Grading Hitler's Military Command Competence

Grading Hitler's Military Command Prowess

  • A [Excellent]

    Votes: 5 3.9%
  • B [Good]

    Votes: 10 7.8%
  • C [Average]

    Votes: 34 26.4%
  • D [Poor]

    Votes: 51 39.5%
  • F [Failure]

    Votes: 29 22.5%

  • Total voters
    129
In the East?

F (only because there isn't a G).

The Reich had almost no chance of defeating the Soviets, even if properly led. There are a few scenarios when you can come up with a scenario, but none of them with Hitler involved as C-in-C.

There are a number of scenarios where the Reich could have held against the Red Army for years, even after the debacle at Stalingrad. None of them are possible with Hitler in charge.

In the West Hitler was either extremely lucky, or he simply read his opponents properly. In the East he screwed up by the numbers.
No offense, but doesn't this assessment contradict your own Anglo/American-Nazi War?
 

Wendigo

Banned
No offense, but doesn't this assessment contradict your own Anglo/American-Nazi War?
He said "almost no chance" so I don't see how he's contradicting himself.

In AANW the only intelligent decision Hitler makes is not getting involved in Africa, freeing up tons of resources and troops which helped the Wehrmacht take Stalingrad. The real trigger is Stalin flipping out and starting a purge which results in a civil war and his death. Molotov ends up in power and makes a deal with the Reich resulting in a Nazi empire stretching to the Urals.

Stalin starting another purge and the subsequent loss of their most skilled commanders and the Red Army/NKVD falling apart was the POD. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a story. The whole point of the TL was to look at the horrors and nightmares the Reich had planned for Europe particularly the Slavs (Generalplan Ost) and wasn't supposed to be anything but a few pages until people on the forum wanted to see it written in full.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No offense, but doesn't this assessment contradict your own Anglo/American-Nazi War?
To a degree, but it also reinforces the difficulties in coming up with a way to make it work. I have never made any secret that the weakest, by far, element of the T/L is the PODs that allows the Reich to win. There are two, one is Hitler showing a degree of sanity in refusing to be drawn into Africa, and bullying Mussolini into hold off his dreams of a new Roman Empire until the USSR is dispatched (see post # 11 of the main thread), the other is Stalin being his normal sociopath self and executing Zhukov, Chuikov, and the rest of his senior commanders after the fall of Stalingrad.

Both of those POD are unlikely, but utterly necessary to allow the Reich to win in the East. Keep in mind that the original, very limited, goal of the T/L was to generate a discussion of how Europe would have turned out if Hitler won decisively in the East. The initial AANW was supposed to end on page six or seven of the thread or at around 120 posts, with the idea of going back to Pacific War Redux. The next 315 pages of text and ~7,500 posts of discussion were purely a result of folks pushing for me to continue (for close to 2 months before I decided to continue).

So yes, AANW is a castle built on a foundation consisting of a couple 2x4s and a empty beer keg. Never pretended it wasn't.
 
To a degree, but it also reinforces the difficulties in coming up with a way to make it work. I have never made any secret that the weakest, by far, element of the T/L is the PODs that allows the Reich to win. There are two, one is Hitler showing a degree of sanity in refusing to be drawn into Africa, and bullying Mussolini into hold off his dreams of a new Roman Empire until the USSR is dispatched (see post # 11 of the main thread), the other is Stalin being his normal sociopath self and executing Zhukov, Chuikov, and the rest of his senior commanders after the fall of Stalingrad.

Both of those POD are unlikely, but utterly necessary to allow the Reich to win in the East. Keep in mind that the original, very limited, goal of the T/L was to generate a discussion of how Europe would have turned out if Hitler won decisively in the East. The initial AANW was supposed to end on page six or seven of the thread or at around 120 posts, with the idea of going back to Pacific War Redux. The next 315 pages of text and ~7,500 posts of discussion were purely a result of folks pushing for me to continue (for close to 2 months before I decided to continue).

So yes, AANW is a castle built on a foundation consisting of a couple 2x4s and a empty beer keg. Never pretended it wasn't.
Ok. Still a great story that is plausible about most everything subsequent to the POD. Sorry for bothering you about it.
 

