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

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 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/29/2010 2:21:26 PM

Nikademus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Tell that to my (deceased) great-grandfather. (His letters home also made it quite clear the Imperial Family was not pleased about American treatment of Japanese residents.) It was when the Emperor Showa ascended the throne that Japanese strategic planning was reoriented away from development of Japanese oil fields and towards acquisition of the DEI.

Theoretically, the Emperor had plenary power, all state decisions needed his sanction. But according to tradition, once the Cabinet and military leaders had agreed on a policy, he could not withhold his approval. He was to remain above politics and transcend party considerations and feuds, for he represented the entire nation.

John Tolland: The rise and fall of the Japanese Empire.

The military had the ulitmate power and dominated policymaking as it could exclude civilian oversight on matters considered linked to national defense. It could bring down any cabinet through resignation and It's goal of exploiting resources in China was approved under the Emperor Taisho.

_____________________________

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 91

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/29/2010 9:37:04 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Bulwinkle had the right idea even if the terms were a little off.� During a declared war, US industry comes under control of the government.� The government didn't take over many industries, though they did take over Brewster due to their incompetent management.� The government pretty much dictated what company built what.� The bureaucrats who were in charge realized that industrial leaders would work better if given a say, so a committee of government and industry people were put together in WW II, but that was just a tweak for better efficiency over past wars.

I think my term--socialism--was correct for US federal behavior during WWII. It was temporary, not structural, but it happened. Lots of people today don't know this history, however. Wikipedia is not always a great source, but this entry on the WPB is correct as far as it goes, and gives an overview to how deeply the federal government reached into the private sector during the war:

"The War Production Board (WPB) was established as a government agency on January 16, 1942 by executive order of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The purpose of the board was to regulate the production and allocation of materials and fuel during World War II in the United States. The WPB converted and expanded peacetime industries to meet war needs, allocated scarce materials vital to war production, established priorities in the distribution of materials and services, and prohibited nonessential production. It rationed such things as gasoline, heating oil, metals, rubber, paper[1] and plastics. It was dissolved shortly after the defeat of Japan in 1945, and was replaced by the Civilian Production Administration in late 1945.

The first chairman of the Board was Donald M. Nelson from 1942 to 1944 followed by Julius A. Krug from 1944 until the Board was dissolved.

Established by Executive Order 9024 on January 16, 1942, the WPB replaced the Supply Priorities and Allocation Board as well as the Office of Production Management. The national WPB constituted the chair, the secretaries of war, navy, and agriculture, the federal loan administrator, lieutenant general in charge of war department production, administrator of the office of price administration, chair of the board of economic warfare, and special assistant to the president who supervised the defense aid program. The board created advisory, policy-making, and progress-reporting divisions.

The WPB managed twelve regional offices, and operated one hundred twenty field offices throughout the nation. They worked alongside state war production boards, which maintained records on state war production facilities as well as helped state businesses obtain war contracts and loans.

The national WPB's primary task was converting civilian industry to war production. The board assigned priorities and allocated scarce materials such as steel, aluminum, and rubber, prohibited nonessential industrial activities such as producing nylons and refrigerators, controlled wages and prices, and mobilized the people through patriotic propaganda such as "give your scrap metal and help Oklahoma boys save our way of life."[2] It initiated events such as scrap metal drives, which were carried out locally to great success. For example, a national scrap metal drive in October 1942 resulted in an average of almost eighty-two pounds of scrap per American.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Production_Board

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 92

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 2:28:47 PM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

Ive read a few books and articles on the topic and i beleive that most people on this forum forgets a realy important factor.

Cant prove this is correct but there is many hints that points in this direction and its also one of the most plausible and logical explanations for Japans behaviour although i understand that there are people that never could accept it.

The Brittish was in real trouble in Europe and Roosevelt was doing what he could to support them but it was not quite enough and to do more US needed to enter the war. But politically there was no support for entering a war in Europe neither among the politicians or among the public.

Some of the posters here have touched the subject and i wont go in to the topic of US political asperations in Asia etc but it seems clear to me that Roosvelt needed an excuse to enter the war and by provoking Japan with oil embargo etc an excuse could be produced. And with Japan desperate, to gather so the massive numbers of ships in PH was like waving a red blanket in front of a bull...

Most of the ships gathered in PH wheres obsolete/in need of uppgrades.

US knew about the attack well in advance AND KB was spotted ahead of the attack but nothing was done.

The days after PH the recruitment offices enlisted over one million men - the public oppinion had turned and the approval rating for the war weas close to 100%.

Japan did know that long term a war was impossible to win but the oil embargo would make them lose without a single shoot fired - they did however beleive that there was a chance to reach a situation where US would be prepared to negotiate.

