|
A lot of dissing in this thread! The Nazi state and/or its leaders have been called corrupt, chaotic, back-stabbing, psychotic, incompetent, delusional, uneducated, incapable or rational thought, barely functional, uncooperative, and plain ugly - just off the top of my head. Also, navy was useless, airforce was laughable, etc. Well these people managed to turn a collapsing country into a superpower, gain massive support, and wage a war that changed the face of the planet. They must have been doing something right and they must have had some personal and professional qualities to achieve this.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 10:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Whoa guys, let's not go around talking poo poo about all the nazi's positive achievements. You know, things like:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
I was joking and being a little provocative but I think the question is interesting - would any of the experts care and dare to list a few positive traits that at least some of these men probably had? How do you become a key XX century figure without any? I don't think it will turn anyone pro-nazi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:A lot of dissing in this thread! The Nazi state and/or its leaders have been called corrupt, chaotic, back-stabbing, psychotic, incompetent, delusional, uneducated, incapable or rational thought, barely functional, uncooperative, and plain ugly - just off the top of my head. Also, navy was useless, airforce was laughable, etc. I'm not sure superpower is the right term; unless throwing millions of your men into the meatgrinder makes you a superpower. They were never going to win anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Whoa guys, let's not go around talking poo poo about all the nazi's positive achievements. You know, things like: Poor Adolf never catches a break:  (The myth of Hitler destroyed: Even his Autobahns are poo poo)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 11:45
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I was joking and being a little provocative but I think the question is interesting - would any of the experts care and dare to list a few positive traits that at least some of these men probably had? How do you become a key XX century figure without any? I don't think it will turn anyone pro-nazi. All this without the level of nearly uncontrollable media we have today and a bunch of nutters can do what they want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 11:55
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I was joking and being a little provocative but I think the question is interesting - would any of the experts care and dare to list a few positive traits that at least some of these men probably had? How do you become a key XX century figure without any? I don't think it will turn anyone pro-nazi. Hitler was a charismatic speaker and had a bunch of ruthless sociopaths working for him. Most of the military successes were the work of people only loosely (if at all) connected to the Nazi party. I guess the best that can be said is that, in the beginning, Hitler knew not to micromanage too much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
I guess being totally fair they had a pretty outstanding propaganda machine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
And Germany was such a rich and technologically advanced and populous country that you could burn decades of accumulated capital and developments to tear a swathe through the very heart of Europe. Doesn't mean you'll get a good long-term outcome from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:A lot of dissing in this thread! The Nazi state and/or its leaders have been called corrupt, chaotic, back-stabbing, psychotic, incompetent, delusional, uneducated, incapable or rational thought, barely functional, uncooperative, and plain ugly - just off the top of my head. Also, navy was useless, airforce was laughable, etc. Well Hitler did launch the worlds first Anti-Smoking campaign. Meanwhile Goering introduced some of Germany's first animal protection legislation as part of his job as the Reich Huntsmaster. Also the Nazi's successfully managed to turn an army a hundred thousand strong into a force that could humble some of the greatest world powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I was joking and being a little provocative but I think the question is interesting - would any of the experts care and dare to list a few positive traits that at least some of these men probably had? How do you become a key XX century figure without any? I don't think it will turn anyone pro-nazi. A lot of them died fiery painful deaths thanks to the Allied might, starved to death in Siberia, lynched, beaten or hanged during the final years of the war and the years afterwards and they got such a beatdown that their country was thorn in two. They were really good at dying and it's a shame so many of them didn't exploit this positive trait to it's fullest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
