Biggest Mistake of WWII

What do u think the biggest mistake of WWII was?
personaly i think there are 2

1.Russia Invasion-After germany lost the battle of britian they should have halted there offenceive and rebuild and invaded britian and not bomb it..but they instead invade russia unprepared for winter and lose costing them many lives..they still had a chance 2 win if the USA was not in the war..thus read on

2.Pearl Habor-Im not saying Pearl Harbor wasnt a good attack but it came too soon..if japan would have waited for germany 2 win over europe w/o usa they could have attacked and had germanys navy help w/ theres and beaten the usa..

 

Failure to defeat England in th Battle of Britian, should have focused on air bases instead of cities. this halted the germans and turned the tide.

 

Originally posted by blacksheep@Jul 25 2004, 03:01 AM
Failure to defeat England in th Battle of Britian, should have focused on air bases instead of cities. this halted the germans and turned the tide.
i fully agree with u black, germans lost war because they didn't crushed england. hitler knew that.

 

Originally posted by Paratrooper@Jul 24 2004, 07:57 PM
What do u think the biggest mistake of WWII was?
personaly i think there are 2

1.Russia Invasion-After germany lost the battle of britian they should have halted there offenceive and rebuild and invaded britian and not bomb it..but they instead invade russia unprepared for winter and lose costing them many lives..they still had a chance 2 win if the USA was not in the war..thus read on

2.Pearl Habor-Im not saying Pearl Harbor wasnt a good attack but it came too soon..if japan would have waited for germany 2 win over europe w/o usa they could have attacked and had germanys navy help w/ theres and beaten the usa..
The biggest mistake was that there was ever a WW2 at all, and it was because of the Americans that there was.

At the negotiations around the WW1 Peace Treaty American President Woodrow Wilson promised the French that America would guarantee their borders. The British agreed to take part.

Congress refused to ratify the "Anglo-American Treaty of Guarantee" and America retreated into Isolationism. So, when Hitler came to power there was no means of stopping him already in place.

If Congress had backed Woodrow Wilson's promise to the French, IMHO there wouldn't have been a WW2 because a forerunner of NATO would have stamped him into the ground the first time he ever invaded anywhere, if he ever tried.

 

As above, the biggest mistake was WW2 ever occurring, and aside from the obvious fault of Germany, significant blame lies with GB, France and USA for their inaction during the 1930s (the latter's almost total isolationism after the T. of V. was especially damaging and also helped give rise to Japan choosing war.)

During WW2: I seriously believe that if the Germans had won the B. of B. they could not have mounted a realistic invasion to conquer GB, especially not for many years, by which time the British Army would be far, far stronger than it was in mid-1940. Without air superiority over only the South of England, RN vessels and convoys could still come in as before to ports in northern England, NI and Scotland, out of range of German 'planes.

As for an invasion:
When the Germans invaded Crete their paratroop force was almost wiped out by 35,000 recently evacuated GB NZ and Australian troops possessing only about three tanks; and had these tanks been placed on the landing strips the Germans would have had great difficulty in taking them. Given that demonstration, any airborne landings in 1940 would have been far more bloody. Equally, the sheer scale of the RN and coastal defences would have, arguably, destroyed any invasion flotilla in spite of enemy aircraft, but at great cost. IIRC, British bombers were having a field day whilst blowing up masses of German barges waiting for this purpose.
GB would have been far constrained and vulnerable to unchecked bombing, but unless there was a change of govt or PM, they would have carried on fighting

Thus, hardly a mistake, but the best chance AH had was by destroying the Atlantic convoys.

As for Russia: if AH had not rejected the manpower of the anti-Stalin forces in the occupied areas and treated them as allies rather than sub-humans, and not made any number of decisions that overrode his generals' advice, it could have seen a German victory.

 

What do u think the biggest mistake of WWII was? This was the question posted, not the biggest mistake prior to WW2. Yes their were many political factors following WW1 that contributed to WW2 but that was not the question posted. I do believe had Hitler and the luftwaffe been able to strategically remove Britain's air power they could have potentially won The Battle of Britain. This leads to all sorts of possibilities, Britain is removed from WW2 for a much longer period, the Americans are not able to train and build up for Overloard for much longer or never who knows. This could surely have turned the tide of WW2. The truth, I believe is that Hitler still would have been defeated because of his poor insight into the requirments operationally to make war on the eastern front. So had germany won the Battle of Britain they still would have lost the war, it would just have taken the allies a few years more to defeat them. Maybe an atomic bomb would have been required which is only speculation on my part. My last point had the germans won the Battle of Britain and maintained their treaty with Russia who knows how things would have turned out. Sure makes history interesting though.

Sheep

 

Re: mistake during rather than prior to WW2.

Depends on how the question is defined: if we are talking of WW2, are we talking of events subsequent to USA, Russia, Brazil and Japan etc, entering hostilities, thus representing the Globe? Otherwise one could call the period 1939-41 merely a major European war, like so many others in the past.

Additionally, had AH not spent so much time and effort in building prestige or terror weapons - and had not spent so much time and effort in his policy of ethnic cleansing - he could have had a far more formidable fighting force. Again, not enough to tilt the balance away from the GB-USA-USSR coalition in the long if the War maintained its schedule, but enough to lengthen the war.

For example, during WW1 the German battlehip fleet had been little more than an expensive novelty and drained resources from both the Navy and the Army: only the U-boats came close to forcing GB to pull out of the war effort in 1917.

Thus, if in the '30s the German Navy had spent more resources on developing and expanding their submarine fleet, they could have had a great impact during the hostilities. The Germans' need for fast long-range submarines had been noted in WW1 and the schnorkel was already in service in the Dutch Navy. The Type XXI had been developed and produced from German resources in the last years of the War: imagine a score of these vessels being available during the first years of the conflict, when the RN was severely stretched and ASW techniques were that much less sophisticated.

This could be considered a big mistake during WW2, although the seeds of this fall outside of the 1939-45 period; thus, one could argue that appeasement and indiffernce to AH prior to 1938 had a significant affect upon the outbreak of WW2 itself, in terms of opposing forces, etc.

Richard

 

Re: mistake during rather than prior to WW2.

Depends on how the question is defined: if we are talking of WW2, are we talking of events subsequent to USA, Russia, Brazil and Japan etc, entering hostilities, thus representing the Globe? Otherwise one could call the period 1939-41 merely a major European war, like so many others in the past.

Additionally, had AH not spent so much time and effort in building prestige or terror weapons - and had not spent so much time and effort in his policy of ethnic cleansing - he could have had a far more formidable fighting force. Again, not enough to tilt the balance away from the GB-USA-USSR coalition in the long if the War maintained its schedule, but enough to lengthen the war.

For example, during WW1 the German battlehip fleet had been little more than an expensive novelty and drained resources from both the Navy and the Army: only the U-boats came close to forcing GB to pull out of the war effort in 1917.

Thus, if in the '30s the German Navy had spent more resources on developing and expanding their submarine fleet, they could have had a great impact during the hostilities. The Germans' need for fast long-range submarines had been noted in WW1 and the schnorkel was already in service in the Dutch Navy. The Type XXI had been developed and produced from German resources in the last years of the War: imagine a score of these vessels being available during the first years of the conflict, when the RN was severely stretched and ASW techniques were that much less sophisticated.

This could be considered a big mistake during WW2, although the seeds of this fall outside of the 1939-45 period; thus, one could argue that appeasement and indiffernce to AH prior to 1938 had a significant affect upon the outbreak of WW2 itself, in terms of opposing forces, etc. Hence, the situation created by the outbreak of war could have had a grave impact in setting the scenarios in which more obvious mistakes were made.

Richard

(Oops, forgot you can't delete on this Forum setup.)

 

Isn't it generally agreed that WW2 was from 1939-1945, the question still states biggest mistake of WW2, not politcal or military factors prior. Sure we can debate on 1939-1941 as being only war in Europne minus the other countries. I re: 1939-1945 as more accurate a time frame for the question posted than the period of WW1 - 1930's. Had the question been what was the biggest mistake contributing to ww2 and or during ww2 then that would be a different discussion. The ques is biggest mistake of ww2, the important point is" of "

 

I agree, Hitler should have focused on defeating Britain instead of starting up a war with Russia. He also should have focused on military targets instead of bombing civilian areas. Also, halting the advance of his troops at Dunkirk and allowing 338,000 to escape to fight another day would have been his first major blunder.

 

The biggest mistake of WW2 and indeed of WW1 was that a country so enclosed in the European land mass as Germany was,its leadership chose to fight on two fronts.

Apart from coal, Germany had no access to oil similar to the inherent problem of Japan, to wage war against industrial opponents.To gain oil it had to conquer territory and that became increasingly difficult as the Allied Powers wound up their war machine to a fine tuned war economy and carried the war to the German industrial heartlands by the sea blockade in both wars and in WW2 by air.

With hindsight it can be fairly said that the Germans after their intoxicating victories in the west would not have been able to land sufficient men and material on Britain's shores to defeat the British.The Luffewaffe would have had extreme difficulty in controlling the skies above the invasion beaches with aircraft having less than one hours endurance over the target area.Moreover Hitler had difficulty amassing invasion barges for the Channel crossing and had to embark on requisitioning anything he could lay he hands on.Germany did not possess any craft designed and available to carry armoured vehicles in sufficient quanties to sustain a successful invasion.As it was during the Battle of Britain, Bomber Command continued to hit the anticipated jumping off invasion ports and hamper any build up of invasion craft and barges.However, it would have been a grim struggle for Britain had Germany been successful in creating a developing bridgehead on these shores.

The landings in Normandy were achieved after extensive planning and an understanding that the invasion of Europe would be the main operation for the European theatre for 1944 with a date envisaged of 1 May 1944.Even so that was put back because landing craft availabilty was not as planned.If attempted, a German invasion might have gone the same way as the Canadian/British raid on Dieppe (admitted not a committed invasion of Europe) without deep German military long term planning.

In 1940 Hitler did not have the men and materials to be involved in two active fronts.His strategic thoughts were always on Russia,the vast territory in the East which he forecast in his Mein Kampf as Germany's lebensraum.He showed his slanted anglophile personality when he lost interest in the British Isles always anticipating an accomodation agreement with the British Government.(Give me a free hand in Europe and I will not interfere with the British Empire).

It would be difficult to see the US defeated in WW2 by a combination of the Axis Powers even after a German victory over Europe and Russia.The US was too much of a formidable opponent in terms of land mass, industrial capacity and military manpower strength.It is difficult to accept that Germany and Japan could have sustained a successful invasion of North America.It would have also drawn Mexico and Canada into the common alliance against Germany.The US would have taken serious military precautions had Germany and Japan became so increasingly threatening to their postion in the world order.

If Hitler had been able to develop the atomic bomb during this era then it might have been a different possibility and the US mainland would have been presented with a serious threat to its existence.

 

To my mind, perhaps the biggest personal mistake was made by Stalin when he refused to listen to the warnings that Germany was poised to invade. He even refused to believe the invasion had started for some time.
Snake

 

The German Army's failure to capture the Caucasian oil fields intact was a major contributing factor to their defeat on the Eastern Front. Also the failure to capture Moscow before the Russian Winter set in add to this then the mistake of the Whermacht in not preparing properly for the winter.

 

You could add the fact that that the Army failed to utilise local knowledge at Arhneim. Dutch officers pointed out that the local ferry was still intact, which would allow the British to send troops across the river. In addition, the British failed to utilise the high ground around Ossterbeck. Dutch advice was that they could use the high ground to position at least three artillery batteries that could have provided much need support.

:ph34r: :ph34r:

 

The biggest mistake may have been that all the Axis powers had different war aims and goals . Because of this it was not possible for the Axis powers to start a war against Soviet Russia on two fronts , allowing their forces to concentrate against the Germans late in 41 . The Japanese had been at war with Russia in 1905 , and up till late 41 they still thought it was possible that they might be threatened by an invasion through Asiatic Russia . No attack on Pearl Harbour , no American declaration of war ..and the Russian's defeated .....maybe the Japanese could have gained vaste influence over Asia by diplomatic means with the whole of a German Europe behind her ....Britain ....well Britain would have had to tow the line or suffer starvation by sea .......Italy ....well give Italy a small piece of Antarctica or something for her efforts ....
Phil.

 

Originally posted by blacksheep@Jul 25 2004, 01:45 PM
What do u think the biggest mistake of WWII was? This was the question posted, not the biggest mistake prior to WW2. Yes their were many political factors following WW1 that contributed to WW2 but that was not the question posted. I do believe had Hitler and the luftwaffe been able to strategically remove Britain's air power they could have potentially won The Battle of Britain. This leads to all sorts of possibilities, Britain is removed from WW2 for a much longer period, the Americans are not able to train and build up for Overloard for much longer or never who knows.
The problems for Germany winning the Battle of Britain are a lot more difficult than I think you realise.

1) Aircraft - The Luftwaffe was simply not properly equipped for a strategic air offensive, having neither the appropriate bomber aircraft or suitable fighters to escort them.
2) Industry - The German aircraft industry failed to get into gear and could not outpace British production, making victory by attrition impossible.
3) Poor leadership and strategy - failure to concentrate forces properly against key targets (caused by a mass of competing and conflicting air intelligence bureaus) diluted the Luftwaffe's already limited strategic striking power.
4) Poor morale - German pilots were expected to win a quick victory. When they failed to do so they were blamed unjustly by senior commanders and were demoralised. RAF pilots by contrast were carefully managed, kept rested and squadrons frequently rotated out of combat.

In short, in order to allow Germany to win the necessary strategic victory to facilitate an invasion of Britain, the Luftwaffe would need to be completely restructured, reformed aircraft replaced and industry improved.

As for the biggest mistake of the war, a few spring to mind. Hitler's allowing the BEF to be evacuated was a catastrophic mistake and gave Britain a truly massive psychological and military victory. The other would be the sheer underestimation of the strength of the USSR and the arrogance of planning that completely underrated the resilience of the Soviet people. German high command expected the Soviet Union to crumble into total defeat and instead were met by a rock-solid resolution and resistance.

 

Originally posted by Paratrooper@Jul 25 2004, 01:57 AM
2.Pearl Habor-Im not saying Pearl Harbor wasnt a good attack but it came too soon..if japan would have waited for germany 2 win over europe w/o usa they could have attacked and had germanys navy help w/ theres and beaten the usa..
I can see your point,but the US was slowly strangling Japan in terms of trade and territory. one mistake that I see about Pearl Harbor was that the Japs should have landed troops and taken the island.

 

Was the landing of troops on the Hawaiian islands ever considered by the japanese high command as after the attack Pearl harbour was turned into an impreganble fortress. The ja[anese would never have had a better oppurtunity to land troops than they did on December 7th 1941.

 

Originally posted by Thomas McCall@Aug 12 2004, 04:48 PM
Was the landing of troops on the Hawaiian islands ever considered by the japanese high command as after the attack Pearl harbour was turned into an impreganble fortress. The ja[anese would never have had a better oppurtunity to land troops than they did on December 7th 1941.
I don't think it was considered and I don't think they would have had the lift capacity, particularly since they were more or less simultaneously carrying out landings elsewhere, such as Malaya.

 

Originally posted by morse1001@Aug 8 2004, 07:21 AM
You could add the fact that that the Army failed to utilise local knowledge at Arhneim. Dutch officers pointed out that the local ferry was still intact, which would allow the British to send troops across the river. In addition, the British failed to utilise the high ground around Ossterbeck. Dutch advice was that they could use the high ground to position at least three artillery batteries that could have provided much need support.

:ph34r: :ph34r:
I think that Eisenhower dismissing Montys original, fuller plans for Arnhem was a mistake. Monty intended that 40 Divisions should be focussed on one single thrust along a 'fault line' that should have had priority over all other operations. However, Eisenhower never agreed, and continued the slower broad front 'plan'.

If Market Garden was supplied, resourced and backed as originally intended, then it may well have indeed shortened the war, and enabled the Allies to reach Berlin before the Soviet Army, which would have resulted in a totally different post war European order.

That was the biggest allied mistake of WW2 IMHO.

Regards

Richard