Wendigo

Banned
Keep in mind that the original, very limited, goal of the T/L was to generate a discussion of how Europe would have turned out if Hitler won decisively in the East.
Do you believe this goal was met?

When I had a thread about the plausibility of Generalplan Ost (https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...en-able-to-accomplish-generalplan-ost.390353/) only 50% of those polled said it could be completed while the rest either said it was too difficult or they would have abandoned it halfway.

The idea of German plantations across the East and their economic viability warrants a discussion of its own, but what I think prevents people from believing the Reich could have gone through with their genocidal plans is the whole aspect of "Kill 65% of Ukrainians, 85% of Poles et al, raze every city and erase all signs of Slavic culture until 100+ million people are worked to death, starved or dead through some other means."

Killing that many people in a few decades seems impossible (for sane and moral regimes it would be) but the logistics of it, that is deporting X amount from the East annually and working them to death and leaving the rest to die from starvation, disease and exposure is really quite simple given sufficient manpower to carry it out and an insane and unbelievably evil ideology to justify it.

The Reich, of course had both in spades.
 
Last edited:

jahenders

Banned
I said D, but the real answer is that it varied. In much of the pre-war and early war period (36-40), he pushed the military beyond their comfort zone and it worked great (though in part because the allies were foolish).

However, he repeatedly demanded clinging to plans long after they were achievable and, thus, lost several major forces (in Russia, Africa, and the Battle of Britain).

Later, he got MORE irrational and demanded the implementation of plans that were NEVER achievable (such as the Ardennes Counteroffensive / Battle of the Bulge).

He also had a tendency to mettle in development issues he didn't understand (Tiger Tank, ME-262, etc.) and wasted great resources in dubious efforts.
 
Building large warships was a waste. Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Graf Zeppelin alone represented over 170,000 tons of steel and materials. While admittedly it's not totally transferrable, this is roughly enough to produce 6,800 Panzer IV tanks.

If you want to spend on the navy, Hitler should have developed and built more u-boats.
 
To a degree, but it also reinforces the difficulties in coming up with a way to make it work. I have never made any secret that the weakest, by far, element of the T/L is the PODs that allows the Reich to win. There are two, one is Hitler showing a degree of sanity in refusing to be drawn into Africa, and bullying Mussolini into hold off his dreams of a new Roman Empire until the USSR is dispatched (see post # 11 of the main thread), the other is Stalin being his normal sociopath self and executing Zhukov, Chuikov, and the rest of his senior commanders after the fall of Stalingrad.

Both of those POD are unlikely, but utterly necessary to allow the Reich to win in the East. Keep in mind that the original, very limited, goal of the T/L was to generate a discussion of how Europe would have turned out if Hitler won decisively in the East. The initial AANW was supposed to end on page six or seven of the thread or at around 120 posts, with the idea of going back to Pacific War Redux. The next 315 pages of text and ~7,500 posts of discussion were purely a result of folks pushing for me to continue (for close to 2 months before I decided to continue).

So yes, AANW is a castle built on a foundation consisting of a couple 2x4s and a empty beer keg. Never pretended it wasn't.

You are forgetting the inexplicable decision to make the Germans equip their entire force with winter gear in order to make the occupation force stay warm. While the first two are unlikely, well the last one is just for story telling. A great story and good to see this kind of stuff triggering debate and discussion, even if the foundations were implausible.

For the question regarding Hitlers command abilities I'll have to agree on the F grade on the retreat in the east.
Hitlers experience and beliefs were shaped in WW1 as a regimental messenger where deep strategic withdrawals were not part of the manual.
He did have remarkable insight in some aspects of command, including the opponents ability to respond (fits with his own experience vis-a-vis France). Remember he picked the sickle-cut against his Generals and the Eben Emael air attack is also a remarkable decision.
None of these insights can really translate into strategy, which fortunately cost him dearly when he was micromanaging the eastern front.
 
Lol i guess whoever voted for "A" be like

hitler_did_nothing_wrong_-_aesthetic.jpg
 
But a good gambler understands his opponent's capabilities and mind. Not knowing about the T-34, not understanding the Soviet industrial capacity, having no plans to manage logistics or even the weather, show that Hitler wasn't a gambler in the true sense, other than a poor one.

It would be interesting to enumerate Hitler's successes as a gambler

1) Reintroduction of conscription: success
2) Revoking the treaty of Versailles: success
3) Rearmament, including weapons prohibited in the Versailles treaty: success
4) Reoccupation of the Rhineland: success
5) Anschluss: success
6) Sudetenland: success
7) Occupation of Bohemia and Moravia: success
8) Norway: success
9) France: success
10) Crete: success

Norway and Crete were admittedly costly successes.

Up to this point, he had displayed all the attributes of a gambler to an exceptional degree, i.e the ability to bluff and deceive his opponents, gauging the weakness of his enemies, nerves of steel, and recognising the probable strength of the hand he was playing. As far as France is concerned, it was not a "bad gamble", since Hitler was very well aware of the fact that the French were demoralised by years of factional politics. Manstein's plan, which Hitler endorsed, did carry the risk of exposing a deeply penetrating spearhead to encirclement, but it utilised the assets the Germans had, i.e a superior air-force, and a large, highly-trained and battle tested armoured force. The choice was between a risky operational plan and economic strangulation. Circumstances justified his decision, as did the result.

Hitler failed because his gambler's instincts failed when judging the resolve of the British under Churchill. Also, his calculations were poisoned by his racial view of history, which led him to believe that Russia was some sort of Slavic monkey house, a pejorative term which he actually used about them. This was obviously absurd, and from this point on, his actions became increasingly irrational.
 
Good points. I wonder how Hitler would have been changed had he travelled abroad in the interwar period. He'd need to have a mind open to seeing the advantages and strengths of the cultures, so perhaps he need a travelling companion from a German socioeconomic or industrial family.

Hitler and a Junker go to Moscow, Hitler goes to New York, Hitler goes to London, etc.
 
Last edited:

tenthring

Banned
It would be interesting to enumerate Hitler's successes as a gambler

1) Reintroduction of conscription: success
2) Revoking the treaty of Versailles: success
3) Rearmament, including weapons prohibited in the Versailles treaty: success
4) Reoccupation of the Rhineland: success
5) Anschluss: success
6) Sudetenland: success
7) Occupation of Bohemia and Moravia: success
8) Norway: success
9) France: success
10) Crete: success

Norway and Crete were admittedly costly successes.

Up to this point, he had displayed all the attributes of a gambler to an exceptional degree, i.e the ability to bluff and deceive his opponents, gauging the weakness of his enemies, nerves of steel, and recognising the probable strength of the hand he was playing. As far as France is concerned, it was not a "bad gamble", since Hitler was very well aware of the fact that the French were demoralised by years of factional politics. Manstein's plan, which Hitler endorsed, did carry the risk of exposing a deeply penetrating spearhead to encirclement, but it utilised the assets the Germans had, i.e a superior air-force, and a large, highly-trained and battle tested armoured force. The choice was between a risky operational plan and economic strangulation. Circumstances justified his decision, as did the result.

Hitler failed because his gambler's instincts failed when judging the resolve of the British under Churchill. Also, his calculations were poisoned by his racial view of history, which led him to believe that Russia was some sort of Slavic monkey house, a pejorative term which he actually used about them. This was obviously absurd, and from this point on, his actions became increasingly irrational.

That's a good summary. I think Hitler made the same fundamental error that the Japanese made. He thought we were still in the old power politics world where people who suffered defeats signed treaties and exchanged territories. Polite Great Powers stuff. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were committed to total war societies, but had convinced themselves they could start and end a limited war against the Anglos. Nazi grand strategy was based on the idea they could convince the British to give them a free hand in the East. Japanese grand strategy was based on the idea they could convince the Americans to give them a free hand in China/SEA. The Anglos correctly realized that should those total war societies acquire their desired resource hubs there would be an inevitable Round 2, so best to just fight it out till the end now.