I dont thing the Japanese was as stupid and ignorant as most seem to think, they where put in a desperate situation where the choices where to give up without a fight or to fight a war they at best could draw. With the Samurai mentality in Japan it wasnt even a choice.

Sometimes things are simpler than they appear.

< Message edited by zaquex -- 7/31/2010 2:51:49 PM >

_____________________________

An Elephant

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 93

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 2:55:41 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

Ive read a few books and articles on the topic and i beleive that most people on this forum forgets a realy important factor.

Cant prove this is correct but there is many hints that points in this direction and its also one of the most plausible and logical explanations for Japans behaviour although i understand that there are people that never could accept it.

The Brittish was in real trouble in Europe and Roosevelt was doing what he could to support them but it was not quite enough and to do more US needed to enter the war. But politically there was no support for entering a war in Europe neither among the politicians or among the public.

Some of the posters here have touched the subject and i wont go in to the topic of US political asperations in Asia etc but it seems clear to me that Roosvelt needed an excuse to enter the war and by provoking Japan with oil embargo etc an excuse could be produced. And with Japan desperate, to gather so the massive numbers of ships in PH was like waving a red blanket in front of a bull...

Most of the ships gathered in PH wheres obsolete/in need of uppgrades.

US knew about the attack well in advance AND KB was spotted ahead of the attack but nothing was done.

The days after PH the recruitment offices enlisted over one million men - the public oppinion had turned and the approval rating for the war weas close to 100%.

Japan did know that long term a war was impossible to win but the oil embargo would make them lose without a single shoot fired - they did however beleive that there was a chance to reach a situation where US would be prepared to negotiate.

I dont thing the Japanese was as stupid and ignorant as most seem to think, they where put in a desperate situation where the choices where to give up without a fight or to fight a war they at best could draw. With the Samurai mentality in Japan it wasnt even a choice.

Sometimes things are simpler than they appear.

Warspite1

.......or too simple for words. So Roosevelt's the bad guy and the poor Japanese were given no choice?

One word: Nanking

_____________________________

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

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 94

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 5:04:07 PM

mike scholl 1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

Ive read a few books and articles on the topic and i beleive that most people on this forum forgets a realy important factor.

Cant prove this is correct but there is many hints that points in this direction and its also one of the most plausible and logical explanations for Japans behaviour although i understand that there are people that never could accept it.

The Brittish was in real trouble in Europe and Roosevelt was doing what he could to support them but it was not quite enough and to do more US needed to enter the war. But politically there was no support for entering a war in Europe neither among the politicians or among the public.

Some of the posters here have touched the subject and i wont go in to the topic of US political asperations in Asia etc but it seems clear to me that Roosvelt needed an excuse to enter the war and by provoking Japan with oil embargo etc an excuse could be produced. And with Japan desperate, to gather so the massive numbers of ships in PH was like waving a red blanket in front of a bull...

Most of the ships gathered in PH wheres obsolete/in need of uppgrades.

US knew about the attack well in advance AND KB was spotted ahead of the attack but nothing was done.

The days after PH the recruitment offices enlisted over one million men - the public oppinion had turned and the approval rating for the war weas close to 100%.

Japan did know that long term a war was impossible to win but the oil embargo would make them lose without a single shoot fired - they did however beleive that there was a chance to reach a situation where US would be prepared to negotiate.

I dont thing the Japanese was as stupid and ignorant as most seem to think, they where put in a desperate situation where the choices where to give up without a fight or to fight a war they at best could draw. With the Samurai mentality in Japan it wasnt even a choice.

Sometimes things are simpler than they appear.

And now you can tell us about Atlantis and Ancient Astronauts and the Grassy Knoll and all the other goofy "conspiracy stories" you've "read a book about". The only thing "simple" about this stuff is the mind it takes to believe such nonsense.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 95

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 5:16:11 PM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

I don't like to think in terms of good guys vs bad guys. Its important to focus on what pushed nations to go to war. Throughout history second tier nations risked war with bigger brethern because they felt threatened (or at least their national interests). Japan was caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. It wanted desperately to expand for various reasons but butting against 2 different animals - other empires and a nation that was essentially committed to destroying these same empires. My personal belief is that if it was up to the Europeans alone, they wouldn't have minded Japan taking over Chinese land (as long as it respected European enclaves and concession ports, which as far as I know, Japan did). The US on the other hand had a large China lobby which naturally tagged Japan as enemy no 1.

My impression is that Roosvelt wasn't courting war with Japan, though he did try to engineer a war with the Germans, whcih he regarded as the principal antagonist to the American way. The problem with understanding Roosvelt is that his actions are hard to interpret even with hindsight. What one sees as vacillation another might think that Roosvelt was playing a deep game. One has to admit though that he was a master of extracting every ounce of advantage from mistakes made by his adversaries.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 96

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 5:37:54 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

I don't like to think in terms of good guys vs bad guys.

Warspite1

I agree to a point - after all, only as children did we think that the Allies all wear white hats, while the evil Axis all wore black. Life can be and is more complicated than that.

However, what I find difficult to stomach is the complete turn around that simply and naively forgets things like the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities and tries to re-write history with words and phrases like:

..and with Japan desperate - she was desparate because she chose an aggresive war in China

..to gather so the massive numbers of ships in PH was like waving a red blanket in front of a bull - Yes, a warning blanket to Japan to try and persuade her to stop waging that war

..Most of the ships gathered in PH wheres obsolete/in need of uppgrades and US knew about the attack well in advance AND KB was spotted ahead of the attack but nothing was done - so Roosevelt the democrat become Roosevelt the evil mass murderer of his own people

I dont thing the Japanese was as stupid and ignorant as most seem to think - Well knowing they could not win but sending the country to its fiery doom is pretty stupid - and its pretty ignorant, plus a few other words like inhumane.

..they where put in a desperate situation - no, their hatred of "inferior" Chinese, Koreans etc put them in a desperate situation, NOT Franklin D Roosevelt.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 7/31/2010 5:39:20 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to vinnie71)

Post #: 97

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 6:02:40 PM

koontz

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

Also the "japs" threated with kill ~100k of POW if they invaded HI.

But after all Japan come out very well after ww2 and about the "quilt"
So was the "Reich" who took the "doghead" by her self.

EDIT: "The Bomb" was first intended for Germany.

< Message edited by koontz -- 7/31/2010 6:03:03 PM >

_____________________________

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 warspite1)

Post #: 98

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 6:12:29 PM

noguaranteeofsanity

Posts: 257
Joined: 11/24/2009
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

Ive read a few books and articles on the topic and i beleive that most people on this forum forgets a realy important factor.

Cant prove this is correct but there is many hints that points in this direction and its also one of the most plausible and logical explanations for Japans behaviour although i understand that there are people that never could accept it.

The Brittish was in real trouble in Europe and Roosevelt was doing what he could to support them but it was not quite enough and to do more US needed to enter the war. But politically there was no support for entering a war in Europe neither among the politicians or among the public.

Some of the posters here have touched the subject and i wont go in to the topic of US political asperations in Asia etc but it seems clear to me that Roosvelt needed an excuse to enter the war and by provoking Japan with oil embargo etc an excuse could be produced. And with Japan desperate, to gather so the massive numbers of ships in PH was like waving a red blanket in front of a bull...

Most of the ships gathered in PH wheres obsolete/in need of uppgrades.

US knew about the attack well in advance AND KB was spotted ahead of the attack but nothing was done.

The days after PH the recruitment offices enlisted over one million men - the public oppinion had turned and the approval rating for the war weas close to 100%.

Japan did know that long term a war was impossible to win but the oil embargo would make them lose without a single shoot fired - they did however beleive that there was a chance to reach a situation where US would be prepared to negotiate.

I dont thing the Japanese was as stupid and ignorant as most seem to think, they where put in a desperate situation where the choices where to give up without a fight or to fight a war they at best could draw. With the Samurai mentality in Japan it wasnt even a choice.

Sometimes things are simpler than they appear.

Roosevelt might have been looking to involve the US in the war in Europe prior to the Pearl Harbour attack, but to claim he allowed the attack to place in order to enter the war in Europe is somewhat illogical. The biggest flaw in that argument, is that it was Germany who declared war on the US and not the other way around. If Germany had not done so, the US might have never entered the war in Europe and only fought the Japanese in the Pacific, apart from providing aid to the Allies and the Atlantic convoys. It is considered one of Hitler's biggest mistakes, up there with invading Russia, as it was not required by the Tripartite treaty, which only came into effect if Germany, Japan or Italy were attacked, not if they attacked another nation first. It also would of been somewhat illogical for the US to declare war on Germany, once Pearl Harbour had been attacked and likely to have raised the question, why fight in Europe, if the US was already at war with Japan in the Pacific? American anger would of been directed at Japan and not Germany, so declaring war on Germany could have been seen as ignoring the Japanese and directing the military response at the wrong target.

As to whether the attack on Pearl Harbour was foreseeable, there is no 'smoking gun' evidence as to that claim. The war with Japan, itself was a very real possibility or even certainty, given the situation that had developed by 1941, but there is no absolute proof that Roosevelt allowed the attack to place and only what you might call circumstantial evidence. A lot of the claims of proof that Japan was planning to attack Pearl Harbour, actually pre-date the Japan decision and plans to attack, so are very unlikely to be authentic. While if there was some evidence that Roosevelt knew, I highly doubt it would of been able to be kept secret all of this time and someone would have found it or come forward to reveal the truth by now.

< Message edited by noguaranteeofsanity -- 7/31/2010 6:15:12 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 99

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 6:39:14 PM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

Warspite:

I totally agree with you on every issue you mentioned - though I still think that FDR was actually looking for war with Germany (Japan was a relative minor concern in 1941).

My reasoning regarding good vs bad is that when one discusses history, one has to try to get away from one's personal bias on the issue at hand. Therefore I've been trained to try to put myself as much as possible in the shoes of each side, in order to better understand the unfolding of events. As an individual I have my ideas (and believe me, I'm no revisionist

), but I try to put myself in the mindset of each combattant.

Ex: There is no denying that Japan was an aggressive nation out to carve its own empire and therefore wanted to upset the status quo. That is the reality as we percieve it from our angle. From the Japanese angle in the 1930's, the European colonial empires shut her out from potential lucrative markets while the US was intent on dismantling all empires (including Japan's one might add). One must also try to see it in the context of the times when empire was equated with wealth, power and prestige. In short the Japanese saw the Europeans and the US as denying them the hallowed 'place in the sun'.

Which is why when such arguments crop up I tend to remove the good/bad guy tag and see what's underneath.

@ noguaranteeofsanity: agreed. FDR was putting American ships in harm's way in the Atlantic. My guess is that since in WWI American intervention was triggered by sinking of ships, the US could come into war in the same manner. In a way the Japanese nearly screwed up and only thanks to Hitler did the Americans end up in the West.

(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)

Post #: 100

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 9:25:24 PM

xj900uk

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Offworlder. Up until 07/12/41 Japan was a very minor problem/concern for the US. True they did expect to go to war some time in '42 (April was touted as an expected start of hostilities date) and the IJN air-arm had been dismissed by western observers as 'bespectacled pilots flying quaint old biplanes' - nothing could have been further from the truth. Germany was the over-riding concern, after all quite a few US citizens and ships had already been sunk by U-boats or involved in hostilities on mainland europe although the American First movement promotoing isolation was still pretty strong in the US (exactly how strong and influencial is still open to debate to this day).
The US rightly or wrongly believed that Japans agressive stance in SE Asia could be countered, or at least checked, by moving the Pacific FLeet from the West Coast to PH. Call it gunboat diplomacy or sabre rattling, the US administration believed that this would curb Japans beligerance or at least make them take not until such time as the US economy as a whole could trundle sedately into a war footing. Whilst some politicians in Tokyo regarded the move by the US's Pacific Fleet (which, with hindsight wa s apointless gesture as it lacked the facilities in PH and also the screening destroyers, which were desperately needed in teh Atlantic) as 'a knife toTokyo's throat', more practical and imaginative admirals, army-men and planners saw the move as an opportunity rather than a crisis - an opportunity to destroy it in one blow or at least render it impotent regarding their main thrusts into Burma, Malaysia and the DEI. In fact one could wonder that if the US Pacific Fleet had not been present at PH in Dec '41, would the IJN have mounted 'The Hawaiian Operation' at all?

(in reply to vinnie71)

Post #: 101

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 9:41:36 PM

Czert

Posts: 255
Joined: 7/22/2006
Status: offline

Didnt read it all, but I think, ftrom japanese persective (and if some events happened otherwise - e.q. decisive winning at miday for japanese, but at this poins japanese overreaching thier capacities, mayby earlier event, but didnt recalled one), they have nice chance of archiving thier goals.
Look at geramy and thier campaigns in europe - before french campaign , french army was considered most powerfull in europe (and world), no one expected thay fren will lose (ever), and it was great schock, that frenchs figth 2 weeks (IIRC) loger than polish. It was french poor morale and bad command, which defeated france, not cuting off in belgium. But who one know/predected this ? With proper command, germang cutting off attack in belgium will be great trap for german panzers.

And look at soviet front - everyone sow thier performance in winter war (which cost them around 1m dead). So, everyone expected fast end to soviets (and not only germans). Who can forsene that, that soviets kill more germans than all other allies combined ?

_____________________________

Do you chalenge me ?
http://czert1938.mybrute.com
Mod for one of best games ever made ?
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=1
Great space shooter.
http://www.neurohack.com/transcendence/index.html

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 102

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 9:59:17 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

I dont thing the Japanese was as stupid and ignorant as most seem to think, they where put in a desperate situation where the choices where to give up without a fight or to fight a war they at best could draw. With the Samurai mentality in Japan it wasnt even a choice.

I think your assertions are nonsense. Still, perhaps you could change my mind by enlightening me on one point: How was Japan 'forced' to continue the invasion and occupation of China & Manchuria? Or were tehy really doing mercy work in China and the rest of the world just didn't understand?

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 103

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 10:38:20 PM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

I dont thing the Japanese was as stupid and ignorant as most seem to think, they where put in a desperate situation where the choices where to give up without a fight or to fight a war they at best could draw. With the Samurai mentality in Japan it wasnt even a choice.

I think your assertions are nonsense. Still, perhaps you could change my mind by enlightening me on one point: How was Japan 'forced' to continue the invasion and occupation of China & Manchuria? Or were tehy really doing mercy work in China and the rest of the world just didn't understand?

The government of Japan was forced into the war by the simple expedient of either accepting war or accepting the downfall of the government and/or the assassination of its members. Japan, as a nation, may not have been forced into the war. Most Japanese might not have been in favor or a war. But that is neither here nor there since the people of Japan had no say in the matter.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 104

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 10:41:39 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

I dont thing the Japanese was as stupid and ignorant as most seem to think, they where put in a desperate situation where the choices where to give up without a fight or to fight a war they at best could draw. With the Samurai mentality in Japan it wasnt even a choice.

I think your assertions are nonsense. Still, perhaps you could change my mind by enlightening me on one point: How was Japan 'forced' to continue the invasion and occupation of China & Manchuria? Or were tehy really doing mercy work in China and the rest of the world just didn't understand?

The government of Japan was forced into the war by the simple expedient of either accepting war or accepting the downfall of the government and/or the assassination of its members. Japan, as a nation, may not have been forced into the war. Most Japanese might not have been in favor or a war. But that is neither here nor there since the people of Japan had no say in the matter.

I understand that about individuals in the government, but that was not his point.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 105

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 11:12:06 PM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

I dont say that Roosevelt was a bad guy it would in my oppinion be more correct to describe him as cynical and/or pragmatic, in any case I have no doubt that he was a very smart guy.

There is no doubt that FDR was seen as something of a warmonger at the time and its hard to argue that he didnt do his best to provoke Japan as best he could.

I�m not really a revisionist either although I must admit they have presented a few compeling arguments, I do however find the topic intriguing.

Hopefully more document will be declassified in the future and maybe then we will know what actually happened.

_____________________________

An Elephant

(in reply to vinnie71)

Post #: 106

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 11:28:28 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zaquex

"I dont say that Roosevelt was a bad guy"

"There is no doubt that FDR was seen as something of a warmonger at the time and its hard to argue that he didnt do his best to provoke Japan as best he could"

"I�m not really a revisionist either"

Warspite1

Zaquex, this makes no sense - how can Roosevelt not be a bad guy if what you said in your earlier post is correct - and that he did nothing to stop the Pearl Harbor attack despite knowing about it in advance. That makes him complicit in the deaths of circa 2,400 US service personnel and civilians.

How is having the good common sense to realise that evil regimes like the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany needed to be stopped before they spread their poison beyond a point of no return, make FDR a warmonger? You will be saying next that Chamberlain and Daladier were warmongers for declaring war on Germany; this despite the fact that they did everything possible in their power to try and stop a European war - including the dismemberment of poor Czechoslovakia..

In what way is this not revisionist thinking.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 107

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 7/31/2010 11:32:14 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

We already know what happened. We know, that is, if you're willing to accept the massive amount of credible evidence showing that the Americans expected Japan to attack, but were caught looking for that attack to take place in the Philippines, DEI, or possibly even Russia.

There is no credible evidence - not one single tiny tidbit with the remotest bit of credibility - that any American leader expected and wanted an attack on Pearl Harbor.

Those who fall in the "Roosevelt knew" camp are either ignorant (in the true sense of the word) or are willing to disregard the compelling, overwhelming weight of credible evidence, instead to latch onto the delusional, far-fetched, proposals that lack any semblance of credibility.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 108

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/1/2010 12:16:50 AM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Those who fall in the "Roosevelt knew" camp are either ignorant (in the true sense of the word) or are willing to disregard the compelling, overwhelming weight of credible evidence, instead to latch onto the delusional, far-fetched, proposals that lack any semblance of credibility.

I sat next to one of FDR's granddaughers in Spanish class. She said he didn't know anything. Worked for me.

(I really did sit next to her.)

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 109

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/1/2010 8:59:37 PM

fbs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

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.

Sorry fbs, but the above quote strongly suggests to me that beyond knowing that aggregate German production increased under Speer, you really have no knowledge as to...

I didn't mean that Germany had a more efficient production system or even it could produce more, but that a military dictatorship has more control over its military production than a democracy. I'd love to listen to arguments against that.

People argue what FDR could do in 1942, and I agree with that, but by then the country was united into the war. Democracies usually give dictatorial powers to its leaders in times of crisis, and 1942 was such case. That doesn't mean that FDR would have the same powers if the war was unpopular.

The Two-Ocean Navy Act is a good example. It provided 15,000 aircrafts for the Navy over 6 years. Its incentive was the war in Europe much more than Japan; Carl Vinson himself introduced the measure saying that "The Axis now has at its disposal the shipyards and munitions factories of Germany, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, and possible Spain... and Japan has its own shipyards". After Pearl Harbor, that became an appetizer: from 1941 to 1945, the US produced 73,000 aircrafts for the Navy & Marines, or 14,600 aircrafts per year.

So, with the war in China dragging since 1932 and the population afraid of Germany rather than of Japan, I'm kinda skeptical that FDR could get a fraction of what he got, if there was no Pearl Harbor. Defense spending was 5.72% of the GDP in 1941; that's on par with the spending on 1918, of 8.4%. Meanwhile, in 1945 defense was 42% of the GDP (36.15% for military, 0.77% for veterans, 5.11% for foreign aid). I'm quite skeptical FDR could mobilize the country that way with no attack in PH.

Vietnam is another good example: 7.7% of the GDP in 1972 (with 6.4% for the military), and the government didn't get dictatorial powers (although Nixon seems to have slipped there). I don't think that the Pentagon said "oh, we're happy with 6.4%". I think they would love to get 36.15% of the GDP, but that was just impossible.

< Message edited by fbs -- 8/1/2010 9:04:52 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 110

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/1/2010 10:42:46 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

I didn't mean that Germany had a more efficient production system or even it could produce more, but that a military dictatorship has more control over its military production than a democracy. I'd love to listen to arguments against that.

Control in what sense? Do you mean that a military dictatorship can control efficiency, for example?

There's an old saying that, IIRC, came from the Soviet Union: "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 111

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/1/2010 11:25:34 PM

mike scholl 1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

I didn't mean that Germany had a more efficient production system or even it could produce more, but that a military dictatorship has more control over its military production than a democracy. I'd love to listen to arguments against that.

Actually it was the Nazi system that did much to sabotage German production. Because Hitler could only trust his Party Cronies to handle the apparatus of State, and because far too many of them were just street thugs and greedy hacks, Nazi Industrial Production was buried in bribes, petty buracracy, and red tape. Huge industrial resources (the Adam Opal Factories, the Volkswagon factory, and many more) were not utilized, or totally under-utilized.

Then there was the military itself. The Great General Staff was a remarkable entity---but it had no section devoted to industrial mobilization or production. This was an area where the industrial democracies were far ahead of the military dictatorships. There military's knew that the only time they would get massive funding was when the **** hit the fan---so they prepared for such an eventuality and had plans all ready for that moment.

A military dictatorship sounds like an efficient organization, but the fact that it never has to learn to "get along" is actually a big weakness..., because it never has to learn how much it doesn't know.

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 112

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/1/2010 11:38:38 PM

noguaranteeofsanity

Posts: 257
Joined: 11/24/2009
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

I didn't mean that Germany had a more efficient production system or even it could produce more, but that a military dictatorship has more control over its military production than a democracy. I'd love to listen to arguments against that.

Actually it was the Nazi system that did much to sabotage German production. Because Hitler could only trust his Party Cronies to handle the apparatus of State, and because far too many of them were just street thugs and greedy hacks, Nazi Industrial Production was buried in bribes, petty buracracy, and red tape. Huge industrial resources (the Adam Opal Factories, the Volkswagon factory, and many more) were not utilized, or totally under-utilized.

Then there was the military itself. The Great General Staff was a remarkable entity---but it had no section devoted to industrial mobilization or production. This was an area where the industrial democracies were far ahead of the military dictatorships. There military's knew that the only time they would get massive funding was when the **** hit the fan---so they prepared for such an eventuality and had plans all ready for that moment.

A military dictatorship sounds like an efficient organization, but the fact that it never has to learn to "get along" is actually a big weakness..., because it never has to learn how much it doesn't know.

