Hitler's military capabilities (1 Viewer)

[Louis Badolato]

Oz,

First, I want you guys to realize that I have nothing but the highest regards for the RAF and other commonwealth forces that won the Battle of Britain. I don't know that an invasion of Britain would have been a foregone conclusion. However, every single account of the Battle of Britain I have read or watched on the History Channel unanimously state that had the Germans not abandoned the tactic of attacking airfields the RAF would have collapsed within a week or two. It is certainly possible that these experts are wrong, and the RAF would have held out anyway, in which case the decision wouldn't have mattered.

However, assuming that the experts are right, and the RAF would have collapsed, an invasion would certainly have been possible. Did the Gemans have experience in seaborne invasion? No, but neither did we before we did it at Torch (French North Africa), Sicily, Italy and finally Normandy. Had the Germans established air supremecy, in the enclosed space of the English Channel, they certainly could have kept their invasion fleet free from British naval attack with overwhelming air cover. The Germans were pretty darn good at innovating, so I suspect their version of our man Higgins would have developed landing craft. Their lines of communication (across France from Germany) would have been far shorter and more difficult to disrupt than ours (across the Atlantic from the United States into the teeth of the U-Boat wolfpack) and we were able to pull off the invasion of France. Would they have succeeded? I can't say for sure. Could they have succeeded? Yes.

We know that their invasion of Russia was an unmitigated disaster which resulted in their ultimate defeat. I think the question is, as things stood immediately before Hitler changed his tactics, stopped bombing the airfields, and later invaded Russia, which, Britain or Russia, could Germany more likely successfully invade? All I can say is, if it were me, I would have dedicated 100% of my effort and resources to taking out Britain.

What would you have done Oz or Rob?

 

[Rob]

Louis,i think you ask a very good question there.I think i would have had to use 100% of my forces and my energy into invading this country.And i suspect Hitler did not do this as he had half his mind already on Russia.

I agree that the R.A.F appeared to be on their knees at this point,but that still does not mean German Victory.Lets remember that the Luftwaffe were exhausted too.Most experts who think the German invasion would have failed believe it would have failed after they landed.Because of huge supply problems and stiff opposition.It is well known that they did not have nearly enough landing craft and it does not appear as if anyone was going to produce the amount needed anytime soon.

Why was there this lack of planning/commitment and attention to detail in Hitlers plans.I personally think That the invasion of Britain was to some extent always a sideshow.After his conquests across europe and following the debacle at Dunkirk he must have felt pretty confident of marching up whitehall.However he must have had i believe a fear of the Royal navy turning up and spoiling the party..Lets also remember that he did not see the British as the natural enemy in fact he admired the British empire. As the Battle of Britain wore on i think his confidence and trust in Goering started to evaporate as day after day our spitfires and hurricanes sent his precious bombers to the bottom of the channel.And so his enthusiasm for his latest project began to wane.I think that like Churchill who for the rest of his life was haunted by Gallipoli,it was probably not lost on Hitler the cost in lives an operation like this could cost.

And so all of a sudden the thought of merely crossing into Russia must have looked a whole lot easier than crossing that bloody channel!

I think as you said Louis they might have succeeded they might have failed ,we will thankfully never know.However with the fortunes of war i think it is to simplistic to say the Luftwaffe would have a free reign and destroyed the Royal Navy.

Rob

 

[Combat]

Just to follow on Rob's comment, the German invasion of Norway, although successful, was disasterous from a German naval standpoint. Similar to the use of paratroopers in Crete - which was also successful but never tried again - Hitler later shied away from these types of operations due to the risks and high losses. He was also uncomfortable with naval operations since that was not his area of expertise. Sealion was a ruse never intended or possible to be implemented.

Lastly, and most importantly, Russia was always Hitler's primary target as far back as the early 1920's. Not because they were communists, but because he believed that Germany needed the resources and space to be self-dependent. It was not a matter of choosing between England and Russia in 1940. That decision had long been made. It was not an unreasonable decision. Russia was the only country that posed a real threat to Germany. Almost everyone believed at the time that the Germans would quickly knock the Russians out. With the benefit of 60 years of hindsight we can say that turned out to be incorrect, but not so at the time the decision was made in 1940.

 

[OzDigger]

I guess we could argue about the 'what ifs' for ages, but it's unlikely to change the result I have also seen some good of evidence that the Battle of Britain was a diversion for Hitler's intended invasion of Russia, but I guess we will never know what Hitler actually intended.

Louis asked what I, and Rob would have done given Hitler's options at the time. I have read a number of similar scenarious by people far more expert than I and most say that Hitler should have pursued the invasion of Britain rather than turn towards Russia after the aerial Battle of Britain. Which according to the British went from 9 July to 31 October 1940. Yet most German historians list the Battle of Britain as running from mid August 1940 to May 1941 when their bombers were withdrawn to attack Russia.

Well being a non-expert, I think Hitler should have turned against Russia immediately after Dunkirk and gone straight for Moscow. This may seem a peculular option. However, when you consider that Stalin wasn't very popular with the English or the Americans, I doubt if they would have done much about it. Something to ponder imo. And considering Hitlers piece offerings to England around the time of Dunkirk, perhaps this is what Hitler had in mind. His subsequent bombing of British cities being a political reaction rather than his intended military strategy - which was against Russia.

 

[Rob]

Also his bombing of British cities enraged and filled the British people with a desire for revenge .This gave 'bomber' Harris his moement in the sun despite churchill feeling uneasy about it.So there we have another questionable decision on Hitlers part.Does anyone else think that in some ways Hitler and Churchill were alike,whilst both were able to galvanise their people at vital moements with inspirational leadership,they were also prone to making some bad decisions.(Perhaps churchills weren't as bad as Hitlers?)

Rob.

 

[Louis Badolato]

I think you may have hit the nail on the head Rob. Both were highly successful politicians, but both made questionable military decisions, especially when they ignored the advice of the military men under them. Perhaps that's the biggest problem in wartime: politicians as commanders in chief.

 

[OzDigger]

They were both good politicians and both wanted to make significant contributions to military strategy. I'm not about Churchill but I have read a number of books about Hitler. And it seems he had less input into actual strategy and tactics than most people seem to think - at least early in the war.

After the bomb plot, he of course trusted very few of his generals, and therefore most descisions from then on were his entirely. However when things were going his, and Germany's way, Hitler seemed content to let his various Generals use their initiative. Rommel being one who was especially headstrong.

 

[DMNamiot]

I think you may have hit the nail on the head Rob. Both were highly successful politicians, but both made questionable military decisions, especially when they ignored the advice of the military men under them. Perhaps that's the biggest problem in wartime: politicians as commanders in chief.

Oh Louis I have to say that the bulk of what you said makes some sense but the Commander in Chief at least for us and our democracy has got to be the duely elected civilian otherwise we run the risk of loosing that which we cherish most, our freedoms. There is nothing wrong with the Commander in Chief being a civilian as long as this person guides the strategic portion of the war and allows the generals to conduct the tactical fight and isnt pulling an LBJ by picking targets for The Airforce or in the case of Herr Hitler forcing generals to hold ground that has become untenable like Stalingrad was before the encirclement of the 6th Army was complete.

Dave

 

[Gideon]

Oh Louis I have to say that the bulk of what you said makes some sense but the Commander in Chief at least for us and our democracy has got to be the duely elected civilian otherwise we run the risk of loosing that which we cherish most, our freedoms. Dave

I would vote for Collin Powel.

 

[boot51]

Oh Louis I have to say that the bulk of what you said makes some sense but the Commander in Chief at least for us and our democracy has got to be the duely elected civilian otherwise we run the risk of loosing that which we cherish most, our freedoms. There is nothing wrong with the Commander in Chief being a civilian as long as this person guides the strategic portion of the war and allows the generals to conduct the tactical fight and isnt pulling an LBJ by picking targets for The Airforce or in the case of Herr Hitler forcing generals to hold ground that has become untenable like Stalingrad was before the encirclement of the 6th Army was complete.

Dave

Well stated, Dave. I think that's pretty much the way the founding fathers intended it to be. As for Hitler's "military capabilities", judging from from all his screw ups, I'd say they fall somewhere between microscopic and nonexistent.

Fred

 

[Louis Badolato]

Of course in a democracy the commander and chief has to be a civilian, but traditionally the military decisions were left up to the professionals, just like historically while the president had the power to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, he would appoint the one recognized to be the best legal mind by the legal community, regardless of his politics. The best example being Benjamin N. Cardozo's (an arch liberal reformer democrat) appointment by Herbert Hoover (a conservative republican). Sadly, in recent history, we have a long string of sadly underqualified Supreme Court Justices appointed for purely political reasons. I only hope that our commanders in chief do better listening to military advisors than they have done with their judicial advisors over the last 40 to 50 years. Sadly, from what I have heard and read, this has often not been the case, to the detriment of our troops.