What was Hitler's biggest mistake in WWII?

[n...not crazy]

Damn, lotsa WWII type of people in here. Good to see.

If I was him in 1940, I'd be figuring out what the hell I was gonna do with England. It's just sitting there over his shoulder. Shoulda been priority #1. Imagine Nazis in control of England? What a nightmare Allied scenario.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

The British were manufacturing more planes than Germany by thousands before America entered the war and never lost more planes than it produced after September 7th 1940, they also had better training and rest programs than the Germans resulting more pilots and less loses. From July to September the Germans lost roughly 1,636 aircraft representing roughly half of the Luftwaffe and the loss of aircrew was especially effecting them because they were having a hard time replacing them. And if things ever got really bad for the RAF they would just move the fighters up north since German planes could only cover bombers for a short time over southern England forcing them to send un escorted bombers to try and attack English airfields.

The Gloster Meteor entered service July 1944 so its not like the Germany had some sort of gotcha game over card. You have to remember its not just Great Briton all by itself its the hole Commonwealth with lots of resources and manpower to fight. The Germans went at Briton in 1940 and lost bad, they were never grinding out the RAF and RN they tried and failed.

Where are you getting your numbers from? Strictly talking fighters/bombers -Germany (during the whole of World War 2) produced close to 60,000 fighters.. Britain produced around 35,000 total. While Britain produced more bombers than Germany by a decent margin.


The US accounted for a lot of the production for the Allies (over 50%).

 

[fdswer]

Where are you getting your numbers from? Strictly talking fighters/bombers -Germany (during the whole of World War 2) produced close to 60,000 fighters.. Britain produced around 35,000 total. While Britain produced more bombers than Germany by a decent margin.


The US accounted for a lot of the production for the Allies (over 50%).

Bombers played a pretty big part in the war and Britain had a lot of them. And German fighters could only cover the south of England that's a huge disadvantage. Plus they were able to build enough fighters in the 1940 to recover and increase their numbers. You can have the biggest army you want but if you cant get over that channel there is nothing you can do. Do you think the RN is just going to sit there and let German planes bomb them?

 

[ElKarlo]

They were losing quite a bit early on. I’m not sure why some in here are arguing against it.

It depends on how they do it.
I've seen it war games where the Germans boring Liverpool could end the war. As most of the shipping came through there and destroying the harbor in 1940 would have caused the UK to collapse. They almost did it, but switched to the London blitz after two weeks.
Probably didn't realize they were strangling the British

 

[ElKarlo]

Bombers played a pretty big part in the war and Britain had a lot of them. And German fighters could only cover the south of England that's a huge disadvantage. Plus they were able to build enough fighters in the 1940 to recover and increase their numbers. You can have the biggest army you want but if you cant get over that channel there is nothing you can do. Do you think the RN is just going to sit there and let German planes bomb them?

Sea lion was impossible. Starving out the UK by wrecking Liverpool was possible.
Also taking Malta in 1940 was doable. Which would have massive consequences in NA as it was a reading base to prey on Italian shipping. Losing Malta would hurt the British in the med and NA greatly. Maybe not war winning but it's serious

 

[My2Cents]

Of courses the opening of a second front against Stalin

 

[fdswer]

It depends on how they do it.
I've seen it war games where the Germans boring Liverpool could end the war. As most of the shipping came through there and destroying the harbor in 1940 would have caused the UK to collapse. They almost did it, but switched to the London blitz after two weeks.
Probably didn't realize they were strangling the British

The problem in 1940 was the germans overestimated how badly they were beating the British when they were not. They had no idea the British were replacing their losses and in fact increasing their forces during that time.

 

[fdswer]

Sea lion was impossible. Starving out the UK by wrecking Liverpool was possible.
Also taking Malta in 1940 was doable. Which would have massive consequences in NA as it was a reading base to prey on Italian shipping. Losing Malta would hurt the British in the med and NA greatly. Maybe not war winning but it's serious

Germans were not wrecking anything. Their bombers already had unsubstantial losses in aircraft and crew. Focusing them to bomb liverpool would have had them just get torn up by the RAF

 

[fdswer]

(knowing what we know now about German tech and innovation during the war)

Why do people still say this stuff. The Germans were not massively ahead in technology and their "innovation" probably hurt them over all by investing in a bunch of crazy war winning ideas and rushing half brained weapons into the war. The allies while not making crazy weapons made a lot of stuff that actually massively helped the war effort, like Colossus that lead to breaking the enigma code letting Britain see everything the Germans were doing. British radar was also superior, and penicillin, ASDIC and shipboard radar, and many other things

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Bombers played a pretty big part in the war and Britain had a lot of them. And German fighters could only cover the south of England that's a huge disadvantage. Plus they were able to build enough fighters in the 1940 to recover and increase their numbers. You can have the biggest army you want but if you cant get over that channel there is nothing you can do. Do you think the RN is just going to sit there and let German planes bomb them?

I understand that bombers played a huge role, just pointing out that the Germans had plenty left as the war carried on. Also it seemed to me that you meant to say the Brits produced more fighters than the Germans, which overall isn’t true. There’s also a difference in approach/strategy in there too. But if they never invaded Russia and didn’t have to deal with the US (America likely drastically cuts its supply to GB if fighting Japan without a German declaration of war), combined with not undestimating the RAF a 2nd time around (which was a huge part of the issue strategy wise the 1st time around) it’s very likely the outcome is different. I won’t guarantee a German victory, again noting that the RAF and Royal Navy were tough as nails, but I’d lean towards saying the % of Germany taking it is higher than them losing.


Germany was hurting for resources in the war that actually played out, but continued to fight for years on multiple fronts. They gain even more time/resources if they’re just concentrating on GB and no one else. Once again, as I pointed out with the Russians.. there’s a reason GB was pounding the table and pulling its hair out trying to find a way to get the US directly involved in the war, GB was running on fumes but was also fighting for its life so they dialed everything up to 11 and were willing to die rather than surrender. But Germany was also working on things like rocket/missle tech that could have been better perfected and used to greater effect in a hypothetical scenario like this one (for example).

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Why do people still say this stuff. The Germans were not massively ahead in technology and their "innovation" probably hurt them over all by investing in a bunch of crazy war winning ideas and rushing half brained weapons into the war. The allies while not making crazy weapons made a lot of stuff that actually massively helped the war effort, like Colossus that lead to breaking the enigma code letting Britain see everything the Germans were doing. British radar was also superior, and penicillin and many other things

There’s a reason why there was a rush on Nazi science and scientists by both the US and Russia when the Germans were on the ground. Their advanced knowledge of rockets and so on was huge. That’s a whole other topic tho. Why are you questioning this? Look at how the research off the back of their early work has effected modern warfare.

 

[fdswer]

I understand that bombers played a huge role, just pointing out that the Germans had plenty left as the war carried on. Also it seemed to me that you meant to say the Brits produced more fighters than the Germans, which overall isn’t true. There’s also a difference in approach/strategy in there too. But if they never invaded Russia and didn’t have to deal with the US (America likely drastically cuts its supply to GB if fighting Japan without a German declaration of war), combined with not undestimating the RAF a 2nd time around (which was a huge part of the issue strategy wise the 1st time around) it’s very likely the outcome is different. I won’t guarantee a German victory, again noting that the RAF and Royal Navy were tough as nails, but I’d lean towards saying the % of Germany taking it is higher than them losing.


Germany was hurting for resources in the war that actually played out, but continued to fight for years on multiple fronts. They gain even more time/resources if they’re just concentrating on GB and no one else. Once again, as I pointed out with the Russians.. there’s a reason GB was pounding the table and pulling its hair out trying to find a way to get the US directly involved in the war, GB was running on fumes but was also fighting for its life so they dialed everything up to 11 and were willing to die rather than surrender. But Germany was also working on things like rocket/missle tech that could have been better perfected and used to greater effect in a hypothetical scenario like this one (for example).

But if you cant get rid of the RN and cant completely destroy the RAF you are not beating Britain, any attempt at a invasion will end up in failure.

 

[fdswer]

There’s a reason why there was a rush on Nazi science and scientists by both the US and Russia when the Germans were on the ground. Their advanced knowledge of rockets and so on was huge. That’s a whole other topic tho. Why are you questioning this? Look at how the research off the back of their early work has effected modern warfare.

Obviously you are going to want to grab the enemy's tech to see if you can use it for your own gain. Von Braunn is on record saying the V2 was based of American research and tec done before the war. And there is a reason why nobody else cared about tech like the V2 because it was a complete waste of time and wasn't going to help win the war. The Nuke and computers trumps anything the Germans managed to dream up by a large gap and they actually helped end the war.

 

[Gabicho]

His biggest mistake was not understanding that Germany could not win a war of attrition against an impossible to invade UK and much less if the USA got involved.
Had he understood that, he should have offered a peace treaty to the allies after taking Paris. After that smashing victory and Dunkirk, the public opinion and common sense would have overruled any "save Poland" ideas.
Give them France back (except the historically German areas which they lost in WWI), take Danzig, and release Poland as a satellite state to act as a buffer against the Soviet Union.
France and the UK would have accepted to sacrifice Poland (just like they already had done before and were going to do again later).
Italy can screw themselves.
And then, down the road, propose the allies an unholy alliance against the USSR. Churchill would have gladly accepted (just like he wanted in 45 to try and keep pushing to Moscow). Same objective, but at a lower pace. Resources through trade until they can get them in conquest from Soviet Union.

 

[Happy Man]

Sea lion was impossible. Starving out the UK by wrecking Liverpool was possible.
Also taking Malta in 1940 was doable. Which would have massive consequences in NA as it was a reading base to prey on Italian shipping. Losing Malta would hurt the British in the med and NA greatly. Maybe not war winning but it's serious

British war planners sure thought sea lion was possible. Even after the Germans let them leave Dunkirk.

 

[Khabibs Tiramisu]

Not sure if this has been posted, but this vid is pretty interesting (if accurate):

 

[avenue94]

British war planners sure thought sea lion was possible. Even after the Germans let them leave Dunkirk.

Again, no they did not seriously consider it possible, as did Churchill. We know Britain did not want to surrender, and we know Germany was unable to control the Channel for an invasion and would have consequently gotten brutalized in any attempted invasion. You seriously underestimate how hard the British would have fought...as in they were going to use mustard gas on the beaches if necessary.

 

[avenue94]

Agreed on the panther. It was flawed design , a heavy medium tank with a poor transmission and weak sides.
The tiger was good as it was very resilient to damage and was offensively powerful.
The Stugs were awesome. Cheap to make and we're hard to kill due to low profile and no turret.

BTW I saw a jagd tiger at the Aberdeen . It was hit multiple times in the front and nothing came close to penetrating. Was cool to see .
In Iraq my brother saw an Italian tankette the Iraqis buried when we invaded.

No arguing on how ridiculous a 250mm thick casemate is for WWII. Still a bad design though.

That was the hypothetical you quoted me on tho. That’s what me and the other guy were discussing. We weren’t discussing a direction the war had actually gone.


I’m basing this hypothetical off of England needing and wanting the US in the war. They couldn’t withstand Germany forever. And yes, eventually (knowing what we know now about German tech and innovation during the war) I think Germany could have re-grouped and beat Britain into submission had they not decided to invade Russia and declare war on the US.

But my point is Germany was incapable of beating England into submission unless Britain decided it wanted out politically. As far we can tell, the only way Germany would take England out of the war was by invasion and occupation. And since that was never feasible, we can conclude that England was in the fight for the long haul.

 

[Happy Man]

Again, no they did not seriously consider it possible, as did Churchill. We know Britain did not want to surrender, and we know Germany was unable to control the Channel for an invasion and would have consequently gotten brutalized in any attempted invasion. You seriously underestimate how hard the British would have fought...as in they were going to use mustard gas on the beaches if necessary.

The home guard being trained to defend British was given pikes. Fucking pikes. They didn’t have enough arms. As every ship that wasn’t sunk by Uboats was delivering food and fuel. The home guards morale was not good.

https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015...-impromptu-weapons-of-the-british-home-guard/

Edit: and the UK definitely was considering surrendering. They’d of been forced to if Hitler wasn’t so nice and let the British leave Dunkirk.

Churchill and non military ministers won the argument to keep fighting using England’s Sons to defend their wealth and aristocratic status.

 

[avenue94]

The home guard being trained to defend British was given pikes. Fucking pikes. They didn’t have enough arms. As every ship that wasn’t sunk by Uboats was delivering food and fuel. The home guards morale was not good.

https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015...-impromptu-weapons-of-the-british-home-guard/

Edit: and the UK definitely was considering surrendering. They’d of been forced to if Hitler wasn’t so nice and let the British leave Dunkirk.

Churchill and non military ministers won the argument to keep fighting using England’s Sons to defend their wealth and aristocratic status.

The Home Guard is irrelevant. Why would you not prepare for an invasion? We've gone over this before and you've failed to paint a possible scenario every time. How does Germany neutralize the Home Fleet? Any invasion is doomed without that being fulfilled.