• Frostbeard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Dont understand why you get downvoted, as I assume you mean that the generals wrwe not strategical and tactical terrible. Think most historians will agree that Hitlers direct involvement in the war was a growing issue in conducting the war. Also Hitler stayed in power by making sure that the levels below him were at each others throats and not able to challenge him directly. Nazi Germany was not technically on a war economy until Speer took over, and the amount of corruption was immens.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Think most historians will agree that Hitlers direct involvement in the war was a growing issue in conducting the war.

      This part has been revisited in the decades since the end of the Cold War. The problem was that most western sources were either written by the Allies or were from German generals who survived. In a repudiation of “history is written by the victors” (a phrase that should be expunged in general), almost everything known about the eastern front came from the German side of the story.

      Those generals tended to point fingers at Hitler. Everything would have been dandy if they were the ones in charge.

      Then the Cold War ends, and there’s a flood of new information from the Russian side of things. Western historians start going over the new information, and some new conclusions start to come out. Hitler did fuck a lot of things up personally, but those German generals were full of shit in other ways.