Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Hitlers biggest mistake?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 13 of 13
  • Message 1.Β 

    Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Saturday, 26th November 2005

    I got talking to a friend last night and we debating some of Hitlers biggest blunders. I found myself argueing that his biggest strategic blunder was to invade Poland and thus got Germay involved in a European conflict with the Western powers. This in itself was I believe never in Hitlers strategic aim. However he quickly overcame Western Europe with the exception of GB. If he focussed on GB and knocked her out of the war he could then used all his military might on the East without too much distraction. But he compelled his Poland blunder by the ol' War on two fronts scenario and leaving GB to fester and invading the USSR. So, I decreed that his biggest blunder was a dual blunder of invading Poland, leaving GB to fester and invading the USSR and engaging in a 'war of anhilation'. He compelled his war in the East by terrorizing and massacaring, making enemies of East, when he could have came as a 'liberator' freeing the masses from Stalins murderous grip. Is this the general feeling or has he made a worse strategic error elsewhere in his foreign policy?
    My friend incidentally stated that Hitler had to go to war one way or another to sustain Germanys' continuing industrial growth, to access raw materials in the East, to promote his much vanuted 'living space' and to help unify the country around the cult of Hitler.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by 3Lllama (U2603256) on Saturday, 26th November 2005

    It's interesting that John Lukacs in The Hitler of History (an overview of the various biographies) presents evidence that Hitler actually decided to invade the Soviet Union only when he was convinced that would be only way to deny the British and Americans an ally that could defeat Germany and because he was convinced that Stalin would attack at some stage anyway. I need some convincing of this as the firm consensus seems to be that the conquest of the East was always his long term plan. But if true then drawing the Western powers into the war by invading Poland was indeed Hitler's critical mistake as it forced the issue on invading Russia.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Sunday, 27th November 2005

    For whatever reason, Hitler seems to have it in for the USSR. I also read somewhere that he wanted to invade the USSR as a means of denying the British an ally and thus demonstrating to the British the folly of carrying on the war. I don't think Hitler even treated the Americans as a major threat in the early 1940's. But what baffles me is that after the 'defeat' of the Luffwaffe in the Battle of Britain, Hitler switched bombing targets to focus on British cities, giving the RAF a respite, putting operation Sealion, the Nazi plan for an invasion of Britain on hold and building up his forces for an attack on Russia. Why? Why did he not finish Britian off? Why, instead of denying Britian a Russsian ally, not finish what he started in the West? I can only guess, that he just couldn't wait to destroy the USSR and didn't really want to waste time fighting the British. The German army and airforce demonstrated its power in the East. Britian could never have sustained such an onslaught.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by mulvers (U2607308) on Sunday, 27th November 2005

    I THINK HITLER'S BIGGEST MISTAKE WAS TO DECLARE WAR ON THE U.S.A. AFTER PEARL HARBOUR, AS IF HE HAD NOT DONE SO THE U.S. WOULD PROBABLY HAVE
    CONCENTRATED THEIR EFFORTS IN THE PACIFIC AND LEFT EUROPE WELL ALONE.
    SO WITHOUT THE AMERICAN PRODUCTIVITY AND ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE GERMANY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONCENTRATE ALL THEIR EFFORTS ON THE U.S.S.R. AND G.B.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Sunday, 27th November 2005

    Since Germany and Japan were allied, Hitler was bound to have been drawn into war with the USA after Pearl Harbor.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Sunday, 27th November 2005

    Since Germany and Japan were allied, Hitler was bound to have been drawn into war with the USA after Pearl Harbor.Β 

    George

    Not so. There were treaties between the two powers for defencive support but since Japan was the aggressor Hitler could easily have stood aside.

    If that had occurred there are too many variables but at the least the US would have entered the European conflict later and the costs of the conflict, especially for the Germans and Soviets, would have been even higher.

    Hitler resented at US partial support for Britain and grossly underestimating the US's industrial and military capacity. Churchill, for all his faults, was far more realistic on that point at least.

    Steve

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Monday, 28th November 2005

    Spot on Steve,

    Hitler was not bound to join the war against the USA by treaty to Japan. If that was the case, then Japan would have attacked the USSR in June 1941. Hitler was persuaded to declare war for a number of reasons:

    1) his navy were urging a declaration of war because they had been involved in a shooting war with the US navy for months in the Atlantic

    2) Hitler had a very distorted view of the US leadership & economy,thinking it riddled with 'Jewish Capitalists'

    3) He realised that he would have to take on the Americans at some point, and he convinced himself that Dec 1941 was a good time as he was sure the USSR was on the verge of collapse

    4) A gigantic, global war suited his hubristic mindset

    5) Such was his confidence on German arms that he thought it possible to defeat the US, even though he was heavily engaged in Russia


    America's war with Japan and the European war could not have stayed seperate in any case because of US support for the UK, and Churchill's immediate declaration of war on Japan when he heard of Pearl Harbour. So Hitler decided to make war at a time of his own choosing.

    As for Hitler's greatest mistake? Diverting Guderian away from Moscow in Autumn 1941, his obsession with Stalingrad, allowing 'Citadel' to go ahead in 1943, even when he knew that the Panzers were heading into a trap, not releasing the Panzer reserves earlier on 6th June 1944, the counter offensive at Lake Balaton in 1945-take your pick.

    For those of you who think that invading the USSR was Hitler's greatest mistake, have a look at Richard Overy's book "The Dictators": it should provide a few suprises.


    Smeg

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Steelman7 (U2620476) on Monday, 28th November 2005

    quote user=. The German army and airforce demonstrated its power in the East. Britian could never have sustained such an onslaught. <
    /quote>
    Hubert.
    I recall seeing a programme some time ago that suggested Hitler never realistically intended to invade Britain in 1940 and operation Sealion was regarded as an impossible venture by the German high command even if the Luftwaffe were successful during the Battle of Britain.
    The Germans did not have the resources to launch a seabourne invasion and the overwhelming superiority of the Royal Navy would have been catastrophic for an invasion fleet.
    With the Russian campaign however the Germans were able to fully utilise their blitzkrieg tactics which proved so successful in the west.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by ddayrevisited (U2620647) on Monday, 28th November 2005

    I think there were several significant mistakes Hitler made through is own 'frailties', mental, human and ideological. His arrogance and over confidence in other nations liability to roll over in the face of the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine caused him to make some disasterous decisions for the German military cause.

    Just to list some them for discussion:

    1)Not ordering the completion of the pincer movement at Dunkirk and almost complete annihilation of the British Army, effectively removing Britain from the War.

    2)Re-direction of the Battle of Britain bombing campaign from the RAF Airfields and radio stations towards British cities. Thus, giving the RAF (already on the ropes) time to recover.

    3) Over reliance on static defences of 'Fortress Europa'(The Atlantic Wall) caused an inability to react effectively to any potential invasion by the Allies. This changed the successfully mastered military ideology of Blitzkrieg (highly manouverable, concentrated firepower from all areas, ground and air)to one of waiting for the enemy to take the initiative.

    4) Retaining control of the fearsome Panzer divisions in Normandy and along the Atlantic Wall, so that Commanders in the field, who knew the situation and need of the battle were unable to utilise the superior German armour to push the Allies into the English Channel, without his express permission (He was asleep as the D-Day invasion began, and no-one had the balls to wake him).

    5) Keeping the Panzer divisions up to 50 miles behind the Channel coast in June 1944. Against Rommels advice. Meaning that at the start of the battle the most effective means of repelling the invasion was several days away.

    Sorry to go on....Just a few of my thoughts!!! What do you all think?

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Monday, 28th November 2005

    The Germans did not have the resources to launch a seabourne invasion and the overwhelming superiority of the Royal Navy would have been catastrophic for an invasion fleet.
    With the Russian campaign however the Germans were able to fully utilise their blitzkrieg tactics which proved so successful in the west.

    Perhaps your point is valid. However, Hitler did have the resources to occupy Crete, Malta and the Channel Islands, without the typical blitzkrieg assault.
    Its true that the Royal Navy would have proved a big deterrent, however the German U-boats were operating almost unchallenged and creating havok. The Lufftwaffe was still in its prime even after the Battle of Britian.
    I think the outcome was by no means a foregone conclusion and when we see the devestation inflicted upon Russia in the early days of Barbarossa I still think GB as a nation would have its back to the wall. Especailly after the Dunkirk fiasco when there was an army with no equipment.
    Hitlers paratroopers were innovating new ways to introduce troops to the battefield. I do recall reading somewhere that the German army were husbanding landing craft along the Northern French course in anticipation of an seabourne invasion.
    I agree with you that Hitler never realistically intended to invade Britain, but at the same time I'm sure he never really wanted to be at war with Britian. But after Poland he was.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by awordnerd (U2620792) on Monday, 28th November 2005

    It is true that Hitler might have blundered when he declared war on the United States and made an enemy out of an awakened "sleeping giant" yet America's aim was to always go to defeat Germany first. I am not one of those conspiracy theorists that think Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor, far from it, yet, attacking Germany first makes strategic sense. The Japanese had very limited resources and one of its goals of war was to obtain oil reserves and resources; however, Japan was hemmed in by the U.S. on one side and nationalist China on the other (although Russia was a U.S. ally, I would argue that Russia played no affect on the war with Japan.) From the U.S. perspective it was only a matter of time before Japan would not have resources, men and material to make war anymore--the U.S. fought a war of attrition. However Germany was the bigger and more worrisome threat. Their industiral capacity, ingenuity and motivation and not to mentions strategic position in the middle of the vast resources of Europe determined that they would have to be defeated first by the Allies and then resources diverted to the Pacific.

    The United States was furnishing Britain (and later Russia) with war supplies as early as 1940 and, in fact, the US Navy was fighting Germany U-boats (I believe) in 1940, but certainly before Pearl Harbor.

    Hitler's biggest blunder were three: first, he did not continue his campaign against GB and if he simply continued the air war, he might have softened Britain and taken her out of the fight. Two, he did not wait a year or 18 months to attack Russia and his military was improperly equiped and illprepared and trained to fight in the Russian winter. Third, Hitler did not allow the counterattack by the Panzers when the Allies landed on Normandy on D-day. With a German counterattack around H-hour+24 the Allies would have been pushed back into the sea.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 28th November 2005

    hubert,

    reply to #1,

    Can't resist. Hitlers biggest mistake was in my opinion not to hold onto what he wanted and then give up what he'd won after June 1940. Let's look at what he had then.

    Control of Western Continental Europe. Not even Napoleon controlled as absolutely Europe. The only two powers that were possibly opposed to him were Britain and the USSR. Now Hitler has four options, stick with what he's got, destroy the UK with the help of the USSR raw materials, attack the USSR keeping the UK (or Airstrip One as we became known in the Cold War) at his back.

    Or and this I believe was his biggest blunder (and on a different thread I didn't get around to it but I believe Napoleon would have sensed if not seized this opportunity), he could have played the statesman. "I've made a mistake, I'm sorry, I withdraw unreservedly my troops from France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and the provinces of Poland German Troops that are currently there. All I ask in return are the provinces of Alsace Lorrain and the removal of the Danzig Corridor. The territory I have occupied in Poland will be returned to the Polish Government and the Polish Government and nation shall have free access to a Baltic port by whatever means shall be decided by the governments of Germany, Poland, France and Great Britain".

    Now let's look at this. There's a rug cut underneath Britain and France (both countries so far been very roughly handled by the German Armed Forces). Is there a will too fight on? Possibly, indeed probably no. Not only that but Hitler could then legitimately point out, diplomatically that Poland wasn't exactly free, (the reason France and Britain had gone to war with him), there was still the sticky question of the bits of Poland occupied by the USSR. Would Britain and France mind, possibly tacitly support him, if he liberated Poland, and the Ukraine, and Latvia, and Estonia and the Causcasus, and the Crimea, and the Don Cossacks, and the etc....? from the despotism of Stalins rule?

    Fortunately Hitler was a meglomaniac lunatic, so it's a moot point. I'm not so it's probably just as well I wasn't Hitlers trusted advisor in WW2.

    Hitler had it all and threw it away, which is why he isn't a great commander or leader, just an aberration of history.

    Cheers AA.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005

    AA

    Very good point. If he had offered terms like that it would have largely undermined any case for continued opposition in Britain and meant a France that, although resentful at the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, having just been so badly mauled would desire good relations at virtually any costs. Coupled with the widespread hostility to the Communists, which meant that Hitler's crusade against Bolshevikism gained widespread support, there would have been a basis for war with Stalin under very favourable terms.

    As you say, fortunately for us, he was an irrational megalomaniac.

    Steve

    Report message13

Back to top

About this Board

The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

or Β to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The message board is closed for posting.

This messageboard is .

Find out more about this board's

Search this Board

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.