Why did Germany lose WW2?

[Panzercracker]

Nice try. Russia did nothing more that defend itself desperately, and just as always was assisted in that to a great extent by Generals Janvier and Fevrier.

I absolutely agree, then Russia proceeded from desperate defensive to several confrontations ie Kursk, and then to offensive, after Kursk Russia has single handedly won the war.

The problem for Russia was that completely overruning Germany would cost the country a lot of lives of the already thinned population, if you claim Russia could not win without Britain please tell me how many British divisions fought Germany in 41, how many British bombers attacked German army groups in 42 or how many LL tanks fought under Kursk.

Or do you mean that a couple of Rommels divisions which gave Brits such trouble would have changed the tide on a theatre that saw battles larger than whole of British armed forces in Europe?

 

[Del Boy]

Please note that I did not claim that Russia could not win without Britain; we cannot know as they never were without Britain's contribution. And then, of course, Stalin was left in complete awe of D/Day; he had never seen the like.

And of course I never claimed that Britain was reliant on size, other wise they would never have entered the war; they opposed Hitler's threat head on regardless of the outcome. It was a hard job - but someone had to do it.

 

[Guaporense]

I absolutely agree, then Russia proceeded from desperate defensive to several confrontations ie Kursk, and then to offensive, after Kursk Russia has single handedly won the war.

The Wehrmacht started to colapse in the months after D day, suffering over 1 million casualities in 3 months. The opening of this front won the war more than anything else.

Or do you mean that a couple of Rommels divisions which gave Brits such trouble would have changed the tide on a theatre that saw battles larger than whole of British armed forces in Europe?

Germany dedicated 65% of their armed forces in the eastern front. Without UK, they could have dedicated near 100%, I think that we would observe a large difference.

 

[Titanium]

simple... they lost because Hitler was an idiot

+1

As I remember WW2 chronicles, seems he managed kinda well commanding their armies the first half of the conflict, but after the half seemed he became foolish, and also wanted to expand too much...

 

[Panzercracker]

The Wehrmacht started to colapse in the months after D day, suffering over 1 million casualities in 3 months. The opening of this front won the war more than anything else.

Sir there's people i can agree with or not but with all due respect you're talking utter complete b******t, thank you.

At no point in the war did Wehrmachts forces exceed half a milion in the West and thats both Italy and France, in France itself the German forces were at about 390.000 men, the total German losses in France were estimated if memory serves between 150.000 and 250.000 men lost.

By comparison at Stalingrad Germans & co lost 750.000 men, during operation Bagration the wounded, dead, captured and MIA count for Germans was around 600.000, second battle of Smolenks 250.000, Crimean offensive 94.000, Operation Mars 40.000.

That over 170.0000 troops and there's more actions i'm too lazy to recount, Germans lost milions in the East, they lost maybe 800.000 men in the West in total.

Germany dedicated 65% of their armed forces in the eastern front.

As before, i can deal with different opinions, i can not deal with uneducated people spouting idiocy, for your information the troops occupying France in 1941 numbered 300.000 men, the troops invading Russia nearly 4 milion men, Germany devoted approximately 8% of its total military potential to occupy France, in 1944 this percentage was even smaller since Wehrmacht grew substantially, overall Germany never devoted more than 10% of its overall military strength to the West, even during the Ardennes offensive.

Without UK, they could have dedicated near 100%, I think that we would observe a large difference.

There were battles in the East that had more soldiers in them then the total of all soldiers fighting in France at one time,by 44 both Russian and German armies in the East were absolute monsters, each well above 4 milion men and you're arguing that adding 300-400.000 which amounts to less than 9% of the overall German strength would change anything.

Its mind boggling that people (obviously not you, you're clueless about the subject) claim that the West was a significant addition given that in the East there were engagements 5-10 times bigger than the biggest battles in the West.

+1

As I remember WW2 chronicles, seems he managed kinda well commanding their armies the first half of the conflict, but after the half seemed he became foolish, and also wanted to expand too much...

Whats not mentioned here is that Hitler had intuition that bordered on supernatural, the guy in some weird way could feel the future, he was a lousy, clumsy commander but his intuition could make up for it, for a while.

When Germany got stalled in Russia largely due to circumstances beyond their capacity to prevent it became neccesary for professionals to put out the fire but Hitler started believing that his intuiton could never be wrong and started making mistakes.

Please note that I did not claim that Russia could not win without Britain; we cannot know as they never were without Britain's contribution. And then, of course, Stalin was left in complete awe of D/Day; he had never seen the like.

Specifically Britain never contributed that much since it didnt have much to spare, if we're talking about LL we're talking primarily USA.

As for Stalin, the guy was a psycopath, he was never openly in awe of anything so his words about D-Day are likely a political rant, he wanted it, he got it, so he patted the West on the back.

And of course I never claimed that Britain was reliant on size, other wise they would never have entered the war; they opposed Hitler's threat head on regardless of the outcome. It was a hard job - but someone had to do it.

I hate Churchill, i really do, but i gotta give him one thing he was thinking ahead, there were people who wanted US in the war in America and i daresay Churchill knew all it took was to hold out untill these people the wheels rolling.

 

[perseus]

Here is an Excel Graph I have compiled from this data.

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=7288

Surely asking 'how many British divisions' is really the wrong question. A better one may be 'how many German divisions were required to police the coastlines and conquered territories that were diverted away from the Eastern front due to the British presence?

There were at least 50 German divisions allocated to theatres which must have been necessary almost solely due to the British Presence between June 41 and Dec 42. About a quarter of the total available

 

[mkenny]

Germany devoted approximately 8% of its total military potential to occupy France, in 1944 this percentage was even smaller since Wehrmacht grew substantially, overall Germany never devoted more than 10% of its overall military strength to the West, even during the Ardennes offensive.

At least we agree on one thing:
"I can not deal with uneducated people spouting idiocy".
Here you can see this totaly bogus '10%' in action.

May 1944.
Tanks/Stug in The West.........1928/355=2283
Tanks/Stug in Italy................750/514=1264 (Total Italy+West=3547)
Tanks/Stug in The East..........1913/2180=4093

Dec 15 1944
Tanks/Stug in Italy................279/334=613
Tanks/Stug in The West.........1632/1080=2712 (Total Italy+West=(3325)
Tanks/Stug in The East.........2108/2422=4530


More later............................

 

[BritinBritain]

I hate Churchill, i really do.

I'd be very interested to hear the reason for your hatred of Churchill.

 

[Panzercracker]

At least we agree on one thing:
"I can not deal with uneducated people spouting idiocy".
Here you can see this totaly bogus '10%' in action.

May 1944.
Tanks/Stug in The West.........1928/355=2283
Tanks/Stug in Italy................750/514=1264 (Total Italy=West=3547)
Tanks/Stug in The East..........1913/2180=4093

Initially i thought we simply differ in sources, right now i can see that you're simply hellbent on lying to get across your highly biased point.

There's two possibilities, either you're deliberately lying and pulling figures out of your ass or you're using a source thats written by guys like Hornfield, anyway if you have any source for those preposterous claims i'd like to see it so i could counter it.

For example here we have a total of tanks and SPGs in France at 1500 which is a rough but pretty close estimate:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/battles.htm Yet you claim Spgs alone were twice that number in the West!

But your claims get better and better, in the Italian mainland there was 100.000 German troops and you claim that Italy which is so very defensible saw greater need for tanks then the plains of Russia!

Not only that but having over 2000 tanks these 100.000 would be the best mechanized and armored force of all time

According to Zetterling Germany had approximately 1400 tanks and SPGs in France and about 500 in Italy, at the same time it had over 12.000 total in the East, at any time it had less than 1500-2000 active and usable vehicles though, after Bagration that would drop to 1000.

More later............................

I asume you're using some deeply amusing source like National Geographic or some myth loving author, why wont you come forward with it so we can rip your silly claims apart by confronting sources?

I'd be very interested to hear the reason for your hatred of Churchill.

I'm Polish and he ****ed as sideways and was an absolutely amoral bastard (which in his profession was a trait) but i still recognize him as an absolutely awesome leader and hate or not i wouldnt scoff if Poland had someone like him at the time.

Here you can see this totaly bogus '10%' in action.

Can i? According to all the sources Germany had 1800-2000 AFVs in the West total, including the source which i forwarded you.

For a total of 12.000 vehicles present that approximately 16% of all armored vehicles.

For a total of 480.000 men in the West that about 8% of the total personnel.

Now one thing has to be said about the AFVs in the West, they saw stuff like Marders, Pz Is and IIs and other obsolete designs which makes the nominal number of (lets be generous) 2000 only this, a nominal number.

Also in Eberbachs "Panzers in Normandy" i quote (i'm translating from a Polish copy so the exact wording is different) "...at that time we had no more than twelve hundred machines in France..." so the guy gives an even lower number, also he speaks of AFVs not tanks only.

By comparison during the invasion of Poland Germany (by Russia) employed 1800 tanks, lost over a 1000, during Bagration another 1200 tanks is lost, that should give you a bit of perspective on your claims.

Here is an Excel Graph I have compiled from this data.
There were at least 50 German divisions allocated to theatres which must have been necessary almost solely due to the British Presence between June 41 and Dec 42. About a quarter of the total available

I'll make life easier for you, there was 300.000 men in France untill 43 when the number was increased by approx 30%, you can check out any source you want.

50 divisions sounds impressive but when these 50 divisions are only on paper and in reality you get a force of underarmed (only 400 AFVs and at least a third of those captured French vehicles) troops against 4.9 milion men invading Russia with around 3500 tanks the picture is clear.

Throught the war Germany was assigning westwards forces minuscule relative to its size and capabilities, and even then it was mostly due to US presence (UK alone could do nothing).

So bottom line is, Western involvement made Germany assign about 12%-15% of its armour and about 8%-9% of its personnel, thats some forces!

I bet if these milions of Russians saw Germans reinforced by a massive army of 400~ thousand men they'd turn and run.

Ps. One thing just hit me, a Polish soldier defending German military prowess half a century after WW2, the world is changing!

 

[Del Boy]

Churchill was the key to complete confrntation of Hitler from many years before WW11; he was a soldier and probably the only man capable of inspiring the important players into action on the right side. Of course he was half American; need I say more. Perfect fit for the job. Poles should love him; without him they would never have shaken off 'ensure that Warsaw is razed to the ground' Hitler.

There you are, why Germany lost WW11.

 

[Doppleganger]

Whats not mentioned here is that Hitler had intuition that bordered on supernatural, the guy in some weird way could feel the future, he was a lousy, clumsy commander but his intuition could make up for it, for a while.

When Germany got stalled in Russia largely due to circumstances beyond their capacity to prevent it became neccesary for professionals to put out the fire but Hitler started believing that his intuiton could never be wrong and started making mistakes.

Up until December 1941, Hitler was a competent strategic commander. There is so much disinformation about Hitler it's not true. One of the things that is often said is that Hitler was clueless about military matters.

He was not. It was Hitler who saw the potential of all armoured divisions, it was Hitler who saw the potential and worth of Manstein's sickle-cut operation in France. It was Hitler who was sensible enough to realise that driving for Moscow when you still had over a million soldiers on your right flank was perhaps not the most sensible thing. It's easy with hindsight now but one of the consequences of the Wehrmacht having driven for Moscow without dealing with the armies massing near Kiev could have been a massive encirclement of Army Group Centre amongst other things. Hitler, after the Kiev operation, allegedly wanted to sit out the winter and resume the offensive in 1942. His generals persuaded him otherwise and ultimately they were proved wrong.

When Hitler began to unravel was after the Moscow reverse, where he attempted to micro-manage the Wehrmacht. This was an impossible task for one man. He also began to lose his nerve after Moscow, which can be evidenced by his dithering in Case Blue and his approval of the attack on Kursk ahead of Manstein's more ambitious 'backhand blow'. His deteriorating health due to Parkinson's disease took its toll too, and by 1944 Hitler was a shadow of the man he'd been in 1940.

I won't mention his racial policies which were truly insane and the evidence of a warped mind. Hitler was clearly deluded and evil in many ways. However, he was not the bumbling ignoramus that some seem to think. When you read the memoirs of famous German generals who survived the war, remember that they were able to tell their story and Hitler was not. There's always two sides to any story.

Anyway, isn't intuition a skill that can't be taught, and one that can separate an ordinary person from a great one? I'm not suggesting Hitler was in any way a great commander or a great person. He was so clearly not. But he was able to lead the strongest nation in Europe for 12 years. Could any of us do that?

 

[mkenny]

Initially i thought we simply differ in sources, right now i can see that you're simply hellbent on lying to get across your highly biased point..................yakety, yakety, yak.......blah, blah, blah...............drone, drone, drone..............Not only that but having over 2000 tanks these 100.000 would be the best mechanized and armored force of all time..................

I think you have serious comprehension problems. Cleary the numbers have you confused.
Go back and read again, find me the bit where I say there are 2000 tanks in Italy.
Maybe you confused the West + Italy total (clearly marked as a combination) as just the Italian total?

According to Zetterling Germany had approximately 1400 tanks and SPGs in France and about 500 in Italy,

How does that differ greatly from my total of 1928 'West' and 750 'Italian'?
Note the use of the word approximately by Zetterling.

at the same time it had over 12.000 total in the East, at any time it had less than 1500-2000 active and usable vehicles though

12,000! Perhaps, in your attempt on the world 'foot in mouth record' you confused your sources?
Note my total was 1913 and you rage it is fiction and should be 1500-2000! You really should calm down.

after Bagration that would drop to 1000.

It depends on how you add up the totals.
There are:
1) tanks in service
2) tanks in repair. Both the above could be termed 'on hand'
3) tanks 'in transit'. That is vehicles sent to Units but not yet arrived.

So let us take the 30th September totals in the East:
1113 tanks 'in service'
578 'in repair'
Total 1691 'on hand'
348 'in transit'

Thus we have 3 totals for tanks on Sptember 30th

1113 ready for action
1691 'on hand'
2039 tanks 'In The East'

Perhaps you had better do some more Googling and find out what exactly 'In The East' meant?
Be aware that Stug. totals are not tank totals. Also note that there are a lot more of them in The East where the bulk of the Infantry Divisions fought.

I asume you're using some deeply amusing source like National Geographic or some myth loving author, why wont you come forward with it so we can rip your silly claims apart by confronting sources?

You know what they say about ASSUMPTIONS?
My 'source' for all my tank totals is a spreadsheet compiled by Richard Anderson Jnr. He is a senior researcher at the Dupuy Institute.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/

Look through the forums and you will note both Anderson and Zetterling posts there.

Anderson is one of the co-authors of Trevor Dupuy's book on The Bulge
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Last-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248284089&sr=1-1


Anderson has new book on Normandy out soon:
http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Hitl...5897/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1248283946&sr=1-3

He used the original fortnightly German reports to compile a table from April 1943-May 1945. He was kind enough to share it with me.

Start ripping...............
start confronting....................

Can i? According to all the sources Germany had 1800-2000 AFVs in the West total, including the source which i forwarded you.

Sorry I have the actual totals and it was 1913 tanks In The East and 1928 in The West. Note that is tanks only, no Stugs, no Jagdpanzers and no SP's.

For a total of 12.000 vehicles present that approximately 16% of all armored vehicles.

There were never more than 5000 tanks in service at any one time.
Stugs peaked at 4000.

Now one thing has to be said about the AFVs in the West, they saw stuff like Marders, Pz Is and IIs and other obsolete designs which makes the nominal number of (lets be generous) 2000 only this, a nominal number.

Sorry but a Marder is an SP not a tank or a Stug. It is not included in any of my totals. Pz I's do not appear on any listings in 1944.
The only PzII's on the front lines (East or West) were the newer recce versions.
If we consult Mr Anderson's spreadsheet on tank losses for July 1944 we find that 57 were lost in The East but none in the West. For the period June to November 1944 87 Pz II's were lost in The East and only 33 in The West. Care to take back your claim:
Now one thing has to be said about the AFVs in the West, they saw stuff like Marders, Pz Is and IIs and other obsolete designs

Patently untrue!

Also in Eberbachs "Panzers in Normandy" i quote (i'm translating from a Polish copy so the exact wording is different) "...at that time we had no more than twelve hundred machines in France..." so the guy gives an even lower number, also he speaks of AFVs not tanks only.

Maybe you should check 'the guy's' sources before defending it to the death?

By comparison during the invasion of Poland Germany (by Russia) employed 1800 tanks, lost over a 1000, during Bagration another 1200 tanks is lost, that should give you a bit of perspective on your claims.

I have a monthly breakdown for 1944 by tank type and by front. Germany losses June-Nov 1944
..........................East.................West..............Total
Pz IV....................887..................968................1855
Panther................981...................876................1857
Tiger....................352..................158.................510
Total................2220..................2002...............4222

You won't find that detail in National Geographic!

50 divisions sounds impressive but when these 50 divisions are only on paper and in reality you get a force of underarmed (only 400 AFVs and at least a third of those captured French vehicles) troops against 4.9 milion men invading Russia with around 3500 tanks the picture is clear.

