Greatest Blunders in History

[TheLastOne36]

No not really, but we were holding our own, i'm curious as to what the reactions Britain and France would have though.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

No not really, but we were holding our own, i'm curious as to what the reactions Britain and France would have though.

Isnt it obvious? Gamelin and the BEF would do nothing and wait for the Germans to start the Battle of France and lose their country.Duh.
Seriously, the French and British mechanized troops were far too weak and the generals were too stupid to lauch a pre-emptive strike at Germanyfor Poland.
An attack across the Rhine through the Maginot Line migh have been possible, but old Gamelin knew what he was facing, so he didnt to any risks. He should have stopped the Germans at Sedan.(I dont blame him too much, really; French brought this on themselves by being painfully backwards in terms of military thought.)
Charles De Gaulle wasnt amazing either.
The POLESWERE HOLDING OUT ON THEIR OWN?
What? Now that's something to laugh about.

 

[North King]

If you want to talk about blunders in World War Two, one need look no further than Munich. The Allies would have won a war in 1938 with a lot less bloodshed and in a lot less time, without needing help from the Soviets.

 

[TheLastOne36]

We were holding on our own for quite some time, it was the Soviet invasion that killed us. We werent the weak people on horses charging tanks like German Propaganda tells you. (I'm surprised of all the things that of all the German Propaganda told, the charging tanks with horses ended up being the one that foolish americans started believing...)

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

We were holding on our own for quite some time, it was the Soviet invasion that killed us. We werent the weak people on horses charging tanks like German Propaganda tells you. (I'm surprised of all the things that of all the German Propaganda told, the charging tanks with horses ended up being the one that foolish americans started believing...)

Im Asian. Far East Asian. And for one, I dont believe in crappy old German orAmerican propoganda films; I stick to facts.
But yeah, i WAS PRETTY IMPREsSED WITH THE POLISH cavalry.
They acted as elite mobile infantry, and they were useful back when Germany wasnt fully mechanized and the grassroots component of the German Army was the infantry. The cavalry acted more like dragoons, I guess.
YOure right the Soviets did kill you people. But the other thing that decimated Poland was the German artillery. That was important when Germany was attacking the thinly spread Polish soldiers in the Polish corrider.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Yes your right with our calvary. Later on, horses were used to get soldiers close enough to tanks, then they would dismount and try to blow up the tank in whatever ways they were trained to do so(wether it was blowing it up from a distance or throwing a sticky-bomb thing or planting c-4 or something). That's the closest you can get with "Calvary fighting tanks".

 

[amadeus]

If you want to talk about blunders in World War Two, one need look no further than Munich. The Allies would have won a war in 1938 with a lot less bloodshed and in a lot less time, without needing help from the Soviets.

Or the reoccupation of the Rhine, where Hitler himself admitted that Germany's National Socialist experiment would've met a swift end had France been willing to step up.

 

[North King]

We were holding on our own for quite some time, it was the Soviet invasion that killed us. We werent the weak people on horses charging tanks like German Propaganda tells you. (I'm surprised of all the things that of all the German Propaganda told, the charging tanks with horses ended up being the one that foolish americans started believing...)

I never understood why Poles wanted to set the record straight as to your equipment. You do realize that if you had better equipment than we thought, that makes you look worse, right?

 

[TheLastOne36]

I never understood why Poles wanted to set the record straight as to your equipment. You do realize that if you had better equipment than we thought, that makes you look worse, right?

haha, we had tanks to, they were like mini-tanks, only 2 people fit. I gotta find a picture!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

haha, we had tanks to, they were like mini-tanks, only 2 people fit. I gotta find a picture!

They're called tankettes, many nations used them during the 30s. They were envisioned to be faster, lighter tanks, back when tanks only went 4 mph. There are still a few versions of light tanks that are rather similar, and equally useless.

Here is a Polish TK-3.

And here is a Stingray Light Tank, an American light tank only used by the Royal Thai Army.

 

[TheLastOne36]

one more pic of the Polish one:

 

[Agent327]

We were holding on our own for quite some time, it was the Soviet invasion that killed us. We werent the weak people on horses charging tanks like German Propaganda tells you. (I'm surprised of all the things that of all the German Propaganda told, the charging tanks with horses ended up being the one that foolish americans started believing...)

Really? If you look at the Polish western border in 1939 it's obvious it would be impossible to defend against a German attack - especially with forces split and along that border. The only feasible defense would have been focusing on the Warsaw area - and the Soviets only invaded when the outcome already was clear. (Funny how the Soviets repeated that border defense mistake in 1941 and got a taste of it of their own...)

 

[TheLastOne36]

Really? If you look at the Polish western border in 1939 it's obvious it would be impossible to defend against a German attack - especially with forces split and along that border. The only feasible defense would have been focusing on the Warsaw area - and the Soviets only invaded when the outcome already was clear. (Funny how the Soviets repeated that border defense mistake in 1941 and got a taste of it of their own...)

Well yah obviously we would've lost eventually, but before the soviet invasion, we were holding the germans back, but for how much longer? was the question. Germany winning was pretty much obvious. Soviet Union speed up the process.

 

[holy king]

Well yah obviously we would've lost eventually, but before the soviet invasion, we were holding the germans back, but for how much longer? was the question. Germany winning was pretty much obvious. Soviet Union speed up the process.

so i dont see any different reaction from the british had the germans took a week or two longer?

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Well yah obviously we would've lost eventually, but before the soviet invasion, we were holding the germans back, but for how much longer? was the question. Germany winning was pretty much obvious. Soviet Union speed up the process.

No..........I think the Poles might have had a chance though.
If they had not made the mistake of spreading their troops so thinly on the Polish Corridor...........
But the British and the French OBVIOUSLY wouldnt do anything.....Gamelin didnt have the neccessary equipment to do so.......

 

[North King]

But the British and the French OBVIOUSLY wouldnt do anything.....Gamelin didnt have the neccessary equipment to do so.......

Much more accurate is to say the Allies didn't think they had the necessary equipment. They suffered from a hilariously (and tragically) self-fulfilling inferiority complex throughout the first half of the war.

 

[Knighterror1013]

This is incorrect on various points:

- German tanks on the start of WW II weren't superior; the French Char bis, the British Mathilda II and the Soviet T34 were better than the Panzer I-IV series either in armour, firepower or both (Tigers and Panthers - copied of the T34 - only appeared in Kursk 1943)

The Panzers were highly more mobile, and thats the key factor in a tank fight in WW2. Thats why German tank crews obliterated the oppostion. Heavier armour slows you down, and hence leaves open to attack in a tank. The Panzers could often move out of the way of incoming fire and return fire before any opposing tank could reposition itself to return fire. This is easily shown by who won the early tank battles, the Nazis. Enough said, the Panzer was the better tank on the field, although it may not be on paper.

- the attack on the West (Fall Gelb) was a huge gamble, which paid off due to superior tactics (the Blitzkrieg concept notably encompassing close cooperation between armour units and air support) against numerically stronger Allied armies which however lacked effective coordination

But, it paid off. This shows you numbers do not mean everything. Nazi soldiers were WAY better than allied soldiers. They operated in squads with a heavy gunner to protect the advance, they were better trained and had better leadership. I doubt Germany would have launched an all out attack with everything they had if they weren't sure they were going to win. Although, they did do better then they had originally intended.

- the Luftwaffe's failure during the Battle of Britain - while the RAF was in dire straits - was in fact ominous of things to come

You know, Hitler highly overestimated the British. He thought they had more soldiers, ships, and planes then they actually did. He also gave up on Britain to go after Russia.

- the Soviet Western defense was de facto non-existent; theoretically it was a forward defense, but neither that nor the abandoned inland Stalin Line were effective in June 1941; even in 1942 a repeated attack on the Moscow area was expected, hence the adequate defenses there

This is also around the time he took leadership away from his Generals.

- German intelligence on the Soviet military situation hugely underestimated the number of tanks (some 8,000, making the Soviet tank force the largest in the world - though seriously outdated) and Soviet resilience in general

- Operation Barbarossa was flawd from the outset, as it divided the Axis thrust into 3 army groups, each with separate and ultimately unattained goals: Leningrad, Moscow and the Caucasus oil region - with the Axis declaration of war on the US in December 1941 (following Japan's offensive away from the Soviet Asian border and into the Pacific) the Anti-Komintern as a whole wase in effect doomed, despite the seemingly spectacular successes during 1942.

Very true, but he needed the Caucasus oil region. Many of the battles in Russia required Germans to find and sieze badly needed fuel. The original plans were to destroy Russian command in Moscow, which would have severly hurt the defending forces, however it was moved to Novgorod. Then again, most of the Russian campaign was under Hitler's command. Had it been under his Generals, the results may not be different, but the overall fight would have probably lasted much longer. He needed the Caucasus oil region as bad as he needed Norway. The Germans had no real steady supply of fuel, and many of thier actions were indeed to secure a permanent supply. Look at the middle eastern nations they funded to fight off the British for independence. That was not because Hitler like muslims. If he helped them gain thier independence, they could help out with the fuel problem.

 

[Sharwood]

Much more accurate is to say the Allies didn't think they had the necessary equipment. They suffered from a hilariously (and tragically) self-fulfilling inferiority complex throughout the first half of the war.

This is true. The Allies were actually more than capable of defeating Germany in 1939, if they had invaded. They couldn't have occupied the country of course, but they didn't have to. Cross the Rhine, force the Germans to abandon their invasion of Poland, probably raze the Ruhr before withdrawing, National Socialism would take a massive blow. And without German support, it's doubtful the USSR would invade Poland.

 

[Agent327]

A big What if? here. Seeing as the Allies blundered their defense in 1940, I don't really see how they could have attacked in 1939; the real Allied blunder was Munich 1938 and the appeasement policy in general, which allowed Hitler to bolster home support and demand total obedience of his generals, in fact shoring up his dictatorship.

Very true, but he needed the Caucasus oil region. Many of the battles in Russia required Germans to find and sieze badly needed fuel. The original plans were to destroy Russian command in Moscow, which would have severly hurt the defending forces, however it was moved to Novgorod. Then again, most of the Russian campaign was under Hitler's command. Had it been under his Generals, the results may not be different, but the overall fight would have probably lasted much longer. He needed the Caucasus oil region as bad as he needed Norway. The Germans had no real steady supply of fuel, and many of thier actions were indeed to secure a permanent supply. Look at the middle eastern nations they funded to fight off the British for independence. That was not because Hitler like muslims. If he helped them gain thier independence, they could help out with the fuel problem.

I don't think the notions and ideas of a WW I corporal (the highest rank Hitler achieved by merit) qualify to lead an entire army through WW II. Germany needed the Caucasus oil? Then the same analysis applies: resources weren't sufficient to achieve 3 separate goals in 1941. If the Caucasus oil really was vital to the Axis war effort, then why didn't the Eastern front collapse when this objective wasn't attained? Even with blundering Hitler's leadership - a key issue in the abandonment of a British assassination plan - and the loss of the Rumanian oil field supply in 1944 no fronts collapsed because of this. Only the moronic Battle of the Bulge finally deprived Germany of any resources whatsoever for a sustained Eastern defense. In the end all this matters little however. The original blunder was the appointment of Hitler as chancellor in 1933 - when Nazi support in elections was actually starting to decline -, which never should have been allowed to happen.

 

[RoboPig]

Not really a blunder, but Henry Tandey gave up a pretty good chance to kill Hitler before he became Fuhrer.