UniformYankee
Posts: 84
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doomtrader
I was reading some magazine and in the article about kamikazes, there was an interesting statement about strategies of some countries.
Germans: To kill and to win
Soviets: To win at all cost
Americans: To win and to survive at all cost
Japanese: To die and win at all cost
What do you think abut that? Can you agree with the above?
What do you think about such division of ideologies? Does it makes sense? Does some of above fits to other countries?
Do you think something might be added to the above?
First, I'm not sure "countries" had strategies, especially when they first went to war. Many germans, russians, americans and japanese did not want war. A few individuals in those counties did want war. So war happened.
Hitler's initial strategy included "resolving the polish question" with the ferverent hope that Britain and France would not intervene. Of course Hilter did not really view this as his initial strategy for WWII, because he was not trying to start WWII at that point. He did have a plan to have a war, at some point, like maybe 1942, but hopefully on the Eastern Front only. In which case his strategy would amount to "capture most of European Russia" with minimal cost/investment and then enjoy the fruits. Killing per say, was not part of the plan, though in hindsite we can say that was much of the effect. Between Hitler and Stalin together their actions resulted in the deaths of more humans that probably any other two people we can name.
Stalin's initial strategy also included avoiding war, at least until 1942. He felt so strongly about this, that when war came, it took him some weeks to personally recover and realize that his strategy had failed and he needed a new one. Stalin then tried a very aggresive strategy, attacking here, there and everywhere. All of these attacks failed to achieve their objectives. It wasn't until after Kursk, that Stalin realized he was better off letting his Generals run the war. So, in summary, we might say STAVKA's strategy was really a strategic defense, both during and after the war, but this defense included acquiring enough "buffer space" to enable the usual "trade space for time" in the event of a subsequent attack. This strategy was successful in the event.
Roosevelt's strategy was to get USA into the war, before either Russia or Britain were defeated. He succeeded, but barely. The nominal "Germany First" strategy was, in reality not implemented until late 42 or even early 43 as King was able to get "exceptions" approved to ensure the "defense" of critical locations, such as the lifeline to Australia. Certainly Pearl Harbor meant that in the Pacific, the USA strategy was, after Pearl Harbor, one of "unconditional surrender". But, there were still some who questioned the war in Europe. Hitler's declaration of war against USA was a major aid to Roosevelt. It is hard to imagine what would have happened had Hitler NOT taken this step. The debate could rage forever, but we will never know.
The Japanese Generals and Admirals collectively, started the war in the (slim) hope that they could capture the SRA quickly enough and establish a defensive position strong enough that would cause the Allies to accept the Japanese occupation without extended hostilities. The Japanese leaders were trying to fight a "limited war". These military leaders were not following any sort of "die and win" strategy. They were following a "grab and hope" plan. Had PH not happened and had the PI not been attacked, again we enter an arena of "what if" that cannot be addressed. Probably Roosevelt would have gotten USA into the war, but without the "Rosie the Riveter" affect. Meaning without the strong emotional support of the populace. In which case, war weariness might have set in, prior to the victory that was obtained historically. Hecque, even in the real war, the USA people were getting tired by early 1945 and the Iwo Jima "flag" photo really was a morale booster.
In the second half of the war, the "face saving" issue, did cause the Japanese to sacrifice a large amount of people and material. This could be construed as some sort of "die/win" idea. But, the idea was not to die, so much as to delay to the point that the Allies would quit. It almost worked. But just as Sherman's "March to the Sea" ensured that Lincoln would be re-elected and the North would keep fighting the ACW, the Iwo Photo ensured the USA would keep fighting in the Pacific, dispite the Japanese suicide tactics (which actually were not seen in full force until Okinawa, where these tactics were devastating).
So, first, typcially "countries" do not have stratgies, especially before a war. A few leaders do, but this should not be confused with thinking all or most of the citizens are aligned.
Second, as wars progress, there may be more alignment, but often there are two camps. The "stop" camp and the "continue" camp. The battle for the "morale" of the people, is often what can determine the outcome, but not always. Sometimes the military must be truly crushed (as it was in German in 1945). But the reality is hardly as simple as the words posted by the OP. At least not IMHO.
|
Printable Version
WW II Nations strategy - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread