What has been Hitler’s most erroneous strategic decision in WWII? And would the Third Reich still have existed if those mistakes had not been?

Contrary to what is sometimes claimed, that was not the attack on Russia, but the Battle of England.It was a pointless waste of airplanes, pilots, fuel and time. Especially since the planned operation was Seelöwe, an air castle that would have been disastrous. For comparison, one can think of Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion in Normandy in 1944, which, despite a force majeure, was also almost unsuccessful.

The saving of the Luftwaffe would have given this more strength for other operations, notably Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia and above all: the oilfields of the Caucasus, vital for winning the war.The Romanian oilfields did not suffice and those of Africa and the Middle East were barely developed. The Allies even considered bombarding the oilfields in Russia.


Surprise other people your modern insights about World War II, this guy has done his homework, channel: Tap

Answer from Cornelis Zandbergen op Had Germany been able to win the Second World War?

Answer from Cornelis Zandbergen on what is your favorite tank and why?

How would the world look like Nazi Germany had won the war?

Could Germany beat Russia with a four-engined bomber in World War II?

Answer from Cornelis Zandbergen on what would be the consequences of the Bismarck if she had reached the Atlantic Ocean?

Bonus: The baloney of historians and the chatter of German generals unmasked. (English and feel for sarcasm needed)

Attacking Poland and thus involving England and France in the war.In shorter term Germany was clearly in favor. Germany was better armed, had more and better trained soldiers and had creative generals. In the longer term, however, a war is not won on the battlefields but in the factories, with merchant ships and on the fields. The Allies were very much in favor here. (And Churchill realized that happily, unlike more defaistic ministers) Great Britain possessed an empire that struck a quarter of the globe and it was an industrialist superpower. Also, the chance that the US sooner or later the side of England was going to choose in 1939 was already pretty big.

Already during the Napoleonic Wars it was found that an isolated Europe was unable to maintain a war apparatus and to meet the basic consumption needs.Europe has been dependent on imports from elsewhere by sea from the Late Middle Ages and certainly from the 17th century onwards. Think mainly of food, fuels and raw materials. And now, together with the US, Great Britain has the key in the hands of this intercontinental trade. Germany has tried to control the Atlantic Ocean, and in the beginning it seemed to succeed, but when the American and British production of vessel space was stepped up, the you could no longer scoff against it. On the contrary, the boot of you were becoming more and more engaged in a way in which Germany and the occupied territories were no longer to be produced.

The raid in Russia, he conquering Africa and allowing the Japan to bombard Pearl Harbour seem to me all decisions that have not worked very much in his favor.

I have already answered this question in English, but now in Dutch.

Several versions have already been discussed here, and most of course contain a ground of truth.The answer, however, is dead simple: the declaration of War of Hitler after Pearl Harbour on 11 December 1941. Until that point, Hitler had a small chance to get out of the Barbarossa swamp without too much tear, but after 11 December his fate and that of the Nazi Empire had been blessed.

One must see this above all economically and less militarily.The Germans needed two things in particular: food (Germany had long been a net importer) and oil (they had no sources themselves). Barbarossa had begun for two reasons: nutrition (especially the Ukrainian was seen as grain and slaves (to produce that grain)) and to award its American lenders the promised attack on the Communist empire. These lenders had become somewhat more restraunt at some point, ttz after the signature of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and Hitler had to move heaven and earth to make them clear that this was a seeming manoeuvre.

In the meantime, Germany had already occupied France (partly, but Vichy danced to his pipes anyway), and that, together with large pieces of the Netherlands, was also a good source of nutrition (and, if necessary, cheap workforce).

But, when Hitler declared the USA war, the cards came to be different.Not that his greatest sponsors stopped to support him, for those are that very much the war, as good as unpunished, continue to do (read Trading with the Enemy), but because (a) the USA now also supported the Soviet Union materially (so far it was Only, and then some hidden, the UK), but also because (b) the whole American military machine was developed and not only directed against Japan, but also against him.

If he had not sent this declaration of war, and so his Japanese ‘ friends ‘ had ironed against the hairs (Tripartite Pact), he had only opposed the British (especially in North Africa where he was winning) and the Soviets must fight.If he had taken the decision a few weeks before to occupy Moscow and not depart to the south there was even a chance that Stalin had been expelled from power and an internal power struggle had broken out, something that had given him a great opportunity To conclude a favourable treaty. This opportunity was now gone, and all his opponents knew that too.

Hitler has made the same mistake as many.Is also often seen nowadays with companies. In the beginning they have success, they become too greedy and do too many things at once. Then their forces are spread too thinly and that makes them weaker. I find that also a big mistake of Hitler vas killing what the Nazis called the ‘ untermenschen ‘ he’d better embrace their, and their use.

Leave a Reply