Originally posted by Janus Marius
Someone's been sleeping in history class.Hitler had no worthwhile tactics to speak of- he relied heavily on the elite cadre of German generals who had learned the brutal lessons of WWI and were in the forefront of reestablishing German military predominance since the dark days of the Weimar republic. People like von Seeckt, Guderan, Student, Beck, and a multitude of other German generals of education did the best laid plans and the overall finetuning of all the wartime efforts. Hitler did little more than point and demand that his generals destroy the opposition. If anything, Hitler repeatedly empeded the better judgment of his elite generals all the time- putting Paulus out in the east, pushing Guderan out of the picture, letting the geniuses behind the Blitzkrieg get dissolved from influence because they did not support his ideals... Hell, if Hitler had listened to Rommel, there would have been armor on Normandy beach!
And Hitler's "cunning" behind Czechoslovakia, the Rhineland, and Austria was a lot more of a gamble than anything else. Poland was more the work of generals Student and Beck, and the clever treaty done by Ribbentrop which divided the country before a shot was even fired.
And I hardly think he manipulated Mussolini; the guy was already way over the top before Hitler even came to power. And it was a thorn in the Nazi side to be helping out the Italians at ever chance, in North Africa, and so on. I mean, Mussolini's troops lost to Ethiopia. And some of the Ethiopians rode on horses and threw spears at plans. The ineptness of the Italian forces in WWII is only surpassed by the sheer idiocy of repeating Napoleon's mistake and attacking Russia just in time to spend Christmas on the Volga.
Oh, and then there's that whole gamble that the Japanese were gonna help counterattack Russia from behind and provide aid.
Really, the genius of Hitler can be best summed up in the burning rubble of Berlin, and in the cries of the civilians and soldiers as the Red Army streamed into their streets. Hitler was a charismatic, powerful political figure. But when it came to war, he was as inefficient as any dictator before him.
And what is it that I said in my previous post that was historically incorrect?
What you said is debatable - a conclusions you drew. What I said is debatable as well, I do not deny that. I have never said anything that did not happen in History, and thus I must have NOT been sleeping in my history lesson.
You think Hitler didn't have tactics - fine. I think he did. You explained why you don;t think he did. I am challanged by your point of view - but I at the same time do not want it down my throat.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What?Hitler had one of the greatest tactics ever. The only reason he failed at the end, is because he miscalculated because he became greedy.
Think about the cunning invasion of Czechoslovakia, entering of Austria and later Poland, while allies just sat there watching.
Then consider how he manipulated Mussolini, who for the most part had NO idea what was going on, yet remained Hitler's ally.
Can it be let known that Hitler was not a great tactician. He was foolish,half-witted and NOT general.
Hitler really can attribute his great success to people like Goebbels, Speer, Himmler, Rommel etc etc.
Hitler was an Orator yes, but not a "great tactician"
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Well, that wasn't exactly Hitler's fault....Japan jumped the gun on his plans, he had to live/deal with what they did. Adding even more pressure on the German troops.Hitlers biggest mistake however was breaking the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavI do concur with the idea that his henchmen did a lot of work, and his success depended on it.
Can it be let known that Hitler was not a great tactician. He was foolish,half-witted and NOT general.Hitler really can attribute his great success to people like Goebbels, Speer, Himmler, Rommel etc etc.
Hitler was an Orator yes, but not a "great tactician"
Trotsky for example was a great military man, but he had 0 feel for politics - he didn't show up for Lenin's funeral because Stalin told him the wrong date...what an idiot.
I think Mein Kampf did demonstrate that Hitler was not stupid at any rate, and had a set and clear ideology.
I do believe he had tactic - if he was not a good tactician at any rate, he wouldn't have got to where he has...
But sure, war tactics of him are debatable - i will concur.
IMO the biggest Mistake he made was trying to fight a two-front war. History shows it just doesn't work
.................
NO NO NO!
Hitler's hand was forced!
Stalin knew that the Nazi's hated Communism! Everyone did! Stalin knew that Hitler would invade Russia at some point.
BUT
Stalin KNEW that Hitler did not want a war on two fronts like in the FWW and so Stalin expected Hitler not to attack Russia until he had won the war with Britain. However Stalin did not think that Hitler would attack Russia while it had yet to conquer Britain. BUT Hitler knew that Russia was preparing itself for a war with Germany and so Hitler believed, justly, that he had to attack and destroy Russia before Russia was in a position to defend itself, also why the alliance with Japan was so important.
So even though Hitler didn't win the Battle of Britain he HAD to attack Russia!
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
.................NO NO NO!
Hitler's hand was forced!
Stalin knew that the Nazi's hated Communism! Everyone did! Stalin knew that Hitler would invade Russia at some point.
BUT
Stalin KNEW that Hitler did not want a war on two fronts like in the FWW and so Stalin expected Hitler not to attack Russia until he had won the war with Britain. However Stalin did not think that Hitler would attack Russia while it had yet to conquer Britain. BUT Hitler knew that Russia was preparing itself for a war with Germany and so Hitler believed, justly, that he had to attack and destroy Russia before Russia was in a position to defend itself, also why the alliance with Japan was so important.
So even though Hitler didn't win the Battle of Britain he HAD to attack Russia!
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I do concur with the idea that his henchmen did a lot of work, and his success depended on it.Trotsky for example was a great military man, but he had 0 feel for politics - he didn't show up for Lenin's funeral because Stalin told him the wrong date...what an idiot.
I think Mein Kampf did demonstrate that Hitler was not stupid at any rate, and had a set and clear ideology.
I do believe he had tactic - if he was not a good tactician at any rate, he wouldn't have got to where he has...But sure, war tactics of him are debatable - i will concur.
Mein Kapmf is so boring, lot of thought in it however so I concur with you! 😉
Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
Hitler still had a choice. He could have gone after Russia first with no opposition besides russia, and then continued his war on Democracy. Poor planning on his part, and He let his hate controll his Actions.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And what is it that I said in my previous post that was historically incorrect?What you said is debatable - a conclusions you drew. What I said is debatable as well, I do not deny that. I have never said anything that did not happen in History, and thus I must have NOT been sleeping in my history lesson.
You think Hitler didn't have tactics - fine. I think he did. You explained why you don;t think he did. I am challanged by your point of view - but I at the same time do not want it down my throat.
Actually, the conclusions I've demonstrated aren't solely my own- they've been shown in numerous works by military historians of the German military of that age. Now, tactics is not just an idea of what you want to do- it's a military science. And Hitler was a lance corporal- he didn't even receive basic officer training. And like I'd said, a lot of times he worked against the better judgment of the OKH and his generals which cost him and later, Germany.
Well I just read my replies and I seem like a bit of a foreceful Hitler supporter.
For the record, Im not, but I do still believe he was an intelligent man to have gotten where he has. I do not deny that his success was largely due to his henchmen.
I did think he had tactics (war or otherwise) - but I guess my view was put in a different perspective. I never had the chance (interest) to read further into his war efforts, apart from my A-level history class.
Hitler was a good state leader, meaning he oversaw some of the best infrastructure overhauls in German history, among other things. He also revitalized a dying country after a bitter war. But after Poland, his military strategy started to go down the drain, and he started to argue against the better thoughts of his generals. Hitler may have had his own view of tactics, but as we can see that didn't pan out too well.