Hitler's Biggest Mistake?

[Revolver]

I voted for attacking Russia because Russia's industrial strenght, manpower, and will to fight could have easily taken out Germany by itself. Russia was resposible for nearly 80% of all German casualties in World War II.

[Hosenfield]

mr. revolver, hitler did not execute his generals like stalin did. He fired them if they got into arguments or refused his orders. some of the world's most brilliant military minds Runstedt, Guderian, and later, rommel, were pullled out of regular command.

rommel was killed because he was part of the conspirsy to kill hitler, so it was for treason.

[Hosenfield]

from a strategic standpoint though, Germany could've conquered the soviet union. if they took the causus oil fields by 1942. Practicaly all russia's fuel is from this region, and with the region in german control, the russians would be doomed.

the germans invaded russia with tremendous success in 1941-1942, inflicting around 500,000 -1,000,000 causalties every month. the loss ratio in terms of men for russia and germany in the first 5 months was 18 to 1. In early 1942, this was down to 13 to 1. later on, as the russian army got better trained, this ratio dropped to around 5 to 1.
a lot this has to do with the fact that russia didn't mobilize fullly yet, as insufficient numbers of the good t-34 were not produced yet.

Stalingrad was probably the most fatal strategic idiocy, on the part of hitler. The city could;ve been bypassed but hitler wanted it for prestigue. All stalingrad did was waste 6 months of the german armies' time and
men and give the russians 6 more months to mobilize her industry.

[DerMann]

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.

[temujin77]

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.

If I'm not constrained to your list in this poll, I say Hitler's biggest mistake is to not view the Axis alliance as an alliance. Had Germany and Japan actually acted like allies, Japan would've tore up their non-aggression treaty with Russia at the same time Hitler invaded Russia, therefore keeping Zhukov in the Far East entangled with relentless Japanese patrols, therefore Moscow might had been fallen to von Kluge's Army Group Center. Of course, this is all a big what-if...

[drummerboy]

I think Hitler's biggest mistake was starting the war period. But his biggest mistake in war time would have been his invasion of the Balkans costing him precious time setting back the invasion date of Russia. The state of the russian military in 1941 was appalling and it showed as Babarossa was only stopped by the Winter just short of Moscow.

[Hosenfield]

one of the what if? things is that if germany delayed all its conquests, new powerful weapons systems would have been completed if the war was delayed by a year or two.

The tiger tank was avaliable in early 1942, the cheap and reliable MG42, the panther tank(perhaps?) in early 1943, the mp43 assault rifle by 1943, Me263 jet fighter by 1944, panzerfausts by 1943.

All this stuff would be available by then, and could be massed produced and massed armed to a greater extent.

[1000ydstare]

Taking out Britian, big mistake.

If Britian had fallen would the Yanks come in to the war? And if so where would they have staged from?

Unless they could have convinced Ireland to get withthe programe.

[BDL]

As a slighty correction to what it should say - Going to war with the British.

[Firefly]

Well in reality the best thing he could have done for germany then was to have been killed in WW1.

However, if I am looking at it from a practical standpoint and forgetting who the man was. I would say that if it were me I would have conslidated after Czechoslovakia, stood back and tested the waters.

The object of politics is to try and get what you want without going to war. I think he may have, but I think he wanted a war whatever was going to happen. Fact is, he and a lot of his cronies were clearly mentally unstable, its just a pity he came along at the one time in germanies history where he was allowed to con the populace.

[Hanz Lutz]

Biggest mistake declearing war to Soviets and Americans .

[ww2fanatic1944]

how can you guys think that the bigest mistake was declaring war on the soviets-if the germans had kept the treaty, the soviets would have broken it a year later. the germans and soviets HATED each other. if you were a german taken prisoner by the russians you were as good as dead, and vis versa. the germans broke the treaty at the right time, when the soviets were weak enough to be conquered, and they should have been conquered if the germans didnt make one or two big mistakes. and as for the question about if the germans were prepared enough, they had been preparing for 10 years! they were definetly prepared to fight WWII. just think about it, they were fighting the US, and the Russians, who each had about double the population of germany, and yet the germans almost won the war.

Hitlers biggest mistake during the war, in my opinion was not taking out britian early in the war. if he had done this then the allies would have no where to build airports, and stage troops, so until britian was taken back, germany could not be bombed.

[Hosenfield]

how can you guys think that the bigest mistake was declaring war on the soviets-if the germans had kept the treaty, the soviets would have broken it a year later. the germans and soviets HATED each other. if you were a german taken prisoner by the russians you were as good as dead, and vis versa. the germans broke the treaty at the right time, when the soviets were weak enough to be conquered, and they should have been conquered if the germans didnt make one or two big mistakes. and as for the question about if the germans were prepared enough, they had been preparing for 10 years! they were definetly prepared to fight WWII. just think about it, they were fighting the US, and the Russians, who each had about double the population of germany, and yet the germans almost won the war.

Hitlers biggest mistake during the war, in my opinion was not taking out britian early in the war. if he had done this then the allies would have no where to build airports, and stage troops, so until britian was taken back, germany could not be bombed.

some tidbits: the soviets would most likely NOT break the treaty that soon. The russian army was in no state or moral to attack "greater germany". especially with the presense of three million troops in the east.
the poor performance of the soviet army against the "blitzkreig" in 1941 is an example of this.

and, germans were mobilizing practically from scratch after hitler took power- the nuremburg treaty still had its stranglehold before that time.
1933 is when hitler took power, its not 10 years, its more like 6-7.

the population of the soviet union is an estimated 200-210 million people. The US had 140 million people. UK had 54 million people.

Germany had 68 million people.

[Firefly]

Small point, i always understood that Germanies population was 85 million plus in ww2, where do you get your figures from?

[ww2fanatic1944]

the population of the soviet union is an estimated 200-210 million people. The US had 140 million people. UK had 54 million people.

Germany had 68 million people.


my point exactly...the US's and USSR's population doubled that of Germany...

[Revolver]

On top of that, the U.S.S.R.'s enlisted or non-enlisted soldiers went farther then men. Women, children, and even dogs were sent to fight or spy on the enemy. The Germany army was no match for the entire Russian population.

[Firefly]

Heres a link, the greater German reich had a population of about 80 million:

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4901.html

Still not enough to justify taking on the World I dont think.

[Hosenfield]

the population of the soviet union is an estimated 200-210 million people. The US had 140 million people. UK had 54 million people.

Germany had 68 million people.


my point exactly...the US's and USSR's population doubled that of Germany...

oxford's ww2 encyclopedia.

not doubled, tripled!! and, most of all, a much larger portion of russian male population were of military age. the life expectancy was in the 40s for the average russian while the average german it was in the low 60s.

And, worst of all, the russians weren't above sending young women to their deaths..

[Firefly]

Young women? I would see that as progressive, today our countries allow women to serve in most military branches.

[Hosenfield]

well, i cant fancy seeing women get shot and blown up!

i believe in most modern armies, women serve non-combative roles

The soviets made all-female rifle units and sent them at the germans charging/retreating to their deaths. Then the germans would take the captured lot and have some fun... :lol:

[Revolver]

Indeed, a reason why Germany lost the war is because they didn't take advantage of women. America allowed women to work in factories so the men that would normally work there would be able to fight. If the Germans did this, they would have had many more men on the front.

[Firefly]

well, i cant fancy seeing women get shot and blown up!

i believe in most modern armies, women serve non-combative roles

The soviets made all-female rifle units and sent them at the germans charging/retreating to their deaths. Then the germans would take the captured lot and have some fun... :lol:

Try telling that to all the women who have been in action in Iraq.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

You need to scan the months to find tem though, Im not doing all the leg work here :D

[LargeBrew]

Hitler in true Dictator fashion failed to understand the art of deligation. His job as Leader was to ensure his Generals did their job not try to do it for them, he was after all only an NCO in WW1. By engendering both a fear of failure and retribution in his commanders he in effect developed a yes man culture and became blinded to his own inadaquecy as a military commander.
In simple terms he was poor workman who blamed his tools rather than his lack of ability to utilise them

[Revolver]

Hitler in true Dictator fashion failed to understand the art of deligation. His job as Leader was to ensure his Generals did their job not try to do it for them, he was after all only an NCO in WW1. By engendering both a fear of failure and retribution in his commanders he in effect developed a yes man culture and became blinded to his own inadaquecy as a military commander.
In simple terms he was poor workman who blamed his tools rather than his lack of ability to utilise them

Nice use of comparison at the end. Very nicely done and thought out too. Yeah, I agree that Hitler was totally inadaquet as a military commander. The only real talent he had that got him up to the top was his speech making abilities which flared up the crowd's emotions. Had Hitler not interfered with strategy making and left it up to his commanders, World War II in Europe would have gone on a lot longer than 1945.

[Sturmtruppen]

"Declaring war on the U.S.S.R."


you need to have an ASS instead of head for doing that!

[Percy_Pongo]

For me it's invading Poland. Up until the 1 Sept '39 he had achieved some incredible victories without a shot being fired. Once he'd invaded Poland he set in motion a chain of events which i think was always going to lead to Germany's defeat in the end.


As to Largebrew's point, it's worth looking at the reasons as to why Hitler ended up trying to micro-manage the military, he became the victim of his own success. It's hardly surprising, he, a lowly corporal in the first world war achieved more in campaigns lasting a matter of weeks than what the 'great' general staff could manage over 4 years, and with only a fraction of the casualties. There were also a good many voices in the general staff of 1939\40 trying to tell him that invading France was a bad decision, yet during the first 2 years of the war the German army swept all before them and Hitler believed it was down to his intuition.

[Gen. Sandworm]

I think declaring war on the US was a very big mistake. Coz really Hitler didnt need to. Japan did not agree to attack Russia from the east. If this had been the agreement than it would have been mutally efficent. Once the Russians knew they could decrease their forces in the east they we quickly transfered to the west to help combat the Germans. Germany declaring war on the US did nothing but bring an extra enemy against them.

[ww2fanatic1944]

the US would have declared war on germany anyway, the US wouldnt sit by and watch europe become a huge nazi germany state.

[Gen. Sandworm]

the US would have declared war on germany anyway, the US wouldnt sit by and watch europe become a huge nazi germany state.

Only because the UK remained. If they had not it would not have been wise to attempt a war with Germany. Its hard to say...........but I think the American would have waited for Germany to fuck up to make a legitimate claim for the war with Germany. Remember most American looked at it as a European problem.

[ww2fanatic1944]

Only because the UK remained. If they had not it would not have been wise to attempt a war with Germany.

so really, you are voting for hitlers two big mistakes as: not taking britian out early in the war, and declaring war on the US?

i still have to believe that while hitler was in the process of taking over britian, the US would declare war on Germany. they wouldnt sit by and watch Britian get conquered, then realize that they should be fighting but it was too late.

[Hosenfield]

remember folks, politics are without morals. its just a matter of doing what you can to stay in power :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

[Sturmtruppen]

remember folks, politics are without morals. its just a matter of doing what you can to stay in power :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
hosie,follow that,and maybe you get in the us government as a republican! :lol: .

there are also politics with moral,but they are a minority :)

[Commando Jordovski]

Germany made the biggest mistake attacking the Soviet Union and since the Japanese attacked the U.S.A then it was inevitable that the USA would declare war on the Axis which ment Germany aswell, so it was only a matter of time when hitler faced going to war with the USA aswell.

[StalingradK]

I wouldn't say there was one single mistake that Hitler made, though I voted declaring war on America, but several. For instance, they attacked Russia yeah, but could have conquered it by taking the oil fields. Or declaring war on the USA for no real reason, the only reason Hitler declared war on the US, was not because of the Tripartite Pact, but because they wanted to say, Germany is the world's overlord, no one will mess with us. They could have just as well have said, hey, screw you Tojo, you're the idiot that attacked the sleeping giant, not us.

[Othala]

I'm quite suprised no one has mentioned this yet, but it might because it wasn't listed as a choice in the polls. In my eyes I view the Battle of Dunkerque as Hitler's biggest mistake of the war. He put far too much trust in Goering's words. Had Guderian and the other Generals present been allowed to storm the beaches and capture the mass of the evacuating troops of the BEF and French military, conditions would have been quite ideal for peace talks to resume since the bulk of the British Army would be in German hands. I view that as Hitler's first and costliest mistake. For it led to an ideal platform for the countless raids over German-occupied Europe which led to the deaths of thousands of civilians and troops.

Past that another costly mistake was Hitler's pulling back, I believe, Army Group Centre or parts of it on the Eastern Front to take care of some small pockets of Soviet resistance in their Southern sector which could've been dealt with after occupation of the Soviet capital had been gained. Hitler, though realized his misjudgement and sent the troops back towards Moscow again, but it was too late. The effects had already set in and slowly Germany began to run into defeat.

[FW-190 Pilot]

i think it all start when japan tries to attack US, they are going to lose no matter what hitler choose.
i think during that time, american are trying to aviod war with borth german and japan, its obviously not a country's best interest to lost soldiers on some war that has nothing to do with the country. Japan should try to work out a deal with the american stating japanese would not try to invade american and its allies, in exchange, British and its commonwealth country would have to sell japan the oil japan desperately needs in the war of china. Just imagine how fast china would be defeated with 80% of its navy and air force concentrade on chinese operation.

[Firefly]

I know talking about Japan is a bit off-topic. But, in reality the US pushed Japan into action. It would be niaive to say that the US didnt expect any Japanese aggression. Even sending the fleet to pearl was a bit of a dare? Im not subscibing to any conspiracy theories here, but the US was definately putting great pressure on Japan in 1940-41 as the US wanted Japan out of China.

[alephh]

In my eyes I view the Battle of Dunkerque as Hitler's biggest mistake of the war. He put far too much trust in Goering's words. ... conditions would have been quite ideal for peace talks.

Peace with Britain - wasn't that pretty much the motive behind Hitler's actions (stop the push)? He admired England, even told privately (to Galland for example) that England was 100 years ahead of them.

With gentle dealing of british troops he wanted to smooth things out for peace talks.

I also believe, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that behind his logic was grand strategy: Germany was very powerful mainland nation, Britain very powerful naval nation. If Hitler had any desire to alter the power balance of the world - he desperately needed ally with strong naval forces.

I cannot see the attack to Soviet Union as a error - in long term german strategic point of view. As centuries have proven, there are too many people in too small area in Germany. There is not enough food. And to buy food, Germany needs something to sell, and as they do not have raw materials, the only possible solution is high level production - which requires raw materials.

Germany is a nation with two weakness - lack of food, lack of raw materials. To be genuinely strong world power one has to be self-sufficient. Only mainland place to get required raw materials - Soviet Union.

Hitler wanted to make strong Germany. This was the problem he had to solve.

There of course was one tiiiiny problem - Germany didn't have broad border with Soviet Union - pretty much a must for blitzkrieg tactics. But that was easily "corrected" by walking over Poland - which caused a little twist - as France was getting in a way...

... And so on.

[Crab_to_be]

There is a school of thought that says Hitler's biggest mistake was invading Poland. If he'd stopped at Czechoslovakia, he may well have been remembered as the great statesman who united the German people and returned Germany to the world stage as a major power.

[alephh]

My vote went to "Not properly preparing Germany for the war ahead".

Considering german politics and actions war was very likely to begin.

Germany had capacity to produce over 22,000 armored fighting vehicles per year, and they only produced 1,300.

So much aggressive propaganda talks, and they barely produced couple of sticks to wage war. :-D

[Hanz Lutz]

My vote went to "Not properly preparing Germany for the war ahead".

Considering german politics and actions war was very likely to begin.

Germany had capacity to produce over 22,000 armored fighting vehicles per year, and they only produced 1,300.

So much aggressive propaganda talks, and they barely produced couple of sticks to wage war. :-D

I think then they been prepare for war,but fight on too much fronts are destroyd them.

In that time ,which country can fight on all sides of world,with out help,germans allies hmmm......italy is wiped out in first years of war,others is been to weak ,croatia,romania and others.

If i am in wrong warning me on nice way,not attack me ...........not you alephh , who they are they are know. :wink:

[Blitz]

I agree with the post that Hitler allowed England to get out of Dunkirk. Hitler did admire the British and perhaps cost him the war. Along with attrition.

[alephh]

Germany had capacity to produce over 22,000 armored fighting vehicles per year, and they only produced 1,300.

I think then they been prepare for war, but fight on too much fronts are destroyd them.

But why there were so many fronts - wouldn't you say because germans didn't have enough military power (production) to win quickly? :-)

With 5% of potential production they managed to capture over 30%-50% of several Soviet resources (food, iron ore, etc). What if germany had produced 10%, or 20% of their capacity? Then the strike against Soviet Union would have been strong enough to end (at least major) fighting on that front.

[minor editing]

[BDL]

German industry wasn't prepared for war, they didn't even go to a war footing (ie women in factories, working night shifts, stopping production of luxury items) until late in the war. German preperation for the war was woeful.

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

German industry wasn't prepared for war, they didn't even go to a war footing (ie women in factories, working night shifts, stopping production of luxury items) until late in the war. German preperation for the war was woeful.

I agree with that. But even so, the quality of the items they were able to produce was amazing - such as the Tiger tank.

[Twitch1]

I'd say from my historical perspective that it's a toss up. Taking on either the USA or the USSR was a big mistake. It wouldn't have mattered really as Germany could have coped with ONE front after North Africa was over but not both. It's totally well known that Germany was NOT ready for war BEFORE any other factor was involved.
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/waffen/violent-smiley-090.gif

[Blitz]

In the same perspective,neither were any of the Allies prepared. Yes,there were a lot of factors. Bailling El duce out of his mess ups postponing the Russian campaign. Which,was necessary as stalin was going to do the same to Germany.

[Floyd08]

i believe that United States a big trap to the germans because at that U.S. has many nuclear weapon although russia has develop its nuclear but it economy is failed due to crisis according to world war II history when the german attacks the russia.The russian believe that they will defeat the germans they believe that there military is capable of destroying the german nazi but they wrong.The German Nazi are very ready than they expect with the help of Jewish engineer they develop and improve the weapon of the german nazi military.But when the U.S. arrive theydestroy
the food facilities military barracks of the german nazis . The U.S. did have not any difficulties in destroying the german nazi military.


i hopeu understand all of u :(

[Floyd08]

and also U.S. has many nuclear weapon than the russia atthe time of World war II Russia is porwerful in terms of military population but U.S. is powerful also in terms of military population and military technology. and also at that almost all of the UN member are allied of the united states of america and until nowU.S. is the most powerful country in the world U.S. once called police of the world he is the only nation who can make operation in every part of the world at any time at all coast no matter what situation no matter what climate. U.S. is the most powerful nation in the whole he believe in god but excuse me im not american im from the asian nation telling u my knowledge about United States telling about my feeling in these nation U.S. is the once who maintain not only in his nation but also the whole world may god bless u all :)

[Crab_to_be]

and also U.S. has many nuclear weapon than the russia atthe time of World war II Russia is porwerful in terms of military population but U.S. is powerful also in terms of military population and military technology. and also at that almost all of the UN member are allied of the united states of america and until nowU.S. is the most powerful country in the world U.S. once called police of the world he is the only nation who can make operation in every part of the world at any time at all coast no matter what situation no matter what climate. U.S. is the most powerful nation in the whole he believe in god but excuse me im not american im from the asian nation telling u my knowledge about United States telling about my feeling in these nation U.S. is the once who maintain not only in his nation but also the whole world may god bless u all :)

The USA had no nuclear weapons or allies in the UN at its time of entry into WW2. Nuclear Weapons came just before the end of the war, the UN later than that.

[pdf27]

The USA had no nuclear weapons or allies in the UN at its time of entry into WW2. Nuclear Weapons came just before the end of the war, the UN later than that.
Although the Allies (US, UK, Soviet Union, etc.) did refer to themselves as the "United Nations" from time to time. I'm pretty sure they did so at Yalta for instance.

[Crab_to_be]

The Allies did also refer to themselves as the united nations, but in the contextm Floyd08 was referring to the United Nations Organisation.

...at that almost all of the UN member are allied of the united states of america...

[seandelevan]

I voted for not taking out England. Why?

Lets say Hitler did.

There would be no front in Africa=more men and supplies for the Russian invasion.

I'm sure Germany would have gained many capital ships from GB would have detered US intervention esp. when Pearl Harbor would occur later down the road. And even if the US intervened during the whole "invasion" process, the Americans would have been under maned and under gunned. Would have been disasterous. Plus Japan would have def ran even wilder if most of the US forces were tied up in GB.

SO

-GB would be OUT
-US would def be a hurting unit
-More troops for Russian campaign
-With no threat from US Japan would be strong and confident to attack USSR
-Plus Russia would have no lend lease from US or GB

After USSR is defeated Im pretty sure US would NOT be invaded but would have to play to AXIS policy. Unless A-bombs were dropped on the US, which could have been a possiblity by 1946/47 by both Japan and Germany.

It was closer than what people thought.

[Sturmtruppen]

The biggest hitler's mistake was to born.

[South African Military]

I voted for not taking out England. Why?

Lets say Hitler did.

There would be no front in Africa=more men and supplies for the Russian invasion.

I'm sure Germany would have gained many capital ships from GB would have detered US intervention esp. when Pearl Harbor would occur later down the road. And even if the US intervened during the whole "invasion" process, the Americans would have been under maned and under gunned. Would have been disasterous. Plus Japan would have def ran even wilder if most of the US forces were tied up in GB.

SO

-GB would be OUT
-US would def be a hurting unit
-More troops for Russian campaign
-With no threat from US Japan would be strong and confident to attack USSR
-Plus Russia would have no lend lease from US or GB

After USSR is defeated Im pretty sure US would NOT be invaded but would have to play to AXIS policy. Unless A-bombs were dropped on the US, which could have been a possiblity by 1946/47 by both Japan and Germany.

It was closer than what people thought.

To add to this, the commonwealth would not have joined, India, Canada, and the ANZACs, contributed allot. It has been said that before the end of WW2, Germany actually tested a form of "nuclear bomb". Another year or so and things might of been different.

[Firefly]

Hi SAM, where have you been hiding then?

[HEINRICI]

My vote went to "Not properly preparing Germany for the war ahead".

Considering german politics and actions war was very likely to begin.

Germany had capacity to produce over 22,000 armored fighting vehicles per year, and they only produced 1,300.

So much aggressive propaganda talks, and they barely produced couple of sticks to wage war. :-D

Congratulations; you've hit upon the correct answer. Certainly everything mentioned in the list of dumb moves by Hitler deserves
consideration; but none of them tops his refusal to maximize his
chances as the war began. Hitler's single greatest mistake was his
Operational Order For The Conduct Of The War No. 2, issued September
3rd, 1939. It was his reaction to the declaration of war on Germany by
Britain and France. His gamble to bluff the Allies again had failed, and
now he faced war an a large scale and blockade. What was in this Order
No. 2? It placed all applicable German industry on a war footing; but did
not seek to maximize production by placing war industry on a 24-hr. production schedule. In other words, organizing for war in breadth but
not in depth. This did not happen until after Stalingrad, when Albert Speer
produced the production 'miracle'. By then it was far too late. Using the
figures from 1943-44 and beginning in late 1939, it can be projected that
Germany would have had 3-400 more aircraft for the Battle Of Britain, and
would be outproducing the British. Even the bumbling Goering would have
a hard time screwing up that advantage.
More importantly, the Wehrmacht would have had approximately 5400
battle tanks for Operation Barbarossa, instead of the 2800 they started
with. Hitler's dreams of conquest were bold, but his ideas at the operational level were timid. This showed itself in the leadup to the Battle
Of France. There was no plan to strike deep into France, only short-range
attacks against the Allies in Belgium and Holland. The downed aircraft with
the German plans that fell into Allied hands that winter allowed Manstein
to introduce his plan, and the rest is history. Likewise for Barbarossa,
Hitler interfered with OKW's plan to prioritize Moscow, altering the basic
plan to require that Army Group North capture Leningrad, and Army Group
South capture the Ukraine BEFORE they could go after Moscow. Fortunately for the Wehrmacht, Army Group North moved so fast that
Hitler allowed Hoth's panzer army to assist Army Group Center in the
Battle Of Smolensk. When this battle was over at the end of July '41,
62 German divisions sat astride the Moscow highway only 120 miles from
the Kremlin, facing 28 hastily-scraped together Red Army divisions.
This opportunity only lasted two weeks; the only chance Germany had
for victory.
Unfortunately for the invaders, they didn't have enough armour and
other motorized transport to go around. Von Kleist's panzers, part of
Runstedt's Army Group South, was struggling to break through the
Russian forces southeast of Kiev, and the whole offensive was behind
schedule. Hitler worried about the long salient running from Smolensk
to Kiev. Therefore, he made the fatal error to send Guderian south
to assist Von Kleist. IF the Wehrmact had the additional 2600 tanks
that all-out production could have produced between October '39 and
June '41, there would be no need to send Guderian south. There would
be plenty of reserves to replace the many breakdowns. Hoth's and
Guderian's reinforced panzer armies would have swept behing Moscow
in late August '41, cutting off the north-south Soviet railnet. This would
isolate both Moscow AND reverse the fronts for both Leningrad and Kiev.
Leningrad would be completely cut off and strategically irrelevant. The
Red Army's Southwest Front would be forced to try to escape to Kharkov
and points east, but part of Guderian's army could easily head south and
cut them off by going through Kursk, Belgorod, Kharkov, and finally Rostov-On-Don. European Russian would be lost.
All this would happen IF the proper order had been given in 1939,
despite der Fuhrer's meddling. Germany would be in control of Europe
from Ireland to the Volga, her armies essentially intact, and still not at
war with the U.S. Even if the U.S. declared war in the fall of '40 after
a successful German invasion of England, it would take until at least
mid-1942 before she could do anything about it. By then, the Germans
would have had a year to consolidate and exploit her new resources,
and shift her forces to the West. This leads directly to Hitler's second
greatest mistake; disinterst in atomic power. Hitler's lack of scientific
education, plus his 'victory fever' after France fell, led to the low
priority of German nuclear program. Heisenberg was about three
years from getting the bomb in '45. If the 'Heroes Of Telemark' had
failed, maybe two years. With full backing of the German government
from '41 onwards, maybe by late '45. Without the bomb, fleets of
B-36's would have destroyed Germany in 1946. With it, V-4 rockets
and/or four-engine jet Amerikabombers could have hit New York,
Washington, etc.
Hitler's third biggest mistake was declaring war on the U.S. when he
didn't have to. The treaty between the Axis powers only required aid
if another Axis partner was attacked. Since Japan did the attacking,
there was no requirement for aid. If Hitler had not declared war,
it might have been six months or even a year before the Americans
declared war.
I consider his 'mistake' of attacking the Soviet Union ONLY a mistake
because of his lack of preparation. As Commisar Ombrok has stated
elswhere in these posts, Stalin had a plan to conquer Europe as soon
as the Germans were worn down fighting the Allies. His target date;
July 6, 1941. He had nearly 30% of his armoured forces stationed in
or near the border with Rumania, in the newly extorted district of
Bukovina. His plan was to quickly grab the Ploesti oil fields, starve the
Germans of fuel, and then attack Berlin. Hitler beat him to the punch
by two weeks, catching the Red Army in mid-deployment. Stalin went
into a funk, knowing his plan for conquest was gone. This makes it all
the more curious as to why he kept calling for a 'second front' in 1943,
when it was obvious that the Germans had lost. Without the Normandy
invasion, Stalin could have rolled to Paris.

[Dani]

HEINRICI, please post the source as well.

[HEINRICI]

HEINRICI, please post the source as well.
There are dozens of sources that are involved; mostly books such
as Col. Seaton's 'The Battle Of Moscow', and the best single source
I have found on the war in the East, which is at :
www.wargamesdirectory.com/html/articles/HitlersPanzersEast/default.asp

My views on Stalin depends in some respect on the opinions of
Commisar Ombrok, a frequent poster on this site. He seems to be an
expert on Stalin, and I have yet to find any contradiction of his
statements. The only major question I have left on these matters
is what would have been left of Soviet industrial capability after the
loss of the Moscow area? I have been able to track the movement
east in late 1941 of some of the Russian industrial giants, but not
enough information to determine what they could have produced in
1942-3. The aircraft manufacturer Sukhoi, for example, moved all
the way to Vladivostok; but I have no idea how the raw materials
would get to them or from where. I do know this; If the Russians had
lost the Caucasus and it's oil, they still had plenty of reserves in Central
Siberia and elsewhere.

[Canaris]

Hitler's greatest mistake? Got to be that moustache. Did nothing for him.

[Firefly]

Hitler's greatest mistake? Got to be that moustache. Did nothing for him.

Worked for Chaplin though!

[SS. Kallan]

On the contrary my friend, people know who Hitler is because of his trademark moustache. But I voted not taking the British out of the picture in the early war, if they would have invaded England and set up a stronhold there, it would have made a U.S invasion nearly impossible. But his second greatest mistake was thinking that he could conquer the world and declare war on any country he pleased, such as Russia.

[Kurt88]

Everyone knows that the day Hitler attacked Russia is the day he lost the war. Another huge contributing factor was the holocaust. It is often said that if Hitler had the choice to send 1,000 troops to the front or to the nearest concentration camp he would have done the latter. Hitler poured way too many resources into the destruction of the jews. Valuable troops railroads and time where wasted on "the final soution."

[Cuts]

Hitler's greatest mistake? Got to be that moustache. Did nothing for him.

Worked for Chaplin though!

Could be right you know.
Look at other dictators/mass murderers/weirdos with dodgy facial hair:

Crippen, Guido Fawkes, Franco, Franz Joseph I, John George Haig, John Holmes, Hussein, Masayoshi, Freddy Mercury, Piłsudski, Stalin, Vercingetorix, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Zapata and very probably Boudicca all had face fungus and with one exception all are dead*.

Remember children:

Stay Alive - don't get a 'tache !






* Castro doesn't count as he is inflatable.

[Jim]

If the Invasion of the Soviet Union was a terrible mistake the Russian were superior by means of Weoponary. The T-34 also stopped the Geman offensive. Hitler alos concentrated an attack of the countries surrondin Russia diverting only a small force into Moscow.

