Hitler's military capabilities (1 Viewer)

[Combat]

I have always thought that military historians have been somewhat overly critical of Hitler's military decisions - particularly in the second half of the war. Even in the Russian endeavor it was perfectly reasonble for Hitler to assume that a quick victory was possible and even likely - particularly in light of the German experiences in the First World War. After the failure of his initial efforts in Russia, no military strategy could have led to a German victory. Hitler may have been among the first to recognize this. Rather, from about Dec. '41 onward his policy was simply to prolong the war for as long as possible by holding out to the last man in the East and contesting with the western allies in secondary theatres such as N. Africa and Italy. Most of the limited German offensives from 1942 onward were defensive in objective along these lines. In this, Hitler was quite successful in extending the war one or two years longer than perhaps it should have gone on given the allied superiority in material and manpower.

As with his pre-1933 political career, when faced with setbacks Hitler bided his time and hoped for something favorable to happen that he could exploit. His declaration of war on the US, for example, may have been a far sighted albeit risky gamble that recognized the potential tensions of an allied coalition that included the Americans and Russians. Most of the German generals, however, were overly optimistic until much later in the war based on their prior successes and failed to recognize that they could not reproduce such successes on a strategic level after 1941. Rommel is a good example of a general that achieved tactical successes, but only accelerated the demise of the Germans in N.A. due to his failure to recognize that no lasting success could be achieved due to allied superiority in supplies and that his duty was simply to prolong the fighting as long as possible. Kesselring did a much better job in Italy in this regard. I think there is an understandable need to castigate Hitler due to the German war crimes, however, many of the notions of Hitler contributing to the demise of the German army (particular by his own generals) have been somewhat exaggerated. Some of the otherwise more inexplicable decisions, such as diverting much needed Panzers to Hungary in '45 to protect oil reserves rather than Berlin, can only be viewed as consistent with his goal of extending the war at all costs. No oil - no capability to continue the fight. The loss of Berlin was of no strategic consequence -as even Eisenhower recognized.

 

[wadepat]

Combat,

You provide a very interesting perspective on Hitler's military prowess. I certainly look forward to learning how others respond to your post. The discussion should really be interesting. Thanks for posting your perceptions!

Warm regards,

Pat

 

[sceic2]

While my comment about your question is really a question, it is one that I believe cannot be answered yet I will ask it anyway; it does complement your initial question. How much of Hitler's decision making process was influenced by his drug usage?

Some historians have theorized that he was one of the original "crank" users, meth having been developed by the Germans as a simulate for sleep deprivation, along with a chemical cocktail that was administered on a regular (more than once daily) basis by his personal physician. And, if Hitler' thought processes were affected by drugs, what would have the result of the war been if he had not been so heavily under their influences?

I do not know if there are answers to these questions, they are after all very subjective in nature as they would have to be answered with an unknown set of assumptions as a base line.

I think we should thank the doctor for getting him so stoned. Just imagine the implications of a sober Hitler who had the potential to put hundreds of thousands of Germans under his spell (especially in the early 30's) and the non-drug affected personality being fully available for directing the war. Maybe he would have allowed a strategic retreat at Stalingrad or even waited until 1944 or 45 to start the war as he had promised his generals.

If he had delayed the wars beginning his navy would have had at least one aircraft carrier and more battleships and battle cruisers and more advanced U-boats in greater numbers. His army would not have started with the Panzer I, perhaps the engineers would have had the opportunity to make the Tiger I or the King Tiger more reliable and easier to manufacture by re-engineering them. So many factors have to be considered that they boggle my mind. Michael

 

[Louis Badolato]

I am sorry combat, but I have to totally disagree with your analysis. Hitler was a rank amateur whose decisions doomed the Nazi's, who could have won the war quite easily early on (pre-U.S. & Soviet involvement) with the right decisions. Cases in Point:

(1) Listening to Goering (who wanted the glory of victory to go to the Luftwaffe i.e. him) and calling off the Panzers at Dunkirk, permitting 350,000 British troops to escape and the British to survive;

(2) insisting on building the Bismark and the Prince Eugen instead of more U-boats, when the U-boats were within weeks of starving England into submission;

(3) calling off the Luftwaffe offensive on the British airfields and insisting on attacking English cities in retaliation for a raid on Berlin, thereby losing the Battle of Britain, which was all but won;

(4) Invading Russia before he had finished off England;

(5) Invading Russia at all, in light of the warnings of his best Generals (including Heinz Guderian, who fell out of favor with Hitler until early 1945 because of his opposition to Operation Barbarossa, and don't compare Barbarossa to WWI, when the Russians were leaderless, in the throws of a revolution and the German's were not out for conquest when the Russians pulled out of the war);

