Jump to content

Who was WWII's most important leader?


hooligan x

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Personally' date=' I think its a good thing Reinhardt Heydrich was taken out by partisans early in the war. He was more depraved than Hitler in many ways, was more ruthless when it came to his colleagues in the inner circle than Hitler was (Hitler displayed loyalty to his near, dear idiots), had a significantly better handle on intelligence - and a better internal intelligence network - than his counterparts, and was more competent than most of them by far. I don't think he would have single-handedly changed the tide of the war in terms of outcome, but I do think he would have made intelligence gathering more difficult, and the end-game more painful.[/quote']

 

Here's an idea I've heard bandied about:

 

What if Hitler died about 1940 or so, say, (immediatly after the Fall of France) and Heydrich became Fuhrer?

 

I've also read arguments for Heydrich assassinating Hitler and grabbing power, but considering just what sort of an utterly cynical political backstabber he was with almost everyone else (much like Bormann) he had a devotion to Hitler that was almost literally worship. I wonder sometimes how it was that so many of the top Nazis could be such amoral and self-serving creatures on one hand, and yet on the other seem to have been honestly convinced that Hitler was some kind of a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Economic advisers to Hitler (early 1938): "The German economy is going into the tank. We need to earn foreign currency reserves to buy stuff like, y'know, oil."

Hitler (hearing "blah blah blah blah"): "Kill the dude with the thing!"

Austrian leadership: "We love you, Fuehrer. Thanks for invading us! Here, take all our foreign currency reserves."

Economic advisors (mid-39): "We had a lot of fun maxing out the Austrian and Czech credit cards, but we're still in the same position we were before. We need to reverse our economic policies, demobilise the army, cut spending on the arms industry, and give back at least some of the loot we took from the Jews. Sure, unemployment will go up to 20%, just like at the end of Weimar, but it's the responsible thing to do."

Hitler: "Leeroy Jenkins!"

 

In short, the Nazi war economy, such as it was, was built on looting.

 

Part of that was because, among Hitler's many campaign promises in 1933 was that he'd create a perfectly egalitarian state that would provide cradle-to-grave welfare for all German citizens (provided they were Aryans, that is, which wasn't always emphasized until after they were in office). He knew he had to keep the populace on his side -- one early effort at 'liquidating' Germany's handicapped and insane was shot down by the German population -- and felt that providing them with a very fine lifestyle would be the best way to do that.

 

That and Hitler and his cronies were convinced that everything the other European nations had was stolen from Germany at Versailles, so taking it back was just justice anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I think your best bet for coming up with a German situational improvement is to find a way to have Chamberlain's government hang on for even a few weeks longer in May 1940. If Churchill doesn't become PM' date=' either because he's dead or some bargain's been made between the various groups in Parliament who lost confidence in Chamberlain (keeping him there when the Germans reach the Channel) then it's much more plausible that Britain accepts the loss of France, signs some bogus treaty, and starts rebuilding what it lost at Dunkirk. No Battle of Britain (in 1940 at least), maybe Mosely doesn't get arrested and the Fascists in England keep a public voice, and Germany starts turning on the charm about how they and England need to work together to fight the Commies. You can get a fun bunch of new historical branches from that. Once Churchill's in charge, though, it's tough to see Europe going much differently. dw[/quote']

 

Historian Goodrick-Clarke has argued that Hitler in fact didn't move on Britian immediatly after Dunkirk because he was convinced that he could convince the British to join him in an attack on Stalinist Russia. G-C argues that, if Hitler had realised earlier what was really going on, he would have probably gone through Spain for Gibraltar and given some sort of help to the Indian revolutionaries who were desperately seeking aid from Hitler (or Stalin, or anyone) to overthrow the British Raj.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Get rid of Stalin earlier. Like BEFORE the big purges during the mid-late 1930s. There were some very talented people around at that time' date=' and most of them wound up dead. If that had not happened, or been somehow mitigated, then the Soviet military and industrial capacity would have been in much better shape.[/quote']

 

Maybe Tukachevsky and the other purged (in our reality) generals kill Stalin first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

It is incredibly easy to brand people such as Hitler' date=' Himmler, Tojo, Stalin and, yes, Mussolini as "evil" and just leave it at that. But the truth is more complex - all these men (and others) issued orders for the committing of horrific acts, and were ultimately responsible for the deaths of millions. But all of them were human (well, maybe except Stalin) and were capable of occasional kindness as well - even Hitler had a dog that he was fond of, and he also enjoyed family picnic-style gatherings with the families of his inner circle. Some people are not comfortable with that notion, humanizing the monsters, so to speak, but it is there.[/quote']

 

I think one of the reasons people don't want to 'humanize' guys like Hitler or Tojo is because if they did, they might have to face the knowledge that "Under the right circumstances, I could do something as horrible as they did, and be just as sure of my own rightness."

 

Inhuman monsters are less frightening sometimes than horribly flawed and depraved creatures who are still human beings on some level.

