Greatest military blunder of WWII

[The Basket]

Everybody...even the Soviets themselves thought the Germans were easy winners on the eastern front.

Didn't work out but the plan was sound and it may have been a good idea at the time.

The German generals were for Barbarossa and they may have changed their minds after the war but they certainly had no problems at the time.

Unlike Pearl Harbour where Yamamoto predictions of future disaster came true.

[ArrowZero]

I don't know much about all these battles, did the planning people just send people to be killed to test defences. Like in Dieppe just to test the German defences for a later invasion... Was not a blunder because it help planning D-Day in a better way. In dieppe Germans were waiting for the soldier to arrive, and the allied soldiers in the beach didn't have a lot of cover.

[Emac44]

Ok many blunders occured before during and after the fall of Malaya and Singapore. The British totally ignored or discounted the Japanese Military in S.E.Asia. When troop increases occured in French Indo China would have given some inidication as to what the Japanese were up to. But this was ignored. Warning signs of build up of the Japanese Navy should have given insight to what Japan was doing in the Far East and Asia. It is not likely that Japan's military increases would have gone unnoticed by some one in England dealing with intelligence and Military development etc. When actual landings took place in East Coast West Malaya. Plans were placed before Percival to outflank the Japanese via Southern Thailand to also blunt attacks coming from and via French Indo China. But all these plans were rejected by Percival at the time. These plans mostly came from the office of Australian General Gordon Bennet. Malaya virtually fell within weeks of the landings. An unmitigated failure of reading the enemy capabilty on behalf of Allied Command. When Singapore was threatened these same Allied Command Staff had learnt nothing in the short period of time and with the eventual fall of Singapore proved beyond doubt how bizzare the lack of Generalship was in Far East Command. I am still going to go with in this poll that the Fall of Malaya and Singapore and with consquent the Fall of Dutch East Indies was the greatest disaster and Military Blunder the world had witnessed

[syscom3]

EMAC, i suspect youre right.

The generalship of the commonwealth troops in malaya and Singapore was horrible. It was a peacetime colonial mindset. Its a shame that the ANZAC forces lost so many good troops for nothing! They would have been invaluable in the coming months in NG and the Solomons.

The allies did better in the NEI, but it was hopeless from the onset due to a lack of troops/airpower/naval power to stop the Japanese advance.

Quite simply, the Japanese used superior tactics, supurb light infantry and naval forces and took advantage of the many Allied blunders all throughout SE Asia.

[Konigstiger205]

Stalingrad was a harsh wake up call for the germans and for my country too...we lost 158,854 men (dead, wounded and missing) between 19 November 1942 and 7 January 1943 and the total losses for the Axis side was 740,000 killed or wounded....to be honest the war itself was a huge blunder...

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by syscom3

EMAC, i suspect youre right.

The generalship of the commonwealth troops in malaya and Singapore was horrible. It was a peacetime colonial mindset. Its a shame that the ANZAC forces lost so many good troops for nothing! They would have been invaluable in the coming months in NG and the Solomons.

The allies did better in the NEI, but it was hopeless from the onset due to a lack of troops/airpower/naval power to stop the Japanese advance.

Quite simply, the Japanese used superior tactics, supurb light infantry and naval forces and took advantage of the many Allied blunders all throughout SE Asia.

Thank you Sys. ANZACs (AUSTRALIA) lost a whole division the 8th because of that blunder. I suppose I feel it more because my own Uncle was a POW for 3 1/2 years in Changi and I view it more personal then I should. And yes Sys Malaya and Singapore should never had happened. But it did. And it was down to bloody minded Generalship on Percivals account and that of his Staff. There was no excuse. For the lack of professionalism in Far East Command. The men fought the Japanese well but every advantage was thrown away by bloody fools in High Command. And thousands of men paid the price alongside civilians who endured 3 1/2yrs of brutal captivity from the Japanese

[Thorlifter]

Originally Posted by Emac44

Ok many blunders occured before during and after the fall of Malaya and Singapore. The British totally ignored or discounted the Japanese Military in S.E.Asia. When troop increases occured in French Indo China would have given some inidication as to what the Japanese were up to. But this was ignored. Warning signs of build up of the Japanese Navy should have given insight to what Japan was doing in the Far East and Asia. It is not likely that Japan's military increases would have gone unnoticed by some one in England dealing with intelligence and Military development etc. When actual landings took place in East Coast West Malaya. Plans were placed before Percival to outflank the Japanese via Southern Thailand to also blunt attacks coming from and via French Indo China. But all these plans were rejected by Percival at the time. These plans mostly came from the office of Australian General Gordon Bennet. Malaya virtually fell within weeks of the landings. An unmitigated failure of reading the enemy capabilty on behalf of Allied Command. When Singapore was threatened these same Allied Command Staff had learnt nothing in the short period of time and with the eventual fall of Singapore proved beyond doubt how bizzare the lack of Generalship was in Far East Command. I am still going to go with in this poll that the Fall of Malaya and Singapore and with consquent the Fall of Dutch East Indies was the greatest disaster and Military Blunder the world had witnessed

Very good point Emac. I know there are a few good ones that were left off the list, and this is one of them.

[timshatz]

Without a doubt Singapore was a blunder. And the fault was definitely at the feet of the generals. The place was a castoff area for second rate (in general) officers. The Anzacs that surrendered there, some of the who had litterally just shown up, were thrown away. It is sad. As has been noted in other spots on this board, those guys would've been very useful later in NG and other places.

But it wasn't a war winning/losing blunder. It was a battle, poorly fought and a stupid defeat but the loss of Singapore did not doom ANZAC to Japanese occupation. Given the relative strengths of the Japanese versus the Allies, it was probably a foregone conclusion that Malaya and Singapore would fall.

But it could've been handled much better.

[syscom3]

And dont forget that the Canadians sent a brigade to Hong Kong that had absolutely no chance of slowing down any type of Jaoanese attack.

The problem was the colonial mindset of the British govt and military command. They had to defend the indefensible just for political reasons.

I can just imagine all those wasted ANZAC troops being used effectively in the NEI around the oil refineries, denying the Japanese an easy victory and slowing down their exploitation of that vital resource.

[16KJV11]

Barbarossa. Hitler should never taken on another front without knocking Britain out of the war.
The biggest blunder of the war, which I believe cost it for Hitler, was when he changed the Luftwaffe's mission from destroying RAF fighter bases to trying to destroy London.
Had he stayed the course in destroying RAF bases, he could have proceeded w/ operation Sea Lion and brought England to her knees.
Thank God he was ignorant, psychopatic and egotistical.

[Hop]

The biggest blunder of the war, which I believe cost it for Hitler, was when he changed the Luftwaffe's mission from destroying RAF fighter bases to trying to destroy London.

Hitler didn't change the Luftwaffe's tactics. He allowed the Luftwaffe to change their own tactics. They wanted to change because their losses were far too high in attacks on RAF airfields, and they were frustrated by the RAF's ability to meet their raids with small forces of fighters. They thought they would achieve better results if they could suck the RAF in to large battles over London.

The war diary of the Wehrmacht High Command puts the failure in the Battle of Britain down to the delay in attacking London, complaining that they could not get permission for such an attack for a long time, and when permission did come the weather turned bad shortly afterwards.

Had he stayed the course in destroying RAF bases, he could have proceeded w/ operation Sea Lion and brought England to her knees.

Had the Luftwaffe stayed the course, their forces would have dwindled even more rapidly throughout September. They could not keep up the same level of pressure with smaller forces.

[plan_D]

Syscom, Singapore was not indefenisble - it just wasn't defended correctly.

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Syscom, Singapore was not indefenisble - it just wasn't defended correctly.

But considering the Leadership the Brits sent there, the quality of the equipment, the distance from the sources of supply, level of training, level of commitment and the enemy forces arrayed against them, it was very, very difficult to defend.

The further the Japanese got away from Japan, the less effective they became. The same can be said for the British Forces, but not to the same degree. Also, the Commonwealth Forces were not ready to fight at Singapore (training, supply, equipment, ect). By the time they got to New Guinea, the odds were starting to stack less against them.

But Singapore, while not indefensible, was in no way ready to defend itself in December of 1941 from any serious attack.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by timshatz

But considering the Leadership the Brits sent there, the quality of the equipment, the distance from the sources of supply, level of training, level of commitment and the enemy forces arrayed against them, it was very, very difficult to defend.

The further the Japanese got away from Japan, the less effective they became. The same can be said for the British Forces, but not to the same degree. Also, the Commonwealth Forces were not ready to fight at Singapore (training, supply, equipment, ect). By the time they got to New Guinea, the odds were starting to stack less against them.

But Singapore, while not indefensible, was in no way ready to defend itself in December of 1941 from any serious attack.

Ultimatly, it was the mindset of the British military and local political leaders.

They had a colonial peacetime mindset, and couldnt adapt to the realiities of the fight. A complete utter dismal performance. The troops fought well considering all things....... but in the end, the leadership failed and they were defeated.

[plan_D]

Timshatz;

"But considering the Leadership the Brits sent there, the quality of the equipment, the distance from the sources of supply, level of training, level of commitment and the enemy forces arrayed against them, it was very, very difficult to defend."

Not one thing on there makes Singapore difficult to defend. Singapore was quite easily defensible - the problem lies solely with the command and strategy of defence. I'm certainly not having a go, so don't get the wrong idea.

I think syscom has said it best; "A complete utter dismal performance."

Singapore could have been held if Great Britain had planned to hold it; rather than hope for some divine intervention - which it seems they did for that pathetic excuse for strategy. Don't hold back in having a go at the British command on Singapore... it was bloody appalling.