What was the point of Hitler's project?

[zraver]

Wooooooooo! Stop!!!! Even Yamamotto did not have the imagination of Donitz. I am willing to switch numbers around but I am not going to stop pretending Yamamotto stop being Yamamotto and was another Donitz. Yamamotto was a carrier pioneer just as Donitz was a submarine pioneer. You cannot combine the two together, else that person would have been the Emperor of Japan. Hell, Yamamotto didn't even want a war with the US/

Sir, I wasn't talking IJN subs, but USN subs. Gato class was a long range US boat, best we had in 1941. We began our submarine offensive from the beginning though it didn't hit full stride until building and forward bases combined into a toxic brew for the Japanese in 1943. Without PH, the US has to put a lot more resources into Australia in order to support submarine operations and that will take time.

[Officer of Engineers]

You missed my point. You switch from the primary targets, the carriers, ie Yamamotto's targets, to Donitz's targets.

Someone else took the time to do the resarch

http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

[zraver]

You missed my point. You switch from the primary targets, the carriers, ie Yamamotto's targets, to Donitz's targets.

Nope, not arguing that the IJN would go after shipping. Yammato told the government he would run rampant and then get push back. The government didn't care, they thought the war would be over by then. Had they listened to him said, so what do we do to stop that from happening (but were determined on war) the only way to stop the US counter-attack is to deny the USN access to PH.

[Officer of Engineers]

To do what you suggest would require a Donitz in command, a man who understood logistics. In the end, that was what the Battle of the Atlantic was all about, to kill the North American LOC to Great Britain. Instead, you have a master tactician in command who understood that the battleships were the shields and the aircraft carriers are the spear tip.

[zraver]

To do what you suggest would require a Donitz in command, a man who understood logistics. In the end, that was what the Battle of the Atlantic was all about, to kill the North American LOC to Great Britain. Instead, you have a master tactician in command who understood that the battleships were the shields and the aircraft carriers are the spear tip.

Sir, he understood logistics, or at least economy of scale. Look at the operations Imperial Japan launched in Dec 41/Jan 42- 3 major seaborne invasions, 2 serious ground offensives and at least 2 minor seaborne invasions in addition to the PH attack. They were acting strategically and looking at logistics. They just tried to go from zero to winning position (control the DEI, Maylaya and the PI right from the get go) because they assumed it would be a short war. If they had planned for a long war, the only way to really slow an American counter attack is to take PH off the table. Look at all the things the US can't do until PH is up and running. Luckily for us, Japan banked on a short war since they found the prospects of a second even more intense long war unpalatable.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir, he understood logistics, or at least economy of scale. Look at the operations Imperial Japan launched in Dec 41/Jan 42- 3 major seaborne invasions, 2 serious ground offensives and at least 2 minor seaborne invasions in addition to the PH attack. They were acting strategically and looking at logistics. They just tried to go from zero to winning position (control the DEI, Maylaya and the PI right from the get go) because they assumed it would be a short war.

No, actually, they lost sight of their real objective. Everything they have done from Pearl Harbor onward gained them zero in their primary objective - China.

[Albany Rifles]

No Z, Yamamoto, along with most of the other Japanese leaders, was a lousy logistician. The Japanese repeatedly failed to properly supply their forces. In Bataan, it was a question as to who would starve first, the US or Japanese. If they had been half assed logisticians they would have designated at least one squadron to hit the tank farms.

Their convoy system sucked, a disgrace really for a country who was so dependent on sea lanes.

They controlled a huge swath of the atolls in the Central Pacific for 2 decades yet failed to build a single forward base capable of supplying anything bigger than a patrol boat.

For a Pacific War across vast diffeence tehir logistics myopia doomed them from the start.

[Officer of Engineers]

say hitler is the one that takes the bait and declares war on the US, while japan decides to execute her invasion of HK/SE Asia without touching the Americans.

