Originally Posted by Papashah41

Really, If he had such a firm grasp on military strategy, why did he have a war going on two fronts? His attack on Russia was the death knell of the German Army, including the SS. It was also the end of The Luftwaffe. A clever conqueror strikes at his enemy at their weakest point. He doesn't butt heads with a giant. And yes, his racial nonsense was just that. Nonsense. The hundreds of thousands of wasted troops and materials, just to murder civilians he personally thought were inferior, smacks of stupidity and a very serious character flaw. I still believe his best course was through North Africa after France. That he did not see the potential just adds weight to my assessment of him. Also, Hitler threw the idea around that the Sickle Cut strategy through the Ardennes was his. It wasn't. The idea and plans came from Manstein with help from Guderian. That the Russian Campaign wasn't a repetition of the blitzkrieg campaigns in the west should have lit a firecracker off in the back of his mind. It didn't, and eventually Russia swallowed the Heer, the SS and the Luftwaffe. You say his decision to take Kiev and the vast Soviet armies on the right of army group center was sound. I say it would have been sound if he had used his armies properly. He did not. Army group North and Army group South were eventually wasted. The three groups should have been sent directly through the center. Moscow should have been taken as the same time as Kiev or at least a little later. By virtually slicing the nation in half, you have done several things. You have not only disrupted communications but because Moscow is the communication hub for the entire country you have destroyed their communications. Set up your strong defenses and choose who you should attack first. Will it be the Leningrad front or Sevastopol and the Industrial hubs in the central and Southwest. But he shouldn't have attacked Russia in the first place. Why was the T34 a surprise? Canaris should have been sacked at once, but he wasn't. For the three pronged attack attempted he did not have enough troops or Tanks or artillery or equipment. He was an Amateur.

Firstly he didn't have a war on 2 fronts when he launched Operation Barbarossa. Britain could launch night-time bombing raids and such forth but they had no way of assaulting the bulk of German power in Europe. I should also qualify that really I think Hitler showed operational level ability. He was too delusional for grand strategy and indeed Germany as a nation has been historically great at the tactical and operational level but wanting at the strategic level.

Secondly, your observations regarding the Russian campaign (and some of his more delusional policies) stem from Hitler's character and personality flaws, not his lack of appreciation for operations. The planning for Barbarossa was faulty and flawed, but this was partly the fault of the German General Staff, to whom Hitler had charged with coming up with a battle plan. The fault also lies with Hitler but he allowed his own warped prejudices to override common sense by fatally underestimating the average Soviet soldier's will to resist. Hitler is commonly lampooned for targeting Kiev instead of Moscow but ask most historians now and they will generally say that Hitler was prudent to make that decision.

Finally, there's enough evidence now to suggest that Stalin would have attacked Hitler, probably in 1943. This isn't a defence of Hitler but merely to say that he probably realised he had to do something.

Your comments regarding Moscow might have been sound, but equally the Soviets could have continued the fight from their relocated capital. There's no real way to tell.

Yes Hitler was an amateur but he was not a bumbling idiot. At the start he had a clear head but from 1941 onwards he gradually sank further and further into a quagmire of his own making.

And next time use paragraphs!

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Firstly he didn't have a war on 2 fronts when he launched Operation Barbarossa. Britain could launch night-time bombing raids and such forth but they had no way of assaulting the bulk of German power in Europe. I should also qualify that really I think Hitler showed operational level ability. He was too delusional for grand strategy and indeed Germany as a nation has been historically great at the tactical and operational level but wanting at the strategic level.

Secondly, your observations regarding the Russian campaign (and some of his more delusional policies) stem from Hitler's character and personality flaws, not his lack of appreciation for operations. The planning for Barbarossa was faulty and flawed, but this was partly the fault of the German General Staff, to whom Hitler had charged with coming up with a battle plan. The fault also lies with Hitler but he allowed his own warped prejudices to override common sense by fatally underestimating the average Soviet soldier's will to resist. Hitler is commonly lampooned for targeting Kiev instead of Moscow but ask most historians now and they will generally say that Hitler was prudent to make that decision.

