Hail Harbo

October 23rd, 2015 at 9:33 AM ^

Actually it read Brady Hoke is Stupid and not a nice guy.*

*And no, he's not a Nazi even though he was compared to a Nazi.  The author could have used a similarly stupid military metaphor, Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812.  But let's face it, Grande Armee doesn't sell nearly as well as Stupid Nazi.

It probably should be added that when somebody is trying to sell the idea that somebody else is stupid while using an historic metaphor, they probably should be accurate about what they write. (Germany invaded the Soviet Union June of 1941, not late summer 1942).

Hail Harbo

October 23rd, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^

There is no way Germany wins a war against Russia no matter if Hitler does or doesn't listen to his generals.  They simply never had the economy, logistics or manpower to sustain such an endeavor.

In fact early decisions to overrule his senior military staff and success thereof mboldened him to overrule them later in more dire times. 

flashOverride

October 23rd, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^

Victory was not out of the question. As I said below, had Hitler been willing to accept a more limited definition of victory it may have been conceivable, albeit still not guaranteed. Something more like Japan's strategy: it acknolwedged that bringing the US to the negotiating table was unlikely, so it instead sought to launch a quick, debilitating strike, capture the areas it wanted, and then set up a defensive perimeter it could hold indefinitely. A scenario in which the Germans focused on just Moscow or the south and were able to draw the Red Army into a final decisive battle that ends with the Soviets' offensive capabilities destroyed and their industrial and rail networks hobbled and Germany in permanent possession of massive tracts of Russian territory, but there are still enough reserves left to prevent further German gains, doesn't seem crazy farfetched. But Hitler wanted comprehensive destruction of the Soviet Union and that was indeed outside the Wehrmacht's capabilities.  

FrankMurphy

October 23rd, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^

Keep in mind that Germany reached the gates of Moscow within four months of invading the USSR and had Stalin's armies on the ropes early (owing mostly to the fact that Stalin was totally shocked and caught completely off guard by Hitler's betrayal). While you're probably right that a long-term occupation of the USSR would not have been sustainable, if Hitler has taken Moscow, the war would likely have been even longer and more destructive than it ended up being.

The Mad Hatter

October 23rd, 2015 at 12:19 PM ^

Was willing to negotiate a peace deal with Germany in 1941, 1942, and some even say as late as 43. Had Hitler been willing to reach a settlement similar to WWI on the eastern front, he would have been able to consolidate his gains and move forces to the west, Africa, and the middle east. He also could have taken Moscow in 41 if he had just sealed off Kiev instead of wasting a month taking the city.

jmblue

October 23rd, 2015 at 1:54 PM ^

Yeah, but in all likelihood, any peace deal would not have lasted long.  It would have just been about buying the two sides breathing room before hostilities recommenced.  Stalin was not going to permanently accept a major loss of territory.  And Hitler had demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that his word could never be trusted.

 

flashOverride

October 23rd, 2015 at 5:21 PM ^

Right, but Army Group Center was on its last legs when it reached the outskirts of Moscow. My point was that had Moscow been the sole main objective all along, it may have been captured and the bulk of the Red Army destroyed fighting for it. The diversion of armored strength to Army Group South to help close off the salient around Kiev in late August and September (and Hitler's two weeks of dithering in early August) delayed the drive on Moscow by a month. Had Hitler just let the generals run it, then yes, they may indeed have taken Moscow, and before the autumn rains or winter snows could save the Soviets. 

Hail Harbo

October 23rd, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^

Agreed, Operation Barbarossa, did start on June 22, 1941.  However the author said the failure of Stalingrad was predicated by the late summer invasion of Russia.  The reader is left to conclude that the author is stating the invasion of Russia commenced during the summer of 1942 and or that the lateness of the invasion of Russia led to the debacle of Stalingrad.  The problem is that neither conclusion is true.  

flashOverride

October 23rd, 2015 at 10:58 AM ^

Granted, June is not late summer, but historians have long noted one of the biggest problems with Barbarossa was that even with an "everything goes right" timetable it would still have taken four months to destroy a force as massive as the Red Army, which leaves right about where we are now as the earliest possible time frame for wrapping up the campaign. That leaves almost no possibility of avoiding the very wet Russian autumn, and while we might say, "What's the big deal with some rain?", we live in a time and place with the Interstate Highway System, not a land of vast empty spaces with paved roads outside of cities all but nonexistent. For a long time the Yugoslav campaign in April was blamed for the late start, but in reality the spring thaw was late and Barbarossa couldn't have begun much earlier than it did.

This could have been compensated for had Hitler agreed to what many of his generals wanted - a less ambitious campaign that instead of fanning out into the vastness of Russia, rather attempted to draw the Soviets into a more concentrated, decisive battle for a single major strategic goal, with Moscow the obvious choice. But, like always, Hitler wanted it all, with three axes of advance - one aimed at Leningrad, one at Moscow, and one capturing Ukraine and the southern industrial heartland. This dispersion of the Wehrmacht's striking power, this forgoing of one of the key components of blitzkrieg's hitherto wildly successful formula, schwerpunkt - the sole emphasis on a chosen focal point over all else - made victory all but impossible from the start. This overly ambitious approach over "Let's just stick with what we already know works" is what makes the writer's comparison valid to me. 

TdK71

October 23rd, 2015 at 11:38 AM ^

on May21st 1941... but the Italians ran into issues securing the southern flank by taking Yugoslavia this caused Hitler to divert part of Army Group South to finish what Bennie started, this pushed the timetable back a month and lost time proved invaluable when the fall rains came.  

BornInAA

October 23rd, 2015 at 7:44 AM ^

So after having numerous threads about what Hoke said and Rose and Webber said, we will now have numerous threads about what each blogger hack said about what they said.

pkatz

October 23rd, 2015 at 7:54 AM ^

Did you read the article? If not, you should - it is exceedingly well written. I thought this line regarding Brady's inability to make a rationale decision was excellent:

You see a problem, and think, "I should probably set it on fire and put it on my head."



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

StephenRKass

October 23rd, 2015 at 11:54 AM ^

Not a spelling error. You spelled rationale correctly. The problem isn't the spelling. The problem is the use of the wrong word.

And the irony is that you're trying to make a point about how stupid Hoke is. I get that your belief is that Hoke is stupid, a point of view which I don't share. But at least try not to look stupid yourself if the point of your post is to highlight someone else's stupidity. Have some personal pride, my man. You went to Michigan, after all, right?

pkatz

October 23rd, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^

You are certainly on a roll here. Yes, I graduated from Ross, and I actually do know the difference and owned up to making an error.

What's up Stevie? Are you in a down biorhythm cycle? Dog run away? Cheer up, mate... maybe you'll actually get some this weekend and can stop being so angry at the world.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

StephenRKass

October 23rd, 2015 at 4:49 PM ^

I'm actually fine with the world. I get annoyed by those who feel the need to pile on Hoke. But, it is a topic about Michigan football, so it is relevant, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Beyond that, I don't have to click on a thread if I don't want to read it. Lord knows I've told others that. Just follow my own advice! For the most part, I can avoid the Hoke bashing threads, but like a moth to the flame, I was curious with the thread title so made the fated click.

EDIT:  FTR, I didn't neg you.

bluelaw2013

October 23rd, 2015 at 8:00 AM ^

They'll come to MGoBlog for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up your threads not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive as innocent as children, longing for the past. "Of course, we won't mind if you look around", you'll say. "We've been commenting about this one person/topic/issue for days now." They'll pass over their own comments without even thinking about it: for it is hot takes they have and peace they lack. And they'll look out to the upvotes; sit inside typing on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved accounts logged in somewhere, where they signed in when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the next game and some dumb shit to talk about will happen again and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces.

JamieH

October 23rd, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^

NOT know what is being referenced here? 

 

Have I really gotten so old that I'm now surrounded by people that can't recgnize one of the most famous speeches in sports movie history because the film is "too old"? 

 

Sigh.

Qonas

October 23rd, 2015 at 7:49 AM ^

Jane's the best. And I feel where she's coming from, my History degree is just up on my wall collecting dust and just itching to find random opportunities to somehow be of use.

Also I may or may not have written several paragraphs comparing the Michigan program to Gondor.