This is still hurting my head.

that would be one weird war. the US wouldn't mobilize as much and as fast as she did in OTL, because without the deep groundswell of anger, FDR would still need to deal with an unruly minority of isolationists blaming FDR for pushing the US into war. USN and USMC are freed up for action in the Atlantic, but the US would still need time to mobilize and train millions of men. faster defeat of the Kriegsmarine, though, might mean that FDR tries his hand at an European invasion in 1943 instead of going through Africa first.

Germany would have gone down a lot faster. The Soviet LL lines in the East would have not been disrupted while the Battle of the Atlantic would have been a non-event.

wonder what happens in china. if the japanese take malaya and SE Asia that would relieve a lot of her resource constraints. no bombing of the home islands/Korea/Manchuria, no deaths of hundreds of thousands at the hands of the USMC and USN and USAAF, IJN still intact...china might still win in the end (well, win as in pushing Japan back to the water's edge) but she'd probably suffer 3-4x the casualties she did on OTL...which would mean even worse losses than the USSR. CKS nor Mao had Stalin's grip on power, either.

I can see the OTL lasting a lot longer. The British Empire would be stretch with zero help from the USN. The BIA would hold its own and would regain Burma but the DIE would have to win on their own. Considering the army they raised against the Dutch after the war, it would have had the same outcome against the Japanese. I can see the British lending insurgent support but I don't see any real plans to invade Japan proper.

Still at the end of all this, Japan would have been reduced to Somalia level existence. Chinese armies would eventually take back Manchuria and most likely extend into Korea, killing the IJE.

But it would take a lot longer time than it traditionally had and I don't think it would be historically considered more than a side action to the ETO.

[gunnut]

Instead of an raid on Pearl Harbor, how about an invasion of Pearl Harbor? Will that change anything? Instead of an unsinkable base in the middle of Pacific Ocean, USA would have to start from its West Coast. Can Japan foment an insurgency in Philippines and Hawaii and then lend material support and tie down American forces? How about supporting Mexico and pushing Mexico to get America into a conflict with Mexico and tie down America's attention?

Sir, Japan could sustain two large seaborne offenses at a time 41-42. If they take PH, they island hop and isolate the Philippines until wave two (use the force sent to New Guinea) and can still take British Malaya and the DEI in wave 1. The PH invasion force would be a sacrifice but even if the USMC can retake it on the first day they show up, the destruction of the fuel and facilities, delay in refloating the battleships means there is no way for the US to rescue Mac. it puts Australia in a better position strategically but lengthens the war overall. If the first US counter attack is defeated and the US suffers a midway style defeat, serious US counter-attacks can't even begin until Mid-43 when the Essex class carriers come on line.

I think what you two are missing is the objective of such an invasion.

Put yourselves in the Japanese general staff meetings in 1940/41. The thinking was to establish a Japanese empire in the East Asia, one that could rival the American empire in the Americas and the British Empire in...well...the rest of the world. Basically, split with world with the major colonial powers.

Japan would need raw materials for the industrial base as the home islands really didn't have anything. For that, let's take Manchuria, Korea, and China. We have Manchuria and Korea already, but China refuses to budge. Those damned Americans have stopped selling us oil to run our planes, trains, and automobiles. Now we need a new source of oil. Malaya and Dutch East Indies have oil. Let's take those. The damned Yankees might interfere, especially with that forward base in Philippines. What do we do?

Here's what we will do. We will take Philippines to remove this forward base for the Americans, while simultaneously secure our flank when we go to Malaya. Once we attack Philippines, the Pacific Fleet will sail from Pearl. Let's knock it out before it can pose a threat. With the forward base in Philippines gone and the Pacific Fleet at the bottom of the harbor, we can deal with the Americans from a position of strength. We will push our defensive perimeter into the Pacific as far as we can and let them come to us.

That's what the Japanese leadership thought.

Taking Hawaii made very little sense. It was hard to supply with very little resources. It was strategically important for both parties, but we can mitigate that with our island defenses in the west Pacific.

The thinking was to settle for coexistence with the US as an imperial power in East Asia, not to defeat the US.

All this talk about taking Hawaii is using 20/20 hindsight. We knew what happened when Pearl was hit. Americans were pissed off rather than scared. Japanese leadership could not foresee this reaction. Japanese general staff could not foresee the type of warfare the USN was able to develop and deploy in the Pacific. Just because they couldn't do it, didn't mean the someone else couldn't put half a million men on ships and march across the Pacific with impunity.

[gunnut]

Back to the original post that started this thread. What was Hitler's objective?

It was probably the same as Japanese's objective in Asia. To establish a Germanic empire on the continent of Europe, one that's big and strong enough to rival the British Empire.

[Mihais]

Which he achieved.

[Stitch]

Back to the original post that started this thread. What was Hitler's objective?

It was probably the same as Japanese's objective in Asia. To establish a Germanic empire on the continent of Europe, one that's big and strong enough to rival the British Empire.

And that, in a nutshell, is pretty much what Hitler wanted to do; in fact, he actually did not want to go to war with France and Britain, especially Britain, because he looked upon the British as "cousins" in a common cause against the godless communist "untermenschen" of East Europe and Russia. That was part of the reason that he courted notable British dignitaries, in particular Edward, the Duke of Windsor, and his wife, Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. However, he realized that he'd be dealing with a two-front war if he didn't neutralize Britain and France before he invaded Russia, so he "reluctantly" invaded France, and attempted to invade Britain.

[Blademaster]

What if after taking Czechoslovakia, he stopped at Poland and waited for Stalin to make his move. He goads Stalin into being scared and make Stalin think he has to take a preemptive strike and invades Poland. Hitler waits for Stalin to over commit himself in Poland and Hitler goes to FDR, Churchill and French and says this is what the communists in Russia are doing. Do you want me to stop Stalin? I can stop Stalin but it comes with a price. France and Britain obliges Germany and Germany takes over Poland and pushes Russia back and takes over Eastern Europe while being supplied by French and Britain. He doesn't get France or Netherlands or Denmark but at least he expands his empire into Eastern Europe.

At this point, does Hitler marches all the way to Moscow with French and Britain support? With that support, does he have the necessary means to stop Russia and his generals and defeat Stalin for good?

[gunnut]

What if after taking Czechoslovakia, he stopped at Poland and waited for Stalin to make his move. He goads Stalin into being scared and make Stalin think he has to take a preemptive strike and invades Poland. Hitler waits for Stalin to over commit himself in Poland and Hitler goes to FDR, Churchill and French and says this is what the communists in Russia are doing. Do you want me to stop Stalin? I can stop Stalin but it comes with a price. France and Britain obliges Germany and Germany takes over Poland and pushes Russia back and takes over Eastern Europe while being supplied by French and Britain. He doesn't get France or Netherlands or Denmark but at least he expands his empire into Eastern Europe.

At this point, does Hitler marches all the way to Moscow with French and Britain support? With that support, does he have the necessary means to stop Russia and his generals and defeat Stalin for good?

That was my next question. What if Hitler stopped in 1938 with the annexation of Austria and then Sudetenland?

[zraver]

I think what you two are missing is the objective of such an invasion.

Put yourselves in the Japanese general staff meetings in 1940/41....
That's what the Japanese leadership thought.

No doubt, they expected a short war despite evidence to the contrary. I was arguing how they might have approached it if they had assumed they would be facing a long war.

Taking Hawaii made very little sense. It was hard to supply with very little resources. It was strategically important for both parties, but we can mitigate that with our island defenses in the west Pacific.

The thinking was to settle for coexistence with the US as an imperial power in East Asia, not to defeat the US.

All true unless you expect a long war.

All this talk about taking Hawaii is using 20/20 hindsight. We knew what happened when Pearl was hit. Americans were pissed off rather than scared. Japanese leadership could not foresee this reaction. Japanese general staff could not foresee the type of warfare the USN was able to develop and deploy in the Pacific. Just because they couldn't do it, didn't mean the someone else couldn't put half a million men on ships and march across the Pacific with impunity.

More like they didn't think anyone but them could do it. They expected the US to act like Imperial Russia ad fold after a few solid kicks in the teeth.