Every time I research some German defeat in WWII I notice a consistent

>>3076664
He convinced himself that he was a master strategist. When many of his generals warned that France might not fall easily, when indeed it did, he thought he knew better than his generals.

>>3076664
Then you haven't done much research, in fact, I've doubt you've done any research.

How did Hitler fuck up El Alamein? Yelnya? Torch? Husky? Avalanche? Dragoon? Bagration? Jassny-Kishniev? Crusader? Vyzama?

>letting the British escape in Dunkirk just to show his Generals who's the boss
This is wrong. Both Von Rundstedt and Von Kluge recommended the halt order. How exactly was Hitler "Showing them who's the boss" by agreeing with their recommendations?

>or literally sleeping while the Allies invaded Normandy.
As opposed to doing what? Launching an immediate counterattack that very notably failed when they tried that at Salerno?

>>3076664
Hitler had no major tactical disagreements with his general staff until 1943, at that point the war was over.

>>3076664

Hitler actually wasn't all that bad of a military leader, to be perfectly honest. Most of the "dumb" decisions he made are actually quite understandable once you understand the reasons behind them.

>>3077145
Ehh, not really, but a lot of Hitler's bad ideas aren't the ones that get bandied around in the mass audience. People like to focus on Dunkirk, or the diversion towards Kiev, which were at least reasonable ideas.

You don't usually see people talking about diverting 13 divisions to garrison Norway, or setting up rival commands in OKH and OKW, which are much 'drier' sorts of mistakes.