Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hitler lost on diplomacy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hitler lost on diplomacy

    The biggest failure of Nazi Germany to win WWII was in its failure to utilize potential allies. By appealing to a variety of nations Germany could have defeated the combined allies. Against England Hitler should have been able to ally with Ireland and Spain, both of which had territorial conflicts with the UK (Northern Ireland and Gibralter respectively). Against the USSR, England and France Hitler should have been able to add Turkey (to reclaim lost Ottoman territory from WWI). He also failed to court the rest of the Arab world, both to overthrow western colonialism, and also against the Jews. Finally, he lost against Stalin by failing to sow insurrection among various soviet held states like the Ukraine. Instead he viewed all of the USSR as one nationallity, which united them against him. If he had been able to play all these cards, not just the week hand of Italy and Japan, his legacy would be a thousand year reich.
    "America has gone to hell since John Wayne died". - Al Bundy

    "One finger is all any real American needs"

    "A gesture is worth a thousand words - but you usually only need two"

  • #2
    'Factoring out' the diplomatic issues you mentioned would perhaps have resulted in another outcome (not necessarily the one you seem to expect), but if it had behaved as you suggest we would not be discussing the Germany governed by Nazi ideology.
    BoRG

    You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You - Leon Trotski, June 1919.

    Comment


    • #3
      Economiclly those nations were so weak they would be more of a hindrance that help. All they have to offer is men and German could not adequaly equip & supply the manpower in did put in uniform.

      Unlike Hitler Franco understood somethiing of economics, and he also understood how the welfare of his nation depended on imports and exports to the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The demands he made on Hitler for Spains participation were calculated to make up for the loss of imports and export revenue. Hitler imeadiatly thought it too high a price and dropped the issue.

      Italy was a case of a ally that was worse than a sympathetic nuetral. Hitlers diplomacy would have been well spent keeping Italy nuetral from 1940 & on into the later years.

      Comment


      • #4
        I Agree With Carl.hitler Had Some Very Inept Allies.in Fact I Will Say Mussolini Was Tne Allies Best Friend,aside From Attacking Them,he Did Stretch The German Military .as For Hitler Losing Thru Faulty Diplomacy,its A Good Thought,but For Several Key Military Dec[esons He Had Chances To Win The War As Late As 1942.
        If the art of war were nothing but the art of avoiding risks,glory would become the prey of mediocre minds. Napoleon

        Comment


        • #5
          bar talk

          A prominent feature of Nazi Germany's diplomacy was its preference for autarky and conquest over the giving and taking which is the hallmark of forging alliances.

          What von Ribbentrop and his masters did was not a professional way of conducting diplomacy between states, even if they are not equals; it rather reminds me of a group of friends who solve all of their country's international problems on a napkin and a beer coaster during bar talk.
          Unfortunately they had Europe's strongest army at their disposal.
          BoRG

          You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You - Leon Trotski, June 1919.

          Comment


          • #6
            If he had stopped after the fall of france, all gains made up to that point would probably been hold on-able.
            Lack of consolidation of gains is the main reason he lost.
            They never expanded at a sustainable rate, another lesson napoleon will be debating with him in the afterlife
            Sealion would have failed..............runs,

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Longshanks View Post
              If he had stopped after the fall of france, all gains made up to that point would probably been hold on-able.
              Lack of consolidation of gains is the main reason he lost.
              They never expanded at a sustainable rate, another lesson napoleon will be debating with him in the afterlife
              Huh? Like Briton was going to quit!! Eventually Hitler and Stalin were going to duke it out.
              If the art of war were nothing but the art of avoiding risks,glory would become the prey of mediocre minds. Napoleon

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Legate View Post
                Eventually Hitler and Stalin were going to duke it out.
                Stalin was a very isolationist leader, but also an astute political animal. He worked with the Germans (sending them raw materials in exchange for technical help) because he felt that Germany was not as big a threat to the Communist Paradise as the Capitalist nations Hitler was at war with. Stalin seemed to feel that Hitler was a man he could do buisness with, and also new that his nation was in a weak spot from the purges.

                Stalin did not want to invade Germany as soon as Hitler was looking elsewhere. Stalin wanted to avoid a war with Hitler to an extreme degree: one could just look at how Stalin treated the information he recieved about the impending invasion. Stalin refused to believe Hitler was going to attack him, and forbid his units from firing on German recon flights or from adopting defensive positions for fear of an 'accident' sparking war. Stalin was more afraid of his own soldiers/generals starting a war than of Hitler starting one. Barbarossa didn't catch the Russians by suprise, Stalin just refused to believe that Germany was going to attack. Even after the invasion began, Stalin still thought that it was a plot by the German High-Command operating without Hitler's approval.

                Stalin was a paranoid dictator who was focused on internal matters first. He was not the kind of revolutionary that was tried to support Socialists and Communists around the world: however, he recognized the opportunity WW2 offered the Soviet Union once the tide had turned, and he wanted to errect a barrier of loyal Communist nations to help protect the USSR.

                I submit that if Hitler had never attacked the USSR, the USSR wouldn't have attacked Germany unless German was near collapse (they might have done what they did in the Pacific and, at the last moment move in to take Eastern Europe).

                Now, was Hitler going to attack the USSR? I would bet money on it. The two things Hitler hated the most were Jews and Communists, and often combined the two together to refer to the enemies of the Nazi party. Not only that, he was obsessed with the Teutonic imagery of German Christians riding to the east to purge the land of the sub-human pagans and of obtaining said land for Germany. The best Germany could have hoped for was a Hitler who was sane enough to actually deal with one problem (the ongoing war with the UK) before starting a new one.

                'Hitler' and 'sane' arn't exactly synonyms.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Longshanks View Post
                  If he had stopped after the fall of france, all gains made up to that point would probably been hold on-able.
                  Yeah, if Hitler never invaded Russia and instead focused on defeating the UK (and no, Sealion was not going to work ) then he definetly would have had a shot at walking away as master of Europe.

                  Until he died a few years later do to his strange medicinal habits.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by daemonofdecay View Post
                    Yeah, if Hitler never invaded Russia and instead focused on defeating the UK (and no, Sealion was not going to work ) then he definetly would have had a shot at walking away as master of Europe.

                    Until he died a few years later do to his strange medicinal habits.
                    yes your quite right they didnt have the recon for sealion to work in spite of wanting to send river barges against the royal navy and the RAF and lets face it even the master race has its superiors, hitler didnt need to defeat britain, just prevent us beating him, which is a very realistic goal.
                    With diplomacy he may have reached a truce maybe, not with winston perhaps but then again PMs come and go.
                    Consolidate, get his forces back to full strength and take it from there.
                    Either that or stuck to the painting.
                    Sealion would have failed..............runs,

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The problem was lack of raw materiels. Once the Wehrmacht reached close to its intended wartime strength the Germans could not lay their hands on enough to maintain it there. The knowledge that their opponents could, and would use it to wear the Germans down economically and/or build up their own forces to the point where they would be able to overwhelm the Wehrmacht by weight of numbers & firepower forced Hitler to act precipitously both in 1939 and 1941. The alternative was certain defeat.
                      Signing out.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It has been my understanding that Stalin was massing his armies to attack the Wehrmacht. I cant remember the source of this,anybody know of a link?I dont agree that Stalin was so isolationist, just look at all the territories he gained at the end of the war.
                        If the art of war were nothing but the art of avoiding risks,glory would become the prey of mediocre minds. Napoleon

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Legate View Post
                          It has been my understanding that Stalin was massing his armies to attack the Wehrmacht. I cant remember the source of this,anybody know of a link?
                          That's the 'Icebreaker' theory advanced by Victor Suvorov. It isn't regarded as being particularly credible. Wikipedia sums it up quite neatly, it's a start anyway.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)

                          Edit. Further links

                          http://www.onwar.com/articles/f9910.htm

                          http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p22_Bishop.html (be wary of this site but the review does present Suvorov's case concisely)

                          I dont agree that Stalin was so isolationist, just look at all the territories he gained at the end of the war.
                          Hmmmm, he was an exponent of 'Marxism in One Country' and made little real effort to expand Soviet power prior to the outbreak of WW2.
                          Last edited by Full Monty; 01 Aug 08, 19:57.
                          Signing out.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hmmmm, he was an exponent of 'Marxism in One Country' and made little real effort to expand Soviet power prior to the outbreak of WW2.

                            How would you explain the partition of Poland?
                            If the art of war were nothing but the art of avoiding risks,glory would become the prey of mediocre minds. Napoleon

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Legate View Post
                              Hmmmm, he was an exponent of 'Marxism in One Country' and made little real effort to expand Soviet power prior to the outbreak of WW2.

                              How would you explain the partition of Poland?
                              Poland was partitioned after WW2 started. Not only that but the alternative was to have the Germans that much closer to Moscow when they invaded (neither Stalin nor Hitler was under any illusion regarding the potential longevity of their pact).
                              Signing out.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X