>Hitler didn't listen to his generals
>Hitler made bad decisions
Let's end this meme right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zinPbUZUHDE
No one wants to dispute this?
Okay, it's settled then.
>>731370
>no one wants to dispute an hour long video after 5 minutes
Fuck you dude.
>>731399
>Implying anyone is even going to watch the video.
If anyone on this board actually researched history, retarded misinformed memes wouldn't exist.
>>731351
One could argue that continuing to press for war, declaring war on America, and breaking up the soviet alliance were bad decisions.
Its certainly not good decisions that lead to the utter defeat and partitioning of your nation between both of your enemies.
>>731351
Like most things the truth is somewhere in the middle. The initial proposals for the Invasion of France were just a repeat of WW1, Hitler was responsible for them changing to the strategy that ultimately worked. I don't see how you can say he didn't make bad decisions however. Whether the generals urged/agreed to attack Russia, that was also Hitler's call. One option Hitler had that his generals didn't was to not attack Russia at all.
>>731351
Decent video, overall solid argument. His argument on Hitler's incompetence was weak. Ok yeah Hitler didn't always make bad decisions. Ok yeah sometimes the professionals made bad decisions.
BUT when Hitler DID make bad decisions how important were they? This crucial part was left out.
>>731839
Source on this? Finland, Bessarabia, and the Baltics excluding Lithuania were basically promised to the Soviets in the pact if I recall. The Soviets ended up taking Lithuania but it was considered recompse for Germany taking a larger chunk of Poland than agreed.
>>731839
Figures a nazi sympathizer is into revisionist history.
Stalin had a fucking panic attack when Hitler invaded had no reason to fight.
Its the reason they got pissed that the french england and US reunited their parts of Germany.
And besides Hitler lost, no matter what he fucked up, whether it was starting the war not listening to generals invading russia or all combined.
>>731898
There was a private recording of Hitler, where he was talking about strategy while unaware he was being recorded. In this recording he describes in very frank terms the grim situation in Soviet Russia.
But the general idea that Stalin wanted war was outlined in the history book titled Icebreaker.
>>732165
>Stalin panicked
Yes, because he didn't expect the Germans to defeat Poland and France and attack so soon. He was in the middle of restructuring.
Do you have anything meaningful to add besides pointlessly raging like a baboon?
>>732165
>no reason to fight.
>Its the reason they got pissed that the french england and US reunited their parts of Germany
Perhaps you didn't realize this, but the Soviet Union had been arming for war since Stalin took power. Furthermore, global communist revolution was a major goal of their ideology
>>733203
> Icebreaker
Shame on you, anon. Even the most red-blooded American will agree: Icebreaker is a pure undiluted propaganda bullshit, not a serious historical research.
>>733230
Wow, nice argument. You sure convinced me with all those facts you posted, such as:
____________
>>731351
A bit offtopic but where did this meme come from?
>>733234
> burden of proof
Is not on me.
But even filthy Communist Wikipedia does not agree with you:
> A noteworthy rebuttal of Suvorov's thesis is contained in Colonel David Glantz's work Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War. Glantz views Suvorov's argument as "incredible" on a variety of fronts: first, Suvorov rejects without examination classified ex-Soviet archival material, and makes highly selective picks from memoirs. Glantz points to this as a serious methodological flaw. Further, Glantz argues, Suvorov's thesis is strongly contradicted both by ex-Soviet and German archival material, and the facts do not support the argument that the Red Army was prepared to invade Germany.[1] On the contrary, the appalling lack of readiness, poor training level, and abysmal state of deployments show that the Red Army was unprepared for static defense, much less large-scale offensive operations. Glantz's conclusion is that "Stalin may well have been an unscrupulous tyrant, but he was not a lunatic."
>>733235
Manstein. A lot of the blitzkrieg doctrine generals wanted to take credit for winning France/Poland but not for losIng Russia. When Blitzkrieg failed, Hitler rightly switched tactics. This butthurt the Blitzkrieg proponents who still didn't understand the situation.
>>733249
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk
In this recording Hitler explains how the Soviets threatened German allies.
And I literally already explained why Stalin was unprepared... Did you not even follow along?
>>733249
>burden of proof
P.S. I hate how retards take this phrase as "I don't have to back up anything I say, only other people do."
If you make a claim, you back it up.
>>733324
> If you make a claim, you back it up.
> uses Icebreaker as evidence
>>733402
>Hurrr durrr
Spicy memes bro, but I still haven't heard anything close to an actual argument from you.
>>733255
.......I was talking about the picture
>>731351
Sure, some of the General staff ideas proposed were stupid, like some of the plans for invading France.
