Originally Posted by Doppleganger

General consensus from whom, the public at large, the generals who chose to blame Hitler for anything and everything? Let's see a general consensus from people who have actually taken the time to read and study the Eastern Front and have no axe to grind.

General consensus is just that. Had I have meant his generals or any other group I would have said that.

Only after December 1941, when Germany arguably had lost the chance to defeat Russia anyway.

Once again you are trying to dissect the war into pieces that you can reassemble to suit your point of view, what counts is the overall cause and effect.

This is an opinion, not a fact. Some noted historians do not share your opinion of Hitler as a military strategist, David Glantz and Robert Forczyk amonst others.

That's a pretty miserable count against the remainder of world opinion. Where i come from world opinion counts for far more than the thoughts of a few "experts"

What does this mean exactly? Without Hitler there was still Stalin to contend with. Without Hitler and a resurgent Germany, Stalin likely runs roughshod all over western and southern Europe. There would be no quick comeback from that scenario for Europe and I include Great Britain in that also.

I think Supostat has answered that better than I would have bothered. You are just getting into the realm of "what if"?

History is always evolving and so 'new' points can be made, especially when new information or data comes to light. An example of this is the opening up of the Soviet intelligence archives after the fall of communism that puts new light on battles and casualty figures from WW2. You cannot reverse history, but you can reinterpret it.

I think that even you must agree that the information that has come to light since the war has done nothing to absolve Hitler from his part in the war or raise any possible mitigating circumstance, it has merely confirmed what we already suspected, and/or found for ourselves.
Casualty figures or signals regarding the number socks issued to the 13th Brandenburger Brigade may be interesting statistics to some, but have had no bearing on the causes or possible outcome of the war. They may have further implicated some people or units in their crimes but that's about all. In any case it's all too late to be bothering about it now.

Originally Posted by Supostat

Giving up initiative is a stupid idea, as well as giving enemy a time to rearm, mobilize and train new troops. Especially, if enemy has larger resources than You. In such situation time and any delay is working against You.

Giving up the initiative before you reach your limit of 'strategic consumption' (knowing even that you will reach it) is not stupid, it is sensible. The enemy in question would not have enough time to reorganise as events historically demonstrated. Case Blau was initially an outstanding success partly because the Soviets did not have enough time to recover from 1941. Now imagine a German Army that had not suffered the losses of the Moscow counter-offensive and wholly better supplied and much better equipped and it could be a disaster that the Soviets could not recover from.

Originally Posted by Supostat

Stalin was too clever to launch an open assault on West and thus make himself alone vs. all remaining world. For assault to West Stalin needed someone like Hitler, who lightened the war in the middle of Europe. Only then Stalin could launch his attack legally and, what is more important, even with some support at least initially. In this aspect yes, Hitler was stupid enough to sacrifice himself and Germany and give a chance to Stalin to capture eventually entire Eastern Europe and part of Germany.

I honestly doubt Stalin cared about world opinion and the only thing stopping his westward/southward expansion was a strong Germany, as it was during the Cold War too. Hitler really had no choice but to attack the Soviet Union as Stalin was probably going to attack Germany with mid 1943 as the most likely time. War was inevitable and Hitler did the right thing by attacking first, before the Red Army could properly reorganize itself. It was in the process of reorganizing in 1941 when the Germans attacked.

Originally Posted by senojekips

General consensus is just that. Had I have meant his generals or any other group I would have said that.

That's a pretty miserable count against the remainder of world opinion. Where i come from world opinion counts for far more than the thoughts of a few "experts"

I'll take the opinions of a few experts (and Glantz and Forczyk are just that) over the opinions of the general public who have only heard what they learned from hearsay and the limited history lessons at school. Just like I'll take the opinion of my GP when I have an illness over the 'advice' from people who have had no medical training.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I think that even you must agree that the information that has come to light since the war has done nothing to absolve Hitler from his part in the war or raise any possible mitigating circumstance, it has merely confirmed what we already suspected, and/or found for ourselves.

My original reason for replying to you was to point out the myth that Hitler was wholly responsible for the military blunders that beset Germany during WW2, and that he was a bumbling idiot. He was neither.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I'll take the opinions of a few experts (and Glantz and Forczyk are just that) over the opinions of the general public who have only heard what they learned from hearsay and the limited history lessons at school. Just like I'll take the opinion of my GP when I have an illness over the 'advice' from people who have had no medical training.

There is a vast difference between a Doctor and some self styled author. Also the people who made these opinions were most often those who lived and fought through the experience, their collective opinion is what counts in this world not that of half a dozen "experts" trying to gain attention for themselves by flying in the face of history. It all comes down to the fact that, "you can fool some of the people some of the time....", eventually the population wakes up to the truth. Not that it took a lot of convincing in this case.

My original reason for replying to you was to point out the myth that Hitler was wholly responsible for the military blunders that beset Germany during WW2, and that he was a bumbling idiot. He was neither.

I'm afraid that history has found your judgement sadly lacking. This is only a myth among the small number of apologists. He may not have been a "bumbling idiot" in all things, but he was certainly a less than talented military strategist and human being in fact i think I could safely say without much fear of contradiction that, "his faults far out weighed his strengths". But then again you may have a different view of what constitutes a fool to the vast majority of the civilised world and that is your prerogative.

Doppleganger, basically you're saying let's assume no part of the German plan went wrong and every part of the Russian plan went wrong.

"Now imagine a German Army that had not suffered the losses of the Moscow counter-offensive and wholly better supplied and much better equipped and it could be a disaster that the Soviets could not recover from."

More wishful thinking don't you think? If it wasn't Moscow, it very well could have been somewhere else. Then there was Stalingrad as well. With the supply lines they had it was practically impossible that they not have the supply problems they had.

As for Stalin concerned about world opinion, he'd be concerned about it in regards of whether or not he'd be up against a force too great for him to stop. Stalin for all his trechery was a far more practical thinker than Hitler ever was. Like Supostat said, I don't think he would have wanted a scenario where Russia would have to fight the whole world.

Originally Posted by senojekips

There is a vast difference between a Doctor and some self styled author. Also the people who made these opinions were most often those who lived and fought through the experience, their collective opinion is what counts in this world not that of half a dozen "experts" trying to gain attention for themselves by flying in the face of history. It all comes down to the fact that, "you can fool some of the people some of the time....", eventually the population wakes up to the truth. Not that it took a lot of convincing in this case.

Give me a break Senojekips, no really, give me a break. It is almost pointless debating with you if all you are going to do is come up with meaningless twaddle.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I'm afraid that history has found your judgement sadly lacking. This is only a myth among the small number of apologists. He may not have been a "bumbling idiot" in all things, but he was certainly a less than talented military strategist and human being in fact i think I could safely say without much fear of contradiction that, "his faults far out weighed his strengths". But then again you may have a different view of what constitutes a fool to the vast majority of the civilised world and that is your prerogative.

Let me succinctly sum up my position for you. IMO, and in the opinion of some noted historians, Hitler was not as useless a military strategist as is publicly perceived. You can (and will no doubt) believe what you like.

There you go. Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Doppleganger, basically you're saying let's assume no part of the German plan went wrong and every part of the Russian plan went wrong.

"Now imagine a German Army that had not suffered the losses of the Moscow counter-offensive and wholly better supplied and much better equipped and it could be a disaster that the Soviets could not recover from."

More wishful thinking don't you think? If it wasn't Moscow, it very well could have been somewhere else. Then there was Stalingrad as well. With the supply lines they had it was practically impossible that they not have the supply problems they had.

As for Stalin concerned about world opinion, he'd be concerned about it in regards of whether or not he'd be up against a force too great for him to stop. Stalin for all his trechery was a far more practical thinker than Hitler ever was. Like Supostat said, I don't think he would have wanted a scenario where Russia would have to fight the whole world.

With all due respect, you do not have sufficient knowledge to debate this subject in a worthwhile manner.

Adios.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Give me a break Senojekips, no really, give me a break. It is almost pointless debating with you if all you are going to do is come up with meaningless twaddle.

Let me succinctly sum up my position for you. IMO, and in the opinion of some noted historians, Hitler was not as useless a military strategist as is publicly perceived. You can (and will no doubt) believe what you like.

There you go. Have a nice day.

And why do you think that impression persists? Like I said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. The fact is that your "poor misunderstood hero" has been seen for what he is, and he has been seen that way for 60 years. History got it right, you got it wrong believe it or not.

I will most certainly do that, quite safe in the knowledge that i am supported by 99.999% of world opinion.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

With all due respect, you do not have sufficient knowledge to debate this subject in a worthwhile manner.

Adios.

Arrogance is no more than the cheapest combination of vanity and ignorance.

Here we have a guy who's never frozen his ass off at the bottom of a valley with no resupply... who has no idea what it's like to march in formation at night so dark that you can't see the guy barely sixty centimeters in front of you, has no idea of the actual amount of logistical support that goes into setting off on an op, has no idea how how much of a toll just simply marching from one objective to another takes... telling us what is militarily viable and what is not.
I don't understand what part of my argument doesn't make sense.
Every war is different, every war is the same. They all have something in common.
Even in a place as small as Korea you will have supply problems when winter sets in or when you get torrential rainfall. In a place as big as Russia... don't even get me started.
Things may look nice and neat on your copy of The Operational Art of War but where the rubber meets the road, it is a nightmare.