Along with the use of slave labor. Around 12 million people were forced to work for the Nazi's, generally were not paid, were underfed and sometimes literally worked to death. You could hardly expect them to be as productive or efficient as a paid and well-fed work force. Because it doesn't have to "get along" with the workers and keep them happy, using the stick instead of a carrot, with little regard for their health or well-being, it is not as efficient as you might expect. Sure they had more control, in fact often total control over the workers lives, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.

< Message edited by noguaranteeofsanity -- 8/1/2010 11:43:57 PM >

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 113

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/2/2010 2:33:41 AM

mike scholl 1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity

Along with the use of slave labor. Around 12 million people were forced to work for the Nazi's, generally were not paid, were underfed and sometimes literally worked to death. You could hardly expect them to be as productive or efficient as a paid and well-fed work force. Because it doesn't have to "get along" with the workers and keep them happy, using the stick instead of a carrot, with little regard for their health or well-being, it is not as efficient as you might expect. Sure they had more control, in fact often total control over the workers lives, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Actually this arose from another piece of Nazi ideology..., the belief that German Women should stay home and make babies and raise children. Both the Russians and the Western Democracies found Women a huge untapped reserve of willing and trainable labor and made massive use of them to replace men sent to war. Nazi Germany did not..., and was left with no one else to turn to except unwilling slave laborers.

(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)

Post #: 114

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/2/2010 5:52:48 AM

fbs

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

You guys are getting me very confused.

You guys really mean that in a democracy like the US it is as easy to switch the industry to produce war materials, whether the population supports that or not, as it is for a dictatorship like the Nazis or the Soviets?

You really mean that FDR could get 40% of the US GDP to fight the war, even if the population was against getting into an european war or into some asiatic mess?

Consider the total military spending during long wars (i.e., added all years), taken as percentage of the GDP:

American Revolution: 65%
Civil War: 105%
WW1: 25%
WW2: 130%
Korea: 12%
Vietnam: 11%
Gulf War: 2%

From these, the American Revolution, Civil War and WW2 are the ones that got full engagement of the public: that meant big spending. The majority of the population was apathetic during WW1 and Korea, hostile during Vietnam and (from my point of view) uninterested in the Gulf War. These wars had little spending. My conclusion is that popular support for the war means a lot of money for the military; no popular support, less money.

Therefore, am I the only one here that believes that if the population continued to be isolationist then the US would have waged a less than total war against Japan?

And I thought I was living in a democracy by the people, for the people. From the messages here it looks like I live in the Soviet Union. What a rude awakening.

< Message edited by fbs -- 8/2/2010 5:55:14 AM >

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 115

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/2/2010 6:34:31 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

You guys are getting me very confused.

You guys really mean that in a democracy like the US it is as easy to switch the industry to produce war materials, whether the population supports that or not, as it is for a dictatorship like the Nazis or the Soviets?

You really mean that FDR could get 40% of the US GDP to fight the war, even if the population was against getting into an european war or into some asiatic mess?

Consider the total military spending during long wars (i.e., added all years), taken as percentage of the GDP:

American Revolution: 65%
Civil War: 105%
WW1: 25%
WW2: 130%
Korea: 12%
Vietnam: 11%
Gulf War: 2%

From these, the American Revolution, Civil War and WW2 are the ones that got full engagement of the public: that meant big spending. The majority of the population was apathetic during WW1 and Korea, hostile during Vietnam and (from my point of view) uninterested in the Gulf War. These wars had little spending. My conclusion is that popular support for the war means a lot of money for the military; no popular support, less money.

Therefore, am I the only one here that believes that if the population continued to be isolationist then the US would have waged a less than total war against Japan?

And I thought I was living in a democracy by the people, for the people. From the messages here it looks like I live in the Soviet Union. What a rude awakening.

Warspite1

The % of GDP spent depends not only on the support of the people, but on the type of war being fought. To look at the Gulf War and Vietnam and even WWI - and compare to USA's spending in WWII, the Civil War and the War of Independence is wrong in this context. The USA is a democracy and fights wars - regardless of whether we think it right or not (that`s too political to go into) - in order to preserve / spread democracy. The Gulf wars and Afghanistan are limited wars and regardless of support or apathy or even hostility to that war, the government will only look to spend a limited amount of GDP. WWII was a life and death struggle for the survival of western democracy; to compare spending to the Gulf war and seek to draw the conclusion that a) spending is low in the Gulf War because the government cant get sufficient support for the war, and that b) you are living in the Soviet Union is a little odd (even if you were trying to be ironic on the latter).

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/2/2010 6:36:00 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 116

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/2/2010 7:01:07 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Part of what I meant is that those dictatorships were not as simply directed as one might think. Hitler, for example, was very afraid of losing popular support and being overthrown. The point being that even such a dictatorship was not 'Leader speaks and all obey whole-heartedly'. We should add '...and flawlessly.' to the end of that sentence.

Pearl Harbor was certainly a major event and, as it did happen, we do see things in light of it. However, had Pearl Harbor not happened, many other things would have. Great 'what if' fodder for AE mods; but the real point is that on a global scale it is difficult to envision a scenario where the US would not have entered the war fully.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 117

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/2/2010 7:33:46 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

You guys are getting me very confused.

You guys really mean that in a democracy like the US it is as easy to switch the industry to produce war materials, whether the population supports that or not, as it is for a dictatorship like the Nazis or the Soviets?

You really mean that FDR could get 40% of the US GDP to fight the war, even if the population was against getting into an european war or into some asiatic mess?

Consider the total military spending during long wars (i.e., added all years), taken as percentage of the GDP:

American Revolution: 65%
Civil War: 105%
WW1: 25%
WW2: 130%
Korea: 12%
Vietnam: 11%
Gulf War: 2%

From these, the American Revolution, Civil War and WW2 are the ones that got full engagement of the public: that meant big spending. The majority of the population was apathetic during WW1 and Korea, hostile during Vietnam and (from my point of view) uninterested in the Gulf War. These wars had little spending. My conclusion is that popular support for the war means a lot of money for the military; no popular support, less money.

Therefore, am I the only one here that believes that if the population continued to be isolationist then the US would have waged a less than total war against Japan?

And I thought I was living in a democracy by the people, for the people. From the messages here it looks like I live in the Soviet Union. What a rude awakening.

fbs, the statistics, while good information, have nothing to do with whether the governement of a country is democratic or absolute.

The difference in GDP% spent in your list depend on how the population percieves the threat posed to their country.

During the American Revolution, the Civil war and WWII the American population, after some time admittedly, percieved the threat to their way of living or
even their existence as real enough to sacrifice personal advantages and commit to war production.

Korea and Vietnam don�t really fit into this picture because only a minor part of the military production was directly used for these areas, while the rest was sceduled
to fight the Cold War. Both countries were on the other end of the world and this naturally is harder to turn into a direct threat to anybody living in Somewhere, Texas,
than if the same person is informed that the whole US pacific weapon has been decimated in a "day of infamy" and US territory itself has been violated.

Just think of 09/11, where in a short time the USgovernement was able to do anything it wanted until the the population was sufficently sure that everything was done for
"their" security. This acceptance naturally dropped after it became clear that this was not a initial terror attack to throw the US into chaos with strike after strike but one
single attack against an unprepared opponent which could not repeat itself to pose a large enough threat to the United States.

I don�t know enough about US spendings over the last 50 years to know the exact numbers, but if you count everything together that could count
as war spending you�d come close to the 30-35% mark for the cold war phases, I guess.

For the same reason a dictatorship needs an enemy to focus on and/or blame for, simply to exist over an extended period of time. You can bet that at the beginning
of WWII the percieved threat in Nazi Germany/Nazi Austria (I am deliberately including Austria because I often dislike the way we Austrians tend to see ourselves as victims
of Nazi Germany, which is historically not correct) was already far beyond anything needed to go into a full scale war production.
Versailles, the Jews, the threat from the east, the shortage of raw materials, the potential danger of being forced from the stage of the worlds Big Nations...every single one already
sold to the population for half a decade as a reason to be afraid and that war is the only possible solution.

If a dictatorship is unable to generate percieved threat it will have even more problems to keep the population under control than a comparable democracy.
If a threat can be sold to the population well enough it does not matter whether the origin of the propaganda is democratic or a dictator�s publicity departement,
it will work.

_____________________________

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 118

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/2/2010 8:22:25 AM

mike scholl 1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

You guys really mean that in a democracy like the US it is as easy to switch the industry to produce war materials, whether the population supports that or not, as it is for a dictatorship like the Nazis or the Soviets?

You really mean that FDR could get 40% of the US GDP to fight the war?

And I thought I was living in a democracy by the people, for the people. From the messages here it looks like I live in the Soviet Union. What a rude awakening.

NO. What we are saying is that an "aroused" Democracy is a far more potent war machine than a dictatorship..., though even the Soviet Union did a far better job of mobilizing it's economy for war than any of the Axis powers.

And if you look at the figures, you'll find that FDR had already gotten a significant portion of the Greatest Economy in the World switched to War Production BEFORE Pearl Harbor. On December 8th, 1941, he could have had 80% if he'd wanted it.

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 119

RE: How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of ... - 8/2/2010 5:27:18 PM

koontz

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

Also if FDR knew about the attack what the hell did USN have 2 CV west of PH

_____________________________

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 mike scholl 1)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 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?