But you can't pretend Hitler didn't make a mountain of absolutely retarded decisions. Off the top of my head:
>Let's send 13 divisions to guard fucking Norway after we conquered it, because the Allies will totally commit to a counterinvasion where there's terrible weather, even worse terrain from an offensive point of view, extremely limited strategic benefits, and an infrastructure lack that makes it hard for their supply heavy campaigning to works
>Let's allow Rommel to embark on pointless offensives that can't possibly succeed, overriding Halder et al to do so, and weaken our position in Cyrenica as he wastes half of his supplies. Did I forget to mention that the strategic plan was always to be on the defensive, hold out as long as we could with a minimum of force in a theater where all the strategic advantages lie with our enemies, while we try to win in Russia.
>And then, when he inevitably gets his ass into trouble, let's send him hundreds of thousands of men in Tunis just so they can be surrounded and captured.
>Let's not take a page out of our amazing inter-arm coordination between the various branches in the Heer and with the Luftwaffe, don't apply that to the Kriegsmarine or anything. Raeder, you have your surface ships do one thing. Donitz, have your subs doing something else completely. Don't talk to each other.
>Not a step back, anyone?
And those are just clearly and obviously stupid decisions, I'm not even going into the extremely questionable but maybe good idea ones (Early operational thrusts in Barbarossa) or things that were based on information that turned out to be wrong (ME-262 as a light bomber).
>>731351
Hitler has only got one ball
The other is in the Albert Hall
His mother, the dirty b*****,
Cut it off when he was small
Hitler has only got one ball,
Göring has two but very small,
Himmler has something sim'lar,
But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.
Hitler 'had tiny deformed penis' as well as just one testicle, historians claim
Hitler suffered from a condition called hypospadias which left him with an abnormally small manhood, according to historians Jonathan Mayo and Emma Craigie
>>733562
People who obsess over the testicles of others and make up elaborate and baseless theoris, probably have genital issues of their own.
But kudos on coming up with a retarded idea other than the usual "Hitler was a jew" nonsense.
>>733311
>hitler would never lie
/pol/ come on
>>733677
What's the point of lying in a conversation that is only supposed to be between you and the Finnish head of state, whom is already your ally in a war? This wasn't taken for propaganda purposes, it was taken in secret.
You think Mannerheim wouldn't know if his country was threatened? You think that Finland doesn't have an embassy or an intelligence agency?
>>731457
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I implied, good job dipshit, you fucking got it.
gold.fucking.star.
>>731351
please sum this up
>>733476
It's Pacha from the Emperor's New Groove.
It started as a meme on /co/. People kinda' forced it at first, but now it's grown on some people and for the most part everyone mostly likes it. There are all sorts of variants and you can probably find the template somewhere.
>>734786
It was mostly logistics that lost them the war.
Clothing wasn't sent because there was a choice between ammo and clothes and the ammo won out. There wasn't enough room for both.
The Soviet Union advanced in proficiency mid war. The Germans had the experience and training advantage early, but the Soviets caught up.
The Germans had no reserves while the Soviets had many. Beyond Germany's main force they weren't any more experienced than the Soviets.
The Soviet weaponry actually was technologically superior at the start of the invasion, not worse. It was the coordination and experience of the Germans that was winning them battles.
Hitler was actually one of the better decision makers. He was responsible for accepting the plan to take out France, and he made many key decisions on the Eastern Front that kept them in it. Most of his bad decisions weren't really his idea, or at least didn't originate with him. He got blamed for other people's failures, but he often had more success than his generals. He was a competent strategist.
>>734984
Not the guy you're responding to, but most of Hitler's good ideas also didn't originate with him, like the Ardennes thrust coming from Manstein.
And a lot of his actual, originate from Hitler ideas were bumfuck retarded, like pretty much everything associated with Norway.
>>731351
Good video, I had known about maskirovna, but hadn't put it in perspective like that guy does. This isn't really about Hitler though. He is mentioned, as of course how could you mention WWII without Hitler, but he's not the main topic only a pillar.
>>735123
>And a lot of his actual, originate from Hitler ideas were bumfuck retarded, like pretty much everything associated with Norway.
The British wanted to invade Norway and Hitler learnt of this.
Hitler actually telegrammed the British telling them he knew their plans and that he wanted Norway to remain neutral.
The British didn't respond, so Hitler invaded Norway. Norway was extremely important for control of Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea.
>>735329
>The British wanted to invade Norway and Hitler learnt of this.
And it was a damn stupid idea of theirs, too.
>The British didn't respond, so Hitler invaded Norway. Norway was extremely important for control of Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea.
No it fucking wasn't. The entrances to the Baltic were still mined from Kiel and Frederickshavn. While naval bombers might conceivably make it (flying over pro-Germany Sweden, which will probably draw them fully into the Axis camp) into the Baltic, the British fighters can't make the trip and back, which means any Sunderlands or Beauforts or whatever they'd be using would be dead meat.
