Glantz, or the reliability of Stalin-era Soviet reports on the Eastern Front

[Razgovory]

I generally agree with Berkut on this.  People tend to rate Hitler and the Nazi leadership rather poorly as strategic thinkers, given how successful they were.*  It's strange.

Not that there weren't major, major mistakes.  Raz identified one (the failure to fully mobilize the economy for war), and there are others (the racism, particularly in the treatment of Ukrainians, the desire for a surface fleet, the belief that the Luftwaffe was equipped for terror bombing, the insane insistence that everything should dive bomb).  But even Alexander and Napoleon made major strategic mistakes, and no one calls them buffoons.  The desire to villify and denigrate the Nazis (especially on the part of, ahem, Wehrmacht generals both concerned for their own glory and in many cases complicit in their crimes--hi Guderian), while understandable, is something I'm not sure holds up to scrutiny.

*Well, in the short-term.  It's also important to remember that Germany was facing three nations each stronger than itself.  And it was very close to destroying one of them, and arguably came close to knocking another one out of the war.  I suppose one can argue that a smart person would have been contented with the massive concessions made and never gone to war in the first place.

I think Hitler gets a bit under-rated As a strategist (especially for someone with no formal training).  His strategic oversight in the beginning of the War worked fairly well, but still, like Napoleon they were often major gambles.  They often succeed his because enemies didn't think anyone would be crazy enough to try them.

The industrial side is the primary reason why I think the Germans got further then they should have.  The Russian built more T-34s then all the German tanks combined.  This is surprising considering the Soviets were not know for efficiency and only a generation ago Russian barely had the capability to even make a car.

[Valmy]

Contrarily to what Valmy says, they weren't a fringe group.

Um I well aware they were not a fringe group.  Where did I say they were a fringe group?  They were a very powerful group.  I just doubted they were trying to undermine the war effort before it was clear the Germans had won.  They were, after all, French nationalists.  I know they chanted 'better Hitler than Blume' and all that, but the Socialists were not in charge in 1939 and 1940.  The Radicals were and while the Radicals had at one point been a left wing party they were not by that point.

[DGuller]

Interesting. I will admit I don't know much of the particulars of the French lack of interest in fighting WW2, just kind of know that they didn't have the cultural or political will/unity necessary. And more importantly, the Germans knew it as well.

I think the real shock for Hitler and the Germans was not that France was not willing to fight, but that England WAS willing to fight, even after Poland, the Low Countries, Norway, and France had all been beaten. I still say that is one of the "great moments" in cultural history, when the Brits basically said "Fuck you, we aren't quitting even if it does seem completely insane to keep fighting! Lets see you get across the Channel!".

Of course, I am just a German fanboy, so what do I know?

You can say that Churchill pulled an Alci.

[Drakken]

Um I well aware they were not a fringe group.  Where did I say they were a fringe group?  They were a very powerful group.  I just doubted they were trying to undermine the war effort before it was clear the Germans had won.  They were, after all, French nationalists.  I know they chanted 'better Hitler than Blume' and all that, but the Socialists were not in charge in 1939 and 1940.  The Radicals were and while the Radicals had at one point been a left wing party they were not by that point.

Many of them were French nationalists, yes, but the other camp was Hitler-fanboism. They loved seeing how Germany was run efficiently and put back on track under Hitler compared to the bitter political and social divide in France, that Stalin was a far bigger threat than Hitler witnessing the former's intervention in the Spanish Civil War just south of their frontiers. These, to quote Henri Guillemin who was a contemporary witness of the events of the times, working as a diplomat, went as far as to say that "they wouldn't be unhappy to see France lose the war with Hitler."

If your French is good enough, I can link you to Guillemin's TV series from the 70s on Pétain and his Vichy Regime.

[Valmy]

Sure I read quite a bit on this subject as you can imagine but I was not aware they tried to do anything to undermine the war effort, unlike the freaking Comintern.  I do know they were not exactly devastated when the Nazis did win.  But like all French political groups there were big divisions even between political allies.

Go ahead and provide the linkage.

[Drakken]

There you go, all of them are there.

http://archives.tsr.ch/dossier-histoirepetain

[Valmy]

Merci

But really the Fall of France is not because of the Comintern and backstabbing Franco-Nazis but mostly because Maurice Gamelin was a terrible general with terrible ideas on everything from strategy to tactics to logistics to command and control.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Germans had a reputation for record keeping, but the Nazis were notoriously slap dash in administration.

That might lead me to question certain SS or Gestapo records, but at least until late in the war not the Wehrmacht generally.

[The Minsky Moment]

I actually get the opposite impression.  I find it strange the Germans got as far as they did.  Germany was badly, badly run. 

Everything is relative.  The German economy was backward in many respects, but there was a strong industrial core spread out among web of proto-Mittelstand type business, a well educated and disciplined work force, and considerable scientific innovation (despite Nazi own goals).  It still had its central location, the second largest population in Europe, and managed to recruit and surround itself with allies and satellites.  Plus, it had a first mover advantage in rearmament. 

Compare all that to France with its population bust, squabbling politicians and inconsistent policy; the UK - desperately trying to manage its overstretched global empire on reduced material resources; the USSR - a paranoid regime ravaged by self-inflicted purges desperately trying to mobilize and control improverished and still semi-literate masses; USA - a country mired in a second Depression, increasingly embroiled in controversies in the Pacific and China, and where isolationism was a dominant political ideology.

The real question is how - after Hitler secured a de facto (if cool) alliance with the Soviet Union in 1939 - those that would resist him would have any chance at all. 

[Drakken]

Merci

But really the Fall of France is not because of the Comintern and backstabbing Franco-Nazis but mostly because Maurice Gamelin was a terrible general with terrible ideas on everything from strategy to tactics to logistics to command and control.

Of course on the operational level, but morale, unity (here lack thereof) and the will to fight played a role. Even the best of plans will fail if a good chunk of your officers feel this war shouldn't be fought at all and will fight only half-heartedly to defend the territory, so imagine when the plan's faulty from the start.

[Valmy]

Of course on the operational level, but morale, unity (here lack thereof) and the will to fight played a role. Even the best of plans will fail if a good chunk of your officers feel this war shouldn't be fought at all and will fight only half-heartedly to defend the territory.

Yeah but to what extent was their lack of morale and will to fight contributed by the way the Army was led?  The fact his plan resulted in the French Army sitting around doing nothing for months let the doubts begin to build and nerves to give out.  I see no reason why similar leadership in the First World War would not have had similar results.

[derspiess]

They also launched a minor offensive in 1939, but gave up pretty quickly.  A bold strike could have captured the vital Saar region, which would have hurt German industry, and forced any German operation against the French to force them out first.

A bold, organized, well-planned strike with soldiers/officers of sufficient training & morale could certainly have captured the Saar.  Unfortunately for the French they lacked pretty much all those ingredients.

Them Char B1 bis tanks were funky & cool lookin', though.

[Ideologue]

What does "bis" mean anyway?

[dps]

What does "bis" mean anyway?

Mark 2, essentially.

[grumbler]

The Germans had a reputation for record keeping, but the Nazis were notoriously slap dash in administration.  Besides, they lost the war and lots of documents were likely lost or destroyed in the chaos.

The kinds of documents that describe losses and orders of battle would have been German, not Nazi, so your point seems moot.