>>514670337
>That's what they said in their memoirs.
Nope. All war diaries (e.g. Engel, Halder) and eye witness accounts agree about the conflicts in Hitler's staff. It's really not in dispute
>the generals' desire to have a big parade in Moscow, which was stupid
I've already presented arguments that is wasn't. All German generals who weren't yes men agree. Like those yes-men, you've given no arguments beyond 'the Fuhrer was right'. This is going nowhere
> Moscow had only been the capital since 1918, aka 23 entire years
During which they built a highly centralized state with the capital at its center. Again, you're not presenting any arguments to counter mine
>they would've been stuck there as that big counteroffensive surrounded them - Stalingrad, times 10
Wait - you're comparing Stalingrad - a massively fortified position which the Germans assaulted - to a hypothetical counteroffensive by Russians in - by them presumably heavily fortified - Moscow?
>Again this is all postwar cope
Again, the divisions between the general staff and the dilettante Hitler are well documented at the time, beyond memoirs and such
In fact, the cope is all yours, because you have to twist facts (mostly by denying them) in such a way that the infallible Fuhrer was right after all
These are the mental gymnastics I talked about here >>514657621, it's not just Directive 33 and the very obvious and massive blunder of halting the Moscow advance, you display the same desperate cope when trying to explain away Dunkirk and Directive 45 (Stalingrad)