The stated purpose was that sometimes Swedish iron was shipped down the Norweigan coast when the baltic ports froze, but that actually only happened one winter over the lifetime of WW2, and it turns out that most of the tugs sent down from Narvik got sunk in the North sea anyway, which didn't have the protective minefields.
Plus, the invasion immediately put the Norweigan merchant marine at the British's disposal, dumping about 2.5 million tons of shipping right in their lap at a time when the Germans were trying to get the whole "knock Britain out by winning the convoy war" thing going.
It was a colossally stupid idea, and compounded by making further stupid moves in overgarrisoning the prize, which by 1942 had risen to 1/6th of the native population.
>>735123
>Not the guy you're responding to, but most of Hitler's good ideas also didn't originate with him, like the Ardennes thrust coming from Manstein.
Yeah, not all of the French campaign originated with Hitler, but he accepted it, and also proposed a similar plan without prompting before Manstein's. It would have never passed if he listened to the rest of his generals. You have to look at it in a grand strategic sense. What would have happened if Hitler wasn't there?
>And a lot of his actual, originate from Hitler ideas were bumfuck retarded, like pretty much everything associated with Norway.
Why? A lot of his trade came from Sweden. It was a legitimate strategic concern. A designated Allied assault could have caused problems.
Hitler wasn't a bad strategist. He was certainly competent, and had moments of insight. He certainly was a better statesman and strategist than any other political figure of the 20th century. The drunk, the cripple, and the bank robber were amateurs in comparison.
>>731351
Hitler did plenty of stupid shit.
But it's increasingly looking like a lot of what he was blamed for was the result of
>Yes-men not giving him an accurate picture
>A legitimate decision that only looks bad in retrospect
>generals trying to salvage their reputation postwar by blaming a dead man that nobody's going to try to defend
The Stalingrad airlift is a good example of those first two points - they were unprepared for any kind of winter counteroffensive, and airlifts had worked earlier that year at Demyansk and Kholm. Sure, the Luftwaffe lacked the capacity for the airlift, but all Hitler heard was Goering telling him "yeah we can totally do that." Even if he knew the Luftwaffe lacked the capacity, it's not like there was much else he could do anyways - the Germans flat out couldn't launch a serious winter offensive at that point, especially on such a short notice.
Manstein in particular was an example of that last point - his memoirs blame everything that went wrong on Hitler, and if he can't blame hitler (like with his failed first assault on Sevastopol), he pretends it never happened.
>>735367
>And it was a damn stupid idea of theirs, too.
Sweden and Norway had hardly any military to speak of. Once Britain had invaded Norway, a neutral country, it would have been trivial to invade Sweden and cut Germany off from Sweden's metals, and would have allowed Britain to strike into the Baltic.
If both sides of the war consider something an important objective, it just may be something worth considering!
>>735444
Yeah, they were fucked on the Eastern Front no matter what. You aren't going to get out of looking incompetent and unintelligent in a situation like that. There were no good decisions, just some slightly less worse than others.
>>735410
>What would have happened if Hitler wasn't there?
A different dictator or maybe even a small snowballs chance of Weimar limping on?
>>735444
Hey, maybe he was pure fucking evil. Maybe that.
>>735410
Yes, but when you're arguing, as >>734984 does, that
>Most of his bad decisions weren't really his idea, or at least didn't originate with him.
As a way of exculpating HItler from his later war blunders, you can't credit him with the good ideas that didn't originate with him either.
>Why? A lot of his trade came from Sweden. It was a legitimate strategic concern. A designated Allied assault could have caused problems.
And was transported over the Baltic, not down the Norweigan coast, when the ports did occasionally freeze and they did try to rail it up to Narvik and ship the stuff down, the British killed most of it anyway.
>>735455
>Sweden and Norway had hardly any military to speak of.
Completely wrong.
http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaron/sweeds.html
>If both sides of the war consider something an important objective, it just may be something worth considering!
And when historians almost universally condemn it as a mistake, (see Douglas Porch, Martin Van Creveld, and John Keegan) They might be worth listening to!
>>731351
Hitler confirmed beta male lap muncher with micro-dick who had to piss sitting down like a bitch.
>>735455
>Sweden and Norway had hardly any military to speak of
get a load of this historian
>>735701
related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_Sweden_during_World_War_II
>>735632
>As a way of exculpating HItler from his later war blunders, you can't credit him with the good ideas that didn't originate with him either.
That's true. A leader—or at least a true leader—is responsible for all successes and failures. It's the opposite of what you are saying generally, though, with people saying successes happened in spite of him and defeats because of him. The truth is he was actually quite competent. It helps to be surrounded by other competent people, but it takes some competence yourself to recognize it in other people. If you put any other statesman from the 20th century in his position, I'm sure they would have handled it far worse. As a matter of fact, it would probably be a side note due to a much earlier and less spectacular failure. The fact that people talk about him at all is a testament to his political genius.
