It's a common mistake made by people who study a subject to death. They find out about some kind of stream in the land no one's heard about and they blow up its importance to the level of a large river.
Sometimes little details may swing things over one way but more often than not, they don't. If you don't believe me, read "The Hinge Factor" by Erik Durchschmeid (can't remember if that's how you spell the name) where cases are made that one small act turned battles. Some you feel may have a point but others are not so convincing.
Hitler was brilliant at a few things. He was a master orator, an artist of incredible talent. And obviously he knew a thing or two about running organizations. But military strategist isn't one of his talents.
He had the world's most powerful Army led by some excellent generals and managed to squander all of it.
As for the Generals. How many Generals who criticized Hitler's ideas survived do you think? If they just got fired and sent out into the civilian world they would have been most fortunate. Why the hell do you think Rommel attempted to take this maniac's life? Probably because he was a lot smarter than you are and realized that Hitler was going to bring Germany to ruin.

Originally Posted by senojekips

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.

Woah, hold your horses here. This is a debate about Hitler's worth as a military planner and strategist. Save the moral and political arguments for a more appropriate time. So far you haven't provided anything new and all you have done is doled out tired old rhetoric. Once again, I am debating Hitler's worth as a military commander - let's keep it on topic shall we? I have no doubt that Hitler absolutely had to be stopped and I am utterly grateful for the older generation of my countrymen that did this. However, I have done enough reading to realize that Hitler was not responsible for many of the failures of German arms in WW2. Some of those must be laid out at the feet of the much lauded generals, Rommel included.

I don't think Spike was going on about the morality of the whole thing.
I think he's also talking about Hitler's competence amongst other things.
Personally I think wasting all that fuel trying to burn Jews when the fuel could have been used to power his Army in itself was a pretty stupid decision.
Or how he called the halt order at Dunkirk because he was afraid his supply lines were stretched too thin... then he goes into Russia where his supply lines would make any supply problem caused by running straight for Dunkirk look like the bottom tip of an ant's left testicle.
Thinking that invading Russia was a smart idea was pretty stupid too.
Hitler was not a great military strategist.

You're sounding an awful lot like some sports fans who insist that a past player who was notorious for being a lousy player was in fact better than what people gave him credit for.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Thinking that invading Russia was a smart idea was pretty stupid too.

However, Hitler hadn't lot of choice. Actually the political situation forced him to make this decision regarding USSR. If he turned his main force to West invading British islands, he most likely will receive attack in his back from East. He understood it and therefore decided to deal with USSR first and only then turn to West again.

So, the largest mistake of Hitler was starting war at all in the middle of the Europe... Finally it turned in war of almost Germany alone vs. all remaining world. With no chances to win.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I think he's also talking about Hitler's competence amongst other things.
Personally I think wasting all that fuel trying to burn Jews when the fuel could have been used to power his Army in itself was a pretty stupid decision.

Well I don't want to get into the Jewish thing but I agree in many ways it was not helpful to the German war effort. In other ways it was.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Or how he called the halt order at Dunkirk because he was afraid his supply lines were stretched too thin... then he goes into Russia where his supply lines would make any supply problem caused by running straight for Dunkirk look like the bottom tip of an ant's left testicle.
Thinking that invading Russia was a smart idea was pretty stupid too.
Hitler was not a great military strategist.

Hitler called the halt at Dunkirk because a) he did not want to risk his panzers in a built-up area (he had bad memories of what had happened in Warsaw) and b) because Goering had assured him that the Luftwaffe could deal with the trapped British forces.

It's easy to say with hindsight that invading Russia was pretty stupid. I doubt whether you would have said that in August or September 1941. Moreover, the Germans had no major supply issues for the first 3 months. It was only when they decided to go for broke (instead of taking the more sensible option that Hitler initially supported and waiting for next spring) that things went wrong.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

You're sounding an awful lot like some sports fans who insist that a past player who was notorious for being a lousy player was in fact better than what people gave him credit for.

