Hawaii = state.

Rommel was wrong completely and utterly about D-Day. Forward defense would have led to the utter destruction of the Panzers.

"NOT pacifying the UK"

What did this matter? And he couldn't "pacify" the UK, as all he had were barges and tugboats for the invasion.

Considering the overwhelming allied air superiority and the punch of all the huge naval guns at their disposal, you are likely correct Putin. But, this thread is about adolf and his wrongs (if any). Hitler held off because feared that Normandy was a feint. He was wrong in that respect.

"What did this matter? And he couldn't "pacify" the UK, as all he had were barges and tugboats for the invasion."

I think you are correct there also, but nevertheless, he opened up two front war. That was an error. He believed war with Russia was inevitable, but in fact, at that time Russia posed no real threat to Germany.

and it DID matter in the end.

All is fair in love and war. Sorry Hitler did nothing wrong. He did what Hitler does.
The thread's question is too vague

@loowkey

1) the OP is not question but an indicative statement.
2) You have utterly and completely failed to operationalize what you mean by the word "fair"
3) In sentence three you have confused tense suggesting your belief in a long disproved conspiracy theory alleging that your hero still lives.

Lol guilty as charged

Two-front war? What two-front war? The western allies didn't open a second front until '44, despite Stalin's pleadings for one earlier. No, Germany had the USSR effectively alone when it mattered.

On the question of whether the USSR posed a threat at the time of the invasion. Probably not. Although the Germans were annoyed with the annexation of Bukovina and the action in Finland, as well as the Soviet attitude toward Bulgaria and the Bosporus. And ultimately Soviet's interest in a guarantee from Bulgaria of access to the Black Sea was too much for the Germans.. It was more a preventive war.Ultimately Germany could not be sure that the Soviets would not undermine them in areas they considered to be their sphere of influence.

@Putin33
Well the main second front wasn't till 1944, But the invasion of Italy did put the allies in Europe. But it wasn't a war ending front.

As far as the war in Russia go's. The fact is Germany did come close to knocking Russia out of the war in 1941. Read Stalin's Folly. Stalin came very close to offering Hitler terms for peace very early in the conflict. Then there is the what if of German liberation policy's in the Russia. The Russian's at first did not see the Germans as the enemy. It was Hitlers policy's of murdering and brutalizing the Russian populace that drown the average Russian to take up arms as Partisans.He could of had increased security in his rear, more reserves to keep division's at or near full strength. while offering Russia the problem of a populace supporting the invader. Sure not every Russian would of been pro German.
If I'm correct, I think it's something like a million men the Ukraine could of added to the German effort in the east. Had Germany gone in with a kind hand. Stalin was not liked by his people.
Point being if you look into the war in the east you will see many simple changes in policy that would of greatly favored the Germans.

Sorry typo drove not drown. Opps

That's not correct. German ruthlessness kept the partisan movement from being an effective fighting force until very late in the game. From 41-43 it was effectively neutralized. Also, I don't know where you get that 1 million number from but Ukrainians were patriotic and weren't on the brink of helping the invader in any significant numbers. The resistance offered by the people of Kiev was heroic. The USSR's mobilization of the masses to defend their cities was key to their ultimate victory, and wouldn't have happened if they were half-hearted in doing it or didn't believe in the cause.

"But the invasion of Italy did put the allies in Europe"

Which didn't happen until late '43. By that time the Germans were already pushed back.

putin - "Two-front war? What two-front war? The western allies didn't open a second front until '44, despite Stalin's pleadings for one earlier."

You are nit picking. The point was and is, starting a war with Russia without having resolving things with Britain was a strategic mistake. They might have come close to taking out Russia, but they didn't. I don't think it is controversial.

"You are nit picking. "

Nit picking? No, I'd say the absence of a second front was a pretty big deal and rendered all the supposed 'problems' of having the UK around moot.

"The point was and is, starting a war with Russia without having resolving things with Britain was a strategic mistake."

The British weren't on the brink of invading continental Europe, so what was the problem?

" They might have come close to taking out Russia, but they didn't. I don't think it is controversial."

And that had nothing to do with the role of the British.

Russia doesn't get enough credit on this one from the west. If there was any one ally who was critical to the success of the allies in WW2, it was the big bad bear. No Russia means no eastern front. Could the allies have won without America? Possibly. Could they have won without Russia? No chance.

And your assertion that the invasion of Poland makes Hitler some kind of military genus lacks any foundation. Perhaps you have some tangential explanation for yourself as you usually do. France, yes, that was somewhat more challenging an achievement for the german heer.

"Nit picking? No, I'd say the absence of a second front was a pretty big deal and rendered all the supposed 'problems' of having the UK around moot. "

Actually yes. The fact that Britain continued as an opponent was a crucial factor in the ultimate defeat of Germany. Therefore, as stated, it was a strategic mistake.

Apparently he was a lousy tennis player ...... what a twat !!

"And your assertion that the invasion of Poland makes Hitler some kind of military genus lacks any foundation"

The Germans defeated a one-million strong army in a single month.

" France, yes, that was somewhat more challenging"

What does impress you, Dirge?

"The fact that Britain continued as an opponent was a crucial factor in the ultimate defeat of Germany."

A baseless and empty assertion.

Germany failed to defeat or make peace with Britain. Germany invaded Russia and failed to take Russia out. Eventually, Russia made gains. Britain survived in Africa and eventually had forward movement just before Torch. And on from there to defeat. The big strategic picture.

A strategic mistake, in the hindsight of history, but a mistake nonetheless.

So, Putin, you are asserting that initiating Barbarossa while Britain remained in play did not, in the end, go badly for Germany? It was some kind of success perhaps. I fail to see it.

In what planet was Africa essential to German security? They were only there because of the Italians to begin with. It was a sideshow that western historians like to blow up as being much more important than it was. British support was not necessary for victory. Britain was much more concerned with preserving its Empire than defeating Germany in Europe.

"So, Putin, you are asserting that initiating Barbarossa while Britain remained in play did not, in the end, go badly for Germany"

The failure of the invasion of Russia had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Britain remaining in play.

@Putin
As far as the 1 million. It is a ball park figure. As I said above that was in the land of what if's. It's a number I heard before. The real point was that Stalin was not beloved by his people. Hitler's choice to brutalize and murder made him a invader rather then a liberator. Invading Russia was not the same as France. People in Russia had far far more reasons to hate Stalin then the regimes of the west did their own governments.
I have studied this war more then my far share. As I get the impression you have as well. Let me get back to you about this stuff. I don't have sources memorized of the top of my head.

@putin
http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-06.html
This should at least put some legs under my earlier statement for you. Like I said the 1 million thing was a number I heard in the past so I tossed it out as quick figure. But the real part of my statement is what if Hitler had supported independent movements in Russia? What if he had not brutalized and went about Russia killing sending death squads about.? Given the Russians a chance to self rule parts of Russia in exchange for fighting soviet Russia.
This road would ease his manpower problems and reduce partisan. As far as partisan not being effective early on. It takes men to suppress them. Men that could of been at the front.
The point being liberation policy would of given Germany a better shot in the east. They had some chances to do so.

"France, yes, that was somewhat more challenging an achievement for the german heer. "

The big strategist and head of this plan was Lieutenant-General Erich von Manstein (at May 1942 Colonel-General, at June 1942 Field-Marshal after his victorious battle of Sevastopol, at that time the strongest fortress of the world). After the Poland Campaign he compiled the attack plan for the West Campaign, later called as "Sickle Cut Attack Plan" (Sichelschnittplan), and was based on a concentration of the German armoured associations (Panzer Groups) by Army Group A which should bump by the Ardennes – in the flank of an advancing opponent to Belgium and Holland. Manstein presented the plan Hitler, although the General Staff rejected the plan because he offered certain risks. Hitler was inspired immediately by the daring plan and took over him. Also Manstein created in 1943 near Kharkov the impossible task (Hitting in Reserve) and smashed the immense steel frame (Panzer Corps) of the Russian General Popow. He was the most capable General of WW2 beside the best devensiv strategists Walter Model.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/1939-1940-battle_of_france-plan-evolution.jpg

The French had properly recognised it, the Germans have a plan and they pursue him strictly. France was decadent and war-tired, didn't want (after WW1) once again let the blood of a complete generation on the battlefield. They wouldn't have taken this any more.