>>731351
>Hitler didn't listen to his generals
Not really a meme. He basically just planted his own generals because the Prussian blue-bloods were a) traditional enough to see that the way Hitler waged war was morally damaging to the troops and just immoral in general b) smart enough to realize that "the power of the will" is not a fucking thing.
>Hitler made bad decisions
What are the arguments against this?
>>735729
of course they couldn't compete with the big guys. that doesn't mean their force was negligible. you're just shitposting at this point.
>>735720
Did you even watch the OP video?
>>735729
>400,000 men were put on full alert
>>735741
Nah, I'm on a train and I don't have headphones.
>>735720
It was a meme, though, at least according to this guy. Most of the decisions he made were heavily influenced or outright made by his officers. The times that he went out of his way to override them were actually astounding successes, not failures.
Hitler being hands on isn't a myth. He is probably the most hands on dictator in centuries. He had ideas on almost every aspect of Germany, ranging from economics to architecture, and he often overrode experts. The truth, though, is that he was amazingly successful at it. He was very often dead on the money. Once again, you wouldn't even know his name if he was as incompetent as people make him out to be. From his rise, to the rise of Germany, to the war against the Allies, he showed signs of genius at every stop.
>>735737
They would be overrun in a day. Their government would surrender without fighting to avoid losses, knowing that their sovereignty wasn't really threatened and they had no chance of winning.
>>731370
As if it weren't clear enough, OP confirmed faggot.
>>735748
Are we thinking about the same Hitler?
>>735711
> though, with people saying successes happened in spite of him and defeats because of him.
I wouldn't say that either. A lot of his successes and defeats were dictated by external factors, the relative strengths of his country vs others, the high level of tactical and operational acumen his military had relative to other contemporaries compensating for many, but not all of industrial shortcomings.
That's why I try to focus on the decisions Hitler himself made and compare them to other decisions other chief executives made, as opposed to some sort of gestalt thing where he gets the credit for everything that happened, regardless of level of involvement.
>The truth is he was actually quite competent.
at seizing and holding onto power? Sure. That's a whole different kettle of fish from planning wartime strategy.
>If you put any other statesman from the 20th century in his position, I'm sure they would have handled it far worse.
And you're basing this certainty on what exactly?
>>735729
It's more than enough to parry an assault through the mountains in the sort of weather you see in Lappland from a force that would have to be supplied out of the tiny port of Narvik and then have stuff transferred up by roads when the Swedes tore up the rails.
So your assertion that
> Once Britain had invaded Norway, a neutral country, it would have been trivial to invade Sweden and cut Germany off from Sweden's metals, and would have allowed Britain to strike into the Baltic.
Is quite simply wrong. It's idiotically wrong.
>>735758
No, you're clearly thinking of the propagandized version who was insane and did everything wrong and who was secretly a gay jew with no penis.
>>735748
>The times that he went out of his way to override them were actually astounding successes, not failures.
Let's talk about the Maus, the Anglo-German naval treaty, and the involvement in North Africa, why don't we?
>>733655
What he posted was an Australian war March
>>735767
>Maus
A mobile bunker that was almost completed
>Naval Treaty
Hitler wanted to be friends with Britain
>Africa
Delicious oil was necessary for a motorized war effort. Also Italy was supposed to be stronger and the Arabs were supposed to rise up and liberate themselves.
>>735766
Pic related, prime example of Adolfs autism. His generals adviced him not to attack at Kursk, gave him clear options (attack now, wait for panthers, or don't attack at all). Hitlers postpones and postpones, and finally launches the attack after soviets have built up crazy strong defenses.
>>735758
Probably not. You are thinking about the History Channel Hitler and I am thinking of the one that actually existed at one point.
>>735762
>I wouldn't say that either. A lot of his successes and defeats were dictated by external factors, the relative strengths of his country vs others, the high level of tactical and operational acumen his military had relative to other contemporaries compensating for many, but not all of industrial shortcomings.
You could say that about any general or political leader ever. Are there no great leaders? What makes Hitler's successes any less valid? He was given far less to work with than many.
>That's why I try to focus on the decisions Hitler himself made and compare them to other decisions other chief executives made, as opposed to some sort of gestalt thing where he gets the credit for everything that happened, regardless of level of involvement.
Most of his involvement was beneficial from what I see.
>at seizing and holding onto power? Sure. That's a whole different kettle of fish from planning wartime strategy.
He changed Germany fundamentally. You can't say it would have happened anyhow, because it wouldn't have, at least not in the same way. He changed the economy's function, education, ideology, etc.
