View attachment 3291527
Reminds me of this post
I sort-of agree, with exception to paragraph 4 (the one starting "Without Hitler, then"). Hitler had a humiliation fetish. He wasted to make an example of the Juda who had denied him an opportunity to be an artist and he didn't care about saving the German people for something better, like not dying in war. During the 3rd Reich, the most Aryan, and therefore truest Völks, were put on the front lines and ended up suffering the greatest losses. At the time it was believed that this policy would yield the best results because of the natural superiority of the Aryan race: put genetically superior people in battle and they'll be a shoe-in to win. Frankly, this is really short-sighted. Most people in command of the 3rd Reich's forces were war veterans and should have understood that most of war is trying to shoot your enemy and hoping you don't get too unluck too quick. So, it's a crap-shoot who's going to die, and sometimes you are just hanging out to be bullet sponges. Of course, this didn't occur the leaders of the Reich, who thought that Germans were per-destined to take over the world and all they had to do was try; that other races would automatically acknowledge their superiority maybe after a little fighting and the war would be over quickly. Basically, the Reich had unrealistic expectations, betting on German exceptionalism instead of sound military strategy.
Shitty military strategy sealed the fate of both the Hitler's Reich and Stalin's USSR. Because of the Fürer Prizip, when the Allies work hitting Normandy, German Military command had to have Hitler's OK to move troops stationed at other places on the European West coast to respond to the Allies invasion. The Allies weer able to get a beach-head at Normandy because Hitler was not available to give the order and his underlings were too afraid to act with out his instruction; when obviously some guy, leader or not, asleep on sedatives has no special information to add to the need to immobilize troops to where they are needed. In Russia, Stalin was missing during the German Invasion, Barbarossa. For months leading up to the invasion Reports hit the Stalin that there were German troop movements on the boarder and that it looked like the Germans were gearing up for an invasion. Stalin dis-regarded them, thinking, "This is mis-information. Germany can't survive a war on both side of European Continent (what ended it for Germany in WW1), so Hitler can't be planning an invasion, I will do nothing." If I'm leader of our socialist utopia, of course it's nice to be kept in the loop, but I shouldn't have sign off on every little decision made command structure defending the Western boarder. If we need more troops because the Germans look like they're going to invade, then why is now that my job. The general on the Western Boarder of Russia should have that description; that responsibility should be delegated to him. In both situations, the leader has to give consent for what should be done by who responsibility has been delegated to. This is very different from how chain of command worked at the same time in England and United States.
In the English speaking world, "An issue should be dealt with by the most local authority capable of dealing with it." This principle has guided the choice to make the first British Colonies in the New World self sufficient, instead of what every other European colonial power did, force their colonies to be extremely dependent on the home nation back in Europe. While England was most likely ignorant of how this would play out over time, this choice allowed the British colonies that later became the United States to continue to function while England was at war with France and suppressing civil unrest in India. Essentially, it's about delegation. Delegating authority to the who has the most current information and allowing that party the discretion to act on that information. If Germany's generals were allowed the discretion to move troops to squash the Allies Normandy invasion, the work could have gone differently; It would have been much harder for Allies to get a beach head in Europe and it would have cause the Allie to wait to go though Italy to get troops close to Germany, coming though Africa. Going to Italy by Africa would have taken more time to achieve and would have been harder to accomplish because Italy is more strategically isolated relative to France, if Germany is your target. The very same happens in Russia during Barbarossa. Stalin was cought completely off gaurd, and since only his was the judgement that mattered, so was all of the Mother Land. Because, just like Germany, Russias troop movement had to go through the Leader, the newest information on the development German troops looking to invade Russia, was not reacted to until Stalin who was unreachable for a number of days, was able to give the order to retaliate. This failure to act was devastating to Russia. The time where Stalin was unavailable gave German forces time to establish a beach-head and get as far as Crimea and Caucasus.
Obviously both Germans at Normandy and Russians during Barbarossa didn't want their enemies to win. Both Stalin and Hitler can their militaries like private clubs. Hitler would fire anyone who wasn't Aryan enough. He would hand select new hires based on their art taste. Stalin would in paranoid fashion fire anyone who he thought might be gunning to replace him or showed any independence from him. By the end, years of this policy had selected for anyone in command in Russia knowing all too well they'd be fired for acting on their own volition and probably end up dead or in Siberia as a ultimate result. Stalin engendered a culture in the Russian leadership of mindlessly echoing his thoughts and desires. The problem with both of these approaches is that, if someone can replace her, then they are probably equally as competent as you, if not more, for the same job. So, when Stalin thinned the ranks he removed anyone willing to overrule him or act without his explicate consent, he removed the competency from his command structure. Even if it weren't policy, the people in charge of Russia and Germany at the time were so selected to be mindlessly obedient to their nation's leaders, side stepping the actual requirements of the offices that these officials held, no one would dare act on their own. Semyon Timoshenko, Russian military leader of the Russia's boarder with German, should have been able to give orders to his underlings without fear of reprisal. Not allowing distributed decision making in the ranks of the Germans and Russian sealed the fates of both nations during the war.
The English system is fundamentally build on competency. Competency to judge a situation and competence to given an order. A command structure where competency insures your position and duties in a meritocracy. Hitler ran his government with weird ideas of pseudoscience and personal preference for aesthetics. While I hate Niggers as much as any right thinking person, deciding to make a treaty with Russia on weather or not Stalin had detached Aryan ear lobes is simply goofy when you can't even say definitively that if someone has detached ear lobes they are more likely to be trust-worthy. It's a superstitious claim, and such superstitions were the rational for much of Hitler's decision making. Stalin after stealing the Russian leadership for an ailing Lenin was constantly haunted by the thought that his contemporaries may have the same intent towards him. Fearing the worst, Stalin was quick to remove from high positions in the Russian leadership anyone who was competent in fear that they would try to overthrow him. This clearing of ranks didn't exclusively target those suspected of disloyalty, merely anyone who was willing to act independently. Obviously this shows a compete lack of trust or willingness to delegate for fear of being replaced as he had once done. It may be thought of as wise, assuming that is the manner of taking power in Russian system then, however it was not. Soviet Russia had not been around long enough for that to be the culture of the Soviets at that point. The true cost of Stalin's paranoia was allowing the Germans to push into Russia at all. Imagine if Russia had rebutted the attack, and was then free to continue invading into Germany as part of a counter offensive. Russia may have never need to join the Allies and could have taken many of the spoils of the fallen Reich for them selves, not having to share them with US and Britten. When you compare the trust and competence of the meritocracies in the US and Britten, who is the safer bet becomes clear. Whether of not you believe that Niggers are violent savages or that I-ties are not real white people, meritocracies are more successful then the Fürer Prinzib.
en.wikipedia.org
