Would that be if you disobeyed and did well or disobeyed and failed? I believe the Germans would have recognized what you did worked, as long as Hitler was not in charge of the recognizing post-44.
Hitler was formally in charge of the entire army organization form december 1941. If you disobeyed you were doomed, and there was no time to do your job after all.
A democratic dictatorship perhaps, because WW2 serves just to show how little power the Emperor of Japan actually had.
The Emperor of Japan wielded absolute power. He was considered a god on earth. Now how often he actually exercised his power is another matter. When he made the final decision for surrender, an entire nation of fanatical fighters gave up overnight. Now that's power!
Apparently the decision to end the war was the only major decision Hiro Hito ever took.Most of the senior officers wished to continue the war.
There you can see that the state was actually a democratic dictatorship. Because the Emperor was so passive, the government could take over and do as they pleased.
still, a group of officers tryed to storm the room were the emperor was, some of the military personal have the belife to fight even against the desition of the emperor to end the war, I think it was like a death wish for them , :-?
Depends on your definition, to me it was a dictatorship, although not by one man. The Army pretty well ran everything and opponents had a nasty habit of turning up dead. The Gestapo had nothing on the Kempaitei (spelling?). There was a functioning government of sorts and Tojo was removed as Prime Minister during the war, but the people had no say in anything.
That sums it up poretty good. However, Tojo was not removed from office; he resigned, along with his entire cabinet, after the fall of the Mariana Islands in the summer of 1944. Unfortunately, his successors were determined to fight things out, rather than end the war.
WW2 Japan was a military junta. Sort of a modern day Shogun. ... I think. My vote for worst general is Paulus, and Nagumo (yes, I know, admiral). Paulus for back down from Hitler at Starlingrad and not breaking out when he had the chance. Nagumo for not ordering the third strike that would have destroyed the oil supply at Pearl. As for the Americans... well to be honest, there were too many to be listed. Brits... who was in charge before Monty took over N. Africa? Alexander?
I don't think Paulus belongs in this bunch. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nagumo would fit better for being indecisive at Midway rather than not ordering a third strike toward Pearl Harbor. He fulfilled his assigned mission at Pearl Harbor (blame the planners then). He failed badly at Midway.
Although I can see where you are coming from, in El Alamein he did first defend against Rommel, then although he had larger numbers the actual equipment wasn't as good. in there respect of armament or armour. So when he did reinforce then attack Rommel he was attacking the dug in Germans. As most people know a dug in enemy requires a much greater force and the chance of greater casualties. I haven't studied the battle plans in depth or the figures on both sides but yes he owes a lot to the superiority in numbers. However, Goodwood, Epsom and Charnwood I don't think he had such luxury and although in Epsom he failed, Goodwood succeeded but was fought back then Charnwood succeeded I believe. Sometimes you do need a big hammer to crack a nut, As these operations didn't do exactly as they were supposed to, they did move German troops and armour from the area of the American forces. maybe that is why he claimed them as successes. As for market garden 2 of the three bridges were taken and the reason the third wasn't held was because of the weather. As we both know 'Het weer rond arnhein is slecht'. So the picture you paint is not quite as black. IMHO if he can get the troops to do the job then he can't be that bad.
The problem with Market Garden is that without ALL the bridges it is a complete failure, no matter how many you do have (there were nine bridges on the corridor). As Cornelius Ryan aptly stated, on september 26th the Allies had a corridor 60 miles long but leading nowhere. This operation failed because it was a bad plan, because the Germans were more prepared and organized than expected, and because they reacted very quickly. It was impossible in hindsight.
Finding out that you've dropped an airborne division on top of two SS Panzer divisions doesn't help. Ignoring the reports from the Dutch Underground was stupid. If someone tells you Model has just arrived in the area you're planning to send airborne troops into, it does behoove one to at least check it out.
With hind sight it was a bad move, however, the gamble was taken. If it had been successful maybe the war would have been shortened, maybe not. Had the weather been better, I don't know the meteorological reports were. had the poles been able to be sent in. Now I hold the greatest respect of the resistance movements during the war, but how much info was given on numbers and how battle effective were they. I don't know what was in Monties head at the time but he was in charge of the land troops some of his operations must have been a success, are you only honing in on the ones that were unsuccessful. Did the holding of any bridges help, maybe you could advise better. With hind sight, had chamberlain said at Muenchen If you expand i will bring the full weight of the British empire on Germany. This too may have stopped the war, with hind sight had the British and French closed the Ardenne, the panzer division may not have pushed through. At that time the only mechanised unist were the panzers, the infantry were on foot or horses. Many if's many but's but hindsight is a great thing. :smok: