And if look at a map, the only way to Arkhangelsk is a narrow strait (?), so you could bomb ships easily from Murmansk. And if Murmansk fell to German hands, propably also the Kola Peninsula. So, you could control the traffic to Arkhangelsk.
Basically, for Germany the biggest mistake was to start the war years before their industries and armed forces were up to it. But on the other hand, by 1939 the French and British had finally figured out the need to mobilize and modernize their armies, and it's really a question unanswered whether waiting would have worked for or against the Germans.
From 1939 onwards time definately played against Germany. As you said, France and Britain had finally seriously undertaken their rearmament and were likely to reduce the lead Germany had gained in the mid 30's. Also, the Soviet Union was strongly reinforcing it's armed services after they reached a low point in 1938-39 due to Stalin's purges. The years 1938 and 1939 were the most favourable for Germany to start the war.
I'd have to say that it was when Hitler declared war on the U.S., as he already had his hands full in Russia. KBO
I'd say the biggest mistake Hitler made was to forget some words of wisdom from President Abraham Lincoln:- "One war at a time."
KBO wrote: I knew we would agree on something eventually Declaring war on the US made no sense whatsoever. It was inexplicable. Hitler apparently made the decision without informing his Generals or Ministers as it seemed to take them by surprise as well. (not unusual for Hitler, it is true)
I see our past disagreements as minor ones Declaring war on the U.S., was what cost the Germans their victory in the east, aswell as everywhere else. Hitler simply had his hands full already, but he suffered from greatness-insanity and made his biggest blunder yet. Hitler could have taken Russia had he not declared war on the U.S.. And had Hitler waited for Russia to fall before declaring war on the U.S., then his chances would have been alot bigger. One thing is for sure, if Russia had fallen with Stalingrad in 41, then there would 'never' be an Allied invasion from the west. It would simply cost to many lives, and the chances for succes were far below the chances for defeat. Best regards, KBO.
I'd say both these things are open to debate, but obvously Hitler's declaring war on the greatest industrial power in the world after already taking on the next three in the list was quite the worst idea he could have had. There was no way in which the Germans could have even touched the US, with the RN and RAF still going strong to prevent them from crossing any ocean to reach them and the Red Army in the field to keep the Wehrmacht more than busy. However the Americans had more than the means to "touch" the Germans for the same reasons. The world may once again be thankful for Hitler's idiocy... (and America's willingness not to see it as lunacy but to act against him instead)
Has anyone ever heard of any talks to try to get the Japanese to take some form of action against the Soviet Union. I would imagine they would be a bit reluctant to following their defeat by Khukov at Chalchin-Gol.
How about the Allies failiure to take advantage of the surprise capture of Antwerp's port facilities intact and allowing the Germans to build up defences to cover its approaches?
That was Montgomery's doing; he took the city but failed to secure the Scheldt Estuary for reasons he never made clear. The islands in that estuary were undefended when Monty took the city, but the Germans quickly corrected that. Ejecting the Wehrmacht cost a lot of Allied casualties.
The worst of this error was that the encircled 15th Army made it up north to the south bank of the Scheldt Estuary and managed to cross before the Allies made a move on the defences there. Thus the Germans could not only block the port of Antwerp for use by the Allies, but they also regained access to several divisions for their OOB. Some of these divisions, notably the 245th Volksgrenadier, had a vital influence on Market-Garden...
Hitler bringing Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen back to Germany thus making their getting back into the Atlantic harder and Britain's failiure to catch them on the move (although RAF Bomber Command did get some revenge in the form of mine damage to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and bomb hits on Gneisenau at Kiel and virtually burning parts of her out.
Churchill's escapade in the Balkans using forces that might have kicked the Italians out of North Africa before Rommel arrived. However, it has been said by some this also delayed Barbarossa and by others that this is a load of bollocks.
To be honest, I don't think the presence of british troops in Greece delayed the end of the balkan campaign for more than several days.(Crete excepted). Germany would have had to help Italy against Greece anyway(even if the british army had not been present), and the anti-german military coup in Belgrade convinced Hitler to attack Yugoslavia too, thus making the whole campaing lasting 2-3 weeks longer. Had Britain used the forces it wrongly send to Greece in Lybia, there would have been a good chance to wipe the italians definately out of Lybia, before Rommel arrived. Churchill should have known that the few troops and planes he was able to deploy in Greece would stand no chance once Hitler decided to unleash a somewhat significant part of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe against them.