Some say that he was a military genius and other say that Germany lost the World War because of his retarded military decisions. What is the truth? How good was Hitler as the military leader? I don't ask about his political moves and ideology. I want to know how good or maybe bad he was at being in charge of arguably the best army in The World.
From what I heard was during the start of the world war he was a grand military strategist who commanded from a bunker close to the French line.
However, after blitzing France at the rate that he did, even he was highly surprised and came to the conclusion that the German army was basicly invincible and didn't need his help. Most of the time during the battle of Britain and early operation Barbarossa he spent in his vacation villa in the alps.
Propbably due to multiple losses he started losing his sanity, and when he took command of the armies back around 1943 he couldn't really make 100% radical decissions anymore.
Might not be 100% accurate but that's my 50 cents
Reminder that all of the major decisions of World War 2 were fully supported by Germany's generals and high command, including invading Russia, and including diverting the central armies to the Caucuses
Hitler had little actual influence in the course of the war once it actually got started
They reused WWI plans early on, once they ran out of Schlieffenpower they got turdstomped
He probably was a net detriment to the German war effort, but not a big one. It was his brinkmanship that brought Germany to the top in the prewar/early war years. It was his insistence on a risky plan against the wishes of most commanders that helped Germany achieve a quick victory against France. And conversely it was his orders that often resulted in a less than ideal position in the east what with his reluctance to give ground - but then you are at a point where the war is already lost. And at the same time many of the things that are ascribed to him as somehow key in this defeat were not the result of his overriding influence, but of frontline realities and even more often support from the general staff. Talking about the major strategy changes in the east here, like "splitting" forces etc. Incidentally the same general staff that was, after the war, all too quick to blame Hitler and not their own failures.
While the theory of Hitler’s diabolism is generally accepted, there are very well informed persons who contend that he brought himself and Germany to ruin by being too soft, generous and honorable rather than too tough and ruthless.
They point to the following considerations: he made a genuine and liberal peace offer to Britain on August 25, 1939; he permitted the British to escape at Dunkirk to encourage Britain to make peace, which later on cost him the war in North Africa; he failed to occupy all of France, take North Africa at once, and split the British Empire, he lost the Battle of Britain by failing to approve the savagery of military barbarism which played so large a role in the Allied victory; he delayed his attack on Russia and offered Molotov lavish concessions in November 1940 to keep peace between Germany and Russia; he lost the war with Russia by delaying the invasion in order to bail Mussolini out of his idiotic attack on Greece; and he declared war on the United States to keep his pledged word with Japan which had long before made it clear that it deserved no such consideration and loyalty from Hitler.
>>1310899
Nah he was a gambler, but really good politician and that's all. If he let generals to wage war on East front by themselves they would probably prolonged it, at best achieved some kind of draw.
