Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
Two Major powers launch surprise attacks at two rising Superpowers. Both the Germans and the Japanese believed they could defeat their enemy's and complete their objectives with a swift surprise campaign leaving their enemies to awestruck and demotivated to continue the fight.
However both found themselves in a war they could not win and with no plan B.
Did the Germans make the biggest strategic miscalculation or was it the Japanese?
However both found themselves in a war they could not win and with no plan B.
Did the Germans make the biggest strategic miscalculation or was it the Japanese?
Last edited by David1819 on 26 Nov 2014, 18:45, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
The Japanese weren't really hoping to defeat the US, they were hoping to grab what they needed and get a defensive line set up to allow them time to use the new goodies to beef up their military before the US stomped a puddle in their butts. They assumed a short war because they knew they couldn't win a long one.
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
They both did. What if Japan attacked Russia instead of Great Britain and the U.S.? I think Russia would have had to settle up with both to end it. Roosevelt would have engineered an entry into the way anyway, but it would have taken a lot of time as the bulk of the American people were against going to war.
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
Both were cases of badly flawed political parties that once they were able to effectively silence any and all effective internal opposition by brutal repression, those in the inner circles of power within each were thus free to completely ignore the economic realities of their respective nations compared to their pre determined opponents, as well as the LONG TERM strategic, technological and economic consequences of going to war, almost insanely looking only at the short term immediate situation as they themselves saw it with utterly NO regard to the immediate reaction of other still neutral nations. Nazi Germany at least initially honestly hoped that each individual country on Earth would passively or even fearfully sit idly by as each of their neighbors were devastated and conquered 1 by 1 in a series of short sharp wars, each falling in turn until none were left. The Imperial Japanese utter reliance upon the fighting and `moral` skills of their own nation`s armed forces to simply overwhelm and then successfully defend their newly expanded Empire was just so much wishful thinking of leaders whom chose to blind themselves to their opponent`s industrial and economic capabilities...Both nations tragically participated in a world war that completely devastated BOTH, and so many others unnecessarily.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
They proved they could handle the Japanese rudely, so I don't see much changing on the Siberian Front.uhu wrote:They both did. What if Japan attacked Russia instead of Great Britain and the U.S.? I think Russia would have had to settle up with both to end it.
In the Nov. 6th, 1941, cabinet meeting FDR polled his Secretaries and got a unanimous opinion that he could get a declaration of war through Congress if Japan attacked Dutch and/or British colonies in the Pacific. My own research supports this.Roosevelt would have engineered an entry into the way anyway, but it would have taken a lot of time as the bulk of the American people were against going to war.
As for the American public, you're right, nobody wants to go to war, but ~72% of Americans said we'd have to fight Japan sooner or later. ~68% said the same thing about Germany. The myth that the US was staunchly isolationist doesn't hold up to even light examination. You may remember that Wendell Willkie was a the Republican candidate for President in 1940, and that he was an interventionist. The GOP platform for 1940 mentions "defense" eleven times.
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
By mid 1941, all but the most die hard isolationists could see the ugly accumulated and repeated bloody `hand writing on the wall`; the relentless and ruthless military aggression of all 3 Axis nations left little doubt as to their ultimate goals, which was in fact bluntly put flat out global domination. The Nazi surprise attack upon their staunch former Soviet `allies` was particularly about as rude a warning to all the other still neutral nations as it was possible to get as far as attempting to `negotiate` with the Nazi government in general and Adolph Hitler in particular...
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
They were never a major faction other than obstructing aid to countries we favored. Only ~7% of people polled said they'd vote for Charles Lindbergh for president if the Firsters ran a ticket in the 1940 campaign. They were certainly loud, however. But they failed to find a common cause among the various faction, ranging from absolute pacifists like Quakers to "US only, but we'll fight for that" types.flakbait wrote:By mid 1941, all but the most die hard isolationists could see the ugly accumulated and repeated bloody `hand writing on the wall`; the relentless and ruthless military aggression of all 3 Axis nations left little doubt as to their ultimate goals, which was in fact bluntly put flat out global domination. The Nazi surprise attack upon their staunch former Soviet `allies` was particularly about as rude a warning to all the other still neutral nations as it was possible to get as far as attempting to `negotiate` with the Nazi government in general and Adolph Hitler in particular...
-
- Member
- Posts: 877
- Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
- Location: Australia
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
To argue that would be to argue degrees.David1819 wrote: Did the Germans make the biggest strategic miscalculation or was it the Japanese?
They were both pretty huge gaffs - and both founded on the believe of National Destiny and racial superiority (and not rational thought).
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
Pearl Harbor gets my vote as the more flawed operation.
Even if the Japanese had managed to set up their defensive perimeter exactly as they planned the natural resources and industrial strength of the United States would have been turned into unstoppable military power sooner or later. The Japanese military leadership seemed to have grossly underestimated the American's desire for revenge and their willingness to see the war through to victory.
It was a suicidal war from the get go.
Barbarossa on the other hand had a chance of succeeding but only if it had been launched in 1942 and not 1941. Launching it in 1941 was never going to get the job done due to the logistical issues highlighted in Friedrich Paulus's war games played in December 1940.
Even if the Japanese had managed to set up their defensive perimeter exactly as they planned the natural resources and industrial strength of the United States would have been turned into unstoppable military power sooner or later. The Japanese military leadership seemed to have grossly underestimated the American's desire for revenge and their willingness to see the war through to victory.
It was a suicidal war from the get go.
Barbarossa on the other hand had a chance of succeeding but only if it had been launched in 1942 and not 1941. Launching it in 1941 was never going to get the job done due to the logistical issues highlighted in Friedrich Paulus's war games played in December 1940.
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
This thread will probably head south as quickly as the others of its ilk have...who's bringing the beer and popcorn to the party?
Seriously, it really is a "six of this, half-dozen of that kind" of question. For example, yes Barbarossa could have been delayed until 1942...except then the German invasion is facing at least twenty full Soviet mechanized corps and an army with an additional year to shake-down from the post-purge, post-Spanish Civil War, post-Finland manpower, equipment, and organizational changes. The Germans OTOH don't have many better options to pursue. Operations to take Great Britain out of the war by a 1941 SEELOEWE have less chance of success than the 1940 version. Throwing the full Luftwaffe strength against the RAF for another year also is unlikely to do more than attrit the Luftwaffe. The Mediterranean is equally unpalatable...
Seriously, it really is a "six of this, half-dozen of that kind" of question. For example, yes Barbarossa could have been delayed until 1942...except then the German invasion is facing at least twenty full Soviet mechanized corps and an army with an additional year to shake-down from the post-purge, post-Spanish Civil War, post-Finland manpower, equipment, and organizational changes. The Germans OTOH don't have many better options to pursue. Operations to take Great Britain out of the war by a 1941 SEELOEWE have less chance of success than the 1940 version. Throwing the full Luftwaffe strength against the RAF for another year also is unlikely to do more than attrit the Luftwaffe. The Mediterranean is equally unpalatable...
-
- Member
- Posts: 411
- Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
- Location: Romania
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
Neither Hitler nor Germany wanted to rule the world. All hegemonic wishes of Germany stayed in Europe and Europe only. In a colonial world, Germany wanted their former colonies back.flakbait wrote: Nazi Germany at least initially honestly hoped that each individual country on Earth would passively or even fearfully sit idly by as each of their neighbors were devastated and conquered 1 by 1 in a series of short sharp wars, each falling in turn until none were left.
However the comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. Pearl Harbor was a surprise operation meant to break the U.S. blockade of Japan and fuel further expansion. Barbarossa, on the other hand, was a political "smoke and mirrors" blitzkrieg, meant to show Churchill that he's alone and needs to sign a peace treaty ASAP. It was supposed to root out communism from Russia (and dismantle the huge colossus into more manageable pieces of nation-states) in no more than 2 months.
They were both flawed since they ended wielding opposite results (US becoming world superpower and USSR snatching half of Europe away).
RichTO90 wrote:an army with an additional year to shake-down from the post-purge, post-Spanish Civil War, post-Finland manpower, equipment, and organizational changes
Don't fool yourself into thinking that USSR would follow the same rearmament pattern as in the original timeline. They'd stick to what they were building so far. So, instead of several thousand T-34 and more than 1k KV-1 they would've possibly brought another 10k light tanks and BT recon vehicles to the party. The question is what Germany could produce 1 year later to gain the upper hand. I cannot think of anything special. Meaning Barbarossa '42 is pretty much the same as Barbarossa '41, only bigger trainwreck.
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
This is not correct : from the Japanese POV Japan had 2 choices : to yield to the US demands and to give up its aspirations to become a world power ,which would result in a transformation of the Japanese society ,which the army never would admit ,OR war and having a chance to become a world power? Not Japan,but the US had to win the war,and Japan was willing to sacrifice millions of men,and the US not .ChrisDR68 wrote:Pearl Harbor gets my vote as the more flawed operation.
Even if the Japanese had managed to set up their defensive perimeter exactly as they planned the natural resources and industrial strength of the United States would have been turned into unstoppable military power sooner or later. The Japanese military leadership seemed to have grossly underestimated the American's desire for revenge and their willingness to see the war through to victory.
It was a suicidal war from the get go.
.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
Japan was far from unified on the need to go to war. And history shows that if the zaibatsu had been more influential Japan would have become an economic power center in the Far East much earlier than it did. They would not have had to start from near zero in 1946.
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
It IS ultimately fortunately for the rest of the world that both countries DID NOT carefully prepare for LONG TERM drawn out conflicts with only largely `ad hoc` preparations, no rapid replacement and/ or upgrading of military equipment, thank you Adolf and Tojo !
Re: Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour which was more flawed?
Are you therefore suggesting that Japan had a chance of winning her war with the United States from a purely military point of view?ljadw wrote:This is not correct : from the Japanese POV Japan had 2 choices : to yield to the US demands and to give up its aspirations to become a world power ,which would result in a transformation of the Japanese society ,which the army never would admit ,OR war and having a chance to become a world power? Not Japan,but the US had to win the war,and Japan was willing to sacrifice millions of men,and the US not .ChrisDR68 wrote:Pearl Harbor gets my vote as the more flawed operation.
Even if the Japanese had managed to set up their defensive perimeter exactly as they planned the natural resources and industrial strength of the United States would have been turned into unstoppable military power sooner or later. The Japanese military leadership seemed to have grossly underestimated the American's desire for revenge and their willingness to see the war through to victory.
It was a suicidal war from the get go.
.