It seems to take more than just an amateur to direct the warfare to the finest details and even great generals like Guderian and Rommel under his charge.
2007-11-02 07:16:08 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Hitler was so involved that he micro-managed. I think he obviously knew warfare, but not trusting his leadership was the worst problem in managing his campaign.
2007-11-02 07:26:34 · answer #1 · answered by Ed H 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler's entire military training was in WW1 where he ended up a blinded corporal with a medal on his shirt. He had never led any men to their death, nor had he sent any before. As Fuhrer, Hitler had etire armies at his command and sent them to their deaths time and again and the strategic blunders that occured in WW2 are a direct result of his ineptitude. Hitler was one of the Allies greatest assets, with his amateur military decisions. This is one reason the high command decided they could do better and try to end Hitler's reign with the July 20 plot. If the Prussian trained military men were in command, Hitler could well have won the war.
Hitler was a fine orator who convinced enough people to vote for him and after the death of Hindenburg, an the annihilation of any opposition, Hitler became Chancellor, thus also, Commander in Chief (like a US president). As military officers, they swore personal oaths to Hitler and therefore followed his instructions. There are a lot of similarities between Hitler and Hussein, best summed up by Schwarzkopf when he said "He is neither a strategist nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general. Other than that he's a great military man". Two iltrained and ill equipped men with an army to play with. At least Churchill found out before he got to play General he was no good (See Gallipoli campaign in WW1)
2007-11-02 22:28:18 · answer #2 · answered by bubnkez 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hitler was never a general, as such and never led an army, if that is what you mean by being more than an armchair general. However, he tried to direct his generals from Germany, without being aware of, or being in denial of, what the situation was on the ground. This is shown best at Stalingrad where he gave meaningless orders, or the generals in command acted as they thought he wanted to them act without having the courage of their own convictions or experience, leading eventually to the German debacle. Read Anthony Beevor's magnificent story of the battle called 'Stalingrad' for more details.
2007-11-02 08:08:56 · answer #3 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he was a general. but I could be wrong
2007-11-02 07:26:18 · answer #4 · answered by Bigpoppa 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
he was a great speaker.........
2007-11-02 07:24:17 · answer #5 · answered by dkgtampa 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