Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The 5 Worst Military Blunders of the 20th Century

By Dave Madsen in Op-Ed
Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 07:01:56 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

The worst military decisions of the 20th Century? What an immense treasury to choose from! In World War One, almost every military decision one can think of, from Tannenberg to the Marne, from Gallipoli to the Somme, from Verdun to the torpedoing of the Lusitania, from the very mobilization of the Great Powers to the calamitous Treaty of Versailles, was a colossal blunder on someone's part. The very war, consuming 10 million young lives and fought "for an eggshell" (Hamlet) still evokes the black-humor headline:

ARCHDUKE DISCOVERED ALIVE
GREAT WAR FOUGHT IN VAIN


My choice for '14-'18 remains, however, Verdun, where both sides blundered, the Germans in attacking and the French in defending ("at any cost," the age-old formula for military stupidity), and the consequences were so historically immense. Let us, however, take this list in chronological order.

Tsushima, 1905. By the end of the 19th century, Japan, awakened from a centuries-long slumber, was expanding into Manchuria and Korea. Inevitably, she encountered Tsarist Russia, pushing southward from Vladivostok. Equipped by the British, Japan's navy was probably the best trained and most efficient in the world -- moreso, even, than the Royal Navy of that time. In February 1904, the Japanese -- in a mini-Pearl Harbor -- inflicted a stinging defeat on the Russian fleet, at her key base of Port Arthur, knocking out seven battleships at a cost of two of her own.

Outraged at this humiliation by a tiny country of paper parasols and Madame Butterfly, the Tsar decided to send a fleet round the world to reinforce Vladivostok and avenge Port Arthur. Its commander, an irritable 53-year-old aristocrat, Admiral Zinovy Petrovich Rozhdestvensky, seemed to have reckoned that it was doomed from the start. His ships were "untested or badly built" and he had "not the slightest prospect of success."

It began badly. In the North Sea, the Russians ran into some British fishing trawlers, taking them to be Japanese and sinking one at 100-yard range, killing two British fishermen. Public opinion clamored for war with Russia; in consequence, all British coaling stations along the 5,000 mile route were denied to the Russians. After nearly eight months at sea, his 42 ships had reached 50-mile wide Straits of Tsushima (meaning "Island of the Donkey's Ears" in Japanese) between Japan and Korea. Neither ships nor crews were in any condition to fight.

Early in the afternoon of May 27th, 1905, Admiral Togo was waiting, and in a classic naval maneuver, he twice "crossed the T" of Rozhdestvensky's column. Within minutes, the leading three of Russia's battleships were wrecks; Rozhdestvensky was so wounded that he had to hand over command. At 1130 hours on the following day, the Russians ran up the white flag, to the surprise of the Japanese, steeped in the samurai traditions of no-surrender. Only two Russian destroyers and a light-cruiser limped into Vladivostok. There were 4,830 Russians killed, at a cost of 700 Japanese.

It was the most complete naval victory in history. In Russia, news of the defeat provoked the 1905 Revolution, opening the door to Lenin 12 years later. Japan, filled with a sense of invincible Imperial destiny, became a major power, with dire consequences down the line.

Verdun, 1916. After the Battle of the Marne in 1914, when the Kaiser's armies failed to defeat France, the Germans stood on the defensive in the West while they attacked in the East. Only once, until 1918, did they deviate from this strategy -- at the beginning of 1916. The Chief of the German General Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, a withdrawn, unpopular figure with a curious mix of ruthlessness and indecision, came up with a novel concept in the history of warfare.

Instead of trying to defeat the French outright, he would bait it into defending a point in the line it could not afford to abandon. There he would "bleed it white", the very terminology of a war which, more than any other, treated soldiers' lives as little more than corpuscles.

He selected Verdun, rated the world's strongest fortress, with a centuries-long tradition in la défense de France, and only 150 miles east of Paris. The 1914 campaign had left it in a narrow salient, vulnerable on three sides to overwhelming German superiority in heavy artillery.

On the 21st of February, 1,220 German guns opened up on a frontage of barely 8 miles, launching the most savage artillery barrage in history. The French lines sagged but held, at tremendous cost. The immortal slogan "They shall not pass" was coined. In what became an affair of national honor, France rose to the bait. For ten hideous months history's longest battle raged.

The tragic irony was that Verdun also bled the attacking Germans almost equally. What began as a small affair resulted in combined casualties of over 800,000 men -- most of them inflicted in an area not much bigger than New York's Central Park.

Verdun cost Germany her last chance at defeating the Allies in the West, but the impact on France, elevating the defeatist Marshal Pétain as its hero, went far deeper. French losses led to the demoralization that defeated her in 1940. The Pyrrhic victory par excellence, Verdun was a murderous blunder for both sides.

Hitler declares war on the United States, 1941. Most historians rate Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, to have been his worst military blunder (from five possible candidates) of the entire war. I, however, disagree. I think that his almost casual declaration of war against the United States on December 11, 1941, proved to be even more decisively disastrous.

It wasn't necessary. Four days after Pearl Harbor, the US had made no moves against Hitler. Consider the state of the war from the German point of view: it clearly made sense to keep America out of the war. Despite the huge support ("all short of war") that the US had been providing Britain since 1940, the U-Boat campaign was going extremely well. By 1941, sinkings had reached a peak, at which rate Britain would have lost fully one-fourth of her merchant fleet within the coming year.

In the US, the "America First" movement still had considerable support. A Gallup Poll of October 22, 1941, reported that only 17% of Americans actually favored war with Germany, and as late as the summer of 1942, polls showed that nearly one-third favored a compromise peace with Germany. "I can see why we're fighting the Japs," commented one respondent, "but I can't see why we're fighting the Krauts."

After Pearl Harbor, it was only natural that the powerful "Pacific First" lobby, headed by the redoubtable Admiral Ernest J. King, then CinC US Atlantic Fleet and subsequently Chief of Naval Operations, would urge Roosevelt to attack Japan, then Germany.

If Admiral King and the "Pacific Firsters" had had their way, Britain and an almost mortally wounded Russia would have been left to fight Hitler alone. Had Russia been smashed in '42, as was all too likely, a subsequent Anglo-American victory in Europe using conventional weapons would have been inconceivable.

Why, then, did Hitler take this fateful decision? Like Saddam Hussein half-a-century later, he fell prey to his own propaganda, accepting poor intelligence, coupled with his own parochial ignorance, into grossly underestimating US military potential. Secondly, he was convinced that the war in Russia was as good as won. Information available in Moscow since glasnost now confirms that as of December, 1941, Hitler had good reason to judge Stalin to be in the market for a separate peace.

His miscalculation was the West's salvation.

Singapore, 1942. On Sunday, February 15, 1942, British Lieutenant General A.E. Percival, with moustache and rabbit teeth, surrendered Singapore, reputedly the world's most impregnable bastion, and over 100,000 troops to a motley force of Japanese of little more than half that number (62,200) under General Yamashita. A heavy share of responsibility fell on Churchill, who wrote years later that it was "the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history."

Churchill's eyes were riveted on Hitler -- on Europe and North Africa. His policy on the Far East was to rely on the Americans and "hope for the best." But America had her hands more than full after Pearl Harbor. The legendary 15-inch guns of Singapore faced out to sea, not towards the narrow strip of water called the Johore Strait, only a few hundred yards separating Singapore Island from the supposedly impenetrable jungle of Malaya to the north. No effort had been made to form a Malaya defense force.

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese landed at Khota Bharu in the north of Malaya, and began working their way down through the jungle. The following day, two of the most powerful ships in Southeast Asia, the Repulse and the almost new Prince of Wales (which had taken part in sinking the mighty Bismarck the previous year), headed north to intercept the landings. But as his escorting aircraft carrier, Indomitable had run aground off of Jamaica, the commander, Admiral Sir Tom Phillips, was dependent on local airfields for air cover.

