[tramadoldiscountes]

Japan was running out of oil and teh US had embargoed it so it had no choice.

Germany thought they could take Russia out like they did with France, but delayed Barbarossa thanks to Mussolini screwing up in Austria so they couldn't achieve their objectives before teh winter.

[soydaykam]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Germany fighting a war on two fronts? Japan attacking the U.S. Looking back on WWII, you can probably point out all the mistakes made in WWII with 20-20 hindsight, but these countries had intelligent people just like we do and they could have seen the flaws in their strategies. So what was going through their head? Was there a sound line of reasoning for fighting the war the way they did? What do you think it was? Why did Germany make the same mistake twice in WWI and WWII? Feel free to make any comments about historical war blunders in terms of strategy, not just WWII either, but in any historical war. youre probably looking for, and are going to get, all kinds of strategic and logistical stuff, all the usual rehashed stuff about going for Moscow vs going for the Ukraine, about Ultra, about the battle of Midway, etc, etc.

All of which misses the point. I dont believe the axis lost because of some "tactical" mistakes - the allies made many as well. And Hitler understood logistics pretty well actually, and the Japanese certainly understood their logistical situation/nightmare.

Where they completely misunderstood the world, was their racist ideology. Which translated into grand strategic errors, repeatedly.

Hitler believed that being "Aryans", the British would come around to his side. He fundamentally misjudged the British nation and polity, because he viewed it through a racial lens.

He believed that the Soviets, being racially inferior, could not and would not resist with intensity. The opposition they displayed even in the opening weeks, when unlike the Poles or French they kept fighting even when surrounded, was simply impossible in Hitlers worldview. The debates about Moscow, wide frontal attacks, etc are irrelevant. In Hitlers world view the USSR should have collapsed well before it came to that.
Similarly the US, a country "have negrified, and half judaized" should have proved itself a military nullity.

Had Hitlers RACIAL ideology been true, the grand strategy he actually followed would have been perfectly rational.

The Japanese, if somewhat more realistic, still severely underestimated the will of the United States to fight on, in part through racial and militarist ideology.

[Mmccqrtb]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by LordShiva
Japan was running out of oil and teh US had embargoed it so it had no choice if.


They certainly had a choice. They could have cut a deal with the US wrt China, (which would have meant basically withdrawing from it) and there would have been no embargo. If you KNOW youre going to lose a war with the US, thats the optimal strategy. The question is, why didnt they know they were going to lose.


Germany thought they could take Russia out like they did with France, but delayed Barbarossa thanks to Mussolini screwing up in Austria so they couldn't achieve their objectives before teh winter.

WTF- Shiva? Surely you mean Yugoslavia, which was invaded by Germany as well as Italy. Shirer famously said they delayed fatally because of the Yugo campaign. And IIUC its been pretty well established that they couldnt have started barbarossa any earlier, since they needed to wait till after the spring floods that rendered roads unusable in Ukraine and elsewhere in Russia.

[Slintreeoost]

I've read that Japan knew they couldn't win a full war with us and only want us out of the Pacific. It sounds like they felt the same way the ME feels about us now, that if you spill enough American blood, we will quit and go home? Why didn't they negotiate a withdrawal from China?

As for Germany, Russia was a sneak attack correct? If their offensive was delayed, why didn't they just give up on the Russian offensive for a year at least? Or would the Russian military been much stronger?

[IvJlNwum]

They thought that if they succeeded in destroying the Pacific Fleet at Pearl, several things might work out:

1) Without our carriers, it would take us quite a while to be in a position to counterattack.

2) Given the time bought b/c of #1, they would be able to consolidate their holdings and then maybe look to cut a deal. They would be stronger, and hopefully well-dug-in in the Pacific. We'd have a very long, hard slog ahead (not that we didn't anyway, but even longer & harder).

I think they knew that if the didn't get our fleet (including the carriers), they were in deep ****. But they figured they were in deep **** already b/c of the resource embargos.

They could've chosen peace, of course. But they rolled the dice instead, in a high-risk, high reward play.

I think LotM is largely right about the Germans. I think it's pretty clear that Hitler seriously underestimated the Russians (though he wasn't the first). Hell, I think American racist opinions about the inferior "Japs" made us underestimate them too.

My addition would be that Hitler got impatient with the UK (your question was why two fronts?). Instead of finishing up with the UK (either by negotiating a peace deal or by conquering the island - assuming either was feasible), he launched Barbarossa, which in hindsight looks like the act of a lunatic. But Barbarossa was what he was after the whole time... not France & the UK.

-Arrian

[medio]

Originally posted by Arrian
My addition would be that Hitler got impatient with the UK (your question was why two fronts?). Instead of finishing up with the UK (either by negotiating a peace deal or by conquering the island - assuming either was feasible), he launched Barbarossa, which in hindsight looks like the act of a lunatic. But Barbarossa was what he was after the whole time... not France & the UK.

-Arrian Hitler even had plans inn the drawer for such an invasion. Operation Selöwe (Sealion) for which even a number of Pz. III and IV were made diving capable. One of the reasons the operation wasn´t carried out while germany still was capable to do it seems to have been that the german Luftwaffe never was able to gain air superiority over the british islands.

[AricGoffgog]

Eh, they didn't have enough landing craft either. Nore a coastline to land on condusive to modern warfare.

[orerviche]

Rhine river barges. Thats like poor gangstas putting rims on their 94 civics and declaring themselves the ****.

Doesn't make it so.

In any case the racial arguement while valid for Hitler is not for the military. No part of the Barbarossa campaign planning indicates they expected Russia to role over. In fact every account I have ever read contains nothing but dismay at the initial success.

[Niiinioa]

Originally posted by Arrian
They thought that if they succeeded in destroying the Pacific Fleet at Pearl, several things might work out:

1) Without our carriers, it would take us quite a while to be in a position to counterattack.

2) Given the time bought b/c of #1, they would be able to consolidate their holdings and then maybe look to cut a deal. They would be stronger, and hopefully well-dug-in in the Pacific. We'd have a very long, hard slog ahead (not that we didn't anyway, but even longer & harder).

I think they knew that if the didn't get our fleet (including the carriers), they were in deep ****. But they figured they were in deep **** already b/c of the resource embargos.

They could've chosen peace, of course. But they rolled the dice instead, in a high-risk, high reward play.

...

-Arrian Actually, wasn't the USN more battleship-centric at the start of WWII? So they would have been the main target.

Because of all the battleships lost at PH, the USN became a carrier navy. (Also lucky that no carriers were in PH at the time of the attack, IIRC.)