These two problems were caused by the failure of Barbarossa : I should say it was the opposite: Barbarossa was failed(AMONG others ) by the lack of manpower and oil Sure, everything is related two ways: Failure of barbarossa caused the eastern front, with sucked up all manpower and oil that germany had. Failure of barbarossa was caused by lack of manpower and oil.
maybe a proof that without Hitler,Germany could have won ? Their war effort would be more efficient. You should note that during the course of the war Hitler started to micromanage even more and more aspects of the war. While Hitler may be an excuse for every German defeat in ww2. I think that the importance of his lack of strategic vision was sure an very important factor in the outcome of the war, right up with manpower and oil. However, the most important factor in the outcome was the immense allied effort, without historical precedent. Why? Based on available information until 1942, Germany's strategic decisions were sound. They lost the war for a quite exceptional historical factor: the fighting power of the red army. In other words: I think that, based on information available in 1941, they should never lost the war. Nobody expected before barbarossa that the russian army would be able to inflict 5 times more casualties on the wehrmacht on that single operation than the British and French armies inflicted in 1940, when they were almost annihilated (800.000 vs 160.000). In other words: The soviet union proved to be a much more formidable enemy than the western countries. One thing that nobody in the western word expected, and still fails to compreend, as they speak of the red army as an horde of untrained peasants. To explain why 12 million of soviet soldiers died, compared to the ~600.000 british and american soldiers in the western fronts, if you want to follow the popular vesion of the story, them you must rationalize it as menaning that the red army was extremely weak on a per man basis. The fact is that they lost 20 times more men mainly because they killed 10 times more germans and because they were in a unfavorable strategic position and could not afford to not sacrifice soldiers + didn't have air superiority + were more agressive in using infantry on offensive operations. All these 4 reasons are connected: without air superiority, offensive operations suffer more casualties, in a bad strategic position (as in 1942) they had to put men in the front without adequate organization, so they need to sacrifice manpower, and to revert this bad strategic position they needed to attack.
Their war effort would be more efficient. You should note that during the course of the war Hitler started to micromanage even more and more aspects of the war. It seems Friedrich H has touched up on this issues quite will in post #5 Friedrich H
Hello, I'm new but have been interested in and studying WW2 for decades. I'm interested in what people think was Hitler's biggest mistake and why. I have my thoughts but I would love to know what others think. Examples include: Attacking Russia Starting the war too early Breaking off the battle of Britain Not wanting to be awakened on D Day etc. No answer is wrong. Just opinions. Don't forget the why. Thanks. Tom
For me, Hitler's biggest mistake was not finishing off Britain before attacking Russia. Clearly, he didn't know Britain was about to fall, and likely would have, shortly after he withdrew. But Britain is an island nation being starved by U-boats sinking supplies coming in. There's nowhere for the British to retreat to if Germany had invaded. Hitler believed the British would capitulate and allow Germany to control England as a puppet state as they had France. For some reason, he wasn't willing to completely defeat the British militarily by invasion. Yes, the invasion would have to have occurred over water, but the Allies did it. In 1939, there were no Allies to speak of. The US wasn't involved, Russia had signed an agreement with Hitler and France had already surrendered. Hitler had over a year to plan and prepare for a cross-channel invasion. I see this as his biggest mistake because England was the stepping stone for the invasion of Europe. Without England, there's no launching pad to invade Europe and there aren't any British to help. The United States couldn't launch an invasion force from the east coast. They would have lost a huge amount of ships, men and material crossing the Atlantic in a giant convoy and Germany would have had plenty of time to see them coming and move forces to defend. Hitler had a pact with Russia not to invade. Imagine 3 million men not being used to invade the vastness of Russia, but half that used to overwhelm England. He could have taken England and used its resources to help build up for an attack on Russia later. His troops wouldn't be fighting on another front and Stalin wouldn't be working with the Allies to defeat Hitler. It's possible he could have brought Russia in on the German side. Imagine how that would have affected the war. I realize they hated each other but they made the non-aggression pact so anything is possible. By breaking off the attack on Britain before he'd defeated it, Hitler gave the English the break they needed to catch their breath and survive. As with everything in life, hindsight is 20/20, but arrogance and refusal to learn from history will always lead to mistakes. Hitler saw Finland rebuff a Russian attack and saw Russia as weak. He assumed he could defeat the Russians in a few months but lost hundreds of thousands to Russia's brutal winters. Germany was unable to keep its forces adequately supplied with food, fuel and ammunition not to mention winter clothing. I've seen a ton of information saying that attacking Russia was Hitler's biggest mistake. Certainly, it was in his top 3. Whether Germany could have beaten Russia had they waited to attack six months, a year or even two is debatable. But by turning his back on the attack on Britain before she's finished and starting a war on another front, he allowed England to slip through his fingers providing a foundation for the Allies to retake Europe while poking the bear and starting a second, unnecessary, fight. Thoughts?
Yes. Operation Sealion. As it played out in history, I would agree it wouldn't have succeeded. Thanks for the link to the discussion. Great points all around. I guess I don't understand why more effort wasn't put towards it by the Germans. With the benefit of history, it would seem achievable to me. 1. Increase air attacks. Fighters and Bombers continually pound the RAF bases. Ignore civilian targets. Nothing to gain really except morale but it ended up pissing them off more than anything. 2. Concentrate Subs around the British islands. Hit supply and Naval ships close to the island so they starve them and aren't able to secure the channel. This would also be an issue if the US got into the war earlier than we did. 3. Be serious about invasion instead of hoping they will surrender. Hitler should have read Churchhill better and realized he wasn't Chamberlin. 4. Again, don't invade Russia so you have more resources of everything to defeat England. 5. Coordinate a blitz once you're ready to hit them by land, sea and air. Anyway, just my opinion. Seems to me that England was on the ropes and Germany let them catch their breath. But not like I was there. So, Dave55, curious as to what you think was Hitler's biggest mistake and why. Thanks for responding. I appreciate your input. Tom
Tom welcome to the forum My basic take on op Sealion Sorry to say it was not just England under the cosh it was the British Isles and the Commonwealth plus assorted help from Allies Barges Operation Sealion | Battle of Britain | RAF Museum How Bomber Command Helped Win The Battle Of Britain the COS wrote in a report on 25 May, 'we cannot resist invasion by fighter aircraft alone. An air striking force is necessary not only to meet the sea-borne expedition, but also to bring direct pressure to bear upon Germany by attacking objectives in that country'. At the end of July, however, anti-invasion preparations were of the greater moment. Both the COS Committee and the Air Staff agreed that to attempt and sustain an invasion, Germany would have to gain air supremacy over the areas where it would require secure sea communications between the continent and the British coast. Therefore, while Bomber Command would continue to reduce the scale of German air attack by striking at suitable objectives in Germany, it would also be prepared to divert its efforts to the attack of enemy shipping concentrations, especially troop-carrying vessels, should these materialise. If a seaborne invasion was launched, Bomber Command would attack transports at sea and at landing points. Assumed the river barges flat bottomed ( and other assorted vessels) would move at a very slow rate and without the security of air cover the Brits would have picked them off at will, hence the Battle of Britain air war which the Luftwaffe failed to gain a foothold over the RAF
Hi Tom, I'm not well versed on big picture strategies of WWII. so I'll leave that to some of the better informed forum members. I'm a 'rivet counter' (rifles, trucks, ships, etc.).
