Largest Strategic Mistake(s) Made By The Allies

Since there is a thread about Hitler's greatest strategic mistakes, I thought it would be interesting to look at the mistakes made by the allies as well.

I think that their greatest mistake was not attacking Germany as soon as Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles. That way World War Two never would have happened and many lives would have been saved.

 

First things that spring to mind without a great deal of consideration:

By the United Kingdom:
1) Churchill diversion of men and resources to Greece 1941 against the advice of his military officials - pointless exercise that badly undermined operations in North Africa.

2) Diversion of men and naval strength to Singapore 1942 - results in the loss of 138,000 prisoners to the Japanese and the loss of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse.

 

This is asking too much, but at latest when Hitler invaded the Czech Republic.

I agree with the mistakes listed by Greenjacket.

Others:
France: losing ... this devastating was not necessary
Russia: Stalin ignoring the imminent German assault, the entire 1941 war conduct

 

Just some thoughts:

1. Not "realizing" Hitler´s true meanings until too late
2. When realized did not act fast enough
3. Too much belief in the Maginot line
4. Russia making the pact with Hitler
5. Not securing Norway in time

Just things that I remembered to start with..

 

1)Operation MARKET-GARDEN
2)Not defending the east coast. (Operation Paukenschlaug-5000 sailers killed in 6 months, along with 571 ships.)
3)Firebombing of Dresdon
4)Me spelling Paukenschlaug nowhere near the actual german spelling. Translates to Drumbeat.

 

Without wishing to start another Dresden debate, even if one views Dresden as being morally reprehensible and militarily unjustifiable, what makes Dresden a strategic mistake? As I said to KnightMove in another thread, surely calling it a 'mistake' implies some negative impact on the British and American war effort. As far as I can see, there was no such impact.

 

I'm looking more at the Moral effects of it. And killing that many people for little or no reason is just a mistake on the allies part...Stupid allies

 

I think I may go further:

- Not prosecuting German war crimes in WWI.
- France buying Wilson's cheap promises as providing French security and creating a World Organisation for Peace...
- France and Great Britain accepting Wilson's silly proposals to make Germany a federal republic.
- France not annexing the Rheinland.
- France and Great Britain not repressing Germany for re-introducing military service and withdrawing from disarment conventions.
- France and Britain not repressing Italy for the agression on Abissynia.
- France not striking when Hitler moved into the Rheinland.
- Believing Hitler's word in Munich and giving him the Sudetenland.
- Not attacking Germany when Hitler invaded Poland.
- Not acting early to seccure Norway.
- Many, many tactical flaws during the battle of France.
- Supporting Greece in 1941.
- Invading Italy where they did.
- Performing the war in Italy the way they did.
- Invading southern France.

(That goes for the Western Allies in the ETO)

[ 12. November 2003, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

Just a piece of information I read a while ago:

The western allied were required to lessen their army strentgh ( all forces incl Navy, Airforce..) according to the Versailles Treaty as well. As they did not follow the requirements as much as they signed for Hitler used this as one of the ecxuses to build a new army etc.

Anyone got any numbers how much the Western allied after WW1 were supposed to reduce their armies? And how much took place?

 

This is News to me, were there any significant warcrimes in WWI other than that committed on both sides?

For me 2 Strategic mistakes come to mind:

* Levelling of Monte Cassino, giving the germans more cover and therefore making it infinitely harder to take the town.

* Not trying to reform the German political structure / constitution as part of the treaty of Versailles at the armistice:

 

The book on Hitler´s attack on Poland which deals with atrocities also has some mentions on German behaviour in Belgium 1914. It seems quite alot of people were killed as "partisans". I have not read of this before so maybe someone knows more of this.

But I did find a book on this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300089759/002-8561452-4814414?v=glance

"...the authors show that the German army killed over 6,500 French and Belgian civilians between August and November 1914."

 

Who introduced chemical weaponry, invaded neutral countries, started bombing cities and unrestricted submarine warfare?

They actually DID it, and thanks to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Congress they screwed everything up. They removed in the person of the Kaiser that what represented Germany, a true leader. For the next 20 years, Germans had that place vacant and they loved it when a strong figure was willing to fill the place.

Great Britain and France wanted to make Germany a parliamentary monarchy British-like with one of the Kaiser's grandsons, but the republican Americans oposed to that. They hurted German pride and esence by taking away its monarchy so suddenly. Then, they insisted in imposing a democracy in the less fertile field in the world for democracy and they didn't support that democracy, rather they let the General Staff to appoint ministers, chancellors and presidents...

However, The Weimar constitution was a perfect example of liberalism and of GOOD democratic laws. The Germans borrowed the cabinet idea from Great Britain, the parliamentary from France and the idea of a strong-popular president from the USA. The constitution granted individual civil rights and provided a very balanced government structure where everybody was represented. The problem was that Germany was no soil for democracy and the constitution allowed anti-democratic extremists to participate in it and undermine it. The Republic was founded on ill bases and was 'supported' by men who didn't like it (industrialists, nobility, the General Staff, etc.) and which seeked for its destruction as soon as it failed to serve their selfish interests.

But when reparations were modified and loans started injecting capital to Germany, the Republic how good democracy was. Germany in the late 1920s forgot a bit about defeat and left right and left extremists aside; they were dedicated to work and produce a lot of art and science. But German megalomania still wanted war, territory, richness and hægemony. That's why democracy failed, because Germany didn't want to have a democracy. Then the economical crisis came and everybody blamed the ill-based democracy and they got rid of it following all the vilest hatred, sick ultra-nationalism and typical German megalomania.

Hitler didn't ever become president and never used those special presidential powers because, until August 1934, president Hindenburg still had that power. Hitler used his own political troops to undermine the republic and become a dictator. But before the 'Night of the long knives', Hindenburg still had the power to get rid of Hitler - and he threthened him to do so if he didn't fix matters with Röhm.

 

Pre-WW2 strategic errors:
1) Failure after ww1 to occupy, stabilise and reform governtment/military structure Germany after WW1-Constitution type issues could have been addressed (This was a lesson learned after WW2). Economists such as Keynes saw this more clearly than military or politicians.
2) Treaty of Versailles: Left too much bad feeling, too much territory and people severed from Germany and Hungary in particular. France too vengeful, UK too compromising to gain mandates in near east and elsewhere in world, US too inconsistent, prejudiced, in its application of principles, particularly self-determination, its own major contribution, alienation of Italy and Turkey.
3) Failure of League of Nations to adequately discuss and address international grievences holistically (Lesson learned - UN)
4) Failure to resist German military reoccupation of Rhineland - relates to item 2 and allied guilt over unfair WW1 peace conditions.
5) Failure in 38-9 by UK and France to ally with Russia
6) Lack of military allied coordination/cooperation in Europe interwar period (Lesson learned - NATO) .
7) Lack of miitary R&D during era of cuts (eg. anti-sub warfare)
8) Intelligence/political failure to read Germany, particulary in 30s.
9) Overwillingness of UK to scrap WW1 weapons rather than to mothball some resulting in need for equipment such as guns, US WW1 destroyers.

WW2 allied strategic failures:
1) Lack of appropriate centralised military command structure for UK , France, Belgium
2) Phony war: Failure of UK, France, Belgium to coordinate and prepare adequately for a German attack or to attack while Germany focussed on Poland.
3) Army inadequately armed and prepared for action in 39/40. Tanks, transport logistics and communications, lack of fall back plans/strategies, were major deficiencies.
4) Far East strategy ill considered, more 19thC than 20th C.
5) Failure generally to equip army - lack of decent heavy/medium tank till end of war was inexcusable.
6) Over resourcing of strategic bombing campaign at expense of other military needs
7) Crete/Italy campaigns - should have stopped at Sicely/south Italy and saved resources for northern Europe. (If objective was simply to stretch German military, would it have been better to invade western France in 43 and knock out Vichy/Uboat bases, or alternatively to fight in Norway/Scandinavia and coordinate more with/support the Russian front along the Baltic)

 

I assume you're talking about the Western Allies, because the USSR's T-34 was a superb medium tank, much superior to anything in the German arsenal during the opening years of the war in the East.

Furthermore, I think you underestimate the Sherman, which fought on at least equal terms with the vast majority of German armour that it faced.

Disagree with this, I would say the bombing offensive was relatively cheap resource-wise.

 

They DID do it (read my post above). And Lord Keynes suggested the BEST solutions, solutions which could NOT be performed. He suggested that German workers should come down to France and repair everything. France had millions of workers herself to do that. The other option he gave was revitilising German industry and economy, raising exports. That involved a strong and prosperous Germany, which was what France, obviously wanted to avoid.

As stated above. Wilson was too idealist, Lloyd-George too conciliatory and Clemenceau too naïve. Frence had to be even more vengeful, annexing the Rheinland and made the Rhine its new border, instead of buying Wilson's cheap and empty promises.

Again, this concept was too idealist and too new for the time.

Agreed about the rest. And number nine also applies very much to France.

And I agree with the rest of WWII ones except for numbers 5 and 6 for the reasons Greenjacket said.

 

Herr General,
There's a great textbook on the subject called "From Versailles to Wall Street". Sorry, can't remember the author's name.
Regards,
Gordon

 

Dunno, that's not really a strategic mistake is it? Strikes me more as operational or even tactical...

 

Thanks Friedrich, I thought the 1930 president's thing was a little early, that'll teach me to rely on unsourced internet sites and to actually shell out on books!

Also, good info on the apparent intervention of America, I take it that was you meaning? I had no idea they played any part in the "improvement" of Germany's parliament after WWI, kinda figures when you look at Iraq today huh?

I however, do disagree a little on your definition of warcrimes though, chemcial weapons were developed as a desperate measure after years and years of trench warfare and (to my knowledge) was not used on civilians so how could that be a crime more than the maxim machine gun or the Mark IV tank?

Unrestricted U-boat campaigns? In WWI? The Germans for the most part (apart from the Lusitania of course) stopped ships and forced the crew to abandon ship before sinking them, that is hardly a war crime that can be attributed to German policy. Besides America pursued piracy on the high seas with licence from Congress a century before, should they be prosecuted too?

[ 14. November 2003, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: BratwurstDimSum ]

 

Thank you for the book recommendation, Gordon! I'll look for it!

Brat, thanks for the response.

Not really, the trench warfare had been going on by a few months. And even considering that; gas didn't do anything to end trenchwarfare. It made it became absolutely inhumane and brutal. No war in History has been so horrible like that of the trenches, and mostly because of gas.

You're right. Fortunately it was not used on civilians, but Germans used artillery shells indiscriminately on Belgian, Serbian, Polish and Romanian towns. They bombarded British coasts and killed many civilians. THOSE are war crimes.

And unrestricted submarine warfare caused precisely the sinking of the RMS Lusitania . First you shoot, then you ask. In 1915 the Germans used unrestricted warfare and then again, but in greater sacle in 1917 and 1918 - which ultimately brought the USA into the war. Many civilians died and neutral ships were sunk. THAT was considered also a war crime THEN. And what you say about the German commanders first putting crews in life boats and then shelling the ship is true. But thanks to Q-boats it became very dangerous.

But despite of everything else we can say that WWI was a war where people fought in a very gentile and chivalristic way most of the time.

 

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Black Cat:

WW2 allied strategic failures:
...
5) Failure generally to equip army - lack of decent heavy/medium tank till end of war was inexcusable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you're talking about the Western Allies, because the USSR's T-34 was a superb medium tank, much superior to anything in the German arsenal during the opening years of the war in the East.
Furthermore, I think you underestimate the Sherman, which fought on at least equal terms with the vast majority of German armour that it faced.

Black Cat reply: I certainly agree with you on the T34 - I meant only to refer to the western allies. However, it is my view after reading up on the western front that the UK, Canada and US did not provide their armies with appropriate tanks. I assume the US suffered less as their attack was an outflanking one, and the Sherman was reliable and fast hence functioned well for this role. The British and Canadian forces however faced strong opposition and needed tanks more akin to the T34 which they did not have. It is often remarked that these armies did not progress well in many battles but can you blame their apprehensiveness when they were sent into battle with such inadequate armour time and time again. Their bravery was remarkable but IMO the western allies did not equip their armies as well as they ought to have given that this was 1944, not 42 or earlier. It should also be born in mind that the Sherman may seem to many to have been a good tank generally but it was not nicknamed the Ronson for nothing. Also allied armies and tank forces had incredible air support knocking out or preventing most german tanks arriving on the battlefield. Without this the allied tanks could never have progressed so well.

The sad thing is that the allies in 45 introduced some excellent heavy tanks but production was delayed in favour of producing more obsolete tanks.

This in part relates to the next point.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Over resourcing of strategic bombing campaign at expense of other military needs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree with this, I would say the bombing offensive was relatively cheap resource-wise.

It is my understanding that the bombing offensive was very expensive resource wise, resources that would have been better employed elsewhere (eg. producing more and better tanks and other army equipment, jet fighters, anti-sub air support services). I have read somewhere that the bombing offensive may have used up to 30% of Britain's entire war time effort during the war years - though this figure may well be over the top. Think though of all the people, material and high tech needs that creating and maintaining bombers demands - designers/engineers (Britain was very short of these), factories, aerodromes, bomb manufacturing, fuel, repair/maintenance facilities, training etc. this often involved the most skilled and talented people in the UK at this time. Training was provided by Canada as was some manufacturing to defray Britain's costs. However, the bombing offensive required enormous resources, and the benefits are highly questionable today. Yes, cities were hit, factories hit, Germans redeployed for defense work (though often those who were too young or old to fight on the front, and women), but also Germany developed its own "Battle of Britain" type spirit/mentality to resist the allies and increase production. This is not to say there should be no bombing offensive, the raid on some cities and military targets was formidable, but ultimately need it have been as highly resourced as it was? This is the strategic point I raise.