The Gen

[Moggy]

Why Wasn't Hitler Stopped?
By Klaus Wiegrefe

World War II began 70 years ago when Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. It would last six years and claim millions of lives. But the Allies missed several opportunities to stop Hitler in the run-up to the war.

Editor's note: This is part one of a SPIEGEL article about the beginning of World War II. You can read part two here. You can also read an accompanying interview with former German President Richard von Weizsäcker about his personal experiences as a soldier in World War II.

It is Aug. 25, 1939, and Adolf Hitler's official apartment in Berlin's Old Reich Chancellery is decorated with the usual floral arrangements, including magnificent bouquets at the entrance to the garden room. But on this Friday Hitler, normally an admirer of summer blossoms, has no interest in flowers.

The dictator, wearing a brown jacket and black trousers, seems worn out. His shoulders slump forward and his deep-set eyes wander restlessly around the room. The Nazi leader is nervous. >>>>

Der Speigel

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5
_________________
Moggy
www.mogggy.org

[Wudpecker]

Wonderful series. Read both parts (there is a second section) plus the interview.
An exciting and interesting review.
Copying was turned off by Der Spiegel. So no direct quotes allowed.

I will only offer my sympathy to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. He tried mightily to stop war in the 1930's and was blamed for the appeasements of Hitler that led to it nevertheless.
Yes, I have been especially critical of that series of appeasements. But I know full well Chamberlain and others could do nothing politically or militarily to stop a determined Hitler. There was no support for Winston Churchill-type belligerence, and Chamberlain did not have Hitler's mighty skill at bluffing his opponents into submission.

Nothing that is, without "dancing with the Devil" (Stalin). That was unthinkable at the time.
Some hope for keeping Italy's dictator, Benito Mussolini, on the Allied side was lost. But that was dancing with a devil, too, who had conquest and invasions on his mind. It required diplomatic skills that were not available.

The French must also bear the burden of not acting at the first sign of military trouble from Hitler--instead of leaving it to the British. They paid a terrible price for avoiding another conflict so soon after WWI. It came anyway.

[Moggy]

All that generation were scarred by WWI. Most of the political class had experienced it in one way or another. Many had lost loved ones or close friends.

All those who winge about the French being cheese eating surrender monkeys should go back and read about the Verdun meat grinder. Although the French were on the winning side in WWI, in many ways their victory was pyrrhic, almost like the British "victory" in WWII. They held the line from 1914 to 1917 at enormous costs in blood and treasure, not to say the effective destruction of a considerable part of their land. In 1917 the French were bankrupt and their army mutinied. Only careful adminstration by Petain prevented a complete collapse. The line was then held by Britain until the Doughboys arrived in 1918.

Chamberlain was prepared to go a long way to avoid the outbreak of another such war. Most of the country was with him. To go through again what they had gone through between 1914 and 1918 was too horrible to contemplate.

Too many who connived at disarmament and pacifism were wise after the event.
_________________
Moggy
www.mogggy.org

[Wudpecker]

[Moggy]

I did a lot of reading about the attack in the West when I was doing the Dunkirk addon, and as many French sources as I could find in translation. It appears that the French nation did believe generally that the Maginot line would prevent any serious German aggression, and because they generally believed it, the British military believed it. Churchill was certainly as shocked as any to find that the French had no serious plans to deal with an attack other than on the Maginot line.

Although a few wise heads in the French miltary did argue that a an attack through the Ardennes was possible, they were considered unstable mavericks, as De Gaulle and Fuller were for their warnings about German use of tanks. The collective view of the French and therefore the British military was that the Ardennes was impenetrable, especially for tanks.

When it was shown that the Maginot line was a chimera, the effect was I think so traumatic as to induce a sudden collective collapse in the will of the French nation. In effect they gave up and went home.

We were lucky we had that 20 mile wide chalk ditch full of sea water. It was really the only thing that prevented Hitler from coming straight on.
_________________
Moggy
www.mogggy.org

[Wudpecker]

*Sigh* No wonder the term "military intelligence" is considered an oxymoron.
If travellers (all right--spies) in Germany gave no warning of troop movements, certainly a few "vacations" by army personnel to tramp through the Ardennes might have changed opinions.

But, of course, in the military no one is allowed to contradict prevailing opinion.
Once military minds are made up, only defeat changes them.

