I'd say the biggest mistake was attacking the Soviet Union.
Russia is HUGE, with endless resources, its soldiers are tough, and its winter is terrible for anyone not fully equipped for it. So in December of 1941, at the gates of Moscow, Hitler's war was lost.
Actually the Axis Powers as a whole had several opportunities to possibly deal tremendous blows at Russia and Great Britain. Had Hitler not been a horrible strategist going for glory and ideological objectives they may have won the war. Several of Germany's blunders includes: not marching on Moscow when they had the chance in the Fall of '41, Not allocating resources to Rommel in North Africa so that he could take the Suez Canal and the oil fields of the Middle East, and of course prioritizing Stalingrad over the oil fields of the Russian Caucasus. Japan's fatal move was drawing the United States into the war and outstretched their military.
The problem is that:
A) The effect of capturing Moscow is debatable, I personally think it would have lead to the destruction of Army Group Center in late 1941 early 1942 due to the size of the salient between AG-North back at Lenningrad and AG-South even further back.
B) I think people over rate the North African campaign as it was a battle that only the British could win given that they were always falling back to their huge supply bases in South Africa and India.
C) Stalingrad was not an error in my opinion, the city was needed as a linch pin of Operation Case Blue to protect the flank of the armies heading into the southern oil fields.
They certainly made mistakes in their approach to take the city but the objective itself was the right one.
D) Japan had no option but draw America into the war, the only other scenario was that it would only attack British, French and Dutch possessions in the area but this would have left the Philippines in a strategically dominant position in the area in American hands.
A)Well The road to Moscow was open for Guderian and Hoth's Panzer groups six weeks into the invasion. Seeing as Moscow was the USSR's railroad hub taking Moscow would enable the Germans to cut off North from the South and then from their position in the center turn to destroy one sector then the other, but you're right it is very debatable.
B) Well this point is also debatable seeing as the capture of the oil supplies of the Middle East would've greatly boosted the German war making capacity not to mention if the Germans drove far enough into the Middle East American Aid that was flowing to the USSR through the Middle East would've been cut off.
C) Their approach to taking Stalingrad was indeed horrid, as was their decision to divert 3 army groups to the city and 2 to the Caucasus instead of using those army groups to take the oil fields. Hitler's incompetence and irrationality forced the German Army to change primary objectives completely. I agree that they needed to take Stalingrad, however the oil fields of the Caucasus were much more vital.
D) The Japanese made a strategic error when they continued to advance instead of consolidating their gains and pull back from hard to defend possessions in the South Pacific is what i was trying to say. They didn't necessarily need to strike at Pearl Harbor and galvanize America to war when a lot of the Americans were still very much isolationist and more than likely would've opposed going to war over something sketchy like Japanese Imperialism thousands of miles away from the American mainland.
You have to remember, the Japanese Navy was commanded by 'battleship' admirals. They felt the US battleships were the primary threat to their conquest of the islands in the Pacific Ocean. At that point aircraft carriers were supposed to play a secondary roll to back up the battleships.D) The Japanese made a strategic error when they continued to advance instead of consolidating their gains and pull back from hard to defend possessions in the South Pacific is what i was trying to say. They didn't necessarily need to strike at Pearl Harbor and galvanize America to war when a lot of the Americans were still very much isolationist and more than likely would've opposed going to war over something sketchy like Japanese Imperialism thousands of miles away from the American mainland.
You have to remember, the Japanese Navy was commanded by 'battleship' admirals. They felt the US battleships were the primary threat to their conquest of the islands in the Pacific Ocean. At that point aircraft carriers were supposed to play a secondary roll to back up the battleships.
The Japanese Navy needed to put the American battleships out of the war. When one looks at the reasons Japan went to war, consolidating a few island chains would not be enough.
Japan has very few natural resources to make war material. Items such as sugar, pig iron, cotton, sugar, rice, soybeans, lumber, coal and, oil. Of all the embargoes placed upon Japan due to their expansionist policies, oil hurt the most. On December 7, 1941 Japan had six months oil reserves in the home islands. The Japanese Army would have to go and start to send home these badly needed resources. So capturing a few islands would not do. They needed to invade Formosa, the Filipine Islands to insure the trade routes from southeast Asia remain secured. If they invade the areas (now) Viet Nam, Malayia, Indonesia... Australia would not stand for that, let alone Britain, the Netherlands and, France. As you look at it, the only way Japan could go once they invaded China was to defeat the European colonies and America.
A) I am not arguing that they couldn't have captured Moscow in the initial assault I however believe doing so while having over stretched supply lines, exhausted troops and massive Russian forces to the Northwest and Southwest of Moscow would have been suicidal for Army Group Center.
B) No Matter how it is dealt North Africa was a front that would have been bigger than the Russian front and gaining in size once they got across the Suez, British resources in India and the supply bases in South Africa made it an impossible task for Rommel and probably would have been impossible for the entire German army.
C) Stalingrad had to be taken and secured to protect the North flank of Army Group A, the first mistake was to give the army a week off outside Stalingrad, the second was to bomb the city and the third and most catastrophic mistake was to continue funneling troops into the city while leaving their flanks thinly guarded by second rate troops.
B) IF they had gotten across the Suez the most likely would've had smashed Montgomery's Army to get through and with that army decimated the British would be harder pressed to keep the Germans out of the areas around Iraq and Iran. Plus the front in the Middle East would definitely not have been larger than the Russian Front seeing as the Germans most likely would not have initiated a war with Saudi Arabia and simply plowed through French and British colonial possessions.
C) I am not saying that Stalingrad was unnecessary. I am simply stating that Hitler should not have ideologically focused more resources into taking Stalingrad even after the blunders that you mentioned. Stalingrad yes needed to be taken and held but i think we'll both agree that the approach and the whole change in objective was a massive blunder by the Germans, no?
But once again I think you are over looking the manpower and resources Britain had in India and South Africa, as the German front expanded and pushed away from the coastal regions it supply lines were growing while the Allies were falling back on India the country which as I recall supplied the British with the most troops of any nation.
It wasn't considered the jewel in the crown of the British Empire because of its diamonds.
I am not sure what our argument is on this one any more to be honest, I don't recall a change in German objectives on the capture of Stalingrad just a very incompetent attempt at capturing it.
And,about the mythical oil fields of the ME,they were irrelevant
1)the UK did not use them:it was using the oil from the US and Central-America
2)there was NO(I repeat :NO) possibility for the Germans to use this oil.
a) the possibility to advance 4000 km from Tripoli to Bagdad was inexistent
b)the possibility to repair the oilfields (because the British would not be that stupid to leave them unhurt),was nihil
C) the possibility to transport the oil of Iraq to Damascus was nihil (unless one would assume that the British would not destroy the pipe-lines)
d) I don't see any possibility for the Germans to transport the oil from (the destroyed) harbour of Damascus to Germany ,because,to transport oil,you need tankers,and,there was a total shortage on tankers .
Yes, but by taking the Suez Canal they would've cut them off from India and forced any Allied ships to go the long way around to the North Atlantic. Another thing is though if they had pushed far enough into the ME they would've cut off a major Western supply route to the Soviet Union.
This is a wrong assumpton :since the Italian DOW(june 1940 :long before the AK was going to NA),and till may 1943,the Mediterranean was NOT used as communication to India and the Far East .The British convoys were gong the long way aound to the Southern;-)Atlantic .Yes, but by taking the Suez Canal they would've cut them off from India and forced any Allied ships to go the long way around to the North Atlantic. Another thing is though if they had pushed far enough into the ME they would've cut off a major Western supply route to the Soviet Union.
I believe Hitler had to attack the Soviet Union if he had any ambition to win the war in Europe. He was probably correct to attack in 1941 too - it was something of a political victory in the sense that he caught Stalin completely by surprise. Some of the main reasons why he had to attack were that:I'd say the biggest mistake was attacking the Soviet Union.
Russia is HUGE, with endless resources, its soldiers are tough, and its winter is terrible for anyone not fully equipped for it. So in December of 1941, at the gates of Moscow, Hitler's war was lost.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.