So Phillips decided to head back to Singapore, but not wanting to break radio cover, he failed to request air cover. He was spotted by Japanese planes on December 10, and within minutes, the two great ships were sunk. Phillips and 700 men went down with them.

Abruptly, the balance of the whole campaign shifted. Malaya lay virtually unprotected from the sea. The back door to Singapore was now open, its British, Australian, and Indian defenders demoralized by the loss of its two capital ships. A month later, Yamashita captured Kuala Lumpur, with vast military stores. By the end of January, Percival had withdrawn to Singapore Island, but he still had a force far superior to the attackers, who were exhausted and nearly out of ammunition.

On February 8, Yamashita's men crossed the Straits. A week later, the "impregnable" fortress surrendered, without much fight, and despite Churchill's order for "every inch of ground to be defended." One of Yamashita's senior officers wrote later, "If the British had held out a few more days, they would have defeated us."

At a cost of 3,500 killed, the Japanese had smashed forever the British Empire in the East, and with it the myth of White Superiority. Had the defenders foreseen that three-and-a-half years of captivity in the most atrocious conditions lay ahead -- many of them were among the 12,000 POW's who died on the Burma Railway -- they might well have fought on.

Advance on the Yalu River, 1950. On September 15, 1950, the troops under the command of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, CinC of the UN Command since July 10, landed at Inchon. The landing followed a surprise attack by Kim Il Sung's Communist North on June 25, which had all but defeated the South Koreans, and the handful of Americans rushed from Japan to support them.

One of warfare's most inspired amphibious operations, Inchon caught the North Koreans completely off-balance and changed the course of the Korean War. By the beginning of October, MacArthur's victorious forces were pursuing a broken enemy across the 38th parallel. Brimming over with hubris and determined to smash the Communist forces once and for all, MacArthur convinced President Harry S Truman to allow him to proceed to the Yalu River, the sensitive border with both the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union. This despite intelligence from Delhi that China would intervene.

Undetected by Western Intelligence, hundreds of thousands of Chinese "volunteers" began infiltrating by night, with great skill, across the Yalu. As the UN forces moved north from Pyongyang, MacArthur's commander, General Walker, found himself heading with a mixed force of 100,000 men into rugged, wintry country, and covering a front several times wider than the much more defensible 38th parallel.

Inevitably, the force became divided. On November 25, as Walker was preparing his final blow, the Chinese struck with devastating force along the Chongchon Valley, with eight armies of thirty divisions, totalling more than 300,000 men, several times the available strength of the UN forces. It was a great ambush.

Walker's right wing crumpled. Swiftly, the line buckled, and MacArthur's troops, in an unparalleled reversal of fortune, reeled back to the 38th parallel. For the US forces caught up in the "bug-out" in appalling winter conditions, it was one of the worst defeats in American history.

Thirteen thousand casualties were suffered in withdrawal, and the legendary, untouchable, invincible MacArthur was sacked a few months later. But the longer-term consequences were far greater. The Korean War could no longer be won, by either side, and would drag on for another two-and-a-half bitter years, costing 54,000 American lives and many more Koreans and Chinese. The PRC became a major power.

As a decisive defeat of the West by the East, it stood in line with Tsushima and Singapore, and led to Vietnam.

Links

NOTE

I have not included any blunders post-1950, for a variety of reasons, chief among them being a lack of blunders on the scale of the above. The only candidate that I see possibly emerging is the Coalition's decision not to remove Saddam Hussein from power in 1991, though it remains to be seen how much of a blunder that was.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Which one is the biggest blunder?
o Tsushima 7%
o Verdun 25%
o Hitler's Declaration of War 25%
o Singapore 8%
o Yalu River 5%
o Other (please comment) 28%

Votes: 56
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Korean-War .com
o CNN interview with a Chinese soldier
o US Army's 50th Anniversary Retrospective on Korea
o Also by Dave Madsen


Display: Sort:
The 5 Worst Military Blunders of the 20th Century | 408 comments (361 topical, 47 editorial, 1 hidden)
on Operation Barbarossa... (4.12 / 8) (#13)
by ianweeks on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 04:09:54 PM EST

Most historians rate Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, to have been his worst military blunder (from five possible candidates) of the entire war. I, however, disagree. I think that his almost casual declaration of war against the United States on December 11, 1941, proved to be even more decisively disastrous.

I disagree. Operation Barbarossa basicly divided Hitlers army in two. He faced England and its allies in the west, and Russia in the east. This created the opportunity for the Allies to invade France. And because of Hitlers gigantic losses in Russia, his army was weakened significantly. If Hitler never attacked Russia, his Atlantikwall would have been much stronger, and the invasion (with or without the US) would have never been a success.

Task Force Smith (4.33 / 6) (#15)
by edremy on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 04:18:31 PM EST

Although nowhere near the scale of the blunders you list, I have to throw out Task Force Smith in the first days of the American involvement in Korea. Here a bunch of ill-equipped, ill-trained and undermanned units got stuck with defending against a major NK push and ended up routed.

Here's the US Army's take on the whole thing. When even your own propoganda admits it was a serious defeat, you know you screwed up. I did a presentation on this battle at Ft. Knox during OBC: I always thought it was fun to pick something where we lost big.

Nice. (3.80 / 5) (#17)
by Einzelgaenger on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 04:29:03 PM EST

I liked this article.

Although some things I could argue about, i still liked it.

I am a self-proclaimed WWII Germany fanatic. I could argue with you for days that attacking Russia wasn't the mistake ... presuming Russia would fall in a few months was the mistake made.

And that presumption fell almost squarely on Hilter's (and a few of his closest cronies) shoulders.

The German's had the talent, the men, the technology, and the equipment to take out the Russians ..... they just forgot to bring their jackets. Never attack Russia without a warm jacket. lol.



Some people are too stupid to ever be free.

Biased links (3.00 / 3) (#24)
by Dave Madsen on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 04:59:25 PM EST

I do apologize for the tendency of these links to be one-sided. Links from the Japanese and German sides are difficult to find, partially because of the efforts both nations have made to eliminate the attitudes that fed militarism. The US, UK, France, and Russia, being, except in the Russo-Japanese War, victors, have not made such efforts. In addition, language difficulties makes the Japanese and Korean perspectives difficult to find on the net.

If anyone has links to perspectives not covered, feel free to submit them. If possible, I will try to include them in the main article (since this will leave edit queue in a short period of time, I may need to enlist an admin for that purpose).

I am classing this as topical, because I do want it to stay around longer.



Writer, Kuro5hin.org
Hahaha! (1.87 / 24) (#32)
by valeko on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 05:10:35 PM EST

There's my hysterical laugh for the week!

Most historians rate Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, to have been his worst military blunder (from five possible candidates) of the entire war. I, however, disagree. I think that his almost casual declaration of war against the United States on December 11, 1941, proved to be even more decisively disastrous.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

-1, nonsense.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart

a few sugestions - some obscure events some not (2.80 / 5) (#35)
by dinu on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 05:17:44 PM EST

1913 - Second balkan war 1915 - The landing at Galipolli 1919 - The atempted Hungarian invasion of Transylvania 1938 - France and England fail to stop Hitler in aquiering Austria and Thechia 1940 - Soviet invasion of Finland 1940 - Romania's retreat from Basarabia 1942 - Stalingrad 1942 - Dieppe landing 1943 - Kursk 1944 - Operation Market Garden 1964 - Vietnam war 1980 - Russian invasion of Afganistan 1991 - Sadams invasion of Kuweit 2002 - America's war on terror

One man's blunder is another mans stunning victory (4.90 / 11) (#45)
by thelizman on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 05:31:17 PM EST

In the case of the Japanese attacks on Malaysia, Singapor, and Hawaii, I think these should be viewed as less of a screwup on the part of the British and more of a stunning move on the part of the Imperial Japanes. Fifty years before War-College egg-heads were muttering the words "asymentric warfare", Japan laid some of the groundwork for special operations style asymetric warfar and displayed expert timing in pulling off these three operations so stunningly close to each other than news hardly had time to travel about new incidences of Japanese aggression.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
Hitler declares war on the United States, 1941 (3.00 / 5) (#46)
by WildDonkey on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 05:31:20 PM EST

Very very very wrong.
German forces had already ground to a halt in Russia, and half its airforce had been wiped out in the battle of Britain forcing them to call off their invasion.

After that the final result was never in doubt. Just the timescale.

The abandonment of the British Empire (3.80 / 5) (#52)
by IHCOYC on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 05:36:35 PM EST

I would have thought that the general weariness exhaustion --- financial exhaustion, if not any other kind --- of Great Britain at the end of World War II has as much to do with the mostly peaceful abandonment of the British Empire as the loss of the battle for Singapore. My understanding is that the British people were no longer willing, and perhaps no longer able, to endure what would have to be endured to keep the Empire against the wishes of a substantial number of Imperial subjects who wanted them out.

The abandonment of India provoked bloodshed that, in a sense, still continues there; but it was not British blood that was shed. The colonial government understood better than Gandhi what would happen when the British left. Come 1947, they could not bring themselves to care any more.

Heus, nunc, mihi cantate hanc æruginem.

WWI - Alliances (3.33 / 3) (#57)
by duxup on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 05:53:22 PM EST

Being someone who enjoys WWI history a great deal I'd have to go with the system of alliances and decision to go to war by Germany and Russia just before WWI.  I think I can safely say that it was in no nations best interests to go to war over in WWI over Serbia.  Even after war was declared between Germany and Russia they tried to back away, but it was too late.

While I won't say that WWI and WWII were the same war.  I will say that WWI did set the stage for WWII and a great deal of the 20th centuries later conflicts.

Couple more (4.66 / 3) (#67)
by strlen on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 06:12:35 PM EST

Stalin's attack on Finland in 1939 (or 1940, don't know which). Exhausted Soviet forces, at the time when it was known that a war with Germany would be inevitable. For every Finish soldier killed, there were somewhere close to 10 Russian soldiers killed.

America's failure to attack the Japanese bases on Formosa (Taiwan) from their Philipine bases -- before the Phillipine bases were overrun is also another one. Formosa was highly inadequately defended (there was no adequate radar system installed, in fact).

In the Italian World War II campaign, it's the bombing of Monte Cassino (a Franciscan Monastery), which created environment (ruins) that the Germans used to their advantage against the Americans, creating a severe barrier to further advances in the Italian campaign (which later became utterly insignificant when the Allies landed at Normdany.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
The Maginot line (4.00 / 4) (#71)
by n8f8 on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 06:40:10 PM EST

Prior to WWII France built a huge bunker extending across the entire valley seperating Gernamy and France. Such a huge waste of maney, manpower and resources. You would have been better off building a cobblestone road straight into Paris.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
Cuba (3.42 / 7) (#78)
by chbm on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 07:16:49 PM EST

I'd rank the US  poor atempt to take back the cuban playground right up there with the best.

-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
Barbarossa (4.38 / 13) (#79)
by ucblockhead on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 07:17:40 PM EST

(This post culled from a couple of editorial comments)

It is very, very likely that even had the US not entered the war, the Red Army would have still eventually entered Berlin. It is very true that US lend-lease aid to the Soviet Union helped them tremendously, however, this aid was flowing before Hitler declared war.

Your description is just plain wrong. The US certainly had made moves against Hitler. The US was arming Hitler's enemies. The germans had to ramp up the submarine warfare in the Atlantic anyway, and this meant attacking US shipping, so there is very little possibility of the US staying out of things.

The US entry into the war had almost no impact on the war in the east until at least 1943, at which point the Germans had essentially lost it. The critical battle of that war was Stalingrad, only a year after Pearl Harbor. At the point Stalingrad happened, the Americans had hardly any real presence in Europe.

The American contribution up until the invasion of Italy was mostly lend-lease, but lend-lease was already ramping up before Pearl Harbor. The actual declaration of war had little real impact on that as Roosevelt was determined to send Britain and Russia all material aid possible.

Because of all this, it is very doubtful that the war in the East would have gone much differently in 1942 had the Americans not entered. You still would have had the American material aid. You still would have had the Russian factories moved back behind the Urals, out of range of the Germans. You still would have had the bad decision on the part of the Germans to go for the oil fields instead of Moscow. You still would have had the Russian trap at Stalingrad which destroyed the cream of the Wehrmacht.

At best, no US entry, and no Anzio, Rome and D-Day, would have meant more Germans to die on the Eastern front, and a delayed (but not prevented) Russian march into Berlin. After all, even after D-Day, fully three quarters of German forces were fighting Russians.

This is the establishment line among military historians. A very good discussion of these issues can be found in Richard Overy's Why the Allies Won, especially in chapter 3.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup

How did Hitlet declare war? (3.00 / 3) (#81)
by pgrote on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 07:19:58 PM EST

Was it a formal declaration or one of policy?

i disagree (2.10 / 10) (#84)
by turmeric on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 07:45:27 PM EST

1. us industrialists and government leaders like henry ford supporting nazi fascism and eugenic racial theory

without this support hitler would have had a much harder time coming to power.

2. mao zedong ruling during peacetime with the same mindset he had
while being chased through the wilderness by the kuomintang

sometimes a 'military blunder' is not knowing when to quit being militaristic

3. lenin deciding that a dictatorship of the proletariat could only be brought about by a centralized police state.

thanks, im sure the 50+ million workers killed in the world wars and cold wars
really appreciated your wonderful revolution.

4. the united states supporting various 3rd world dictators, religious fruitcakes,  and scoundrels during the cold war.

it has caused all sorts of headaches and stress and
september 11.

5. refinement of biological, nuclear, and chemical weapons

gosh, things like this give a bad name to violence.
war has such a public relations problem nowdays that
the pentagon has to spend tens of millions of dollars
making war palatable to a public that in general
gets in an uproar over animals getting hurt during
films.

the battle of verdun (3.66 / 3) (#91)
by samedi on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 08:11:53 PM EST

For a brilliant analysis of the Battle of Verdun, see The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916 by Alistair Horne. We used it as secondary material in one of my graduate history courses at the University of Washington. You can find a copy at Amazon.

Every time someone makes a comment about the French being pussies for having capitulated in WW2 so early, I remember this book and laugh silently to myself.


i am the king... of no pants! - www.penny-arcade.com

Blunders? (4.81 / 16) (#95)
by ktakki on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 08:29:05 PM EST

Verdun and Tsushima certainly qualify, as does the drive to the Yalu. However, I consider Singapore to be more of a daring maneuver by the Japanese than a British blunder. No one expected an army to travel the length of the Malay Peninsula. I'd consider Britain's "blunder" to be indicative of a lack of strategic vision on the scale of the French construction of the Maginot Line (and their general armored doctrine which treated their tanks as mobile pillboxes) or the Luftwaffe's decision not to construct long-range strategic bombers.

Hitler's decision to declare war on the US was more a manifestation of his personality flaws than a blunder per se. There was already a shooting war under way in the Atlantic between the Kreigsmarine and the USN; this was a bigger factor in Hitler's decision than the Tripartite Pact (which didn't require Germany to declare war unless Japan or Italy were attacked). Barbarossa was a bigger mistake on Hitler's part, IMHO, but if he had to attack the USSR, that was the time to do it (before the Red Army was fully recovered from the purges of the '30s).

I'd define a blunder as a mistake or series of mistakes made by one side that allow an adversary to profit or achieve victory without an excess of force, skill, or luck. The Battle of Midway, for example, would not be an IJN blunder because the USN used skill in breaking the Japanese codes, and was incredibly lucky to have their dive bombers find the Kido Butai carriers with fully fueled and armed planes on their decks and their fighter cover at low altitude.

The Battle of Leyte Gulf was an IJN blunder, both strategically (IJN reliance on "decisive battle" doctrine) and tactically (Nagumo's withdrawal despite having overwhelming firepower and nothing to stop him from slaughtering the invasion fleet but some USN destroyers and escort carriers). Halsey's mistake -- chasing the decoy Northern Force -- wasn't exploited, but even so this battle was Japan's last naval action.

I would also consider much of US early war doctrine to be a tragedy of errors, such as Admiral King's refusal to organize US East Coast shipping into convoys guarded by escorts, a blunder driven by King's anglophobia that resulted in massive amounts of tonnage being sunk within sight of US port cities, or the first USAAF 8th Air Force daylight bombardment raids over Europe, consisting of unescorted B-17s, no match for Luftwaffe interceptors.


k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

Is any of you watching the Discovery channel ? (3.66 / 9) (#96)
by acheon on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 08:38:58 PM EST

... instead of Much Music or Fox TV ?

Attacking Russia wasn't a mistake, far from it. Not running for Moscow, however, was stupid.

The campaign went very well until it's been suddenly put to an halt. Should Hitler have told himself : "Hey, why not waiting six months for the winter to come and the enemy to make defenses, call citizens to arms and crank them enough so they will blow themselves up rather than let us pass !", it wouldn't have been any different. Otherwise it would have worked. And like all other places Germany conquered, hordes of indigenous volunteers would have joined their ranks. The rest could have waited a little.

So NOT attacking when it was the time was the REAL mistake.

Besides, they could afford to split their forces in two, especially since attacking Russia involved groud troops while for Britain they obviously counted on air strikes and a naval blocus. NOT splitting forces in the north would have been really stupid.

The worst blunder of World War II was Germany attacking North Africa. While it wasn't an immediate disaster, they clearly had nothing to gain there -- it's a huge desert. Even controlling the Mediterranean Sea wasn't that important ; it was playing a strategic role during the Antiquity, but not in the 20th century anymore. And they could have done that with the Navy alone ; no need to settle on the entire shore -- if they had succeeded, that is.

I don't know. (1.75 / 4) (#100)
by /dev/trash on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 08:46:25 PM EST

I think that trying to take on the Russians was a big mistake by Hitler.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
amerika, comrade? (4.41 / 17) (#102)
by zipper on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 09:01:37 PM EST

I challenge your statement that declaring war on the United States was more of a blunder than declaring war on Stalin.

As you say, the US was giving "all but war" support to England. Stalin on the other hand, was supporting Hitler. Stalin was excited to finally be talking with the 'big boys' in Europe, and was happily cooperating with Hitler.

Suddenly, Hitler turns around and attacks Russia. Stalin goes off on a drinking binge (supposedly) comes back, and kicks Hitler's ass all the way back to Germany.

There are a couple of reasons why attacking Russia was worse... the first being that it split the war into two fronts. Had (well, *when*) the US attacked, they were coming in on the western front like everybody else. When Hitler attacked Russia, he suddenly opened up his eastern side up to attack as well.

Second, he didn't just bait a country who was already close to attacking him, he attacked a country who was ALLIED with him.

Third, waging war on Russia is extremely difficult. I realize that some pro-american here is going to point out that attacking america is equally difficult, but I deny that. I think it was the emperor who said "Russia has two generals in whom she can confide -- Generals Janvier and Février." ...... Hitler also had to maintain supply lines deep into Russia... in the winter... while the Russians were using a scorched earth defense. It was no go. It didn't work for Napoleon, it didn't work for Hitler. meh.

---
This account has been neutered by rusty and can no longer rate or post comments. Way to go fearless leader!

What about the Ardennes? (2.50 / 2) (#106)
by unharmed on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 09:15:44 PM EST

That operation was ill-judged to say the least.

About 30 years ago... (2.00 / 4) (#108)
by epipsychidion on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 09:22:55 PM EST

I have not included any blunders post-1950, for a variety of reasons, chief among them being a lack of blunders on the scale of the above.

One word: Vietnam.

Operation Market Garden (3.33 / 3) (#117)
by runlevel0 on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 10:43:23 PM EST

In september '44 Monty made an attempt to give a nice show with paratroopers, wich fell straight in the middle of withdrawing Wehrmacht-forces and some SS corps (10. SS-Panzerdivision "Freudensberg" u.o. ) armed with Tigers and rocketlaunchers ("Nebelwerfer").

German declaration of war on U.S. (2.00 / 2) (#120)
by cameldrv on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 11:25:34 PM EST

You can't seriously say that Barbarosa was less of a blunder than declaring war on the U.S. Even without the U.S., the Russians would have defeated the Germans, as evidenced by the relative troop strengths deployed on the Eastern and Western fronts by Germany. In fact, for West Germany, the U.S. entry into the war was quite a good thing, as they didn't have to live under Soviet domination for forty years.

Drop the "d" (2.50 / 2) (#127)
by MeanGene on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 11:43:55 PM EST

The name of Russian admiral in Tsushima was Rozhestvensky.

What's a blunder? (4.66 / 9) (#129)
by fury on Wed Aug 14, 2002 at 11:49:51 PM EST

I read this story and, especially by the closing paragraph, I'm left wondering what the authro regards as a blunder.

Is the final result sufficient to categorize something as a blunder? Judging by some of the examples, and the comment that we'd have to see what Hussein will do in the future before judging, it seems that the author would categorize choosing coffee instead of tea as a blunder, if it meant they left the house 4 seconds earlier, in time to get hit by a bus.

In my opinion, a blunder is when, given the information at hand, someone makes what can be shown to be an error in judgement based not on the actual outcome, but all probably outcomes. It's true that this is harder to tell, but it doesn't mean that if Hussein manages to find a dealer with a nuclear device next year, that not killing him was more of a blunder.

On another axis, it would be nice if blunders were given scope as well. That is to say, if Macarthur made an error because he didn't have the intelligence (that is, information gathering) that someone in his position should, then it's a blunder on behalf of the US forces, including SigInt and whatever else was responsible. If Macarthur had the information and simply made a bad decision, then that would be a blunder solely on his shoulders.

More interesting to me would be a list of blunders which could have proved devestating, except that, as chance would have it, they were cancelled out by other factors. Terrors that never were, but should have been, based on the stupidity of those in charge, as it were...

Kevin Fox - fury.com

Russian Army (1.25 / 4) (#135)
by spliff on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 12:07:24 AM EST

I think the Tsushima citation is important. I also think the Russian army itself is the biggest military blunder of all time. Its history is that of butchery of its own soldiers. From the Crimean War to the invasion of Afghanistan to its suppression of Chechan rebels, the Russian army is criminally inept. From the little I know of Operation Barabarossa, Russia's "strategy" was to bury the Germans under a pile of Russian corpses and then defeat them when they couldn't move. Even today, the red army continues to kill its own soldiers through malnourishment and brutal hazing. Its almost beyond words.

You missed Pearl Harbor (4.40 / 5) (#137)
by cestmoi on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 12:22:39 AM EST

Not the attack per se, but Nagumo's failure to follow through and knock out the fuel depots and submarine pens. Had he destroyed the fuel depots, the Pacific Fleet would have had to operate out of the West Coast. Whether it would have been enough to turn the tide is impossible to say but it is doubtful we would have prevailed at Midway 6 months into the war had Pearl been de-fueled. Midway served several key benefits to the U.S.
  1. It provided a sorely needed morale boost by stemming the string of Japanese victories.
  2. It deprived the Japanese of 4 carriers.
  3. It conclusively demonstrated Rochefort's team's crypto prowess which gave Nimitz the edge he needed to overcome a superior Japanese adversary.
Moreover, Nimitz relied heavily on the subs based at Pearl. Nimitz' reliance on submarines paid off huge dividends - the subs accounted for 50% of the tonnage sunk even though they constituted 6% of the fleet. Without the pens and fuel at Pearl, the subs would have been hard pressed to operate as well as they did.

Did Nagumo's blunder cost Japan the war? It's hard to say. The Japanese would have been in a far better position by the time the bomb was ready to be dropped on Hiroshima and we may well not have had the forward airbases necessary to deliver the bomb. Tinian had only been wrested months before the Enola Gay took off. Moreover, Japan would have had more resources at her disposal in 1945 and she may well have shrugged the bombs off and kept fighting. If nothing else, had Nagumo acted instead of fled, the war would have gone on much longer than it did.

My own list (3.62 / 8) (#139)
by godix on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 12:35:55 AM EST

1) WWI. All of it. The only war I know of where the battle cry of every nation involved should have been 'Why are we doing this?'

2) Hitlers attacking Russia. No matter how much some want to rewrite history, America had little to do with Hitlers defeat. England and Russia are the two countries that defeated Germany. England by never giving up and Russia by being willing to have literally millions of troops die for victory. All America did was speed up Germanys defeat and prevent Russia from taking all of Europe afterwards.

3) Vietnam. In terms of men killed it wasn't that major. In other terms, it was devestating. It changed popular view of the military from the victorious noble fighting men of WWII to the murdering baby killers view that still hasn't entirely gone away. It's effects on future strategy are a direct result of current problems; America would probably have removed Saddam in 91 if we weren't so scared of taking large casualties and losing popular support.

4) Tsushima as you mentioned was a giant cock up by Russia.

5) Africa, almost any country in it at almost any year of the 20th century. Most of the continents history is one giant military fuck up after another.

6) Special mention: Americas attempt to free hostages in Iran. Thelizman wrote a good article about it so I won't go into details, but it was another highly public embarrassing defeat of Americas military might right when the country was trying to forget that Vietnam kicked our 'world power' militaries ass.

No Pasaran (3.33 / 3) (#144)
by wademcclain on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 01:16:48 AM EST

"They shall not pass" was coined during the Spanish Civil War, at the defense of Barcelona, not at Verdun.

My take on some of these "blunders" (3.33 / 3) (#150)
by khallow on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 02:17:12 AM EST

I don't think that Operation Barbarossa was a blunder for the simple reason that people assume that Hitler entered a losing situation. The thing to remember is that the USSR before 1940 had invaded other countries for the past 20 years. It had a long history of invading their neighbors. I see Operation Barbarossa as the classic example of hitting your neighbor before your neighbor hits you. Having said that, there were blunders associated with the invasion. The key two being the lack of preparation for a long fight, and the ruthless slaughter of Russia citizens. Ie, Germany lost the opportunity to recruit Russian citizens to fight for them, and weren't prepared for the Russian winters (which cost them greviously).

So here's my list of the top five military blunders:

1) Germany enters World War One. All this talk of Germany and Russia trying to avoid military confrontation is wrong. Germany didn't need to assist the Austria-Hungary empire no matter what the treaties were. It's clear from the historical record that Kaiser Wilheim and his staff were eager to get in a fight. Further, if Germany really wanted to, they could have curbed the intentions of Austria-Hungary, their weaker partner.

2) The Treaty of Versailles.

3) In the Second World War, both Germany and Japan overextended themselves, but I consider other factors to be more significant. First, Germany lost the war in Russia. I don't consider the actual invasion to be a blunder. One side was going to invade the other. It made better sense from Germany's perspective to be the ones invading than the ones invaded. Stalin's guard was down and there was still a lot of warm weather to go before the winter. The biggest blunder here I think was the treatment of civilians in Russia (and in lands occupied by Russia). Germany made itself the worse of two evils.

Japan's big failure was the quantity of resources spent on its army. This showed up in several ways. First, military adventures in Malaysia or Burma aren't protecting your home cities from bombers nor are they sinking American carriers. Further, the Japanese merchant marine might have lasted longer if it weren't supporting remote locations. The resources used to direct an invasion of east India (which failed, of course) could have been spent protecting the merchant marine from subs. As seen in the North Atlantic, subs can be stopped. The Japanese failure cost them their mainland empire.

4) The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and the USSR's blunders in Cuba are amazing. I think that if the US hadn't been so adamant about toppling the government of Cuba (a little lesson perhaps for the modern times) then Cuba wouldn't have become a client of the USSR. Perhaps instead, it would have been a sort of Yugoslavia or India. Ie, playing both sides against each other. It's clear that the mistakes in Cuba, particularly the Bay of Pigs invasion led up to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Almost starting a nuclear war is a clear blunder IMHO even if the deed isn't done. FWIW, the US did well by the Crisis while the USSR lost face.

5) The Afghanistan War (1981-1988). The US made significant blunders in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, but what was the excuse for the military and political leaders who invaded Afghanistan particularly when given the textbook example of Vietnam? It's clear that the US saw an opportunity to pay back the USSR in the same coin as in Vietnam - by supplying weapons and other support to the insurgents. That war destroyed the USSR and crippled Russia to the present day. Further, a lot of the current problems originated from that war. Al Queda was supported indirectly by the US (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries did the dirty work). A lot of the East/West hostility comes from this (and from the US's misguided support of regimes like the Shah of Iran or Idi Amin).

Stating the obvious since 1969.

Operation Barbarossa: Why? (1.64 / 14) (#156)
by tiger on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 03:00:52 AM EST

If one were to believe the fictional WWII history that is taught to the world by the imperial powers, then Operation Barbarossa was indeed a stupid thing, a blunder. But this is assuming the imperialist version of history is true, which it isn’t.

The imperialist version of history paints the Axis powers as the imperialist aggressors, and themselves, the imperialist powers—Britain, France, America, and Russia (Soviet Union)—as their victims.

Getting at the truth is not an easy task, because the brainwashing done to people is very extensive. Most people only know the imperialist version of history; they only know what they are supposed to know.

I was puzzled by Operation Barbarossa when I was young. It did not make sense to me that Germany would attack, but I only knew the false WWII history that I had been brainwashed with. Once you look at the real history, and who the real aggressors were, everything becomes clear.

I wrote an article on this subject 2 years ago: Operation Barbarossa: Why?

--
Americans :— Say no to male genital mutilation. In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child



A few more... (3.33 / 3) (#165)
by psycho tinman on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 03:44:43 AM EST

The Soviet Union's involvement in Afghanistan dumped the morale of the once feared Red army down the tubes.. in fact, almost any insurgency (excluding, perhaps, the performance of the British SAS in Malaya) resulted in a stalemate at best.. Vietnam is probably another case in point here. Both of these campaigns had major repercussions along the line; for example, even now, sending troops to another country brings up a "remember Vietnam" message from someone.. (*Mogadishu, 1992 wasn't exactly a victory either, although the casualty numbers don't make it a major engagement in that sense)

Ardennes: simple message, operation Overlord didn't mean the Nazis' were finished.. There IS such a thing as overextending yourself, and this is exactly what seems to have happened..

Another perspective I have is that sometimes, blunders involved not actions, but simply inaction on the part of some country or side.. take for example the partition of Germany after the 2nd world war.. a more active involvement by the British or American forces might have avoided the subsequent Cold war (then again, it might not have.. certainly, what followed Stalin's land grab wasn't to anyone's benefit *shrug*)

The problem with the list is... (3.25 / 4) (#172)
by Master Of Ninja on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 04:08:47 AM EST

...that there are so many points to disagree on.

I would have added these battles:

1. The Battle Of Tannenberg
2. The First and Second Battles Of The Masurian Lakes.
3. The Battle Of The Somme

I put the first two in as they were the battles which led to the defeat of Tsarist Russia quickly in the first world war (and indirectly led to the Russian Revolution), while the Somme led to 58,000 losses for the British alone on a single day (according to the website).

In general you can say the whole of the first world war was a big mistake. The Western Front was a trench war with the generals wanting to win by grinding the other side down, without thought of casualties. Check the link out as some of the other battles seem quite spectacularly bad moves - it has links to the battles incl. Ypres and Verdun.

OT bit: found the First World War website while browsing for references. While I have no other backup for references the website looks nice, seems to have lot of information and might be worth a read (if you have the time).

What is a military blunder? (4.20 / 5) (#178)
by hughk on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 04:27:20 AM EST

I don't consider the declaration of war, however ill=considered to be a military blunder. I don't consider a treaty such as that of Versailled to be a military blunder. They are both politico-economic blunders.

I am unhappy about adding gambles such as Barberossa to the list because it could have been won if executed differently. Individual battles were definitely blunders and I would classify Stalingrad amongst those. Why insist on cracking a hard target which can be easily isolated and ignored? Both Stalin and Hitler raised Stalingrad to political status which is why when it was lost that it gave such an advantage to the Russians and disdvantage to the Germans.

Another poor decision (by the Germans) was to switvh the attacks away from airfields and radar stations to the cities during the battle of Britain. Without airfields and radar, Britain could not have been defended from a sea-borne invasion.

Personally, I would add Gallipoli to the list.

the Yalu encroachment (3.50 / 2) (#179)
by ti dave on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 04:36:35 AM EST

I'm beginning to think that MacArthur's advance to the Yalu merely accelerated the timetable for the Chinese forces.
I think it's likely, based on the vast Chinese logistical preparation for the offensive, that they would have intervened on the peninsula even if the UN forces had halted at the 38th.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

A few comments.. (3.50 / 2) (#183)
by ajduk on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 06:06:41 AM EST

On Verdun..

Erich von Falkenhayn only wrote his account of Verdun (and reasons for starting it) AFTER the battle.  It's very hard to tell if he wanted a breakthrough or attrition - inded, it's pretty hard to tell from accounts of the batle what he wanted.  This, I think, makes it even worse - starting a huge battle without a specific objective...

Petain was not a defeatest in 1916 - it was just that (unlike a lot of french commanders) he didn't believe in reckless frontal attack on machine gun positions.

post 1950 (4.50 / 8) (#189)
by streetlawyer on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 07:28:56 AM EST

Dien Bien Phu, 1953

France unaccountably decides to make its entire Indochina policy stand and fall on the defence of an "impregnable" fortress in the middle of a nearly conical valley, way outside normal supply lines, on the basis of the belief that the Viet Minh Army couldn't possibly shift their artillery up hills, and that the hill tribes would remain loyal to France despite having been abominably treated for the preceding eight years.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever

and one more (1.50 / 2) (#191)
by streetlawyer on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 07:31:37 AM EST

You are perhaps forgetting that one of the worst military blunders of all time, the assault on Spion Kop in the Boer War, sneaked into the 20th century by 23 days.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
I dislike the whole premise (2.80 / 5) (#193)
by GoStone on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 07:53:53 AM EST

It is always easy to criticise, but difficult to be genuinely constructive. All the individuals concerned in these actions were doing their best with the information they had available. In most cases their arses were on the line, or they were aware of the judgement of history upon them.

To call these actions 'blunders' seems merely facetious. As if the author would have done better in the circumstances. I believe it is more becoming to be respectful of those who are dead and cannot answer criticism.

Of course this does not preclude attempting to learn from past mistakes.


Cut first, ask questions later

Some from Spain: (4.33 / 3) (#199)
by oscarmv on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 08:36:36 AM EST

99% of the spanish involvement in Morocco should be qualified as a military blunder. Even worse, the ones who lost that war went on to rise in arms against the II repulic a few years later... The remaining 1% was finally deciding to quit.

is it a blunder if you meant to do it? (4.00 / 2) (#202)
by Shren on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 08:56:26 AM EST

During the Civil War, generals had soldiers march at each other firing thier guns. That's hardly high strategy compared to modern hit and run techniques, but that's the way they did it. How much of that attitude was left in the 1900s? Were they using antiquidated combat methods? Can we call it a tactical error if they meant to march men to thier deaths?

Of course, we know now that suicide attacks are foolish because they give your opponent's hero XP. But did they know that then?

Yalu River (3.00 / 5) (#210)
by CodeWright on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 10:31:08 AM EST

Would not have been a failure if Air Force General Curtis LeMay and Army General MacArthur had been heeded -- and nukes used against the advancing ChiCom corps.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." -- Nukes by Merk00,
08/15/2002 11:05:47 AM EST (3.75 / 4)
Maginot Line? (4.00 / 2) (#211)
by sllort on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 10:56:46 AM EST

Where would you rate the construction of the Maginot line without rotating turrets? Just curious.

--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
Dien Bien Phu? (2.50 / 2) (#217)
by otis wildflower on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 11:18:20 AM EST

Mighta come too late, but still..  French military genius indeed..  harrumph harrumph...

how about the arabs? (2.00 / 5) (#253)
by minus273 on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 01:16:11 PM EST

come on, the 6 day war, yom kippur war etc. were collosial military blunders. If not they were certainly hillarious.

  • What a knee slapper by Rand Race, 08/15/2002 02:38:25 PM EST (4.66 / 3)
    • hmmm by minus273, 08/16/2002 08:47:17 PM EST (none / 0)
Kamikaze (3.50 / 2) (#258)
by Caton on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 02:01:36 PM EST

Allowing (or inciting) your own pilots to commit suicide when you cannot replace them is A Bad IdeaTM. It is the worst strategic blunder I can think of.

The worst tactical blunder, IMO, is Admiral Nishimura's attack in the Strait of Surigao, on Oct. 24th, 1944, during the battle of Leyte.

Political blunders... too many of them.

---
As long as there's hope...

Missles into Turkey (3.00 / 6) (#259)
by cyberbuffalo on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 02:08:11 PM EST

How about the US decision to put nuclear missles into Turkey in 1962? Then the Russians felt compelled to put missles into Cuba and JFK almost started WW3. It may have even given someone cause to off JFK, assuming it wasn't the lone nut Oswald.

Defining Blunders.... (4.00 / 2) (#282)
by DesScorp on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 05:03:23 PM EST

I've very much enjoyed this piece, and the comments on it. I see a lot of people putting forward things like the Cuban Missle Crisis and such, but I'd have to limit the definition of blunder. I tend to think of them in terms of opportunity. A great military blunder is usually one in which the possibility for great victory existed, and the wrong turn was taken. Sometimes it's simply of matter of bad luck (the Confederate soldiers dropping battle plans on the road at Gettysburg, which were later found by Union troops comes to mind here). Things like the Maginot Line are more of a kind of long term stupidity; SOMEONE should have seen that failure coming. My five would have much in common with others in this list. Hitler gets the nod twice, one for Barbarossa (not so much for attacking the Soviet Union as for doing before they had Britain mopped up; intentionaly getting into a two front war is utter madness), the other for declaring war on the US. Again, don't take on too many fronts. One that I think a lot of people might disagree on is the Tet Offensive. Vietnam ended up winning their political goals in the end, but people tend to forget what an utter military disaster it was for the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. Though they caught US forces by surprise, communist forces were all but crippled in the South for a time. Gamble big, and you can lose big. Someone else had previously mentioned the 6 day war. I agree with that. Though Israel was pushed to the brink, the damage done to her enemies, both physically and psychologicaly, linger to this day. No Arab nation has dared attack Israel since (save for Iraq's desperate gamble involving SCUDs in the Gulf War). Since then, except for some battles with Syrians in Lebanon, all attacks against Israel have been indirect in nature, usually through the backing of militia and terrorist groups. And Egypt did NOT win the Sinai in the Six Day War; that was gained in peace negotiations in 1979, which unfortunately cost Anwar Sadat his life. I'd have to put Pearl Harbor on this list too. The US had good intelligence that a threat was real, and a series of blunders (and just plain nonchalance) gave the Japanese a stunning victory. The US was at a disadvantage in the Pacific for the next two years, even with the frantic pace of military production.

Overextension, Anti-semitism, the west, China (4.33 / 3) (#296)
by mlinksva on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 06:51:15 PM EST

I only foggily recall details of WWI and II from watching PBS as a kid, but I'm struck by the failure of aggressors to choose ultimately beatable opponents and/or to continue attacking after the low hanging fruit (weak opponents) had been taken. The process of overextension and capitulation (as I gather is described in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 by Paul Kennedy -- I only read reviews) spanned centuries for the British empire, around a decade for the Nazis.

A few points I'm kind of surprised nobody has mentioned, unless I missed something:

  • There's a big difference between strategic and tactical blunders, and there's a continuum/interplay of each.
  • Perhaps Hitler wouldn't have come to power and WWII wouldn't have happened (in the same way anyway) without anti-semitism, but if he had, Germany would have been in a much stronger position in several ways -- most notably it may have made an atomic bomb first.
  • Invading anyplace is nearly always stupid, but given that Germany was going to try to grab territory, I've always thought it made two big mistakes (in both wars):
    • Fighting the west at all other than defensively if necessary.
    • Not setting up freed Russian/Soviet territories as autonomous and German-friendly nations, but still under the thumb of Germany, kind of a reverse Warsaw Pact.
  • I don't know much about it, but I don't understand how Japan could've ever expected to ultimately "win" in China. That's like Vietnam times ten. Anyone know if the Japanese military had any plans to stop in China with some defensible gains? OTOH I guess the Japanese may have figured that the Mongols did it...
All wars are stupid. Tell your Congressperson to make Bush back down from invading Iraq. While you're at it, tell them to end the insane "war" on drugs. Visit antiwar.com and stopthedrugwar.org. Sorry, I get a little worked up when I see all these deaths, no murders, spoken of so abstractly.
--
imagoodbitizen adobe unisys badcitizens
  • China by moosh, 08/15/2002 10:44:13 PM EST (4.00 / 1)
  • Sure by RyoCokey, 08/16/2002 02:32:32 PM EST (2.33 / 3)
GODWIN'S LAW!!!!!!!!! (1.33 / 3) (#302)
by Type-R on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 11:17:55 PM EST

I invoke Godwin's law!

(just kidding) :)



Another mistake of Hitler's (3.50 / 2) (#310)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Aug 16, 2002 at 01:15:35 AM EST

One aspect of Operation Barbarosa that the author fails to mention:
The Third Reich gave little incentive or opporunity for Ukrainians, White Russians etc. that hated to Red Army to fight for the third Reich. The Red Army was hated enough that had the Germans been just a little more accomodating, they could have had a rather large block of Slavic infantry fighting under German officers with Germany artillary and tank support.

Biggest WWII blunder (3.66 / 3) (#312)
by skim123 on Fri Aug 16, 2002 at 01:28:52 AM EST

May not have been attacking Russia or declaring war on the US, but perhaps starting WW2 too soon. What if Hitler had waited, say, another 5 years before starting WWII. That would have been 5 more years of build-up, of technological advancements, etc. Also, had his stance not been so militaristic in the mid 30s he may not have gotten England and France so alarmed.

Also, had Hitler worked harder at appeasing the English, he may have had better luck. He tried to convince England that he wanted to be peaceful with them and attack Russia, he wanted their help and assurance not to get their panties in a wad. IIRC, though, Hitler did not try too hard, or gave up too soon. Perhaps England would have been more open to his ideas if he had been less belligerent and militaristic, and, instead, used that time to build up Germany's military capabilities and industrial strength.

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


YOU ALL MISSED THE BIGGEST BLUNDER OF ALL (2.50 / 4) (#322)
by easyrider on Fri Aug 16, 2002 at 04:29:52 AM EST

The single biggest mistake of the twentieth century, was when the USA backed England in WWI. Had the USA backed Germany instead, the USA/German alliance would have won, and the following would have probably happened, in a world dominated by the Kaiser and Washington: NO HITLER AND NO WORLD WAR II. And as a result of the world being spared that little scrap, there probably wouldn't have been a Communist Russian revolution, any need for atomic weapons development, no iron curtain, and perhaps no Korean or Vietnam war. Why does everyone miss this, including most all American historians. US President Wilson was an Anglofile idiot, who just refused to look beyond his English preferances. At least he could have stayed neutral, and Germany would probably have prevailed, and the same positive results might have occured. Oddly enough, due to the massive German immigration into the USA in the later half of the eighteenth century, German's were the USA's largest minority. It isn't true that he wouldn't have found political backing within the USA for such an alliance.

"Peace in our time" (4.00 / 2) (#323)
by bint on Fri Aug 16, 2002 at 05:29:04 AM EST

Although Chamberlains surrender of Czechoslovakia wasn't exactly a military blunder, it had great effect on the war. Germany wasn't ready for a war at the time and Czechoslovakia itself wasn't military insignificant. A large number of the tanks later squashing Poland were of czechoslovakian origin. War was probably inevitable but an earlier war might have shortened it considerably.

Is it possible to discuss WWII and its motives? (3.50 / 4) (#326)
by Cornelius on Fri Aug 16, 2002 at 07:11:59 AM EST

It has struck me while reading under this post that the question of what were the motives of the various parties in WWII is hard to discuss. Although what I'm about to write is off topic, I've decided to post it anyway: One of the great ironies of a much written and talked about subject like WWII is that they tend to become filled with propaganda or at least apologetic rationalizations.

What I mean is that all parties have an interest in painting a picture where they come across as the good guys. In my (demented?) mind there is no such thing as a good side. Because if you accept that the end justifies the means things become very fuzzy. Didn't even Hitler, conceivably, believe that he was doing something that in some sense might be labelled 'good'?

To my mind all parties in a war are partly evil. I mean even the 'good guys' kill innocents, right?

A perspective that might cut across the ideological smoke-screens is to ask oneself: what was the realpolitik of the war, what were the real political objectives?

Arguably, Germany was squeezed by big neighbours who were independent when it came to natural resources. The Soviet Union had oil, so did Britain... Germany had none (or very little). Moreover, Britain and the Soviet Union had both developed into vast empires and could buy/acquire cheap resources from their colonies or subjugated states. So is it so surprising that Germany wanted to become an empire too? The true misstake of the war came long before the war, where Germany's neighbours failed to strike an amicable deal with Germany ensuring their stability and economic growth. As any economist will tell you, the way a deal turns out depends greatly on the relative strength of the two parties. If one of the parties has a better position he will get the better deal. Again, arguably, a bargain could have been struck between the parties that would European power struggle.

My line of reasoning is of course completely hypothetical. The historical context and the individuals in the conflict came, as we know, to offset any possible negotiation. Hitler was insane and his personal influence on the turn of events was considerable. Maybe there wouldn't have been a war without him, or at least not one so grave and cataclysmic in proportion?


Cornelius

"Your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell", Hellraiser

Not thinking large enough. (4.66 / 6) (#328)
by DingBat1 on Fri Aug 16, 2002 at 08:34:18 AM EST

To me, the examples provided by the author just don't seem to be really high quality blunders. Even Hitler's declaration of war on the U.S. didn't really do anything but save the americans the trouble of finding provocation.

It's also interesting that the author chose Tsushima, which the Tsar survived, and did not choose the decision by Russia to come to the aid of Serbia thus triggering WW1. Ultimately, this cost the Tsar his country and his life.

So, for some really good blunders, how about (in no particular order).

1) The decision by Germany to challenge the supremacy of the Royal Navy at the beginning of the 20th century. This struck at the heart of British security concerns and created an enemy where on did not previously exist. Bad move, Kaiser.

2) The crushing retribution of the Treaty of Versaille which sowed the seeds of the next war.

3) The general muddling of strategy that was the conduct of the VietNam war. The senior officer corp of the U.S. Army seemed to be unable to think in any terms except WW2, despite the examples of successful counter-insurgency campaigns by the British. Given the damage that this war did to the U.S. army and the country in general, this has to be considered a blunder of high quality. Bad move, Westmoreland.

4) The decision to invade Afghanistan. Apparently, the Soviets didn't read the same books the U.S. army didn't in VietNam. Bad move, Brezhnev.

5) Nasser allowing himself to be goaded by Syria and Jordan into re-occupying the Sinai and closing the Straits of Tiran thus triggering the Six Day War. Any decision that results in your country's defeat in one of the shortest wars on record has to be a bad one, wouldn't you think? Bad move, Nasser.

My $0.02,
/bruce

Verdun 1916 (5.00 / 5) (#336)
by gleesona on Fri Aug 16, 2002 at 10:57:38 AM EST

Although I agree that Verdun was disasterous, in terms of so many casualties for very little gain, there were some other events in WWI that I think were its equal. Let's face it WWI was rich in talentless leadership, and it's difficult to know where to start.

1. The alliance system

That insured that one Serbian Student could start a world war!

2. The battle of Tannenberg

The German's Schlieffen plan relied on the Russians taking about 12 weeks to mobilize, and therefore the Germans attacked France first in an attempt to take them out of the war early. Unfortunately the Russians had two armies mobilized wiht a couple of weeks and they advanced on East Prussia.

Fortunately for the Germans the commanders of the Russian armies, Samsonov and Rennenkampf hated each other and failed to communicate properly with each other. When they did communicate with each other they did so using unencrypted messages , which the Germans intercepted. With this intelligence they knew that Rennenkampf would not be coming to help Samsonov. This allowed the German 8th Army to take out Samsonov's army then later Rennenkampf. If the Russians had worked together, they would have defeated the much smaller German force and seriously derailed the German battle plan.

3. The battle of the Somme.

1st July 1916 was the worst day, in terms of casualties (over 57000 of which almost 20000 fatal), that the British army has ever suffered The plan was to relieve the pressure on the French by attacking the Germans and forcing them to take reserves away from Verdun.

The plan was quite simple. First they shelled the Germans for several days, with a view to supressing the infantry and destroying the barbed wire in front of the German trenches. Unfortunately the Germans were well dug in, often in Concrete shelters, and also the shelling did not cut the wire as expected. Then when the shelling finished just before 7.30 about 10000 troops went over the top, and burdened down with 20Kg of equipment, they walked slowly towards the German lines!!

The result was, of course, carnage. The germans mowed the slowly advancing lines down and in the first day there were 57000 casualties. If they had run (difficult with the equipment, and the fact that the German lines were several hundred meters away in some parts) they might have had a fighting chance. When Haig finally decided in November 1916 to call off the offensive they British and French had captured 125 Square miles (an advance of about 6 miles) for the cost of 600,000 casualties to the Germans 450,000.

Part of the reason for the incompetant leadership, was the fact that both sides were stuck in 19th century warfare. The somme offensive was to break a hole in the German's lines so the cavaly could 'exploit' this. The commanders failed to realise the effectiveness of accurate artillery and massed machine guns. The infantry, of course came to understand how effective they were the hard way..
______________________________________________

In short, a German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans.
You look surprised, Blackadder.
I certainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans.
  • Worst day by gsl, 08/17/2002 11:52:05 PM EST (5.00 / 1)
Yalu River - "masterful retrograde" (3.50 / 2) (#350)
by Sacrifice on Fri Aug 16, 2002 at 02:46:42 PM EST

From http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28638

In 1950, it was the First Marine Division that landed at Inchon, recaptured Seoul, chased the North Koreans all the way to the Yalu River and then - outnumbered at least six-to-one - defeated Red Chinese Army units in its masterful retrograde from the Chosin Reservoir.


Hitler declaring war on the US? (3.00 / 2) (#361)
by SvnLyrBrto on Fri Aug 16, 2002 at 07:05:09 PM EST

(I've been wracking my brain trying to find the refernce, but without sucess.  If I remember the title, I'll post a link to it on amazon in a followup comment...)

But I read a "History of World War II" book once, that made a VERY convincing case that what really won WWII for the allies was:

1/3  British codebreakers

1/3  American factories.

1/3  Miscelaneous

Miscelaneous would include:

-- New technology aside from the computers at Bletchley Park.
-- The French resistance
-- Bravery/fighting skill of the soldiers
-- "Masterful tactics" of allied commanders (Which, mostly, amounted to putting their Ultra info to good use)
-- "Blunders" on the part of the axis (Which, mostly, would NOT have been blunders, had Bletchley Park not been reading their mail)
-- The atomic bomb
-- Involvement of the various bit players
-- etc.

The book goes on to speculate that, perhaps, without America's factories supporting the allies, maybe they could have squeezed out a victory by making the best possible use of Bletchley Park to determine where to commit their limited resources.

Or, perhaps, without Ultra, the allies could have just burried the axis under a mountain of the war material that was gushing forth from America's factories.  (And the US's WWII industry WAS truely staggering...  19 days to build a Liberty Ship, >100,000 fighters and bombers built in four years, etc.)

But it was the combination of those two that won the war.  All the other factors were just fluff... make for some entertaining movies (Patton, Das Boot, Midway, Saving Private Ryan, etc)... but pretty much irrelevant nontheless.

Given this premise, America's actual entry into, and fighting in, WWII was pretty much irrelevant.  Well before Hitler declared war on the US, our industrial base had already been committed to the other allies.

Hitler's REAL blunder was torqueing off the British enough, that they decided to  create Bletchley Park and Ultra in the first place, and inspired FDR to come to Britian's aid with that aforementioned industrial capacity.

I guess a close second would be Germany's continued belief that the Enigma was unbreakable.

But the declaration of war?  And any actual FIGHTING by the US?  Irrelevant.  (According to that book anyway.)

I WILL try to remember the title of the book, and get a link to it on Amazon up when I do.  It's an intresting read, and makes a VERY compelling case for its premise.

cya,
john

Imagine all the people...

The 5 Worst Military Blunders of the 20th Century | 408 comments (361 topical, 47 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!