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

[parsifal]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well bro - you're in the right place!

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

 

[Njaco]

oh my.....

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

 

[Wavelength]

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?