When reading about WW2, one always hears about this image that Hitler's meddling with military affairs made bad situation into a disaster. Hitler is depicted as this imbecile fanatic who surrounded himself with yes-man.
But somehow this image does not seem to me very true. First of all, I think we need to distinguish pre-1942 Hitler and post-1942 Hitler. It is known his doctor made him into a junkie. So as a time progressed and the stress of loosing the war was taking a toll, it seems reasonable he was indeed approaching the "imbecile fanatic" picture.
For this reason, let us not talk about post-Stalingrad Hitler. Now pre Stalingrad Hitler seems to me as someone who was always willing to listen to his subordinates and advisors. He took charge and overruled his subordinates only when he believed he knows the correct course of action. And he, from what I know, always came to his conclusions only after a lot of considerations and discussions. And he has almost always chosen right. I think no one really talks a lot about pre-USSR Hitler's blunders. Perhaps some mistakes here and there, but not blunders. That would be crazy considering his achievements.
The USSR invasion is the thing that kickstarts the talk about his blunders as it failed monumentally. In Hitler's eye, the invasion was necessary, because he feared dependence on other countries, especially USSR for its raw materials. He had to take them and make Germany self-sufficient. Of course, there are ideological subtexts, but Molotov-Ribbentrop pact shows quite clearly Hitler was first and foremost practical man and not a fanatic. He would push his ideologies, but only as much as situation allowed him. Now, I read that whole nazi-germany was basically biggest ponzi scheme in the world. The country would go bankrupt if not for the constant aggression.
So let us start with Hitlers blunders, which I keep hearing about:
1) Attack on Yugoslavia, that postponed the USSR invasion for 5 weeks, just because he was butthurt. Is it really a blunder? Hitler did manage diplomatic solution with the government, but the country ignored it. It is said, that Hitler was butthurt over this, so he invaded. Now, I am sure Hitler was indeed butthurt, but could he made another decision? Keeping such unstable neighbor that ignores diplomatic solutions at the outset of invasion?
2) invasion of USSR. Was there any other choice for him, except giving up the power and military gains to make peace with Britain? After Battle of Britain, it became obvious Germany is in no position to win the war. British are not really a danger in 1941, but as time progressed they would gain strength and their plotting would undermine Germany in a along run. And because they have industrial power of US backing them up, they would most surely ultimately won. Add to this the ideological tension between USSR and Germany, Germany dependence on raw materials from USSR, terrible Germany intelligence and reforms that were taking place in USSR and you see, there was not really that many options for Hitler.
3.) Hitler's redirection of AG center to south which postponed the drive on Moscow. This one I cannot comprehend the most. It led to the biggest encirclement in history, allowed Germans to consolidate their position and logistic for subsequent drive and get rid of the danger from the flanks and allowed AG south take the Ukraine and prepare for drive on oil fields in Caucasus, you now the main objective of whole invasion. Also, in retrospect it seems the Russians would probably not gave up just because their city fell (if it would, I mean, its huge city. Surely it can mount impressive defences). People talk about railway hub, but it seems to me that it could not been the only thing keeping red army and government going. Just cant see how is the blind push on Moscow justified strategically more than what Hitler wanted. And German army seems to me to have very bad record in their strategical decisions. When I read about WW1, it seemed to me the strategical vision was nowhere to be found. Their just planned for the next battle/offensive and that was it. If I would call anyone imbecile, it would be Halder with respect to his strategical thinking. I recall he dismissed Hitlers ideas because he (paraphrasing) "would not allow economical considerations to dictate operational planning". So he made whole wishful thinking on which the USSR invasion was build on even worse. Instead of hurting the USSR economy while strengthening his country economy as much as possible, he bet everything on the idea Russians will just rage-quit after taking their capitol as I so often do playing Civ4.
4.) Hitlers surrounding himself with yes-man and obedient generals.
I agree this is a blunder. But can we really judge Hitler on this front so harshly? Seems to me before Battle of Moscow he did not do it. Also it seems to me he had clear vision that the main attack was supposed to be targeted based on economical considerations, especially getting the resources. His generals opposed him with their idea of drive on Moscow and he let them, albeit reluctantly. I recall Halder in his diary often complained about Hitler always bringing it up and arguing about it. But his generals failed to deliver. The Germany reached Moscow without defeating the enemy or taking the city and it seemed long and bloody war became inevitable which Hitler, I believe rightly so, thought Germany would loose. He could gave up and sue for peace, but he made one more bet for pushing on Caucasus in the next year and finally taking what was so terribly needed. His generals betrayed him and they failed and left the country to a terrible situation. They showed no vision and from this point onward, Hitler took over. When generals argued they need to retreat, he did not listen, he no longer trusted their judgment. I believe he could see the tactical points they were making, but he could no longer trust that their ideas were in line with strategical needs of Germany. So when their argue to retreat in the south, he said no and he did not listen. He made one more bet for the push on Caucasus in 1942 and he needed the best position to achieve it. When they argued they need to retreat in the center, he did not listen and I think historians stand by his decision as the correct one. His generals failed, now it is up to him...
But of course, before he decided only from time to time after a lot of discussions and considerations. Once he takes control, his decisions will be made more often and therefore with less careful thinking and analysis. He will start to meddle with decisions he should really leave for generals to make, and he will do this more and more...
5) War declaration to US
Well, they were basically in a war already, its only that no one said it out loud. At least now he can attack the shipping with clear mind. And Hitler did need Japan navy for the eventual invasion of England in the future and declaring war was the best course of action to get on their good side. Its not like the US can do much in the following year in which the Germany will either secure its victory over USSR, or loose anyway. And Hitler never plan for loosing, it was either ultimate domination or ultimate failure with him. It was what made his successes, so I do not think we can call it blunder, just a bet that did not pay of. But I do see rational thinking behind this decision.
So can you comment on this 5 commonly told blunders if they are truly as terrible as they are believed to be? Do you know about other pre-Stalingrad blunders that are worth mentioning here? (I do not know that much about 1942 and later years, there might be more).
It's both more complicated and simpler than this.
First of all, we have to remember that most school and popular historiography passes over hitler's blunders before 1942. So almost noone will tell you how his generals in 1938 plotted a coup in case he wanted to declare war on Czechoslowakia for the Sudetenland. Noone will tell you how his generals in until 1939 strongly advised him not to invade poland, because they were not ready for a full scale war with France and England, and they wouldn't be ready at least until 1942 just for that front.
Hitler was just in the right place at the right time, and with tons of luck, in addition to having some of the best strategical minds under his belt.
In 1938 england and france, with the diplomatic help of Italy, ceded the sudetenland: nobody wanted a war and nobody was really ready for one.
In 1939, while Most of german forces were invading Poland, French forces, despite being fully mobilized and ready to attack and invade Germany from the unguarded western front, stayed put, and waited. After the 1940 swift victories over Poland, Norway and France (that certainly wasn't hitler's merit) german generals thought it wasn't so bad after all, and got along with hitler's shenanigans.
Hitler was never a strategic or tactical mastermind, he mever got full support from the high command and German goals were reached just through sheer luck and Real military genius coming from his generals. Everything in hitler decisions were just blunders, gambles and a sense of omnipotence. It wasn't about "his achievements", it was about "sheer luck and good general achievements". Anything else is just from nazi propaganda, misconception and popular documentaries.
Let's talk about the blunders you point out.
Attack on its southern flank and jugoslavia wasn't because he was butthurt. Or, to better say, the attack on Jugoslavia was a necessity as much the whole operation was a necessity to secure its southern flank from the british. In fact the issue in the balkan wasn't Jugoslavia, it was greece, that was at war with Italy since october 1940. Hitler asked to jugoslavia, hungary, romania and Bulgaria military access, that everyone allowed. Jugoslavia too accepted german influence and military access, but then, mere days before the german troops crossing, an internal Jugoslavian coup changed the government and denied access to german troops. So hitler, instead of just passing trough, simply changed the plan to invade the nation and have it under its complete control, while he went down to solve the greek question. So it wasn't a blunder, it was an objective necessity, pushed by any person with a brain. And yeah, yhat costed germany precious weeks in the USSR invasion, but it wouldn't have really changed anything, as long as the soviets know that japan wouldn't attack and could move their veteran troops from the far east to the european theater.
invasion of the USSR isn't as much as a blunder as was the invasion of Poland. Everything after september 1st 1939 is mostly just action->reaction. So yeah, the invasion of USSR was inevitable, but his army wasn't really ready, motorised and equipped. Maybe in summer 1942 it could have worked better, but Stalin would have had solved most of his public issues about generals and forces.
AG south could have taken ukraine in the right amount of time, but hitler wanted everything and quick. Yeah, taking prisomers and secure its south flank is a true necessity, but taking away forces from the main directive isn't really ideal. And taking moscow would have taken A LOT of efforts, but moscow was worth it. You say that being an infrastructure hub wasn't all that much, but look at a railroad map of russia even today: all roads litterally go into moscow. It was the earth and mind of russia, even if most of industry and resources were behind the Urals.
4)JFC, "his general failed to deliver": deliver what? The impossible? As I said before, generals depsised hitler "strategies" immediately, even before the war. They were the real mastermind behind ALL german victories, and they never failed because they weren't able, they failed because it wasn't feasible. Because of the lack of manpower, because of the lack of equipment, because of enemies' numbers. They strucked victory against every odd, but they couldn't win agains the tides forever. And hitler despised and fired whoever wasn't with him and his omnipotent dreams. Again, popular documentaries won't tell you this, but study Beck, Von Blomberg and Von Fritsch lifes. Qnd then you'll get why hitler loved yesmen.
And yes, I already told you as most of hitler's "strategies" were just huge gambles, it's like having a special, spoiled child playing in a huge mansion with his servitude that must constantly avoid damages to the mansion furnitures and to the child itself, while obeying every order he gives.