4 ms·

> Your idea is not valuable, at all. All value is in the execution. This is oft repeated, but not always true. Take the Nazis (bear with me). The Nazis had th

by bambax 9y ago

> Your idea is not valuable, at all. All value is in the execution. This is oft repeated, but not always true. Take the Nazis (bear with me). The Nazis had the best execution ever. They almost drowned the whole British army, which had previously conquered the world. While fighting battles all over Europe and being one of the most bombarded country in history, they continued to produce tanks, planes, submarines, operate a bureaucracy until the very end, invent bombs and other systems that befuddled all other nations. Yet they lost the war. The reason they lost the war is, their idea was so bad, people everywhere were willing to die to make it fail. An excellent idea can survive a bad execution for some time. A terrible idea will ultimately fail, no matter the execution.

jimktrains2 9y ago
Or they lost the war because of bad execution. They had feifdom fights in the upper ranks and Hitler wasn't able to have anyone tell him he had bad ideas (e.g. war on two fronts and locking tanks in Paris instead of letting them be commanded as needed during d-day (which again came down to infighting)). Germany was also being worn thin on supplies. It's not as if they were in perfect shape minus allied bombings. Also, the Nazi ideals weren't terrible in the way a business idea was terrible. Many people bought into it.
- blacksqr 9y ago
  You clearly need to re-read John Gill.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    You're going to have to flush out your meaning more. Are you implying Nazi Germany didn't make quite a few large mistakes that are often pointed to as how they lost momentum and failed to repel D-Day?
mLuby 9y ago
That Nazis were extremely efficient is a myth, which makes sense if you think about how they organized their government/economy. [1][2] Though they were effective at killing large numbers of (defenseless) people… Also they didn't lose the war because of some flaw in their ideology, they lost due to manpower and industrial shortages (inflicted by Soviet and Allied militaries) that limited their ability to wage war. For more, I recommend watching the Hitler Channel (err History Channel). [3] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-nazis/2017/10/20/f4463dea-b2b5-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.8cb6fb1d390d https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths... [2] http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20170903-why-people-think-germans-are-so-efficient http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20170903-why-people-think-ge... [3] https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii
valuearb 9y ago
Terrible analogy. Nazi execution was horrible post invasion of France. Hitler's conservative generals hadn't foreseen how effective their blitzkrieg tactics were at the beginning of the war. That justified his own delusional view of his own greatness and Nazi superiority, even though he & the Nazi's had nothing to do with the success, it came from german armies brilliant strategies/tactics/training/soldiers and preparation. So then Hitler stopped listening to his generals, and went on to micromanage the war, and made one terrible decision after another. • Not invading Britain before starting a war with the USSR, where Germany was outnumbered by over 3-1. • Focusing the Russian invasion n Moscow instead of the far more important strategic objective of Kursk's oil fields. Not only did Germany needed more oil, but Kursk was also nearly the USSR's only supply. They got close to Kursk, but didn't destroy tthe oil fields when they fell short, and Germany's war efforts was handicapped by oil shortages the rest of the war. Your air force can't use it's superiority if it can't leave the ground, and neither can your tank commanders if their tanks can't start. • Sending a million man army to attack Stalingrad when it had little strategic value, then abandoned it, losing every single man. When you are outnumbered 3-1, you can't fight wars of attrition, every man counts. • Rejected the Army's plan to liberate Ukrainians and recruit them to fight as allies against the USSR. This would have almost evened the man-power disadvantage with a fresh supply of soldiers who hated the USSR. Instead he declared them sub-human, ordering them liquidated to make "living space" for Germany, and turned Ukrainian resistance behind German lines into a devastatingly powerful asset of the USSR. • Ordered the ME-262, by far the worlds fastest fighter, to be launched with bomb mounts that slowed it substantially so it could only be used as fighter bomber, while Germany was being bombed relentlessly and had lost command of it's own skies. • Wasting huge amounts of resources on wonder-weapons such as the V1, V2, that had almost no impact on the Allies war efforts. • Also includes the Maus and Tiger Tanks, which sucked resources away from building more of their best tank, the Panther.
- bambax 9y ago
  Most of these examples are strategic mistakes, not execution. Execution means, the ability to do what you set out to do. Not focusing on the right objective is not, IMHO, an execution problem. It's a vision problem, a leadership failure.

by bambax 9y ago

jimktrains2 9y ago

Or they lost the war because of bad execution. They had feifdom fights in the upper ranks and Hitler wasn't able to have anyone tell him he had bad ideas (e.g. war on two fronts and locking tanks in Paris instead of letting them be commanded as needed during d-day (which again came down to infighting)). Germany was also being worn thin on supplies. It's not as if they were in perfect shape minus allied bombings. Also, the Nazi ideals weren't terrible in the way a business idea was terrible. Many people bought into it.

blacksqr 9y ago
You clearly need to re-read John Gill.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  You're going to have to flush out your meaning more. Are you implying Nazi Germany didn't make quite a few large mistakes that are often pointed to as how they lost momentum and failed to repel D-Day?

mLuby 9y ago

That Nazis were extremely efficient is a myth, which makes sense if you think about how they organized their government/economy. [1][2] Though they were effective at killing large numbers of (defenseless) people… Also they didn't lose the war because of some flaw in their ideology, they lost due to manpower and industrial shortages (inflicted by Soviet and Allied militaries) that limited their ability to wage war. For more, I recommend watching the Hitler Channel (err History Channel). [3] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-nazis/2017/10/20/f4463dea-b2b5-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.8cb6fb1d390d https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths... [2] http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20170903-why-people-think-germans-are-so-efficient http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20170903-why-people-think-ge... [3] https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii

valuearb 9y ago

Terrible analogy. Nazi execution was horrible post invasion of France. Hitler's conservative generals hadn't foreseen how effective their blitzkrieg tactics were at the beginning of the war. That justified his own delusional view of his own greatness and Nazi superiority, even though he & the Nazi's had nothing to do with the success, it came from german armies brilliant strategies/tactics/training/soldiers and preparation. So then Hitler stopped listening to his generals, and went on to micromanage the war, and made one terrible decision after another. • Not invading Britain before starting a war with the USSR, where Germany was outnumbered by over 3-1. • Focusing the Russian invasion n Moscow instead of the far more important strategic objective of Kursk's oil fields. Not only did Germany needed more oil, but Kursk was also nearly the USSR's only supply. They got close to Kursk, but didn't destroy tthe oil fields when they fell short, and Germany's war efforts was handicapped by oil shortages the rest of the war. Your air force can't use it's superiority if it can't leave the ground, and neither can your tank commanders if their tanks can't start. • Sending a million man army to attack Stalingrad when it had little strategic value, then abandoned it, losing every single man. When you are outnumbered 3-1, you can't fight wars of attrition, every man counts. • Rejected the Army's plan to liberate Ukrainians and recruit them to fight as allies against the USSR. This would have almost evened the man-power disadvantage with a fresh supply of soldiers who hated the USSR. Instead he declared them sub-human, ordering them liquidated to make "living space" for Germany, and turned Ukrainian resistance behind German lines into a devastatingly powerful asset of the USSR. • Ordered the ME-262, by far the worlds fastest fighter, to be launched with bomb mounts that slowed it substantially so it could only be used as fighter bomber, while Germany was being bombed relentlessly and had lost command of it's own skies. • Wasting huge amounts of resources on wonder-weapons such as the V1, V2, that had almost no impact on the Allies war efforts. • Also includes the Maus and Tiger Tanks, which sucked resources away from building more of their best tank, the Panther.

bambax 9y ago
Most of these examples are strategic mistakes, not execution. Execution means, the ability to do what you set out to do. Not focusing on the right objective is not, IMHO, an execution problem. It's a vision problem, a leadership failure.