Discuss Other Topics not related to the Paranormal or Conspiracies (within reason of course).
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
I've studied WWII battles for a long time, but I find that there are some things related to strategy that don't make sense and seem foolish. It's as if the Axis powers were trying to lose and did not follow basic logic. Perhaps someone can shed light on this. Here are the questions.
1. I've never understood why in 1941, when England was a sitting duck and the last country in Europe still standing, why Hitler suddenly decided to invade Russia instead. This was very stupid and illogical. Hitler was on a roll and winning every battle. He did not need to squander his lead.
Russia is the biggest country in the world. There's no way a small country like Germany could occupy it. No matter how many battles you win in Russia, they will always retaliate eventually. It's an unwinnable war that will squander all your resources and armies.
Instead, why didn't Hitler send his 3 million man army to invade England in a D-Day type invasion, and finish it off so he can force Winston Churchill to surrender so he could stop begging Roosevelt to enter the war? He could have invaded Scotland too, and then march into England from there. Then, after conquering England, Hitler could fortify his conquests in Europe and build defenses to prevent any invasion from America.
That would have been the smart and sensible strategy, and the most logical one too. Squandering a 3 million man army in Russia was a total waste and senseless strategy. Why didn't he learn from Napoleon's mistake?
Basic logic says not to bite off more than you can chew, or create too many fronts in a war. But Hitler seemed more driven by emotion and delusion than logic.
However, Genghis Khan somehow got away with it. Under him, a small country like Mongolia was able to conquer the vast territories of Russia and China, making him the greatest conqueror ever, topping even Alexander the Great's conquests. How was Genghis Khan able to pull that off?
2. Why is it that when both Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland and occupied it in 1939, the Allies only declared war on Hitler and not on Stalin? What was their excuse or reasoning? Is it because they are impartial arbitrators of truth and justice? lol
3. Why didn't Hitler try to make Stalin an ally instead of an enemy? If Germany were allied with Russia, together they would be invincible against the allies. Why all the personal emnity between two dictators?
4. I don't understand Japan's strategy during WWII. Why did it attack Pearl Harbor? Why did it need to bring a giant like America into the war, when its objective was to conquer Asia? Why bring arouse a "sleeping giant" as the Japanese Admirals said in the movie "Tora Tora Tora"? Wasn't that highly detrimental to their goals? Were they trying to lose the war?
If they hadn't done that, America would not have had an excuse to enter the war, and the American public would not have supported it. Roosevelt's problem of looking for an excuse to enter the war would not have been solved.
5. Historians say that Japan was suffering under an oil embargo carried out by America, to punish it for its occupation of China and the Philippines. But I don't get this. How can the US block all oil shipments to Japan? Japan doesn't have to trade oil with America. Why can't Japan just get oil from any other country directly, such as the Middle East?
If it did that, it could then sink any US ship blocking oil tankers from reaching Japan, under the justification of self-defense, which would have been acceptable to the rest of the world. So why didn't it just do that? How could a US issued "oil embargo" block all oil from reaching Japan? Why couldn't Japan get around that? I don't get it. How can the US be "all powerful" like that? How can it prevent all oil in the world from reaching one country, without using any naval ships? Is the USA God? Wtf? Can anyone explain?
6. After Pearl Harbor, when America and Japan were officially at war, why did Hitler feel the need to declare war on America too? What did he have to gain from a war with America, which would be a costly distraction from his goals? Why declare war on a superpower unnecessarily and squander all your military resources? Isn't that self-destructive and nonsensical?
Was Hitler trying to lose the war and make Germany lose? Why were his decisions highly self-destructive? Why didn't he have someone SPAM BLOCK him in basic chess strategy? Why didn't he read Sun Tzu's "Ancient Art of War"? Sun Tzu would never have made stupid decisions like that.
7. When the Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor and destroyed most of the American fleet except for the carriers, why did the Japanese suddenly withdraw? Did the Japanese commanders want to leave with their carriers intact, so they can claim the honor of a one-sided total victory?
It would have been smarter for them to continue attacking Pearl Harbor while waiting for the American carriers to return. They must have known that the US carriers would return to try to defend Pearl Harbor. So why didn't they wait for them to come? With an advantage in ships, and with the American carriers outnumbered, they had a great opportunity to destroy the US carriers and complete their victory.
At least that would have been far smarter than playing hide-and-seek later on in the Battle of Midway and let luck decide the outcome, which ended up not being in Japan's favor.
8. The Battle of Midway made no sense either, in several ways. (See the film "The Battle of Midway" or numerous documentaries about it to learn about it.)
First, with a 3 to 1 advantage over the Americans, why would the Japanese want to play hide-and-seek around Midway, and let luck decide the outcome of the decisive battle? That was really stupid. Instead, they should have just sailed toward Pearl Harbor again for another attack. Doing so would have FORCED the US carriers toward Hawaii to defend it, thereby drawing the US carriers OUT IN THE OPEN. Once out in the open, the Japanese would have an a great advantage in an open battle of planes and carriers, and would likely have won.
Either way, it would have been far better than the disastrous result they had at Midway, losing three carriers in five minutes because they were caught by American planes with bombs on their flight deck. Luck was not on their side at all. So why didn't they take advantage of their advantage in an open battle instead of relying on luck?
Second, the Japanese actions during the Battle of Midway were stupid and wasted valuable time. They could not decide whether to load their planes with bombs and attack Midway, or load them with torpedos and attack the American carriers. So they kept changing their plane armament from bombs to torpedos and then back to bombs, wasting valuable time in the process which got them caught flatfooted when the US planes arrived. After shooting down two or three US squadrons, they were caught with bombs on their flightdeck, which the next US squadron easily blew up, taking out three Japanese carriers. It was a terrible loss which turned the tide of the war in the Pacific.
Instead of this stupid mistake and waste of time, why didn't the Japanese just arm their planes with bombs? Bombs could have been used on BOTH Midway and the US carriers. There was no need to switch back and forth, wasting valuable time and exposing themselves to attack.
Even during the attack of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese planes used bombs to sink US ships in the harbor. So why couldn't they do that during Midway as well? Why all the switching back and forth between bombs and torpedos? What a waste of valuable time.
9. In the movie "Tora Tora Tora" about the attack of Pearl Harbor, which was historically accurate, the Japanese planes were able to drop bombs on the US ships from high up in the air, out of the range of the ship's cannons.
So why didn't they do that during Midway too? During the Battle of Midway, it seemed that planes on both sides had to get within close proximity of the carriers in order to drop torpedos or bombs, which often led to them being shot down by cannons. Why didn't they drop bombs from high in the air like they did during Pearl Harbor, to keep themselves out of the range of the ship's cannons?
10. Rather than attack that tiny island of Midway in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, why didn't the Japanese go for a bigger and more useful target instead, such as the naval ship building facilities in San Diego or along the West Coast of continental America?
Logically, the US fleet had to be constructed on the West Coast in order to fight in the Pacific. So their naval ship building facilities had to be on the West Coast, not the East Coast. The Japanese must have known that. Surely they could spot those facilities, or use spies to find them, so they could launch attacks on them. In doing so, they could greatly impair America's ability to rebuild their ships.
Once in the war, the Japanese should have gone all out and taken advantage of the situation, using the advantage they had after Pearl Harbor, instead of squandering it with withdrawal, overcaution and stupid guessing games. Why didn't they capitalize on their strategic advantage instead of playing guessing games? Surely they were versed in Sun Tzu's "Ancient Art of War" right? So why were their tactics so stupid? Were they trying to win the war or lose it?
Can anyone explain all these bad strategies of the Axis powers during WWII? Thanks.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Sweet baby jeebus. I'll have a go at a few...
Hitler was a bit irrational, and frequently overturned carefully crafted strategies made by his more experienced generals to their frustration and to Germany's detriment. Equally well, Winston Churchill had similar characteristics, favouring grand operations like Montgomery in North Africa rather than slow steady progress against the enemy, and was often drunk for much of the day -- the American generals by the time they entered the war were frequently flabbergasted and appalled by their meetings with Churchill. Britain certainly gained a lot by the intervention of more rational US military decision making.
HOWEVER, to attempt to answer the question, Hitler actually saw the English as sort of long lost 'cousins' of the Germans, and didn't really wish to conquer them, and continually hoped they might change their minds and become allies at some stage. On the other hand, the Russian had been nominally Communist since 1917, and the fascist Nazi movement was opposed to Communism simply because it was a competing large-scale ideology. The 1930s Weimar Republic in Germany was marked by conflict between rising 'right-left' movements in ever more violent opposition -- Marxists/Communists and fascists in particular -- and it was an increasing stuggle in Europe. Jewish people were frequently associated with Communism also. Although both systems result in kind of totalitarian states, and Nazism was supposed to be a sort of 'national socialism', although I don't know how you achieve that by running the place with church, state and big business making all the decisions for the people.
I can't really answer that one. In my studies of history, frequently the group prepared to use the most violent tactics against people who wish to remain peaceful seem to create the biggest empires. Witness the Romans, Alexander the Great, etc. If your armies are more organised, have a technological edge, or are just prepared to be more barbaric and psychopathic than surrounding tribes, pretty soon you start taking over.
Not sure. Due to existing alliances? Russia and England were allied in WWI. Russia is a large and distant country and not necessarily a direct threat. It was not just about Hitler invading Poland in isolation, but a series of invasions such as the Czech Republic, the terms and conditions of defeat following the WWI Treaty of Versailles clearly being violated, the German army being massed against those terms, the potential danger to France (Maginot Line failure), the rhetoric of Hitler and the Nazi movement, and so on. It was not a single invasion of Poland but the perceived overall intent. Remember also the 'peace in our time' appeasement of PM Neville Chamberlain up to the last minute -- Europe didn't really want to go to war again. I suspect the English and American powers decided they would deal with Russia after they dealt with Germany, after all they were still afraid of the ideological spread of Communism and the Iron Curtain since 1917. And not sure why Russia said it had to invade Poland, possibly to protect it from Germany? Britain needed Russia on its side as a dam against Germany. Further, Britain had traded with Russia for many years and was a traditional ally of sorts, before the Communist takeover in 1917.
As above -- fundamental Communism-fascism disagreement in ideology. Communism was anti-religion and anti-big business, fascism was for those things. The Nazi ideology eventually also claimed anyone who was 'different' was inferior, also including Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia. They generously made an exemption for their Japanese allies, claiming they were in fact the 'pure Aryans of the Pacific' whereas all other Asians were clearly genetically inferior, as was every other race. So quite a lot of madness there.
Apparently they wanted to gain access to very necessary oil reserves in the 'East Indies' as they're called, i.e. towards Australia. They were being blockaded by the US. There is some evidence Roosevelt set up Pear Harbour as a deliberate provocation, as he otherwise could not Congress to agree to go to the help of the British -- the US Congress up until that time voted to remain neutral in the war, although their and public sympathies lay with Britain. So it was a gamble that didn't pay off.
Certainly not from the middle east at that time, as France and England had deliberately divided up the entire middle east after WWI!! That was one of the intents and side benefits of WWI -- to weaken the Ottoman Empire based out of Turkey and gain access to oil reserves. Churchill in 1913 made the decision to switch the British Navy to oil instead of coal, as oil had twice the energy per unit weight as coal, to power ships. Britain had no known oil reserves, he didn't want to rely on the US and Russia under trade, and instead sought to 'colonise' or control the middle east reserves directly. The Australian ANZAC campaign at Gallipoli in Turkey (a so-called 'nation building' moment) was actually an attempt to weaken the Turks/Ottoman Empire to gain long term access to oil, which paid off for quite a few decades. The English had made promises of Arab nationalism in WWI via Lawrence of Arabia to enlist support of tribes which they promptly broke at the end of the war, creating convenient 'spheres of influence' between France and England instead. Germany of course was frozen out of this resource grabbing because they lost the war. However, 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' was really more about Germany attempting to get into the middle east for oil than about any magical arks of the covenant. The original Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, in which Churchill personally had a lot of shares, was eventually renamed British Petroleum, or BP, and there were 2 Anglo-Iraqi wars in the 40s and 50s. The Shah of Iran was a puppet. Mohammed Mossadegh was deposed by CIA and MI6 intrigue. Oil was very big business throughout the 20th century, and still is today.
No doubt Japan had its eye on any eastern oil reserves, such as in Burma, as part of its pattern of conquest.
I can't answer that part exactly, You will have to research the history of that 'pretext' more deeply.
Simply because Japan was an ally. And Hitler was a megalomaniac who felt he could successfully take over the world with German tenacity, organisation and technology.
Hitler vs his generals as above. Remember there were several attempted coups by his own senior officers because they could see the futility and path of destruction he was on, thought he was mad, knew it was unachievable and so on. This vs the millennial movement ideology of the 1000 year reich and supremacy of German folks etc as a psychological ego defence mechanism to losing WWI.
However, like previous empires, the more you conquer, the more you can conquer. The more resources you control and take over, the more you can wage war on the rest. Every empire has finally collapsed due to a backlash from the conquered peoples, but Germany hadn't experienced that quite yet. Remember he saw a unified Europe under German rule. There were fascist govts already in Spain, Portugal and Italy who were his allies and who he had no squabble with. He had many supporters in the Nordic countries also. If fascism had become ascendant and seemed to 'work' or be a superior political solution, all those European countries could have been convinced to unite to take on the US or Russia, for instance. it probably seemed perfectly reasonable to Hitler and a few others that he could leverage one conquered people and set of resources to take the next over, and so on.
No idea. Not enough info on the ground at the time? Something else? More research needed.
No idea. Just dumb and stupid perhaps. That's probably how battles are lost.
Can't answer any Midway questions. More research needed.
Check out these interesting articles listing anomalies in WWII that can only be explained by the hypothesis that it was all staged on both sides by a global elite.
http://henrymakow.com/eight_indications ... umina.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14474077/Worl ... Both-Sides
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
ah, it had to be going somewhere, didn't it.
fanciful. a reinvention.
WWII is more easily explained by the morality of the time. and the aggression of homo sapiens.
Hitler didn't feel that Enland was a problem, he thought the English as well as the U.S. stood much closer in agreement to most of his policies and believed that it would be possible to create a genuine peace once he'd completed his key conquests in mainland Europe.
Secondly, Hitler was very anti-Communist and felt that Russia was a far greater threat to his global vision than BG & the US (who likewise feared Communism a bit more than they did the Fascists). Fact is, if it weren't for the genocide element and Hitler getting too greedy for conquest at the military level, the third reich could very well have become a model upon which much of society could stand. There were many excellent things tied to this tradition during its earlier stages. It was when Adolf's henchmen started craving greater power and they controlled him via his drug addictions that the uglier side of the movement surfaced.
The other thing to bear in mind is that it was the Luftwaffa that wanted to invade England and it was the constant act of presenting a plan that ultimately lead Hitler to cave in to his Generals' desires.
The enemy of my enemy is my ally/friend. . . that's how simple it was. Niether the UK or US trusted Stalin as far as they could throw him but they had to work with the devil in order to overcome the greater evil. Add to this the fact that Stalin was betrayed by Hitler & Co. and so he'd become another victim, which again turned him into an ally.
GREED + CONTEMPT
As noted, Hitler loathed Communism and so he used Stalin for the time he needed the relationship and them stabbed him in the back.
Japan's goal wasn't to stir things up with the U.S. but rather, destroy our fleet so we wouldn't interfere with their conquests in the Pacific. While Pearl Harbor was a huge success they failed in destroying our fleet and so they fell come the Battle of Midway.
You must understand that the US wasn't viewed as the massive power and industrial complex it turned into, that is the post WWII America, the one most of us grew up in.
Kind of. . . some believe that we deliberately courted the invasion in order to create the excuse that was needed at the time. . . similar to the CTs around 9/11.
Again, you are looking at a post war scenario; the OPEC nations were not yet major oil suppliers at that point, the U.S. was the giant along with the USSR and I believe, Germany. It was not just an oil embargo, it was a Materials restriction which included iron-ore, wood (which Japan had very little of) and other such building supplies. We made them desperate in many ways, similar to how Iran has felt our big foot for so long.
The other ingredient here is that the Emperor's voice and will wasn't being heard, it was once again the generals that wanted a war; egos that had California dreams you could say, in that they wanted all of the Pacific Islands (including Australia & New Zealand) as well as the U.S. West Coast. . . in the mind of the Japanese America was just too big, as was China.
You have to understand that the U.S. had an ally sitting right there in the Sea of Japan. . . the UK controlled Hong Kong and so an attack on the Brits in China resulted in an unofficial war like atmosphere long before Pearl. They were up against the two largest navies on the planet, which is why they and the Germans put so much effort into submarine warefare.
It is nothing more than Hitler agreeing to side with an existing ally who shared a similar point of view. Underneath this veneer however, Hitler had planned all the while to remove Japan from the equasion further down the road. . . racial purity and all. It's the exact same thing as we did with Great Britan and it's empire nations at the time (including Hawaii, which was a nation unto its own until 1959 when it became a state).
Hitler was an arrogant junky that thought he was called of god and as such, his thinking and "strategies" would win the war. . . he didn't listen to the voice of experience and had one of his best strategist murdered (Rommel).
They couldn't find the carriers so they withdrew in order to be ready should they encounter them during their cruise back to Japan. Secondly, they couldn't lay in wait in that the carriers would know that somethng was wrong and would have headed to an alternative port if an ambush were suspected. As it was, the region was searched high and low by air shortly after the attack so as to insure that nothing was nearby for over 250 mile radius.
They actually came to Pearl so as to hit all the carriers not the battle ships; Japan literally developed the "art" of Naval Air Power, so some have argued, it was still quite new to the U.S. and Great Briton (our torpedoes were horrid in the early days of the war).
No, the primary commander of the attack elected to accept the decisive victory they had and do the responsible thing and so, withdraw.
Caution is always the better side of Valor. . . the Japanese Admirals in charge, were wise and cunning, several of them had actually lived in the U.S. for over a decade while going to military school & university. They knew that that were in for a long war and preserving their own fleet was now the key. Secondly, they were focused on Midway as a surprise invasion, they weren't too worried in that they believed they would only face one or two American carriers, especially given that the Yorktown was known to be damaged. . . she wasn't as badly damaged as was believed and that made all the difference. . . she surprised them twice before finally going down.
I think you're missing or overlooking several parts of the puzzle here. I can't take you by the hand and show you everything in that I have far too many important things to juggle right now and this is 60 year old history. But you need to look at that actual historical data and not just how Hollywood has told the story. WWII has been a major area of personal study when I was much younger (still in High School) but I can say that the information is out there if you go to the deeper materials vs. the surface dirt issueed for the general populace.
In the heat of battle decisions have to be made based on the intell you have in the moment as well as the apparent opportunity. The actions taken were logical at the time, before they realized how many America Carriers they were actually dealing with.
I worked ordnance when I was in the Navy (A-6 Intruders) I can assure you, there is a huge difference between bombing a ship when understeam v.s slamming a torpedo in at distance. The latter is far more likely to get results. It is very difficult to bomb a moving vessel and frequently bombs would not be set with the correct fuse types, which resulted in inertial penetration but not effective destruction of deck guns, etc. Torpedoes on the other hand, hit below the water line and create more damage faster in that the ship begins to sink the instant of the blast.
The Zeroes were armed with one "fish' and two bombs, standard fare for small navel aircraft of the era. The torpedoes were used in the first pass and the bombs were used in a limited manner, when it came to the battle ships, the main purpose of the bombs were for taking out standing aircraft, hangers, personnel facilities, etc. The big bombers used by the Japanese targeted only land based targets not ships.
Firstly, Tora was one of the least accurate films on Pearl to ever be released, though it and Midway (same producers) were the most accurate to the era. Both films have loads of inaccuracies and "Creative License" going on. . . the movie "Pearl Harbor" with Ben Afflec and Josh Hartnick is far more accurate to events though there's some hedging on things there too.
Again, we are not taking into consideration the fact that two or three different kinds of planes were involved. Our planes at Midway were mostly Dauntless if I recall correctly; a medium weight dive bomber,, which is not the same as a "Bomber", which works from a much higher altitude. Dive bombers literally dive so as to aim the bomb to the place they want it to strike. That means dealing with lots of flack and light weapons (50 cal and under) as well as deck canon (not the same as the big guns).
Flack Canons can send "chad" nearly 30,000 feet into the air which is the optimum range for most heavy bombers of that era. Just look at how many B-17 and B-29s we lost in Europe because of anti-aircraft flack and the lesser squirmishes with fighter aircraft. For that matter, look at the number of B-52s that were lost in Veitnam.
[quote]10. Rather than attack that tiny island of Midway in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, why didn't the Japanese go for a bigger and more useful target instead, such as the naval ship building facilities in San Diego or along the West Coast of continental America?
Logically, the US fleet had to be constructed on the West Coast in order to fight in the Pacific. So their naval ship building facilities had to be on the West Coast, not the East Coast. The Japanese must have known that. Surely they could spot those facilities, or use spies to find them, so they could launch attacks on them. In doing so, they could greatly impair America's ability to rebuild their ships. [/quoute]
Midway was a strategic location, which is why we had it, Guam and other terriroties; those big ships need to be resupplied about every three days when under steam. They were nothing like what we have now and they drank fuel almost as fast as it was pumped in. . . an Arizona sized Battle Ship got about 6 feet to the gallon. . .
The Japanese of all culture, understood what one small cell can do; we're talking about a nation that has a Secret Service type element that's all one family -- Cogaru Ninja -- it is the only high security operation on the planet that has never been infiltrated. They were exceptional at their job in the war but not as flexible and "large" as the allied espionage teams/commandos.
To attack the U.S. West Coast would require another major invasion fleet, bigger than what hit Pearl. The Japanese didn't have the man power to pull off such an undertaking even though they were seriously looking at San Francisco as a first strike option.
I hope this covers most of your questions.
What Craig said.
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest