NationStates Jolt Archive

What mistakes do people think resulted in WW2 lasting as long as it did? Could Hitler have won the war and if so, where did he stuff up? Were there allied mistakes too that helped Hitler in his early victories?

The allied mistakes were letting him build the largest and most modern army in all of Europe, and in allowing him to take Austria and Czechoslovakia before the war even started.

Alot of people think Hitler could have won if he didn't lose interest in different theatres. If he'd finished off any of the fronts, he might have had a chance. Instead of the Battle of Britiain II, he opened up a huge front in Russia. Instead of taking the oil fields in the Persian Gulf, he tried to take the Caucauses.

Well on www.alternatehistory.net (temporarily offline but it should be up again next week) this has been exhaustively debated.

The general consensus is that Hitler had no chance of winning in the long run. The only question was how far the Iron Curtain would extend. If the W. Allied invasions had failed we'd be looking at a "Warsaw Pact" extending to the English Channel and a much nastier Cold War.

The UK was pretty safe- theres also a consensus that Operation sealion could never have succeeded.

If you're interested in stuff like this I'd urge you to check out the abovementioned site in about a week when it comes back online.

Hitler was notorious for his poor military decisions which infuriated his generals, most notable ordering Field Marshall von Paulus to fight to the death in Stalingrad. Needless to say, he thought "F*ck that!" and surrendered.
In 1943, for instance, his inability to make up his mind about an attack at Kursk eventually pushed the attack back from April to July - by which time the Soviets were well prepared. He took the idea of personal command much too far. In the 1944 Ardennes offensive his commanders urged him to look at a more realistic plan, without success.
He also had the genius stroke of making one of his best commanders (Rommel) poison himself.

Hitler was niether a genius nor lucky. He was at the head of a country that was prepared to fight, noone else in that theatre was at the time. When other nations built the armies, weapons and morale needed to fight Hitlers genius was decisively shown to be false.

First half of the war was a complete success, he steamrollered his way through Europe destroying any resistance.

Don't any of you think that the major error was attacking the Soviets?

Hitler was neither lucky or a military genius. In fact he was a idiot at running the military. He got rid of any generals who said that a plan would not work when it obviously wouldn't. That's the problem with dictatorships and facist regimes. There is no one to balance out the power. The reason they lost is because they decided to attack Russia. One the Reasons the war lasted as long as it did was because of Generals like Rommel not because of Hitler's "genius"

He had no choice in attacking the Soviet Union when he did. Remember that the Soviets had just killed 80% of their officer corps, 3/5 marshalls, a lot of the experience commanders and replaced them with party officials. It was also in the process of modernisation.

Instead of helping out Italy with Yugoslavia and Greece he should have let them 'whither on the vine' and invaded the USSR in late April like planned. The extra 6 weeks would have seen the Germans sit winter 1941-1942 out in Moscow and Leningrad, rather than retreating in the blizzards. The Soviet winter offensive didn't cause that many casulties - it merely stopped the Germans from gaining the shelter of Moscow and a defensive position for winter - it was the weater that caused the casulties. Without the capital, the Soviet northern front would have been fully taken, and 3 extra armies would be available for fighting in the Caucasus. Stalingrad could have been encircled and sieged, while the Germans advanced towards the Urals. The caucasus would have been swept clear, and the oil facilities would be back up and running within about 6 months. Without the central rail centres of Moscow and Stalingrad the Soviets would not have been able to mass for a major offensive. Stalin would then have been deposed, and a peace signed. Without a Russia to fight, the Allies would have signed white peace

Not a nice thing to think about, but it could have happened. Hitler was lucky in the first few years, he was never a genius. He just listened to the right people. When he got too ego-centric that was when he lost.

he was neither a military genius nor lucky
he lost didnt he?

I can't believe you guys are debating as to whether or not Hitler was a military genius. If any of you knew anything about World War II, the obvious answer would be "No."

He was extremely charismatic, and he knew how to move the masses. Other than that, he took advantage of several situations. There was no military genius in that man, even in the early stages of the war.

Ever hear of Dunkirk? Hitler could have captured/killed over a quarter million of Allied soldiers, but he decided to stop his panzers advance and let the Luffwaffe (German Air Force) bomb the city.

Another idiotic move was focusing the Luffwaffe on British CIVILIAN targets instead of finishing off the already depleted British RAF.

The UK was pretty safe- theres also a consensus that Operation sealion could never have succeeded.

Not so. Following the fall of France in June 1940 the RAF was still establishing itself in the South of England and Radar was still being implemented. Had the Luftwaffe continued their strikes on the few Radar stations and Air bases rather than switch to civilian bombing, it would have made Operation Sealion a complete victory. But he listened to Goering and it all fell apart.

Hitler's opening up of a second front in Russia need not have been a failure either. Instead of splitting forces into 3 armies, Hitler should have spearheaded the German divisions straight at Moscow. With Stalin dead or having fled to the Urals there is no doubt Germany would have forced all of Europe to submit.

Fortress Europe would have followed and the USA would have remained neutral over Europe and focused on Japan (well before December 7th 1941 Moscow would have fallen). Given Hitler's social policies, by 1950 he would have had a formidable army (given the average number of children per family under the Third Reich was 3-8) and no doubt planned his next phase of world domination. Indeed his Navy would also have been supreme in Europe by this time and the Germans would have had the A Bomb well before the USA (heavy water facility destroyed by British in Norway in 1942, but a replacement facility was quickly erected in north Germany after). The advancement of the V2 and with a Naval platform, America would have been forced into a very unconditional peace with the Third Reich (even though it wouldn't be at war).

Germany and the USA would have been stuck in a Cold War rather than the USA and Russia. However, the Third Reich would be much larger and maybe America would have fallen eventually. Who knows.

Fact is, Hitler almost won WW2...and he could have even won it as late as 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge...but alas having run out of fuel the Panzers were sitting ducks. The Battle of the Bulge was to merely bide time for Hitler whose scientists were on the verge of developing the Atomic Bomb. Scary...but a part of History often neglected.

P.S. There is a great movie called "Fatherland" which is based on Nazi Germany having won WW2 (but still fighting Stalin)...different to what I have said, but if you can get your hands on it, it is fantastic!

The UK was pretty safe- theres also a consensus that Operation sealion could never have succeeded.

Not so. Following the fall of France in June 1940 the RAF was still establishing itself in the South of England and Radar was still being implemented. Had the Luftwaffe continued their strikes on the few Radar stations and Air bases rather than switch to civilian bombing, it would have made Operation Sealion a complete victory. But he listened to Goering and it all fell apart.

Hitler's opening up of a second front in Russia need not have been a failure either. Instead of splitting forces into 3 armies, Hitler should have spearheaded the German divisions straight at Moscow. With Stalin dead or having fled to the Urals there is no doubt Germany would have forced all of Europe to submit.

Fortress Europe would have followed and the USA would have remained neutral over Europe and focused on Japan (well before December 7th 1941 Moscow would have fallen). Given Hitler's social policies, by 1950 he would have had a formidable army (given the average number of children per family under the Third Reich was 3-8) and no doubt planned his next phase of world domination. Indeed his Navy would also have been supreme in Europe by this time and the Germans would have had the A Bomb well before the USA (heavy water facility destroyed by British in Norway in 1942, but a replacement facility was quickly erected in north Germany after). The advancement of the V2 and with a Naval platform, America would have been forced into a very unconditional peace with the Third Reich (even though it wouldn't be at war).

Germany and the USA would have been stuck in a Cold War rather than the USA and Russia. However, the Third Reich would be much larger and maybe America would have fallen eventually. Who knows.

Fact is, Hitler almost won WW2...and he could have even won it as late as 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge...but alas having run out of fuel the Panzers were sitting ducks. The Battle of the Bulge was to merely bide time for Hitler whose scientists were on the verge of developing the Atomic Bomb. Scary...but a part of History often neglected.

P.S. There is a great movie called "Fatherland" which is based on Nazi Germany having won WW2 (but still fighting Stalin)...different to what I have said, but if you can get your hands on it, it is fantastic!

hitler was a great leader of the military. His cause may have been a little off the wall but if you had him working for the united states or any of the allies and today we would be remembering him as a hero

Hitler is boring... :roll:

Hitler was a great leader of the civilian populace. There was no way he was at all efficient at commanding a military force. Every one of his plans failed.
Even if Sealion worked, we had other colonies. The gov't would have moved to Canada or Australia. Even one of the African colonies. Not too mention that the Royal Navy would have annihilated the beachead and the landing craft before the Luftwaffe could destroy the navy.
Opening up the 2 front war was the worst mistake of many though.
Where would they land? Dover? Anywhere else is quite a journey, and would make the landing force even more vulnerable.

The biggest mistake was the French and British not challenging Hitler when he moved into the Rhineland.
Hitler should not have switched to bombing the cities in Britain and carried on hitting the airfeilds so the RAF had to pull back further north so they couldn't give air support during the invasion of the southern parts of the UK, once they're out of the war, then he could concentrate on Russia.

If Hitler had simply been content with Europe, France would be speaking German right now.
The mistake for both the Germans and Japan, was to involve Russia,a nd America.
had Pearl Harbor not taken place, the U.S may not have entered the war for a few years, if at all...
Same with Russia.....
Attempting to wage a prolonged campaign on a hostile environment, thousands of miles away..isnt a good strategy.
Especially in the middle of a Russian Winter.

You'd think Hitler would have picked up history book...

Hey Adolf...

See:
BonAparte, Napoleon.

Instead of helping out Italy with Yugoslavia and Greece he should have let them 'whither on the vine' and invaded the USSR in late April like planned. The extra 6 weeks would have seen the Germans sit winter 1941-1942 out in Moscow and Leningrad, rather than retreating in the blizzards.

This is not possible because the weather was bad in spring 1941. The balkan
was a side theater that freed some resorces for the war against russia.

Not so. Following the fall of France in June 1940 the RAF was still establishing itself in the South of England and Radar was still being implemented. Had the Luftwaffe continued their strikes on the few Radar stations and Air bases rather than switch to civilian bombing, it would have made Operation Sealion a complete victory.

Impossible because the german luftwaffe was designed to support an
advancing army. The germans had no heavy bomber or escort fighter. They also had no usefull troop carriers. The rhine barges that would be used in operation sealion are sitting ducks.

Hitler was a military moron.

Splitting into two fronts like that...what a fugging idiot.

The Nazi's should have won the Battle of Britian first before opening a new front in the East....

I cannot beleive that anyone is even entertaining the idea that Hitler was in anyway a tactician or strategist.

This thread is wasting bandwidth.

Hitler was a military moron.

Splitting into two fronts like that...what a fugging idiot.

The Nazi's should have won the Battle of Britian first before opening a new front in the East....

I cannot beleive that anyone is even entertaining the idea that Hitler was in anyway a tactician or strategist.

This thread is wasting bandwidth.

The Bf 109 series was actually one of the better fighter series of the war.

How do you think they managed the Blitz without heavy bombers?
I can't remember the names of them, but they were efficient heavy bombers.
This thread is kinda wasting bandwidth, but the topic seems to have changed to whether Sealion could have worked, so it isn't so redundant now.

The Bf 109 series was actually one of the better fighter series of the war.

How do you think they managed the Blitz without heavy bombers?

Because heavy bombers are useless for the Blitzkriegstrategy. You need tactical and medium bombers for this job.

Not so. Following the fall of France in June 1940 the RAF was still establishing itself in the South of England and Radar was still being implemented. Had the Luftwaffe continued their strikes on the few Radar stations and Air bases rather than switch to civilian bombing, it would have made Operation Sealion a complete victory.

Impossible because the german luftwaffe was designed to support an
advancing army. The germans had no heavy bomber or escort fighter. They also had no usefull troop carriers. The rhine barges that would be used in operation sealion are sitting ducks.

With the RAF crippled, their bases smoking craters and the Radar stations knocked out...those barges would have crossed the channel with ease. Do not forget, Hitler had planned to use German Liners to carry troops and tanks (The Bremen - 1929 Blue Ribband Holder - was refitted for the Operation and would carry heavy armour and troops).

With U-Boats in the channel, the Royal Navy would have been forced out.

In June 1940, Britain was not fully prepared for war and would have lost.

Not so. Following the fall of France in June 1940 the RAF was still establishing itself in the South of England and Radar was still being implemented. Had the Luftwaffe continued their strikes on the few Radar stations and Air bases rather than switch to civilian bombing, it would have made Operation Sealion a complete victory.

Impossible because the german luftwaffe was designed to support an
advancing army. The germans had no heavy bomber or escort fighter. They also had no usefull troop carriers. The rhine barges that would be used in operation sealion are sitting ducks.

With the RAF crippled, their bases smoking craters and the Radar stations knocked out...those barges would have crossed the channel with ease. Do not forget, Hitler had planned to use German Liners to carry troops and tanks (The Bremen - 1929 Blue Ribband Holder - was refitted for the Operation and would carry heavy armour and troops).

With U-Boats in the channel, the Royal Navy would have been forced out.

In June 1940, Britain was not fully prepared for war and would have lost.

DP

Hitlers biggest mistakes where:

Killing Rommel

Turning on Russians

Hitler wasn't a genius. His generals sure must have been, to work around his incompetence so successfully. In 1942, he was presented with the Me-262, but he delayed mass production by two years because he thought jet aircraft to be too radical. In 1943, same thing with fully operational radar-guided flack cannon and SAM systems. Production delayed until late in 1944, by which time the USSR had pwned virtually his entire military.

And this is just the tech stuff. He never understood the value of retreat, to live and fight another day. When presented with projections for Soviet and American industrial production, he threw them away in disgust, saying it was all BS, thus never grasping the scale of the forces that would be arrayed against him. He also underestimated Soviet readiness for war, and the punishment its military could absorb. He thought that losing hundreds of miles of territory all the way to their capital and three million men in one autumn would have stuffed them, but it didn't. He never allowed his generals the opportunity to prepare the logistics for a winter campaign.

His leadership of Germany was one blunder and miscalculation after another. He was qualified to lead only in image. It was his staff who had to work miracles against impossible odds.

But the truth is, any leader would fail in such circumstances. Stalin realised too late how advanced German preparations for invasion were. The war was won by his Marshalls and Generals. Chamberlain had thought Hitler was a guy he could work with, ultimately this was exposed as wishful thinking. Today, George Bush is no intellectual giant, but his far more able staff take care of the details. I think if history were to be re-examined, we would find that many great leaders owed their success to their advisors and executive officers.

TG sure knows his stuff.

Hitler had some awful luck with the timing of the war. Those years turned out to be some of the harshest winters on record in Poland and Russia. The primary river in Poland, Wisla (sort of like the Mississippi) froze, and it has never frozen since.

He also didn't finish off the British expeditionary force sent to help France after it was evident the French would surrender. Had they immediately taken the initiative and taken the fight unto British soil things may have been different. Attacking Poland was also a poor choice, he could have tried to convince them to attack the Soviet Union with German help. The Poles had fought a war in 1920-21 with aid from the French and had humiliated the Red Army during the war. Having troops willing to kill the Soviets out of sheer hatred and used to the cold would have aided them. Although I can see where the problems with ideology would creep in.

Hitler should have also tried to convince either Turkey or Spain to join on their side. A tough job, but worth trying. Hitler also completely failed to grasp the crushing poverty and pathetic morale that Soviet troops were experiencing. Had they decided to offer every Soviet soldier captured a pair of boots, a watch and 2 loaves of bread I'm pretty sure the whole Red Army would have surrendered...and shot their commissars with the few weapons they had. Slaughtering the POW and using overkill to defeat units in the field wore them down.

He did alot of things wrong. Ultimately leading to his defeat. However, placing the whole defeat on Hitler's shoulders would be unfair (even though he's probably the embodiement of evil as we know it), Guderian, Donitz, Paulus, Manstein and even Rommel all had their parts to play, along with all the other generals.

Hmm... well, he screwed up. He shouldn't have betrayed Russia because it's dumb to fight a war on two fronts and they would have been a great ally, he should have listened to Rommel because he was probably the greatest mind on his side (I mean, he thought of everything that I am listing), he shouldn't have killed the Jews (limit murder to political opponents, any citizen can be useful even if you are scapegoating them to get into power, plus he wasted resources here), and he should have kept going after the Royal Air Force instead of civilian targets in the battle of Britain. With Russia as an ally he should have gotten them to work with Japan against the United States and then even with horrible luck at Midway the Russian navy would have picked up the slack for the Japanese. There's other mistakes, but those alone would have helped him a lot.

Another mistake Hitler made was his obsession with Jews and other "Untenmeschen". Many of Germany's trains were used to transport POW's and enemies of the reich rather than troops to the front. This of course was towards the middle of the war when the final solution came about.

His abandonment of blitzkrieg too in Russia caused much of his downfall. Had Hitler headed straight to Moscow, the war in Europe would have been over.

