It costed him the war. He didn't have the resources to fight two major fronts (east and west). A dim fellow this one is.
shareThat's quite fortunate. Imagine THAT axis of evil!
shareI think when he invaded Poland sealed his fate. His generals told him it would be okay, but Britain and France immediately declared war, admitting they should have stopped Hitler long before it go to this horrible point. Yes, Hitler took over France and a large portion of Western Europe but he could never take Britain(nor did he really want to) so the allies were going to eventually win no matter what.
What Hitler should have done is listen to Admiral Donitz and not invade anyone until Germany had over 1,000 U-boats. Instead, Germany only had about 50 at the beginning of WWII.
Yes, it was Britain and France who declared the beginning of WWII lol.
I agree mostly. But 1000 U-boats? Seriously? You're not going to win a war with submarines. Not even with 10000. It's always the ground forces that win (conventional) wars. That's why he would have never been able to defeat England, as you rightly pointed out.
shareIKR, he was a screw-up he only preyed upon the weak/took advantage of a time where leaders went out of their way to fight another war. I wonder what he really could have achieved?
shareWhat I can't stand is those endless works of "alternate history" fiction that showed what would've happened if Hitler HAD succeeded every time! Examples are "Man in the High Castle", "SS-GB" and the Wolfenstein games. They seem to RELISH those works, like they secretly wanted it to happen for real, the TRAITORS!
The thing is, the Nazis wouldn't have been in control had -- as OP pointed out -- Hitler maintained an alliance with the Reds, which would have been his only way to secure any kind of victory.
At most he would have taken over large parts of Europe with Russia's help. He also would have had to step in and aid the Japanese at some point, otherwise China and the rest of Asia likely would have rallied and curb-stomped Japan. It would have been difficult maintaining world domination without additional allies, even with the Reds helping.
I think the Soviet uprising would have been inevitable regardless, though, and either they would have usurped control from the Nazis or forced them under their command at some point, especially if they reunited with China.
But you're right that the whole "If the Nazis won they would control the world!" propaganda is ridiculous even as alternate history, because at best they would have been sharing parts of their regional control with the Soviets, and at worst they would have dissolved under complete Soviet dominance.
The real alt-history would be a Soviet controlled world (even though that itself wasn't stable enough to last, as history has shown). But it would be a lot more interesting and realistic as an outcome.
While you mean the right thing and in almost all cases the "boots on the ground" principle is correct, this was a different situation.
England is an island that depends on imports. The idea of the u-boats was to cut the supplies off and it actually almost worked. It is always difficult to speculate but with more u-boats, especially later on, they could indeed have succeeded in cutting off the British islands. After a while, petrol, food and other supplies would have run out and Britain would not have been able to effectively defend their island from an invasion.
The invasion was prevented because there were not enough u-boats AND because the British still had supplies to fuel their fighters and fight the air war for Britain. With more u-boats, there would have been a nasty chain reaction leading to defeat.
Um...invading Russia and conquering the Soviet Union was (apart from eliminating all jews) Hitler's main goal from the beginning. It was inevitable for him to to break the pact sooner or later.
shareBut he was already fighting the western front AND diverting resources to the holocaust. He had enough on his plate already. So, diverting his attention to the East was a dumb move and a miscalculation on his part. He should've tried to conquer the Soviet Union after everything else was done.
Not to mention, he didn't learn from Napoleon's mistake trying to invade Russia in winter more than a century before. Hitler's military arsenal weren't equipped for winter.
Of course one could argue (with hindsight) that he should have ended the war 1940 after defeating France. At that point Germany was the undisputed ruler of Europe. But that was never his plan. In his mindset he was running out of time. He was still at war with England and Russia was constantly increasing its miltary capacities. There was also no plan of a winter war like Napoleon, of whom Hitler knew enough about. In his hubris he expected a swift victory against Russia in two or three months, starting the attack in May 1941.
Apart from that there is no "objective" scenario where he could have won a war against Russia, even if he would have waited longer.
Yeah, same with England. I think Hitler knew he had no chance with England. They were too powerful, so he left them alone.
shareWith England, it was the unpredictable weather in the English Channel, as well as their formidable Royal Navy, and not to mention the British air superiority thanks to Hitler losing the Battle of Britain.
If Hitler was more patient, England didn't have for long. However, Hitler didn't have quick success so he just turned against Russia. Don't forget Russia was the natural ennemy of fascists : communism.
shareHis first mistake was invading Poland. Poland was run by right wing anti Semitic aristocrats, his ideological buddies. He should have allied himself with Poland and invaded the Soviets instead of the other way around. The West wouldn't have gone into war against him over invading Soviet Union.
share