1941 may have been the most pivotal year of the war with regard to how the conflict escalated. Hitler made two decisions that changed the war for Germany... Invading the USSR and declaring war on the USA. Out of these two decisions, which one do you feel was more detrimental and why?
....considering the US just ''declared'' war at the end of 1941, and it took a looooong time just to get into '''gear'''/''start the ball rolling' [ including sending material to Russia ] 'etc [ many months ] , and Stalingrad was over in early 1943, the US was ''generally irrelevant'' ...the war was decidedly over in Feb 1943 [ if not 22 June 1941 ]
In the end the declaration of war to the US. The USSR had men and weapons and tanks, but needed boots, lorries and locomotives badly.
..like the rebels in the US Revolutionary War, and the North Viets in Vietnam, the USSR did not have to win--just not lose....hitler bit off more than he could chew
Russia also didn't have to fight a 2-front war. And the millions of troops brought to the MTO and ETO by the US, the largest Air Force in the war, and the largest Navy in the war, if Hitler didn't have to worry about the rear in the West and the Mediterranean. If the US only declared war on Japan and not on Germany, and Germany didn't declare, I think they could have made more gains in the East.
Expansion to the east was Hitler's fundamental goal, so invading Russia was not so much changing the course of the war as getting on with it. Of course his Ideal would have been to resolve issues in the west first, either by military victory or a diplomatic settlement with Britain, but once he realized that wasn't going to happen, it was time to get on with the main event. Saying Hitler should not have invaded Russia is basically saying he shouldn't have gone to war at all. We're still waiting to hear any benefit Hitler gained from declaring war on the US, other than a few months' "Happy Time" for U-boats in American waters. Even if we accept that the US would have entered the war eventually, Germany's situation would be no worse than when she initiated hostilities in December 1941. It's not like the US was going to wait a few months and pull a "Pearl Harbor" if Germany didn't strike first. Despite the "Germany First" policy, a hot war in the Pacific only could hardly fail to draw additional American resources.
I totally agree. Hitler's entire ideology regarded gaining "living space" in the East by force, and either enslaving or killing the masses. Sooner or later that was going to happen. Maybe I worded the question wrong, I think the point really was, if Germany and the USA didn't become belligerents, would the East have turned out differently, or was Hitler's stubborn ideology regarding the East more corrosive toward Germany's war effort than declaring war on the USA?
was Hitler's stubborn ideology regarding the East more corrosive toward Germany's war effort? It was more than that, not just corrosive to the war effort but rather to the fate of the German nation, and for the peoples of eastern Europe. If, like Hitler, we consider that expansion to the east was a necessity for Germany, then the question is not whether but when to start. Once it became clear that the British were not going to "be reasonable", there was little point in delay. There would be no threat of a major cross-Channel invasion or battlefront in western Europe. As the war dragged on without American involvement, potential resisters in the occupied countries would come to accept that there was not going to be a grand liberation. The British could carry on the war in the Mediterranean; the unfeasibility of a cross-Channel landing would free up troops, air forces, etc. for the Med (or the Far East). This would tie down no more German forces than it did historically. The "soft underbelly" was the most defensible terrain in Europe. There would be no daylight air offensive against Germany. Destruction of German industry would be reduced. The RAF would likely not be able to devote as much of its efforts to the bomber offensive as historically. The Luftwaffe could devote significantly more fighters and tactical aircraft to the main (Eastern) front. Overall, considerably more German combat power in Russia. The US would probably continue Lend-Lease, to the extent that it did not detract from the war in the Pacific. The latter would increase demand for items like Liberator and Catalina aircraft, escort carriers, landing craft (LSTs!), and shipping in general. One consequence, the US war against Japan would go faster, raising the prospect of Japan being defeated before the British could regain their Far Eastern colonies. Once they reopened the shipping lane through the Mediterranean, British ground troops would have little prospect of further decisive action in Europe, so they might refocus on the east, which would help Germany to concentrate on Russia.
