Why did Hitler Invade so many Countries so Fast?

johnwest288

Right so Im trying to figure out how he thought he could take over so much of europe/ russia so fast.
Surely he and his Generals Knew that he was spreading Finite resources.
How could he think he could control so much land so fast Im no expert but it seems mad. Or was Hitler just that "Insane"
Could he not have had a breathing space between his campaigns to re-arm.
So if he did hypothetically take over Russia and England how could he control these vast land masses with just his troops and possibly some sympathisers from inside those countries.


Austria was 1938- Austria fell
First was Poland in 1939 at Warsaw, Poland fell.
Belgium was 1940- They surrender
France was 1940- They surrender
Netherlands was 1940- They surrender
Luxembourg was 1940- annexed to Germany
Channel Islands was 1940- They surrender
Romania was 1940- They surrender
Soviet Union was 1940- Germany loses
Yugoslavia and Greece was 1941- They surrendered
Serbia was 1941- They surrendered
Crete was 1941- They surrendered
Estonia was 1941- German occupitation
United States was 1941- Germany loses

Ultimately Germany fell in 1944 at the successful beach landing at Normandy lead to the German defeat.

Wibbs

Early successes at unexpected speed led to hubris and they started to believe their own hype? To be fair their successes were pretty impressive, so you could see how the ordinary German would think they're were invincible and that vibe filtered up the line. Add in Hitler's charisma and there you have it. I reckon anyway. Better(much) counsel will be along to give better reasons.

The Japanese were even dafter on that score. They had no hope of winning a war against the US for so many reasons.

bluecode

You missed out Norway, Denmark and Czechoslovakia. Each was taken over for strategic reasons. You also missed out on Lithuania and Latvia.

Austria was a 'friendly' take over not really an occupation.

Hitler's real intent all along as laid out in Mein Kampf was the to expand Germany to the East and eliminate Communism and of course the Jews. Getting revenge on France was also part of the plan.

Anyone who stood in his way was either won over or occupied. Sometimes it was mere geography that invited invasion, Holland, Belgium and Denmark for example.

Romania didn't surrender to Germany. The allied themselves, as did Hungary and Bulgaria.

Hitler had expected to Yugoslavia to join the Axis but invaded when they didn't.

He had no interest in Greece but was dragged in when the Italians were thrown back by the Greeks.

Realistically he had no interest in occupying Britain either or even going to war with them or Ireland for that matter.

As for America, he declared war on the US because he was allied with the Japanese and in all probability he completely underestimated the United States ability to gear up for war. No doubt he thought they would be completely preoccupied with Japan and of course as Wibbs puts it there was the hubris. December 1941 was near enough the peak of German success.

Ultimately Germany fell in 1944 at the successful beach landing at Normandy lead to the German defeat.

The Red Army might have something to say about that. That was his biggest mistake, the assumption they would collapse just like in WW1.

In many ways he was the victim of his own success. The Germans themselves were surprised at how well they did.

That was their ultimate downfall. It couldn't last.

DaveyCakes

johnwest288 wrote: »

Austria was 1938- Austria fell
First was Poland in 1939 at Warsaw, Poland fell.
Belgium was 1940- They surrender
France was 1940- They surrender
Netherlands was 1940- They surrender
Luxembourg was 1940- annexed to Germany
Channel Islands was 1940- They surrender
Romania was 1940- They surrender
Soviet Union was 1940- Germany loses
Yugoslavia and Greece was 1941- They surrendered
Serbia was 1941- They surrendered
Crete was 1941- They surrendered
Estonia was 1941- German occupitation
United States was 1941- Germany loses

Ultimately Germany fell in 1944 at the successful beach landing at Normandy lead to the German defeat.

You're all over the place with this.....

HavingCrack

Austria wasn't occupied exactly, more absorbed, the majority of Austrians appear to have been willing participants in Anschluss, however the Dolfuss referendum on a free and independant Austria was never carried out so we don't really know for sure.

Czechoslovakia was slightly different, the Sudetenland was never invaded, it was given to Germany at the Munich conference. The remainder of the country was pretty much defenceless when Germany threatened to launch air raids on Prague so that was an easy victory for Hitler.

Germany signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact which meant an invasion of western Poland in 1939 seemed perfect. The fact that the western Allies had done nothing about the Spanish Republic, Austria or Czechoslovakia convinced Hitler that they would not interfere over Poland. With the threat of Soviet aggression neutered via the terms of the treaty and eastern expansion being part of Nazi ideology the 1939 attack on Poland was timed perfectly.

The invasion of Norway was designed to protect the port of Narvik and keep the supply of Swedish iron ore vital to German industry continuing to flow. It also intended to prevent a British and French occupation of that country which it did very effectively. It did tie up 300,000 German soldiers for the duration of the way however. The invasion of Denmark was merely to aid the invasion of Norway.

Similarly the German offensive against France needed to attack via Belgium due to the presence of the Maginot Line further south. The Benelux states were unfortunately in the wrong place geographically, caught between Germany and France.

The attack on France took place in 1940 in order to bring the war on the western front to a speedy end before preparing an invasion of the USSR, the ultimate German aim and was successful. France was defeated and British forces confined to their island.

The attacks on Yugoslavia and Greece only occured due the disaster that Italian meddling caused in those states which threatened Hitlers southern flank in the Balkans because of the presence of Allied troops in Greece and Crete.

North Africa was a similar situation to the Balkans.

Romania and Bulgaria were German allies, not occupied states.

The invasion of the USSR in 1941 was probably the correct time to do so. Hitler felt the British were no longer a threat to German hegemony of the continent, the Soviet army appeared to be impotent and ineffective to Stalin's purges of its officer corps and that army's exceptionally poor showing in the 1940 'Winter War' with Finland where it suffered heavy casualties. Furthermore the Soviet Union was continuing to re-arm rapidly and the longer Germany waited the stronger the Russian army would become.

German tactics were based on speed and rapid maneuvering. The German army was not designed for a long war with the Soviet Union or the United States. German industrial output did not reach maximum capacity until 1945, far too late to influence the war. In a 'total war' situation with the USSR, Germany would lose. Hence the decision to attempt to knock Russia out quickly and the need for speed in the German campaigns.

Canvasser

johnwest288 wrote: »

Right so Im trying to figure out how he thought he could take over so much of europe/ russia so fast.
Surely he and his Generals Knew that he was spreading Finite resources.
How could he think he could control so much land so fast Im no expert but it seems mad. Or was Hitler just that "Insane"
Could he not have had a breathing space between his campaigns to re-arm.
So if he did hypothetically take over Russia and England how could he control these vast land masses with just his troops and possibly some sympathisers from inside those countries.


Austria was 1938- Austria fell
First was Poland in 1939 at Warsaw, Poland fell.
Belgium was 1940- They surrender
France was 1940- They surrender
Netherlands was 1940- They surrender
Luxembourg was 1940- annexed to Germany
Channel Islands was 1940- They surrender
Romania was 1940- They surrender
Soviet Union was 1940- Germany loses
Yugoslavia and Greece was 1941- They surrendered
Serbia was 1941- They surrendered
Crete was 1941- They surrendered
Estonia was 1941- German occupitation
United States was 1941- Germany loses

Ultimately Germany fell in 1944 at the successful beach landing at Normandy lead to the German defeat.

Mightn't be any harm to try reading a book sometime.

Owryan

johnwest288 wrote: »

Right so Im trying to figure out how he thought he could take over so much of europe/ russia so fast.
Surely he and his Generals Knew that he was spreading Finite resources.
How could he think he could control so much land so fast Im no expert but it seems mad. Or was Hitler just that "Insane"
Could he not have had a breathing space between his campaigns to re-arm.
So if he did hypothetically take over Russia and England how could he control these vast land masses with just his troops and possibly some sympathisers from inside those countries.


Austria was 1938- Austria fell No invasion, voted to unite with Germany

First was Poland in 1939 at Warsaw, Poland fell. Horses v Tanks as per false perception, dont forget Russia also invaded Poland

Belgium was 1940- They surrender Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg , maybe simplistic but were in the way
France was 1940- They surrender Failure of leadership/wrong tactics/strategy

Netherlands was 1940- They surrender see above

Luxembourg was 1940- annexed to Germany see above

Channel Islands was 1940- They surrender why not ?

Romania was 1940- They surrender did they not invite the Germans in? Technically they were allies

Soviet Union was 1940- Germany loses 22/06/41 could ve been so much different

Yugoslavia and Greece was 1941- They surrendered Yugoslavia was in turmoil , Greece was fought out

Serbia was 1941- They surrendered ???? part of Yugoslavia ???

Crete was 1941- They surrendered on small descisions do big events happen then again the allied garrison was also just run out of Greece

Estonia was 1941- German occupation Was already occupied by Russia

United States was 1941- Germany loses ??? not part of Europe, never invaded by Germany , but Hitlers declaration of war on the U.S. was a big mistake

Ultimately Germany fell in 1944 at the successful beach landing at Normandy lead to the German defeat.

With or without D-Day , Germany was on the back foot , Russian military capacity was already far ahead of Germanys and as shown by operation Bagration they had the means, ability and drive to crush Germany .

In the scheme of things German expansion was pretty much what was expected, whether it was too much too soon i would say not given the relative ease of their success. However Hitlers inability to say enough is enough and the fact that he failed to accede to the advise of his generals was a major turning point.

Imagine if after the failure to take Moscow in late 41 or even in the aftermath of stalingrad in early 43 he had agreed to a more defensive posture and fallen back on a natural defensive line . No Kursk and the destruction of his panzer force . How many divisions would have been released for service elsewhere or put into a powerful reserve in Russia ?

SdoowSirhc

Well as you probably know already, nobody really tried to stop Hitler from invading countries around Germany under the policy of appeasement. The Brits and French wanted to keep Germany sweet after the turmoil they caused in the Great War and didn't want to kick up a fuss. Hitler was pretty much welcomed into Austria by the Germanic majority (probably not the correct way of phrasing this..) and the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. It wasn't until he invaded Poland that the British/French had enough of appeasing him and went to war on Germany but they still did little or nothing to stop German expansion (see "the phoney war") Hitler's use of blitzkrieg meant his troops could quickly move into and neutralize the next country in line to be taken and had to keep moving quickly to keep the Allies guessing. They had no need to rest and "re-arm" as such because they had a huge supply of troops and the resources/infrastructure to keep fueling the war effort. The reason they didn't fare so well by the time they got into Russia they were nearly too far away from these new troops/resources/infrastructure and hence suffered.

Just my opinion but I really haven't much knowledge on WWII, I'm only 15..

:P

golden lane

SdoowSirhc wrote: »

Well as you probably know already, nobody really tried to stop Hitler from invading countries around Germany under the policy of appeasement. The Brits and French wanted to keep Germany sweet after the turmoil they caused in the Great War and didn't want to kick up a fuss. Hitler was pretty much welcomed into Austria by the Germanic majority (probably not the correct way of phrasing this..) and the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. It wasn't until he invaded Poland that the British/French had enough of appeasing him and went to war on Germany but they still did little or nothing to stop German expansion (see "the phoney war") Hitler's use of blitzkrieg meant his troops could quickly move into and neutralize the next country in line to be taken and had to keep moving quickly to keep the Allies guessing. They had no need to rest and "re-arm" as such because they had a huge supply of troops and the resources/infrastructure to keep fueling the war effort. The reason they didn't fare so well by the time they got into Russia they were nearly too far away from these new troops/resources/infrastructure and hence suffered.

Just my opinion but I really haven't much knowledge on WWII, I'm only 15..

:P

well done lad.....you have done wonderfull...

people see the germans in the movies and see all the trucks, tanks etc....

the german army was mainly horsedrawn.........which meant the mass of soldiers (except by train) could only move as fast as a horse could walk......

ShaneScouse

If you think the D-Day landings were the main reason Hitlers Germany fell, then I'm afraid you might be watching to many films and HBO war shows
(which are all brilliant mind you)

USSRs counterattack during the winter of '41 was the catalyst for Germanys fall, and pretty much ate up the vast majority of men,munitions and overall war effort for the rest of the war. That and by Normandy the Allies were already making headway into Italy, Greece etc. It did fasten the end of the war but not by much, and not nearly as big a deal in the whole scale of ww2 as the hype around Normandy would lead you to believe.

indioblack

HavingCrack wrote: »

Austria wasn't occupied exactly, more absorbed, the majority of Austrians appear to have been willing participants in Anschluss, however the Dolfuss referendum on a free and independant Austria was never carried out so we don't really know for sure.

Czechoslovakia was slightly different, the Sudetenland was never invaded, it was given to Germany at the Munich conference. The remainder of the country was pretty much defenceless when Germany threatened to launch air raids on Prague so that was an easy victory for Hitler.

Germany signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact which meant an invasion of western Poland in 1939 seemed perfect. The fact that the western Allies had done nothing about the Spanish Republic, Austria or Czechoslovakia convinced Hitler that they would not interfere over Poland. With the threat of Soviet aggression neutered via the terms of the treaty and eastern expansion being part of Nazi ideology the 1939 attack on Poland was timed perfectly.

The invasion of Norway was designed to protect the port of Narvik and keep the supply of Swedish iron ore vital to German industry continuing to flow. It also intended to prevent a British and French occupation of that country which it did very effectively. It did tie up 300,000 German soldiers for the duration of the way however. The invasion of Denmark was merely to aid the invasion of Norway.

Similarly the German offensive against France needed to attack via Belgium due to the presence of the Maginot Line further south. The Benelux states were unfortunately in the wrong place geographically, caught between Germany and France.

The attack on France took place in 1940 in order to bring the war on the western front to a speedy end before preparing an invasion of the USSR, the ultimate German aim and was successful. France was defeated and British forces confined to their island.

The attacks on Yugoslavia and Greece only occured due the disaster that Italian meddling caused in those states which threatened Hitlers southern flank in the Balkans because of the presence of Allied troops in Greece and Crete.

North Africa was a similar situation to the Balkans.

Romania and Bulgaria were German allies, not occupied states.

The invasion of the USSR in 1941 was probably the correct time to do so. Hitler felt the British were no longer a threat to German hegemony of the continent, the Soviet army appeared to be impotent and ineffective to Stalin's purges of its officer corps and that army's exceptionally poor showing in the 1940 'Winter War' with Finland where it suffered heavy casualties. Furthermore the Soviet Union was continuing to re-arm rapidly and the longer Germany waited the stronger the Russian army would become.

German tactics were based on speed and rapid maneuvering. The German army was not designed for a long war with the Soviet Union or the United States. German industrial output did not reach maximum capacity until 1945, far too late to influence the war. In a 'total war' situation with the USSR, Germany would lose. Hence the decision to attempt to knock Russia out quickly and the need for speed in the German campaigns.

Fair summary.
Hitler diverting some of his forces into Greece in 1941 led to a postponing of Barbarossa for some weeks. Would be interested to know if people consider this significant.
Worth pointing out that British forces would be confined to their island if they had no ships or planes.

golden lane

ShaneScouse wrote: »

If you think the D-Day landings were the main reason Hitlers Germany fell, then I'm afraid you might be watching to many films and HBO war shows
(which are all brilliant mind you)

USSRs counterattack during the winter of '41 was the catalyst for Germanys fall, and pretty much ate up the vast majority of men,munitions and overall war effort for the rest of the war. That and by Normandy the Allies were already making headway into Italy, Greece etc. It did fasten the end of the war but not by much, and not nearly as big a deal in the whole scale of ww2 as the hype around Normandy would lead you to believe.

the german armies in the west......could not be sent east.......

the bombing of germany kept thousands of soldiers at home......so those guns could not be used in the east....

i believe about 80% of all german casualties were on the eastern front.....

.08% of the allied armies.....actually fired a gun at an enemy they could see.......

the cream of the german army was defeated in normandy..........

the 25 german divisions that were destroyed by the russians in july 1944.....were mostly horsedrawn divisions.....

SdoowSirhc

golden lane wrote: »

well done lad.....you have done wonderfull...

people see the germans in the movies and see all the trucks, tanks etc....

the german army was mainly horsedrawn.........which meant the mass of soldiers (except by train) could only move as fast as a horse could walk......

I never mentioned trucks and I know actual cavalry still was in use at the time but Germany defiantly used tanks and such in the initial invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. Soldiers obviously weren't going to be primarily on tanks but I wouldn't have thought they were mainly horse drawn but I am wrong :P Thanks for telling me that, something I never heard about once during the entirety of the Junior cert course... More history classes!

golden lane

SdoowSirhc wrote: »

I never mentioned trucks and I know actual cavalry still was in use at the time but Germany defiantly used tanks and such in the initial invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. Soldiers obviously weren't going to be primarily on tanks but I wouldn't have thought they were mainly horse drawn but I am wrong :P Thanks for telling me that, something I never heard about once during the entirety of the Junior cert course... More history classes!

yes, tanks were used in the spearheads, and very effectively......

4 million mainly german troops attacked russia in june 1941.....i believe they had 600,000 horses.....just a handfull of cavalry......

many times the tanks had to slow down to let the others catch up..........

the british army began to be motorised in 1928......the main reason at that time was.....they could no longer get their supplies of horses from ireland.....

Canvasser

golden lane wrote: »

yes, tanks were used in the spearheads, and very effectively......

4 million mainly german troops attacked russia in june 1941.....i believe they had 600,000 horses.....just a handfull of cavalry......

many times the tanks had to slow down to let the others catch up..........

the british army began to be motorised in 1928......the main reason at that time was.....they could no longer get their supplies of horses from ireland.....

The British army was so tiny it was possible to motorise it. Not that it made much difference, they abandoned all their transport and fighting vechicles in France.

The German Army captured 70,000 French military trucks in 1940 and confiscated lots of French, Belgian and Dutch civilian vechicles meaning that they had a large number of motorised troops for the campaign in Moscow. Without these trucks the blitzkrieg in Russia could not have worked as the tanks would have been too isolated. 75% of nazi troops still had no motor transport though.

Wibbs

Another reason for their downfall and one you don't hear about so often, is that Germany never made any real effort to mobilise women as industrial workers. There was no "Rosalinde the Riveter". Instead they relied on men and slave labour, leaving 50% of the potential workforce as housefraus. Major economic disadvantage.

Canvasser

Wibbs wrote: »

Another reason for their downfall and one you don't hear about so often, is that Germany never made any real effort to mobilise women as industrial workers. There was no "Rosalinde the Riveter". Instead they relied on men and slave labour, leaving 50% of the potential workforce as housefraus. Major economic disadvantage.

The role of women in the USSR was a major econonic advantage. Not only did women work in factories and farms but they also were deployed as snipers, anti-aircraft gunners and night time bomber pilots.

golden lane

in may 1940....the british army had 50 divisions......13 of them were fighting in france...

after the evacuation of dunkirk.....the british army had 1.6 men....

Canvasser

golden lane wrote: »

in may 1940....the british army had 50 divisions......13 of them were fighting in france...

after the evacuation of dunkirk.....the british army had 1.6 men....

Nonsense. They may have conscripted that number of men but they were not in battle ready divisions. The British hadn't a single fully armed division after their retreat from Dunkirk.

indioblack

Canvasser wrote: »

Nonsense. They may have conscripted that number of men but they were not in battle ready divisions. The British hadn't a single fully armed division after their retreat from Dunkirk.

Worth bearing in mind that it was an Expeditionary Force that had been sent to the continent.
As an example, the regiment my father served in remained in England throughout the continental campaign - in fact most of his regiment never left England until 1944 - as part of Overlord.
Nevertheless it was just as well that the army in Britain at this time never had to engage the Wehrmacht.

HavingCrack

indioblack wrote: »

Worth bearing in mind that it was an Expeditionary Force that had been sent to the continent.
As an example, the regiment my father served in remained in England throughout the continental campaign - in fact most of his regiment never left England until 1944 - as part of Overlord.
Nevertheless it was just as well that the army in Britain at this time never had to engage the Wehrmacht.

It's also worth remembering that a lot of the defeatism that was rife in France in 1940 had begun to infect the British population. Prior to the Battle of Britain a lot of the British population had begun to think it was time to reach an accord with Hitler. There was no will to 'fight to the last man' despite what Churchill said in his speeches. Max Hastings discusses this quite well in his newish book 'All Hell Let Loose'. If the German's had simply left the British alone on their island there's a good chance that after the defeats in North Africa and Greece that Britain would have surrendered.

HavingCrack

golden lane wrote: »

the cream of the german army was defeated in normandy..........
.

I think this is definately a bit suspect. Most crack German divisions were posted to the Eastern front.

Canvasser

HavingCrack wrote: »

I think this is definately a bit suspect. Most crack German divisions were posted to the Eastern front.

The German army's biggest defeat was indeed in the Summer of 1944 but on the Eastern Front rather than Normandy. The Red Army launched Operation Bagration in July 1944 and drobe the Germans all the way out of Russian territory and back to the gates of Warsaw. In the process they destroyed Army Group Centre which contained the cream of the German Army and most of their armour.

indioblack

HavingCrack wrote: »

It's also worth remembering that a lot of the defeatism that was rife in France in 1940 had begun to infect the British population. Prior to the Battle of Britain a lot of the British population had begun to think it was time to reach an accord with Hitler. There was no will to 'fight to the last man' despite what Churchill said in his speeches. Max Hastings discusses this quite well in his newish book 'All Hell Let Loose'. If the German's had simply left the British alone on their island there's a good chance that after the defeats in North Africa and Greece that Britain would have surrendered.

It's certainly the case that what had happened in France and Belgium would've had an effect on the British population - it would be interesting to read the Mass Observation returns for this period.
"Fighting to the last man" reminds me of "Take one with you" in the event of an invasion.
Who would seriously expect a population, or even it's armed forces, to do this?
The North African campaign ebbed and flowed - Greece and Crete were setbacks. The following year Britain would have the biggest defeat of all - with the surrender at Singapore.
But the BEF's expulsion from the continent did not mean it was out of the game, emasculated. The seaborne strike on French warships in North Africa demonstrated the long reach of seapower.
Germany in 1940 manufactured 10,000 aircraft - Britain produced 15,000.
The defeats of the early years, whatever effect it had on the civilian population, were not enough to bring the country to seek peace.
Invasion? If it could have been achieved, that would have done it.
The U-boat campaign stood a better chance of removing Britain from the belligerents.
Take the German civilian population - they took quite a battering in the war - their morale must have been affected by what happened to them and to their armed forces. It made no difference - the war continued.
Had the Germans let the British alone, the British would simply have continued to take the war to them with whatever means they could.

Tony EH

johnwest288 wrote: »

Right so Im trying to figure out how he thought he could take over so much of europe/ russia so fast.

He didn't. The war as it played out was not the war Hitler was wishing to pursue. His ambitions lay to the east, in Russia. He had no designs on the west, or Europe as a whole. This eastern campaign was to take place later in the 40's and not in the historical time frame that exists.

The historical war was very much thrust upon Hitler and Germany by Britain's (and subsequently France's) declaration of war in September 1939. This turn of events is what caused Hitler to significantly alter his eastern ambitions and forced Germany to consider other factors, before embarking upon their eastern campaign.

But there was no real confidence is quick victories until they actually occurred. Poland collapsing in a month took the Germans as much by surprise, as it did the rest of the world and France capitulating after six weeks of war was predicted by absolutely nobody, including Hitler. That was an even bigger surprise.

What Germany had on their side was a belief in a tactical doctrine, that other nations hadn't come to grips with, or were still in the initial stages of developing themselves. It was this tactical doctrine that allowed the German Army to defeat its foe quickly, not a mere belief in quick victory.

But, the short story is that neither Hitler, Germany or the rest of the world thought really believed that western Europe would fall so quickly to the armies of one nation.

With Russia, Hitler did envision a relatively short campaign, but this was born out of the previous quick victories of 39-40 and the fact that he had allies on his side. It's largely forgotten now, but there were a number of nations to immediate west of Russia that were very eager to see the end of the Communists. Hitler mentioned that all one had to do was "...kick the door in and the whole rotten edifice would come crashing down". This was largely built on a belief that Russia was propped up by a criminal Bolshevik government that the Russian people largely despised, which in the likes of the Ukraine, wasn't wrong. In fact, the point of view that Russia was governed by "Bolshevik criminals" was held by a great number of western nations at the time, including Britain and the US.

Of course, Hitler got it terribly wrong and his eastern adventure turned into a nightmare that would signal the eventual end of his Reich.

johnwest288 wrote: »

Surely he and his Generals Knew that he was spreading Finite resources.
How could he think he could control so much land so fast Im no expert but it seems mad. Or was Hitler just that "Insane"

Hitler and his generals were well aware that spreading forces thinly was a danger to his ambitions. However, the choice not to simply didn't exist. One of Hitlers worries was a repeat of WWI, a war on two fronts, which he quite rightly said couldn't be won. His only recourse, after September 39, was to knock out enemies and postpone his one true goal of destroying Russia. He simply didn't have the luxury of choosing not to invade western Europe, if he was fulfill his designs in the east.

Far from being mad, it really was the only option open to him, once Britain and France made war on Germany. It was something that couldn't just be shrugged off.

johnwest288 wrote: »

Could he not have had a breathing space between his campaigns to re-arm.
So if he did hypothetically take over Russia and England how could he control these vast land masses with just his troops and possibly some sympathisers from inside those countries.

The idea of taking over England was never even on the cards. "Sealion" was a non-starter and was never a serious consideration. more bluff, than reality and it wasn't even a factor until the Summer of 1940. It was even abandoned before the Battle of Britain got going in earnest.

Russia, he always believed would fall apart and when the Communists were gone the National Socialists would take over and thus Russia would be the basis for a strong future Germany, with its huge provision of resources. With Russia under German control, the need of importing oil and food would largely be eliminated and thus Germany would be completely self sufficient.

johnwest288 wrote: »

Ultimately Germany fell in 1944 at the successful beach landing at Normandy lead to the German defeat.

Germany's fall was sealed a full year before anybody set foot on Normandy. That came in Russia in 1943. It was the Russians that defeated Hitlers armies, not the US, or Britain. Over 80% of Wehrmacht casualties occurred in battles against the Red Army. By the time the western allies had going in France, Germany was already doomed. In fact, even if they never bothered, Germany would have been defeated by Russia. Even if they had done nothing at all for the entire war, Germany would still have been defeated, or at least dragged into an uneasy stalemate.

Tony EH

Wibbs wrote: »

The Japanese were even dafter on that score. They had no hope of winning a war against the US for so many reasons.

Except that the weren't interested in winning a war against the US. What the Japanese wanted to do was to knock out Americas ability to bring war to them, while they won a war in China.

Pearl Harbour wasn't about starting a war with the US, it was about destroying the US Pacific fleet and neutering any aggressive ability the US would have been able to employ against Japan while she busied herself in her war with the Chinese.

The Japanese would simply have preferred if America had stayed out of it, altogether.

Tony EH

bluecode wrote: »

Hitler had expected to Yugoslavia to join the Axis but invaded when they didn't.

Yugoslavia was on side, until a British backed coup of March 27th ousted Prince Paul and set up King Peter II as head of state. Hitler had no choice but to eliminate such an obvious thorn in his side, especially with Barbarossa just around the corner.

Tony EH

indioblack wrote: »

The U-boat campaign stood a better chance of removing Britain from the belligerents.

Actually, the U-Boat campaign never once came even remotely close to removing Britain from the war, despite the propaganda of either nation. Even at the height of success in 1940 and 41, the U-Boats could only succeed in making the smallest of dents in British shipping, regardless of the thousands of tons sent to the bottom of the Atlantic.

The essential nature of the campain is that the vast majority of material always got through to its destination.

indioblack

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually, the U-Boat campaign never once came even remotely close to removing Britain from the war, despite the propaganda of either nation. Even at the height of success in 1940 and 41, the U-Boats could only succeed in making the smallest of dents in British shipping, regardless of the thousands of tons sent to the bottom of the Atlantic.

The essential nature of the campain is that the vast majority of material always got through to its destination.

A quick online check, (I know they're not always 100% reliable), but it agrees with your assessment.
Happy to withdraw that part of my post - and thanks for pointing me in that direction.

Tony EH

For a more in depth view, you should read Clay Blair's 'Hitler's U-Boat War'.

For me, it's the last word on the whole U-Boat campaign. It's split over two volumes. It does a lot to break down a number of persistent myths that are still prevalent today.

HavingCrack

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually, the U-Boat campaign never once came even remotely close to removing Britain from the war, despite the propaganda of either nation. Even at the height of success in 1940 and 41, the U-Boats could only succeed in making the smallest of dents in British shipping, regardless of the thousands of tons sent to the bottom of the Atlantic.

The essential nature of the campain is that the vast majority of material always got through to its destination.

Even at the height of Allied losses to German shipping in late 1940 and early 1941 the percentage of shipping sunk only totaled 1-3% of the overall amount depending on which sources you use. Donitz estimated he needed at least 300 U-Boats active in the Atlantic at all times in order to starve Britain into submission, in 1940 and 1941 he usually only had 28-30 active at any one time and this declined thereafter.

Hitler simply never gave the German Navy the resources it needed to achieve its aims.

indioblack

Tony EH wrote: »

For a more in depth view, you should read Clay Blair's 'Hitler's U-Boat War'.

For me, it's the last word on the whole U-Boat campaign. It's split over two volumes. It does a lot to break down a number of persistent myths that are still prevalent today.

Thanks, just found it on Amazon.

blatantrereg

He was high on power (and amphetamines).

For someone who referred to his empire as the third reich, you'd think he would pay more attention to the leaders of the first and second reichs. Otto von Bismarck responded to calls for a pre-emptive war with Russia with the comment "Starting a pre-emptive war is like committing suicide for fear of death". I think it was either he or Frederick the Great who explicitly stated that Russia was not feasible to invade because of its size and its winters.

Canvasser

blatantrereg wrote: »

He was high on power (and amphetamines).

For someone who referred to his empire as the third reich, you'd think he would pay more attention to the leaders of the first and second reichs. Otto von Bismarck responded to calls for a pre-emptive war with Russia with the comment "Starting a pre-emptive war is like committing suicide for fear of death". I think it was either he or Frederick the Great who explicitly stated that Russia was not feasible to invade because of its size and its winters.

Bismarck was ruthless but he was also a master of diplomacy and geo-politics. Hitler thought he was a master of diplomacy for what he got away with in the 30s and in particular the Munich Agreement. However the fact he ended up at war with the British Empire, The Soviet Union and the USA all at once proves how badly he failed.

Tony EH

HavingCrack wrote: »

...in 1940 and 1941 he usually only had 28-30 active at any one time and this declined thereafter.

I would have said a lot less. In fact, I recall a stat that stated that the average number of U-boats at sea hovered around 15 for much of that period.

Hitler simply never gave the German Navy the resources it needed to achieve its aims.[/QUOTE]

Hitler just didn't understand or really cared that much about the Kriegsmarine and like the majority of Germany's concerns, left it in the hands of people he believed were capable of carrying out the job independently of himself.

His obsession with Russia led largely to him blanking off many other things. Hitler contented himself with micromanaging the land war and for the majority of the wars course, that was focused on Russia.

jonniebgood1

golden lane wrote: »

the german armies in the west......could not be sent east.......

the bombing of germany kept thousands of soldiers at home......so those guns could not be used in the east....

i believe about 80% of all german casualties were on the eastern front.....

.08% of the allied armies.....actually fired a gun at an enemy they could see.......

the cream of the german army was defeated in normandy..........

the 25 german divisions that were destroyed by the russians in july 1944.....were mostly horsedrawn divisions.....

You seem to be forgetting that until June 1944 there was no western front. By the time of operation overlord the outcome of the war was already decided, it was just a matter of time. Also the large number of horsedrawn divisions in July 1944 would have been a result of the previous years battles notably around Kursk.

ShaneScouse

golden lane wrote: »

the german armies in the west......could not be sent east.......
the bombing of germany kept thousands of soldiers at home......so those guns could not be used in the east....
i believe about 80% of all german casualties were on the eastern front.....
.08% of the allied armies.....actually fired a gun at an enemy they could see.......
the cream of the german army was defeated in normandy..........
the 25 german divisions that were destroyed by the russians in july 1944.....were mostly horsedrawn divisions.....

Sorry only saw this reply now, but I'm not sure I should even bother :P
The 'cream of the german army' statement is a massive reach, and to throw aside 25 divisions some of which were veteran lads been in the sh1t since the start of the war as just some horsedrawn mickeymouse stuff noone should really heed is also a crazy statement to make(that and the reason they were horsedrawn is again due to events on the eastern front, I can assure you they had lost most of the armour)
That and you seem to agree that the Eastern front is what cost and decided the war for germany as 80% of deaths there, but then say it wasnt a big deal and normandy was the real turning point?

Im confused that and your use of periods.

Canvasser

golden lane wrote: »

the german armies in the west......could not be sent east.......

the bombing of germany kept thousands of soldiers at home......so those guns could not be used in the east....

i believe about 80% of all german casualties were on the eastern front.....

.08% of the allied armies.....actually fired a gun at an enemy they could see.......

the cream of the german army was defeated in normandy..........

the 25 german divisions that were destroyed by the russians in july 1944.....were mostly horsedrawn divisions.....

You're having a laugh there. While the Germans did have some good divisions in Normandy it's a huge stretch to call them the "cream". There were certainly no better than most divisions on the eastern front. Also the Germans relied on old men and boys in Normandy many of whom were armed with old Polish rifles captured 5 years earlier.

Is this what you call the cream of the German Army?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_716th_Static_Infantry_Division

blatantrereg

Dispossessing and enslaving/killing a huge chunk of his population would have helped initial rapid expansion too I guess.

Capt'n Midnight

indioblack wrote: »

Fair summary.
Hitler diverting some of his forces into Greece in 1941 led to a postponing of Barbarossa for some weeks. Would be interested to know if people consider this significant.
Worth pointing out that British forces would be confined to their island if they had no ships or planes.

Wasn't the delay more to do with waiting for airfields to dry out / waiting for river levels to drop ?

The loss of the forces though didn't help.

Capt'n Midnight

Canvasser wrote: »

The German Army captured 70,000 French military trucks in 1940 and confiscated lots of French, Belgian and Dutch civilian vechicles meaning that they had a large number of motorised troops for the campaign in Moscow. Without these trucks the blitzkrieg in Russia could not have worked as the tanks would have been too isolated. 75% of nazi troops still had no motor transport though.

People forget about Czechoslovakia.

Much of the Atlantic Wall was armed with the guns taken from the 10,000 pill boxes in the Sudaten Land. Large numbers of tanks and trucks and factories were used.

People say the UK and France weren't war ready, but adding in Poland and Czechoslakia would be a different story.

Divide and conquer was more effective than blitzkrieg.

blatantrereg

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

People forget about Czechoslovakia.

Much of the Atlantic Wall was armed with the guns taken from the 10,000 pill boxes in the Sudaten Land. Large numbers of tanks and trucks and factories were used.

People say the UK and France weren't war ready, but adding in Poland and Czechoslakia would be a different story.

Divide and conquer was more effective than blitzkrieg.

Dont know about divide and conquer tactics. Czechoslovakia was not an ally of the UK and France, and they accepted the pretext he gave for invading it. Churchill correctly perceived him as a dangerous empire builder very early, but he didn't get much credit or recognition for that view before it was proven correct.

Poland was an ally of the UK and France before the war started, and of course attacking them resulted in the start of WW2. He didn't want to be at war with the UK at all at that stage, especially since they were such a strong naval power. While Churchill was quick to recognise Hitler for what he was, Hitler failed to recognise Churchill, and even didn't bother coming to an appointment to meet him during a diplomatic visit before Churchill became the PM, dismissing him as unimportant.

Germany's geographical position was strategically bad because it was open to having to fight on multiple fronts - which was precisely what Hitler ended up having to do. His attacking the USSR might have been his single justifiable action - he correctly saw them as an aggressive threat to the West - but it was also an incredibly foolish one from a military perspective. It is kind of interesting that this sort of thing demonstrated an eminent failure to learn from his wiser predecessors (as I referred to above), while Churchill researched history a great deal and produced long works on the subject of his own.

Canvasser

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

People forget about Czechoslovakia.

Much of the Atlantic Wall was armed with the guns taken from the 10,000 pill boxes in the Sudaten Land. Large numbers of tanks and trucks and factories were used.

People say the UK and France weren't war ready, but adding in Poland and Czechoslakia would be a different story.

Divide and conquer was more effective than blitzkrieg.

Very True. Czechslovakia had a powerful army, good tanks and an excellent defensive line of of machine guns and pillboxes. This is why the Munich Agreement was so pathetic. Not only did the British and French sell out their ally to the nazis, they allowed the Germans to capture vital military equipment and industry. Many Czech tanks would be used against the French and British in 1940. The British and French sellout at Munich also isolated the Soviets and led them to signing their own separate peace treat with the nazis. Many contemporay and right wing "historians" have tried to play down the importance of the sellout at Munich and instead shift the blame for the war onto the Soviet Union for signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but it was Chamberlain and the British Tory Party who gave Hitler the green light for war.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Dont know about divide and conquer tactics. Czechoslovakia was not an ally of the UK and France, and they accepted the pretext he gave for invading it. Churchill correctly perceived him as a dangerous empire builder very early, but he didn't get much credit or recognition for that view before it was proven correct.

Poland was an ally of the UK and France before the war started, and of course attacking them resulted in the start of WW2. He didn't want to be at war with the UK at all at that stage, especially since they were such a strong naval power. While Churchill was quick to recognise Hitler for what he was, Hitler failed to recognise Churchill, and even didn't bother coming to an appointment to meet him during a diplomatic visit before Churchill became the PM, dismissing him as unimportant.

Germany's geographical position was strategically bad because it was open to having to fight on multiple fronts - which was precisely what Hitler ended up having to do. His attacking the USSR might have been his single justifiable action - he correctly saw them as an aggressive threat to the West - but it was also an incredibly foolish one from a military perspective. It is kind of interesting that this sort of thing demonstrated an eminent failure to learn from his wiser predecessors (as I referred to above), while Churchill researched history a great deal and produced long works on the subject of his own.

The Czechs were loyal allies of the French for many years and had a military alliance with them. However the French would not send military aid to the Czechs without British agreement and this was impossible as the British Tory Party of the day was full of nazi sympathisers.

Capt'n Midnight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_border_fortifications

The total planned (and nearly all mostly completed) was 10,014 light pillboxes and 264 heavy bunkhouses (small forts).[1]
...
After the German occupation of Czechoslovakia border regions as a result of the "Sudeten crisis", the Germans used these objects to test and develop new weapons and tactics, plan, and practise the attacks eventually used against the Maginot Line[2] and Belgium's forts (the most notable is Fort Eben-Emael), resulting in astounding success. After the fall of Belgium, France and the low countries, the Germans began to dismantle the "Beneš Wall", blowing up the cupolas, or removing them and the cannon/MG embrasures, some of which were eventually installed in the Atlantic Wall against the Allies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_the_German_Army

A major boost to German armour came with the acquisition of Czechoslovakia in 1938, giving the entire Czech arms industry to Germany. The Czechs already had two main tank designs, the Skoda LT35 and the Cesko-moravska Kolben Danek (CKD) TNHP. The Skoda was a 10 ton machine with a 37 mm main gun and excellent cross-country capabilities; the CKD was 8.5 tons and also fitted with a 37 mm gun - due to extensive tests it was an extremely reliable machine with a top quality chassis. Both were taken into the German panzer forces, as the PzKpfw 35(t) and the PzKpfw 38(t), and further production was ordered. CKD was renamed Böhmisch-Mährische Maschinenfabrik AG (BMM) in 1940 and continued production until 1942, providing the Wehrmacht with 1,168 PzKpfw 38(t)'s. In 1940 Czech tanks made up around a quarter of the entire German panzer force.

blatantrereg

Canvasser wrote: »

The Czechs were loyal allies of the French for many years and had a military alliance with them. However the French would not send military aid to the Czechs without British agreement and this was impossible as the British Tory Party of the day was full of nazi sympathisers.

Can you give a source for that? There's no mention of a French alliance being in existence at the time of their invasion in the wikipedia article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia

Canvasser

blatantrereg wrote: »

Can you give a source for that? There's no mention of a French alliance being in existence at the time of their invasion in the wikipedia article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia

http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/eur_4.html

HavingCrack

blatantrereg wrote: »

Can you give a source for that? There's no mention of a French alliance being in existence at the time of their invasion in the wikipedia article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia

I know Hitler personally referred to Czechoslovakia as a "French aircraft carrier in the centre of Europe" so there must have been some form of alliance.

Benny_Cake

Canvasser wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

People forget about Czechoslovakia.

Much of the Atlantic Wall was armed with the guns taken from the 10,000 pill boxes in the Sudaten Land. Large numbers of tanks and trucks and factories were used.

People say the UK and France weren't war ready, but adding in Poland and Czechoslakia would be a different story.

Divide and conquer was more effective than blitzkrieg.

Very True. Czechslovakia had a powerful army, good tanks and an excellent defensive line of of machine guns and pillboxes. This is why the Munich Agreement was so pathetic. Not only did the British and French sell out their ally to the nazis, they allowed the Germans to capture vital military equipment and industry. Many Czech tanks would be used against the French and British in 1940. The British and French sellout at Munich also isolated the Soviets and led them to signing their own separate peace treat with the nazis. Many contemporay and right wing "historians" have tried to play down the importance of the sellout at Munich and instead shift the blame for the war onto the Soviet Union for signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but it was Chamberlain and the British Tory Party who gave Hitler the green light for war.

I was reading William Shirer's Berlin Diary recently and his sense of disbelief at the betrayal of Czechoslovakia was palpable. In 1938 Czechoslovakia was the last democracy in central Europe with a well-equipped army and excellent border defences. Wehrmacht generals were very worried about the prospect of a war at that point and had Britain and France held firm it could have possibly led to a coup against Hitler.

johnwest288

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208860/Top-secret-dossier-uncovered-containing-detailed-maps-postcards-Hitlers-plan-invade-neutral-Ireland.html

Jawgap

johnwest288 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208860/Top-secret-dossier-uncovered-containing-detailed-maps-postcards-Hitlers-plan-invade-neutral-Ireland.html

The plans are fairly well known about - I think there's a copy of some OKW planning documents in the Military Archives, although I don't think they have this particular dossier.

Never could have happened anyway - the Germans lacked the capacity to mount the type of amphibious operation that would have been required, and to sustain an army (even a modestly sized one) so far away from the Continent. Combine that with the fact that the RAF would have had total air supremacy and it would not have ended well. It's arguable they would have lost the whole force as evacuation would have been tremendously difficult.

The RAF were under orders to attack any potential invasion shipping approaching the Irish coast. The joint planning undertaken by the Irish and British forces envisaged an expeditionary air force being established in Belfast that would go straight into action against any invading forces - British land forces were to wait 48 hours and then only move South when invited to do so by the Irish Government.

On the original question, Hitler wanted lebensraum - to compete with the British Empire and the Americans he recognised he needed a larger and broader economic base and the 'natural' place to find it was on the Continent. In the mid to late 1930s, German per capita income was about the same as Ireland's - increasing it would mean expanding the economy which in his view meant conquering territory and subjugating populations to the service of the Reich.

That, combined with the fact he was a reckless gambler and his sense of pre-destiny, led him to acquire territory - the policy of appeasement, didn't do a whole lot to discourage him either!