Finally, there's enough evidence now to suggest that Stalin would have attacked Hitler, probably in 1943. This isn't a defence of Hitler but merely to say that he probably realised he had to do something.

Your comments regarding Moscow might have been sound, but equally the Soviets could have continued the fight from their relocated capital. There's no real way to tell.

Yes Hitler was an amateur but he was not a bumbling idiot. At the start he had a clear head but from 1941 onwards he gradually sank further and further into a quagmire of his own making.

And next time use paragraphs!

Sorry again Doppelganger, I'm having trouble with my keyboard / or something else. Its very difficult to seperate my sentences and especially my enter key seems to work once out of five times. I've mentioned it on other forums. If I can't fix it I'll buy another keyboard next week.

I grant you the 2 first points you have made. But I really don't believe Stalin was planning on any type of war, 1943 or 1958. Lets just agree to disagree on this point. We can surmise until the cows come home, but..................

If it wasn't for Hitler's insane obsession about communism and the Jewish people, and Roosevelt's naive trust in Stalin, the Soviet Union would never have been as powerful as it became in the post war years.

Originally Posted by Papashah41

If it wasn't for Hitler's insane obsession about communism and the Jewish people, and Roosevelt's naive trust in Stalin, the Soviet Union would never have been as powerful as it became in the post war years.

Without Hitler around it is very likely that communism would have taken over all of Europe.

Originally Posted by Easy-8

Without Hitler around it is very likely that communism would have taken over all of Europe.

Not sure about that one. If anything, WW2, strengthened the Soviet position in Eastern Europe. It turned the Soviets into a military superpower.

Originally Posted by Easy-8

Without Hitler around it is very likely that communism would have taken over all of Europe.

History tells us something different. Without Hitler, the sleeping giant isn't awoken. It was the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 which drove the Soviet leadership to work it's industry overtime making Tanks Fighter-Planes and Guns, propelling the country into an awesome military power. Hitler's fear of and attempt to rid the world of the communist state did the exact opposite. These UnterMenschen as the Nazi's called the Soviets destroyed the Nazi empire in less than four years.

Originally Posted by errol

Not sure about that one. If anything, WW2, strengthened the Soviet position in Eastern Europe. It turned the Soviets into a military superpower.

Although there is no doubt the USSR was much stronger in 1945 than it was 1941. The USSR was bleed white in its efforts to defeat Germany. And it was Germany that brought the US into the ETO. Without Germany the USSR would have come rushing into Europe with more tanks and infantry than god sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Papashah41

History tells us something different. Without Hitler, the sleeping giant isn't awoken. It was the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 which drove the Soviet leadership to work it's industry overtime making Tanks Fighter-Planes and Guns, propelling the country into an awesome military power. Hitler's fear of and attempt to rid the world of the communist state did the exact opposite. These UnterMenschen as the Nazi's called the Soviets destroyed the Nazi empire in less than four years.

The giant was already awake. During 1939 and 1940 the USSR was very aggressive it attacked the following:

1. Poland
2. Finland
3. the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia)
4. The take over of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from Romania

All this happened well before the start of Operation Barbarossa. The huge manpower reserves and industrial power of the USSR were bleed white in fighting and eventually defeating Germany. If Germany had not been around the US would never have come back to Europe thus their would be nothing in their way from expanding all the way to Spain.

Originally Posted by Easy-8

Although there is no doubt the USSR was much stronger in 1945 than it was 1941. The USSR was bleed white in its efforts to defeat Germany. And it was Germany that brought the US into the ETO. Without Germany the USSR would have come rushing into Europe with more tanks and infantry than god sooner or later.




The giant was already awake. During 1939 and 1940 the USSR was very aggressive it attacked the following:

1. Poland
2. Finland
3. the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia)
4. The take over of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from Romania

All this happened well before the start of Operation Barbarossa. The huge manpower reserves and industrial power of the USSR were bleed white in fighting and eventually defeating Germany. If Germany had not been around the US would never have come back to Europe thus their would be nothing in their way from expanding all the way to Spain.

!. If you are referring to the Soviet-Nazi pact of 1939, Germany engineered that.

2. As far as Finland goes, the Soviets wanted to lease land it considered vital for it's defence. It's actions were wrong, but understandable considering the paranoia of the time.