As for the war, I don't think he anticipated a war against Britain and France. He thought they would leave him alone, and that he had time to build up against the Soviet Union.
>And you're basing this certainty on what exactly?
The fact that none of the others ran their country to the same extent. Even Stalin, a supposed dictator, was ruled by the Politburo. The only one who was comparable was Mussolini, and he was incompetent in comparison. Hitler legitimately ran Germany, and Germany was legitimately better off for it, at least until the Allies declared war on him.
>>735784
>A mobile bunker that was almost completed
Diverting resources from actual armor production to make a "mobile bunker" that would have no anti-infanty defense is retarded.
>Hitler wanted to be friends with Britain
And in doing so, built a fleet that was calibrated to be near-useless if shit went south. And shit went south. Bad strategic planning on two parts!
>Delicious oil was necessary for a motorized war effort.
And oil hadn't been discovered in North Africa, and where it would later be discovered was in areas under Italian control when Rommel was sent down.
>Also Italy was supposed to be stronger and the Arabs were supposed to rise up and liberate themselves.
And neither of those factors make supporting a guy whose plan was to outrun his lines of communication and go "lol, it'll work somehow" a good idea. Especially when you've already got a much more important war going on and your goal in North Africa is to commit the least amount of force necessary to not lose, rather than pushing on the offensive.
>>735790
Guderian and Manstein's accounts are critical of him. He wasn't around to defend himself, so it isn't really fair. They basically accused Hitler of single handedly losing the war.
>>735792
>You could say that about any general or political leader ever. Are there no great leaders? What makes Hitler's successes any less valid? He was given far less to work with than many.
Of course there are, but they're great leaders because they make good decisions. Hitler did not consistently make good decisions.
>Most of his involvement was beneficial from what I see.
Because you have your eyes wide shut.
>As for the war, I don't think he anticipated a war against Britain and France. He thought they would leave him alone, and that he had time to build up against the Soviet Union.
What a great strategic calculation he did when it came to invading Poland!
>The only one who was comparable was Mussolini, and he was incompetent in comparison.
Mussolini had far less power (in an internal measurement) than Stalin did. He fucking got dismissed by the king.
>Hitler legitimately ran Germany, and Germany was legitimately better off for it, at least until the Allies declared war on him.
And the Allies declared war on him in response to his almost compulsive treaty-breaking and saber rattling, an easily foreseeable consequence that he somehow managed to miss entirely. People who make good decisions? They usually make good predictions as to how people react to what they do.
>>735790
Pic related as well. Also about the battle of Kursk. Hitler decided to pull away units that were needed for the victory at Kursk at the critical moment, because of developments on the western front. These units would not help win at Kursk, and would not reach the western front in time to make a difference there either. Autism on display.
>>735801
>They basically accused Hitler of single handedly losing the war.
Well isn't there legitimacy to that claim? Hitler had full power over the OKW. It was he who drew up the main strategy of the offensive in the east.
>>735811
Not the way they say it. It's wasn't his decision making that lost Germany the war, although it was his responsibility. Listening to Guderian and Manstein wouldn't have changed anything.
>>735802
>Hitler did not consistently make good decisions.
What do you mean he didn't? You wouldn't have heard his name if he didn't. How many idiots bumble around for a few years and get kicked out of power? He would have been another footnote if he wasn't making great decisions. He made great decisions all the way up until the Eastern Front started going bad. At that point, there were no great decisions to make.
>What a great strategic calculation he did when it came to invading Poland!
He didn't consider it a big deal at the time. The Soviets were making all sorts of aggressive maneuvers, too, so he thought he could match them. He didn't think the French and British would step in-between Germany and the Soviet Union. He was wrong, but the official explanation isn't very good, either. They definitely favored the Soviet Union when they had no strategic motive to do so. Hitler would blame this on Jewish media, I'm sure, and you wouldn't be able to say he was wrong.
>>735811
Hitler made mistakes, certainly, but so did many of the member of his senior staff. People often give Hitler shit for firing good generals and surrounding himself with yesmen, but most of the generals he sacked he had a good reason for doing so. Hitler is no more totally responsible for Germany losing the war, than Stalin, Roosevelt, or Churchill are for winning it.
>>735852
>What do you mean he didn't?
I mean that he didn't. He planned for an eventual war, except he mis-guessed the times, places, proper preparations, and likely reactions of his eventual foes.
He was good at getting to power. He was very bad at achieving his ideological aims once he had it.
>He made great decisions all the way up until the Eastern Front started going bad.
Yeah, like the aforementioned naval treaty, the aforementioned decisions in North Africa, the aformenetioned stuff with Poland, the aforementioned stuff in Norway, and building up to a total war mentality when he didn't have the industrial resources to compete.
>He didn't consider it a big deal at the time.
