Barbarossa (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lancer
- Start date
Poppo
In the Cooler
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,457
The only chance for the axis to beat the USSR would have been a coordinated attack together with Japan.
If Japan had attacked Russia in the east, Stalin couldn' t have moved his siberian and eastern divisions to defend Moscow during winter 1941 when the advanced nazi troops could already see the Kremlin. Attacking alone the Ussr in a world war was a suicide.
The allied were much more clever when they coordinated their summer 1944 attack: Normandy landings by the Americans and the breakthrough of the German central front in Belarus by the Soviets.
If Japan had attacked Russia in the east, Stalin couldn' t have moved his siberian and eastern divisions to defend Moscow during winter 1941 when the advanced nazi troops could already see the Kremlin. Attacking alone the Ussr in a world war was a suicide.
The allied were much more clever when they coordinated their summer 1944 attack: Normandy landings by the Americans and the breakthrough of the German central front in Belarus by the Soviets.
No coordinated attack involving Japan against the USSR was ever going to take place. The Japanese had tangled with the Russians at Nomonhan and had been badly beaten. The Japanese wanted no part of a war with Russia. Japanese strategic aims lay elsewhere and the Russian intelligence system in Japan had assured Stalin of this, leaving Stalin free to move whatever troops he wanted from the Manchuria area to meet the threat from Hitler. -- Al
Poppo
In the Cooler
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,457
I know that the strategic japanese aims were elsewhere .I said that Germany had no chance to win Russia if they hadn' t coordinated the attack with Japan;but as they had different strategies and they were allied only for the reason of having a common enemy, their destiny was a certain failure.
Last edited:
Combat
Brigadier General
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,774
Hitler was counting on a repeat of the Russian WWI collapse. There is the famous quote about kicking in the door and the whole structure would collapse. Hitler was an enoromous risk taker and he gambled on a quick victory in the east. There was no plan B or strategic reserve to draw upon. The Germans were not capable of a long term campaign against Russia. It was all or nothing in the first weeks. The war was basically over by Dec. '41 when the Russians withstood the initial losses and regrouped. Absent a political collapse it was impossible for the Germans to win a military victory given the disparity of resources and size of Russia while also defending in the West and fighting in N. Africa. The Japanese might have helped with their navy to block the supplies being sent by America, but like Finland and other German allies in the east they didn't have the land forces to make much of an impact against the Red Army.
bradleyl30
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,582
Hitler is the best example I know of that illustrates the flawed nature of "outcome based decision making." Studies show the most successful gamblers (specifically poker players) break into 3 levels. First, those who understand the odds. Second, those who understand the other players (physical tells or betting behaviors,) but the thing that separates the truly elite players are that they practice "non-outcome based decision making models." In other words, they have a set of principles and guidelines that they stick to, and only break with careful consideration (so that they don't become too predictable.)
In other words, they are not relying on luck, but they play the odds, the other players and make very intentional decisions when to take risks and do not count on the "outcome" to justify it.
So, they may try to get a flush or a straight on the river, but they know this is a bad decision and catching that card is a bonus. It was luck and does not mean they made the "right" decision.
How this applies to Hitler is that he kept catching cards on the river and thinking that it justified his belief in his own genius. As most bad gamblers who believe in their luck, they take greater and greater risks until they fail spectacularly. This model helps explain an awful lot of huge blunders on the world and corporate stages. The luckier I am the more I push my luck and my past actions justify it.
Once I learned this and started approaching poker this way, I became a much better player and rarely lost huge while increasing my number of victories. I have watched several companies fall into the same trap where risky bets paid off which they thought justified a business model or other strategy and were blind to its weaknesses or increasing obsolescence.
Of course, with Hitler it does not explain the whole story, but just offers a lens into how he and the German military and people got fooled into such a stupid course of action. It takes great humility to stop believing in your own greatness and assume you are fallible, but often that is what leads to greatness as it does with great poker players. One last pun, as we know humility was not Hilter's or Germany's strong suit at that time.
That's all folks!
Hitler's gamble, with no viable Plan B or fallback position, taking the chance that the enemy will cave in after an initial shock and loss, sounds almost identical to the Japanese plan for war against the US. Yamamoto had confidence that he could run wild in the Pacific in the first 6 months of war against the US but realized it was a losing proposition if the war went longer. The Japanese would have been in a better position had they caught the USN carriers at Pearl, but even that would have only stretched the inevitable US recovery by months, at most. Once the US got onto a war-footing, Japan was doomed, even if the fanatics around Hirohito wouldn't let themselves see the truth. The Japanese, like the Germans, bet on long shots. The Germans bet that the Russians would collapse and the Japanese bet US will would not be strong enough to recover and fight. Wrong on both counts. -- Al