75 Years Since Hitler's Death

Sounds very similar to how the history curriculum is set up in South Carolina.

To give a better idea @Jippy , here are our state standards...
https://ed.sc.gov/index.cfm?LinkServID=9677E07B-CFFE-6A5C-AA47F98625149ABC
That's certainly an ambitious curriculum in its scope. I like the way the South Carolina module encompasses the economic and social history prominently alongside the political.
The world civilisation one is vast though. Impressive it's actually global and covers colonisation, Apartheid, women's suffrage etc...
 
Yes, that's absolutely a large part of it, but that's how a lot of these go. Lost Cause is also only a thing because it was allowed to be a thing, because it was expedient in the face of opposition to Reconstruction. They're still very real, though, and have led to a lot of misinformation. Another one is that the West was all too ready to believe the claims of the German generals, since their main opponent (the Soviet Union) was now our main opponent.

So the West very nearly fell into the same trap that the Nazis did before Barbarossa, believing that the Soviet military was weaker than it actually was (If only Hitler hadn't gotten in our way! We only lost because of the Russian winter! The Soviets only won because they had endless manpower to throw at us! The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse!)

Could you tell me a little bit more about the Lost Cause narrative and why that has been allowed to take root even though it's from the losers' perspective? That's an area of history I know very little about, to be honest.
 
World War II (or The War of Eastern and Western Aggression as the Germans like to call it) was the main part of our History syllabus at school.
 
Could you tell me a little bit more about the Lost Cause narrative and why that has been allowed to take root even though it's from the losers' perspective? That's an area of history I know very little about, to be honest.

Basically it's a vision of the South and the Confederacy as fundamentally good, honourable, chivalrous (think Gone with the Wind to some extent, and definitely The Birth of a Nation, a film which basically single-handedly resurrected the KKK), and the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but about states' rights (War of Northern Aggression).

It grew out of bitterness from losing the war, and opposition to Reconstruction, which is the few years immediately after the Civil War when the North was trying to both rebuild and reshape the South (you know, get rid of the slavery and all that). After a few years the federal government basically gave up on the effort, which is part of the reason why there had to be a Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, nearly a hundred years after the slaves were freed. Politically, it was easier to pander to the bitter white majority in the south than advocating for a black minority which didn't vote as often (partly due to measures specifically to stop blacks from voting).

The Wikipedia article on it is pretty good.
 
Basically it's a vision of the South and the Confederacy as fundamentally good, honourable, chivalrous (think Gone with the Wind to some extent, and definitely The Birth of a Nation, a film which basically single-handedly resurrected the KKK), and the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but about states' rights (War of Northern Aggression).

It grew out of bitterness from losing the war, and opposition to Reconstruction, which is the few years immediately after the Civil War when the North was trying to both rebuild and reshape the South (you know, get rid of the slavery and all that). After a few years the federal government basically gave up on the effort, which is part of the reason why there had to be a Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, nearly a hundred years after the slaves were freed. Politically, it was easier to pander to the bitter white majority in the south than advocating for a black minority which didn't vote as often (partly due to measures specifically to stop blacks from voting).

The Wikipedia article on it is pretty good.

Thanks for that, I have vague recollections of a rather dry lecture that I unfortunately tuned out of discussing that argument as part of a module at uni actually. I've still yet to get round to learning about the US Civil War in any depth, it's on the list though. Any books you'd recommend for a good overview of the war itself?
 
Thanks for that, I have vague recollections of a rather dry lecture that I unfortunately tuned out of discussing that argument as part of a module at uni actually. I've still yet to get round to learning about the US Civil War in any depth, it's on the list though. Any books you'd recommend for a good overview of the war itself?

The American Civil War is one of those topics I don't actually have any books on myself.

In general though, it's always possible to find something good in the AskHistorians book list over on Reddit. Try this.
 
The American Civil War is one of those topics I don't actually have any books on myself.

In general though, it's always possible to find something good in the AskHistorians book list over on Reddit. Try this.
Start with Shelby Foote’s trilogy on it. After that you have a good foundation to move into more specific stuff.
 
Wasn’t the myth of the clean Wehrmacht fostered in part by the Allies after the war to help with the rehabilitation of the FRG under Adenauer though? They wanted to anchor most of the guilt of the Nazi crimes purely on Hitler and the other leading Nazis for Cold War expediency

Franz Halder wrote the official history of the Eastern Front for the US Army.
 
There are so many conflicting opinions on this. I'm not even sure if schools and colleges have a truth.

There's really not. Maybe on internet forums. I don't believe there's any scholarly debate around it. Hitler was not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. No one who reads Hitler's writings, speeches and actually looks at his actions in power could call him a socialist and be treated with any credibility. It's impossible to argue in good faith. As for capitalism - the term privatisation was coined in response to Nazi economy policy. So yes, Hitler was a 'capitalist', however you want to interpret that.
 
There are so many conflicting opinions on this. I'm not even sure if schools and colleges have a truth.

Copyig an older post:
While they did raise social spending, they also re-privatised many state-owned enterprises. i can't say this for sure but multiple articles i've read have said that the word privatisation itself became popular as a way to describe their policy.* even during the war, the industries essential to the war effort continued under roughly the same management, and with the non-jewish owners compensated, there was no large-scale confiscation of non-jewish businesses.

speaking strictly of their economic policies, they would be not be recognisable as socialist. and there is a reason for that. nazi ideology is based on competition and a war of wills/races/nations. while they disliked the international nature of the market, the fact that companies could go beyond and become more poweful than nation-states, they did like the market as a sphere of competition to separate the worthy from the rest. things that form the basis of socialism, like equal human worth, would not be meaningful to them.

*quick google found this - http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf and https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-nazism/

a very easy definition of socialism is some kind of collective ownership of the means of production. the nazis did expropriate businesses, but this was on racial lines. non-jewish private industry either remained in private hands, or there was compensation for the owners and the owners/existing managers were re-instated into similar positions. so by the easiest definition of socialism, a quite simple no.

looking particularly at marxism, the key to understanding anything from a marxist pov is through the lens of class and class struggle. the nazis rejected class as the site of struggle and replaced it with a nation/race. they were explicitly anti-marxist (hitler says so himself).

these are two very clear ways in which they are very opposed to any mainstream ideas of socialism.
 
actually wiki has a good summary

The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.[39] But after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[40] The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[41] State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases “the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it.”[42] However, the privatization was "applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference,"[43] as laid out in the 1933 Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels, which gave the government a role in regulating and controlling the cartels that had been earlier formed in the Weimar Republic under the Cartel Act of 1923.[44] These had mostly regulated themselves from 1923 to 1933.[45]

Companies privatized by the Nazis included the four major commercial banks in Germany, which had all come under public ownership during the prior years: Commerz– und Privatbank , Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft , Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank .[46][47] Also privatized were the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways), at the time the largest single public enterprise in the world, the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. (United Steelworks), the second largest joint-stock company in Germany (the largest was IG Farben) and Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG , a company controlling all of the metal production in the Upper Silesian coal and steel industry. The government also sold a number of shipbuilding companies, and enhanced private utilities at the expense of municipally owned utilities companies.[48] Additionally, the Nazis privatized some public services which had been previously provided by the government, especially social and labor-related services, and these were mainly taken over by organizations affiliated with the Nazi Party that could be trusted to apply Nazi racial policies.[49]

One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement the partnership between the government and business interests.[50] Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds.[51] Between the fiscal years 1934-35 and 1937–38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues.[52] There was also an ideological motivation. Nazi ideology held entrepreneurship in high regard, and “private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people.[53] The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.”[54] Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, cautioning against “bureaucratic managing of the economy” that would preserve the weak and “represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value.”[55]
 
Turns out he was a left-wing activist.
 
There's really not. Maybe on internet forums. I don't believe there's any scholarly debate around it. Hitler was not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. No one who reads Hitler's writings, speeches and actually looks at his actions in power could call him a socialist and be treated with any credibility. It's impossible to argue in good faith. As for capitalism - the term privatisation was coined in response to Nazi economy policy. So yes, Hitler was a 'capitalist', however you want to interpret that.

Sure. So, he was neither in the true meaning of these words. Would Mussolini be a more appropriate comparison ? As far as the way Italy economy worked
 
Copyig an older post:


a very easy definition of socialism is some kind of collective ownership of the means of production. the nazis did expropriate businesses, but this was on racial lines. non-jewish private industry either remained in private hands, or there was compensation for the owners and the owners/existing managers were re-instated into similar positions. so by the easiest definition of socialism, a quite simple no.

looking particularly at marxism, the key to understanding anything from a marxist pov is through the lens of class and class struggle. the nazis rejected class as the site of struggle and replaced it with a nation/race. they were explicitly anti-marxist (hitler says so himself).

these are two very clear ways in which they are very opposed to any mainstream ideas of socialism.

So is there a big difference between what Hitler was trying to do and marxism ? (Economically speaking) Because people have told me both wanted to either control the state or to end it.
 
So is there a big difference between what Hitler was trying to do and marxism ? (Economically speaking) Because people have told me both wanted to either control the state or to end it.
HItler on marxism

Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic... We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”

“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame.”

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert

Also a good short video on fascism

 


This is a digression but:
ZZjyeGo.png

Just perfect. Pointing out Nazi hatred of Jews is unfair to other fascists, says a user named ... "Get Volked". And the answer completes the perfection, modern fascists equivocate and hide behind liberal ideas of free speech and open discourse rather than stamp on them like their more successful predecessors. Everybody is a liberal subject!
 
So is there a big difference between what Hitler was trying to do and marxism ? (Economically speaking) Because people have told me both wanted to either control the state or to end it.

Marx: "Workers of the world unite"
The fundamental antagonism for him is class, hence the "workers" not a more general "people". What about the nation? It's explicitly rejected since he refers to workers of the world uniting.

Hitler: "Ein volk ein reich ein führer" (One people one empire one leader)
No reference to workers or class. Explicit references to race and the nation.
 
Sure. So, he was neither in the true meaning of these words. Would Mussolini be a more appropriate comparison ? As far as the way Italy economy worked

Are you asking if socialism is a more appropriate label for Mussolini than Hitler? If so it’s still not an appropriate label but I do believe Mussolini’s ideology and some economic/social policies did draw from aspects of socialism (which isn’t surprising given Mussolini did originally identify as a socialist/Bolshevik). I’m not that well versed with the domestic agenda of Italian fascism though so I’d have to do a bit of research to give a credible answer.
 
No worries. :)

Just perfect. Pointing out Nazi hatred of Jews is unfair to other fascists, says a user named ... "Get Volked". And the answer completes the perfection, modern fascists equivocate and hide behind liberal ideas of free speech and open discourse rather than stamp on them like their more successful predecessors. Everybody is a liberal subject!]

:lol:

This so true.
 
So the West very nearly fell into the same trap that the Nazis did before Barbarossa, believing that the Soviet military was weaker than it actually was (If only Hitler hadn't gotten in our way! We only lost because of the Russian winter! The Soviets only won because they had endless manpower to throw at us! The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse!)

I'm torn on this. The Germans came a lot closer to winning than people seem to think these days. The Soviets were totally unprepared, lost something like 2,000,000 casualties and the German attack was initially hugely effective. Would things have changed if Hitler hadn't ordered the attack on Moscow delayed, giving the Soviets time to fortify it? Would the whole operation have been a success without Hitler and his moronic pride which wouldn't even allow German generals to conduct strategic withdrawals where needed?

Obviously we don't know, but I think the idea that Barbarossa was doomed from the start is itself flawed post-war propaganda. As the invasion of France showed, a powerful nation can fall if the initial strike is quick and effective. The Germans never needed to kill every Russian, or occupy every square mile of land, they just needed to smash the Soviets hard enough to make Stalin or a successor cave in to their demands.
 
I'm torn on this. The Germans came a lot closer to winning than people seem to think these days. The Soviets were totally unprepared, lost something like 2,000,000 casualties and the German attack was initially hugely effective. Would things have changed if Hitler hadn't ordered the attack on Moscow delayed, giving the Soviets time to fortify it? Would the whole operation have been a success without Hitler and his moronic pride which wouldn't even allow German generals to conduct strategic withdrawals where needed?

Obviously we don't know, but I think the idea that Barbarossa was doomed from the start is itself flawed post-war propaganda. As the invasion of France showed, a powerful nation can fall if the initial strike is quick and effective. The Germans never needed to kill every Russian, or occupy every square mile of land, they just needed to smash the Soviets hard enough to make Stalin or a successor cave in to their demands.

I do genuinely believe that Germany had very little chance at winning the war. For me, Barbarossa just proves that point. It went well beyond the wildest imaginations of the Nazis, and even then they weren't really that close to winning. People mention Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow, but of course they actually failed to take all of those. They came closest to taking Stalingrad, and Moscow was exponentially better defended than that.

But I think the Soviets wouldn't have lost even if the Germans had taken all three of those. The administration wasn't even in Moscow for the Battle of Moscow, only Stalin personally. And the industry was already well on its way to being moved east. It was also clear by this point that the Nazis were waging a genocidal war against the Soviet Union, which leaves very little chance that there would be any sort of surrender, or caving to demands. In fact, WW2 can largely be credited with creating a specifically Soviet nationalism that didn't really exist before the war. Losing Moscow and Stalingrad (Leningrad had no real importance) would probably have extended the war for quite a bit, maybe requiring the West to push up plans for a second front, but I don't think the Germans would have won off it.

I'd also like to comment on the strategic withdrawals you mention. I've seen historians credibly suggest that Hitler's refusal to give ground with the first Soviet counter-attack was perhaps the reason the Germans didn't eventually strategically withdraw themselves all the way back to Germany. It didn't let the Soviets build up any momentum, and we saw later how powerful that momentum could be. I'm also always very wary of the claims of generals when it comes to not being allowed to do something. Many German generals had some incredibly abilities, but rarely a firm grasp on logistics. Rommel, for example, threw away the Afrika Korps for that reason. I think they were fooled by their ability to basically ignore logistics when taking France. But Russia and Africa were rather larger than France, and with much worse infrastructure.
 
I do genuinely believe that Germany had very little chance at winning the war. For me, Barbarossa just proves that point. It went well beyond the wildest imaginations of the Nazis, and even then they weren't really that close to winning. People mention Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow, but of course they actually failed to take all of those. They came closest to taking Stalingrad, and Moscow was exponentially better defended than that.

But I think the Soviets wouldn't have lost even if the Germans had taken all three of those. The administration wasn't even in Moscow for the Battle of Moscow, only Stalin personally.

Moscow was better defended because Hitler delayed the attack on Moscow, had the attack taken place earlier it might have succeeded. And while the Communist Party and administration was evacuated, like you say Stalin stayed. Would the loss of Stalin, or even having Stalin fleeing Moscow as it fell have changed the public appetite to continue the war? Impossible to say of course for sure, but its a consideration at least.

It was also clear by this point that the Nazis were waging a genocidal war against the Soviet Union, which leaves very little chance that there would be any sort of surrender, or caving to demands. In fact, WW2 can largely be credited with creating a specifically Soviet nationalism that didn't really exist before the war. Losing Moscow and Stalingrad (Leningrad had no real importance) would probably have extended the war for quite a bit, maybe requiring the West to push up plans for a second front, but I don't think the Germans would have won off it.

They were indeed waging genocidal war, but I don't think that makes as big a difference to the calculations as you might think. The occupied territory was already suffering under the evils of Nazism and the government would be desperate to avoid any more of their people/land suffering the same fate. Confused by you calling Stalingrad important and Leningrad not btw. Sure Stalingrad was strategically important (and very symbolic because of the name), but if Leningrad fell (and freed up the besieging Germans) then there would have been little to slow their eastern drive in the north, and that would have likely meant the loss of the Arctic route Lend-Lease and supply convoys (My granddad was on those convoys. He said the Russians barely spoke to them after they risked their lives getting there. Obviously we now know it was because of the communists imposing rules on the civilians, but it made him hate Russians quite a lot).

I'd also like to comment on the strategic withdrawals you mention. I've seen historians credibly suggest that Hitler's refusal to give ground with the first Soviet counter-attack was perhaps the reason the Germans didn't eventually strategically withdraw themselves all the way back to Germany. It didn't let the Soviets build up any momentum, and we saw later how powerful that momentum could be. I'm also always very wary of the claims of generals when it comes to not being allowed to do something. Many German generals had some incredibly abilities, but rarely a firm grasp on logistics. Rommel, for example, threw away the Afrika Korps for that reason. I think they were fooled by their ability to basically ignore logistics when taking France. But Russia and Africa were rather larger than France, and with much worse infrastructure.

Not sure I buy that argument at all. Stalingrad is the perfect example. After the Soviets started encircling the city Hitler ordered no breakout be attempted. That was utterly and mindlessly stupid and clearly driven purely by pride. The Germans lost 270,000 men in that trap plus all the equipment and aircraft lost trying to keep the starving soldiers fed and supplied. They could have strategically withdrawn from the city when it was clear what was happening, and staged a much more sensible defense elsewhere.
 
Moscow was better defended because Hitler delayed the attack on Moscow, had the attack taken place earlier it might have succeeded. And while the Communist Party and administration was evacuated, like you say Stalin stayed. Would the loss of Stalin, or even having Stalin fleeing Moscow as it fell have changed the public appetite to continue the war? Impossible to say of course for sure, but its a consideration at least.

They were indeed waging genocidal war, but I don't think that makes as big a difference to the calculations as you might think. The occupied territory was already suffering under the evils of Nazism and the government would be desperate to avoid any more of their people/land suffering the same fate.

I think we just fundamentally disagree on this point. The Germans were outrunning their supply lines, and even early on Moscow was very well defended. It would have taken a monumental effort to conquer it.

As to the other point, the Bolsheviks were great at propaganda, and fairly quickly into the war it was more or less unthinkable to ever surrender. Maybe if Barbarossa had collapsed the Soviet Union like the Germans predicted, but it pretty soon became more than just a regular war. Even though the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, they usually didn't have to force people to endure hardship and sacrifice during the war. It was a war for survival, and they knew it.

Confused by you calling Stalingrad important and Leningrad not btw. Sure Stalingrad was strategically important (and very symbolic because of the name), but if Leningrad fell (and freed up the besieging Germans) then there would have been little to slow their eastern drive in the north, and that would have likely meant the loss of the Arctic route Lend-Lease and supply convoys

Lend Lease was certainly important, but most of it didn't come through the Arctic ports. An eastern drive up north would have made little difference in the grand scheme of things. In any case, the siege of Leningrad isn't really the reason why the Germans/Finns didn't push further east in the north. That was down to logistics and a dire state of infrastructure (and what infrastructure that did exist favoured the Soviets on defence much more than the Germans on offence). Stalingrad was important both symbolically, as you say, and strategically. Its position on the east bank of the Volga was critical, as far as the Germans were concerned.

Not sure I buy that argument at all. Stalingrad is the perfect example. After the Soviets started encircling the city Hitler ordered no breakout be attempted. That was utterly and mindlessly stupid and clearly driven purely by pride. The Germans lost 270,000 men in that trap plus all the equipment and aircraft lost trying to keep the starving soldiers fed and supplied. They could have strategically withdrawn from the city when it was clear what was happening, and staged a much more sensible defense elsewhere.

I didn't say that Hitler was always right, he certainly wasn't. He was no general, and it showed. But nor should we buy the version the German generals presented, particularly since it deliberately deprived them of agency in losing the largest war in history. Stalingrad was absolutely one of Hitler's biggest failings, though it's also worth pointing out that he was misled by staff into believing that it was even remotely possible to supply the 6th Army by air, which it wasn't. He was a fool for believing it, and for creating the situation where that would have been necessary.
 
Last edited:
Marx: "Workers of the world unite"
The fundamental antagonism for him is class, hence the "workers" not a more general "people". What about the nation? It's explicitly rejected since he refers to workers of the world uniting.

Hitler: "Ein volk ein reich ein führer" (One people one empire one leader)
No reference to workers or class. Explicit references to race and the nation.

Got it. Although both of them needed some form of state control of money in order to take it away from what they perceived as the enemy
 
Are you asking if socialism is a more appropriate label for Mussolini than Hitler? If so it’s still not an appropriate label but I do believe Mussolini’s ideology and some economic/social policies did draw from aspects of socialism (which isn’t surprising given Mussolini did originally identify as a socialist/Bolshevik). I’m not that well versed with the domestic agenda of Italian fascism though so I’d have to do a bit of research to give a credible answer.

Yeah, from what I understand nazism and fascism are a little bit different, so Mussolini could lean more towards a socialist policy. I shouldn't really be asking these questions since i'm not fit enough for a debate, but asking is the only form of expression. Thanks for helping out!
 
Stalingrad is the perfect example. After the Soviets started encircling the city Hitler ordered no breakout be attempted.
Side issue, but are you sure about that? All I'm aware of is that Hitler forbade Paulus to surrender once the main breakout attempt (which there was) had failed, and the 6th Army was irrevocably encircled.
 
Side issue, but are you sure about that? All I'm aware of is that Hitler forbade Paulus to surrender once the main breakout attempt (which there was) had failed, and the 6th Army was irrevocably encircled.
Paulus wanted to retreat from the city early to a more defensible position, but was forbade from doing so. Then they were fully encircled and breakout was not allowed again due in part to the air supply plan.

While we’re doing this discussion, I’d just add that they lost any chance for victory in the Soviet Union once Italy failed to take Greece and Hitler had to delay Barbarossa and divert resources to go do it himself.
 
Paulus wanted to retreat from the city early to a more defensible position, but was forbade from doing so. Then they were fully encircled and breakout was not allowed again due in part to the air supply plan.
Read up on it a bit now, it seems I have mistakenly remembered Unternehmen Wintergewitter as mainly an attempt at breakout. But it was - if I get it right now - Wehrmacht forces trying to break through the encirclement from the outside, while Paulus was indeed not allowed to push towards them from inside of the encirclement. Cleared up, cheers.
 
Last edited:
While we’re doing this discussion, I’d just add that they lost any chance for victory in the Soviet Union once Italy failed to take Greece and Hitler had to delay Barbarossa and divert resources to go do it himself.
That's actually been a rather controversial topic of debate historically. Keegan, for instance, puts the delay of Barbarossa down to the weather in the East that past winter / spring.
 
That's actually been a rather controversial topic of debate historically. Keegan, for instance, puts the delay of Barbarossa down to the weather in the East that past winter / spring.
Huh, you’re right. I guess I always just assumed it. Also appears the Fins and Romanians weren’t quite ready either.
 
I think now it's been proved that this Hitler interfering in most matters is not accepted at least in military circles.
Dr. Jonathan House who is a professor emeritus at the US Army Command General Staff College proves it. He says history has been rewritten by Franz Halder. He says Hitler most times accepted the opinion of his military people. Only people who objected to the Soviet invasion was the logistics people and their objections was never told to Hitler by his generals. He says it's a fallacy that the Germans lost in the USSR because of Hitler. He says it was never going to a winner because of too many factors against the Germans. It was the Generals who thought it would be a quick win like in the western front.
He said it was the Americans who asked the German Commanders to write how to fight against the Soviets and it's obvious that they would not say that they lost because they were stupid. They changed the narrative to put all the blame on Hitler.
He has written books on it and lectures on this too. It's very interesting. He also shows with stats how the Soviets actually didn't have that much of men fighting the Germans initially and the biggest loss to the Soviets were in the first two years and then it started to decrease rapidly. Yes the Soviets had more people in the military but almost 3 million were at the Eastern front.
I would say it changes the narrative that the Hitler was responsible for every fiasco the German military faced and the Generals were responsible for every victory they had.