What do you all think was the biggest waste by Germany during WW2?
Things like:

Atlantic Wall

Bismarch & Tirpitz

V1 & V2

Maybe something else, I am not including. Would also be a possiblity.

In my opinion the biggest waste of resources done by Nazi Germany was simply going to war at all.

Originally Posted by Doug_FL

What do you all think was the biggest waste by Germany during WW2?
Things like:

Atlantic Wall

Bismarch & Tirpitz

V1 & V2

Maybe something else, I am not including. Would also be a possiblity.

Of those choices I think obviously the Atlantic Wall would be the winner given the amount of men and materials tied up in making it but given that it really was a necessity I am not sure it is the right answer.

The V1 and V2 were excellent weapons that were misused.

Bismarck and Tirpitz for all their lack of success still tied up a lot of allied resources so I am not sure they can be considered a waste of resources.

I can't remember the secondary source (a documentary) but the primary source was a long-lost audio-recording of Hitler on a train with ....I think...Norwegian or Finnish or Swedish....or some other nationality's officials... and Hitler in an unusually unguarded display of pessimism was saying his Intelligence had grossly underestimated Russia's manufacturing capacity especially its ability to mass produce tanks and its missile technology (Stalins organs) and that had he known this he would never had attacked the Soviet Union (but he added he felt he had to because Russia in diplomatic communiques were making threats or bullying Germany over access to oil - according to Hitler).

So I think the opening of a second front in Europe and taking on the might of the Soviet Union (which took awhile to reach full strength) was the greatest waste of human and military industrial materiel for Germany's war effort.

In fact, slightly off topic, I believe if Germany had not declared war on USSR, Germany would have either won WW2 or forced an agreeable armistice (agreeable to Germany that is), or at the very least would have meant Germany could have kept on fighting well into 1946 and as some might know, she may then have been the first to have jet fighters in mass production, and possibly developed the A-bomb and with such weapons won the war or forced a peace on its terms (keeping Poland, maybe most of France and eastern European states).

Originally Posted by Padre

I can't remember the secondary source (a documentary) but the primary source was a long-lost audio-recording of Hitler on a train with ....I think...Norwegian or Finnish or Swedish....or some other nationality's officials... and Hitler in an unusually unguarded display of pessimism was saying his Intelligence had grossly underestimated Russia's manufacturing capacity especially its ability to mass produce tanks and its missile technology (Stalins organs) and that had he known this he would never had attacked the Soviet Union (but he added he felt he had to because Russia in diplomatic communiques were making threats or bullying Germany over access to oil - according to Hitler).

So I think the opening of a second front in Europe and taking on the might of the Soviet Union (which took awhile to reach full strength) was the greatest waste of human and military industrial materiel for Germany's war effort.

In fact, slightly off topic, I believe if Germany had not declared war on USSR, Germany would have either won WW2 or forced an agreeable armistice (agreeable to Germany that is), or at the very least would have meant Germany could have kept on fighting well into 1946 and as some might know, she may then have been the first to have jet fighters in mass production, and possibly developed the A-bomb and with such weapons won the war or forced a peace on its terms (keeping Poland, maybe most of France and eastern European states).

I agree with what you have said. Declaring war on the US was also
a major mistake. After Pearl Harbor, the focus of the US was on Japan, not Germany. Had a little more common sense been used on the Eastern
Front, breaking up conquests into more into smaller more diagestable chucks, some sort of uneasy peace or armistice, might have occured
or been forced on Great Britain.

Originally Posted by Doug_FL

I agree with what you have said. Declaring war on the US was also
a major mistake. After Pearl Harbor, the focus of the US was on Japan, not Germany. Had a little more common sense been used on the Eastern
Front, breaking up conquests into more into smaller more diagestable chucks, some sort of uneasy peace or armistice, might have occured
or been forced on Great Britain.

Originally Posted by Padre

I can't remember the secondary source (a documentary) but the primary source was a long-lost audio-recording of Hitler on a train with ....I think...Norwegian or Finnish or Swedish....or some other nationality's officials... and Hitler in an unusually unguarded display of pessimism was saying his Intelligence had grossly underestimated Russia's manufacturing capacity especially its ability to mass produce tanks and its missile technology (Stalins organs) and that had he known this he would never had attacked the Soviet Union (but he added he felt he had to because Russia in diplomatic communiques were making threats or bullying Germany over access to oil - according to Hitler).

So I think the opening of a second front in Europe and taking on the might of the Soviet Union (which took awhile to reach full strength) was the greatest waste of human and military industrial materiel for Germany's war effort.

In fact, slightly off topic, I believe if Germany had not declared war on USSR, Germany would have either won WW2 or forced an agreeable armistice (agreeable to Germany that is), or at the very least would have meant Germany could have kept on fighting well into 1946 and as some might know, she may then have been the first to have jet fighters in mass production, and possibly developed the A-bomb and with such weapons won the war or forced a peace on its terms (keeping Poland, maybe most of France and eastern European states).

If they hadn't attacked the Russians I don't think The US & UK would have had much chance of sucsessfully invading the Continent, if we keep the A-Bombs out of the mix.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Bismarck and Tirpitz for all their lack of success still tied up a lot of allied resources so I am not sure they can be considered a waste of resources.

I would still argue it was still a waste of resources. It was originally created because Hitler wanted a big battleship. Then he realised that the British would sink them easily and so obviously went back to the U-Boat, but not before he wasted lots of precious resources protecting the ships that would pretty much do nothing. The fact that the British kept searching for it was an unforeseen consequence. Arguably it even helped the British in that during, what I call, the 'Quiet Era' of 1941 to 1944 it could give it's special force's experience in assaulting the ports where these ships were held. So that probably outweighed the run around the British did. It was a classic example of where Hitler wanted to show the world that he appeared strong but just made himself weaker in the process.Just imagine where the resources of those ships and those of guarding them could have actually gone?

Originally Posted by Yin717

I would still argue it was still a waste of resources. It was originally created because Hitler wanted a big battleship. Then he realised that the British would sink them easily and so obviously went back to the U-Boat, but not before he wasted lots of precious resources protecting the ships that would pretty much do nothing. The fact that the British kept searching for it was an unforeseen consequence. Arguably it even helped the British in that during, what I call, the 'Quiet Era' of 1941 to 1944 it could give it's special force's experience in assaulting the ports where these ships were held. So that probably outweighed the run around the British did. It was a classic example of where Hitler wanted to show the world that he appeared strong but just made himself weaker in the process.Just imagine where the resources of those ships and those of guarding them could have actually gone?

Maybe, but the war started prematurly for the plans of the Navy to bear fruit. The Navy didn't expect War untill '45-50. Had the War started in '48 the Navy would have had 6 Type H , 4 Gneisenau/Bismarck Battleships, 3 Deutschland Armored Ships, 12 Type P Battle Cruisers, 8 Aircraft Carriers, 5 CA, 24 CL & 36 Scout Cruisers, & 70 DD, 78 Torpedo Boats & 249 subs.

The Atlantic wall was a necessities for them and it was only the allies hitting them where it was the weakest that helped carry the day, yet in the American sector is caused them a lot of problems.

The Bismark and Tirpitz.....Now just being there tied up a huge amount of the Royal Navy just in case they came out for a raid. This in turn gave the U Boats a free run for quite a while in the Atlantic

V1 & V2 now living in London during this they did not seem to be a waste of money and they tied up huge amounts of men and guns manning the batteries all along the south coast and a large number of RAF Squadrons either shooting them down, and for looking and attacking launch pads and bombing there R & D Labs and places of manufacturer.

It is rather like the Allied raids on Germany that tied up a million Germans on air defence rather than fighting the allies on the ground

I would think that the greatest waste of recourses, by the Nazi’s, was their failure to use ethnic populations to their advantage,

Instead of the genocidal treatment of Jews, Slav’s, Poles and others, treating these people better would have resulted in less trouble for the Germans least. These people may well have cooperated more in their war against the USSR in particular.

Early in the German occupation of France they weren’t so savage in their policies towards the French people. Despite the popular view of the “French Resistance”, from what I’ve read, most French people just wanted to live their lives, to be left alone. They were mostly passive, and even supportive in the German’s Eastern venture’s and in their anti-Semitic policies.

I don’t see why other occupied people wouldn’t have re-acted in the same manner.