When you read the history of WWII, you realize that Hitler had some pretty bad people working for him For example:
-Head of the Airforce (Goering): had been a unit commander in WWI-never promoted to general
-Head of the Foreign Ministry : (Ribbentrop)-he was a former wine salesman, with just a HS education
-head of propaganda (Goebbels): had a Ph.D (philosophy) but no real world experience
-head of the SS (Himmler): former teacher, no experience
How was it that such a regime promoted such mediocrity? Hitler himself had never been promoted past corporal, and had worked as a painter and artist.
The German Army had good leadership, as did the navy-but how did all the other duffers get their jobs?
Probably an “old boys’ club” effect that having been a Nazi Party member going back to the Beer Hall Putsch days counted more for getting a government post than competence.
I dunno, but it seems like he managed to conquer quite a bit of Europe before the war finally started shifting into the Allies favor.
There’s a difference between being short on credentials and being incompetent. As Cerealbox said, the Nazi war machine performed quite well at the start of the war. Those at the top were smart enough to understand how airplanes, parachutists, and fully armored divisions could create an entirely new style of warfare. Meanwhile the French were preparing for trench warfare, the Russians were unprepared for everything, and the Polish still relied on their cavalry. (Really!) If the governments in the rest of Europe had been as forward-looking as the Nazis with regards to technology, WWII would never have happened.
John Bredin nailed it. Cerealbox’ comment miss the fact that the Nazi leadership didn’t conquer quite a bit of Europe, the military leadership did. The more the Nazi leadership was involved the more terrible the outcome. For instance, Göring – or should I call him Meier – was quite involved from the beginning and that’s the main reason the Luftwaffe soon evaporated. When the tide turned and Hitler became convinced that the military leadership was betraying him, and more and more power was transferred to himself and Himmler for instance (Nazi leadership), the more catastrophic the result. The Nazi leadership wouldn’t have conquered a Polish chicken farm if it wasn’t for the military leadership. They could have *funded *the campaign to conquer it, and *inspired *the nation to feel it was a good idea, but don’t tell me they could have *led *the campaign.
I’ve never had much of an interest in history, so I really shouldn’t be saying anything. However, I do remember reading one analysis on the difference in the chain of command between the US and the Germans. They essentially said something very similar to you. The structure of the top leadership should allow the military to do their jobs the best they can. Once you start trying to micromanage people who are better at their niche than you are, things can start going sour. This, they argued, began to happen towards the end of the war more and more. The sorts of things that a secretary of defense does is very different than the sorts of thing an allied commander or whatever does. But the part where I would differ from you would be in concluding, then, that this is precisely why top leadership DOESN’T NEED TO BE people who worked their way up from the ranks of the military. A top executive is more capable in the position of secretary of defense than a captain because their jobs are actually much more similar. This is true in the business world at least, where being a top executive at a bank makes you more qualified to be a top executive at a Ford or a Honda than an auto mechanic.
I’m sorry, but this is mainly myths. Think about it for a second. In the 1930’s, do you *really *believe that Poland “relied” on cavalry? Fifteen years after the Great War?
Do you *really *believe that WWII would never happened if the rest of Europe had been as forward-looking as the Nazis with regards to technology? Just as an example, did you know that the French tanks were more modern and in just about every respect better than the tin cans German used in 1939?
The contents of your post has nothing to do with the reason WWII happened.
That may or may not be true, but it has very little to do with the Nazi leadership and the military campaign you were talking about.
Like I said, I don’t know much about history. But I saw a map of Europe before the tide started turning and Europe was pretty filled with the Axis. I can’t imagine they were really that incompetent. I don’t think I could capture that much of Europe, but then again I’ve never really tried. And I don’t think that because many of the Nazis didn’t have military qualifications that really is much of an argument for anything. The Allies just subjectively seem like they were some pretty sophisticated military people in their own right, so the fact that they ultimately won the war isn’t shocking to me. I just wish to state my skepticism about the premise of the thread that Nazis really were “so mediocre.”
None of this is correct.
The Nazis were no more forward-looking with regards to technology than any of their opponents, as has been pointed out on this message board probably five hundred times already. We are talking about an armed forces that, for the entire war, relied on horses as their primary means of transport. If you don’t believe me, look it up.
None of the innovative and campaign-winning ideas you actually do mention, related to STYLES of warfare, were the invention of any of the men mentioned in the OP. There isn’t the slightest iota of evidence guys like Ribbentrop, Himmler or Hitler himself were the ones who devised modern concepts of armored warfare.
Pretty good tanks, sure. But for the most part, outdated WWI tank tactics and crappy officers. And, most of the “better’ tanks were slow and unreliable, made for “infantry support” and “breakthroughs” For example, the Char B outgunned and had better armor than any German tank. But it was dreadfully slow, unreliable and was outmaneuvered by smaller lighter tanks with far better tactics and officers. Not to mention the design was a dead end, even captured the Nazis made little use of them. (They were sorta a slower Grant/Lee). Technologically speaking they were outdated, even tho in a nose to nose fight they could kill a PKWIII. The problem was, they almost never had the chance. The PKW III was actually technologically superior.