Hjalmar Schacht at least got Germany back on its feet economically and foresaw that the war would destroy Germany's economy and that it's economy was in no way prepared for war at all. For ultimately being right, he was shitcanned. Also I guess Herman Goering deserves some faint praise. For being a such a colossal fuckup at everything Hitler put him in charge of, including German industry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Porsche is my favourite, he funneled tons of money and resources into projects that were inherently useless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:A lot of dissing in this thread! The Nazi state and/or its leaders have been called corrupt, chaotic, back-stabbing, psychotic, incompetent, delusional, uneducated, incapable or rational thought, barely functional, uncooperative, and plain ugly - just off the top of my head. Also, navy was useless, airforce was laughable, etc. As I discussed earlier, the German Revolution of 1919 did not really reshape the political and social landscape of the country. Left-wing socialists and communists associated with the anti-war USPD (Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany) made some attempts in that direction but they were crushed by an alliance between the mainstream political parties--the SPD, the Centre, and the DDP--and right wing paramilitaries. The result was a Republic in which the Kaiser had been removed but the political system and government remained intact in many ways. In regards to what you're talking about, the German Empire's civil service, judiciary, university system, officer corps, and so forth all remained in place. In addition there was no significant redistribution of property, so the landowning aristocracy, financiers, and industrialists maintained their positions as well. Nor did the Nazi takeover do much to change this. What they would do instead is create party-related administrative positions that were parallel to existing civil positions, sort of just sliding a new NSDAP-run layer of bureaucracy over the top of them. The bureaucrats would continue doing their jobs, but now there would be an office somewhere upstairs with a political appointee sitting in it, who would give them orders from time to time and they had better do what he said, because his authority came from Berlin. So the civil service continued to keep Germany running smoothly, just with a newly established shadow government humming alongside and acting as liaison with Hitler's clique. This is basically how the Nazis did what you're talking about. It was not necessary for them to be capable of actually running the day-to-day operations of the country, because for that they could rely on the administrative institutions that had been established way back in the days of the German Empire. Another element that came in later was the fact that once the Nazis had been in power for a few years, ambitious people recognized that it was advantageous to be a Nazi. Professional associations also came to encourage NSDAP membership. Eventually there was a steady flood of new party members, often more skilled and from better social positions than had been typical before 1933, which raised the overall quality of the membership. However, the best positions tended to be reserved for people who had joined before the party began its cycle of explosive growth in 1930, the so-called "alte Kämpfer" who'd been with Hitler when it was actually difficult to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:However, the best positions tended to be reserved for people who had joined before the party began its cycle of explosive growth in 1930, the so-called "alte Kämpfer" who'd been with Hitler when it was actually difficult to do so. So hipster Nazis who joined the Party before it was cool?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
That Heydrich guy barely survived the assassination attempt and then heavily wounded by a grenade ran after the assassins with his pistol. He was a horrible man and you sort of start believing in God only so that there would be hell for people like him - but still that was a badass thing to do. Any other examples of personal courage among Nazi leaders?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Whoa guys, let's not go around talking poo poo about all the nazi's positive achievements. You know, things like: Triumph of Will was pretty well shot and I guess maybe entertaining if you like watching a large number of dudes in silly outfits marching around in an orderly fashion. So there's that. Also regarding Germany becoming a "superpower": The government had been covertly bringing the military up to it's previous strength despite not really being allowed since only a few years after the war, Hitler just did it publicly and kicked things into high gear. Also despite what a lot of people think the hyperinflation fiasco ended in 1924, almost a decade before the Nazis took power, and Hitler and his cronies had nothing to do with solving it. The German economy wasn't bad all things considered from then until the Great Depression. e: Gumby posted:
The Hutus did (allegedly) get a lot of assistance from the French with that which I expect makes things run a lot smoother FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:That Heydrich guy barely survived the assassination attempt and then heavily wounded by a grenade ran after the assassins with his pistol. He was a horrible man and you sort of start believing in God only so that there would be hell for people like him - but still that was a badass thing to do. Any other examples of personal courage among Nazi leaders? Well, Hitler stood up to the Czechs, Poles, French, Russians, British, Americans, and occasionally the Italians. That's all pretty badass. Too bad the war he started reduced Germany to ashes. Also I think Joe and Magda Goebbels win the record for speediest killing of their own children. Sadly the Nazis lost the "speediest genocide" record to the Hutus of Rwanda in 1994. Seriously dude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
I don't quite get this vein of discussion. We all know (I hope) and accept (I hope) that certain sections of the Nazi party (by this I mean probably most if not all of those in charge rather than tarring huge swaths of the German population with the brush) committed utterly deplorable acts. They also made some pretty  mistakes during the war and intentionally created a way of running things.But this is generally a pretty academic thread and just because someone was completely and utterly devoid of humanity doesn't mean they lack talent and ability does it? It isn't glorification of the Nazi's to discuss things they did well or the abilities and talents of individuals that allowed them to get into the position they got into. Its a question I'm geniunly interested in. Clearly the Nazi's got really lucky and war wise were at the top end of the 'wow things really turned out your way there' spectrum. Hitler was a drat charismatic man and excellent public speaker, but was that it? Can you really take over an entire state like Germany and take over half of Europe, for a limited time, because you're a bit lucky and a charismatic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:I don't quite get this vein of discussion. We all know (I hope) and accept (I hope) that certain sections of the Nazi party (by this I mean probably most if not all of those in charge rather than tarring huge swaths of the German population with the brush) committed utterly deplorable acts. What I think you're missing is that Hitler did not take over Germany and half of Europe by himself. He may have been the driver (German pun!) but he didn't build the car. Most historians with some academic training have learned to reject the idea that "great men" ("great" in the sense of powerful, not morally righteous) are what drive history. We tend to look at social reasons instead - Germany's economic circumstances in the late 20s and early 30s, the amount (or lack thereof) of anti-Semitism in Germany, disillusionment in democratic principles across Europe, advances in military technology, eugenic philosophies, etc. when we look at the Nazis and WWII. In this perspective, top Nazi leaders are recognized as gifted propagandists, but generally poor leaders. Edit: Recognizing specific Nazis' particular gifts is something that we're generally uncomfortable with for other reasons, too. I've met plenty of people who were enamored with Nazis and the Waffen-SS, Panzers, those swishy Hugo Boss uniforms, etc. Academics who study this stuff have to compete with those people who write books like "Hitler's Death Tanks" and produce crappy, exploitative documentaries for the History Channel. People who aren't academics tend to think we're creepy because we study this stuff, because they associate us with the creeps. For us to talk about which Nazis might have been extra-competent at whatever they were doing makes us feel creepy. Plus, what does it matter? What narrative can justify this path of research? "Hans Milchwasser, an "old fighter" of the NSDAP, was a talented dogcatcher in Freiburg." Who cares? Unless a person is expressly trying to redeem Nazis in general in the public eye, there's no reason to catalog which Nazis were really good at what. Kangaroo Jerk fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Gumby posted:History stuff Fair enough on the creeper stuff. I last studied anything Nazi related (that doesn't involve a computer game) around 10 years ago. I did meet Ian Kershaw once though which was nice. Anyway, I'm not up on the whole great man theory. I certainly see what you're getting at, in political study I'd say its analogous to the agent-structure problematique. I can also certainly see the reasons for a backlash against great man theory from people serious about history. When you're writing pop history books its easier to say Rome conquered Gaul because Caesar was totally awesome than explain the often complex socio-economic and wider cultural reasons that allowed Caesar to conquer Gaul. My point here is, while I agree with what your saying, would you not accept that in my Roman example; while Caesar could do what he did due to wider issues, if he wasn't an exceptional (or at least above average) general he still wouldn't have been able to do what he did. Rather than drivers of history, they would at least be scale tippers. That is a set of circumstances allow someone to leverage their talents and through them make a huge difference to the course of history. With regard to the Nazi's, I don't give a poo poo if Hitler could play 27 musical instruments simultaneously or if he had read every book published at that time aside from a mildly interesting footnote. But if Hans being an exceptional dog catcher played a decisive agential part in how the Nazi's were able to do what, on the face of it, is a simply staggering set of things (really didn't want to type achievement) then yes, I am interested. As for justifiable narrative, if the case was that Hitler was literally a bumbling idiot just with a Charisma roll of 18. If the only reason, in this clearly wrong example, that he got into the position he did and could hold it was because he gave good public speeches and was in the right place at the right time it serves as a powerful warning about the weaknesses of that particular governmental system. Potentially highlighting similar weakness in other, currently existing systems. I'm not saying more Nazi's will rise up from the anals of history, but were the above true, then its a powerful statement about how we act as a social group. [Edit - After writing that and having to think about or change half the words so I didn't come across as some Neo-Nazi creeper I'm glad my ameture historical interest is much more ancient. I don't envy someone who actually works in this field and has to watch every single word in every discussion lest they come across as a dick.] [Edit2 - Obviously, that all said, if you or anyone else don't want to talk about it for whatever reason, I can drop the question. This is an ask\tell thread on something awful and I'll have forgotten I even asked it in a few days.] Cast_No_Shadow fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. What you're asking does make some sense. I think part of WWII historians' attitude toward Hitler might be due to a wish to differentiate themselves from the more common "Hitler was a total genius, guys" belief. Occasionally we may swing too far in the opposite direction. Thinking more seriously about things though, it's still hard to really describe what Hitler was really good at aside from propaganda. His utter ruthlessness - the willingness to have von Papen's aide killed during the Night of Long Knives, to defang the SA and make the NSDAP less scary by backstabbing Röhm, to go for the gusto directly after the Reichstag burning, starting the drat war, going through the Ardennes forest in 1940s - was instrumental in getting Hitler as far as he did, but it all fell apart at the end, didn't it? He ran Germany for 12 years. That's not even as much time as Napoleon III, or even Louis XVI. And he left Germany as a smoking crater. Its international reputation was shattered for decades and still hasn't fully recovered. Europe's near-destruction was pretty much the reason for America's ascendance to superpower, and later hyperpower status, at the expense of any European claims to the same. Any competencies held by Germans, Nazi or not, bolstered the Nazi war effort, which if successful would have resulted in millions more murders of innocents. Sure, there might be some lieutenant somewhere who saved twenty of his soldiers from aerial bombardment by sheltering them with his body or something. But that would have enabled those survivors to kills more Brits, Russians, or Americans. Or Jews. You can't really separate the moral taint of National Socialism from any personal acts of heroism, bravery, or organizational competence. My classical (and military) history is horribly incomplete so I can't speak to Caesar's battlefield prowess. But I know enough about Napoleon to tell that he was truly a truly gifted general for his time. There's a ton of really amazing stuff that he did on the political front as well. Generally speaking though, the top Nazis were rubbish. If you like Ian Kershaw (and you should, he's a great historian), then check out his recent book The End. He does a great job in his chapters on Speer - describes how drat good Speer was at saving Germany's industrial capacity while simultaneously calling him out on his careerism and general moral failings. http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Defiance-Destruction-1944-1945/dp/0143122134
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Its a question I'm geniunly interested in. Clearly the Nazi's got really lucky and war wise were at the top end of the 'wow things really turned out your way there' spectrum. Hitler was a drat charismatic man and excellent public speaker, but was that it? Can you really take over an entire state like Germany and take over half of Europe, for a limited time, because you're a bit lucky and a charismatic? Pretty much yeah. Hitler got really lucky but pre enabling act he was actually a really good campaigner/politician in addition to being a good speech maker. During I think it was his election against Hindenburg he had the "hitler over Germany" campaign where he flew all over Germany in a few weeks to give speeches and rallies. What is extremely common place to us now during US elections was, unless I'm mistaken and someone else did it earlier, invented/popularized by hitler. He, goebbels and goering also knew when to make alliances and comprises in the reichstag that eventually lead them to power. An example that stands out in my mind was from the collapse of I think the brünning government where the nazis joined with the communists to bring it down. These were also able to sell their party to the conservatives like von Papen, and to a much lesser extent Hindenburg, as a way to restore order to Germany and being her back to her former glory. E: its also important to note that the nazis never had more than a third of the population voting for them and it was how the Weimar constitution/ruling coalitions worked that allowed the nazis to take control. E2: also the nazis couldn't have taken control if von Papen and Von Schleicher weren't playing Varys and Littlefinger with each other over the German government. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Gumby posted:Thanks for the clarification. What you're asking does make some sense. I think part of WWII historians' attitude toward Hitler might be due to a wish to differentiate themselves from the more common "Hitler was a total genius, guys" belief. Occasionally we may swing too far in the opposite direction. Thanks, this was interesting to read. It never crossed my mind that historians might feel creepy about certain areas or angles of their research. Are you also German, if I may ask? FWIW, I think that showing someone like Hitler in totally neutral, emotionless light which allows his very few actual achievements to show, dispels any admiration better. If you make him a caricature of evil and insanity (I'm not saying you were doing that) then he becomes something like Sauron or Darth Vader, which can make him appealing in a way. I don't watch History Channel and I wasn't aware of the bad reputation it has. What is exactly their problem? Inventing or misrepresenting stuff to make it more interesting? Doctor Malaver fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
One thing I've always found amusing is that the things the Nazis often get praise for are fake. The German economy pretty much worked as a massive confidence scheme, only kept afloat by the wizardry of Schacht and later stolen hard currency and Soviet aid. The Germans never managed to field a new generation of any weapon in any amounts that would have ever made a difference. All the jet planes, assault rifles, fancy tanks, air-to-surface missiles, night-vision equipment, surface-to-air missiles, ballistic missiles and rocket planes didn't amount to poo poo. They didn't even manage to build a real replacement for their rapidly aging bomber fleet. Which leads to another point. The Nazis were great at organizing stuff. Yeah, when it came to genocide, they were, but their entire war industry was a joke. Guderian and Speer really tried but didn't manage to ever reform the industrial sector to achieve sufficient output and new gear was never built to sufficient numbers. Blitzkrieg was a military superdoctrine. Except, everything points towards Blitzkrieg being kind of a fluke, where the successes hinged on a few generals in the field having more initiative than the supreme command had. Also, Rommel the Desert Fox. He was kind of a lovely general in Africa and a total suckup to Hitler until the war went sour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 11:42
|
|
|
I don't disagree with your points (the autobahns, famously, were originally planned and begun by the Weimar goverment), but why do you consider Rommel to be a lovely general?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I don't disagree with your points (the autobahns, famously, were originally planned and begun by the Weimar goverment), but why do you consider Rommel to be a lovely general? Calling him a lovely general is unfair but I do see his point. Rommel's greatest achievements were as a divisional commander where his lead from the front mentality and disdain for staff work could be covered for allowing his tactical and operational skill to shine through. As a corps and Army commander though Rommel was a disaster Generals at that level are supposed to be coordinating the strategic picture and seeing to it that their troops are properly led.fed and trained. Rommel meanwhile rather than doing his job was more inclined to be leading a regiment from the front. Once he came up against Generals who did understand logistics and had the resources and strategic nous to exploit the Allies material superiority he never stood a chance. To quote Sun Tzu "Tactics without strategy are merely the noise before the defeat". Rommel was a tactical genius but wars and campaigns are won on strategic level and that was an arena where Rommel just couldn't compete.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Ferrosol posted:Calling him a lovely general is unfair but I do see his point. Rommel's greatest achievements were as a divisional commander where his lead from the front mentality and disdain for staff work could be covered for allowing his tactical and operational skill to shine through. As a corps and Army commander though Rommel was a disaster Generals at that level are supposed to be coordinating the strategic picture and seeing to it that their troops are properly led.fed and trained. Rommel meanwhile rather than doing his job was more inclined to be leading a regiment from the front. Once he came up against Generals who did understand logistics and had the resources and strategic nous to exploit the Allies material superiority he never stood a chance. To quote Sun Tzu "Tactics without strategy are merely the noise before the defeat". Rommel was a tactical genius but wars and campaigns are won on strategic level and that was an arena where Rommel just couldn't compete. Fair enough. I guess he just looks good in comparison to the generals he was facing, and until Monty they weren't anything special. I still hold that Monty is only seen as a great general because he shortened the usual allied strategy of Attack->Defeat->Attack->Defeat->Attack with overwhelming support->Victory to just the last step.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:That Heydrich guy barely survived the assassination attempt and then heavily wounded by a grenade ran after the assassins with his pistol. He was a horrible man and you sort of start believing in God only so that there would be hell for people like him - but still that was a badass thing to do. Any other examples of personal courage among Nazi leaders? Göring was a fighter ace in WW1, although that's before he became a Nazi leader, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Göring was a fighter ace in WW1, although that's before he became a Nazi leader, of course. The doctor who did Göring's psychological profile when he was committed for his morphine addiction in the mid-1920s had a nice quote about this. Paraphrasing, he assessed that Göring was clearly a man of great physical courage but at the same time was almost completely lacking in moral courage, so that he was capable of risking death or serious injury with elan in war, while being incapable of managing his own affairs and a complete poo poo as a person. Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Göring was a fighter ace in WW1, although that's before he became a Nazi leader, of course. By WWII he wouldn't have fit in a fighter cockpit, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Ferrosol posted:Calling him a lovely general is unfair but I do see his point. Rommel's greatest achievements were as a divisional commander where his lead from the front mentality and disdain for staff work could be covered for allowing his tactical and operational skill to shine through. As a corps and Army commander though Rommel was a disaster Generals at that level are supposed to be coordinating the strategic picture and seeing to it that their troops are properly led.fed and trained. Rommel meanwhile rather than doing his job was more inclined to be leading a regiment from the front. Once he came up against Generals who did understand logistics and had the resources and strategic nous to exploit the Allies material superiority he never stood a chance. To quote Sun Tzu "Tactics without strategy are merely the noise before the defeat". Rommel was a tactical genius but wars and campaigns are won on strategic level and that was an arena where Rommel just couldn't compete. Part of his issues with logistics had to do with the allied sinking a good part of his supply line. It was something of an underfed campaign anyways. He was there because Hitler helped his allies more than he should have. The Axis as a whole had issues with trying to win battles rather than wars. The Japanese war plan was called The Great Battle Plan. It required the Americans to fight like the Russians had in 1905. They didn't do it and the plan was screwed. The Allied had less of a plan than a purpose. Build more stuff, train more guys and make sure the Axis were less able to do the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
I would argue that a At midway, luck and superior American damage control saw the Japanese carrier force shattered with 4 of the 10 carriers Japan entered the war with being lost for one US carrier. Despite this Japan continued with their attritional plan, engaging in several battles in the Solomons campaign, where once again American damage control and the US's use of radar saw them to overall victory in the campaign. A few more battles and you eventually have MacArthur knocking on the Philippines, threatening to cut Japan off from their captured East Indies oil, dooming their planes and ships if lost. Japanese high command throws what's left of the fleet into the sho-go plan to destroy MacArthur's invasion fleet. In four separate battles, including the amazing battle off Samar the remnants of the Japanese fleet are nearly annihilated. Loses included the last of the carriers, one of their two super battleships and many other smaller ships. So really Decisive Battle was a sound strategy, it was just the Americans that pulled it off. e: as the post below show I wasn't really fully thinking when I first made this post. What I should have said was that the Decisive Battle doctrine is IMO a sound strategic theory if both sides are evenly matched. The Pacific theater was not a battlefield between two evenly matched opponents, as others point out below Japan could not have won an attritional battle as the US could have pumped out a poo poo ton of new boats. At best, if Midway was a complete Japanese victory they could have continued a large offensive campaign up until the beginning of 1943. In 1943 the Essex class carriers start rolling out of drydocks until by 1945 when the US is operating over 100 carriers of both fleet and escort type. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
The Japanese could have sunk every single American carrier at Midway without the loss of a single one of their own and within a year they would have still been out numbered. Within 2 years it wouldn't have even been close. All it would have done was delayed allied offensive operations in the Pacific for another 6 months to a year. Which would have seriously sucked but it wouldn't have changed the eventual outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Well yeah but explaining that is less fun than pointing out how the US essentially pulled off Japan's strategic plan by complete accident  .Edit: to further clarify decisive battle may have worked to destroyed a fleet, but the US could replace it three times over ensuring the war was lost before it began. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
There's no way Japan could have ever hoped to win an attritionary battle though. Even if they destroyed multiple US fleets somehow, their loss of aviation certified pilots could never have been replaced. It was a war they simply couldn't win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:33
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
D'oh yeah, re-reading what I typed I realized how stupid it was and have edit'd my earlier post accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
The IJN of 1941 was better prepared to fight than the USN of 1941 was. The Great Battle was probably a fight they could have won. The US military realized that too so they let places like Wake Island and the Philippines go while they rebuilt. Once that was put into motion Japan's defeat was going to happen, it was just a matter of when. Japan picked a fight with a nation of near infinite resources, one they couldn't touch and still they thought they would win because only they had warrior spirit. Delusional thinking unsurprisingly goes hand in hand with ideas of racial supremacy. See: Germany, Nazi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:The doctor who did Göring's psychological profile when he was committed for his morphine addiction in the mid-1920s had a nice quote about this. Paraphrasing, he assessed that Göring was clearly a man of great physical courage but at the same time was almost completely lacking in moral courage, so that he was capable of risking death or serious injury with elan in war, while being incapable of managing his own affairs and a complete poo poo as a person. Hey man, I actually asked a question about this very quote over in the Mil History thread a good while back. Do you have the entire thing and if I may, what exactly did you google to find it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:That Heydrich guy barely survived the assassination attempt and then heavily wounded by a grenade ran after the assassins with his pistol. He was a horrible man and you sort of start believing in God only so that there would be hell for people like him - but still that was a badass thing to do. Any other examples of personal courage among Nazi leaders? Alekanderu posted:Göring was a fighter ace in WW1, although that's before he became a Nazi leader, of course. Although Göring did eventually become leader of Jagdgeschwader 1 (or the Flying Circus) at the tail end of the first world war, I don't think it was indicative of any amount of personal courage he may have had. "The Red Baron: Beyond the Legend" by Peter Kilduff posted:Despite the critical point in the fighting and and the Geschwader's impending withdrawal to Puisieux Ferme, on 26 July [1918,] Oberleutnant Hermann Göring went on leave and transferred acting command of JG I to Lothar von Richthofen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 07:33
|
|