WWII Blunders
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20172
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 20:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: WWII Blunders
Posted By: rommel
Subject: WWII Blunders
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 15:32
|
I think one blunder that cost the axis forces dearly was the battle of stalingrad i think they lost it because of Hitler. This is because Hitler would sack generals during the battle who told him things he didnt want to hear. For example they told him that the communications line was dangerously extended and that communications lines were thin. Field Marshell list was sacked followed by Halder. Hitler refused to let Paulus surrender when the Russians were surrounding them in Stalingrad, because Goring promised supply by the Luftwaffe, but that was a farce bacause that was heavily commited to supplying Rommel in Africa. Hitler made Paulus a field Marshell to prevent him from surrendering, but he did so on the 2nd of February 1943. 70,ooo Germans died along with 92,000 prisoners and was a turning point in the war. What other blunders or mistakes by the Germans contributed to their defeat, any suggestions.------------- d murray |
Replies:
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 13:36
|
In fact the battle for Stalingrad was by itself a big blunder. Instead of concentrating all their forces at Caucasus, Germans had to divide their initial them into 2 parts, because Stalingrad had "a symbolical meaning" for Hitler.
After this division, Germans didn't have enough force to achieve success at any of the directions and eventually lost both Stalingrad and Northern Caucasus. ------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 13:41
|
Striving for Caucasus was itself a mistake , you dont put a huge arrmy onto a narrow pieace of land...look at the map of USSR a German army in the Caucasus could have been easily cut off from the main armies. Also, large armies are far more ineffective in the mountains than in plains.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 14:14
That is true, but the main target of the German offence was Caspian oil. Germans coulde create a defensive line along their left flang and proceed to the Caucasus with the main forces.
Without Caspian oil, all the German offence in 1942 and the war effort in general was meaningless. Besides, it was also a possiblity that Turkey would attack SU from the south if Germans were succesful in Caucasus.
From the very beginning of 1942 the main target was Caucasus. Hitler decided to split the forces when Stalingrad wasn't taken after the first attack. Later he became obsessed with Stalingrad and instead sending all the reinforcements to Caucasus send them to Stalingrad which definetely was a mistake. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2007 at 11:14
Yeah very true, his generals advised a second thrust on Moscow instead. When Hitler suggested a drive towards the oil fields his generals advised and said this could be a good idea if executed properly, but we see how that went.
I think big blunders include the English in Norway, Rommel not gaining one more division in North Africa (hitler refusing to commit armored divisions to the Suez canal), Hitler halting his panzer thrust towards Dunkirk, practically the whole Winter War on the Soviet side, Hitler not equipping soldiers on the Eastern Front with winter provisions, Hitler not closing the Western Front before attacking in the east, Hitler changing the target of Luftwaffe raids from RAF fields and radar stations to London, the Holocaust (as far as in a practical sense. it took a lot of time, resources, and manpower I'm sure and cost Germany socially. It was a very terrible event, just stating in sense of war), Allied partying in 1945 that led to Operation Bodenplatte, no counterattack plan for D-Day like Rommel organized, two bombs on Japan (I feel that this was only for bragging rights against the USSR, like "check it out, we have two weapons of this destruction and you don't even have one, look how close it is to you), and countless more I am unaware of. ------------- It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2007 at 14:16
|
I think the biggest blunder of the war was when Clark posed in Rome in front of the world's press, instead of attacking the Gothic Line. It added a year to the war, cost ten of thousands of lives, all entirely for his vanity. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 01:31
|
The Italian campaign in general was a blunder. It tied down the best allied troops in s secondry theater. As a result you had very green formations attacking at Normandy. I think the US 3 ID would have done better at Omaha, then the 29 ID a formation that should never have been thrown to the wolves.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 22:59
|
I think that some of the blunders were a much more broad scale. If I were in Germany's position I would've waited a couple of years, perhaps until 1941 or even 1942 to give the Italians the time they needed to get on a serious war footing and consequently, leave the time needed for a possibility less hostile reception to future german expansionism from England and France.
Also, I think the entire invasion of the USSR, while promising, was a massive mistake. I would've opted for the much more cautionary concentration of forces against England and to force them to terms even if they weren't unconditional. I'm no expert, but I find it hard to believe that Britain could've lasted too much longer with the full weight and industry of Germany against them.
Japan's folly was probably attacking the U.S. And if not that, then not officially declaring war and/or following up with an invasion of Hawaii to secure a shield for the Japanese home islands.
|
Posted By: aslanlar
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 06:58
|
Hitler did not want to start war in 1939 either. He described the British and French leaders as "little worms" and thought that they would not declare war on him over Poland IF Russia attacked aswell, thus constitution the Nazi-Soviet Pact. However, unfortunately for him Britain and France declared war on him.
The invasion of the USSR was in part a mistake. Had they done it 2 or 3 months earlier, before the Russian Winter came along, i think they would of conquered the USSR. However, because of the ineffective Italian army, Opperation Barbarossa (invasion of USSR) was delayed. I don't thing the battle of Britain was too big a deal. Like Japan, it was an island and significant forces would be lost trying to take them out of the war. If only they had nuclear weapons then.. :P. Yes Japans problem was Pearl Harbour. However if it had been successful, i think America would of had a big problem on her hands. ------------- "The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 11:01
|
Pear Harbor was not a blunder. It was a side operation to Malaya and the Phillipines, the attack on any of which would have brought the US to war. Once the strategic decision had been made to strike into these territories, then an attack on Pearl Harbor was was necessary.
------------- |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 19:56
Tactically no, it wasn't a blunder. Strategically it was. They missed their primary target, the Carrier fleet, and the timing made it a sneak attack. The result was a pissed off country with an intact offensive force. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 20:40
|
The Battle of the Hurtgen Forest has to rank up there on the stupidity Gage. 25-30,000 American dead missing or wounded for something that had no military value. In a place where the allies couldn't bring armor or air power into play. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 01:19
|
I agree with the meat grinder of the Hurtgen Forest. And Pearl Harbor was a strategic sucess as well, it achieved its strategic purpose, the US Pacific Fleet could not dispute the Japanese assualts in East Asia. And the country would have been just as"pissed off" once Japan attacked the Philippines which was also an American pocession.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 18:48
| Germany not changing to a "total war" economy and maintaining pre war production levels cant of helped their situation. However it maybe because of Hitler giving the position of economy minister to Goring who had no apptitude for dealing with the economy. He who said himself that he was unfamiliar with the runnings of an economy let alone one that was at war. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 20:30
|
Would the failure of the Nazis to develop and produce a long range Heavy bomber be considered a blunder? Or just short sighted. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Mumbloid
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 14:19
|
Italy invading Greece.
Derfasciti:
I agree, however it was also Mussolini fault, because he didnt want to go in war in the first place, and then he suddently declared war without giving time to the armed forces and to the economy to prepare themself.
------------- The future keeps the past alive. |
Posted By: PanzerOberst
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 16:49
I think I have to agree with red clay here, we however have to keep in mind that there were quite a number of other 'blunders' made during the war. ------------- "If the tanks succeed, then victory follows" - Heinz W. Guderian |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 20:27
|
Everyone here seams to think that attackin russia was a mistake,but do you forget the fact that russian army was trained for attack and not for defence? ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: rommel
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 19:43
|
wot u on about. Germany geared to a total war economy in 1944 ------------- d murray |
Posted By: PanzerOberst
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 10:01
I have no info on that, but it is widely believed that Russia was only bidding her time b4 launching further expansion to the west.
