@Aedes,
Aedes;50213 wrote:Hitler was quite possibly the worst military strategist in the history of the planet. Stalin was horrible as well, but Stalin got better as the war went on and Hitler got worse.
That's a sweeping statement and a somewhat cliched view of Hitler's leadership. Too often people - politicans especially, it seems! - are judged by their final days, by their failures and not by their successes beforehand. Hitler was in fact an outstandingly gifted and successful leader and tactician, at least in the early days of the War; his main fault (accentuated by irrational judgment and a growing paranoia over the years) was a refusal to listen to the advice of his subordinates, and to consider all who might gainsay him as personal challenges. Let us not forget, he gained tremendous victories against France and Poland, the two countries capitulating in only four weeks and six weeks respectively - with France possessing the largest army and one of the strongest air-forces in Europe, more than a match it is now believed for the Nazi Army in its early days - dwarfing the achievements of previous conquerors like Napoleon. His Blitzkreig, 'Lightning Warfare' was a dramatic response to the defensive stances and attitudes of countries like France, many of which relied heavily and squandered vast quantities of men, money and resources on fortifications that failed to live up to their promise. Thus he demonstrated an innate ability to perceive the weakness of an enemy's attitude in warfare, and exploit it. Blitzkreig was a revelation at the time, an unexpected change from the mud-filled trenches of the Great War: even after twenty years many of the great Powers were still operating in their early 1900s mindset, and both Britain and France failed to perceive the danger of an *aggressive* Germany, complacent in their English Channel and Maginot Line. Although Hitler himself was probably not the first to conceive of this style of warfare, he was certainly the first to pioneer it, and put it to such effective and dramatic use.
Within a few years of the start of the War, Hitler had most of Europe under his thumb, or working in alliance with him. Churchill's Britain alone remained defiant, and, although a constant thorn in Hitler's side, it was beleaguered and at this point effectively incapable of defeating Germany by itself, or even presenting a serious threat to Hitler's goal for world domination. America had entered the War by the end of 1941, but it would not take an active role in European affairs until 1943 - at first it was more preoccupied with Japan, whom the Americans after Pearl Harbour regarded as the 'real enemy' - and its aid initially was mainly financial. For now, El Alamein, the Invasion of Italy and the Battle of Normandy were all in the distant future. The latter two could not have been accomplished if not for the involvement of the Soviet Union.
The first few months of Hitler's invasion of Russia were a tremendous success, eclipsing the success of Napoleon's armies more than a century before. The Luftwaffe destroyed more than one third of the Soviet Union's air-force on the ground within the first few days, and the German army advanced hundreds of miles into Soviet territory. By autumn the Wehrmacht was already knocking on the gates of Leningrad (there it would stay until 1944), and by winter was close to encircling Moscow, the Russian capital. If Moscow had fallen, it seems likely that the Soviet Union would have collapsed; in any case the morale of its troops could not have sustained such a blow, and Stalin might have had no choice but to consider capitulation.
Like many men who enjoy great success to begin with, Hitler's greatest error was in trying to do too much all at once, without paying heed to tactical considerations. He wanted to seize the Southern Caucasus, with its food supplies and rich oil fields, essential to the war effort - yet many of his generals believed he should concentrate his forces on Moscow instead, and deliver the death blow to Russia quickly. Hitler, however, ignored these suggestions, and plunged ahead mercilessly. This, in my opinion, was the real turning point of the War. Stalingrad merely sealed the deal. By winter 1941 Hitler's hopes of a quick victory in Russia were finished. The Wehrmacht's failure to seize Moscow gave the Soviets time to regroup, to muster their forces and organise a series of massive counter-offensives (commonly known as Stalin's 'Winter Offensive'), gradually weakening the German position. Stalin's 'scorched-earth' policy, which destroyed all valuables, fuel and livestock in the path of the invaders, made things even tougher for the Germans. Afterwards, they were steadily eroded in strength and finally, after Stalingrad and Kursk, and the Siege of Leningrad, forced off Soviet soil forever. At this point, not even taking into account the events on the Western Front and the build-up to Normandy, the Germans had lost the War. In all this the Western Front was more of a distraction than anything else; YES, it hindered Hitler's war effort, and drew off reinforcements that might have been deployed in the East instead, and it provided Stalin's armies with essential aid; but up until 1944 (and long afterwards even then) the Russians were doing the bulk of the fighting, and the dying. Total estimated Soviet casualties during the War: 25 million. Total British and American: somewhere in the region of 1 million. (America had very few civilian casualties, and is believed to have lost only 350,000 or so soldiers; sounds like a lot, but it pales in comparison to the 8 million or so Soviet soldiers who gave their lives, or the 4-5 million Germans.)
Hitler WAS a great strategist, at least in the beginning: that no one can deny. It wasn't that he lost his tactical ability over the years, rather it became blinded by paranoia, obsession and greed. Had Hitler kept a firm grip on affairs, history might have transpired otherwise. It is easy to simply dismiss the man as 'mad' or 'power-crazy' - these are generic terms - but that would be doing him a disservice. His weaknesses are qualities we all share, in some degree; but how many men (or women) have there been who were once considered 'great', but somehow lost it along the way, and became pitied in the end rather than admired? A very relevant recent example springs to mind - Michael Jackson. You can't deny that he was a great singer and performer, but there was no doubting that his personal life (not to mention his eccentricities) got in the way of his performance. Was he any less of a great entertainer by the end of his life? Maybe not - but people thought of him differently. THAT's why people look as Michael Jackson as a pitiable character now, not the legend he once was.
Finally, as for Stalin - it wasn't that Stalin 'got better' as the War went on (that's a gross simplificaton); rather he was willing to allow some of his most trusted generals (Zhukov particularly) to take over the reins of power, and chose not to direct on a personal level. He did interfere, from time to time, and he could be just as bull-headed as Hitler; but Stalin, although like his contemporary very much a bombastic and self-important figure, was very well aware that his gifts lay less in LEADERSHIP than in ORGANISATION. This went all the way back to his revolutionary days, even before the Bolshevik movement: Stalin would sometimes participate himself in raids and 'terrorist' activities, but he actually preferred to be the one distributing pamphlets and motivating people, rather than riding around shot-gun. Having himself never served in the Army (shock!) he had relatively little knowledge about military matters; he was, however, superb at organising, delegating and motivating other people (albeit in a Darth Vader-ish, bullet-in-the-back-of-the-head sort of way.) When he did try to do too much, especially as he got overconfident in the final years of the war, he did make mistakes (you can accuse the other Allies of the same thing, though - look up Operation Market Garden!), yet it was Stalin's steely determination, and the iron-willed resourcefulness of the Russian people, that ultimately won the day.
In short - BOTH Stalin and Hitler were great leaders, certainly not without their faults; but these weaknesses and even Hitler's failure to accomplish his goal do not take away from their achievements. If any WWII politician's leadership ability has been inflated, in my opinion, it is surely Churchill's - he was a great orator, certainly, and important in motivating the British nation to struggle through its 'finest hour' in 1940 and 41; but for the most of the War he himself, and his country, were incapable of doing much significantly to affect the outcome or the turn of events, and after 1943 he himself recognized that he was becoming less and less important in the grand scheme of things, as the Americans gained more and more power. Churchill was by all means a heroic figure, but whether that amounts to heroic 'leadership skills' - that is up for debate.
