Worst military mistakes.

[Ludens]

If oil was the problem, Hitler should have concentrated on North Africa and drive on through the Middle East. However, he didn't trust Stalin, and he had reason. The Soviets had already occupied several border areas that they had agreed were German. Also, the Red army was massing on the German border. It's speculated they were positioned there for an attack that would take place a year or so down the line, but it's still was very provocative. Fortunately for the Germans, the Reds were in attack columns that had been placed way to close together, effectively paralysing them during the first days of operation Barbarossa. The fact that they were commanded by incompetent lackeys didn't make things better either.

[AntiTank]

umm well the big mistake adolf did was starting a war with russia ...wasn't ready for a 3 frontal war should have killed the other ones firstly

Actually his fatal mistake was declaring war on the U.S. in hopes Japan would strike the USSR from behind.

Once Hitler did that, Germany was doomed.

Otherwise Hitler would have won. Remember, Germany took on far more foes in WW1 and nearly won till American Forces arrived and turn the tide.

[Mindaros]

The United States was very much a participant even before that, aiding both Britain and the USSR.

[Celtic_Punk]

the first stages of Barbarossa Stalin ordered his men to let the germans advance, they then surrounded them raped them. (see destruction of the 6th Army after stalingrad) there were just too many ruskies to round up. some prisoners of war were caught several times before they ever saw a camp. millions of troops behind the germans lines causing havok on their supply lines. Russia was (like for napoleon, and still would be, and always will be) a logistical nightmare. As I always say, The only way to take Russia is from the inside. Stalins gamble paid off beautifully. sure he lost milllllllliions of men, but that wasn't really a problem for Russia, given their high population. They had so many people they couldn't even afford to give them all guns. half would get a clip of 5 rounds, and the other half got a rifle. "the one with the rifle shoots, when he dies, the one with the ammo picks up the rifle loads and shoots." Sometimes I thank the Gods I wasn't a wartime Russian.

[AntiTank]

The United States was very much a participant even before that, aiding both Britain and the USSR.

But not as a Belligerent.

[Cullhwch]

the first stages of Barbarossa Stalin ordered his men to let the germans advance, they then surrounded them raped them. (see destruction of the 6th Army after stalingrad) there were just too many ruskies to round up. some prisoners of war were caught several times before they ever saw a camp. millions of troops behind the germans lines causing havok on their supply lines. Russia was (like for napoleon, and still would be, and always will be) a logistical nightmare. As I always say, The only way to take Russia is from the inside. Stalins gamble paid off beautifully. sure he lost milllllllliions of men, but that wasn't really a problem for Russia, given their high population. They had so many people they couldn't even afford to give them all guns. half would get a clip of 5 rounds, and the other half got a rifle. "the one with the rifle shoots, when he dies, the one with the ammo picks up the rifle loads and shoots." Sometimes I thank the Gods I wasn't a wartime Russian.

Eh, that whole "men sent to the frontlines without guns" thing is mostly an exaggeration from WWI. The Russians were actually pretty well-supplied during WWII after the initial German advance. They also largely eschewed rifles in favor of submachine guns. Quantity has a quality of its own.

And Stalin didn't "let" the Germans advance at all. After hearing news of the initial attack, he holed up in a country villa and only ordered his generals to "drive them back with powerful blows." He was too shellshocked to come up with any real strategy and his subjects suffered for it.

[Celtic_Punk]

i've never heard that. I'd like to see a source saying so. if stalin really did do that the germans advance to moscow and stalingrad would not have been so swift. the russians were waiting till the germans were deep into russia and for winter to come, knowing full well they were not prepared for it.

[Mindaros]

But not as a Belligerent.

No, but by the time the Americans were finally driving back the Germans in Normandy and Italy the turning point of the war had already passed - the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, for instance, had ended (without American armies).

[AntiTank]

No, but by the time the Americans were finally driving back the Germans in Normandy and Italy the turning point of the war had already passed - the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, for instance, had ended (without American armies).

Which were only possible because, one America supplied the USSR with critical supplies, such as food, boots, reliable telephone wire, trucks, rail and locomotives, avgas, etc.

Also by entering the War America obliged Hitler to send divisions to Norway, Divisions to the Mediterranean Theater, and yet more divisions to Vichy France.

Thats men who could have tipped the scales in Stalingrad. It also pulled Luftwaffe Squadrons from the Ost Front as well along with needed transport planes.

So by just by entering the War, America indirectly won Stalingrad as much as the USSR did.

There is a saying "Victory has many Fathers" and it rings very much true in WW2.

[Celtic_Punk]

I wouldn't say the Americans won Stalingrad as much as the Russians. thats a wee bit disrespectful to the Russians who fought and died in that place. they contributed in a way, but by no means did they equal what the Russians gave in that city.

[davidtotalwar]

I think Napoleon made some pretty massive mistakes in the Napoleonic War. He was a great military commander but a very poor diplomat. France ended up at war with so many nations she just could not cope. Another problem with Napoleon's diplomacy was he could never compromise and give a peace treaty which other nations could except. This lead to situations like when he demanded Austria to surrender he gave them such a harsh peace treaty that they would never except it so Austria would continue the fight meaning that the number of enemies France would have to face would not go down.

The US decision to invade Canada in 1812 was not a particularly bright decision either.

PS AntiTank some of your comments have been a little generalised, and saying US equally won the Battle for Stalingrad is not correct, that victory belongs to the Red Army just as much as the victory in the Battle of Britain belongs to the British Empire and the victory at Midway belongs to the US.

Also in World War 1 the main players where the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire on one side and British Empire, French Empire and Russian Empire on the other side. It was those 6 nations which would win or lose the war other nations played only a minor role.

the US did not "turn the tide" as America came into the war very late on and the quality of their armies was not partially high, they provided numbers yes but the weren't much good for any thing else.

I am only trying to give you objective criticism nothing offensive.

[ironanvil1]

Actually his fatal mistake was declaring war on the U.S. in hopes Japan would strike the USSR from behind.

Once Hitler did that, Germany was doomed.

Otherwise Hitler would have won. Remember, Germany took on far more foes in WW1 and nearly won till American Forces arrived and turn the tide.

I'd dispute that, WW1 was pretty much over by the time US troops arrived, their presence hastened the end of the war but the writing was already on the wall for the Germans.

In WW2 the Germans over the long haul are still going to lose even sans US involvement as a belligerent, with a long, long bloody struggle on the Eastern front and Germany unable to invade the UK in the West. It'd probably end in mushroom clouds over Germany somewhere down the line.

[kuzduck]

worst series of military mistakes: wars the french fought

[Hegix]

worst series of military mistakes: wars the french fought

Are you just trying to be funny or do you have any type of rationale for that statement?

[Lysimachos]

Are you just trying to be funny or do you have any type of rationale for that statement?

I think it is a reference to this joke.

Of course they were not really that unsuccessful in reality

[Hax]

Well, it's true that France has never won a war in 200 years.

[Chris1959]

WW1, WW2 eventually, American War of Independence, Crimean War, Algeria 1830's, Franco Austrian War.......
As a Britain I like to take the sap out of the French like the rest but I always think it is wise to remeber every French village has a statue of a Poilu with a hell of a lot of names on it!

[AntiTank]

I wouldn't say the Americans won Stalingrad as much as the Russians. thats a wee bit disrespectful to the Russians who fought and died in that place. they contributed in a way, but by no means did they equal what the Russians gave in that city.

How does an honest assessment equate an insult?

I should point out that the Allies captured more Axis soldiers in Tunsia than the USSR did in Stalingrad at nearly the same time.

Please actually study the campaigns as connecting fronts rather than separately and ask yourself, what was sacrificed in one front to fight in another and you'll start to see how all the fronts were interconnected.

[Bovarius]

How does an honest assessment equate an insult?

I should point out that the Allies captured more Axis soldiers in Tunsia than the USSR did in Stalingrad at nearly the same time.

Please actually study the campaigns as connecting fronts rather than separately and ask yourself, what was sacrificed in one front to fight in another and you'll start to see how all the fronts were interconnected.

Their is a big difference in the number of captives and the total loss of soldiers for the Germans.
The Germans lost more men and materials in Stalingrad then in Tunisia, because the situation was very different. Tunisia was a side-show and the weather was way better then Stalingrad.

And another note on the captives: Germans surrendered much more willing to the western allies then to the Russians.

[AntiTank]

I'd dispute that, WW1 was pretty much over by the time US troops arrived, their presence hastened the end of the war but the writing was already on the wall for the Germans.

In WW2 the Germans over the long haul are still going to lose even sans US involvement as a belligerent, with a long, long bloody struggle on the Eastern front and Germany unable to invade the UK in the West. It'd probably end in mushroom clouds over Germany somewhere down the line.

"sigh"

1) I hate to break it to you, but the Germans would have won if America had not entered.

One: The French and British were too incompetent and utterly demoralized by years of defeats at the hands of the Germans. Neither the French or British had much to show for their efforts, while the German consistently beat the crap out of them and took a fifth less causalities than those two powers. The Russians did far better, but still had their problems.

Two: If America hadn't floated loans and weapons to the British and French once the war started France and Britain would have been unable to continue it as the Germans took over the main French Manufacturing areas and the Germans held most of Europe's explosives industry.

Three: The AEF by staying separate from Allied Command was able to gain intelligence of the German Offensives that the other Allies ignored and thus were able to position units to block the German thrusts.

Four: The AEF with its Argonne Offensive, cut the German's main rail supply line and made their hold in France untenable, thus pushing the Germans into surrender.

2) Without America's intervention in WW2, the USSR is doomed.

One: America supplied the USSR with 59% of its Aviation Fuel, 2.5% of all automotive fuel, 92.7% of its railroad tracks, 81.6% of all locomotives, 80.7% of all railcars, 33% of all explosives, 45.2% of all copper ore, 55.5% of all aluminum, 30.1% of all tires (considering the inferiority of USSR tires, this is an affect all out of proportion to its numerical value, also the UK also delivered 103,500 tons of natural rubber), 27.9% of all machine tools (again these were far more advanced than USSR machine tools and had a far greater impact than the numerical value indicates), 29.5% of all sugar, 15.1% of all meat. This is in addition to 14,795 Aircraft, 7,056 Tanks, 51,503 Jeeps, 375,883 Trucks, 35,170 motorcycles, 8,071 Tractors, 90 Cargo ships, 105 Submarine Hunters, 197 Torpedo Boats, 7,784 Ship Engines, and 15,417,001 pairs of Army boots.

If the USSR doesn't receive these shipments, then they are looking at 2.5 million men who have to be taken out of combat to work in the factories, several million men out of combat due to malnutrition or disease. Plus a supply network that isn't supplying much of anything.

Two: The Germans are averaging a five to one kill ratio against Soviet Forces, so the Soviets are losing the war of attrition. Also the Germans captured a large percentage of Soviet Manpower in early 1941 along with the USSR's breadbasket and coal basket. Many areas that Stalin controls are prone to rebellion and he has to station assets there to keep them in line.

Three: Without America in the war, Germany can send an additional 100 divisions to the Ost front, not all are necessarily Wehrmact divisions, but they will add the necessary punch to knock Stalin out in 1942-43.

[AntiTank]

Their is a big difference in the number of captives and the total loss of soldiers for the Germans.
The Germans lost more men and materials in Stalingrad then in Tunisia, because the situation was very different. Tunisia was a side-show and the weather was way better then Stalingrad.

And another note on the captives: Germans surrendered much more willing to the western allies then to the Russians.

The point seems to fly right past you.

The Torch Landings pulled a large number of Axis forces and Aircraft into Africa when they were needed in Stalingrad, it also had Hitler sending even more desperately needed men into Vichy France.

Had Torch been delay just two weeks(which it nearly was), the Soviet Offensive would have been less successful as desperately needed Transport Aircraft would have been available along with several divisions to bust Paulus out.

[Sarcasm]

American by any chance?

[Bovarius]

The point seems to fly right past you.

The Torch Landings pulled a large number of Axis forces and Aircraft into Africa when they were needed in Stalingrad, it also had Hitler sending even more desperately needed men into Vichy France.

Had Torch been delay just two weeks(which it nearly was), the Soviet Offensive would have been less successful as desperately needed Transport Aircraft would have been available along with several divisions to bust Paulus out.

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.

[AntiTank]

American by any chance?

Irrelevant if I am.

[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.

[Sarcasm]

Irrelevant if I am.

No more than when asking if Livy was Roman at least.

[Hax]

Hey, check this out. John Mosier was an American as well! Coincidence..?