Greatest military blunder of WWII

[timshatz]

Going out on a limb here but...

Think Patton's plan had problems as well as Montgomery's. Both plans were based on the idea of a narrow front assault to take key features (Bridges, Cities, ect) and turn the enemy's flank in the larger sense. The problem with both plans is their limited scope for unlimited gains. The time for that was probably over by September of 1944.

The German collapse and retreat through France/Belguim was a result of 2.5 months of heavy combat in Normandy. The Battle of Normandy was about who could resupply and keep up the pressure faster. The Germans lost. They could not keep feeding in troops or supplies. After long and intense combat, they literally came apart. Thereafter, it was a race for the German border. Everybody headed for home (from the German perspective).

But at the German Border (or close to it in many cases), the advantages come back to the Germans. The Allies are on the end of a long supply line, the Germans have fallen back on theirs and they are fighting on or close to home soil. A limited front attack allows the Germans to focus their defensive powers on one attack. Either General, Patton or Montgomery, was facing long odds.

It is also probably that the time of ripost attacks was over. The war had refined itself. An attack by an enemy into your rear no longer led to panic at all levels. People knew what to do (hold the shoulders, delay the advance, attack the follow up elements, cut the supply lines). It was 1944, not 1940. The Blitzkrieg (no matter who was practicing it) was now standard technique. So was the response to it.

I think Eisenhower figured this out by the time of the Bulge. It was one of the reasons why he did not opt for Patton's 3rd Army attacking into the German rear and told them to go to Bastogne. The war was a broad front war of resources, not a slashing war of Blitzkrieg. The lighting attack could work, but only after the enemy had been worn down by long, expensive and broad front warfare.

[Soren]

Patton wasted men where it wasn't necessary, he was overly aggressive.

[trackend]

Originally Posted by timshatz

I'm no great fan of Montgomery (when I start of a posting like that on this board, I know I'm asking for it but...) but I think the guy did Ok given his circumstances. He did win the first All British (colonial allies and other countries included) straight battle against the Germans at El Alamain

I think General Alexander never got the credit he deserved for El Alamain
and Montgomery was happy to receive all the praise being the prima donna he was.

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by trackend

I think General Alexander never got the credit he deserved for El Alamain
and Montgomery was happy to receive all the praise being the prima donna he was.

Think you're right on that one Trackend. Alexander was on of the very good and overlooked British Generals of the war (IMHO). He, Park, Slim and Auckinleck were very good at their jobs, in varying degrees (Park being the best and Auchinleck the least of the unknowns). If Alexander had a down side, it was leaving too much in the hands of his subordinates (Clark making a run for Rome instead of cutting off the German retreat is a prime example- but I don't like Clark and I think History has pretty much nailed him as a headline grabber). He was the direct opposite of Monty, relaxed, smooth, calming. Over the years, I think historians have been kind to him.

Park was great during the Battle of Britian and great during Malta. Fought Kesselring (who was very good) twice and beat him both times. When the Brits were having a very tough time with the Germans, Park always won. Granted, he was fighting from the superior strategic position (defensive) but so were the French!

Slim is just plain forgotten. Ran the war in the East and took a broken army, remolded it and sent it back against the Japanese where it eventually triumphed. Like the British effort in the Far East, he is generally not known.

Auckinleck is the guy who Alexander replaced. Good general, when in charge against Rommel, he kept him in check at El Alamein. Calm, smart, unruffled. But he was a poor jugde of ability and had a tendency to stay loyal to subordinates too long. Cost him his job in the end.

[ToughOmbre]

Originally Posted by Soren

Patton wasted men where it wasn't necessary, he was overly aggressive.

I sure the brave men of the 101st Airborne Division, defending Bastogne in December '44, would disagree with you.

[Stupid]

Eh , I'm the minority and voted for stalingrad because the germans lost the entire 8th army among other things. Hitler would have had to declare war on the US as part of the pact with Japan. I think that was in the pact anyways....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think that Germany had to delcare war because of the pact. Japan was not fighting Russia even though Germany declared war on Russia.

[Stupid]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Japan was not fighting Russia even though Germany declared war on Russia.

Oh yeah...
Okay I fold.

[timshatz]

I'm not positive but I think the pact stated that the members of the Axis were obligated to declare war only in the case of another member being attacked. In other words, only if the Axis member were on the defensive from the start. Japan attacked the US, British, British Colonial and European Colonial possesions in December of 1941. Hence, the Germans were not obligated to declare war. Hitler was an idiot for doing it.

But it does raise an interesting question. How would the war had turned out if Germany does not go to war against the US in 1941? Granted, it would've happened that the US and Germany would've gotten into it sooner or later. But initially, the US would've focused on Japan (which is where the majority of Americans wanted the forces to go in the first place). Would Lend Lease have continued on the same scale? Would the US Atlantic Fleet have transferred to the Pacific? Would the Japanese expansion stopped earlier? When would the US go to war against Germany? Would the Soviet Union have survived the Winter of 41 and 42 with reduced supplies from the US and no North African Invasion?

An interesting "What If".

[utgotye]

Aside from the fact that the decision to go to ware (declare war) is political in nature and that I believe the Germans would have defeated the Russians if they had chosen 1 or 2 goals as opposed to several, I would have to say Pearl Harbor.

[rogthedodge]

Originally Posted by timshatz

Think you're right on that one Trackend. Alexander was on of the very good and overlooked British Generals of the war (IMHO). He, Park, Slim and Auckinleck were very good at their jobs, in varying degrees (Park being the best and Auchinleck the least of the unknowns). If Alexander had a down side, it was leaving too much in the hands of his subordinates (Clark making a run for Rome instead of cutting off the German retreat is a prime example- but I don't like Clark and I think History has pretty much nailed him as a headline grabber). He was the direct opposite of Monty, relaxed, smooth, calming. Over the years, I think historians have been kind to him.

Park was great during the Battle of Britian and great during Malta. Fought Kesselring (who was very good) twice and beat him both times. When the Brits were having a very tough time with the Germans, Park always won. Granted, he was fighting from the superior strategic position (defensive) but so were the French!

Slim is just plain forgotten. Ran the war in the East and took a broken army, remolded it and sent it back against the Japanese where it eventually triumphed. Like the British effort in the Far East, he is generally not known.

Auckinleck is the guy who Alexander replaced. Good general, when in charge against Rommel, he kept him in check at El Alamein. Calm, smart, unruffled. But he was a poor jugde of ability and had a tendency to stay loyal to subordinates too long. Cost him his job in the end.

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.

[timshatz]

Think the Statue guy got it right on Brooke. He was snooty. Nobody ever called him warm. But, like they say, the job description didn't include "Warm and Fuzzy". He had a tough job. I may be the only one that says that, but keeping Churchill from doing another Gallipoli (what was it about the Med that so facinated Churchill, guy started two campaigns in two wars and both were dogs, don't get it) or thinking up some other crazy idea that wouldn't work kept him buzy all war long something of a minder. Marshall had a much easier time with Roosevelt than Brooke with Churchill.

The more I read about the Far East Campaign from 12-7-41 on, the more I think there really wasn't going to be anything to stop the Japanese. The Brits/Dutch/Americans/Australians did their best (especially at the rank of Major and below) but there was nothing that was going to stop the Imperial Army/Navy. Slow it down, maybe. But not by much. The Allies had a peace mentality, a truely inept staff in Colonial Capitals and second rate equipment. And everyone knew it. I think that may be one of the reasons Alexander really didn't get the blame for it. It was not a question of "if" in the Far East, but "when".

Makes Slim's achievement all that more impressive. Also, while he maybe overlooked in England, he is unknown in the US. Don't think it's anything personal, most people in the US don't even know there was fighting in the CBI during WW2 and that Americans were involved. Haven't made a movie about it in 40 years!

[rogthedodge]

I know what you mean - when there was a US film made 'Burma Victory' it caused such a stink here it was withdrawn from release.

Books on Slim are thin on the ground, reading 'Slim - Master of War' at the moment - good but largely a re-write of 'Slim The Standard Bearer'. Both suffer from poor mapping and inadequate desrciptions of the battlefields.

Unfortunately Wingate gets a lot of the credit (maybe the zionist link and his penchant for self-publicity) but most forget he was subordinate to Slim. When Wingate cracked it was Slim who ordered him to carry on.

Stilwell famous hated limeys but although Stilwell technically out-ranked Slim he agreed to serve under Slim - a fine endorsement.

Stilwell was also scathing about Alexander taking the credit for the Burcorps retreat.

I read somewhere that Slim had 500,000 men under his command at the peak (can't find a reliable source for that though).

If that's the case did he command one of the biggest armies on the allied (non-Russian) side?

The more I read about Slim the more convinced I am he was a much better general than Monty, Patton or Rommel

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My mistake it was 'Objective Burma!' that caused the stink & was withdrawn, 'Burma Victory' was the UK documentary film which gave all of the credit to Mountabatten & Alexander and they had to add words about Slim at the end to balance it! Neither was perfect!

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by rogthedodge

I know what you mean - when there was a US film made 'Burma Victory' it caused such a stink here it was withdrawn from release.

Books on Slim are thin on the ground, reading 'Slim - Master of War' at the moment - good but largely a re-write of 'Slim The Standard Bearer'. Both suffer from poor mapping and inadequate desrciptions of the battlefields.

Unfortunately Wingate gets a lot of the credit (maybe the zionist link and his penchant for self-publicity) but most forget he was subordinate to Slim. When Wingate cracked it was Slim who ordered him to carry on.

Stilwell famous hated limeys but although Stilwell technically out-ranked Slim he agreed to serve under Slim - a fine endorsement.

Stilwell was also scathing about Alexander taking the credit for the Burcorps retreat.

I read somewhere that Slim had 500,000 men under his command at the peak (can't find a reliable source for that though).

If that's the case did he command one of the biggest armies on the allied (non-Russian) side?

The more I read about Slim the more convinced I am he was a much better general than Monty, Patton or Rommel

Good post. Agreed.

[ccheese]

What if Japan had made another raid on Pearl Harbor ? This time got the
sub pens, the fuel farm, the dry docks ?
What if they had not retreated when they had "Taffey 3"
bottled up ? Halsey was 800 miles away !

Good question !!

Charles