That is correct, it happened when Albert Speer became the Minister of Armaments. ------------- "If the tanks succeed, then victory follows" - Heinz W. Guderian |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 23:28
Hitler did plan long range bomber from long before the war - to invade America! The Yanks of course got wind of it and took counter-measures. It became a game of spy vs spy in pre-war times. The hard working plane designers got a raw deal in that they designed adequate bombers for Europe but their best designs were rejected as not being good enough for America as well. It was not an oversight, Hitler screwed up by wanting too much. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: YohjiArmstrong
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 14:52
That is entirely debateable. The Italian campaign was always troublesome because it was, if you will, a stop gap. After the fall of North Africa the Western Allies had to decide: Northern Europe or Italy? An assault on Northern Europe in 1943, whilst debateable (considering German losses and the fact it was the high point of British power), would probably have ended in failure. Attacking Italy might work. The trouble was as Britian wanted Italy and America Northern Europe it all ended up in another trans-Atlantic squabble. When Italy was finally decided on in a compromise the very nature of the compromise meant that it was a stop gap theatre until the N. European invasion was ready. It was therefore gradually starved of more and more men and equipment meaning that it never really got as far as it should. For me two of the largest mistakes, not mentioned here, have got to be the great British desert war migrations of '41 and '42 when troops were taken away from O'Connor (about to take all the N. African Italian erritories) and the Auk (about to destroy Rommel who had no fuel or tanks) in order to look after Crete and the Far East respectively. Another glorious mistake was Singapore. I'm sure we're all familiar with the litany of problems- not least that for a base designed to be defended by air power it had little to no air power. Furthermore the continous dumping of barely trained soldiers contributed nothing, helped bring about defeat and severely retarded Far East prospects for several years. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 21:06
|
The fall of Singapore? The Japanese showed the world world that they were capable of land attack by using new forms of jungle warfare. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: YohjiArmstrong
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 04:45
|
Yes but the fall of Singapore might concievably have been resisted had several mistakes not been made. The Japanese whilst well trained were not unique- the Argyll and Sutherlands proved British troops could do the same. The entire force could and should have been trained like that. My arguement simply rests on the fact that the British made dozens of mistakes, compounded by the Japanese strengths in Jungle Warfare. |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 05:04
Neither, it wasn't necessary to the Nazi war effort. They could hit the British and the Russians and that's who they were going to be bombing anyway. They were mostly important for the US, so they could reach forward airfields and begin operations quickly. The Germans certainly could have used longer-range fighters though ... |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 08:20
|
The British had no respect for the Japanese as fighters and were not prepared to think otherwise, big mistake!
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 01:05
|
Wow, there is quite a few to choose from. Some of the more major ones in my estimate would be the entire eastern front for the germans, they give definition to the word winging it. The Wehrmacht was improvising from the first week of the invasion until the end of the war. Hitler and his decisions especially after 41'. Operation Sea-lion (invasion of britain) including the battle of britain between the airforces of britain and germany. Tank production and the nazi obsession with developing a million different variations and wanting to mass produce all of them, instead of mass producing say the panzer III or IV as Guderian would have liked. Having anything to do with Mussolini and the italian military. Japan attacking the U.S. at pearl harbor.
It's harder for the allies considering they won the war and could afford setbacks much better than the hardpressed axis, the U.S. being unprepared for pearl harbor I suppose could be one. Not giving patton a bigger role. I'll have to think about allied blunders more.
Some blunders that have nothing to do with losing the war for the allies would be the fire bombing of civilian targets, monte cassino, not standing up to stalin and letting him take half of europe, unconditional surrender which prolonged the war not shortened it (who is the moron that thought that would shorten the war and was a good idea
 ). For the germans following the nazi racial policy in the east, instead of liberating the ukrainians etc. and having them fight alonside the germans versus against. My mind is drawing blanks, that will have to be it for now.
Edit: forgot about the soviets.  Giving budenny(sp.?) command of anything larger than a squadron. Stalin issuing no retreat orders in the beginning of the war.------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 03:46
|
Biggest blunder, the US for some reason keeping its experienced formations in Italy and sending green troops to Normandy. ------------- |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 04:53
|
Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing as are opinions.
