Worst Mistakes made by the Axis during World War II

The Axis Worst Mistake?

  • Italy's Invasion of Greece

    Votes: 37 13.1%
  • Germany's Invasion of Russia

    Votes: 133 47.0%
  • Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor

    Votes: 106 37.5%
  • Hitler's Declaration of War on the United States

    Votes: 108 38.2%
  • Hitler's Fixation on Wonder Weapons

    Votes: 56 19.8%
  • Hitler's Underestimation of Sea Power

    Votes: 32 11.3%
  • Germany's Repression of the Occupied Territories

    Votes: 90 31.8%
  • The Inability of the Axis to Get Spain and Turkey to Join the Fight

    Votes: 13 4.6%

  • Total voters
    283
These are for the most part an impressive list of strategic mistakes. And I agree that Dunkirk probably belongs on the list.

But for my money, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor remains the most disastrous, because there's really no scenario where it doesn't lead to the complete destruction of the Japanese Empire, barring an asteroid strike. It's the closest thing you can find to a collective act of national suicide that you can find in history - at least modern or early modern history.

Whereas the some of the most spectacular failures in this list don't necessarily lead to total destruction the way that one does, and or they they merely anticipated a state of affairs that was going to happen soon anyway (i.e., the German DOW on the US after Pearl Harbor). A German invasion of the USSR was certainly facing tough odds, but it wasn't an automatic loser, had it been conducted differently or with slightly different circumstances, as Calbear's and Wiking's timelines suggest; also, unlike the USA post-Pearl Harbor, there actually was a chance that the Soviet government could be bludgeoned into suing for peace, assuming that Hitler or some successor was minded to accept it.
 
These are for the most part an impressive list of strategic mistakes. And I agree that Dunkirk probably belongs on the list.

But for my money, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor remains the most disastrous, because there's really no scenario where it doesn't lead to the complete destruction of the Japanese Empire, barring an asteroid strike. It's the closest thing you can find to a collective act of national suicide that you can find in history - at least modern or early modern history.

Whereas the some of the most spectacular failures in this list don't necessarily lead to total destruction the way that one does, and or they they merely anticipated a state of affairs that was going to happen soon anyway (i.e., the German DOW on the US after Pearl Harbor). A German invasion of the USSR was certainly facing tough odds, but it wasn't an automatic loser, had it been conducted differently or with slightly different circumstances, as Calbear's and Wiking's timelines suggest; also, unlike the USA post-Pearl Harbor, there actually was a chance that the Soviet government could be bludgeoned into suing for peace, assuming that Hitler or some successor was minded to accept it.

The US is not going to allow Japan a free hand in Asia. They will get involved sooner or later. The oil embargo made conflict inevitable and the Japanese knew it and that's why they attacked. Pearl Harbour is not a mistake, it's their only chance. A triple lightning strike chance, sure, but what else are they going to do?
 
The holocaust should probably be here.

I know that people saying that it's a 'feature not a bug' - I'm not suggesting that the Nazis not become raging anti-semites all of a sudden but that pragmatism trumps ideology and they wait until after they've won.
 
The holocaust should probably be here.

I know that people saying that it's a 'feature not a bug' - I'm not suggesting that the Nazis not become raging anti-semites all of a sudden but that pragmatism trumps ideology and they wait until after they've won.

But that is a feature of Nazism and Hitler, he was never much for pragmatism. If he had gotten his way Germany would have wound up fighting a war in 1938 in a far worse condition, he was utterly impatient.
 
Yes if it joined the Axis in 1941, which would greatly help the North Africa campaign and divert Soviet resources in 1941-42. They mobilized 1 million men IOTL to enforce their neutrality, so they'd be a major threat to the British in the Middle East. If they join as or before the Iraq Rebellion happens in May 1941 then they with the Vichy French in Syria-Lebanon would be a huge problem for Britain and ensure greater German forces get into the region via Turkey after the fall of Crete. It might be enough to prevent/delay Barbarossa as the Middle East campaign then heats up and sucks in huge resources, as now the Axis can actually collapse the British position in the Middle East and provoke and Arab uprising in the region. The big problem is why would Turkey want to? They have nothing to gain other than being on the winning side, but then you're a puppet of Hitler.



Could Turkey be effective against the Soviets coming in from the south through the Caucus? Or is it about as futile as the Japanese incursions against the USSR?
 

Deleted member 1487

Could Turkey be effective against the Soviets coming in from the south through the Caucus? Or is it about as futile as the Japanese incursions against the USSR?
Not as attackers, but as defenders sure; plus they can be used as a base for bombing Tblisi and Baku.
 
The US is not going to allow Japan a free hand in Asia. They will get involved sooner or later. The oil embargo made conflict inevitable and the Japanese knew it and that's why they attacked. Pearl Harbour is not a mistake, it's their only chance. A triple lightning strike chance, sure, but what else are they going to do?

Japan only felt compelled to go to war because they refused to moderate their course of expansion in Asia. They could even have offered a partial or full withdrawal from French Indochina and gauged FDR's response (even after Hull's appointment), but Tojo refused to do so.

But the window that Japan had (before U.S. military expansion really started to show results) was no window at all. It merely lengthened the time it would take for Japan to be completely crushed.
 
Japan only felt compelled to go to war because they refused to moderate their course of expansion in Asia. They could even have offered a partial or full withdrawal from French Indochina and gauged FDR's response (even after Hull's appointment), but Tojo refused to do so.

But the window that Japan had (before U.S. military expansion really started to show results) was no window at all. It merely lengthened the time it would take for Japan to be completely crushed.

Then Tojo would have been assasinated by the junior officers and he knew it.
 
Not as attackers, but as defenders sure; plus they can be used as a base for bombing Tblisi and Baku.



Hmm interesting. I have always been fond of a middle eastern nation putting real military output in ww2. I suppose Turkey would also be able to close up the Black Sea from Allied imports, what effect could this have on the USSR? As well, how would the British fair against Turkish forces in the Levant?
 
Italy's major mistake was not invading Greece though that was a disaster but invading rather unsuccessfully France. Italy sacrificed a significant part of it's merchant fleet in the silly scrabble to attack a defeated France and gained a pocket of land that was not worth the price. Further the whole of their African empire was vulnerable to the British and at least the missing shipping could have been used for reinforcement. This of course does not even mention an Italy in control of Libya and it's oil reserves but Fascism in it's various forms is a death cult enjoying violence for it's own sake and therefore vulnerable to vicious stupidity.
 
Italy's major mistake was not invading Greece though that was a disaster but invading rather unsuccessfully France. Italy sacrificed a significant part of it's merchant fleet in the silly scrabble to attack a defeated France and gained a pocket of land that was not worth the price. Further the whole of their African empire was vulnerable to the British and at least the missing shipping could have been used for reinforcement. This of course does not even mention an Italy in control of Libya and it's oil reserves but Fascism in it's various forms is a death cult enjoying violence for it's own sake and therefore vulnerable to vicious stupidity.

AIUI, and I could be wrong here, Libya's oil was undiscovered in WWII, and miles too deep for drilling technology of the time to reach.:confused:
 
Devils Adovate Argument

What was the Axis worst mistake in WWII?

I'll argue about each

1. Italian Invasion of Greece
No excuses. The Greek Army, in that terrain, was actually better man-for-man and unit-for-unit. They ruined themselves invading Albania, where the LOCs were horrific, and left their own right flank as a gaping hole for the German Army.

OTOH, there is a critical stretch of a rail line running through Eastern Thrace that if severed by the Greeks cuts Hitler off from his most critical resource, Turkish chrome. Had the Allies never bombed Germany's factories, thereby reducing German war production, Germany would have used up their chrome and seen their ability to manufacture weapons collapse by mid-1944.

Even OTL, January 1st 1946 was the projected date for Germany's exhaustion of the last of its strategic reserves of chrome. My source is Speer's memoirs. Much of it self-serving, but on technical levels pretty accurate.

2. German Invasion of Russia, aka Operation Barbarossa
Unavoidable. If Hitler waits until the Soviet's Second Five Year Plan is completed, the effects of Stalin's purges will mostly have been alleviated. Hitler may still get some measure of surprise, but he'll still be facing a much stronger Red Army. For Hitler, it was 1941 or nothing. If he'd invaded in 1942 or later, its unlikely the Germans get past the Dneipr-Smolensk-Leningrad line, but facing a much deeper in depth defending Red Army.

Forget Typhoon. Some form of Case Blue could happen, but be worse for the Germans. The Slaughter of Kharkov is still likely though.

.Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor.
Japan's history of launching surprise attacks against potentially more powerful but politically weaker opponents certainly worked against them in WWII. Its a truism that Westerners have a poor understanding of non-Western cultures. Its easy to forget that non-Western cultures can be just as ignorant of us.:mad::rolleyes: That's pretty much the Japanese problem in their strategic thinking regarding the West.

They were right about the Netherlands and the British Empire being too distracted to give Japan their full attention. But their inability to understand the domestic political ramifications upon the American People by a sneak attack (remember, that famous cable's language never contained an actual war declaration) while still involved in high level peace negotiations spoke volumes about Japan's ignorance. While they may have been surprised at the ferocity of America's anger at the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese never seemed to really take it too seriously.

As in, that the Japanese warlords never thought this would mean that the USA would NEVER negotiate with Japan now.

4. Hitler's Declaration of War on the United States

I strongly disagree, understanding that I am in a small minority here. Hitler, as a natural bully, was never going to let the other guy get in the first punch, even diplomatically. But it wasn't just mindless grandstanding by him. He had damn good reasons for his DoW against the USA, albeit all short-term ones. But those were the only choices he ever made anyway.:rolleyes:

Consider the consequences if Hitler DOESN'T DoW America:

a) FDR can DoW Germany whenever he wants, at a time of his most advantageous choosing. Probably after mobilization is fully on track and the divisions are starting to complete their training, and the USN has stepped up its "limited war" against the U-Boats. Personally, I don't believe this could happen, whatever the public opinion polls may have reported between Pearl Harbor and Hitler's DoW. There certainly would have been a far stronger demand for a "Japan First" strategy, starting with Admiral King, who would enjoy a much stronger wind in his sails even with America DoWing Germany ITTL.

b) No German DoW means that at the very least, the USA is now an Associate Power in WWII. Like the USSR, neutral in one theater, active in the other. But since the USA is a full military ally of both the Netherlands and the British Empire, there's nothing ITTL to prevent them from receiving unlimited Lend Lease from America, fully escorted in USN convoys. And God help any U-Boat who tries to stop our ships from sending aid to our (Free) Dutch and British friends. All sent to the UK for re-deployment worldwide. All in the name of fighting the "perfidious Japanese".:D:p

Of course, as sovereign nations the Dutch and British are well within their rights to do with their Lend Lease as they choose. Like re-crating them "Made In Britain" and "Gift from the British People to the Valiant Workers of the USSR".:cool:;) This would just HAVE to be in Hitler's mind.

5. Hitler's Fixation on Wonder Weapons, aka Wunderwuffen

Meh. Boys and their toys. Corporals playing with toy soldiers. They made it possible to think that German superior weapons technology would save his bacon in the end. In the end, the Allies AND the Soviets had plenty of Wonder Weapons of their own. We just take things like advanced radar, good super tanks, and superior mass war manufacturing skills for granted.

6. Hitler's Underestimation of Navy or Sea Power

"On land, I am a lion, at sea I am a coward."
Adolph Hitler

Actually, Hitler understood his limitations on naval warfare. He just didn't understand the changes that took place on that subject in WWII.

7. Nazi Repression on the Occupied Territories

They were Nazis, not nationalists. Would they ever have gotten so far pre-WWII if they lacked the criminal mentality of Nazis? Even the Soviets had their limits. Nazis did not.

8. The Inability of the Axis to Get Spain to join in the fight

I split these to make the distinction, because they are different cases. Spain was a Pro-Axis neutral. Turkey was a strict neutral.

Spain's Franco very much wanted a good sized chunk of French North West Africa, but that would put him at loggerheads with Mussolini and his recognized sphere of influence. He wanted Gibraltar, which would have been fine with the Axis, provided he had no objection to the colony being flooded with German troops, aircraft, and submarines. But he also wanted to make his army every bit as armed as the German Army, and Hitler could hardly spare all those weapons. He needed them for his own forces.

Without acceding to all of Franco's demands (which Hitler will never do) Spain isn't joining the Axis short of Britain's complete collapse.

9. The inability to get Turkey to join in the fight

As described in detail by others, Turkey was extremely unenthusiastic about the idea of entering WWII. And unlike Franco possibly responding to bribery, the Turks were more concerned about national survival, bordering on Russia as they were. Unlike Spain though, if the war news gets bad enough for one side or the other, Turkey will DoW the losing side to save themselves. They said as much to the Germans during their long tide of retreat on the Eastern Front.

Mind, Turkey didn't DoW Germany until February 23rd, 1945. By which time the rush of neutrals to declare war on the Axis had become a stampede. You had to be at war with the Axis if you were to join the United Nations.
 
Last edited:
Two points should be made; firstly it was not implied that the oil was accessible at the time but it would be at sometime in the fairly near future. This would have transformed the Italian economy of the 40's and50's. Secondly oil was not going to be discovered or exploited while a war was going on overhead. By the time the war stopped Libya was forgotten backwater no longer controlled by Italy. Please do not take this literally but what if NorthSea oil was in full swing in time for the war, there are some lively possibilities!
 
Two points should be made; firstly it was not implied that the oil was accessible at the time but it would be at sometime in the fairly near future. This would have transformed the Italian economy of the 40's and50's. Secondly oil was not going to be discovered or exploited while a war was going on overhead. By the time the war stopped Libya was forgotten backwater no longer controlled by Italy. Please do not take this literally but what if NorthSea oil was in full swing in time for the war, there are some lively possibilities!

Couldn't they be leveled by German bombers? How far out to sea are they?:confused:
 
Top