Hitler. 1936-1945: Nemesis

favour after a long absence, was struck at their first meeting, on 20 February 1943, by the change in Hitler’s physical appearance since the last time he had seen him, back in mid-December 1941: ‘In the intervening fourteen months he had aged greatly. His manner was less assured than it had been and his speech was hesitant; his left hand trembled.’⁸¹

When President Roosevelt, at the end of his meeting to discuss war strategy with Churchill and the Combined Chiefs of Staff at Casablanca in French Morocco between 14 and 24 January 1943, had — to the British Prime Minister’s surprise — announced at a concluding press conference that the Allies would impose ‘unconditional surrender’ on their enemies, it had matched Hitler’s Valhalla mentality entirely⁸² For him, the demand altered nothing. It merely added further confirmation that his uncompromising stance was right. As he told his Party leaders in early February, he felt liberated as a result from any attempts to persuade him to look for a negotiated peace settlement⁸³ It had become, as he had always asserted it would, a clear matter of victory or destruction. Few, even of his closest followers, as Goebbels admitted, could still inwardly believe in the former. But compromises were ruled out. The road to destruction was opening up ever more plainly. For Hitler, closing off escape routes had distinct advantages. Fear of destruction was a strong motivator.

Some of Hitler’s leading generals, most notably Manstein, had tried to persuade him immediately after Stalingrad that he should, if not give up the command of the army, at least appoint a supremo on the eastern front who had his trust. Manstein was the obvious candidate for the post of ‘Supreme Commander in the East’. But Hitler was having none of it. He knew, he said, no commander whom he could trust to take such a command⁸⁴ Probably, as Guderian suspected, Manstein was too independent and forthright in his views for Hitler. After the bitter conflicts over the previous months, he preferred the compliancy of a Keitel to the sharply couched counter-arguments of a Manstein⁸⁵ It meant a further weakening of Germany’s military potential. But Hitler’s instinctive reaction to the disaster at Stalingrad was not to concede anything; he had to wrest back the initiative on the eastern front without delay.

Manstein’s push to retake Kharkhov and reach the Donets by mid-March had been a much-needed success. Over 50,000 Soviet troops had perished⁸⁶ It had suggested yet again to Hitler that Stalin’s reserves must be drying up⁸⁷ His confidence boosted, he returned in mid-March from Vinnitsa to the Wolf’s Lair, as Warlimont put it, ‘with the air of a victorious war-lord, clearly considering himself and his leadership primarily responsible for the favourable turn of events in the East which had temporarily ended the withdrawal after Stalingrad.’⁸⁸ When Goebbels saw him on 19 March, ‘looking extraordinarily fresh and healthy’, he was ‘very happy that he has succeeded in again completely closing the front’.⁸⁹ Immediately, he wanted to go on the offensive. It was important to strike while the Red Army was still smarting from the reversal at Kharkhov. It was also necessary to send a signal to the German population, deeply embittered by Stalingrad, and to the Reich’s allies, that any doubts in final victory were wholly misplaced.

At this point, the split in military planning between the army’s General Staff, directly responsible for the eastern front, and the operations branch of Wehrmacht High Command (in charge of all other theatres) surfaced once more. The planners in the High Command of the Wehrmacht favoured a defensive ploy on all fronts to allow the gradual build-up and mobilization of resources throughout Europe for a later grand offensive. The Army High Command thought differently. It wanted a limited but early offensive. The danger of the defensive strategy, army leaders argued, was the need to commit extensive German forces to the eastern front as long as the Soviet Union posed a threat, thus weakening the defences, notably in the Mediterranean and in western Europe. Stabilizing the eastern front was, therefore, the first priority. A successful offensive was needed to achieve this. Chief of the Army General Staff Kurt Zeitzler had devised an operation involving the envelopment and destruction of a large number of Soviet divisions on a big salient west of Kursk, an important rail junction some 500 miles south of Moscow. Five Soviet armies were located within the westward bulge in the front, around 120 miles wide and 75 miles deep, left from the winter campaign of 1942–3. If victorious, the operation would gravely weaken the Soviet offensive potential.⁹⁰

There was no question which strategy would appeal to Hitler. He swiftly supported the army’s plan for a decisive strike on a greatly shortened front — about 150 kilometres compared with 2,000 kilometres in the ‘Barbarossa’ invasion of 1941. The limited scope of the operation reflected the reduction in German ambitions in the east since June 1941. Even so, a tactical victory through destruction of the Soviet bulge centred on Kursk would have been of great importance. It would, in all likelihood, have eliminated the prospect of any further Soviet offensive in 1943, thereby freeing German troops for redeployment in the increasingly threatening Mediterranean theatre. The order for what was to become ‘Operation Citadel’, issued on 13 March, foresaw a pincer attack by part of Manstein’s Army Group from the south and Kluge’s from the north, enveloping the Soviet troops in the bulge.⁹¹ In his confirmation order of 15 April, Hitler declared: ‘This attack is of decisive importance. It must be a quick and conclusive success. It must give us the initiative for this spring and summer… Every officer, every soldier must be convinced of the decisive importance of this attack. The victory of Kursk must shine like a beacon to the world.’⁹² It was to do so. But hardly as Hitler had imagined.

‘Citadel’ was scheduled to begin in mid-May. But, as in the previous two years, significant delays set in which were damaging to the operation’s success. These were not directly of Hitler’s making. But they did again reveal the serious problems in the military command-structure and process of decision-making. They arose from disputes about timing among the leading generals involved. On 4 May, Hitler met them in Munich to discuss ‘Citadel’.⁹³ Manstein and Kluge wanted to press ahead as soon as possible. This was the only chance of imposing serious losses on the enemy. Otherwise, they argued, it was better to call off the operation altogether. They were seriously worried about losing the advantage of surprise and about the build-up of Soviet forces should there be any postponement. The heavy defeat at Stalingrad and weakness of the southern flank deterred other generals from wishing to undertake a new large-scale offensive so quickly.⁹⁴ Colonel-General Walter Model — known as an especially tough and capable commander, which had helped make him one of Hitler’s favourites, and detailed to lead the 9th Army’s assault from the north — recommended a delay until reinforcements were available.⁹⁵ He picked up on the belief of Zeitzler, also high in favour with Hitler, that the heavy Tiger tank, just rolling off the production lines, and the new, lighter, Panther tank would provide Germany with the decisive breakthrough necessary to regaining the initiative.⁹⁶ Hitler had great hopes of both tanks. He gave Model his backing.

Manstein equivocated. Kluge now came out in favour of Zeitzler’s plan. Guderian, supported by Speer, opposed it, pointing out that the known deficiencies of the Panther could not be ironed out before the offensive, and that, in any case, reserves should be spared for the priority of preparing to repel the inevitable invasion the following year in the west. When, a few days later, Guderian tried to persuade Hitler that an offensive that year in the east was unnecessary, he had the impression that the Fuhrer was non-committal. Perhaps Hitler was indeed getting cold feet about the operation by this time. Or, perhaps, his show of half-heartedness was merely to avoid confrontation with Guderian.⁹⁷ As the weeks rolled by, with further delays, the deteriorating situation in North Africa gave Hitler cause for worry. Would he need to rush troops to the southern theatre who were tied up in ‘Citadel’?⁹⁸

At any rate, on 4 May, he postponed ‘Citadel’ until mid-June. It was then further postponed, eventually getting underway only in early July. Even by that date, fewer Tiger and Panther tanks were available than had been envisaged. And the Soviets, tipped off by British intelligence and by a source within the Wehrmacht High Command, had built up their defences and were ready and waiting.⁹⁹

Meanwhile, the situation in North Africa was giving grounds for the gravest concern. Some of Hitler’s closest military advisers, Jodl among them, had been quietly resigned to the complete loss of North Africa as early as December 1942.¹⁰⁰ Hitler himself had hinted at one point that he was contemplating the evacuation of German troops.¹⁰¹ But no action had followed. He was much influenced by the views of the Commander-in-Chief South, Field-Marshal Kesselring, one of nature’s optimists and, like most in high places in the Third Reich, compelled in any case to exude optimism whatever his true sentiments and however bleak the situation was in reality.¹⁰² In dealings with Hitler — as with other top Nazi leaders whose mentality was attuned to his — it seldom paid to be a realist. Too easily, realism could be seen as defeatism. Hitler needed optimists to pander to him — yet another form of ‘working towards the Fuhrer’. In the military arena, this reinforced the chances of serious strategic blunders.

In March, buoyed by Manstein’s success at Kharkhov, Hitler had declared that the holding of Tunis would be decisive for the outcome of the war. It was, therefore, a top priority.¹⁰³ With the refusal to