Not at all, just trying to correct some myths.

I'm not a big fan of monday morning quarterbacking either but any invasion of Russia is a pretty stupid idea especially if you must hold ground.
If you have to end up doing that, it's time to call off your little adventure.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Woah, hold your horses here. This is a debate about Hitler's worth as a military planner and strategist.

Not exactly true, this debate if you read the title is about why Germany lost WWII, which of course includes such things as Hitler's culpability, and the part he played in it, so in fact my answers are pretty much still on topic.

Save the moral and political arguments for a more appropriate time. So far you haven't provided anything new and all you have done is doled out tired old rhetoric.

I don't know what planet you live on, but here on earth, the waging of war, and the suffering caused by it are both moral and political issues that are not able to be separated from this subject.
Of course I have not provided anything "new",... the war has been over for more than 60 years and the facts are well known and documented. "Rhetoric" is the use of verbal persuasion, which of course would be a complete waste of time where the subject has already been done to death and the answers are known and accepted by the majority of the worlds population. I don't have to "persuade" anyone.

Once again, I am debating Hitler's worth as a military commander - let's keep it on topic shall we?

As I have already said, this has been answered a thousand times by persons better placed than you or I, the general consensus being that he was the only person who thought he had any talent as a military strategist. His constant micro management was certainly a contributing factor to Germany's losing the war. I concede that he got some things right. I have absolutely no tactical military skills myself, but if put in the same position, no doubt even I'd get some things right. That in no way qualifies me as any sort of military whizz kid. The fact remains, he was little more than a self assured bumbler in this arena. His skills in other areas are admitted, but once again have no bearing on his ability as a military planner or strategist.

It is perhaps an unfortunate fact of human nature, that when a man with "big plans" who through hard work or just plain good luck, makes a fortune, he is hailed as a "genius", but should his plan fall on its face,... he is just another fool with big ideas. Not withstanding the fact that Hitler's scheming was of murderous intent and outcome, he definitely falls into category two,.. and I think, justifiably so

I have no doubt that Hitler absolutely had to be stopped and I am utterly grateful for the older generation of my countrymen that did this. However, I have done enough reading to realize that Hitler was not responsible for many of the failures of German arms in WW2. Some of those must be laid out at the feet of the much lauded generals, Rommel included.

You will get no argument from me on this point, no single person was was wholly responsible, or got every decision absolutely correct. The only reason why I at times focus on Hitler, is that his part was a major contributory factor in the whole thing. Put in the absolute simplest terms, had there have been no Hitler, there would never have been the WWII as we know it.

There are no "new" points to be made here, nor any significant new findings about the subject, so to me, it appears that all that is really happening in this thread is that some persons are attempting to microscopically dissect the points of historical fact and reassemble them in such a way as to reverse history. Believe me, It will just never happen.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I'm not a big fan of monday morning quarterbacking either but any invasion of Russia is a pretty stupid idea especially if you must hold ground.

If you are dug-in, along a strong natural defensive feature for much of your front line, while your enemy must assault you in winter, why is this a stupid idea?

Originally Posted by senojekips

As I have already said, this has been answered a thousand times by persons better placed than you or I, the general consensus being that he was the only person who thought he had any talent as a military strategist.

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.

Originally Posted by senojekips

His constant micro management was certainly a contributing factor to Germany's losing the war.

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

Originally Posted by senojekips

The fact remains, he was little more than a self assured bumbler in this arena.

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.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Put in the absolute simplest terms, had there have been no Hitler, there would never have been the WWII as we know it.

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.

Originally Posted by senojekips

There are no "new" points to be made here, nor any significant new findings about the subject, so to me, it appears that all that is really happening in this thread is that some persons are attempting to microscopically dissect the points of historical fact and reassemble them in such a way as to reverse history. Believe me, It will just never happen.

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.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

If you are dug-in, along a strong natural defensive feature for much of your front line, while your enemy must assault you in winter, why is this a stupid idea?

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.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

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.

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.