The old trick of giving a maximum possible total of Axis soldiers who were somewhere near Russia in 1941 and calling them all 'German Soldiers'.
Those with a real interest in the numbers can do no better than read this thread and see the problems involved with Eastern Front numbers:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=120581&hilit=+Barbarossa+Numbers+Strength

So bottom line is, Western involvement made Germany assign about 12%-15% of its armour

In the summer of 1944 it was 50% of her armour.

 

[MontyB]

I'm Polish and he ****ed as sideways and was an absolutely amoral bastard (which in his profession was a trait) but i still recognize him as an absolutely awesome leader and hate or not i wouldnt scoff if Poland had someone like him at the time.

Ummm well I have to admit I don't really like like Churchill myself, his early management of the war and deceptiveness were appalling (and I will leave out his pre-war failings) but to be fair he did get the job done.

However I would suggest that Churchill was not really in a position to do anything about Germany's invasion of Poland but he did at least do what he could to help the 1944 uprising which is more than the Russians did. Also surely you should be blaming Roosevelt and his deals with Russia for Poland's post war fate, something Churchill was vehemently against.

 

[Guaporense]

Sir there's people i can agree with or not but with all due respect you're talking utter complete b******t, thank you. At no point in the war did Wehrmachts forces exceed half a milion in the West and thats both Italy and France, in France itself the German forces were at about 390.000 men, the total German losses in France were estimated if memory serves between 150.000 and 250.000 men lost.

Well, in the first 80 days after D day the anglo americans inflicted about 500.000 casualities on the germans. And the germans had about 1.5 million men in france at the time.

The anglo american forces that landed on normandy in the 80 days after D day were probably more powerfull than the entire red army.

By comparison at Stalingrad Germans & co lost 750.000 men, during operation Bagration the wounded, dead, captured and MIA count for Germans was around 600.000, second battle of Smolenks 250.000, Crimean offensive 94.000, Operation Mars 40.000. That over 170.0000 troops and there's more actions i'm too lazy to recount, Germans lost milions in the East, they lost maybe 800.000 men in the West in total.

It is true that most battle casualities for the germans were in the eastern front, but it is not true that the werstern front wasn't important. I think that the casuality rate in the months after d day were equal in both fronts.

As before, i can deal with different opinions, i can not deal with uneducated people spouting idiocy, for your information the troops occupying France in 1941 numbered 300.000 men, the troops invading Russia nearly 4 milion men, Germany devoted approximately 8% of its total military potential to occupy France, in 1944 this percentage was even smaller since Wehrmacht grew substantially, overall Germany never devoted more than 10% of its overall military strength to the West, even during the Ardennes offensive.

The germans devoted 1,5 million men on the western front. That's more than 8%. About 25%? The eastern front had what, 3-4 million? Without the anglo americans the germans would have 4.5-5.5 million, a significantly larger force (50% to 40% larger).

Its mind boggling that people (obviously not you, you're clueless about the subject) claim that the West was a significant addition given that in the East there were engagements 5-10 times bigger than the biggest battles in the West.

Man, you don't need to be nervous.

 

[Guaporense]

Interesting figures on industrial production

Germany:
1942, Coal: 317.9 MT, Steel: 28.7 MT, Alumminium: 264.0 TT
1943, Coal: 340.4 MT, Steel: 30.6 MT, Alumminium: 250.0 TT
1944, Coal: 347.6 MT, Steel: 25.8 MT, Alumminium: 250.0 TT

Soviet Union:
1942, Coal: 75.5 MT, Steel: 8.1 MT, Alumminium: 51.7 TT
1943, Coal: 93.1 MT, Steel: 8.5 MT, Alumminium: 62.3 TT
1944, Coal: 121.5 MT, Steel: 10.9 MT, Alumminium: 82.7 TT

MT: million tons
TT: thousand tons

So, it is clear that the soviets had the industrial base to win the war for themselves?

 

[MontyB]

Up until December 1941, Hitler was a competent strategic commander. There is so much disinformation about Hitler it's not true. One of the things that is often said is that Hitler was clueless about military matters.

If he was a competent strategic commander why did Germany lack a grand strategic plan and why was German industry churning out domestic goods instead of guns until it was far too late?

Personally I think delusions of superiority overrode competence in 1940.

 

[mkenny]

, there was 300.000 men in France untill 43 when the number was increased by approx 30%...................... 50 divisions sounds impressive but when these 50 divisions are only on paper and in reality you get a force of underarmed (only 400 AFVs and at least a third of those captured French vehicles) troops against 4.9 milion men invading Russia with around 3500 tanks the picture is clear..............................
So bottom line is, Western involvement made Germany assign about 12%-15% of its armour and about 8%-9% of its personnel, thats some forces!

Let us leave the world of fantasy behind and look at some real figures.

1. Date: 7.11.1943 (situation of 15.10.1943)
East: 3,900,000
Finland: 180,000
Norway: 315,000
Denmark: 110,000
West: 1,370,000
Italy: 330,000
Balkans: 610,000
Sum: 6,815,000
Source: Materialien zum Vortrag des Chefs des Wehrmachtführungsstabes vom 7.11.1943 "Die strategische Lage am Anfang des fünften Kriegsjahres", (referenced to KTB OKW, IV, S. 1534 ff.)
---------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5.5.1944 (situation likely of April 1944)
East: 3,878,000
Finland: no figure given
Norway: 311,000
Denmark: no figure given
West: 1,873,000
Italy: 961,000
Balkans: 826,000
Sum: 7,849,000
Source: "Strategische Lage im Frühjahr 1944", Jodl, Vortrag 5.5.1944. (referenced to BA-MA, N69/18.)
--------------------------------------------------------
From Müller-Hillebrand, Heer 3, p. 173:

"Ration strength in the West", 1. March 1944 (referenced to OKW War diary)

Army (obviously both field and replacement army, M.): 806,927
SS and Police: 85,230
Foreign volunteers, mainly Eastern troops: 61,439
Allies: 13,631
Luftwaffe (air force): 337,140
Kriegsmarine (navy): 96,084
Wehrmachtgefolge (auxiliary civil personnel): 145,611
Sum: 1,546,062

-----------------------------------------

. From the MGFA’s "official" campaign history (within the WW2 series, Vol. 7, p. 476/477, referenced to a ration strength report from Hgr. B/OQu., 1. March 1944 at BA-MA)

Army (obviously both field and replacement army, M.): 865,180
Luftwaffe (air force): 326,350
Marine (navy): 102,180
SS and Police: 102,610
Sonstige: 91,110
Wehrmachtgefolge (auxiliary civil personnel): 157,210
sum: 1,644,640

-----------------------------------------------

But your claims get better and better, in the Italian mainland there was 100.000 German troops and you claim that Italy which is so very defensible saw greater need for tanks then the plains of Russia!

Note the trick being played to make the German numbers seem a lot less that they actualy were.
In lmid 1944 Kesselring had a total of 430.000 men at his disposal in addition to 400,000 Italian troops.( Prof. A. Montemaggi, 'Linea Gotica 1944', pp. 89-94)
When our German fan-boy was giving the total of Germans for the Invasion of Russia he included all the Axis troops as if they were German. This was done so he could show how 'huge' the German Army was. In Italy he is trying to keep the German numbers low so he is excluding Italians from the Axis total.

 

[Doppleganger]

If he was a competent strategic commander why did Germany lack a grand strategic plan and why was German industry churning out domestic goods instead of guns until it was far too late?

Personally I think delusions of superiority overrode competence in 1940.

There are a few answers to that:

-German military tradition
-Overconfidence after June 1940
-Ideological belief that ignored facts
-Deep seated racism
-A political system that had several competing layers of bureaucracy

However, in military matters alone Hitler had a good grasp of matters. His decisions in the Eastern Front, even in 1942, reflected well established military doctrine since the reforms of Scharnhorst et al. In order of priority:

1. Destroy enemy armies in the field
2. Seize important industrial and economic resources
3. Capture prestige targets

When he ordered Kiev to be taken that's exactly what he did, in the order of priority above. I believe Hitler never saw Moscow as being of primary importance, as it fell into the least priority category as indicated above.

 

[MontyB]

But surely this would make him more of a competent tactical commander and less of a strategic one?

In the end I believe the biggest failings of German in WW2 were at the strategic level (basically they didn't have one because Hitler was too busy micromanaging things).

 

[BritinBritain]

I'm Polish and he ****ed as sideways and was an absolutely amoral bastard (which in his profession was a trait) but i still recognize him as an absolutely awesome leader and hate or not i wouldnt scoff if Poland had someone like him at the time.

Interesting reply. Yes he was an awsome leader, and without a doubt the right man for the job at that time. For all his faults the majority of the British public loved him.

As you are a Pole I would have thought Stalin would be the most hated man, with his point blank refusal to assist the Poles in Warsaw.