Did Hitler really believe he could win? (European, invaded, state)

[Boompa]

Hiter didn't plan to fight the US, he thought there were enough corporate fascists here to keep the US out. He also thought Britain would make peace. His objective was the Soviet Union and an excellent German Staff Study done in the mid 1930s stated that by 1944 the Soviet Union would surpass German industrial power. That meant that he had to conquer the Sooviet Union before 1944.
That was pretty much the main part of his planning.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Well he had delusions of grandeur, made a lot of foolish decisions.etc that were counterintuitive, so I think it's quite plausible that he might have deluded himself into believing he had a chance...which I guess would show he did believe he could win after all.

I'm curious what decisions you point to as counterintuitive?

To me, Hitler's mistakes begin with the decision to invade Poland. He grossly miscalculated the resolve of the west to finally try and stop him. When war with the west did happen his next fatal error was the invasion of the Soviet Union, done against the advice of many even in his inner circle. However, I can't necessarily think Hitler was too off base in thinking he had a real chance for success against the Soviets.

France had been the preeminent military power in Europe and the Germans had beaten them in a matter of weeks. Most considered the Soviets no more then a "paper tiger". They had suffered horrendously in the war against Finland, their officer corps was decimated during the purges and the populace had suffered extensively under the 5-year plans. There was nothing to indicate the Soviets would have had a chance to beat him.

Hitler's advisers were concerned about the ability of the army to take so much territory, but they believed that all they really needed to do was deliver a couple decisive defeats and the Soviets would cave. Overall, while this was ultimately Hitler's greatest mistake, I'm not sure that he was too delusional in thinking they actually had a chance. Where he ultimately failed was not thinking about what would happen when the initial successes were achieved and the Soviets weren't begging for surrender. From there on out we get a spiral of mental degradation, drug use and increasing paranoia that led to catastrophe.

Originally Posted by nightbird47

An army is only as good as its generals, but when their knowledge is not valued, it doesn't help much. Stalin had much the same problem, but simply wiped out his top layer periodically just incase, which he paid for later. Hitler just listened to those who said what he wanted to hear, weather it had real authority behind it or not.

The interesting case with Stalin is that while he had a massive distrust of his generals, they represented the greatest threat to his power, over the course of the war he deferred to them more and more. Once he found what he considered his loyal and capable generals, Zhukov being the foremost among them, Stalin steps back and let's them conduct the war. Hitler on the other hand started with one of the best officer corps in the world and then followed a pattern of dismantling them in favor of those who agreed with him regardless.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Stalin was only surprised by the timing of the invasion not its inevitability.

I think that's an important piece to remember. War between the two was an invetibalitiy. Even if the Soviets had joined the Axis, as was discussed on here several times was a real possibility, there would eventually be war between them. The only way to prevent that, in my mind, was Hitler to have not pursued his claims in Poland. If he had never taken that step, the war would have played out very differently and may have taken years to happen.

It only became an impossibility once the Germans lost the Battle of Britain.

I don't agree with that part. An invasion of Britain was never possible and it was considered a virtual impossibility almost from the beginning. The plan called for total domination of both the sky and the sea. While the Germans had a chance to gain the former, the latter was never going to happen and they knew it. They also completely lacked the transport assets to get the troops there and then keep them supplied.

Look at D-Day and then realize that the Germans could not have even mounted an attack with a tenth of what was involved in that operation.

I think you have it right on this point. Absent the attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war, I think that it would have been impossible for Roosevelt to muster public opinion for a war to liberate Europe.

Another good point and another opponent Hitler underestimated. It is rather ironic that he overestimated the one major opponent he easily beat and then grossly underestimated the resolve and ability of the two that had the largest impact on his loss.

I think it would have been very interesting to see what FDR would have done following Pearl Harbor if Hitler and Mussolini had not declared war on the US. Hitler fully believed that FDR did declare a defacto state of war with Germany in his speech following Pearl Harbor and his declaration was in response to that. However, I wonder if FDR could have mustered the US for anything more then a war against Japan if Hitler had not made it easy for him? I think he could have, but it would have been a very interesting debate and made for a more divided US.

On the other hand...

Since we are dealing with counter-factual arguments, absent a war in the Pacific I think that a German take over the Suez canal would have been untenable to the U.S. and I think that Roosevelt would have been able to at the very least could have found the political backing for dispatching the U.S. Navy to the Med to prevent such a take over. But that just idle speculation on my part.

It's hard to say for sure. In the time before Pearl Harbor; France had fallen, the Soviets were on the ropes and the British had just moved off the precipice at home, but were still fighting for their lives in North Africa. FDR was doing all he could to be as involved as possible without declaring war, but the average American was still heavily slanted against getting involved directly. I don't know what moment would have been enough to tip the US to direct intervention.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I'm not feeling that argument.

I'm not seeing how the D-Day invasion would have been successful against three times the divisions that were present in all of western Europe. Even in Italy, despite the surrender of the Italians and the number of troops on the eastern and western fronts, Allied forces still hadn't broken out of Italy.

I think Italy is a bad example. The Allies never committed a large number of troops and the terrain itself is perfect for fighting a drawn out defensive war. However, I agree with the broad example. No war against the Soviets, or a Soviet surrender would have made for a much bloodier war. I still don't think it would have been a German victory, but the cost would have been much, much higher with a good chance of a negotiated peace.

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Stalin was only surprised by the timing of the invasion not its inevitability.

I agree. Stalin had warning of the impending attack but chose to doubt Hitler's intention to attack.

It only became an impossibility once the Germans lost the Battle of Britain.

I believe that amphibious assaults are virtually impossible without virtual control of the air. How many amphibious landings have not had control of the air. Germany was no where close to controlling the air to the point the Allies did at the time of D-Day. Also, what experience did the Germans have with amphibious landings? The Americans had gained considerable experience with this type of warefare in the Pacific. This would have been the first for Germany.

I think you have it right on this point. Absent the attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war, I think that it would have been impossible for Roosevelt to muster public opinion for a war to liberate Europe.

On the other hand...


Since we are dealing with counter-factual arguments, absent a war in the Pacific I think that a German take over the Suez canal would have been untenable to the U.S. and I think that Roosevelt would have been able to at the very least could have found the political backing for dispatching the U.S. Navy to the Med to prevent such a take over. But that just idle speculation on my part.

My responses in bold above.

If Rommel had not been stopped 225 miles from the Suez Canal by the British at El Alamein in the summer of 1942, it would have been extremely difficult for Roosevelt to do anything about the Canal with the US Navy. The US could have blockaded the canal but how would the Navy have stopped the capture or regained control?

The British Navy's ability to control the Mediteranean was vital to the outcome of the war.

[erasure]

I think that's an important piece to remember. War between the two was an invetibalitiy.

NJ, I don't get it quite honestly, why everybody thinks that war between Germany and Soviet Union was an inevitability as in "if Hitler wouldn't have attacked first, Stalin would have attacked Germany later."
Why? What makes everyone to think so?
It was Germany that needed Russia's territory and resources, what would Russia get from Germany? Russia is a country which always remains in a state of perpetual semi- disorder ( no matter what others see from aside,); she is always preoccupied with internal problems, real or perceived, yet on another hand it's a country that doesn't need anything from anyone, really; she has vast territories, all the reaches in terms of natural resources, so for Russians it only makes sense to shut the borders and to let the rest of the world to fight it out.

[Irishtom29]

Given that the Germans defeated Russia in the Great War it was not unresonable of them to think they could do it again.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Given that the Germans defeated Russia in the Great War it was not unresonable of them to think they could do it again.

Maybe if they were only fighting on one front, but there's no way Germany could have sustained fighting both the Western Allies and Soviets on two fronts at the same time for very long, Russian winter or no Russian winter.

[lucknow]

Originally Posted by erasure

NJ, I don't get it quite honestly, why everybody thinks that war between Germany and Soviet Union was an inevitability as in "if Hitler wouldn't have attacked first, Stalin would have attacked Germany later."
Why? What makes everyone to think so?
It was Germany that needed Russia's territory and resources, what would Russia get from Germany? Russia is a country which always remains in a state of perpetual semi- disorder ( no matter what others see from aside,); she is always preoccupied with internal problems, real or perceived, yet on another hand it's a country that doesn't need anything from anyone, really; she has vast territories, all the reaches in terms of natural resources, so for Russians it only makes sense to shut the borders and to let the rest of the world to fight it out.

Well it seems that Russia today has finally arrived at that point but historically that has not been the case. Russia has created and maintained the largest continentel empire in history. This aim did not change from Imperial Russia to the communist USSR. If anything at all it got worse. The stated aim of the so called international comintern was world revolution but it really was just plain old Russian Imperialism in a different form. Just think about the USSR prior to the German invasion. They were fighting a war in Finland with the aim of adding Finland to the empire. They invaded and took over half of Poland as soon as the Germans invaded Poland. They had designs in the middle east and central Asia including the ever problematic Afghanistan. Their agents were busy formenting revolution all over the world.

The entire idea of Germany needing Russia's territory and resourses is really a secondary and not a primary cause of war between these two opposing systems. The primary cause was the historical animosity between the Slavic and Tuetonic civilizations. This same aspect was one of the causes of WW1 also. The Germans just could never figure out why the biggest Tuetonic power, Great Britian, would not join them in the fight against what they percieved to be Asiatic barbarians who if given a chance would destroy western civilization. Always keep in mind that Hitler and all the right wing movements that sprang up in Germany after WW1 blamed the communists and the Jews which to them was the same thing, for causing Germany to lose the war. The old stab in the back that Hitler was always raving about. There actually is an element of truth to it but that's another story.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Given that the Germans defeated Russia in the Great War it was not unresonable of them to think they could do it again.

I don't think it was a real reason behind it; one should know that defeating a country in the middle of the civil war is not the same as to fight it under the normal circumstances. Hitler's belief was founded on his vision of necessity to acquire the landmass and resources. Without this essential part his plan simply couldn't exist. So saying that Hitler made a mistake when he attacked Russia is to say that Hitler made a mistake to have his vision of a Third Reich to begin with.
It's not about rationality so to speak ( "Mein Kampf" is a good proof of it,) it's all about someone's vision, ( distorted at that.) Someone wanted to be a new messiah - plain and simple.

[Huckleberry3911948]

he bet his all on super weapons. it was a huge bet that numbers were meaningless if u had the super weapons. we make the same mistake today as did hitler b4.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by lucknow

Well it seems that Russia today has finally arrived at that point but historically that has not been the case. Russia has created and maintained the largest continentel empire in history. This aim did not change from Imperial Russia to the communist USSR. If anything at all it got worse. The stated aim of the so called international comintern was world revolution but it really was just plain old Russian Imperialism in a different form. Just think about the USSR prior to the German invasion. They were fighting a war in Finland with the aim of adding Finland to the empire.

You mean returning Finland to the empire? ( Because remember - Finland used to be part of Russian empire ( as much as Baltic countries and Western Ukraine - those were the lands that Bolshevik government surrendered to Germans during the treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) in exchange of getting out of WWI. And getting out of war was essential for Bolshevik government in order to save their grip on power. Communist USSR was of course a successor of Russian empire - no doubt about it, as for "international Comintern" and its goal of "world revolution" - that's a bunch of hot air. You do have of course certain amount of people who are obsessed with those grand ideas, but it's a far cry from the whole population, because your average Russian peasant is preoccupied with his cow and his daily affairs; with world revolution? Not so much. What "world revolution" are you talking about, when half of the year you can't even make it from one village to another, because of the absence of decent roads ( as Germans have discovered it for themselves?) Don't pay attention what's going on in Moscow ( or few other big cities) - look what's going on in the rest of the country.

They invaded and took over half of Poland as soon as the Germans invaded Poland.

Do not forget that only less then twenty years before Poland was trying to occupy as many lands belonging to Russia as possible;

Polish

The bad blood between Poland and Russia goes back in centuries, not to mention that Poland originally was Germany's partner as well and she participated in partition of Czechoslovakia together with Germans in 1938.
Polish

So as with all empires ( even the older ones, as Poland,) it's "eat or be eaten," and Poland was not an exception.

They had designs in the middle east and central Asia including the ever problematic Afghanistan. Their agents were busy formenting revolution all over the world.

Of course as any empire they've had their own "sphere of interest," and part of Asia ( Central Asia to be precise) was it. It's just unlike British Empire that needed to search "far and wide" for colonies and sphere of interest around the world, Russia didn't like to venture too far away from her borders.
Russian agents "formenting revolution all over the world" - that's a bit farfetched; as any intelligence, they were snooping around the world, serving the empire as paranoid as that empire was in Soviet times.

The entire idea of Germany needing Russia's territory and resourses is really a secondary and not a primary cause of war between these two opposing systems.

If that's what you think, then you probably need to read this;

Generalplan Ost - General Plan East

"Finally, only weeks before the outbreak of war, Hitler hosted Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner for the Free City of Danzig, at his private retreat on the Obersalzberg. Hitler expressed his aims to Burckhardt in no uncertain terms:

"We need grain and timber. For the grain I need space in the east; for the timber I need a colony, only one [colony] ... Our harvests in 1938 and in this year were excellent. We can survive, in spite of the triumphant cries of others that we will starve ... However, one day the soil will have had enough ... What then? ... I do not harbor any romantic aims. I have no wish to rule. Above all I want nothing from the West; nothing today and nothing tomorrow. I desire nothing from the thickly settled regions of the world ... All of the notions that are ascribed to me by other people are inventions. However, I must have a free hand in the east. To repeat: it is a question of grain and timber, which I can find only outside of Europe."

"Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and too blind to comprehend this I will be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians, turn and strike the West, and then after their defeat turn back against the Soviet Union with my collected strength. I need the Ukraine and with that no one can starve us out as they did in the last war." [5]"

He ( Hitler) had to come up with convenient ideas about Slavs inferiority in order to justify why he could get what he wanted.
I've quoted the proof of it from his Mein Kampf earlier in this thread.