What was Hitler's biggest mistake?

Victor

Aside from the obvious setting the world on a path to armaggeddon and getting millions killed. On a "simpler", strategic level where did he get too big for his boots and set Germany on the path to failure?

The mistaken belief in German supremacy? Telling Krupp war wouldn't come until 1943. The premature invasion of Poland? The shift of the Battle of Britain to the Blitz? The invasion of Russia before defeating the British? The failure to develop more modern weapons and an ocean-going navy? Failure to secure adequate oil supplies?

[Can we have sensible responses please, no "He should have killed all the Jews first"-type responses please]

mike65

He biggest mistake was giving up on art! Okay it was Operation Barbarossa, had he secured all Western Europe and then struck a new deal with Stalin he could then have bided his time before invading. Mind you I can only belive the whole edifice would have unravlled at that point anyway, there could never have been enough German troops to keep everyone under heel.

Mike.

Lorddrakul

No,
I would have to disagree, his biggest mistake was to fail to listen to his Generals.

Von Paulus and Von Runstedt, Rommel and the others were able commanders who could have won significantly more victories had Hitler himself not overruled them.

I think that had he listened to them, he would not have got himself in the terrible trouble he did, especially on the Eatern Front.

LD

Capt'n Midnight

Navy - should have built more submarines instead of ocean going navy.

Alliance with Italy - resulting in getting sucked to the Balkins and Africia and delay Barabrossa by a month / led to first defeats in battle. - If Italy had remained neutral then the Reich would have been more protected on it's southern boaders - Spain Vichy Italy & and most of the Balkans were either fashist or anti-soviet.

Battle of Brittan - long range drop tanks / attacking cities instead of airfields - not developing heavy bombers.

Failure to develop shorter wavelength radar (actually failure of zeppelin mission - was too obvious so the Brits' just turned off the new radars)

Investment in V2 - unstoppable - so no resources were tied up trying to stop it... - note: Antwerp got hit more than London ....

Biggest mistake - pissing off the Russians in the areas they controlled - over 1 million russians fought on the German side - but only cos the only choice was a bullet when asked to join. As one russian said there was little to choose between hitler and stalin - but stalin spoke russian.... had they treated the locals better especially prisioners then would have had lots more surrendering than fighting to the death.

Letting the Russian spy in the German Embasy in Tokoyo find out that the Japanese were not planning to invade Siberia - result ****er attack at moscow.

Not estimating russian strenght correctly - ie. winter fighting and the T34 - taking into account it's cost of manufacture the best tank in the world at that time (one got hit over a hundred times during barbarossa by the standard anti-tank weapons - imagine telling some of those germans - "eh lads ...there's gonna be another 39,999 of them before the war is over" )

---

Chestnuts.
Atomic bomb - nowhere close so would not mattered what had done.

Enigma - too much reliance on - but to be fair they broke just as many allied codes so evens here.

Delays in devoloping jet engines - they did not have access to the rare metals that were stable at high temperatures so the engined had a life of 10 hours - so would not have made a huge difference,.,

Alliance with Japan - they needed to attack the US convoys - but if they held off maybe the US would have devoted more effort westwards

Stalingrad - 300,000 men lost but many more saved cos the Red army could not encircle more germans caught in the caucases

most other things that could not happen because of the way the NAZI party was run - if it was not for Albert Speer, logistics would have stopped the war a lot sooner...

weemcd

Turning his back on the SS

Mark

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight

Alliance with Italy - resulting in getting sucked to the Balkins and Africia and delay Barabrossa by a month / led to first defeats in battle. - If Italy had remained neutral then the Reich would have been more protected on it's southern boaders - Spain Vichy Italy & and most of the Balkans were either fascist or anti-soviet.

Ah in fairness can you really imagine it: Two powerful Facist Powers (well...powerfulISH in Italys case....well reasonably powerful....ok they had aspirations of power, so thats halway there), each with strong bonds (Hitlers early admiration of Mussolini, his copy of the latters March on Rome in the Munich Revolt), geographically close to each other...NOT allying with each other?

As for Italy remaining neutral, I think Mussolini was farrr too arrogant to ever consider that. His extensive wars in Africa showed he was ready and willing (albeit not able) to reinstate the Roman Empire. Of course said wars with Libya, Ethiopia,etc proved to be rather a large drain on Italys already relatively meagre (compared to Germany) resources, but again Mussolini's dream clouded his brain from viewing [Architect Voice] the simple and obvious truth; Italy was never going to be a major military power amongst the big players.[/Architect Voice]

Battle of Brittan - long range drop tanks / attacking cities instead of airfields - not developing heavy bombers.

Agreed on the airfields portion, the decision to switch to bombing cities was based on emotion (reaction to the bombing of German cities), not strategic thinking.

Personally I think Barbarossa in 41 was a horrible miscalculation. Should have learned from 1812 tbh.

A link with the above was his failure to defeat Britain, arguably the most glaring fault of them all.

Lastly; declaring war on the USA. Admittedly there was still a high probality of them declaring war Germany after Pearl Harbour, but there was a chance (however small), that they would have declared war only on Japan at first. Not that much of a chance, Ill grant you, but you do not want the US coming in early against you.

Victor

Originally posted by Mark
Lastly; declaring war on the USA. Admittedly there was still a high probality of them declaring war Germany after Pearl Harbour, but there was a chance (however small), that they would have declared war only on Japan at first. Not that much of a chance, Ill grant you, but you do not want the US coming in early against you.

Didn't the USA declare war on Japan and Germany simultaneously? Can't remember exactly how it went.

Mark

Originally posted by Victor
Didn't the USA declare war on Japan and Germany simultaneously? Can't remember exactly how it went.

Aye, twas only the difference of a few days. Went like this:

7 December 1941: Pearl Harbour
8 December 1941: United States declares war on Japan
11 December 1941: Germany and Italy declare war on United States, US responds by declaring war on them.

vorbis

attacking Russia really. How did he even hope to conquer and rule the country? Right lads I regard ye all as inferior and plan to butcher most of ye. I can hardly imagine thats a great precursor to stable government. He probably would have won the war if he had ignored Rusia.

Manach

- The point the Germans lost WWII, according to the Panzer General Guderin in his memoirs, was the descion by Hitler to divert troops from the advance on Moscow to capture the Oil fields in Southern Russia. By Guderin's estimation, if the Capital fell, the Soviet regime would have folded.

Also
- Not destroying the British Forces in Dunkirk
- Declaring war on the USA
- Not getting the Japanese to declare war on Russia

Capt'n Midnight

Don't forget that Spain did not enter the war despite lots of help from Mr H earlier.
The point is not Italy wanting a "place in the sun" but the Germans taking them on board..
Also while most of Eastern Europe was fashist anyway and in fear of the soviets ( estonia, lithuania, latvia, half of Poland conquored and finland lost land ) there were still different degrees of ties to the Reich

Declaring war on US - the US were already escorting convoys and attacking U-boats "in self defense" by then - ie. would not have made much difference anyway.
Mr. H & co. were just honouring international law by a legal declaration of war. The logistical need was to target US shipping everywhere..
The Mistake = alliance with Japan without getting them to attack siberia.

It is interesting to note that there were no American POW's in North Vietnam. - Since the USA never declared war on North Vietnam technically speaking they were terrorists. (This applies to many other US wars to..)

Re Barbarossa in '41 - if they had waited until '42 the Russian army would have recovered more , Stalin would probably no longer have trusted the Germans and they would have lot's more T32's. Main failing was starting late without proper equipement and alienating potential allies.

Diversion to capture oil fields a mistake - but the Allies invaded & took over Persia around that time.

Mark

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Don't forget that Spain did not enter the war despite lots of help from Mr H earlier.

Ah, but then Spain had just finished a civil war. While Mussolini's constant wars were an economic drain, at least his country wasnt shattered infrastruturally. Franco needed time to cement his control over the country also; launching into a major war would create instability, definately something he didnt want in 1939.

The point is not Italy wanting a "place in the sun" but the Germans taking them on board..

Germany "taking them on board" seems to imply that Italy didnt go willingly. Mussolini's well documented imperialist ambitions (visible as early in 1923) and extensive military campaigns go directly against the notion that Italy were beaten into joining WWII.

Also while most of Eastern Europe was fascist anyway and in fear of the Soviets ( Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, half of Poland conquered and Finland lost land ) there were still different degrees of ties to the Reich

As is to be expected. Every country is different. However with Italy and Germany both more visibly militarised than the above, turning to each other in the Pact of Steel produced no visible negative results at the time.

Declaring war on US - the US were already escorting convoys and attacking U-boats "in self defense" by then - ie. would not have made much difference anyway.

Ah but they didnt have to deal with ground troops before. North Africa without Eisenhower and teh bai's could have made things a lot easier for Rommel for instance.

Mr. H & co. were just honouring international law by a legal declaration of war. The logistical need was to target US shipping everywhere..

But if just declared war on the US in order to target their shipping, why wait until almost 1942? They declared war because the US did so to Japan, and the Axis Alliance nescessitised their response. I think they wanted to keep the US out of it for as long as possible.

The Mistake = alliance with Japan without getting them to attack siberia.

Agreed, that second front could have made a huge impact.

It is interesting to note that there were no American POW's in North Vietnam. - Since the USA never declared war on North Vietnam technically speaking they were terrorists. (This applies to many other US wars to..)

Interesting indeed . If you have more tidbits in that vein, feel free to share.

Re Barbarossa in '41 - if they had waited until '42 the Russian army would have recovered more , Stalin would probably no longer have trusted the Germans and they would have lot's more T32's. Main failing was starting late without proper equipement and alienating potential allies.

The key word there being 'probaly'. While he got a decent drive by declaring Barbarossa unexpectedly, as we all know it was disastorous in teh long run. While Stalin would have had more T32s, yes, the western front could have been a whole lot different if Hitler had had another year.

Diversion to capture oil fields a mistake - but the Allies invaded & took over Persia around that time.

Manachs point, but I may reply as well while I'm here. If he had reached Moscow and the Soviets had capitulated (not that I'm saying they nescessarily would have), he'd have one less major enemy to deal with and THEN the Caucasus could have been taken.

Dangerousdave

For me invading Russia was definately the mistake that led to defeat. Western Europe was there for the taking. If Hitler would not attacked Russia, and carried on with the blitz etc againsty the British, we would have been defeated in no time.

Victor

Personally, I think invading the USSR before finishing with the British (one way or another) was the greatest mistake. However, and this is the greatest irony, there was an (almost?) Darwinian failure of the Nazis by believing in their own superiority and the lack of development of new weapons.

I read a book recently called "The Moscow Option" where the Germans use a single thrust to take out Moscow (as opposed to going for Leningrad and Stalingrad also).

The Russian decamp east and survive to fight another day. The war develops quite differently.

Hmmm, Spain is interesting. If Spain joined the war and were able to deny Gibraltar and the straits to the British, Malta would have either fallen or been abandoned (Gibraltar, Malta and Suez were each dependant on the other). This would have massively lengthened the British supply route in the Middle and Far East. Using the Canaries for commerce raiding would also have greatly hampered the British. Portugal would have been another matter (dictatorial, but allowed the USA to use the Azores).

Manach - Not destroying the British Forces in Dunkirk. While the BEF wasn't annihilated, it did loose all it's equipment, tanks, artillery, anti-tank guns, trucks. If the invasion of Britain had proceeded, the British had no tanks to take on the Germans and only 120 anti-tank guns in the whole country.

Mark

Originally posted by Victor
Manach - Not destroying the British Forces in Dunkirk. While the BEF wasn't annihilated, it did loose all it's equipment, tanks, artillery, anti-tank guns, trucks. If the invasion of Britain had proceeded, the British had no tanks to take on the Germans and only 120 anti-tank guns in the whole country.

But Goerings bollocking around (his insistence that the Luftwaffe finish off Dunkirk rather than allow the ground forces to roll in) meant that 350,000 allied soldiers lived to fight another day.

Destruction of a force that large would have meant one hell of a blow to morale and a limitation on Britains capacity to resist.

Thats not to say the equipment wasnt a major blow in itself, but its obvious that Goering really let the blue ribbon slip through his fingers here.

FirA_Serjio

Thers alot of reasons why he failed, but the most important is how much battles he had to take care of at the same time, if he just left africa alone and kept a cease fire with the USSR, he wud only have to concentrate on britain at the time and, i think easily whoop der asses, and if japan didnt butt in to annoy the americans, den hitler cud of taken on afirca aswell. its so simple

ill show u wen i becum a evil genius

Victor

Originally posted by FirA_Serjio
Thers alot of reasons why he failed, but the most important is how much battles he had to take care of at the same time, if he just left africa alone

Well North Africa was one of the few places to take on the British on land after the fall of France and Norway.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Mark
As for Italy remaining neutral, I think Mussolini was farrr too arrogant to ever consider that. His extensive wars in Africa showed he was ready and willing (albeit not able) to reinstate the Roman Empire. Of course said wars with Libya, Ethiopia,etc proved to be rather a large drain on Italys already relatively meagre (compared to Germany) resources, but again Mussolini's dream clouded his brain from viewing [Architect Voice] the simple and obvious truth; Italy was never going to be a major military power amongst the big players.[/Architect Voice]

That’s a little presumptuous. Italy was, and still is, one of the major economies of the World. Additionally, she had extra-national resources in the shape of her colonies in Libya and North-east Africa. The reality was that Italy had not been frantically re-arming as Germany had. Despite Mussolini’s best efforts, Italians were not overly bothered about militarism - they had no Versai treaty to compensate for. Finally, Hitler and Mussolini had previously secretly agreed to postpone any war until 1943, by which time Italy would have (in theory) had time to rearm.

Whether any of this would have changed anything, is open to debate, but to argue “Italy was never going to be a major military power amongst the big players” would be a little foolish. After all, Russia said much the same thing about Japan (another nation with meagre resources) in 1905...

unkel

Originally posted by The Corinthian
“Italy was never going to be a major military power amongst the big players”

Well, I do agree with this. When Hitler invaded France through Belgium in '39, pretty much all of France's military power was already in the norh-east (Maginot) or directed to the north. Italy saw its chance and attacked at the France-Italy border. After 3 days of fighting, the few resources the French had left managed to kick the Italians back into Italy conquering a bit of Italy in the process.

Not even mentioning the tank-trashing and machine-gunning of men armed with spears only in Abessinia in 1935. Brave that.

On the topic: I think a lot of reasons have been mentioned by others. My favorites are: not heading straight for Moscow, Duinkerken, not coercing Japanese to attack Siberia, not enough resources towards North Africa (Rommel), North Atlantic and Mediterranean fleet.

Not a lot of people seem to know this one (imo the strongest of them all): Hitler decided the world's first jetfighter, the Messerschmidt Me-262 ("Schwalbe") should be used as a bomber. Granted there were some issues with the engine, but this ludicrous decision might have turned his chances.

Wolf

Yeah the massive part of it was spreading himslef too thin everywhere.

Personally I believe that his biggest mistake was trying to push the front in the Russian winter. So many men and resouses were sucked up in that campaign and not by the Russian army but by the winter itself.

ClevererThanYou

Simple - fighting a war on more than one front.

And that moustache.

ferdi

what was hitler's biggest mistake?

being a LOONY

The Corinthian

Originally posted by unkel
Well, I do agree with this. When Hitler invaded France through Belgium in '39, pretty much all of France's military power was already in the norh-east (Maginot) or directed to the north. Italy saw its chance and attacked at the France-Italy border. After 3 days of fighting, the few resources the French had left managed to kick the Italians back into Italy conquering a bit of Italy in the process.

I never questioned that Italy was unprepared and made a pigs ear of things militarily, just your rather sweeping statement that “Italy was never going to be a major military power amongst the big players”. You should at least back that up.

Not even mentioning the tank-trashing and machine-gunning of men armed with spears only in Abessinia in 1935. Brave that.

As I have already posted in another thread, Abyssinia had in fact already fought Italy to a stalemate, conceding only Eritrea, in the previous century. The main reason for this is that Italy’s colonial ambitions were hampered by the fact that the British in the Sudan were supplying the Abyssinians with arms. This was a contemporary Anglo-French policy to hamper the colonial expansion of the new nations (Germany and Italy) and ultimately was one of the numerous differences that lead to the First World War.

The natives having guns was a handicap that the British, ironically, did not have to endure themselves in their colonial adventures as the casualty figures of the battle of Omdurman would indicate: The Dervish army, approximately 52,000 men, suffered losses of 20,000 dead, 22,000 wounded, and some 5,000 taken prisoner, while the Anglo-Egyptian army, of some 23,000 men, suffered losses of 48 dead, and 382 wounded.

Although largely obsolete, the Abyssinian military in 1934 was still far better equipped than any African army that had ever faced by any of the European colonial powers. This is not an apology for the use of Mustard Gas - Churchill already did that when he said “I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes” in 1919 (and Britain actually used it in Iraq during the 1930’s) – however, it does pull the moral carpet from many of the criticisms made of this campaign.

jmcc

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I never questioned that Italy was unprepared and made a pigs ear of things militarily, just your rather sweeping statement that “Italy was never going to be a major military power amongst the big players”. You should at least back that up.

Italy was never completely united and more importantly controlled in the way that Germany was under Hitler. Nazism was effectively a substitute state religion. Consequently Italy never seemed to develop a single-minded aggressively expansionist policy that such states driven on toxic memes tend to develop.

The irony about this thread is that while a lot here may see the 1939 invasion of Poland as being a major change in warfare, the vast majority of the fighting and logistics was that of WW1. German troops invaded on bicycles and some stores and supplies were conveyed in horse-drawn vehicles.

There is no one mistake that Hitler made that cost him the war. That kind of simplicity belongs in the minds of Leaving Cert exam teachers. History is far more complex. Technologically the Reich was far more advanced than the Allies, especially in the area of weaponry and command/control. The AK47 for example is largely a copy of the MP44. German submarines, especially towards the end of the war were more advanced. From a chemical warfare point of view, Hitler could have used nerve agents to destroy the opposition. Had he done so, WW2 would have taken a drastically different course because neither side was properly equipped for this kind of warfare. In the end, it came down to the old certainty - the side that produces the most steel wins.

Italy's position throughout WW2 is an interesting topic. But to purely limit the argument to it being a second rate military power (though its submarine service managed to destroy a few of the Royal Navy's main ships in the Med with two man submarine attacks) is to miss critical elements in its policy. The economic aspects of its alliances are far more illuminating.

Regards....jmcc

Silent Grape

hitlers MOTHERS biggest mistake was not having that damn abortion.. which her doctor wanted her to have....apparently....cud be bs tho........

m
x

Clintons Cat

I would say declaring war on the USA at a time when a sizeable part of Roosevelts public opinion believed that the US should concentrate its resources on the Pacific theatre.

Throwing away his best units by refusing to agree to a breakout at stalingrad.

failing to consolidate his gains in the west before launching Barbarossa.

being unable to persuade Britain to sue for peace in 1940.

popinfresh

Personally I think the USA and britain's role in ww2 is seriously over rated. I mean I cant remember specifically but wasn't there at least 5 times as many nazis on the eastern front than the western front or something like that. WW2 was really Russia vs Germany, and UK and USA were Russias allies. His biggest mistake was going power hungry, he should have left the military planning to his generals. Was watching something on the discovery channel that because all military decisions had to go through Hitler personally, the german army didn't react to the D-day landings until that evening because Hitler was asleep and nobody wanted to disturb him. Had the Germans reacted properly to the D-day landings they would have crushed the invasion, however UK and USA were able to get a hold and stay in France by the time the nazis reacted

jmcc

Originally posted by popinfresh
Personally I think the USA and britain's role in ww2 is seriously over rated.

It is an opinion and it is wrong. The US involvement was critical in how things turned out. It effectively produced the armaments and supplies that Russia (USSR) and the rest relied upon. In addition to the supply chain, it was extremely important when it came to the cryptographic, air power, sea power and land power aspects.

Taking the UK as just the UK is also a very narrow viewpoint. It was, at that point in history a commonwealth. That meant that it brought in troops and supplies from its colonies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. Australia's role in the Pacific was pivotal. Even a signifcant proportion of the UK forces were Irish (North and South ). The UK made some very significant codebreaking contributions. As for the Atomic Bomb, the Manhattan Project drew heavily from the US and the UK.

His biggest mistake was going power hungry, he should have left the military planning to his generals.

A.J.P Taylor wrote some very interesting articles on Hitler's strategy. Apparently some of the moves Hitler made, against his generals' advice, were quite brilliant and in some cases won the battle. However in some cases, Hitler's decisions were stupid and battles and armies were lost because of them. The generals were, to some extent, fighting the last war.

Was watching something on the discovery channel that because all military decisions had to go through Hitler personally, the german army didn't react to the D-day landings until that evening because Hitler was asleep and nobody wanted to disturb him.

Always be very careful about trusting anything you see on television. A lot of these programmes are dumbed down and are produced by people with a cursory knowledge of events. Hitler had expected the real invasion to occur elsewhere and considered the Normandy landings to be a feint. If the Omaha beach landings had failed (and they very nearly did) then things would have been a lot more iffy.

Had the Germans reacted properly to the D-day landings they would have crushed the invasion, however UK and USA were able to get a hold and stay in France by the time the nazis reacted

This is not certain. There was overwhelming air power on the Allies side and while the German forces in place could have held for a while, the Allies airpower would create significant problems when the Germans had to reinforce or resupply.

Regards...jmcc

Victor

Originally posted by jmcc
Always be very careful about trusting anything you see on television. A lot of these programmes are dumbed down and are produced by people with a cursory knowledge of events. Hitler had expected the real invasion to occur elsewhere and considered the Normandy landings to be a feint. If the Omaha beach landings had failed (and they very nearly did) then things would have been a lot more iffy.

I heard something along the lines that Normandy was where Hitler expected the invasion and the generals convinced him otherwise that it would have been nearer Calais and that consequently, many units were in the wrong place to react in time.

Clintons Cat

The allies went to a great amount of effort to try to persuade the germans that the attack would come from the pas de calais area <sp> the book "the man who never was" details some of the preparations such as the washing up the body of a bogus charge de affairs <iirc> and increased SOE/Maquis action in the calais region.

Their was a fair bit of guess and counter guessing as to where the landing would take place,Rommel was placed in charge of beefing up the normandy beach defenses merely months before the landing and found them in a pitiful state. However resistance and reserves was for the most part lighter than expected apart from at Omaha/Gold <sp> though the allies ran into stiff resistance at caen where the 21st SS Panzer Division was stationed.

Deployment of reserves was delayed by a convoluted chain of command which ment permission to launch a counter offensive had to go first up then back down the chain of command.Ironically it was this kind of overbloated command structure that had cost the French dearly in 1940 against the on the spot decision making the germans had allowed their field commanders to make during the Blitzkrieg.

josh40

One of Hitler's major advantages at the start of the war was, of course ,the fact that Germany had rearmed almost from scratch as a result of being forced to disarm after ww1. No other country really disarmed, which meant that their weapons were far more old fashioned going into ww2.

Hitler's greatest mistake was that he lost!He never gave a written order, so it's actually not so easy to know how much control he really had. Towards the end, he was a physical and mental wreck, so it's hard to imagine that he had that much control over what was going on.

He took a lot of risks right from the start, if he hadn't got away with these, they would aslo be seen as mistakes now. He could probably have been stopped at the Rhineland, but nobody tried.

At the end of the day, most wars come down to a matter of resources, I don't think ww2 was any different.