Adolph Hitler's Biggest Mistake

[JSojourner]

Hitler's racial hatred could also make the list as his insane policies robbed the Third Reich of hundreds of thousands of potential soldiers and other supporters.  Many of whom were brilliant. But I just listed the big three. 

[Middle-aged Europe]

1 and 2 are probably equally stupid... doing both indicates a stupidity (well, in this case more of a megalomania) on a galactic level.

In the long run, it was good that Hitler made such "mistakes" though...

[J. J.]

Hitler's racial hatred could also make the list as his insane policies robbed the Third Reich of hundreds of thousands of potential soldiers and other supporters.  Many of whom were brilliant. But I just listed the big three. 

I think this is the key, even including the greatest error, the invasion of the Soviet Union.

He had the idea that the slaves were so inferior that the couldn't fight the Wehrmacht.

Interestingly, had he goaded the Soviets into attacking, he may have one.  From what I understand, the Soviets were in an offensive posture on June 21, 1941.

[Erc]

The number one most stupid and easily preventable mistake is ordering his armored columns to halt in front of Dunkirk, allowing the BEF to escape.  Not that he still couldn't have invaded England in real life (the blame for that goes to Hitler & Goering's collective stupidity), but it wouldn't have hurt.

Declaring war on the US was a stupid move, but I don't think not doing so would have changed much...I can't imagine Roosevelt would have stayed out of the war in Europe much longer.


I don't know whether invading the Soviet Union was that much of an error per se.  There were plenty of mistakes, both in the months leading up to it, and in the execution, but the decision to go to war was not entirely unsound.  I don't see how the USSR & Germany don't go to war at some point before 1944, Barbarossa or no Barbarossa.

One of the larger missed opportunities in my mind that generally goes unnoticed (although it ties in with what J.J. and others are saying)...is that he messed up the political message of the invasion of the Soviet Union entirely, mainly due to his racial policies.  There was a lot of discontent in the Soviet Union, especially amongst ethnic minorities, and he might have done better had he played into that.  Even despite Germany's rhetoric, there was still a fair deal of support for the Germans--in the Baltic States for example.

[J. J.]

One of the larger missed opportunities in my mind that generally goes unnoticed (although it ties in with what J.J. and others are saying)...is that he messed up the political message of the invasion of the Soviet Union entirely, mainly due to his racial policies.  There was a lot of discontent in the Soviet Union, especially amongst ethnic minorities, and he might have done better had he played into that.  Even despite Germany's rhetoric, there was still a fair deal of support for the Germans--in the Baltic States for example.

He probably could have gotten the bulk of Ukraine on his side; Ukraine was initially willing to colaborate.  The Baltic republics, ditto.

The Holocaust drained Nazi resources after 1942, that could have been used in the USSR.  Had  Hitler decided to win the war before the mass murder of the Jews, history might have changed.

Likewise, had Germany never descended lower that the Nuremberg Laws, the might have had a willing Jewish population to help them.

[Хahar 🤔]

Waiting too long to attack Russia. He could have succeeded, had not Barbarossa been delayed by Hitler's need to clean up Mussolini's Greek adventure.

[JSojourner]

Great insights from everyone.

I think of how many soldiers were tied up guarding prison camps, concentration camps or working for the various secret police agencies that could have been at the front.  (Or doing other important war work.)  It's not that a totalitarian dictator didn't need some sort of Gestapo, but the Nazis were SO distracted by their hate. 

And then there were the Jews and slavs of Germany and Eastern Europe who -- as a previous poster said -- might have been inclined to support Hitler against Stalin (another brutish mass murderer).

Dunkirk?  Very interesting insight and one I had forgotten about.  The Bohemian Corporal certainly did make some idiotic tactical errors.  Falling for the old Pas de Calais deception and then -- even after the Allies land in Normandy -- refusing to release his Panzers?  That was pretty idiotic.

I don't imagine ANY invasion of the USSR could ever have been successful.  I'm not sure anyone could conquer Russia, ever.  Even if the Soviets were driven beyond the Urals, I can't imagine Uncle Joe suing for peace.  But you guys make a great point -- the ethnic populations of the Western USSR might have cheerfully jumped on the German bandwagon if they had been treated decently and promised some form of autonomy.

I still think failing to follow through with Operation Sea Lion was dumb.  Could the Germans have conquered Britain? I have no idea.  And I realize they never gained air superiority.  But even so, England was back on her heels.  And like Meade after Gettysburg or McClellan after Antietam, you pay a price for not destroying your enemy entirely. 

I wonder.  Could Hitler have lured France and Spain into assisting with the invasion of England (even if it was simply to pin down British troops throughout Africa) by promising both countries British territory abroad?  Promise Franco Gibraltar...promise Vichy British territory in Africa and the Caribbean?  I would think a couple million German soldiers, battle-hardened, well-equipped and highly skilled -- with the added cannon fodder of Italian, French and Spanish troops -- might have been enough to do the trick.  Hell, I wonder if Turkey could have been lured in as well?

Of course, Sea Lion never happened.  And had it taken place, it might have been a major disaster for Germany.  I would never bet against the British.  But it is fun to wonder how things might have played out differently.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of the choices given, I would definitley say Hitler's biggest mistake was invading the USSR.  At the time, the USSR, while perhaps not a close ally, was at least not openly supporting the Allies.  By invading Russia, Hitler alienated his only true ally, and allowed them to go over to the other side.  If he had not done so, he would probably have won the war.

[dead0man]

Waiting too long to attack Russia. He could have succeeded, had not Barbarossa been delayed by Hitler's need to clean up Mussolini's Greek adventure.

I think the opposite.  Had he waited until he had jet aircraft and V2 rockets and maybe even nukes (probably not though) and invaded in say, 1943.  Things would have turned out differently.

[JSojourner]

Waiting too long to attack Russia. He could have succeeded, had not Barbarossa been delayed by Hitler's need to clean up Mussolini's Greek adventure.

I think the opposite.  Had he waited until he had jet aircraft and V2 rockets and maybe even nukes (probably not though) and invaded in say, 1943.  Things would have turned out differently.

Great arguments on both sides.  He waited too long and got caught in the mud, and later the snow.  But good grief -- mud or no -- the Wermacht kicked some serious ass in 1941.

Waiting until 1943 might have helped technologically.  But then, the USSR would have had two more years to replenish and revive its military.  Stalin's purges and the Russo-Finnish war took a toll.  Too, by 1943, Hitler would be fighing the US in North Africa or Italy.

Whatever mistakes he made, fighting on three fronts (I consider the Mediterranean a third front) was just plain un-doable.

[J. J.]

Even without the Balkans, I doubt if Hitler Soviet invasion would have been successful.

Sea Lion wasn't blocked by Dunkirk, but by:

1.  The lack of a solid German naval force.

2.  The inability to gain air supremacy.

Also, let's assume that the Nazis would have tried to prevent the British from escaping.  After a several week battle, the manage to kill or capture most of the BEF.  The still have these other problems and have more casualties.

The only way for Sea Lion to work is to build up the Luftwaffe, train new pilots, and launch a more massive attack.  I doubt if that could have been done until the late Spring of 1941.  Even then, it still would be unlikely that Sea Lion would have worked.  At best, the Nazis could have taken parts of southern England at a cost possibly greater than the the Russia Front.

And Hitler would still have to guard against Stalin.

[Erc]

The main effect of destroying the BEF would be the psychological and political effects it would have had on Britain.  Churchill had barely been in office for three weeks by that point--three weeks of essentially unmitigated disaster had the BEF been trapped. 

It's possible that Britain may have simply concluded a separate peace with Germany--though how long that would have lasted (and whether terms could have been arrived at) is anybody's guess.


Even if that doesn't happen, the Battle of Britain was hardly unwinnable...and it was a closer run thing than many people may realize.  The Luftwaffe probably came within a week or two of acheiving full supremacy of the air.  Instead, Goering and Hitler were distracted by the promise of strategic bombing, and moved resources away from destroying the RAF's ground facilities.

I don't think a late September / early October date for an invasion would have been unreasonable (though the weather may have proved uncooperative), with German air cover providing the support necessary to get the invasion forces across.

Logistically, it would have been a supreme mess afterwards...but with 4 months since the loss of the BEF, the British Army would not have been in the best shape, so I wouldn't count the Germans out.

[J. J.]

The main effect of destroying the BEF would be the psychological and political effects it would have had on Britain.  Churchill had barely been in office for three weeks by that point--three weeks of essentially unmitigated disaster had the BEF been trapped. 

I think Churchill was the one who saw Dunkirk as a defeat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So long as the Nazis were in control of Flanders, Britain would not reach a settlement.  Keeping the launching point of an invasion ouit of the hands any major power has been English, then British, policy for at least 300 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm assuming that the Nazis never get air supremacy, but even if they did, by October, 1940, Sea Lion would still be difficult, if not ultimately unsuccessful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They'd have a real chance of no supplies in winter, when weather would be a factor.

In 1940, the Japanese were no yet fighting the British, and it's very possible that Australian, New Zealand, and Indian troops could have been brought in; there would also be probability that Egypt would be quieter, bringing in troops from what ultimately was Montgomery's command.

I looked at Sea Lion Plans and it was basically to get to the 52th parallel and stop, and England would surrender.  I think even that was unrealistic.

The Nazis would lucky to capture the Isle of Wight.

[Nym90]

Declaring war on the US. This guaranteed that we would in turn declare war on them, which otherwise may not have happened, at least for a few more years. Germany hadn't directly attacked us, and so our refusal to declare war on them before Pearl Harbor likely wouldn't have changed.

Best bet for Germany would've been to allow Japan to take on the US to distract us while they continue to usurp Europe.

[JSojourner]

Declaring war on the US. This guaranteed that we would in turn declare war on them, which otherwise may not have happened, at least for a few more years. Germany hadn't directly attacked us, and so our refusal to declare war on them before Pearl Harbor likely wouldn't have changed.

Best bet for Germany would've been to allow Japan to take on the US to distract us while they continue to usurp Europe.

Interesting story.  My Dad was a long time employee of the New York Central and Penn Central Railroads out of Cleveland.  A buddy of his had emigrated from Germany around 1933 or 34 and was looking for work at the railroad.  They got to talking about his family back home.  His friend, whose name now escapes me, would get letters from his relatives urging him to return to Germany.  The Fuhrer, they assured him, was the most brilliant man to ever walk the earth.  They didn't think Germany would ever fight America because, they claimed, there were so many Germans and people of German descent, it would not be logical.  Still, they told him America -- if there would be war -- would be quickly dispatched.  Americans were lazy cake and pie eaters, they said.  Undisciplined and incapable of sacrifice. And a cripple for a President, to boot!

He was tempted to buy into that line of thinking because, after all, what passed for poverty in depression-era Cleveland was nothing like what he knew of post-Great War Germany.  And still the Americans complained!  He thought perhaps his relations were right.  Germany could defeat America.

Until he applied for a job at a warehouse in Cleveland.  I don't remember the company, but he told my father the warehouse covered several soccer fields.  And it contained nothing but pallets, ten feet high, of Coca Cola.  From stem to stern.  At the height of the depression.

At first, he thought, "The family is right.  These people value this liquid candy so highly, they must be of little consequence."  But the more he mulled it over, he came to another conclusion.  He said to my Dad, "Mein Gott! What fools we were.  To ever think Germany could defeat America was the height of arrogance.  If America, in a time of economic depression, could produce that much Coca Cola in just one city -- imagine how many tanks and planes and rifles she could produce if she had to."

That story always stayed with me.  I don't know if we're still that same kind of country.  I hope so.  But one thing I am sure of...there was never any chance of any country defeating us in 1941. No matter how unprepared we were, initially, for war.

[12th Doctor]

I think his biggest mistake was not dying before 1945... one has to wonder, looking at how many chances he had, how he did it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Waiting too long to attack Russia. He could have succeeded, had not Barbarossa been delayed by Hitler's need to clean up Mussolini's Greek adventure.

I agree with this.

[Хahar 🤔]

Waiting too long to attack Russia. He could have succeeded, had not Barbarossa been delayed by Hitler's need to clean up Mussolini's Greek adventure.

I think the opposite.  Had he waited until he had jet aircraft and V2 rockets and maybe even nukes (probably not though) and invaded in say, 1943.  Things would have turned out differently.

An attack in 1943 could have worked, but I think Barbarossa was too late in the year. There wasn't enough time for a lasting offensive before winter.

[Hash]

The invasion of the Soviet Union of course, but more importantly delaying it because of Mussolini failing in Greece and the Yugoslavian invasion. It could have been successful had Hitler invaded earlier IMO.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agreed, starting a campaign against Russia in mid-June was madness.  But I'm doubtful that waiting till 1942 to declare war would have helped him much, but it would have had some interesting knock-on effects.  Without Barbarossa, it's quite possible that the oil embargo against Japan would not have been declared.  Also the draft in the United States might not have been renewed and the 900,000 drafted in 1940 could have been sent home.  With troops and planes available to fight in the Mediterranean, Malta and Egypt could have fallen in 1941.  Or even Palestine!  Just imagine the "fun" Hitler could have had there.  I wonder if after the war Jews would have been that interested in going to Palestine if the Nazis had set up extermination camps there to deal with the Zionists.

However, the main problem for Hitler is that if he waits until 1942, Joe might well have beaten Adolf to the punch.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hitler needed to attack Russia at the time of the first thaw in the early spring.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hitler needed to attack Russia at the time of the first thaw in the early spring.

Not really. He needed to wait till the melting snow had largely run off unless he wanted his tanks to be bogged down in the mud.  The originally planned mid-May timetable for the start of Barbarossa was well chosen.

[Frodo]

Option 2 -the same fatal mistake Napoleon Bonaparte made.

[Хahar 🤔]

However, the main problem for Hitler is that if he waits until 1942, Joe might well have beaten Adolf to the punch.

Not likely, when you look at Stalin's beavior at the start fo the war. Though there was clear evidence that an attack was coming (I have a book on my shelf that lists 100+ early warnings), he refused to believe Hitler would attack and even instructed officers to not answer any fire, calling it "provocation".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I agree that Stalin certainly was not going to attack in 1941, but an attack in 1942 would have been quite thinkable, assuming that the paper strength of 1941 Soviet forces were by then also the actual strength.  The T-34 was just entering production, and without Barbarossa, it likely would have suffered from the same dithering over whether to produce what you had now or keep tinkering with the design to get something better.

Whether Joe would have considered an attack in 1942 would have depended on a lot of factors, but it would certainly have been possible.