90 Responses

  1. Pol at |

    Its easy to say that the Philippine liberation is blunder, especially for someone that lives in a country that didn't experience the horrors of being conquered by the spaniards, japanese and americans. It may be a blunder to you but General McArthur's return is one of the most celebrated event in our country's history.

    We greatly appreciate what he did.

    Reply
    1. kmeff at |

      You’re right, and thank you very much for raising that point. I believe that of all the foreign rulers here in our country, the Japanese invasion has been the most atrocious and unspeakable. Kindly look up the terms “Filipino comfort women” and “Bataan Death March” to see what I mean. Shame on those people for trying to belittle one of the greatest milestones of Philippine history.

      Reply
    2. Genma Saotome at |

      I have no doubt you are quite correct about the value of the American rescue to the people of the Philippines… but I think the author’s intent was to point out the military value was nil… in fact it’s hard to say that ANY of MacArthur’s WWII campaigns (post 1941-early 42) contributed to winning the war.

      Reply
      1. Slarty Bartfast at |

        Macarthur’s fighting doesn’t happen in a vacuum. If MacArthur is not fighting the Japanese where he is, then the Japanese can refocus and concentrate their forces, which they do successfully in China and Korea. With MacArthur chasing the Japanese from island to island, the Japanese are unable to marshal their forces to a single unified fighting unit.

        Reply
    3. EJ at |

      Doug took a long time to return because he had to train weak or shall i say untrained soldiers and he used a strategical landing, if he landed directly on luzon shore his forces can be annihilated easily..

      Reply
  2. pipster at |

    A couple that are missing:

    * Guadalcanal (the landings)

    * Kasserine Pass

    * Rapido River

    * Resupply of Patton v. Montgomery in the drive to Berlin

    * Pretty much the entire Japanese naval campaign after Pearl

    Reply
  3. David Valley at |

    About MacArthur’s return to Philippines, your story is absolute HOGWASH. Your knowledge of WWII events is pathetic. If the Philippines had not been liberated millions of Filipinos and ten-of-thousands of POWs would have been wantonly slaughtered by the frustrated Japanese troops by-passed by the Allies. You say inept defense of the Philippines by MacArthur. How stupid! Had it not been for the brilliant defensive strategy, which totally disrupted the Japanese timetable for the takeover of the South Pacific…up to and including Australia…the events would have been calamitous for the Allies. The Japs had planned to take the Philippines in five weeks; it had taken nearly five months! During those critical extra months our Naval Fleet had a chance to rebuild, which then turned the tide in the war.

    Reply
    1. a2650415 at |

      The US bypassed Formosa (Taiwan) and there was no massacre.

      Reply
      1. vesey at |

        Taiwan had been an integral part of the Japanese Empire since 1895 due to the treaty of Shimonoseki after Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95. If the allies had invaded it would have been for military purposes not liberation as it would have been for other areas of the Pacific since Japan's attacks after Dec 8th 1941. Both you and the author of this list would benefit from a little research. I hope that not many people reading this list are accepting the conclusions of this pseudo-historian. I highly recommend that you do your own research on these events. Case in point: Mac Arthur was ordered off the Philippines by pres. Roosevelt he did not "high tail it off", and there is no such thing as the congressional medal of honor(do your own research on this). Please folks find some good source of info on WW2,make a personal effort and don't be so quick to accept the first thing you hear or read on any subject so in the future we can avoid other obama types for president…………………..

        Reply
        1. merl at |

          What do you call the Congressional Medal of Honor? I’d like to know for real.

          Reply
          1. Frank M at |

            It is simply referred to as the Medal of Honor. The “Congressional” part is commonly inserted because approval of Congress is required.

            Reply
            1. merl at |

              I actually looked that up and was surprised. When I was in the Navy it was always called the Congressional, even the Marines called it that. I had always thought that was the official name. So I guess I was semi wrong on that one.
              It was called Casket, Metal Handles. Since it’s awarded posthumously a lot.

        2. merl at |

          Yes, let’s please elect more GW Bush types as President. Future dead soldiers and civilians will thank you.

          Reply
          1. Caleb at |

            I didn’t realize that soldiers and civilians only died under the presidentcy of GW Bush……

            Reply
          2. vesey at |

            Geo Bush is not the only choice nor was he the only president in history. I did not vote for him and i certainly had nothing to do with dead soldiers and civilians. If you can’t join a discussion like an adult, don’t join…………

            Reply
            1. Caleb at |

              I responded to an ignorant comment with and ignorant comment. Correct me if I’m wrong but is what your saying people who voted for Mr. Bush responsible for the deaths of civilians and soldiers?
              No offence meant

    2. LEONARD at |

      GENERAL MACARTHUR HAD 10 HOURS NOTICE ABOUT THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK & DID NOTHING TO MOBOLIZE THOSE B-17’S THAT WERE DESTROYED ON THE AND COULD HAVE MADE THE SITUATION BETTER FOR HIS FORCES.

      Reply
    3. Wolgang at |

      Yes yes of course it was no defeat,it was a stunning victory just like Vietnam and Korea and Kasserine Pass and the war of 1812 when the British dogs ran our sorry butts out ot Canada and the weeks it took to get off Omaha beach All great victories, no airbrushing our pastHow dare anyone suggest otherwise!

      Reply
  4. mike at |

    For 4., it says that the Germans only fought the USSR and the americans, when there were many other countries whom fought valiantly and lost many soldiers such as Great Britain, Canada, and many other nations. It always annoys me when Americans assume that it was only them who made a difference in WWII.

    Reply
    1. killer_cain at |

      Canada & the likes tend to monkey off the back of their former empire, Britian who tend to monkey off the back of the US! Remember Germany spent the first 2 years of the war trying to make peace with the brits!

      Reply
      1. jack Causon at |

        The USA had to come into WW2 irrespective of Pearl Harbour. If Britain fell the Atlantic was open, so was the USA. No Royal Navy. How could Britain make peace with a man like Hitler,who broke all promises he made to Britain. Apart from lying and cheating to Russia,Hungry,Holland,Czechoslovakia A man that attempted to murder 6 million Jews, because of their religion.
        In 1939 when WW2 started for Britain, USA came in two years later,Britain was the richest,most powerful nation on earth. Before the USA came into the war, the USA was supplying arms,material to Britain, for cash,and conditions, good ole USA always make a deal at any time, do you know what the deal was?apart from Britain draining her empires gold reserves away to give to the USA. Let me know what the deal was,then tell me who was doing the Monkey off who’s back…

        Reply
  5. Cesar at |

    6. Philiippine Defense 1942.

    I think the Philippines was always meant fall to the Japanese. MacArhtur's generalship had nothing to do with it. Roosevelt and Churchill had already agreed beforehand that Germany was to be defeated first. That was why there was no "mile long U.S. convoy" coming to relieve the Philippine defenders – that convoy was headed towards England.

    10. Philippine Liberation 1944.

    I think that was why MacArthur lobbied so hard to liberate the Philippines. It wasn't just to stroke his ego. I think he really felt that America owed it to the country that she abandoned to her fate.

    This is merely my opinion, of course. But even then Phil. commonwealth president Manuel L. Quezon complained about how shabbily treated the Philippines was when he said how it was so like America to be so concerned about her cousins (the British) while her daughter (the Philippines) was being raped in the backroom (by Japan).

    Reply
  6. John McDonnell at |

    Military history is littered with examples of generals who did not capitalize on golden opportunities. If Meade had capitalized on Lee's defeat at Gettysburg, instead of letting Lee and his troops get away, he could have won the war two years earlier, and saved thousands of lives. There will always be blunders like that, but the tragedy is that so many lives are wasted as a result.

    Reply
  7. Siborg at |

    Wow what a load of garbage, someone's not studied these battles very well. For example the Maginot line, it worked perfectly, the Germans never attacked it but went around so it served it's purpose.

    Goering didn't order the attacks on London either, Hitler did.

    Reply
    1. Caleb Hobden at |

      Actually the Germans did attack threw the magnot line it just was not their first attack. Ps the maginot line defended were built in a world war one style and were easily destroyed by dive bombers.

      Reply
    2. merl at |

      I visited the Maginot Line in high school, what a joke. It was fixed fortifications facing toward Germany. If it had been attacked it would have fallen easily.

      Reply
  8. Coriolan at |

    The Maginot line worked fine. The germans had to reach France through Belgium, whose neutrality was garanteed by the UK, which caused the UK to declare war on Germany, which changed the turn of war.

    The UK wasn't strong enough to defeat Germany single-handedly. UK and Germany would have reached some sort of non-agression pact, which would have allowed the Wehrmarcht to focus on the eastern front, maybe to defeat USSR.

    The Maginot line worked perfectly. Its purpose was to either stop germans or to make them involve UK by attacking Belgium.

    Reply
    1. wes at |

      the british declared war on germany over the german invasion of poland, not belgium.

      Reply
      1. N.Davies at |

        The British did not "declare war". They issued an 'ultimatim' that if they had not received news that German Forces were withdrawing from the territories they had occupied, a State of War would exist between Britain and Germany. The Foreign Secretary then told the British people " I have to tell you now, that no such assurance has been received, and that ,as a consequence, this country is at War with Germany".

        Having conquered all of Europe, they found themselves unable to cross 22 miles of the English Channel, and showered Great Britain with bombs instead.

        Unable to do America's ' Precision bombing', the RAF devastated German cities by sheer weight of bombs from 1.100 Lancaster(and other) heavy bombers.

        Reply
        1. Michael Ellis at |

          The Prime Minister Chamberlain declared was on Germany on September 3rd. 1939.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtrOJnpmz6s

          Reply
        2. jack Causon at |

          USA, precision bombing!!!Are you reading the right history books?Americas precision bombing was perfect on the bombing ranges in New Mexico, in daylight where conditions are dry,little wind, no ack ack, or fighter planes shooting at you.
          Over Germany, where you had all that opposition together with purpose generated smoke, obscuring targets, the Americans had over 40% “missing the target” ,as in deed did the RAF. Bearing in mind that initially the Americans only bombed in daylight.

          Incidentally, it was the British Prime,Neville Chamberlain who made the “Famous” radio speech to the British people not Lord Halifax who was the Foreign Secretary.

          Reply
  9. Frank A. Lornitzo at |

    All this about generals missing and wasting opportunities; All these damn wars are such a waste.

    Reply
  10. John at |

    Where is the USSR invasion attempt of Finland?

    Reply
    1. Slarty Bartfast at |

      Very astute John. The Russians had three times the number of soldiers, 20 times the aircraft, and a hundred times as many tanks and the Finns with a little help from the Brits and Norwegians might have won. This also was due to the rank stupidity of Stalin who had imprisoned or executed nearly 30,000 Soviet officers. The fall of Stalingrad nearly happens directly because of Stalin.

      Reply
  11. Pedrosian at |

    This is a pretty good list. For my money, I place the key battle in the French campaign at Sedan, where Guderian turned the allied right flank and surrounded the combined French/British forces which had blundered into Belgium to avoid another repeat of elongated trench warfare on French soil.

    The most important blunder of the Russian campaing was Hitler's idiot decision, in July 1941, to turn the Russian army's right flank operating in the Ukraine, resulting in the Battle of Kiev. The German army effectively destroyed Soviet power in the region and took over 660,000 (!!) prisoners of war – in one battle. However, the blunder was that it took six weeks to complete this diversionary battle, delaying the assault on Moscow – the railway center and adminstrative head of the Soviet Beast. Conquering Moscow would also have cut off and neutralized several Soviet armies deployed between Moscow and Leningrad, as there was only one rail line between those two cities to supply those armies. The attack on Moscow began in earnest (after astounding German victories at Bryansk and Kalinin) in November 1941. Too late! General Winter took over and a massive Soviet counterattack – on December 16, 1941 – forever ended the possibility of German victory against the illegimate, gangster state known as the Soviet Union.

    The greatest blunder of the Pacific campaign was the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Not the attack itself, but the idiot commanders of the Japanese fleet who, after effectively destroying American sea and air power at Pearl Harbor, decided to tuck tail and run. Had the Japs sent a third wave of unopposed bombers over the base and destroyed the oil storage and drydock repair facilities, and remaining infrastructure, the Americans would have been forced to house their fleet on the American mainland for several months, thus giving Japan a free hand in the Southeast Pacific, probably securing the airfield in Guadalcanal and forcing the Aussies to call home their troops fighting abroad in Egypt, giving Rommel a decisive advantage in Eastern Libya and Egypt during the crucial 1942 Cairo offensive.

    Great Take on the Battle of Britain! The Brits really were up against it. Most of the airfields in Southern England were badly damaged, significant portions of the radar net had holes in it, the air crews were exhausted and on the verge of being overwhelmed and … Churchill orders a feeble bombing attack on Berlin. Hitler overreacted, abandoned the battle to gain air superiority, and began bombing the sh** out of civilian targets in and around London. MASSIVE blunder. Nothing could have stopped a German invasion of England had Germany achieved air superiority. Planes beat ships, every time. The English fleet would have been called to stop the invasion and, most assuredly, would have suffered grievous losses. Regardless of the outcome of any invasion, the damage to the British fleet would have been strategic, reducing its ability to project British power globally, with decisive consequences in the Med and the Pacific.

    Reply
    1. wes at |

      i think the biggest blunder by germany was not striking towards moscow during operation barbarossa. kill the head and the body dies. war with the soviet union was inevitable anyway given the two countries political systems. when they did get around to striking towards the soviet capital it was too late.

      Reply
    2. debraj at |

      There was only one country who has pulled the pants of Hitler, and make him piss at WWII is USSR. The all others are basically followers. However, incontext of the Most Gangster state( or it will be Country), it no other than USA,who has drop the Atom Bomb in Hiroshima & Nagasaki killing hundred, thousands of innocent people and crippling the future generation.

      Reply
      1. Peter David at |

        debraj,

        For every month the war dragged on, 100,000 people PER MONTH were dying in the territories occupied by Japan due to starvation, overwork, abuse, disease and outright execution.

        As for your laughable assertion of “crippling the future generation”, can you explain how and why a “crippled” generation was able to rebuild Japan into an economic and technological powerhouse?

        Finally, you probably believe that the Pacific War actually began at 8:15am August 6, 1945, am I right?

        Reply
      2. Slarty Bartfast at |

        Learn history debraj and you won’t sound so foolish. The USSR nearly lost the war because Stalin executed or imprisoned nearly 30,000 officer during the purge.

        As for the dropping of the bomb:

        1. Japan told the United States that if they invaded mainland Japan, they would kill all 250,000 POW’s. The U.S. believed them because they knew POW’s were carried on warships as hostages.

        2. Japan had 2,000 kamikaze planes hidden in the mountains of Japan ready to assault the American Fleet upon landing.

        3. Japan had moved 20 million women and children into forward positions and trained them with rakes and shovels to kill Americans.

        4. Losses for the takeover of Japan, known as Operation Olympus, were estimated to be over 1 million American dead and nearly 15 to 20 million Japanese.

        The dropping of the bombs were horrific and fortunately have never had to be repeated. However, they saved millions of lives, two of which were uncles of mine.

        Reply
  12. Cardnals100 at |

    What about the British defeats in Indo-China?

    Reply
  13. Timmy at |

    This is all with historical hindsight. Everything looks so easy and simple from the outside.

    Real battles aren’t like an RTS video game. There’s hundreds of things to consider; all forms of logistics (Troops can’t operate very far with tonnes of ammunition, water, food, gasoline), co-ordinations of front line units (From corps to division all the way down to company formations need to be moved into position), availability and briefing of support (The Air Force, Navy and Army are all vastly different in motives and structure). And even more.

    You can’t just say I want the 1st division to move to Anytown. You have to take into consideration all the things that affect the battle itself while struggling against the advice and wishes of dozens of officers below (And maybe above) you while dealing with the air chair generals and politicians who want to liberate meaningless objectives like CapitolTown because it’ll look better for the press.

    The majority of the above battles and events were coordinated and executed to the best of the abilities of the all the generals and militaries involved. A large portion of luck mixed in with overwhelming material is what usually made one side overcome the other without the massive meat machine-esque battles of WW1. The legendary Midway squadron that just happened to break out of the clouds over the Japanese fleet. The 101st meticulous stand in the Bulge. The unexpected breakthrough of Cobra. The unexpected Panzer divisions refitting around Arnhem. These are all things that the commanders really couldn’t control in the end. Where one soldier might turn tail and run another with the exact same training could easily be an Audey Murphey like paragon.

    Commanding an army is a confusing and difficult affair and not all generals can be blamed for being hesitant or slow when we can look back and say “Oh if such and such just moved in here then the war would have been over!” Generals aren’t (For the most part) idiotic and ignorant. They have to make the most rational decisions possible in irrational situations.

    Most of these battles (Blunders) were decided before they were begun. The generals on either side had absolutely no way of knowing that though. They call it the fog of war for a reason.

    Besides, even say if they attacked deep into the beachhead at Anzio? Who’s to say that Hitler wouldn’t have panicked and launched a counter stroke there (Instead of in the French or Russian theaters). Sure, the Western allies might have had forces pulled away from them, but it could just have easily been the Russians! Instead of the Iron curtain cutting through the middle of Germany and the Balkans the Soviets could have back doored it faster into Berlin and been at the borders of France and taken Denmark (And possibly Austria and parts of Northern Italy).

    Oh, and at Dunkirk the German armies couldn’t advance any further against the British. They still had a massive defensive perimeter, and the area was completely unsuitable for tanks (Not to mention at the time German tanks were some of the worst in the world, captured light Czech machines mixed with thin skinned Mark I’s and II’s). The infantry had to fight practically on their own while the air and naval support were reserved to pummel the evac ships. The Germans fought against the Dunkirk perimeter as best as they could. They still had to take most of Southern France. They couldn’t just grind their entire military against an already beaten pocket.

    The Soviet Union was going to war sometime in the late 40’s to early 50’s. Hitler and the Wehrmacht knew this. If Germany hadn’t invaded Russia the Russian would have walked over Poland and struck at Prussia and Germany anyways. Perhaps if he had waited a few years the allies might have found themselves fighting with Hitler to save Europe from the Bolshevik Bear, and Hitler would have probably turned against a weakened Allied war machine (Imagine that alternate history). It wasn’t about living space in the East, or the confrontation between two ideologies. It was simply a matter that Germany saw a threat growing in the East, and acted prematurely against it’s interests in the West then realizing the mistake too late and turning East.

    Britain would probably never have been invaded. The British navy was more formidable (Even if dispersed) then the Kriegsmarine, and any major landing effort would have resulted in a titanic sea and air battle (The outcome of which could never be determined). And launching a sea borne invasion isn’t just a matter of putting men in ships and disembarking them at the most strategic point. Germany had no troop landing vessels. The troops would have been landing under fire in rubber dinghies and beached frigates. Additionally, they had no knowledge or technology for the massive logistics that would entail a long siege of Britain. Even during Overlord 4 years later, after several combat landings in all theatres and thorough knowledge of what a landing would entail (And the proper technology it required), the allies still had a hard time breaking through and supplying the troops. A seaborne invasion of Britain would have been a disaster, RAF or no. Thousands of Germans would have been slaughtered on the beach and in the beachheads, the poorly led Fallschirmjager (German Airborne) would have been scattered and isolated and not supplied. They nearly lost the battle of Crete; the airborne would have been annihilated against properly equipped and supplied British regulars. The German troops would have to have captured massive port and docking facilities to resupply and reinforce, a task they could never have accomplished. All the docks would have been sabotaged and destroyed, like the Germans would do 4 years later in Normandy. Hitler (Or at least his military advisers) knew that they could never successfully invade Britain. Even if by some miracle they did the majority of the British army and politicians would have withdrawn to Canada to continue that war. The US would have entered the war eventually; any threat to Canada was a threat to the US.

