Adolf Hitler Mistakes

Losing the whole BEF at Dunkirk may well have defeated Britain through surrender. At this point Churchill and his top dogs only voted 3 vs 2 to not surrender having informed the US ambassador that they would. Had the entire trained army been lost and Hitler holding in essence 330,000 British hostages they would be under greater pressure to do so. Despite the empire Uk was always short of manpower in Europe and had a desperate arms shortage even before leaving all they had on the beach. As we know they had no allies and even the Soviets were an enemy.

They also had an alternative-they knew Hitler didn’t necessarily want them destroyed, just to stand aside whilst he took the European mainland - they could probably keep most of the empire and even turn a profit supplying the Germans with rubber, oil etc. Instead they chose to fight and lost it all.

Everything else I agree on including the fact that the reasons for the Germans not taking Dunkirk were not so simple as “Hitler stopped them”

From skimming this I think some people don't understand how war works. You don't have to conquer everyone, the goal is to accomplish your goals and get a peace treaty. Germany didn't have to successfully invade the UK, they just needed Britain to leave the war. With UK out of the war, the US probably doesn't join, and Germany concentrates all its resources on the Soviets and probably wins. In the American Revolution and Civil War there was no chance that the underdog was going to conquer the other, but the revolutionaries won and the confederates came extremely close.

My opinion.

His mistake was invading Poland to begin with, if he didnt. He would have went down as one of the greatest leaders in history. (Bringing Germany out of depression, building autoban, creating laws such as fishing and hunting regulations, building the people's car aka VW beatle)

Secondly, he shouldn't have invaded Russia till Britain was conquered. Not Switch from air to air fighting to bombing, and eventually Launch operation sea lion.

If invaded russia like so, he shouldn't have postponed it till September. Launched it in April/May.

And my final say is, not split his armies into 3 different groups. Should have been 1-2. Center/North. Not South.

And let's admit. Italy didn't help for shit. And if japan invaded Soviet union in the time the Soviets was transporting the troops used to later encircle the Germans.

I think after the 6th army was defeated there wasn't anything he can do.

In a vacuum 1v1 of any country. I think it's safe to say Germany would outclass, out maneuver any other country.

This world would be full of hate.

I suggest anyone to watch "man in the high castle"

From skimming this I think some people don't understand how war works. You don't have to conquer everyone, the goal is to accomplish your goals and get a peace treaty. Germany didn't have to successfully invade the UK, they just needed Britain to leave the war. With UK out of the war, the US probably doesn't join, and Germany concentrates all its resources on the Soviets and probably wins. In the American Revolution and Civil War there was no chance that the underdog was going to conquer the other, but the revolutionaries won and the confederates came extremely close.

You are right that one need only achieve political victory, as happened with France. But since England was not itself defeated it would not have been that simple.

Churchill recognized Hitler for both the threat and the evil he was. A peace treaty might have been in the minds of the UK only an armistice. There would have been ample excuses to go back to war after further preparation as there was no way for Hitler, from the shores of France, to impose his will on the British.

Further, the empire at the time was a source of manpower, not a manpower constraint. And Churchill always knew they need only stall until the US entered the war. I also don't think the UK being "out of it" dramatically changes the equation on the eastern front. The eastern front was not the "near thing" made out by reaching the outskirts of Moscow. To achieve that the Wehrmacht had exhausted its ability to further conduct offensive operations. Any further steps would include penetrating the defenses or encircling a city 10 times larger than Stalingrad and facing the still fresh Mongolian divisions, while being 2000k from their supply and no reinforcements. That just isn't "almost", it is overextended.

US preparation and the US might that would have allowed for greater will on the part of the UK to rejoin the effort. The US was much more likely than in 1914 to join the war, and was already preparing to be able to conduct operations that would not have included having Great Britain as an island fortress. They began the B-29 program prior to entering the war. It was the most advanced and expensive weapons system designed to that date, and that includes the Manhattan Project. In the summer of 1940 12 Essex class carriers (already designed) were ordered by Congress.

there was no way for Hitler, from the shores of France, to impose his will on the British.

Further, the empire at the time was a source of manpower, not a manpower constraint. And Churchill always knew they need only stall until the US entered the war. I also don't think the UK being "out of it" dramatically changes the equation on the eastern front. The eastern front was not the "near thing" made out by reaching the outskirts of Moscow. To achieve that the Wehrmacht had exhausted its ability to further conduct offensive operations. Any further steps would include penetrating the defenses or encircling a city 10 times larger than Stalingrad and facing the still fresh Mongolian divisions, while being 2000k from their supply and no reinforcements. That just isn't "almost", it is overextended.

US preparation and the US might that would have allowed for greater will on the part of the UK to rejoin the effort. The US was much more likely than in 1914 to join the war, and was already preparing to be able to conduct operations that would not have included having Great Britain as an island fortress. They began the B-29 program prior to entering the war. It was the most advanced and expensive weapons system designed to that date, and that includes the Manhattan Project. In the summer of 1940 12 Essex class carriers (already designed) were ordered by Congress.

Again I contest. If there was no way for Hitler to impose his will on the British how could the British impose their will on Hitler with no army. They may have had the empire but were these trainable troops? - the Aussies and the New Zealanders were great but few in number and they went home to fight the Japanese. All the millions of empire manpower in India did not prevent Burma falling and whilst they did help liberate it that was 4 years later during which time the British expected the Japanese to invade India whom was making noises about not really liking the British too much either.

With the UK surrendering part of the price would have been Axis troops on the Suez canal and probably a few British colonies - definitely protected access to middle eastern oil. . No need for long drives to the Caucasus. All aircraft and anti air units available for the Eastern front - much fewer occupation troops needed in France, Norway and Mediterranean. 25% of armour NOT diverted to North Africa. No wasting effort on warships and submarines and the Kriegsmarine. And assuming the US didn't enter (why would they with Japan to fight and no ally in Europe?) no lend lease to the Soviets who's armies at one point were receiving at least one meal a day from the US plus virtually all their boots, trucks and tires.

Russia was too big to conquer entirely but they just needed a secure grip on the Western half and its communication networks (i.e. Moscow and its railway hub) for long enough to dig in properly, fix the railways and build some better roads, get proper shelter for troops at which point I doubt they could have been moved till the nuclear bombs arrived

This is full of pure fantasy. So now in 1940 the brits know that in 1942 they will want their troops in the Pacific? And you already know part of the price for peace would be the Suez canal? You are making things up and it STILL would not win them against the soviets. 25% of armor was sent to Africa? What are you smoking? because there are people in Colorado and Washington state who would pay good $ for those strains. The sources I found never showed more than 40,000-50,000 German effectives in Africa at any one time, as compared to c. 2.5 - 3 million Germans at any given point in the Soviet Union, not including another million from their allies.

HITLER. COULD. NOT. WIN.

Again I contest. If there was no way for Hitler to impose his will on the British how could the British impose their will on Hitler with no army. They may have had the empire but were these trainable troops? - the Aussies and the New Zealanders were great but few in number and they went home to fight the Japanese. All the millions of empire manpower in India did not prevent Burma falling and whilst they did help liberate it that was 4 years later during which time the British expected the Japanese to invade India whom was making noises about not really liking the British too much either.

With the UK surrendering part of the price would have been Axis troops on the Suez canal and probably a few British colonies - definitely protected access to middle eastern oil. . No need for long drives to the Caucasus. All aircraft and anti air units available for the Eastern front - much fewer occupation troops needed in France, Norway and Mediterranean. 25% of armour NOT diverted to North Africa. No wasting effort on warships and submarines and the Kriegsmarine. And assuming the US didn't enter (why would they with Japan to fight and no ally in Europe?) no lend lease to the Soviets who's armies at one point were receiving at least one meal a day from the US plus virtually all their boots, trucks and tires.

Russia was too big to conquer entirely but they just needed a secure grip on the Western half and its communication networks (i.e. Moscow and its railway hub) for long enough to dig in properly, fix the railways and build some better roads, get proper shelter for troops at which point I doubt they could have been moved till the nuclear bombs arrived

This is full of pure fantasy. So now in 1940 the brits know that in 1942 they will want their troops in the Pacific? And you already know part of the price for peace would be the Suez canal? You are making things up and it STILL would not win them against the soviets. 25% of armor was sent to Africa? What are you smoking? because there are people in Colorado and Washington state who would pay good $ for those strains. The sources I found never showed more than 40,000-50,000 German effectives in Africa at any one time, as compared to c. 2.5 - 3 million Germans at any given point in the Soviet Union, not including another million from their allies.

HITLER. COULD. NOT. WIN.

Hey no need to be rude. The British have no troops in this scenario the Germans have them. They have garrison troops scattered across the world and might be able to train enough to make an army given a couple of years. If they had surrendered to Hitler they were doing so from a position of extreme weakness - he has 330,00 of their men, they have none of his. He would demand the Royal Navy be partly neutered and would ensure that he had pressure points to prevent them stabbing him in the back. Making them give the Italians North Africa would probably be the start - cutting them from their Empire if they caused any grief.

25% Armour WAS in North Africa - not manpower - armour!. This is a little understood point about the 'tiny' Afrika Korps was that whilst manpower small they were heavily mechanised unlike the vast majority of the German army. The armoured spearheads that allowed the rapid victories through mobility in Russia were a tiny part of that army but the most vital part. 25% of the German tanks and Armour in this period were used in North Africa denying them to the Eastern Front.

The Germans defeated Russia in WW1 whilst fighting the British and the French on a 400 mile second front. If they were fighting the Soviets alone in WW2 I think it's a possibility.

Total tank shipments to Afrika - 1941-1943: 1144 Pz III and IV plus a few hundred I and IIs and 31 Tigers, about 150 did not survive the transit. This doesn't amount to more than the single Panzer division sent and the weapons it chewed through in several years of combat.

http://www.niehorster.org/011_germany/afv-strengths/North-Africa_arrivals.htm

Source: https://rommelsriposte.com/ where they counted from the original shipping reports. Lot of really good "real" history is done on that site, fun to read through.

German tank production 1941-1943 was over 20,000 AFVs
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II)

So about 5% total were sent to N. Afrika.

At the beginning of El Alamein 23 October, 1942 only the following were effective:
12 Panzer 2
38 Panzer 3
43 Panzer 3 long gun
2 Panzer 4
15 Panzer 4 long gun
1 command tank

http://www.niehorster.org/011_germany/42-oob/42-10-23/div_pz_15.html

Hey no need to be rude. The British have no troops in this scenario the Germans have them. They have garrison troops scattered across the world and might be able to train enough to make an army given a couple of years. If they had surrendered to Hitler they were doing so from a position of extreme weakness - he has 330,00 of their men, they have none of his. He would demand the Royal Navy be partly neutered and would ensure that he had pressure points to prevent them stabbing him in the back. Making them give the Italians North Africa would probably be the start - cutting them from their Empire if they caused any grief.

25% Armour WAS in North Africa - not manpower - armour!. This is a little understood point about the 'tiny' Afrika Korps was that whilst manpower small they were heavily mechanised unlike the vast majority of the German army. The armoured spearheads that allowed the rapid victories through mobility in Russia were a tiny part of that army but the most vital part. 25% of the German tanks and Armour in this period were used in North Africa denying them to the Eastern Front.

The Germans defeated Russia in WW1 whilst fighting the British and the French on a 400 mile second front. If they were fighting the Soviets alone in WW2 I think it's a possibility.

Yup I think 1942 and particularly 43 would be big years for tank production and but what about during Barbarossa when Moscow nearly fell. Might the proportions have been rather different?

Yup I think 1942 and particularly 43 would be big years for tank production and but what about during Barbarossa when Moscow nearly fell. Might the proportions have been rather different?

According to that information Through Aug. 1941 the following was sent:

48 Pz IV
177 Pz III
90 Pz II
54 Pz I

Essentially one Pz division.

The only other tank reinforcements sent in 1941 weren't sent until mid-end of December and consisted only of 68 Pz III and 16 Pz IV. By this time the German advance in Russia had already stalled.

Yes but there was an Italian army too- they had around 700 tanks in December 1940 (im happy to be clarified on this) if roughly correct then in the first half 1941 around 1000 axis tanks appear to have been committed to North Africa whilst Barbarossa launches with about 3300.

These are significant numbers but it’s silly to get bogged down in individual stuff the big picture is that the British still being in the fight consumed /tied up significant numbers of highly trained airmen, tank crew, sub crews and machines of war that might have swung the initial Invasion if Russia enough to have achieved the aim of collapsing the Soviets ability to fight by pushing the high command out of Moscow and taking the railway network isolating Leningrad. They would also be flush with oil and supplies with no Royal Navy blockade

C'mon guys, nothing wrong with army and vehicle production. hitler just lost to his ego