3. and 4. The take over of the Baltic States and Bessarabia in Rumania were meant to check the propelling German aggression.

The Germans and to a lesser extent Italy had everyone in Europe nervous. The Soviet Union wasn't immune to this fear. If anything, a couple of decades of anti-Soviet propoganda and covert action by amoung others, Britain, Germany and other European nation, drove The Soviets to a state of paranoia.

At the time of Barbarossa, Russia was still sending goods and raw materials to Germany. Even when warned of the impending attack, Stalin forbade any anti-German sentiments from his staff, including the military. These are hardly the actions of one bent on European conquest.

Two things propelled Stalin to public enemy #1. These were an untapped industrial awesomeness finally underway because of a stupid little corporal biting off more than he could chew and a naive American president who referred to the monster Stalin as Uncle Joe. A good number of Roosevelt's advisors advised him improperly concerning Stalin.

Originally Posted by Papashah41

!. If you are referring to the Soviet-Nazi pact of 1939, Germany engineered that.

With a little help from the USSR.

2. As far as Finland goes, the Soviets wanted to lease land it considered vital for it's defence. It's actions were wrong, but understandable considering the paranoia of the time.

I guess the same could be said when Germany invaded western Europe.

3. and 4. The take over of the Baltic States and Bessarabia in Rumania were meant to check the propelling German aggression.

It was to expand the communist empire.

The Germans and to a lesser extent Italy had everyone in Europe nervous. The Soviet Union wasn't immune to this fear. If anything, a couple of decades of anti-Soviet propoganda and covert action by amoung others, Britain, Germany and other European nation, drove The Soviets to a state of paranoia.

Whats your point?

At the time of Barbarossa, Russia was still sending goods and raw materials to Germany. Even when warned of the impending attack, Stalin forbade any anti-German sentiments from his staff, including the military. These are hardly the actions of one bent on European conquest.

Deeds not words my friend. Stalin was trying to avoid war with Germany for the time being. He invaded 5 different nations in the time space a single year. He was going to invade the west at some point. If Germany had not been around to balance power out and bleed the USSR white then barrier between east and west would have been the English channel.

Two things propelled Stalin to public enemy #1. These were an untapped industrial awesomeness finally underway because of a stupid little corporal biting off more than he could chew and a naive American president who referred to the monster Stalin as Uncle Joe. A good number of Roosevelt's advisors advised him improperly concerning Stalin.

Stalin was a sociopath and megalomanic. The industrial might and manpower reserves could have been put into total war mode by Stalin snapping his fingers. With or without the corporal from Austria he would have done it.

This is getting good...

1. The early political stages and arming the Wehrmacht were conducting reasonably well. Austria and Czechoslovakia were taken without a fight. Poland fought back hard but with no success and the USSR took over Eastern Poland. However the Third Reich failed to began full war production and total mobilization after both France and Britian declared war on them. Hitler should have ordered full mobilization of Germany after the invasion of the USSR on 6/22/41 and not a day later.

2. Ending the war in France in 6 weeks was stunning victory made possible by Heinz Guderian, Erich von Manstein and the soldiers of the Wehrmacht, however it is not without its flaws. Rundstedt and Hitler ignored Guderian when he wanted a trust to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk. The 300,000 man strong BEF was sitting there running back to the UK in pure panic and this juicy golden target was let go. If they had captured the BEF it would have been a massive blow to the British war effort 300,000 captured would have depleted British manpower reserves and moral. The UK would probably have sued for peace if the BEF had been lost. Thus resulting in a total victory for Germany in the West.

3. During the Battle of Britain Göring ordered The Luftwaffe to stop targeting RAF airfields and industrial plants to attacking British cities. This only strengthened the British resolve to fight and win. The British Empire was the largest oversea empire ever created. However it was dying and not that strong. If Germany had just kept pounding Britian with air raid after air raid the RAF would slowly but surely give way and Operation Sealion could begin, I think the British ground forces could have put a huge dint in the invasion force but I don't think they could have defeated the Wehrmacht.

4. Trusting Italy to secure Africa and the Balkans was a mistake as well. The Italians had launched a invasion of Southern France during the 6 week battle there and did very poorly. This was a campaign that the German High Command and most people today seem to pay no attention to. The resources wasted (Afrika Korps, Balkans campaign) to undo Italian failures were great in number. The campaign in Africa could have been avoided completely and the Balkan campaign could have been over much sooner. Germany would have been better off not allying itself with Mussolini's Italy and going it alone or sending in German advisors to build the Italian military.

5. Operation Barbarossa was launched before Britain was taken care of thus beginning a two front war. The Wehrmacht won victory after victory on the stepp destroying whole Soviet Fronts with minimal losses Kiev alone yielded well over 600,000 Soviets killed or captured. However Barbarossa displayed Blitzkriegs main and pretty much only flaw. IF IT FAILS THERE IS ALMOST NEVER A PLAN B. And thus Germany found itself in a long war that it was not prepared for. Hitler also sent troops away from Army Group CenterTo Ukraine and Leningrad (Leningrad could have been in German hands but Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht NOT to enter the city). The Germans had not been issued winter clothing before the infamous general winter came into play. Germany as was stated earlier was not ready for a long war.

6. Germany then declared war on the United States. This was a massive mistake on Hitler's part. Germany was not required under the Tripartite Pact to do this and tossed its free ride to avoiding war with US down the trash. Germany could have gotten Japan to attack the Soviet forces in Eastern Siberia thus forcing Stalin and RKKA to leave Moscow pretty much defenseless. Germany and Japan pretty much did their own thing through out much of the war they pretty much weren't allies at all.

7. A year later with the offensive on Stalingrad in full swing Hitler sent the Wehrmacht after two objectives the industrial powerhouse of Stalingrad and the oil fields of Caucasus. The whole offensive lost its power when it went after the two targets when it only had enough power to achieve a single objective. When Georgi Zhukov launched Operation Uranus Hitler foolishly ordered Paulus to hold Stalingrad the 6th Army had a chance to escape but Hitler turned it down and 300,000 troops of the 6th Army were lost as a result. Those 300,000 men could have come in handy in the operations on the Eastern Front yet to come...

8. Kursk was another blunder on Germany's part. victory after Stalingrad was not possible but if the Wehrmacht had went on the defensive and stayed there Germany might have achieved a stand still. refusing Manstein's plan to pimp slap the Red Army after the victory at Kharkov he went onto attack Kursk. He might have been able to win Kursk if he had kept up the the fire around Prokhorovka. Hitler allowed the Afrika Korps and Italian forces to be destroyed in North Africa, they could have come in handy in defending Sicily and Italy from the invasions that were about too take place. As Rommel later said failing to stop the Western Allies at the beach really screwed things for them up... badly....

9. The Normandy Invasion could have been fought off if Hitler had not been asleep and Rommel visiting his wife. This left the mighty Panzer Divisions halted as the allied infantry stormed the beach. As the US, British and other allies dashed across France the Soviets launched Operation Bagration which took out ArmyGroupCenter and led to a advance all the way to outskirts of Warsaw. This was due to Army Group Center being deployed way too far forward and failing to place a commander with some talent (they later did after the damage had been done).

10. By the end of the war Germany was fighting a four front war:

1. Eastern Front
2. Western Front
3. Italian Front
4. Genocide against various peoples

the forth was counter productive in every shape and form. It destroyed many potential allies such as the Ukrainians, Baltic peoples and jewish geniuses it wasted a massive amount of resources and manpower into this pointless and self defeating task. The path to victory lay not in a single massive war but in a number of wars one by one paving the way to victory. Hitler also appointed more people who were intuned with his ideas (ie 'yes' men) such as Himmler, Göring and others to field commands. especially towards the end. He put the ME 262 project coulda had it out in 1942 but Herr Meyer (Hermann Göring) and Hitler didn't like it... This is due to a massive amount of oversight by Hitler. He should have put some time into building a strategic bomber force so he could reach industry which was outta the reach of his short range tactical dive bombers. His ego simply got to big for Germany's good he believed he was unstoppable (who can really blame him? The Wehrmacht was doing the impossible time and time again!) and the result led to disaster.