How could the Axis Powers win WW2?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Not starting it

[North Arkana]

Their leadership was competent, that is why they won in Poland. From their point of view, their decisions were sound. We look at it in hindsight and say they were idiotic.

True but is not strange not a single person or group say Adolf that's insane, and will never work.

As popular as it is to try to blame it all on Hitler, some of his decision and opinions on matters turn out to be the correct ones in hindsight. He was extremely opposed to Operation Citadel (Battle of Kursk), but was convinced to authorize the attack by his generals (who later blamed him for everything), and his order forbidding units to give ground likely saved the frontlines from a collapse during a period of heavy, and borderline reckless, counterattacks by Soviet forces, which his generals wanted to pull back in the face of to take up new positions.

Eastern Front history has only been known through German sources, German officer sources, for most of post-WW2 history. It's only within the past 2 decades the wider historiography community had access to Soviet sources, and we'll never be able to get Hitler's word on the matter for obvious reasons beyond what his surviving officers wrote down in their self-aggrandizing memoirs.

[The South Falls]

Their leadership was competent, that is why they won in Poland. From their point of view, their decisions were sound. We look at it in hindsight and say they were idiotic.

True but is not strange not a single person or group say Adolf that's insane, and will never work.

The Germans couldn't havewon, even with great commanders. That's how that works.,

[The South Falls]

Not starting it

Sense.

[North Arkana]

I'm going to break this down, section by section.

There's probably no way the Axis could have won, they were hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned. However, maybe fighting to a white peace could have been achieved. There were a great number of mistakes that can be identified easily in hindsight, however, most of them were related to German bureaucracy and sentiment rather than Hitler himself, as many would believe.

The first thing people tend to say is that the USSR should have been left alone. The problem is, that it was made clear both by Stalin's own words and by the Red Army's preparations, that they were waiting for an opportunity for the Western powers to be too busy killing each other and overrun them all. The Axis caught the USSR in the middle of their mobilization, with a textbook-perfect example of a preemptive strike.

That's a pretty bald-faced lie based upon a single skewed account by a Cold-War defector.

One of the actual decisions that should have been made was forcing the nuclear program. The US was going to have it, and from that moment, winning against them conventionally was not possible. However, nukes, coupled with Germany's effort to develop missile launching submarines (with the V2) could have allowed a white peace based on the threat of MAD. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Germany should not have declared war on the US the first place, but the US was never truly neutral, to begin with, as evidenced by Lend Lease. It is reasonable to believe that if they were confident in their victory (for example, due to being a nuclear monopoly), the US would have openly attacked Germany either way.

1. The V2 is incapable of carrying a WW2 era nuclear warhead.
2. Deutschephysik was decidedly unkind to nuclear science, which was Judenphysik. German scientists were so far off base from making a nuclear weapon it's rather comical.

Secondly, all the flak Hitler gets for his supposed stupid decisions should be redirected to Hermann Göring. While Hitler made reasonably good decisions, often better than his generals up until 1944-45 when delusions and apparently, Parkinson's disease afflicted him, Göring made fiasco after fiasco. He assured Hitler that the Luftwaffe could handle the Allies at Dunkirk, which as we know, didn't happen. He assured Hitler that the Luftwaffe could support the Axis forces at Stalingrad via airdrops, which didn't happen. Worst of all, however, is that he was responsible for the bombing of civilian targets in England. Not only a horrid act of war crime but also a tactical mistake. Granted, the British started it, but Göring, and due to his convincing, Hitler caught the bait. Had the Luftwaffe ignored civilian targets and continued to decimate British industry and military targets, the British could have been taken out of the war. As the cherry on the cake, it should be noted that Göring was also corrupt to the bone, and when he was not making gigantic mistakes he was busy stuffing his own pockets with wealth taken from invaded countries. All in all, Hitler should have removed Göring from his position as early as the Battle of Britain.

Germany was already losing the Battle of Britain by then. UK fighter production was too high, and Luftwaffe striking power was too weak to keep the RAF out of any attempt to try Sea Lion. Sea Lion being a bag of failures all itself.

Then, continuing on the British line, I think they should have assassinated Churchill. Not for his skill, charisma or his importance as a figurehead, but because he was the number one reason why Hitler could not make peace with Britain. Number two was the atrocities committed by the Luftwaffe, as I discussed it above. Without Churchill and without the mass murder of British civilians, Hitler's offers to peace could have been taken more seriously, and there could have been a chance for peace, however slim.

How? The entire German intelligence apparatus in the UK had been either turned, imprisoned, or killed. And that doesn't even begin to account for the problem of the Abwehr being run by someone actively working to subvert Hitler.

The people of Ukraine and some Russians initially welcomed the Germans as liberators, but soon, mistreatment changed their minds. Even with this, there existed the Russian Liberation Army and SS units hailing from the USSR's territory, which shows there was some willingness to fight alongside the Nazis against the commies. I think Germany should have tried to transform Operation Barbarossa into a new Russian Civil War by clever use of propaganda, by avoiding committing atrocities as much as possible, and most importantly by countering Soviet propaganda with a special emphasis on their false-flag operations.

That quite literally requires the Nazis to not be Nazis. The NSDAP is an inherently racialist party.

Then, we have the Wunderwaffe craze. Not nearly as bad as many people would think - most of the proposed Wunderwaffe were actually very potent concepts, but people tend to remember only the stupidest ones like the P1000 or the Maus. This concept also includes things like guided SAM's, intercontinental bombers, ICBM's, missile launcher submarines, all of which were realized by the Allies after the war, no small part based on captured German documents and scientists. The problem was bureaucracy and what we can perceive as corruption in the development cycle. Projects were often commissioned and directed not on a basis of effectiveness and efficiency but on a basis of personal preferences and connections. The results were crippled development cycles and broken weapons born out of very much viable concepts.

Too busy laughing

Finally, I think Germany should have shared all but its most advanced technologies with its more reliable allies. Italians suffered greatly in Africa due to their obsolete, junk tank designs, and Hungary faced a similar problem at the Eastern front. The vast tank divisions of the Red Army were just too much for the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS to handle, and Germany's allies had little use against them without the proper equipment. Such things eventually happened, blueprints of the Pz VI Tiger and the ME-262, for example, were attempted to be shipped to Japan but far too late.

Italy didn't have the industrial base to make use of German technology. Tankette production, the tiny little MG armed armored boxes, never rose to levels where you could conceivably have Italy trying to drive Panthers up and down Italian mountains.

[Thanatttynia]

If Germany and Britain had made peace in 1940 Europe would have been under complete Nazi domination. If/when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact breaks down, it's more than conceivable that Germany would defeat Russia, after which the Axis would have no problem defeating America and consigning it to the Western Hemisphere.

[North Arkana]

Not starting it

The thing is, they lose even if they don't start it.

In Europe, Germany was running off of fancied up IOUs and crippling piles of debt. Without the looting of other European nations, they were headed for economic collapse.

In Asia, you'd have to go way back to have Japan "not start it", but if we're staying in the same timeframe, Japan can't sustain it's operations in China without further expanding for loot and resources. It has to either start shriveling and retreating in the face of Chinese forces, or pull out as the US demands in order to gain access to US trade again.

[Scottish Socialists]

If Germany and Britain had made peace in 1940 Europe would have been under complete Nazi domination.

The simple answer: Britain would not make peace.

[The South Falls]

If Germany and Britain had made peace in 1940 Europe would have been under complete Nazi domination. If/when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact breaks down, it's more than conceivable that Germany would defeat Russia, after which the Axis would have no problem defeating America and consigning it to the Western Hemisphere.

But Germany was never going to make peace with Britain. Britain was too invested in their own ear. Russia could still win without Great Britain. Plus, what says Germany could have traveled the Atlantic like that?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Well I mean, Hitler being dumb and breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact thus devoting millions of men and materiel away from the continuing war in the west and creating enemies on two opposite fronts is a very valid point to bring up on why they lost.

[North Arkana]

If Germany and Britain had made peace in 1940 Europe would have been under complete Nazi domination. If/when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact breaks down, it's more than conceivable that Germany would defeat Russia, after which the Axis would have no problem defeating America and consigning it to the Western Hemisphere.

Huh? You are aware the Soviets were in the middle of modernizing their military when Germany attacked IRL, yes? And that the German tanks everyone wanks were developed due to combat on the Eastern Front, yes?

That means that come the breakdown of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Germans will be attacking with Panzer IIIs with 50mm guns (as always intended for modernization), Panzer IVs with short 75s, and StuGs with short 75s. Do you know what they're running into when they do attack? It's not the T-26 and BT light tanks which Germany padded its kill counts early in the war with. It's production finalized T-34s. T-34s without the wartime corning cutting and emergency expediency measures. It's KV-3s with 85mm guns and armor that makes the non-existent Tiger I blush. It's German Infantry with bolt-action Kar98Ks and MP40s fighting Soviet infantry with semi-automatic SVT-40s and PPSh-41s as standard. If Germany hadn't invaded when it did, if it had waited, the Soviets would be the second military in the world to be issuing a semi-automatic battle rifle as its service weapon.

And then, if the Soviets don't kick Hitler's face in, it's the Uk and US making a return with Canned Instant Sunshine and landings in Western Europe. It's WW2, but over even faster, and we'd be making fun of Germany for ever possibly thinking they could have won even more than people already do.

[Torrocca]

Well I mean, Hitler being dumb and breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact thus devoting millions of men and materiel away from the continuing war in the west and creating enemies on two opposite fronts is a very valid point to bring up on why they lost.

That wasn't a Hitler-only thing, though. It was fundamental to Nazism to destroy the Slavs and conquer Eastern Europe for Lebensraum. They couldn't go without it.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Well I mean, Hitler being dumb and breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact thus devoting millions of men and materiel away from the continuing war in the west and creating enemies on two opposite fronts is a very valid point to bring up on why they lost.

That wasn't a Hitler-only thing, though. It was fundamental to Nazism to destroy the Slavs and conquer Eastern Europe for Lebensraum. They couldn't go without it.

Yes but the decision of doing it before victory against GB was Hitler, and his taking over command of it was also a major act of stupidity.

[North Arkana]

That wasn't a Hitler-only thing, though. It was fundamental to Nazism to destroy the Slavs and conquer Eastern Europe for Lebensraum. They couldn't go without it.

Yes but the decision of doing it before victory against GB was Hitler, and his taking over command of it was also a major act of stupidity.

I'll point out, again, that a vast majority of German sources regarding the Eastern Front are written by German officers post-war. These are guys covering their own asses.

In hindsight it turns out Hitler opposed Citadel, which ended up being a disaster pushed for by his generals, and also issued the no retreat order which stemmed a collapse along the frontlines during the Soviet counter-attacks on the tail end of the German offensive push for Moscow.

[Thanatttynia]

The simple answer: Britain would not make peace.

I wouldn't be so sure. Britain had its fair share of Nazi sympathisers and even more who believed war with Germany was unnecessary. Had a few historical figures not been around; had the British defeats been more severe or humiliating; had the bombing not inspired so much patriotism; had American aid not been so forthcoming: a combination of any of these things could have led to an early Nazi-British treaty. We did spend the 30s giving them everything they wanted specifically to avoid war, it's not like most politicians were chomping at the bit to start it in the first place.

But Germany was never going to make peace with Britain. Britain was too invested in their own ear. Russia could still win without Great Britain. Plus, what says Germany could have traveled the Atlantic like that?

Hitler was an opportunist, I don't see why he wouldn't have made peace with Britain so as to consolidate his control over mainland Europe and (possibly) focus on Russia. Of course Russia still could have 'won' (lol) but it's conceivable that Germany would win. And Japan and Germany together, absent Britain and Russia, could most likely intimidate America into keeping to their own hemisphere. It's of course possible that given this chain of events America would not go to war against the Axis at all.

Huh? You are aware the Soviets were in the middle of modernizing their military when Germany attacked IRL, yes? And that the German tanks everyone wanks were developed due to combat on the Eastern Front, yes?

That means that come the breakdown of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Germans will be attacking with Panzer IIIs with 50mm guns (as always intended for modernization), Panzer IVs with short 75s, and StuGs with short 75s. Do you know what they're running into when they do attack? It's not the T-26 and BT light tanks which Germany padded its kill counts early in the war with. It's production finalized T-34s. T-34s without the wartime corning cutting and emergency expediency measures. It's KV-3s with 85mm guns and armor that makes the non-existent Tiger I blush. It's German Infantry with bolt-action Kar98Ks and MP40s fighting Soviet infantry with semi-automatic SVT-40s and PPSh-41s as standard. If Germany hadn't invaded when it did, if it had waited, the Soviets would be the second military in the world to be issuing a semi-automatic battle rifle as its service weapon.

I'm not going to pretend to know about weapons or military vehicles to this extent so I will bow to your superior knowledge on this point. But in discussing things like this people have a tendency to promote the idea of Russia as unconquerable when it's nothing of the sort. It's really your opinion that Nazi Europe and Imperial Japan could not have defeated a Russia with a modernised military even without having to worry about fighting any other state?

[Ostroeuropa]

By not being Nazis.

This.
Resistance to initial German invasion of the soviets was minimal and initial incursions greeted them as liberators because "anything is better than Stalin, right?", but it turns out no they were genocidal. Even when this was made known resistance was lackluster and people were unwilling to defend communism, even from genocide. It was only when propoganda shifted to "Save russia" that they mobilized the populace.

In addition, the will to have a war would have been rapidly sapped from the UK if Germany had invaded poland and france, seized Danzig, and then released an actually independent Poland (Sans Danzig) and independently agreed with them to respect the new borders, followed by spamming the UK with;

"Why you mad bro? Why you mad?"

Same with France.
Invade/occupy france.

"Okay you get new elections now, but no pro-war parties."

Probably shouldn't have annexed non-deutch Czechoslovakia either.

The UK would have looked like they were aggressors under those circumstances.

"We're literally just taking german majority areas tho.".

Alternatively, if they absolutely have to remain Nazis, they should have thrown their weight and clout behind Mosley while he was still in the Labour party a lot more and picked up on his dogwhistling.

If Mosley had won his vote on his Keynesian economic plan (Which was fairly close to passing, I think it's around 10 mps), he wouldn't have buggered off to found The New Party and probably would have become prime minister.

Then you've got a pro-Nazi prime minister and the UK might have aligned with the Germans. (Labour was anti-second world war until it was already underway.).

Without the UK, france does precisely nothing. Poland falls, and then it's UK+Axis V Soviets.

Without lend-lease, the Soviets are even worse off than OTL, that's before you even consider the attack from The Empire on top of the Nazis. This also keeps the US out of the war.

Hitlers strategy, rightly, relied on re-aligning the UK. He just completely failed to actually comprehend British politics (Because he was a Nazi) and assumed appeals to racial solidarity alongside a display of strength would demonstrate his worthwhile nature as an ally, which would lead the UK to come around.
Failure to re-align the UK meant the project was doomed and they often admitted it quietly.

Had they understood the UK better rather than thinking "Well they're germanic, like us, so they think the same way.", they would have paid attention to the internal politics and who to back and so on.

So even best case scenario, they still lost because they were Nazis and assumed things about the UK based on race.

[Torrocca]

Yes but the decision of doing it before victory against GB was Hitler, and his taking over command of it was also a major act of stupidity.

I'll point out, again, that a vast majority of German sources regarding the Eastern Front are written by German officers post-war. These are guys covering their own asses.

In hindsight it turns out Hitler opposed Citadel, which ended up being a disaster pushed for by his generals, and also issued the no retreat order which stemmed a collapse along the frontlines during the Soviet counter-attacks on the tail end of the German offensive push for Moscow.

>Be Nazi forces at Kursk
>Initiate a counteroffensive against an enemy that outnumbers you over 2-to-1
>Gain about a meter of ground over the course of a week
>Retreat half of your force immediately
>Lose the other half in a counter-offensive that tears through Eastern Ukraine through the month
>TFW you blame it all on Hitler even though he was against the operation

[North Arkana]

Huh? You are aware the Soviets were in the middle of modernizing their military when Germany attacked IRL, yes? And that the German tanks everyone wanks were developed due to combat on the Eastern Front, yes?

That means that come the breakdown of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Germans will be attacking with Panzer IIIs with 50mm guns (as always intended for modernization), Panzer IVs with short 75s, and StuGs with short 75s. Do you know what they're running into when they do attack? It's not the T-26 and BT light tanks which Germany padded its kill counts early in the war with. It's production finalized T-34s. T-34s without the wartime corning cutting and emergency expediency measures. It's KV-3s with 85mm guns and armor that makes the non-existent Tiger I blush. It's German Infantry with bolt-action Kar98Ks and MP40s fighting Soviet infantry with semi-automatic SVT-40s and PPSh-41s as standard. If Germany hadn't invaded when it did, if it had waited, the Soviets would be the second military in the world to be issuing a semi-automatic battle rifle as its service weapon.

I'm not going to pretend to know about weapons or military vehicles to this extent so I will bow to your superior knowledge on this point. But in discussing things like this people have a tendency to promote the idea of Russia as unconquerable when it's nothing of the sort. It's really your opinion that Nazi Europe and Imperial Japan could not have defeated a Russia with a modernised military even without having to worry about fighting any other state?

The Soviet Union in a prepared state, not with units in the middle of redeploying and modernizing as it was IRL, would be a damned brick wall with multiple more brick walls behind it in the west, facing Germany. Japan, meanwhile, was already once bitten, twice shy, when it came to the Soviets. They'd gotten man-handled by the Soviet forces using T-26 and BT tanks, with old model (relative) infantry armament and artillery. If they tried to fight the modernized Soviets in the vast openness of Siberia and Kamchatka? You'd have Soviet high command issuing stop orders to frontline units because there's 2 fronts going on, and while it's great homefront news to be overrunning dozens of kilometers of enemy territory every day, it's a bit hard on the logistics.

[Farnhamia]

I'll point out, again, that a vast majority of German sources regarding the Eastern Front are written by German officers post-war. These are guys covering their own asses.

In hindsight it turns out Hitler opposed Citadel, which ended up being a disaster pushed for by his generals, and also issued the no retreat order which stemmed a collapse along the frontlines during the Soviet counter-attacks on the tail end of the German offensive push for Moscow.

>Be Nazi forces at Kursk
>Initiate a counteroffensive against an enemy that outnumbers you over 2-to-1
>Gain about a meter of ground over the course of a week
>Retreat half of your force immediately
>Lose the other half in a counter-offensive that tears through Eastern Ukraine through the month
>TFW you blame it all on Hitler even though he was against the operation

You left out:

> shoot Hitler
> Make peace
> ???
> Profit

[Greater Hunnia]

That's a pretty bald-faced lie based upon a single skewed account by a Cold-War defector.

And the Red Army's positions and the very nature of the armament they developed (eg: BT series tanks), and their perceived mobilization.

1. The V2 is incapable of carrying a WW2 era nuclear warhead.

Absolutely true, however, I was speaking of hypotheticals. I meant to indicate that Germany was well on its way to developing delivery methods (ballistic missiles), and vehicles that could get them in range (missile subs). Who knows what could have been?

2. Deutschephysik was decidedly unkind to nuclear science, which was Judenphysik. German scientists were so far off base from making a nuclear weapon it's rather comical.

Once again, we are talking of hypotheticals and mistakes that should have been avoided. Though I have doubts that what you are talking about (ie: the dismissal of an entire branch of science) is more than Allied propaganda during and post-war, it is a fact that many great scientists in this field were Jewish and were forced to flee Europe. Many of them ended up working on Project Manhatten. Regardless, the Germans understood quite well how nukes were supposed to work.

Germany was already losing the Battle of Britain by then. UK fighter production was too high, and Luftwaffe striking power was too weak to keep the RAF out of any attempt to try Sea Lion. Sea Lion being a bag of failures all itself.

I did not raise a point about Sea Lion, only the air battle itself. Whether the Luftwaffe was crumbling at a faster rate than the RAF is heavily debatable but my point was that bombing industrial and military targets would have been preferable to killing civies and taking losses for doing it.

How? The entire German intelligence apparatus in the UK had been either turned, imprisoned, or killed. And that doesn't even begin to account for the problem of the Abwehr being run by someone actively working to subvert Hitler.

Surely there was at least one agent with a working gun? It had probably more to do with wishing to avoid making a martyr of Churchill and strengthening the resolve of the British. Such sentiments, after all, were common on both sides. In hindsight, we know that Churchill being alive was quite detrimental to the German war effort.

That quite literally requires the Nazis to not be Nazis. The NSDAP is an inherently racialist party.

I see your point, however, racially motivated intentions and racialist sentiments are irrelevant (or should be) when tactical decisions are made. And in hindsight we can tell that making the population loyal with propaganda, counter-propaganda, and not behaving like unchained animals is a good tactic. Because then the population of the enemy country will fight the war for us. The USA knows this all too well.

Too busy laughing

K.

Italy didn't have the industrial base to make use of German technology. Tankette production, the tiny little MG armed armored boxes, never rose to levels where you could conceivably have Italy trying to drive Panthers up and down Italian mountains.

Now that is straight up bullshit, which saddens me because most of your post was rather good. Italy had developed its own medium tanks, just too little and too late. Germany should have given them their own medium tank designs much earlier, such as the Pz4, but there's much more than that. Just about everything Italy had was dogshit. Small arms, aircraft, cannons. They had the capacity to build these, just not the designs. Even the odd tankette can be upgunned with say, the long 50cm German gun found on late Pz III's, and suddenly it's capable of taking on Britsh cavalry tanks in the desert. Same with Hungary and Japan, both had domestic medium tank designs and production, but not nearly as good as their German counterparts. I guess even if the Germans sent nothing but advisors to aid development, it could have been a huge help.

[Torrocca]

>Be Nazi forces at Kursk
>Initiate a counteroffensive against an enemy that outnumbers you over 2-to-1
>Gain about a meter of ground over the course of a week
>Retreat half of your force immediately
>Lose the other half in a counter-offensive that tears through Eastern Ukraine through the month
>TFW you blame it all on Hitler even though he was against the operation

You left out:

> shoot Hitler
> Make peace
> ???
> Profit

Sure is a shame the Nazis didn't choose to not be Nazis after they immediately started getting pushed back and attacked from multiple fronts, eh?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

1. Italy - Mussolini's biggest mistake was joining up with Hitler. Per their Alliance, both countries would have to become actively involved the other's wars in the event of war in Europe. Mussolini knew Italy wouldn't be ready for war until 1942; something Hitler also knew, yet totally disregarded. Mussolini put too much faith in Hitler and it cost him everything. If Italy was to survive WWII, it would have to forego any alliance with Germany. He also shouldn't have invaded Greece, as Metaxas could have been a great potential ally.

2. Germany - Hitler's greatest mistake was never invading Britain. His plan to bomb and starve Britain into submission was utterly stupid, utterly flawed, and an utter failure. Britain should have been invaded before any action was taken against the Soviets. His second biggest mistake was declaring war on the Soviets; no. Just, no. He should have let them attack him first; this would have improved German morale drastically as the Soviets would have had less reason to fight so stubbornly and bitterly. He also should have ensured they'd have winter clothing in the event they couldn't conquer Russia before winter set in. His last big mistake was declaring war on the USA when the US had no reason to declare war on him (yet). Avoiding war with the USA is the best option here.

3. Japan - Honestly there's nothing they can do here. An attack on Pearl Harbor would've been inevitable, and so a war with the US would be inevitable, and so their defeat would be inevitable. No real way to alter that.

[Farnhamia]

You left out:

> shoot Hitler
> Make peace
> ???
> Profit

Sure is a shame the Nazis didn't choose to not be Nazis after they immediately started getting pushed back and attacked from multiple fronts, eh?

I know, I know.

"Fritz, what are we doing wrong? This should be working."

[Rezmaeristan]

Has anybody suggested North Africa and Lehi yet?

So there was a Zionist Fascist movement called Lehi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group)

They actually wanted the Axis powers to support them and help them establish a Fascist Jewish State. Sound crazy?

You have to remember that the Final Solution wasn't always final. At one point they were considering just kicking all the Jews out of Germany.

So in this scenario, the Afrika Korps is augmented by not only the units that in OTL were sent to Russia, but by units made up of European Jews wishing to settle in Israel. As a result, invading the USSR is put off until the UK is knocked out of the war, with the help of Lehi.

I think we all know the best part of this scenario.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Yes but the decision of doing it before victory against GB was Hitler, and his taking over command of it was also a major act of stupidity.

I'll point out, again, that a vast majority of German sources regarding the Eastern Front are written by German officers post-war. These are guys covering their own asses.

In hindsight it turns out Hitler opposed Citadel, which ended up being a disaster pushed for by his generals, and also issued the no retreat order which stemmed a collapse along the frontlines during the Soviet counter-attacks on the tail end of the German offensive push for Moscow.

Interesting, I never knew that. I thought the decision behind breaking the pact before victory in the west was still largely advocated by Hitler himself. My WWII is pretty rusty though as I've been studying WWI for a long time instead.