I don't think Hitlers view of Russia proved incorrect. He misjudged: 1) logistical difficulties, his philosophy was never big on "bean counting" and 2) That the fact that he was planning to genocide the entire Slavic race might just make then fight rather then surrender when he "kicked in the door". The fighting power of the Russians wasn't that good, they used space, weather, and numbers to win. If Moscow had been a few hundred miles to the West on alternative Earth-2 then people would have entirely different view of Barbarossa. Supply lines, not the Russian army, defeated the Germans in 1941.
 

iddt3

Donor
I think you're collectively grading Churchill far too harshly here, and probably Stalin too. Both learned to listen to their generals eventually, and were in situations where they could have replaced them with compliant yes-men (particularly Stalin). Both made mistakes, but both learned from them - something Hitler never did.
In Churchill's particular case it also needs to be remembered that while he was stopped from carrying out some of his crazier schemes by the democratic checks and balances present, he knew about those limits when he proposed his crazier schemes. A Hitler or Stalin could get their nuttier ideas carried out, while Churchill couldn't right away - but the upshot of this is that he was free to propose nutty schemes in the knowledge that some of them might contain the kernel of a good idea. That means you can't really compare his ideas to the same standards as for Hitler or Stalin.
I think the core difference between Hitler and the rest is that Hitler got lucky/insightful early, up until 1941 it looked like he'd called everything correctly, over his general's advice. Very much not the case for Churchill, and exceptionally not the case for Stalin. However, he mistook his tactical/strategic insights for operational ones, and when things turned against him, he couldn't solve the problems the same way. Stalin learned to be hands off, and Churchill got... somewhat better? Honestly, the only one of the three who could be said to have any real military insight is Hitler, but both Churchill and Stalin had much better diplomatic/industrial insight, and were able to delegate, which proved to be decisive.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Do you believe this goal was met?

When I had a thread about the plausibility of Generalplan Ost (https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...en-able-to-accomplish-generalplan-ost.390353/) only 50% of those polled said it could be completed while the rest either said it was too difficult or they would have abandoned it halfway.

The idea of German plantations across the East and their economic viability warrants a discussion of its own, but what I think prevents people from believing the Reich could have gone through with their genocidal plans is the whole aspect of "Kill 65% of Ukrainians, 85% of Poles et al, raze every city and erase all signs of Slavic culture until 100+ million people are worked to death, starved or dead through some other means."

Killing that many people in a few decades seems impossible (for sane and moral regimes it would be) but the logistics of it, that is deporting X amount from the East annually and working them to death and leaving the rest to die from starvation, disease and exposure is really quite simple given sufficient manpower to carry it out and an insane and unbelievably evil ideology to justify it.

The Reich, of course had both in spades.
It didn't generate the specific discussion I had anticipated initially, but the result of the Reich victory was discussed quite a bit over the course of the T/L, so I would say it did achieve the discussion.
 
but both Churchill and Stalin had much better diplomatic/industrial insight, and were able to delegate, which proved to be decisive.
Churchill was never able to get FDR and the USA to declare war on Britain's side, notwithstanding Churchill presenting to Congress, holding conferences with FDR, etc. Had Japan not forced Hitler's had, I'm not sure Churchill would have got more than material aid.
 

iddt3

Donor
To a degree, but it also reinforces the difficulties in coming up with a way to make it work. I have never made any secret that the weakest, by far, element of the T/L is the PODs that allows the Reich to win. There are two, one is Hitler showing a degree of sanity in refusing to be drawn into Africa, and bullying Mussolini into hold off his dreams of a new Roman Empire until the USSR is dispatched (see post # 11 of the main thread), the other is Stalin being his normal sociopath self and executing Zhukov, Chuikov, and the rest of his senior commanders after the fall of Stalingrad.

Both of those POD are unlikely, but utterly necessary to allow the Reich to win in the East. Keep in mind that the original, very limited, goal of the T/L was to generate a discussion of how Europe would have turned out if Hitler won decisively in the East. The initial AANW was supposed to end on page six or seven of the thread or at around 120 posts, with the idea of going back to Pacific War Redux. The next 315 pages of text and ~7,500 posts of discussion were purely a result of folks pushing for me to continue (for close to 2 months before I decided to continue).

So yes, AANW is a castle built on a foundation consisting of a couple 2x4s and a empty beer keg. Never pretended it wasn't.
Speaking off... Pacific War Redux. Is that a hope in vain?
 
Top