of a political or a militaristic background, would not have made the same call? Blaming Hitler is easy, and it does a disservice to the Russian Army's achievements, I feel.
Elistan -
Message 14
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Saturday, 12th November 2005
everyone,
you always ave to remember russia near enough had a 'inexaustible supply of man power' so for every man killed they could always feild another in his place, quiet easily. if russia had the same amount of men as everyone else, could they have been able to continue suffering the casulties they did?
I think not.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.