What was Hitler's biggest mistake?

deadcat · 31-07-2003 4:38pm

IMO hitlers greatest mistake was the failure to engage in 'total war', throughout the war german women were never considered for work in factories etc. thus requiring huge amounts of slave labour and/or german labour in the munitions factories etc. and in effect removing 50% of capacity from the german war machine.
All the while in the US, UK and USSR the entire population was mobilised for the war effort.
People shouldnt forget that the armaments ministry under Speer were increasing production right up untill the end of the war, and the allied policy of area bombing (under the influence of bomber harris and british bomber command) was ineffectual as best.
A book called interrogations which is basically transcripts of interviews with captured nazis pre nuremburg gives a lot of detail on how effective german production was.

uRbaN · 03-08-2003 11:08am

He was too proud (and ignorant) to let his generals run the war..he totally lost the faith of all his advisors, and once that element of doubt crept in....curtains.

Catsmokinpot · 03-08-2003 8:54pm

his biggest no no was opening up too many fronts and spreading his army too thin(he should have played a few games of command and conquer and he might have changed his mind about that)

and that whole attacking russia in the winter thing he shouldnt have done it so quickly he should have built up more supplies and tried later

in anycase thank god he did make all those mistakes

gurramok · 04-08-2003 1:54pm

To add, a significant no-no was the lack of resources he gave to the U-boat fleet of submarines.
After the failed submission of britain, the U-boats were effective at first but as the war dragged on, not enough were built and trained against the atlantic convoys to make a huge dent in the allied war machine.
If he had a ring of steel around the coast of western europe (incl uk), the likes of D-Day might not have happened.

In that case alot of german troops and supplies could have been rushed to the eastern front where they were needed.
Air superiority also really counted, when the allies invaded normandy, the germans had no air cover.
This is was what really defeated Japan in the battlefield also.
But then again, he was fighting too many countries on too many fronts to have ever had a chance to win.

Victor · 04-08-2003 3:38pm

Originally posted by deadcat
IMO hitlers greatest mistake was the failure to engage in 'total war', throughout the war german women were never considered for work in factories etc. thus requiring huge amounts of slave labour and/or german labour in the munitions factories etc. and in effect removing 50% of capacity from the german war machine.

Part of this was foolish pride, but part of it was what the Nazis were about, mummy looking after the wonderful blonde / blue eyed kids at home. :rolleyes:

deadcat · 05-08-2003 12:07pm

The point re. the U Boat war is relevant, but considering that the germans were able to mount the ardennes offensive would point to the fact that the Nazi war machine was still highly effective, and with luck this punch could have knocked out the western armies even in late 44.
The soviet armies in the east were suffering from woeful supply lines and part of their push forward was a drive to capture food and supplies to feed the armies, if the troops on the western front had been successful, I'm pretty sure the Red army would have been stopped

The one thing I find remarkable is how close the Nazi's came to winning, with all the disadvantages, a lunatic leader, a dispirited and fearful officer corp, over engineered weaponry, a huge internal security problem, only 50% mobilisation, no fuel oil supplies, they were still capable of turning the war around in late 44/45. Thankfully this didn't happen, but its something to bear in mind the next time someone starts waxing lyrical about great victories etc.

Jim · 05-08-2003 1:21pm

Perhaps not his mistake, but inderectly it is.

On D-Day there was divisions of tanks in france, but Hitler gave specfic orders that they were not to be released without his personal consent. With these tanks Rommel stood a good chance of pushing the allies back into the channel. But on the morning of D-Day they couldnt be released as Hitler was asleep and all of his aids and officers were too afraid to wake him.

Perhaps not the biggest mistake. but one to think about.

Again, i think the submarine war couldnt have gone any better even if he did divert more resources to it. what stopped the effictivness of it was the cracking of the german code, even if there was more U-Boats, they too would be obselete without the use of the code.

deadcat · 05-08-2003 2:20pm

true..
though on mature reflection hitlers biggest mistake was not slaughtering (what an odious choice of words...sorry) attacking the BEF at Dunkirk.

An altogether more interesting question might be what was the greatest allied blunder of the war...

Jim · 05-08-2003 6:12pm

allied eh?

imo [again maybe not the biggest] but Market Garden is high on the list. that is to say gettin too cockey and underestimating the remaining strenght of the german army [quite like the bulge].

Victor · 05-08-2003 7:18pm

Well, I'd go for (a) loosing half of Europe or (b) knowing about the exterminaiton camps, ordering their destruction, but then not following through.

Turnip · 21-08-2003 3:57pm

Originally posted by jmcc

This is not certain. There was overwhelming air power on the Allies side and while the German forces in place could have held for a while, the Allies airpower would create significant problems when the Germans had to reinforce or resupply.

The allies couldn't make use of their airpower without having airfields within striking distance of the front line though. If the Germans had succeeded in beating the invasion or at least inflicting enough losses to make it fail, what would have happened elsewhere? The allies were bogged down in Italy but what about the Russians? Their supply lines were dangerously overstretched. Could experienced German reinforcements arriving from the west have beaten them back?

shock · 03-09-2003 5:53pm

Not sure, but the totally overwhelming numbers of Russian troops, tanks and aircraft would have been hard to beat back. I think Hitlers biggest mistake was being impatiant.

spooiirt!! · 16-09-2003 5:07pm

it wasnt really just hitlers mistakes that lost the war. germany was not nearly prepared enough for it in terms of equipment.

and the superior quality of german tanks is bull aswell.
my granduncle fought in tigers, and later instructed how to drive them. i talked to him and he said a tiger would often come apart from one shot to the FORWARD armour.
so the german equipment was completely overrated.
(except for the me 262)

Victor · 16-09-2003 5:10pm

Originally posted by spooiirt!!
i talked to him and he said a tiger would often come apart from one shot to the FORWARD armour.

What version and what impacting weapon?

17-09-2003 1:15pm

This in response to the mentions of German superiority complexes. This helped them in the war, especially through battles where they were outnumbered or outgunned. It was their view of racial superiority, that allowed the panzer divisions, and infantry to effectively combat British & american troops after the Normandy landings, without any air support ( this is especially important since a large portion of german military tactics included the co-operation of air and ground power)

Hitler's greatest mistake? The invasion of Russia, without first knocking off Britain. germany had an ally in Russia at that stage, that essentially protected their eastern front. If they had concentrated on destroying Britain, they could have sued for peace with the rest of the world, and probably would have gotten away with it.

His second worst mistake: the declaration of war on the US. If germany hadn't declared war, it probably would have taken the US another 2 years before they would have entered the war. Remember there was alot of support to keep peace with germany, prior to the declaration. Germany gave them no choice, and in fact gave them the easy way out.

Discovering · 17-09-2003 1:31pm

Hilters biggest mistake was he kept forgetting to shave the bit of hair on his upper lip directly under his nose.

spooiirt!! · 18-09-2003 4:26pm

he said from a t34. i didnt ask what type of t34.

uberwolf · 18-09-2003 4:33pm

what about demanding that he be consulted before any diversion of resources in the east, resulting in D-day gaining a foothold it might not have otherwise. His generals were too afraid to wake him to tell him and request troops/armoury. Which admitedly is just one instance of the larger issue of not listening to his generals

K2 · 19-09-2003 4:38pm

I don't think it can be pinned down to one mistake. Most of the other posts have mentioned the biggest and most obvious so here's my 50cents worth:

Britain : the RAF was within weeks of total collapse when the germans took the pressure off the airfields and onto the cities thus allowing the RAF to re-group. Had the germans taken control of the skies they could have pounded the uk into defeat. The lack of u boats which were inflicting heavy losses as it was would have been of no consequence then as the german bombers could have destroyed most of ports being used.

USA : there was some feeling in the us that they should not get involved, as there was in the first world war. Germany should have made every effort to keep the americians out of the war.

Russia : It was here the Germans suffered the losses which left them too weak to hold back the D Day invasion. Fighting a war on the eastern front should have been put off until the western front had been won ie England beaten. Even then I don't think the german army could have beaten a russian army which appeared to have an infinate supply of men. Hitlers meddling and overruling his generals only increased the losses they suffered. He would have been better to concentrate on protecting his oil supplies in Romania and trying to take the oil fields in the middle east. But he was never a military minded man, he was after all only a corporal in ww1.

spooiirt!! · 20-09-2003 1:50pm

germany could well have beaten russia. if as you said he had finished of britain properly and never declared war on america, he could have concentrated everything on russia.
he would not have to worry aboutt his war factories getting constantly bombed , and would not have to deploy precious planes for home defence.
also , if he has destroyed english airfields and consequently conquered england, germany would have won in north africa, which would have been a further advantage for the war on the eastern front.

K2 · 21-09-2003 12:08am

I think the Germans could have beaten the russian regular armed forces but the sheer size of the land they would have to occupy is too great, esp considering how much of Europe they held. But given time (say 10 to 20 years) famine and fighting would have killed off most russian resistance and the germans would have freed up more troops using local collaberators in the occupied countries to deal with what was left. You're dead right about North Africa. Without the brits there even the italians could have taken it.

RicardoSmith · 21-09-2003 1:05am

Well he made a lot of them for sure. I think that hes early successes which were easy early blows, led Hitler to believe he was a genius and a brilliant military mind. Whereas in fact he wasn't. For he made a lot more bad decisions than good ones. It was his mistaken belief in his own abilities that was his biggest mistake.

Tiger frontal shot? Someone been on the funny tobacco again. a T-34 might chip the paint work that would about it. Even with the T34/85 you'd need a side shot. I think some of those big 100m guns might jump the tigers turret from its mountings. But that would be about it. Of course you'd need to be inside the range of the 88mm to do it. Probably not very healthy.

Me262 killed more of its pilots in accidents than in action. Ooh great killing machine that. It had little impact in the war. It needed another 2 years development before it would have been effective.

23-09-2003 1:11pm

Me262 killed more of its pilots in accidents than in action. Ooh great killing machine that. It had little impact in the war.

True, but the potential ws there to be used. The German rocket program was moving along quite well at the last stages of the war with german scientists making some major discoveries. Had more resources been alloted to the research & development of the Me262, it could have become a viable weapon for war, however it would never have won the war.

RicardoSmith · 23-09-2003 8:01pm

Fair point. But look at korea, they found the props more useful for ground support and some escort missions mainly due to the range of them compared to the early jets which were a bit thirsty.

spooiirt!! · 27-09-2003 8:58pm

thats great about the tiger man, but i talked to a guy who actually fought in them.
the armour wasnt sloped, so the whole front plate would just come loose. it wasnt pierced but it would fall apart.

RicardoSmith · 27-09-2003 11:17pm

Originally posted by spooiirt!!
thats great about the tiger man, but i talked to a guy who actually fought in them.
the armour wasnt sloped, so the whole front plate would just come loose. it wasnt pierced but it would fall apart.

If they were that bad it makes you wonder how a couple of them could hold back many times their numbers in T34s and M4's then doesn't it! You'd need to be very close to a tiger to damage that frontal armour. Well inside the range of the tigers own gun. So unless the tiger was disabled or had some other problem then nothing should get close enough to damage it with a frontal shot.

On the the western front it usually took 4 or more M4s usually with a loss of one or two of the M4's to distract the Tiger until something like a firefly could get a side shot in. Those fireflys weren't to plentiful either. Granted on the eastern front this was easier as they just swamped them with numbers. Biggest flaws with the tiger was that it would get stuck a lot since it was heavy and not that manoverable. It consumed a lot of fuel. Finally it wasn't that reliable and broke down a lot. Of couse it made a great target for fighter bombers. So thats how most of them were destroyed. A lot were just abandoned when spares or fuel weren't available.

spooiirt!! · 02-10-2003 4:21pm

well how about the fact that the tigers had better range and the crews better trained. again, i talked to a ww2 veteran, who fought in tigers, and he should know a bit better than you.
er.. no offense meant, by the way!

RicardoSmith · 02-10-2003 11:25pm

Originally posted by spooiirt!!
well how about the fact that the tigers had better range and the crews better trained. again, i talked to a ww2 veteran, who fought in tigers, and he should know a bit better than you.
er.. no offense meant, by the way!

Well obviously I wasn't there (no really) so I'm going what I've read in countless articles and books over years and history stuff I've seen on TV. I've never heard the story that the Tigers armour was brittle and as poorly constructed. I have heard it about T-34's. In the most common story is that no allied tank could knock out a tiger from a frontal shot whereas your guy is telling you the opposite. Maybe all the "experts" and historians just never picked up on it before. I'd have though I'd have seen some mention of it somewhere though.

ssh · 02-10-2003 11:51pm

My grandad fought in the Koenig-Tiger (King Tiger), which was an extremely well armoured but underpowered tank. Really, the P-V Panther was probably the most refined WW-2 era German tank, it had a sloped front, sane amounts of armour given the engine power and a decent 88mm gun.

Although he felt this was accepted by most tank crews, he was happier in the P-VI becuase it was more or less indestructible. Sherman shells bounced off it and infantry AT weapons did little damage.

The only disabling frontal shot on a Tiger that I have heard of was when the shell glanced off the underside of the cannon and lodged itself between it and the turret. The turret jammed, and the crew paniced and bailed out.

To veer back on-topic, Operation Barbarrosa gets my vote. The expenditure of 100,000 odd soldiers for very little gain was probably the one thing which lost Hitler the war. If he had held tight on the eastern front, I would assume that the Wehrmacht could have soaked up quite a huge proportion of whatever Stalin sent towards him, thus giving him manpower and resources to fight on the western one.

Still, thank god he didn't...

What was Hitler's biggest mistake?

Comments