Hitler's Biggest Mistake?

[Major Walter Schmidt]

maybe his biggest mistake was going into politics in the first place......

[CA15]

Arguing that invading Russia was the big mistake is actually pretty academic, since it was at the core of the vision of Germania from the outset.
Given that tenet, failing to invade Blighty is without doubt the fundamental error.

Russia is big, but most of it's population live in the European part, so one has 'only' to conquer and control as far as the borders of Tartarstan, despite plenty of boastful remarks to the contrary, the possibility of successfully controlling European Russia is real enough.

The Mongols conquered all of Asian Russia and European Russia with the exception of Byelorussia (hence the name).
Like the Wehrmacht, they were able to replenish their ranks with sympathetic locals (mainly from Turkey and the Caucasuses), and also like the Wehrmacht, they weren't driven off by any partisan uprising. They got sick of the place and went home.

Consider the number of republics wishing for independence from Russia by 1941 (indeed throughout the history of the SSSR) and it is a fair assumption that once the cards begin to fall (for example if Moscow were to have been successfully encircled) then the cohesive existance of the Soviet Union would quickly have crumbled - as finally occurred in the 1990s.

Partisan movements, admirably patriotic as they may be, are hardly a showstopper in a general war of the scale of the second world wide difference of opinion.
In no way are WW2 resistance movements comparable to subsequent insurgencies (more or less civil wars) in Vietnam, Malaya, Afghanistan or Iraq - where the invaders/occupiers fight by gentlemanly rules of engagement and where the guerillas have safe haven and sponsorship from accross borders over which they can safely assume not to be pursued (North Vietnam and speculatively before it Communist China, Indonesia, Pakistan and Iran respectively).
Not to mention in those cases, the geurillas aren't being hunted by forces recruited from formerly subjugated neighbouring republics who have historical scores to settle.

Once European Russia had been occupied (the head on the Russian eagle that calls the shots after all), then it is a fair assumption that former Soviet republics (and even republics from within the Russian federation itself) would have succeed at first opportunity - just as every Axis power swapped sides once the writing was on the wall in 1944/45.
Then from where would Soviet partisans source their armaments? Where would be their safe havens (other than the Siberian Steppes). Who would support them morally and with intelligence, training, etc and who would be the potential future liberator, whose promise would fortify them against seemingly hopeless odds?
Never the thought of what consequences: I figure it sould concentrate the mind knowing what may lie in wait should the Ukrainians and Turkmens in the Waffen-SS, who held me personally responsible for their great grandmothers being shagged and raped by my great grandfathers, get hold of me.

Just as western resisitance movements would have withered had Britain surrendered (further support to the contention that failing to invade UK was THE big mistake), so too would Soviet partisan movements have evaporated once Moscow had fallen, organised counter offense by the remains of the Red Army ceased (and the vodka ration been restored to placate and pacify the stoic muzhiki).
Just as the planned German Werewolf resistance never even bothered to start - what possible hope would they have had in driving off the allied occupation forces and restoring a 'Forth Reich' all by themselves?

To argue that Russia would have done well enough against the Axis all on her own is pretty optimistic.

To point out the failure of Napoleon to conquer Russia in 1812 is simply to reinforce the need to avoid multi fronted wars; Napoleon had also the problem of fighting multiple fronts (against the Royal Navy at sea worldwide, against the British, Portuguese and later Spanish Armies in Iberia and variously Austria and Sweden on the Continent). Just like Hitler, the pot bellied short-arse from Corsica was unable to concentrate all of his resource on a single theatre.

Furthermore, unlike Hitler, Napeolon suffered approximately a 1:2 kill to loss ratio against Russia, the Wehrmacht managed about 1.5:1 against the Soviet Union.

No doubt about it, the loss of the grand vision of Germania and her leibensraum was sealed by a couple of fundamental cock ups in 1940.
While Russia was still allied with le Boche.

[CA15]

Arguing that invading Russia was the big mistake is actually pretty academic, since it was at the core of the vision of Germania from the outset.
Given that tenet, failing to invade Blighty is without doubt the fundamental error.

Russia is big, but most of it's population live in the European part, so one has 'only' to conquer and control as far as the borders of Tartarstan, despite plenty of boastful remarks to the contrary, the possibility of successfully controlling European Russia is real enough.

The Mongols conquered all of Asian Russia and European Russia with the exception of Byelorussia (hence the name).
Like the Wehrmacht, they were able to replenish their ranks with sympathetic locals (mainly from Turkey and the Caucasuses), and also like the Wehrmacht, they weren't driven off by any partisan uprising. They got sick of the place and went home.

Consider the number of republics wishing for independence from Russia by 1941 (indeed throughout the history of the SSSR) and it is a fair assumption that once the cards begin to fall (for example if Moscow were to have been successfully encircled) then the cohesive existance of the Soviet Union would quickly have crumbled - as finally occurred in the 1990s.

Partisan movements, admirably patriotic as they may be, are hardly a showstopper in a general war of the scale of the second world wide difference of opinion.
In no way are WW2 resistance movements comparable to subsequent insurgencies (more or less civil wars) in Vietnam, Malaya, Afghanistan or Iraq - where the invaders/occupiers fight by gentlemanly rules of engagement and where the guerillas have safe haven and sponsorship from accross borders over which they can safely assume not to be pursued (North Vietnam and speculatively before it Communist China, Indonesia, Pakistan and Iran respectively).
Not to mention in those cases, the geurillas aren't being hunted by forces recruited from formerly subjugated neighbouring republics who have historical scores to settle.

Once European Russia had been occupied (the head on the Russian eagle that calls the shots after all), then it is a fair assumption that former Soviet republics (and even republics from within the Russian federation itself) would have succeed at first opportunity - just as every Axis power swapped sides once the writing was on the wall in 1944/45.
Then from where would Soviet partisans source their armaments? Where would be their safe havens (other than the Siberian Steppes). Who would support them morally and with intelligence, training, etc and who would be the potential future liberator, whose promise would fortify them against seemingly hopeless odds?
Never the thought of what consequences: I figure it sould concentrate the mind knowing what may lie in wait should the Ukrainians and Turkmens in the Waffen-SS, who held me personally responsible for their great grandmothers being shagged and raped by my great grandfathers, get hold of me.

Just as western resisitance movements would have withered had Britain surrendered (further support to the contention that failing to invade UK was THE big mistake), so too would Soviet partisan movements have evaporated once Moscow had fallen, organised counter offense by the remains of the Red Army ceased (and the vodka ration been restored to placate and pacify the stoic muzhiki).
Just as the planned German Werewolf resistance never even bothered to start - what possible hope would they have had in driving off the allied occupation forces and restoring a 'Forth Reich' all by themselves?

To argue that Russia would have done well enough against the Axis all on her own is pretty optimistic.

To point out the failure of Napoleon to conquer Russia in 1812 is simply to reinforce the need to avoid multi fronted wars; Napoleon had also the problem of fighting multiple fronts (against the Royal Navy at sea worldwide, against the British, Portuguese and later Spanish Armies in Iberia and variously Austria and Sweden on the Continent). Just like Hitler, the pot bellied short-arse from Corsica was unable to concentrate all of his resource on a single theatre.

Furthermore, unlike Hitler, Napeolon suffered approximately a 1:2 kill to loss ratio against Russia, the Wehrmacht managed about 1.5:1 against the Soviet Union.

No doubt about it, the loss of the grand vision of Germania and her leibensraum was sealed by a couple of fundamental cock ups in 1940.
While Russia was still allied with le Boche.

[imi]

Hitler biggest mistake is he start a two front war,if the germans open only one front,Germany win the war.That time the german troops are effective forces with modern tanks,and weapons

[artmiser]

I voted for declaring war on the US, if had distanced himself from the japenese and pearl harbor he may have kept the US out of that theater.

But yes Stalingrad was a big one, at the end the russians captured or killed 238,000 veteran german soilders, of those 5,000 game back at the end of the war. 20% of the german army casualties came from this useless fight. The total for stalingrad was 850,000 casualties of which 150,000 died. This city consumed three army groups worth of manpower, manpower which could have made the difference elsewhere. It was also a defeat for the germans which gave the russians a much needed morale boost. I think if hitler had just surrounded and bypassed Stalingrad there was an excellent chance the germans could have won in the East. And if they had won in the east, we would not have won in the west.

[pdf27]

Missed this at the time and it's rather too late now, but what the heck...

I don't think anyone relaly knows the mission in Afganistan.
Sure they do - it was to prevent Afghanistan acting as a state sanctuary for the Al Quaeda group. Something it most definately can no longer do.

[Major Walter Schmidt]

his biggest mistake was getting concieved:D....

[Rising Sun*]

his biggest mistake was getting concieved:D....

I think you may be operating under a misconception. :D

[Bernie T]

I think that Hitler's biggest mistake was declaring war on the USSR. If I can recall correctly, they were on neutral terms with each other. The US joining the war was almost inevitable because eventually the US would assist Great Britain and France in Europe and North Africa.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hello Der Mann,,,,
Hitler and Stalin did not trust each other period....
After the collapse of Russia, in the 90's, it was discovered by Soviet Documents that they were moving massive amounts of troops and equipment to the West, I recently read about this, the plan was to attack Germany In July,,of 41', so in a sense, Germany got the jump on the Russians, from what would have been an inevitable war anyhow,,,,,I can't quote the #'s now, but I'm sure other members have heard about this,,,,,
Kindly...Bernie..

[A_rod]

I agree with an eariler statment with Hitler not listening to his generals and sticking his nose time and time again wher ehe had no business in

[christophe1992]

id say invading rusia before winter. and he should have made better and stronger tanks to counter the kvs and t34s

[stevey14/88]

biggest and first mistake was not taking out the uk

[aly j]

Biggest mistake declearing war to Soviets and Americans .

japan caused usa 2 enter the war

[aly j]

biggest and first mistake was not taking out the uk

yes thats true ......i wounder if hitler was
pissed that he couldet get passed the british

[Ivaylo]

Out of your list, I think his biggest mistake is declaring war on Russia. Not because of Russia's manpower or willpower to fight until the last man alive, but because it opened up a second front before he was truly able to close out the western front. He should've waited until he was able to starve out Britain.


Absolutely right temujin , opening a second front with the resources Germany had meant that they had to cope either with UK or USSR very fast before running out of men and resource , instead Hitler's mania of capturing Stalingrad or Moscow wasted the little advantage he had , and as well wasted many of his troops lives .Still i don't understand why he didn't bypass Moscow or Stalingrad and do as the blitzkrieg doctrine say " encircle and destroy " instead he acted like he had russian army and there was no matter how many will die .

[gunner-B]

The Germans lost the war when they threw away the cream of their Luftwaffe over the UK. Also, they should have blockaded the UK with a bigger U-boat fleet rather than build that 'white elephant' the surface Kriegsmarine fleet. This would have detered the US from getting involved in the European war & Britain would have been starved into surrender. This in turn would have made the UK and Commonwealth troops abroad (Middle and far-East) irrelevant, thus allowing the Japanese to just walk into Burma & even India, which in turn would have allowed them the natural resources that they craved without starting a war with the US.
So I say: Hitler lost it when he failed to takeout the UK.

Paul

[aly j]

I know other BIG mistake that Hitler made so i read-Churchill always listened too his Generals,But Hitler did not. If he listened too his smarter Generals, the out come may be different.