(6) letting his alliance with Italy get him drawn into wasting finite resources in Greece, Crete and North Afrika, none of which were necessary theaters in the war if he had focused everything first on Great Britain, finished off the British and then turned a single front war on the Soviet Union, which would have at least given him a chance of victory;

(7) Attacking Russia in August, when there was so little time to try to finish the Russians before Field Marshal Winter bailed them out;

(8) Directing that jets be focused on a fighter bomber, rather than launching the ME-262 Swallow in early 1944 rather than mid 1945;

(9) wasting so many resources on the "V" terror weapons, and super heavy tanks like the King Tiger, rather than producing thousands of Panver IV and Panther Tanks;

(10) listening to neither Rommel, who (correctly) believed that with Allied air supremecy, the tanks should be on the beaches, nor Von Rundstet, who believed the tanks should be held back in a mobile reserve, and thereby ensuring neither of their plans could work.

The list could go on for pages. Hitler was an absolute bumbler, and I thank God that he was in command and making the decisions. If he had listened to Guderian, the German's could have won the War.

 

[Combat]

One of the more remarkable aspects of Hitler's personality and philosophy is how little they changed from as early in his life as they can be documented until the very end. His physical decline and drug use in the later years of the war are well noted. However, I think they are more noteworthy in how little they played in his decision making - which stayed consistent until his death. The most glaring deficiency may have been his inability to separate political from military objectives. For example, the Germans never fully went on a total war footing or utilized female workers despite the obvious need. The starting date of the war is an interesting thought. There was probably no realistic chance of the Germans winning the war so long as the USSR maintained the political will to continue fighting. The allies would no doubt have continued to match the new German tanks and planes over time. The atomic bomb may have been the only weapon that could have made a strategic difference in Hitler's favor. Interesting to speculate how and if he would have used it.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hate to tell you this Combat but Hitler was, as Louis put it, an inept meglomaniac who surrounded himself with sychophants and toadies. He did not listen to the professionals and should have stayed away from Russia and finished off the Brits. His inept handling of the warfighting was a boon to the allies. He deserves no recoqnition for the way the German Army handled the fight in France or any of the other theaters of operation. He may have given orders but he wasn't on the ground leading the troops. His service in the first war was unremarkable and as a clerk/runner he probably wrote the paper work for his awards. In other words, he is a dispicable villan and desereves nothing but our undying hatred and I sincerely hope he is burning for all eternity in the lowest rings of hell!

Dave

 

[Combat]

Dave and Louis-
Good points all. Louis I think my biggest contention is with your argument that the Germans could have easily defeated the English. Given that the Brits maintained naval superiority and were at least equals in the air (even pre russia) there was no realistic possibility of invasion in 1940 or maybe ever. The u-boat threat, even in its heyday, was woefully ineffective in blockading England. At best, there would have been a stalemate.

The war was decided when the Russians withstood the initial German attacks in 1941. They very easily could have disintegrated under the losses (like the French) and lost the political will to fight on. The WWI analogy is relevant in that the Russians were not leaderless in 1914 as you suggest - the Tsar was very much in control - and the events of the war precipitated the revolution and collapse of the Russian government. That could easily have happened in WWII and most of Hitler's advisors and generals fully expected it would. Russia and France essentially reversed roles in WWII.

I do think it is difficult to view Hitler's role with objectivity given the magnitude of his war crimes and it may even be debatable whether such an attempt should be made. That is an interesting question of itself. For example, the military successes and failures of the WWII Germans are comparable to those of Napoleon. Napoleon had both good and bad generals and is considered a genius as a result of his military exploits. Hitler as you say is generally considered a military bumbler. There certainly may be legitimate reasons for this distinction, but the nazi war crimes may be a factor in reaching that conclusion. Believe me I am not trying to trump up Hitler just an interesting comparison for discussion.

 

[OzDigger]

Now look what you've started Combat I feel I can speak objectively on this subject as I have no real axe to grind concerning Hitler.

Regarding his personal bravery, the fact remains he was awarded the Iron Cross First Class in WWI. Later as Fuhrer, he was in a position to award himself any decoration he desired, and who would have been foolish enough to argue the point at the time. However unlike most dictators (before and since) he failed to do so.

I wouldn't say he was a military bumbler but then he was no military genius either. Most of his earlier successes were mainly due to the inaction and or incompetance of his adversaries, plus a good deal of luck. The use of Blitzkreig tactics wasn't his idea but he was wise enough to use them. There are also several instances of him going against the advice of his Generals and still winning a battle, which perhaps says more for Germany serviceman, training and weapons than Hitlers military ability.

However it is hard to argue that Hitler wasn't a clever politician and many of the methods he used (and abused) are still used and abused by politicians today, especially his oratorial techniques. As others have already said most of his failures were due to political factors rather than pure military decisions. Hitler was gifted in many areas and it is unfortunate that his talents were corrupted by such hatred and mania. Perhaps his most amazing talent was his photographic memory and this is often mentioned by those that had personal dealings with Hitler. This is a two edged sword of course, as it made it difficult for him to 'forget about it'.

What did we learn from WWII? Sadly the fact is that people that wish to gain or retain power continue to promote prejudice to achieve their own goals, and ordinary people continue to accept it, and NO race, religion or country is exempt imo.

Imo the present political correctness laws in some countries that prohibit Nazi symbols and discussion about the holocaust etc aren't far removed from the dictatorship they are trying to expunge. Perhaps the answer to the worlds accumulated prejudice will come from our current 'global' youth that aren't overly concerned with the past and are willing to accept other people as they are - just fellow humans.

 

[Chuck Harris]

Louis
You are right on target, but you left out huge thing that trains & trucks were sided tracked loaded with troops, food, ammo & other needed supplies from reaching where they were needed. The Final Solution had priory over everything else. The people in his own country were assets and would have fought for their country and he was killing them. Slave labor to produce their shells, rockets & etc. all with high failure rate. I don't think I would like start out on a mission with this kind of equipment

Combat how can you explain this use of man power, money & equipment when your soldiers are to die for lack of ammo, food & other supplies.
No way did he have any idea of how the wage a war to win.
He never expected or planned for any country to stand up to him. Japan was counting on the same thing

 

[vandilay]

Hi
I have to agree with the guys berating hitlers military capabilities,
Their is little doubt germany had the best trained army at the begining of
ww2 .[and one of the few armys with the will to fight after the carnige of WW1]
But he chose to abandon the tactics that had bought them so much success i.e the blitzkrieg the crux of which is ,Hit your enemys weakest spot with everything you have thus bypassing their strong points.Thus avoiding a battle of attrition such as WW1.
Had he not viewed stalingrad as a personal battle between him and stalin,
who knows what would have happenened .Allowing a whole army to be annialated in a war of attrition shows no leadership.
One of the strengths of the german army was always to counter attack,By not permitting his generals to retreat he had already removed one of their biggest strengths.
Towards the end He completly lost touch with what was actualy happening,creating grandouise battle groups that only existed on paper.
Also showing complete contempt for his own people by throwing boys and old men at a hopless cause.
His greatest strength, as ozdigger has said was as a politician,when ever a political party is in trouble the race card always comes up trumps and Hitler used this to great effect.
He lead his country into total war but was not prepared for it.

 

[stevep]

hitler had very limited abilities as a tactical stratigest poland and france were cakewalks as were the other european countries he attacked.the germans really believed in their superiority over everybody else,totally ruthless the whole nazi ideolgy was show no weakness and only the strong(germany)will endure.the ss was designed to enslave continental europe,exterminate jews,russians,gypseys ect ect.they thought nothing of killing their own elderly sick,mentally ill people and that was before they declared war on europa.the whole nazi system was a culture of death,and when the world responded they reaped the whirlwind,and their great fuhrer proclamed the german people were not up to the task!

 

[Combat]

hitler had very limited abilities as a tactical stratigest poland and france were cakewalks as were the other european countries he attacked.the germans really believed in their superiority over everybody else,totally ruthless the whole nazi ideolgy was show no weakness and only the strong(germany)will endure.the ss was designed to enslave continental europe,exterminate jews,russians,gypseys ect ect.they thought nothing of killing their own elderly sick,mentally ill people and that was before they declared war on europa.the whole nazi system was a culture of death,and when the world responded they reaped the whirlwind,and their great fuhrer proclamed the german people were not up to the task!

Not sure why France and other countries would be considered "cakewalks." They certainly were not in WWI. That is historical hindsight. If you ever have a chance read "Strange Victory" by Ernest May. I think this does point out that it is difficult to be objective about the military accomplishments of the Germans given the magnitude of their war crimes.

 

[indiana81]

Not sure why France and other countries would be considered "cakewalks." They certainly were not in WWI. That is historical hindsight. If you ever have a chance read "Strange Victory" by Ernest May. I think this does point out that it is difficult to be objective about the military accomplishments of the Germans given the magnitude of their war crimes.

France certainly wasn't a cakewalk in WWI. But air power and armor didn't figure prominently in that war. I think the campaigns in Poland, France and the Low Countries are considered to be cakewalks because the Germans went through those countries so quickly. They used the technology of the day (air and armor) to full advantage while everyone else planned to fight the last war again. Historical hindsight or not, those early campaigns went about as smoothly as possible.
Justin

 

[Gideon]

Combat,

Forget the warcirmes aspect as you seem to hinge your debate on the fact that the warcrimes scew our thinking.

Hitler broke the French, he over ran Poland quickly, he met little to no resistence in Austria, he took Hungary in the Blitz. He accomplished these tasks with no terrific loss of troops and equipment - these countries capitulated quickly and fairly easily.

He was riding on a tide of expectation while the Russians were likely thinking - August -hmmm, it'll be getting cold soon. Let's ride this through, throw a lot of armed people and equipment at them and see what happens.

Really, forget the war crimes aspect of this. Hitler had the priorities a bit off mark, well way off mark and paid for the critical mistakes outlined by Louis, Chuck and others.

How can you divert such resources like cargo trains sending people to the camps when a huge portion of your fairly small country is still moving equipment around by horse and wagon!? They could have avoided the Jewish thing altogether and mobilized them as well as they did in WWI. They would have fought, they would added to the production lines but this is yet another debate altogther and I don't open that can of worms.

Hitler screwed up, his nation paid for it and I'm happy it worked out the way it did. Had he listened to his highly disciplined and talented staff of officers in the regular army, Hitler could have won.

 

[Combat]

Combat,

Forget the warcirmes aspect as you seem to hinge your debate on the fact that the warcrimes scew our thinking.

Hitler broke the French, he over ran Poland quickly, he met little to no resistence in Austria, he took Hungary in the Blitz. He accomplished these tasks with no terrific loss of troops and equipment - these countries capitulated quickly and fairly easily.

He was riding on a tide of expectation while the Russians were likely thinking - August -hmmm, it'll be getting cold soon. Let's ride this through, throw a lot of armed people and equipment at them and see what happens.

Really, forget the war crimes aspect of this. Hitler had the priorities a bit off mark, well way off mark and paid for the critical mistakes outlined by Louis, Chuck and others.

How can you divert such resources like cargo trains sending people to the camps when a huge portion of your fairly small country is still moving equipment around by horse and wagon!? They could have avoided the Jewish thing altogether and mobilized them as well as they did in WWI. They would have fought, they would added to the production lines but this is yet another debate altogther and I don't open that can of worms.

Hitler screwed up, his nation paid for it and I'm happy it worked out the way it did. Had he listened to his highly disciplined and talented staff of officers in the regular army, Hitler could have won.

Gid-
I think the early German victories are underestimated. France alone should have been able to stalemate the Germans as they did in WWI. There is a tendency to give the credit for these victories to the German generals and not Hitler. Then to do the reverse with the later defeats - no doubt due in part to the accounts written by some of the same generals after the war. Hitler was more often correct in his assessments than his generals who were overly cautious early on and then overly confident in the mid-war years. Just as remarkable is how long the Germans were able to hold out against the combined forces of the allies. The successes of the German army were the equal of Napoleon who is considered a military genius. I think because of the war crimes it is understandably difficult to reach the same conclusion regarding Hitler.

 

[Gideon]

Again, forget the war crimes. Put them out of the picture completely and you still find yourself with a guy who made mind-boggeling errors early on in not starving England into submission and listening to the wrong people.

He was dealing with a population throughout Europe with a fairly fresh memory of the bloodshed of WWI. It doesn't surprise me to any great degree that so many fell so quickly. I am so deeply in awe of the British resolve for this reason.

I'm not sure really what your total argument is here - it's kind of like you want to belive that Hitler was a military genius similar to Napoleon or something. He simply wasn't. He made some really good judgement calls early on and expected to ride on them. You also stated that Hitler would wait for something fortunate to happen and then exploit it. Hope is not a strategy.

 

[panda1gen]

Louis
You are right on target, but you left out huge thing that trains & trucks were sided tracked loaded with troops, food, ammo & other needed supplies from reaching where they were needed. The Final Solution had priory over everything else. The people in his own country were assets and would have fought for their country and he was killing them. Slave labor to produce their shells, rockets & etc. all with high failure rate. I don't think I would like start out on a mission with this kind of equipment

Combat how can you explain this use of man power, money & equipment when your soldiers are to die for lack of ammo, food & other supplies.
No way did he have any idea of how the wage a war to win.
He never expected or planned for any country to stand up to him. Japan was counting on the same thing

Hi Guys

Is this the right room for an argument?

The main problem was not so much to do with his military decisions - some worked well and some didn't - see Napoleon who was not perfect and made plenty of cock ups.

Against the cock ups well listed by Louis and others there were also excellent decisions. The Ardennes offensive and not pulling back in the early Russian counter attacks for example, what chance would they have had retreating in the open using horse drawn transport and frozen diesel?

But why did they need to? The short campaigns in the Med and Balkans delayed Barbarrosa from early May to late June 1941 - why? They would almost certainly have taken Moscow in hindsight, but would that have mattered anyway? Read Alan Clarke's Barbarrossa, the lack of supply planning was criminal negligence in itself.

Poor military focus in terms of strategy and political interference. What is war - the exercise of diplomacy by military means? To what political purpose? This is why this thread exists...

It was Hitler's management / political decisions that were the problem more than his strictly military decisions - in particular the failure to go onto a full war footing until 1943 when the only way to win against a superior alliance was to avoid a war of attrition. They had to win quickly or were certain to lose as the superior economic power was against them. This he never seemed to fully grasp despite all the experience of WW1.

Also when he did move into Russia, why not team up with the oppressed peoples of Eastern Europe, instead of alienating them - could have been a very different story. More like the Roman or British model of colonialism? The war crimes element cannot be separated as they are all interlinked decisions, especially politically and go to the very purpose of the war - there were no terms just slavery or victory.... surprise, surprise, people fought!

Like most @~:*ers in generalist positions he had a deep distrust of professionals, over toadies. Political decisons and appointments. This then lead to some terrible decisions like sacking Guderian and keeping Model.

These political decisions then lead to others - developing super heavy tanks instead of streamlining production AKA T34 or Sherman - making King Tigers, less than 500 made from mid 44 to 45 - verses Hetzers, they still made 2500 in the last months of the war - what a difference that could have made in 1941/2........they could perhaps have had 5000 by early 1944? It may have taken 8-10 basic sherman or T34s to knock out one Tiger2 but there were almost 100,000 to 500! If they had have manufactured sensibly and to their actual capability, 'The Germans may not have much left but they certainly seem to know what to do with it' could have had a different ring to it!

And other decisions such as big ships over U boats and Me 263 swallows as fighter bombers etc etc

As for the decisions over the British, I think there is still more to come out here about attempts to negotiate a peace, he did not seem to consider the Commonwealth his natural enemy and wanted to ally against Russian communism. But here he did not fully understand the British. As for Gideons kind words about the British - and at risk of a kicking I tentatively include the Aussies etc ... phew this is dangerous work...our self deprocating sense of humour hides a stubborness that should not be underestimated. Read Churchill's speeches again! The 'British' are naturally very tolerant but if a line is crossed and it was felt that it was for the 'right' cause we become very determined to see the job through - it was this stubborness and will to go down fighting if necessary that he didn't seem to fully understand - plus the fact that he didn't 'play cricket'.

.....not unlike our US cousins I suspect ....back in dangerous waters again......can you imagine the scenario if an invader was due to arrive in London or New York in the next few months unless...............Resolve would be the word!

Finally, I agree with Chuck about his attitude to his own men - leaving 250,000 men at Stalingrad to freeze to death and fight to the last dead rat and bullet could be considered a resignation matter in some democracies....

 

[OzDigger]

Very true panda, political policy plays large in military considerations to this day. Hitler placed racial similarities above common sense from an early stage in WWII. He considered the British people to be closely related to his Germanic ideals because of some common ancestry (Anglo Saxon) as well as the British monarchy having German family ties. Some historians have suggested that he didn't go hard against Britian at Dunkirk and closely after because he didn't want to burn any bridges, and he also expected the RAF to be destroyed quickly. He was proved to be very wrong on all counts. Btw, I should point out that all the German armor had petrol (water cooled) engines except for the diesel powered (air cooled) Tatra 103 engine in the Sd Kfz 234 and Jagdpz 38(d).

 

[panda1gen]

Oz

Thanks for that - didn't realise that. I remebr on the World at War they talked about setting fires under the tanks before they could start them - would that be lubricating oil?

This must seem funny to the average Canadian or Mid Westerner but we stop if there is any snow or even any 'leaves on the train line' in Autumn' - never mind frozen diesel.

Shame about the oz soccer team btw. Thought you were real hard done by.

Kevin

 

[OzDigger]

I understand the sub zero temps in Russia affected lubricating oils as well as the lighter gasoline fuels used by the Germans because they were not preparred for a winter war. German tanks, trucks, rifles and artillery mechanisms also froze up, partly because of the incorrect grade of fuels and lubricants together with the finer engineering tolerances used in German production.