How could Hitler have won the war?

Elessar

I think it's fascinating to speculate on the blunders Hitler made during the war that ultimately cost him the war itself.

How could he have won the war? There are a huge amount of factors involved, that could have swung the conflict in the Nazi's favour - but the benefit of hindsight is always a deceptive one, as things are rarely so clear at the time.

I think we should focus on the theaters of war specifically rather than any political agendas.

North Africa: What if Hitler had given Rommel the troops he requested? If he had given into the requests, I think the Afrikorps would have been in a much better position to secure the North of the continent.

Europe: Why did Hitler refuse to release all the panzers he had in reserve during the D-Day landings? If he had given command of these divisions to Rommel who requested them at the time (he was the more experienced commander in france), the allies may never have secured a beach head from which they could break out. Even after the beachhead was secured, Hitler refused to allow Rommel to withdraw, reorganise, and strike en masse with the panzers, believing instead Calais was the main attack.

Russia: The big one. Waiting to attack Russia is one thing, but what about micromanaging everything, not attacking Moscow when he could, sacrificing the 6th Army in horrendous street combat at Stalingrad which they were untrained and unexperienced at. Refusal to allow retreat. Unrealistic expectations of the length of the war, thus ignoring any kind of winter preparations the army would need, and many others.

Also, if he had focused more on building long-range bombers, they could have attacked Stalins factories that had moved east beyond the Ural mountains in the later stages of the war, and it could have prevented the enormous buildup of soviet tanks that truly turned the tide of the conflict at Kursk.

There are many other scenarios that could have helped the Germans win the war - it would be interesting to hear other people's opinions.

Lockstep

If he'd gone for Britain a bit earlier and attacked the RAF as soon as possible he could have pulled an invasion off.

dlofnep

I think the poor resources available to his troops on the Russian attack was his biggest loss. It was all downhill from there.

TerrorFirmer

There are so many different possible alternatives, that it's impossible to say what would have actually influenced events more then others.

Had Britain been defeated, there would have been more forces available for the Eastern Front - air power in particular and as the war progressed, no need to strip the east of valuable divisions to reinforce the vulnerable west in Italy/France. There would have been, of course, no air war over Germany, and industry would have continued unhindered - and more importantly, oil production would have done the same. Oil shortages are a completely underestimated factor in the defeat of Germany, who was reduced to about 10% of operational fuel needs by late 1944.

One of the easiest things to say would be that if only Hitler had a little more long term progress in mind - whatever about Britain, North Africa should have been secured before even a build up for Barbarossa was started. With North Africa and Malta Secure, an invasion of Russia would be much easier and Turkey could probably have been very easily persuaded to enter the war, allowing for a rapid thrust into the Crimea cutting off industry as part of the initial campaign of '41, if Germany had been invading the Soviet Union with a completely conquered Europe and British/French Africa in its pocket. On that point, Barbarossa should never have been launched in summer, but in early spring. With a few more months available to them in fully mobile warfare, the Germans would probably have annihilated the Red Army in far more totality and captured Moscow.

On that point, if Hitler had equally used his rational, the German army would have entered the Soviet Union as liberators. Regardless of his ethics or beliefs, a smart man would have utilized the local population, who hated Stalin, in his war. Whether or not he wanted to turn on them after victory would have been his own concern. The German army, in the event, was welcomed as liberators by many but the brutal campaign against the local populations soon ended this and the need for local police, garrisons and not to mention groups for ethnic cleansing stripped the army of potential soldiers. Up to several million men would have fought against Stalin; many more would not have fought for either Hitler or Stalin if the Germans were conducting a merely military campaign.

Declaring war on America: One of the biggest mistakes. Japan would have waged war against the US as per reality; the US would commit exclusively to this theater if Hitler had ignored it. Without America, Britain was in absolutely no position to invade Europe, and insufficient even to effectively disrupt the German war economy via air power. Leaving a free Britain was not the biggest mistake, declaring war on America was. Again, this would leave Germany to commit nearly it's entire military in the east.

Ok, moving outside pre-campaign affairs:

1) Russia: Lack of rationality. Ironically if Hitler himself had stopping meddling with military affairs, the war would have gone far better. It's impossible to say how much so, but catastrophes like Kursk would never have happened without him. Hitler was terrible for splitting up forces and assigning them all separate objectives (like the drive for the Caucasus). With OKH in nominal command of it's forces, the focus would have been predominantly on destroying the red army rather then attacking fixed objectives. Even if the Germans had faced the same position as they did in early 1943 without the interference of Hitler, they could have still won the war. Most generals favored the idea of a strong elastic defense supported primarily by screens of heavy AT, to bleed the Red Army whilst rebuilding and reforming, to resume the war in 1944. Hitler, of course, insisted on decisive confrontations that often - or even mostly - negated the Wehrmacht's superiority. Look at Kursk; the Wehrmacht fighting a force almost double it's own size protected by several belts of minefields, obstacles, AT guns, etc, and yet it still came close to breaking through.

A lot of the worst mistakes happened post 1943; so it's hard to say whether or not correct planning could have still won the war at this stage. But if a defensive strategy was adopted in the east as per the thinking of Manstein/Rommel in 1943 after Stalingrad, the situation in 1944 would have been far better and allowed a greater transfer of forces to the west and possibly defeat the allied invasion. Since one change in the war could affect it's entire development, it's entirely possible that by June 1944 in this scenario, the Wehrmacht would still be on an equal or even superior footing to the Red Army. It would be wrong to be able to say definitively that post 1943 the Wehrmacht could destroy the Red Army in totality, but it certainly could have forced a negotiation and there is a prospect of victory.

From 1943 onwards the doctrine of the Wehrmacht was dreadful - largely static defense and ordered to fight to the death, leading to encirclement and inevitable destruction of hundreds of thousands of men and endless amounts of equipment. But at this stage Germany had lost the initiative, so Hitler-less leadership after, say, January 1944 could have prevented total defeat, but total victory would be still unlikely.

Summary: Biggest mistakes were declaring war on American and invading Russia in summer. There's probably loads I'm missing out but I did type this on an EEE-PC so it was frustrating to say the least, and I didn't really have the patience to type out a longer answer...

TerrorFirmer

Oh and regarding OP points:

1) Normandy. The reserves were a joke the way they were divided up, but it's unfair to blame Hitler solely for the delay in releasing them. Most of the staff believed the main invasion would hit Calais, with Normandy as a diversion. This was the work of Fortitude.

2)Stalingrad: The 6th army was far from inexperienced and untrained. Stalingrad was a major loss for the Germans, the actual battle for the city was not. The encirclement destroyed 6th Army, but by about October, they controlled almost 90% of the city through street to street fighting. What they didn't do was cross the Volga.

I agree with you in particular regarding a bomber arm and better provisions for the campaign definitely.

Oh and another - Hitler suspended development of many weapons - the ME262 was delayed intentionally, so while it's hard to see it clawing back Air Superiority in 1944 even if it wasn't deployed as a fighter-bomber, but if it debuted in even 1943, the air war would have taken a serious turn. Also, the stg44 was delayed by Hitler, and only came into service behind his back - he only gave it his blessing after every army group was clamoring for more of them. Only examples....

luckat

I've heard - whether it's true or not - that the Germans poured all their rail resources into the shipping of Jews, dissidents, mentally ill or disabled people, women who'd had abortions, homosexuals (male and female) and other 'Untermenschen' to camps to be taught a sharp lesson.

Troop trains were held to sidings while the trains full of prisoners were rushed through. Trains that could have carried troops and munitions were diverted into carrying prisoners.

The massacre of 11 million people in the camps took up so much of the resources of Germany that it interfered severely with the making of war.

Lockstep

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

On that point, if Hitler had equally used his rational, the German army would have entered the Soviet Union as liberators. Regardless of his ethics or beliefs, a smart man would have utilized the local population, who hated Stalin, in his war. Whether or not he wanted to turn on them after victory would have been his own concern. The German army, in the event, was welcomed as liberators by many but the brutal campaign against the local populations soon ended this and the need for local police, garrisons and not to mention groups for ethnic cleansing stripped the army of potential soldiers. Up to several million men would have fought against Stalin; many more would not have fought for either Hitler or Stalin if the Germans were conducting a merely military campaign.

+1.

So many people were thrilled when Hitler invaded as people had freedom of worship, even jews, victims of Stalin's anti semitism, lined up to register with the invaders as per Nazi posters, disillusioned Red army soldiers surrendered in droves.

Hitler threw away this initial support. Towns were appalled by Nazi cruelty and Hitler refused to allow 800,000 Russian volunteers to fight for him under Alexander Vlasov.



Terrorfirmer: did NUIG ever offer a course on WWII?
They don't now and it's fairly gutting.

silverharp

thankfully Hitler never read The Art of War as he made about every mistake mentioned in the book.

Anyhoo, in my opinion on the basis that you don't fight battles where you are at a disadvantage, the battle of Britain was a mistake. , the lack of Uboats at the start was mistake, britain would have been out of oil in months if they could have deployed more Uboats also the surface fleet was a waste of resources as it couldn't match the royal navy.
the focus on bombers was a mistake as they were not a strategic weapon and consumed valuable resources.

TerrorFirmer

luckat wrote: »

I've heard - whether it's true or not - that the Germans poured all their rail resources into the shipping of Jews, dissidents, mentally ill or disabled people, women who'd had abortions, homosexuals (male and female) and other 'Untermenschen' to camps to be taught a sharp lesson.

Troop trains were held to sidings while the trains full of prisoners were rushed through. Trains that could have carried troops and munitions were diverted into carrying prisoners.

The massacre of 11 million people in the camps took up so much of the resources of Germany that it interfered severely with the making of war.

I'm not too sure on the actual specifics but I did read that towards late 1944 transport of Jews/undesirables were generally given priority over troop transport...I'll have to look more into this. I don't know if it was a general policy or was a result of the action against Hungarian Jews at the time...

As for NUIG....there is no WWII module, though there is a WWI one, which I did. There's also modules on Nazi Germany and Vichy France and one or two more that relate to the war, but not generally about the war as a military event...

Lockstep

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

As for NUIG....there is no WWII module, though there is a WWI one, which I did. There's also modules on Nazi Germany and Vichy France and one or two more that relate to the war, but not generally about the war as a military event...

Ah yeah, I'm aware of that.

I'm planning on doing WWI, just wondering if there ever was a module on WWII.

Mahatma coat

I always felt that the Germans were let down by their inability to produce Weapons like tanks and planes at the same rate as the allies.

The germans were aware of the russian KV tanks at an early age, but it took a few generations of design to catch up to them for size and firepower.

same with planes, the Stukka was a great dive bomber but it just didnt have the payload of the allied aircraft.

IIRC the kill rate was somewhere around 10 Allied shermans to every Panzer disabled on the western front.

as others mentioned they delayed in developing the machines that would have won the war for them

Lockstep

Yeah, I remember reading too that the Allied tanks were weaker than Axis ones but were far more numerous.

TerrorFirmer

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I always felt that the Germans were let down by their inability to produce Weapons like tanks and planes at the same rate as the allies.

The germans were aware of the russian KV tanks at an early age, but it took a few generations of design to catch up to them for size and firepower.

same with planes, the Stukka was a great dive bomber but it just didnt have the payload of the allied aircraft.

IIRC the kill rate was somewhere around 10 Allied shermans to every Panzer disabled on the western front.

as others mentioned they delayed in developing the machines that would have won the war for them

For every army, the introduction and faster development of certain technologies peaked closer to the end of the war. That's just the way it is.

The problems for the Germans wasn't really tanks themselves, it was transport, and more critically fuel. Tanks couldn't get to the front for want of transport, and when they finally did, they were left behind/destroyed for want of fuel. Not to mention, that complete allied dominance of the air accounted for vast amounts of tanks before they could even get into action. On D-Day and the following critical days up to 30% of some groups tank strengths was disabled before they could even get in place for a counter attack. Production of tanks, aircraft and various armoured vehicles peaked in 1944...and overall the Germans had far more critical problems to blame for their hardships then industrial output.

The Stuka was a good plane, but ineffective when deployed incorrectly as it so often was. It was designed for attacking ground targets with supporting air cover, and at that it excelled. It was used on the Eastern front up until 1945 as a tank killer armed with very large cannons, and at this it proved it's worth.

As for tank superiority, the most famous case of Michael Wittman in a Tiger:

Wittmans most famous exploit during the Normandy campaign was his action during the Battle of Villers-Bocage in June 1944. Ambushing the 7th Armoured Division's 22nd Armoured Brigade, he destroyed five Cromwell tanks, one Sherman Firefly, three M5A1's, one Sherman OP tank, one Cromwell OP tank and various half tracks and other armoured vehicles.

Tenger

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The problems for the Germans wasn't really tanks themselves, it was transport, and more critically fuel. ......................Not to mention, that complete allied dominance of the air accounted for vast amounts of tanks before they could even get into action. On D-Day and the following critical days up to 30% of some groups tank strengths was disabled before they could even get in place for a counter attack.

I second this. German tanks were all built in Germany and repaired in Germany. So while tank output increased in 1944 (I think peaked at the end of '44?) all tanks had to be shipped to the front. Many were lost enroute. When a tank was damaged and immobile it had to be shipped back to the factory for repairs. So battles like Kursk had a greater than expected impact on tanks numbers as the Germans were unable to recover and repair many tanks. In the withdrawal against superior Soviet forces tanks had to be destroyed as they couldn't take them with them. Indeed an major problem in early '45 was burning out engines on tanks by towing damaged ones.

After D-Day allied aircraft destroyed many of the reserve tank force trying to get to Normandy to repel the Allies. And when the allies met tough tank forces they called in air support. Apparently the US assumed that Panthers and Tigers would be rare on the battlefield in late '44/early '45. They expected to meet mostly PzIVs. They got a shock when Panthers and Tigers comprised a large percentage of all German armour. I suppose by this time all the less capable tanks were destroyed or converted to Stugs.

The Soviets showed how to win the Industrial war by only building a limited number of weapons types. I read in a Richard Overy book that they only built 5 aircraft types for most of the war. Thus all airforces were standardised.


In terms of how Hitler could have won:

I agree that the indecision over Great Britain hamstung germany for the rest of the war. Better to have made peace with them and then turned towards the Lebunsraum? of Russia. Hitler was already turning away from Britain to gear up for Russia,he should have finished them off or got peace first. Off the top of my head-

-The war in North Africa versus the British consumed valuable resources. And stopped Axis access to the Middle East oildfields.
-The Crete assault ended the german paratroopers as an elite force. They never make a significant impact on any front after that.
-Wasn't it the Yugoslav/Greek campaign that delayed Barbarossa?
-The RAF bomber campaign hindered their warmaking potential and devoted lots of industrial production to anti-aircraft defences. This also led Hitler to insist on using the ME262 as a bomber in revenge.
-V1 and V2 production and use against Britain,while technologically brillant wasn't going to win a war.
-Britain helped the Franch resistance,small blows but it keep troops on occupation duty.
-British seapower prevented the Italian navy from controlling the Med.
-Britain provided a platform for US troop and air force build-up in 1942-44.
-The British (with help from resistance in Europe) broke Enigma.


Its all a bit like C&C:Red Alert after a while. You always need more tanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jmayo

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

For every army, the introduction and faster development of certain technologies peaked closer to the end of the war. That's just the way it is.

The problems for the Germans wasn't really tanks themselves, it was transport, and more critically fuel. Tanks couldn't get to the front for want of transport, and when they finally did, they were left behind/destroyed for want of fuel. Not to mention, that complete allied dominance of the air accounted for vast amounts of tanks before they could even get into action. On D-Day and the following critical days up to 30% of some groups tank strengths was disabled before they could even get in place for a counter attack. Production of tanks, aircraft and various armoured vehicles peaked in 1944...and overall the Germans had far more critical problems to blame for their hardships then industrial output.

The Stuka was a good plane, but ineffective when deployed incorrectly as it so often was. It was designed for attacking ground targets with supporting air cover, and at that it excelled. It was used on the Eastern front up until 1945 as a tank killer armed with very large cannons, and at this it proved it's worth.

As for tank superiority, the most famous case of Michael Wittman in a Tiger:

Stuka was not great in air and susceptible to enemy fighters.
Was Wittman the only guy to survive both Eastern and Western fronts, whereas average tiger crew livespan was only few weeks ?

German tanks had superior armour to most allied tanks and with the 88mm was very potent but they suffered reliablity issues and were often harder to build especially when compared to things like the T34.
I guess that's what you get when you have people like Ferdinand Porshe designing your turrets.
Also the tanks were generally heavier and thus less mobile than Allied tanks.

Germany military designers had some great ideas and they did manage to put some of these into practice, despite as someone said Hitlers sometimes lukewarm attitude.
Of course to counter this, Stalin hated aircraft designers and some of them were always afriad of ending up back in the gulags or mines of Siberia.

After all this the Germans still had first servicable Jet powered aircraft (262), first ballistic missile (V2) and first assualt rifle (STG44).
The downside for them was some of these items were intricate and hard to produce and their industry was getting hammered by Allied bombing and the Soviets in particular were knocking out huge quantities of things like very reliable tanks and submachineguns.

Maybe the war came too early for Hitler but to counter this a delay would also have helped the Brits up their production and the Soviets rebuild their officer corps.

Also agree that if the Germans had used bit of cop on they could have harnessed the peoples of Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithunia and indeed Russia itself in fight against Stalin.
Actually as it was it is surprising the number of atrocities that were carried out by some of the above nationalities.
Something they do tend to forget though in their museums :rolleyes:

AFAIK Hitler's never wanted to go to war with Uk as he saw them as fellow saxon stock. He always wanted to divert attention to the east and the subhumans that lived there. He had hoped they would fall in with him or at least come to an agreement.

humberklog

An interesting question. I don't believe Hitler couldn't have won the war, his psychological make up wouldn't allow it. His appitite would never be sated. Germany, however, under the correct command and re-programming of its political doctrin could have. Hitler would not have ceased in expanding his theatre of war, it simply wasn't in him. He did in many senses complete his task, his worth was expended at the moment of his death. Communism came and went, eu expansion (with germany at the helm) negating borders and most importantly for Hitler personally; Jewish polital, social and economic influence in europe cast to the winds of history.
To imagine Hitler winning ( kicking the jackboots off in front of the fire, cup of tea, slice of cake thinking to himself "that's grand, I'm happy with that days work") is akin to trying to visualize the atom.

amen

Declaring war on America:

I believe the USA declared War on Germany

Belfast

amen wrote: »

I believe the USA declared War on Germany

Germany declared war on America first.

Belfast

1. Improved procedures the secure use of the enigma machines and use of 4 or more rotor enigma machines

2. No alliance with Japan

3. Put Albert Speer in charge of economic planning not Hermann Göring. Sack Hermann Göring as head of Luftwaffe

3.Develop Type XXI U-boat and Junkers 390 in 1939 and have large numbers available

4. Invade malta and after the fall of France in 1940 sent Rommell to libya to invade Egypt and go thought to the oil fields in Basra, Iraq.

5. Only bomb British shipping lanes not Britain itself.

6. secure chrome suppliers form turkey (needed for reliable jet engines)

7. Accept Stalin offer of peace as the German army closed in on Moscow in late 1941.

8. Declare war on Japan not America after Pearl harbour and offer the American assistance with the use of XXI U-boats to sink Japan merchant fleet.

WooPeeA

Belfast wrote: »

Germany declared war on America first.

The interesting fact is that German submarines were few miles from New York before they declared that war. They took some pictures which might be used in planing attack on New York. Sounds ridiculous but true. Americans didn't even knew about German submarines.

But war in Russia, UK, USA and Africa at the same time? A little too much.

Dinter

WooPeeA wrote: »

The interesting fact is that German submarines were few miles from New York before they declared that war. They took some pictures which might be used in planing attack on New York. Sounds ridiculous but true. Americans didn't even knew about German submarines.

But war in Russia, UK, USA and Africa at the same time? A little too much.

For anyone who watches Deadliest Catch on Discovery Channel, Dutch harbour, where the trawlers sail out of, was attacked by the Japanese during the Aleutian Islands campaign.

Sorry I know it's off topic but I never knew they'd ranged into Alaska and WooPeeA reminded me there about how close they'd got.

Belfast

WooPeeA wrote: »

The interesting fact is that German submarines were few miles from New York before they declared that war. They took some pictures which might be used in planing attack on New York. Sounds ridiculous but true. Americans didn't even knew about German submarines.

But war in Russia, UK, USA and Africa at the same time? A little too much.

Good west site on Greman uboats during WWII
http://www.uboat.net/

Grizzly 45

First off Adolf would have to have recognised a few personal faults in himself.1] He was an amatuer stratagist and tactician,who read curosily and took what he wanted from Von Clausewitz ,Napeloen and Machevelli,and a bunch of mythical German heros of it's past. He did have the cult of personality to dupe those around him and eventually himself ,into beliving totally in him.His inner Nazi advisory circle consisted of Yes men and hangers on.All too terrified of him to tell him the total truth of the situations.2] He had brilliant generals in the German army, many who were of the old German officer corps,who utterly despised the man as a person,but were too caught up in the old German thought process of deinst ist dienst [duty is duty] irrespective of whom is in charge.Nor could they back out or do anything about the situation as any contradiction of Hitlers Fureher befehl [Fureher order,highest pirority]was to invite immediate court martial and a firing squad.So his Generals who could have pulled and saved many disasterous situations caused by Hitler had he let them do their jobs. Eg Stalingrad,the retreat from East Prussia,Kursk,Normanday.Even the top generals [Marcks]advised him against invading Russia as Hitlers plans had no fixed objectives.Described as sending the German army into ussia on a will o the wisp chase after sea ports cities,corn,iron,oil,nickel ,manganase and cotton.Moscow was considerd of "no general importance" His own ambassador when he handed Hitler his report was chucked in a drawer unread by Hitler with the comment "that was most intresting"..Hardly stuff of a war winning overlord.you have to accept bad news and intelligence when it contradicts your preconcived notions.3] Also,not having Parkinsons disease helps alot.Compare the pics of Hitler from the years 1940 to 45.He is steadily detoriating health wise and has all the symptoms of Parkinsons.Ok, getting over his personality problems.Could he have changed the war outcome? IF he could have got Britan to sue for peace in 1940,by either the U boot campain or bombing into submission, possibly.He would have been then better advised to conduct a truce with the UK and Vichy France and consolidate his West European gains.The attack on Russia was ill advised and unwinnable.Just due to the huge distances and logistics involved in taking and holding terrority there.He could have gained great allies in the East like the UkraineBelarus ,The Cossacks etc.Who surrenderd enmasse to the Germans ,only wanting a chance to fight against the Red communists.Unfortuneatly to his stupid ubermensch ideals he turned huge pouplations against him who would have fought for him.Had he allowed the retreat from Stalingrad to better defebnsive positions,held thru the Winter and pushed again in the Spring towards Moscow.He could have again forced Stalin to a truce.But it would never be a stable truce.Stalin would have been supplied from the US and this war would proably still be fought to today.

eoin2nc

Even if the UK had fallen would the yanks alone not have won the war eventually, along with the Russians. They produced way more equipmant, had far bigger populations and by 1945 they would have had the Atomic Bomb to sort the Germans out

dresden8

If the UK had fallen the US would not have become involved in Europe at all.

eoin2nc

dresden8 wrote: »

If the UK had fallen the US would not have become involved in Europe at all.

I think they would have, snd I think big business would have forced them to, they would have lost all their markets in Europe ect

Fratton Fred

eoin2nc wrote: »

I think they would have, snd I think big business would have forced them to, they would have lost all their markets in Europe ect

The market would have remained exactly as it was, but with only one dictator to negotiate with. The situation may even have been to their advantage.

If Britain had fallen, where would america have launched an attack from? sail over from the US without the cover of the Royal Navy, they would have been slaughtered before they got half way.

If Britain had fallen, the US would not have been interested in Europe.

Degsy

If Hitler hadnt persecuted the jews to the extent that emminent jewish scientists had to leave the country he could've had an atomic weapon by 1940.Think about it.

JcDubz4life

Basicaly I think that Hitler lost the war because he wouldnt let his generals dothier jobs especialy Rommel. Here is one of the greatest military minds of the conflict, never mind the century and look what Hitler did to him.

Clytus

I think theres a growing concensus that Hitlers inability to allow his generals to command their forces effectivly was a serious contributing factor to Germanys eventual defeat.

Incrediable tacticians like Manstein...true blue traditional Prussian officers like von Rundstedt ,and modern thinkers like Guderian were held back by Hitlers meddling.

D-Day...wasnt Rommel at his wifes birthday party that night and wasnt contactable?...leading to indecision and delaying pushing forward the Panzer forces?

robpurf

interesting posts its a hobby of mine to sit watching docu's on the history channel about the war.i honestly think when hitler went for britain he shouldve concentrated on the air fields and the raf and left the blanket bombing of towns alone.that and more u boats in the atlantic wouldve taken the uk out of the war either by surrender or occupation which in turn would have kept the americans at home or at the least in the pacific as other posters said.after that he would have had everything to hand to go after russia,which looking at history is too big a country for anyone to take anyway

Sykk

From studies, I think Hitler was insane. He had a mental problem, that's my and some other people's opinion. Reason for all these mistakes was that he was bloodthirsty, paranoid about everything that went on, power thirsty thus all the recklessness mistakes and deaths he caused.