Greatest military blunder of WWII

[Marcel]

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.

In what way was that a mistake? We have peace with them nowadays, haven't we? They don't threaten other nations anymore, do they? With your logic, you shouldn't have treated germany so well and they wouldn't have been one of your most loyal ally during the cold war.
To show mercy is to show one's greatness

 

[lucanus]

The occupation of Japan was controlled by MacArthur, since he was
the 'specialist on Japan'....He is the one who protected Hirohito and mandated
that the Japs set up a 'Democracy'....You know one of the things about
MacArthur was that he berated the command staff in the Phillipines for
surrendering....Of course he, left and went to Aussieland, under 'orders
from the President' taking his whole family including the nanny...Nobody else
got to take their families...If he was such a great guy, why did his only son
change his name and work as a saxophone player?

 

[Njaco]

Aussie,
The He 176 was the first rocket propelled plane and was ready for testing in summer 1938.

He 178 was first jet propelled and flew on 24 August 1939.

Me 262 became operational after EKdo 262 was formed in December 1943. Long training for the piston pilots meant the unit didn't see action until July 1944.

Gloster Meteor became operational on 12 July 1944 when RAF No 616 Sqdn recieved 2 Meteor F.1s flying their first sorties on 27 July.

Looking over this thread, I would have to say Hitler taking over the High Command was the greatest blunder of Germany during the war. Every mistep came from him.

 

[plan_D]

Lucanus, where have you heard that the German General Staff wanted to wait five years to begin the onslaught? Guderian states in his memoirs that the German General Staff never wanted a war; only the minute few 'looked forward' to the prospect of war.

In any case, if Germany had waited five years then the Soviet Union would have had a developed military machine which would have inflicted many millions more casualities on the German Wehrmacht in the event of a war between the two.

I agree that the French made some of the greatest blunders in World War II - the use of their armour as infantry support was a Great War mistake which cost them their country.

 

[timshatz]

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.

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.

 

[Njaco]

Plan, I also read ...can't remember the source, will check...that there was a tenative plan to have things ready for war by 42 or 43. May have not come from the Army Commanders but I believe that when they realized Hitler was serious they suggested those years as the earliest they would be ready to stage a war. Will check what I got.

 

[syscom3]

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 ******.

 

[timshatz]

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?

 

[syscom3]

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?

They formed their opinions after some of the needed intelligence was developed.

From what everyone knew on the exact dates in question, Pye was right to be concerned and ultimatly proven right by preserving the carriers for future battles.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

And that my friends is an example of ignorance....

 

[mkloby]

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.

I wasn't validating or disagreeing with the decision one way or another. I was simply commenting on syscoms statement regarding armchairing this crap. Making a decision regarding something you have almost all information regarding, plus obviously the historical outcome, cannot be compared to the individual making the decision at the time.

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.

 

[mkloby]

And that my friends is an example of ignorance....

You think??? I was hoping nobody would respond to that one...

 

[timshatz]

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".

 

[Marcel]

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".

Agreed, but I think on a board like this you must be able to analyse things and talk about what could have done differently. That's the whole purpose of these treads, isn't it. I don't mean burning a general to the ground, but just analysing if his descision was right or wrong given the information we have now.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

 

[mkloby]

Sorry please explain? If I do not understand you correctly I apologize it is rather late and I am very very tired.

That's ok. I was agreeing with you that that post was ridiculously... inept or ignorant (probably both). It was one of those posts that was so much so I was hoping nobody would even dignify it with a response.

 

[mack]

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.

I agree,without the US things would have been tougher for England and Russia>

 

[Aussie1001]

I must post a hypothetical post....
If hitler hadn't broken the treaty he had with starlin he would have made it easier for him although at that stage he had already made some screw ups....
it is all very easy for us to comment though at the time the decisions might have seemed a good idea although some would argue that hitler was a bit coo coo.......

 

[Njaco]

I been thinking that also Aussie but as much as I try a scenario without Russia, I realize it can't happen. Hitler's idealology was totally against the Soviets which he considered subhuman. He would never have ignored Russia and very unlikely have made any trades or deals even to get oil or such. I just can't seem to get past that point. Its inherent in National Socialism.

Besides at some point I think Japan, which was a war partner, wouldve pressured to do something to help their end of the world. Japan and Russia were enemies at the time.

But a neat little head scratcher. WWII without the Eastern Front.

 

[Aussie1001]

Yes hitler considered everyone else apart from his "super race"
however if he had have put this aside and not invaded russia......well it would have been interesting.
But would starlin have invaded instead i mean he wasn't very rational either was he?