01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 1

HITLER – THE FAILED WARLORD

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 2

It is not unreasonable to describe Hitler’s leadership a destructive. The word ‘annihilation’ (Vernichtung) was one of the Fuhrers’ favourite comments. For instance, In 1941, Hitler’s generals were promised that the showdown against the USSR and Bolshevism would be an all-out ‘war of annihilation’ .

His strong high-risk strategy combined with a sense that the sands of time were running out for Germany were key features of his leadership style. All of these factors together with Hitler’s extraordinary belief in his own brilliance and inability to recognise reality were dangerous characteristics.

The Fuhrer was scathing about many of his senior generals and refused to acknowledge that they knew more than him about military strategy or tactics.

VERNICHTUNG

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 3

THE BLITZKRIEG OBSESSION

Hitler’s greatest mistake was arguably his decision to advocate a policy of Blitzkrieg at the strategic as well as at the tactical level. This obsession meant that Germany was ill-prepared for the sort of warfare, sustained and well resourced military campaigns, that very much defined the nature of fighting during the Second World War.

Not even Hitler’s miracle weapons such as the ‘V’ rockets could turn around a military predicament which by the beginning of 1943 was looking decidedly tenuous. Essentially Hitler was an infantryman from the First World War who failed to recognise the significance and potential of naval or air warfare.

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 4

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 5

THE GAMBLER VERSUS THE REALITIES OF TOTAL WAR

Not discounting some of Hitler’s remarkable master strokes such as the seizing of Eben Emael fort in Belgium and the conquest of Crete, these audacious strokes could not hide Germany’s fundamental weaknesses.

Germany could never, in the long term, match the ability of the Allied forces to superior quantities and better quality war material. At the start of war in 1939 for instance, Hitler ignored the German Army’s request that hostilities should not begin until there were four months of reserves in ammunition. In fact, there were only six weeks supply .

Hitler’s dismissal of atomic research as ‘Jewish physics’ had clear consequences in terms of producing a viable nuclear weapon.

Hitler’s obsession with front-line capacity had disastrous consequences in the attack on Russia because he totally ignored the need for reinforcement back-up and effective supply chains.

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 6

THE FUHRER’S PERSONALITY FLAWS

Mood swings made it difficult to predict how the he would react or respond particularly when having to make key military decisions

An inability to generate trust amongst his senior circle of military commanders

Aloofness and real contempt of experts made it impossible to build a rapport with his generals especially during the conduct of the campaigns

Would panic and show confusion under pressure. An example of this was seen at Narvik in 1940 when Hitler nearly ordered German forces to surrender when in fact they were on the brink of victory.

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 7

On many occasions Hitler appeared to lacked moral fibre. His sense of denial at the impact of Allied bombing of German cities is a good example of this. Albert Speer recalls in his memoirs an incident when Hitler, sitting in the Fuhrer train, saw some wounded soldiers outside and ordered the blinds to be closed to avoid the sight of suffering which his own decisions had caused.

Convinced that only he was right and unable to recognise his limitations as a human being. Ultimately, Hitler’s conceit and messianic obsessions prevented any sort of lateral thinking.

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 8

Heider:

“ He (Hitler) may have been a hideous historical phenomenon, but at least he was an important historical phenomenon, and we cannot afford to pass him by.”

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 9

When compared with other C20th historical figures, Hitler’s achievements were not inconsiderable despite being overshadowed by cruel and abhorrent policies. He was after all:

1. An ‘outsider’ who acquired German citizenship and rose to become its leader

2. Responsible for turning around a country that was fragile economically and militarily making it the dominant continental state in less than a decade after coming to power. But, at what cost , especially in terms loss of freedom and human dignity.

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 10

In 1941 Hitler’s decision to become Commander-in-chief of the Army meant that he alone was accountable for the future conduct of the war.

Unlike the Allied leaders, who remained in their capital cities, Hitler roamed around various field headquarters like some peripatetic medieval king unable, or unwilling, to establish frequent links with key figures in the military and government. Daily military briefings were frequent and often involved senior officers providing Hitler with operational information. Front-line commanders were summoned to give updates or receive orders directly.

Would rather depend on his Gauleiters than having to deal with the generals. Why was this? Only they could provide him with the technical and military skills necessary to make decisions.

Visits to the battle front were rare. Orders were despatched in writing or occasionally over the telephone and only served to reinforce the austere and distant style of the warlord.

THE FLAWED WARLORD

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 11

Aloof and unable to ‘bond’with senior officers. Compare with Churchill

Indecisive and irrational decision-making

Excessive dependence resolve instead of the reality what Trevor-Roper described as the ‘artefact’ instead of the facts

An inability to recognise own limitations and obstinacyProfound shortcomings in modern military knowledge and experience especially in air and sea warfare. Could not deal with alternative expert thinking.

A lack of ‘worldiness’ and failure to appreciate the sustainability , scale and fighting capacity of the Allies, especially the United States

Allowed deep-seated prejudices to influence decision-making

Utter failure to generate trust between himself and his key military commanders

Other Personal Flaws:

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 12

LACK OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

Nowhere is this better illustrated in Hitler’s lack of trust with his generals. In 1938 he was heard uttering that every general is either a coward or stupid. This ignorant and grossly inaccurate inaccurate assessment of military commanders, some of whom such as Rommel and Guderian were world class, is an indictment of Hitler’s poor judgement.

Hitler’s increasing tendency to credit any German military victory as being solely attributable to his leadership typified his breathtaking arrogance and delusional attributes. As Sir Ian Kershaw observed: “The day on which Hitler started to believe in his own myth marked in a sense the beginning of the end of the Third Reich.” The crushing military defeats, such as Stalingrad, put an end to Fuhrerprinzip (Fuhrer power) and its legendary hallmarks.

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 13

William Carr:“ he was a veritable jack-in-the-box, who interpreted every situation to suit himself regardless of inconsistency. This habit points to the profound struggle taking place in between his acute intelligence, which left him in no doubt about the likely outcome of the War…his deeply held conviction that he was a man with a mission to accomplish, whom ‘providence’ would protect.”

Do you agree with this judgement?

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 14

HITLER’S OVER RELIANCE ON INSTINCT

1. Lacked the inter-personal skills to inspire trust and confidence

2. Avoided intellectual discussions or gave justifications for military decisions

3. Placed irrational emphasis on ‘will’ rather than making decisions based on stark military facts

4. Micro-management and misunderstanding of operational imperatives. Seen at its worst at Stalingrad

5. Indecisiveness – demonstrated at Kursk. Hitler dithered and delayed the attack losing element of surprise

6. Profound obstinacy – withdrawal from Stalingrad and the decision to attack in the Ardennes counter to military advice

Hitler:

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 15

Military leadership: No German equivalent to Eisenhower, Montgomery or Zhukov in terms of access to making policy and influencing decisions.

Genocidal nature of war in the East generated additional occupation pressures and strengthened resistance

Failure to defeat British Empire in 1940 and consequent micro-management of ‘Barbarossa’

Mismanagement of conquered territories

Needless blunders:North AfricaMaltaStalingradArdennesWar with U.S.

OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER

01/05/2023Jeff Moses 2016 16

ASSIGNMENT

Key Issue:

To what extent might Hitler’s military leadership be held responsible for Germany’s failure to win the Second World War?

1. Discuss what you consider to be the key features of Hitler’s leadership style?

2. Present your findings.