Biggest mistake of Hitler was attacking USSR

When I look to the beginning of the second world war, I would say that everything was going pretty well for Germany until Hitler decided to attack USSR. From my point of view, it was the biggest strategie mistake Hitler have done during the war

I would like to have your opinion on this. What do you think?

 

Hitler had to attack the USSR. It was central to his political philosophy.

Two mistakes, of many, was a) to waste the LW vs Britain. It would have been much smarter to rebuild the air force and let new pilots run fighter missions in British Airspace. Then he could have maintained a 2 year air campaign, instead of the 3/4 year dominance of the LW.

Second was to piss off all the Ukrainians. A fake attack south of the Marshes, and an over weighting in the north would have allowed the capture of Moscow, while the Romanians and the Ukes pissed on each other for a while.

Kiev should never ever have been a target. oh big deal 675,000 prisoners and blah blah.. they all would have shed their uniforms and gone back home where they could have grown some food..

 

Allow me to pose you a question, HellWarrior - what, in your view, was Hitler seeking to accomplish by going to war? I think we need to know what someone was trying to do to consider whether he adopted the right strategy to do it.

 

IMO "Hitler" was a complete ideologue.
Like in my country...the nut bags of the religious right...that shoot doctors and nurses working at a Planned Parenthood type of facility.....and all their corresponding terrorizing of lifestyles they do not agree with. He was crazy like that.

From a political perspective, his down fall was probably Czechoslovakia Part 2.
England and the USA have a long history of supporting Fascism/Dictators. Hitler could have stayed inside his own borders and happily slaughtered whomever he wished, and had little to worry about.
The Ford Family, The Koch Family, Et al..... were all on-board for an economic partnership with Hitler. He, easily, could have been an ally of "The West" and swept across many of those Eastern Territories later in life, if he had just been more patient.
It is not as though USA/England had any problem with Colonial Conquest and the leveraging of the Resources/People of the lands they invaded...either through "Economic" means via the IMF and World Bank type "institutions" or through a convenient need for military intervention for World Good.
Hitler was impatient, he could have set up a "free market" economy and then enjoyed the power of the government that That Would have bought for him and The Nazi party. They could easily be in power today...in some varied form.

 

The Ford family was also on -board for an economic partnership with Stalin : you never heard of the presence of Ford in the SU ?

Proof that England and the US have a long history of supporting Fascism/Dictators ??

And what have the IMF and the World Bank to do with WWII ?

The post of Denny resembles to an election manifesto from Sanders .

 

Wrong : you are mistaken Mein Kampf for his political philosophy ;besides , Hitler's political philosophy had nothing to do with his military decisions .

 

Some say his biggest blunder was declaring war on the US with almost no thought or input from his staff.

 

There are many deeper reasons and things that led to the war. We can go back even further and say Hitler's biggest mistake was defying the international debt bankers and printing his own form of currency, plus using the barter system. This eliminated international finance and debt banking from owning Germany and would have really screwed up world economics, especially if other nations caught on to how Germany improved throughout the 30s using these systems vs. international debt banking.

 

That's not entirely correct. I agree that what was written in Mein Kampf was not solely his political and ideological belief. It was loosely based on his ideas at the time but he held true to his antisemitism as he ascended and became the fuhrer. In regards to his invasion of the SU you cannot eliminate his racist intentions when discussing Barbarossa and it's development. Yes, military matters were prevalent at the forefront but his antisemitic and ideological belief that his eastern neighbors were racially inferior played a part in his overall decision. As the Wehrmacht rolled east plans and personnel were in place alongside military units to begin his ethnic cleanse.

 

I did not say The IMF and World bank had anything to do with WW2. They were in their infancy towards the end of The War.
The real question is.....who is Sanders, and what does THAT person have to do with WWII.?

 

Setting aside the tin foil thinking cap reasoning, the essential point is correct in my opinion. The greatest mistake was the occupation of rump of Czechoslovakia during the winter of 1938/39. it was too much, too soon after the Munich Agreement.

The Anglo-French came away from Munich saying they secured a equitable and wise solution to the Czech crisis that secured peace for Europe, whether it was equitable, wise or even that it secured peace is a debatable question for other existing threads. The common perception within Britain, France and even Germany was that it did these things and when Hitler created another crisis which had no basis in reason or equity, it hardened Western public opinion enough to ensure a willingness to oppose any more territorial demands.

The Wehrmacht for all its shiny new toys was not truly ready for war, nor was her industry. His professional military advisers counciled that 1942 would be the optimum time for a general land war and 1945 for a total war. Allowing a year or two two for tensions to calm would both permit him to perfect his military while lulling the more powerful European enemy's sense of personal honor.

I can see the counter argument forming, that waiting would only face Hitler with a vastly more potent Anglo-French alliance.

Not so much.

Certainly more trained troops, more tanks, planes, ships and guns, but not a full mobilization of manpower and industry, at least not on the scale of Germany. Its hard to heavily fund arms in a representative democracy not actually at war, and if Hitler eases the tension, it becomes harder still. But supposing they did, much of it would still be the same material they already had. Worse For France, it would have to shift from one concept of how the war would be fought (defensive-attrition to offensive-mobile) in a very short period of time. Most hazardous of all, the same tactic's, doctrine and commanders would be in play. Germany would still retain these advantages if she waited a year or two, but have more fully trained and equipped divisions and air groups, while trading out her less ideal weapon's (Pz I and II's etc.)

Denny is also correct, Hitler was inpatient and doubled down when he should have stood pat, at least for a little while. He also made the fatal mistake of thinking he had the measure of the Western Allies and their willingness to fight.

 

I agree.

 

Barbarossa was not undertaken to start an ethnic cleanse ,but the ethnic cleanse followed Barbarossa ,or to put it otherwise : Hitler did not start Narbarossa to murder the Jews and other people,but the murder of the Jews and other people was a result of Barbarossa.

Hitler repeated several times that he decided Barbarossa in the hope that the defeat of the SU would or lead directly to the surrender of Britain,or indirectly ,as US would be to busy in the Pacific if Japan was no longer busy in Siberia, or if Britain (supported by the US ) still continued the war,the resources from the SU would make possible for Germany to continue the war .

 

Japan wasn't busy in Siberia...They were busy in China. However, Japan was busy in Siberia, but that was when Hitler attacked Poland, not the Soviet Union.

 

Yes, I agree that the operation was not undertaken with the sole aim of ethinc cleansing. However, my point was that it was a component of the planning. Einsatzgruppe squads were immediately attached to the army for "special tasks." This was certainly a component of the Barbarossa strategy. Himmler was given independent reign to do as he saw fit with his killing squads. Hitler gave these directives, such as directive 21, during the invasion planning.

 

All the Western countries turned on Hitler at that point when he wasn't submitting to world banking anymore and the Third Reich was pretty much bulls-eyed.

 

Let's not forget that time he wore a white tux after Labor Day.

 

Money, banking, and big business is what controls the world. There is a lot of deeper things that go below the surface that led to WWII than the invasion of Poland.

 

Folk's, we need to decide if this will be a thread about the subject in the Original Post, or fodder for the Stump. Lets keep on topic please.