Greatest military blunder of WWII

[Ferdinand Foch]

True, Vassili, but not everyone in his War Cabinet though otherwise. Churchill was a great leader, but he could have been put in a dire position if some of his cabinet wanted to put Chamberlain back in power (least I think, if I'm wrong, please correct me). Thank god Churchill stayed, though, or half of Europe could be speaking German right now.

 

[Waynos]

I think this is something that we will never know for sure. I for one think that could very well be true however. I do not think that Hitler ever truly wanted to fight England.

From what I have seen that is exactly right, I'm sure I read that he regarded Russia as the common enemy of Germany AND Britain which might have influenced his thinkng, talk about calling it wrong!

Vassili, I think Chamberlain is much misunderstood and it is all too easy to judge with hindsight. One has to remember that during the late 1930's the horrors of WW1 were all too fresh in the memory and it wasn't just Chamberlain who was deserate to avoid a repeat of that, it was everyone. When the munich 'piece of paper' was waved at Croydon he was heralded as a hero around the world and the editorials of Flight (which you can read online for free) and the Aeroplane immediately after Munich illustrate that feeling very well.

It was Chamberlain who facilitated Dowdings Fighter Command structure that later proved so vital ( and which was nowhere near ready in 1938 ) by redirecting resources away from Bomber Command in the face of massive opposition and it was Chamberlain who finally declared war when it became transparent that nothing else would stop Hitler.

The 'would be' successor to Churchill was Lord Halifax and it was a commons revolt that I feel Hitler was counting on to get his peace settlement because he knew all too well that Churchills speeches were not mere words.

 

[BombTaxi]

Indeed, Churchill inherited many of the structures with which Britain would eventually win her war. It must also be added that while Churchill was a great war leader, public feelings about him were ambivalent, to say the least. Many would remember his meddling at the Admiralty in 1914, and his instigation and 'planning' of the disastrous Dardanelles campaign in 1915. Even in 1940, he tried to resurrect the 'Baltic Project' which he had called for in WW1. The details of this scheme are widely available in print and online, so suffice it to say that had it actually occurred in either war, it might well have lost the whole game for Britain - especially so in WW2.

And the British public showed their estimation of Churchill as a post-war leader by evicting him in favour of Clement Attlee before the war was even over. Perhaps their memory of his role in the General Strike of 1926 influenced that.

He was a great orator and a great wartime leader, but Churchill had many failings in his past which have tended to be buried under his admittedly inspirational wartime record.

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Indeed, Churchill inherited many of the structures with which Britain would eventually win her war. It must also be added that while Churchill was a great war leader, public feelings about him were ambivalent, to say the least. Many would remember his meddling at the Admiralty in 1914, and his instigation and 'planning' of the disastrous Dardanelles campaign in 1915. Even in 1940, he tried to resurrect the 'Baltic Project' which he had called for in WW1. The details of this scheme are widely available in print and online, so suffice it to say that had it actually occurred in either war, it might well have lost the whole game for Britain - especially so in WW2.

And the British public showed their estimation of Churchill as a post-war leader by evicting him in favour of Clement Attlee before the war was even over. Perhaps their memory of his role in the General Strike of 1926 influenced that.

He was a great orator and a great wartime leader, but Churchill had many failings in his past which have tended to be buried under his admittedly inspirational wartime record.

Whoops, forgot about that about Churchill. Didn't he also screw up with Admiral Christopher Cradock in the Falklands in 1914?

 

[BombTaxi]

He meddled in almost everything, TBH. Even when he got back into the Admiralty in 1939, he was meddling just as he had in 1914.

As an aside, Cradock's case is an interesting one. He knew he had almost no chance against von Spee, but no doubt felt that after Milne's disgrace for failing to intercept Goeben, that he had no choice but to fight against the odds. This led to a truly tragic and totally unnecessary waste of life at Coronel. This was less a Churchillian problem than one with the attitude of the Royal Navy of the time, which was rather mired in a romantic vision of Trafalgar, than a sober appraisal of how war at sea would be fought in the dreadnought age.

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

I gotcha, thanks for the info. I did find it odd, seeing as how Cradock's Good Hope and Monmouth were outclassed by Spee's Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, yet he still opted to fight.

 

[Fokker D21]

Personally, I thinks Germany's biggest blunder is not a military one, but one of producing in too small numbers early in the war. Even the UK outproduced Germany by 1940. With Germany going into full scale war production no later than 1938 they might very well have defeated the USSR before the US involvement became too serious.

As for the Japanese, they never thought they could defeat the US. Instead they hoped to force the US to agree with there posession of conquerred territories. The japanese didn't expect (and could not have known) the US would make a comeback so soon (within 6 months).

 

[drgondog]

I voted for Germany declaring war on US but Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor was truly the worst mistake for the Axis.

Had Japan not attcked US it is not inevitable that we come into the war given the isolationist perspective. We had to be very angry and Japan achieved just the right 'tone' to set us off.

 

[parsifal]

I voted for Germany declaring war on US but Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor was truly the worst mistake for the Axis.

Had Japan not attcked US it is not inevitable that we come into the war given the isolationist perspective. We had to be very angry and Japan achieved just the right 'tone' to set us off.

In fact DG, I would have to disagree with that. The Americans knew that their embargo was going to force the Japanese to pull the trigger, what came as a surprise was when the attack occurred, and its extensive nature (ie the attack on Pearl).

Rossevelt and his administration were expecting that the Japs would launch their attack around March or April of 1942, and would limit their attacks to the Philipinnes and Malaya. They believed that B-17s in the Philipinnes would have massive strategic effect, that would enable the Americans to implement their Plan Orange counterattack. Nobody took much notice of Claire Chennaults reports on types, tactics and pilot skills, all of which came as a major shock. The effect of the Zero, with its range, firepower and other performance characteristics, had, for a time, a strategic impact on the war in the pacific, though it of course was eventually defeated.

I agree that the Japanese decision was national hari kari, and many Japanese officers mistakenly and grossly under-estimated US determination, however, it is also untrue to suppose that by 1941, the Japanese had any real choice about going to war. What was needed was a defeat of the Russians by Germany, and then a renewed focus in the Atlantic. If that had occurred, the Japanese may have gotten their negotiated settlemen t (though I doubt it).

 

[Valo300]

Which one do you guys thing was the worst blunder of WWII?

Besides actually starting the war to begin with, the dumbest move of WWII was launching operation Barbarossa before the Brits surrendered(not that they were ever likely to in any case).

 

[jag.rosso]

this is my thinking....i am from germany....
the best hitler had done was to declare usa the war.this usa troops was the onlyone who was able to stop the russian invasion in middle of germany.without them the red army will stop at atlantic coast and get hole europe.this usa troops let the people in west berlin survife...bring us freedom+democraty...and helped and allowed us to build a new germany!!!
biggest blunder???
-let 200K-300K british soldiers getting home in calais
-not directly attack england after wining in france (wait until england industry was able to create a modern high tech army)
-starting operation barbarossa 2 month later than planed (because of helping bullshit italy troops by attack greece)...the result was that the hard winter coming before the wehrmacht arrive at river wolga
-japanese attack usa instead of attack russia from the second side (nice friends ;-( )
-but the biggest blunder was the person hitler who think he is a god of strategy and not listen what the really super german gernerals say to him by stategy of war
-and wy a third front in **** north africa

that´s my thinking
sorry for my bad english
andre

 

[Njaco]

Your English is fine and you made some good points.

My opinion is the NA problem was not totally invading Malta.

 

[jag.rosso]

ok,malta???i not really understand this operation.maybe one of many black outs from adolf.but not a place where you can win or loose a world war.
we loose this war by attacking our "friends" russia.
our "achse" germany-russia-japan-italy-rumania etc. together.....nobody in the world in this time would be able to stop this gigant army.europe-asia-africa....not really big problem for this "achse".
also the usa was for sure nervous about the menpower and technology of this achse.
thanks god the history take another way and i was borned in the middle of 60tis in nice-rich and free west germany.our poor friends in east germany would have more 45 years dictatur+terrorism by the communists before they can feel the freedom there.
and if hitler get a little time more for building rockets and the a-bomb......good night to the world.
so in the end germany was the big looser of this ww2....but.....today 2009 i will say good that we loose.
this loosing war bring us the chance to build a new free germany........and we take this chance well!!!!
cheers to my friends oversea
andre

ps: sorry to me,but to say the true i am a little bit proud what biiiig history our small country bring to the world..........i am natioanalist...not nazi!!!!!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Interesting points.

Where in Germany are you from?

 

[BombTaxi]

In some respects, Malta was a win/lose point in the war. Take Malta, you take the RN out of the Eastern Med, and supply lines to Axis forces in NA are saved, while Allied lines are cut. The Allie are ejected from NA, and the idea of the Japanese and Germans meeting up in Iran becomes slightly more feasible - at any rate, it gives Germany the chance to seize much needed oil reserves while denying the same to the Allies. That would have seriously altered the course of the war - can you imagine how the Battle of the Bulge could have gone had the Germans actually had the fuel available to mount a proper Blitzkreig?

 

[Freebird]

biggest blunders???
-let 200K-300K british soldiers getting home in calais yes


-not directly attack england after wining in france (wait until england industry was able to create a modern high tech army) yes

-starting operation barbarossa 2 month later than planed (because of helping bullshit italy troops by attack greece)...the result was that the hard winter coming before the wehrmacht arrive at river wolga yes


-but the biggest blunder was the person hitler who think he is a god of strategy and not listen what the really super german gernerals say to him by stategy of war


that´s my thinking
sorry for my bad english
andre

Good points!

 

[plan_D]

I could never pinpoint the greatest blunder of the war; a war is made up of mistakes - the side with the fewest wins.

For Pearl Harbor, the Japanese attack can't really be considered a blunder in military terms. The strike was excellent, surprising and, to a degree, crippling. Of course the U.S recovery was short, given our hindsight, but 6 months is a long time in war - and it's all credit for the U.S industry. Just remember the Taranto attack by the Royal Navy which in terms of destruction was no greater than Pearl Harbour but so much more effective due to Italy being much less capablet to cope. Of course, the IJN could have wreaked more havoc with concentrated attacks on fuel depots and communication targets (and hunting the carriers) but as port strikes go - it's the best in history.
Maybe you could see the U.S side of Pearl Harbour as a blunder because they allowed themselves to be in that position. Looking back we can say that the Japanese should have never been allowed to be in a such an advantageous position on the day; given the events after Pearl Harbor though, the day becomes irrelevant in military terms.

As for German blunders; they're in their hundreds. Allowing the BEF to escape has never been a blunder in my eyes; the German logistical situation was stretched at best - pushing that far, that fast was excellent going (especially against the largest military in Western Europe). Imagine, though, the logistical nightmare dealing with all the troops that would be captured. At the time, allowing the troops to leave instead of risking lives at the end of their supply was a good choice. The politics of it are a front, in my opinion. The fact that those men went on to fight later in the conflict would have been irrelvant if the Germans had not tripped up in Russia. Just a quick nit-pick also, the BEF escaped through Dunkirk - not Calais, which fell the day before the Dunkirk evacuations started.

The German aid in the Balkans was a mistake of the Italians, who were a hinderance to the German war effort by attempting to extend their empire. Greece was a required element to remove the British from the continent, but Yugoslavia was really the time waster. By postponing the invasion of the Soviet Union by 6 weeks it really slowed the German advance during the later stages of 1941; however, even with that delay it was mistakes during the invasion period that cost them that winter - diverting forces away from Moscow and not allowing Guderian to pull back from Tula to prepared defences in Smolensk were the two great blunders of that year - if the Wehrmacht had concentrated their forces in the summer and then pulled back in winter; Moscow would have been under the Swastika by Spring '42; instead they were pushed away in the winter ice and snow, and couldn't recover.

 

[jag.rosso]

yes malta was for sure the end of NA operation.second point is that we must take too much material from there to help our wehrmacht in east front.
but all this is the result of not attack england.
they not have war on their teritory (ok,some bombs+rockets)and was able to build such a strong army and send them far away from their country to fight against german.
if we really direct after getting france attack england....you will meet no british soldier in NA and rommel would be able to make a fast blitzkrieg there.
and the usa would have no place in europe to help+bring goods there.
oil of course also a big problem.....but minimum the same problem to transport oil to our troops far away in russia...no streets...no train...partisans...and extremly weather.....not good for blitzkrieg strategy.

i am living in city bochum...ruhrgebiet...german´s biggest industrie area....completly bombed in war.(70 kilometer away from cologne)

 

[Hop]

In some respects, Malta was a win/lose point in the war. Take Malta, you take the RN out of the Eastern Med, and supply lines to Axis forces in NA are saved, while Allied lines are cut. The Allie are ejected from NA, and the idea of the Japanese and Germans meeting up in Iran becomes slightly more feasible - at any rate, it gives Germany the chance to seize much needed oil reserves while denying the same to the Allies.

Taking Malta wouldn't have made that much difference to the Med. Whilst the Germans would lose less supplies en route to NA, the British would be spared the burden of supplying Malta. There would be very little effect on the RN in the eastern Med, apart from removing one of their most dangerous duties.

Supplies for the allies in Egypt went around Egypt and up through Suez, so very little effect from losing Malta.

And even if the Germans had taken Egypt, going from there to the oil fields was beyond them. It's 700 miles from the shores of the Med to the oil fields. It would be like NA all over again, the Germans at the end of a long, tenuous road link and the British close to bases well supplied by sea.

 

[Civettone]

I could never pinpoint the greatest blunder of the war; a war is made up of mistakes - the side with the fewest wins.

For Pearl Harbor, the Japanese attack can't really be considered a blunder in military terms. The strike was excellent, surprising and, to a degree, crippling. Of course the U.S recovery was short, given our hindsight, but 6 months is a long time in war - and it's all credit for the U.S industry. Just remember the Taranto attack by the Royal Navy which in terms of destruction was no greater than Pearl Harbour but so much more effective due to Italy being much less capablet to cope. Of course, the IJN could have wreaked more havoc with concentrated attacks on fuel depots and communication targets (and hunting the carriers) but as port strikes go - it's the best in history.
Maybe you could see the U.S side of Pearl Harbour as a blunder because they allowed themselves to be in that position. Looking back we can say that the Japanese should have never been allowed to be in a such an advantageous position on the day; given the events after Pearl Harbor though, the day becomes irrelevant in military terms.

As for German blunders; they're in their hundreds. Allowing the BEF to escape has never been a blunder in my eyes; the German logistical situation was stretched at best - pushing that far, that fast was excellent going (especially against the largest military in Western Europe). Imagine, though, the logistical nightmare dealing with all the troops that would be captured. At the time, allowing the troops to leave instead of risking lives at the end of their supply was a good choice. The politics of it are a front, in my opinion. The fact that those men went on to fight later in the conflict would have been irrelvant if the Germans had not tripped up in Russia. Just a quick nit-pick also, the BEF escaped through Dunkirk - not Calais, which fell the day before the Dunkirk evacuations started.

The German aid in the Balkans was a mistake of the Italians, who were a hinderance to the German war effort by attempting to extend their empire. Greece was a required element to remove the British from the continent, but Yugoslavia was really the time waster. By postponing the invasion of the Soviet Union by 6 weeks it really slowed the German advance during the later stages of 1941; however, even with that delay it was mistakes during the invasion period that cost them that winter - diverting forces away from Moscow and not allowing Guderian to pull back from Tula to prepared defences in Smolensk were the two great blunders of that year - if the Wehrmacht had concentrated their forces in the summer and then pulled back in winter; Moscow would have been under the Swastika by Spring '42; instead they were pushed away in the winter ice and snow, and couldn't recover.

I agree on Italy and Japan. But I disagree what you say about Calais. There are contemporary reports which said that they still had oil and 'gusto' to go on. The units were surprised that suddenly they were ordered to halt the offensive even though the enemy was in disarray. In any sense, it's simply impossible that the whole army around those British/French forces would suddenly all have run out of juice. What's more, what about the infantry units that were mainly horse drawn. Oh wait, that's most of them...
Also, it's quite unlike the German High Command to order troops to stop because of fuel shortages. Or to stop for any reasons. They expected the impossible from their units. They expected the impossible from the Luftwaffe. And that's where it went wrong.

One can say that the Germans made hundreds of blunders. But few of them were military. Almost all of them were political and racially or ideologically inspired. And THAT's why the Germans lost the war.

Kris