Adolf Hitler Mistakes

In a nutshell:

- Started war too early, the Wehrmacht was still developing by the time the invasion of Poland happened. The majority of the tank force was stop-gap training tanks like the early Panzer IIs. The Wehrmacht should have been properly built up and then tested in a minor brushfire conflict in a faraway land nobody cares about.

From there, Hitler had 2 options for conquest. Go take France and piss off the western world or go take the SU with very little other enemies.

- Invade Soviet Union. Don't dick around at Stalingrad.
OR
- Invade France and in the battle of Britain, Hitler shouldn't have focused so heavily on terror and civilian targets and instead should have focused on military targets only. During the BoB, tons of radar stations and airfields were left untouched because Hitler wanted to focus on civilian population centers to break their will to fight. remove the threat first, little corporal.

- The Kriegsmarine was neglected. It should have been built up before any major war efforts were made. Naval landings, bombardments, and the protection of shipping lanes hurt Germany A LOT.

- Then there's a bunch of late war REALLY bad mistakes but you could fill a book with those.

HITLER. COULD. NOT. WIN.

There are no permutations or combinations that would have worked. Germans were not ubermen in combat. Their generals, while more prepared for the war than others in the beginning, were not all Frederick the Great reincarnated, German technology and engineering was not ahead of everyone else, and more important than all of that, German industry was not close to large enough to withstand those of its opponents and there were no master plans to expand it.

Even after they had subsumed the industries of Czechoslovakia, and knocked that of France out of the war, they were at best a match for the UK and the Soviets (each taken separately) and well behind the US.

Even given time they could not have built up an army and air force that could compete against any two of these and also built up a Kreigsmarine that could challenge the British let alone the combined naval forces of the allies without the US.

There is no way to know for sure, but there are powerful arguments that the way things played out was possibly about as good as the Germans could have hoped to manage. They hit their opponents by surprise and when they were weakest. While they would have been stronger given time, so would the opponents.

(It is possible that maybe if they kept peace with France they could have gone after Russia, but of course they always were afraid for their western front, so I am not sure that NOT attacking France was a possibility, at least not in their minds.)

In a nutshell:

- Started war too early, the Wehrmacht was still developing by the time the invasion of Poland happened. The majority of the tank force was stop-gap training tanks like the early Panzer IIs. The Wehrmacht should have been properly built up and then tested in a minor brushfire conflict in a faraway land nobody cares about.

From there, Hitler had 2 options for conquest. Go take France and piss off the western world or go take the SU with very little other enemies.

- Invade Soviet Union. Don't dick around at Stalingrad.
OR
- Invade France and in the battle of Britain, Hitler shouldn't have focused so heavily on terror and civilian targets and instead should have focused on military targets only. During the BoB, tons of radar stations and airfields were left untouched because Hitler wanted to focus on civilian population centers to break their will to fight. remove the threat first, little corporal.

- The Kriegsmarine was neglected. It should have been built up before any major war efforts were made. Naval landings, bombardments, and the protection of shipping lanes hurt Germany A LOT.

- Then there's a bunch of late war REALLY bad mistakes but you could fill a book with those.

In a nutshell:

- Started war too early, the Wehrmacht was still developing by the time the invasion of Poland happened. The majority of the tank force was stop-gap training tanks like the early Panzer IIs. The Wehrmacht should have been properly built up and then tested in a minor brushfire conflict in a faraway land nobody cares about.

From there, Hitler had 2 options for conquest. Go take France and piss off the western world or go take the SU with very little other enemies.

- Invade Soviet Union. Don't dick around at Stalingrad.
OR
- Invade France and in the battle of Britain, Hitler shouldn't have focused so heavily on terror and civilian targets and instead should have focused on military targets only. During the BoB, tons of radar stations and airfields were left untouched because Hitler wanted to focus on civilian population centers to break their will to fight. remove the threat first, little corporal.

- The Kriegsmarine was neglected. It should have been built up before any major war efforts were made. Naval landings, bombardments, and the protection of shipping lanes hurt Germany A LOT.

- Then there's a bunch of late war REALLY bad mistakes but you could fill a book with those.

good points .

In my opinion the biggest mistake was turning the USA against him. The lend lease and general support the Western Allies provided is known to few. The USA alone provided Equipment worth billions to the Soviet Union, and that is not adjusted for inflation.

As I read, there was never any official account of what Lend-Lease delivered, and a lot of it was 'smuggled' as well, however I've seen a study not too long ago that estimated it at around 11 billion dollars worth. Adjusted for inflation that is 190 billion dollars today. That is the USA alone. People overestimate the Economy of the Soviet Union a lot and at the same time underestimate that of the USA and of Germany too. The biggest problem the Germans had was manpower in the factories, had there been more manpower available for Germany they would actually have outproduced the Soviet Union, and they did so in some areas, even though Germany did not mobilize to a war economy before 1943. The Soviet Union also lost 90% of their oil supply to the Germans or destroyed it themselves in 1942 however the western Allies stepped up and delivered Oil and refined Fuel through Iran.

According to another study I've read conducted by the CIA the Germans had a very good shot at winning the war in the east, however this was vaguely formulated.

In my opinion the biggest mistake was turning the USA against him. The lend lease and general support the Western Allies provided is known to few. The USA alone provided Equipment worth billions to the Soviet Union, and that is not adjusted for inflation.

As I read, there was never any official account of what Lend-Lease delivered, and a lot of it was 'smuggled' as well, however I've seen a study not too long ago that estimated it at around 11 billion dollars worth. Adjusted for inflation that is 190 billion dollars today. That is the USA alone. People overestimate the Economy of the Soviet Union a lot and at the same time underestimate that of the USA and of Germany too. The biggest problem the Germans had was manpower in the factories, had there been more manpower available for Germany they would actually have outproduced the Soviet Union, and they did so in some areas, even though Germany did not mobilize to a war economy before 1943. The Soviet Union also lost 90% of their oil supply to the Germans or destroyed it themselves in 1942 however the western Allies stepped up and delivered Oil and refined Fuel through Iran.

According to another study I've read conducted by the CIA the Germans had a very good shot at winning the war in the east, however this was vaguely formulated.

also good points .

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html here's the study btw

Not annihilating/capturing the British Expeditionary Force (as well as French forces) at Dunkirk. Didn't anyone else think that was a huge mistake in retrospect? All those troops later fought him in Africa, Italy, and on D-Day.

American's talk mad shit on the French to this day, but my Grandpa was an officer in WWII, and he spoke highly of the French troops he had to work with when he was in the midst of Fighting Erwin Rommel's forces in Africa. I presume a lot of them were saved at Dunkirk.

Unfortunately the old man died March 9th 2017, I'm sad to say.

Also Hitler's Nazi Ideology maintaining that Ukrainians (who hated Stalin with a passion stronger than Hitler) were subhuman untermensch, heavily contributed to the failure of Operation Barbarossa. He may, or may have not still, have won Operation Barbarossa, if he used a lot more Ukrainians and had the Japanese simultaneously attack from the east, against Russia.

Britain was pretty well impossible for him to seize no matter what. He would have needed 5 or 10x as many U-Boats than he started with to truly threaten the British Island with starvation. Even then, the Allies in WW1 had figured out how to deal with the U-Boat threat then, didn't take them long to rediscover how to deal with the U-Boat threat in WWII.

he would won, if:

1. don´t let the UK troops run away from dunkirchen >> brits would had no army
2. concentrate to enter the UK from 2 sites
3. kill the noob mussolini>> then the germans must not fought in greece and north africa >>> would concquer moskow befor general winter
4. let the gernals make the desicions
5. concentrate on mass production from panthers and pz4

he would won, if:

1. don´t let the UK troops run away from dunkirchen >> brits would had no army
2. concentrate to enter the UK from 2 sites
3. kill the noob mussolini>> then the germans must not fought in greece and north africa >>> would concquer moskow befor general winter
4. let the gernals make the desicions
5. concentrate on mass production from panthers and pz4

very good summary . a +

Breaking away from the Banking World, not so good when you can´t fight of their debt horses.

Breaking away from the Banking World, not so good when you can´t fight of their debt horses.

can you be more specific ?

Hitler this, Hitler that, Hitler Hitler Hitler...

The only reason ww2 escalated to the point it did in Europe was because Germany and especially hitler said fuck you international banking world and created their own money that didn't need backing by the international debt promotional baking system and it overlords. Thus the banking world called in its debt horses to cut out the rotten apple.

If any of you even listen to his speeches, he talks about it quite frequently, especially England and it's 'wealth' of whom only a small portion of the people profited. I am not saying the man was perfect, but he was spot on.

...

and he frequently told people to be "peaceful" and assured SA that the greatness they will receive will be achieved soon... his speeches are populist scripts with scant details that just taps into nationalism, xenophobia - us vs. them of the human instinct

not too hard when people have been robbed of everything AFTER great depression - yes, before that Germans were getting a lot from the the evil banking world where Weimer Republic even sanctioned multiple public housing projects each meant to house tens of thousands with top notch amenities, infrastructures... affordably.

Germany never had enough colonies or population or land to compete directly with top powers in raw trade power. So they had to compete in quality, culture rather than in quantity. that means investing in individual citizens by giving them good education, works and homes. if you study art, architecture, engineering/ technology, you will learn about Germany whom had a huuuuuuuge impact on all those subjects even before ww2 - that is absolutely incredible-

i wonder what germany wouldve became if the great depression did not happen - i am sure hitler would not have taken over the reich that easily and probably never.

---------

Hitler couldve won if everything that couldve gone right for Axis went right and everything that could go wrong with Allies went wrong. It is fun to theorise what ifs but too many posts here just assume that if hitler would've done this and that, the allies couldnt have adpat and just trip over their own shoe strings.

I have decided to reinterpret the question: Hence forth! Hitler's biggest mistake was being a racist scum bag!

Thouist may now all go in peace!

Germany might be been able to win the war, but Hitler couldn't anymore than czar Nicolas could've won World War 1.

Germany might be been able to win the war, but Hitler couldn't anymore than czar Nicolas could've won World War 1.

Actually, Germany got pretty close with the first half of the Schlieffen plan. I think they were about 40 miles away from Paris at the first battle of the Marne. I think Russia mobilized a lot faster than they had hoped though, so who knows.

very good summary . a +

#Ackshually,

1) Harder to do than you think.

2) With what navy/landing experince? The Kriegsmarine spent all of their fleet securing Norway and was in no fighting shape afterward. Operation Sealion was doomed to fail.

3) Uh huh. Killing an ally totally helps. Besides, it wasn't "General Winter" who stopped the Germans; they were already losing momentum in the fall. The Red Army stopped them, and winter simply just magnified the problems after they had already been caused.

4) The generals aren't perfect, either. The high command wanted to hit Moscow, but honestly Stalingrad was a better target. Contrary to popular belief, the reason why the battle at Stalingrad was so important was not because of the name, but rather that whoever controls the Volga has a big strategic advantage in controlling the oil fields southwest of Stalingrad. The Red Army needed the extra fuel, and so did the Wehrmacht, which is why they fought so bitterly for it. It had military significance rather than political significance - who's to say that the Russians wouldn't simply pull out of Moscow like they did to Napoleon? Moscow was purely a political target, and Hitler was in the right to stress the importance of Stalingrad. Although cooperation between the two parties would have helped the situation, they both made mistakes and share the same amount of blame.

5) The reason why the shift in production to heavy tanks was that in the late war, Germany had no hope in matching the industrial capacity of the other nations. A Pz4 was maybe the equal, or in some cases even inferior to some of the Allied tanks - the Pz4 was slower and less maneuverable than any of the contemporary Allied mediums and in some cases (as the T-34-85, Easy 8) outgunned. Even if optimistically assuming the Pz4 to [contemporary Allied medium tank] loss ratio was 1:1, Germany couldn't even begin to match the productions of Shermans, Cromwells, or T-34s singularly, let alone all combined, so the idea was to create tanks that would be able to handle many Allied tanks at once to compensate. Obviously it wasn't enough, but pursuing the medium tank only route is an equally bad idea that would have failed equally as spectacularly.

While Pz4s were outdated, the more modern Panthers were not the best tanks for the job either. A tank has to engage infantry as well, since in the end, the infantry is what holds ground, not the air force or the vehicles - such are merely tools for the infantry to do it's job better. The high velocity gun had poor high-explosive performance, and while the gun had excellent armor penetration, it was overkill for most Allied tanks, barring the IS-2. Note that the Pershing and Comet tanks were used exceedingly rarely, towards the very very end of WWII, and were thus not a big enough factor to warrant such a high velocity gun. Additionally, Panthers would break down more often the Pz4s and took 10 hours(!) to replace a simple roadwheel. It should also be noted that Panthers were basically heavy tanks under the doctrines of any other nation. The Germans simply called their equipment by whatever role they were used for: the MG42/34 was simultaneously the LMG, MMG, and HMG and were referred to as all three in differing circumstances, even though it was by definition just only a LMG/MMG, firing the same 7.92mm Mauser round as the K98, and by no means a true HMG, which is supposed to fire larger caliber rounds than the standard rifle). Similarly, the Panther, while by specifications a heavy tank, was used at the tactical and strategic levels as a medium tank, and henceforth known as one. The idea that Panthers are somehow massively cheaper and easier to produce by the logic that they are mediums rather than heavies is very wrong. Perhaps maybe a Panther was massively cheaper than the Tiger B, but also keep in mind that the Tiger B was the heaviest turreted armored vehicle extensively used, ever. Regardless, the Panther was not an easy to produce vehicle by any means, and could only be considered "relatively cheap" when compared to massive super heavy tanks that the Wehrmacht was fielding.

The biggest reason why the Germans lost the war was a severe shortage of logistics vehicles and capacity. Everything else, including the lack of a Strategic Air Command, the lack of amphibious equipment and men, and the many internal rivalries between the OKW, OKH, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and even Hitler himself, although devastating enough by themselves, were trifling in comparison to the chronic logistical nightmare that any branch of the German Reich had to deal with. It's quite clear how Germany lost the war the moment they started it.

"Amateurs talk about tactics. Professionals study logistics." -General Barrow, USMC

Actually, Germany got pretty close with the first half of the Schlieffen plan. I think they were about 40 miles away from Paris at the first battle of the Marne. I think Russia mobilized a lot faster than they had hoped though, so who knows.

That reminds me I haven't watched The Great War since the Russian Revolution episode.

Time to catch up!

he would won, if:

1. don´t let the UK troops run away from dunkirchen >> brits would had no army
2. concentrate to enter the UK from 2 sites
3. kill the noob mussolini>> then the germans must not fought in greece and north africa >>> would concquer moskow befor general winter
4. let the gernals make the desicions
5. concentrate on mass production from panthers and pz4

No he wouldn't have.

1) While this was probably possible with what we know today, what saved the BEF back then where the circumstances of poor intelligence and supply issues on the part of the Germans. It was NOT because Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to hold off. The loss of 300,000 troops would have have been devastating but not defeating. Great Britain was still a world power with 10s of million in population on the isles alone. Just as the loss of millions by the the Soviets and of 100,000s by the Germans didn't end their effective ability to continue military operations so too this would not have meant the end of the British empire.

2) The germans did not have the ability to launch even a single substantial invasion. They had none in may of 1940 and barely had ANY after a summer of planning. Invasions are HARD. Even without substantial resistance they are the most complicated from of military operation in existence by a long shot. Even without substantial threat from the sea and the air (to which they are extremely vulnerable), the troops they land are very vulnerable on the land as they have very tenuous supply and little room to maneuver. And at this time the Royal Navy and the RAF were essentially untouched, while the Kriegsmarine had already lost half relatively small numbers.

3) While it is unclear what this would mean politically, most analyses of Barbarossa show that since it wasn't winter that defeated the Germans but the Soviets, it would have made little difference if they started a few weeks earlier. In fact, it is as likely this would have meant they were even farther from their sources of supply at the start of the Rasputitsa.

4) This one is just plain wrong. The successes in the beginning of the war were the result of Hitler ordering his generals, and not vice versa. His victories in Czechoslovakia, Poland and the low countries/France were political victories in that he judged that his was the right time to attack and that the biggest fear - counter attacks, involvement, and/or continued resistance by the allies - were not likely. The same can be said for Barbarossa, that the Soviet edifice WAS rotten (purges, etc.) only he was politically wrong in that the Soviet/Russian edifices are built with that in mind, they don't collapse because an enemy advanced 100 kilometers into their territory or because whole armies have been defeated.

5) This has been addressed. But I will add that the emphasis on war-fighting material is a classic mistake of people who look at these kinds of things. It doesn't matter if you have the "best" kit... or even if you have ENOUGH of the best kit... particularly if "best" doesn't include "the ability to operated and be kept operational" in the field. It matters if you have a long term war-fighting strategy. The Germans conentrated on the operational arts. (And they were extremely successful at that. Barbarossa achieved everything it set out to do- except politically defeat the Soviets.) But none of their weapons systems were designed with a strategy to win in mind. The US made a decision to continue the Sherman and work on the M-26 until it was ready. This meant better Shermans, and many more of them, despite the distance to the front (measured in months instead of days as with the Germans). But the point is they made their decisions not just on armor, armor penetration, etc. (which they did measure and improve) but by keeping in mind also production, re-supply, transport, repair, etc. What happened in a fight between a Tiger and a Sherman is irrelevant if there are always more Shermans and so few Tigers the Shermans don't ever run into them.

Breaking away from the Banking World, not so good when you can´t fight of their debt horses.

This.