Hitlers most crucial mistake?

[gao_yixing]

Germany declared war on U.S. just to make Japan invade USSR from Siberia, but it turned out to be a mistake. Germany and Japan have never been really allied.
In my opinion, the biggest mistake was allying with Italy.
Invading Russia was inevitable because Russian army was rapidly developing, it was the last chance to conquer the ideological enemy.
But Hitler might launched the invasion earlier without Mussolini. The Balkan Campaign delayed the invasion of USSR. And later the delay of time proved to be very essential. If German had occupied Moscow before the come of winter, the war would change a lot. Maybe Stalin would flee to India and be overthrown. A puppet Russia like Vichy France would be installed. Ukraine and Belarus would also set up some puppet states.
The biggest enemies of Nazi is Bolshevism, not UK and US. When Hitler invaded Poland, he didn't expect that UK and France would continue the war.
All in all, the biggest mistake is alliance with Italy. There's a joke(not an insult to Italian people)
If Italy is Germany's enemy, German could use only 20 divisions to defeat her.
But in reality, Italy is Germany's ally, so Germany had to use 40 divisions to defend her.

[Spinechicken]

Originally Posted by Ingsoc

1. No doubt that the lost of the forces in Dunkirk would have been a hard blow to Britain, however it's wouldn't made Hitler any closer to beating the RAF and to a full invasion to the British Islands.

Certainly, it wouldn't have helped Hitler to invade Britain - the invasion was always predicated on air and naval superiority, which Germany could and would never achieve. However, it would seriously damage Britain's ability to wage war on the ground - particularly in North Africa. There was always the possiblity that this lack of manpower may have enabled either the Italians (stretching it a bit maybe) or at least the DAK to punch through into Egypt and win the war in the Middle East. The loss of the Suez Canal and such oil rich territories may have eventually brought Britain to her knees.

In the end, thankfully, this is just the idle speculation of an armchair colonel.

-SC

[Klaus]

Well, it could have turned out like that. Lucky enough it didn't.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

another of Hitler's mistakes was to start the war with the west in the first place, instead of turning against the Soviet Union, a threat to European culture and civilization. I'm sure Poland would have been willing to joing, considering that the Soviet Union threatened Poland many times before and had conflicts with them. Romania and the Baltic states presumably might as well. And the West would not have minded, as in 1941 in the USA many Americans preferred that the germans defeated the Soviets, considering that Germans were western european christians similar to the Americans, and that the Soviets were atheistic and there was the smell of the communist threat that had hung over the world since 1918. Of course after the war durign the Cold war this smell came up again.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Helmut Von Moltke

another of Hitler's mistakes was to start the war with the west in the first place, instead of turning against the Soviet Union, a threat to European culture and civilization. I'm sure Poland would have been willing to joing, considering that the Soviet Union threatened Poland many times before and had conflicts with them. Romania and the Baltic states presumably might as well. And the West would not have minded, as in 1941 in the USA many Americans preferred that the germans defeated the Soviets, considering that Germans were western european christians similar to the Americans, and that the Soviets were atheistic and there was the smell of the communist threat that had hung over the world since 1918. Of course after the war durign the Cold war this smell came up again.

I disagree with much of this. First, while official Soviet policy was a non-religious state, most Soviet citizens were Christians. Despite that, I do agree that much US opinion was anti-communist in the early 1940's, but the US was much more left leaning in those days than it is now. The US was just coming out of a huge economic depression (1929- c.1941) where the poor really suffered. Many people had come to wonder if capitalism had indeed failed. Left wing political parties had their greatest memberships in the 1930's, albeit they were still small.

More importantly, over the years, especially in the 1920's, Germany had attempted to gain an alliance with Poland against the USSR and Poland had declined all of these entreaties. The Poles did not trust Germany any more than they trusted the Russians. Turned out they had good reason to trust neither. As a result, there is no way they would have allied with Germany much less allowed German troops passage. That would have left the front much smaller. Assuming that the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 had not come into effect, the Baltics likely would still have been independent, so the frontiers of the USSR would not have touched those of the Reich except a small frontier in the puppet state of Slovakia. Hitler would have had to invade though Hungary and Romania and the whole dynamic of Barbarossa would have been different. Furthermore, had the Nazi-Soviet pact not come into being, the Russians may not have been inclined to seize Bessarabia, and Romania may not have been so inclined to be involved. I'm not sure that the result would have been any different for the Hitler and his Reich.

[gao_yixing]

Originally Posted by Jim O

I disagree with much of this. First, while official Soviet policy was a non-religious state, most Soviet citizens were Christians. Despite that, I do agree that much US opinion was anti-communist in the early 1940's, but the US was much more left leaning in those days than it is now. The US was just coming out of a huge economic depression (1929- c.1941) where the poor really suffered. Many people had come to wonder if capitalism had indeed failed. Left wing political parties had their greatest memberships in the 1930's, albeit they were still small.

More importantly, over the years, especially in the 1920's, Germany had attempted to gain an alliance with Poland against the USSR and Poland had declined all of these entreaties. The Poles did not trust Germany any more than they trusted the Russians. Turned out they had good reason to trust neither. As a result, there is no way they would have allied with Germany much less allowed German troops passage. That would have left the front much smaller. Assuming that the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 had not come into effect, the Baltics likely would still have been independent, so the frontiers of the USSR would not have touched those of the Reich except a small frontier in the puppet state of Slovakia. Hitler would have had to invade though Hungary and Romania and the whole dynamic of Barbarossa would have been different. Furthermore, had the Nazi-Soviet pact not come into being, the Russians may not have been inclined to seize Bessarabia, and Romania may not have been so inclined to be involved. I'm not sure that the result would have been any different for the Hitler and his Reich.

I agree with this. It was Poland who declined both of his strong neighbors' alliance invitations.
Most of Germans and Americans are Protestants. But I don't think it had much influence in the dimoplatic affairs.

[Ingsoc]

Originally Posted by Jim O

More importantly, over the years, especially in the 1920's, Germany had attempted to gain an alliance with Poland against the USSR and Poland had declined all of these entreaties.

Actually because both Germany and the USSR were outcast at Europe at the time, they formed a very close alliance between them, as for Poland I think the German since the 20es want to annihalate the Polish state as part of the desire to scrap the Versaille treaty.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Ingsoc

Actually because both Germany and the USSR were outcast at Europe at the time, they formed a very close alliance between them, as for Poland I think the German since the 20es want to annihalate the Polish state as part of the desire to scrap the Versaille treaty.

This may have been an ulterior motive but that doesn't change the history. They offered to ally with Poland against USSR and were turned down on several occasions. Finally they concluded a non-agression pact in 1934 (which Hitler reneged upon on April 28, 1939). Poland also had a non-agression pact with the Soviets in 1932 which the Russians unilaterally broke when they invaded Poland on September 17, 1939.

The German-Soviet "alliance" of the 1920's and 1930's was more a matter of convenience in developing weapons that neither could do on their own, Germany because she was prohobited by Versailles and USSR because they lacked the technology.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

First, while official Soviet policy was a non-religious state, most Soviet citizens were Christians.

actually, I was talking about how Westerners might have viewed the Soviet government, which persecuted Christians and pretty much every other religion.

but the US was much more left leaning in those days than it is now.

I disagree there, just read "The Death of the West" by Patrick J. Buchanan on what the left wing are doing to the USA's traditions and moral now. Whisteling it down to allow invasions by hordes of foreign immigrants who don't fell patriotic to the USA, while in the past they have been succesfully incorporated. The left is the strongest power in the USA now...

And about Poland, during the Third Reich's early years they got on allright, Hitler was on frinedly terms with Pilduski and they signed a non aggression pact. So anything could have happened there.. if Heydrich and the SD or Canaris and the Abwehr faked a Soviet threat against Poland, etc.

But I don't think it had much influence in diplomatic affairs

yes it did, why else would have Roosevelt tried not to get in a direct war with Germany early on?

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Helmut Von Moltke

I disagree there, just read "The Death of the West" by Patrick J. Buchanan on what the left wing are doing to the USA's traditions and moral now. Whisteling it down to allow invasions by hordes of foreign immigrants who don't fell patriotic to the USA, while in the past they have been succesfully incorporated. The left is the strongest power in the USA now...

This is getting way off topic, but you, as a foreigner, quoting Pat Buchanan as an "authority" on America is laughable. He's an idiot who has little in common with mainstream US. If the left is so strong why is it that the Congresss and Presidency is right wing controlled? The Supreme Court now has a right wing majority. The right is very well organized on a grass roots level, through the churches and such, and have managed to redistrict many states in an attempt to ensure Republican majorities in the House of Representatives. See the Texas redistricting case from a couple of years ago if you have any questions. The president's very first veto in office was yesterday, on an issue of profound importance to the right. Pat Buchanan is basically a racist who panders to the fears of Americans about great Asian and "Hispanic" hordes coming here and taking over. If he had his way we would cut defense spending, pull out of NAFTA, and become the isolationists we were in the 1920's and 1930's. That did a lot of good, eh?

If you are going to cite someone, pick someone with some credibility.

Originally Posted by Helmut Von Moltke

yes it did, why else would have Roosevelt tried not to get in a direct war with Germany early on?

You need to re-read history a bit. Roosevelt wanted to get involved early in the war but American public opinion was so far opposed to it that he could not. But despite that, he did everything he could to help the British, including armed escorts for shipping convoys, shipping supplies, allowing US trained servicemen to volunteer to help in Britain, occupying Iceland to prevent the Germans from taking it, etc, etc. Sadly, American public opinion was dominated by isolationist thinking and overt pro-Nazis like Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford.

As for the German-Polish non-aggression pact, that hardly qualified as getting on well. A non-aggression pact means essentially that "we don't like each other but we agree not to fight". It's a far cry from an alliance. There is no way that Poland would have let Hitler's troops march through their territory and willingly become the battleground for a war between Germany and USSR. Besides, in 1939 Hitler wasn't ready to fight USSR. That's why he concluded the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. Taking Poland was a prelude to that and really required little resources. Having the Poles as allies in the subsequest war, unlikely as it would have been, would have done little good. They were ill-equipped and not a good fighting force. The Russians had no problem taking on the Romanian 3rd and 4th armies around Stalingrad, and little problems with the Italians and Hungarians that were part of the invasion. Those armies generally played subordinate roles anyway, as Hitler and his generals did not trust them to get the job done. Same thing would have applied to any Polish forces under your scenario.

The idea of Hitler allying himself with a Slavic country is pretty laughable in itself since they were an "inferior race". It never would have happened. Sure...it's a academic what if, but if Hitler wanted help from Slavs (beyond the few Croatians that he did let in) he would have treated them better during the occupation of Belarus and Ukraine. He could have "made friends" when he got there but he chose not to do so. He did get some volunteers from those areas, but he could have raised huge armies had he acted differently. Again, it was his racial policies that get in the way, and would have gotten in the way of any long term cooperation with the Poles.