Hitler and Aspergers Syndrome (Poll and Discussion).

Page 4 of 5 [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Do you, personally, believe that Adolf Hitler, sufferered from Asperger's Syndrome.
Yes - But mildly. 20%  20%  [ 14 ]
Yes - Quite severely, too. 14%  14%  [ 10 ]
No. 51%  51%  [ 35 ]
I am not sure. 12%  12%  [ 8 ]
No - But I do believe that he ha AD/HD. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
No - But I do believe that he had OCD. 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
No - But I do believe that he had Dyslexia. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 69

Hanotaux
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 355

27 Aug 2010, 2:51 am

I think Hitler was in over his head after 1942 as capable foreign leaders and generals took over from their cautious predecessors to step up the leadership level of allied resistance. The Allies too also had tremendous economic advantages and population advantages which helped them greatly in a war of attrition.

Hitler made statements in 1938 about how soft the democratic leaders of England and France were, and that Germany and Italy held their biggest advantage over the democracies as the allied leaders like Chamberlain were no match for the "vigorous personalities" of the fascist leaders. He stated that no such capable opponents existed to him in the Allied camp. Hitler was half-right in that he definitely had the will to fight and take risks, and that Chamberlain and Daladier at Munich would make many concessions to avoid war. Germany in 1938 was the nation that wanted war, and the German army had that burning desire to fight and revenge itself against France. Fascism was the vigorous expansionst ideology, and the British and French were directionless and unaggressive.

The French had suffered terribly in WWI and had lost around 1.6 million men in combat, with millions more maimed and wounded. 3 of 10 Frenchmen between the ages of 17 - 45 died in WWI. This kind of loss had a terrible effect on the French population, workforce, and national psyche. Even though right-wing nationalism was a strong force in France at this time, almost no-one in France, even the French Generals, had the slightest desire for another war with Germany. The French Generals actually wanted to fight the Soviet Union at this time, as they considered Communism the main enemy of France, not Nazism.................. The French CnC, Gamelin, spent a large amount of time during the phony-war drawing up serious plans for an Allied expeditionary force to attack Baku and seize the oil wells there(as if France would really fight Germany and Russia at the same time.) Gamelin really was planning this though, but the French expeditionary force objective was changed to Finland at first to help the Finns, but finally was deployed to Norway to fight the German attack there.

France did not want to fight Germany at all because the French Generals and nation considered honor satisfied by the 1918 settlement and the return of Alsace-Lorraine. For the French Right-wing, it was Communism that was the dangerous idealogy perverting France in the 1930's. The French right-wing actually held sympathies with Hitler and some desired a similar Fascist coup in France. "Better Hitler to Blum," they said. Blum was the leader of the pan-leftist Popular Front government.

Hitler was able to read the 7 or 8 various French premiers of the 30's like a book, and correctly guess that they would not risk a war with him. Chautemps, Sarraut, and other forgettable names felt they had no mandate or the proper backing from their compromise governments to prepare for another war with Germany. Thanks to the WWI losses and sterile birthrate, the French manpower levels were terribly low in the 1930's, and the French Army itself had ossified since WWI. The French Army changed nothing about its tactics or equipment since 1918 and had only added a few hundred new tanks and planes in the 22 years it had to prepare for WWII.

The French Army had basically returned to its thinking of the 1870 war, where it failed to go on to the offense in Germany and had thus been totally defeated by an aggressive federal army. Gamelin had no desire or plans to penetrate the German frontier. Instead, France's major military effort in the 1930's had been to construct the Maginot line defenses, which merely tied down the French Army in the comforts of underground forts in which they were surrounded. Gamelin had planned for WWII feeling that the tactics would pick right up from WWI static warfare.

France was a shell of what it was in 1940 when Hitler attacked it. France had a tremendous army in 1914 that was completely willing to fight and very well prepared(except for the lack of Heavy Artillery or machine guns.) In 1940, France waited to be attacked and handed the all-important initiative over to Hitler............ Gamelin did exactly what Manstein wanted him to do, and rushed half of the French Army into Belgium as the Germans attacked there with light forces(and the French were conveniently opposed by few air-attacks as they rushed northwards to be eventually cut off by the Panzer-thrust at Sedan. Gamelin made the fatal error of leaving no French strategic reserve to 'plug the hole' at Sedan. He lined all of his armies up side by side on the frontier with absolutely no backup to cut off a German breakthrough.

Anyway, as leaders like Gamelin were replaced by DeGaulle, Chamberlain by Churchill, Hitler found that he had stronger competition from his foreign adversaries. Hitler had not planned strategically for his next move after the Battle of France. Hitler was in uncharted strategic territory for Germany. It was easy enough to overrun France but crossing into England was another consideration entirely for which no real plans had been made. The German Navy was entirely insufficient.

Like Napoleon, it seemed the best option for Hitler was to begin to try and pick off British colonies.

Still though, once Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin ran into some luck and stalled the German Armies, the superior resources of the Allies could come into play, to win a war of attrition. After 1942, the Allies really began to just use the enormous economic advantages that they already possessed. Hitler had even said in 1938 or so that he "had to win the war by 1943 because by that time(as the Soviet Union was rearming after the purges,) that the economic power of the combined Allies would be so against him that any of his efforts to expand would be impossible.

By the time of the Battle of Kursk, even 17 German Panzer divisions had no hope of defeating the Red Army or subduing the Soviet Union. The Red Army was just too strong by 1943 numerically and was even able to create a mass strategic reserve at Kursk that did nothing but just feed fresh units in piecemeal where they were needed, in addition to the rest of the Soviet Army. For all of their skill, the Germans could not match these numbers.



Helixstein
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,744
Location: New Zealand

27 Aug 2010, 5:25 am

Hanotaux wrote:
I think Hitler was in over his head after 1942 as capable foreign leaders and generals took over from their cautious predecessors to step up the leadership level of allied resistance. The Allies too also had tremendous economic advantages and population advantages which helped them greatly in a war of attrition.

Hitler made statements in 1938 about how soft the democratic leaders of England and France were, and that Germany and Italy held their biggest advantage over the democracies as the allied leaders like Chamberlain were no match for the "vigorous personalities" of the fascist leaders. He stated that no such capable opponents existed to him in the Allied camp. Hitler was half-right in that he definitely had the will to fight and take risks, and that Chamberlain and Daladier at Munich would make many concessions to avoid war. Germany in 1938 was the nation that wanted war, and the German army had that burning desire to fight and revenge itself against France. Fascism was the vigorous expansionst ideology, and the British and French were directionless and unaggressive.

The French had suffered terribly in WWI and had lost around 1.6 million men in combat, with millions more maimed and wounded. 3 of 10 Frenchmen between the ages of 17 - 45 died in WWI. This kind of loss had a terrible effect on the French population, workforce, and national psyche. Even though right-wing nationalism was a strong force in France at this time, almost no-one in France, even the French Generals, had the slightest desire for another war with Germany. The French Generals actually wanted to fight the Soviet Union at this time, as they considered Communism the main enemy of France, not Nazism.................. The French CnC, Gamelin, spent a large amount of time during the phony-war drawing up serious plans for an Allied expeditionary force to attack Baku and seize the oil wells there(as if France would really fight Germany and Russia at the same time.) Gamelin really was planning this though, but the French expeditionary force objective was changed to Finland at first to help the Finns, but finally was deployed to Norway to fight the German attack there.

France did not want to fight Germany at all because the French Generals and nation considered honor satisfied by the 1918 settlement and the return of Alsace-Lorraine. For the French Right-wing, it was Communism that was the dangerous idealogy perverting France in the 1930's. The French right-wing actually held sympathies with Hitler and some desired a similar Fascist coup in France. "Better Hitler to Blum," they said. Blum was the leader of the pan-leftist Popular Front government.

Hitler was able to read the 7 or 8 various French premiers of the 30's like a book, and correctly guess that they would not risk a war with him. Chautemps, Sarraut, and other forgettable names felt they had no mandate or the proper backing from their compromise governments to prepare for another war with Germany. Thanks to the WWI losses and sterile birthrate, the French manpower levels were terribly low in the 1930's, and the French Army itself had ossified since WWI. The French Army changed nothing about its tactics or equipment since 1918 and had only added a few hundred new tanks and planes in the 22 years it had to prepare for WWII.

The French Army had basically returned to its thinking of the 1870 war, where it failed to go on to the offense in Germany and had thus been totally defeated by an aggressive federal army. Gamelin had no desire or plans to penetrate the German frontier. Instead, France's major military effort in the 1930's had been to construct the Maginot line defenses, which merely tied down the French Army in the comforts of underground forts in which they were surrounded. Gamelin had planned for WWII feeling that the tactics would pick right up from WWI static warfare.

France was a shell of what it was in 1940 when Hitler attacked it. France had a tremendous army in 1914 that was completely willing to fight and very well prepared(except for the lack of Heavy Artillery or machine guns.) In 1940, France waited to be attacked and handed the all-important initiative over to Hitler............ Gamelin did exactly what Manstein wanted him to do, and rushed half of the French Army into Belgium as the Germans attacked there with light forces(and the French were conveniently opposed by few air-attacks as they rushed northwards to be eventually cut off by the Panzer-thrust at Sedan. Gamelin made the fatal error of leaving no French strategic reserve to 'plug the hole' at Sedan. He lined all of his armies up side by side on the frontier with absolutely no backup to cut off a German breakthrough.

Anyway, as leaders like Gamelin were replaced by DeGaulle, Chamberlain by Churchill, Hitler found that he had stronger competition from his foreign adversaries. Hitler had not planned strategically for his next move after the Battle of France. Hitler was in uncharted strategic territory for Germany. It was easy enough to overrun France but crossing into England was another consideration entirely for which no real plans had been made. The German Navy was entirely insufficient.

Like Napoleon, it seemed the best option for Hitler was to begin to try and pick off British colonies.

Still though, once Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin ran into some luck and stalled the German Armies, the superior resources of the Allies could come into play, to win a war of attrition. After 1942, the Allies really began to just use the enormous economic advantages that they already possessed. Hitler had even said in 1938 or so that he "had to win the war by 1943 because by that time(as the Soviet Union was rearming after the purges,) that the economic power of the combined Allies would be so against him that any of his efforts to expand would be impossible.

By the time of the Battle of Kursk, even 17 German Panzer divisions had no hope of defeating the Red Army or subduing the Soviet Union. The Red Army was just too strong by 1943 numerically and was even able to create a mass strategic reserve at Kursk that did nothing but just feed fresh units in piecemeal where they were needed, in addition to the rest of the Soviet Army. For all of their skill, the Germans could not match these numbers.


What a considerable amount of information, Hanotaux! I think that this outline of WWII is marvellous.


_________________
"We accept the love we think we deserve."


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Aug 2010, 7:17 am

Quick note to the above summary:

French military equipment was sometimes vintage, but much of it was still way more effective than the equivalent German equipment (anti-tank weaponry for example.) However, the defensive mindset and vintage Generals made sure that ordinance was no real advantage. When used by an effective officer (say De Gaulle) the French could still poke the Nazis in the eye. The same can be said of the Polish as well, and most other combatants. Nazi military superiority is something of a myth propagated by the fact that on a strategic level they won.

Secondly: Appeasement of Hitler to avoid open war is actually quite a reasonable strategy and should perhaps not be held as such a damning indictment against Chamberlain et al. Given the recent memory of war and the stagnation of national militaries its not surprising that "anything but war" would be a powerful driving force. Such policies would have been successful had it been applied to a reasonable and honorable man. Hitler of course was no such thing. Historical hindsight is a damning thing. Its also a little misleading to think that Hitler was hell-bent on war. It is likely that Hitler was using his (still worryingly unprepared) military purely as a threat, and would have continued to do so if not for foreign resolve hardening. Doubtless he expected the Poles to fold up exactly like the Czechs had.

Of course if Hitler actually did spend most of his military service in the rear, its also not surprising that he was less concerned about starting a second war, having dodged the horrors himself.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Hanotaux
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 355

27 Aug 2010, 3:11 pm

Quote:
French military equipment was sometimes vintage, but much of it was still way more effective than the equivalent German equipment (anti-tank weaponry for example.) However, the defensive mindset and vintage Generals made sure that ordinance was no real advantage. When used by an effective officer (say De Gaulle) the French could still poke the Nazis in the eye. The same can be said of the Polish as well, and most other combatants. Nazi military superiority is something of a myth propagated by the fact that on a strategic level they won


The French Army had several models of decent tanks like the SOMUA35 that were actually superior in some ways to German models. The French however did not concentrate their tanks in a mobile force so the potential was wasted. The French had only organized one mechanized division by 1940, but the rest of the French tanks were spread out amongst the infantry to support those units.

DeGaulle was able to lead 2 impromptu mechanized counterattacks against the German breakthrough but his attacks were unsuccessful as he had no French Air support. France had a few decent planes like the Dewoitine 520, but the French Air Force was never able to concentrate modern aircraft in any strength. French industry was quite sluggish at this time and turned out tanks and planes almost by handpiece......... This inefficent method of construction ensured that the French army would receive ony a few hundred machines of any model, and the air-forces and tank forces would have too many different models of machines.

The French Air Force was absolutely no match for the German Airforce, even though a few of the French planes were actually superior.

I think that Daladier and Chamberlain expected to deal with HItler as if Hitler was "one of them," as in being just another politician.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Aug 2010, 3:24 pm

Macbeth wrote:
Quick note to the above summary:

French military equipment was sometimes vintage, but much of it was still way more effective than the equivalent German equipment (anti-tank weaponry for example.) However, the defensive mindset and vintage Generals made sure that ordinance was no real advantage. When used by an effective officer (say De Gaulle) the French could still poke the Nazis in the eye. The same can be said of the Polish as well, and most other combatants. Nazi military superiority is something of a myth propagated by the fact that on a strategic level they won.

.


When the Polish Ulyanies charged with lances it sent a veritable tsunami of fear through the German panzer brigades.

ruveyn



Helixstein
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,744
Location: New Zealand

27 Aug 2010, 3:38 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Quick note to the above summary:

French military equipment was sometimes vintage, but much of it was still way more effective than the equivalent German equipment (anti-tank weaponry for example.) However, the defensive mindset and vintage Generals made sure that ordinance was no real advantage. When used by an effective officer (say De Gaulle) the French could still poke the Nazis in the eye. The same can be said of the Polish as well, and most other combatants. Nazi military superiority is something of a myth propagated by the fact that on a strategic level they won.

.


When the Polish Ulyanies charged with lances it sent a veritable tsunami of fear through the German panzer brigades.

ruveyn


But, of course, the Poles army was inferior! I find it almost humorous the nature of the German's taking of Netherlands. But at least the Dutch realised they were inferior.


_________________
"We accept the love we think we deserve."


FerrariMike_40
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 187

27 Aug 2010, 5:23 pm

I've always thought he had schizophrenia, with the family history and all, but I don't like to read about the Nazi's and Hitler so I can't say for sure.

I don't like to armchair diagnose celebrities or historical figures with AS but Kim Jong Il, dictator of North Korea, might be a case. I'm sure he is just another crazy megalomaniac, but the only other politicians I have read about that have what appear to be AS traits are Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon.


_________________
ADD. HFA. CCCP. SFRY.


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Aug 2010, 5:57 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Quick note to the above summary:

French military equipment was sometimes vintage, but much of it was still way more effective than the equivalent German equipment (anti-tank weaponry for example.) However, the defensive mindset and vintage Generals made sure that ordinance was no real advantage. When used by an effective officer (say De Gaulle) the French could still poke the Nazis in the eye. The same can be said of the Polish as well, and most other combatants. Nazi military superiority is something of a myth propagated by the fact that on a strategic level they won.

.


When the Polish Ulyanies charged with lances it sent a veritable tsunami of fear through the German panzer brigades.

ruveyn


Which is in turn propagation of a popular propaganda myth. Polish cavalry never attempted any such quixotic manoeuvres. What they DID do was charge German infantry, win the field, then depart, leaving evidence to be paraded in front of journalists. The fact that German armour had since arrived to secure the area led to the "obvious" conclusion. This was further propagated by German and Soviet propaganda.

By 39, polish cavalry units generally operated as mounted infantry, travelling by horse but dismounting for battle.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Aug 2010, 6:09 pm

Helixstein wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Quick note to the above summary:

French military equipment was sometimes vintage, but much of it was still way more effective than the equivalent German equipment (anti-tank weaponry for example.) However, the defensive mindset and vintage Generals made sure that ordinance was no real advantage. When used by an effective officer (say De Gaulle) the French could still poke the Nazis in the eye. The same can be said of the Polish as well, and most other combatants. Nazi military superiority is something of a myth propagated by the fact that on a strategic level they won.

.


When the Polish Ulyanies charged with lances it sent a veritable tsunami of fear through the German panzer brigades.

ruveyn


But, of course, the Poles army was inferior! I find it almost humorous the nature of the German's taking of Netherlands. But at least the Dutch realised they were inferior.


The Polish army was in no way inferior. Nor was the Dutch. Item for item, most military equipment was broadly similar between forces, and the troops using it were of a similar calibre. Remember that many of the soldiers that went on to fight and defeat the Nazis were from these "inferior" armies. Polish pilots were outstanding against the Luftwaffe, when flying modern state of the art aircraft, instead of last generation bi-planes. (Though the biplanes they used were the pinnacle of bi-plane design, its worth noting.) They still achieved the destruction of some 25% of the Luftwaffe's strength even IN those planes.

Where the Heer excelled was in the use of new (untested) tactics, mostly cadged from British military thinkers from between the wars. The actual tanks and guns they used were no better (and often worse) than that of their opponents, and on a tactical level the Germans were bested several times.

Strange that people still wish to believe that the Germans were military supermen, even after so many years of contradictory evidence.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Hanotaux
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 355

27 Aug 2010, 9:48 pm

Quote:
Which is in turn propagation of a popular propaganda myth. Polish cavalry never attempted any such quixotic manoeuvres. What they DID do was charge German infantry, win the field, then depart, leaving evidence to be paraded in front of journalists. The fact that German armour had since arrived to secure the area led to the "obvious" conclusion. This was further propagated by German and Soviet propaganda.


The German Army also contained one full horse-cavalry division in 1939. Cavalry still had a small amount of value of use as scouts, but the Germans, French, and Poles all had way too many men in horse-cavalry units.

German Army transport at the time of the Battle of France was mostly horse-drawn. The German Army itself was not yet totally mechanized. Actually, the infantry and the bulk of the German Army were largely structured as it had been in WWI.

The difference was that the cream of the German Army was concentrated in the several Panzer divisions who were mechanized and able to slice like a rapier and effect a breakthrough. The German Army followed as best they could and would generally attempt to classicaly encircle and mop-up the confused enemy forces.

The German Air-dominance was a massive boost as well as the Luftwaffe was able to help break up counterattacks and keep Allied ground-forces bewildered and terrified in 1940. Most French infantrymen told the same story afterwards of 'looking up and wondering where their air force was."

The French could actually not have helped out Hitler any more if they tried by limiting the Reichswehr to 100,000 actives after WWI and stripping the German Army of its offensive weaponry. As the French reduced the German army to such a low number, they forced the Germans to concentrate on developing maximum efficiency, and this tremendous efficiency carried over very well when the German army expanded in 1935. The Germans were limited numerically and with regards to what weapons they could develop, so they focused in improving their professionalism, training, and tactics, and preparing a comprehensive program to rapidly expand when their time came. The Germans also focused on developing high-grade weapons that they were not restricted from developing by the Versailles treaty, like a perfected sub-machine gun, as well as pursuing rocketry. The German High-Commander in the 1920's, Von Seeckt, also signed a secret deal with the USSR by which the Germans could build and train tanks, artillery, and planes deep in the heart of Russia, and in exchange, German NCOs would drill Russian troops. Von Seeckt himself was a brilliant organizational general who absolutely maximized the Reichswehr to its limits in the 1920's. Under his direction, every single Reichswher soldier was a hand-picked high-caliber officer in being who would suddenly be charged with training many fresh recruits in a short period of time when the orders to expand came.

Von Seeckt also created a 'Leadership Corps' in the Weimar Republic consisting of about 100'000 men to be outwardly sort of a CCC organization but really were more trainees in being. There were also many more 'secret reservists' in Germany. Von Seeckt's plan was that the Reichswehr would be able to immediately expand from 100,000 men to 400,000 men as each Reichswehr soldier would roughly receive 3 new recruits to train, and tank and air-forces would be reintroduced. Every man of the 100,000 Reichswehr was basically a drill-sergeant readly to receive an intake of new recruits.

The French intended to 'cripple' the capacity of Germany to make war by denying it Submarines, tanks, planes, etc. But really, preventing Germany from builiding these machines between 1920-1935 merely saved Germany from spending billions of Marks on machines that would be obsolete by 1940. By contrast, France invested billions on tanks, planes, and warships between 1920-1935, and the French Army would up having a large stockpile of obsolescent equipment and limited funds to upgrade their weaponry. There was a 'jump' in Military technology made evident by the time of the Spanish Civil War, and the French and Italians especially noticed how obsolete many of their tanks and biplanes were compared to some of the German monoplanes, for example.

The fact that the French kept the German army down for 15 years only served to give Hitler a completely fresh slate from which to build a new army, and he wasn't saddled with a large amount of obsolete equipment or a large officer population to oppose him at first. It was almost an ideal situation for Hitler as he could just build from the ground up.

Quote:
Strange that people still wish to believe that the Germans were military supermen, even after so many years of contradictory evidence.


Until WWII, the French were actually regarded as the overall superior soldiers and as the warrior race of Europe.

Only the Prussians were really held in high regard as soldiers by the rest of Europe. The Rhineland had a reputation for producing large numbers of cannon fodder mercenaries, but as being militarily indifferent. The South German states were regarded as generally soft and as producing poor soliders. There was sort of a huge cultural clash at the time between the aristocratic and rural Prussians and the rest of Germany.

The Prussian Army was stereotyped as very disciplined but as unflexible and as lacking 'dash' or 'elan.' The Prussians were oftern lampooned as Parade Ground soldiers who were exceptional at drill and following orders, but not necessarily that bold on the actual field of battle.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Aug 2010, 8:45 am

Macbeth wrote:

Strange that people still wish to believe that the Germans were military supermen, even after so many years of contradictory evidence.


The Germans met their match in the skies of England. However, man for man, the German Wermacht was better than any army it met. The Wermacht was overcome by numbers and the military productivity of the U.S.. The Sherman tanks were a joke compared to the Panzer Tanks (especially the later Tiger Tanks) but four Shermans could beat a Tiger. In 1943 the Russians produced a better tank than the Germans and they made lots and lots of them. As Lenin once said -- quantity has a quality all of its own. No matter how good the Wermacht (and some of the SS brigades) was, the Germans were overcome by numbers and desperation.

When the Germans could get away with Lightning War (Blitzkreig) they were damned near unstoppable. When they bogged down they could be and were beaten.

The German Blitzkrieg lived on in in Gulf War 1. Schwartzkopf's now famous, Hail Mary, was a brilliant execution of Blitzkrieg tactics. If Heinz Gudarian could have lived to see it, he would have been mighty pleased.

The quality of the Polish military was clearly indicated by the fact Poland was whipped, beaten and ground into the mud in six weeks of brave fighting. Unlike the French who could have fought the Germans to a standstill but did not. The French were defeated by the pervasive rot of their spirit more than they were defeated by the Germans.

ruveyn

ruveyn



aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

28 Aug 2010, 8:58 am

Helixstein wrote:
I have been researching into this subject, which I know is highly controversial. If I am going to be blunt, you AS sufferers do not want to claim Adolf as your own as it will make NT people think that AS is an antagonist disorder. I told a boy in my class about this, and he called me Jew hater, and now, my class says I hate Jews! What rubbish!! ! :oops:

Before I post my essay on this subject, I would like you all to discuss it. I, personally, believe he has mild AS.

DISCUSS AWAY!! !


i don't suffer...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKRIRZEV4B4[/youtube]

listen to the good doctor attwood... "no! you don't suffer from aspergers. you suffer from other people..."

and if hitler was aspie... well.. then so be it. anything wrong about that? is there supposed to be a guarantee that aspies can't be as*holes? my guess is that many aspies would love to be a little hitler and use that power to get rid of a large amount of NT's... what is the difference?

hitler just was convinced that a world without jews was awesome. little did he know and understand.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

28 Aug 2010, 3:14 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Macbeth wrote:

Strange that people still wish to believe that the Germans were military supermen, even after so many years of contradictory evidence.


The Germans met their match in the skies of England. However, man for man, the German Wermacht was better than any army it met. The Wermacht was overcome by numbers and the military productivity of the U.S.. The Sherman tanks were a joke compared to the Panzer Tanks (especially the later Tiger Tanks) but four Shermans could beat a Tiger. In 1943 the Russians produced a better tank than the Germans and they made lots and lots of them. As Lenin once said -- quantity has a quality all of its own. No matter how good the Wermacht (and some of the SS brigades) was, the Germans were overcome by numbers and desperation.

When the Germans could get away with Lightning War (Blitzkreig) they were damned near unstoppable. When they bogged down they could be and were beaten.

The German Blitzkrieg lived on in in Gulf War 1. Schwartzkopf's now famous, Hail Mary, was a brilliant execution of Blitzkrieg tactics. If Heinz Gudarian could have lived to see it, he would have been mighty pleased.

The quality of the Polish military was clearly indicated by the fact Poland was whipped, beaten and ground into the mud in six weeks of brave fighting. Unlike the French who could have fought the Germans to a standstill but did not. The French were defeated by the pervasive rot of their spirit more than they were defeated by the Germans.

ruveyn

ruveyn


Which of course explains why Germany’s Third Army, and the Kempf armoured division (tasked with engaging the Poles around Mława) lost nearly half of their tanks on the first day, leading the officer commanding to declare that ‘An attack here is hopeless’. Or how the 4th Panzer lost 76 tanks in a day fighting an armoured train and a cavalry brigade.

France (with its much bigger and better equipped army) lasted about a month and a bit all said. (10th May - 22 June), which is a broadly similar timeframe. France was engaged by Germany alone whilst supported by the BEF (in practice) and Belgium and the Netherlands (in principle) on a single front. France not only surrendered but then went over to the axis in the form of Vichy France and actively fought against its former allies, denying them access to its powerful naval forces so that they had to be ignominiously sunk in port by the Royal Navy, and causing the expenditure of valuable war materiel neutralizing their overseas interests in a most unhelpful fashion. Their partisan activities were admittedly brave, but also limited to nuisance work and espionage.

Poland was engaged by Germany, Slovakia and shortly afterwards on a second front by the Soviet Union, and received no material help from any of its supporters. Despite this, they never issued an official surrender and continued to fight for the entirety of the war, both alongside foreign allies and within their own nation in the form of full-blown armed uprisings.

The Poles, in other words, were about as successful against the Wermacht initially as anyone else in the world, and certainly set about the task with valour and gusto sadly lacking in great swathes of the French military. Without disparaging the French war effort too much, the Poles acquitted themselves quite well and perhaps even better given their isolated position. For saying both nations lasted the same period of time it seems a little wrongheaded to suggest that the Poles were somehow inferior and doomed whilst the French came so close to a win that only their attitude spoiled it.

As to the Sherman/Tiger maths: Its a little disingenuous because the same maxim applies to any tank vs a Tiger. You can do a similar trick with a Cromwell for example. In fact, it doesn't even have to be tanks, merely four vehicles that pose an inviting target to a Tiger, one of which needs to have a reasonable chance of penetrating the rear armour of a Tiger. Also, whilst its generally true that individual German soldiers started the war fitter and stronger on average than their opponents, (pushing public health and fitness will have its advantages) the quality of those Heer troops fell steadily through the conflict, until ultimately they were reduced to children and sick old men. Stupid reverses like Stalingrad wiped out huge numbers of experienced troops as well, and the Festung mindset got even more veteran troops stuffed into the bag in places like Tunisia. Sadly, American insistence on unconditional surrender, and a dubious broad-front policy of engagement actually extended the war and if anything strengthened the resolve of the German troops, alongside the (reasonably accurate) belief that Soviet retribution would be most awful and apocalyptic.

Numbers were helpful, but desperation was more the ally of the Reich than the allies, especially after Normandy.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


ShenLong
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,277
Location: With Murphy Freestylin' and Ricky Easy

29 Aug 2010, 4:01 pm

I believe he was just brought up wrong. His father was extremely abusive. I also think he had Attachment Disorder.

(It's Ian. If you didn't know, this is my profile on Wrong Planet)



FuManchu
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 10

29 Aug 2010, 5:16 pm

I've heard/read from different sources, that Hitler

(a) as a baby, didn't like people touching him,
(b) as an adult, didn't swing his arms as he walked,
(c) before he came to power, in private life, often struck people as "creepy"

all of which are commonly cited as Aspie traits.



Craig28
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,258

29 Aug 2010, 5:20 pm

Me and Hitler have a lot in common. 8) Also the both of us share experiences of being treated like crap by society and if I remember correctly, didn't Hitler find it very difficult to get into the whole sex thing?