Revised view of German military strength and strategies

Dec 2012
131
Once upon a time, Hitler was a madman and never listened to his wise generals.
The Wehrmacht fought with bravery on the eastern front but Russian hordes overwhelmed it.
And so on.

Then we discovered Hitler's decisions were not (always) mad and the german generals wrote a lot of self-serving lies.
Is there a book collecting and explaining the new historical and military knowledge about the German side of things, after this revision?
A sort of "you knew this, but it was not right" book.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,627
Once upon a time, Hitler was a madman and never listened to his wise generals.
The Wehrmacht fought with bravery on the eastern front but Russian hordes overwhelmed it.
And so on.

Then we discovered Hitler's decisions were not (always) mad and the german generals wrote a lot of self-serving lies.
Is there a book collecting and explaining the new historical and military knowledge about the German side of things, after this revision?
A sort of "you knew this, but it was not right" book.
Hitler was a bitmad at least, and certibnly a miliatry simpleton whose decison making process was incredibly shallow. If hitler waas right about anythingit was usually for the worng reasons. But the German miliatry machine while in some ways magnificnet (normally at the operational level) in others really poor with massive short commings (logistics, strategy, organization)

The German general staff was already operationally focused and strategically limited before the Nazis, but the removal of Generals with spine, promotion of yes men, and the creation of competing staff organizations and complete lack of any real functional combined chief of steffs for the services. teh Navy and the Air force very much running their own shows whatever anyone else said. The promotion independent empires, Goring, Himmler. The Planning and strategic decison making framework was just extremely poor. The focus of fornt line numbers, lead to brittle organizations, not making enough spare parts to fix equipment in the line. Intelligence and planning was done of the bais of the answers thart were wanted rather then on reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky and Dentatus
Sep 2019
45
Canada
I have always disagreed with people saying Hitler was a madman, and didn't know the strategic aspects of war.
As far as I am concerned, being in WW1 alone, gives him more experience in war than a lot of generals in history when they started commanding armies.
Also, it has come out, that a lot of the times it was the reverse of what were told, and that some generals didnt listen to Hitler, as opposed to Hitler not listening his generals.
I do not know of a book that discusses this though.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,160
Sydney
Hitler had a sound grasp of geopolitics , while his generals were sometimes pretty dim witted
after the end there was this massive dump job done on the guy to cover their own political cowardliness and self serving interest

 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,627
I have always disagreed with people saying Hitler was a madman, and didn't know the strategic aspects of war.
As far as I am concerned, being in WW1 alone, gives him more experience in war than a lot of generals in history when they started commanding armies.
Also, it has come out, that a lot of the times it was the reverse of what were told, and that some generals didnt listen to Hitler, as opposed to Hitler not listening his generals.
I do not know of a book that discusses this though.
He had zero, nonem, zeppo, zilch, experince commanding Amries. Almost all his generals were in ww1 in command positions were they learnt someting about command.
 
Dec 2012
131
Thanks everyone and by the way I've seen many of TIK videos (not always agreeing with him 100%), but....
What I'm asking for is book titles and authors. Titles that changed your view on the matter and-or challenged the "accepted truth" of older times.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,627
Hitler had a sound grasp of geopolitics , while his generals were sometimes pretty dim witted
after the end there was this massive dump job done on the guy to cover their own political cowardliness and self serving interest

I don;t mind TIK in general but there are a couple questions that are just begging after viewing this particualr video.

Why is there NOT a graph showing unit strenth in teh various army groups ratherthan just losses and replacements maybe centre got replcements because it 's overall strength level was much more rund down.

If Operation Blau was a logistical nightmare and logsitics were failing, tends to suggest that not everything can be sent thatthe choice is replacements or ammo/food/fuel and if you send more replacements that means you need more ammo/fuel/food. Throwing more men into an area suffering from lositical breakdown rarely improves the situation.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,575
Dispargum
I don;t mind TIK in general but there are a couple questions that are just begging after viewing this particualr video.

Why is there NOT a graph showing unit strenth in teh various army groups ratherthan just losses and replacements maybe centre got replcements because it 's overall strength level was much more rund down.

If Operation Blau was a logistical nightmare and logsitics were failing, tends to suggest that not everything can be sent thatthe choice is replacements or ammo/food/fuel and if you send more replacements that means you need more ammo/fuel/food. Throwing more men into an area suffering from lositical breakdown rarely improves the situation.
In this video TIK doesn't do a good job distinguishing between replacements and reinforcements. Reinforcements are whole units that augment a battle after the battle has begun. Replacements are individual soldiers fed into a unit to take the place of men who have become casualties. The Germans did not like replacements. They were big believers in unit cohesion - a unit functioned best if the men had been together for a long time. Replacements were bad for cohesion since they were strangers thrown in among a close-knit team. In the German view it was better to let a unit shrink from battle losses and remain cohesive than to disrupt its cohesion by throwing in a bunch of new men. Cohesion can only be established by keeping the men together for a few months without any transfers in and out of the unit. I suspect the replacements went to Army Groups Center and North because that was a quiet sector of the front where units could be rebuilt and a new cohesion established with only minimal interference from the enemy. Stalingrad did not get the replacements because that would have disrupted unit cohesion in the middle of a battle. Any troops that were committed to Stalingrad in mid battle were reinforcements - whole cohesive units, not individual soldiers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dentatus and Olleus

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,160
Sydney
Chlodio , Your argument on unit cohesion is good but the fact remain that the 6th army had suffered losses which were not made up
Hitler insisted in reinforcements before the great assault of October and Oh surprise , the 6th Army broke the Soviet front in two places and push them to the very bank of the Volga
 
Jan 2013
1,061
Toronto, Canada
Hitler never understood military planning, but he understood politics. Sociopaths can have a keen understanding of human psychology and Hitler often knew to use military operations to create the desired political effect.