Hitler as a Military Leader - Essay Example

?Hitler as a military leader Simply by mentioning Adolf Hitler’s has the instantaneous effect of conjuring up images of a monstrous force. Surprisingly, there was been little said about his ability as a military leader. Was the man simply conveniently described by his staff as ‘one of the greatest generals of all time’ or were the victories that the man takes responsibility for just a stroke of luck? This paper aims to evaluate and analyze the key strengths which made Hitler a successful leader and the weaknesses that constituted to flaws in his leadership style. Despite the fact that his atrocities during World War 2 will always be remembered one cannot overlook the fact that Hitler did possess military strength as a leader. His uncanny ability to be able to store precise details regarding historical information, technical facts, statistics and past details, to memory served as a primary asset to plot his military strategy (Schramm, 1971). This uncanny ability combined with his excessive reading hobby compensated for his lack of education. Irving, who highlights this enhanced retentive ability that Hitler possessed and how advantageous it was by giving an example: After he would read through the Red Book of arms, that he received he each month, he would write down figures and run his eyes over the columns. It was after this that he would throw away the paper however the numbers stayed indelibly in his memory, year after year. One incident is reported where he was able to correct a printing error made in a current Red Book: where an eight was printed instead of a three. These columns of figures he was able to recall from the previous month’s edition. This technical ability further served him well as far as comprehending technical incidents and issues with armaments was concerned. His extensive knowledge and capabilities of weaponry benefited Germany. This can be seen in the way the idea of mounting long barrel guns in tanks was Hitler’s idea. Also he was able to point out several flaws in Germany’s warship design, particularly because it was built so low that it would have sunk below the waves in heavy seas. Furthermore his knowledge of armament, the velocity at which warships travelled, demolition, fortification and a variety of guns was an asset and great contribution to the war effort, which was even more amazing considering he had no prior education in technology. It was due to this knowledge that he could, in mere instances, analyze the enemy’s weapon systems, calculate the impact they would have and compare it to figures pertaining to their own war production (Ibid and Schramm, 1958). Experience was also another key contributing element that made Hitler such a brilliant leader, as he gained sufficient knowledge when he served as a common soldier in World War 1, where he received the Iron Cross First class, Germany’s highest decoration. This experience enabled him to analyze the battle from the perspective of a soldier and gain an understanding of how fighting at the front lines would feel like. Marshal and Manstein’s analysis of Hitler’s characteristic pertaining to being a good military leader, are primarily his will power, nerves of steel and impressive intelligence. However a point of disagreement between the two is that on Hitler’s ‘self proclaimed sense of identification’, or the compassion he had for the front-line soldier. He consistently related his character, thoughts and emotions to those of a mere soldier despite the fact that he had little in common with one. Furthermore his notions of human losses being merely figures that reflected the weakening of one’s fighting power seemed unlikely to serve as a serious base to disturb him as a human being (Manstein, 2004). Another strength that is worth mentioning which Hitler possessed was his ability to converse and explain concepts fully by molding them to the mentality of their audience. He could hold discussions with industrialists about technical matters, talk to diplomats about politics, or even discuss complex problems effectively to a common worker. Hitler made use of this talent by building his self-confidence and being well versed in topics like art, literature or music, so that he would not be intimidated when interacting with individuals with higher cultural or educational backgrounds. Similarly he used this skill to be mentally prepared for counter-arguments by knowing the reason for why an individual wanted to meet him; this way he was able to persuade people to accept his point of view by convincing them of his sound logic and reason (Guderian, 1952). Along with all his strengths there are several weaknesses that are a prominent part of his character which deter the very foundation of his effectiveness as a leader. Some of these weaknesses take root simply as a drawback of his previously mentioned strengths; for example, his exceptional memory that allowed him to commit specific details to memory, led him to formulate a distrusting attitude towards his officers. This was simply because if they deviated from what they had previously reported to him, he would recall the exact details, and then begin to believe that they were intentionally misleading him. This mistrust took away the very essence of his leadership – delegating responsibility and allowing subordinates the freedom to decide on certain issues through their own experience and knowledge acquired on the battlefield. Roper elaborates on this weakness by stating Hitler isolated himself by firmly believing that unless he stringently commanded other men would ‘blunder into war’ and war was too serious a business to be left to generals, or anyone other than himself. His ability to not trust his generals was also based on the fact that he himself had been successful in his initial war years, a success that he achieved by going against what his supervisors advised him. Based on these achievements his self confidence grew exponentially until he began to view himself as a true military genius. It was this overconfidence and mistrust was the main reason as to why he immersed himself so completely in military matters. This is how he would organize his Supreme Command so that it was only his input on which a grand strategy was based and as a result his commanders often had no idea about where the troops were assigned and what were the various areas of responsibility. Furthermore this led to a number of heated arguments between Hitler and his subordinates, many of which escalated to the point where they either resigned or were replaced. There were also several flaws pertaining to his leadership ability. The experience during the First World War that he acquired, although helpful, had several limitations; He might’ve served as a frontline soldier however he had no experience when it came to commanding troops in battle and he was also never a staff officer, which left his ability to logically analyze a military situation from the perspective of a seasoned military officer, diminished. Hitler also constantly compared their own war production with that of the enemies and focused all efforts in dispatching new weaponry to the front. His regard for supply, logistics, sustainment and most importantly failed to consider whether the men who were to use these weapons completely trained or not. Such was his urgency that testing these weapons prior to their use in the battlefield was also ignored. This would result in their enemy’s superior performance, a notion he was unwilling to accept despite reliable reports (Irving, 1952). Another major fault that Hitler as a military leader faced was his focus on attaining victory in the battlefield through his power of will. He believed that if his will was strong enough and could be felt by every last soldier on the battlefield, they too would understand how significant victory was and therefore be successful. Manstein, points out a major flaw of this belief being Hitler’s overestimation of his own will. He believed that it was the sole reason that influenced his decisions on the battlefield to the point that he ignored any advice he got from others and refused to face reality. Manstein further point out how differently Hitler’s concept of will power was. He focused his will being his own ‘mission’ whereas normally the concept pertained to giving a commander the ability to see grave crises through. Hitler’s self consumed concept made him impervious to reason and led him to assume that his will operates outside the scope of hard reality. This belief in turn distanced him from his generals; success he would associate as a result of the power of his will; failure however was mostly because of his general’s lack of will. All things concerned Hitler’s ability as a military leader was for the most part a manifestation of his innate abilities, habits and acquired experience which facilitated his ability to command. He was intelligent, proactive and experienced. However he was also overconfident, stubborn and paranoid. He was a brilliant strategist however he did not possess skill in the mechanics of warfare, a key weakness that his innate strategic talents would not atone for completely and yet his military might as a leader is undeniable. References Schramm, Percy. Hitler: The Man and the Military Leader. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. 1971. Irving, David. Hitler’s War. New York: Viking Press, 1977. Schramm and Ibid. Hitler: The Man and the Military Leader. Lost Victories. Chicago: Regnery. 1958. Manstein, E. Hitler as Supreme Commander. Lost Victories. 2004 Heinz Guderian, H., Leader. Lost Victories. 1952. Irving, H. Hitler A Study in Tyranny. London: Odhams Press. 1952. Read More