By the way putting in green (but trained) troops to attack a position where a very attacking and CONFIDENT frame of mind is wanted is quite normal. Veteran troops tend to be much more wary!
|
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 07:19
|
There you have a huge blunder. the US bombers were supposed to bomb the empty beaches of Normandy to create foxholes for the landing troops to take cover. Instead they detoured and went for more attractive targets and so cost the lives of many thousands.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 09:41
Until the get their first taste of fire that is. ------------- |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 11:02
| Wrong, there was no way the bombers would detour off their assigned targets. |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 11:03
Precisely they would have done their job as they very bravely did
|
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 19:41
|
The bombers would have gone to their assigned targets, but when under heavy fire they had a breakdown in the chain of communication from the top. Happens all the time in war. Study the countless pictured of the beaches at the time, not a bomb crater anywhere and smooth as a baby's bum. In "Saving Private Ryan" a reconstruction was done from the accounts of those who landed. The landing scenes are brutally accurate. All they had was those iron things sticking up out of the sand to hide behind when they needed the previously planned fox holes in the sand. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 01:42
|
If I remember the allies were still using air attacks where they would come right over their own troops rather than perpendicular to them during D-day. They ended up killing some of their own troops, including a rather high ranking general from what I remember reading. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 04:59
There was no plan to make foxholes on the beaches with bombers. Try talking to some people who were in the landing as I did the other day at a D-day museum near where I live.
The whole point was to get OFF the beaches as fast as possible and push inland. There was to be no hanging around.
The bombers targets were basically the enemy and any communication links. Not making holes in a beach which weren't wanted.
|
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 00:42
|
Would anyone disagree with me when i say: the Germans lost to the Soviets because their industrial output did not match Soviet output?
The reason I'm saying this is because at the Battle of Kursk, when the final nail was slammed into Germany's coffin; those brilliant German tanks were rendered obsolete against Soviet T-39 tanks, even though T-39's were far inferior in quality, but much more numerous in quantity.
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 21:59
|
I wouldn't, that is one of the reasons though not the only reason. Also the soviets were superior in quantity and quality in tanks until the panthers started rolling off the line. The german generals were most unhappy to come across the T-34's in the opening of Barbarossa. To say nothing of the frontline soldiers. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 19:00
|
So many 'blunders' in WWII, many made by the Allies early on, which gave the Axis a chance for victory and then many later on by the Axis, which cost them their 'chance'. Some of the major 'blunders' that had a huge impact on the course and outcome of the war, first on the Allies' side: 1. Stalin's pact with Hitler - almost let Germany win, whereas a 'united front' of Soviets, British and French could have limited the danger and damage done by the war. Stalin was 'afraid' that the Allies were trying to arrange a war between Germany and the Soviet Union that they would remain out of. So he turned around and did the same thing back to them. The only 'problem' was that Germany was quickly and inexpensively victorious, and massively built up militarily, in large part due to the supplies that the Soviet Union was providing them with under the pact. 2. Allies' Conduct of the Battle of France - Germany had some major advantages in terms of their military command, training, doctrine, equipment etc. However, the Allies' plan in response to the Germans in 1940 was just about the worst possible thing they could have done, and directly resulted in a quick easy victory for Germany. 3. Defense of the Soviet Union, 1941 - The response of the Red Army to the invasion of 1941, not to mention the prior preparation - or lack thereof, was terrible and resulted in massive losses at the hands of a smaller invading force. This almost gave the Germans a chance to win the war. 4. Soviet Counterattacks Late Winter / Spring, 1942 - The initial winter counterattack by the Red Army was very effective and inflicted heavy losses on the Germans. However, the Soviets expanded their counterattacks and tried to press them too far. To compound that error they resumed massive counterattacks all along the front in spring, as soon as the mud had dried sufficiently. The results were a disaster for the Red Army, and almost gave the Germans another chance to win the war. From the Axis side: 1. German stop order at Dunkirk - effectively saved the BEF, allowing it to fight another day. Given that the German strategy for the conduct of the war was to turn east as soon at the west had been dealt with, this failure to capture the BEF was even worse. It meant that the Germans had to fight the Battle of Britain to again force Britain out of the war. That failed as well and the Germans ended up with distraction in the Balkans and North Africa when they really needed to concentrate all their efforts on the eastern campaign if it was to be successful. 2. Shortsighted conduct of the campaign in the east - Hitler was too overconfident that the Soviets would be 'easily' defeated. The great successes the Germans achieved in the opening stages of Barbarossa confirmed him in his opinion. This had a number of consequences, from failing to fully 'mobilize' the resources of the Third Reich early enough, to an early campaign of deliberate brutality and extermination in the conquered lands of the Soviet Union. A 'propaganda campaign' of 'liberation' from communism, the setting up of fascist puppet regimes and re-opening churchs and redistributing collectivized lands may have brought about the 'collapse' of the communist regime that Hitler expected. Instead, the brutal conquerors approach actually 'forced' people back to support for the communist regime, in order to fight for their very survival. 3. Stalingrad Campaign - there is some debate about going for the Caucasus at all. However, Hitler believed that he needed the oil and depriving the Soviets of it would finish their effective resistance. Whether or not a campaign in that direction was the best move, the historical campaign was very badly implemented and effectively finished the Germans. They might have been better off if they had driven all the way to the shores of the Caspian Sea, so as to 'cut off' the Red Army forces in the Caucasus. As it was, fighting for Stalingrad street by street while it was still being resupplied from across the Volga was an incredible blunder. 4. Just about everything Italy tried to do militarily - Starting with attacking France in the Alps when France had already been effectively defeated and getting nothing but a 'bloody nose'. Attacking the British in Egypt and getting totally wiped out by a much smaller British force. Invading Greece, and losing. Sailing their warships out of port and getting sunk. Keeping warships in port and getting sunk! Trying to 'stab the Germans in the back' by making a deal with the Allies to occupy most of Italy and 'trap' the Germans, and instead getting most of their country occupied by the Germans. 5. Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour - not really a blunder in a tactical sense, other than 'missing' the carriers. However, a blunder in a strategic sense in that it provoked a war with a much more powerful nation in which the Japanese had no realistic plan to win. The Japanese plan was to 'cripple' the US fleet, grab what they could while the grabbing was good and then hold onto it until the US gave up and agreed to let them keep what they had taken. Chance of Japanese victory with that plan after Pearl Harbour - .0002%. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 19:34
|
A fair enough summary deadkenny. Hitler either didn't do enough or did too much in his campaigns.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 01:14
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 10:10
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. |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 01:49
|
I have to agree with deadkenny on the pearl harbor issue. The U.S. was incredibly isolationist in outlook. Remember that FDR had to aid the british secretly for fear of provoking the population. It's rather amusing to read of how he went about this, I almost laughed out loud when I came across the transportation of supplies to britain and the slow extension of the escorts farther and farther out to sea. This was especially true for the midwest, Charles Lindbergh was the posterboy for the isolationists if I'm not mistaken. Also the war against the japanese became almost similar to the eastern front. The americans had the utmost empathy for the japanese AFTER pearl harbor. 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.
The most important point is that the japanese had lost the war the minute they bombed pearl harbor, unless its just an exaggeration I believe there is a famous japanese admiral who was wiser than most when he said, (to paraphrase) the japanese have done nothing but to awakened a sleeping giant... Who happened to be very angry and wanted revenge.
Deadkenny's point about the americans staying out of the war if the phillipines were not attacked is valid. Like I said pearl harbor basically galvanized the nation to destroy the evil nation of the rising sun. If the japanese had not gone after the U.S. in such a provoking way they would have had a much better chance of attaining a reasonable peace; I guess it makes sense why they did what they did since the japanese were by far and away the most die hard of combatants in the war and didn't want to surrender at all. I should point out that the attack on pearl harbor was a brilliant tactical manuver, even if its strategical implications were not as positive. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: YohjiArmstrong
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 16:19
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. |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 04:20
|
I agree with Justinian and deadkenny in that without an attack on the Philippines, FDR would've had a tougher time getting the public to go to war with enthusiasm. However, The Japanese just saw alot of allied white guys and figured they had to attack all of them because they were all against them.
Tactically the Pearl Harbour assault could've been much more effective. No the much hyped "3rd wave" is not the answer. Nagumo made the right choice because the wave would've sufferred horrendous casualties and Japan could never afford losing skilled airmen. Instead, when the American fleet chased the Japanese away, the Japanese could've turned around with their 6 aircraft carriers and annihilated it, no Midway required. ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |