syscom3
Pacific Historian
Interesting observation.
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
Interesting observation.
david johnson
Airman
hitler, himself, is the greatest military blunder of the war.
dj
dj
Emac44
Staff Sergeant
Tim we know all that in the Commonwelath. We are taught reasons why and how and when and everything you have mentioned and quiet frankly I totally agree with what all you have said. But for one thing Singapore was a Bastion of the might of the Empire. Yes it was in hind sight which is a wonderful thing to have a Paper Bastion, But many consider the Fall of Singapore and that of Malaya as one of the most singular blunders of the British Empire. It also lead to the Fall of Burma and the threat to India. As well of the loss for the Dutch East Indies ( Indonesian Island Chain). To us it was the toppling of a house of cards if you can understand my meaning Tim. And further after the War Tim had far reaching effects with British Colonialism and its fundamental end in the region. The Fall of Singapore and Malaya Burma Dutch East Indies and if you like put in French Indo China Philippines and India in certain aspects led to Nationalism in the region by the Native People who lived in the region. It wasn't just the Fall of Singapore per say but an end of Empire. So not only was it one of the biggest military blunders in modern history and warfare Tim. It was the death knell for an Empire that the sun wasn't meant to go down on and also effected the Dutch and the French in various ways as well.
And other effects that occured after WW2 was the Malayian Campaign and in some cases Vietnam War with the French losing control over time after WW2 of French Indo China and consquent events leading up to intervention of the US into Vietnam Cambodia and Laos. Also border clashes between Malaya and Indonesia in Borneo. Its just that people living in the Commonwealth see it differently to you Tim. We look more so at the after effects of the Fall of Singapore and Malaya and how it effected the entire region at various stages in the region. And we have to also take into consideration that the Dutch lost control of Dutch East Indies and Nationalism rising there.
As for the Philippines Tim that in itself was different. In my opinion the US was a pseudo Colonial Power. US was what appeared to be like a Colonial Power but not in the same sesne as the British French and Dutch. Having taken the Philippines away from the Spainish. But US had problems with the Moro Independance Movements. When the Japanese invaded the Philippines and the US and Phillipine Military were defeated had similar aspects to rest of the region but the after effects after the War were different Tim. Yes it was one of the singular military blunders the US and Philippines experienced but the overall effects on the Philippines and her gaining total independance from the US after WW2 was totally in a different sphere and outlook for the other Colonial Powers in the region of South East Asia.
I really think Tim and please don't take offense as to what I am about to say. Is that those of us who were brought up in a Commonwealth Country or in the UK itself view it differently as regards to Fall of Singapore then to some one from the US. I think we look more so into the Fall of Singapore and how it effected not only the UK but the rest of the Commonwealth over a longer period or how the region changed due to the Fall of Singapore. One can even say that it had further reaching effects to India Pakistan Burma and even into the Colonies in Africa. I would include HongKong in this but that was different again too. As England had a 99 yr lease on HongKong and that HongKong was ceded back to China when the lease run out. So I hope you see Tim it wasn't just a complete and utter Military Blunder but a complete and utter change in aspects to an Empire after the loss of Singapore to the Japanese
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
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
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Disagree with what?
Barbarossa convinced the Japanese to attack the US, removed a key resource country for Hitler and resulted in the two-front war for Germany. Without these, and with the USSR as an partner of some sort, things might have resulted in a Nazi victory and peace with the US.
Emac44
Staff Sergeant
Sys that was the phrase I was looking for and stumbled around thinking of the correct meaning. Thanks
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.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
We're talking about the second world war, not the PI insurrection. We commited plenty of atrocities then. But unlike the European powers, the US was well underway in letting the PI have their freedom.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
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.
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)
Emac44
Staff Sergeant
Marcel I will have to agree with Sys on the issue about the Philippines. Philippines at the time of MacArthur leaving Corrigadore for Australia. Philippines had their own elected President. I think it was President Sergio Osemena was at the landings at Letye in 1944. Dutch East Indies Malaya French Indo China and Singapore had regional governors who were either British French and Dutch respectfuly. Malaya did have its own Royal Family but were not actively involved to some extent in day to day affairs of the Malaya British Colony
MacArthur prior to the Japanese invasion had left the US Army and was a General in the Philippine National Military Forces. The US was at the time prior to Japanese invasion had already transferred automony to the Philippines Government. Something the British Dutch and French had not considered in their respective colonies. And would not have considered even if the Japanese had not invaded. So Sys is correct in what he has said.
Prior to the 1920s the US did act like Colonial Super Power in the Philippines. But you are forgetting the insurrections by the Moro in Southern Philippines towards the US. But the Moro had also rebelled against Spanish Rule which was an on and off rebellion for 400 years until the US had defeated the Spanish Fleet in Manila Bay and consquently occupied the Philippines after that event. To the Moro it was just a simple matter of transferring one Colonial Master for another and consquent Rebellions.
Though there were insurrections in Malaya Singapore Dutch East Indies and French Indo China and as such the insurrections were for self rule in those Colonies by the Native People etc. Britian France and Holland had no intention of granting self rule to their colonies, But the US had a different ideas regarding the Philippines and had already done so by 1935
Here is a list of Philippine Presidents up from 1898 to 1965
Emilio Aguinaldo 1898 1901 First Republic Philippines. Fought against Spanish and later US
Manuel Quezon Nov 1935 Aug 1944 Commonwealth of Philippines
Sergio Osemena Aug 1944 May 1946 Commonwealth Phillipines
Jose Laurel Oct 1943 August 1945 2nd Republic Philippines (Jap Puppet Govt)
Manuel Roxas May 1946 July 4 1945 3rd Republic Phillippines
Elpidio Quirino April 1948 Nov 1953 3rd Republic Philippines
Ramon Magsaysay Dec 1953 March 1957 3rd Republic Philippines, People's President. Suspected as being assasinated Plane Crash Cebu
Carlos Garcia March 1957 December 1961 3rd Republic Philippines. Also General President to United Nations
Diosdado Macapagal December 1961 December 1965 3rd Republic Philippines. Father of present President of Philippines
Philippine Presidents from 1965 to 2007 and Republics of Philippines
Macros has a special listing as well
Ferdinand Marcos December 1965 December 1973 3rd Republic Philippines
8 years under Marcos from 1973 June 1981 Martial Law. Diplomatic Pressure from the US and elections to take place
Ferdinand Marcos June 1981 February 1986 4th Republic Philippines
Corazon Aquino February 1986 June 1992 5th Republic Philippines. Ninoy Aquino (Husband to Corazon) assasination led to down fall of Marcos
Fidel Ramos June 1992 June 1998 5th Republic Philippines Cousin to Marcos
Joseph Estrada 1998 -2001 Charged with Corruption and former film star
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo 2001 to present date
That is now getting right of track off original thread. But reality Marcel is a bit different to what is written in Flyboys as to how the Govenrment of the Philippines was in accordance with the US Policies at the time. Even though there was a gap of 34 years between Presidents Emilio Aguinaldo 1901 to Manual Queazon 1935 and in that 34 year gap there had been rebellions and insurrections by the Moro. The US Governments had all intentions of transferring self rule to the Philippines and had done so virtually by 1935
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.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
The thread was "Greatest Blunder" 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)
Really?
freebird said:
And what would have happened if Hitler had not ordered the German Armour to halt and not attack. I think you can thank the Germans just as much for the successful evacuation.
Dunkirk was a major blunder but I think you can thank the Germans for it more than you can give Brooke's credit for it.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Always an interesting topic!
I'll stick to the axis actions as the axis itself was already a failure.
Pearl Harbor definitely is a candidate. Not only because starting a war with the US was not a good idea, the attack on Pearl Harbor itself was a failure. The carriers got away. The infrastructure on the island (especially the oil reserves) was kept intact. Most of the ships were repaired.
In fact, had the Japanese fleet been spotted, the American fleet may well have sailed and be completely destroyed.
The Japanese should have gone the extra mile and invade the islands. Logistically, they would never have been able to hold it. So a landing to completely destroy the infrastructure and the ships which were laying at the bottom would have set the Americans back for at least a year. No Midway needed. Guaranteed success in New Guinea and probably even against Australia.
The end would have remained the same as the Americans would still have recovered sooner or later.
Barbarossa? I am convinced the Red Army could have been defeated up to 1942. So I don't consider that a failure at all. Mistake was to do it when Britain was still active. They should have started a Mediterranean campaign, capturing the Suez and the Egyptian oil fields, and invading Palestina. Then in 1942, they could either have invaded Britain after careful preparations - as in the discussion I had a few months ago - or invade Russia in the Spring of 1942.
Stalingrad was definitely a mistake though one can wonder what the mistake was. Storming this city without surrounding it, instead of going full throttle to the Caucasus was the mistake. That the 6th Armee was eventually surrounded and captured is a result of the failure of its allies to hold the line. Pulling back would then have been the best thing to do but I can imagine it being difficult to do when you already have 90% of the city in your hands. And the rescue attempt was close to success: Stalingrad would then have been held, 6th Armee saved and the situation for 1943 would have looked quite differently.
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.
Battle of the Bulge was doomed to failure but was definitely the best chance of any German success on the Western Front. They had to try something!
Kamikazes didn't change the outcome but achieved more than conventional bombers would. There was no fuel nor experienced pilots left. And a good way to get rid of those old aircraft
Finally, the German declaration of war on the US - the only German declaration of war by Germany during the war ! - was definitely unnecessary. But what would have happened if Hitler and Mussolini hadn't declared war? The US economy and military would have geared up for war anyway. And this would have taken them at least a year. In that year it's quite likely that the US would have gotten at war with the full axis anyway. Roosevelt had always been looking for a reason to get in the war. A new Lusitania. The US was in fact already involved in the war by the Lend Lease and by actively hunting down and attacking German subs. They would have continued these provocations until the Germans would give the Americans the smoking gun. Before 1943 the Americans would be at war with Germany no matter what, and by then their army and industry would be ready. As such the outcome would have been exactly the same!
So again, I look at Pearl Harbor because that was what got the Americans in the war. Without Pearl Harbor it's doubtful that there would be a popular support for a war against Japan, Italy and Germany.
Kris
I'll stick to the axis actions as the axis itself was already a failure.
Pearl Harbor definitely is a candidate. Not only because starting a war with the US was not a good idea, the attack on Pearl Harbor itself was a failure. The carriers got away. The infrastructure on the island (especially the oil reserves) was kept intact. Most of the ships were repaired.
In fact, had the Japanese fleet been spotted, the American fleet may well have sailed and be completely destroyed.
The Japanese should have gone the extra mile and invade the islands. Logistically, they would never have been able to hold it. So a landing to completely destroy the infrastructure and the ships which were laying at the bottom would have set the Americans back for at least a year. No Midway needed. Guaranteed success in New Guinea and probably even against Australia.
The end would have remained the same as the Americans would still have recovered sooner or later.
Barbarossa? I am convinced the Red Army could have been defeated up to 1942. So I don't consider that a failure at all. Mistake was to do it when Britain was still active. They should have started a Mediterranean campaign, capturing the Suez and the Egyptian oil fields, and invading Palestina. Then in 1942, they could either have invaded Britain after careful preparations - as in the discussion I had a few months ago - or invade Russia in the Spring of 1942.
Stalingrad was definitely a mistake though one can wonder what the mistake was. Storming this city without surrounding it, instead of going full throttle to the Caucasus was the mistake. That the 6th Armee was eventually surrounded and captured is a result of the failure of its allies to hold the line. Pulling back would then have been the best thing to do but I can imagine it being difficult to do when you already have 90% of the city in your hands. And the rescue attempt was close to success: Stalingrad would then have been held, 6th Armee saved and the situation for 1943 would have looked quite differently.
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.
Battle of the Bulge was doomed to failure but was definitely the best chance of any German success on the Western Front. They had to try something!
Kamikazes didn't change the outcome but achieved more than conventional bombers would. There was no fuel nor experienced pilots left. And a good way to get rid of those old aircraft
Finally, the German declaration of war on the US - the only German declaration of war by Germany during the war ! - was definitely unnecessary. But what would have happened if Hitler and Mussolini hadn't declared war? The US economy and military would have geared up for war anyway. And this would have taken them at least a year. In that year it's quite likely that the US would have gotten at war with the full axis anyway. Roosevelt had always been looking for a reason to get in the war. A new Lusitania. The US was in fact already involved in the war by the Lend Lease and by actively hunting down and attacking German subs. They would have continued these provocations until the Germans would give the Americans the smoking gun. Before 1943 the Americans would be at war with Germany no matter what, and by then their army and industry would be ready. As such the outcome would have been exactly the same!
So again, I look at Pearl Harbor because that was what got the Americans in the war. Without Pearl Harbor it's doubtful that there would be a popular support for a war against Japan, Italy and Germany.
Kris
Freebird
Master Sergeant
Der Adler I must respectfully disagree, the Germans did not blunder at Dunkirk, if they had tried to force the canal line around Dunkirk with the Panzers they would have taken some heavy losses, as the Panzers had very little infantry support, having travelled so quickly. The Germans were already concerned about the heavy fighting they had witnessed around Arras on the 20th of may. They tried to push into the beachead with infantry which was the correct option. And the actions taken by Brooke were BEFORE the halt was ordered, if the BEF had not acted quickly to begin the retreat into Dunkirk the whole question would have been moot, as the port would have been taken with minimal resistance by the allies.
The order for the tanks to halt was given by Von Rundstedt on the night of the 23rd/24th, Hitler DID in fact authorize the German armour to move again on the 25th, but Von Rundstedt did not order it to proceed, even after Hitler had given the OK. The area around Dunkirk was not very good terrain for tanks (canals, wet ground) so there was quite a bit of concern in the German High command that there would be heavy tank losses. Remember that "Dunkirk" was not the only battle, the Germans still expected to fight the rest of the French army. The Germans also had concerns because the had had some sharp resistance from the BEF by Franklyn's division around Arras, losing quite a few tanks. Unlike most the French/Belgian army the British were willing to put up a fight. Also remember that the German Pz Is Pz IIs were vulnerable to the British standard antitank guns (no Panthers or Tigers here obviously). The Germans did not "halt" outside of Dunkirk, there was constant pressure on the BEF lines from German infantry artillery, but not tanks, which was the correct method to use. The Germans could not afford to risk the heavy losses in tanks at this point in the war.
The order for the tanks to halt was given by Von Rundstedt on the night of the 23rd/24th, Hitler DID in fact authorize the German armour to move again on the 25th, but Von Rundstedt did not order it to proceed, even after Hitler had given the OK. The area around Dunkirk was not very good terrain for tanks (canals, wet ground) so there was quite a bit of concern in the German High command that there would be heavy tank losses. Remember that "Dunkirk" was not the only battle, the Germans still expected to fight the rest of the French army. The Germans also had concerns because the had had some sharp resistance from the BEF by Franklyn's division around Arras, losing quite a few tanks. Unlike most the French/Belgian army the British were willing to put up a fight. Also remember that the German Pz Is Pz IIs were vulnerable to the British standard antitank guns (no Panthers or Tigers here obviously). The Germans did not "halt" outside of Dunkirk, there was constant pressure on the BEF lines from German infantry artillery, but not tanks, which was the correct method to use. The Germans could not afford to risk the heavy losses in tanks at this point in the war.
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.
As I said above atleast half of the credit does not go to Brooke but to the Germans themselves.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
Maybe the Germans could have done better, but nothing in war is certain. At the time the choice was made (the 24th 25th May), the Germans were very worried about their shortage of infantry on their southern wing (the panzers - 15 Pz corps Kliest) and since there was a hole opening up on the BEF northern flank along Belgian coast between Ostend and Lille (because the Belgians were about to surrender) it was decided by the Germans to push through this hole with the 6th army and get behind the British into Dunkirk, this was I think the best plan. The later assertion that the Germans had halted to let the Luftwaffe do the job was not correct, there was constant pressure on the BEF from both sides of the salient that entire week. It was Brooke's quick action to plug the hole along the coast that prevented the Germans from getting behind the BEF. Yes the Germans COULD have tried to force the Panzers across the canal on the south, but it would be a gamble and probably have resulted in heavy tank losses, without getting into Dunkirk.
So many blunders, so little time...
I believe the Germans should have (shoulda/woulda/coulda) put all available resources into pounding the BEF. Brooke's swift action no doubt would have prevented complete annihilation, but total committment on the German side would have surely resulted in the destruction of much/most of the BEF.
I would add as my favorite inexcusable blunder the failure of the axis (both Germans and Japanese were totally guilty) in protecting codes. The arrogance/ignorance/carelessness of the Germans in believing that the allies were incapable of cracking their codes has always been shocking to me. May have been a different war if the axis would not have laid out sub locations/fleet strategies for the allies. The tide of the Battle of the Atlantic would certainly not have changed for several more months and who knows what may have happened at Midway or for that matter Coral Sea.
I believe the Germans should have (shoulda/woulda/coulda) put all available resources into pounding the BEF. Brooke's swift action no doubt would have prevented complete annihilation, but total committment on the German side would have surely resulted in the destruction of much/most of the BEF.
I would add as my favorite inexcusable blunder the failure of the axis (both Germans and Japanese were totally guilty) in protecting codes. The arrogance/ignorance/carelessness of the Germans in believing that the allies were incapable of cracking their codes has always been shocking to me. May have been a different war if the axis would not have laid out sub locations/fleet strategies for the allies. The tide of the Battle of the Atlantic would certainly not have changed for several more months and who knows what may have happened at Midway or for that matter Coral Sea.