The SOMUA, altho lighter, was a far better tank( about the same as the PKW III), but the French had only a few hundred of them, and used them poorly. OTOH, the French still had a good number of Renault FT’s in service- which was a technological marvel… in 1917.
So, those "tin cans’ were faster and far more maneuverable than almost anything the French had.
What the OP enumerated were the inner circle of Hitler. These guys owed their positions due to their loyalty more than their abilities (except maybe Geobbels.) The critical aspects of the military (general staff and field marshals down) were handled by professional soldiers. The ministry heads in the civilian sector of the government were headed by competent administrators.
All militaries at that time relied on horse-transport. The German army had more trucks per soldier than any other army. They were certainly forward-looking; they embraced tank warfare in its most effective form, along with (perhaps more importantly) the “combined arms” idea of modern warfare.
They were certainly more forward-looking than the French (Maginot Line) or most other nations at the time.
The Nazi leadership was full of low-lifes because that’s largely the kind of membership they attracted until about 1932, when your average Fritz and Gretl threw their support behind them. Disgruntled war vets and failures in civilian life flocked to the Nazis in the lean years because it offered them the only chance for advancement they’d ever have. Once the Party came to power, they (and everyone else) were free to vent all of the frustration that had been building up since 1918.
Just because the Nazis were low-lifes doesn’t mean they were entirely incompetent, however. Himmler, for example, was a brilliant organizer; Goering knew his aviation, and the air force he created for Hitler was perfect for quick Blitzkrieg campaigns against the East European countries (prior to 1940, no one expected a prolonged war with the Western powers). If he had had the balls to stand up to Hitler, and if Hitler had been willing to listen to his advice, the Me262 would have been put into service as a fighter in 1943, effectively ending the American daylight bombing campaign. Unfortunately for those who had some talent, it was usually restricted to a particular field; Himmler may have been great as head of the Gestapo, but sucked as a battlefield commander in the closing days of the war. Goebbles was outstanding as a propagandist, but hopeless as leader of the Volkssturm.
How does that differ from most governments of most places? They are all made up of people who got their positions through politics and cronyism, and being good at politics does not necessarily call for being good academically, or as a military officer, or anything else really. Brilliant academics, or soldiers, or business men, frequently make lousy politicians and lousy administrators too.
I do not want to say that the Nazi government were particularly competent (though some thought so, especially before the war started), and no doubt some silly mistakes were made (like invading Russia and declaring war on the USA), but I see no great signs that they were generally outstandingly incompetent either.
People like to make a sport of criticizing Nazis for all sorts of stuff, because, after all, who is going to defend them, but their failing wasn’t that they were especially incompetent (or especially unqualified), but that they were evil. A bit more incompetence, and fewer people might have died.
The reverse for the Allied side, and not just on a purely military basis. People who exported iron and other basic commodities to Germany, remember?
Oh for Pete’s sake. You don’t think being buddies during a failed coup attempt, knifing your temporary allies after a win and running targetted racist riots is a little different than a standard cronyism?
Cerealbox’s first post wrt the differences between the German and US command styles is a myth, one propagated by the victors. German officers routinely said things to Hitler’s face and got away with it (especially Guderian and Von Mansetin) athat would have gotten US and British generals cashiered.
I also disagree with the claims that have been made that Goering was poor, he presided over some of the most spectacular victories ever seen in the air.
The Germans were defeated not because of incompetence (though there was plenty of it), but by being continuously worn down by vastly superior forces. Hell, I doubt if the roles had been reversed that US or British leaders would have been any different, probably worse.
The question should not be why Germany lost. It should be, how was she able to fight so well for so long.
But that’s also silly. They put themselves squarely against superior forces by choice.
At the risk of sounding like a Nazi apologist, the resumes the OP listed are rather limited.
Goering was only 25 years old when WWI ended. It would have been very unusual for him to have been promoted to general at such a young age even in wartime. Goering was an experienced pilot and he was picked out to take over command of one of Germany’s most famous units. After the war, Goering worked as a pilot and attended college (where he majored in political science). He joined the Nazi Party in 1922 and held several titles in the organization. He was elected to the Reichstag as a Nazi delegate in 1928.
Ribbentrop had been an Army officer. He was a businessman (he worked in banking and engineering and was not just a wine salesman) who had lived and worked in a number of foreign countries including France, Britain, Canada, the United States, and Turkey.
Goebbels had been a journalist before joining the Nazis in 1924. He worked in the Nazis’ propaganda office and ran the Nazis’ Berlin office. (He was also a skilled politician who had been a member of the Strasser faction but managed to switch sides and survive when he saw Strasser’s power in the party was declining.)
Worked as a staff officer in WWI. Joined the Nazis in 1923. Worked in the propaganda office. His main role however was building up the SS - it had fewer than 300 members when Himmler joined it but over 50000 a few years later when the Nazis took power.
My point is that these guys were all skilled and experienced operators in the Nazi political organization and when the Nazis became the national government it wasn’t a huge transition for them to step into national politics. (Ribbentrop was the exception. He joined the Nazis late - in 1933 - and didn’t rise up through the ranks like the others did. And for that reason, he never had the kind of power the others had.)