![adolf-hitler1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4Kp5Ylx.jpg "adolf-hitler1[1].jpg")
What was Hitler's / Nazi Germany's most fatal mistake in WWII?
Stalingrad?
Not picking up storng enough allies.
>>752825
Hitler
He was the most fatal mistake
>>752825
The 'Danzig or War' policy
>>752825
Invading Poland while seriously underestimating the resolve of Britain and France to go to war over it.
>>752825
> What was Hitler's / Nazi Germany's most fatal mistake in WWII?
Deciding to invade Russia, instead of England.
>>753081
> resolve of Britain and France to go to war over it.
I'm sorry, but what resolve are you speaking of?
>>753102
>instead of England.
There is 0 plausible chance of ever making Sealion work. Germany didn't have the airpower, the naval power, the sealift, or the experience with amphibious operations to make something like this work.
>>753105
Do you remember how WW2 started, anon?
Germany declares war on Poland. Then France and Britain declare war on Germany. Britain drags a whole bunch of other countries in after it. That coalition crushes Germany. I'm pretty sure they teach this in schools.
Hitler and the Nazis and all the other cowards in the regime
>>753120
> nazis
>cowards
I mean call them storm fags or racists or whatever, but cowards is something they weren't.
their boner for total war
>>753111
If you barely know something about a topic, I suggest you to not play the clever guy because you will end up as retarded as you just did.
>>753185
Are you seriously claiming that the declaration of war on Germany, the entry of major powers into WW2, was caused by something OTHER than the attack on Poland?
Please, inform me and pretty much all of mainstream academia how we're wrong. I could use a good laugh.
>invading russia
>allying japan
>what >>753136 said
>>753039
According to Ribentov-Molotov pact Poland was already given to the 3rd Reich. It wouldn't have mattered if Gdansk was given to Germany.
![vmissle[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/r6FjkaL.jpg "vmissle[1].jpg")
>>753081
I've always wondered, if Germany had put off invading Poland by like 2-3 years, would they have been on a better footing?
They had stuff like pic related, but if they had a few more years of peace, could their wonder weapons actually make a difference?
Imagine:
> 1942
> Brits and Frogs patting themselves on the back for keeping Hitler contained
>Suddenly, rockets fall out of the sky onto their capitols
> Nerve gas kills everyone (No gas masks distributed, sarin kills via skin contact)
> Germans demand surrender or more cities will be killed
Kinda glad they didn't play it smart tbqh
>>753281
I don't know about Frabce, but Britain was seriously re-arming post Munich. Too little, too late, but if you wait longer you stand a very real chance of making things worse, not better.
Taking Bohemia.
After that Hitler get no trust in the West and they plot to fight him.
Barbarossa and attacking USSR during the coldest winter of the century
>>753293
France was re-arming and modernizing its army too but they kinda runs into some issues which lead to what happen early in WWII.
>>752825
Putting ideology and the political aims of the Nazi Party ahead of the war effort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5agLW7fTzBc
>>752825
>What was Nazi Germany's most fatal mistake in WWII?
Blindly supporting an angry, autistic Austrian. Bismarck warned them of the eternal austrian. The Germans didn't listen, and thus chose their path.
>>753631
I admit I've done 0 reading on the subject, but If you give them another 3 years to iron out the kinks?
I'd say pushing for Moscow so quickly.
The Germans tried to do Barbarossa like they did Poland and western Europe; encircle the enemy, destroy their armies, and by extension their ability to fight. More than 4 million Ivan dispatched later though, and there was still plenty of Soviets to go, with the Germans having outrun their supply lines and left themselves vulnerable to counterattack, and also having lost too many of their core veterans to make an offensive on the same scale again.
With this in consideration I would have not pressed as far, and given myself ample time to construct strong winter quarters to weather soviet counterattacks before starting fresh again in the summer to gradually break the soviets down. One could argue that Germany was incapable of waging a protracted war, but keep in mind that exempting counterattacks that were utterly crushed, they had the Russians on the back foot until Kursk; well after the disaster at Stalingrad.
>>753693
>that last panel
Kek
>>753185
Is this going to end in a "It was all murika you eurofags" kind of statement?
>>752843
Pretty much this. When he wasnt over ruling generals who know far more than he, he was dismissing them, or just ignoring them completely and doing his own thing. Not to mention his horrendous use of resources. 250k toops in Norway, to stop an invasion that never came, nor was likely to come. Divisions of SS troops posted to the camps and "cleaning up" behind the advancing forces and wasting valuable time effort, and resources that Germany didn't have on wonder weapons, that would have no overall impact on the war, such as pic related, perhaps the most autistic of his wonder weapons.
>>753753
You forgot the Uboat forts
>>753111
>>753081
You are seriously uneducated about WW2. Please read up on the subject before you start lecturing other people.
Nobody did anything after Poland. There was no resolve to go to war over Poland. They declared war and then did NOTHING.
France and England fought exclusively defensively.
Barbarossa was Hitler's biggest mistake.
>>753718
Vyzama,Uranus.
>>753814
Because they were seriously underprepared you idiot. And especially once France got knocked over, Britain wasn't capable of waging war on the continent alone.
But you know, there was that whole area bombing. There was the strictest rationing system Britain ever underwent which actually lasted until after the war. There was the commitment to a new national purpose of breaking German power.
The resolve was there post Poland. The means came later, but they were more or less inevitable without a German ability to strike a decisive blow against the United Kingdom.
You are seriously uneducated about WW2. Please read up on the subject before you start lecturing other people. I would start here, it uses short words and simple sentences that you would probably understand, but it is quite informative.
http://www.amazon.com/Bomber-Command-Zenith-Military-Classics/dp/0760345201
>>753814
>Barbarossa was Hitler's biggest mistake
No, Hitler's biggest mistake was going into Barbarossa with absolute shit for intelligence and logistics.
Promising the French and British that he wouldn't try to claim anymore land.
>>753243
>not knowing half of German economics relied on Wehrmacht 7 years prior to war
>>752825
Attacking into Russia. Russia is big.
Getting allied with Japan was also stupid.
>>753981
Why was getting allied with the nips such a bad idea? I mean it couldn't have done any harm and they did do a good job of fucking up the brits in asia until murca fucked their shit up.
>>754052
because the japanese were always likely to attract the ire of the americans
and because the japanese were always very unlikely (to say the least) to help against the soviet union
(nor capable, really)
so for the dubious benefit of keeping some commonwealth divisions occupied, you ultimately have pushed usa closer into war
>>754069
Not him, but the U.S.A. was already in an undeclared war against Germany even before Pearl Harbor. Lend-Lease alone to Britain was huge, and the expanding of the free trade protected zone in the Atlantic was constantly expanding eastwards.
>>754112
the german-japan close ties date from back before the war, and at the time of the signing of the tripartite pact, lend lease to britain was not yet in effect
>>753607
Russia was invaded in June, dumbass.
1. Barbarossa
2. Losing Battle of Britain
3. Losing Battle of Atlantic
4. Giving two shits about Africa
5. The structure of the German military
6. Ego
>>754159
Africa was kind of important. When it fell, he needed nearly 50 divisions to prop up Italy and prevent subsequent landings elsewhere in southern France (eventually failed) or in Yugoslavia or Greece.
Meanwhile, due to the terrible infrastructure in Libya, he was holding them off with 2 divisions in 1941, and 5 or 6 in 1942.
The problem wasn't investment in North Africa, it was investing in the wrong sort of force, of trying to attack and take Suez, rather than viewing it as a necessary defensive front while you concentrate elsewhere.
>>754174
>rather than viewing it as a necessary defensive front while you concentrate elsewhere.
wasn't that kinda like the german high command's goal?
except erwin "the best general ever" rommel decided it would be better to take his limited forces with even more limited supplies and go around launching offensives?
>>754183
It was Halder's, and the General Staff's goal.
It wasn't Rommel's goal, it wasn't Hitler's goal. And by appealing to Der Fuhrer, Hitler overrode the generals once again, and yeah, suddenly it's Suez or bust.
>>754174
>trying to defend the shores of the entire continent of Europe rather than creating a reactionary strategy, which was fucking inevitable
He did fuckall except defeat the Polish and French armies. He was a complete failure militarily. His mistakes are too numerous to list. When Paris fell, he had enormous advantages and fucked it all up in a few years. I could go on forever about his mistakes.
>declaring war on America
>exercising personal control over every single fucking military decision
I'd want to say going to war in the first place since nothing Germany could've done would've ended in victory, but then Nazi Germany's entire economy was fucking retarded and didn't work and was practically geared around needing to conquer and pillage things so welp
>>752825
Seriously believing their own lies concerning Germany's ability to just win against everyone ever.
>>752825
The Blitz easily.
Air power was new so nobody knew how to use it.
Had they just bombed factories and runways they would have won based on the numbers prior to the blitz.
>>756177
>Had they just bombed factories and runways they would have won based on the numbers prior to the blitz.
No, they would have done the exact opposite. Which is lose. Based on the numbers, the Luftwaffe was suffering unsustainable, irreplaceable losses. While the RAF strength was growing. At no point during the Battle of Britain was the home side close to losing.
Hitler could have beat the USSR if he avoided Stalingrad. Panzers are not meant for urban combat. Just bypass the goddamn city and fight them on the steppes.
ITT: Armchair "historians"
>>756238
"ITT"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzYGWF6qrts
>>756238
>The single phrase guy who gives no insight
>>752825
His most fatal mistake was letting the allies disembark in normandy.
He literally had the forces ready to attack them but decided to pull out at the last moment
>>752825
Hands down starting a two front war with Russia because they did not see the English special forces in Africa as a threat because of their low numbers