[Digger]

Hi, my name is Digger and I've just joined, so please excuse any errors as I'm still flying by wire:shock:

This subject is raised again and again on various sites and I must admit most people go for the military option, perhaps invading the Soviet Union the most popular.

I myself go for the option of Germany was not properly prepared for war. This is purely from my own interpretation of the research I've done. It's a complex answer on a multi level, but can I simply say there is one point that always sticks in my mind. Germany never had a large enough industrial base or economy to wage a protracted war.

Regards to all:)
Digger.

[Chevan]

Hi, my name is Digger and I've just joined, so please excuse any errors as I'm still flying by wire:shock:

This subject is raised again and again on various sites and I must admit most people go for the military option, perhaps invading the Soviet Union the most popular.

I myself go for the option of Germany was not properly prepared for war. This is purely from my own interpretation of the research I've done. It's a complex answer on a multi level, but can I simply say there is one point that always sticks in my mind. Germany never had a large enough industrial base or economy to wage a protracted war.

Regards to all:)
Digger.

Hi Digger.
Welcome on the board :)

Germany never had a large enough industrial base or economy

But Germany had enough base to capture practically all the Europe till 1941.
Every year Germans war industry had a great increase , even under allied bombing in 1943-44 it was capable to increase war production.

I don't think that invasion into USSR (operation Barbarossa) was a Hitler's mistake.
This was a good blitzkrieg plan , very professional. Germans practicaly in 6 month reached the Moscow.
Victory was practically in their hands. But ... i think ,the main mistake of Hitler was in the overestimation of its Japan's ally.
Instead of attack of USSR Japanes selected the "sea direction" and attacked Perl-Harbor. This was a realy stupid decision. Becouse Stalin took Far-Eastern troops for the protection of Moscow. This troops really saved the USSR from quick defeat in terrible winter of 1941.
After the Barbarossa was down , Germans had a good chance in 1942.
Army groupe "South" practicaly took the Caucasus. If Stalingrad battle would be successful for the germans they could easy surround the Moscow and Leningrad. But in end of 1942 Red Army obtained a "bloody war experiense" and became a more professional in military planning ,besides this lend-lise began and evacuated to the Ural soviet plans began to make a war production on entire power.
Certainly Germany cann't to wage protracted war. It hadn't enought resources for it.
But ,if Germany together with Japan finished off the USSR in 1941 , i absolutly sure, they would win the WW2, and today the world will be another.

Cheers.

[FW-190 Pilot]

i say the A4 missiles is their main mistake. Albert Speer said it himself that those billions of dollars, resources, people could have used to build more jets, which is more effective against allied bombers.

[Nickdfresh]

Indeed, a reason why Germany lost the war is because they didn't take advantage of women. America allowed women to work in factories so the men that would normally work there would be able to fight. If the Germans did this, they would have had many more men on the front.

The Germans made use of forced or conscripted labor. For example, I've read of a French police unit on exercise in Paris that was captured by the German Army, disarmed, and sent enmass to a factory in Germany. This of course greatly effected quality as slave laborers tend to be disgruntled. The Germans also used the FN Browning Highpower, having a great need for any pistol they could get their hands on due to the large occupation forces and internal security units necessitated. But you may not want to fire an FN BP made specifically for German forces under occupation, as many are reported to contain structural weaknesses and are prone to blow apart on firing.:lol:

[Nickdfresh]

What about the Luftwaffe's disinterest in a four engine bomber and its emphasis on tactical operations over strategic? Does this have anything to do with Hitler? He didn't exactly force them to develop a weapon's platform that could have reached the Soviet factories moved east. And this was a possible bomber platform that could have evolved into the "Amerika Bomber" with operational experiences; as opposed to their experimenting with very unreliable revolutionary technology, that is so difficult to do in the middle of a war.

[Norris]

i voted attacking USSR because its that the reason that the US joined the war because hitler attacked russia and they were our allies so we declared war on germany?

[Digger]

Hi guys,

I'll throw something else up here. By mid 1941 Great Britain with a smaller industrial base was out producing German industry. Thus Germany had never made the industrial and economic preparations for war.

The fact Germany never produced heavy bombers is partial proof of this and many of Germany's war aims were impossible to acheive because of the limitations on the German industry and economy.

If Germany had properly prepared for war, a lot of the military blunders wpould not have occurred. It's no good saying Germany produced more weapons, munitions in 1944 when the Allied bombing was at it's heaviest, because by then it was too late. If these production levels were attained in 1942, then victory might have still been possible.

Better still if Germany had it's economy on a Total War footing in 1939, then they would not have lost the Battle of Britain, nor failed in Barbarossa.

Perhaps this whole subject, the economy of Germany's war is worthy of a seperate thread?

Regards to all
Digger.

[Nickdfresh]

i voted attacking USSR because its that the reason that the US joined the war because hitler attacked russia and they were our allies so we declared war on germany?


Hitler declared war on the U.S. on December 15, 1941 --eight days after Pearl Harbor. The Wehrmacht was already far into the U.S.S.R. by then...

[Norris]

o ok so he declared war on the US we didn't declare war on him......... now i get it, still the USSR is way to big to take over what was hitler going to do take his army and go destroy the inuits in siberia

[Digger]

If the Germans had went to war with the proper military resources there would be no Inuits to worry about. Germany did not go onto a Total War footing until 1943, when it was too late.

A total war footing in 1938/1939 would have made them pretty much unbeatable.

Regards to all
Digger.

[FW-190 Pilot]

by the way, i think instead of researching the tanks like king tiger, the germans could have add slope armour, thick track and possibly add a 75mm or 85mm cannon (edit their current panzer division) to their current tanks? I mean their suspension system is great, that is the advantage they have compare to the allied tank, and yet they gave it up and make an unreliable one?

Instead of having a few of powerful yet unreliable tank, they should have mass tank with medium power.

[Digger]

G'day,

As Fw-190 pointed out, simplification of tank manufacture would have helped the German cause. Part of the problem was many German weapon systems relied on craftsmen, rather than production line methods.

There was an attempt to produce a copy of the T-34 with German features but this proposal was not accepted.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[Panzer Ace]

Many good points here!

But I would have to say.......

1.) Total war not being implemented very early in or before the war started.

2.) Hitler interferring with the operational plans. From the invasion of France to the fatal mistakes in Russia and not being able to reach Moscow in time before the winter.

3.) Keeping Goring around to run the Luftwaffe... after the British retreat from Dunkirk and the failure to win air superiority over Britian to finally being unable to resupply 6th Army at Stalingrad, this guy should of been sacked long ago.

4.) No one has mentioned it yet, but i believe it was Raedar, wanted more u-boats before the war broke out. There was too few U-boats to effectively bring Britian to her knees. Again you could say that was not inplementing total war very early in the war or just after the war started.

[Digger]

G'day,

To Panzer Ace, I agree totally with point one. Hitler's interference with operational plans was a problem from the beginning of the war. It was his infamous "Stand Fast" order of 15/12/1941 which basically saved the German front which instilled in his mind he was a great military genius.

Goering was a huge problem and as the war progressed his interest declined. Hitler's big mistake here was not sacking Goering and not appointing Erhard Milch to the supply effort for Stalingrad until it was too late. With Goering still in charge the Luftwaffe and especially the Jagdwaffe were doomed.

Yes Raeder did want more U-Boats and complained bitterly of the declining share of steel production given to the Kreigsmarine. The only problem was the Kreigsmarine had been hoarding steel since before the war, thereby making a mockery of Raeder's and Donitz's claims. this discovery was made in 1942 by Milch and passed onto Speer.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[Nickdfresh]

by the way, i think instead of researching the tanks like king tiger, the germans could have add slope armour, thick track and possibly add a 75mm or 85mm cannon (edit their current panzer division) to their current tanks? I mean their suspension system is great, that is the advantage they have compare to the allied tank, and yet they gave it up and make an unreliable one?

Instead of having a few of powerful yet unreliable tank, they should have mass tank with medium power.

They did do this to some extent. The excellent 75mm was fixed to the Panzer Mk. IV and its armor upgraded in order to hold-their-own with the first T-34s before a better tank, which turned out to be the Panther, could be developed.

If Germany had focused its production on the Panther, that alone would have saved them some grief.

[stephen]

what makes you believe that germany could have starved briton it was only a matter of time before the american and british ships breached the blocade of the small german navy,which was ill equiped to keep a sustained presence at see and the moment hunter killer groups were formed the end of the german navy was very near

[Helmut Von Moltke]

I voted for declaring war on the USA. If the US did not take part, then there would be much less aid to Britain - no D Day, and no lend lease tothe Soviets, thus allowing more German soldiers to face the Red tide. I didn't vote for the attack on the USSR, since despite the fact that I have nothing but contempt for Hitler and his political ideology, in a way it was morally justifiable. Graf Galen, the famous German Catholic Priest who stopped the Nazi euthanasia program, thought the same. The only thing wrong with it was the murderous fellows in charge of the political execution of the invasion. After all, if Germany only attacked the USSR and no one else, the Western Allies could hardly have bothered to help the USSR. Most likely they would sit back and be content while Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.

K

[Firefly]

what makes you believe that germany could have starved briton it was only a matter of time before the american and british ships breached the blocade of the small german navy,which was ill equiped to keep a sustained presence at see and the moment hunter killer groups were formed the end of the german navy was very near

You have a very good point there.

[Firefly]

I voted for declaring war on the USA. If the US did not take part, then there would be much less aid to Britain - no D Day, and no lend lease tothe Soviets, thus allowing more German soldiers to face the Red tide. I didn't vote for the attack on the USSR, since despite the fact that I have nothing but contempt for Hitler and his political ideology, in a way it was morally justifiable. Graf Galen, the famous German Catholic Priest who stopped the Nazi euthanasia program, thought the same. The only thing wrong with it was the murderous fellows in charge of the political execution of the invasion. After all, if Germany only attacked the USSR and no one else, the Western Allies could hardly have bothered to help the USSR. Most likely they would sit back and be content while Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.

K

I do agree with you about the Nazis and Soviets, I too believe if they only fought each other a lot of people would have been happy. Right up until the time they would be faced by the eventual winner.

[Feldmarschall Erwin Romme]

I am shocked SHOCKED to see the death of Rommel with only 5 votes.

[Dani]

I am shocked SHOCKED to see the death of Rommel with only 5 votes.

Please change your avatar with one ww2 related. It's one of our rules.

[Digger]

The loss of Rommel was not fatal to Germany's war effort. They had already lost the war before his suicide.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[Panzer Ace]

what makes you believe that germany could have starved briton it was only a matter of time before the american and british ships breached the blocade of the small german navy,which was ill equiped to keep a sustained presence at see and the moment hunter killer groups were formed the end of the german navy was very near

Germany nearly staved Britian into submission. Maybe they would of surrendered maybe not. I believe at the start of the war Germany only had 39 U-boats. That is a far number than the 300 u-boats that Donitz needed.

Actually, I have heard that the Battle of the Atlantic was the if not one of the most important battles of WW2. Britian depended on foreign aid. Cut off her supplies and you Germany really doesnt have to worry about a campain in France, little to no resistance in the middle east and no lend lease to Russia. The Battle of the Atlantic should be one of the reasons why Germany lost WW2.

[Panzer Ace]

The loss of Rommel was not fatal to Germany's war effort. They had already lost the war before his suicide.

Regards to all,
Digger.

Makes you wonder how Rommel would of handled an army group in Russia!? I believe after the loss of the middle east he should of been sent to the eastern front. He likely could of done more damage to an enemy who didnt seem to care about their losses, as long as it gained results.

[BlunderWaffen]

Biggest mistake?

Being such an incompetent, paranoid, superstitious failure of a military leader.
The man's own intiatives and crazy ideas cost Germany dearly.

His eternal meddling in military general's affairs and with the war effort and his personal ideas for weapons wasted resources, time and men's lives for Germany.

In my opinion if he had just stayed out of the war effort completely and left the management/ideas up to his talented generals and ministers, Germany could have lasted alot longer in the war.

Also Germany's economy really should have gone to into "Total-War" footing from the start, Hitler expected a quick, decisive German victory over all of Europe in around 2 years, which was simply not feasible.
And declaring war on Russia when he did opened Germany up to a gazillion fronts all over the place where they vunerable and stretched.

He should conquered France, the lowlands and most of Western Europe as he did, then shifted all his attention to Britian. Once the main allied staging ground and enemy in Europe was gone, Germany would be able to effectively force Russia into a surrender and cut off the U.S. from ever attempting an Invasion.

[Chevan]

Biggest mistake?

Being such an incompetent, paranoid, superstitious failure of a military leader.
The man's own intiatives and crazy ideas cost Germany dearly.

His eternal meddling in military general's affairs and with the war effort and his personal ideas for weapons wasted resources, time and men's lives for Germany.

In my opinion if he had just stayed out of the war effort completely and left the management/ideas up to his talented generals and ministers, Germany could have lasted alot longer in the war.

Also Germany's economy really should have gone to into "Total-War" footing from the start, Hitler expected a quick, decisive German victory over all of Europe in around 2 years, which was simply not feasible.
And declaring war on Russia when he did opened Germany up to a gazillion fronts all over the place where they vunerable and stretched.

He should conquered France, the lowlands and most of Western Europe as he did, then shifted all his attention to Britian. Once the main allied staging ground and enemy in Europe was gone, Germany would be able to effectively force Russia into a surrender and cut off the U.S. from ever attempting an Invasion.
Is it seems for me or you really simpatize with the Nazi germany in WW2?
I'm not support the point (tupical for the post war german general's memours) that Hitler "prevented" them to win the war.
I think Germany was very close to the aim - to win the war for 2 year.
French run away as soon as they can in 1940, Britain was isolated in Islands US till Perl Harbor was the neitral. All was OK till the end 1941.
Who is real was mistaken - its Japane's attack to the Perl-Harbor. and involving the US in the war.
Every german summer offensive in 1941 and 1942 was very sucsesfull (except the main aim - Moscow and Stalingrad).
So i don't think that Hitlers mistake was the invasion in USSR (althogh it sound cynicaly).
If Hitler gave the full "freedom" for the generals they never had started this war - i'm sure. But Germans success in early period of war was becouse of Hitler's demon energy.

Cheers.

[Lancer44]

Is it seems for me or you really simpatize with the Nazi germany in WW2?
I'm not support the point (tupical for the post war german general's memours) that Hitler "prevented" them to win the war.
I think Germany was very close to the aim - to win the war for 2 year.
French run away as soon as they can in 1940, Britain was isolated in Islands US till Perl Harbor was the neitral. All was OK till the end 1941.
Who is real was mistaken - its Japane's attack to the Perl-Harbor. and involving the US in the war.
Every german summer offensive in 1941 and 1942 was very sucsesfull (except the main aim - Moscow and Stalingrad).
So i don't think that Hitlers mistake was the invasion in USSR (althogh it sound cynicaly).
If Hitler gave the full "freedom" for the generals they never had started this war - i'm sure. But Germans success in early period of war was becouse of Hitler's demon energy.

Cheers.

I agree.

Lancer44

[BlunderWaffen]

I'm not sympathising, I'm stating it from the German Perspective.
That really was his mistake in WW2.

If he hadn't tried all his hair-brained schemes and totally controlled all aspects of the war effort personally, Germany could have lasted a bit longer.

Lol hey but it's a good thing he was an idiot.

[BlunderWaffen]

Their early war success had nothing to do with "Hitler's Demon Energy" as you say, it was simply because nobody was really prepared for war except Germany at the time.

The militaries of France, Belgium, Netherlands, and so on were non-existant, plus Germany's Blitzkreig tactics were really something new and revoluntionary, I mean France was still trying to use Trench warfare in 1940 at the Maginot Line.

Germany was simply well prepared and far better equipped and trained than all of the armies of Western Europe put together in the early 1940's.

[Man of Stoat]

The French had more tanks in 1940 than the Germans, so how can you say that they were non existent? It was their leadership that was the problem.

[BlunderWaffen]

LOL France's tanks, u mean cars with metal plates on them?

Renault T-17's were WW1 technology that was no match for Panzer III's, StuG's, and lots of Bf109's and Stukas. The French Army was hardly modern and worse of all as you said their military leadership was very incompetent.

[Hanz Lutz]

French tanks against Tiger or Panther heh..........

[BlunderWaffen]

Tigers or Panthers weren't present in the German Invasion of France my friend, they would appear a good 3 years later.

Even so, I'm simply saying most of Europe was in no condition to face the modern, well-trained German Army in 1939.

[Hanz Lutz]

Ok it's good to heard something new,i am not been on this site very long,so i'am out with knowledge :-( in first years of war Wehrmacht was unstoppable,crushing all alied defences.

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,Über alles in der Welt,Wenn es stets
zu Schutz und Trutze Brüderlich zusammenhält. :-))

[Bulldog]

It is my opinion that the reason did not win the war has several points. The war was started at least 5 years too soon. The German Navy was in adequete for the job at the time. It lack Aircraft Carriers, enough cruisers, destroyer and and supply ships. The production of the Uboats was an attempt to compensate for the shortfall in the Navy. 5 years Later with a consolidated planned building program directed by the German Navy would have produced a formitable force. The Luftwaffe would have had the Jet fighter fully developed and operational after a five year period and could have developed a Jet powered high altitude Bomber also. The V2 could have been developed and operational. The Army could have had additional Tanks, trucks and artilery developed and produced. But the single most dangerous item would have been the development of the hydrogen bomb. Had the heavy water experiments not been sabatoged then there foundation for the H bomb would have been laid. Imagine the course of the war had the opening salvo of the war been the launching of a V2 with a Hydrogen bomb. Followed by an invasion by a jet powered airforce and a fully equiped Panzers.

Keep in mind that many of the physicists were German and Eastern European Jews who fled Europe because of the Nazis including Dr Teller. If the Nazis had not take the anti Jewish tactic then they would have had the physicists.

The real reason that the Germans lost was the violent hatred of the Jews, Slaves ect and the impatience of Hitler in starting the war. History could have been much different the it was.

Just my thoughts

[Digger]

Development of German atomic weapons were not nearly as advanced as believed and certainly no where near the development of a H-bomb when the war ended.

While there is speculation the Germans exploded two dirty bombs in the last weeks of the war, the reality is they were at least three years from completion of a Hiroshima device.

Quite simply the reasons why the Germans lagged behind in atomic development was a lack of concentrated development with teams of scientists competing against each other and a very low funding level.

Overall the German effort to produce atomic weapons was miniscule in comparison to the Manhatten Project.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[Man of Stoat]

Previous two posts:

The German scientists working on their nuclear weapons programme were several orders of magnitude out on the calculation of critical mass. They were very, very, wrong. Because they had severely over-calculated critical mass, they didn't think that atomic weapons were worth pursuing.

No A-bomb, no H-bomb. Simple as that. You cannot have the second without the first.

[Bulldog]

You both are quite correct about the errors in the calculations, however if the development had been taken with a eye to the war in a 5 or 10 year horizon and the resources dedicated I believe that the problems would have been resolved. While that Manhatten Project had a much larger budget ect. If the war had not started the Manhatten Project would not have been started. I believe that the budget for the MP was about 1 billion dollars which was an astronomical amount at that time. If the war had not been started Congress would never have allocated such a large amount to a theory that was not proven to work. The German development would have proceeded unimpeded.

War and the planning for war can push technological progress.
BTW I believe that it was the German admirals that told Hitler that they needed 5 years to get the Navy prepared to take on the British Navy and win.

[Fritz]

May I ask then this question?

The what if's I know !!!!!!!! But What If ?

If it were just Germany alone in Europe and the British lost the battle of Britain...... With all of German concentration on the USSR new fronts could have been opened up to take strategic points.. Moscow was Germanys bridge to far.

It was indeed the USSR that in reality defeated most of the German army.

[VonWeyer]

Spot on Fritz and welcome to you.

[George Eller]

-

What if Questions:

What if Hitler chose not to invade the Soviet Union after the Balkan Campaign and instead invaded Turkey with the aim of eventually getting at the oil fields of the Middle East?

Probably some of the manpower and material that had been amassed for Operation Barbarossa would still be needed to guard the Eastern frontier.

Would he have had more success using those resources against Turkey and whatever the British Empire could have thrown against him at that time (summer 1941)?

Would Stalin have attacked Germany eventually, if Hitler had not attacked first? If so, could Hitler have forestalled a Russian attack before he was able to successfully capture the oil fields of the Middle East? If he did manage to capture those fields, could they have been held?

If Hitler had invaded the Middle East through Turkey and gained the oil fields, how would this have affected the British Empire which at that time stood alone against Germany? Would they have sued for peace? Would the United States have stepped in on the side of Great Britain and declared war on Germany?

(I have seen similar questions posed elsewhere and am just interested in your thoughts).

-

[GermanSoldier]

I would choose either attacking russia or america because they brought him to his last days.

[VonWeyer]

Hitler starting the war was his biggest mistake.
Hitlers second biggest mistake was turning on the USSR to soon.

[Laconia]

I voted for the USA because it was our industrial might that turned the tide. The USA supplied all the Allies with many armaments. The USA's industrial might and Hitler's stupidity did the Nazi's in!

[Laconia]

Actually, Hitler's biggest mistake was his own incompetance as a military commander. His refusal to allow tactical withdrawals cause large losses to his army. The biggest blunder was Stalingrad.

[grunt2]

If Germany had not invaded Russia, would have this freed up enough manpower to win the African campaign? Thus cutting a major supply route and opening up the whole Middle East. This would have most likely put the British in even a more tight spot. But if he delayed even a year that would have made some major differences. Japan would have still attacked the US and would he have still declared war on the US? He would have been able to build more U boats and strangled Britian. His more modern weopens would have been able to come into play, thus delaying the outcome. And he could have used the time in formulating a plan on the invasion of the British Isles. Possibly going into Ireland first and then tackling the main Island. The British would have to move to Canada to continue the war. Thus in 1943 Japan and Germany attacked Russia together they might have succeeded. But Stalin would not have been idle, his moblization would have been complete. And if after German declared war on the US, would he have followed suit and invaded Germany in 1942? Russia would have been even more isolated if Germany was in controll of the Middle east and sitting on the border in Poland.
His biggest mistake was not understanding his enemies. He did not have a grasp of hidden industrial might of the Soviet Union and the US. He did not believe what his advisiors told him about what kind of war machine they could have put together. But in the end Germany was on the wrong track to develop nuclear weopens and that have decided the whole thing.

[Digger]

War with the Soviet Union was inevitable as a Soviet attack on Germany was planned for 6th July 1941.

This is the reason why Soviet losses were so heavy in the first days of Barbarossa, the bulk of their forces were not in defensive positions and suffered accordingly.

Regards Digger

[50gunship]

I don’t know where to begin so ill start here...

1 Not waiting until 1945 to start the war.
2 Not working on the advanced type XXI submarine until it was too late.
3 What a waste of man power and resources it was to make the Karls and the Doras.
4 Not putting more research and development in to the Me 262 early on.
5 Wasted money and resources on the v1 and v2.
6 Wasted money on the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz.
7 Wasted money on all those weird side projects.
8 Should have listened to the Horton brothers on the America bomber project (got the ball rolling sooner). But if he had waited this would not be needed.
9 Hitler’s insistence that all the Me 262’s be bombers.

[GermanSoldier]

I voted declaring war on U.S.S.R because the U.S.S.R is the closest country. At least the closest enemy.

[Wolfgang Von Gottberg]

Hitler angered the Best Beast of the East and it came back and beat him s#%tless! Stupid idiot... :roll:

[redcoat]

War with the Soviet Union was inevitable as a Soviet attack on Germany was planned for 6th July 1941.


Please tell me you are being ironic.:roll:

[Egorka]

Redcoat:

That is most likelly result of reading "Icebraker" (Ledokol) book by Rezun. The ex KGB defected to UK.

Without trying to picture Stalin as little peaceful girl wearing pink balet robe, I think it is nonesence that USSR wanted to start war in 1941.
But it is a very big separate subject for this thread, IMHO.

[Chevan]

War with the Soviet Union was inevitable as a Soviet attack on Germany was planned for 6th July 1941.

This is the reason why Soviet losses were so heavy in the first days of Barbarossa, the bulk of their forces were not in defensive positions and suffered accordingly.

Regards Digger

MAte where did you get such crazy ideas?
What's this the resault of your own think or "historian" Resun/Suvorov presented it for you.

Do like the Resun - love the D.Irving too :)

Cheers.

[32Bravo]

Hitler made many mistakes, as did his opposition.

One cannot consider the pros and cons of the events leading to the strategy and decision making of WW2 without considering WW1 - cause and effect etc. Hitler was looking to unite German people's and expand eastward in order to provide room for them. One of his reasons for going earlier, rather than later, is that he was a man in a hurry. He wanted to live long enough to see 'Mein Kampf' come to fruition.

Taken in that context, the comments as to whether he was right or wrong to go when he did don't really count. We can see with hindsight that he made some very serious strategic and tactical errors, but then when one considers his motivation, it's understandable. From the moment he invaded the USSR he was beaten. It was just a matter of time. If the US had not joined the war, he would still have been beaten - it would just have taken a tad longer. :)

[GermanSoldier]

I also think he put to much money towards the tanks.

[Flammpanzer]

well, this austrian bloke did a lot of mistakes. beside the holocaust as the biggest crime imaginable and the responsibility for millions of dead from all over the globe, he invited the rest of the world to make war in germany and to devestate this country. but this is maybe a true but quite general answer.

there were many mistakes in detail. even it was a clear mistake to start a war, he did it much too early. he was told not to start a war against russia before 1945 (!) or better not before 1950, because the industry and army would not be ready before this time.

and:

- he did not give much to valuable decisions of some generals and ingored important hints all through the war
- he wasted hundred thousands of german soldiers on the battlefield due to idiotic orders, like in stalingrad f. e.
- he did not force enough a rocket programme for anti aircraft purposes, he was more inrerested in V-waffen as terror devices
- he underestimated some of his enemies first, but I guess he really knew that germany could never win a war against the mightiest countries plus the rest of the world

maybe the biggest mistake: he did not die as a child like his brothers ...

jens


jens

[kjb08807]

Hitlers biggest mistake... Hummm, Failing to understand that the US was at war with Germany after the incident with the 'Rhine' off the Florida coast.
Not understanding Donitzs' requests (repeated) for proper use of Luftwaffe assets in support of the U-waffe. Not heeding Donitz in the request for 300 operational boats before undertaking hostilities. Listening to Erich Reader, and throwing away assets of the DKM in silly raider missions. Failure to listen to the Japanese counsel in developing the German fleet air arm. Signing the understanding with the Japanese Ambasador further commiting to mutual defense of Japan (to the detriment of Germanys best interest). Not understanding that with every tonne of goods lost, England was less able to support Churchill's war. England was on the skids, with less than three weeks to go before throwing in their towel and giving up! He may have had some good ideas with his KdF wagen, and Autobahn, Kindergeld, and such, but as a war leader, he should have left it to the professionals.

[AllHailCesar]

I voted for attacking Russia because of all the choices listed I think that one had the biggest impact.

[AllHailCesar]

Flammpanzer
there were many mistakes in detail. even it was a clear mistake to start a war, he did it much too early. he was told not to start a war against russia before 1945 (!) or better not before 1950, because the industry and army would not be ready before this time.

Good thing he started early. Any later and he might have been first to develope nukes.

[FW-190 Pilot]

i dont know, werent there rumours about soviet union ready to crush hitler in 1941?

[GermanSoldier]

i dont know, werent there rumours about soviet union ready to crush hitler in 1941?

i did not hear any rumors about that. i heard hitler almost crushing the Soviet Union in 1941. I think you got it mixed up.

[FW-190 Pilot]

i did not hear any rumors about that. i heard hitler almost crushing the Soviet Union in 1941. I think you got it mixed up.

no, i mean isnt there a rumour that involves stalin ready to attack europe? Hitler might do europe a favour to stop this invasion? i dont know, i read that in some other forum, so it is most likely not credible.

[Egorka]

no, i mean isnt there a rumour that involves stalin ready to attack europe? Hitler might do europe a favour to stop this invasion? i dont know, i read that in some other forum, so it is most likely not credible.

FW, for rumors contact your local gipsy fortune teller. ;)

[Nickdfresh]

I can't find anything on Stalin's plan to attack Germany. Was there any?

Is there anything even remotely scholarly?

[Rising Sun*]

Hitler’s, and the Axis’s, biggest overall mistake was the failure to identify, agree upon, and relentlessly pursue a common Axis aim, which is the exact opposite of the Allied position, regardless of the disputes and suspicions which may have plagued the Allies. This allowed each of the three major Axis powers to go off on exercises of their own without regard to the overall Axis position, and frequently in a way highly damaging to it and other members.

While attacking the USSR may have been Hitler’s biggest military mistake, it was made far worse by his betrayal of Japan in doing so, which altered Japan’s grand strategy in a way fatal to Hitler’s chances of achieving his grand strategy aim with the USSR.

In 1941 there were vigorous debates in Japanese strategy formulation circles about whether to attack northwards into Russia or southwards into SE Asia etc.

One of the significant factors for opponents of the northwards attack was Hitler’s betrayal of one of the major and supposedly agreed common aims of the Axis powers contained in the 1936-37 Anti-Comintern Pact http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri1.htm http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri2.htm http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri3.htm
The intent of that pact was to contain the USSR and prevent the spread of communism. While not explicitly saying so, it saw the USSR as the enemy of all three signatories.

When Germany signed the Non-Aggression Treaty with the USSR http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nonagres.htm in August 1939, without Germany forewarning Japan or seeking its agreement and while Japan was fighting a major campaign against the USSR at Nomonhan, the treaty was perceived by many in Japan as a betrayal of Japan by Germany.

When the position was reversed after Germany attacked the USSR in mid-1941, and bearing in mind that Article 3 of the Tri-Partite Pact http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm required the other parties to come to a signatory’s aid only if attacked by another nation, there was strong opposition in some quarters in Japan to aid Germany by attacking Russia. The reluctance was reinforced by the fact that Hitler attacked the USSR while the non-aggression treaty between them was in force, which increased Japanese distrust of him. Other factors, unrelated to Hitler’s actions, were that Japan assessed the risk of a Soviet attack against it as low and saw no point in antagonizing a sleeping dog, and resource and other issues dictated that a southward advance served Japan’s interests much better.

Had Hitler not been so treacherous towards Japan as an ally, and towards the USSR under the non-aggression treaty, he might well have been able to capitalise on the strong support for an attack into the USSR by Japan in 1941, so that Japan’s forces would have been devoted entirely to such an attack when the USSR was at its most vulnerable.

This would have meant that there was no southwards advance by Japan and no Pearl Harbor etc, at least not for another two to three years, if ever. America probably would not have come into the war against all, or any, Axis powers if Japan did not attack it. Hitler might well have won in Europe and the western USSR, with the USSR being carved up between Germany and Japan.

In the end, so far as attacking the USSR was concerned, Hitler’s first and biggest mistake was being as treacherous towards his allies and treaty partners as he was towards his acknowledged enemies. But for that, his military strategies might have succeeded.

[Rising Sun*]

I can't find anything on Stalin's plan to attack Germany. Was there any?

Is there anything even remotely scholarly?

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4497 See links here. Weeks is an academic and authority on the USSR.

[veldm. keitel]

no no no the war in the ussr was and stays no mistake because Hitler was stupid because he didn't want to listen to hes generals and that was his mistake but declaring the war on ussr was no mistake!!!!!
operation seelowe that was his mistake it was a very simple and it was a good plan because he had 100.000 men at his disposal.
But because the morphia addicted fat ass could Herman goring couldn't controle the air.
because he kept all the planes for him self.
(for airshows.)
in conclusion Hitler could have won the war and kick t the ass from Stalin back to the and of Russia.

[Sapper]

I would vote but the main and defining mistake that Hitler made was to to to the aid of Italy time and time again. Valuable time and resources were lost because of Italy's blunders. And that's a fact.

[Shadow Of Evil]

I chose not taking Britain out early. After Dunkirk basically Britain was the only thing standing in the way of the axis' domination of europe. His bombings during the battle of britain didn't break through so basically he couldn't take britain down anymore

[Rocketeer]

Iam pretty sure his biggest blunder was breaking the non-agg. pact. The USSR had too many men, some of them were not even armed, but the numbers of the "Ivans"... wow.

The Germans never had a chance at Stalingrad, it was a defender's dream, every little pile of rubble became a spot for troops to find cover. Then, of course, the Russians finding all the Camps.. it just gave them more of a reason to fight.

Attack in U.S.S.R, the reason, in my opinion with Germany was crushed.

[AlbertSpeer]

I don't think failing to take the United Kingdom out early in the war was a mistake. It was impossible. After taking out countless RAF airfields and radar stations, and huge bombing campaigns on London and Coventry, Hermann Goering's Luftwaffe was decisively defeated by the Royal Air Force. I do think one of the mistakes during the mini-war was The Blitz. Hitler allowed himself to be played by Churchill. After the Luftwaffe was making headway in damaging the RAF severely, it looked like a cross-channel invasion of the English Channel was possible. Even Churchill considered this a strong possibility. I know some don't like to think so cynically, but it's clear what the British did. Churchill launched massive air raids on Berlin that had little military significance, but claimed thousands of German civilian casualties. He did this purposely to goad Hitler into switching his Luftwaffe strength off the RAF and on to bombing mainland England out of anger, which gave the RAF time to regroup. And it's not as if Germany could have taken on the British any sooner. They needed to clear out weaker obstacles first; namely Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and to a lesser extent(in terms of weakness), France.

[AlbertSpeer]

Is it seems for me or you really simpatize with the Nazi germany in WW2?
I'm not support the point (tupical for the post war german general's memours) that Hitler "prevented" them to win the war.
I think Germany was very close to the aim - to win the war for 2 year.
French run away as soon as they can in 1940, Britain was isolated in Islands US till Perl Harbor was the neitral. All was OK till the end 1941.
Who is real was mistaken - its Japane's attack to the Perl-Harbor. and involving the US in the war.
Every german summer offensive in 1941 and 1942 was very sucsesfull (except the main aim - Moscow and Stalingrad).
So i don't think that Hitlers mistake was the invasion in USSR (althogh it sound cynicaly).
If Hitler gave the full "freedom" for the generals they never had started this war - i'm sure. But Germans success in early period of war was becouse of Hitler's demon energy.

Cheers.

I wouldn't say the French "ran away". Both France and Hitler knew that the French defeat was inevitable. All they would have gained from resisting would be more dead French soldiers and civilians, and a Paris that would have looked like Dresden. Besides, Vichy France wasn't actually a bad deal, and especially not for those who wanted at least a formal declaration of neutrality.

The United States wasn't all too neutral before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. and the UK were both selling weapons and making loans to China, in order to allow it to defeat Germany's ally in the Pacific, Japan. Also, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Netherlands, had all placed oil embargoes on Japan. The U.S. and Canada were also working on the Lend-Lease program, in order to give the United Kingdom the tools it needed to wait Hitler out. The Roosevelt administration followed a policy of military neutrality, but not economic neutrality.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor might have been a mistake in the long run, but they really didn't have much of a choice. They either needed to ramp up the offensive for the natural resources or cease their conquests. Even if they didn't attack the United States directly, they still would have launched attacks on Thailand, Malaya, the Philippines, etc. This would have undoubtedly brought the U.S. into the war anyway, only without the weakening blow Japan had delivered it at Pearl Harbor. If Japan planned to continue the war effort in the Pacific, it would have been a grave mistake not to weaken the U.S. first.

Invading the Soviet Union wasn't neccessarily a mistake, but stalling his attack on Moscow was. Also, he should have closed the theater of operations. He was now dealing with keeping Britain at bay in North Africa and a huge offensive in the USSR. And now without being supplied by the Soviets, there was a serious drain in resources.

[Chevan]

I wouldn't say the French "ran away". Both France and Hitler knew that the French defeat was inevitable. All they would have gained from resisting would be more dead French soldiers and civilians, and a Paris that would have looked like Dresden. Besides, Vichy France wasn't actually a bad deal, and especially not for those who wanted at least a formal declaration of neutrality.

i.e. the you wish to say sir the defeat of France was predetermined in 1939?
The France which had a army equal to the Germans ( at least in quantity) was ready capitulate?
Well you right IMO the France resistanse was not as hard as the for instance Yugoslavian. But does it mean the most of franches don't saw in the nazy the mortal enemy?Or shortly speaking - most of franches was not strongly against nazy ideas?

The United States wasn't all too neutral before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. and the UK were both selling weapons and making loans to China, in order to allow it to defeat Germany's ally in the Pacific, Japan. Also, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Netherlands, had all placed oil embargoes on Japan. The U.S. and Canada were also working on the Lend-Lease program, in order to give the United Kingdom the tools it needed to wait Hitler out. The Roosevelt administration followed a policy of military neutrality, but not economic neutrality.

Yes sure the US til the Perl Harbor wasn't pure neutral, but it still was far from declaration of war. I think you heared about american "isolationism" - the some of americans prefered the trade instead the war ;)
As he resault the americans companies continie to sell the oil the Japane untill the Perl Harbor. So the position of USA was dual - from the one hand to get support its ally Britain, fromthe other hand - to make the money on getting support for the Japane invasion.
The course of Roosevelt administration was to keet the neutralitet just becoce at that moment the USA ruling elite yet was not determined what had the begger profit - to sell with the Axis or to join the allies in war. It seems it was too difficult chouse for them ;)
At least till the Perl Harbor.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor might have been a mistake in the long run, but they really didn't have much of a choice. They either needed to ramp up the offensive for the natural resources or cease their conquests. Even if they didn't attack the United States directly, they still would have launched attacks on Thailand, Malaya, the Philippines, etc. This would have undoubtedly brought the U.S. into the war anyway, only without the weakening blow Japan had delivered it at Pearl Harbor. If Japan planned to continue the war effort in the Pacific, it would have been a grave mistake not to weaken the U.S. first.

Indeed the Japane had the choise.
There were two possible way - "northern direction to attack the USSR in the 1941 when the Germans was near the Moscow, and "southern direction" to attack the rich by resources European colonies in Asia.
Both "ways" had its own supporters among the Japane hight command.
The Nother way was lobbied by the Kwantung army command in Manchguria and among the infantry command in Tokio. The south way was supported by the Naval and AF command.
The reason why the Japanes prefered the "south direction" is still exactrly unknown.
One of the groop of historians thinks it was the resault of Japane falling during the attack to the USSR in the Halking-Holl lake in 1939. After this failure the Japanese were more not inclined to underestimate the Red Army.
If they desided firstlky to finish the USSR i.e. attack the Soviet far East in summer of 1941 the fate of USSR was determined. The siberian division which were taken from the East when the soviet hight command has take the adequate information about absent the plamns to invide the USSR in the East.
Those siberian division saved the Moscow in the 1941 ( and the fate of whole Eastern fromnt). If it would not the the USSR could be defeated already in the end of 1941, and Axis could be very close to the victory in this war.
But to the happines ( for us;)) the Japanes involved the USA in the war.

Cheers.

[Rising Sun*]

Indeed the Japane had the choise.
There were two possible way - "northern direction to attack the USSR in the 1941 when the Germans was near the Moscow, and "southern direction" to attack the rich by resources European colonies in Asia.
Both "ways" had its own supporters among the Japane hight command.
The Nother way was lobbied by the Kwantung army command in Manchguria and among the infantry command in Tokio. The south way was supported by the Naval and AF command.
The reason why the Japanes prefered the "south direction" is still exactrly unknown.
One of the groop of historians thinks it was the resault of Japane falling during the attack to the USSR in the Halking-Holl lake in 1939. After this failure the Japanese were more not inclined to underestimate the Red Army.
If they desided firstlky to finish the USSR i.e. attack the Soviet far East in summer of 1941 the fate of USSR was determined.

The southward advance was more attractive because it required smaller forces than would be involved in a northern advance and (I'm subject to correction on this as I don't know what developed resources were available in eastern Siberia, which was the limit of Japan's interest) better resources: notably oil in Burma and the NEI; tin and rubber in Malaya; and sundry other resources in the occupied territories.

Another influence was that the Japanese had persuaded themselves that it was their destiny to liberate the Asian peoples from their colonial masters, notably Britian and the US who also happened to be the two nations causing the greatest resentment in Japan by their economic sanctions over China. The same sentiments didn't apply to Russia.

Japan's overall strategy was based on holding the colonies long enough for the Western powers to accept Japan's conquests, which they were more likely to accept in time than Russia would accept the loss of eastern Siberia.

On balance, a southward advance seemed more likely to succeed and give Japan what it wanted than attacking Russia.

[Chevan]

The southward advance was more attractive because it required smaller forces than would be involved in a northern advance and (I'm subject to correction on this as I don't know what developed resources were available in eastern Siberia, which was the limit of Japan's interest) better resources: notably oil in Burma and the NEI; tin and rubber in Malaya; and sundry other resources in the occupied territories.

Another influence was that the Japanese had persuaded themselves that it was their destiny to liberate the Asian peoples from their colonial masters, notably Britian and the US who also happened to be the two nations causing the greatest resentment in Japan by their economic sanctions over China. The same sentiments didn't apply to Russia.

Japan's overall strategy was based on holding the colonies long enough for the Western powers to accept Japan's conquests, which they were more likely to accept in time than Russia would accept the loss of eastern Siberia.

On balance, a southward advance seemed more likely to succeed and give Japan what it wanted than attacking Russia.

You are perfectly right (as always ) mst Rising Sun*;)
The main goal for the Japanes was the resources of Asia. The giant resources of Syberia was simply unknowen at that time.
The final Japanes aim was the Asia no doubt but the concequences of attack is not obvoiuse. According the simple strategic logic they could win this was if they acted together with Gernany as aliies. But thanks for the god us the did not.
The Hitler was in fury when had learned the Japanes will not attack the USSR in the Far East. As the resault the 8 fresh division from Syberia saved the Moscow in the winter of 1941.
The simple logic of war could forced the Japane to help the Germany to finish the USSR firstly and AFTER than to began the capturing of the Asia.
The realasing the enourmous the Germans armies in the East (if the USSR was beaten) let the Germnany to begin the offencive to the Near East through the Caucaus and Iran and finally to take the Britain for the throat. This was a best moment to attack the Asia for the Japanes( probably in the spring-summer of 1942).
The collapse of USSR could get the Japane the enourmouses territories of Eastern Syberia. Besides the Soviet supporting of Chins had come to the end in this case. And as the resault the Chinas resistence could be succesfully supressed.

Cheers

[Rising Sun*]

You are perfectly right (as always ) mst Rising Sun*;)

What is this? Part of a conspiracy with Egorka to keep agreeing with me? :D

The main goal for the Japanes was the resources of Asia. The giant resources of Syberia was simply unknowen at that time.
The final Japanes aim was the Asia no doubt but the concequences of attack is not obvoiuse. According the simple strategic logic they could win this was if they acted together with Gernany as aliies. But thanks for the god us the did not.
The Hitler was in fury when had learned the Japanes will not attack the USSR in the Far East. As the resault the 8 fresh division from Syberia saved the Moscow in the winter of 1941.
The simple logic of war could forced the Japane to help the Germany to finish the USSR firstly and AFTER than to began the capturing of the Asia.
The realasing the enourmous the Germans armies in the East (if the USSR was beaten) let the Germnany to begin the offencive to the Near East through the Caucaus and Iran and finally to take the Britain for the throat. This was a best moment to attack the Asia for the Japanes( probably in the spring-summer of 1942).
The collapse of USSR could get the Japane the enourmouses territories of Eastern Syberia. Besides the Soviet supporting of Chins had come to the end in this case. And as the resault the Chinas resistence could be succesfully supressed.

Cheers


At my post #130 I outlined why Japan wasn't too supportive of Germany's assault on Russia.

I don't know of any historical evidence for it, but I've wondered if it suited Japan to leave Germany to fight the USSR on its own, thus keeping the USSR off Japan's back and keeping the Germans away from any areas of Japanese interest.

If Germany lost against the USSR, as it did, Japan was no worse off because of it.

If Germany won, Japan would have been able to attack a weakened USSR, or perhaps get eastern Siberia as part of a peace deal without any serious fighting.

Another problem for Japan in attacking Russia in mid-1941, or at any time, was the risk that diverting forces away from fighting the Chinese could find Japan fighting a war on two fronts and eventually caught in a pincer if the Russians counter-attacked vigorously. It would then have had to divert forces required for its southward drive to China / Russia fronts.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Japan's decision to go southwards was confirmed at Imperial Conference on 2 July 1941, after Germany had launched Barbarossa on 22 June 1941 and was advancing rapidly.

[Chevan]

What is this? Part of a conspiracy with Egorka to keep agreeing with me? :D
Not conspiracy just the a excellent grass which we've smoke. :D

At my post #130 I outlined why Japan wasn't too supportive of Germany's assault on Russia.

I don't know of any historical evidence for it, but I've wondered if it suited Japan to leave Germany to fight the USSR on its own, thus keeping the USSR off Japan's back and keeping the Germans away from any areas of Japanese interest.

If Germany lost against the USSR, as it did, Japan was no worse off because of it.

If Germany won, Japan would have been able to attack a weakened USSR, or perhaps get eastern Siberia as part of a peace deal without any serious fighting.

Yes but If Germany lost in the East the Germany should be beaten by the allias.
By this way the whole power of allies began the war with Japane and they inevitably would lost.
So this is wrong IMO to think the Japanes were so stupid to think the defeat of Germany had no relation to the them.
The ONLY allien action of both Germany and Japane could had the effective resault.

Another problem for Japan in attacking Russia in mid-1941, or at any time, was the risk that diverting forces away from fighting the Chinese could find Japan fighting a war on two fronts and eventually caught in a pincer if the Russians counter-attacked vigorously. It would then have had to divert forces required for its southward drive to China / Russia fronts.
Firstly i think the China's resistence was not a seiouse problem for them ( if they finaly desided to attack the Asia)
Se to attack the soviet territory was not a great problem for them in 1941.
Becouse the Kwantung army occuped the territory of Manchguria and was very close to the bother of USSR.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Japan's decision to go southwards was confirmed at Imperial Conference on 2 July 1941, after Germany had launched Barbarossa on 22 June 1941 and was advancing rapidly.
Well i heared this statement early.
But i read the another point also.
The Japane had wait - if the Moscow has falled in the authumn of 1941 they immediatelly began the attack of USSR ( they chosed in this case the "north direction") and the attack of asia should be put aside for a time.
The Japanes simply were afraid of.They wait while the Hitler presented tehn the Syberia instead of to help him to win the Red Army;)

[Rising Sun*]

Not conspiracy just the a excellent grass which we've smoke. :D

Is this grass one of the valuable resources discovered in Siberia since WWII? Maybe Tundra Thunder? :D

Yes but If Germany lost in the East the Germany should be beaten by the allias.
By this way the whole power of allies began the war with Japane and they inevitably would lost.
So this is wrong IMO to think the Japanes were so stupid to think the defeat of Germany had no relation to the them.

I'm not so sure, so far as Japanese thinking went. Japan and Germany were really pursuing quite separate aims, with Germany having the distraction of Italy blundering about the German theatre and causing problems for Germany (and Italy!). Germany and Japan had a common enemy in communism, but they weren't engaged in a common enterprise against common national enemies like the Allies were. They just happened to be fighting the same enemies in different places for their own reasons. The Allies worked on the Germany First policy, but the Japanese didn’t know that and it didn’t come into existence until after Japan attacked.

If we remember that the Japanese southern strategy was to grab territory and hold it until the West accepted the conquests, and that the whole purpose of the exercise was to create a self-sufficient trading bloc based on Japan, it didn't matter much in Japanese thinking what happened elsewhere, as long as the rest of the world wasn’t communist and allowed Japan to keep its conquests.

The ONLY allien action of both Germany and Japane could had the effective resault.

Agreed.

The whole problem is that they didn't operate as allies with common aims. If they had, one strategy would have been for Japan to attack Russia first early in, say, 1941; fight hard enough to draw troops from the west; and weaken the western front for the German assault. Again, if the Axis powers had co-operated, Italy wouldn't have been blundering about in Greece and distracting Germany from Barbarossa at a critical time. Alternatively, Japan could have used the forces it used for its southward advance for an assault on Russia at the same time as Barbarossa started, or better still later in autumn as you mentioned, or even in winter without much military advance but still drawing in Russian troops, thus creating a dilemma for Russia about where to send its forces and how to manage the huge logistics on two fronts thousands of miles apart and perhaps making the wrong decision. It doesn't follow that Russia, or the USSR, would inevitably have been beaten by better Axis co-operation as there was always the risk that Russia could retreat east and sap the Germans while holding the Japanese, but with strong Japanese forces pressing on their eastern front it might have defeated the USSR or resulted in peace terms.

Firstly i think the China's resistence was not a seiouse problem for them ( if they finaly desided to attack the Asia)
Se to attack the soviet territory was not a great problem for them in 1941.
Becouse the Kwantung army occuped the territory of Manchguria and was very close to the bother of USSR.

You're right.

I made the mistake of thinking of the situation much later than 1941, with greater Allied support for China. Not that the Chinese were a great threat even then, but they still held Japanese forces against them which couldn‘t be used elsewhere.

Well i heared this statement early.
But i read the another point also.
The Japane had wait - if the Moscow has falled in the authumn of 1941 they immediatelly began the attack of USSR ( they chosed in this case the "north direction") and the attack of asia should be put aside for a time.

You may be right.

In Singapore: The Japanese Version, Masanobu Tsuji who was a staff officer closely involved in planning the Malayan / Thai invasions, gives some surprising details about the lateness of decisions to identify and attack these southern targets. It may be that firmer decisions had been made at higher levels unknown to him, but it is also consistent with other options being left open until the last moment.


The Japanes simply were afraid of. They wait while the Hitler presented tehn the Syberia instead of to help him to win the Red Army;)

I’m reading this to mean that the Japanese were afraid of attacking the Russians. That is probably correct. They got badly mauled at Nomonhan (Khalkhin Gol) in 1939 and weren’t keen to tackle Russia again. The neutrality treaty of 13 April 1941 reflects that, and also indicates that Japan wanted to make sure that it was free to move southwards without worrying about fighting the Russians http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalo