Would Hitler have succeeded in taking over europe/Asia/world if he had have continued to bomb the British Military targets and not the Civilian ones? Post your opinions.

I believe that he should have bombed both targets with equal fiercness, although he should have gone for the mid-east first for the oil, and created a larger bomber.

Well, the main problem is that Hitler was a poor strategist. He was blinded by hate and madness. Anyways he should have never started the war with USSR, then maybe he could have fought UK for a longer time. But Nazi idiology cost the Germans the war.

I agree with sherman. Starting a two front conflict was not the smartest thing to do.

The thing is..with britain, the goal was to get to the fighters and destroy them, to allow unrestricted acess over england. But with the advent of the british radar system...there could be no unexpected incursions by the bombers without the Brits knowing about it and reacting.

If Hitler had followed the strategy of u-boats staying close to the british isles..and cutting off the life lines totally...he may have starved the brits out from the war supplys they were getting, and not have engaged the american naval groups. but.....

As it stands..Hitler just wasnt a strategist. Thank God for small favors.

What would the world be like today if the Nazi's had won? What about Japan? Would Germany have went after them once Europe, Africa, and Asia were conquered? Could they have beat the Japs? Where would America stand? Would we still be a world power? So many questions...

If Hitler wouldent attack USSR he would easily crash UK

Well when talking about a 2 front war that didn't truly start until D-Day. He did attack all the nations around him. Some in example: Poland, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, etc. These nations hardly gave up a fight some only lasting at max of 17 days because it took that long for the Germans to walk across the country. But the thing that stopped Hitler from conquering all of Europe I think is Pearl Harbor. There is a rumor, that many historians think is true, that when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor he sent there emperor a telegram saying ARE YOU COMPLETELY MAD?!

Hitler could of handled a 2 front war if he had to, if USA didn't come in. I'm not saying that if USA never helped in WWII we would all be speaking German but they played a HUGE part in the western front. I do not think Hitler is a bad strategist, he was quite good. His ideas on politics and how he said what he would do in order before he actually came to power was amazing. If you don't believe me, read his book Mein Kampf

If Hitler had focused on the UK then Russia I think it would of been a different story of the war. He could of taken, like Snauhi said, the UK not with total easiness, but he would of had a easier chance of taking it instead of Russia.

I do not really know if he would have conquered europe/asia/world because he focused more on the bombings of civilian targets other than military. If I had been Hitler, scary thought , I would of done as he did and taken over the easy nations around me. Then focused on UK. After taking UK, I would have my Allie, Japan, do as they did and invade China, but NOT bomb USA. Thats the thing that historians claim lost Hitler the war, not his "bad" strategy, but the "bad" strategy of the Japanese in that time. Well I don't want to keep rambling. All-in-all Hitler would not of taken over the world/europe if he had started bombing military targets other than civilian ones.

Hitler didnt won the war,cuz he was stalled in here(serbia) by partizans until the russian winter when he got to russia,when stuff hapend as you all know.

If Hitler wouldent attack USSR he would easily crash UK

Not so easily. Remember that the Germans simply never managed to complete preprations for an invasion of Britain.

Hitler didnt won the war,cuz he was stalled in here(serbia) by partizans until the russian winter when he got to russia,when stuff hapend as you all know.

Ok, not to dismiss the brave partisans, they hardly stalled the entire German ary, only a small part of it.

Originally Posted by NSDAP

Would Hitler have succeeded in taking over europe/Asia/world if he had have continued to bomb the British Military targets and not the Civilian ones? Post your opinions.

The outcome of the war had little if anything to do with Hitler's bombing strategy of bombing civilian targets. You have to understand that his view that bombing civilian targets was the best way to subdue a nation was shared by every other strategic bombing expert of the time, so you can't really fault him for that. You need to get away from this idea that Hitler was some kind of mad imbecile who had no strategic abilty - that is flat out wrong. Hitler did have some strategic planning ability but too often he let the weakenesses of his personality, namely his blind hate, anti-semetism and superiority complex, override any good judgement he had. This became more and more apparent as the tide of WW2 gradually began to turn against him, so by the end he had reteated into his own mad fantasy and was incapable of making any worthwhile decisions whatsoever.

The other point is that Hitler had around him some of the finest strategists in the world, guys like Gerd Von Rundstedt, Heinz Guderian and perhaps the greatest of them all Erich Von Manstein. Von Manstein conjured up the master plan (Fall Gelb) that defeated France and the Low Countries and his actions in early 1943 in recapturing Kharkov literally saved Army Group South from envelopment and total collapse after the defeat at Stalingrad. Had Hitler allowed these guys free reign to plan and devise, IMO the Soviet Union would have fallen in 1942 and the outcome of the war would have been entirely different.