Top 5 biggest mistakes

History rather indicates otherwise.

As for "taking Britain out of the war" I can see a way that Germany might have done it but certainly not Hitler and probably not the Nazis. Even then winning vs the Soviets is problematic.

 

Ladie and Gentelmen:

According to the German Records Herman Goering proposed puttin the ME 262 in production in 1942. Hugo Sperrelle convincd A. Hitler that the ME 109 and the FW 190 would win the war. Sperrelle did not thing the US Bombers would be a great problem.

We know different.

As Ever,

Walter L. Marlowe

( Airborne All the Way)

 

5. General Clark... of course!
4. Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, just attacking Britain and a good portion of the Pacific would be under their control
3. Germany's declaration of war against the United States on December 11, 1941.
2. Barbarossa at the time, at least... if I were Hitler (which I am so damn happy I'm not,) I would've focused my army/navy/airforce on Britain. Once they were gone, I would go for Russia and then the Untied States.
1. Last but not least... the war itself! LOL

 

Hitler lost the Battle of Britain. He simply did not have the strength to mount a cross-channel assault on England and Barbarossa made a certain degree of sense if one believes erroneously with Hitler that Russia was a rotten barn that only needed a good kick to bring down.

 

I'm interested,do tell.

 

Couldnt, write my top five, I just couldnt shortlist it to this number when I took into consideration all the countries fighting. Too many stupid decisions, different if you said top twenty or thirty.
phew! too much to think about!

 

The Luftwaffe had little need for single seat gliders in the 1942-4 period as that is all these aircraft would have been if they had been produced earlier.
Simple fact is, the engines for the Me 262 were not ready for operational use until mid 44, and even then they were still highly unreliable.

 

But do you not think that bomber command would not have been peeing themselves over an aircraft that could not be matched by anything at the time? (Speedwise).

If the 262 was in the air do you not think they would have sorted out the "kinks" faster by combat then on the drawing board?

 

Therein lies the problem, the engine turbine blades couldn't be perfected, and they weren't even correct when they were pressed into service. Of course they would have "loved" to have something like them, but the people doing the work on them couldn't produce the stinkers any sooner than they did.

And even at that they produced engines which wouldn't have been accepted into an allied airpark. The "kinks" were production problems due to lack of alloy for the turbine blades, the "hollow" blade design was their best effort, and a terrible solution as per reliablity. Of course if the "powers that were" hadn't abandoned the Ohaim centrifugal engine (like the Whittle design) in favor of the Wagner axial flow system, they MIGHT have gotten a more reliable turbojet into service faster.

 

The only way I see to do it is via a negotiated settlement. To get that the Germans have to offer something that the Britts really want. Evacuating Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and possibly most of France might be enough. Hitler couldn't/wouldn't do it. I doubt any of the Nazis could/would.

 

About your point 2 :Hitler had 2 options in 194O 1) sitting on his a...and waiting for the UK ,the USA and the USSR to rearming,or 2)eliminate one of the three (the only possible the USSR) . You have another alternative .

 

So you dont think germany could have taken england out of the war militarily?I disagree(of course),
he should have reached some settlement but he probably thought if it was tough for germany to get across the channel it would be doubley tough for england.Especially if war with the US wasnt on the horizon.

 

How? By 1939 the Wehrmacht is totally unsuited for attacking Great Britain. If changes are made earlier than that to make it possible Britain has time to react and it's far from clear that a Germany that can realistically attack Great Britain with enough force to take her out of the war is capable of conquering Poland and France.

 

5. The Maginot Line. The very name suggest stagnancy.
4. Dieppe. What for?
3. Citadel. Why wait? Why even try?
2. Kasserine. Necessary Baptism of Fire? Or Necessary Leader Change?
1. Barbarossa. Period.

 

The line achieved its objective of diverting troops away from France, the problem is that when it was built Belgium was allied with France, when it became neutral there was simply not enough time to extend the line. It would have been unwise for France to built heavy defenses between it and its ally.

 

That is too true, The Maginot Line in north and northeast France was built in distinct phases of construction:

1930-1936. Construction of the fortifications in the two areas most threatened by German invasion. These became two fortified regions (régions fortifiées) – Metz and Lauter – also called either the Maginot Line Proper or the Old Fronts (anciens fronts). RF Metz protected the industrial and mining areas around Metz and the main railroads of Lorraine. RF Lauter protected northern Alsace from the Sarre area to the Rhine River. These sections of the Maginot line were the strongest built.

The second building/construction time was in the1936-1939 period after the German re-occupation of the Rhineland, RF Metz was extended west to Montmedy and RF Lauter was extended west to the Sarre region. These parts of the Line became known as the Maginot Line Extension or New Fronts (nouveaux fronts). Fortifications were also constructed to fill the Sarre Gap between RF Metz and Lauter and in the Lille-Maubeuge area along the primary invasion route from Belgium. Finally, the casemates of the Rhine defenses were built. In some cases the high water table of the land between Belgium and northern France precluded the same type of "line" as was previously constructed.


Italy, Finland, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Belgium and the USSR all built, or improved, defensive lines, in the inter-war years, although these varied hugely in their nature and design.

1936 March 7 German troops re-enter the de-militarized Rhineland in defiance of the Treaty of Locarno.

1936 March 7 German Foreign Minister Konstantin von Neurath informs the other signatories to the Locarno Treaties that Germany now considers those Treaties to have been broken by France. The French military alliance with Russia, von Neurath says, is obviously directed at Germany and consequently Germany will reoccupy the Rhineland by moving troops into the de-militarized zone. Germany offers to sign a pact of nonaggression with Belgium and France, to sign an Air Force agreement with all Western Powers, and to reenter the League of Nations if its Charter is independent of the Versailles Treaty. None of these proposals are acted upon by the Western Powers.

1936 March Britain, Italy and Belgium at the League of Nations 12-18 Council in London make it clear to France that even if Germany's reoccupation of the Rhineland is a violation of Versailles, it is not cause enough for war.

1936 October 22 Belgium declares martial law to combat Rexist (native Nazi party) violence.

And three years later, after Poland is invaded, on Sept. 4th, 1939 Belgium declares its neutrality leaving its ally France in the lurch with no defensive fortifications between the two completed.

The line was a "good idea" if you were fighting the static war of The Great War, but only served to "funnel" the German invasion toward the channel when they made their move. Also having the CIC (Gamelain) holed up in a chateau at Vincennes with no telephone, or radio communications was as dumb as a bag of hair in the fast moving war which flowed over the French like a burst dam.