Not at all! In fact, I think Hitler had big ideas and certainly his often (but certainly not always) poor decision making impacted and set the tone for the eventual German strategy. I’ve only stated that if Hitler had any long term strategy to meet his goals or objectives (which I think are better words), he almost certainly abandoned such a line of thought in late 1939…
Obviously you don’t.
Right, much like I don’t understand how Hitler blamed the Jews for “stab in the back” in 1918 and contentions that the German Army had never been defeated in the field. Though he certainly had much input and even a few good ideas, Hitler wasn’t much of a military strategist, unless you count his scheming and putsches in order to gain power. He was a political strategist in the Nazi Party, he had enunciated goals, but these were not what could be called an actual ‘strategy’ to win. But he only indirectly had anything to do with strategic planning. There was no Nazi grand scheme of “Blitzkrieg” and Hitler got by prior to Barbarossa by winging-it in no small part…
Strategies start with assumptions about current situations, that should be pretty easy to understand. If those assumptions are reasonably close to reality, it’s possible to chart a course of action that should logically bring one to a specific objective or goal. The strategy, or course of action, is distinct from the assumption; one can be logical (or “correct” if you will) without the other being correct. But a strategy is only “workable” if both are valid.
Um, Hitler had goals, but it was his general staff’s job to articulate a strategy to obtain his nebulous end game. And while he had many strengths, few would state that Hitler was much of a logic-based person, if we’re talking about the Fuhrer who was defensing Berlin with phantom divisions that no longer existed while entertaining wonder weapons fantasies and the tealeaves of FDR’s death meant German victory as the Allies fell apart and fought each-other. In any case, he had no coherent “strategy” once Poland fell and the Allies declared war on him. I don’t believe the German command even had a war plan to attack France other than dusty copies of the old Schlieffen Plan.
I’m saying that German strategy made sense provided the underlying assumptions were valid. Unfortunately for Germany and Hitler, their assumptions about the world situation, and in particular German military capabilities, and the military capabilities of their potential opponents, were NOT valid. Therefore, even though their strategy was logical, invalid assumptions made it unworkable; shouldn’t be too difficult to understand.
How in the world could anyone have a valid strategy without considering the state of their armed forces? That would be like a football team gameplanning to their own weaknesses! Secondly, while I have read that Hitler was misinformed about the state of his Wehrmacht, he was had a serious row with his COS Brauchitsh when informed that his army was only half trained, somewhat overage, and some units did not perform well in Poland despite the resounding victory (not too mention that stocks of ammunition were dangerously low). Furthermore, had the French seriously attempted the Saar Offensive and penetrated the West Wall, many German officers believed they could have made it to Berlin.
The mistakes the French or British made are irrelevant in assessing German strategies.
Wrong. It was their blundering that allowed the Germans to affect a “strategy” to defeat them
And who says Hitler went to war “far sooner than anticipated”? Anticipated by whom? The timing of The European war in no way constitutes evidence that Hitler had no strategy. In fact, such a statement implies that there was a strategy that was amended for some reason.
By his own military that felt that they were not ready for such a monumental clash with the French. According to Alistair Horne, “The studied view of the Army (O.K.H.) at this time (Oct 1939 I think) was that there could be no successful offensive against the French until 1942.” --p.174 2nd para.
Hitler did not expect Britain and France to declare war as a result of his invasion of Poland, but that doesn’t imply he had no plan if they did,
The fact the Western Germany was defended by about 32 half-trained reserve divisions with no tanks, little artillery, and almost no mobility probably indicates that Hitler, nor his Army, were prepared for a significant clash with the French and Germany was wide open to a determined invasion the French seemed too timid to commit too. There was no War Plan, sorry:
On Gen. Halder’s initial “Gelb” plan against the French written up weeks after the start of hostilities, Horne writes, “It was a manifestly bad plan, so conservative and uninspiring that it might well have been thought up by a British or French General Staff of the inter-war years, and through its many imperfections glimmered the half-heartedness of O.K.H. and the Army commanders…” p.175
…nor does that mean he didn’t create a plan to deal with Britain and France after they declared war.
A plan was certainly created, initially a very awful one! But not by Hitler, by is GS. And it was eventually worked into a brilliant one; and yes Hitler did have little input, but mostly he forced his generals to revise and revise to his credit I suppose…
Your reasoning really doesn’t make any sense and seems to suggest that Hitler existed in some sort of vacuum that insulated him from thinking about the potential consequences of any actions he might take. That’s just simply not true. It ignores all historical evidence of the period.
Well, Hitler didn’t live in a vacuum, however, his entire career is one of bluffing and bullying and posturing his way to power. He got back the Rhineland, took Austria, and Czechoslovakia firing nary a shot. Perhaps he was expecting more of the same? Or to make peace even if the Allies did declare war? He in fact offered peace 71-years ago today. What evidence? I think we can point to many instances where Hitler stoked fantasies about signing an armistice with the British, or simply ignoring facts when he found them inconvenient…
So what? There was still a strategic plan and it was successfully followed.
No, there was no “strategic plan” actually. You’ll have to point us to one. I recall something about Fuhrer directives, but those are sort of general outlines. Nothing specific nor concrete enough to be called strategy. The closest thing to that was Führer-Directive Number 6 issued in early October (9th?) of 1939 regarding an attack into the Low Countries prior to launching into staging areas in France…
Just because it didn’t exist in 1937 or 1938 means what exactly? That Hitler didn’t have a crystal ball and could foresee every event on the world scene? In that, Hitler was exactly like every person ever involved in strategic planning. Strategic plans aren’t conceived and engraved in stone, to be forever blindly followed no matter what happens subsequently; strategic plans evolve and change according to events that change situations.
Of course Hitler couldn’t predict the future, he thought his shitty Reich would last 1000 years. But I think Hitler rather blundered his way from one crisis to the next when he wasn’t starred down by the Entente as opposed to having any real plans, which means he tended to instigate crisis’s and then he reacted as necessary. It got him pretty far actually…
You have an amazing talent for going off on meaningless tangents.
Thank you! They are called “threads” for a reason, though…
Who cares why France folded?
I do.
The issue was the fragility of Germany’s economy compared to those of the Allies. The proof is the subsequent performance of each; Germany’s gradually declined in power, while those of the allies became more robust with time. Germany’s economy was unable to support the measures necessary to sustain a successful war of attrition, a war the Allied economies won.
Which Allies? The United States was not at War with Germany, England and France were in the Fall of 1939, and the Fatherland had struck a deal with the USSR. If you measure the German economy against the French, it wasn’t so bad at all. The Germans could outproduce the French something on the order of 3:1. But yes, despite this, Germany was in a severe strategic disadvantage as I’ve mentioned. France had many problems with the Great Depression, the Popular Front rising of the mid-30’s, and the fact that her factories were scaled back to a 40-hour work weeks (until the War I think) as relations with Germany were already eroding severely effecting not only production of planes, tanks, etc., but also of spare parts which greatly hindered French readiness.
Strategies are time-phased; Germany’s was to engage it’s opponents in sequence and defeat them in detail. Plans for 1942 and 1943 depended on what happened in 1940 and 1941.
There were no such phased plans and the invasions of Norway, France, and the one that never was: Sealion. They were all ad hoc affairs or various sorts. And there certainly was no expectation of defeating France in six weeks! I think the closet I recall to a very optimistic time prediction may have been three months IIRC…
Con’td
