Germany succeeded in the "blitzkrieg" to force France to yield in 1940. And the country drove Britain into a corner. It had a great impact on the world, so contemporary people didn't doubt German untimate victory, setting the Battle of Britain aside.
But actually Germany invade the Soviet Union and was pulled into endless battles and was ruined after all. This indicates the fact the war against the Soviet Russian misled German strategic judgement. That fact cannot bear comparison with Mussolini's failure in North Africa.
Now, a number of folks might have doubts about why Germany attacked Russia.
Firstly, Hitler hated Communism. Besides his ideological reason, he believed it indispensable to German existernce that in the limited European continent his country expanted its territory into eastern regions containing Russia. He was planning to turn out inhabitants from eastern wide regions and have resources to himself. It was a sort of megalomania.
On the other hand, Germany couldn't acquire territory from western nations. He expected that Britain and France corresponded with Germnany and overlooked what he would do; consequently he opened war against the two states reluctantly. Therefore, when Britain was not German imminent enemy, he began interfering with the Balkan States and invading to the east.
Secondly, Hitler didn't think of Russia as a mighty nation. He imagined that the Soviet Russia wasn't essentially developed, and socialistic political errors confused society, and if Germany gave the country a push, it would fall down easily.
His evaluation was almost to the point except Russian industrial and military forces, I acknowledge. At the beginning of the war with Russia the number of German troops was some 3000,000 and that of Russian was some 4500,000, but the margin between the two continued to increase after that. At last Russia crushed Germany with overwhelming superiority of troops and weapons.
I suspect that as his evaluation was based on the condition of the Russian Empire in WWI, he was misled. Anyway it is certain his irrelevant strategy came evil.
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Well, I think that Germany should have attended to fight with Britain. Russian preparation for war was ready completely in '42, though.
:hitout:

Pope eye,

Not only a German blunder but before that a French blunder as well.

i have read that Hitler's main beef was with the Soviets--that he did not desire war with the
west at all.

Hitler's main beef was with the French. There has been anomosity between the French and Germans since before the time of Napolean. At the Treaty of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years War, France obtained bridgeheads in the German states and took Alsace and Lorraine. In 1792 the French took Speyer, Worms and Mainz. In 1803 they occupied German lands under the terms of the Deputation Report. In 1806 the French invaded Prussia and crushed the Prussian army at the battles of Jena and Auerstaedt . They occupied Konigsberg and created Westphalia from western Prussian lands.

I think rendova has a point Frogger. Hitler had more of an ideological rift with Russia, than he did with France. After he invaded Poland he was somewhat perturbed that France and England declared war. I'm not so sure he was anxious for war with France.

Vile Pagan,

The war wasn't fought over ideology but for vengance against the Treaty of Versailles and for Lebensraum .

Germany viewed France as the major cause of the unfair Treaty of Versailles. France occupied the Ruhr and Saar Basin and extracted crushing reparations.

Remember, the Russo-German Nonaggression Pact had been signed in 1939.

John Toland's masterly work "Adolf Hitler" deals extensively with this topic.
He describes von Ribbentrop's frantic diplomatic efforts to assuage the West as Hitler knew full well of the treaty between Poland, England, and France. Der Feuhrer also made comments to the effect how very similar the 2 cultures were--British and German--language, customs, etc. According to Toland, this was the last thing he wanted--a war on 2 fronts, one front against a very similar enemy. Hitler was also aware of the lessons learned from the previous war--did not want a repeat of the horrid trench warfare--thus blitzkrieg. The treaty he signed with Stalin was just an attempt to lull them to sleep while he built up his army and get needed raw supplies from the Soviets.

Originally posted by Frogger
Vile Pagan,

The war wasn't fought over ideology but for vengance against the Treaty of Versailles and for Lebensraum .

Germany viewed France as the major cause of the unfair Treaty of Versailles. France occupied the Ruhr and Saar Basin and extracted crushing reparations.

Remember, the Russo-German Nonaggression Pact had been signed in 1939.
Yes, Hitler made the French surrender at the very same railroad car where the Germans had surrendered in the previous war. The guy had a very long memory and I also believe he had a monument to the WWI surrender eradicated.

Originally posted by Frogger
Remember, the Russo-German Nonaggression Pact had been signed in 1939.

Don't make too much of that - Hitler never really planned on upholding his end of the bargain.

Der Feuhrer also made comments to the effect how very similar the 2 cultures were--British and German--language, customs, etc.

The Germans and English were very close, linguistically, culturally and politically.

Ann of Cleves, the wife of Henry VIII was Anna von Cleves. Prince Albert was German.

King George ! had a German army contingent.

Hessian troops fought for England during the American Revolution.

The Royal House of Great Britain changed its name from Hannover to Windsor at the beginning of the war.

Lord Mountbatten's original family name was Battenburg

It is often said that brutal oppression against Russian people was one of German blunders. But since German end was depriving them of their domain and making them slaves as I imply, there was not room for a torelant policy at all.
As a matter of fact, the Russian nation above all Ukrainian destested Communism. So when German Army intruded into the U.S.S.R., soldiers were heartily welcomed and their tanks were decorated with flowers. However, as soon as their land was transferred to the administration of the party and "SS" came and did oppress, their friendless changed into depair. Some of them threw grenades named "revenge" at soldiers as partisans.

Thank you for your replies!
To tell the truth,this theme is what I've argued.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbhistory/F2233811?thread=1194586

Pope_eye,

Rather than just regurgitating the thoughts of others why not give your thoughts. When you parrot what someone else has said you lose the spontaneity that makes reading posts more interesting.

Secondly, Hitler didn't think of Russia as a mighty nation. He imagined that the Soviet Russia wasn't essentially developed, and socialistic political errors confused society, and if Germany gave the country a push, it would fall down easily.

That's true that he thought that the CCCP would just collapse.

He deeply underestimated how the Red Army and even civilians of the CCCP would fight to the death rather than surrender. His anti-slavic crusade more than even his anti-communist war helped Stalin to unite the people to fight off the invasion. It's true that at first in the Ukraine, nationalist/anti-bolshevik sympathies caused people to greet the troops as liberators. That quickly changed; the Ukrainians were plundered and left to starve in the cruel winter. The people there knew that their continued existence as a people was at stake, not just the Socialist regime.

A big flaw in Hitler's strategy was not the invasion of the USSR itself, but to continue when supply lines were hopelessly stretched thin and his forces were in a position to be encircled (which is exactly what happened). The Luftwaffe couldn't resupply the Whermacht alone.

Had Hitler extended the front to the Soviet industrial base, which was intentionally built in deep Asia, they might've actually won and seized the oil. But they never really threatened it. As a result the USSR was able to outproduce the Nazis (with American help) and thus able to defeat something like 60% of German ground forces (plus Romanian divisions).

Yes, and Hitler also made a terrible tactical blunder when he unleashed "Operation Punishment"--the attack on Yugoslav insurgents, thus postponing his attack on the USSR until late June, when their summer was practically over. He really should have attacked in April like he planned and may have succeeded in taking Moscow if he had--is it true that Stalin cringed in terror when he heard the Wehrmacht was just miles away and hid out in the Kremlin? I read that somewhere---

Also, a French diplomat, shortly after the war, visited the Soviet Union and saw the terrible devastation firsthand. He said--"A great people, a very great people."

His friend replied, "Oh yes, the Russians are great."

The Frenchman said, "No, I mean the Germans. To have come that far."

Had Hiler taken his armies South rather than East the war might have turned out quite different. He would have wrested contol of the oil from the West and been able to fuel his war machine. Attacking Russia was a gigantic tactical error.

Not only a German blunder but before that a French blunder as well.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.- Mark Twain