    These kind of historical lists are a joke. The majority of the authour’s knowledge of the subjects obviously stem from their History since 1500 textbooks and Wikipedia.

    Dreadful read.

    Reply
    1. klaus at |

      Nonsensical rant.

      It is true that no one could ever know what the outcomes are going to be but Hitler would have won the war had he listened to his generals and allowed them to do their job without interference, putting more efforts in places like North Africa, the ME and provided they were able to knock England out before attacking the Soviets (he could have easily done so, since Germany was far better equipped compared to England at the time of Dunkirk), every WW2 historian agree on that fact.

      Reply
      1. Caleb Hobden at |

        It is widely believed that Germany couldn’t in fact invade England successfully as they did not have the amphibious means to do so ie: conversion of “Rhine barges” into landing craft, lack of substantial airborne troops. Remember it took the combined might of the united states, great Britian, Canada and other allied nations to successfully complete an invasion not to mention years of planning. Despite the shape the British were in after Dunkirk it’s doubtful the Germans could have successed.

        Reply
  14. damrov at |

    where is operation market garden?

    Reply
  15. Helen Ramsey at |

    My cousin told me about a battle is southern Belgium or over the line into Germany during

    WW II when our Air Force killed a whole Regiment in 2 hrs. because a smoke bomb was set off

    to mark where the German Army was located, BUT the wind changed and the smoke covered our

    U.S. troops. He said it was never reported. 900 men killed because of a wind change.

    Reply
  16. jejemon at |

    You should atleast change the titles of this two. It seems at first sight that you are implying liberating the Philippines in 1944 and the Philippines Defense in 1942 is a blunder. If you dont know well your World History, dont point your opinion to much on the subject. I find some of your words disrespectful to those who fight on that war. And its not a blunder for the record.

    10. (Tie) PHILIPPINES LIBERATION, 1944

    6. PHILIPPINES DEFENSE, 1942

    Reply
    1. Bataan Death March at |

      For those who do not know the atrocities the Japanese committed in the Philippines to the natives and the American forces left behind, please educate yourselves. Do not allow pseudo- historians to make insulting lists or comments that the Japanese would not have massacred more women and children if it were skipped. The Death March alone was a great indicator that what happened to the Philippine islands was a unique form of barbarity in that area of the Pacific. The islands represented the United States more than any in that area. It was the last stand of the American forces, a major ally. The General was not only returning to the islands to boost his career, he had an emotional tie to the islands, he wept upon seeing the once thriving city of Manila destroyed by war.

      Reply
      1. Slarty Bartfast at |

        Very true. The Philippines people fought bravely for the United States. To leave them in the hands of the Japanese would have been cowardly and inhuman. The Japanese would have reaped revenge on the Philippine population while we fought around them.

        Reply
  17. Michael Ellis at |

    My dad was wounded at Anzio, he was a mortar sergeant in the North Staffordshire regiment (It wasn’t just Americans that were there). General Lucas, had just lost many men using Patton like tactics, he wasn’t about to do it again.

    On Dunkirk, you simply say, “were evacuated”. That is only part of the story, they were picked up by an armada of small boats from around the coasts of England, fishing boats, little sailing boats etc., some just ferrying the men from the beach to larger boats, and many making the whole trip several times over.

    Reply
  18. wombat at |

    Great to see MacArthur on this list, he was the most incompetent American General of the war and his ridiculous ego killed far too many men. The American Marines and the Australian Army were the troops that stopped the Japanese in the South Pacific with only hinderance coming from MacArthur.

    Reply
    1. Danram at |

      Couldn’t agree more. I think he is the most over-rated general in American history. He was most certainly brilliant. But he was also arrogant, reckless and insubordinate. I’ll give him his due for Inchon, but that’s it.

      Reply
  19. klaus at |

    The real reading between the lines is that Nazism was never meant to win. Historians spend some of their time arguing about what if B took place instead of A, or if this happened other than that, and so forth, but the bottom line is that Hitler was never meant to win; he had the seeds of his own demise planted within him from day zero.

    The most peculiar thing is that Hitler was no fool, with an IQ of 145-150 and a true streak of genius, yet, Hitler seemed to commit unforgivable mistakes and blunders, ones which attributed to a deranged moron. Though, Hitler biggest blunder (attacking the USSR) was also his biggest contribution: it hastened the collapse and contributed in weakening the communist world at the long run, during the Cold War period

    It could also easily be debated that there was a greater force at work here.

    Reply
    1. Caleb Hobden at |

      I agree with your point of Hitler not being a moron. Example of this would be how fast he got Germany out of their depression. However I don’t agree with your point about Nazi Germany weakening the USSR and therefore the communist world because communism had not peaked and did not until later.

      Reply
  20. Frank at |

    It seems to be very easy to impugn the valor of an individual long after his passing. Douglas MacArthur was many things, arrogant, vain, at times petty but also courageous, intelligent and a brilliant tactician. To state that he “spent the rest of the war lobbying to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his brilliant defense of the place …” is purely untrue. He was recommended for the Medal of Honor (“Congressional” is not part of the name) by General Marshall and it was awarded in April of 1942. Hardly the “rest of the war”. Additionally, MacArthur was ordered by President Roosevelt to relocate to Australia. MacArthur discussed the idea with his staff that he resign his commission and fight on as a private soldier in the Philippine resistance but Sutherland talked him out of it. MacArthur initially wanted to decline the medal. He chose to accept the medal on the basis that “this award was intended not so much for me personally as it is a recognition of the indomitable courage of the gallant army which it was my honor to command.” This is hardly the sentiment of an individual seeking awards for himself.

    A little more research before casting aspersions, please.

    Reply
  21. Peter David at |

    The idea that the Japanese could have destroyed the repair and fuel facilities at Pearl Harbor is a myth.
    Check out “The Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions” by Alan Zimm.

    Reply
  22. thylacine at |

    I would have to rank the surrender of Singapore by the British to a much inferior numbered Japanese force. Most POW’s did not survive the camps, the death marches and the building of the thai-burma railway. Absolutely disgusting.

    Reply
  23. JSS at |

    What about Kurland kessel (pocket) ? And Latvian soldiers @ ww2?

    Reply
  24. SteveA at |

    Everyone is missing the Greatest Blunder of WWII. Hitler’s declaration of war against the US!!!

    Reply
    1. Dan at |

      As an American, consider that the Russians were responsible for well over 70% of Nazi military casualties. In the end, the decision to invade the USSR was far more costly to Nazi Germany.

      Reply
  25. Jerry Helzner at |

    In reading the list and all the comments regarding it, I actually think it is helpful to put up such a list and then let people with knowledge of the events go at it.
    Personally, I have read many of the WWII books by Rick Atkinson, Andrew Roberts and many other historians — and look forward to reading more as they come out.
    Putting Anzio on the list is problematic for me — The Italian campaign was always shortchanged as so many assets were needed in preparation for the Normandy landings, so caution was prudent when you don’t have overwhelming forces. Also, a deep penetration into Rome from Anzio might well have led to an encirclement and Allied forces being trapped. However, anything that involved Mark Clark could always be questioned as he grandstanded his way into Rome when he should have been cleaning out German opposition that was very vulnerable if he would have focused on the fighting instead of on Rome.
    Stalin made a number of blunders that could be mentioned. He trusted the Germans not to attack him. He pushed out his frontier forces so that they were in an indefensible position. He purged the armed forces of almost all of its top leaders just prior to the outbreak of WWII. It was almost as if Hitler and Stalin took turns making huge mistakes.
    But I have to give the so-called “backward” Russian economic system for the T-34 tank and the Stormovik fighter. Who would have ever though they could beat the Germans in technology.
    I had cousins at the Battle of the Bulge, at Normandy, and my dad was on the cruiser Bremerton for the surrender ceremonies at Tokyo Bay. We talk a lot of military history in our family.
    Sometime, I would like to make a list of 10 greatest military achievements of WWII — and take the positive side of these arguments.

    Reply
    1. Peter David at |

      Jerry, I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but USS Bremerton (CA-130) was not present for the surrender ceremonies at Tokyo Bay. She was on the other side of the world (Casco, Maine to be precise) on September 2 1945.

      Reply
      1. Spastico Plastico at |

        Ouch. That will destroy the WW2 chats in that household.

        Reply
  26. Danram at |

    I’d have to rate Hitler’s invasion of Russia as the war’s biggest blunder. If he was going to invade Russia, he should have fully subjugated England first. The day Hitler made it a two-front war was the day he lost it.

    Reply
  27. Harrison at |

    Though I’d list some problems with your points.

    -The Liberation of the Philippines-
    Well if Doug hadn’t of liberated the islands, it would of been disastrous later on. The Philippines was absolutely vital to the resupply of all campaigns that came after it. How would they of supplied the Okinawan forces without control over the Philippines. Also, it leaves the Japanese in a much better position. They can harass the ships coming by the Philippines, and they may not surrender. When they did surrender, all they had was Japan. But with Japan and the Philippines, it may prolong the war because they feel their in a good spot. Most likely, the US would have to invade it later anyway. Lastly, as posted above, Doug didn’t run away, he was ordered to leave.

    -Kursk, Russia-
    Here, I almost 100% agree with you. The Germans should have learned after Stalingrad that they had lost on the Eastern front. Perhaps if they had used those troops to defend better, the Soviet push could of been slowed by a lot. The war had been decided earlier when the Germans failed to take Moscow, but this just made a bad situation terrible.

    -Anzio-
    No complaints here, good points. Only thing I feel the need to point out is that daring encirclement was not the West’s style of battle.

    -Italy-
    First off, if Italy was neutral the Germans would not of won the war. Its debated whether they were better to have them or not, but they weren’t the reasons the Germans lost. The African wars also drew Allied troops, who could of gone to Britain, and D-Day could of come sooner. Or Dunkirk may of succeeded. Either way, it would of been bad for the Germans.

    -Fall of France-
    Well the Magniot line really has nothing to do with the Fall of France. The main reason was the French doctrine of battle. It was so outdated and slow to react, they were guaranteed to lose any prolonged battle. As for the Line, it actually held up really well. All German attacks against it were repulsed, and it only fell when the French pulled troops away to deal with other areas. Also, the French were aware that the line in the North was weak, thats why they put almost all of their troops there. Although I agree, it was unintelligent not to put more time and effort into completing the damn thing.

    -Philippines Defence-
    You seem to have a particular distaste for General MacArthur. Doug made a lot of mistakes, like not consolidating his forces and trying to defend everything, and losing his Air Force the first day, which was kinda hard to avoid. But even with his mistakes his defence of the Bataan peninsula was brilliant. It delayed the Japanese immensely, and gave America the one thing it needed, time.

    -The London Blitz-
    Here read this, http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/Sealion.html It’ll tell you that Operation Sealion was completely impossible in the same timeline leading up to 1939. If the Germans continued bombing airfields it wouldn’t of mattered, because of what the RAF planned to do. All fighters would withdraw to Scotland, out of range from the Germans. Then when Sealion happened, the planes would all move south, denying the Germans air superiority. As for bombing, it was never really effective. Even in 1942-44 when the West bombed Germany extensively, it was never overly effective. That was with far superior bombers and numbers too, the German bombing would of done even less. I agree it was stupid to switch the target, but it didn’t matter at all really.

    -Operation Barbarossa-
    Unable to defeat Britain, who are unable to do anything but bomb Germany. It seemed the perfect time to invade the Soviet Union. They had failed miserably in the Finnish War, so the Germans though they could defeat them easily. The US was pro-allies, but showed no signs of entering the war anytime soon. Hitler fully believed, with decent logic, that he could fight in Russia for 2-3 years, then return and defeat the British, after all he cant predict when the States gets involved. As mentioned above, there was really no way for Germany to defeat Britain. Maybe submarines, but that would of taken away from other areas of the war, and the British would just counter by putting more industry into Anti-Submarine measure. Also, it would of taken too long.

    -Pearl Harbor-
    It was launched with the intention of wiping out the American Pacific fleet, which it did a decent job of doing. It wasn’t Japans fault the carriers just happened to by away at the time. In their arrogance and ignorance, they never expected to fight the Americans in a long war. So why bother destroying a forward post. The goal was to cripple them, and reduce morale. Which is accomplished by sinking their ships. Unleashing the operation on Pearl Harbor was stupid, but considering what they wanted to achieve, the way they did it was intelligent.

    -Dunkirk-
    As I’ve mentioned, Germany could never invade Britain, so the troops aren’t “Needed” to defend her. Also, a little known fact is that when they got back, most when straight back to France where they fought until the final pullout, with many becoming POW’s and not making it. Britain would still of been defended by the Home Guard Militia, and thousands of troops from Canada. Thats if the Germans could invade, which they couldn’t.

    -Operation Stalingrad-
    I agree here. The Germans over committed themselves, and focused on achieving too many objectives. Hitler should of allowed Paulus to retreat, when it was clear the Germans weren’t going to win.

    Reply
  28. Garcia at |

    In my opinion Stalingrad and Kursk were the most important battles of World War II because after those two battles Hitler was on the defenssive.

    Reply
  29. Charles Houghton at |

    Your list is so rife with inaccuracies, mistakes, biases and outright falsehoods, I don’t even know where to begin. And shame on RealClear for even posting such crap.

    10. The decision wheether or not to invade the Philipinnes was weighed against further bloody island battles in the Central Pacific Campaign, of which Adm. Nimitz had already a poor track record for choosing. It played no role whatsoever in postponing the invasion of Okinawa. But since you mentioned Okinawa, why is that missing from your list? It was already known within the highest command in Washington that the Manhattan Project would very likely rule out an invasion of japan, making Okinawa useless.

    6. While we’re on MacAurthur and the Philipinnes, I’ll jump to number 6. The defense was a delaying action, very critical at that time. AND, MacAurthur received the Medal of Honor in 1942, check your simplest facts before you start mouthing off. But that at least completely ruled out the most base legitimacy to your list. You don’t know much, but you have much to say.

    Reply
    1. jb at |

      6. At the start of World War II the Philippines was a Commonwealth of the United States. MacArthur was U.S. Military Advisor to the Philippines since the late 1930’s and assisting them to establish a means for the Philippines to defend themselves. I believe that alone is reason enough for us to have troops there when war with Japan was eminent. Our blunder was leaving our troops there with no further support from the U.S. As mentioned earlier we screwed up when we failed to transport food, medicine and weapons to Bataan rather than leaving them behind for the Japanese to get their hands on the supplies. This greatly shortened our defense of the Philippines and set our soldiers up for the Death March and 3-1/2 years of the worst treatment, abuse and beatings of the war.

      Japan’s goal was to capture the Philippines by the end of January. Bataan held out until early April and Corregidor for another 3-4 weeks. I’m sorry I don’t recall the source but Japan believed the war was lost at that time. This additional time gave us time to get our defense plans for the Pacific in place. If the Philippines fell within 50 days (late January) would Midway have been moved up 3 months to early March? If so, we would have lost that one. We did not break the Japanese code until May which enabled us to learn of Japan’s plan to take control of Midway in early June. The most important battle for the U.S. in WW II was the phenomenal defense of the Philippines by our soldier’s, in my opinion. Not only did it give us 3 extra months to our make plans for the Pacific, it allowed us time to continue with our commitment to England. What would Roosevelt have done if all at once (late February – early March) Japan was at Midway and within a few flying hours of Hawaii.

      Reply
  30. GUV at |

    Some woefully inaccurate generalizations here,the worst of which are the implication that failing to withdraw earlier from Stalingrad may have cost the germans the chance to develop the atomic bomb first!! There was no way this was ever going to happen.
    The Battle of France was a massive disaster and utter rout for the West yet we are told that the main blunder came from the winning team at Dunkirk!! Of the men who did flee safely to England[most of the equipment was left behind] a third were repatriated to France anyway and the rest were involved in peripheral campaigns or used at D-Day by which time the war was effectively lost for the Germans.There was nothing decisively decided at Dunkirk except the defeat of France and the end of Britain as a continental player.
    Operation Sealion is regarded as a bluff by many historians[and many German Sources] so the importance attached to the Battle Of Britain is not substantiated.Goering’s usual incompetence was on display with switching of priorities but it was not a decisive issue. Of course it is a matter of national pride for the English so the manipulation of history continues.
    Similarly national pride on the part of Americans and Filipinos has seen many people post objections to the author’s take on Macarthur and the Philippines but in this instance he is correct.Macarthur was an abominable man whose inflated reputation depended on lies and PR spin.His initial defence of the islands and his abandonment of his men [he disobeyed many orders but not the order to save his own skin] were lamentable episodes.

    Reply
  31. jack Causon at |

    Biggest blunders of WW2 in Europe.
    1. Putting an in- experienced general in charge of the European campaign. 2. Fighting on an extended front. 3.Delay in opening the port of Antwerp. 4.Unconditional surrender for Germany. 5.The Ardennes. Battle of the bulge.6.Poor tank design.

    Reply
  32. David at |

    This guy’s dislike of MacArthur is stupid and childish. The notion in (6) that MacArthur was trying to defend the entire Philippine archipelago is simply incorrect. Mac had 12,000 US soldiers, and 100,000 lightly armed Filipino Scouts. He didn’t disperse his defense efforts across all the islands…. Everybody knows that he deliberately CONCENTRATED the bulk of his forces in central Luzon waiting for the main attack; which he correctly believed would fall on the in the Lingayen Gulf, and proceed toward the Pampanga river delta. He was just outgunned, that’s all. MacArthur kept his eye on the ball, and thru necessity ignored Japanese landings at Cotabato, Zamboanga, Davao, Infanta, Vigan, Laoag, Panay, Cebu, and other locations … waiting for the climactic battle.

    Reply
  33. Genma Saotome at |

    One wonders what if….

    Barbarossa hadn’t been delayed by 6 weeks? Or had been pushed out to the spring of 42, allowing the Germans to use more troops to take Suez? Clearing the Med in ’43 increased Allied shipping capacity by a third simply by shortening the route from the gulf oil terminals.

    Churchill had persuaded we Americans to be more aggressive in Italy by landing further north… and on reaching the Poe River Valley to push NE towards Vienna.

    Japan had invaded Hawaii on Dec 7, 1941. Much more useful than what they actually did: occupying Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Burma.

    Reply
  34. Fred at |

    I think it was a big blunder that Japan didn’t invade the Soviet Union instead of attacking Pearl Harbor. Japan and Germany didn’t coordinate very well, it seems, contrary to all those propaganda cartoons I saw on TV while I was growing up where Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini were always together. Anyways, the Japs thought the US would enter the war regardless of whether they attacked or not. They didn’t appreciate Roosevelt’s political problem had we not been attacked.
    I would also say that Hitler’s invasion of Poland was a blunder. The Germans didn’t expect war with England and France as a result. They were surprised.

    Reply
  35. John at |

    Operation Keelhaul, (repatriating Jews back to Russia after the war) While this alone isnt a blunder, it was a very shameful act by Eisenhower. Secondly, The Marshall Plan, giving Eastern Europe to Stalin. Despicable. Marshall and Ike were stooges of Stalin.

