Comments on: The Big Leak

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 04:14:48 +0000

I read Göring by David Irving and my conclusion from reading that is Göring lost the war. At Stalingrad Göring promised Hitler that a certain tonnage of supplies could be delivered, even though his subordinates told him he would only be able to supply half that amount in perfect conditions. Of course conditions were not perfect and if I remember correctly only one-quarter of the promised supplies came at first and as the war went against the Germans even less.

What if the needed supplies had been available? What if Hitler had won Stalingrad? The loss to the Russians would have been immense. They would have continued to pour resources into a losing situation. Could have changed the war and then Hitler would have been declared a genius.

Of course Hitler kept Göring even when he let him down. Should have cashiered him. Hitler’s mistake.

By: Lucklucky

Lucklucky — Thu, 30 May 2013 22:21:43 +0000

Hitler always gambled and since the Allies always caved in since 1933, his reputation increased to such heights that no General had capability to stop him before war start.

Then we had the French disaster.

Once again the Generals advised not to attack France — if we look at numbers only there is no chance that Germany could defeat France — but he was successful with that gamble too. So he got all power.

I don’t think Hitler was mentally flexible enough, plus, he would lose reputation choosing to abandon Soviet invasion. Even if by miracle the Soviets would accept peace.

By: Scipio Americanus

Scipio Americanus — Thu, 30 May 2013 18:37:12 +0000

Isegoria, my impression is that many of the things he did that turned out well (for him) only did so because they were unreasonable, and were thus completely unexpected by his enemies. Once the Allies got a feel for him and the war had developed to the point where the opportunity for big sweeping strategic decisions declined, this ceased to be a major factor. I also think it’s related to the fact that many of those early decisions were mainly political rather than military in nature and Hitler, for all his faults, was a brilliant politician.

I agree that the only way for a pause on the Eastern Front to free up a strategically important number of divisions would be a semi-permanent peace. However, I’m sure any such peace with Stalin would have had the emphasis on the “semi-” aspect.

By: Buckethead

Buckethead — Thu, 30 May 2013 16:15:25 +0000

Really, stopping the fight against the Russians would have only helped the Soviets. Unless a semi-permanent peace could have been made, the Soviets would have made better use of any pause to regroup and rearm.

By: Buckethead

Buckethead — Thu, 30 May 2013 15:47:08 +0000

One would assume that along with moving 100 divisions of ground troops to the Mediterranean theater, the Germans would also have transferred significant Luftwaffe forces. The Germans by 1942 had several unsinkable carriers stationed in the Mediterranean — Sicily, Crete, etc. — and the Luftwaffe had not yet been worn down by a resurgent Red Air Force.

Unlike naval combat in the North Atlantic or the Pacific, any ship in the Mediterranean is in range of land-based air power.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Thu, 30 May 2013 15:38:08 +0000

Once you’ve taken Gibraltar and the Suez, supplying North Africa gets easier. That said, I’m not sure how halting a failed advance into Russia frees up many divisions. The counter-attack is coming, and it’s not like it’s forced through some bottleneck a small force might hold.

By: Madera Verde

Madera Verde — Thu, 30 May 2013 14:09:28 +0000

And how would 100 divisions in North Africa have been supplied? This is what halted the Afrika Korps: convoys under attack in the med, a small port in Libya and a 1000 miles of poor desert road. Naval and Air power are the key to the mediterranean, not more ground forces.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Thu, 30 May 2013 14:05:44 +0000

One fascinating element of Hitler’s story is how often he does something unreasonable and turns out to be right. Early in the war he defies his top generals, takes unreasonable risks, and… everything works out splendidly. Then, once he establishes the power of his intuition, his genius deserts him. To what degree was it ever there?

By: Scipio Americanus

Scipio Americanus — Thu, 30 May 2013 13:14:29 +0000

These sorts of arguments can almost always be boiled down to “If only Hitler had been Frederick II then…”

Of course he was not, and if he were then Germany would likely not have found itself in the situation it did in 1942.

Still very interesting information, though.