ANd he was wrong as fuck to do so! It was an objectively bad prediction; he thought France and Britain would just let it go. He saw the Munich pact as total western submission rather than "this is your VERY last chance". He dropped the ball in a major, major way.
>The Soviets were making all sorts of aggressive maneuvers, too, so he thought he could match them.
In line with his own planning. Or did you forget the Molotov-Ribbentorp pact, or how the Soviets didn't invade until Poland was already prostrate before his invasion?
>He was wrong, but the official explanation isn't very good, either. They definitely favored the Soviet Union when they had no strategic motive to do so.
Other than, you know, Stalin being generally predictable and not willing to gamble on manichean total war states the way Hitler was, and thus safer to them despite being the head of a more powerful antagonist state.
>Hitler would blame this on Jewish media, I'm sure, and you wouldn't be able to say he was wrong.
Of course I would say that he's wrong. It's absolutely fucking retarded, and so are you if you give it a moment's credence. Jewish media involvement in Britain and France was tiny in the pre-war era.
>>735864
>Of course I would say that he's wrong. It's absolutely fucking retarded, and so are you if you give it a moment's credence. Jewish media involvement in Britain and France was tiny in the pre-war era.
I'm ignoring the rest because this is going in circles, but Hitler was objectively fighting Jewish power. He wouldn't have lied about that. He couldn't have convinced everyone of something that had no basis in reality. Was the German intelligentsia full of conspiracy theorists?
You have to understand, the Freikorps and other groups that later became Nazis weren't anti-Semitic per say, although they shared the ultra nationalist ideology. Hitler would have had a far easier time getting into power if he ignored the Jewish question. He didn't ignore it because it was a legitimate concern. There were real Jewish names and faces he kicked out of banking, politics, the media, and entertainment. It wasn't some illusion.
The truth is, you could say the same thing about France, Britain, and America. Everyone was going on about Communists, but who were the primary Communists? Who controlled the media in those countries? Hitler was not a threat to any of the Western powers. He wanted them as allies, not enemies.
Your entire conception of the war is incorrect, that's why you think Hitler was an idiot. It was him versus Jewish international finance. The West just got swindled into fighting for them.
>ITT: HE DINDU NUFFIN
>>731351
Its been said Napoleon didn't make a mistake in his 1812 campaign.
I think Hitler made several 'blunders'. One being sending Guderian's panzers south to help Army Group South.
He was talked in to the blitz.
He didn't realize how close he was to beating Britian in both the early battle of britian AND in north africa.
Its easy to judge in hindsight though.
>>736121
>One being sending Guderian's panzers south to help Army Group South.
But that was necessary. If anything, the mistake was turning them north again after securing Kiev. You can't afford to leave a Soviet army like that just hanging around.
>He didn't realize how close he was to beating Britian in both the early battle of britian AND in north africa.
BUt he wasn't close to doing either. Fuck, in "Early" north Africa, the aggressive stance got Rommel stuck around Tobruk for months only to be crushed and rolled back during Crusader.
>>736143
Churchill was ready to negotiate peace if he lost North Africa. For some reason he considered it the most important theater.
The war wasn't really high stakes for Britain. Hitler wanted peace and would have gave it to them with only Churchill's resignation but he would have been left a free man.
Britian was in the war for the classic doctrine of keeping germany from gaining hegemony over europe.
>>736143
Delaying the push to moscow meant they were hit by bad weather, tanks from the north and winter trained soldiers reinforcing across trans-siberian railroad.
Then he declared war on the US thinking Japan would attack Russia in the east...or something? IDK.
It just seems like AGS didn't need the panzers as bad as moscow needed to be taken fast.
>>731457
Then why did you post it in the first place FAGGOT?
Demanding retaliatory attacks on British cities after they retaliated to the accidental bombing of London by bombing Berlin was a major blunder
>>735864
To be fair England mostly thought the treaty of versaille was too harsh and agreed with Hitler.
The war guarantee to Poland really is where things went wrong. Poland refused to negotiate rather than use it to strengthen Poland's position at the table. Hitler assumed it was a bluff and GB and France wouldn't honor it since Poland had decided to shit all over his peace plan, which included a vote in the corridor to see where it would go.
I mean Hitler was wrong here. But i wouldn't say his assumptions were stupid. The whole situation with poland was pretty absurd from all perspectives.
>>735794
>Diverting resources from actual armor production to make a "mobile bunker" that would have no anti-infanty defense is retarded.
It was meant more for defense than offense. It would be supported by infantry.
>And in doing so, built a fleet that was calibrated to be near-useless if shit went south. And shit went south. Bad strategic planning on two parts!
Hitler never planned to contest Britain for naval superiority. It would have been fucking impossible since Britain had the biggest navy on the planet.
>d neither of those factors make supporting a guy whose plan was to outrun his lines of communication and go "lol, it'll work somehow" a good idea. Especially when you've already got a much more important war going on and your goal in North Africa is to commit the least amount of force necessary to not lose, rather than pushing on the offensive.
Yeah, that dork wasn't supposed to do that, but he did. Somehow it's Hitler's fault that a general not even on the same continent is disobeying his directive?
>>736167
>Churchill was ready to negotiate peace if he lost North Africa. For some reason he considered it the most important theater.
[citation needed]
>Delaying the push to moscow meant they were hit by bad weather, tanks from the north and winter trained soldiers reinforcing across trans-siberian railroad.
And Moscow isn't exactly worth all that much. Most of the industry could have been evacuated earlier if the German axis of advance shifted north instead of south. STAVKA relocated and planned the Cyzama offensive from Kuybuyshev with no noticeable loss in competence. And "The Siberian divisions" is a myth, not to mention the month that saw the greatest troop transfers from the Far East Command was..... July.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/
>Then he declared war on the US thinking Japan would attack Russia in the east...or something? IDK.
He declared war because they were already in something of an undeclared war.
>It just seems like AGS didn't need the panzers as bad as moscow needed to be taken fast.
The Soviet reserves are more important than Moscow. And if AGS isn't reinforced, they don't have enough men to invest Kiev. What happens when those 600,000 troops wander into your south flank in your early typhoon?
>>736205
And regardless of the morality of the situation, Hitler made an enormous blunder. He thought that post-Munic, Britain and France would let him do whatever he wanted, rather than this being the very last straw. Assuming that they'd let him break promises with absolutely no consequences is pretty dumb.
>>736246
>It was meant more for defense than offense. It would be supported by infantry.
Unless of course, something goes wrong in the chaos of battle and your infantry bodyguard is dead, driven off, or gets seperated. Putting down that much into an experimental "bunker tank" with a huge glaring weakness is stupid.
>Hitler never planned to contest Britain for naval superiority. It would have been fucking impossible since Britain had the biggest navy on the planet.
Then why did he insist on the balanced fleet (mirroring classes to create a smaller version of the RN) rather than the cruiser and u-boat based fleet Raeder recommended? If he's not trying to contest Britain for naval superiority, the more flexible fleet is a better use of his limited resources given the convoy arteries that Britain depends on.
>Yeah, that dork wasn't supposed to do that, but he did. Somehow it's Hitler's fault that a general not even on the same continent is disobeying his directive?
It's Hitler's fault because Halder game Rommel orders to stay in Cyrenica, and Rommel appealed to Der Fuhrer to override them, which Hitler did, which is how he got the go-ahead to go for Tobruk.
>>736278
>Unless of course, something goes wrong in the chaos of battle and your infantry bodyguard is dead, driven off, or gets seperated. Putting down that much into an experimental "bunker tank" with a huge glaring weakness is stupid.
So if the enemy first has to fight off a wave of infantry, before fighting the more valuable supertank, then that's mission accomplished. The infantry fulfilled their role of screening. Having a pissy little machinegun on your tank isn't going to do anything if the enemy defeated an entire squad of soldiers.
>Then why did he insist on the balanced fleet (mirroring classes to create a smaller version of the RN) rather than the cruiser and u-boat based fleet Raeder recommended? If he's not trying to contest Britain for naval superiority, the more flexible fleet is a better use of his limited resources given the convoy arteries that Britain depends on.
If Hitler builds a surface navy, then a greater number of British ships need to be detached to guard the German fleet from entering contested waters (let's say 2 times as many, to ensure victory in case of a battle). While they are on this mission, they cannot patrol for submarines, cannot raid German convoys, cannot do all these fun things; and are of course, using up fuel and manpower. A surface navy, even if it does nothing but sit at port all war, is still useful.
>It's Hitler's fault because Halder game Rommel orders to stay in Cyrenica, and Rommel appealed to Der Fuhrer to override them, which Hitler did, which is how he got the go-ahead to go for Tobruk.
Well Rommel succeeded and things were fine, then he got pushed back. Sometimes you take a gamble.
>>736315
>So if the enemy first has to fight off a wave of infantry, before fighting the more valuable supertank, then that's mission accomplished. The infantry fulfilled their role of screening. Having a pissy little machinegun on your tank isn't going to do anything if the enemy defeated an entire squad of soldiers.
Or, you know, they stick to reasonably standard procedure and hose down the area with artillery before engaging, whcih they're likely to do anyway.
Tanks hold up better than infantry to most indirect fire guns. They inf are likely to be messed up, and the tank is likely to be left vulnerable.
Yes, a "pissy little machinegun" isn't going to be enough, but that's just more fuel on the fire that building a tank that's too slow to be maneuvered easily in battle is a bad idea.
>If Hitler builds a surface navy, then a greater number of British ships need to be detached to guard the German fleet from entering contested waters (let's say 2 times as many, to ensure victory in case of a battle).
Hitler DID build a surface navy. What do you think the Scharnhorst, Gnisenau, Bismarck, and Tirpitz were? The problem is that he built a navy along the same lines as the Royal Navy, just smaller, because..... I'm not really sure why. He should have been aiming to build the sort of fleet (expending the same resources) that posed a greater threat at stretching and striking at the convoy traffic that Britain needed instead of mirroring British force balance.
1/2
>>736315
>While they are on this mission, they cannot patrol for submarines, cannot raid German convoys, cannot do all these fun things; and are of course, using up fuel and manpower. A surface navy, even if it does nothing but sit at port all war, is still useful.
You can't raid German convoys anyway because the Baltic is mined and Germany's cutting off her shipping from everywhere else. And you don't use battleships to hunt for submarines, you use smaller boats who still can lob depth charges over the sides.
>Well Rommel succeeded and things were fine, then he got pushed back. Sometimes you take a gamble.
Rommel in no way succeeded. He beat up 2 divisions of a command that had 340,000 troops but couldn't deploy that many to Libya because the infrastructure was shit. Things were not fine. I would recommend The Path to Victoy by Douglas Porch if you really want to get into the minutiae of the 1941 desert campaign, but he was in no way even close to knocking the British out, and in fact never even succeeded in throwing them out of the positions they took from the Italians in that year.
He never threatened the British lines of communication behind Suez, so the Brits could always ferry more troops and supplies in. He never had enough supplies to make it to Suez, because he didn't have railroads connecting to his main point of supply delivery.
>Or, you know, they stick to reasonably standard procedure and hose down the area with artillery before engaging, whcih they're likely to do anyway.
The main goal is to have a tank that cannot be destroyed by Russian heavy tanks due to heavy armor without weaknesses in the frame created by support guns, while having a turret capable of easily penetrating the Russian armor. If the Maus is unsupported and being attacked by infantry... just drive away. Find a more defensible position. If it's being attacked by armor, then it doesn't need support weapons. Even though it's much slower than most vehicles, it's still faster than a person.
>You can't raid German convoys anyway because the Baltic is mined and Germany's cutting off her shipping from everywhere else. And you don't use battleships to hunt for submarines, you use smaller boats who still can lob depth charges over the sides.
Battleships still can be used for shore bombardment, supporting amphibious invasions. There was also the Italian Navy, which was supposed to secure the Mediterranean.
>Rommel in no way succeeded. He beat up 2 divisions of a command that had 340,000 troops but couldn't deploy that many to Libya because the infrastructure was shit.
Did Rommel tell Hitler he could take Suez, or did he tell Hitler that he could putter around in the desert with logistical problems? I'm pretty sure he told Hitler the former. Hitler is supposed to know the condition of roads in another continent? Hitler's not omniscient. He can't be blamed if he's receiving misinformation from overeager generals.
>>734745
>gold.fucking.star.
oy vey
>>736386
>The main goal is to have a tank that cannot be destroyed by Russian heavy tanks due to heavy armor without weaknesses in the frame created by support guns, while having a turret capable of easily penetrating the Russian armor.
Which is a non-go anyway, given the penetrating power of the IS-2.
> If the Maus is unsupported and being attacked by infantry... just drive away.
Because you'll have the roads that can support the damn thing right where you need them. Oh, no, you probably won't.
>Battleships still can be used for shore bombardment, supporting amphibious invasions. There was also the Italian Navy, which was supposed to secure the Mediterranean.
Most shore bombardment was done by light cruisers, not even CA. (They can get closer to the target, and it's an extremely rare land target that can shrug off a 6" shell but not an 11-15" one)
Competent or not, the Italian Navy is never getting past Gibraltar, and everyone knew it; Germany was going to be relying on its own resources for the BoA.
>Did Rommel tell Hitler he could take Suez, or did he tell Hitler that he could putter around in the desert with logistical problems?
So, Hitler overrides Halder, who did know about the logistical issues and had an argument with Rommel over them, on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever? How is that possibly a good idea?
>>731351
Take a load of this cunt.
Read some Toynbee plz
>>735711
The problem with Hitler was that Germany couldn't win, but he had convinced them otherwise. If it were me, I wouldn't have started the actual war until the 1960s, two decades to replenish and buffer the reserves. Without a war to unite the slavic peoples behind him, Stalin would probably get bumped off eventually. Great Britain and France would only decline in strength due to their investment in colonies. As Germany had no colonies, Germany could invest in Germany, and would not be drawn into lengthy foreign wars as the western powers would.
All you have to do is wait until decolonisation hits a crescendo. Then, the world is your oyster.
>>733822
cancer killing /his/