    Reply
  36. David at |

    The truly biggest blunder of the war was the toothless “guarantee” of Poland’s absurd boundaries, provided by the UK and France in 1939, smack dab in the middle of a major border argument between Germany and Poland. The war which followed hastened the end of all the European empires; and led to an exhaustion from which Europe still suffers. I hope NATO becomes careful about extending similar guarantees to small countries. Think how the Russia-Georgia War of August 2008 could have escalated if the U.S. had stepped in.

    Reply
  37. joe p at |

    Sick and tired of listening to all you nazi lovers . Bottom line germany decides to assist italy in n. Africa runs back to germany with tail between legs . Decides to attack britain runs back to germany with tail between legs . Decides to attack russia runs back to germany with tail between legs . Get over it you dopes the only reason the german people even exist as a race is due to the humanity of there conquers ! Sick and tired of listening to all the excuses as to why germany lost the war . They loss because they were inferior to thier enemies . Jokers!

    Reply
  38. jan Malherbe at |

    Germany won many battles but lost the war due to overextending herself , they should have left the Russians alone and dealt the British (arrogant Island dwellers) the knockout blow by taking the middle east and consolidating the med into a axis lake , this was the advise of the German high command , but Mr Hitler was obsessed with bringing down communism ( good idea but to risky Russia to big, to many Russians , nasty weather). Mr Hitler became overambitious and gambled away his empire he had built with such speed and brilliance! But that the Germans were consumate soldiers, no person with a decent appreciation of matters military will deny , so to you above my friend, you obviously dislike Germans and your statements are oversimplifications of the first order!

    Reply
    1. Caleb at |

      Hitler had little to do with with the success of his forces early in the war. The Germans in my opinion lost the war at the battle of Dunkirk(if you’d call it a battle) as they allowed the entire British expiditionary army escape along with soldiers from many other nations. And those “arongant” island dwellers beat German in not 1 but 2 world wars so tread carefully. However I would have to agree that the German military was probably man for man the best of the war

      Reply
      1. jan Malherbe at |

        If having the help of almost the rest of the world ; 3 empires , Soviet, American and all the dominions of the British empire to beat those nasty nazis,(Ww-2) is called a beating of the Germans in both ww1 and 2 by the British then I suppose you are right the British did beat the Germans in both wars. There is only one nation who can come close to claiming they ‘beat’ the Germans and that is the Russians (Ww-2 at least) 14 million casualties later , the Ruskies did by far most of the bleeding to defeat those tactically brilliant Germans, and by means of swamping them with vastly superior numbers, yet even then in the last desperate (for the Germans) months of the war , they still exacted a 2 to 1 kill rate against their enemies , a remarkable feat like so many other remarkable feats by the Germans in matters military!

        Reply
  39. Caleb at |

    I do not deny that that Germans fought well in both war. In both wars the fates were decided early on in my opinion. In the first war the Germans failed to secure the diplomacy they needed and that left them with 2 failing empires as Allies along with a few other minor nations. Otto Von Bismarck said that for Germany to win a major war they would need the support of 2 other major Europe nations/empires. In ww2 the Germans high command made a huge mistake in attacking Russia when they did and probably should have read a book about the history of russia and why it’s a bad idea to invade them. Now exacting a 2-1 casualty rate is good but I would fail to call it impressive many nations have caused a much higher rate and won the war on top of that. Now before you say that the Russians are the only ones who can claim they beat the Germans take a look at the early part of ww2 and the failure of the Luftwaffe to destroy the RAF and look at the inability for the Germans to launch a successful invasion of an island.

    Regards
    Caleb

    Reply
  40. jan Malherbe at |

    Note that I spesifically said the 2-1 kill rate was in the final period when Germany was finally being crushed by overwhelming odds against them, the true achievement of the Wermacht was the fact that it could keep the fight going against overwhelmingly superior enemies(numerically and materially) The BoB being an outright British victory is one of the longest standing propoganda lies concocted to bolster a nation that was in desperate situation reeling before the blows of a superior enemy the battle was more like standoff , the Luftwaffe taking unsustainable losses(bombers esp), and Hitler growing impatiant , knowing time was his enemy and the friend of his foes, read the battle statistics for that fight and you will come to the conclusion the Jagdflieger in their Bf -109 ‘s were getting the better of the RAF fighter command’s Spitfires and Hurricanes , regardless of the British having the home advantage the 109’s short range etc, compared to daylight British bomber command attempts against German targets with contemporary equipment in the form of twin engined Wellington’s the Germans faired pretty well under the circumstances. The BoB was a draw if anything, an unresolved battle due to Hitlers turning his attention to a much larger fish to fry in the east with dire consequences for the thousand year Rheich!

    Reply
    1. Frank M at |

      I had been refraining from joining this particular conversation because, honestly sir, I felt you were goading individuals with what appeared to be comments skewed to make you appear to be either a troll or a neo-nazi. Please understand I am accusing you of neither. However, your last comment which states that the Battle of Britain was, at best, a draw seems to strain credulity. If you were to look at the statistics, as you were fond of citing earlier, Britain had the obvious advantage.

      The definitive statement, however, should come from Luftwaffe General Werner Kreipe, who described it as a “strategic (Luftwaffe) failure” and “turning point in the Second World War”. Kreipe also states the “German Air Force was bled almost to death, and suffered losses that could never be made good throughout the course of the war”.

      I would recommend reading General der Flieger Kreipe’s “The Fatal Decision:Six Decisive Battles of the Second world war from the Viewpoint of the Vanquished.” It should give you a somewhat more balanced perspective.

      Frank M., MA, History

      Reply
  41. Caleb at |

    I’m not quite sure how you think that the Battle of Britain was only a British victory because of propaganda. The failure of the Germans to develop a 4 engine bombs became the downfall of their Luftwaffe. The statistics show that the British and their allies fought off superior numbers and defeated the one of the if not the strongest airforce in the world. The war for the Germans was over they foolishly invaded Russia before England was captured, they invaded the Balkans which cost them time they didn’t have to spend and they attacked Russian which I think was a huge mistake. I don’t believe that the Wehrmacht deserve the credit that you give them they fought no harder than any other army in the same situation.

    Regards
    Caleb

    Reply
  42. Caleb at |

    If that is your opinion or point of view then there is nothing I can say to change that, it is not my aim to to change that, but it stands clear to me that our appreciation of things are different, to me the Germans are the undisputed champions of recent large scale warfare , the statistical facts bear that out, if you don’t see it that way you are entitled to your opinion.

