Hitler's biggest strategic mistake in WW2?

IMO, Hitler's gravest mistake was failing to harness the peoples of eastern Europe and Russian anti-communists against Stalin to defeat Russia in 1941-42. Had Russia collapsed could Britain and its allies have continued a war? Would Germany have then been able to obtain access to Middle-eastern oil, or would it have needed to given Russian oil reserves? Would it have been a simple matter to attack England using Russian war materiel? Without the UK could the US have been able to fight a European war against Germany?

Any other suggestions for Hitler's biggest strategic mistake?

 

Welcome aboard, Cat! Hope you enjoy yourself here!

But there's a very recent thread about the same thing, why don't you take a look and make a comment there?

The List (List of mistakes).

 

Hardly his greatest mistake. I would think, and I would say that many would agree, that Hitler's greatest single mistake was declaring war on the United States. This gave the Soviet economy more than a 30% boost through Lend Lease. It was the major cause of defeat for the Germans in North Africa. This resulted in an almost immediate increase in Allied forces by,initially, 6 French divisions equipped with US material and more later.
The list of how this effected Germany is nearly endless. Had Hitler been able to recruit more widely among Eastern populations he still would have faced opposition to some degree. He still would have had endless problems arming these additional troops. Integrating them in German units would have been difficult. Having them form ethnically based units also created problems. All of these problems were originally present when the Germans did recruit among these populations. Just look at units like the Waffen SS Handschar division of Muslims as a single example of a problem that was far more widespread.
Hitler would have gained little in the long run in this area. It certainly was not his most serious mistake. It probably doesn't even rank in the top ten.

 

I don't think that this was his biggest mistake.

Lend-lease was in place before Hitler declared war, and looking at the big picture, I doubt that Hitler's war declaration changed too much on the U.S. attitude, except maybe speeding up the U.S decission to fight him, that's all. If Hitler wouldn't have declared war, the U.S. would have done exactely what they did before: fighting Germany short of war, and sooner or later (I suspect sooner) they would have found a nice reason to go to war with Germany anyway.

Germany was on the list, it was so 100% contrary to anything the U.S. stands for, war was ineviatable. Hitler knew it, Roosefeld knew it.


Ah, and Hitler's biggest mistake in my books:
1.) Not getting the throat full enough and invading Poland against all risks

2.) Not forcing GB into peace at a time when they they felt desperate enough to accept it (early summer 1940).

3.) Invading the USSR instead of waiting for them to invade (maybe).

4.) Yes, maybe tthe declaration of war onthe U.S.

Cheers,

 

I think the BIGGEST mistake was a lack of armaments production. It is grotesque that the maximum of German production was reached in 1944, when the war was almost over! If the Germans would have started to produce masses of arms not in 1942, but 1940, the war could have run very different.

Btw, when did the Land Lease from the USA to the Soviets start?

 

Why should Germany have started to produce masses of weapons in 1940 (after France)? The only way to crush the Soviets was by a Blitzkrieg, because you can't win against them in a long war of attrition anyway?

Cheers,

 

Why should Germany have started to produce masses of weapons in 1940 (after France)? The only way to crush the Soviets was by a Blitzkrieg, because you can't win against them in a long war of attrition anyway?

Cheers, </font>[/QUOTE]Lol, you're arguing in exactly the same way as they did at that time, but this time, the answer is quite obvious, isn't it?

If they had built more weapons since 1940, they would have had already more for Barbarossa, more forces for Africa, more forces to (in case of failure) save at least a draw against the Russians (which Manstein intended in 1943), more fighters to defend against British & American bombers etc.

 

Why should Germany have started to produce masses of weapons in 1940 (after France)? The only way to crush the Soviets was by a Blitzkrieg, because you can't win against them in a long war of attrition anyway?

Cheers, </font>[/QUOTE]Lol, you're arguing in exactly the same way as they did at that time, but this time, the answer is quite obvious, isn't it?

If they had built more weapons since 1940, they would have had already more for Barbarossa, </font>[/QUOTE]Big time for Monday morning Quarterbacking, huh?

When in 1940 did Hitler decided to carry out "Barbarossa"?

When in 1940 did Hitler decided to fight in Africa?

For "Barbarossa, see above. Did Mantein intended to save a draw agianst the Russians back in 1940, too?

American bombers in 1940?

After France, Hitler de-mobilized his Army and ordered to change his amrmament programme to fighters, start bombers, navy, paras etc., i.e. things you need to fight Britain.

Actually you seem to blame Hitler and all others for not beeing seers with a crystal ball, he did not have the hindsight you have.

Cheers,

[ 02. November 2003, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

AndyW,

Barbarossa was Hitler's very program. He knew he would do it sooner or later. He just thought not too need many weapons, because the Red Army to be soooo weak.

And he still was at war with Great Britain... don't you think that it's wise in a war with unpredictable process to produce rather more weapons than less?

Your reasoning possibly would apply if Hitler would have been ambushed by another opponent he didn't expect. This was not the case, all of his opponents (except GB and France) were his very own choice

 

AT THE TIME (which is always the problem with the what-ifs) it seemed very logic that Germany didn't need a big ammount of weaponry in 1940. Germany seemed not to need a full-scale war economy back then and switching the economy would involve affecting live-standards. And nazi Germany was a populist dictatorship. That's why Hitler was so obsessed with keeping the people 'happy'.

In the long term we can see now that Germany needed to switch her war economy to a full-scale one as early as 1938 to be able to knock Great Britain and France in 1940 and the USSR in 1941. And if anything failed, being able to stand much better an attrition-war.

 

As you say, sooner or later. In Hitler's "programme" (I doubt he ever had a real "programme", he did not even had a grand war plan) the clash with Russia was later (1943-1945), at a time when his moderate armament (compared to a full "total war" mobilization of the masses) was ready.

And until fall 1941 (when proven of the contrary), EVERYBODY in the world thought that the Red Army would be weak, including the Red Army itself.

Appropiate weapons, to be exact. That's exactely why Herr Hitler shifted the priorities of the armament program to U-boats and Ju-88's in mid-1940, downgrading armor to the last but one priority.

 

This is completely true. But here is the main issue. All those U-boats built in 1942 and 1943, if would have been built in 1939 and 1940 would have defeated Great Britain even before France.

 

So defeating Britain before France? How the heck should THAT work?

Cheers,

 

Let's say having 150 operative U-boats in September 1939. With or without Norwegian and French ports...

 

However, Hitler deemed full armament production not necessary, and I think there is no doubt to state that it was a mistake.... probably his biggest one. Imagine a Germany producing in 1941 like she did in 1944, the war will have a different course.

 

OK, I give up: If Hitler would have invented the doomsday machine in 1941, a precedure to make guns out of butter and if he had stolen hypersonic cannons form the Martians he would have won everything.

Anyway, Friedrich: So what's exactely the point abut 150 U-boats and French not defeated? So you take the150 subs to seal of GB from North America, fine. What does this mean with French = Western Med = Northwest Africa being an Ally backyard? I still don't get it: You have a French Fleet intact, you have the Med in French hands, you have all French Atlantic harbours in French hands, are you sugesting that the Channel would be GERMAN?

Cheers,

 

No, no, no, Andy... definately no. The thing is that with 150 operative U-boats - which could have been built in reality - and given the complete lack of British adequate escorts in 1939 and 1940, Admiral Dönitz would have isolated Great Britain's North Atlantic supply lines, even before the attack against France. But the Germans would have had still many more posibilities of achieving this using Norwegian and French ports.

 

There appears to be a wide range of opinions on Hitler's biggest strategic mistake. Perhaps the most easily avoidable was the declaration of war against the USA. No doubt the US would have declared war on Germany soon after Pearl Harbour, but Hitler made is easy for a divided country to unite against all the axis countries.

If Germany had had 150 U boats in September 1939 the results could have been very difficult for Britain - but perhaps Britain and France may have taken the war more seriously than they did. If so, the western allies may have responded more vigorously in 39-40 than they did, a time when German forces were concentrated in Poland. Perhaps leadership and coordination may have been addressed rather than overlooked as it was in the phony war till it was too late.

Greater arms production in 1940-43: While Germany was not on a full war footing till 43-44, did it suffer a significant arms shortage preventing victory, particularly against Russia? I'm not sure on this. To some degree a munitions industry takes a couple of years to build up, and Germany's had many forced labourers contributing, both within and without Germany. What often suprises me is the extent to which Germany employed the captured weapons from occupied countries such as France and Czeckoslovakia in the attack on Germany. Germany could have waited a year or two to begin WW2 and produced more weapons, but its enemies may have rearmed themselves just as fast and been better prepared to resist attack. All in all, any military wants more weapons and munitions, and definately having a total war economy should have been introduced earlier - a significant strategic mistake, but IMO not the biggest.

I am still of the opinion the eastern front war against Russia could have been won if Hitler's Germany had won over the locals who mostly hated the communists. The strength of resistance within Russia would never have occured, revolts would have risen across Russia, Stalin and his lieutenants would have fallen quickly and Germany could have been in a strong position to make a deal with the western allies over eastern European land in exchange for ridding the world of communism. This seems to me to have been the hope of many in the UK, France, the US and within many of the occupied eastern European countries who wanted a peace deal with Germany in 1941.

 

War with america was just dumb luck as Stephan ambrose put it. FDR wanted war with germany when the population was split over it, He tried everything in his power to create a state of war with germany when japan did it for them.

I too, am suprised of the extent of the use of foreign equiptment though. Rommel's 7th division in france was mostly made up of the czech tanks.

Hitler could have waited a few more years but diden't, simply Because he is a gambler. Czechoslovakia was a gamble, austria, poland, russia. Gamblers don't stop until they lose..and thats just what happened.

 

What about the infamous Battle of the Bulge? anyone think that could have been a big mistake? True, on paper it looked promising. I just think he under-estimated the American forces.

Thoughts?

DUCE