The Worst Military Decisions in History

ford man xf · 08-01-2015, 03:42 PM

http://www.billionairesaustralia.com...ons-history-2/

Don't really think most of them were the worst, although some were. Don't agree with Hitler attacking the Soviet Union as a bad decision, he caught them off guard and pushed deep into Soviet territory, it was the worst winter they had seen in a generation that halted progress, had that winter not been as bad as it was things would have been different in Stalingrad.

CoupeKing · 08-01-2015, 04:09 PM

Yeah Hitler made plenty of mistakes, biggest one was probably declaring war on the Yanks. Although he didn't have much choice I mite add. Also delaying operation barbarossa by 6-8 weeks, and not going straight for Moscow cost him big time. Kursk was another blunder, he let the enemy build a massive defence belt. Keeping Goering at the helm you were bound for failure. Bombing London instead of those last few spitfires......

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was another massive failure. Brilliantly executed but it failed to achieve its main goal, take out American carriers, none were there! And not to mention you just woke up the worlds biggest industrial power.

superyob · 08-01-2015, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

Yeah Hitler made plenty of mistakes, biggest one was probably declaring war on the Yanks. Although he didn't have much choice I mite add. Also delaying operation barbarossa by 6-8 weeks, and not going straight for Moscow cost him big time. Kursk was another blunder, he let the enemy build a massive defence belt. Keeping Goering at the helm you were bound for failure. Bombing London instead of those last few spitfires......

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was another massive failure. Brilliantly executed but it failed to achieve its main goal, take out American carriers, none were there! And not to mention you just woke up the worlds biggest industrial power.

American forces were vastly inferior to the German units and would have presented Hitler with no real problem had the bulk of his forces not been tied up in Russia. So I would suggest that declaring war on Russia may be the biggest military blunder of the 20th Century...

marty351 · 08-01-2015, 08:40 PM

Going back a bit further, Spartacus. Together we stand, divided we fall.
And as for Hitler, he was on our side. Multiple mistakes, ignoring facts, crony generals and completely misguided (megolomania) is the main reason why the OSS and the SOE cancelled all attempts to assasinate him. Had he just listened we would be in a very different world.

Road_Warrior · 08-01-2015, 08:47 PM

Hitler's decision to invade Russia cost him the war. It was his own racist paranoia that drove him to concoct the idea. Hitler was, for all intents and purposes, a dumbass (amongst other things) who thought he knew better than his experienced generals. He may have been a great political strategist and understood regional geopolitics of the time, but his military ideas sucked balls big time. The command structure he had in place for the military was such that no General, Admiral or Marshall had complete authority over the military formations under them - they all had to defer to the Fuhrer at some point for permission for certain things.

To that list I would have to add the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

marty351 · 08-01-2015, 09:07 PM

Corporal in chief.

Bossxr8 · 08-01-2015, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

American forces were vastly inferior to the German units and would have presented Hitler with no real problem had the bulk of his forces not been tied up in Russia. So I would suggest that declaring war on Russia may be the biggest military blunder of the 20th Century...

Hardly. He nearly pulled it off. The Germans absolutely blitzed the reds in the first few weeks, and were well set to have Moscow under their control if not for the brutal winter weather that closed in and stopped them in their tracks. They were completely unprepared for the extreme cold and the rain and snow bogged all the tanks and machinery. If it had of been a mild winter it would probably have been a different story.

Hitlers idea to attack the Russians and not invade England was because he considered the Russians were historically the enemy of Germany and not the English.

XR6WGN · 08-01-2015, 10:09 PM

There was an excellent documentary on SBS last night, "Cold War, Hot Jets"

Wasn't quite a Military Decision but the cash-strapped English Gov't selling some fighters and jet engines to Russia wasn't one of the best!!

Here's the English thinking that the "backward" Russians couldn't reverse engineer the equipment until they introduced the MIG 15 which used the same British jet engine but was over 100 mph faster!!!

If you are into plane history - it's a good documentary.

Road_Warrior · 08-01-2015, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6WGN

There was an excellent documentary on SBS last night, "Cold War, Hot Jets"

Wasn't quite a Military Decision but the cash-strapped English Gov't selling some fighters and jet engines to Russia wasn't one of the best!!

