Indeed. But apparently, the invasion (Operation Barbarosa) was to have begun on May 1, not June 21. Why the delay? Mussolini had become bogged down in Greece early in the Spring of '41 and Hitler had to divert troops and attention there - keeping Barbarosa in abeyance.
Had Hitler invaded on May 1, he would have been able to reach much further into Russia before the great freeze. Thank you Benito.
I don’t have much to add to this thread, except to thank London_Calling for coming up with probably the most original “Great Debate” question I’ve seen posted here in months.
Carry on…
A facetious answer would be, “Hitler’s micromanagement of the war in Europe”, backed up by the fact that many German errors in tactics and strategy could be laid directly at his feet.
That said, I’d have to agree with those who feel that invading the Soviet Union before the war in Western Europe had been settled was number one. From my reading, however, it’s apparent that Hitler and Stalin would have come to blows eventually, despite their treaty.
As a second possibility, how about both Germany’s and Japan’s refusal to surrender in the face of unopposed day/night saturation bombing? IIRC, by late-'44, both countries had lost any effective defense against aerial bombardment, and it was all over but the shouting (and lots of big explosions).
Although I agree that the timing and Hitler’s micromanagement of Barbarossa was the greatest mistake of World War II, I think a couple of mentions are due to particular battles. The Allied landings in Arnhem, fuelled by Anglo-American personality clashes at the corps and army level, and Hitler’s refusal to allow the Sixth Army to withdraw from Stalingrad after the massive Russian counterattacks encircled them, must rank as among the most foolish decisions in the war. Anthony Beevor’s Stalingrad is a superb chronicle of the latter campaign, and Cornelius Ryan’s A Bridge Too Far is fairly good for Arnhem.
As for Operation Sealion, I believe that even if the RAF could have guaranteed air superiority German land forces were a cut above anything Britain could offer. The Royal Navy might have achieved parity in terms of surface vessels, but I’m sure some concerted U-boat attacks would have a say in that. The German Army was, in 1940 at least, far better equipped, and with a greater morale than the British. A bloody, street-by-street war would have ensued (IMHO) before German atrocities against civilians forced a reluctant surrender.
I’m surprised at so many thinking the invasion of the Soviet Union as a “tactical blunder”. It was, after all, a war aim so perhaps the blunders lie in the way the plan was executed.
My understanding is that the Soviets employed the perfect tactic in dealing with the Germans – don’t fully engage the enemy, retreat, retreat and retreat some more, scorch the earth as you go and stretch the enemy supply lines as far as you can. Then, with winter starting, make a stand at the gates of Moscow. It was about the only choice the Soviets had but it was also the best game plan. It seems we need to thank the incompetent Italians for the delay that meant winter came before Moscow had been taken. Interesting.
I’m not sure where Hitler blundered in relation to the invasion of the Soviet Union except, as Napoleon also did, in underestimating the sheer distances involved in supplying the front line.
casdave – I think the problem with any reserves in the North was the response time and ability to engage. If the southern airfields were pitted with craters a depleted RAF flying south would have no more time over the invasion zone that the Luftwaffe. Maybe ?
As for the invasion of Britain I have to think that had Hitler tried in the days and months after Dunkirk it would have been a damn close thing. Britain desperately needed those summer months to rearm and regroup. Had the Germans been able to get ashore and off the beaches, I suspect it would not have been a very happy outcome for the indiginants -but I do like casdave’s points about the ability of the relatively unscathed Navy, subs and RAF to make a dent before they got off the beaches
Also, I hear much more these days about Hitler’s reluctance to invade Britain. There seems increasing evidence that he hoped to make peace and saw Britain not only as ‘kindred’ but also viewed the British Empire as a vital balance in the new World Order.
It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, to me and 60 years later, but apparently Hitler wanted, expected and built into his plans the idea that Britain would sue for peace. He could see no other option. Hey……so he wasn’t always the full 6 pack.
Nonetheless, it’s interesting to think of the Queen in Canada and armed resistance being directed from the Scottish Highlands.
London_Calling - I think you’re right; it wasn’t deciding to invade Russia per se, it was the way Hitler went about it. Poor timing, especially with regards to weather conditions, underestimation of logistical problems - both in terms of supply lines and weatherproof equipment - and most of all a horrendous level of “political” interference.
Hitler micromanaged the Eastern Front to the extent that commanders were regularly swapped, forbidden from making decisions without approval and subject to dictates that destroyed the effectiveness of their own plans. In the example of Stalingrad, Hitler was so worried about the effect on “home front” morale that he basically sacrificed the Sixth Army, when (at least in the early stages of the siege) much of it could have been saved. Plus, I doubt many of his top generals liked the idea of shifting the bulk and quality of German forces to the Eastern Front when Britain still remained as a staging post for Allied troop build-ups.
The result was that when 1944 came around, German troop strengths in France were largely made up of “static divisions” of reservists regarded as too old or ill to go to the East, plus a few veteran units rebuilding and recuperating after being shattered in Russia.
Rocket88 wrote:
Maybe Hitler felt like he had to invade Russia quickly, to prevent the Soviets from building up their army or consolidating their forces.
From my readings as well I got the impression that Uncle Joe was more than willing to attack Germany. The truce allowed him to move industies past the Urals and gather troops. Of cours this is all from memory so I could be wrong.
Hitler attacked to late and did not have supplies for his troops at such a distance. The lack of supplies, The Soviet Unions scorched earth policy, a late start in the invasion, and an early winter helped the Soviets win the battles of Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad.
Osip
Of course, Germany’s major error was in allowing itself to be taken over by the fascists…
I agree that Hitler thought that Britain would go for a separate peace once France was down. He kept expecting Britain to wash its hands of the continent and concentrate on keeping its oversease empire. Hitler considered the British half-Aryan (what with all the Angles and Saxons…), he thought he could cut a deal with them. But of course the Russians were sub-humans who should be enslaved.
Anyway, it is not hard to imagine that Britian would have surrendered, or at least offered a status-quo peace. Imagine of the Germans had pressed harder and the Dunkirk evacuation didn’t happen? Or what if Churchill had been sacked? No Churchill, and Britain looks a lot less determined to fight to the bitter end, especially when it looks like there is no hope anyway, especially since American involvement is still waiting for Pearl Harbor.
So…Britain sues for peace, Hitler exercizes a slightly less insane control over the Russian campaign, and we have German victory over the Soviets and German occupation of all of continental Europe. When the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and America declares war on Japan, Hitler politely declines to join. And with Britain out of the war, there is no active fighting in Europe for the US to support anyway, except for endless bloody but useless uprisings in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
At a certain point Allied victory was inevitable. After Stalingrad Germany had no hope. But before that the outcome was very much in doubt.
I always thought russia had the build a wall of corpses policy:)
No, I think he underestimated Britain as well. He believed that if the defeat in France didn’t get the Brits to due for peace, the bombing would. But bombing hasn’t proved exceptionally well as a means of breaking down a nation’s will to resist. The notable exceptions are Japan after Hiroshima and Kosovo. The Germans kept increasing production of war material through 1944 and fought hard despite years of Allied bombing (Clash of Wings by Walter Boyne), the Vietnamese also fought hard despite bombing, and so did the Brits in WWII.
Without a thorough defeat of the RAF, invading England would have been a difficult, perhaps impossible, mission. Would the Normandy landings have been successful without air superiority? I’m not sure they would even have been attempted without it.
With reference to the incident mentioned in the OP, it should be noted that the actual blunder that brought about the whole Blitz occurred on August 24, 1940 (a couple weeks prior to the Bombing of London). On that night, Lutwaffe bombers were actually aiming for military targets on the outskirts of London. However, they drifted off course and instead dropped their bombs on the center of London. Winston Churchill believed the attack to be deliberate, so ordered Berlin to be bombed the next evening.
About 40 British bombers attacked Berlin, doing relatively minor damage; however, Germany was stunned. This was the first time bombs had fallen on Berlin, and this after Hermann Göring’s assurance that such could never happen. Similar British attacks occurred on the 28th/29th, and around the 31st.
Hitler was outraged. On September 4th, he declared, “…When the British Air Force drops two or three or four thousand kilograms of bombs, then we will in one night drop 150-, 230-, 300- or 400,000 kilograms. When they declare that they will increase their attacks on our cities, then we will raze their cities to the ground. We will stop the handiwork of those night air pirates, so help us God!”
Which then brings us to the German attack on London the night of September 7th.
As mentioned by London_Calling, the decision to bomb London over the next 57 nights (and other cities as well over the rest of the year) gave the RAF a much-needed respite from the ravages of the Luftwaffe.
So, the actual literal blunder here occurred a couple weeks prior to September 7, 1940. The aftermath, which was primarily fueled by anger, not by any real military planning on either Germany’s or Britain’s parts, resulted in Germany’s ultimate defeat (because it occurred early in the war, the whole episode had much wider-reaching consequences than if it had occurred later).
As a further note, Hitler’s inability to gain air supremacy over England during the Blitz meant that Operation Sealion, the planned invasion of England, could not go forth. So, Hitler instead directed resources toward Operation Barbarossa - the invasion of the USSR.
IIRC, Goering had said just before this event, “If British bombs fall on Berlin, my name is Meyer”. Presumably, after they fell, he felt compelled to inflict an appropriate punishment on the Brits for embarrassing him so.
Personally, I think that Hitler’s biggest mistake was keeping Colonel Klink in command.
As to the comments re Hitler seeking peace with England, isn’t it true that England would have bargained for peace with Germany if it weren’t for Churchill? I believe there were many in Parliament that wanted to do just that. And as to blunders, Stalin offered peace with Germany also, agreeing to give Germany much of USSR land for the peace when things were looking bad. The blunder - Hitler’s refusal, as he thought he could take all of the land easily.
I always thought it was a pity that England kicked out Churchill after he had done so much. I guess he outlived his usefulness.
[hijack]
The reason Churchill lost the election just after the war was that Labour campaigned efectively and vigorously on a social welfare platform.People had seen what might be possible if they worked together.
The Conservatives OTOH took it as read that they were more or less entitled to the vote of the British public, complacency and percieved arrogance were simply voted out.
The war changed social attitudes and lower class people felt empowered possibly for the first time in their lives.
[/hijack]
PS many working class folk still despised Churchill for his activities in the government during the 1926 general strike, elderly miners round here still do.
Although the extent and depth of my knowledge of WWII pales in comparison to most of the other posters here, I’d venture to say that the Allies use of Ultra (Engima, codebreaking and all that), was the decisive factor in their ultimate victory.
So, “Hitler’s” biggest blunder, IMHO, was coding complacency. The German cipher process wasn’t changed frequently enough, bad habits were ignored or missed, extra wheels weren’t added to the machines, etc. Had these basic security precautions been implemented and enforced, Ultra would not have succeeded to the degree that it did. I shudder to think what the consequences might have been.
This may not be the greatest tactical blunder of WWII, but it pops into my head whenever blundering comes up… the maginot line. france builds this huge, long fortification along the border, and what does germany do? … they just go around.
If we want to look at it this way then I’d also have to lay blame on Great Britain for electing Neville Chamberlain.
If we really want to get to the primary blunder of WWII then we need to stretch back to the Ally’s treatment of Germany post WWI. Had we behaved as we did after WWII there probably wouldn’t have been a WWII in Europe (the Pacific war might still have happened though).
You’ve got a point here. Hitler was facing Chamberlain up till that point and was having a field day screwing with him. How many times did Hitler break an agreement with Britain/Chamberlain and how many times did Chamberlain come back hat-in-hand asking for a new agreement?
Also realize that had it not been for the U.S. Lend-Lease program Britain would have been FAR worse off. I don’t want to paint Lend-Lease as saving the Brits asses…if anything they saved a ton of American lives by being the lone country left to stand-up to Hitler till the US got its lazy butt in gear. Still, I’m not sure Britain could have lasted without Lend-Lease.
And, of course, the US was being decidedly isolationist. In the midst of the depression most americans considered Europe a distant problem they shouldn’t have to deal with. FDR, of course, wanted in the war like nobody’s business. He saw the threat Hitler posed but I think he also realized that a war can be quite good for an economy as long as you don’t get your cities bombed. What better way to end a depression?
So, all told, I can see how Hitler could have expected the Brits to sue for peace. Hitler may have been a nutcase but in this I think he may have been thinking straight…things just didn’t turn out as he had hoped.
You are correct that Germany could have been better about this but it is a LOT harder to switch codes than you think. At least back then it was.
Remember you have ships at sea for months. You have a far flung empire with mediocre communication. Switching to new coding and getting EVERYBODY in your military in on the act while maintaining secrecy was very tough back then. You pretty much came up with your system and stuck with it till you knew your code was cracked.
IIRC the Brits decoded a message of an impending air raid on (or around) London. Churchill decided to NOT warn the populace as that might clue the Germans in to the fact their code was broken. The next day Churchill was walking through a bombed out school that he could have saved. I don’t recall if he said anything but I remember seeing pictures of it and his face said a lot. No wonder the man drank so hard.