Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have not read the entire post so forgive me if this has been mentioned before. I think the greatest blunder of WW2 was made by one man. Not as you might think, a man of great military rank or political influence. In fact he was a navigator in a Luftwafe bomber. He would be the man that got off course and accidentaly dropped his payload on London. The British had no way of knowing this was a mistake so a raid on Berlin followed. This prompted Hitler to order the Luftwafe to bomb London instead of British airfields giving fighter command enough time to regroup and eventually win the Battle of Britain thus preserving the only launching pad for the invasion of Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany. The rammifacations of this one error in navigation are astounding.
Plan D, you might want to think this one through a bit.
Singapore was (and still is) thousands of miles from England. At the time, the Brits were in a struggle for their national existence. Resources, both material and personel, were limited in what can be spared. This is further brought out by the caliber of equipment used in that theatre until about 1944. Even as late as the fall of 1943, the Commonwealth Air Forces were using the Curtiss P36 (called the Mohawk) as a front line fighter. There was simply nothing else to use. In short, the lines of communication for the Brits were very long and would've required substantial drawdowns to the three fronts (England, North Atlantic and North Africa) to equip. It was simply not going to happen.
Second, the Japanese had probably the best Naval Air Force in the world in Fall of 1941 and the Spring of 1942. The RNAS was using aircraft a generation or two behind them. As Singapore is an island, it is susceptable to blockade. The Royal Navy could not break that blockade with the equipment available. This is further proven by the strategic withdrawl of British Forces from the Bay of Bengal in the spring of '42 when Nagumo's carrier forces went on a rampage in that area (sinking, amongst other ships, the HMS Devonshire and HMS Cornwall). The RNAS Carrier arm was not a factor of importance in this fight.
Another point, Malaya is a penninsula. As noted above, the Japanese controled the waters. Given that, no matter where the Commonwealth troops decided to fight (assuming they had the training and support to do so effectively), the Japanese always had the option of flanking them by using amphib landings (as they did so effectively on the land).
Singapore was on the end of a long supply line, staffed by second or third rate officers (in general) with no really effective and tested plan for defence. It is a sad thing that so many good troops were lost there. They might've (and probably would've) been far more effective fighting in Java or PNG. But that's the breaks.
The Brits were living on reputation in Singapore towards the end of 1941. While there was a slow buildup going on, it was nowhwere near the caliber needed to counter the Japanese threat.
Emac, well stated. I'm in complete agreement with you this.
Except for one thing.
The US hardly could be considered a pseudo-colonial overlord.
Partial autonomy (commonwealth status) was granted in 1935, preparatory to a planned full independence from the United States in 1946.
Ever read Flyboys, Sys? The writer disagrees with you I think
Emac, well stated. I'm in complete agreement with you this.
Except for one thing.
The US hardly could be considered a pseudo-colonial overlord.
Partial autonomy (commonwealth status) was granted in 1935, preparatory to a planned full independence from the United States in 1946.
The US hardly could be considered a pseudo-colonial overlord.
Partial autonomy (commonwealth status) was granted in 1935, preparatory to a planned full independence from the United States in 1946.
What I read in Flyboys was that the Americans acted like a colonial suppressor in the Phillipine-American war when the philipines tried to standup against the American suppression.
Alexander's performance in Burma / India was less than stella though.
I'd say Slim is largely forgotten rather than completely.
His performance in India / Burma (in spite of Alexander Irwin) is rightly regarded as probably the single most impressive by any individual in WW2 - he re-trained his army based on his own doctrine and then led it back. Amazing, especially given the lack of extra resources and the British Armies' general lack of 'new' thinking shown at the time.
Interestingly there are just 3 WW2 generals' statues outside the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall: Brooke, Montgomery and Slim. Slim being the only one shown armed and in 'combat dress' (the other two are 'parade dress' and look a bit snooty, particularly Brooke)
I'd agree on Clark.
What I read in Flyboys was that the Americans acted like a colonial suppressor in the Phillipine-American war when the philipines tried to standup against the American suppression.
About General Brooke (C.I.G.S.) he was the best strategic commander in the Allied US/UK high command (IMHO) His greatest accomplishment was to prevent the GREATEST MILITARY BLUNDER of WWII - "Sledgehammer". This was the proposed 1942 landing in France, which was being strongly pushed by the US high command, Stimson Marshall. There can be no doubt this would have been a MAJOR disaster, likely resulting in 100,000+ casulties (mainly captured)
While that may be a great thing, if that was his greatest accomplishment than I am sure that there were great allied commanders who accomplished more.
The thread was "Greatest Blunder"
freebird said:and "SledgeHammer"would have been the worst. As for his accomplishments, how about his leadership of British II corps in May 1940, which allowed the British to escape at Dunkirk? It was his own initiative in not following High Command directive to "wait for further orders" but instead quickly stabilizing the right flank of the BEF, preventing the Germans from capturing Dunkirk before the BEF could retreat into it. At the time the leadership of the BEF (Lord Gort) was in paralysis, if Brooke had not been there to order an immediate fighting retreat into Dunkirk, the entire BEF would have been trapped. (350,000+ men) Can you name any other commander who played such a critical role?
Also he convinced Churchill not to leave the rest of the British Army in France (Brittany), but to evacuate before the French surrender. (at which time the British would have been interned, as per the French armistice)
Always an interesting topic!
Sealion itself never took place so cannot really be considered a failure.
There's uncertainty about Dunkirk. Apparently it's also possible that German Panzers ran out of petrol and were forced to stop. Plus, the British and French threw up some impressive defensive stands.
Kris
You are correct about the Panzer however I believe it was still a German blunder. They had the BEF trapped and Goerring insistance that the Luftwaffe could destroy them was utter nonsense.
As I said above atleast half of the credit does not go to Brooke but to the Germans themselves.