Prev: «   |   Next: »
  • Danram

    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.

    • all righty then

      The Brits weren’t putting up much of a fight against Hitler, so invading the Soviet Union was actually opening up a first front, not a second.

      Hitler opened up a second front when he declared war on the US.

  • Harrison

    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 It was so outdated and slow to react, they were guaranteed to lose any prolonged battle.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.

  • Garcia

    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.

  • Charles Houghton

    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.

    • jb

      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.

  • GUV

    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.

    • all righty then

      How was he “abominable”?

      What was “inflated” about his reputation? What were these “lies” you reference? What was the “PR spin”?

      What was “lamentable” about his defense of the Philippines? The Brits rolled over in about a week or so, not so the Philippines and MacArthur. History doesn’t support your hyperbole, I’m afraid.

  • jack Causon

    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.

  • David

    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.

    • Higginbotham

      Too bad several silly factual errors and biases weren’t avoided… such as the author’s flatly false claim in (8) that Italy ‘unleashed’ an invasion of Greece … and Albania… in 1940. He even says “yes, I said Albania”. My reply? No, not Albania! Albania was annexed by Italy in early 1939, moths before the war ever broke out, and a year and a half before Italy struck at Greece.

      Have you noticed that none of these “blunders” were committed by Britain? All were committed by the Germans, Italians, the French, the Americans, or someone else. Not the British. They apparently were golden! Looks somewhat fishy.

      I wonder why the dogged U.S. defense of the Phillippines makes the list… but not the surrender at Singapore. This was one of the most titanic defeats in all world military history; certainly in British history. 80,000 men, many fully armed, and without having seen battle, were instead surrendered into the tender mercies of the Imperial Japanese Army, by the asinine British general Percival.

      But no, that doesn’t make this list.

  • Genma Saotome

    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.

  • Fred

    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.

  • John

    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.

  • David

    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.

  • joe p

    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!

  • jan Malherbe

    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!

    • Caleb

      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

      • jan Malherbe

        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!

        • all righty then

          They never exacted a 2 to 1 kill rate against the Americans. The US military killed the Germans 5 to 1 minimum. But yes, the Brits and Soviets were killed always at a 3 to 1 clip always, in both world wars. The Germans were far superior to both of them.

  • Caleb

    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

  • jan Malherbe

    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!

    • Frank M

      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

      • all righty then

        Well, no offense to General Kreipe, but Nazi aircraft production skyrocketed in the years following the brief and indeterminate aerial skirmishing over England in 1940, so their minor losses in that minor skirmishing were quite easily made good, many times over.

        • Frank M

          Since the comments of a former Air Chief of Staff don’t seem to convince, perhaps using statistics will.

          You mention how Nazi aircraft production “skyrocketed in the years following…” Let’s look at that;
          Bomber production, 1941, in Germany – 3373, Britain – 7943. 1942 – Germany – 4337, Britain – 11692. 1943 – 4799, Britain – 15075. 1944 – Germany – 2351, Britain – 16009.

          Fighter production, 1941, Germany – 3744, Britain – 7064. 1942, Germany – 5358, Britain – 9859. 1943, Germany – 10059, Britain – 10722. 1944, Germany – 24981, Britain – 10532.

          As we can see from the numbers above, insofar as bombers were concerned, British production skyrocketed while Germany had steady increase until 1944 when it dropped dramatically.

          As to fighters, other than 1944 (four years after the Battle of Britain) Germany’s production of fighter aircraft lagged behind Britain’s production. It could be argued, though I will not do it here, that the substantial increase in fighter aircraft production in 1944 was due to significant losses on both the Eastern and Western Fronts. Suffice it to say that 1944 was the only year in which it could be said that Germany’s aircraft production “skyrocketed”.

          I sincerely doubt that even these figures will convince you however. I would ask that if you make a statement such as that, please back it up with statistics and references.

          That being said, if major historians as well as historical figures fail to convince you of the importance of the battle and its repercussions as to the strategies of the Third Reich, I doubt that I will be able to do so. Indefensible Ignorance.

  • Caleb

    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

  • Caleb

    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.

  • Harry

    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.

  • Mac in 48

    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.

    • jimbo

      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.

  • Goetz von Berlichingen

    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.

    • Harry

      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…

  • percynjpn

    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.

  • Jerry Allin

    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.

  • van den Berg

    Operation Market garden was a to optimistic plan from Montgemery. A desaster for so many people citizens and alied force. Nazi Terror could maybe finnished a year earlier but went that went wrong.

    But even that…..
    I thanks the man and woman who gives there blood for our freedom, something we never forget.

  • Ben

    Big Military Blunders don’t always result in major defeat. The Battle of The Bulge is one example of this. I consider The Battle of The Bulge big blunders for the both the Allies and Nazi Germany. The Allies were so caught of guard it made men from top to bottom shit their pants. The few soldiers at the front, and then the generals away drinking champagne to celebrate their brilliance, didn’t know what hit them. There was pathetic shock, confusion, chaos, terror, disaster, misery and death. It was a big failure in military intelligence, strategic prudence and tactical readiness. The decision-makers back at Allied HQ underestimated the German’s ability to mount a major offensive, and then doubted Patton’s ability to rush to the rescue (fortunately, he outflanked them). While, Germany could not stop their sealed fate, it was a huge Allied embarrassment that resulted in traumatic horror in the field and in the civilian communities in the German offensive’s path. As a footnote, I met a very dignified 91 year old man last year (2014) who served in Patton’s army. He told me how he spent a long time freezing his fingers and toes off in a foxhole while fellow soldiers all around him were being shredded and blown to pieces, while wondering how their army could have gotten this so wrong.

  • Soren

    Extremely annoying to see the term ‘England’ being used here. Try and remember that the UK is not just England. There are four countries that make up British Isles. Also the fact that the dominions also constituted a large part of the British Empire as it was then, contributed millions of troops to the cause. Its just naivety to keep spouting England all the time.