Greatest military blunder of WWII

[Marcel]

Market Garden was a major diaster from the dutch point of view. Holland went through a hunger-winter in which thousands of people died from starvation. Had Market Garden succeeded, or other strategies been followed, war would probably have ended much earlier, preventing these hardships.
But I also agree with Soren. The german command during the BoB changed objectives every time a stategy paid off. The blitz as the finest example. I would say, appointing Goering as head of the LW was the biggest mistake, 'cause it led to the german defeat during the BoB, GB fighting on and eventually leading to Overlord, 3 front war and total defeat of Nazi Germany. So maybe I should say, europeans owe a lot to Herr Hermann then

[Glider]

The greatest blunder in WW2 was when Stalin asked for terms and Hitler turned him down. Huge error, but I admit it was a political error not a military error.

For military I would suggest not finishing the British off in the Middle East before turning on Russia.

[Njaco]

Sys, thats a great one. Savo Island was definately a blunder for both sides. I've read about it and seen PBS specials and I can't understand how someone, somewhere could not have seen what was happening.

I think I'm gonna change my vote from Barbarossa to the London Blitz. Although not earth-shattering, it was a classic blunder in every sense of the word.

[Snautzer]

How about not making a real axe and persuade Japan to attack Russia the same time Germany did. No Oeral factory's and a lot of raw materials.

Regards

[Negative Creep]

I;m thinking it might be the Battle of Britain. Ok, not necessarily the Battle itself, but the implications were massive.

In the short term, it guaranteed Britain's survival, and showed the Luftwaffe was not all powerful. It showed the USA the determination of Britain to fight on, and the peace movement within the UK (which had been quite prominent after Dunkirk) was all but silenced. Although it had little military effect early on, as Hitler left few troops in France after Barbarossa, it still left Britain as a thorn in his side. Later on of course, it would allow the US a base from which the invasion of Europe could be launched. So by not invading Britain, or at least forcing a negotiated peace, the Germans would end up fighting an unwinnable war on two fronts. America would have been unlikely to have entered the European war if Britain was out; they would have no forward base and Hitler would have gained little from declaring war on them.

It could also be argued that the Russians would have received little subsequent lend lease aid, and more Axis troops could have been committed to invading Russia. I'm not saying it would have resulted in an automatic German victory, but failure to deal with one opponent at a time would cost the Nazis dear

[HealzDevo]

Pearl Harbor as it failed to sink the American Carriers as it was planned to do, and brought the US into WW2, not something I think the Japanese were exactly planning on doing. In this respect Pearl Harbor was a strategic blunder by the Japanese with severe consequences for all the Axis...

[Maharg]

Operation Barbarossa itself wasn't a blunder. Changing direction before the initial objectives had been taken was a biggie.

Bombing London out of spite was another blunder. I gave the RAF some breathing space, and the rest is history.

We are lucky Adolf was running the show, otherwise we may have been in trouble.

[DOUGRD]

Originally Posted by HealzDevo

Pearl Harbor as it failed to sink the American Carriers as it was planned to do, and brought the US into WW2, not something I think the Japanese were exactly planning on doing. In this respect Pearl Harbor was a strategic blunder by the Japanese with severe consequences for all the Axis...

I voted for Barbarossa, as Maharg said, Hitlers biggest error was changing direction when he did. But I also wanted to interject something here about Pearl Harbor. Like Healzdevo said, it failed to sink the carriers. Interesting fact, why weren't the carriers in Pearl? Why were the West Coast battlewagons like the Arizona on temp duty based at Pearl until further orders? What I'd like to know is, has anyone else read "Day Of Deceit" by Robert B. Stinnett? It's sometimes hard, dry reading but there is some fascinating info here too. He alleges that not only did FDR and the USN expect an attack, it was deliberately provoked through an eight step program devised by the Navy. I'd like to know what other members take on this book is.

[HealzDevo]

I was thinking of it as a really great military blunder as it failed not only to sink the aircraft carriers but it also enraged the US to come swinging out of its pacifist policies and start swinging for Japan and Germany. In that respect it was bad for all the Axis powers. I think there was something about Prime Minister Curtin receiving coded hints from a moderate Japanese Diplomat in the documentary Curtin... Not sure how real those events are though as they are depicted...

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Pearl Harbor was seen coming......by the radar detector.

I have heard rumors about FDR wanting Pearl Harbor.......sometimes alongside Dubbya Bush wanting 9/11.

But FDR probably was wondering if Japan would have to be fought......just like Dubbya Bush was wondering if Saddam Hussein needed a second pounding.

[ToughOmbre]

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

What I'd like to know is, has anyone else read "Day Of Deceit" by Robert B. Stinnett? It's sometimes hard, dry reading but there is some fascinating info here too. He alleges that not only did FDR and the USN expect an attack, it was deliberately provoked through an eight step program devised by the Navy. I'd like to know what other members take on this book is.

REVISONIST HISTORY...Reading books like "Day of Deceit" is like reading "Chariots of the Gods". Interesting? Maybe, but total fantasy. One question for the Pearl Harbor conspiracy folks...If in fact "Washington/FDR/George Marshall/take your pick" knew of the Japanese intentions, why would multiple "War Warnings" be sent to all Pacific commanders, instructing them to prepare for hostilities in the days leading up to the attack? Do yourself a favor. If you don't like to read watch "Tora! Tora! Tora! One of the most accurate war movies ever made.

[drogum]

You missed one on the list

Battle of Britain and not finishing off RAF when they were against the ropes.

[Thorlifter]

I left the BoB off because it, in itself, was not one of the greatest military blunders. At least it wasn't on the level as most of the ones listed. Hitler's decisions in the BoB were simply a stepping stone on the path to his destruction.....In my opinion.

[timshatz]

I'm going to split a hair here but think it oughta be said. I don't really consider Barbarossa a great blunder of WW2. Great mistake for Hitler, but not of the whole war.

Here is where I'm splitting the hairs. The war between Russia (Soviets) and Germany (Nazis) was not a global war. They fought between Moscow and Berlin, and extended lines along that range. But it never left the Eurasian land mass. If you look at it from the perspective of history, it was really just the Huns and Slavs going at it for the umpteenth time in their history. Hell, even the campaign was named after a guy in the same fight from 700 or so years before. Now if you take it from the perspective of casualties, you might have an arguement (also the Sino-Japanese war would be a consideration). But from the perspective of a World War, it really had little to do with the rest of the World. The rest of the world affected it (Lend Lease being the obvious example), not the other way around.

Hitler taking on the US was the Old World going at it against the New World and truely made it a World War. And it qualifies as a blunder. Meets the requirements of the thread.

[Njaco]

I see what you mean Tim but should'nt the fact that Germany was involved in many different theatres qualify Barbarossa as also a "world war"? And Russia did draw in the British and Americans to join on the western flank and to supply with tanks and planes. As a blunder I'm not so sure. And along with the local hostile history, it still involved numerous nations.