Biggest mistake of Hitler was attacking USSR

The comeback of the Illuminati and Rockefeller .

 

Going well? Even after the fall of France Hitler was in a war with Great Britain that he simply didn't have the tools to force to an acceptable conclusions as far as he was concerned.

 

That isn't a very accurate way of putting it but it does point to what was arguably his "biggest mistake". Hitler's economic policies from pretty much the beginning of his time as ruler pushed Germany in a direction that limited his choices more an more. It wasn't a matter of "submitting to world banking" but a series of unilateral choices with regards to exchange rates and such where diplomatic options were available. Much of Germany's economic problems in the 30s were due to their lack of foreign exchange and over valuing of the Mark. See Wages of Destruction for a more detailed accounting.

 

Hitler's first major mistake might very well be his biggest, the failure of follow through of conquering the Allies at Dunkirk.

1. Had he done so would have increased his odds in acquiring a positive solution for Germany, in the Battle for Britain.
2. Might have allowed him to maintain his position of not fighting on two fronts.
3. Would likely have improved his timing in the Barbarossa campaign.
4. Would have improved his air strengths going into the Barbarossa campaign.
5. Would have improved his overall resource support of the Barbarossa campaign.
6. In my opinion.

 

You have first to prove that he could conquer the Allies at Dunkirk.All the rest are unlikely assumptions .

 

I'm with LJAd on this one as well. I would consider his economic policies major mistakes as well not to mention attacking Poland. He got by taking the rest of Czechoslovakia but used up all his credibility doing it so that could count as well. The ability of the German army to quickly collapse the Dunkirk pocket is also seriously in doubt and the consequences of putting too much effort into it significant.

 

Hitler did want to make a New World Order in regards to getting rid of international debt banking where every country relies on a few big banks of privately owned money. Other countries invested in Germany, but internally they used the barter system, trading goods for goods, and creating their own currency. That was the order that the rest of the world wouldn't allow to change because every other major country economics depended on debt banking with private interest money.

 

Churchill even said in one of his post-war books that it was Germany's decision to go against international banking that put the nail in their coffin.

 

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1389

 

Hitler didn't like it that Germany was in a serious debt situation in part due to the treaty of Versailles and in part due to loans. It wasn't so much that he was against the system as he didn't like his place in it. Barter was used not internally but externally due to the official value of the Mark being significantly higher than it's real value. The international banking system allows for international commerce to take place on a reasonably level playing field.

As I've said in other threads I don't follow blind links as it's not good security practice and I discourage others from doing so as well. Given the domain name I wouldn't put much faith in the link in any case.

 

Links aren't as detrimental to computers as in the past if you have a newer OS. The system should be able to warn you. Also there are usually clues in the links. A link w/o words that make sense to the discussion or by themselves should be a warning.

Hitler used the debt to do his damage. I doubt he was mad about it.

 

The Nazi economy was essentially a Ponzi scheme. The debt situation was going to cause it to unravel. It both forced his hand and limited many of his actions. It may have helped him to gain control but once in control it was an obstacle that he could neither avoid or ultimately overcome although he was able to delay dealing with it for a while.

 

I marvel at the faith people have in the democratic power of bad economies.

How many dictatorships have collapsed due to the mismanagement of the dictator during his lifetime? Very few. Then there are those that last into several generations. Some even evolve to more responsive systems.

Dictator's willing to use force rarely fall from power and Adolf had no problems creating piles of bodies.

 

Well early on anyway is position was far from secure. Once the loans came due the limited foreign exchange he had would almost all evaporate. Would that result in his fall? Probably not but it would result in a significant decline in Germany's ability to continue as an industrial power. Likewise if he had worked the diplomatic angle more early on he likely could have improved Germany's industrial base and economy and only put off his military efforts for a few years. It wouldn't even have required the Nazis to abandon any of their beliefs. In some ways we are lucky he was so arrogant.

 

I'll second that. As far as I can see - anyone? - the only thing he gained was the ability of U-boats to operate in the western Atlantic, useful certainly, but hardly sufficient return for making the US a full belligerent.

Even if that was a worthwhile exchange, there was no need for Hitler to be the one to initiate hostilities or to do so as urgently as Dec 11. They didn't have a massive force of U-boats ready to unleash in a "Second Pearl Harbor", to borrow Michael Gannon's phrase. They had no idea when Japan might attack and could not plan ahead of time to take advantage of it. It took a month to get just five U-boats to American waters.

Even the worst case - from Hitler's point of view - that Roosevelt could go to Congress and get a declaration of war on Germany - would not put Germany at any greater disadvantage. America was not prepared to "Pearl Harbor" anyone either. By the time American combat power made itself felt, it would no longer matter who had declared war first - unless it caused Americans to be less committed to the European war.

Hitler agreed to support his Japanese allies, even though the Axis pact did not require him to do so. They were not assisting him in his war with Russia; they even allowed American Lend-Lease to flow through Japanese waters to Vladivostok - right through until 1945. Hitler was doing quite enough to help the Japanese already: defeating France and Holland; tying up most of the combat power of the British Empire, including Indian, Australian, and New Zealand forces; preventing any threat from Russia; and keeping half the US Navy busy in the Atlantic.

Very few things would have helped Hitler more than the United States staying out of the European war, or being less fully committed to it. Even if we consider that unlikely, we have to balance that against essentially zero benefit to Hitler in doing what he did.

 

I have not read Wages of Destruction but all I have heard about it leads me to think it is a masterful examination of Hitler's economy. The thing is I think we work too hard to find some single panacea reason for the end of the Nazi Reich.

Once Hindenburg died and Hitler got the personal loyalty of the Wehrmacht there was no possibility of any domestic threat to his control of Germany. The expansion of the control of the police, and the SS into a defacto Praetorian Guard, essentially ended any threat from any quarter within Germany. If the utter military destruction of Germany could not mobilize a effective counter balance to Fuhrer and Party, economic hard times is not going to either.

Lets say for sake of argument Hitler stays within his borders, but continues his economic policies. Would Germany collapse economically and industrially? History would indicate not. How else do we explain Iran, Russia (Communist and modern), Cuba and North Korea to name the most notable. They have all suffered under some form of economic embargo or isolation. What distinguishes them is the ability to keep their population under control by simple force and the belief in some kind of revolutionary ideology, along with making their military into a revenue stream.

Would a British-French alliance play hardball long term with a heavily armed Reich? Again modern evidence with the lifting of sanctions of hermit/rogue nations seems to indicate otherwise. Without a war starting blockade Germany could trade her military hardware for whatever she needed. We also have to factor the inventiveness within German industry, Some of her ideas were out there, but some would draw the interest of the very nations expected to hold the Reich's economic feet to the fire.

Sometime well after Hitler's death in the 50's/60's and after a succession of mediocre Fuhrer's the Nazi party might fall from power as the Communist Party in Russia did, or possibly tried to evolve as the Chinese Communist's are attempting to due now.

In the end only Blood and Steel would bring the downfall of the Reich before the untimely death of its creator.

 

I'm not convinced. The US was already supplying via LL the British and the USSR. If he doesn't declare war on the US then the Western Atlantic is pretty much off limits for his U-boats and American power is growing. By Mid 42 the US is ready for war and his raiders aren't likely to have much success in the Western Atlantic. I think by that time he's already doomed it just a matter of how long and at what cost.

 

If Hitler stays within his borders after taking Czechoslovakia I don't see the Nazis falling right away for sure. However the balance of power is going to shift away from them more and more. There's also going to be more and more public dissatisfaction with the Nazi rule. A failing economy did result in the destruction of the USSR it just took a while. Germany is more vulnerable and given Hitler's policies there's also the question of what happens when he dies and he may not live to see the 50s. This is what if territory but I that's also about the time frame I would expect a lot of things to come together to at least put severe stress on the Nazi system. What would have happened that point is not easy to project though. Actually this might make quite an interesting what if which is another good reason not to go into it any further here.

In summary Nazi Germany was not a the point where the economy was threatening their existence IMO but they were reaching the point where it was going to start pulling their teeth. Given the diplomatic bridges they had already burned that leaves them in a steadily weakening position as a world power.

 

Hitler was not a leader to be trusted.

He'd soon stab you in the back and invade you.

In fact...

The Axis was more or less an agreement of NOT TO ATTACK each other rather than the BUDDY UP together agreement of the Allies.
USSR wasn't in the Axis, so he invaded, pure and simple. - They didn't do things together so; no allied Japanese/German attack on Moscow...
And I probably know a lot less than you posters.

Spoiler

** Though that said, didn't Hitler and Mussolini work together in Africa???
My knowledge is foggy and at best, based on Sahara (1995)

I mean; I don't need to tell you all how; The deeper they went, the worse it got; Hitler's pride getting the better of him; equipment not designed for the Russian Winter, the time of year he pushed into Russia... All of that is public domain around here so; we take all these reasons into account as well? - Well, I am.

 

Search "How Hitler defied the bankers and that article and similar articles will pop up on a variety of different sites, My question is, if Hitler stopped backing his currency with gold and didn't use the international debt system, then how were US and other foreign companies investing and build plants and produce goods if Germany was on a different system, and how did Germany's own business cartels invest in Germany if they were just using "treasury certificates"?