The greatest WWII blunder

[carebear]

The German has always been the best trained, best equipped and best lead army in the 20th century

Why couldn't they win a war?

Define "lead". On a small unit and operational level, they rocked. They tend to blow it on the strategic, in part because they had a Prussian tendency to underestimate their opponents and read their own press clippings.

 

[CanadaDoll]

That is the new revisionist view (can't have anything positive to say about nukes can we, and we know the US is always somehow "bad" ) but it's pretty thoroughly debunked.

Serious scholarship and recently released documents/plans from both sides make it clear that Iwo and Okinawa were excellent examples of what an invasion of the Japanese home islands would become. We would have been looking at millions of American and Japanese casualties and the utter destruction of Japan. Fat Man and Little Boy were the best possible, lowest casualty and destruction option given the information known at the time by both sides at the time and even in honest hindsight.

When attending any college course, remember that the only place to find Marxist true believers in the civilized world anymore are in Western university faculties.

I'm not trying to imply for a moment that the US is bad, he got onto the topic of war and I saw this thread before class and asked what his thoughts were, (I happen to respect his opinions, Marxist or not,) and I thought his answere was interesting, that's all.

 

[carebear]

The Americans attacked Japanese soil earlier in the Doolittle Operation,
and had bombarded prior to Hiroshima/Nagasaki. The Japanese failed to
accept surrender prior to the atomic detonations. Revisionist historians
and profs notwithstanding, the bomb ended the Pacific War.

One way to think about this. If you are a descendant of a soldier who survived the European Theatre, you might not have been born if the A-bombs hadn't gone in. All those divisions that had just finished beating Germany were awaiting orders to ship out for the invasion of Japan. MacArthur wanted all of them and more.

 

[Harp]

The German has always been the best trained, best equipped and best lead army in the 20th century

Why couldn't they win a war?

The Wermacht stopped playing varsity in '45.

 

[carebear]

I'm not trying to imply for a moment that the US is bad, he got onto the topic of war and I saw this thread before class and asked what his thoughts were, (I happen to respect his opinions, Marxist or not,) and I thought his answere was interesting, that's all.

Oh Canada (heh, that was accidental) I didn't mean to imply anything negative about you. There are a lot of professors sounding off on things they really aren't qualified to, basing their opinion solely on the latest position that supports their pre-conceived notions and disregarding evidence to the contrary. That gets frustrating.

Your guy may not be one of those, he may just have been regurgitating the last thing he read. Unfortunately, it's usually more sinister than that when college profs are involved.

 

[carebear]

for our Allies across the pond... Market-Garden.

Blunder driven by Monty's ego or bold stroke overtaken by unforseeable events?

Or a bit of both?

 

[reetpleat]

That is the new revisionist view (can't have anything positive to say about nukes can we, and we know the US is always somehow "bad" ) but it's pretty thoroughly debunked.

Serious scholarship and recently released documents/plans from both sides make it clear that Iwo and Okinawa were excellent examples of what an invasion of the Japanese home islands would become. We would have been looking at millions of American and Japanese casualties and the utter destruction of Japan. Fat Man and Little Boy were the best possible, lowest casualty and destruction option given the information known at the time by both sides at the time and even in honest hindsight.

When attending any college course, remember that the only place to find Marxist true believers in the civilized world anymore are in Western university faculties.

While the dropping of an atom bomb may have prevented having to invade and lose many american lives, it was not necessery to drop two, or on major cities. One in a less populate place would likely have sufficed. Secondly, the US insistance on unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan and the insistance that the emporer be removed from powere nad most likely tried and hanged, insured that the Japanese would not surrender. From my understanding, they most likely would have were it not for these demands.

Thirdly, why is it preferable to lose Japanese civilian lives to american soldiers lives. At the time I can understand the choice from that perspective, but in hindsight, was it moral. Not too long before that time, it was not considered acceptable to intentionally take civialian lives.

Just because something is termed "revisionist" does not mean it is innacurate or wrong. Indeed, we often revise our opinions on historical events based on our new information, new prespective, or new moral thought. Besides that, anyone who believes the history taught by their government and those in power exclusively, is going to get a very biased view.

 

[carebear]

While the dropping of an atom bomb may have prevented having to invade and lose many american lives, it was not necessery to drop two, or on major cities. One in a less populate place would likely have sufficed. Secondly, the US insistance on unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan and the insistance that the emporer be removed from powere nad most likely tried and hanged, insured that the Japanese would not surrender. From my understanding, they most likely would have were it not for these demands.

Thirdly, why is it preferable to lose Japanese civilian lives to american soldiers lives. At the time I can understand the choice from that perspective, but in hindsight, was it moral. Not too long before that time, it was not considered acceptable to intentionally take civialian lives.

Just because something is termed "revisionist" does not mean it is innacurate or wrong. Indeed, we often revise our opinions on historical events based on our new information, new prespective, or new moral thought. Besides that, anyone who believes the history taught by their government and those in power exclusively, is going to get a very biased view.

First off, the millions of lives saved include far more Japanese than Americans. The Japanese people would have suffered horribly while resisting an invasion. The alternative to invasion and thus utter destruction of the entire infrastructure was embargo and starvation/disease. The thousands of lives lost to the two bombs are miniscule in comparison to either alternative. However, given that their government started the war and they did nothing to stop it, I do in fact believe the lives of those actively resisting tyranny take precedence over those complicit to it on any sort of moral scale.

This isn't the place to go into particulars but the "new" issues of where, when and how many bombs as well as the morality of the same and doubting without evidence the necessity of unconditional surrender for a lasting peace are exactly the revisionist tripe I was referring to. All those issues are quite capably addressed by the most reputable of independent (not "government" ) historians based on the most recently declassified documents available from both sides.

In this particular case, as in so many others, the revisionists are objectively, documentably, wrong.

 

[reetpleat]

First off, the millions of lives saved include far more Japanese than Americans. The Japanese people would have suffered horribly while resisting an invasion. The alternative to invasion and thus utter destruction of the entire infrastructure was embargo and starvation/disease. The thousands of lives lost to the two bombs are miniscule in comparison to either alternative. However, given that their government started the war and they did nothing to stop it, I do in fact believe the lives of those actively resisting tyranny take precedence over those complicit to it on any sort of moral scale.

This isn't the place to go into particulars but the "new" issues of where, when and how many bombs as well as the morality of the same and doubting without evidence the necessity of unconditional surrender for a lasting peace are exactly the revisionist tripe I was referring to. All those issues are quite capably addressed by the most reputable of independent (not "government" ) historians based on the most recently declassified documents available from both sides.

In this particular case, as in so many others, the revisionists are objectively, documentably, wrong.

Well, it is obvious we do not agree on this subject. You certainly have a right to your opinion.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Though i abhor the dropping of the nuclear bombs, it can't really be described as a tactical blunder (at least, as i understand tactical blunder to mean blunder which had negative impacts on the war effort).

Morally suspect, yes. Tactically naive, no.

And i'd say college professors have far less impact than talk radio. At least college professors are educated about the subjects upon which they spout (yes, the vast majority of college professors - even the marxist ones - refuse to discuss anything along these lines). [insert passive agressive smiley here]

bk

 

[Spitfire]

for our Allies across the pond... Market-Garden.

Blunder driven by Monty's ego or bold stroke overtaken by unforseeable events?

Or a bit of both?

Or should we just say the last part of Market Garden. The bridge they went too far. I guesse if you aske the people of Holland, they - or at least a large % of them - have the oppinion that Market garden was the plan that liberated them. (Except the ones living in Arnhem and north)
But I agree that Monty was a bit too ambitious.

 

[carebear]

I agree. The bigger problem, as I understand it, was that too many assumptions were made about communications (radio range) and mobility (just the one road useable for the relief column). Things might have been hurried a bit by Monty wanting it done but I think the idea was sound.

I'd blame it more on a "groupthink" setting in where some very real concerns weren't addressed by the staffs involved as they were all focused on the "big picture". Potential problems, that would get in the way of achieveing the agreed upon end were assumed out of the picture.

"Groupthink" as a phenomenon lies at the root of a lot of blunders (military and otherwise) in history. Yet another example of the importance of individuals willing to stand up and say "no" to the majority opinion.

 

[Mojave Jack]

"Groupthink" as a phenomenon lies at the root of a lot of blunders (military and otherwise) in history. Yet another example of the importance of individuals willing to stand up and say "no" to the majority opinion.

Very true. The British inability to recognize that their 3.7" AA gun was a better anti-tank gun than the German 88 is a perfect example. The Afrika Korps was blasting the blazes out of the British tanks with their 88s, while the 3.7" guns sat and waited for the Luftwaffe as the German tanks rolled through their positions. British leadership (at that time) was just not accustomed to that sort of innovative thinking.

For the German High Command, of course, that situation was further complicated by the whole "insane fuhrer" dynamic.

 

[Paisley]

"Groupthink" as a phenomenon lies at the root of a lot of blunders (military and otherwise) in history. Yet another example of the importance of individuals willing to stand up and say "no" to the majority opinion.

Or to the leader.

Slightly off topic, but I saw a program last night on the worst aviation accident. In the 1970s, two 747s collided on a runway in the Canary Islands. A lot of little factors were involved in the accident (series of unfortunate events), but in the end, the captain--a seasoned pilot--made a very basic mistake twice: taking off without clearance. The first time, his copilot corrected him, but the second time, nobody dared. Five hundred eight-three people died.

Wasn't there an incident when nobody wanted to awaken Hitler to inform him of some catastrophe?

 

[Alan Eardley]

Waking Hitler

The decision not to wake Hitler followed the successful assault on Pegasus Bridge. There were enough Panzers in Caen to easily take back the bridge and therefore cross the Orne valley and and threaten the Canadian and British landings on 'D Day', but Hitler had given orders that he was not to be woken. By the time the tanks got moving the British airborne troops were well dug in. A single sergeant armed with a PIAT (the heaviest weapon they had) blocked the road with a dead German tank and that was that. Possibly the most important single shot on D Day.

It could be argued that the success of a lightly armed airborne unit defending a bridge crossing gave allied high command a case of over-confidence in their ability to do it again at Arnhem. Was it Matthew who criticised Rommel for over-extending his supply lines before el Alamein? Same thing at Arnhem. Infantry can't defend anything without supplies.

Alan

 

[Harp]

...and sometimes it all hits the fan at once.

 

[Harp]

Just because something is termed "revisionist" does not mean it is innacurate or wrong. Indeed, we often revise our opinions on historical events based on our new information, new prespective, or new moral thought. Besides that, anyone who believes the history taught by their government and those in power exclusively, is going to get a very biased view.

How are things at UC-Berkeley?

 

[Mojave Jack]

The decision not to wake Hitler followed the successful assault on Pegasus Bridge. There were enough Panzers in Caen to easily take back the bridge and therefore cross the Orne valley and and threaten the Canadian and British landings on 'D Day', but Hitler had given orders that he was not to be woken.

See?! "Insane fuhrer" factor!

 

[The Wingnut]

Nagasaki? Hiroshima?

No. Not at all the most 'brutal' of bombings by allied forces during WWII, and considering the results, certainly not blunders. The intended result was achieved.

Google Dreden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and firebombing. The atomic drops pale by comparison and are easy targets for debate simply due to their - at the time - spectacular and unorthodox nature.


...furthermore, debating the morality of such things - especially here - won't change the fact that they happened and are far in the past. Such discussions are little more than social flagellation.

 

[Harp]

...furthermore, debating the morality of such things - especially here - won't change the fact that they happened and are far in the past. Such discussions are little more than social flagellation.

History invites such discussion.

The order to assault Cemetery Ridge, for instance, remains controversial
and provokes debate.