Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Germans did an analysis and based their reasoning on that. It was not a mistake at all, that is being wise in hindsight. It all pointed that the USSR was about to collapse as army after army was easily defeated and millions of men were captured with German forces just riding freely into large swaths of the USSR. If the Soviets had collapsed then it would have made lots of sense to have declared war on the USA.
Saying it was a mistake is being very wise in hindsight. You have to look at events at the point decisions were being made and how they saw the situation.
I wonder if they considered the most recent history. Napolean was allowed to enter and take large amounts of land too, and the Russians just retreated. They just waited for winter to kill them off. Which is what they did to the Germans. Its an amazing lack of forsight and research on the part of the Nazi heirarchy.
You are confused. What I write was very clear. Tooze dispelled a lot of hogwash written since WW2, that is why I quoted him.
True. The Japanese could not launch a final assault on Singapore. It was bluff, surrender or try the assault and get beat.
Tooze noted that the "Mesopotamia Plan" was not just a plan as production was raised for it. German tank production was too great at the expense of other weapons.
Tooze is one author, and his primary training is in economics not in history, which colors his views because economics is all he focuses on. That other historians disagree with him doesn't make what they have to say "hogwash". His one work of note is not a bible.
I personally find economic explanations of why current and historical events happened to be weakened by the tendency of economists and economic historians to assume that most if not almost all people recognize their economic self-interest and that they act rationality in response to that self-interest. Usually, they don't, and too frequently, they don't act rationally at all. Hitler was a prime example.
I've covered most of the rest already...Tooze Jr....but I want to mention this "Spring 1941" statement. Hitler told the Japanese Ambassador to Germany Matsuoka that Germany would support Japan in a war with the US regardless of whom started it. This is what Hitler said to the ambassador, but the context of the conversation was in return for Japanese support in Germany's war against the Soviet Union. It was a quid pro quo, not a definitive statement of support.
It rapidly became evident that Japan had ZERO desire to join in the Russian campaign and that they were in the process of securing a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union and moving their sights to the south. They were also not going to wait for the conclusion of German-Soviet War in order to act as had been the previous agreements. Regardless Germany still offered support, not even asking for Japanese assistance in shutting down US shipments to Vladivostok. Germany was fine with the move to the south because it would pull the US into the war and distract them from Europe.
The Japanese did inform the Germans that the Washington talks had collapsed and it seemed war would be inevitable between Japan and the US. The Germans sent word that they would support Japan's war with the US (note this was after the Japanese fleets had sailed and were committed to attack) as long as Japan agreed to stay in the war until the conclusion of hostilities in Europe. Japan did not inform Germany of their overall strategic goals, plans or timetables.
Hitler and the Germans were delighted when they were informed of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan would now distract the United States and keep them out of the European war. Despite the advice of everyone else around him, Hitler then decided to declare war on the US for reasons that are largely supposition. Germany and Japan acted almost entirely within their own interests with little coordination or discussion between the two. Japan did not support Germany's war with Russia for their own reasons and chose a "southern strategy". Germany was OK with this, but was under no obligation to join Japan in their war. Hitler chose to do so anyway and in a manner that gave him no control over the method of entry into the war and against the advice of all of his top aides.
The Japanese could not support Germany against the USSR even if they wanted to, as they would have been soundly beaten by superior armour, as they were in 1939. Japanese armour was dire. They had no option but to take the south not the north, as no, or few, open large battles would be engaged in.
The Japanese launched the fleet against the US (many Americans think it was only Pearl Harbor that was attacked), but knowing in their minds the north would be free from the USSR as they were clearly collapsing in great numbers. The Japanese fleet sailed on 26 Nov 1941 with no firm orders to attack. On 28, 1941, Foreign Minister Ribbentrop told the Japanese ambassador in Berlin that if Japan attacked the USA, Germany would join immediately. The order to attack was only give on the morning of the 7 Dec after Japan knew Germany would declare war. 1941. The fleet had many manoeuvres in attacks prior to 16 Nov. To say that the USSR, and its forecasted defeat, had no bearing on Japanese intentions is ludicrous - it was key.
Japanese intentions all hinged on the coming defeat of the USSR. Japan had no intention of engaging the British Empire and the USA alone in a long term war - a war they knew they could not win against two large economies and such combined military might. You should understand that wars are won by economies, not gambles. The Japanese understood that better that the Germans. Japan and Germany knew that much US production would be going to defeat Germany even if the USA was not in the fighting war against Germany. They knew US production would not be 100% directed at them.
You are confused. What I write was very clear. Tooze dispelled a lot of hogwash written since WW2, that is why I quoted him.
Tooze is an economist who dabbled in applying economic theory to the events of the second world war. He is by no means an absolute authority on the war and his thesis has been criticized, mostly for selective use of facts.
Quote:
True. The Japanese could not launch a final assault on Singapore. It was bluff, surrender or try the assault and get beat.
...or try the actual alternative which was to maintain the siege until being forced to withdrawal within the next month or so to respupply. Find me one source that unequivocally states that the Japanese were going to surrender if the British didn't accept the offer that they did historically.
Quote:
Tooze noted that the "Mesopotamia Plan" was not just a plan as production was raised for it. German tank production was too great at the expense of other weapons.
Bull. Here is total German AFV production by year during the war:
So, are you actually arguing that peek production was achieved in mid-1943 - 1944 because the Germans had adopted the "Mesopotamia Plan"? Because, my argument is that German tank production was driven by the demands of the Eastern Front. Something tells me the plan of conquering Mesopotamia had long been filed in the trashcan at that point.
The Germans were routinely outnumbered and outclassed in terms of tanks on the Eastern Front. They did everything they could to drive tank production and introduce qualitatively superior tanks on the Eastern Front. I suppose Tooze forgets about Guderian being named "Inspector General of Armoured Troops" with the express authority and orders to rebuild the panzer arm including tank design and production priorities. Guderians entire job was to reform the panzer arms to resist Russia. It's absolutely false that German tank production had anything to do with some plan to link up with the Japanese in India.
As for their focus on tanks at the expense of other weapons, that simply followed the Nazi planned economic model. They drove all of the resources into the sector they felt had the most immediate need leaving everything else to make do. The Germans had a horrible wartime economy, which was one of the central theses of Tooze's book.
The Japanese could not support Germany against the USSR even if they wanted to, as they would have been soundly beaten by superior armour, as they were in 1939. Japanese armour was dire. They had no option but to take the south not the north, as no, or few, open large battles would be engaged in.
So, they had no other option and secured neutrality with the USSR, but everything still hinged on what Germany was going to do? I don't think so.
Quote:
The Japanese launched the fleet against the US (many Americans think it was only Pearl Harbor that was attacked), but knowing in their minds the north would be free from the USSR as they were clearly collapsing in great numbers. The Japanese fleet sailed on 26 Nov 1941 with no firm orders to attack. On 28, 1941, Foreign Minister Ribbentrop told the Japanese ambassador in Berlin that if Japan attacked the USA, Germany would join immediately. The order to attack was only give on the morning of the 7 Dec after Japan knew Germany would declare war. 1941. The fleet had many manoeuvres in attacks prior to 16 Nov. To say that the USSR, and its forecasted defeat, had no bearing on Japanese intentions is ludicrous - it was key.
Your entire statement here is wrong. The order to attack was issued on November 3rd, 1941. The Pearl Harbor attack force (which was not even the main attack force) set sail on November 26th under strict radio silence. They broke silence once on December 2nd to receive confirmation that the attack was to procede. There was no "order given" on December 7th. From December 2nd on, the task force commander operated under a specific set of rules detailing various possible scenarios. The Pearl Harbor force was committed with no going back on December 2nd regardless of what everyone else was doing.
Quote:
Japanese intentions all hinged on the coming defeat of the USSR. Japan had no intention of engaging the British Empire and the USA alone in a long term war - a war they knew they could not win against two large economies and such combined military might. You should understand that wars are won by economies, not gambles. The Japanese understood that better that the Germans. Japan and Germany knew that much US production would be going to defeat Germany even if the USA was not in the fighting war against Germany. They knew US production would not be 100% directed at them.
It is beyond evident that you have started and ended your exploration of WW2 with Tooze's book.
I will say it again, Japans strategy and approach was dictated and determined by Japan irrespective of whatever the Germans were up to. Japan had its own goals and ambitions. That they slightly aligned with those of Germany that they could both find some areas of agreement and mutual interest was the extent of their relationship.
The Japanese strategy was two-fold:
1. Nashin-ron - aka the "Southern Strategy" - Sieze the vital resource areas of the south Pacific including Indochina, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. Subsequent to this, the siezure of the Phillipines and various island groups was necessary to defend and hold the resource areas. Attacking the US fleet at Pearl became an addendum to this strategy in order to buy time for the completion of the primary objectives. This strategy was championed by the Navy and agreed to by the Army following their defeat in the 1939 border war with the Soviet Union. The actual strategy had been "theorized" since the early 1900's and (as with the 'northern strategy') was a product of decades of Japanese planning.
2. Kantai Kessen - aka "The Decisive Battle" - This was the long term strategy the Japanese adopted. They knew they could not outproduce the US over time. Their entire strategy hinged on securing the resource areas to ensure their ability to wage war. They would then establish a "ring of defensive islands" which the main fleet would hide behind. As the American fleet approached to do battle, planes from these islands and submarines would wear down the fleet. As the American fleet broke past the islands, they would be pounced on by the entire body of the Japanese fleet and defeated. The "shock" of this defeat they believed would lead to the US seeking a settled resolution to the conflict.
The above was the Japanese grand strategy in the war and they pursued it independently. What Germany did had very little impact on their decisions to wage or not to wage war and there was certainly ZERO attempt at formulating any grand strategy between Germany and Japan. At the Imperial Council meeting where the emperor gave the authorization to launch the "southern strategy" and go to war with the US, UK and Dutch, there wasn't even a mention of the Soviet Union.
Tooze is one author, and his primary training is in economics not in history,
All sorts of derogatory comments have been directed at him since he published his book. None have stood up. He looked at WW2 from a common sense point of view and subsequently dismissed a lot of previous history books as hogwash.
They broke silence once on December 2nd to receive confirmation that the attack was to proceed.
Thank you. This order came after the Germans confirmed they would declare war on the USA on 28 Nov 1941.
When the Germans moved into the USSR in June 1941 the Japanese moved into southern French Indo-China. To the likes of you this is purely coincidental. Anyone with common sense reading the situation would conclude the two events are connected. One event has a causal relationship to the other. The same as the Japanese attacking the British Empire and the USA was prompted by two points:
The Germans, Japanese, British and American all thought the USSR would collapse.
The Germans would declare war on the USA if Japan attacked the USA.
To say that the Japanese acted 100% independently with no view or thought to what the Germans had promised the Japanese in declaring war on the USA or what the Germans army was doing in wiping out the Red Army in the USSR and what was happening to the USSR, is totally ludicrous.
A series of authors since WW2 have written ill-informed tripe about the reasons why Japan attacked the British and USA.
As regards to Singapore. The Japanese could have
Laid siege - the Brits would have had to have attacked somewhere during this siege and exposed their frailty. This would have led to Japanese defeat and surrender.
Attacked - this would have failed and led to surrender.
Surrender.
Bluff.
They chose #4 and it worked. #1 and #2 Would have led to defeat.
There are all sorts of reasons why Percival did surrender, the prime one was that there was far too many civilians inside Singapore and he was concerned at their safety. If it was purely military and they stuck out the Japanese would have surrendered. They would have no option.
Like all these things there is always the "why didn't this and that happen?" If the Brits had only 50 Matilda 2 tanks they would have won and stops the Japanese moving down the Malay peninsular. Some say only 20 would have been enough. The British had no tanks at all. The Japanese small tanks were appalling, but when the enemy has none they are superb. The Matilda 2 was used later in the war against the Japanese to great effect. They could not knock it out.
All sorts of derogatory comments have been directed at him since he published his book. None have stood up. He looked at WW2 from a common sense point of view and subsequently dismissed a lot of previous history books as hogwash.
I called Tooze what he is, an economist who writes economic history, which is hardly derogatory.
He did NOT look at WW II "from a common sense point of view" but from an economics one. That Tooze's book deals with the economics of the Nazi regime absolutely does not "dismiss a lot of previous history books as hogwash". That's you in your ignorance of the topic latching on to a single idea and believing it to be gospel.
All sorts of derogatory comments have been directed at him since he published his book. None have stood up. He looked at WW2 from a common sense point of view and subsequently dismissed a lot of previous history books as hogwash.
The derogatory comments have mainly come from historians who challenge his myriad assumptions because he routinely ignore well documented FACTS. For instance, he completely misstated the composition and number of armor and air forces during the Battle of France in 1940 in order to make it seem that the Germans were always at some sort of disadvantage and "winning on luck".
I read his book, I found some of his points interesting, but his attempt to explain everything through an economic lens was a "bridge too far" for me. I also don't get where you can say that "none of the critiques have stood up" when many have. I also don't see him approaching WW2 from a "common sense" point of view, unless one happens to accept his theories and explanations wholesale. I also don't know of any books from the widely respected WW2 historian community that he has "dismissed", but plenty of them would quibble with what he wrote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
Thank you. This order came after the Germans confirmed they would declare war on the USA on 28 Nov 1941.
The fleets had already sailed, the orders had been given. No one dispatches their fleet and army for war (especially when they are very low on fuel oil) when they have not settled on that course of action. The Japanese went to the Germans and informed them that they were going to war. It was more of a courtesy then a request for permission or assistance as you are attempting to spin it. The Germans responded that they would "support" Japan. When the war actually broke out, Ribbentrop and others advised Hitler NOT to go to war with the US, Hitler chose otherwise.
My argument with you is your insistence that the Germans were somehow the puppet masters of Japan or they operated in some kind of coordination or that Japan waited for Germany before they acted. None of which is true.
Quote:
When the Germans moved into the USSR in June 1941 the Japanese moved into southern French Indo-China. To the likes of you this is purely coincidental. Anyone with common sense reading the situation would conclude the two events are connected. One event has a causal relationship to the other. The same as the Japanese attacking the British Empire and the USA was prompted by two points:
The Germans, Japanese, British and American all thought the USSR would collapse.
The Germans would declare war on the USA if Japan attacked the USA.
To say that the Japanese acted 100% independently with no view or thought to what the Germans had promised the Japanese in declaring war on the USA or what the Germans army was doing in wiping out the Red Army in the USSR and what was happening to the USSR, is totally ludicrous.
You continue to retreat from your original assertions that I challenged. My central challenge is not that there weren't events that influenced actions, but that there was some sort of grand coordination or plan at work as you implied. I would steer you to reading "Paths to War" in particular the essay contributions by Sumio Hatano and Sadao Asada in regards to Japanese planning and thinking between 1939 and 1941. The decision to move south was made in late 1939, early 1940. The securing of the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was a direct result of this decision. The planning for war with the UK and US, initial moves into Indochina, etc. were all a part of the adoption of this strategy. The German invasion of the Soviet Union was not a catalyst for the decision, but it certainly guaranteed there would be no Soviet intervention.
You seem to be arguing that the Japanese suddenly woke up one day in November 1941 and said, "well the Soviets look almost beaten...let's go to war with the US and UK". This could not be further from the truth. From the outbreak of the European war on, the Japanese were planning their "southern strike" and their plans had little to do with whatever Germany did or promised.
Quote:
A series of authors since WW2 have written ill-informed tripe about the reasons why Japan attacked the British and USA.
Would you care to name those you claim write "ill-informed tripe" and why their work should be classified as such?
Quote:
As regards to Singapore. The Japanese could have
Laid siege - the Brits would have had to have attacked somewhere during this siege and exposed their frailty. This would have led to Japanese defeat and surrender.
Attacked - this would have failed and led to surrender.
Surrender.
Bluff.
They chose #4 and it worked. #1 and #2 Would have led to defeat.
There are all sorts of reasons why Percival did surrender, the prime one was that there was far too many civilians inside Singapore and he was concerned at their safety. If it was purely military and they stuck out the Japanese would have surrendered. They would have no option.
Like all these things there is always the "why didn't this and that happen?" If the Brits had only 50 Matilda 2 tanks they would have won and stops the Japanese moving down the Malay peninsular. Some say only 20 would have been enough. The British had no tanks at all. The Japanese small tanks were appalling, but when the enemy has none they are superb. The Matilda 2 was used later in the war against the Japanese to great effect. They could not knock it out.
I love how the options end in "surrender"...lol. Seriously, what makes you think that the Japanese would have "surrendered" in any of those scenarios? The only possible alternative to victory was a withdrawal for resupply. Yama****a would have never surrendered his army, he had no reason to and most likely couldn't have even if he wanted to. As for your options, Percival asked his commanders about number one and they replied that they lacked the strength to make such an attack. Lacking the strength for an assault, having many civilians jammed in his perimeter, facing determined Japanese pressure and having lost his food supplies and access to water, he chose to surrender when it was offered.
Again though, your claim that the Japanese were a "day away from surrendering themsleves" is...what's the word...*******s. As for the rest...A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!
Japan's military were extremely power hungry and ran the entire country, as was previously pointed out; it was as simple as that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
