Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1440728676773.jpg (92KB, 570x837px) Image search:
[Google]
92KB, 570x837px
So did he do right by taking over the army after Moscow? No memes please. "he should have listened to his generals is reddit tier". I want answers with details on what he did and which general disagreed with him.
Everyone agrees he saved the army by ordering his not one step back directive in '41. Everyone including Guderian told him to retreat, some even all the way to Germany. Yet, he didn't do it.
However, he also fired von Brauchitsch and put himself in charge. Before this time he mostly sat in the background and only intervened a couple of times (moving the panzers to army group south being the only real significant move).
Was this a mistake? Hubris? How much of 1940 was his idea? Shirer says Manstein came up with the ardenne plan. Toland says Hilter did, Manstein just worked out the details.
From the beginning Hitler wanted the main thrust to be in Leningrad and Stalingrad and he thought Moscow was irrelevant. Brauchitsch was the one who focused on Moscow.
Who was right? In 42 Hitler obviously 'corrected' the mistake and moved to Stalingrad, many many miles past Moscow.
Should he have put Manstein or Reichenau in charge? I think Admiral Raeder would have been an excellent choice. His commentary and memorandums on the war are quite acut if you read through them.
>>
File: 1466617470959.png (1012KB, 720x720px) Image search:
[Google]
1012KB, 720x720px
>Everyone agrees he saved the army by ordering his not one step back directive in '41
>>
>>2601611
Well, the generals all agreed.
Disorganized mass retreat into a blizzard sounds like a terrible idea.
>>
>>2601506
>don't give me an accurate answer, please
>>
>>2601631
Stalin issued that directive is what he means by dog pictures
>>
>>2601631
Are you speaking of Stalin's no step back order or Hitler's no step back order?
Hitler's no step back order was pretty much the most stupid thing he could have ordered.
>mobile units adapt at mobile warfare
>huge open steppes (how do you spell that word?) in Russia, perfect for mobile operations
>temporary retreats to gain a tactical advantage is commonplace
Nah, let's treat the battlefield like it is world war I trench warfare with static troop emplacements and send our panzers into urban warfare.
>>
>>2602257
It was in the winter with terrible supply lines, terrible weather, troops that were already heavily damaged and attrited, the necessity to leave behind heavy equipment in a retreat which depresses combat value yet further, with the inevitable confusion and loss of morale from a retreat...
Hitler was correct. A retreat from Moscow during the Soviet counter-offensive would just have turned into a rout. A hold-fast order probably saved the German army from disintegration.
Later on of course, they were often disasters and trying to hold every scrap of territory was bad, although it doesn't matter since Germany had already lost the war by then anyway so irrelevant., Some of the times when they tried to stand fast like Stalingrad were also arguably necessary; retreating from Stalingrad, into the murderous cold with fierce snow for scores of kilometers without heavy equipment as half-starved soldiers into Soviet resistance was a recipe for disaster, it was better for the Germans to stay in the city and hope for relief from elsewhere or at least to hold long enough to prevent the Soviets from having additional time to exploit their offensive.
>>
>>2602184
Yeah but the words were actually in Hitler's 1940 directive as well.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2