Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The German's greatest mistake in WWII

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Also the failure of the Allies to attack Germany in the beginning.
    "With foxes we must play the fox."
    -Thomas Fuller

    Comment


    • #77
      Yes:if you have no informations that the decision you are taking is wrong,one can't accuse you of taking the wrong decision .

      It is not because appeasement failed,that appeasement was wrong,it is not because Barbarossa failed that Barbarossa was wrong,it is not because the outcome of the war in Afghanistan/Iraq,was not good,that the decision to start these wars,was wrong .

      One can only say that Barbarossa,etc, was wrong,if ,at the moment the decision was taken,there was an alternative available,and if the result of the alternative would bebetter ,and,if this was known .

      The outcome never can be used to claim that something was a mistake .

      Was the Japanese decision to attack the US a mistake ? Knowing what the Japanese knew at the moment of the decision,I doubt that one can say it was a mistake .

      Was the decision to sent troops to Vietnam wrong ? IMHO,it was a defensible decision .

      Was Adolf's decision to attack Poland in 1939 a mistake ? IMHO,it was a defensible decision .

      Etc,etc....

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Zhang Xun View Post
        Also the failure of the Allies to attack Germany in the beginning.
        It was a defensible decision.
        BTW:with Allies,you mean of course : France,because the first British unitsentered the continent at the end of september .

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
          Now there is a good example of warped logic.

          One must knowingly make a mistaken decision before it can be classified as a mistake.

          In the real world a mistake can only truthfully be classified as a mistake with the benefit of hindsight.
          If you make a decision with the certain knowledge that that decision is a mistake, would you not take another course of action ?
          In which case there would never be any mistakes made.
          you would take an other course of action,IF you knew that such action was possible and had a chance to succeed .

          In the real world, an action could be classified (WITHOUT HINDSIGHT) as a mistake,for military reasons,but could be classified as necessary for political reasons .

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
            Yes:if you have no informations that the decision you are taking is wrong,one can't accuse you of taking the wrong decision .

            It is not because appeasement failed,that appeasement was wrong,it is not because Barbarossa failed that Barbarossa was wrong,it is not because the outcome of the war in Afghanistan/Iraq,was not good,that the decision to start these wars,was wrong .

            One can only say that Barbarossa,etc, was wrong,if ,at the moment the decision was taken,there was an alternative available,and if the result of the alternative would bebetter ,and,if this was known .

            The outcome never can be used to claim that something was a mistake .

            Was the Japanese decision to attack the US a mistake ? Knowing what the Japanese knew at the moment of the decision,I doubt that one can say it was a mistake .

            Was the decision to sent troops to Vietnam wrong ? IMHO,it was a defensible decision .

            Was Adolf's decision to attack Poland in 1939 a mistake ? IMHO,it was a defensible decision .

            Etc,etc....

            Then, as another member recently posted, by your logic there were no mistakes made in the war, which of course is false.

            Of course, all the decisions taken by all the participants can very well be claimed as defensible, since the decision makers were operating without the benefit of hindsight and with limited knowledge about the actions of their enemies.

            But we here now, with hindsight, can easily say what mistakes were made.
            This is not an exercise in claiming whether the decision makers knew they were making a mistake, since they would clearly not have taken a course of action if they had known it would be a mistake (or they could be declared suicidal or simply stupid)

            One MUST have the benefit of hindsight to declare a certain course of action a mistake.
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              you would take an other course of action,IF you knew that such action was possible and had a chance to succeed .
              Then it wouldn't be a mistake would it ?

              In the real world, an action could be classified (WITHOUT HINDSIGHT) as a mistake,for military reasons,but could be classified as necessary for political reasons .

              In such a war, to allow political reasons to overcome military necessity is, as I said in my previous post, suicidal or stupid.
              Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

              Comment


              • #82
                Someone who is stuck in a paradox cannot objectively reason. Therefore your argument is invalid

                X = an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.

                Hmmm wonder what word that defines. Solve for X please. Nothing like historic discussion and semantic arguments...
                Last edited by goomohn; 24 Mar 13, 16:12.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                  "History shows us " :that's the usual arguing with hindsight .

                  One can say that decision A was a mistake,if,it was known at the moment (thus not with hindsight) that the alternative (B) was possible,and that B would have a better result than A.

                  Exemple :the Kiew decision (=the delay of Typhoon from 1 september to 1 october):those who are saying that the delay was a mistake,have to prove

                  1)that Typhoon on 1 september was possible

                  2)that Typhoon on 1 september would be successfull

                  3)that these two points were known by the Germans before 1 september

                  If these 3 points can not be proved,one can not say that the Kiew decision was a mistake. You will notice that I do not say that the Kiew decision was the right one and that attacking on 1 september would be wrong .

                  The same for Dunkirk :I have not to prove that the halt order was good,the others have to proof that it was a mistake.
                  Dude you're not fooling anyone but yourself. You insist parrot fashion that "proof" is required of this or that, knowing fully well that it cannot be provided, since history did not take an alternate course from the one which we know.

                  Well, proof isn't required. You're free not to agree with my posts or those of any other poster. But since the Allies escaped largely intact from Dunkirk and the Germans lost the war, HISTORY doesn't exactly agree with you. Let's see you "prove" history wrong.
                  Sgt.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by goomohn View Post
                    Someone who is stuck in a paradox cannot objectively reason. Therefore your argument is invalid

                    X = an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.

                    Hmmm wonder what word that defines. Solve for X please. Nothing like historic discussion and semantic arguments...
                    He's just to proud to admit that another "may" have a point; so he falls back on the "proof" requirement. Probably some young fellow still in school and still learning that he has much to learn.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      If proof can not be provided ,you have no argument to say that the halt order at Dunkirk was wrong .

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by goomohn View Post
                        Someone who is stuck in a paradox cannot objectively reason. Therefore your argument is invalid

                        X = an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.

                        Hmmm wonder what word that defines. Solve for X please. Nothing like historic discussion and semantic arguments...
                        Yes, this is nothing like a historic discussion (but close in similarities to a history discussion) nor semantic arguments (shyte philosophy, otoh, and sophistry perhaps).

                        No-one's opinion here is provable, other than that it is their opinion.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                          Then it wouldn't be a mistake would it ?




                          In such a war, to allow political reasons to overcome military necessity is, as I said in my previous post, suicidal or stupid.
                          No,it is not :that's complaining in the winter that it is cold .
                          In wartime,big decisions are taken by politicians,not by military,and,these decisions are not taken in a vacuum :there always political considerations,which are influencing military decisions :
                          one of the reasons for Passendale was political:the British army remaining idle,when Francewas temporarily out,was politically unacceptable .

                          After 09/11,the decision was taken to attack Iraq with a limited force,and this for political and financial reasons .Afterwards,those who would have attacked a decision to send 500000 men to Iraq,attacked the decision to attack with a limited force,and Rumsfeld was throwed for the lions .

                          The politicians took the decision,because,in their POV,more was not possible.Thus,one can not say that the decision was stupid or suicidal ..

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                            In wartime,big decisions are taken by politicians,not by military,and,these decisions are not taken in a vacuum :there always political considerations,which are influencing military decisions :
                            one of the reasons for Passendale was political:the British army remaining idle,when Francewas temporarily out,was politically unacceptable .
                            And it is recognized that was a mistake.

                            After 09/11,the decision was taken to attack Iraq with a limited force,and this for political and financial reasons .Afterwards,those who would have attacked a decision to send 500000 men to Iraq,attacked the decision to attack with a limited force,and Rumsfeld was throwed for the lions .

                            The politicians took the decision,because,in their POV,more was not possible.Thus,one can not say that the decision was stupid or suicidal ..

                            Many people at the time said that was a mistake and stupid. This was shown to be the case by history.

                            Bottom line is you can continue to believe if you wish in the fallacy that no mistakes were made by the Germans in WW II, the rest of us can, in the meantime, discuss the mistakes that were made.
                            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              So, to take the big mistake back to Dunkirk. Considering political and military objectives. There is always room for ambiguity in historic decisions. The objective of sacking Paris and capitulating France was probably seen as more important than the destruction of 1st Allied army group. As well as the fear of a major counter offensive in the south, militarily.

                              I stand by my claim that it was a mistake to draw down Heersgruppe B and Halt Panzergruppe Kleist for three days. If I were Rundstedt then; I would have put every effort into that army particularly. In the same sense I'd agree with the OKH/OKW in their efforts around Kiev. Others might think the sack of Moscow was more important. I'd disagree simply because the most important objective in war is to destroy your enemies military forces.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                                And it is recognized that was a mistake.




                                Many people at the time said that was a mistake and stupid. This was shown to be the case by history.

                                Bottom line is you can continue to believe if you wish in the fallacy that no mistakes were made by the Germans in WW II, the rest of us can, in the meantime, discuss the mistakes that were made.
                                The US reaction after 9/11 was no mistake,and,history did not show this was the case :GWB took the right decision :the American people wanted blood and expected an easy victory .They got an easy victory. The alternative for Iraq was to do nothing ,and this would not be accepted by the American people .Knowing what he knew,GWB did what a president had to do,he also did what a presidential candidate had to do :he was reelected without any problem .

                                It is the same for Passendale :it was Passendale or doing nothing,as doing nothing was no option,the politicians took the decision to start Passendale .And,Passendale was no failure:it killed a lot of Germans .
                                LG being the PM took the right decision:he did what a PM had to do,and,a year later,he won the elections .Knowing what he knew,he did what he had to do .

                                In both cases,only the people who had to take the decisions on the basis of the available decisions,could judge the decisions they were taking,not people living one hundred years later having other informations .
                                In june 1970,Harold Wilson took the decision to hold earlier elections on the basis of opinion polls who predicted a Labour victory. He lost the elections .Was the decision wrong ? On the basis of the available informations that Wilson had, :NO

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X