Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Greatest blunder? OK I will give my 2 cents. The greatest blunder was giving back Japan her nation. She was nation building and had taken most of Asia. That included killing 30 million Chinese and a few million other Asian folks. She surrendered UNCONDITIONALLY and the allies treated her better than she had or would have any nation she defeated.
Good call. Everyone seems to forget that, as you have all these cubicle commandos ripping apart decisions that a military leader made. Military decisions are always made with incomplete intelligence, and very often it is the delay of action, or inaction, that can prove most disastrous.
Was liberated until the end of the war. But there was an opportunity there in 1941. Kimmel saw it, Pye saw only the down side.
There were only three carriers in the Pacific in Dec 1941. That was the whole USN offensive capability in that ocean untill the Yorktown and Hornet could get there.
Pye was right in withdrawing. Better to lose that island than to lose a carrier and be really ******.
Neither his predecessor (Kimmel) or the subsiquent commander (Nimitz) saw it that way. I can see how I read it wrong. No worries. But those guys sat in the same chair. They knew the risks, had the same responsibility. If they say Pye dropped the ball, wouldn't it follow that their perspective lends credibility to the assessment?
Greatest blunder? OK I will give my 2 cents. The greatest blunder was giving back Japan her nation. She was nation building and had taken most of Asia. That included killing 30 million Chinese and a few million other Asian folks. She surrendered UNCONDITIONALLY and the allies treated her better than she had or would have any nation she defeated.
I don't agree. And what's more, his contemporaries didn't agree. While my opinion doesn't mean much, others who knew him at the time felt the same way.
I agree with your points about armchair generals and making decisions with incomplete information. They are good and very valid points. But you need somebody, WE needed somebody, who would fight. And you will never have complete information. Doesn't matter if you are running a business or running a war. Most decisions are made in a fog. Make the right decisions, fame and fortune come your way (depending on which you want). Shy from it, and somebody else will come in to do it. Make the wrong decisions and you end up broke, disgraced and forgotten.
Wake was relatively insignificant in the scheme of things. It was a single island out in the middle of the Pacific. No great offensives were launched from it. It was not even deemed important enough to take back by the powers that be. Was liberated until the end of the war. But there was an opportunity there in 1941. Kimmel saw it, Pye saw only the down side.
And that my friends is an example of ignorance....
What bothers me is that Joe Dirt in Bumble----, Oklahoma reads a military book and suddenly he could have run the war better than Eisenhower, Halsey, etc. and smashes these individuals that did their best to serve their country.
I agree with ya'. It is easier to be critical than correct and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I see it sometimes on the board, that somebody was inept. Saw both Montgomery and Eisenhower get that tag recently. Don't think either one deserves it. In truth, given the cirumstances of the time, they both did a pretty good job. I suscribe to the idea that the side that makes the fewest mistakes while pursuing their plan-wins.
Far too often, you get a post saying, "If so and so had done such and such, the war would've ended 6 months eariler". Such posts usually don't understand that doing "such and such" was not practical for a mulitude of reasons. But by looking at a map (and only a map), it seems simple.
Another problem Armchair Strategiest have is they rarely make any weighty decisions themselves. With little experience in making the decisions, it amazes them that something was not done "the obvious way".
You think??? I was hoping nobody would respond to that one...
Sorry please explain? If I do not understand you correctly I apologize it is rather late and I am very very tired.
I agree,without the US things would have been tougher for England and Russia>December 10th, 1941. Hitler declares war on the US. Firstly, it turned a European war into a global war. Before that, it is possible to call the wars going on The Great European War and The Great Pacific War. By declaring war on the US, it truely became a World War (not all the World was in it, but that stretched it all the way around the globe in an intertwined way).
I was going to add June 22nd 1941 but that was not really a World War situation. It was still part of the Great European war. So Barbarossa doesn't quite make it (stupid blunder that it was).
By declaring war on the US (the only country he actually did that to), Hitler added the last piece in the puzzle that would bring about his downfall. Russia had the Manpower, England had the position, the US had the Manufacturing capacity. US involvement in the European war might've been inevitable, but Hitler's actions only hurried his end.