There were many strategic decisions made prior to, and during, WWII that had a significant effect on how the war was fought and its outcome. Some examples would be The Soviet/German non-aggression pact, and Japans decision to invade China.

What do you think was the most important strategic decision made? The best? The worst?

If you could change one of those decisions, which one would you change?

I think the most important and the worst would have to be Chamberlain's "peace in our time" deal with the devil. That just emboldened Hitler and told him that the soon to be allies were weak. The best? Hmmm, not sure.

I think obvisouly the worst decision in the war was when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. As the one leader said, "[Japan] awakened a sleeping Giant]."

The best decision of World War 2.....I dont think it was the Atomic Bomb by any means....hmmm....best decision....I dont know either.

Hard to come up with a lot of good in that war. Maybe Lend-Lease?

How about the fact that Hitler didnt succeed? Thats pretty good news.

Sorry for the multiple answers. Too many to choose from.

The Bad:

1. Hitler's Invasion of Russia. Just plain stupid and probably the main reason he lost the War. If he would've finished off western Europe first and then blitzkrieged the Soviets with his full force it may have worked.

2. Pearl Harbor. No bombing, US doesn't invade for another year at least and Hitler probably takes Britain.

3. Hitler's bombing of London instead of RAF locales, which allowed England to stay in the war and really only served to embolden them.

4. The aforementioned Chamberlain "Peace in our time" Munich outcome combined with France's assumption that the Nazis wouldn't go through Belgium. These two blunders allowed for the Nazi foothold in the first place.

The Good:

1. The Soviets' usage of the "Retreat and Burn" strategy to lure the Nazis into Russia.

2. The Atom Bomb. A controversial and complicated decision, but a sound one that probably saved 10x the lives that were extinguished in the blasts. Feel free to argue this one.

its hard to argue with the truth...

I do disagree about the Atomic Bomb.

Well, it actually is hard for me to say. There is no way for me to go back and see what would have happened if the bomb wasnt used...and its beyond me to say things would have turned out the same for the U.S.....but lets suppose we would have still won.

The Attomic Bombing started the cold war, which I think is still going on in some fashions today. Russia, Iran, North Korea, China...all have the intelligence to do the same things and worse to us that we did to Japan.

the technology would have existed regardless. The Atomic Bomb wasnt something America thought up, if the Germans had been given enough time they would have made the same.

Yes, but are using it, made all the other world powers (notably Russia) say "uh oh, we better start using them too."

Which caused the Cold War.

The decision to use the bomb on Japan was strictly a military one in an attempt to force Japan to surrender. It did have other effects on later history but these were not considered before the decision was made to use it. The invasion of the Japanese home islands would have been a bloodbath, and as far as causing large scale death, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden killed more than the atomic bombs.

How about Germany not going to a war time footing until 1943.

Or Stalingrad?

Or Hitler playing General?

Or Hitler declaring war on the U.S.

Or Hitler killing off the Ukranian population who would have been willing to fight for him.

Or Hitler..........seeing a pattern? lol

Not only did Hitler suck total ass, but he was responsible for many of that wars blunders personaly.

The U.S being stubbron in the Hurtgen forrest was a blunder, and a waste of lives not known to many because it is over shadowed by a bigger blunder by the Germans in their Arddeness offensive in what became known as the Battle of the Bulge.

Monty's Bridge too far also springs to mind.

There were many blunders made by all sides as happens in all wars.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
as far as causing large scale death, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden killed more than the atomic bombs.

Yes - and that's why I would include Dresden and Tokyo in my list of the worst decisions, with the use of atomic bomb ! I can't see how adecision that resulted in the death of so many human beings could be labelled good.

And the supposed military bloodbath that would have resulted in not using this strategy does not convince me.

Why drop two bombs instead of just one ? Mostly because they wanted to test two different technologies, not for military reasons.

Why drop them on big cities rather than on low population islands, with the threat of bombing bigger cities id Japan did not surrender ?

Thats always been my feelings on it.

If we absolutely had to use the attomic bomb....use it on the least amount of people you can get away with.

If money is scarce....dropping it on a village of 4 people might be a waste...but huge millions of people towns is just war genocide in my book.

Why is it genocide to kill a bunch of people at once with a bomb but not genocide to kill 10 times as many people in a long protracted invasion? Being killed by a bullet isn't any more noble than being killed by a nuclear bomb.

I was referring to the thousands of civilians killed by the blast..but if 10 times that many were killed by our bullets, than yeah, thats genocide IMO too.

Some good points made on the use of the Atomic Bombs. I didn't mean to suggest that it was "good" that the bombs were used as they were, just neccessary, or desirable, from a military standpoint.

We had only tested one bomb prior to dropping two of them on Japan, and the precise effect they would have on a city was not known. In addition, the long term effects of radioactivity were little understood.

Japan was given every opportunity to surrender before the bombs were used. In July 1945 the following ultimatum was forwarded to Japan.

(1) We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.

(2) The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.

(3) The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.

(4) The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.

(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese, participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

(13) We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

This clearly lays out the intent and resolve of the Allies as regards their intentions towards Japan. While this ultimatum doesn't mention the Atomic Bomb specifically, that final sentence accurately describes Japan's fate should the ultimatum be ignored.

It also must be noted that we didn't have an unlimited supply of atomic bombs, and we had to demonstrate that we were willing to use them as weapons, not just to try and frighten Japan.

Here is an interesting time-line of the events surrounding the atomic bombings. Note that the internal politics of Japan's government played a large role in her refusal to surrender before being bombed.

2 August 1939 Albert Einstein letter to FD Roosevelt suggest that nuclear technology could produce a new kind of weapon.

7 January 1943 FD Roosevelt says Japan should be bombed "heavily and relentlessly"

24-29 July 1943 Bombing of Hamburg, fire storm, 50,000 dead, 1,000,000 refugees.

24 December 1944 intelligence reports indicate that in Japan a "peace party" is forming and that there will be a new cabinet headed by Admiral Baron Suzuki charged to prepare to surrender. (Baldwin 96, Fogelman 97)

13 February 1945 Bombing of Dresden, 2,750 British and USA aircraft, est. 35,000 dead

25 February "test" fire bombing destroys one square mile of Tokyo.

9-10 March fire bombing to "wipe [Tokyo] off the map" (Gen. LeMay) (Selden xivff) 100,000 dead, similar number wounded, 1,000,000 homeless

16 March obliteration of Würzburg, small city of no military significance

7 April: New Japanese cabinet appointed, prime minister Suzuki, with the mission from Emperor Hirohito to negotiate peace. Former foreign minister Shegenori Togo recalled from retirement to assist.

12 April Harry S. Truman becomes President on the death of FDR.

25 April War Secretary Stimson first informs Truman about the existence of the Bomb. No question was raised about whether to use it.

27 May: presidential aide Harry Hopkins cables President Truman from Moscow: Peace feelers are being put out by certain elements in Japan

20 June: Supreme War Direction Council: Emperor Hirohito, Premier Suzuki, Foreign Minister, Navy Minister argue for suing for peace; Army Minister and two chiefs of staffs for continuing war.

10 July: Emperor asks USSR to mediate surrender.

12-13 July formal notification of Moscow by Japan Moscow envoy.

17 July, Alamagordo NM successful test of the first atomic bomb. Several Manhattan Project scientists (led by Leo Szilard who had been the initial liaison with Einstein) petition President Truman not to use the bomb except subject to serious restraints and prior warning (Harwit 234). Truman apparently never saw this petition.

26 July: Potsdam ultimatum (Truman, Churchill, Chiang Kai-Shek) states terms for surrender. "We will not deviate from them." No reference to possible retention of the Emperor (although all major policy-makers in the US - Truman, Stimson, Grew - were on record as favoring that). The communiqué made no specific mention of a qualitatively new level of weaponry, although the ultimatum ended: "The alternative for Japan is utter destruction." Stalin was present in the Potsdam negotiations, and was informed about the existence of the new bomb, but did not sign this declaration because USSR was not yet at war with Japan.

27 July Togo leads a discussion in the "Supreme War Direction Council" Togo advocates acceptance of the ultimatum, and that is agreed upon, but then reversed. Togo wrote, "To my amazement, the newspapers of the following morning reported that the government had decided to ignore the Potsdam declaration." He learned that a rump meeting of chiefs of staff and war ministers had swayed Suzuki. (Fogelman 74) This news got mistranslated into English as "unworthy of public notice," which was taken by the pro-bomb parties in the US as an insult an a reason to go ahead with the bombing.

6 August 8:15 AM Hiroshima bombed. Truman announces by radio that it was a military target. Immediate deaths 85,000

8 August: USSR declares war against Japan and invades Manchuria. Stalin had been pressed by the allies to enter the Pacific war, and at Potsdam he agreed to do so within three months of the end of the war in Europe, which was May 8. Japan's ambassador at Moscow is informed of this but his telegram never reaches Tokyo, where the news is learned only later by monitoring Soviet news radio.

9 August Nagasaki bombed, immediate deaths 45,000

9 August President Truman: "... the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in the first instance to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians." (Fogelman 104)

9 August: Suzuki and Hirohito decide to accept the Potsdam ultimatum. A rump meeting of the Army Hawks opposes this.

10 August: Government accepts Potsdam terms subject to the condition that "said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as Sovereign Ruler."

14 August The War council being deadlocked, with the hawks still wanting to continue the war [i.e., the two atomic bombs did not change their minds], Suzuki convenes the emergency Gozenkaigi [council of elder statesmen] which agrees with Hirohito's longstanding desire to surrender: formal acceptance of the ultimatum is announced.

2 September formal signing of surrender

1 November: Projected earliest possible date for the US invasion of Kyushu (southern island) if there had had to be one.

Spring 1946: Projected earliest date for US invasion of Honshu (main Island)

Vile that was a great post. My point is that the atomic bomb, though gruesome was the ONLY way Japan would have surrendered. If the U.S. had of invaded Japan would have turned into another Vietnam. They would not have surrendered. Though a terrible weapon was used, in the end without it MUCH greater loss would have occured

Great Post VP.

James, lets be clear on that last sentence of your post. Although it is a likely assumption, it is still an assumption.

percentage wise i would put it at around...98.9999

Im not saying you are wrong, James, and in fact I in some ways agree with you, I'm just making it clear that there is no way for us to know for sure that woudl have happened.

Excellent post, VP. My logic for calling it a good decision goes thus:

1. An invasion of Japan would have taken years and cost the lives of millions (US and Japan combined) plus civilians. US commanders knew this and they knew how hard and viscious the Japanese were prepared to fight for each inch of land.

2. The atomic bomb, the Cold War and the arms race were pretty much inevitabilities given the political situation and mutual distrust. Also, the Reds had two spies inside the A-Bomb development who were sending ideas and designs back to Moscow. They were going to make the bomb regardless of whether or not we used it on Japan.

3. The aforementioned ultimatum didn't work. The bombing sites were chosen wisely and the bombs killed 100,000 as opposed to 1,000,000.

A link to an excellent article describing what awaited US troops invading the Japanese home islands:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/olympic.html

An excerpt:

The Japanese leaders might be publicly calling for a struggle of flesh against iron, of spirit against materiel, in the Japanese tradition (which, after all, despised surrender). And the Diet might be passing a "volunteer military service" law for boys of 15 and men of 60, for girls of 17 and women of 40. But even the highest-ranking government were horrified at the Army's primitive notions for militia defense. In July 1945, Premier Suzuki and his associates were invited to visit an amazing display of weapons to be issued the Japanese citizenry: Single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets; longbows and arrows (effective range 30-40 meters, hit probability 50%, said the placards); bamboo spears; pitchforks. The ordinarily phlegmatic old prime minister mumbled to his secretary, "This is awful!" The secretary agreed, in fury and despair. There was a limit to deceiving the people, he felt; this was hardly a sane way of fighting in the 20th Century. Something must be done to achieve peace....

Originally posted by Vilepagan
There were many strategic decisions made prior to, and during, WWII that had a significant effect on how the war was fought and its outcome. Some examples would be The Soviet/German non-aggression pact, and Japans decision to invade China.

What do you think was the most important strategic decision made? The best? The worst?

If you could change one of those decisions, which one would you change?

The best decision was Ikes decision to go on June 6th.

there were many poor decisions on both sides. Market Garden was a failure. though I think it would have worked if executed properly. Hitlers decision not to let 6th army break out at stalingrad was dumb, as was his listening to Goering about his ability to destroy the allies at dunkirk with airpower. he could have driven into them in force with tanks and finished teh job.
the whole fact hitler was making stateginc and tactial decisionjs was bad. With the greatest military minds in the world working for them, the germans were dumb in letting the upstart corparal make the big decision, but then again what choice did they have?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Im not saying you are wrong, James, and in fact I in some ways agree with you, I'm just making it clear that there is no way for us to know for sure that woudl have happened.

I suppose, but in war, as with just about anything, you gotta go with the odds.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I suppose, but in war, as with just about anything, you gotta go with the odds.

Accept win voting for a Libretarian, eh?

Lol, jk.:D

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Accept win voting for a Libretarian, eh?

Lol, jk.:D

:D

Geeze, I just noticed I spelled when, "win"

Im really starting to lose it.

Btw, glad you didnt take offense Lionel.:p

In regards to the atom bomb. Everyone is familiar with Okinawa right? Not only did bullets and bombs kill people, but the japanese starved everyone. Hundreds of millions would have had the same fate if we decided to invade. Also, Japan had extensively researched germ warfare. They were capable of killing millions of people with their germ bombs. Im pretty confident, that if we had invaded, Japan would have considered dropping these bombs on the US mainland.

Best Decision: Churchill's decision to bomb Berlin and enrage Hitler.

Worst Decision: Several, Hitler trying to kill all the jewish scientists was one. But i think the one that really lost the war was the decision to bomb London instead of the airfields in the Battle of Brittain. Where would we be without the English?

I was enjoying the thread, and was going to avoid joining the fray, but what about Midway Island?

The Japanese would have been able to do a lot more damage to our overall morale and ability to compete in the Pacific had the tide not turned in our favor at Midway. We were very lucky to have broken their code and figured out their plans (as well as knowing to ignore the Japanese diversion attempt near Alaska). It was decisive actions by the leadership of the Pacific Fleet, as well as luck being on our side, that allowed us to let Japan make their arguably biggest tactical mistake and effectively break the back of their carrier fleet in one fell swoop.

RE: the European theater, the Axis own lack of ability to rely on each other, and the extreme blind faith and trust of the German people towards Hitler to solve all their problems made their inevitable defeat possible.

Great thread - btw!

Originally posted by Evil Homer
Best Decision: Churchill's decision to bomb Berlin and enrage Hitler.

The initial bombing of Berlin was an accident I think.

No, the initial bombing of london was an accident. Then churchill bombed berlin.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
No, the initial bombing of london was an accident. Then churchill bombed berlin.

Quite true, but the bombing of civilian targets had already been done by the Germans in Rotterdam, the Japanese in China, and even earlier in the Spanish Civil War. Sadly it became the norm in WWII rather than an aberration.

But im saying his mistake was diverting his attention from the airfields to soley on london. This let the british have some peace at the bases, rebuild them, and train.

The Good Desecions:

Hitler's Blitzkreig

D-Day


The Bad:

Hitler invading Russia

Hitler taking away power from his generals

Japan not hitting the Oil fields in Pearl Harbor

Germany not knowing that D-Day was at Normandy

Hitler taking a sleeping pill on the night of D-Day

More Bad:
Stalin Killing all of his generals.
Germany being too damn cocky.
Not sending any troops, supplies, ammunition to Rommel in Africa.

So theres such things as bad decisions Homer? Arent you judging that?

There were many good and bad decisions made in World War II. The worst single decision was Germanies decision to invade Russia before England was defeated. If Rommel had been given those troops and supplies, the oil fields of the middle east would have been in German hands.

The best or perhaps luckiest decision was keeping our aircraft carriers at sea the night of December 6, 1941. If they had been docked in Pearl Harbor, we might well have lost the Hawaian Islands. This would have prolonged the war greatly, and diverted resources from Europe.

If I could change one thing about the WW2 it would be that britain did not act sooner. Maybe if they had then a lot of lives could have been saved. I hate admitting that we were wrong but it is something that I have always thought!

Love ya,
Anne-Marie
xx

Originally posted by special angil
If I could change one thing about the WW2 it would be that britain did not act sooner. Maybe if they had then a lot of lives could have been saved. I hate admitting that we were wrong but it is something that I have always thought!

We all should've acted sooner, but as they say, hind-sight is 20/20.

ya, if you acted sooner and eliminated the threat you would be accused of going it alone

its a different story when something is proven to be a threat, and when its not.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
So theres such things as bad decisions Homer? Arent you judging that?

hahaha. i suppose you're right. However, i find it very impractical to always think like that. Everything becomes so....passive.

Another interesting bit of decision making was the German decision not to press Spain into the war. There was a plan for German troops to cross Spain and attack Gibraltar from the land. If successful, the Strait of Gibraltar could have been shut to the British making their defense of North Africa and the Middle East much harder. Supplies and reinforcements would have had to travel all the way around Africa, and German supplies would have faced less hazard traveling across the Mediterranean. Malta would have been a very isolated outpost, and might have been forced to surrender.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
its a different story when something is proven to be a threat, and when its not.

you mean like invading your neighbors and annexing their countries?