Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grit


Japan did have another option besides going to war. Become a peaceful nation and stop it's aggression in Asia. Did they really expect the rest of the world to look away while they pillaged whatever they wanted? The Japanese leadersip had choices and they consistently made the wrong choices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grit

Japan did have another option besides going to war. Become a peaceful nation and stop it's aggression in Asia. Did they really expect the rest of the world to look away while they pillaged whatever they wanted? The Japanese leadersip had choices and they consistently made the wrong choices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Actually, the US did very little to Japan in support of China..., in spite of such well-publicized atrocities as the Panay Incident and the Rape of Nanking.
The Oil Embargo didn't come about until the Japanese seized French Indo-China.
Even then, refusal to sell your products to an aggressor is hardly an act of war..., only an expression of disapproval by voluntarily relinquishing a market. Even the "Flying Tigers" came about only on the very eve of the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I agree, the United States did little in terms of physical aide to China in the late 30's. But to argue the point, if they didn't care about China, why maintain that nothing could be negotiated until Japan withdrew from China?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grit

Japan did have another option besides going to war. Become a peaceful nation and stop it's aggression in Asia. Did they really expect the rest of the world to look away while they pillaged whatever they wanted? The Japanese leadersip had choices and they consistently made the wrong choices.

Agreed, they could have. Japan instead tried to colonize like every world power had before them at the expense of China. They just came too late to the table. It was ok to take terittory in China, but start infringing on what the great powers had accumulated and wait a minute here. Don't forget too that at that time, there was extreme racism towards the asiatic, and that factored into the stance of the western powers towards Japan as well. There was a sense of just who do you think you are. The Washington Naval Treaty in 1922 is a good example, Japan was not given naval parity to what were then considered her allies, to the Japanese quite an insult.

I agree, FDR was a brillant statesman and Churchill had his faults, but they were the right men on hand for troubling times. Don't get me wrong here, Japan was an aggressor, but if you peel away the layers you'll see they just tried to do what many nations had done before them, they just lost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Because there was nothing to "negotiate"? Japan's "negotiations" pretty much amounted to being given a free hand to do whatever she wanted. "I want China, and I want you to supply me with the means to attack her." pretty much sums up Japanese "negotiations". It was a position about 150 years out of date..., which pretty much matched the thinking of the Militarists controlling the Japanese Government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Because there was nothing to "negotiate"? Japan's "negotiations" pretty much amounted to being given a free hand to do whatever she wanted. "I want China, and I want you to supply me with the means to attack her." pretty much sums up Japanese "negotiations". It was a position about 150 years out of date..., which pretty much matched the thinking of the Militarists controlling the Japanese Government.

A good point Mike, and you said precisely what I was trying to say, that of Japan coming to the table too late. Many countries of the world had moved beyond that mentality some time ago.

quote:

yet the Western Democracies allied themselves with arguably just as nasty a nation in the Soviet Union. And after the war, the Soviet Union was in fact almost as repressive to many "liberated" countries as the enemy had ever been. Stalin killed as many, if not more of his own people, than what the Germans had done.

quote:

One of the reasons for the fast Japanese advance was the ferocity of their offensives. This was, not exclusively but also, due to this mindset.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

No, being a nation prepared for war when their opponents were entirely unprepared is what led them to victory after victory, IMO. The Samurai mindset may have given the Japanese some advantage in local situations, but I do not believe that it was the reason for their string of victories.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Thanks Brad..., couldn't have said it better myself. Though "LoBaron" missed my point entirely..., which was that a mindset that substituted "human bullets" for the real thing was out of date in an age of mass production of firepower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Thanks Brad..., couldn't have said it better myself. Though "LoBaron" missed my point entirely..., which was that a mindset that substituted "human bullets" for the real thing was out of date in an age of mass production of firepower.

Nah I got your point.

That mindset you are referring to, was move forward in situations where survival instinct would tell you to do the exact opposite.


Actually I think you've still missed it. To advance when common sense says not to is the duty of a soldier. To charge wildly into a barrage of machinegun fire screaming and hollaring with no supporting fire is just lunacy.

Perfect example: The "Battle of the Tenaru River" on Guadalcanal. 900 Japanese infantry land, and with no real information and limited reccon, simply scream "Banzaii" and assault 18,000 Marines. That's just nuts.

< Message edited by mike scholl 1 -- 6/9/2010 4:09:13 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grit

The more I read about the Japanese soldier and their Samurai Spirit and Bushido Code and Kamikaze the less impressed I become. The idea that it was honorable to die for the Emperor was a bunch of crap. You win wars by making the other guy die for his country. Not you dieing for your Emperor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


You have to admit that these BANZAI screaming Tenaru river situations exclusively occurred when the battles were already long lost. In true offensive action the mindset had another purpose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


You have to admit that these BANZAI screaming Tenaru river situations exclusively occurred when the battles were already long lost. In true offensive action the mindset had another purpose.

Actually, the "Battle of the Tenaru River" was the very first engagement of the Guadalcanal operation. The situation was not only not "already long lost", it was barely understood by the Japanese command.

In any rational Army, Ichiki's unit would have scouted out the Marine's positions and strength and reported the true situation back to Rabaul. In the Japanese Army, they simply threw their lives away to no purpose whatsoever.

quote:

Even if an officer knew in his heart that a plan of attack was flawed and doomed to fail, he simply stoically went ahead with it. Doing his part and sticking with a plan, even a bad plan and probably dying along with the plan, became a mechanism whereby the Japanese individual could personally absolve himself of the shameful responsibility for a defeat.

quote:

I remember inteviews of US Marines describing the feeling of frustration, anger and fear of an opponent who never stopped
attacking. That this was not enough is clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk
Agreed. Morale amongst even the toughest Marine units, and also on Naval ships faced with yet another Kamikaze attack in '45, was definitely starting to crack. Some men broke down in uncontrollable weeping, others just threw themselves overboard - they had reached the end of their line. Ugaki who commanded the Kamikaze units in '45 hoped this might well happen, but the US military rather wisely covered this up at the time and prevented information that morale was getting close to the cracking point from ever getting out, even to the US press.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rankorian

But, of course, this all presumes the Japanese were different, psychologically, at the time.  That they did not have disdain for others [Memo to High Command: smiling shots with Filipino natives is going to be a winner!  Pictures of Japanese nurses tending to wounded US soldiers--smilesome!]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rankorian

Hmmm....looks like I asked the right group of people those questions.

Q-ball may be correct in that any approach at PI would have brought the Americans into the war.


But, if I were an American traitor in 1941, my suggestion to the Japanese would have been:

1.  Don't attack Pearl Harbor.

2. Poor everything on PI (as far as American territories), in the hopes of making it a quick battle.  Style yourself as a liberator--freeing an Asian territory from Western domination.  Film and reports will take longer to get to the US.  One could counter-PR it.  Claim US losses were exagerrated.  Offer compensation (after some negotiations, which take time, of course).  Unlike not attacking PI at all, you now have a strong base of operation to give pause to even those inclined to fight.

3.  Claim the resources in the area were vital to Japan's survival, justly needed.

4.  Hope the US population goes back to...its usual life.

5.  Cut a deal with the US: Let Japan live, we won't go east of PI.  Have a great European war, if you wish.


Reading about Operation Torch in North Africa, I am impressed with how poorly prepared, psychologically, America and the American soldier was, even at that time.  If one could keep casualties down, it is just unclear to me (though I certainly can withstand correction) that the US would gear up its economy to defend PI.  And if it does not gear up its economy and put it on war footing?......producing lawn chairs in Cleveland is not going to get a war won.



But, of course, this all presumes the Japanese were different, psychologically, at the time.  That they did not have disdain for others [Memo to High Command: smiling shots with Filipino natives is going to be a winner!  Pictures of Japanese nurses tending to wounded US soldiers--smilesome!]


I....just....come...away....from a PH strike....even a good one...............with, meh, not sure I did much.......


For WITP AE2: a discrete "quit meter" for the US, dependent on...a lot of factors--because that was the only way Japan was going to win.  [And, quitting a war, to be more controversial, is perhaps sometimes the right thing to do]

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk
Agreed. Morale amongst even the toughest Marine units, and also on Naval ships faced with yet another Kamikaze attack in '45, was definitely starting to crack. Some men broke down in uncontrollable weeping, others just threw themselves overboard - they had reached the end of their line. Ugaki who commanded the Kamikaze units in '45 hoped this might well happen, but the US military rather wisely covered this up at the time and prevented information that morale was getting close to the cracking point from ever getting out, even to the US press.

Must be nice making pronunciamento from a soft, comfy, easy-chair. You have obviously never talked to a Marine.

When troops are interviewed, they tend to tell the truth; and for combat veterans, truth is they feel fear, rage, fear, frustration, and fear. Likely Sargon's troops felt the same way. But to conclude that this implies the Marine's morale was cracking indicates that you should perhaps learn a bit more about combat/conflict dynamics. Being afraid is good, in certain circumstances.

In any nominal combat unit, there are 3 classes of individuals:

5% are hysterical ostriches - they jump overboard, hide, run about shouting - basically interfering with useful activity, frightening and irritating everybody else, and generally making a nuisance of themselves.

5% are hard, cold, and wicked - they have sublimated their fear and turned the emotional energy into focus and purpose.

90% are trained, know what to do, and do ok, but need a kick in the pants to do better (need to be led and directed). Normally, it's the Hard 5% that are the leaders (officially and unofficially), so the 90% will do what is necessary, and what they were trained to do under that prompting. It's a psychological trust thing.

Sometimes, you may get a ship/unit where the Hysterics outnumber the Hard, and swamp the leadership principal. A real witch for the poor 90% pukes; but because it was unusual, it got reported; NOT because it was normal. For Marines, I would guess 2% Hysterics and 8% Hard.

So please don't do contemporary psychobabble when speaking about morale in the mid 1940s. It is both much simpler and more complex than you can imagine.