Why did Hitler not fuck Britain before invading Russia?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The RAF was on its last legs by the end of the 'Battle of Britain'. Indeed, if the Germans had stuck to attacking RAF airfields (instead of changing strategy and bombing London/cities) then Britain would have lost the air war.

Correction: At the beginning of the Battle of Britain the RAF was hopelessly in both quantity and quality of equipment as well as manpower. Hitler abandoned his plan to invade Great Britain precisely because the RAF had become superior to the Luftwaffe. At the end of that battle Great Britain had lost not quite 1000 of its crew and Germany a bit more than 4500. Between August and December 1940 the German fighter and bomber strength declined by 30 and 25 percent. The Luftwaffe kept shrinking while the RAF kept growing. On the personnel side, the Germans fared even worse. By September 1940 the Luftwaffe could crew only 67% of its remaining aircraft.

On September the 17th 1940 Hitler formally announced the abandonment of his plan to invade England because instead of the Luftwaffe gaining the necessary precondition of air superiority over the island, it was being smashed to bits, for the most part by the RAF.

Most of the stuff I've been talking about here revolves around having a modicum of common sense and an ability to reason to a basic degree.

Neither your modicum of common sense nor your common sense, whatever there is of it, is of any use without a third ingredient: facts.

The fact is that there was a time towards the end of August when the RAF was very much on its last legs and close to defeat. Only a change of tactics by the Germans enabled the RAF to gradually recover. Here, have a butcher's at this:

Göring soon realized success would not come easily. Not wanting to lose face with the Führer, he stepped up the pressure, throwing everything in his arsenal against the RAF, beginning on Saturday, August 24th. Over the next two weeks, the British suffered terribly, losing 466 planes. Fighter Command was desperately low on planes and pilots, flying its very last reserves. The Germans, by sheer weight of numbers, stood on the brink of victory.

But they didn't know this.

Aha! So it was hindsight!

[pErvinalia]

You'd do better to forget about what might have been and focus on what actually was. Perhaps then you would not need to ask the question "why the fuck did Hitler give up on defeating Britain before attacking Russia?" If you study what actually happened, you'd soon discover the answer.

You're making it sound as though Hitler acted correctly/objectively within the context of achieving an overall victory. That is very much questionable.

Whether Hitler's actions were "correct" is easily ascertained by looking at the results of his actions. He set out to conquer the world and finished up 10 metres below ground level of the totally destroyed capital of his totally destroyed nation, chasing a bullet through his skull a few hours before the victorious enemy would have dragged him out of his hidey hole that made his previous redoubt, the Wolfschanze, appear positively palatial, and hung him up by his balls.

Of course he never took responsibility for his failures. As far as he was concerned, his people failed him and his generals betrayed him. As the self-proclaimed GröFaZ he should have shouldered the lot. Any leader is responsible for what his underlings do, and especially so the greatest one of all times.

I neither said nor implied what you read into my words.

I read it the way Jamest is reading it. You suggest he'd find the answer to why Hitler gave up on defeating Britain by studying what actually happened. What actually happened was the Nazi's were defeated. So how does that answer James's question about why Hilter gave up on Britain.

[jamest]

I read it the way Jamest is reading it. You suggest he'd find the answer to why Hitler gave up on defeating Britain by studying what actually happened. What actually happened was the Nazi's were defeated. So how does that answer James's question about why Hilter gave up on Britain.

Hermit did provide a few reasons: the Luftwaffe were taking a beating (but that was mainly due to changing tactics); the naval force was not anywhere near ready (though my suggestion was that Hitler should have given it another year or so); and he was paranoid about Russia attacking Germany (which, as far as I'm aware, wasn't going to happen any time soon).

I am suggesting that Hitler made a mistake by not finishing Britain off first, even if it took another year or so. It doesn't appear to have been an impossible task. He also should also have avoided making a pact with Japan... mainly to avoid future war with the USA. Russia could wait until 1942.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know much about the war, but what the others are saying, if true, is a good reason why he turned back from Britain. If either one of, or both, the following was true: British naval power was too great for the Chermans to cross the channel; Russia was on the verge of invading Germany. I'd imagine the latter, if true, would be the biggest factor. You can't go conquering external territories if at the same time you lose your own.

[Hermit]

I read it the way Jamest is reading it. You suggest he'd find the answer to why Hitler gave up on defeating Britain by studying what actually happened. What actually happened was the Nazi's were defeated. So how does that answer James's question about why Hilter gave up on Britain.

Hitler abandoned Operation Sea Lion because his plan failed. The plan was to smash the RAF out of action. It was a prerequisite for launching the seaborne invasion, which was logistically hopelessly behind schedule as well. So the whole project was fucked. Perhaps he could have tried for however much longer it might take to eventually succeed, but he was panicking about Stalin's intentions. Right or wrong, the conversation with Mannerheim I linked to earlier made his anxiousness clear as daylight. He felt he was running out of time. He thought that if he didn't knock the Soviet Union out very, very soon, the Red Army would grow powerful enough to defeat the Wehrmacht. So he pulled most of his forces out of the west and sent them east.

In the end Hitler was wrong about pretty much everything. He thought he could knock Great Britain out in short order. that didn't happen Then he thought he could do his Blitzkrieg trick gain in the east, knock the commies out by occupying Moscow, have his troops back before Christmas, and get all his ducks lined up for finishing England late in the following spring. The scale of his miscalculations were monstrous.

So, no, I did not say or imply that Hitler was correct in his decisions. They may have started with glorious successes before the war went full tilt - Sudetenland, Austrian Anschluss, Tshechei, France and Poland. After those and the intermission known as the phony war he blundered from mishap to disaster and then on to catastrophe like a gambler who started off playing his cards right for several rounds, and then imagined the rules of the game did not apply to him, that he'll achieve anything because of his own sheer brilliance and will power.

In his own mind, and he actually said as much himself, he was the greatest military leader of all times - Größter Feldherr aller Zeiten. The German people were OK with that. Until Stalingrad turned into a debacle they hardly noticed that there was a war going on, except of course for a seemingly endless series of reports in the media about German victories. The war machine was only about 10 to 15% of the GDP, and created more employment opportunities besides, and casualties were acceptably low. All this changed when General Paulus surrendered to General Zhukov and the bits of the 6th army that had survived the attrition made their way to Siberia. Then the Germans, soldiers first, started to mockingly abbreviate Hitler's self-conferred title to GröFaZ. Most of the resistance movements developed from there, and with the exception of the White Rose the motivation for resistance was not based on moral grounds. From Admiral Canaris, through a whole heap of generals and soldiers and finally civilians resistance was based on the realisation that Hitler had fucked up big time and all was lost. there was just no point in continuing with the carnage and destruction.

Having rambled my way into a tangent it seems a good idea for me to stop now.

[pErvinalia]

edit: redacted, to avoid encouraging a nit-picking session.

[jamest]

I read it the way Jamest is reading it. You suggest he'd find the answer to why Hitler gave up on defeating Britain by studying what actually happened. What actually happened was the Nazi's were defeated. So how does that answer James's question about why Hilter gave up on Britain.

Hitler abandoned Operation Sea Lion because his plan failed. The plan was to smash the RAF out of action. It was a prerequisite for launching the seaborne invasion, which was logistically hopelessly behind schedule as well. So the whole project was fucked. Perhaps he could have tried for however much longer it might take to eventually succeed, but he was panicking about Stalin's intentions. Right or wrong, the conversation with Mannerheim I linked to earlier made his anxiousness clear as daylight. He felt he was running out of time. He thought that if he didn't knock the Soviet Union out very, very soon, the Red Army would grow powerful enough to defeat the Wehrmacht. So he pulled most of his forces out of the west and sent them east.

Then given that Stalin had no such intentions (that I'm aware of), do you agree that Hitler should have delayed invading Russia until May 1942 and focus first upon Britain?

[pErvinalia]

Hitler should have attacked Andalusia. That would have thrown the cat amongst the pigeons!

[Hermit]

Then given that Stalin had no such intentions (that I'm aware of), do you agree that Hitler should have delayed invading Russia until May 1942 and focus first upon Britain?

The negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was signed in August 1939 made it abundantly clear that a war between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union was bound to start in the not so distant future.

The chief negotiators were Ribbentrop on the German side and Molotov on the Soviet. Both of them were hopeless at hiding the ambitions of their respective leaders. Transcripts of all negotiation sessions are available for you to read if you care. The sides basically divided the bits of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa between themselves. Most of that was not problematic. The sticking points were the oil fields, particularly the ones in south eastern Europe. They were of utmost strategic importance to both, and the haggling was intense. Worse then that, each side was knew that the other was looking at the fields that were already owned and/or controlled by the "friend". Nobody had any doubt that this would eventually lead to a shot or two being fired a long time before it actually came to pass.

To spare you having to read another thousand words on the pact, I'll give you one cartoon that was published circa 1939.

[jamest]

Then given that Stalin had no such intentions (that I'm aware of), do you agree that Hitler should have delayed invading Russia until May 1942 and focus first upon Britain?

The negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was signed in August 1939 made it abundantly clear that a war between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union was bound to start in the not so distant future.

The chief negotiators were Ribbentrop on the German side and Molotov on the Soviet. Both of them were hopeless at hiding the ambitions of their respective leaders. Transcripts of all negotiation sessions are available for you to read if you care. The sides basically divided the bits of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa between themselves. Most of that was not problematic. The sticking points were the oil fields, particularly the ones in south eastern Europe. They were of utmost strategic importance to both, and the haggling was intense. Worse then that, each side was knew that the other was looking at the fields that were already owned and/or controlled by the "friend". Nobody had any doubt that this would eventually lead to a shot or two being fired a long time before it actually came to pass.

To spare you having to read another thousand words on the pact, I'll give you one cartoon that was published circa 1939.

That's all very interesting... really. But I'd like you to answer my question.

[Hermit]

"Why did Hitler not fuck Britain before invading Russia?" I gave my take on that often enough now. Whether Hitler should have delayed invading Russia until May 1942 and focus first upon Britain? is tied in with that. Apart from that, you might have noticed by now that I prefer to stay away from hypotheticals, particularly when it involves armchair generalship

[laklak]

As a general strategy you take on your most dangerous opponent first. This is true in a bar fight or a world war. There is no doubt the USSR posed a far greater threat to the Reich than Britain. The U.S. was a non-belligerent, not exactly neutral but not actively fighting. Hitler controlled Western Europe, Britain was isolated, and the U-boat wolfpacks were decimating trans-Atlantic shipping. It would be several years before Britain, even with the full support of the U.S., could effectively oppose Germany in mainland Europe. Both British and American strategists believed the Wehrmacht would kick seven shits out of the Red Army in short order. Yes, the USSR had the advantage in numbers, but Germany had the best land army in the world, highly trained, well-equipped and supremely confident, plus an experienced and effective officer corps and general staff that Hitler had wisely not liquidated, unlike Uncle Joe. Hitler had the support of the population, Stalin ruled through terror. On paper it was a non-contest. Pearl Harbor was a blow, for sure, but even though the U.S. officially entered the war it would still take several years (till '43, actually) to build a sufficient military presence to challenge Germany.

Adolf rolled the dice, but it was a calculated gamble, not a strategic mistake. His mistake came later, when he rolled on Kiev rather than Moscow after Smolensk. He wanted the Ukrainian oil fields, but his general staff disagreed, arguing that Moscow was the heart of the USSR. He ignored them, to his detriment. Had he taken Moscow before the winter of '41 world history might be very different.

Edit '43, not '44.

[jamest]

"Why did Hitler not fuck Britain before invading Russia?" I gave my take on that often enough now. Whether Hitler should have delayed invading Russia until May 1942 and focus first upon Britain? is tied in with that. Apart from that, you might have noticed by now that I prefer to stay away from hypotheticals, particularly when it involves armchair generalship

You're clearly too indecisive to become the next Hitler.

I am not aware of any evidence that Stalin was actually preparing to invade Germany in the early 1940s. Indeed, the initial successes of Barbarossa after June 22nd 1941 probably suggest that the Russians were totally unprepared for any war with Germany in that period of time.

All I have suggested here is that Hitler should have delayed invading Russia until April/May 1942, just 10/11 months later. Indeed, leaving the invasion until late June (1941) was another mistake as it basically failed to utilise several weeks of decent weather. You're obviously aware of how bad the Russian winters are, so every extra week mattered immensely.

Delaying until 1942 would have given the Germans loads of time to sort Britain out. Hence, to basically give up in September 1940 was one of the worst decisions of the war, imo. Hitler was so short-sighted in underestimating the value of defeating Britain:

i) Access to its empire and wealth/resources. Notwithstanding nullifying the significant contributions of troops from said empire.
ii) The elimination of the then mighty Royal Navy leading to absolute authority over the relevant waters (supply problems for Russia).
iii) A much-diminishing likelihood that the USA would become involved (though, again, he also fucked-up by making a pact with Japan).
iv) The war in The West would be over. There would be no need to have armies there or in North Africa, etc.. All eyes could be to The East.

All that... just by delaying Barbarossa by 10 or 11 months. Also, by delaying until 1942 he would have more time to prepare and could have gone earlier in the year (April/May instead of late June) and would have had more time to get to Moscow etc. before winter set in.

I honestly think that Hitler/Germany could have won WW2, but it all hinged upon beating Britain before invading Russia. And I think that he had the time to do it. Obviously, I'm glad that he fucked it up.

[Hermit]

Keep speculating to your heart's content, general. I prefer to look at what actually happened.

[Hermit]

Adolf rolled the dice, but it was a calculated gamble, not a strategic mistake. His mistake came later, when he rolled on Kiev rather than Moscow after Smolensk. He wanted the Ukrainian oil fields, but his general staff disagreed, arguing that Moscow was the heart of the USSR. He ignored them, to his detriment. Had he taken Moscow before the winter of '41 world history might be very different.

Oh, look, another armchair general with a should/could have been done thesis. Yes, the Wehrmacht had superior training, superior leadership and superior equipment, but crucially, those advantages did not make up for its lack of staying power and resources. Once the short, sharp shock of yet another Blitzkrieg sank into the mud before being able to deliver its knockout blow, Germany's defeat was no longer a matter of if. It became a question of when. As in Napoleon's case 125 years earlier, taking Moscow would not have won the war. The bulk of the Soviet Union's manufacturing industry had already been moved east of the Urals. For the administrative part to do likewise, if necessary, would have been easy in comparison.

Initially, both men and machinery of the Soviet forces were literally ordnance absorption devices, to be eliminated at will. Men were sent in to attack the invaders regardless of whether they even had a rifle or not. Tanks, some without shells for their cannon, accompanied the infantry, and the lot was pulverised without being able to do a lot of damage to the enemy. So what, if the Germans knocked out four or six tanks for the loss of one of their own. No matter if entire divisions, even armies, got minced into non-existence in exchanger for just a few thousand Landsers and nary an officer. The point of the exercise was to slow the Hun down, to buy time for more equipment and human cannon fodder can be moved up to the front. Stalin could afford to do that. Lost half a million men in eight weeks? No worries, here come another million, and another, and another. 400 tanks? No worries, another 800 coming straight up from behind them. They may be rough and rushed to the point of some of them not even getting a coat of paint before leaving the factories, but there are an awful lot of them. Quantity more than made up for quality, and then things got worse for the Germans: Quality improved...

A huge handicap for the Germans was that intelligence was really shit. Their maps were sketchy, and nobody knew how crappy the roads that actually did exist were until they got there. As for the railway, well, the railway's gauge was different to the German system. Everything that went east had to be unloaded from one wagon and reloaded on to another at least once. The biggest intelligence failure was probably something else to do with the railway. OKHQ was led to believe that only one track crossed the Urals. In fact, there were three. Result? Massive miscalculation by the Germans in regard to the volume of war personnel and material they could bring online. Nobody should have been surprised that the wonder army was brought to a halt, then inexorably driven back in the east. Despite the qualitative inferiority of the Reds they inflicted 80% of German casualties. Of course it comes as no surprise that the Soviet Union also suffered the brunt of allied losses. The roll-up of western Europe by the allies was of course very photogenic, and Hollywood wasted no time exploiting that, adding attention focusing on the war in the west, but in comparison to the east, human and material losses by both the allied and axis powers were comparatively light.

Yes, I know that Hitler expected to win Operation Barbarossa hands down. he famously told one of his generals during the planning stage that it takes only one kick through the door and the whole rotten hovel will come crashing down, and plenty of important people among the allies feared that he was most probably right. They all ignored the historical fact that economic capacity will always prevail over military power in the long run. There is only one exception, the Roman Empire, but the Romans managed their expansion rather differently. With the notable exception of the Carthaginians, they did not destroy their enemies. They integrated them as allies to the point that many of the leaders of their former enemies actually became Roman citizens. Eventually, some Roman emperors were not even born anywhere near Rome. So, no matter how many people thought the Third Reich had a realistic chance of winning the war outright, it was never on as soon as the Blitzkrieg started to run behind schedule, and that wasn't long time coming.

Everything became unexpected. Only a few weeks into the invasion the German forces encountered unexpected resistance. Having to fight into the winter was unexpected. That's why so many soldiers froze to death. Nobody expected them to be still there when winter gear was needed. A year after the campaign started, the elite shock troops couldn't believe their ears when some of their units were ordered to execute a small, temporary, tactical withdrawal. The need for retreat was unexpected. The 6th army did not expect to get surrounded, and when that happened it did not expect to be abandoned.

Eventually, China will be economically much more powerful than the USA and its allies. It will then start controlling the USA and if it encounters undue resistance it will use force of arms I bet that nobody expects that. Fools.