Greatest military blunder of WWII
- Thread starter Thorlifter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I dont think that Germany had to delcare war because of the pact. Japan was not fighting Russia even though Germany declared war on Russia.
I'm not positive but I think the pact stated that the members of the Axis were obligated to declare war only in the case of another member being attacked. In other words, only if the Axis member were on the defensive from the start. Japan attacked the US, British, British Colonial and European Colonial possesions in December of 1941. Hence, the Germans were not obligated to declare war. Hitler was an idiot for doing it.
But it does raise an interesting question. How would the war had turned out if Germany does not go to war against the US in 1941? Granted, it would've happened that the US and Germany would've gotten into it sooner or later. But initially, the US would've focused on Japan (which is where the majority of Americans wanted the forces to go in the first place). Would Lend Lease have continued on the same scale? Would the US Atlantic Fleet have transferred to the Pacific? Would the Japanese expansion stopped earlier? When would the US go to war against Germany? Would the Soviet Union have survived the Winter of 41 and 42 with reduced supplies from the US and no North African Invasion?
An interesting "What If".
But it does raise an interesting question. How would the war had turned out if Germany does not go to war against the US in 1941? Granted, it would've happened that the US and Germany would've gotten into it sooner or later. But initially, the US would've focused on Japan (which is where the majority of Americans wanted the forces to go in the first place). Would Lend Lease have continued on the same scale? Would the US Atlantic Fleet have transferred to the Pacific? Would the Japanese expansion stopped earlier? When would the US go to war against Germany? Would the Soviet Union have survived the Winter of 41 and 42 with reduced supplies from the US and no North African Invasion?
An interesting "What If".
rogthedodge
Airman 1st Class
- 155
- May 9, 2007
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.
Think the Statue guy got it right on Brooke. He was snooty. Nobody ever called him warm. But, like they say, the job description didn't include "Warm and Fuzzy". He had a tough job. I may be the only one that says that, but keeping Churchill from doing another Gallipoli (what was it about the Med that so facinated Churchill, guy started two campaigns in two wars and both were dogs, don't get it) or thinking up some other crazy idea that wouldn't work kept him buzy all war long something of a minder. Marshall had a much easier time with Roosevelt than Brooke with Churchill.
The more I read about the Far East Campaign from 12-7-41 on, the more I think there really wasn't going to be anything to stop the Japanese. The Brits/Dutch/Americans/Australians did their best (especially at the rank of Major and below) but there was nothing that was going to stop the Imperial Army/Navy. Slow it down, maybe. But not by much. The Allies had a peace mentality, a truely inept staff in Colonial Capitals and second rate equipment. And everyone knew it. I think that may be one of the reasons Alexander really didn't get the blame for it. It was not a question of "if" in the Far East, but "when".
Makes Slim's achievement all that more impressive. Also, while he maybe overlooked in England, he is unknown in the US. Don't think it's anything personal, most people in the US don't even know there was fighting in the CBI during WW2 and that Americans were involved. Haven't made a movie about it in 40 years!
The more I read about the Far East Campaign from 12-7-41 on, the more I think there really wasn't going to be anything to stop the Japanese. The Brits/Dutch/Americans/Australians did their best (especially at the rank of Major and below) but there was nothing that was going to stop the Imperial Army/Navy. Slow it down, maybe. But not by much. The Allies had a peace mentality, a truely inept staff in Colonial Capitals and second rate equipment. And everyone knew it. I think that may be one of the reasons Alexander really didn't get the blame for it. It was not a question of "if" in the Far East, but "when".
Makes Slim's achievement all that more impressive. Also, while he maybe overlooked in England, he is unknown in the US. Don't think it's anything personal, most people in the US don't even know there was fighting in the CBI during WW2 and that Americans were involved. Haven't made a movie about it in 40 years!
rogthedodge
Airman 1st Class
- 155
- May 9, 2007
I know what you mean - when there was a US film made 'Burma Victory' it caused such a stink here it was withdrawn from release.
Books on Slim are thin on the ground, reading 'Slim - Master of War' at the moment - good but largely a re-write of 'Slim The Standard Bearer'. Both suffer from poor mapping and inadequate desrciptions of the battlefields.
Unfortunately Wingate gets a lot of the credit (maybe the zionist link and his penchant for self-publicity) but most forget he was subordinate to Slim. When Wingate cracked it was Slim who ordered him to carry on.
Stilwell famous hated limeys but although Stilwell technically out-ranked Slim he agreed to serve under Slim - a fine endorsement.
Stilwell was also scathing about Alexander taking the credit for the Burcorps retreat.
I read somewhere that Slim had 500,000 men under his command at the peak (can't find a reliable source for that though).
If that's the case did he command one of the biggest armies on the allied (non-Russian) side?
The more I read about Slim the more convinced I am he was a much better general than Monty, Patton or Rommel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My mistake it was 'Objective Burma!' that caused the stink was withdrawn, 'Burma Victory' was the UK documentary film which gave all of the credit to Mountabatten Alexander and they had to add words about Slim at the end to balance it! Neither was perfect!
Books on Slim are thin on the ground, reading 'Slim - Master of War' at the moment - good but largely a re-write of 'Slim The Standard Bearer'. Both suffer from poor mapping and inadequate desrciptions of the battlefields.
Unfortunately Wingate gets a lot of the credit (maybe the zionist link and his penchant for self-publicity) but most forget he was subordinate to Slim. When Wingate cracked it was Slim who ordered him to carry on.
Stilwell famous hated limeys but although Stilwell technically out-ranked Slim he agreed to serve under Slim - a fine endorsement.
Stilwell was also scathing about Alexander taking the credit for the Burcorps retreat.
I read somewhere that Slim had 500,000 men under his command at the peak (can't find a reliable source for that though).
If that's the case did he command one of the biggest armies on the allied (non-Russian) side?
The more I read about Slim the more convinced I am he was a much better general than Monty, Patton or Rommel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My mistake it was 'Objective Burma!' that caused the stink was withdrawn, 'Burma Victory' was the UK documentary film which gave all of the credit to Mountabatten Alexander and they had to add words about Slim at the end to balance it! Neither was perfect!
Good post. Agreed.
ccheese
Member In Perpetuity
What if Japan had made another raid on Pearl Harbor ? This time got the
sub pens, the fuel farm, the dry docks ?
What if they had not retreated when they had "Taffey 3"
bottled up ? Halsey was 800 miles away !
Good question !!
Charles
sub pens, the fuel farm, the dry docks ?
What if they had not retreated when they had "Taffey 3"
bottled up ? Halsey was 800 miles away !
Good question !!
Charles
ToughOmbre
Senior Master Sergeant
If the Japanese (specifically Nagumo) had any guts we would have been in a lot worse shape on December 7th. They might have even been able to catch a carrier or two (Enterprise for sure). A better Pearl harbor strategy by Japan might have extended the war, but the outcome eventually would be the same. Same for Leyte Gulf. If Kurita's forces pressed their advantage against Taffy 3, American casualties would have been far higher in the Phillipines and the war would certainly have been prolonged. But eventually there were destined to be mushroom clouds sprouting over Japanese cities.
ccheese
Member In Perpetuity
I like that part:
"But eventually there were destined to be mushroom clouds sprouting over Japanese cities."
Charles
"But eventually there were destined to be mushroom clouds sprouting over Japanese cities."
Charles
Personally I don't think Japan stood a chance, even if they'd sunk the entire U.S. Pacific fleet at Pearl, carriers and all. Every mistake they made after that was just another grain of sand falling in the hourglass of their eventual failure.
Germany on the other hand, could have pulled off a victory, so I'll pick over three things. Firstly, I don't believe Barbarossa itself to be a blunder, but feel the mistake was in the overconfidence behind it. The German counter-intelligence did such a great job of instilling paranoia in Stalin that he'd liquidated a good part of his own General Staff before 1941. The real blunder was Germany's deactivation of over 40 divisions from the Eastern Front in the autumn of 1941, believing that victory was foregone. Then there was the aspect of not having proper winter clothing and materials available through the 1941-42 season... perhaps also part of their overconfidence. I think the German Army splitting between Moscow and the Caucasus could have succeeded if their original force had been left intact and properly supplied for a slightly longer campaign. With the Russian Front won and closed, Germany would have secured monstrous supplies of raw materials, foods, and their all important oil. They could have then gone back and dealt with England for round two, more dangerous than ever. The failures of Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain were not deal breakers if Russia had been submitted. The worst Germany could have done from that point is a stalemate. With the bulk of the German Army back on the Western Front, D-Day would never have gotten past the beaches.
Second, aside from vanity, Germany no business being in North Africa, Greece, Crete, or (the eventual) Yugoslavia. These endeavors chewed up occupation troops and resources that could have been used elsewhere. Hungary, Romania and the Bulgaria alliances made sense only to the point they provided troops for Germany in the Russian campaign... which would all have been unnecessary if Hitler had not squandered his advantage from 1941.
Thirdly, there was Germany's failure around the Enigma system. Germany had a solution to Bletchley Park, despite not being aware the Allies were already reading their mail. The four wheel Enigma machine evolved to become a five wheel device. But because not every machine could be replaced at once, the four wheel units had to be able to read messages sent from the five wheel versions. The five wheel Enigma was essentially a fruitless evolution. If the two versions had been kept entirely separate, the Allies would have been deaf to German Intelligence traffic from mid 1943 onwards.
Beyond those, throw in a few Luftwaffe crumbs about Goring getting in the way of a good airforce, jet/rocket advances being ignored until it was too late and that Willy Messerschmidt probably should have shot in 1938. Everything was there for Germany to succeed. Thank goodness only hindsight is 20-20.
Germany on the other hand, could have pulled off a victory, so I'll pick over three things. Firstly, I don't believe Barbarossa itself to be a blunder, but feel the mistake was in the overconfidence behind it. The German counter-intelligence did such a great job of instilling paranoia in Stalin that he'd liquidated a good part of his own General Staff before 1941. The real blunder was Germany's deactivation of over 40 divisions from the Eastern Front in the autumn of 1941, believing that victory was foregone. Then there was the aspect of not having proper winter clothing and materials available through the 1941-42 season... perhaps also part of their overconfidence. I think the German Army splitting between Moscow and the Caucasus could have succeeded if their original force had been left intact and properly supplied for a slightly longer campaign. With the Russian Front won and closed, Germany would have secured monstrous supplies of raw materials, foods, and their all important oil. They could have then gone back and dealt with England for round two, more dangerous than ever. The failures of Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain were not deal breakers if Russia had been submitted. The worst Germany could have done from that point is a stalemate. With the bulk of the German Army back on the Western Front, D-Day would never have gotten past the beaches.
Second, aside from vanity, Germany no business being in North Africa, Greece, Crete, or (the eventual) Yugoslavia. These endeavors chewed up occupation troops and resources that could have been used elsewhere. Hungary, Romania and the Bulgaria alliances made sense only to the point they provided troops for Germany in the Russian campaign... which would all have been unnecessary if Hitler had not squandered his advantage from 1941.
Thirdly, there was Germany's failure around the Enigma system. Germany had a solution to Bletchley Park, despite not being aware the Allies were already reading their mail. The four wheel Enigma machine evolved to become a five wheel device. But because not every machine could be replaced at once, the four wheel units had to be able to read messages sent from the five wheel versions. The five wheel Enigma was essentially a fruitless evolution. If the two versions had been kept entirely separate, the Allies would have been deaf to German Intelligence traffic from mid 1943 onwards.
Beyond those, throw in a few Luftwaffe crumbs about Goring getting in the way of a good airforce, jet/rocket advances being ignored until it was too late and that Willy Messerschmidt probably should have shot in 1938. Everything was there for Germany to succeed. Thank goodness only hindsight is 20-20.
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
Honestly i read some Americans saying back there at the start of the thread that Germany's first mistake was declaring war on the states. Rubbish in my opinion Germanys biggest mistake was not finishing the Battle of Britian. The English were stretched so tight with their airforce that another couple of moths at the most would have broken them and then with Uk subdued they would be free to concentrate their might on Russia who without the Atlantic convoys would have been up s**t creek would have been beaten and then Germany and Japan would have been free to take on the states. And don't say that they would not have fallen becuase at the time and indeed through out most of the war Germany was the leader with reguard to technologicial advances and the japs had the determination and the numbers and without scientist like Albert Einstine who was flown out to the states there would have been no A bomb...
I happen to disagree with that Aussie because even if they had destroyed the RAF they would not have been able to sustain an invasion of England and all it would have done was bogged down more forces than it allready was.
Also disagree with Aussie on Einstien's contribution to the bomb. His major contribution was in two parts, one in the development of matter into energy (and vice versa) better known as E=M (the C square part is not absolutely needed to get your head around the thing).
Secondly, Einstien wrote two letters to FDR (not one as is generally thought) about the German Nuclear Potential (not a project, but the potential for creating a bomb). First one was an alert letter and is the one generally known. It said the Germans could build the bomb and the Western Democracies (specifically the US) better get on the stick. The second one was a more threatening one to FDR. It said that nothing had been done since the first letter had been written and if FDR didn't get cracking, Einstien would go public and let the world know what was going on. The Manhatten project started shortly thereafter (in a convoluted way, but it started).
But Einstein was not really a big deal in the Manhatten project. In truth, he was barely involved. The big names in the project were Oppenheimer, Groves, Lawrence, Kurti, Simon, to some extent- Fermi. The list is pretty long.
But Einstein's real gift to Physics was pretty much done by about 1920. Thereafter, he pretty much satisfied himself with working on the Unified Force or Field theory that all matter came down to one force that is the grand daddy of all forces.
Doubtless there are others who have a better line on it that I do on this board but Einstien really wasn't a biggie in the engineering of the actual bomb.
Secondly, Einstien wrote two letters to FDR (not one as is generally thought) about the German Nuclear Potential (not a project, but the potential for creating a bomb). First one was an alert letter and is the one generally known. It said the Germans could build the bomb and the Western Democracies (specifically the US) better get on the stick. The second one was a more threatening one to FDR. It said that nothing had been done since the first letter had been written and if FDR didn't get cracking, Einstien would go public and let the world know what was going on. The Manhatten project started shortly thereafter (in a convoluted way, but it started).
But Einstein was not really a big deal in the Manhatten project. In truth, he was barely involved. The big names in the project were Oppenheimer, Groves, Lawrence, Kurti, Simon, to some extent- Fermi. The list is pretty long.
But Einstein's real gift to Physics was pretty much done by about 1920. Thereafter, he pretty much satisfied himself with working on the Unified Force or Field theory that all matter came down to one force that is the grand daddy of all forces.
Doubtless there are others who have a better line on it that I do on this board but Einstien really wasn't a biggie in the engineering of the actual bomb.
Hmmm, maybe the biggest mistake of Germany was even starting the whole damned war or maybe earlier, alowing Hitler to become their head of state
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Did you know the RAF was stronger at the end of the BoB than the beginning?
Did you know that the RAF would simply have gone further north and continued fighting?
How many planes could the Luftwaffe lose before giving it up as a bad lot?
Had it gone longer then it would have been autumn and winter and few good flying days.
Even without airpower,the Germans would still have to invade.
There is several great threads on the BoB here, the Germans were never even close to winning the BoB. Also they never could of won the battle even if their navy got involved. Go read those threads and you will understand. Germans never would of won it in 39-40 with the weapons and numbers involved during that period.
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
Hunter c'mon really where do you get your information read Ginger Lacy's autobiography for one. That should give you some idea on how tight they really were.