 

Of course, that said, there were people on every side who really were monsters without any recognizable trace of humanity. If even half the stories told about Karl Koch (the Buchenwald commandant who was sentenced to death in an SS court and shot by his own guards on charges of sadism and excessive abuse of inmates) are true, he really was an utter monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

That would be the High Command of the Imperial Army. Yamamoto worked like mad to convince them to not do it' date=' but they refused to listen.[/quote']

 

I have often wondered if Yamamoto set things up so Japan would loose it's war of aggression against America.

 

At Pearl Harbor, while numerous ships were sunk and lives were lost, the repair facilities and (amazingly) oil storage tanks were all untouched.

 

If Yamamoto had sent one more wave of bombers agaisnt those targets, he would have effectively pushed the US Fleet clear back to the West Coast for fuel and repairs. And all the ships sunk would have stayed sunk, without the facilities to repair them.

 

With one more series of attacks, Yamamoto could potentially have gotten the US to conceed the Pacific rather than fight for it.

 

In fact, the only way leaving the fuel and repair facilities in tact makes sense is if the Japanese had sent an invasion fleet along with those carriers... which perhaps they should have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

I have often wondered if Yamamoto set things up so Japan would loose it's war of aggression against America.

 

At Pearl Harbor, while numerous ships were sunk and lives were lost, the repair facilities and (amazingly) oil storage tanks were all untouched.

 

If Yamamoto had sent one more wave of bombers agaisnt those targets, he would have effectively pushed the US Fleet clear back to the West Coast for fuel and repairs. And all the ships sunk would have stayed sunk, without the facilities to repair them.

 

With one more series of attacks, Yamamoto could potentially have gotten the US to conceed the Pacific rather than fight for it.

 

In fact, the only way leaving the fuel and repair facilities in tact makes sense is if the Japanese had sent an invasion fleet along with those carriers... which perhaps they should have.

 

Well, Nagato was very worried about the missing carriers at Pearl and while the first wave was unopposed, the second wave started seeing actual resistance, so there were several compelling reasons.

1. US Carriers were not to be found.

2. No losses with what appeared to be pretty good results. Diminishing returns on further attacks.

 

Hind sight is always going to point out all the mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

Well, Nagato was very worried about the missing carriers at Pearl and while the first wave was unopposed, the second wave started seeing actual resistance, so there were several compelling reasons.

1. US Carriers were not to be found.

2. No losses with what appeared to be pretty good results. Diminishing returns on further attacks.

 

Hind sight is always going to point out all the mistakes.

 

Exactly.

 

Also, this particular hindsight totally fails to take into account actual Japanese naval thinking of the time.

 

Aircraft carriers were regarded as an important element of the fleet, but battleships were still seen as the CENTRAL element (just as with the US and Commonwealth navies). Japan's original plan was to establish their "sphere", along with a chain of naval and air bases. At some point, the US Navy would launch an all-out attack into what was now Japanese territory, and the two navies would fight a massive Jutland-style "decisive battle" (which Japan would naturally win).

 

To that end, it is well worth noting that a big chunk of the IJN (including the superbattleships Yamato and Musashi) spent a big chunk of the war in Hashirajima Bay basically waiting for the Americans to come. It is also worth noting that, in the Battle of Midway, Japan's "Main" Force (including all the battleships involved), was separate (as in several hundred miles away!) from the carrier force.

 

Also note, the Pearl Harbour strike was seen as a major gamble frought with peril. A more aggressive commander may well have pressed the attack more (as some of the junior officers urged after the initial successes), but the admiral in charge was cautious by nature. Also, his force needed to refuel and hanging around too long could have jeopardized this.

 

With most of their Pacific battleships out of action, the USN had to depend on other elements, including aircraft carriers and submarines, to carry the fight to the enemy. As battleships were returned to the fleet, the older slower ones were mainly used for gunnery support, and most of the newer fast battleships were slotted into existing carrier forces for added protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

That may all be true.

 

But the loss of the tank farms and repair facilities at Pearl Harbor would have hurt our war efforts more than the mere loss of ships did.

 

Ah, heck, perhaps Yamamoto just missed that. He was good; he was not omniscient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Who was WWII's most important leader?

 

That may all be true.

 

But the loss of the tank farms and repair facilities at Pearl Harbor would have hurt our war efforts more than the mere loss of ships did.

 

Ah, heck, perhaps Yamamoto just missed that. He was good; he was not omniscient.

 

He was also not present with the task force and would not second-guess the Admiral who was in charge of the fleet. The Admiral on site was, as pointed out uncertain as to the location of the enemy carriers and had no way of knowing that they weren't just over the horizon steaming right towards his fleet.

 

Every minute the Japanese attack force sat off the coast of Oahu increased the chances that an enemy scout plane was directing counterattacking forces to their location. He had no way of knowing that a gamble on a third-wave attack would very likely (there's that hindsight again!) have been successful. He made the best decision he could at the time. Had Yamamoto wanted a bolder decisionmaker in charge of the fleet, he should have appointed one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...