Did Hitler pivot to Stalingrad because he was a little bitchboi? He said in speeches it was about him being a military genius and making unpredictable moves.

Why did he go rogue and not listen to the generals? 50/50 in the Spring of '42 he throws everything all at once at Moscow and win or lose the war is over. Bit increased odds of winning.

Why was he being so retarded?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49157727)

So he shows up too late for his offensive and the winter pwns him. But in the Spring of 42 he pivots South. This was the worst military idea in world history. He should have gone all in on Moscow. By most accounts the Soviet Union could not functional at all without Stalin.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49157753)

It's because "Adolf Hitler" was actually a Zionist construct who was completely under the control of his Jewish puppetmasters. They told him what to do, and he just mindlessly danced for them to serve Jewish interests.

In fact, no Western leader in at least 1,000+ years hasn't been completely in thrall to the unbeatable and all-powerful Jews who control the world and are always 6,000,000 steps ahead of everyone else.

Don't you understand this yet, you stupid goy? There's no use in fighting back... it's already over, in fact it's been over for centuries now! Just give up already and accept eternal Jewish rule forever, you dumb fucking cattle piece of shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49157738)

EDIT: Shit, sorry, I forgot to switch over to my "cock of michael obama" monicker hehe. ;)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49157739)

Hitler unironically in his attempt to fight back against the decadence of the Weimar era and what he perceived to be the imminent threat of Judeo-Bolshevism thrust his country deeper into actual Communism, a total lack of sovereignty over foreign affairs, and multicultural nonsense than he could have possibly imagined. If Hitler saw Berlin today he would kill himself in shame all over again.

I'm not sure where you interpreted anything I said as don't ever fight back against Jewish power. The point of the OP is that Hitler was at times a retarded military strategist. I don't think that's debated by any serious historian. By the end of the war he was bribing his generals with cash payments and promises of a massive pension after the war for fighting the battles he felt like fighting even though Mannstein knew his strategy was retarded. No Jew made Hitler bungle the war hth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49157752)

(Just an objective bro, spitting cold hard facts)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49158248)

There weren't many communist influences at all in Hitler's economic ministry. The "socialism" part of National Socialism largely died with the night of the long knives and the purge of Rohm and the populist SA

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49159443)

Im unaware of any strong evidence supporting your idea that had only moscow fallen the soviets would have capitulated.

I find the theory more convincing that the entire moscow gambit was misguided from the start and army group south should have been prioritized from day 1 of barb. If stalingrad had fallen the wehrmacht could have proceeded down the volga and cut off the caucasus and given access to caspian oil fields. This would actually confer a material benefit to the axis and a matetial hindrance to the soviets far in excess of losing some factories and landmarks in moscow (albeit tough to say how long it would take to get caucausian oil on-line) rather than holding on to a pilitical husk in northern russia, which of course was unattainable any way.

U also assume it was even possible to begin with which is extremely dubious.

Ignoring practicalities like possibility, what specifically makes you think think capturing moscow would lead to capitulation?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49157865)

How sure was anyone that if you cut off the supply line to the Caucuses that it decimates Russian tank capability? Also the added risk of pushing so deep into Russia was too precarious.

You take Moscow and Saint Petersburg you have territory the Russians can never retake. Shattered command structure. You might not be able to chase the remnant army all the way back to Siberia but you hold onto the main population centers, capture all leadership, prepare for a counter-offensive from a shattered and disorganized force.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49158185)

Taking Moscow in 1941 (or later in the war) (a) would have been extraordinairly costly and (b) would not have done much for Germany's odds of winning the war. Keep in mind that they got within a few miles of Moscow. It wouldn't have made a difference if they got a few miles further and took the city.

In 1812, someone (Russia? France? Both?) burned Moscow, and the Russian response amounted to "LJL, get wrecked, we'll deal and you won't," which turned out to be accurate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49159409)

As bad as the supply lines were to Moscow they couldn't have been any better to Stalingrad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49159500)

The US and Russia were the two world superpowers after the world. A country with Germany's limited resources never had a chance of beating both of them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49157923)

Germany never had a chance, they were set up as a blood sacrifice to Yahweh regardless of anything Hitler did or didn't do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49158190)

Historian accounts say that he would've refused to leave; his generals tried to evacuate him to the east a few times but he rejected these proposals for stubborn morale reasons

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49159433)

The Wehrmacht was perpetually running low on petrol and machine parts during the push east and this caused some warp in German strategic planning. The coal to oil mfg process wasn't in full swing until iirc 44 and by that point it was too late to make up for logisitical shortcomings

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49159425)

This dude was the polar opposite of Bismarck. Absolutely no feel for strategy. Totally unwilling to listen to his generals. He wouldn't do strategic retreats because he didn't want the public to be ashamed of Germany losing territory as if people could have cared less.

Very weird guy, war was totally winnable if played strategically and not ideologically.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49159488)

Also he wasted way too much time and manpower in North Africa and should’ve been in Russia sooner

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5758486&forum_id=2).#49165660)