Why did Allies go easy on Nazi war criminals?

[11B4V]

I remember reading the CIA found them completely useless. And the Bundeswehr was not that good of a force.  At least by 1962, when NATO rated the Germans the lowest possible standard after the Fallex 62 maneuvers.  We would have done better using Poles, who actually did defeat the Soviets in a war.

Bundeswehr was still in it's infancy in '62.

[Neil]

You channeling Slargos now Neil?  English is his second language, you have no such excuses.

I'll accept that as your surrender.

Is there anything I would say that you wouldn't accept as a surrender?

If you had attacked my post based on what I said, rather than trying to avoid it and slander me.

[dps]

There was also a view amongst many important Allied leaders (and fostered by German leaders) that Hitler's presence at the top had hobbled them.

Is this merely a 'view'?  I actually thought it was universally accepted as truth that Hitler was atrocious at grand strategy.

Well, until the war actually started, you can make a good argument that Hitler had done quite well at grand strategy.  He got the British and French to give in to all of his demands without a fight until Poland, and then on the eve of war, he completely unhinged the Allies attempt to forge a common front against him with the Soviets via the Molotov-Ribbentorp pact.  Really, it's hard to show that he really blundered as far as grand strategy was concerned until he attacked the Soviets while the British were still fighting.

Beyond that, though, the German generals tended to blame Hitler for every operational decision that didn't work out in Germany's favor, and a lot of the tactical ones.  And while that was certainly true in some cases, in many instances it wasn't really Hitler making those decisions.

[Razgovory]

I remember reading the CIA found them completely useless. And the Bundeswehr was not that good of a force.  At least by 1962, when NATO rated the Germans the lowest possible standard after the Fallex 62 maneuvers.  We would have done better using Poles, who actually did defeat the Soviets in a war.

Bundeswehr was still in it's infancy in '62.

It is also the period of time when all those useful German officers from WWII would still be around.

[Razgovory]

There was also a view amongst many important Allied leaders (and fostered by German leaders) that Hitler's presence at the top had hobbled them.

Is this merely a 'view'?  I actually thought it was universally accepted as truth that Hitler was atrocious at grand strategy.

Well, until the war actually started, you can make a good argument that Hitler had done quite well at grand strategy.  He got the British and French to give in to all of his demands without a fight until Poland, and then on the eve of war, he completely unhinged the Allies attempt to forge a common front against him with the Soviets via the Molotov-Ribbentorp pact.  Really, it's hard to show that he really blundered as far as grand strategy was concerned until he attacked the Soviets while the British were still fighting.

Beyond that, though, the German generals tended to blame Hitler for every operational decision that didn't work out in Germany's favor, and a lot of the tactical ones.  And while that was certainly true in some cases, in many instances it wasn't really Hitler making those decisions.

Kursk is the best example of this.  Hitler allowed his generals a great deal of latitude in planning and executing the operation.  They fucked up royally, which is probably why they wanted to focus on Stalingrad rather then Kursk as the turning point of the war.

[Caliga]

@dps Yeah, true, I guess you could make that argument.  I'm more inclined to make the argument that Britain and France were themselves exceptionally bad at grand strategy, though (at least in the pre-Churchill days), making Hitler look competent by comparison.

[Razgovory]

You channeling Slargos now Neil?  English is his second language, you have no such excuses.

I'll accept that as your surrender.

Is there anything I would say that you wouldn't accept as a surrender?

If you had attacked my post based on what I said, rather than trying to avoid it and slander me.

Your post was way out in left field it was something like Slargos would post.  Since Slargos doesn't know English very well, he has an excuse.

[11B4V]

I remember reading the CIA found them completely useless. And the Bundeswehr was not that good of a force.  At least by 1962, when NATO rated the Germans the lowest possible standard after the Fallex 62 maneuvers.  We would have done better using Poles, who actually did defeat the Soviets in a war.

Bundeswehr was still in it's infancy in '62.

It is also the period of time when all those useful German officers from WWII would still be around.

Fail too see your point.

[Neil]

Kursk is the best example of this.  Hitler allowed his generals a great deal of latitude in planning and executing the operation.  They fucked up royally, which is probably why they wanted to focus on Stalingrad rather then Kursk as the turning point of the war.

By the time that Kursk rolled around, the point had already turned.  There's a stronger case for the gates of Moscow in 1941 than there is for Kursk.

[Razgovory]

I remember reading the CIA found them completely useless. And the Bundeswehr was not that good of a force.  At least by 1962, when NATO rated the Germans the lowest possible standard after the Fallex 62 maneuvers.  We would have done better using Poles, who actually did defeat the Soviets in a war.

Bundeswehr was still in it's infancy in '62.

It is also the period of time when all those useful German officers from WWII would still be around.

Fail too see your point.

Sparing German officers from jail and execution  was not productive if the army was still shit by '62.

[11B4V]

I remember reading the CIA found them completely useless. And the Bundeswehr was not that good of a force.  At least by 1962, when NATO rated the Germans the lowest possible standard after the Fallex 62 maneuvers.  We would have done better using Poles, who actually did defeat the Soviets in a war.

Bundeswehr was still in it's infancy in '62.

It is also the period of time when all those useful German officers from WWII would still be around.

Fail too see your point.

Sparing German officers from jail and execution  was not productive if the army was still shit by '62.

Your blame is misplaced if you think that was the cause.

[Razgovory]

Kursk is the best example of this.  Hitler allowed his generals a great deal of latitude in planning and executing the operation.  They fucked up royally, which is probably why they wanted to focus on Stalingrad rather then Kursk as the turning point of the war.

By the time that Kursk rolled around, the point had already turned.  There's a stronger case for the gates of Moscow in 1941 than there is for Kursk.

In '41 and '42 the German Army broke through the Soviet lines and captures thousands of miles of territory.  In '43 they failed to break through and the initiative permanently shifted.  I'd consider '43 more important the '41 and '42.

[Razgovory]

Your blame is misplaced if you think that was the cause.

What do you believe the cause to be?  My argument was to counter the idea that Germans were released because they would be helpful in building an army to fight the Soviets.  Since the army was very poor, then they couldn't have been that helpful.

[11B4V]

Your blame is misplaced if you think that was the cause.

What do you believe the cause to be?  My argument was to counter the idea that Germans were released because they would be helpful in building an army to fight the Soviets.  Since the army was very poor, then they couldn't have been that helpful.

If it were accurate to say the Bundeswehr was crap in 62. I would point to the overall morale/will of the German people. Which was probably not what you would call "High".

[Neil]

You channeling Slargos now Neil?  English is his second language, you have no such excuses.

I'll accept that as your surrender.

Is there anything I would say that you wouldn't accept as a surrender?

If you had attacked my post based on what I said, rather than trying to avoid it and slander me.

Your post was way out in left field it was something like Slargos would post.  Since Slargos doesn't know English very well, he has an excuse.

I disagree.  My post (for the most part) attacked specific points you made.  I attacked the unsupported claims you made on behalf of the CIA by pointing out that the CIA isn't exactly the gold standard of intelligence agencies and that clearly German officers had their uses.  The racist thing wasn't sensible, but neither was your ragging on a barely-existant Bundeswehr as evidence for the low quality of former Nazi officers.  The unreasonableness of both statements cancels out.  And the last part was to correct your misconception that it would be possible to recruit some Polish military talent, as that talent had been in large part destroyed by the war.