PDA

View Full Version : Was Adolf Hitler a Military Genius?


Hunter Wallace
03-26-2005, 10:40 PM
Hitler on Mass Production

There is no easy explanation. Hitler's Germany was an authoritarian single-party state, dominated by the personal dictatorship of a man who was not only head of state but also the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. By the start of the war Hitler had gathered into this own hands the authority necessary to order the weapons he wanted. But Germany was not the Soviet Union, centrally planned and centrally commanded. Hitler's orders, though they shaped national policy, were refracted and distorted by a system that was poorly coordinated, factious and obstructive. There was no straight line of command between Führer and factory. In between lay a web of ministries, plenipotentiaries and Party commissars, each with their own apparatus, interests and rubber stamps, producing more than the usual weight of bureaucratic inertia. At the end of the line was a business community most of whom remained wedded to entrepreneurial independence, and resented the jumbled administration, the corrupt Nazi Party hacks, the endless form-filling, which stifled what voluntary efforts they might have made to transform the war economy.

No organization was more guilty of limiting Germany's war potential than the military. Answerable only to Hitler, the armed forces treated the German industrial economy as an annexe to the front line. Military priorities dominated arms production, from the design and development of a weapon through to the final factory inspection. Military officials were posted to factories to monitor production. Changes to design and specification were made endlessly in response to every cry for improvement from the battlefield. Production schedules were set by military agencies; consultation with the industrialists and engineers who had to produce the goods was rare and one-sided.

The military domination of production had mixed results. There is no dispute that Germany developed weapons of very high quality, with a level of finish and attention to detail that astonished the Allies when they inspected crashed aircraft or captured guns. By the end of the war German designers had developed many of the weapons that armed NATO a decade later. But the pursuit of advanced weaponry came at a price. Instead of a core of proven designs produced on standard lines, the German forces developed a bewildering array of projects. At one point in the war there were no fewer than 425 different aircraft models and variants in production. By the middle of the war the German army was equipped with 151 different makes of lorry, and 150 different motor-cycles.

With such a variety it was difficult to produce in mass. In 1942 Hitler remarked how industrialists 'were always complaining about this niggardly procedure -- today an order for ten howitzers, tommorrow for two mortars and so on'. But this as the nub of a system in which the military dictated the selection and development of anything that promised battlefield dividends. It produced a situation where a proper sense of priority and evaluation was replaced with a chaos of demands and programme. 'Nobody would seriously believe', complained a group of German engineers in 1944 based on the research centre in Rechlin, 'that so much inadequacy, bungling, confusion, misplaced power, failure to recognize the truth and deviation from the reasonable could really exist.' As long as the military tail wagged the industrial dog, German war production remained inflexible, unrationalised and excessively bureaucratic.

Not surprisingly the experience of mass production in Germany was very different from that of the Soviet Union and United States. The German armed forces shared a widespread prejudice against 'American' production methods. Göring's jibe that all America could produce was razor-blades was not an isolated belief. Mass production was associated with cheap consumer goods and shoddy standards. The German military preferred to establish close links with smaller firms with traditions of skilled craftsmanship, which would be sensitive to frequent design changes and produce a sophisticated custom-built weapon. The great strengths of the German industrial economy had always been high quality, skilled workmanship, the conquest of technical complexity. German weapons were very good, but very expensive -- in skilled manpower, time and materials.

Nothing more clearly reveals these preferences than the story of the German car industry, which during the 1930s became the largest manafacturing sector in Germany. The major names -- Adam Opel, Ford (in Cologne), Auto-Union, Daimler-Benz -- slowly adopted American production methods. Hitler was an enthusiast for the motor-car, so much so that he dreamed of making cheap motoring available for the masses. In 1933 Hitler met with designer Ferdinand Porsche. He asked him to try to develop a low-priced family car 'in which one could go for weekend trips . . . a car for the people'. The design that Porsche came up with was the prototype of one of the century's most famous cars, the Volkswagen. In 1938 work was started at Fallesleben in the Brunswick countryside, not far from the vast new iron and steel complex in Salzgitter; around the Volkswagen plant was to be built one of the new model cities of the Third Reich, Wolfsburg. The factories were planned on a gigantic scale, together capable of turning out half a million cars a year, rising eventually to one and a half million. The central workshop boasted the largest metal press in the world, capable of punching out whole car bodies at a time. By the beginning of the war the installation of machine tools for the production of 200,000 cars was completed. Yet the contribution to the German war effort of the plant designed as one of the largest and most modern mass production factories in the world was absurdly small. Only one-fifth of its capacity was ever utilized, for a hotch-potch of equipment from one and a half million camp stoves to army issue footwarmers. Only a few thousand chassis were produced for a military version of the Volkswagen which the army took with great reluctance. Otto HOchne, who worked at Wolfsburg during the war, later recalled that 'there seemed to be no plans at all'. The works were used haphazardly until they were bombed in 1943.

The rest of the industry suffered something of the same fate. Postwar estimates showed that barely 50 percent of its capacity had been utilised during the war. The largest and most modern producer, Opel, almost disappeared entirely at the start of the war. Opel was owned by the American car giant General Motors, which did not endear it to the German authorities. The directors had clashed with the army in 1936 wehen they closed down a small army supplier; Wilhelm Opel had earned Hitler's displeasure when he introduced his new small car at the 1937 Berlin Motor Show with the words 'This, Herr Hitler, is our Volkswagen'. When war broke out in September the military authorities wanted to break the whole complex up and parcel its tools and workforce out among other smaller producers. There were no orders for war work and no mobolisation plan. The company resisted dispersal, but not until 1942 did it become a major producer after the authorities had dithered for almost three years over what it should make. During the war the productive performance of the Opel workforce dropped by almost half. The systematic conversion of the motorcycle, motor-car and tractor plants only began in 1942 and 1943.

There was more, of course, to the problems of the German war economy than the failure to mobolise the largest mass producing industry in the country, but this was symptomatic of a productive system in which technical sophistication was routinely preferred to turning out large quantities of standard weapons. In the end it took Hitler to break the logjam. Prompted by complaints from industrial leaders, Hitler called military and civilian leaders together to Berchtesgaden in May 1941 and berated the soldiers for burdening industry with unnecessary technical demands. He demanded 'more primitive, robust construction' and the introduction of 'crude mass production'. The military took little notice. In December 1941 Hitler turned his request into an order, a Führer Decree on 'Simplification and Increased Efficiency in Armaments Production'. Citing the success of the Soviet factories, he ordered German industry to embark on 'mass production on modern principles' and insisted on putting industrialists in charge.

The real turning point came a few months later when Hitler appointed as Minister of Armaments the young architect Albert Speer, a close courtier who indulged Hitler's fascination for monumental architecture. He was only 36, a man with no military experience or close knowledge of industry but a sound organiser. He quickly built up a team of young managers and engineers, almost all of them in their thirties or early forties, most of them co-opted from German industry. German industrial resources were at last centrally planned, and in response to Hitler's efficiency decree industrial rationalisation became the driving force of the new structure. A remarkable amount was achieved in three years. By 1944 the number of weapons had been reduced to a few chosen types; 42 aircraft models became five; 151 lorries gave way to just 23; a dozen anti-tank weapons were replaced by just one; and so on throughout the whole range of German weaponry. The shift to mass production, though far from universal, brought an instant increase in efficiency. Weapons output trebled in three years; the productivity of German manpower doubled. Large factories were expanded and small ones closed down. The Messerschmitt-109 fighter was produced at the rate of a thousand a month in three giant plants in 1944, where once 180 had been produced in seven smaller plants. Industrialists now revelled in the freedom to work without the constant fear of military interference.

Under Speer the German economy at last promised to deliver the sort of numbers produced in the Soviet Union and America. It was a promise difficult to redeem. The military continued to disrupt long production runs and standardisation. The army procurement officers regarded Speer as an "inexperienced intruder." Speer recalled ruefully in his memoirs the survival of 'excessive bureaucratisation', which he fought 'in vain'. Göring kept a jealous hold of aircraft production until the spring of 1944, when real mass production was introduced at last. The one thing that kept Speer going was Hitler's backing, but the war economy always threatened to return to the unrationalised, disordered melee of its early years. For all his enthusiasm and sense of urgency, Speer was unable to reap an early harvest. Not until the summer of 1943 did the reforms begin to bear real fruit, long after the Soviet Union and the United States had mass production established. At just the point when German potential was on the point of being realised in large, mechanised, centralised assembly plants, bombing began in earnest.

Bombing was the enemy of rationalisation. Speer's deputy responsible for tank production explained to his postwar interrogators that bombing forced measures that contradicted mass production: 'the breaking down and dispersal of plants, starting up factories on account of their geographical position instead of their technical capacity . . .' As German factories moved into smaller, camoflaged premises, into woods or even underground, it became progressively more difficult to expand production. There was enough momentum in the Speer reforms to carry German industry to a peak in September 1944, but bombing made it impossible for managers and workers alike to achieve the maximum. By the autumn of 1944 the war industries were living off accumulated stocks of materials and components. Under the impact of bombing, conditions on the home front deteriorated rapidly. More and more of the workforce was made up of unwilling labourers forced from their homes across Europe to fill the German workhalls. By 1944 seven million of them -- a quarter of the workforce -- lived and worked in squalid conditions on low pay, regimented by the Nazi authorities, bullied and victimised by German workers whose own conditions in the industrial regions of the Reich were growing steadily worse. Food supplies declined and urban amenities were strained to breaking point; millions of German were made homeless and could not be satisfactorily rehabilitated. Hundreds of hours were spent huddled in shelters and absenteeism rates soared. The more bombing affected the willingness to work, the more the regime resorted to draconian methods to extract the labour. The SS mobolised the population of its empire of concentration and extermination camps, which was literally worked to death. Workers caught pilfering or slacking were taken into the camps and sent on 'work education weekends' organised by the Gestapo; even industrialists who displayed defeatism or obstructed the growing number of SS official recruited to run the bombed economy could follow their employees behind barbed wire. Work was kept going on a basis of fear: dread of the Soviet enemy as the Red Army neared the borders of the Reich and dread of the rule of terror at home.

The German wartime economy was a paradox. Germany possessed a wealth of resources, a large class of competant entrepreneurs and engineers and a highly skilled workforce, all at the disposal of an authoritarian system that brooked no opposition, led by a dictator with delusions of super power grandeur. This was a rich mixture, which promised a great deal more than it could deliver. The German economy fell between two stools. It was not enough of a command economy to do what hte Soviet system could do; yet it was not capitalist enough to rely, as America did, on the recruitment of private enterprise. Only too late was an effort made to do both these things, to coerce more ruthlessly and at the same time to give industry more responsibility for production. Before that German mobolisation was hostage to the ambitions of a highly professional and exclusive military elite which saw war in all its elements as a military affair and clung on to that prerogative with stiffling effects on Germany's industrial effort.

Hunter Wallace
03-26-2005, 10:41 PM
Hitler on American Power

Most of his ideas seemed to be taken from a century of European anti-American stereotypes. "What is America," Hitler told a friend, "but millionaires, beauty queens, stupid records and Hollywood?" Its corrosive appeal was so great that even Germans would succumb to America's decadence if they lived there: "Transfer [a German] to Miami and you make a degenerate out of him -- in other words -- an American." The idea of immigrant degeneration was, of course, the main theme of German anti-Americans a century earlier. Americans, Hitler continued, were spoiled and weakened by luxury, living "like sows though in a most luxurious sty," under the grip of "the most grasping materialism," and indifferent to "any of the loftiest expressions of the human spirit such as music."

At a 1933 dinner party in his home, when a guest suggested that he seek America's friendship, Hitler responded that "a corrupt and outworn" American system was on its deathbed. It was Americans' greed and materialism that had brought about their failure. He defined the problem in virtually Marxist terms, arguing, as Lenin had, that since the Civil War, "A moneyed clique . . . under the fiction of a democracy" ruled the country. As a result of the crisis of the Depression, Hitler, like Stalin, claimed that the United States was on the verge of revolution that, in his version, would result in German Americans seizing power." The main difference was the Nazi substitution of race for class as their category of analysis.

At the dinner party, Hitler's Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels chimed in to agree with his boss: "Nothing will be easier than to produce a bloody revolution in . . . America. No other country has so many social and racial tensions . . . [It] is a medley of races. The ferment goes on under a cover of democracy, but it will not lead to a new form of freedom and leadership, but to a process of decay containing all the disintegrating forces of Europe."

But whether or not America collapsed, Hitler thought that the United States would be no threat in a war because Americans were cowards and military incompetants who during World War I had "behaved like clumsy boys. They ran straight into the line of fire like young rabbits." Even in the midst of World War II, as U.S. military and industrial might was beginning to destroy his empire, Hitler did not acknowledge that mistake. In 1942, he called America "a decayed country, with problems of race and social inequality, of no ideas . . . My feelings against America are those of hatred and repugnance." It was "half-Judaized, half Negrified . . . How can one expect a state like that to hold together -- a state where 80 percent of the revenue is drained away from the public purse -- a country where everything is built on the dollar."

This underestimation of America's internal coherence and external strength was a mistake that not only Stalin and Hitler but also many later dictators would make, often to their own detriment. It is important to understand that whatever their different thoughts on the subject, Hitler's and Stalin's views on America were fairly typical of those which had been conveyed by mainstream European anti-Americans for a century.

Hunter Wallace
03-26-2005, 10:41 PM
Hitler on American and Soviet Economic Power

Hitler had little respect for American economic power. 'What is America', he asked, 'but millionaires, beauty queens, stupid records and Hollywood?' He had even less for the Soviet Union. On the eve of Barbarossa he told Goebbels that betwen German and Soviet strength there was no comparison; 'Bolshevism will collapse like a pack of cards.' These turned out to be profound misjudgements, though who, in the summer of 1941, could have clearly foreseen how rapidly and on what a scale America and the Soviet Union would arm themselves? Two years of production turned both states into the superpowers Hitler's Germany hankered to become.

What Hitler failed to see was how central industry was to the Allied view of warfare. 'Modern war is waged with steel,' Churchill told Hopkins when he weighed up the imbalance between American and Japanese economic strength. Stalin's view of war was entirely conditioned by economics, as befitted any disciple of Marx: 'The war will be won by industrial production,' he told an American delegation in October 1941. Roosevelt's opinion of America power was every bit as determinist. In planning the Victory Programme in 1941 he told War Secretary Stimson to work on the assumption 'that the reservoir of munitions power available to the United States and her friends is sufficiently superior to that available to the Axis powers to insure the defeat of the latter.' Though Hitler was the inspiration behind the German adoption of mass production in 1941, he did not consider economics central to the war effort. Rather, he stuck to the view that racial character -- willpower, resolve, endurance -- was the prime mover; weapons mattered only to the extent that they could be married to the moral qualities of the fighting man.

There was much in common between the Soviet and American experience. One of the correspondents that made the trip to Magnitogorsk observed that the Russian people were 'in many ways like Americans . . . they have a fresh and unspolied outlook which is close to our own.' These were sentiments that predated the Cold War, but they contained a grain of truth. In both countries mobolisation was a hustling, improvised affair; technical tasks were tackled head on and quickly; production was big in scale and easily standardised; engineers and managers were given wide scope to solve problems themselves. Both economies had a good deal of central planning, but here the similarity ends, for the one enjoyed a supervised abundance, the other a regimented scarcity. Both countries shared the sudden shock of unprovoked aggression, which gave a genuine urgency to economic planning, and forced their econoies to give priority to finding a cluster of advanced weapons on which to concentrate production energies.

The situation facing Germany was very different. There was no direct threat to the homeland until the onset of serious bombing. German planners and designers had almost two years at war before conflict with the Soviet Union and America. During that time there was little pressure to mass produce, even if the military had approved it, or to concentrate on a narrow band of designs. The military slowly built up their version of a heavily bureaucratic command economy, which displayed a ponderous inflexibility beside the enemy. A few hours before the attempt to assassinate Hitler on 20 July 1944, Speer wrote to him that the great strength of the American and Soviet systems was their ability to use 'organisationally simple methods'. He drew a contrast between Germany's 'overbred organisation' and the 'art of improvisation' on the other side. Speer was a man constantly banging his head against officialdom. Posterity, warned Hitler, would judge that Germany lost the struggle by clinging on to an 'arthritic organisational system'. Posterity might find this view a little harsh, for Speer himself had given the system a good shaking. But the contrast between American and Soviet productionism and Germany's bureaucratised economy was more than superficial. No war was more industrialised than the Second World War. Factory for factory, the Allies made better use of their industry than the enemy.

Hunter Wallace
03-26-2005, 10:42 PM
Some more info here on the military genius of Herr Hitler.

Hitler on the Atomic Bomb

"The truth is more complicated. Whatever the views of Germany's scientists, Hitler remained hostile to the whole project. Without the wholehearted support of the political leadership the atomic programme was unable to generate the huge resources of labour, materials and brain power necessary. Though Hitler saw himself as an expert on guns and tanks, he found the principles of modern physics hard to grasp and disliked discussing them. Party scientists branded much of the new work as non-Aryan, 'Jewish physics'. When Speer tried to talk to him about the research Hitler condemned it as 'a spawn of Jewish pseudo-science'. He retained the fear that nuclear explosions would prove incapable of control, and might burn up the hydrogen in the atmosphere, destroying the globe. Nothing that was presented to him during the war carried sufficient conviction about the short-term feasibility of atomic weapons to disperse that scepticism."

Richard Overy, Why The Allies Won (New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1996), p.237

Hunter Wallace
03-26-2005, 10:42 PM
Hitler on the Luftwaffe

The German air force in the east suffered the same fate, though for rather different reasons. There were the same problems of supply and maintenance over long distances, the severe shortages of spares and replacement engines, the problems of flying in cold weather for which German aircraft had not been properly equipped. The use of rough grass airfields in forward areas increased the losses of aircraft and crew through accidents. But the real failure in 1942 and 1943 as in not matching either the quantity or quality of Soviet aviation. Luftwaffe leaders, no less than the army, failed to anticipate the high levels of attrition that would be experienced even against a much weaker enemy. Before losses could be made good that enemy began to fight with large numbers of aircraft of much higher quality, making it difficult for German air units to avoid the attrition cycle. The German effort to introduce a new generation of advanced aircraft in 1941 to restore the technical lead enjoyed at the start of the war failed disastrously.

In 1941 responsibility both for the production and development of aircraft in Germany lay with Colonel-General Ernst Udet. It was a post for which he was utterly unsuited. He was appointed in 1935 at Hitler's suggestion. A veteran fighter-pilot, Udet made his reputation in the 1920s as a stunt-man of the silent screen. He was a notorious bon viveur and womaniser, who narrowly survived a knife attack by one of his mistresses. He was a talented cartoonist; he ate only meat, a habit that left him in chronic ill health when he held office; he loved hunting. For the job of chief technical director of the German air force he had almost no credentials whatsoever. All he had wanted to be was a test-pilot, and even in his new office he still flew dangerously to get the feel of new aircraft. He was fully aware of his wide limitations. His only contribution to air force development was to insist that all bomber aircraft, even large four-engined craft, should have a divebombing capability, a requirement that set German bomber development years behind that of the Allies.

Under his wayward stewardship the Luftwaffe lost its direction. The real architect of German air power in the 1930s was Erhard Milch, an ex-director of Lufthansa, and Goering's deputy, but in 1939, jealous of his successful subordinate, Goering excluded Milch from the realm of technical development and production altogether, and left the work to Udet. Between 1939 and 1942 aircraft production stagnated. Udet lacked the organisational skills and strength of character to impose what views he might have had on the scientists and entrepreneurs under his control. Unable to reach clear decisions about the development of new aircraft models he became the victim of rivalry between aircraft designers and the butt of eveyr complaint from bureaucrats and airmen. Except for the Focke-Wulf 190, which proved to be a fighter aircraft of high quality when it was introduced in the autumn of 1941, every one of the new aircraft Udet selected was a failure. The He-177 long range bomber, which Goering and Hitler wanted for attacks on Soviet industry and the Atlantic trade routes, was plagued with technical problems that stemmed from Udet's dive bombing order, and was never produced in any quantity. The new generation of medium bombers and heavy fighters, the Junkers Ju-288 and the Me-210, were technical flops and were scrapped, but only after a heavy investment of money and production effort. The replacement for the ageing Stuka dive bomber, the Hs-129, which was expected to match the Soviet Sturmovik, had to be withdrawn because its engines caught fire too easily, and were so susceptible to the dust of the southern Russian steppe that serviceability could not be maintained."

Ibid., 218-220

Hunter Wallace
03-26-2005, 10:43 PM
Hitler on Tanks

During the winter of 1941-42 the German army hoped to make good the collapse of the armoured force by developing new tanks that could both outgun the Soviet T-34, and remain immune to anti-tank fire with greatly strengthend armour. Hitler took a leading role in planning them, but instead of developing a tank that was easy to maintain and to produce in quantity, he demanded large, technically complex tanks of very great weight. The result was the 'Tiger' and the 'Panther'. Though they could deliver the enhanced firepower, they were slow and unmanoeuvrable, a liability on poor ground. When Hitler insisted on throwing the first six Tigers into battle in the early summer of 1942 the result was a fiasco. On a road fringed by marshland the tanks were ambushed by Soviet troops. The first and last tank were hit in the poorly protected side and rear, immobolising the remaining four which were destroyed one by one. The Panther's baptism of fire was no more propitious. The first batch was sent into battle before the development work was complete. All 325 had to be returned to Berlin for modification of the steering and control mechanism; the Maybach engine proved inadequate and had to be improved, making an already complex piece of engineering yet more sophisticated. The level of technical quality of the new tanks was such that they were difficult to produce and maintain. There were too few to turn the armoured battle in Germany's favour in 1943; they were too heavy and cumbersome to be used on anything but flat summer ground; and like other German vehicles they were difficult to repair. The Tiger tank required a small army of mechanics to keep it in the field, while the ratio of spares produced was derisory. For every ten Tiger tanks only one spare engine and one transmission were produced. The new heavy tanks were supposed to be repaired at the front line, but the absence of heavy repair equipment or adequate stocks of spare parts meant along trail of tank transporters carrying damaged vehicles back to repair depots in Germany, 2,000 miles away.

Ibid., pp.217-218

OVERTHROWN
03-26-2005, 10:43 PM
Originally Posted by FadeTheButcher
The military slowly built up their version of a heavily bureaucratic command economy, which displayed a ponderous inflexibility beside the enemy. A few hours before the attempt to assassinate Hitler on 20 July 1944, Speer wrote to him that the great strength of the American and Soviet systems was their ability to use 'organisationally simple methods'. He drew a contrast between Germany's 'overbred organisation' and the 'art of improvisation' on the other side. .



I take it this references procurement and/or logistics, because the fighting units had much in the way of flexibility, junior officers were able, and encouraged to, take the initiative, often. Reliance on central/command/control on the battlefield is moreso an allied forte, especially a Soviet one; the US military, today, relies very heavily on centralized command/control, moreso than in world war 2.

cerberus
03-29-2005, 10:44 PM
He did at one time want to go over to Tigers and nothing else, at a time when they were producing about 16 a month.
Guderian made him see that it was a non runner.
He would have needed a heavier tank than the MkIV , the man hours to produce a Tiger , something German could not aford.
Guderian ensure that tank destroyers made use of older items and they filled the gap.
The introduction of the pnather at Kursk and its high rate of mechanical failure- se AH who put off the attack again and again until it mdae no sense in going ahead with it on military grounds .
He squandered everything which Guderian had built with North Africa lost and Stalingrad a mere 6 months before hand.
Stalingrad , North Africa , Kursk , Husky- quite a track record for Hitler in 43 alone.
Add to that the increased heavy bombing by RAF and USAF , defeat in the Atlantic and time wasted in preparing the "Atlantic wall" , not a good year.