[MB.]

Barbarossa was a really bad decision, it didn't work at all, unless you consider the objective being basically to pulverize soviet infrastructure. Why in the name of all that is intelligent didn't the Axis persecute the war in the West before foolishly and monstrously expanding the the war by invading the Soviet Union? Was it all because of the maniacal NSDAP's senior leadership and the ghoulish ideology of Lebensraum?

or was it Pearl Harbor? I'm hoping to achieve a somewhat lighthearted but informed discussion about the sensibility of the major offensive military actions in the Second World War. However, considering that war and politics are the same, I see no reason why the discussion should be restricted to only military actions or events.

Purely strategically, if oil or resources were the issue, would not persecuting the low resource high-risk Atlantic naval and North African campaigns have been optimum?

[Jarlaxle]

Dumbest was Barbarossa, no contest. Without that massive resource drain, the Axis COULD have taken North Africa...especially since they would certainly have had the resources to eliminate the British base on Malta ane take the Royal Navy out of the picture.

[Fasces]

They were overwhelmed with desire by the spirit of Timur whose tomb had been violated a few days before by Soviet authorities. Timur had promised that any who opened the tomb would be met with destruction and war. The days after Timur was interred again, the Soviets pushed back the final Nazi offensive in Stalingrad.

[Oxymoron]

Facses is right obviously............


But all jokes aside barbarrosa was a defensive move, since the Soviets would just steamroll the Germans within a year. So it was either risk everything and win, or wait for the enivitable.

[Smilin' Dave]

I'm tempted to say Pearl Harbour was the dumber decision. The Nazis probably looked at recent history, both their successes and Soviet failures, and thought they were in with a chance. The Japanese seem to have just assumed without good evidence the US would roll over after losing most of their bases... possibly because none of their plans would work otherwise. The subsequent offensives by the Japanese in 1941 have a real shoe-string feel to them, with limited resources and a fair bit of luck needed to make them work. In relative terms it made Barbarossa look comparitively lavish with its resources, even though any student will point to logistic failures in Barbarossa. It's easy to imagine a situation where Pearl Harbour was still a success, but the Japanese drop the ball on another front, leaving them in an even worse position. It just sort of emphasises how silly it was for them to enter into a war with a power like the US, when they barely had resources to take the territories they wanted, never mind hold it.

So Barbarossa was pretty stupid, but I can sort of understand how they made the mistake. I agree that it's a bit difficult to see why they decided to do it though. I can't follow the logic of Pearl Harbour.

But all jokes aside barbarrosa was a defensive move, since the Soviets would just steamroll the Germans within a year. So it was either risk everything and win, or wait for the enivitable.

Meltyukov apparently argued that while the Soviets probably were planning an offensive, it appears the Nazis were not really aware or interested in it, instead their motivation was one of conquest.

[fuser]

I don't think it was a dumb move, given their ideological motivations Nazis had to fight in east against subhumans... What he didn't wanted was a war with British Empire. After all Hitler admired and considered Britain as a possible ally...

And if you look at the timing of Barbarossa it was perfect, 2 years earlier or 1 year later it simply stood no chance, at least in 1941 - 42 they did threatened the very existence of Soviet Union..

So, basically it was their ideology which was dumb and which would had definitely dragged them to a major conflict with soviets.

May be they should had taken the consent of Britain before invading Poland. (I don't know how it was possible but may be)

But all jokes aside Barbarossa was a defensive move, since the Soviets would just steamroll the Germans within a year. So it was either risk everything and win, or wait for the enivitable.

When you say "all the jokes aside" people will tend to think you are not going to make a joke but you are doing that exactly.

There is no proof that Barbarossa was a preemptive strike or soviet were preparing to invade Germany...
Read some quality world war history books to confirm this fact.

[pugsville]

I think Pearl Harbour was the dumber decsion. The Germans had better chances, with Japan it was never going to be even close.

The Nazi-Regieme was just flat out incompadent. They didnt have a realistic apprisial of the Soviet forces, stuff that was pretty easy to get hold of, the number of divisons in the red army. They didnt have any real plan for objectives for 1941. They just sort of made it up as they went along. They could have had Moscow if they had planned for it. Just like they had no rel plan when they reached the channel in 1940, now what? While you can damm them for not planning for failure they didnt even plan for sucess. Long term planning was a key regeime weakness.

[Potemkin]

May be they should had taken the consent of Britain before invading Poland. (I don't know how it was possible but may be)

Britain did not regard Nazi Germany as a reliable negotiating partner after Hitler's invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia. In fact, if any one decision can be said to have doomed the Nazi regime in the long term, it was the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Before then, the other European nations had been prepared to negotiate with Hitler and even appease him to some extent; after it, they decided that there would be no more talking. After the invasion of Czechoslovakia, it was inevitable that the invasion of Poland would result in war.

[pugsville]

Britain was never going to contenance the invasion of another european nation. Ethiopa sure that could sort of be allowed to pass. Britain would have sort of agreed to some border changes along the polish-german border as their was a feeling that the Germans had some valid claims, but after munich there was a growing experation with the Germans, that they werent playing by the rules, like good chaps. The Garantee of Poland was a sign the enough was enough, Britain didnt particularly care for poland, and if the Germans had gone into Poland in 1938 not Czechslovika it mighty have not lead to war (but it would have ratched up the British tolerance for the Nazi regieme like the czechs did that another step was likely to ) The British went as far as they were going to go for peace by the end of 1938, they twisted the czechs arms and afterwards they didnt feel that good about it. Bristih public opinion was changing too, they exact causes of that I cant say.

[William_H_Dougherty]

I would say Pearl Harbour was the stupider decision. Simply because Japan didn't really have a shot at subduing the USA, UK, and China, while Germany definately had a shot at defeating the Soviet Union.

This decision is debated back and forth. The reality is that the Invasion of the Soviet Union turned the strategic situation in Europe from one where Nazi dominance seemed almost certain, to one where Nazi dominance was thrown into serious question. So I get that people think Hitler and the OKW were crazy to do such a thing.

However, consider the following:

#1. Would the Soviet Union would have invaded Germany? If that was the case, and that Operation Barbarossa was somewhat of a premptive war, then the timing of it works out. Most historians agree that Stalin was preparing for a War with Germany in the mid 1940s, and that the Soviet-Nazi Nonagression Pact was merely a way to delay this war so the Red Army could modernize and prepare itself. In of 1941, these preparations had thrown the entire Red Army into disarray. The red army purges had also turned the generalship into a pack of amateurs. I'm not sure there was a better moment to invade than June 1941, or perhaps (as it is commonly argued), May 1941.

#2. Could Germany have "finished off the west"? It was mentioned that Germany could have devoted enough forces to Afrika to decisively defeat the Commonwealth there. My answer: so what? The only sure way to knock England out of the war would be to invade, and the German Kriegsmarine and luftwaffe was just not strong enough to make the effort in 1940 and both only went seriosuly downhill from there, irrespective of the Soviet Union.

#3. The major difference between the Second and First World War was the effect of the Naval Blockaide on Germany. In the first world war, the Royal Navy crippled the German economy merely by preventing widespread trade of important resources to Germany. In the second world war, the blockaide was initially quite useless because the Soviet Union provided Germany with all the resources it needed to sustain the economy through a short-term war. HOWEVER, these resources came at quite a price, monetarily, but also in terms of the divding the spoils of war (giving eastern poland to Russia, turning a blind eye when the Baltic States were invaded, not intervening during the Soviet-Finnish Winter War). Even then Germany had insufficient resources to even convert to war economy (Germany operated on a peacetime economy until 1943), and even then senior German economists were constantly warning Hitler that the economy required more and more "cheap" resources or would collapse. Perhaps it was a stupid decision by this logic too, but it was one Germany was committed to when England refused to surrender in 1940.

- WHD

[Jarlaxle]

barbarrosa was a defensive move, since the Soviets would just steamroll the Germans within a year. So it was either risk everything and win, or wait for the enivitable.

So dig in, build layers of defence in depth, put an 88 behind every rock, and wait. Had the Soviets attacked, they would have been massacred...especially since they could not even supply their troops! Without US Lend-Lease aid, the Soviets would have collapsed.

The Japanese couldn't have defeated the US...but COULD have forced a stalemate on their terms with a quick, decisive, and crippling war. Remember: there were Congressional elections in 1942. A war going badly could have resulted in people demanding an armistice.

[Oxymoron]

Meltyukov apparently argued that while the Soviets probably were planning an offensive, it appears the Nazis were not really aware or interested in it, instead their motivation was one of conquest

.

The German military plans since WW1 assumed that the Russians if enemies would need to be nuetralised quickly before they could fully mobilize and attack. The Communist in the Soviet Union were direct enemies to the Nazis in Germany, the Nazis knew it was certain that war with them would come the only question was when and on whos terms. They gambled that they could invade and take the Soviets.

As far as Pearl Harbor, well what if the Japanese won at Midway then you would change that tune perhaps.

[Smilin' Dave]

The German military plans since WW1 assumed that the Russians if enemies would need to be nuetralised quickly before they could fully mobilize and attack. The Communist in the Soviet Union were direct enemies to the Nazis in Germany, the Nazis knew it was certain that war with them would come the only question was when and on whos terms. They gambled that they could invade and take the Soviets.

A line has to be drawn between a broad threat and and imminent one, in deciding what is pre-emptive and thus defensive. The Nazis appear to have no knowledge/interest in an imminent threat from the Soviet Union, and preparations had been taking place since 1940, a rather long build up for an emergency. The broad threat is also questionable, since Hitler was apparently confident enough for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and to leave the Soviets relatively unguarded when he turned West.

As far as Pearl Harbor, well what if the Japanese won at Midway then you would change that tune perhaps.

US ship building would have replaced those loses pretty quickly. With control of the Panama Canal the US could release forces from the Atlantic for use in the Pacific should they so desire. The US have all the time in the world to finish of Japan, because Japan wasn't going to become any stronger after Pearl Harbour, only temporarily shit the balance a bit. Another way Pearl Harbour could have backfired would have been if the US had decided to ignore Europe... which would have left Japan to face the full brunt of US power rather than the limited resources they dealt with earlier.

So dig in, build layers of defence in depth, put an 88 behind every rock, and wait. Had the Soviets attacked, they would have been massacred...especially since they could not even supply their troops! Without US Lend-Lease aid, the Soviets would have collapsed.

- The Axis didnt have the strength to build a defence across such a long front in any depth.
- Even if they could have achieved such a defence, the Soviets would have had the luxury to pick their point of attack. Building all those 88s etc. probably diverts resources away from the Panzer arm, so unlike Barbarossa, the Germans might not have their 'fire brigades' to deal with Soviet breakthroughts.
- A static defence would have played right along the lines Soviet doctrine preferred (deliberate highly choreographed attack etc.)
- Without a German invasion Soviet industry would have been running full tilt and no resource-rich areas would have been lost. Germany meanwhile was welcoming Soviet aid it received from the Soviet Union during its invasion of France. The most important inputs of Lend-Lease were replacing those losses, rather than shoring up some fundamental failure of the Red Army. If Romania folds, the Nazis will not have enough oil for their industries.

Remember: there were Congressional elections in 1942. A war going badly could have resulted in people demanding an armistice.

Or people screaming for blood. FDR didn't seem to take a hit for breaking with his previous stated policy of staying out of the war. Pearl Harbour, the Phillipines etc. were pretty serious blows to morale as it was, it's hard to think of what more serious blow the Japanese could have realistically landed.

[MB.]

To everyone who said Pearl Harbour was a worse idea, I have one question: Why did the Pearl Harbour strike occur after Operation Barbarossa?

I was going to make this post about Japanese naval strategy, specifically the decisive battle doctrine and the Yamamoto RMA. And I'm not disavowing the significance of those events. I mean, the Asiatic axis were committing a classic preemptive attack against a nation the Japanese military had been preparing to fight for thirty years. Recent events, defeating Imperial Russia, Imperial and Nationalist China, the British & Dutch, French, German empires, and one of these in the most spectacular naval victory since Trafalgar, it could have appeared as indicative as the victories of the European axis nations by 1941. If the Americans had operated in the preposterously foolish manner the Japanese naval leadership expected they would operated at the beginning of the war, Japanese victory would have been assured. The Americans did not make decisions this poorly, however, many significant errors in naval policy occurred throughout the war.

But that isn't the post I want to make. I think it's clear to everyone that this never would have been an issue if the European Axis hadn't invaded Soviet Russia. And frankly, I'm questioning the accuracy of these statements about Stalin's plan to invade Germany. As far as I'm aware, Stalin was stunned at the audacity of the invasion, and, correct me if I'm wrong, the military deployment along the border reflected this. Frankly, I agree with those who argue that the NSDAP's senior leadership had an ideological war to commit, and once it began, the threat of Soviet intervention in China vanished from the nightmares of the Japanese army leadership, and then they pressured the government and the Navy to do more to justify the huge and increasing naval expenditures (SOUND FAMILIAR? HINT JUTLAND) and Yamamoto implemented all these crazy ideas he'd developed while head of the technological institute about using carriers like the Royal Navy had at Taranto in 1941 in place of torpedo boats like had been used at Port Arthur in 1904, but in this case, to destroy the USN's Pacific Fleet- specifically the unarmored carriers- while in dock at Pearl Harbour...

Then again, what the hell did the military leadership expect to gain in strategic terms that was worth declaring war on America besides potential naval dominance (seapower)? Considering how stupidily the naval war was fought on all sides they couldn't possibly have done it just for le honour, or do I have it backwards? Was that precisely why they did it?


I also want to highlight Potemkin's Churchillian attempt to make this thread about Munich.

[cicero91]

operation barbarossa prepared an invasion war of germany towards russia in june 1941 in connection with 'the weisung nr. 21', so in fact it targetted russia to destroy the jewish bolshevikism as the hitler book described it.

[MB.]

Yes, I also think it was primarily ideological.

[William_H_Dougherty]

If the Americans had operated in the preposterously foolish manner the Japanese naval leadership expected they would operated at the beginning of the war, Japanese victory would have been assured. The Americans did not make decisions this poorly, however, many significant errors in naval policy occurred throughout the war.

MB, it isn't simply the attack on Japan. It is the attack on the entire Commonwealth and the growing commitment in China in addition to the attack on Pearl Harbour which makes the Japanese decision to attack pearl harbour absurd.

It was a gamble of even larger proportions than Barbarossa. Conceivably, Germany could keep up a prolonged war with the SOV because they were on par industry wise (although, note that the Germans weren't on a full war economy until 1943).

Japan, their industrial resources were stretched to the limit even prior to Pearl Harbour and their oil reserves were drying up fast. They threw everything into what they hoped would be short decisive war and the second it wasn't, the second the Allies made it plain there were in it for the long run, it was game over for Japan.

And let us be honest, had it not been for the decision to focus on the defeat of Germany, Japan would have been knocked out of the war much, much sooner.

Add to this that Japan's closest allies (Germany and Italy) had invaded the country with the world biggest army and airforce prior to pearl harbour, you have one of the worst military situations imaginable (unless you are Italy or France).

And frankly, I'm questioning the accuracy of these statements about Stalin's plan to invade Germany.

We can't know for sure.

As far as I'm aware, Stalin was stunned at the audacity of the invasion, and, correct me if I'm wrong, the military deployment along the border reflected this.

The Red Army was deployed primarily in an offensive posture. Units were definately not positions in best places to conduct a defensive campaign.

Then again, what the hell did the military leadership expect to gain in strategic terms that was worth declaring war on America besides potential naval dominance (seapower)? Considering how stupidily the naval war was fought on all sides they couldn't possibly have done it just for le honour, or do I have it backwards? Was that precisely why they did it?

My understanding is that the primary reason for the war was lack of resources. Japan is a small, industrialized country. It needed the resources of mainland china to continue to function.

As for the US, I'm sure the Oil Sanctions had something to do with it.

EDIT: For those of you who think the reason was primarily ideological (which no doubt played a role), then why did hitler sign a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union 2 years before? Hitler needed more than that to act. Personally, I think he was convinced that the UK was holding out simply out of hope a SOV-GER war would erupt and that he was constantly reminded by his advisors of the crumbling financial and resource position of Germany.

- WHD

[cicero91]

EDIT: For those of you who think the reason was primarily ideological (which no doubt played a role), then why did hitler sign a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union 2 years before? Hitler needed more than that to act. Personally, I think he was convinced that the UK was holding out simply out of hope a SOV-GER war would erupt and that he was constantly reminded by his advisors of the crumbling financial and resource position of Germany.

hitler signed the contract as one step of his revision and expansion policy. And he took decisions about the seperation of territories in poland in advance before conquering and occupying them.

[Oxymoron]

I still dont understand why the Japanese didnt invade the Soviet Union in conjuction with the Germans, Siberia has lots of resources.

[William_H_Dougherty]

hitler signed the contract as one step of his revision and expansion policy. And he took decisions about the seperation of territories in poland in advance before conquering and occupying them.

The original Secret Protocols of the Nonaggression pact actually called for the establishment of a rump Polish State and the expansion Lithuania into North-Eastern Poland. The decision destroy the very concept of a "Poland" only came later, in return for the abandonment of the Baltic States.

What followed were negotiations aimed at bringing the SOV directly into the Axis.

I still dont understand why the Japanese didnt invade the Soviet Union in conjuction with the Germans, Siberia has lots of resources.

The majority of the Japanese Army was had been engaged in China already for a number of years prior Barbarossa. They couldn't exactly etricate themselves from this conflict.

Island hoping on a regimental and sometimes divisional level is one thing, committing to a full-fledged invasion of the Eastern Soviet Union is another.

- WHD