Not so. Following the fall of France in June 1940 the RAF was still establishing itself in the South of England and Radar was still being implemented. Had the Luftwaffe continued their strikes on the few Radar stations and Air bases rather than switch to civilian bombing, it would have made Operation Sealion a complete victory.

Impossible because the german luftwaffe was designed to support an
advancing army. The germans had no heavy bomber or escort fighter. They also had no usefull troop carriers. The rhine barges that would be used in operation sealion are sitting ducks.

With the RAF crippled, their bases smoking craters and the Radar stations knocked out...those barges would have crossed the channel with ease. Do not forget, Hitler had planned to use German Liners to carry troops and tanks (The Bremen - 1929 Blue Ribband Holder - was refitted for the Operation and would carry heavy armour and troops).

With U-Boats in the channel, the Royal Navy would have been forced out.

In June 1940, Britain was not fully prepared for war and would have lost.

The RAF crippled? Even if it came close to being destroyed, the RAF would simply fall back on bases in Northern England and Scotland, and Great Britain was producing far more fighters then Germany was, so it won't be destroyed. Once the RAF pulls back from the limited areas of England where the Luftwaffe could operate (they had no long range bombers), whic basically meant the Dover coast and as far as London, they can still interdict Luftwaffe operations with impunity, as their bases are now out of range of Luftwaffe attack. They can't scramble quite as quickly as they would be able to based in southern England, but it won't be a repeat of France.

The barges had no chance of crossing the channel, German U-boats were already stretched in the operations they were doing at the time, and any force attempting to enter the channel is entering the most dangerous stretch of water imaginable, the Royal Navy maintains a large destroyer force here (The capitol ships are further north), and aerial forces as well. Germany did not have the available boats to risk sending a large force into the channel. Not to mention how devestating seizing the barges proved to be, Hitler had to disband the operation under economic pressure as well, as the barges were from the Rhine valley and instrumental to the German economy. The liners make even bigger targets for the RAF and RN, not too mention exactly how the troops landed will be supplied, or even landed (Germany didn't have Higgin's boats).

Britain could've easily repulsed any German invasion attempt with the forces it had on hand at the time, greatly aided by the fact that the Germans were not as good on sea as they were on land. Their previous amphibious expedition was disastrous (saved by the fact the nuetral nation was not ready, and they used paratroopers). Norway was not Britain, it did not have a battle-ready army (Granted, Britain didn't have a heavy equipped army), a large Navy, or an effective Air Force.

Hmm... well, he screwed up. He shouldn't have betrayed Russia because it's dumb to fight a war on two fronts and they would have been a great ally, he should have listened to Rommel because he was probably the greatest mind on his side (I mean, he thought of everything that I am listing), he shouldn't have killed the Jews (limit murder to political opponents, any citizen can be useful even if you are g0at them to get into power, plus he wasted resources here), and he should have kept going after the Royal Air Force instead of civilian targets in the battle of Britain. With Russia as an ally he should have gotten them to work with Japan against the United States and then even with horrible luck at Midway the Russian navy would have picked up the slack for the Japanese. There's other mistakes, but those alone would have helped him a lot.

He couldn't just ally with Russia, any study of his rhetoric implies that he has to attack Russia, he saw the Slavs as sub-human, and taking up living space for the greater German race. They were also a danger to his government, according to Nazi propoganda Bolshevism was a Jewish design, and seeking to take over the world. He simply would never ally with Russia (And Russia would never ally with him).

Rommel was not the most brilliant mind on his side, he was little more then an exceptional divisional commander who won fame in the desert. He never proved to be as great an Army commander as his fame may lead some to believe. He was probably the best divisional commander, but Germany had many more great commanders (Like Manstein, Guderian, Kesselring, etc.).

The Soviet Navy was a joke, their Pacific fleet was little more then a handful of outdated destroyers, and Russia would never work with Japan, who had humiliated them in 1905, and were encroaching on Russian spheres of influence in the Far East.

I am referring to a direct assault after the fall of France...mid 1940. Believe me, Britain could not have repelled a German invasion. It is a myth that Germany was stretched in 1940 - Britain was able to produce masses of aircraft because Hitler refused to bomb factories, air fields and radar stations.

P.S. There is a great movie called "Fatherland" which is based on Nazi Germany having won WW2 (but still fighting Stalin)...different to what I have said, but if you can get your hands on it, it is fantastic!

Fatherland is a good read (haven't watched the movie) but like I said I stand by my position. I'm no expert about this stuff so I urge you to check out the site which I recommended in my first post (although unfortunately, it's offline for at least the next week)

Not to mention that Hitler was quite good at stealing his generals' good strategies and next passing them off as his own. Of course, the plans he stole always stood out as his own strategies always sucked.

If Hitler had really been a strategic genius, he should have cultivated Britain way more. In fact IIRC he would rather have had them as allies (since he saw the British as a fellow Germanic race) then as enemies.

Unfortunately the problem with that is that British policy has always been to prevent the Northern coast of Europe falling into the hands of any one power at any one time.

Hey I didn't know Fatherland was a book too. I must read it sometime (when I am not busy doing everything else demanded of me)

therewas no way the invasion could have taken plavce Germany had no landing craft and would ahve ahd to use river barges. Even assuming they could get accross teh channel, which the weather did not permit, tehy would ahve been so disorgonized on the beaches that they would ahve been easy pickings. Remember, the german fighters only had about 30 minutes of loiter time over england, while the british fighters could make sortie after sortie. I also beleive the proposed date for sealion was before tehy switched to hitting civilian targets. Really... the blitzkreig wasn't due to german brilliance, it was due to allied stupidity. They didn't even have recon planes over the ardens, and the maginot line wasn't extended far enough. Also, the divisions designated to hold the river after the ardenns fled imidietly, if they could ahve prevented the germans from getting a bridgehead, the offencive would ahve stalled.

Going even further back, if the allies hadn't allowed germany to take the first half of czechloshlovakia... none fo theis would ahve ahppened. That area had heavier fixed defences than the maginot line, the germans could never have take it. As well, the idea that the german army was bigger than the allies is untrue. the german tanks were inferior in armor and weaponrty, and there were fewer of them. They did NOT have more radios. The reason why the germans were succesful is because they massed their troops, while the allies diluted tank units, and they had air sueriority. IF the allies had massed their tanks, the blitzkerig would ahve failed.


Also, germany had no heavy bombers. They had the Ju 88 the donier, and the heinkle, none of which were heavy bombers. The 4 engined Fock Wulf was a purely naval design.

Hey I didn't know Fatherland was a book too. I must read it sometime (when I am not busy doing everything else demanded of me)

You should- it's a fun read.

Are you very into alternate history?

Hitler was a genius when it came to manipulation and military strategy,
if he had been Assassinated before Operatoin Barbarossa, Germany would have won the war.
Also realise that he did suffer from Parkinsons disease, which is why near the end he made so many stupid decisions.

Hey I didn't know Fatherland was a book too. I must read it sometime (when I am not busy doing everything else demanded of me)

You should- it's a fun read.

Are you very into alternate history?

Alternate history is fascinating. Although the real stuff is great too :D

It would seem a lot of British posters think Germany could never have conquered them. Well the French were 100% sure their marginot line was the ultimate deterrent to any German offensive...look what happened to them.

Germany had the resources, the capability, the advantage except Hitler entrusted the operation to Fatso Goering. That proves his incompetence right there!

Also...a moderator posting sensible messages here...it must be a good thread then :D

It would seem a lot of British posters think Germany could never have conquered them. Well the French were 100% sure their marginot line was the ultimate deterrent to any German offensive...look what happened to them.


Like I said- go to the site I recommended. You'll find people who can give you hard historical evidence, not just half remembered recycled arguments like the ones I can give- my area of historical interest is Anglo-Saxon England so this is a bit out of my field :)

I'm into alternate history... trying to find the full Draka set...

I'm into alternate history... trying to find the full Draka set...

I haven't read the Draka books although I've heard they're a good read if a little implausible. Try the Peshawar Lancers, also by S.M. Stirling- probably the best AH book ever written.

Or you can try Harry Turtledove although his more recent stuff isn't that good.

Once again, I recommend www.alternatehistory.net. Try it in a week or so.

The German thrust towards Stalingrad was to capture the oilfields in the Caucasus (sp?). Stalingrad turned out to be a total disaster for the Germans.

Rommel in North Africa was trying to push through Egypt, Palestine and Syria to take the Caucasus from the south and link up with Army Group South on the Russian Front.

The funny thing is that the Germans were expending all this effort to take oilfields in Russia when they already controlled them in Libya, they just didn't realise there was oil there, the Libyan oilfields were yet to be discovered.

I just think that is ironic, they just weren't meant to win!