Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
General Snafu.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
What politician, or monarch of the 20th century, made the biggest military blunders whilst playing General.
Churchill, L.B.J. Hitler, Czar Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm II, or ...... -
Message 2
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
Mussolini I suppose, declaring war on UK.
Charles the 1st bad decisions and command lethargy allowed him to miss opportunites to capture cities.
Czar Alexander against Napoleon in the Auserlitz campaign. Allowed himself to ignore Kutozov advice on a trap and went ahead and attacked Napoleons right wing! -
Message 3
Posted by Trident_MKV (U2431765) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
i might have to go for ludendorff, his attention for detail was the reason the germans were better on a level of individual battles rather than the overall objectives
he seemed to lack oversight in the broader areas of war
he completly lost it at the end and was useless -
Message 4
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
Hitler, undoubtedly.
He ordered Operation Barbarossa, believing the same old rubbish that everyone who ever invaded Russia thought. That the whole country was a a rotten structure, and one well aimed kick would bring it crashing down. How wrong could a man be? He had not read his history, that Napoleon had got as far as capturing Moscow, but ended up having to retreat during the Russian Winter, and lost the majority of his men. Hitler seems to have thought himself a better general than Napoleon, to think he could better this. In fact he simply destroyed the Grande Armee, and destroyed his own European empire forever, and Hitler simply repeated the feat on a much more bloody, long winded and destructive scale.
Cheers
DL -
Message 5
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
What politician, or monarch of the 20th century, made the biggest military blunders whilst playing General.
Churchill, L.B.J. Hitler, Czar Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm II, or ...... Β
Has to be Hitler. No other politician had the opportunity to play General as much as he did. (Possible exception Stalin, although he didn't play General as much as interfere).
Churchill interfered, but never "played" General. If he came up against determined oppostion he backed down.
Monarchs, possibly King Leopold of Belgium. It was such a bad move proclaiming neutrality prior to WW2. (Yes, expat32 the British aren't exactly clean on this one, however if Leopold was willing to allow French and British troops onto Belgium soil it may have given the UK Government a pause for thought).
Cheers AA. -
Message 6
Posted by dbe1977 (U1823125) on Sunday, 13th November 2005
hitler made the biggest blunder of all by the things he thinks he could of done . and then killing him self to escape his punishment for crimes against the jews and other's
-
Message 7
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Monday, 14th November 2005
Bush is going the same way! Rumsfeld and his quick "shock and awe" would be another good example.
-
Message 8
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 14th November 2005
I knew I could count on you Dave.
Cheerz. -
Message 9
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 14th November 2005
Bush is going the same way! Rumsfeld and his quick "shock and awe" would be another good example. Β
Although that's not 20th century...!!
Sorry, in pedant mode at the mo!
Thinking beyond WW2 for a sec, Goose Green in the Falklands' Conflict was one - the politicians were out for a good news story and a quick win somewhere and put pressure on the military to attack a well-defended position that was not of strategic or tactical importance. Although the British won the engagement it was with a high rate of casualties. -
Message 10
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 14th November 2005
Surprised Gallipoli hasn't been mentioned yet! Although the strategy underpinning the whole opeation made some sense (taking out the forts on the Dardenelles, sailing the Royal Navy and French Navy up to and taking Constantinople, thus knocking Turkey out of the war), the actual operation itself was a disaster resultant as much from woeful planning and preparation as much from the excellent defence put up by the Turks (led by Mustapha Kemal - he who was to become Ataturk).
-
Message 11
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Monday, 14th November 2005
Purely from a military standpoint, Herr Hitler gets my vote for Stalingrad.
Of course, he was Commander-in-Chief of the Whermacht, like the US presidents are CinC of the military, so it could be argued he had the authority to make the decisions. -
Message 12
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 17th November 2005
I think most of us agree. It was Hitler. Some say for Barbarosa, I concur, however also for his no retreat policy on his eastern front. And finaly because that silly little paperhanger declaired war on the almighty, Gods gift to humanekind United States of America. Therin releasing tens of Siberian divisions for Stalins western front.
Cheerz. -
Message 13
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Expat,
not entirely convinced over the no retreat policy. Granted it was a total disaster when looking at Stalingrad, and then many battles after then, but there is a viewpoint that the no retreat policy, and fear of the consequences of retreat is what kept the German army intact in Russia during the disastrous winter of 1941. Remember that these troops had little in winter equipment, and they were being attacked by fresh Red Army units moved west from Siberia, who were properly equipped, and probably found the winter in the west of Russia to be a nice warm break after Siberia, and at the same time the Germans were reduced to taking winter clothing from dead Russian soldiers, in order to avoid freezing!
It can be argued that the "no retreat" order kept them from collapsing completely.
I think most of us agree. It was Hitler. Some say for Barbarosa, I concur, however also for his no retreat policy on his eastern front. And finaly because that silly little paperhanger declaired war on the almighty, Gods gift to humanekind United States of America. Therin releasing tens of Siberian divisions for Stalins western front.
°δ³σ±π±π°ω³ϊ.Μύ -
Message 14
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Morning DL,
I would say that point of view would hold up for a less diciplined Army. The Germans with all their faults were as you know, an absolutly first class fighting force. When an Army is restricted in its abilities to either move, shoot, or communicate its on the path to major problems. If an Army commander is severly restricted in his ability to manouver I.E. fall back and regroup it is in effect to a degree hamstrung. It will and was encircled.
Cheerz. -
Message 15
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Friday, 18th November 2005
I wouldnt have put King leopold up as an intefering political ruler.
fair enough he perhaps made it more difficult for the Allies in the long run, but remember stark in leopolds mind along with most belgians would have been the mud filled corpse strewn physical ruin of a nation that belgium was in 1918. You absolutely cannot blame the guy for not wanting his little country to be completely flattened as if a steam roller had gone over it again. If i remember Leopold is a big hero in flanders for taking difficult decisions, to preserve the country, and rightfully so.
Looking at photo's in the flanders field museum in ieper for instance at what ieper looked like at the end, you just cannot hold it against him. -
Message 16
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Morning Expat,
I don't agree on that one, the no retreat policy did IMO have a positive effect during the campaign in winter 41, since the Germans were poorly equipped, worn out and facing fresh "hordes from the east" as the Siberian divisions arrived.
Hitler in his usual style managed to mess it up though, since as it worked in 41, he thought it would work next time, and the time after, and the time after.....
The result was his stupid "stand and fight" order at Stalingrad, since the 6th Army were already surrounded and getting further away from safety every day. Old Adolf thought that since it worked the year before, it would always work. Wrong! The Soviets adapted to it, and used their own form of Blitzkrieg to encircle any units that put up serious resistance.
On the other hand, there is an argument for stating that the suicidal stand at Stalingrad did tie down so many Russian divisions that the German units in the Caucasus managed to get out before they too were encircled. Had the 6th Army withdrew or surrendered earlier, these units may not have escaped.
Lots of what if.... in it.
DL -
Message 17
Posted by hallamhal (U2549864) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
What politician, or monarch of the 20th century, made the biggest military blunders whilst playing General.
Churchill, L.B.J. Hitler, Czar Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm II, or ...... Β
Kaiser Wilhelm II, for starting a war that left a shadow on the world... -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 25th November 2005
But was it Kaiser Wilhelm, or was it his advisors? If you look at the events prior to WW1, it is quite frightening really, the way that war appears an inevitability, and it just gets closer and closer.
Wasn't it said that the war was basically started by rail timetables? As soon as the process of mobilisation began, no one could do anything to stop it, even if they had wanted to.
Cheers
DL -
Message 19
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Friday, 25th November 2005
started by rail timetables? germans are just to efficient for their own good!! for some reason it reminded me of a story in a Sven Hassel novel, about a train that could not stop anywhere because of a paperwork mistake, combined with a nazi obsession with beaurocracy and the drivers own unwillingness to stop his train without the proper paperwork(and risk death for hampering war effort) also station masters were unwilling to let it stop as it had no papers and the ensuing headache would be to much of a nightmare, better to rush it past quickly, and let it be someone elses problem! most likely a fictional story but funny. The story finishes with the train still rushing around europe. I always thought it would make a great movie! it could be set a good few years after the war, and someone suddenly realises that this train is still rushing about europes rail network (it was able to stop IIRC to stock up on coal and water) Kind of like that film where elliot gould crashed his plane on a pacific island and found elderly japanese soldiers still doing their duty not realising the war was over....... but with Steam Trains :D
-
Message 20
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Disgruntled,
I may be well wrong on that count, but if I recall correctly, the German plan for mobilisation for war involved all the recalled troops having strict timetables for moving to the frontier, the German rail system having been designed with this purpose in mind. This plan was precision drilled in true Prussian style (anyone remember the "Change at Hohne!" passage recalled by Remarque in "All Quiet on the Western Front" when referring to his nemesis Corporal Himmelstoss?), and once the process was started, there was no way to issue a recall order. I can't for the life of me remember where I read this, so sorry folks I can't reference it, just talking from memory as usual!).
DL -
Message 21
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Friday, 25th November 2005
The Japanese politicians who insisted on attacking Pearl Harbour against the advice of the Japanese Navy run Hitler (Barbarossa, and thinking he could invade Britain without a navy) and Stalin (The British are trying to trick me and Hitler won't attack) close, but I find it difficult to displace Hitler form his pole position in this.
-
Message 22
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Hi DL,
England told Germany through the German embassy that if it did not attack France and only Russia, it would not enter the war. Initially the German high command was thrilled, until turning around one million plus soldiers, all programmed to the minute with the German rail system, realized that a recall would be a total shambles.They decided much better to continue to invade France and Russia. A few days later a second telegram was received that said the first one was an error and that Germany must not invade France or Russia to stop them (the Brits) entering the war. Neither of the telegrams made any difference one way or another.
Cheerz.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.