[Moggy]

[Wudpecker]

Human nature usually prevents us from solving the problem of Der Fuehrer-- the single, powerful individual whose decisions make or break a family, a group, an organization, an army or a nation.
TOTAL CONTROL
Whether a father figure, a king, a president, a general secretary, tribal leader, etc, the tendency on one hand is to seek total control as Hitler did.
On the other, people generally like having a single individual in charge. Especially if they voted for or backed that person. If capable, the individual makes decisions promptly that cannot be countermanded. It is efficient and quick with a good executive. Things get done. Hook your wagon to a rising star like Hitler, and you rise with him.
And fall.
The negatives to Der Fuehrer are obvious. "When she was good, she was very, very good. When she was bad, she was horrid."
CHECKS AND BALANCES
Systems of checks and balances to kingly "Der Fuehrer" power all suffer from common failings. One is that things don't get done unless someone is in charge of something. Governing by committee, Senate, parliament or majority vote usually produces inferior results without leadership assigned to do the actual work and take responsibility for it.
Hitler was elected by popular vote. He took responsibility, and the results were momentous.
Another problem is what you and I agree on: no one is allowed to contradict prevailing opinion. Governing by majority, by rank or by hereditary oligarchy stumbles when incompetence creeps in, because incompetence is usually competent at one thing: protecting itself.
You mention the Military Intelligence photo interpreter who could not be allowed to derail the great Montgomery's plan for "Market Garden". A perfect example.

THE CONSENSUS
Sometimes letting a consensus leader emerge and take charge works for a time, whether on the crisis of a battlefield or a crisis at home or work. Without official authority from the group, but with effective authority, the work gets done. Such a consensus leader must always tread carefully to keep his or her backing. When incompetence or arrogance creeps in (as it usually does) a revolt takes place. Removal of 'Der Petit Fuehrer' can be less painful when it is not official.
Telling the Truth to Power is always dangerous, nevertheless.

THE VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS
But the question remains: how to get minority opinion listened to and recognized?
All too often, a single dissenter or a small opposition party crys out with the key, an answer to the dilemma, or a warning of the crack in the armor, the collapse of the wall, the secret invasion path of the enemy through the Ardennes.
Almost always, by nature, the dissenters are brushed aside. By definition, they have no standing or support from either the majority or those in power.

In my opinion, opposition needs to be formalized. The Queen's Loyal Opposition (or its equivalent) should be required to speak on every major move. No plan can go ahead without an opposition report.

Of course, there is screaming opposition to almost anything ever proposed anywhere. Every effort is made to quash it or go round it. It should be formally heard-- at least that's a wave of the hand toward the other side.
GAMES AND THE WORLD
In the military, one way to recognize the dissenter is war gaming. War gaming automatically sets opposition teams against one another. It is a contest of intellectual flexibility and preparation. The results can be very telling when carefully reviewed by higher authority.

Gaming also teaches the role of chance-- or boldness--as happens in real life. As Moggy pointed out in his Midway simulation for European Air War, there was no rational way the Allies could have won against the superior Japanese force at Midway. War games showed that again and again. Then, why did they win?
There were good reasons, and chance was only one of them.

(As an aside, I would like to see more of the war gaming aspect in EAW. But that is a minority opinion. )

[Moggy]

This is vital stuff.

It shows up the total inefficiency of the totalitarian state where in effect nothing is vetted and all stupidities pass through "because the leader wishes it".

At one step down it shows the inefficiency of the dominance of "prevailing opinion". Anyone working on the edge in any subject knows how this works.

In science where advance is supposed to be by rational experimentation and gradual adjustment of theory based on empirical results, too many people know how difficult it is to overturn established theories where these are shown to be insufficient.

Too many people have vested interest in established situations. Why is it that so many advances are made by mavericks, often derided, until their views become established and the cycle starts again.

So it is with the military who are always painstakingly prepared to fight the last war again, only to find that tactics, equipment, and concepts have passed on.
_________________
Moggy
www.mogggy.org

[Wudpecker]

It is vital-- and fascinating.
Watching the drama fold and unfold down the pages of history, the thoughtful person despairs of ever living in a society of peace, justice, and balance.
Even should such a society exist (and perhaps we are as close to it as civilization is likely to get), it will soon change.
How insightful is that ancient Chinese book of wisdom and divination, the I CHING (book of Changes). It spells out the cycles in mathematical precision, and contemplates no end to change.

Enough of the universals. Suffice it to say that the great and powerful put their pants (or panties) on one leg at a time. They are subject to the human foibles and failings each of us has to endure. Hitler had a bad stomach-- probably made worse by his physician.
What the leader represents is as important as who and what they are. Without touching and encouraging the aspirations of their followers, they do not become leaders. Hitler picked up the downtrodden spirit of his nation by speechmaking a dream and at the same time a real path to a 'brighter' future. The transformation of Germany was remarkable.
That the brutality of the Brown Shirts and later the SS carried the seeds of their own destruction in their victories is part of the picture. A nation followed their path. And the world was changed.

It's amazing to see how new developments catch fire and energize vast numbers of people. Half the civilized world has a cell phone glued to its heads today (I don't--but I'm an outdated Luddite in some ways). The other half is glued to the Telly (TV).

Your point about science is an interesting one: