# Germany vs Japan, Who would have most likely won in warfare between the two?



## yyuusr (Dec 10, 2012)

I've recently started to develop a lot of interest in WW2 and this question keeps pooping up into my head. So I did a google search and mostly everything that pops up usually turns into a dick waving "this country was better than this country" BS that are just dire to read. So I was looking for a good forum page and found this site. Forgive me if this has already been asked beforebut I did a search here and had no luck finding anything. So I decided to just create an account and ask it myself.

Now I am well aware that the odds of these two countries declaring war on each other was very slim without having won their own wars but still humor me and try to just look at it hypothetically. Now from I know the German army was probably streets ahead of the Japanese one and vice versa with the navy. From what I have heard the German Air Force had the upper hand on the Japanese one. And most importantly the Germans had a better economy during the war if I'm not mistaken. But that's pretty much the limit to my logic on the matter so that's why I'm asking it here.

Who have really won a war between the two if they had fought each other from the beginning when you consider all things like military, economy, geography etc. How about during their peak, after they had conquered all the land and before they slowly started to lose them. Which side was really the more powerful one?


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 10, 2012)

With about 7000 miles between them, where and how could they fight ??
Neither country seemed interested in the part of the world occupied by the other, and neither had the ability to project their power that far, even if they did have a reason to do it.
Germany might have the most powerful ground forces, but no way to transport them to Asia. Japan might have a powerful Navy, but getting Japanese troops to Europe would require co-operation with the IJA. IJA and IJN had by far the worse of any WW2 combatants interservice rivalries.


----------



## davebender (Dec 10, 2012)

I agree.

However if we move Japan to Poland there's little doubt Germany would win. Both sides had well trained armed forces but Germany had a far better economy for producing weapons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> With about 7000 miles between them, where and how could they fight ??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And that has to be answered first. 

German Army in my opinion would be better. The Luftwaffe would have the upper hand as well. The Japanese Navy obviously would have the upper hand. Plus they have Aircraft Carriers, the Germans had none that were operational. The Germans would not have the Navy to take the fight to Japanese waters nor the the landing craft to to launch an amphibious assault.

Either way, I don't really see much to discuss in the scenario, since what you said in your post makes it not possible, unless one of them comes up with a Star Trek Transporter Device and can transport there troops and supplies. 

Neither would be able to sustain an invasion either over 7000 miles.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 10, 2012)

So...let's imagine Germany overcomes the USSR. That would put German forces potentially on the border with China and precisely where Japanese and Soviet forces fought in 1940. Equally, if Japan proved able to take India and Germany took Iraq, it's not hard to see the 2 countries clashing along that geographic fault-line. A stretch of reality, to be sure...but no further than many of the "what-if" questions we discuss on this forum.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 10, 2012)

The only scenario I could even conceive this happening would be if the Soviets were defeated, Japan defeats or does not go to war against the west, and China is subdued. That then pits whatever forces the Germans could project across Siberia and what progress the Japanese could make in tank development. It would also revolve around the question of how fragged the germans and Japanese were after their fights with the Soviets the west and the Chinese. Difficult or impossible to predict....though the greatly superior German economic base has to be considered.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 10, 2012)

Beat you to it, Parsifal...but I think you and I are on the same page.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 10, 2012)

yep, but i forgot the middle east alternative....rommel meets yamashita in the mountains of persia. Both overstretched, who wins i wonder


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 10, 2012)

Who wins? Probably the mountains of Persia...and/or the Afghans!


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Who wins? Probably the mountains of Persia...and/or the Afghans!



Ain't that the truth Buff.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 11, 2012)

I don't see the Japanese able to carry on a war anywhere without oil.

Either Japan abandons it's China conquests and begins to again receive oil from America . That's a unlikely possibility.

Or it goes ahead with it's conquest of the Dutch East Indies to get oil , which will mean they'd have to secure the supply route from there, meaning the Phillippines, New Guinea, etc. That would result in a war with the USA, and probably the British too. So that would hardly leave them free to take on Germany either.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 11, 2012)

I do wonder if America would have entered the war in December 1941 if Japan had simply gone after the NEI. Britain probably would have sided with the Dutch but the overall outcome, given forces available in Malaya at that time, wouldn't change. If America didn't enter the war, Japan would have access to oil and a much reduced risk of interdiction across the Pacific. Under these conditions, Japan could well have focused on China and, ultimately, gone toe-to-toe with Germany along the border with Siberia. Lots and lots of stretches to get there...but it's a what-if so what the heck!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Dec 11, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> *I do wonder if America would have entered the war in December 1941 if Japan had simply gone after the NEI. *Britain probably would have sided with the Dutch but the overall outcome, given forces available in Malaya at that time, wouldn't change. If America didn't enter the war, Japan would have access to oil and a much reduced risk of interdiction across the Pacific. Under these conditions, Japan could well have focused on China and, ultimately, gone toe-to-toe with Germany along the border with Siberia. Lots and lots of stretches to get there...but it's a what-if so what the heck!



Considering the apparently widespread antiwar feeling in the USA in late 1941, I think it unlikely that the USA would have gone to war in the PTO without a direct attack by Japan. if IJ made an NEI grab prior to late Spring 1942, the US might very well have deferred any aggressive response until after the PI (FEAF, ground and USN) forces build-up had been completed. Even then I suspect there would have been a high political domestic price paid for dragging the US into a war.

I suspect the suspicions of FDR acting to arrange a casus belli would have a stronger basis in historical events, although I also thing the US focus would have been on Europe, and not on retrieving european colonial outposts. The US was already providing so much support for the North Atlantic lifeline that it would only have been a matter of time before there was an incident in which significant numbers of US lives were lost or Hitler declared war. Events suggest he was pretty much there in December 1941.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 11, 2012)

My thinking aligns with yours Oldcrow. Of course attacking NEI without hitting America would have left Japan's lines of commerce open to raiding from the Philippines but it would likely take some time before America decided that war was the only option available. In contrast, both Germany and Japan consistently escalated their conflicts even when paths towards peace were available. That ingrained belief that more fighting was better would, inevitably, have put the two primary Axis powers on a collision course and, had their forces met at some distant point on the globe, I have no doubt that war between them would have resulted. Maybe not a major war, particularly over Siberia, but a conflagration nonetheless.


----------



## davebender (Dec 11, 2012)

> Considering the apparently widespread antiwar feeling in the USA in late 1941, I think it unlikely that the USA would have gone to war in the PTO without a direct attack by Japan.


I agree.

FDR could not get Congress to officially declare war. So he would begin an undeclared war against Japan similiar to his undeclared war against Germany during 1941. Eventually one of those nations would strike back and then FDR would get his Congressional declaration of war.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 11, 2012)

I thought there were guranteres given by the US and britian that said they would assist the Dutch in the event they were attacked. I think it was the ABD (American - British- Dutch) treaty, which was signed after the fall of Holland. 

The US was already pursuing a policy of containment in the Far East. Japanese aggression into French IndoChina led to the embargo and freezing of Japanese assets. Japanese inroads in Thailand was ruffling US State Department feathers. But overt aggression into the NEI was an act that would have violated treaty arrangements, and almost certainly have led to war.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Dec 11, 2012)

davebender said:


> I agree.
> 
> FDR could not get Congress to officially declare war. So *he would begin an undeclared war against Japan similiar to his undeclared war against Germany during 1941*. Eventually one of those nations would strike back and then FDR would get his Congressional declaration of war.



I wonder if a '_*lend lease*_' type buildup of indigenous forces in Australia wouldn't have been the fuse for this eventual eruption. With IJ aggression against commonwealth forces in Southeast asia, the lines of US communication with Oz would have been threatened. While one might argue that US presence in the PI was independent of the OZ transit point, I have to wonder if a threat to the Southern continent wouldn't have been seen as a threat to the defensibility of the PI. Before the PI fell, Big Mac evidently made the connection, so it might have followed even without a PH and PI attack. As you say history shows how FDR was willing to wage undeclared war against axis belligerents. Sooner or later I suspect this activity would bring the US into conflict with one or the other.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 11, 2012)

Parsifal,
It's my understanding that, although there were ABDA agreements, there were no binding treaties that would automatically pull in the other powers. Churchill tried desperately to persuade Roosevelt that a Japanese attack against British colonies in the Far East should be cassus belli for America to enter the war on the side of the Allies. Roosevelt avoided such entanglements - he could not justify bringing America into the war just to preserve the empires of the European powers. If Roosevelt wouldn't go to war for the Brits then I don't see him saying, "Ah, but the Dutch...yes, we must preserve their colonial holdings!" I could be wrong (I prove it almost daily on this forum) but I believe ABDA was more a framework for coordinating activities in the Far East/Pacific theatre rather than a signed treaty. 

I don't doubt that war would have erupted at some point between the Axis powers and America...it was just a matter of time (although I think Roosevelt would have preferred more time to prepare than the events of 7 Dec 41 allowed). However, getting back to the subject of this thread, there was ample time for German and Japanese forces to meet on the Chinese/Siberian border in early 1942 if Germany had rolled up the USSR rapidly in 1941 - let's say instead of turning south they continued on and took Moscow, destroying the bulk of the Soviet Army in the process.

Would the German and Japanese forces fight? It's entirely possible. As mentioned before, the leaders of both nations consistently elected to escalate conflict rather than consolidate gains. I really don't see the Nazis, with their belief in the superiority of the German people, accepting the Japanese as equal partners on the world's stage. The only downside is that Siberia isn't much of a place to be fighting over and, to be frank, it wasn't high on either nation's "must have" list for their giant game of Risk. So maybe the Middle East option is a more likely fit, with oil being the main causal factor for conflict between Germany and Japan.


----------



## Mobius (Dec 11, 2012)

In a land war the Germans would win. In a sea war Japan. The decider would be the side that didn't have Hitler at its helm.


----------



## Readie (Dec 12, 2012)

Interesting points being raised in this thread.

1) Would have the USA gone to war in the Pacific had not the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour? I'm not convinced that that would have been the case. Maybe in time a conflict would have occurred depending on Japanese aggression and how threaten Americans felt. If the British and Commonwealth could not defend Burma then it was the Jap's. Maybe the USA would stood aside if Australia was invaded too.
2) The cultural links with the USA and Europe (inc GB) were stronger in the 1930's / 1940's than today. My contention is that the USA was more likely to spring to the Allied cause in Europe, as they did in WW1, than embark on a war against Japan.
3) If you assume that the Nazi's had dominated Europe North Africa and defeated the allies and the Japanese were victorious in Asia then what set of circumstances would bring these two very different regimes into direct conflict? My thoughts are that the two would hold each other in mutual contempt and co exist for the 1000 years that the Third Reich was supposed to last. America would have gone into isolation mode and not been directly affected by these events.
4) Hitler's 'inner conviction' may have led him to continue to increase the German empire and acquired Africa maybe, even South America in which case he would be unassailable.The Japanese and German society and hierarchy demanded military success and continued conquering until all that was left was the German and Japanese empires. 
A flight of fantasy I know but, the 'sliding doors' principle could have applied....


Cheers
John


----------



## Wavelength (Dec 12, 2012)

Considering what a terrible job Japan, an island nation, did at defending its sea commerce against US subs, I can't see them doing a better job against German U-boats.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Dec 13, 2012)

Wavelength said:


> Considering what a terrible job Japan, an island nation, did at defending its sea commerce against US subs, I can't see them doing a better job against German U-boats.



Good point...


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 13, 2012)

Did Germany have any combat operational submarines that had the range to operate in the Pacific ?

I know they conducted trade with the Japanese via sub, but having a sub get to the Pacific and have the ability to conduct combat patrols and then return is a whole different problem.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Did Germany have any combat operational submarines that had the range to operate in the Pacific ?
> 
> I know they conducted trade with the Japanese via sub, but having a sub get to the Pacific and have the ability to conduct combat patrols and then return is a whole different problem.




You would have to assume they had access to one or more bases in the reion. Obvious choices ar Aden Suez and Massawa. 

Historically, a number of German U-Boats did operate from Singapore with the Japanese at the end of the war.
From memory i think it was six Type IXs


The Germans and the italians did design and build several very long range subs, with long range commerce raiding in mind. The Germans had their Type IX D2 and the Italians had a class (I think it was called a Romolo Class), with even greater range. The italian design was quite intersting. It utilized smal high performance torpedoes, about 15 in diamter, with a quite small warhead. The propulsion system in these torpedoes was first class, so the torps were ideal for commerce work. A smaller torp meant more could be carried for susttained lr operations, whilst the small warhead was still more than adequate for sinking escorts and shipping. The toprpedo engine in this design was designed to be both fast and long ranged, so that they would have decreased detection chances for the Japanese escorts.

Japan would have had to increase its efforts at ASW to counter even a modest German U-Boat effort in the Indian Ocean. They would have had no hope against the new ytech Type XXIs.


----------



## yyuusr (Dec 15, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> *Did Germany have any combat operational submarines that had the range to operate in the Pacific ?*
> 
> I know they conducted trade with the Japanese via sub, but having a sub get to the Pacific and have the ability to conduct combat patrols and then return is a whole different problem.



Did the the Japanese have any?


----------



## yyuusr (Dec 15, 2012)

Mobius said:


> In a land war the Germans would win. In a sea war Japan. The decider would be the side that didn't have Hitler at its helm.



As horrible a person as he was don't think you can say Hitler was a bad military strategist which is all that would matter here I would think. Plus the doesn't the u-boats and air force give Germany an edge there? 

Which gets me to the topic that doesn't seem like it has been touched yet. How much more powerful was Germany's Air Force compared to Japan?


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 15, 2012)

yyuusr said:


> Did the the Japanese have any?



The IJN did have several subs with over 21,000 nm range, and a good surface and submerged speeds. They just didn't use they very aggressively.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Dec 15, 2012)

yyuusr said:


> As horrible a person as he was don't think you can say Hitler was a bad military strategist which is all that would matter here I would think.


I think we can say that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2012)

yyuusr said:


> As horrible a person as he was don't think you can say Hitler was a bad military strategist which is all that would matter here I would think.



What makes you think he was a good strategist? He was a terrible strategist. His military commanders were always under minded by him. One could argue that many of his decisions helped to shorten the war.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2012)

Hitler was the worst military strategist. Ever.

His short military career was in WWI as a Corporal...and not even a Landser, but a courier...and he had final say on strategy and planning when he had some of the finest military commanders in the world at his disposal.

As far as the scenario between the Japanese and Germans go, why wouldn't they be able to square off in a bigass slug-fest?
I saw the comments about "how would it be possible for them to meet?"...well, how was it possible for the United States to fight in North Africa, Europe or even the Pacific, then? Naturally, there wasn' t a land bridge, so those crafty Americans had to figure out a way over without the benefit of a "Teleporter"...

We're looking at a "what if" and there are countless possibilties that could have brought the Japanese and Germans into contact under certain circumstances. Suppose Germany rolled into Russia and instead of butchering the civilians, embraced them as the liberators the Russians thought they were? Stalin would have been in serious trouhble as his "loyal and devoted troops" turned on him along with the civilians all in support of the liberators from the west.
In North Africa, Mussolini's military instead of surrendering in the thousands, actually put up a ferocious fight and shoved the allies into abandoning their territories, freeing up precious German men and material for the push eastward.
The Japanese decide against attacking Pearl and dragging the U.S. into the war and instead decide to push into the oil rich regions of far east asia...

Bottom line, if the Germans and Japanese squared off, I seriously doubt the Japanese would be able to gain ground against the Wehrmacht UNLESS it was on territory where the Japanese had the upper hand. Such as battlefields where the superior German armor was not able to come into play. Then it would be up to the Luftwaffe to provide close ground support and this is where the IJN/IJA airforces would be a deciding factor in preventing such support. The Germans would need to avoid engaging the IJN, simply because the Kreigsmarine just did not have the assets to counter the superior Japanese forces except for the U-boat. The U-boats would be a serious threat to the IJN much like the U.S. submarines were in the PTO. And so on...

There's alot to ponder about this possibility but all in all, I would say the Germans would have the upper hand, but the Japanese would make themselves felt in any battles they fought.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 16, 2012)

The allies had a tremendous advantage when it comes to "teleporters" a lot of merchant ships, and always building more, in numbers both Germany and Japan could only dream about.
I just don't see how Japan can solve it's oil shortage without getting into a war with the USA or Britain. Would they invade and occupy the Dutch East Indies with no thought of the security of getting that oil back to Japan. No matter which route is chosen, Singapore or the Philippines is right in the perfect position to interfere with the supply routes, I doubt Japan would ignore that threat.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2012)

In a land battle the Germans would have a decisive edge. Their divisions/corps had much more artillery and much more ammo per tube. With more radios/field phones their artillery was much more flexible. The Japanese could be very clever in their use of artillery and used it to very good effect _per shell_ but just didn't have the numbers. 
Japanese machine guns were in competition with the French and Italians for worlds _WORST_. 
Japanese were even less motorized than the Germans, even not counting tanks these means supply is much more difficult. Try moving 100 tons of artillery ammo per day with horse drawn carts. 

In very rough terrain where supply is a nightmare for everyone the Japanese may give a good account of themselves but in more open Terran they are in big trouble.

Submarine warfare gets very _iffy_ as so much depends on where and when. Type VII U-boats are almost useless without bases in the Indian Ocean or in Indo-China. The type IX is much more useful but comes in several types and much fewer numbers until when? 

Same for the Japanese boats. Truly long range ones aren't that common and the targets are where? If the Germans skip the Middle East (Iran,Iraq) and this _meeting_ takes place half way between Germany and Japan you are in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan.

Otherwise you are looking at massive amphibious efforts with the net effect of the Russians sailing to Tsushima in 1905. A long sea voyage with little or no chance or refit/repair or even proper refueling before going into combat. This is assuming that Germany and Japan are the ONLY ones at war and the rest of the world is neutral. 

Germans are going to be able to out produce the Japanese when it comes to aircraft.


----------



## bob44 (Dec 16, 2012)

Interesting question. Japan clearly would be superior at sea, and Germany superior on land, that is on a flat/open land where Germany could use their tanks. Assuming one has air superiority. 
And indeed, where would the fighting take place? Neither side would be capable of invading the other without building up close to their nations. As said, other nations would be involved.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2012)

yyuusr said:


> As horrible a person as he was don't think you can say Hitler was a bad military strategist which is all that would matter here I would think.





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What makes you think he was a good strategist? He was a terrible strategist. His military commanders were always under minded by him. *One could argue that many of his decisions helped to shorten the war*.






GrauGeist said:


> Hitler was the worst military strategist. Ever.
> 
> His short military career was in WWI as a Corporal...and not even a Landser, but a courier...and *he had final say on strategy and planning when he had some of the finest military commanders in the world at his disposal*.



Perhaps you should of said that Hitler wasn't a bad military strategist.....for the allies!


----------



## Wavelength (Dec 17, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What makes you think he was a good strategist? He was a terrible strategist. His military commanders were always under minded by him. One could argue that many of his decisions helped to shorten the war.





> His short military career was in WWI as a Corporal...and not even a Landser, but a courier...and he had final say on strategy and planning when he had some of the finest military commanders in the world at his disposal.



Yep. And he did have excellent professionals-the exception being Goering who might have been even worse. Compounding their (Hitler and Goering) ineptness at strategy was their scientific illiteracy. However, the Japanese command was no better. There was really no grand strategy that was realistic. The IJA and IJN had such an intense rivalry that they could agree on no approach. They basically conducted two sperate strategies with minimal consultation between them. The high command did not normalize this situation but actually compounded it. Then instead of putting rational thinking into strategy, and also tactics, they trusted in Bushido to carry the day. This is a recipe for disaster against any foe-including Nazi Germany.


----------



## yyuusr (Dec 19, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What makes you think he was a good strategist? He was a terrible strategist. His military commanders were always under minded by him. One could argue that many of his decisions helped to shorten the war.



Never said he was a good strategist to be honest just don't think he was a bad one. I just don't believe you can conquer most of Europe by being a terrible military strategist. And he would have had to play his part in that.

Besides in comparison to his group are the Japanese really any better?



GrauGeist said:


> Hitler was the worst military strategist. Ever.



That's a huge over-exaggeration.


----------



## yyuusr (Dec 19, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What makes you think he was a good strategist? He was a terrible strategist. His military commanders were always under minded by him. One could argue that many of his decisions helped to shorten the war.


 


tyrodtom said:


> The allies had a tremendous advantage when it comes to "teleporters" a lot of merchant ships, and always building more, in numbers both Germany and Japan could only dream about.
> I just don't see how Japan can solve it's oil shortage without getting into a war with the USA or Britain. Would they invade and occupy the Dutch East Indies with no thought of the security of getting that oil back to Japan. No matter which route is chosen, Singapore or the Philippines is right in the perfect position to interfere with the supply routes, I doubt Japan would ignore that threat.



Good point. From what I hear Germans and Italians were providing the Japanese with a fair amount of supply as well. Would it have made dent to Japan if that had stopped? Where did these two countries stand anyways as far as overall resources is concerned?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2012)

good amount of supply? hardly. They provided some technical expertise, which amounted to zero effect on Japanese military capability during the war, or if not zero, so low that it is not worth worrying about.

Where are you getting this dross from?


----------



## Wavelength (Dec 21, 2012)

yyuusr said:


> Never said he was a good strategist to be honest just don't think he was a bad one. I just don't believe you can conquer most of Europe by being a terrible military strategist. And he would have had to play his part in that.



The part he played in that was to actually listen to his generals. The occupation of Denmark and Norway was planned and put forward by Adm. Raeder's staff. The plan that resulted in the defeat of France during May 1940 was a plan put forward by von Manstein. The plan did not originate with Hitler. The reluctant Hitler only adopted the plan after he was talked into it by another junior general -Rommel. I doubt here I need to go into details about some of Hitler's errors during the Battle of Britain. From the fall of 1940 on Hitler was committed to Barbarossa and stopped listening to his generals-taking the credit for the early victories to himself. The invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 has to be the greatest strategic blunder of all time. Once things didn't go according to his plan on the eastern front he increasingly disregarded the advice of his generals and admirals, and increasingly tried to micro-manage things himself. Stalingrad and Kursk was the result. From 1943 on his standing order was no retreat. This resulted in the needless destruction of the most experienced German forces on all fronts. Of course starting a war that could-and did- result in the almost complete destruction of Germany was itself a strategic blunder. 


I agree that the Japanese leadership was just as bad. The German military leadership did have some oustanding leaders. The question is can they overcome Hitler's incompetence? During 1944, the British Secret Service decided to not kill Hitler because they considered his incompentence was shortning the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2012)

yyuusr said:


> Good point. *From what I hear Germans and Italians were providing the Japanese with a fair amount of supply as well. *Would it have made dent to Japan if that had stopped? Where did these two countries stand anyways as far as overall resources is concerned?



Do you have a source for that? Be advised that many participants on this site have an EXTENSIVE background in WW2 history and can back up claims with documented evidence. If one spouts off half truths and speculative guesses on this forum they are quickly called on it, so just a "heads up." For your information...

Hikoki:1946 Fun site

Japanese

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/e...rison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf&embedded=true

In the last document it shows that Germany was barely able to keep itself supplied so its quite evident they (or Italy) were NOT able to supply Japan with any substancial war material.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2012)

Hitler did have his strengths, but they were far outweighed by his weaknesses. His strengths are in fact borne of is near total ignorance of military strategy and tactics, his inability to "read" the situation in the same way as a professional soldier. his ignorance of military matters and planning tended to make him impulsive and a gambler. He lacked the ability to plan long term strategies. When things did go wrong, he tended to behave in some fairly irrational ways. When confronted with a difficult situation at Narvik, for example, he was inclined to order his troops to cross the swedish border and surrender to them, rather than surrender to the Allies. Luckily the cooler professionals actually running that campaign were able to see what was really happening and Hitler was "bypassed".

In the Bismarck sortie, Hitler was enraged after her loss, and the apparent allowance by the Bismarck in letting the PoW escape. He harangued Raeder, saying words to the effect...."if had to lose here, why didnt she at least take out the PoW some days before?' Such a position is manifestly irrational. The loss or damge to thebismark was a body blow to the tiny KM, the loss of the POW whilst a painful loss, would do virtually nothing to the capability of the RN to complete its mission. At the time of the first battle, no-one believed that the ship (the Bismark), was about to be sunk. Moreover, his own orders....not to actively seek battle with ships of the same class (ie concentrate on smaller warships and shipping if possible, would have needed to be disobeyed, and moreover still, the primary directive for the whole operation (to dislocate Allied shipping in the western approaches) would have also needed to have been ignored. Hitlers subsequent knobbling of the surface fleet, and his eventaul decision to scrap the fleet (partially averted by Donitz) were all classic examples of military blundering.

In Russia, Hitlers lack of judgement and training just about single handedly caused the loss of the war. His belief in his own genius, coupled with his complete distrust of his own generals, his absolute refusal to accept unpalatable truths, his merciless lashing of his own troops until they could fight no more, his absolute refusal to adopt mobile warfaare tactics, all combined to lose the war in the east for germany.

Comparing Hitlers leadership to the Japanese leadership, is a cop out in my opinion. There were levels of distrust between the two services, and certainly the decision to go to war in the first place are both evidence of lacklustre leadershiup, but the Japanese conduct of their wartime operations, whilst unsuccessful ultimately, was probably only marginally worse than that of the allies, and allied co-ordination and strategic leadership was generally excellent. Where the allies fell down was in battle field leadership.


----------



## yyuusr (Jan 8, 2013)

Wavelength said:


> The part he played in that was to actually listen to his generals. The occupation of Denmark and Norway was planned and put forward by Adm. Raeder's staff. The plan that resulted in the defeat of France during May 1940 was a plan put forward by von Manstein. The plan did not originate with Hitler. The reluctant Hitler only adopted the plan after he was talked into it by another junior general -Rommel. I doubt here I need to go into details about some of Hitler's errors during the Battle of Britain. From the fall of 1940 on Hitler was committed to Barbarossa and stopped listening to his generals-taking the credit for the early victories to himself. The invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 has to be the greatest strategic blunder of all time. Once things didn't go according to his plan on the eastern front he increasingly disregarded the advice of his generals and admirals, and increasingly tried to micro-manage things himself. Stalingrad and Kursk was the result. From 1943 on his standing order was no retreat. This resulted in the needless destruction of the most experienced German forces on all fronts. Of course starting a war that could-and did- result in the almost complete destruction of Germany was itself a strategic blunder.
> 
> 
> I agree that the Japanese leadership was just as bad. The German military leadership did have some oustanding leaders. The question is can they overcome Hitler's incompetence? During 1944, the British Secret Service decided to not kill Hitler because they considered his incompentence was shortning the war.



Ok just to get one thing clear I'm well aware its due to the military staff that the Nazis were so successful. I might be new at this but I'm not ignorant enough to think that a leader himself is single-handedly responsible for all its military conquests.

The point I'm trying to make which people seems to be missing is has nothing to do with Hitler being a good military leader at all. I'm comparing his leadership to the Japanese. Were their decisions not just as bad?


----------



## yyuusr (Jan 8, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Do you have a source for that? Be advised that many participants on this site have an EXTENSIVE background in WW2 history and can back up claims with documented evidence. If one spouts off half truths and speculative guesses on this forum they are quickly called on it, so just a "heads up."



Look bro keep in mind that I said that I'm new at this. My knowledge on WW2 is so far only limited to what I have read on textbooks and things here and there around the web. That's why I specifically asked does it make a difference. If I'm wrong about something feel free to correct me. The only reason I'm here is to extend my knowledge about the war. 




parsifal said:


> Comparing Hitlers leadership to the Japanese leadership, is a cop out in my opinion. There were levels of distrust between the two services, and certainly the decision to go to war in the first place are both evidence of lacklustre leadershiup, *but the Japanese conduct of their wartime operations, whilst unsuccessful ultimately, was probably only marginally worse than that of the allies, and allied co-ordination and strategic leadership was generally excellent. * Where the allies fell down was in battle field leadership.



So are you claiming that the Japanese military strategies and decisions were excellent?


----------



## Wavelength (Jan 8, 2013)

yyuusr said:


> Were their (Japanese high command) decisions not just as bad?


Good point. Yes they were, and in some cases worse!



> The point I'm trying to make which people seems to be missing is has nothing to do with Hitler being a good military leader at all



Fair enough. What I think got people's attention is the known fact that Hitler often over ruled his generals and micro-managed things. When the Germans had success it was to a large degree due to individuals overcoming a dysfunctional system. I think you would be off base if you imply that the system Hitler oversaw was successful or effective, or that success could be acredited to Hitler. Other political leaders such as Churchill and FDR meddled and took a hand in strategy, but when it came right down to it they deferred to their generals or listened to reason. To a large degree Allied leaders were competent to the task at hand. The Japanese high command was more ruled by incompetent committee(s) of militarist politicians who presented their cases in non -objective ways to the Emperor to rubber stamp.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2013)

yyuusr said:


> Look bro keep in mind that I said that I'm new at this. My knowledge on WW2 is so far only limited to what I have read on textbooks and things here and there around the web. That's why I specifically asked does it make a difference. If I'm wrong about something feel free to correct me. The only reason I'm here is to extend my knowledge about the war.


Well bro - you're in the right place!


----------



## parsifal (Jan 8, 2013)

> So are you claiming that the Japanese military strategies and decisions were excellent?



No, I am not claiming that. But comparing Japanese war leadership to Hitlers war leadership is not valid. Japans strategic thinking was as misplaced as hitlers, but japans war leaders did not attempt to micro manage military issues to anywhere near the same extent as Hitler. Hitler got into the operational level of planning....moving even battalion strength units at times. The japanese war le4adership, which never was a single dictator in the same sense as Hitler I might add, never got down to that level of interference. They issued war aims and objectives, and then expected their operational commanders to deliver. Thats they lost touch with strategic realities eventually is on a par with hitler, but Hitler, with his incessaant meddling and misreading of situations added a whole new dimension to that incompetence.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well bro - you're in the right place!



Word G! Fo shizzel ma nizzel. Dis da hizzel!


----------



## Njaco (Jan 9, 2013)

oh my.....

Don't haze me, bro.....


----------



## Wavelength (Jan 10, 2013)

To expand on the question of the competency of the Nazi leadership during 30’s and WW2 one has to understand that the military coexisted within the overall police state. This political state was systematically dysfunctional. However, the Germans were successful early war because of the professionalism of the legitimate German military which the Nazi party had gained the loyalty of.

The German army’s, or Das Heer’s, officer corps, had long standing traditions of excellence. Hitler always disliked the Prussian Generals but he needed them. The Nazi party had subordinated their own military organizations to insure the loyalty of Das Heer’s officer corps. First the SA was eliminated, but over time the Waffen SS became larger and more and more important. The Waffen SS was still held subordinate nevertheless. 

The Nazi leadership, however, always distrusted the Navy. The Imperial Navy of the Kaiser era had really insured the end to WW1 through its mutiny. Hitler and the Nazis never really forgave them for this. The Reich’s Marine and then Kriegsmarine established some professionalism but the German Navy and the Nazis never did get on well. The naval officer’s corps never shared the Nazi ideal logy, political goals, or racial views. Hitler’s meddling in actual naval tactics was disastrous. Raeder for his part had particularly keen understanding of geopolitics and grand strategy. But Raeder and Goering hated each other, and Hitler liked Goering. Goering was in my opinion particularly incompetent at every level.

The Luftwaffe was created after the Nazis came to power and was headed by the number 2 Nazi –Goering. However the Luftwaffe had many individual leaders that were excellent: Milch, Jesonneck, Moelders, Kessselring….

The military industrial complex within Germany made remarkable progress during the war, despite the destruction wrought by the Allied bombing campaign. This would pose a particular problem in any kind of hypothetical war between Japan and German, because I don’t see Japan bringing any kind of strategic bombing against Germany. Imagine what the Germans may have done sans the bombing or being so overstreched on the eastern battle fronts? With a few Pacific or Far East bases, perhaps Dutch- with some kind of German /Dutch alliance- Germany can prosecute a strategic naval and air war against Japan. 

What if Japan moved against Dutch possessions in the Far East and there was an alliance between the Dutch and the Germans with no European war as a hypothetical?


----------

