Hitler's BIGGEST Strategic Failing

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
Torretta13
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 02:44
Location: MI

Hitler's BIGGEST Strategic Failing

#1

Post by Torretta13 » 08 Jul 2019, 20:58

....not dealing with that craven fool/hypocrite Churchill, before turning on Russia. After the fall of France and the expulsion of the BEF from the continent, this was was EMINENTLY WINNABLE. England has been rocked back on its heels, and was girding for an invasion. The bulk of their resources were going to defending the British Isles from an invasion which they was sure was coming. Hitler should have done everything possible to CONVINCE the British that the Germans were gearing up for a MASSIVE INVASION of England, while surepptitiously pouring resources into North Africa. The Axis had a PERFECT opportunity to seize Malta and drive through North Africa and the Middle East in 1940.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Hitler's "BIGGEST" Strategic Failing.

#2

Post by Robert Rojas » 09 Jul 2019, 07:59

Greetings to both brother Torretta13 and the community as a whole. Howdy T-13! Well sir, in deference to your point OR points-of-view as articulated in your introductory posting of Monday - July 08, 2019 -10:58am, old yours truly is of the subjective school of thought that the all knowing Bohemian Corporal's "BIGGEST" Strategic Failing was HIS ill considered decision to declare war on the United States of America on December 11, 1941. Apart from initiating Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941, I cannot think of anything that would add insult to injury than dragging the world's mightiest industrial power into the European Theater of Operations. Enough said. Well, that's my initial two cents or pfennigs worth on this contentious topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of the Wolverine State that is Michigan.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee


User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Hitler's BIGGEST Strategic Failing

#3

Post by BDV » 10 Jul 2019, 17:01

Inability to effectively wage alliance war. But; is this failure of GROFAZ or is it (cultural/societal) failure of Germany.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 12:37
Location: scotland

Re: Hitler's BIGGEST Strategic Failing

#4

Post by doogal » 10 Jul 2019, 22:46

Robert Rojas wrote - old yours truly is of the subjective school of thought that the all knowing Bohemian Corporal's "BIGGEST" Strategic Failing was HIS ill considered decision to declare war on the United States of America on December 11, 1941.
This "ill considered" decision has to be viewed as the last in a chain if causality which arose due to the signing of the Tripartite Pact (signed on the 27 September 1940) and i would profer that the decision to enter into an interstate agreement with a national power over whose strategic agenda no input or influence can be levied has to be considered a larger and more prominent failing which directly lead to Hitlers declaration of war.
I also support the view that Hitler committed a litany of strategic miss steps all as important and negative to Nazi Germany.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Hitler's "BIGGEST" Strategic Failing

#5

Post by Robert Rojas » 10 Jul 2019, 23:11

Greetings to both citizen Doogal and the community as a whole. Howdy Doogal! Well sir, in reference to your posting of Wednesday - July 10. 2019 - 12:46pm, old yours truly must duly concede that you clearly have broached an important aspect of STATE CRAFT that is often overlooked in such discussions. Thank you for your sage input on this matter. Well, that's my latest two cents or pfennigs worth on this sojourn down esoteric lane - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of ever colorful Caledonia.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :) :wink: 8-) :thumbsup:
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Hitler's BIGGEST Strategic Failing

#6

Post by pugsville » 11 Jul 2019, 14:21

Torretta13 wrote:
08 Jul 2019, 20:58
....not dealing with that craven fool/hypocrite Churchill, before turning on Russia. After the fall of France and the expulsion of the BEF from the continent, this was was EMINENTLY WINNABLE. England has been rocked back on its heels, and was girding for an invasion. The bulk of their resources were going to defending the British Isles from an invasion which they was sure was coming. Hitler should have done everything possible to CONVINCE the British that the Germans were gearing up for a MASSIVE INVASION of England, while surepptitiously pouring resources into North Africa. The Axis had a PERFECT opportunity to seize Malta and drive through North Africa and the Middle East in 1940.
of course if you ignore logistic considerations. In 1940 the Italians already had more troops in North Africa than could be adequately supported. It was simply logistically impossible to support much more troops in North Africa. Ports, Trucks, Shipping.

People keep suggesting this but it;s not just drawing lines on a map. It's tonnage of surplus that can be transported across the med, unloaded in ports and them somehow gotten to the front.

