First of, apologies for another ww2 thread. I know there's

>>2349856
>I assume that maybe they could've come to an stalemate or a peace agreement ?


Unlikely, given the political situation in September of 1939. You already had a lot of ill-will towards Germany pre-existing, and Hitler rapidly re-arming and breaking several treaties just in the last few years means that very few of his peace offers would be trusted. He has to win totally, or lose.

>But was Hitler really this super retard who fucked over his generals, or is it just his generals trying to wash them selves clean for whatever failures and bad ideas themselves had and instead blamed it all on Hitler ?

A bit of both, really. Hitler also got more interfering and erratic as the war went on, when it meant less and less as Germany's position was getting increasingly hopeless.

>>2349883
thanks for the response !

>>2349856
>I assume that maybe they could've come to an stalemate or a peace agreement?

NO; THE ZIONIST ALLIES WOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED A NATIONAL SOCIALIST EMPIRE TO PERSIST, NOR WOULD THEY HAVE ALLOWED NATIONAL SOCIALISM ITSELF TO PERSIST IN ANY ACTUAL FORM.

THE SECOND WORLD WAR WAS NOT MERELY A SOCIOPOLITICAL CONFLICT, BUT AN IDEOLOGICAL, AND ETHICOMORAL, ONE.

>But was Hitler really this super retard who fucked over his generals, or is it just his generals trying to wash them selves clean for whatever failures and bad ideas themselves had and instead blamed it all on Hitler ? I mean Hitler died, it's not like he could defend his actions afterwards.

NO; THE POPULAR NOTION THAT ADOLF HITLER MADE MULTIPLE STRATEGIC, AND TACTICAL, ERRORS, NEGLECTING MORE INFORMED OPINIONS, AND ADVICE, FROM HIS GENERALS, IS SPURIOUS, MAINLY ARISING FROM POSTWAR RATIONALIZATIONS BY MANY OF THOSE GENERALS WHO WERE INCAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING MANY OF ADOLF HITLER'S STRATEGIC, AND TACTICAL, DECISIONS —EXEMPLUM GRATIA: DUNKIRK.

THE THIRD REICH LOST THE WAR MAINLY DUE TO LOGISTICAL DEFICIENCY, NOT TO TACTICAL, NOR STRATEGIC, ERRORS.

>>2349943
>HE THIRD REICH LOST THE WAR MAINLY DUE TO LOGISTICAL DEFICIENCY, NOT TO TACTICAL, NOR STRATEGIC, ERRORS.

Can you explain a bit further? English is not my first language. I've heard that 80% of the garman logistics were moved by horses. Is it stuff like that you mean ?

>>2349989
>Is it stuff like that you mean?

YES; OTHER EXAMPLES WOULD BE SUBOPTIMAL BASIC SUPPLIES TRANSPORTATION, SUBOPTIMAL ALLOCATION, AND PROCUREMENT, OF FUEL, AND SUBOPTIMAL INTERCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, AND MILITARY BRANCHES.

Indeed, it is like the Napoleonic wars all over again- Napoleon might have been able to win some campaigns, but in the long run, he would never have been able to outdo the combined military and economic might of the coalitions- this goes for Germany in ww2 as well. Long term, Germany could not have won the war after USA joined the war and failed to subdue the british.

>>2350025
Alright, thank you very much my friend !

>>2350054

>Actually taking a shouting tripfaggot seriously.


Not your best move, anon, especially since he's a well known /pol/tard who won't back up his claims.

For instance, you see him claim that Natsoc would not be allowed to exist in any form, but it's really only the ones that opposed the Allies in armed struggle that got wiped out. Portugal, Spain, and Sweden all had Facsist/Natsoc style governments, and nobody kicked them over.

Hitler did in fact make multiple strategic and tactical errors. The Halt order in 1943 was just idiotic. The separation of the Army group in Case Blue into sub-groups A and B and then treating them like they were each full army groups was absurd. The asusumption that the Soviets would fold under a sharp shove like the Russians did in WW1 without having an actual basis for that assumption, etc.

Dunkirk was Hitler following the advice of his commanders on the ground.

And Wehrmacht coordination between branches was some of the best in the war, which is one of the reasons they made CAS work to such a high degree, much better than the other major powers. Yes, their supply lines were moved primarily by horse (as were pretty much everyone in the old world). That doesn't mean that it's not a strategic blunder to not take that into account when you embark on a campaign, or to start a war against people you don't have any realistic means of delivering a finishing blow to or of converting your early battlefield success into political concessions from.

File: 1486524751522.jpg (102KB, 720x711px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 720x711px

>>2349943
>>2350025
Why are you yelling?

>>2350082
haha, i did think the shouting / caps was a bit over the top. But i'm a anewfag who only lurks from time to time. I appreciate all the responses i can get in this thread. I like seeing a discussing. Unless it turns into a pie throwing contest that is. So thanks for your reponse too !

File: 1479771738162.jpg (56KB, 220x344px)

56KB, 220x344px

>>2350082
How can one post be so wrong?

>>2350108
Really ? ( op here )

OK Hitler was a racist who thought german soldiers were superior to Russians, so he spread his army out too much and tried to grab too much stuff instead of concentrating and allowing his armies superior tactics win

if you are still here anon and want non /pol/ grown up talk then I'll be happy to answer any questions.

>>2350600

Not OP, but let's hear what you've got.

>>2350608
ask away and I will try to answer best I can

>>2350600
What sources are the best to look at ? Russian, german, etc etc

Can you tell me alittle about Rommel ? I see many praise him as the best general ever, and then isee some who say how he is overrated. Can you tell me abit of both please ? (op)

>>2350616
Who da forth horse mang?

>>2350686
Rommel was definitely an above average general but was often out of his depth. During the invasion of France he made rapid progress through north-west France and helped fight off British and French Counter-attacks rather well.

However this was at divisional and Corps level. Once sent to control anything larger such as Army Afrika or Army Group B in the defence of Normandy he seems to be quite out of his depth.

Compared to someone like Guiderian or Manstein he simply wasn't as good. Writers such as Beevor attribute this to the 'Rommel Myth'.

>>2350740
Would you say that is becuase of "incompetence" or logistic problems, etc ?

>>2350635


Why was the Wehrmacht so much more able to do inter-arm coordination than other militaries on land, but were so unable to do so on the water?

And why did they get so far ahead in the first place? It doesn't seem like anything they were doing should have been impossible, but at the level of "get the right weapon to the right place" they seemed far ahead of their adversaries for years.

>>2350775

Not him, but it was definitely incompetence.

He was well aware of the logistical problems with his plans, and simply ignored them.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf