[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

Halder really was an incompetent memelord

"Juzd chekmate tha king"
"Ok, but what would that accomplish? Napoleon got to Moscow last time. They just ended up burning it."
"Caputre tha king"
"Ok, that's checkers, not chess. Asia is so large in expanse that warfare there is more comparable to go, although perhaps we shouldn't be reasoning either from boardgames or from wars with France."
"*eyes light up* Me like wars with France."
"Yes, but this is a war with Russia, why don't we just capture the oil fiel-"

Honestly, how did Hitler manage to understand the correct overall strategy yet not manage to convince these knife and fork holders that Russia could best be defeated by just closing off its food and oil supplies (the capture of which was the point of the war anyway)?
yes, we get it, you uncritically devour all of TIK's material and feel enlightened for railing against half decade old historiography that's already been discredited by minds far greater than some random bloke on youtube, now go back to playing HOI4 where the oil you capture gets magically siphoned back to your capital
>Moscow, the railhub of Russia in 1941 was as useless as Moscow in 1812

nice retardation
Get thee behind me reddit

Also welcome to post a rebuttal of his points. Appealing to "people in the past said it" is not an argument.

Was the rail hub as important as the oil and food source?

That was in MENA and the Caucasus which Hitler neglected even as late as 1942 he preferred to waste men in Stalingrad rather than ensure access to the Caucasus oil.


There was no great supply of food in Ukraine certainly not after the Russians went scorched earth, and not before that either, not enough to affect the outcome of the war. Crippling Russia's transportation infrastructure by taking Moscow was much more important.
>Was the rail hub as important as the oil and food source?
I wouldn’t say it was as important as Baku, but taking Moscow would’ve severely hindered the USSR’s ability to transport and reinforce the massive amount of troops they needed to defend the South as well as many other sectors.
>waste men in Stalingrad rather than ensure access to the Caucasus oil
If they’d focused entirely on securing the Caucus instead they’d leave Army Group South’s flank vulnerable. Honestly it probably would’ve ended up in them getting cut off and annihlated all the same.
Halder’s main error was his severe underestimintation of the Red Army’s strength. If his intelligence reports had been correct it wouldn’t have mattered if they’d taken Moscow or the South first because the Red Army would be practically decimated in the early stages of Barbarossa.
They were only cut off in the first place because they concentrated the bulk of their men in Stalingrad

>leave Army Group South’s flank vulnerable
>ended up in them getting cut off and annihlated all the same.

How? The lines were only breached because Hitler gambled on the Soviets not even trying to break the undermanned, and undersupplied Romanians. That situation would have never even occurred if he hadn't bothered pointlessly devoting so many men to taking Stalingrad when the focus should have always bene the oil.
This thread shows that both sides had good points.
Even with all the hindsight its impossible to say which was the more important target
The main objective of taking Stalingrad was to form a defensive line along the Volga. Ignoring Stalingrad would’ve left an important bridgehead for a Soviet counteroffensive, which if successful would’ve fucked the Germans securing the Caucus right up the asshole.
>launch an offensive west of the Volga
>Germans just cut you off and destroy you each time since they still have oil and Panzer divisions

This isn't hard to figure out mobility, not throwing your soldiers into an urban clusterfuck, was to the German's advantage. It's also how competent generals like Manstein halted typical Soviets' counterattacks, just let them advance until you cut them off. Hitler was still stuck in the WW1 trenches though so his mind couldn't comprehend modern strategy.
End of the day it doesn’t matter which one was more important because Germany was incapable of capturing and securing either one. Their evaluation of their enemy prior to the war was far from reality. It’s impressive and damn near a miracle they got as far as they did.
>Hitler was still stuck in the WW1 trenches though so his mind couldn't comprehend modern strategy
You should be embarrassed by this statement. Stalingrad was a huge blunder yes, but if you’ve read anything about Hitler you can see through his decisions and even recorded conversations that he had a pretty decent understanding of modern warfare. Fucks sake even Manstein recognizes Hitler’s ability and understanding of such matters in his memoir ‘Lost Victories’, in which he blames Hitler and OKH for most of the failings of the Wehrmacht.
What did he blame Hitler for specifically? Do you think the blame is fair?
His main criticism is Hitler’s constant meddling in tactical decisions hindering generals ability to take swift actions based on their own assessment of the situation. There’s a lot more criticisms and a good bit of them are just to shift the blame. I’m just too tired to go through them all I’d recommend reading it for yourself
This. I highly recommend getting a copy of "Hitler and his Generals: Complete Stenographic Records 1942-1945". It's a monster book, over 1500 pages - I had to buy a copy because I could not find a PDF no matter how much I looked. Was only 5 bucks for a used hard cover from AbeBooks.

These are just what the title says, his complete word for word meetings with his generals during war conferences, sometimes multiple ones a day. It really shows how much he knew, from logistics and grand strategy to squad tactics... The guy was a voracious reader and read all the greats on military strategy. His biggest issue was he was a gambler, and a big one at that. Sometimes it paid off marvellously and sometimes as we know, not so much.

Here is an example, if you can read it (my phone's camera is shit)
File: IMG_20190912_054712.jpg (189 KB, 675x960)
189 KB
189 KB JPG
Fuck forgot the pic
That doesn't explain how Manstein met so much success with tactical retreats and feints (all against Hitler's wishes) rather then waiting to get surrounded like an idiot.

Perhaps Manstein admired Hitler's persistence, but there's no way you could admire his strategic inability.
This stage in the war was a completely different situation. The Wehrmacht had no capabilities of a large offensive after Kursk and was purely on the defensive. Hitler had success with his no retreat strategy at times and this gave him confidence that the Red Army would just bleed themselves white after constantly throwing themselves at German defenses. Of course he didn’t understand that Germany had no means of adequately supplying and replacing their losses like before. I think the main thing is he just couldn’t accept the inevitability of their defeat and wanted to hold onto their gains they paid for in blood coupled with the fact he was now also micromanaging a new Western Front. The whole thing was fucked and Manstein had plenty of blunders of his own.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.