Greatest Blunders in History

[Hitti-Litti]

Tiny Finland, was very limited in man power (a population at the time of about 7 million, but I think I'm going over a million) and had WW1 era hardware.

Actually our population was a lot smaller, our population hasn't ever been 7 million(current population is something like 5.2 million).

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

I had no idea one of my occasionally idiotic comments would stir up so much people.
Of course I know the Napoleonic Wwars and the history of Belgium.
Actually I did comment once on why Korea even existed(I was on one of my sarcastic-idiotic trends that day in history; all the history teachers called me in and gave me a project of an immense 200-page history essay, which of course, I did not bother to write; from then On I was called the "Madman Traitor of the Nation" by the history profs. as a joke on dinner table conversations.........

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

I hate to say it, but I doubt France and Britian could have stopped Germany once the war started, no matter what really. The Germans possessed better tanks, planes, soldiers, rifles, pistols, artillery, training, Generals, central command, intellegince, logistics, scienctists, R & D, roads, industrial capacity, drive and belief. They also created that type of warfare that the allies copied in order to be affective. Heavy bombing before rushing in with the best tanks around and very well trained soldiers who were swift and mobilized, France and Britian stood no chance.

By the end of the Battle of Flanders, Britian France and Belgium had been humiliated and evacuated 338,226 troops from Dunkirk, I don't have the figures for how many more soldiers were lost.

As far as Germany invading Russia, lets take a look at what caused German high command believing they could defeat the Soviets. In 1939, Russia invaded Finland. Of course, anyone familiar with Russian military history knows Russia's classic (yet absurd) attack strategy. That is the Russion Onslaught, attack the objective with every
available man on every open avenue no matter the losses for either side. Tiny Finland, was very limited in man power (a population at the time of about 7 million, but I think I'm going over a million) and had WW1 era hardware. However, they had the will to fight and knew how the Russians would attack. The result, of course, was a Russian victory. However, if you look at the casualties, it may not seem apparently so.

Finland Losses - 25,000 killed or missing. Another 43,000 wounded.

Russian Losses - Giving conservative figures, atleast 200,000 dead (many say it goes higher, as the Russians had no problem feeding Finnish kill boxes, which were areas of extremely high concentrated artillery fire). Atleast another 400,000 wounded, but may go as high as double that.

In the battle of Suomussalmi, the Russians started with a 3:1 strength superiority. When the battle was over, the Finns lost 900, 1,700 wounded. The Russians lost 27,500, I could only imagine how many wounded as the figure is not listed. That was just one battle.

Ultimately, the Germans felt that they had across the board superioty over the Russians, except total manpower. The fact is, they did. The biggest blunder here is, and I believe another poster said it, was that Hitler took control of German command shortly after the Russian invasion. His Generals up to that point operated with remarkable freedom and it was quite revolutionary. They were given objectives, but it was up to them to decide how the operations were carried out. This led to decisive victory after decisive victory and showed just how brilliant the German generals were. However, Hitler took control, made stupid decisions, had ridiculous objectives, did not listen to his Generals, and severly hampered the German armie's ability to fight. Russia was well on its way to defeat, they had suffered losses of over 20,000,000 at the hands of the Germans (Fighting, bombing, starvation, extermination), and over 25,000,000 by the wars end. They survived because U.S aid, the Russian Winter, and Hitler's own foolishness and ego (HE wanted to be the one who beat the Russians).

Ok, no more sarcastic or idiotic nonsense from me, but did you know that Germany DID NOT HAVE better tanks? Germany might have had all the better stuff, but France had better tanks(which the French Army idiotically decided to use as infantry support) and the Maginot Line. If the Battle of France had become protracted, I would suggest better commanders, reform for the General Staff, the Organization of independent Tank Diviosions, and the Maginot Line as the line of defence. The Maginot Line truely did what it was supposed to; its just that France had Generals who were STILL STUCK IN WWI, and obviously were against Tanks. Just imagine what the French could have done if they launched a conuterattack on the German tank divisions, seperating them from the infantry, thus technically stopping the Blitzkrieg(of course, that's easy to say, but the German tank relied on mobility in the early stages of the war; also somebody would have to solve the German air superiority problem and a way to protract the war so they might actually have a chance; for the German Army was best on the offensive, though their defensive skills were equally impressive). And the cities of France was no Stalingrad.
Also I have enormous respect for Finnish People. (Imagine getting your country getting involved in war three consecutive times)
Of course, the Russians had terrible commanders (and Stalin), but a small country losing only Karelia in the face of an enemy of strong industrial power, manpower, and better weapons is astounding.
I will add Field Marshall Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim and General Hjalmar Siilasvuo to the Famous Generals thread.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Though if Finland would have blockaded the Murmansk railway during the siege of Leningrad, Finland would've been conquered. Blockading that would have prevented Leningrad from getting any help -> Germany would have conquered it -> Mother Russia would've been really mad and not agreed to a peace treaty with Finland and getting Karelia that way, as they would have a good reason to let Finland because of the destruction of Leningrad.

 

[Dragonlord]

I hate to say it, but I doubt France and Britian could have stopped Germany once the war started, no matter what really. The Germans possessed better tanks, planes, soldiers, rifles, pistols, artillery, training, Generals, central command, intellegince, logistics, scienctists, R & D, roads, industrial capacity, drive and belief. They also created that type of warfare that the allies copied in order to be affective. Heavy bombing before rushing in with the best tanks around and very well trained soldiers who were swift and mobilized, France and Britian stood no chance.

I've seen this kind of argument again and again, and it is simply not true for the Wehrmacht in the beginning of WWII! Against Poland the bulk of their tanks were crappy Panzer I and IIs, which had been built as training tanks and were light tanks inferior to most Allied tanks. Against France, these pieces of junk were still around, with some IIIs, IVs (with stubby anti-infantry cannon) and captured Czech Panzer 38(t)s added - none of these were actually superior to the British and French tanks.
True, by the end of the war, Germany had some of the best weaponry around, from the Panther to the ME262 - but most of the really cool weaponry, which has given rise to the myth of the technologically superior German army, was never built and deployed in sufficient numbers to have an impact on the war's outcome.

Also, saying Germany had higher industrial capacity is a joke - they were wayyyyy overmatched by the Allies, even w/o the US. Not to mention that it's industry wasn't even on a war footing at the beginning of the war...

The spectacular successes of the early war years were mostly a matter of superior tactics - the much-lauded Blitzkrieg - against Allies whose generals were still thinking in terms of WWI. Guderians massed tanks ("klotzen, nicht kleckern!"), though individually not superior, were able to smash the driblets of French armor easily enough, which were mostly deployed as infantry support...

Edit: hadn't seen Eretz' post yet ... we make some of the same points! Sorry for the redundancy

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

I've seen this kind of argument again and again, and it is simply not true for the Wehrmacht in the beginning of WWII! Against Poland the bulk of their tanks were crappy Panzer I and IIs, which had been built as training tanks and were light tanks inferior to most Allied tanks. Against France, these pieces of junk were still around, with some IIIs, IVs (with stubby anti-infantry cannon) and captured Czech Panzer 38(t)s added - none of these were actually superior to the British and French tanks.
True, by the end of the war, Germany had some of the best weaponry around, from the Panther to the ME262 - but most of the really cool weaponry, which has given rise to the myth of the technologically superior German army, was never built and deployed in sufficient numbers to have an impact on the war's outcome.

Also, saying Germany had higher industrial capacity is a joke - they were wayyyyy overmatched by the Allies, even w/o the US. Not to mention that it's industry wasn't even on a war footing at the beginning of the war...

The spectacular successes of the early war years were mostly a matter of superior tactics - the much-lauded Blitzkrieg - against Allies whose generals were still thinking in terms of WWI. Guderians massed tanks ("klotzen, nicht kleckern!"), though individually not superior, were able to smash the driblets of French armor easily enough, which were mostly deployed as infantry support...

Edit: hadn't seen Eretz' post yet ... we make some of the same points! Sorry for the redundancy

................. Its all right. You ONLY MISSED the German air superiority and the better soldiers.

 

[Dragonlord]

................. Its all right. You ONLY MISSED the German air superiority and the better soldiers.

Air superiority? Against Poland yes - against France not really, especially with the British Expeditionary Force. But again: better tactics!

Better soldiers... don't know about that either! The Poles certainly fought very bravely and so did most French and British - and German troopers were just as inexperienced as their foes at this point.

What Germany had going for it at the beginning of the war were 2 things:

1.) Innovative tactics that did a better job of utilizing the available new weaponry - Hitler basically gave the innovative generals their head, which was one of his few good military decisions, IMO

2.) The initiative! Strategically the attacker is always in the better position, though tactically defense has the advantage.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Air superiority? Against Poland yes - against France not really, especially with the British Expeditionary Force. But again: better tactics!

Better soldiers... don't know about that either! The Poles certainly fought very bravely and so did most French and British - and German troopers were just as inexperienced as their foes at this point.

What Germany had going for it at the beginning of the war were 2 things:

1.) Innovative tactics that did a better job of utilizing the available new weaponry - Hitler basically gave the innovative generals their head, which was one of his few good military decisions, IMO

2.) The initiative! Strategically the attacker is always in the better position, though tactically defense has the advantage.

No. Gamelin knew what was happening during the fall of france; that's why he concentrated his forces on the meuse line; The way through the Ardennes Forest could have potentially crippled the German Armour, for the Armada of tanks had produced traffic congestion-and tht could have been the GREAT CHANCE for the French bombers to annihilate them, but the FRENCH AIR POWER was FAR TOO WEAK to bomb the Germans in an area so near Germany where German air superiosity was well established.
The real place where the French failed was blocking the Germans in the Aardennes; there was French resistance in the Ardennes, but it was insignificant to face the armada of tanks. Still a French strategical defence(tactically by attacking with their own armouerd units) could have made a difference. But remember Gamelin did not want to take chances. The loss of Sedan was the real loss for the French that spelled French defeat; if the French could have predicted the Germans using bombers instead of using massing artillery and infantry, Sedan might have not been lost, and the war would have been protracted. The AIR SUPERIORITY WAS A HUGE ISSUE; IT COST FRANCE THEIR COUNTRY, but tactics like using armour to river crossings, to punch holes in the enemy positions were innovative for that time; the French simply had no experience on this type of war.
Gamelin predicted some things correctly, but the air superioity was with the Germans and the element of strike fast, stike hard was with the Germans.
If the French had a stronger air force and a Armada of tanks that could counter the Germans in the Ardennes and Sedan ,then history would have been different.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Actually our population was a lot smaller, our population hasn't ever been 7 million(current population is something like 5.2 million).

IIRC our population was about 4.3 million at the time.

 

[innonimatu]

the FRENCH AIR POWER was FAR TOO WEAK to bomb the Germans in an area so near Germany where German air superiosity was well established.

Air power wasn't just too weak, it was ineffective. The allies tried to bomb the german bridges over the Meuse, which might have bought them enough time to prepare a counteroffensive and rebuild a front there, and failed, because air bombing was very inaccurate. They also lost most of their bombers, true (to anti-aircraft guns, not fighters), but had air bombing been effective they'd have succeeded despite the cost.

The loss of Sedan was the real loss for the French that spelled French defeat; if the French could have predicted the Germans using bombers instead of using massing artillery and infantry, Sedan might have not been lost, and the war would have been protracted.

No, the germans had already crossed at Dinant on the previous night. The french simply lacked enough troops or adequate equipment (anti-aircraft guns and anti-tank guns) in the area to delay the enlargement of the german bridgeheads.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Air superiority? Against Poland yes - against France not really, especially with the British Expeditionary Force. But again: better tactics!

Better soldiers... don't know about that either! The Poles certainly fought very bravely and so did most French and British - and German troopers were just as inexperienced as their foes at this point.

OOH how did i not see this discussion! Just going to comment that Poland had to fight 3 fonts, Germany, Russia and Slovakia. Compare that to France, which only fought Germany and Italy. Slovakia was as tough of a front to Poland as Italy was to France. Poland easily had the toughest opponents of all allies at that point.

Now let's see if some French guy starts argueing with me.

 

[philippe]

that's what you get after doing an aggressive war on russia after WWI. The great landgrab backfired there, heh?

 

[TheLastOne36]

It was considered a "defensive war" so Hah!!! We just went defensive over our people in russia...

I have a new york times article from somewhere in the 20's even stating it was a defensive war

 

[philippe]

It was considered a "defensive war" so Hah!!! We just went defensive over our people in russia...

I have a new york times article from somewhere in the 20's even stating it was a defensive war

any excuse is good enough, is it? It was a landgrab, it's simple like that, even your polish general said it.

 

[Bllasae]

So, what were they? Preferably personal blunders, not some inevitable defeat or just disastrious timing or whatnot.
here's a few to start:

-switching from bombing airfields to cities in the Battle of Britain-gave the RAF some breathing space, allowed them to regroup

This was a good thing for our side, mind you .

 

[TheLastOne36]

any excuse is good enough, is it? It was a landgrab, it's simple like that, even your polish general said it.

Correction, it was a landgrab disguised as a defensive war. now Shh!!! we don't want the russians to know!

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Poland is interesting though; its just that they were unlucky ones to get a taste of being attacked by three countries using Blitzkrieg(except the Slovakians)

 

[TheLastOne36]

If russia never attacked, i wonder what the result would be. We were holding our own with Germany and Slovakia, but i'm unsure how long we'd last, and if Britain and France would've sent supplies and troops anyway.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

If russia never attacked, i wonder what the result would be. We were holding our own with Germany and Slovakia, but i'm unsure how long we'd last, and if Britain and France would've sent supplies and troops anyway.

That's hilarious. Making Britain and France move their armies would be impossible. They would have been wiped out.

 

[philippe]

If russia never attacked, i wonder what the result would be. We were holding our own with Germany and Slovakia, but i'm unsure how long we'd last, and if Britain and France would've sent supplies and troops anyway.

four-fiv weeks instead of three.

you'd really think Poland had an chance?