Logistics Matter.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 12:37
Location: scotland

Re: Hitler's BIGGEST Strategic Failing

#7

Post by doogal » 11 Jul 2019, 21:20

The Axis had a PERFECT opportunity to seize Malta and drive through North Africa and the Middle East in 1940.
Would this perfect opportunity have come instead of Weser in April and then Gelb and Rot in May/June 1940. If not do you believe that Nazi Germany could mount the siege of Malta from Air and Sea and then mount a far reaching campaign moving (X number) of divisions and army corps across the med using only Italian naval assets. Which would then fight there way into the middle east (i assume you mean east of Egypt) alongside italian forces which were already falling to pieces in 1940:

In 1940 the Italians already had more troops in North Africa than could be adequately supported. It was simply logistically impossible to support much more troops in North Africa. Ports, Trucks, Shipping.

People keep suggesting this but it;s not just drawing lines on a map. It's tonnage of surplus that can be transported across the med, unloaded in ports and them somehow gotten to the front.
It would have to be an immense operation to support and transport the kind of numbers required for such an operation and it has to be said that the Italian merchant marine and Navy would not have been in a position to support it even had there been no opposition across its shipping lanes.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Hitler's BIGGEST Strategic Failing

#8

Post by Peter89 » 14 Jul 2019, 10:01

Torretta13 wrote:
08 Jul 2019, 20:58
....not dealing with that craven fool/hypocrite Churchill, before turning on Russia.
"Dealing with Churchill" equals "dealing with the biggest empire the world has ever seen".
How could Germany crush an empire like that? Attack the colonies? That would drain troops for occupation. Attack England itself? They couldn't do it. They were too weak.
Torretta13 wrote:
08 Jul 2019, 20:58
After the fall of France and the expulsion of the BEF from the continent, this was was EMINENTLY WINNABLE.
How so? The Luftwaffe was defeated at the BoB, the Kriegsmarine was a shadow of the Royal Navy, and the Heer was on the other side of La Manche.
Torretta13 wrote:
08 Jul 2019, 20:58
England has been rocked back on its heels, and was girding for an invasion. The bulk of their resources were going to defending the British Isles from an invasion which they was sure was coming. Hitler should have done everything possible to CONVINCE the British that the Germans were gearing up for a MASSIVE INVASION of England,
They were actually doing it. From 16th July 1940 the Germans committed all their Luftwaffe units to defeat the RAF. They failed.

They planned to mobilize 13 + 28 divisions of the Heer, basically all the capable divisions of Germany.
See more: https://codenames.info/operation/seelowe/

Torretta13 wrote:
08 Jul 2019, 20:58
while surepptitiously pouring resources into North Africa. The Axis had a PERFECT opportunity to seize Malta and drive through North Africa and the Middle East in 1940.
To seize Malta / Gibraltar could be done potentially, but the German / Italian advance was halted in Africa for a reason. And that reason was the strength of the Allied troops. Besides, to seize North Africa would mean nothing. Suez Canal was not in use for mass transportation, and the Germans could gain nothing by occupying territories they couldn't hold. Besides, the nazi propaganda was not friendly towards the muslims, eg. they executed Soviet muslim POWs (confirmed by their circumcised penises, similar to jews).

There was some unrest in 1941, when the Anglo-Iraqi war broke out, but the Axis couldn't seize the opportunity.

I don't see the point of this thread.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 03 Aug 2018, 17:16
Location: USA

Re: Hitler's BIGGEST Strategic Failing

#9

Post by gracie4241 » 14 Jul 2019, 16:46

Hitler had an astoundingly small staff-for the head of a great power-with him at his various field headquarters. Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt stayed in their capitols and had access to all sorts of staff, and in one form or another had forums for discussion of various proposals insofar as weighing alternatives against one another(Stavka, Combined Chiefs of Staff War Cabinet etc.) Hitler chose to operate largely singly, in that he would be presented with proposals by individual advocates without reference to any joint review and viewpoint .Hitler, in my opinion was very bright and actually knew A LOT about military /strategic affairs, but his hubris , and lack of faith in some subordinates, led him to impose on himself an impossible level of burden(refusal to properly delegate) that no one individual could cope with .Deciding for instance on how much steel to give for construction of submarines as opposed to tanks required some in depth analysis of the impact on each and what the strategic effects/tradeoffs actually were: but as I see it there was no institutional mechanism for studies to be made in that regard and so decisions tended to be ad hoc.The german "Command Structure" itself was flawed, and that did fall on Hitler

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”