Worst military mistakes.

[AntiTank]

Hitler never would have busted Paulus out. He had given him strict orders not to surrender.
The trap would have closed anyway. With few reinforcements and the flanks secured by inferior Romanian and Hungarian troops (no offense to those countries, they just didn't have the same equipment as the Germans) the Russians would have trapped the 6th army. Even the Russians where surprised that they did it so easy.

And about torch, by the time the American's landed, the British had pushed the Rommel out of Libya and into Tunisia. By then even Hitler knew that is was a lost cause and he merly wanted to stall the British as much as possible. But he wouldn't send extra materials and men to that front, he never had and never would.

Operation Torch definatly speeded up things in Africa but to say that thanks to Operation Torch the Russians could capture the 6th army is exaggerating the effect of that operation and taking away credits for the Russians who plotted and executed the trap.

Does the point still fly past you or do you have an inability to read German Deployments and the effects of lend lease?

Once again all the Fronts of WW2 are interconnected. Also for God's sake its the USSR, not Russia. Russia didn't exist.

As with regards to Paulus, Hitler did finally authorize Paulus to break out when Manstein made his relief attempt. All Paulus had to do was just put up a picket screen and link up with Manstein. Instead he just sat and let his army die.

Though to tell you the truth, I won't shed a tear over Sixth Army's demise. The Wehrmact was just as guilty as the SS in Warcrimes when one considers that the Wehrmact, not the SS ran the POW camps in which millions of USSR POWs died, the Wehrmact on several occasions told its soldiers not to fire on POWs as it wasted ammo, not to volunteer for SS clearing actions as it robbed men from the front, and not to rape women due to venerable disease outside of approved brothels.

[bovi]

Russia didn't exist.

Certainly it did. It was the Soviet Union, so this statement is the same as saying California or Germany doesn't exist as they're part of unions. But indeed the warring entity was USSR and not only Russians.

[Meothar]

@ Antitank

Situation in Germany 1917 was desperate, even without the USA. Germany had fewer losses than France and Britain but also had a lower population (In 1914 Germany+Austria-Hungary: 121 Mio. France+GB+Italy: 121 Mio. Russia: 160 Mio). The offensive at Verdun was lost in 1916 and German forces retreated to the Siegfried-line.
Germany suffered from the British blockade, there was starvation in winter 1916/17 and in the "Coal-crisis" the industry was not able to produce enough supplies for the army. Inflation accelerated and war exhaustion was high.

So the USA were not the heroic saviour but just another enemy against a country that was already close to losing the war.

[AntiTank]

@ Antitank

Situation in Germany 1917 was desperate, even without the USA. Germany had fewer losses than France and Britain but also had a lower population (In 1914 Germany+Austria-Hungary: 121 Mio. France+GB+Italy: 121 Mio. Russia: 160 Mio). The offensive at Verdun was lost in 1916 and German forces retreated to the Siegfried-line.
Germany suffered from the British blockade, there was starvation in winter 1916/17 and in the "Coal-crisis" the industry was not able to produce enough supplies for the army. Inflation accelerated and war exhaustion was high.

So the USA were not the heroic saviour but just another enemy against a country that was already close to losing the war.

Utterly false. In late 1917, the Germans had won the Ukraine Breadbasket, so their food situation was stable. Verdun had no effect on the German Army, as a matter of fact the Germans did win Verdun. They reduced the French to a few fortifications while they took all the Strategically vital ground and accomplished their objectives.

I suggest reading Myth of the Great War by John Mosier and follow it up with the sources he provides.

[Meothar]

Utterly false. In late 1917, the Germans had won the Ukraine Breadbasket, so their food situation was stable. Verdun had no effect on the German Army, as a matter of fact the Germans did win Verdun. They reduced the French to a few fortifications while they took all the Strategically vital ground and accomplished their objectives.

I suggest reading Myth of the Great War by John Mosier and follow it up with the sources he provides.

The book you mention is not unchallenged because of the onesided position the author takes. And sources in wartime are always filled with propaganda.

Verdun was not a victory for Germany but an offensive that failed to reach the goal (Verdun) and was repelled. In the end, both sides have lost an equal number of soldiers and no advantage. Without intervention of the USA, Germany would perhaps been able to delay the end of the war until 1920 or such, but no chance for winning.
But I think it's not the right place to discuss this. WW1 was one big military mistake.

[Cbvani]

WW1 was one big military mistake.

From a military perspective, yes. The tech on the western front was such that a well established defense was nearly impenetrable.
Also on a diplomatic level. But then, war is the failure of diplomacy.

[Chris1959]

It seems strange that most people see WW1 as a "static" war and this was the cause of the "heavy" casualties sustained by combatants when some of the highest loss rate were during the periods of intense manouvres at the start and end of the war, The Battles of Lorraine, Grand Couronne, Michael Offensive etc.
WW1 is probably a period whose history will be greatly re-written in the future as generations become more detatched from the setimentality of "1914 when the world as it should be ended and the world as it is began".

[machinor]

Without intervention of the USA, Germany would perhaps been able to delay the end of the war until 1920 or such, but no chance for winning.
But I think it's not the right place to discuss this. WW1 was one big military mistake.

I don't think so. In 1917/18 the British gained one decisive military advantage over the Germans: tanks. The British already had them in mass production while the Germans were still only having a handful prototypes of useless designs. The ability to literally just roll through and over enemy lines is a major turning point in military doctrine. This experience led the German military to focus their attention on tank warfare much more intensively in the decades between the World Wars than the Allies, thus enabling Nazi-Germany to effectively blitz all of western Europe, not with better tanks but with a better understanding of the possibilities and necessities of tank warfare.

[AntiTank]

I don't think so. In 1917/18 the British gained one decisive military advantage over the Germans: tanks. The British already had them in mass production while the Germans were still only having a handful prototypes of useless designs. The ability to literally just roll through and over enemy lines is a major turning point in military doctrine. This experience led the German military to focus their attention on tank warfare much more intensively in the decades between the World Wars than the Allies, thus enabling Nazi-Germany to effectively blitz all of western Europe, not with better tanks but with a better understanding of the possibilities and necessities of tank warfare.

Tanks were utterly useless in WW1, they had no suspension system, regular bullets produced by the Germans were able to penetrate the hull, and most broke down before even reaching the starting line.

They made great propaganda tools, but had little impact on the fighting.

[AntiTank]

The book you mention is not unchallenged because of the onesided position the author takes. And sources in wartime are always filled with propaganda.

Verdun was not a victory for Germany but an offensive that failed to reach the goal (Verdun) and was repelled. In the end, both sides have lost an equal number of soldiers and no advantage. Without intervention of the USA, Germany would perhaps been able to delay the end of the war until 1920 or such, but no chance for winning.
But I think it's not the right place to discuss this. WW1 was one big military mistake.

I suggest you look at a terrain map of Verdun from that time and then say that with a straight face.

Also I suggest looking closely at German Casulities by region and you'll find that the German Casulities reports that they printed came from all fronts. End result, the Allies thought they were doing better than they were.

The reality was different, Germany was wining the war of Attrition.

Also I suggest actually reading the Sources provide by Mosier.

[Meothar]

I suggest you look at a terrain map of Verdun from that time and then say that with a straight face.

Also I suggest looking closely at German Casulities by region and you'll find that the German Casulities reports that they printed came from all fronts. End result, the Allies thought they were doing better than they were.

The reality was different, Germany was wining the war of Attrition.

Also I suggest actually reading the Sources provide by Mosier.

The library of the local university doesn't have that book, so I just have to follow the argumentation of others refering to Mosier (is he your single source?). And they seem to criticise his sources, although I don't know if they have done better research.

Verdun itself was not conquered by the German army, just some forts in front of it.
Casualties are always hard to estimate because both sides tend to understate their own and exaggerate those of the enemy.

However, I won't say you are completely wrong with your opinion, I am no expert for WW1 or history in general, just criticising the "German army was uber and only beaten by nearly divine Americans" (figuratively spoken) point.

[Tollheit]

Utterly false. In late 1917, the Germans had won the Ukraine Breadbasket, so their food situation was stable.

Hunger continued all through 1917, 1918 and even beyond. German mortality during the influenza epidemic of 1918 was 250% greater than in Great Britain, thanks to malnutrition. A stable diet of turnips and tree bark.

[Hax]

Coming from our Dutch-Algerian resident this is pretty funny. Dutch never conquered anything since 400 years. And Algeria ? Do these guys have even an army ?

Dutch: In-do-ne-si-a. Don't forget the Dutch controlled it for almost 250 years. Hey, guess what, we still own a part of Saint Martin, or Sint Maarten in Dutch. Look for the Netherlands Antilles while you're at it.

Algeria: Look for the Algerian-Morocco war. Oh, and the resistance vs the French? ;)

Also:

Coming from our Dutch-Algerian resident this is pretty funny. Dutch never conquered anything since 400 years. And Algeria ? Do these guys have even an army ?

Coming from a guy who actually suggested, what was it again, "those blue celtiberian guys" over at the EB2 forum, this is pretty funny. Not to mention "Ptolemaic Felt Cataphracts"..?

But seriously, let's not get into nationalist bashing here. Please.