    Reply
  43. Harry at |

    To begin, I want to express my gratitude to all those who died in that terrible war, fought for the right cause. Eternal glory to them and memory. At the same time – eternal shame to politicians whose greed led to enormous casualties. More and more files become declassified and now we can say with certainty that the cause of the war was not a romantic struggle between two ideologies or with absolute evil. The reason for the start of any war, as this one has always been money and land, and remains so to this day. Looking back you realize that you can not change human nature, it is understood by all the great minds of all times and peoples. And in this case the rulers feed us with lies, as always before, in order to stay on the throne longer. Indeed, as Churchill said, “History is written by the winners,” so they did – “written” it for what they need. West created Hitler, while he was admired before the war, not only for his hatred of communism. Financed, west forgave all violations of disarmament treaties by him, the annexation of several countries, and everything to push him with an ulcer in Europe – the USSR. Russia in the early 20th century planned to be divided by rapidly developing and suffering from a crisis countries into zones of influence under the control of the leading powers – the yesterday enemies of theWorld War I. Interest was strictly economic, see geological map and you’ll understand why. The German people had been deceived by the most brutal manner – West slipped to them a psychopath, and doomed german people to shame for many years. Japan has also been forced to attack the United States because of economic pressure on it’s part. America needed an excuse to enter the war officially, and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was not surprise at all. As well as the attack on the Soviet Union was not abrupt, Stalin did everything not to give Hitler a pretext for an attack, although provocations by German troops on the border was a lot. Do you think that Hitler struck a preemptive strike of the USSR? If the USSR had not ended war with a reputation as a superpower, the genocide in its territory would continue to this day but by financial corporations of the alliance, as it was during the Civil War in Russia. (Yes, concentration camps are not a German invention – it’s British, and if not disgusting attitude of the alliance to the civilian population, the Communists would not have won the Civil War.) God knows what the world would look like if it all went on an original idea, but I assure you , could be much worse.

    Reply
  44. Mac in 48 at |

    MacArthur received his MOH in April 1942, so I don’t see how he could have lobbied for it for the duration of the war. What he did lobby for, prior to the war, was for the US to prepare for war with Japan.

    Reply
    1. jimbo at |

      Perhaps MacArthur did lobby to be ready for the Japanese; but that makes me wonder how come his defense of the Philippines was so pathetic. He had over 200 planes; mostly P-40s a type which was used to great advantage by the Flying Tigers, from the accounts I’ve read these were largely destroyed on the ground in neat rows with no air patrols prior to the invasion and not a single Japanese plane downed by US aircraft? Even Pearl Harbor defenders did better than that without any warning. During the initial invasion the US had 30,000 men (12,000 were captured alone at the Bataan surrender, 3000-4000 captured later at Corregidor and most of the remaining either left isolated, captured or killed prior to those surrenders, a few were evacuated with Mac Aurthur who was “ordered to leave”). A numeric equivalence ought to have been an advantage to defenders, had US and Filipino troops been adequately trained the allied forces would have been at substantial advantage over the invading Japanese . Instead the troops were ill trained and lost any chance; for example the US had better M3 tanks but the troops were not trained to use them; which lead to defeat by less capable Japanese tanks. Mac Arthur had prior warning given the attack on Pearl Harbor – and since he been advocating for a preparing, it is surprising he appeared to be completely caught with his shorts down. Sounds like he ought to have taken his own advice. Perhaps the Japanese were underestimated, they themselves were evidently timid; instead of Midway later on, they ought to have planned to invade Hawaii following up the destruction of the US fleet. Even with the US carriers being unaccounted for they had a 2 to 1 advantage.

      In any case Mac’s performance up to 1942 hardly justifies a Medal of Honor award unless turn tailing and running leaving his troops was considered an act of conspicuous bravery. No doubt the US needed hero’s and wanted to avoid the embarrassment of a top General being captured but perhaps he could have defeated the Japanese had he prepared his own troops.

      Reply
  45. Goetz von Berlichingen at |

    Harry, you are delusional. The Germans created Hitler. Nazi-apologists like yourself could very well lead to the next one.
    And that Churchill quote? Sure are plenty of books that have been written by the losers.
    You strike me as yet another German rationalizing the legacy of his people.
    Schande.

    Reply
    1. Harry at |

      I am not a nazi-apologist, i hate nazies, it’s in my blood. I was born in USSR right before it’s collapse. Russia of 90-es was a country where “patriotism” was almost a crime in the eyes of simple people. We was taught that we are nothing and west is ewerything. Some people in other former soviet republics thought that nazies was a liberators… calling us a true criminals… and west supported them as long as they keep talking that way. That confused me… still do… That continued untill we regained our selfrespect in 21-thcentury. But it doesn’t mean we didn’t draw conclusions from recent history. I know you have no idea what i’m talking about, after all your media is less freely than in Russia. (that i will newer doubt after 08/08/08) ))) Check sponsors of the gratest tyrant of all times and his sympathisers in Brtain and USA if you able… and compare their actions and intentions according to the ideas of the west of the early 20th century. There was “nothing” wrong untill he started to lose. (Dont tell me about Britain joined the war after Hitler attacked Poland, there still was planty of room to negotiate peace from both sides, before Hitler completely gone mad.)
      Different times – different thinking. Easier to blame someone who is already dead. Politicians all a bunch of lying sons of bithes. Yet again, Hitler was a usefull tool against communism untill it started to be clear, that he is unstable, and going to lose…

      Reply
  46. percynjpn at |

    The author does not seem to realize that FDR, Ernest King and Chester Nimitz, George Marshall and Douglas MacArthur, et al. debated WHICH needed to to be invaded, the Phillipines or Formosa. The Phillipines were chosen for various reasons, and they made the smart decision of bypassing Formosa, which would have been a truely big mistake. The Phillipines and its people were liberated and the country became an invaluble tactical and strategic asset for troop mobilization, airpower projection and naval basing and operations for the remainder of the war. Your choice of this as a blunder is hogwash.

    Gen. MacArthur was a self-obsessed egomanic, but he was also a courageous warrior and brilliant commander; your petty insults on his name and character are shameful – if only you could be 10% of the man he was.

    Reply
  47. Jerry Allin at |

    Douglas MacArthur was an egotistical SOB who missed the opportunity to adequately defend the Philipines after having several hours notice (he did nothing) then he flees the island and then publicly rips those left behind for having to surrender to the Japanese. He later rejects medals for those left behind. As if he didnt blunder enough in WWII he continues this poor planning in Korea. He is highly overrated.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *