Greatest military blunder of WWII

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by plan_D

It wasn't just the Dutch resistance which informed the British command about the Panzer divisions - in fact the solid proof came from RAF PR aircraft.

Market Garden would have been a complete success in August, but Montgomery wanted to make sure that the supply was ready for any future operations. Even if the British planners had listened to the Dutch, the plan would have failed - the SS panzer divisions were present; the operation should have never happened with their presence.

Agreed, the tactical planning was a great blunder.

[Oreo]

Another you could have listed (maybe someone already mentioned it) is Hitler's decision to use the Me 262 as a bomber. That lost very valuable time, when they might have stopped the US bomber flow in its tracks. Maybe not won the war, but it was still an incredible blunder.

I voted for Barbarossa. Not the wrong decision, but wrong details overlooked.

[parsifal]

This talk about the fall of Singapore, the Phillipines, and burma ignores a fundamental and crucial part of the equation. in 1941 and early 1942, the japanese were unstoppable. Even when confronted with superior numbers, and decent troops, their advanced infiltration tactics and elan would nearly always win the day. The allies had fundamental problems at this stage of the war. they thought in terms of a european war, that is, if you are threatedned with encirclement, you have to withdraw. The British, in particular, had virtually no concept of what was required in the Jungle. Evidence exists of men being thrown into the jungle with 80lb packs, and and slippery hobnailed boots. The Japanese, on the other hand carried their light artillery into battle with them, took basically only ammunition as their load, worried little about flanks, or encirclement, and issued personal kit that wa much more suitable to jungle. it would be the latter part of 1942 before the Australians developed techniques in the Jungle to counter this, 1944 for the brits, and the Americans never mastered the concept (except in the SWPac).

The japanese innovations went further. they were quick to relaize that tanks could operate in the Jungle (despite the famous footage of them being cut up in Malaya, this use of tanks cause major consternation for the allies, and above all else, their firm understanding that despite the losses, it was imperative to maintain forward movement at all costs.

The main reasons that Malaya fell so much quicker than Corregidor, IMO can be traced to Japanese actions rather than Allied. The japanese in Malaya were led by a ruthless and brilliant gneral, in Yamashita. His tactical concepts and handling of his forces was textbook.

Homma, on the other hand was abysmal in the way he handled his troops. Piecemeal committment, a failure to maintain pressure at the right times, a lack of appreciation as to the significance of the Bataan peninsula all contributed to a very long drawn out affair. Admittedly, Macs handling of the retreat was superb, but for the first few days he was in real danger of encirclement

[seesul]

My vote goes for Operation Barbarosa

[Bigxiko]

Operation Barbarosa
for men was the greatest blunder of the hole war

[P-Popsie]

Originally Posted by trackend

Its not on the list but I'll go for the defense or rather the lack of defense by the British at Singapore there was adequate men and equipment to have fought off the Japanese but the leadership and planning where appalling.

This is true even to the extent that the Brittish were allowing Commonwealth troops to land after it was obvious that they were going to relinquish the position to the enemy. This resulted in Thousands of combat ready troops to be tortured to death either in Changi prison or building a railway to nowhere in the jungles of Burma.

[/QUOTE]
If I had to pick any other I would say Barbarossa soon as Hitler started on the Russians the whole out come of WW2 was sealed including that of the Japanese. Germany could not defeat Russia and the western powers simultaneously. [/QUOTE]

This i also have to agree with so long as the russian campaign as a whole is considered i mean the loss of 600 000 combat experienced soldiers was no small contribution to the whole downfall of the Reich.

I would however like to bring another of Hitler's monumental and numerous mistakes. This being the demand he placed on Herman Goering to flatten London rather than allowing the commander of his Air force to do what he knew was needed, destroy the RAF's capacity to field defensive A/C and remove their ability to controll the sky.

This one domino i beleive if it had fallen would of resulted in the result of WWII being very different indeed. Air Marshal Dowding himself conceded to Churchill that he only expected the Fighter command Airfields to remain operational for another three days more during the heaviest period of the bombing of the Fighter fields. The change in tactics at Hitler's behest allowed the breathing space the fighter squadrons needed to regather and face the threat streaming over from occupied France

[Messy1]

Operation Barborossa!
I think the greatest blunder of the war, was Hitler invading and attacking Russia, and starting a two front war without winning the war in Europe first. I think that was the greatest blunder as it insured Germany's defeat. It was a blunder on many issues, Hitler underestimating Russia, not having enough foresight to plan for a winter offensive, etc. I would consider Stallingrad a part of this. It just seems to me Hitler shot himself in the foot by attacking Russia. I just cannot think of any other blunder bigger than this one, as Hitler actually thought he could win a two front war, or he would not have invaded Russia.
I do not consider Pearl Harbor a massive blunder, the high up military officials knew that Japan could not win a all out, prolonged war with the U.S. and England, they were only hoping to stagger us enough and shock us enough to take the fight out of us so they could negotiate for a peace treaty favorable to Japan.

[kool kitty89]

Then again, had they gone straight to Russia in spring/summer of 1940 instead of attacking Britain it may well have gone more sucessfully. (at the same time doing all they could to keep the US and UK out of the war in Europe for as long as possible. -including cutting ties with Japan or even declaring war on them after Pearl Harbor)

They may have not only been able to push the Soviets back to the Urals, but possibly done so fast enough to minimise the implementation of the Russian scorched earth policy. (and capture much of the resourses and industry intact)

The Blitzkrieg strategy working as well here (possibly better) than it had over Western europe.


In the case of Russia's air force in particular, it wasn't until 1941 that they had any modern high performance fighters available in quantity, prior to this the best they had in mid 1940 was the I-16. (the Yak-1 MiG-1/3 entering production in 1940, and still working through the development "kinks" with the LaGG-3 not entereing service until well into 1941)

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Then again, had they gone straight to Russia in spring/summer of 1940 instead of attacking Britain it may well have gone more sucessfully. (at the same time doing all they could to keep the US and UK out of the war in Europe for as long as possible. -including cutting ties with Japan or even declaring war on them after Pearl Harbor)

The French would have taken the opportunity to invade Germany which would have been disastrous for the Germans. Further more, I think the German Army was not really fit for attacking Russia in 1940 either, having to cover the vast distances.

[Amsel]

Attacking Stalingrad was the worst blunder in WWII. The Sixth Army should have attacked the Kaukuses in full strength instead of wearing itself down in the urban fighting that ensued in Stalingrad. Hitler should not have become obsessed with holding "Fortress Stalingrad" and underestimating the Soviet soldiers.
The entire Sixth Army was encircled and cut off from its supply lines but was still a formidable force. Had Hitler given the order to tactically withdraw from the kessel the Sixth Army would have been saved. Paulus often takes too much of the blame for losing an entire army but the blame should be shared between Hitler, Goerring, and Manstein also.
Had the Sixth Army been ordered to withdraw and link up with Hoths' 4th Panzer Army the outcome of the Eastern front might have been quite different.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by Marcel

The French would have taken the opportunity to invade Germany which would have been disastrous for the Germans. Further more, I think the German Army was not really fit for attacking Russia in 1940 either, having to cover the vast distances.

I meant after the battle of France, but before direct attacks on British territory.

And in the second case, perhaps, but the Luftwaffe would certainly be in much better shape.

[Juha]

KK
with armistice going into effect on 25 june 40 it would have been too late in that summer before WM would have been be ready to attack SU. And they didn't even have plans for the attack at that time.
If you think all the maintenance, integrating the replacements into their units etc needed after 6 weeks of intensive fighting and then all the troop transfers to the east you see that most of the summer would have gone before attack would have been possible.

Juha

[Burmese Bandit]

This is the sort of thread that calls for long and informed posts.

What most people who study WW II don't fully appreciate is the Stalin and the Red Army had their backs to the wall in 1942. The tremendous production rate of the T-34 and Il-2 was not yet there in mid 42, much of the Red Army had shortages of equipment even down to the humble rifle, and Stalin's prestige in the Red Army and Communist Party had taken a tremendous whack.

A stunning German victory in 1942 could well and plausibly have triggered the collapse of both the Red Army and the Communist Party. And, despite the logistical nightmare that was Russia, it was possible for Hitler to have achieved his war aims in 1942 - if only he could make up his mind.

Caucasus? Or Stalingrad?

He should have gone for Stalingrad first. With Stalingrad taken, the physical and moral shock would have shattered the communist regime.

[109ROAMING]

Originally Posted by Burmese Bandit

This is the sort of thread that calls for long and informed posts.

What most people who study WW II don't fully appreciate is the Stalin and the Red Army had their backs to the wall in 1942. The tremendous production rate of the T-34 and Il-2 was not yet there in mid 42, much of the Red Army had shortages of equipment even down to the humble rifle, and Stalin's prestige in the Red Army and Communist Party had taken a tremendous whack.

A stunning German victory in 1942 could well and plausibly have triggered the collapse of both the Red Army and the Communist Party. And, despite the logistical nightmare that was Russia, it was possible for Hitler to have achieved his war aims in 1942 - if only he could make up his mind.

Caucasus? Or Stalingrad?

He should have gone for Stalingrad first. With Stalingrad taken, the physical and moral shock would have shattered the communist regime.

but he did try and take Stalingrad though and it failed miserably???

He would of been better off fully focussing on the Caucasus ,if that was done then securing the area's natural resources would of put Germany in a better position to take Russia

[Burmese Bandit]

109, there's a large problem with the idea you posted...

Russia's Geography, and the strategic implications thereof.

Conquering the Caucasus in 1942 would have availed the Germans little if their lines of communication were cut at Stalingrad ( and indeed this is what nearly happened in 1942 - they were on the verge of winning the oil fields of Baku when they had to turn tail and run like hell before the Red Army pincers strangled their neck!)

Not to mention that the Russians had demolished what installations the Germans were able to capture so thoroughly that it would have taken about half to one year before the Germans could be able to exploit those oil wells...

WHEREAS, if they had decided to take Stalingrad, and disregard the Caucasus for the time being, they would have

(a) struck a terrible blow against the morale of the Red Army and especially against Stalin's prestige (Losing the city named after you is as low as you can go!)

(b) from the strategic point of view, the fall of Stalingrad would have led to a rupture of communications between the rest of the Russian Front and the Caucasus Front, which in time would have left the armies of that Front to "wither along the vine" in the same way as the isolated garrisons of the Japanese held islands of the Pacific in 1944.