WWII Blunders

Originally posted by Sparten Deadkenny, I must disagree with the Pearl Harbor thing. It was not a strategic blunder at all, but probably the best decision the Japanese made in the entire war. The fact is that Pearl Harbor was a side show, even on Dec 7 1941, since the main effort (strategically) was the offensives in SE Asia, the purpose of the Pearl Harbor assualt was to knock the US PacFlt out of the battle in SE Asia, and in that it succeeded. The US would have gone to war over an attack in SE Asia, with or without Pearl Harbor.

Clearly the US would have gone to war if their forces in the Philippines had been attacked.  However, if the Japanese had bypassed them and restricted themselves to attacking British, Australian and Dutch territory, that's not so obvious.  However, even if the US had become 'involved' as a result of these attacks, the key point is that the Japanese strategy of 'exhausting' the Americans might have had a chance of succeeding.  With the attack on Pearl, it had practically no chance.  That was my key point, the Japanese brought the Americans into the war directly and fully without having any realistic strategy for 'winning' the war they had started.  In a country such as the US, public opinion actually matters a great deal.  Without any direct attack on American forces, there would be a lot of questioning of American involvement inside the US itself.  Further, it would be increasingly difficult to maintain a large effort against Japan, in the face of heavy losses, given the nature of that campaign.  Japan could and probably would characterize it as a campaign to return Asian lands to European colonial powers, and in the scenario being describe that may well have resonated to some extent in the US.  FDR very much wanted the US involved in the war against Germany, however, his hands were tied by the large and powerful anti-war movements.  Pearl Harbour effectively silenced the 'anti-war' groups.  I don't see that a Japanese 'liberation' of the Dutch East Indies or British SE Asia would have had the same impact.

Originally posted by Justinian   My grandpa still talks of the japs and certainly doesn't like them, there are a lot of other veterans who still haven't forgiven the japanese for the war.

Thats true for many British and Commonwealth servicemen too, including my grandfather, grandpa and "Uncle" Max. I think the antipathy had more to do with Japan's disgraceful way of waging war (namely the racism, brutality and wholesale massacre of PoW's and civilians).

Having been reading a book on Dunkirk I have to say the general state of the French High Command was disgraceful. The complete lack of nerve, communications and will meant that the one chance thrown to the allies was thrown away. By chance I mean the attack at Arras which was originally suppossed to be supported by a large French counter-attack. If pulled off the results would have been devastating as the panzers were too far from their infantry. It wasn't till the next day that infantry got anywhere near the place. I doubt the whole campaign would have been won but at least the campaign would still have been viable, if not a certainty.

A pair of blunders can be found with the US treatment of Japan. Forcing Britain to abandon her treaty with Japan in 1922 left her with only one camp to join (in the same way that Stalin joined the Axis because of Britain adn France's ludicrous statements about Poland). The next blunder was the embargo that forced Japan to attack S.E. Asia. With the embargo in place it was their only choice to gain the materials and resources they needed.