Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of hindsight?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of hindsight? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 7:36:14 PM   
koontz

 

Posts: 274
Joined: 8/27/2009
Status: offline 		Japan wanted to be the superpower of Asia. To dominate China, just look where they where
up to from -30s and forward, in a way you could actullay say that WW2 started
~30/31 or something like that.

ww2 wasnt a ww before 7 dec of -41.

Also Japan was an real dictatorship who looked at all "Ganjins" as
Untermenschen

But ofc with all the facts in hand, The Empire of Japan challenged the law of
gravity. Most of there early gains was aginst poor/little force.

Even in peace time the Japanese merchant fleet was in need of UK/USA to support the HI.

For each ton of supplies USN transported IJN came up to 0,5 kg.

To turn the question around....

Why the hell did it the allies so long to defeat the Empire?
For ie. Iwo Jima was without garison for an long time.

Where was the cooporation between USA and the rest of the allies?



_____________________________

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

"All warfare is based on deception. There is no place where espionage is not used. Offer the enemy bait to lure him."

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 31
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 7:43:17 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline 		To get an idea of what the US could produce in a war, all you had to do was look at the US production in WW1, and the war ended before it got running at full capacity.

_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to koontz)
Post #: 32
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 8:03:03 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		This has been brought up and other threads and articulated better by others than I can but....

Japan's leadership never beleived they could defeat the USA in the truest sense of the word. Lead by the ultranationalists in the Army, they beleived they didn't have to conquer the Americans. They truly felt they were a superior race and that the west and especially the Americans were an inferior, weak race that had no stomach for true war. They felt all they had to due was hurt the USA badly and FDR would fold from pressure form the American populace. They continued to beleive this even to the bitter end.

The problem in that was two fold. The first is that the IJA had drunk a full barrel of the Bushido Kool-Aid. They honstly beleived that superior character alone could overcome any material advatage the west could thow a them. Unfortunately the couldn't see the truth. The USSR had handed them their lunch just two years previous and even though they had achieved numerous tactical success fighting the Chinese, all ten years of war with them had truly yielded was a strategic stalemate

The second is the Army especially did not study their advisaries very well. As awful as places like Betio, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa were in terms of casualties, they pale in comparison to Antietam, Gettysburg, and Fredericksburg. The US was less than 80 years removed from the bloodiest war in their history. When aroused, the Americans would fight and they would fight to the bitter end.

Terminus hit the nail on the head: even though it was the right choice in terms of giving them operational freedom for their early conflicts, it doomed them. Once the American populace was enraged by its politicians, there really was no turning back. I have very seldom seen it discussed that the "treachor" of PH was more about the politicians covering their "exposure" and deliberately baiting the American public than it was about true acts of evil. But that is another discussion ......

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 33
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 8:29:40 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		The Japanese Army actually had a decent bead on the kind of war they wanted to fight vis-a-vis their opponents. They wanted to quickly secure the original objectives (i.e. SRA) and dig in to fight the long fight which would, with luck, allow them to get a settlement. The Navy became the service primarily infected with "Victory Disease" and began promoting expansions that culminated in Yamamotto's ultimatum regarding Midway and Hawaii. The Army's reaction to all these new plans for expansion (including a study vs. Australia) was tepid to say the least. Compromise was eventually reached regarding the South Pacific. (per Tolland.....securing of PM, Solomons, Fiji to cut supply lines) while Yamamotto initially was to take Midway with naval troops/troops currently attached to the command.

_____________________________


(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 34
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 8:31:52 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		Going to take an opposing view.

In essence there was no other options for Japan but to go to war if it wanted to maintain its position of power on the world stage. We have to keep in mind that the Japanese war council was not just thinking in practical terms (ie production, resources, manpower etc) but also in terms of national prestige. Japan since the Meiji reformation had made it a practice of taking on the local bully boys and winning through sheer determination. In point of fact, America's meddling in its affairs (as Japan saw it) just pushed her into war. The embargo should not be seen soley as an economic attack but as a very public slap in the face to the ruling junta.

Why not attack when Japan attack? Come on, everyone can see the temporary advantages that Japan enjoyed in '41 and '42. The colonial regimes were essentially all in disarray with the defeat of all colonial powers on mainland Europe. America was essentially looking the other way, towards Europe. The military forces in the area of those who were expected to oppose them were essentially second rate. And the Japanese had sufficient concentration of strike power available to accomplish their initial tasks. Basically they were in a position to dictate terms in the military sphere at that particular time. Japan's whole plan rested on their own version of blitzkrieg, taking high risks all the time. But keep in mind that they had always taken such risks in taking on foreign adversaries and came out of it triumphant.

One other factor that made them turn south was the power of the Red Army. Their border clashes in Manchuria ended in humiliating and bloody defeat in 1939. The decision to turn to the south was also partly motivated in avoiding further confrontation in Manchuria which became a no go area. Taking over the colonial empires from enfeebled enemies whose only hope was essentially America coming to the rescue (which was both a contradiction politically and almost unthinkable before Pearl Harbour) was an easier prospect.

Finally, like all other combattants, the Japanese didn't think much of the US servicemen as an individual. With a navy imbued with a Nelsonian (or shall I say Togo's) spirit and a Prussian model army, they didn't think much of an army that required months if not years just to produce sufficient divisions in the field. They reserved greater respect for the US navy but thought of themselves as being superior in training and esprit de corps. Yet they did realise that the time to strike had come if they didn't want to be relegated to a second rate power. Someone mentioned the 2 ocean navy programme which would have made it that much harder for Japan to challenge US supremacy in the Pacific. They were also conscious of American economic support for the Allies through Lend Lease. The expansion of the army was proceeding slowly as well.

In essence Japan's position in '41 was that it was feeling that the US on one side and the allies were essentially cramping its activities in the Pacific. It was also in that most dangerous of moods - when a power decides that war could actually improve or at lease safeguard its position. They also had a good record against the big boys which made them less inclined to take orders from whoever the next big boy would be. (Besides there were a lot of examples throughout history of seemingly inferior powers taking on bigger ones successfully.)  Frankly what they saw as American and others meddling in their foreign adventures was intolerable and '41 presented the right moment to strike. When we argue 2 generations later dispassionatly while looking at economic figures that are not always translatable with military might, we must not forget the heady and passionate discussions that were taking place in Japan's ruling circles. We have the luxury of dividing cold hard numbers from emotions, something that was not possible in the atmosphere of that time. Let us not forget it, before we post our comments. After all, the bulk of the combattant nations were essentially all on their little crusades during WWII, and Japan was no exception.

There would have been no better time to do it, though with hindsight it would have been better if they had allowed America to go to war with Germany and then struck at Pearl or/and limited their attacks on European colonial holdings. But this scenario did not look like it was going to happen soon, while the embargo might have had its desired effect. Thus Japan opted for immediate war.

At least that's my take...

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 35
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 10:18:51 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Going to take an opposing view.

In essence there was no other options for Japan but to go to war if it wanted to maintain its position of power on the world stage.


Well, it's always "cheaper" to rob the store than to pay retail. At least for a short time.

Japan had numerous options in, say, 1930. Just because the British and French and Dutch empires were empires doesn't mean they weren't interested in peaceful trade for raw materials. Do you have any evidence that, if China had remained un-invaded, Japan would have been denied strategic resources and at least some access to finished goods markets? Of course they had options.

Or, said another way, the history of Japan for the past 65 peaceful, incredibly productive years has been a mirage?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 36
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 10:21:15 PM   
Moss Orleni

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline 		Empires in the Balance by H.P. Willmott offers some interesting insights on the subject...

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 37
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 10:23:17 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

Empires in the Balance by H.P. Willmott offers some interesting insights on the subject...


Any bottom line thoughts? My reading pile has snow on top of it.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Moss Orleni)
Post #: 38
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 10:29:45 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Going to take an opposing view.

In essence there was no other options for Japan but to go to war if it wanted to maintain its position of power on the world stage.


