I second that motion!

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

We were in just as bad shape as Germany, and there was not the heart in it for another fight with Germany at this stage. German troops always thought that they did not lose WW1 but had been sold sown the river by their politicians, so where more up to fight than any one else, as they had wrongs to right as they saw it

(1) If England was in "bad shape", then why in the name of God did they declare war? The leadership obviously had some kind of plan or idea or something.

(2) The Germans did not lose WWI. WWI ended in an armistice. If you look up the word, you will see that 1918 was a negotiated peace. The problem for the "German soldiers" was that they were too busy getting involved in a civil war that turned an armistice into the Versailles defeat. Germany stabbed itself in the back...with quite a bit of help from Wilson.

(3) Germany lost the war because they never planned to fight it. Nor were they ever capable of fighting a war against an alliance consisting of the US, Br (Empire), USSR, and the French, etc.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

(1) If England was in "bad shape", then why in the name of God did they declare war? The leadership obviously had some kind of plan or idea or something.

It's called, "a moral obligation". Something obviously not considered by the German hierarchy of the time. Their (The Brits) "plan" was to try and stop Germany's expansionist policies hopefully before it grew into a repeat of WW I which was at that time, still within recent memory. Germany elected not to stop, the rest is history.

(3) Germany lost the war because they never planned to fight it. Nor were they ever capable of fighting a war against an alliance consisting of the US, Br (Empire), USSR, and the French, etc.

By that, do you mean to say that you think that the Germans were so stupid as to imagine that the Brits and their allies would just let them walk over every country in Europe without any form of reaction? I think the truth lies somewhere nearer the fact that Hitler thought he could "push" until the Brits were ready to declare war then he'd back off. Unfortunately he seriously underestimated their resolve. In short, he seriously overestimated his own ability as a strategist, his complete lack of ability in this regard is confirmed by his own military staff on any number of occasions throughout the ensuing war.

That was one of the main contributing factors in Germany's defeat.

And of course this begs the question, if Germany never planned to fight a war, why had they been secretly re-arming in contravention of the Versailles treaty? Of course they planned a war, how else would "Lebensraum" be gained. They certainly planned a war,.... in their dreams it was to be a war against smaller less well armed countries, unfortunately they never counted on the intervention of the Allies

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

(1) If England was in "bad shape", then why in the name of God did they declare war? The leadership obviously had some kind of plan or idea or something.

They'd already sold Austria, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Saarland, and Poland down the river, so they figured they'd better at least help France...

Originally Posted by senojekips

Unfortunately he seriously underestimated their resolve. In short, he seriously overestimated his own ability as a strategist, his complete lack of ability in this regard is confirmed by his own military staff on any number of occasions throughout the ensuing war.

That was one of the main contributing factors in Germany's defeat.

Don't get too caught up in the hype of Hitler's lack of ability as a military strategist. Much of this stems from the memoirs of generals who understandably wanted to uphold themselves in the best light. Hitler was not classically trained at the German Generalstab colleges and so was looked upon as an amateur by the well heeled aristocratic officers who saw themselves as part of an elite club. Hitler made some great decisions early on in the war for Germany and in 1936, Hitler probably had more vision than the vast majority of the German Generalstab. For example:

1. He realised that the Schlieffen Plan (Halder's Plan was all but this) would not work again in WW2 and he recognized that the Sickle Cut plan proposed by Manstein (with help from Guderian) would be the best option.
2. He saw almost instantly the possibilities of all amoured divisions moving swiftly as spearheads, thus avoiding the trench war stalemate of the previous war.
3. His decision to send Guderian south in July 1941 to assist AGS with the capture of Kiev and the Ukraine resulted in the largest encirclement in history, with the largest casualties ever inflicted on an enemy army. Hitler was more interested in the destruction of the enemy forces in the field than the capture of prestige targets and this was fully in line with recognized German military doctrine since Scharnhorst.

The first problem with Hitler is that he severely underestimated his enemies (especially in Russia) based on warped racial prejudices. The second problem was that after the failed attempt at Moscow in December 1941 Hitler lost his nerve. Instead of allowing his best commanders their head he reigned them in and tried to do too much by himself, hence the phrase, Hitler's meddling. In the first years of the war, Hitler barely interfered once operations were underway. And there was nothing wrong with his ability as a strategist.

Originally Posted by senojekips

And of course this begs the question, if Germany never planned to fight a war, why had they been secretly re-arming in contravention of the Versailles treaty? Of course they planned a war, how else would "Lebensraum" be gained. They certainly planned a war,.... in their dreams it was to be a war against smaller less well armed countries, unfortunately they never counted on the intervention of the Allies

I appreciate your points and your arguments. I would however like to point out that there are a couple of problems with your views.

(1) Germany was "secretly rearming". That much is a hard to disprove fact. The problem with this is that every other major power other than the US was openly rearming in the 1930s. How else would you explain the fact that the British fighter arm was larger than the German in 1940 or that the Soviet army was larger than the entire armed forces of the planet combined.

(2) Germany rescinded the Treaty of Versailles. And, Britain officially sanctioned this act with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. In any case, the Treaty of Versailles held no validity by the mid-1930s. Or, do you think that the modern German army should be reduced to Versailles restrictions owing to the fact that the Allied Powers never cancelled it?

(3) A war against Poland is not a declaration of war on Britain. If it were, then the Soviet war against Poland in 1939 would have been seen as the same thing. In any case, Soviet territorial annexations were more significant than you might like to believe. After 1945, the Soviets controlled more territory than anything envisioned by Hitler.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Don't get too caught up in the hype of Hitler's lack of ability as a military strategist. Much of this stems from the memoirs of generals who understandably wanted to uphold themselves in the best light. Hitler was not classically trained at the German Generalstab colleges and so was looked upon as an amateur by the well heeled aristocratic officers who saw themselves as part of an elite club.

A mixture of fact and fiction I feel. There is absolutely no doubt about Hitlers lack of ability as a strategist. The whole basis of his plan was at best the musings of a dreamer caught up in his own self importance. This basic trait was apparent in him even as a child and is remarked upon by those that knew him at this time.

As for the products of the Junkerschule seeing themselves as a well heeled club, Well,.... in their time, they were. This can also be seen be seen in the senior ranks among the allies, but in most cases it has no bearing whatsoever upon their ability to do their jobs in the military. They were in fact, the best people in their trade at the time.

The first problem with Hitler is that he severely underestimated his enemies (especially in Russia) based on warped racial prejudices. The second problem was that after the failed attempt at Moscow in December 1941 Hitler lost his nerve. Instead of allowing his best commanders their head he reigned them in and tried to do too much by himself, hence the phrase, Hitler's meddling. In the first years of the war, Hitler barely interfered once operations were underway. And there was nothing wrong with his ability as a strategist.

In the same paragraph you demonstrate the fact of his poor judgement and lack of strategic ability, then finally say there was nothing wrong with his ability??? I have never heard of a "good strategist" with "poor judgement" somehow it just doesn't add up.

No,... I'm afraid that this Hitler apologist argument has already been judged by the world and case closed for nearly half a century. Like a lot of "smart" men, he was far more assured of his own brilliance than those about him. The only evidence that has emerged in the intervening years only serves to support the original judgement. Constantly trying to pick his occasional "moments of brilliance" and strokes of good luck will never reverse the fact that he was an ill considered "dreamer" at best and a scheming mass murderer at worst.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

I appreciate your points and your arguments. I would however like to point out that there are a couple of problems with your views.

(1) Germany was "secretly rearming". That much is a hard to disprove fact. The problem with this is that every other major power other than the US was openly rearming in the 1930s. How else would you explain the fact that the British fighter arm was larger than the German in 1940 or that the Soviet army was larger than the entire armed forces of the planet combined.

(2) Germany rescinded the Treaty of Versailles. And, Britain officially sanctioned this act with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. In any case, the Treaty of Versailles held no validity by the mid-1930s. Or, do you think that the modern German army should be reduced to Versailles restrictions owing to the fact that the Allied Powers never cancelled it?

Righto, let's just say that they were rearming leaving out any references to Versailles and "secretly" I say again, "Of course they planned a war, how else would "Lebensraum" be gained. They certainly planned a war,.... in their dreams it was to be a war against smaller less well armed countries, unfortunately they never counted on the intervention of the Allies"

(3) A war against Poland is not a declaration of war on Britain.

Poland was just the straw that broke the camel's back after the Sudetenland, Anschluss, re militarisation of the Rhineland and the rest of his attempts to see just how far he could push the boundaries

Like I said, "By that, do you mean to say that you think that the Germans were so stupid as to imagine that the Brits and their allies would just let them walk over every country in Europe one at a time without any form of reaction? I think the truth lies somewhere nearer the fact that Hitler thought he could "push" until the Brits were ready to declare war then he'd back off. Unfortunately he seriously underestimated their resolve. In short, he seriously overestimated his own ability as a strategist, his complete lack of ability in this regard is confirmed by his own military staff on any number of occasions throughout the ensuing war."

Your constant attention to insignificant minutiae seems to blind you to the real truth here. You appear to be constantly trying to justify Hitler's dreams by dissecting every judgement and action , the sad truth is, that the entire world including persons far better equipped to judge than you or I, have already taken this into account and the judgement has been handed down. Like I said in my post above, he was at best an ill informed dreamer and at worst a scheming mass murderer who dragged half of the Western world into a drawn out war which he lost. He was the Pol Pot of 1933.

Originally Posted by senojekips

A mixture of fact and fiction I feel. There is absolutely no doubt about Hitlers lack of ability as a strategist.

Well there's obviously doubt as we're having a debate over it right? I'm not sure how much reading you've done on the events of the Eastern Front and German strategy from 1933 onwards in general but the more one reads the more one realizes that the public perception of Hitler as a talentless, raving loony who was a mere Corporal acting way above his pay grade is distorted and false. There can be little doubt that in their memoirs the likes of Manstein, Guderian, Hoth etc tended to blame Hitler for many of the things that went wrong. Hitler is often blamed for the failure at Kursk but this was an operation where he allowed his officers to have full authority over its planning and execution. Also bear in mind that Hitler was likely suffering from Parkinson's Disease which steadily got worse as the war went on. This might explain much of his behaviour in the last 2 years of the war.

Originally Posted by senojekips

In the same paragraph you demonstrate the fact of his poor judgement and lack of strategic ability, then finally say there was nothing wrong with his ability??? I have never heard of a "good strategist" with "poor judgement" somehow it just doesn't add up.

Well, if you're going to blame Hitler for the flawed plan that was Barbarossa (which most people state was Hitler's biggest mistake) then be prepared to blame most of the German Generalstab too as it was as much their plan as it was Hitler's. The vast majority believed that the Red Army would crumble in 6 weeks and this is coming from professional soldiers with years of formal training behind them. By some accounts Hitler wanted to halt the German Army on the Dnieper River line after the Kiev operation until Spring 1942 but allowed himself to be persuaded otherwise by professional soldiers today held up as master strategists and tactical geniuses. The likes of Guderian, Hoth, Bock, Kesselring all today lauded by military academies the world over yet history would prove them to be wrong and for Hitler to have been probably right.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Like a lot of "smart" men, he was far more assured of his own brilliance than those about him. The only evidence that has emerged in the intervening years only serves to support the original judgement. Constantly trying to pick his occasional "moments of brilliance" and strokes of good luck will never reverse the fact that he was an ill considered "dreamer" at best and a scheming mass murderer at worst.

You're utterly correct in your first sentence but he had more than just 'occasional' moments of brilliance. One does not seize control of the most powerful nation in Europe by just being a dreamer or a Corporal with ideas above his station. Hitler arguably was as much responsible for the German panzerwaffe as Guderian was, as Hitler created the conditions and saw the potential to allow development of it to flourish. Hitler was a mass murderer correct but he was far from the bumbling, lucky, psychotic raving loony that the western media has made him out to be.

It's hardly a debate, as the world has answered this a thousand times over and the truth is known. Your reasoning that my views of Hitler is not correct, is just that, your view, unfortunately I feel that my view has many thousands of times more supporters than your own. History is the judge, walk down any street and ask anyone old enough to know. This horse was flogged to death 50 years ago, and is only making an occasional resurgence because of the fact that there is a new generation who never saw the real thing. Like all great con men he will always continue to suck in a few weak and/or morally bankrupt devotees. After all, there are people out there who still believe that Uri Geller could read peoples minds.

I often use the terms Nazi's, Hitler and "Germans" interchangeably, Yes I realise the differences, but in the context I am using the words, it doesn't really affect the argument, they were all guilty to a greater or lesser extent.

Hitler only rose to power because he had an easily led audience, the German people were still bitter over the outcome of WW I and anything seemed better than the other alternatives at that time, the Weimar republic was in turmoil and people were grabbing at straws, unfortunately for them, this straw turned into a bramble.

Once again his moments of "brilliance" lies in your own view and is not supported by world opinion. That"ll do me.