Here's the English thinking that the "backward" Russians couldn't reverse engineer the equipment until they introduced the MIG 15 which used the same British jet engine but was over 100 mph faster!!!

If you are into plane history - it's a good documentary.

Yeah I watched that too - what the hell were they thinking!

minheim · 08-01-2015, 11:17 PM

Hitler's initial attack on Russia (Operation Barbarosa) was not a mistake and but for an early harsh winter he would have taken Moscow and forced a Russian surrender on his turns which would have given Germany the resources to be a super power in Europe. The absence of an eastern front in 1941 would have forced Britain to the peace table and probably have focussed America solely on a Pacific war. I would be looking at the earlier World War for more worst military decisions which caused massive casualties for metres of useless earth and the resolution of which sowed the seeds of WW2.

**Fordman1** · 09-01-2015, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minheim

Hitler's initial attack on Russia (Operation Barbarosa) was not a mistake and but for an early harsh winter he would have taken Moscow and forced a Russian surrender on his turns which would have given Germany the resources to be a super power in Europe. The absence of an eastern front in 1941 would have forced Britain to the peace table and probably have focussed America solely on a Pacific war. I would be looking at the earlier World War for more worst military decisions which caused massive casualties for metres of useless earth and the resolution of which sowed the seeds of WW2.

I disagree Bararossa was always doomed to failure.

The Russians were moving all of their industry East of the Urals, newer military hardware was coming on line, and the German army was still 'powered' for most part by the horse. It ( the German Wehrmacht ) wasn't the almighty armored behemoth that many think it was in 1941.

The supply chain and logistics of the German army was already strained beyond belief by Autumn 1941, and troops on the front line were faced with many shortages. Military loses were far greater than what had been planned by the German high command (even up to Winter 1941).

Napoleon took Moscow, that didn't turn out too well for him ....

It was never about Moscow, it was about the willingness of the Russian population and leadership to do whatever it took to win, including the calamitous early defeats.

Regardless, Germany would never have defeated the Soviets. It was a huge mistake by Hitler and his cronies.

On the other hand if the Nazis had of been armed with nuclear weapons ?

superyob · 09-01-2015, 08:10 AM

Churchill declared that Germany had lost the war the moment that he heard about Barbarossa...

Without American aid things would have been much harder for the Russians. Most books I have read on the subject quote German personell who point to the unforeseen and unplanned for effects of a bitterly cold winter and an overwhelmingly numerically superior number of manpower drawn from the east parts of Russia...

Another bad military decision was made by the French, who supposedly had the most powerful army on the planet and completely underestimated German capability. In hindsight (which is always helpful) how was WW1 thinking and the Maginot line going to keep France safe in the age of tanks and air power? The Wermacht gave France a wedgie over that one...

MAGPIE · 09-01-2015, 08:18 AM

Thought Gallipoli might have got a mention.

For me the worst military decision of the modern era belongs to Argentina, and they're still crying about it.

xr8 007 · 09-01-2015, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Thought Gallipoli might have got a mention.

For me the worst military decision of the modern era belongs to Argentina, and they're still crying about it.

The hardcore Argies are still crying about it,,,yes however imho the Argie government at the time never really believed they could have won the war. They didnt think England where going to react like they did. It was all a ploy to divert attention away on what was happening at the time with the military dictatorships of the past and the human rights atrocities of that era. Smart in one way, divert attention away from human rights abuses dumb on the other hand as the English won the war easily. Not sure if they took into consideration the England was having a economical break down at the time at it also served the government leverage to detract attention from the unemployment rates etc and M Thatcher went from zero to hero.

worst military decision imo, Vietnam hands down...

zilo · 09-01-2015, 09:39 AM

Worst military decision I can think of was the coallition of the stupid to invade Iraq based on false intell of WOMD.

**GasoLane** · 09-01-2015, 09:46 AM

This thread reminds me of an old joke that used to go around when I as a kid.

Why are most French roads lined with trees?

Because the Romans/Germans like to march in the shade

**PridenJoy** · 09-01-2015, 10:11 AM

Don't agree Nato and USA invading Afghanistan was a bad decision, the place was/is a sesspool for terrorists and extremists and the Taliban were in charge of the country bringing it back to the 10th century, something had to be done. Whether anything siginificant was achieved after 10 years is another matter.

Invading Iraq was just plain stupid, set that country back in several ways and I doubt it will ever recover, all for a personal vendetta.

As for Hitler, there is a doco on Youtube called Hitler Greatest story never told. Polarizing but may surprise a few.

superyob · 09-01-2015, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilo

Worst military decision I can think of was the coallition of the stupid to invade Iraq based on false intell of WOMD.

I think you are getting your political ideology mixed up with military decisions...

2011G6E · 09-01-2015, 10:55 AM

Hitler ignored the ancient dictum "Don't try to fight a war on two fronts". That was part of his downfall.

superyob · 09-01-2015, 11:14 AM

Charging into the certain death of machine gun fire in WW1 would be up there for bad decision making...

Others that spring to mind; King Darius of Persia trying to dislodge 300 Spartans from a narrow pass (is this myth or did it really happen), French declaring war on Prussia in 1870, Arabs declaring war on Israel at any time, Russia declaring war on Germany in WW1...

superyob · 09-01-2015, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Hitler ignored the ancient dictum "Don't try to fight a war on two fronts". That was part of his downfall.

WW1 was also a 2 front war for Germany...

minheim · 09-01-2015, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

I disagree Bararossa was always doomed to failure.

The Russians were moving all of their industry East of the Urals, newer military hardware was coming on line, and the German army was still 'powered' for most part by the horse. It ( the German Wehrmacht ) wasn't the almighty armored behemoth that many think it was in 1941.

The supply chain and logistics of the German army was already strained beyond belief by Autumn 1941, and troops on the front line were faced with many shortages. Military loses were far greater than what had been planned by the German high command (even up to Winter 1941).

Napoleon took Moscow, that didn't turn out too well for him ....

It was never about Moscow, it was about the willingness of the Russian population and leadership to do whatever it took to win, including the calamitous early defeats.

Regardless, Germany would never have defeated the Soviets. It was a huge mistake by Hitler and his cronies.

On the other hand if the Nazis had of been armed with nuclear weapons ?

Barbarossa was not always doomed to defeat. In the 1990s "documents were published in Russia that left no doubt about Stalin and Beria's assessment in mid-October 1941 that the Red Army was facing imminent collapse and that Moscow could not be held. The NKVD under Beria attempted to initiate a negotiated peace settlement with Germany via the Bulgarian ambassador in Moscow and was prepared to pay by way of the cession of extensive territories." (source - Heinz Magenheimer Hitler's War - Germany's key strategic decisions 1940-1945). The Germans did make it into the outer suburbs of Moscow.

Moscow had much more strategic importance in WW2 than Napoleonic times. It was an important transport hub and production centre. Moscow in 1941 was the centre of the soviet state. All rail traffic went through Moscow, significant arms were still being manufactured in Moscow. The ongoing alteration of rail gauge conversion by the Germans from narrow to wide would have continued to progress at 20 km's per day ensuring that German resupply to and via Moscow would have been achieved and been seamless. If the Soviets were to continue which would be seriously doubtful they would have had to pull back. Supplies from Murmansk and Archangel would have been disrupted permanently without the rail corridor and Leningrad would have surrendered. Moscow would have secured German objectives on the Northern flank comprehensively and would have significantly compromised Russian capability. The fall of Leningrad would also have released Finnish forces for wider action. One also cannot under estimate the political and propaganda consequences of conquering a capital on both the home and opposition front.

**Uncle_Ken** · 09-01-2015, 04:40 PM

How about Hannibal's strategy in the 2nd Punic War? For a country that could build better ships more quickly than the Romans he did stop the Romans for destroying his country. He had assumed the Romans would (like Hitler) give up.
Japan hoping the US would sue for a truce.
I could go on
UK

**Fordman1** · 09-01-2015, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minheim

Barbarossa was not always doomed to defeat. In the 1990s "documents were published in Russia that left no doubt about Stalin and Beria's assessment in mid-October 1941 that the Red Army was facing imminent collapse and that Moscow could not be held. The NKVD under Beria attempted to initiate a negotiated peace settlement with Germany via the Bulgarian ambassador in Moscow and was prepared to pay by way of the cession of extensive territories." (source - Heinz Magenheimer Hitler's War - Germany's key strategic decisions 1940-1945). The Germans did make it into the outer suburbs of Moscow.

Moscow had much more strategic importance in WW2 than Napoleonic times. It was an important transport hub and production centre. Moscow in 1941 was the centre of the soviet state. All rail traffic went through Moscow, significant arms were still being manufactured in Moscow. The ongoing alteration of rail gauge conversion by the Germans from narrow to wide would have continued to progress at 20 km's per day ensuring that German resupply to and via Moscow would have been achieved and been seamless. If the Soviets were to continue which would be seriously doubtful they would have had to pull back. Supplies from Murmansk and Archangel would have been disrupted permanently without the rail corridor and Leningrad would have surrendered. Moscow would have secured German objectives on the Northern flank comprehensively and would have significantly compromised Russian capability. The fall of Leningrad would also have released Finnish forces for wider action. One also cannot under estimate the political and propaganda consequences of conquering a capital on both the home and opposition front.

Would have, could have, if.

Barbarossa was the worst military decision in History.

As I mentioned logistics killed Barbarossa, railways, horses, trucks, sea freight couldn't win the "tyranny of distance".

It's foolish to assume "would have's and if's" would have had completely changed the course of the campaign.

History is what it was and no "what if 's" will change it.

In the end the T34, Soviet Industry, and the mobilisation of Soviet manpower won the war.

**Uncle_Ken** · 09-01-2015, 06:13 PM

To have any chance he would have needed a full assault from Japan from the East and for Japan not to attack the US
UK

superyob · 09-01-2015, 06:13 PM

There are many websites that disagree with the apparent superiority of the T-34. According to them, it was unreliable, poorly manufactured and manned by unskilled operators. It would be good to get a first hand perspective by crews from either side to get a real idea...

**Fordman1** · 09-01-2015, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

There are many websites that disagree with the apparent superiority of the T-34. According to them, it was unreliable, poorly manufactured and manned by unskilled operators. It would be good to get a first hand perspective by crews from either side to get a real idea...

The T34 wasn't superior it was a revelation to the Germans.

It meant the Germans had to develop armour to gain the upper hand.

In tank warfare training is everything. I know.

But having the technology, equipment, military tactics and ultimately numbers is what counts.

CoupeKing · 09-01-2015, 06:58 PM

When the first batch of T-34`s were launched, they didn't have any radios nor did the crew have any tactics. Having said that, just a handful could wreak havoc behind the Wehrmacht's lines. Basically at that stage of the war only an '88' could take them out(or plane) Normal anti-tank weapons would just bounce/reflect off the angled armour. Also it wasn't uncommon for them to not only leave the factory without any paint, but sometimes the actual workers would man them. As most Tanks did have their problems (they also used to carry spare transmissions on the back amongst troops) the advantage the T-34 had over the Axis was not only weight in numbers, buts its fundamental design could be easily updated. Wasn`t over-engineered like a Panther etc.

**Uncle_Ken** · 09-01-2015, 07:06 PM

It was a war of attrition that the Soviets won, the Germans should have fully mobilised in 1939 not 1943
It might have helped if he looked at Napoleons mistake as well
UK

Itsme · 09-01-2015, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford man xf

http://www.billionairesaustralia.com...ons-history-2/

Don't really think most of them were the worst, although some were. Don't agree with Hitler attacking the Soviet Union as a bad decision, he caught them off guard and pushed deep into Soviet territory, it was the worst winter they had seen in a generation that halted progress, had that winter not been as bad as it was things would have been different in Stalingrad.

If Hitler had listen & taken advise of his generals Russia would have capitulated, he masterminded his own demise by not trusting his own military command structure