Well, it's always "cheaper" to rob the store than to pay retail. At least for a short time.

Japan had numerous options in, say, 1930. Just because the British and French and Dutch empires were empires doesn't mean they weren't interested in peaceful trade for raw materials. Do you have any evidence that, if China had remained un-invaded, Japan would have been denied strategic resources and at least some access to finished goods markets? Of course they had options.

Or, said another way, the history of Japan for the past 65 peaceful, incredibly productive years has been a mirage?


Even if war was the only option... Why antagonize a then neutral United States?

They could have ignored China altogether and just preyed on the overstretched holdings of the Dutch, British, and French. This could have let them go into China and possibly, once the Germans had the Russians on the ropes, go into Siberia.

The US at the time was nearly wholly isolationist and was not in a position to intervene on behalf of any empire.


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 39
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 10:43:02 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Going to take an opposing view.

In essence there was no other options for Japan but to go to war if it wanted to maintain its position of power on the world stage.



The reality is that in 1850, Japan was a backward "third world" nation. By dent of determination, hard work, and self sacrifice they had dragged themselves into the ranks or the "second rate" world powers by the turn of the century. But even more important for their growth on the world stage was logistics..., they were about 10,000 miles from the center of power of any first-world nation. This is what allowed them to humiliate the Tsar in 1904-05.

Unfortunately, being the biggest fish in their small pond still didn't make them a first rank power..., but it enabled them to act like one in East Asia. And that seems to have deluded the Japanese into thinking they were one. Then the US passed the "Two Ocean Naval Bill" and it's supplement; and Roosevelt called for the production of 50,000 planes a year---and suddenly grim reality was staring Japan in the face. No way could they compete with such production (and that was before war kicked the US into "high gear").

Having deluded themselves for almost half a century, the Japanese leadership just couldn't bring themselves to accept that reality. So they plunged themselves into a hopeless war banking on the delusion that "staunch fighting spirit" could beat firepower.

Bullwinkle58 made a good point. It would have made much more sense for Japan to have striven for economic domination of East Asia rather than physical conquest. But given the militarists who dominated her government, reality is that she almost had to get her teeth kicked in before she would accept this.

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 40
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 10:45:11 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		"Almost" had to get her teeth kicked in? ALMOST?

Japan had her teeth kicked in, down her throat and digestive system and out her rectum.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 41
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 10:52:47 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

Bullwinkle58 made a good point. It would have made much more sense for Japan to have striven for economic domination of East Asia rather than physical conquest.


This is exactly China's current tactic today, but they don't want to limit their economic reach to just the Pacific.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 42
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/27/2010 11:51:05 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

"Almost" had to get her teeth kicked in? ALMOST?

Japan had her teeth kicked in, down her throat and digestive system and out her rectum.


Man, another Made My Day comment

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 43
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 12:52:10 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

"Almost" had to get her teeth kicked in? ALMOST?

Japan had her teeth kicked in, down her throat and digestive system and out her rectum.




" But given the militarists who dominated her government, reality is that she almost had to get her teeth kicked in before she would accept this."

You missed the English idiom Termi. The statement was that having their teeth kicked in was almost the only way the Japanese militarists were going to "see the light" of reality...


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 44
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 5:04:02 AM   
Califvol


Posts: 135
Joined: 11/8/2002
From: The Land of Yore
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


If you study US social and political history, and not just military, this is so far from possible as to be ridiculous.

Let me try to put in it a modern context. If Osama bin Laden had offered NYC and the federal treasury $50 billion and an apology on October 1, 2001, would he have been off the hook?


Thank you for the in-depth knowledge of both my educational background and approach to a what if question. Are you part of an accreditation committee that will be revoking my degrees now?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 45
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 5:17:01 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Japan had numerous options in, say, 1930. Just because the British and French and Dutch empires were empires doesn't mean they weren't interested in peaceful trade for raw materials. Do you have any evidence that, if China had remained un-invaded, Japan would have been denied strategic resources and at least some access to finished goods markets? Of course they had options.

Or, said another way, the history of Japan for the past 65 peaceful, incredibly productive years has been a mirage?


It isn't quite so simple.

Post Bretton Wood and GATT, the world has seen a great increase in world trade. Notwithstanding the failure of the Doha negotiations, the impediments to world trade today are nothing compared to the situation in the 1930s. The barriers to world trade which existed in the 1930s severely impacted upon the economies of countries whose domestic market was too small to absorb their gross output.

Another point to bear in mind is the structural composition of 1930s economies. Even the most advanced economies had only a small service sector, instead being heavily reliant on manufacturing, which output was predominantly directed to the domestic market.

We should not assume that the post 1945 conditions which have allowed the Japanese economy to grow were also available prior to the war.

Alfred

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 46
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 5:21:42 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

"Almost" had to get her teeth kicked in? ALMOST?

Japan had her teeth kicked in, down her throat and digestive system and out her rectum.




" But given the militarists who dominated her government, reality is that she almost had to get her teeth kicked in before she would accept this."

You missed the English idiom Termi. The statement was that having their teeth kicked in was almost the only way the Japanese militarists were going to "see the light" of reality...




Well, her teeth were kicked in by months of aerial firebombing capped by two nuclear bombs, but lets leave it there...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 47
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 6:12:05 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Japan had numerous options in, say, 1930. Just because the British and French and Dutch empires were empires doesn't mean they weren't interested in peaceful trade for raw materials. Do you have any evidence that, if China had remained un-invaded, Japan would have been denied strategic resources and at least some access to finished goods markets? Of course they had options.

Or, said another way, the history of Japan for the past 65 peaceful, incredibly productive years has been a mirage?


It isn't quite so simple.

Post Bretton Wood and GATT, the world has seen a great increase in world trade. Notwithstanding the failure of the Doha negotiations, the impediments to world trade today are nothing compared to the situation in the 1930s. The barriers to world trade which existed in the 1930s severely impacted upon the economies of countries whose domestic market was too small to absorb their gross output.

Another point to bear in mind is the structural composition of 1930s economies. Even the most advanced economies had only a small service sector, instead being heavily reliant on manufacturing, which output was predominantly directed to the domestic market.

We should not assume that the post 1945 conditions which have allowed the Japanese economy to grow were also available prior to the war.

Alfred


Agreed, Alfred. While these types of discussions are fascinating, they really are just speculation. It is very interesting to hear various forum members opinions and see so many of our cohorts are extremely well informed on a variety of matters. Once the Konoe cabinet dissolved, the die was cast. Yet Konoe was still vigorously pursueing options into September when he met secretely with Ambassador Grew to once again try to set up a face-to-face meeting with FDR.

While unlikely to have been successful, FDR and Hull perhaps did miss an opportunity here. They felt that an agreement should be negotiated before such a meeting should occur with only the final details being hammered out at the actual meeting. What they failed to grasp was that Konoe was a man with the firm grip of the IJA resting on his shoulder. Perhaps the ONLY way Kanoe could negotiate a treaty that would have averted war would be to conduct those negotiations outside Japan. While it is unlikely that the IJA would have accepted any agreement with substantive concesssions by Japan, it is an interesting premise to consider what would have happened if Kanoe would have emerged with an agreement from an October 1941 meeting with Hull/FDR in Hawaii or Alaska.

Most, including Konoe himself, expected the Prime Minister would have been assasinated on his return. The wild card would be Hirohito who viewed himself as a world statesman and at least superficially was trying to avoid war. What if Hirohito ordered the Army to accept the agreement? As I said above, fascinating stuff

How about this, the Army does indeed kill Kanoe on his return. FDR takes this not only as a personal afront that a man he negotiated with in good faith was assasinated, but also as an unequivacable sign that war with Japan was coming and coming soon. All US forces in the Pacific are put on war footing. The Japanese realize that hitting PH by surprise is unlikely. The war starts in December with the invasions of the PI and Malaya. There, now I got us a mod out of this

edit: cleaned up the prose a bit

< Message edited by vettim89 -- 7/28/2010 4:31:41 PM >

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 48
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 8:15:55 AM   
koontz

 

Posts: 274
Joined: 8/27/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

"Almost" had to get her teeth kicked in? ALMOST?

Japan had her teeth kicked in, down her throat and digestive system and out her rectum.


Man, another Made My Day comment



man we ne really need this smiley here

_____________________________

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

"All warfare is based on deception. There is no place where espionage is not used. Offer the enemy bait to lure him."

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 49
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 12:39:23 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		For what it's worth, Hirohito stressed the need/hope for peace all the way up until the end of November. However the hawks urged on like Tojo (his favourite response to peace overtures fromt he Imperial Palace was It's too late for that the IJA-lead war cabinet was determined to push things and go to war with practically everyone in order to secure it's short-term objectives, although yes it is a fascinating 'what if' if the IJ forces had ignored PH and instead pushed SE into the DEI, Malaysia and possible the PI as well - certianly the US public would not have been so outraged if the IJ forces had confined themselves to a sneak attack on the SEAsia forces in the PI (no matter what MacArthur said)

(in reply to koontz)
Post #: 50
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 2:21:00 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline 		So do you guys think that the incredible industrial growth from the US during WW2 would be smaller if there was no attack in Pearl Harbor or the Philippines?

I think that eventually the US would be at war anyway, but as the war in Europe was already unpopular, another in the Pacific to defend the UK and the Netherlands might be even more. The US would most probably win anyway, as the actual industrial difference was much bigger than the pre-1940 statistics indicated, but perhaps there would be less money to wage the war, less aircrafts, less ships, less support in the Congress, and with the 1944 election looming, Roosevelt could be attacked as a warmonger. All that might mean a not-so-complete destruction of Japan?

Hmm... this might be an alternative scenario, uh? Do something to prevent the capture of the Philippines and the US islands, get the US in the war in 1942 and give it 1/3th of the resources it had?

< Message edited by fbs -- 7/28/2010 3:01:45 PM >

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 51
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 2:30:51 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		The United States was not going to stand by and let Britain be defeated or heavily pressed in the Pacific while fighting for its life in Europe. The U.S. was already pretty hot over the situation in China.  If Japan had attacked Dutch and British interests in the Pacific and Asia the U.S. either would have immediately declared war or so ramped up preparations in the Philippines and other Pacific Islands that war would have been inevitable and would have taken place in the short or medium term.  Can you imagine the U.S. sitting back while Japan attacks Hong Kong and Singapore and the Royal Navy is heavily engaged?  No way America commits only 1/4th the resources.

  

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 7/28/2010 2:32:03 PM >

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 52
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 2:40:06 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89


While unlikely to have been successful, FDR and Hull perhaps did miss an opportunity here. They felt that an agreement should be negotiated before such a meaning should occur with only the final details being hammered out at the actual meeting. What they failed to grasp was that Konoe was a man with the firm grip of the IJA resting on his shoulder. Perhaps the ONLY way Kanoe could negotiate a treaty that would have averted war would be to conduct those negotiations outside Japan. While it is unlikely that the IJA would have accepted any agreement with substantive concesssions by Japan, it is an interesting premise to consider what would have happened if Kanoe would have emerged with an agreement from an October 1941 meeting with Hull/FDR in Hawaii or Alaska.



The situation was not helped by the mutual air of distrust that existed between the two parties coupled with lingual and even cultural barriers. Both sides made diplomatic errors during early-mid 1941, the period where the Japanese government sought a genuine compromise with the US (and FDR was at one point interested in what the Japanese were saying but Hull was the primary conduit and his was the biggest influence (and he himself was influenced by his asssistant who was a hardliner in negotiations with Japan) In addition to the economic factors, there were also problems with history and the changing winds in world politics. This problem was fueled by the fact that indeed, many Japanese in the civilian sector 'were' familiar with the history of West, and the United States in particular and were frustrated by what they viewed as hipocracy, based on their actions of the past. I found this quote from US Ambassador Grew reporting to the State Dept to be partcularily relevent in recent studies on the history of the Japanese empire:

We should not lose sight of the fact, deplorable but true, that no practical and effective code of international morality upon which the world can rely has yet been discovered, and that the standards of morality of one nation in given circumstances have little or no relation to the standards of the individuals of the nations in question. To shape our foreign policy on the unsound theory that other nations are guided and bound by our present standards of international ethics would be to court sure disaster.





< Message edited by Nikademus -- 7/28/2010 3:18:49 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 53
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 2:41:30 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

So do you guys think that the incredible industrial growth from the US during WW2 would be smaller if there was no attack in Pearl Harbor or the Philippines?


No. WW1 had already proved that "war is good for business", even when not an active belligerent. No suprise or quasi-suprise attack would impact the tolerance level for a long war but not the industrial output.

_____________________________


(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 54
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 3:10:16 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

So do you guys think that the incredible industrial growth from the US during WW2 would be smaller if there was no attack in Pearl Harbor or the Philippines?


No. WW1 had already proved that "war is good for business", even when not an active belligerent. No suprise or quasi-suprise attack would impact the tolerance level for a long war but not the industrial output.



But who would pay for that? It's not like the US could just direct its industry the way that Speer did. If a significant fraction of the public did not support a war in the other side of the world, Roosevelt might be limited on what he could order, ergo the industrial production would suffer.


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 55
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 3:13:52 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

So do you guys think that the incredible industrial growth from the US during WW2 would be smaller if there was no attack in Pearl Harbor or the Philippines?

I think that eventually the US would be at war anyway, but as the war in Europe was already unpopular, another in the Pacific to defend the UK and the Netherlands might be even more. The US would most probably win anyway, as the actual industrial difference was much bigger than the pre-1940 statistics indicated, but perhaps there would be less money to wage the war, less aircrafts, less ships, less support in the Congress, and with the 1944 election looming, Roosevelt could be attacked as a warmonger. All that might mean a not-so-complete destruction of Japan?

Hmm... this might be an alternative scenario, uh? Do something to prevent the capture of the Philippines and the US islands, get the US in the war in 1942 and give it 1/3th of the resources it had?


The Allies would have had about 80% of the resources they actually got.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 56
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 3:17:07 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

But who would pay for that? It's not like the US could just direct its industry the way that Speer did. If a significant fraction of the public did not support a war in the other side of the world, Roosevelt might be limited on what he could order, ergo the industrial production would suffer.




FDR came up with a number of ways by which nations at war who's "continued survival" was linked to US national security, could purchase/receive goods from US manufacturers. Lend-Lease of course is the best example. Britian traded territory for warships. Simple war loans weighted against a nation's gold reserves etc etc. It's not substantially different today in how war's are financed. The declaration of war didn't really change how the system worked...just kicked it into high gear. The manufacturers and their work force got paid....the supplies, guns and ammo were produced. US was already the "Arsenel of Democracy"


_____________________________


(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 57
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 3:31:46 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

We should not lose sight of the fact, deplorable but true, that no practical and effective code of international morality upon which the world can rely has yet been discovered, and that the standards of morality of one nation in given circumstances have little or no relation to the standards of the individuals of the nations in question. To shape our foreign policy on the unsound theory that other nations are guided and bound by our present standards of international ethics would be to court sure disaster.



Wow, that is truly profound. Grew was indeed an insightful man. The point could be very well made that this premise is still very much in play in world problems today.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 58
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 3:41:49 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Hey, Vettim, which is more profound:  the observation by Grew or the statement by Halsey in your sig line.  :)

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 59
RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/28/2010 4:28:00 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Hey, Vettim, which is more profound:  the observation by Grew or the statement by Halsey in your sig line.  :)



In terms of international affairs: Grew's

In terms of playing AE (or fighting the war in the PTO): Halsey's

In truth I have been considering changing that sig line for some time, just haven't found a quote that I like as of yet. Although I am fond of, "Never get into an argument with an idiot. He'll only drag you down to his level and then overwhelm you with his vast experience". Perhaps Grew's comment here is a candidate

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of hindsight? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.000