MILITARY ERRORS OF WWII

by Kenneth John Macksey

Delay, failure, and, ultimately, defeat: those were the results of these 16 crucial mistakes by military and political leaders. From Hitler's postponement of the invasion of Britain, to ineptitude in the Western desert, from errors in the Battle of the Atlantic to the Japanese mistakes in the Pacific, see how an entire army's downfall can hinge on one momentous decision. A telling account of poor judgment--and of greed, arrogance, complacency, and misused manpower, even by those who tasted victory elsewhere.

Genres: Military Fiction, History, Military History, Nonfiction, World War II, War, 20th Century

256 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1993

About the author

British author and historian who specialized in military history and military biography, particularly of the Second World War. Macksey was commissioned in the Royal Armoured Corps and served during the Second World War (earning the Military Cross under the command of Percy Hobart). Macksey later wrote the (authoritative) biography of Hobart.Macksey gained a permanent commission in 1946, was transferred to the Royal Tank Regiment in 1947, reached the rank of major in 1957 and retired from the Army in 1968.

Amongst many other books, Macksey wrote two volumes of alternate history, one, entitled Invasion, dealt with a successful invasion of England by Germany in 1940 and the other describing a NATO–Warsaw Pact clash in the late 1980s. The latter book was done under contract to the Canadian Forces and focuses on the Canadian role in such a conflict. He was an editor and contributor to Greenhill's Alternate Decisions series since 1995.

In Macksey's Guderian – Panzer General, he refuted the view of historian Sir Basil Liddell-Hart regarding Hart's influence on the development of German Tank Theory in the years leading up to 1939.

Reviews

[Rick Brindle · Rating 2 out of 5]

An addition to the armchair General's library. This is a collection of essays about the larger campaigns in world war 2, and picking over old bones with a view to what might have gone wrong. Thanks to the benefits of the retrospectoscope, we can all have done things better. It's a take on what did happen, and what might have been done differently.
My gripes about this book are that it's written in a very highbrow way, which makes the narrative a bit difficult to follow, and while, yes, it is a book about errors, but I think that perhaps the author could have cut the generals he's lambasting a little slack. I think that perhaps warfare is a little less clear cut about getting it right than the author would suggest.

[Brian Carrigan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The errors on both sides cost this war to go on longer than it should and the coast of many lives

[Luka Novak · Rating 1 out of 5]

While the idea of collating biggest mistakes of WW2 is an interesting one book suffers from usual issue such books have, namely trying to cover too much with too few pages. With less than 250 pages of text Macksey tries to study everything with end result being often superfluous and generalized analysis. Then there is a question of examined mistakes and how they compare. Similar level of space is given to pre war strategies and doctrine then to Market Garden. Similar lever to Gazala battle than to Barbarossa and Blau. More attention is given to problem of British radio sets not working properly at Arnhem then to German decision to seize Stalingrad.

As for mistakes examined, the narrower and more specific the subject the better it is. When it comes to broader topic author tends to generalize and ignores factors that contributed to decisions being made. He claims Hitler made a mistake of not invading Britain in 1940 ignoring factors why he didn't. He similarly argues not going for Moscow in August 194 was a mistake and Moscow option was a war winning game, again ignoring why Germans decided they way they did. He simply ignores logistics, strain and how other side would react.

Where the subject is narrow the book not exactly shines but shows its merit. Gazala, Arnhem, Leyte Gulf.... are subjects where mistakes can be examined more closely and cause-effect seen more clearly. Had Macksey focused on this books would be good but by covering wider subjects with not the detailed examination they deserved it's not. Too bad.

[Martin Koenigsberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very entertaining little read. Macksey sets out to take you on a whirlwind tour of the big military errors of the Second World war. And they are all here in a very easy to read and digest form. Things like Stalin's Falling for the Non-Aggression Treaty, The French investing in the Maginot line, The Japanese failing to destroy the Oil in the Tank Farm at Pearl Harbor, The Germans Normandy Issues and the Use of the ME-262 as a bomber instead of a interceptor. But those are classics that everyone knows. Macksey also spends a lot of really good chapters explaining the Battle of the Atlantic, and the Bomber war over Germany, places where technological advances and the countermoves to them, played a heavy role. Macksey is also careful to make sure to explain WHY certain errors were made, so one finds oneself riveted to the exposition. This is book for any level of interest in WWII, and almost any level of reader. A straight recommendation.

[Serdar Erenler]

İkinci dünya savaşında iki tarafın da yaptığı hataları, 1. Dünya Savaşı deneyimi olan yönetim kadrolarının gelişen teknolojiye ve değişen koşullara adapte olamamasının sonuçlarını farklı cephelerden örneklerle gösteren bir kitap elimizdeki. Şu an çok mantıksız görünen bazı kararların ise o günkü koşullarda optimum görünüyor olması benim açımdan şaşırtıcı oldu. Rommel'in hatalı kararlarının etkileri, müttefik bombardımanlarının başlangıçta başarısız olması ve teknolojik yeniliklere karşı kurmayların anlamsızca direnç göstermesi kitabın ilgi çekici kısımlarıydı benim için. İkinci Dünya Savaşı ile ilgilenenlere öneririm.

[Richard Mancuso · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and well-organized analysis of military mistakes made by the Axis or Allied powers, with summaries at the end of each chapter. The book's description of the effectiveness of the mining of the Danube is the first I have read of this aspect of the Allied bombing campaign and puts into question whether it was the failure that some authors suggest. Moreover, the author gives details about the large role that General Auchinleck had on the decision to divert British forces from North Africa to Greece (usually ascribed to Winston Churchill alone).

While well organized and researched, the style is somewhat turgid with really long paragraphs that make for a less enjoyable read.

[Ben Bergonzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are no professions no matter how challenging (film director, conductor, novelist) which are immune to a critic's good ideas as to how they could be done better. Being a commander in World War 2 is most people's idea of an exceptionally challenging job, but still this well informed book is full of good advice after the event. A tour de force of hindsight, but still very readable and compelling. It would have been good if the author had covered the Eastern Front campaigns throughout the war, not just early on. Would he have added the Warsaw Uprising to the list of heroic errors I wonder?

[Ravi Singh · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very easy to read book about strategic errors during World War Two, the level of incompetence of some Generals makes you think if the tide of the war could have changed at any point to give us a totally different result from the one we had.

Knowledgeable things to know, perfect for recounting down the pub to all your mates who don't know anything about the wars anyway.

They don't call me the General for nothing you know!

[Ahmet Alpat · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aslında kitap içeriği, konu akışı ve yazarın değindiği hususlar oldukça kıymetli ancak çevirinin kötü olması kitabı zor okunur ve yorucu kılıyor. Kekeme birinin çok heyecanlı bir hikaye anlattığını düşünün. Hikayeyi seviyorsanız kitabı orijinalinden okuyun derim.

Çeviri ne kadar kötü olabilir ki derseniz tabii ki okunabilir ve lezzetli bir kitap. Çeviri kötülüğü sıralamasında John Stuart Mill - Özgürlük Üzerine üzerine kötü çeviri tanımam.

[Jared · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pretty high level commentary on errors from World War Two. While I'd mostly agree with the content the writing style was difficult to comprehend at times and could have been simpler for the reader. Some of the commentary perhaps didn't give some of the individuals described sufficient consideration of their operating in a war situation when not all information is know and decisions have to be made under significant pressure.

[Jason St. James · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved the book. It went through every battle and pointed out the tactical errors on both sides of the battlefield. With both sides, I saw a clear view and how one mistake could cause the loss of a battle.

[MacWithBooksonMountains Marcus · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars - a no brainer; the decision to give it 5 stars m, not the book😀

[Oscar Eslava · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesante enfoque para esta colección de episodios sobre las equivocaciones que todos los contendientes cometieron en algún momento u otro de la guerra.

[Daryl Walsh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely detailed. The writing is sometimes confusing. Good stuff.

[Erik Empson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enjoyable read of bite-sized chunks of military incompetence, one of my passions. Lots of inspiration for further reading herein.

[Christopher · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are only a handful of books that I just could not complete and this nearly became one of them. I would have say that its partially because I have been such an avid reader of World War II books that this one became boring after awhile. This is a good book for someone to read who is just interested in the synopsis point of view of various battles and campaigns looking at the errors of each side that had a impact beyond the battle. Otherwise, there are many other books dedicated to each battle or campaign covered here that does a much better job of analyzing the tactical and strategic errors made by both sides.

The other problem that I had with the book is that sometimes I think Macksey either intended this book for a more scholarly audience or simply just plain got full of himself. Some of the chapters are difficult to follow in that they do not flow well. Macksey jumps from one issue to the next with very little in the way of transition. Sometimes the reading comes across as disjointed or almost incomplete in the line of reasoning that he was trying to present.

Ultimately this is a decent book for the novice WWII reader. It gives enough information to wet that person's appetite on the various battles and from there decide which ones to delve into deeper with subject specific books.

[David Hill · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author sets out to explain what he thinks were the key strategic errors that were made during the Second World War. It might be easy to quibble with any such attempt. Originally published in 1987, the author had the advantage of 40+ years of hindsight. And anyone who has done a sufficient amount of study of the war may suggest that some things he includes should be replaced by others that he skipped. So it goes with listicles.

The book will best serve those with a fair amount of understanding of the major campaigns and battles, but an encyclopedic knowledge isn't required.

For me, the book falls a bit short of being a "scholarly" work, as it lacks any end notes or footnotes. It has a small bibliography (2 pages), and an index. The maps included are sufficient to help understand the accompanying text.

[Frank Pellecchia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sixteen specific detailed examples ineptitude, complacency, postponement, and just plain stupidity. Ranges from Hitler's failure to take Britain in 1940 to political interference in the air war over Germany to the failure at Arnhem (A Bridge Too Far) and other missteps.

[Russ Spence · Rating 4 out of 5]

a required read for anyone wanting to know the sort of things that lead to the people who lost the last war, er, losing the last war. Looking into the decisions that lead to pivotal events in the war, who made those decisions & why they were right. Or wrong...

[Ned · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting topic, but the writing is hard to follow.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to learn from other people's errors, learn from the best

[Steven Raszewski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good but tedious Brit writing style.