Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


fbs -> Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 8:59:42 PM)

Historians always come with smart reasons why countries behave like they did. For example, in Germany the usual culprit is Hitler; all the smart decisions were taken by brilliant generals, while the bad decisions somehow trace back to Hitler. While I'm pretty sure Hitler was responsible for a lot of bad decisions, I think that it became an easy option to just blame him for every bad jugement; but, never mind, he was mad, and blaming him is usually pretty accurate.

Now, the Japanese Army is a mystery. I was watching a program the other day, and a British soldier that retreated through Burma was saying "they were wonderful soldiers; they threw everything they had at you... they had a fantastic drill". I think that's a pretty accurate description of the IJA at tactical level. The usual description of the IJA is that they took at a strategic level the same concepts that worked at a tactical level: be very aggressive, stay in the offensive, do a lot with little resources, trust the spirit to overcome numerical and material disadvantages. That is easy explanation, but... hmm... I don't know.

My point is: IJA's generals were not stupid, yet they took over the country and directed it at all the wrong directions. Tracing that back to a "Samurai spirit" is easy, but I'm not sure how accurate, as the generals spend a lot of time studying strategy -- what is not a Samurai thing. The leader of any army does not think like an infantryman, and that has been true for centuries. Japan was a successful militaristic culture, and I reckon that their generals knew a thing or two about strategy.

Yet IJA's generals were in China from 31 to 41, and with no victory in sight they decided to go after even bigger countries. How dumb is that? The usual explanation is that they didn't know the true capabilities of the USA and UK, but yet Japan was allied to both in WW1, I'm pretty confident several officers were in Europe in WW1 as liaisons and observers, so there is no way they didn't know how much men and material they could pour. Moreoever, the IJA was already strained to its maximum in China; it's not possible that the generals didn't realize that.

Add to that blatant violations against the civilian government, constant insubordination within the army (even at very high levels), rogue actions by entire army groups, lack of planning for long-term action, complete lack of industrial planning, ignoring completely logistical aspects, and more importantly, lack of any kind of realistic strategy.

It baffles me. I really don't understand how very smart, very dedicated generals behaved like Lemmings with barely any exception note. Anyone gets that at all?




topeverest -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 9:22:33 PM)

FBS,

Wartime decisions made in real time are rarely perfect. A backward facing analysis of any war opens many questions. That said, I dont think there ever was a chance of a non-violent government installation in Burma. Think of how violently Japan treated China, Manchuko, and Korea leading up to the Burma conquest. In the present tense and in that context, I am not sure why Japan's leadership would even consider a different approach to a 'new' puppet state. Perhaps I dont know my history well enough, but that is my impression.





Canoerebel -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 9:33:26 PM)

The Japanese were in a similar position to American southerners in the 1850s and early '60s.  Both groups saw themselves in a deteriorating political position - Japan on a global scale, the South on a national scale.  Both were concerned about their economies deteriorating.  Both had a strong military heritage.  And Japan also saw an opportunity to strike while Britian, and to a lesser extent American, were focused on Germany.  The Japanese knew they were stepping into it, but figured their chances would never be better.




CaptDave -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 9:45:54 PM)

I think there were some social factors at work. How much they contributed I don't know, but I believe their influence was not trivial.

First, the leaders truly believed that it was Japan's divine right to rule all of Asia. Nah, wars are never started over religious convictions, are they? [:)]

Second, many of their egos were on a par with that dark-haired chap with the funny mustache half a world away. They were personally incapable of admitting to the possibility of being wrong.

Third, there's the age-old concept of "face." Even without the ego issue, they had to avoid losing face, and therefore the respect of those they governed. They couldn't just go back and tell all the grieving families (and yes, they grieved) "oh, sorry, but we've decided your son/husband/brother died in vain in a war we never had any chance of wining."




Jim D Burns -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 9:52:32 PM)

Japan had gambled in China and it failed to pay off. So by 1941 world opinion had turned against her and when the US turned off the scrap metal and oil spigots, Japan only had two choices. Stop the war in China or try and take what they needed to keep the war effort going.

I think it was the tradition of Bushido in Japan that made them take the suicidal route. To them stopping the war in China was tantamount to surrender. So it was simply not an option for them, they had no choice but to take the plunge into world war because their culture blinded them to any other option.

It’s easy for us to look back now and question the logic or insanity of their decision. But you have to remember it was their culture. There was no question to them that giving up in China wasn’t an option. They couldn’t possibly have seen the insanity of their decision to expand the war the way we see it today.

I liken it to the Islamic terrorists today. Their religion and societal culture teaches them it is ok to kill non-believers. So they’ll never see a rational solution to their problems. The fact that Saturday afternoon cartoons in the Middle East glorify suicide bombings and teaches their children to hate is a stark example of what I mean by being blinded by your own culture.

Jim




Grit -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 9:56:21 PM)

In very simple terms. (I'm sort of a simple minded guy.)

Japan underestimated the resolve of the Allies. They thought they would be able to make a settlement especially when the American public saw such a high body count of dead soldiers, marines, airman, and sailors. They also didn't have much respect for the Allied fighting man.

There is no doubt the Japanese soldier was an incredibly tenacious fighter. But they were overwhelmed by a much better led, supplied, and technologically advanced foe.

Lastly, I think they just tried to take too much. They were overextended and couldn't hold what they took. It was a major effort for the Allies to supply their troops. How did Japan expect to supply all their troops? While at the same time supplying the homeland.




chesmart -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 10:00:16 PM)

The Japanese army and navy were planning for war from the mid 1920s when USA passed a bill that stopped emigration from japan. They always planned for a short war in which they would fight a decisive battle. They knew they could not win but they planned to fight 2 year war in which t hey will fight a decisive battle a la Tsushima and then USA would sue for peace. The Japanese navy at first opposed these plans as they knew it was crazy but in in the late 30s the hawks took over and they pushed as much as the army for war. I think the problem with the Japanese is that after beating Russia they thought they could do the same thing to the allies especially as they were fighting Germany and at that time Germany was winning so they saw a window of opportunity which they could take. looking at it in 20/20 hindsight it looks crazy but at that time it was the best chance they had. I would recommend to read Kaigun as it shows what was going behind the curtains in japan especially the infighting between the navy and army for the scarce budget resources.




P.Hausser -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 10:20:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

So they’ll never see a rational solution to their problems. The fact that Saturday afternoon cartoons in the Middle East glorify suicide bombings and teaches their children to hate is a stark example of what I mean by being blinded by your own culture.

Jim



Jim , It goes both ways.
Culture learns you a lot of strange things,

Just as an example, I can say that I have a co-worker, and he is actually from Louisiana. He is a Socialist, and say that he moved from the US because of this kind of things.


Few takes the time to research things, and thus fail to come up with their own independent opinions.
The same probably applies to Islamic fundamentalists.

We are all indoctrinated, we just don't know it.




Jim D Burns -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 10:49:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser
Just as an example, I can say that I have a co-worker, and he is actually from Louisiana. He is a Socialist, and say that he moved from the US because of this kind of things.

We are all indoctrinated, we just don't know it.


The reason a lot of people hate socialism and communism today isn’t because people are indoctrinated into being against it, though I guess it’s what communists like to tell themselves is the reason. It’s because it makes the government all powerful over the people. That sets the stage for violent leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. to come in a wreak havoc.

If history ever taught anyone anything, it is never trust a government or any other organization that gives someone total power over masses of people. Governments are just as corrupt and likely to kill as religions are. And in the past 100 years or so, socialism and communism have killed far more people than all the worlds religions combined.

Jim




crsutton -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 11:04:13 PM)

Yes, I do.




P.Hausser -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 11:06:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The reason a lot of people hate socialism and communism today isn’t because people are indoctrinated into being against it, though I guess it’s what communists like to tell themselves is the reason. It’s because it makes the government all powerful over the people. That sets the stage for violent leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. to come in a wreak havoc.

If history ever taught anyone anything, it is never trust a government or any other organization that gives someone total power over masses of people. Governments are just as corrupt and likely to kill as religions are. And in the past 100 years or so, socialism and communism have killed far more people than all the worlds religions combined.

Jim




Sure, I agree with you in that.
But now you seem a little indoctrinated [;)]

There are many forms for socialism, and several are very successfully states,
Ie. 8 of the 10 most developed nations in the world are democratic states based on socialistic values, Google HDI 2009 for the list.

This was just some examples of course, but I wanted to point out for you that things are not black or white,
in this nations the Governments are no less democratic then in the US, they do often own cooperations (domestic or international) but on the same time corruption and prices are often among the lowest in the world, so is crime and on the same time purchasing power pr average family is among the highest.. freedom is at least as high in this nations as in the US.. you get my point.


So, when I now with a little smile called you Indoctrinated, I referred to your ability of differentiating between Anarcho-pacifism, Left anarchism, Anarcho-primitivism, Green Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Social Conservative, Social Democrat, Social Liberal, Market Liberal and so on... and after a few more pages of political ideology's we end up at Conservative Republican... and then after a few more pages of ideology's and we reach Communism.

It's not as simple as you put it above.
Its not black or white.. - Its not The Republican party or Mao Zedong.



This is probablly the wrong plase for this, we should get back to topic.




Jim D Burns -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 11:22:44 PM)

You missed my meaning. It’s not the level of socialism that matters. It’s the power granted to the government over the people Socialism needs to work. So your statement should have said it’s not Mao Zedong… yet. The system is in place for a Mao to rise in most socialist states, and the steps he’d need to take to take permanent control would be far fewer than what Chavez had to take to grab power in Venezuela.

Socialism has worked in Europe only due to the US welfare program which subsidizes Europe’s defense. Were it not for the fact the US military paid for a huge portion of Europe’s defense over the past 60 years or so, I doubt Europe would be as socialist as it is today.

Were the US to pull out tomorrow, Europe would find itself hard pressed to come up with funding to adequately protect itself. Something would have to give.

So Europe can thank good old fashioned American Capitalism and its profits for its socialist utopia. And given the crazy spending our government here is going through right now, I suspect you’ll see the US leaving very soon as we run out of cash to pay our own bills back home.

Jim




wdolson -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 11:26:05 PM)

Germany, Japan, and to some extent Italy were all driven by blind ideology.  Each culture had a different ideology, but they all had extreme and absolute ones.  When they had initial successes, the leaders congratulated themselves on the power of their ideologies over other nations' weaker ideals.  Japan had the Code of Bushido and Germany the Aryan Race mythos.

When the war turned against them, they got even more fanatical in their ideals with the wishful thinking that purer ideals will turn the tide back their way.  In their minds it was the ideology, not poor Allies preparation that led to the early war victories.

Sometimes ideologues win wars, but usually only short ones.  Longer wars are always won by realists.

Bill




Rainer -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 11:27:00 PM)

Wrong discussion in the wrong place.
Stop that.
This forum is not the place to advertise right wing views or any other political view.
Read the forum rules if you don't understand.




DeriKuk -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 11:27:30 PM)

When it comes to military [and industrial] strategy, it's a miracle that anything gets done. Things usually get done despite the strategy - not because of it. The victors end up in a position that allows them to sweep their scandals and incompetence under the rugs, while the vanquished sit around and rationalize their screw-ups . . . and eventually come to some mythical explanation that soothes their cognitive dissonance. It takes a few more generations of historians to peel away the layers of B-S, and then many of them have to face the scornful accusation of "revisionist". [8|]




Tomcat -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 11:37:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The reason a lot of people hate socialism and communism today isn’t because people are indoctrinated into being against it, though I guess it’s what communists like to tell themselves is the reason. It’s because it makes the government all powerful over the people. That sets the stage for violent leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. to come in a wreak havoc.

If history ever taught anyone anything, it is never trust a government or any other organization that gives someone total power over masses of people. Governments are just as corrupt and likely to kill as religions are. And in the past 100 years or so, socialism and communism have killed far more people than all the worlds religions combined.

Jim



Sure, I agree with you in that.
But now you seem a little indoctrinated [;)]

There are many forms for socialism, and several are very successfully states,
Ie. 8 of the 10 most developed nations in the world are democratic states based on socialistic values, Google HDI 2009 for the list.

This was just some examples of course, but I wanted to point out for you that things are not black or white,
in this nations the Governments are no less democratic then in the US, they do often own cooperations (domestic or international) but on the same time corruption and prices are often among the lowest in the world, so is crime and on the same time purchasing power pr average family is among the highest.. freedom is at least as high in this nations as in the US.. you get my point.


So, when I now with a little smile called you Indoctrinated, I referred to your ability of differentiating between Anarcho-pacifism, Left anarchism, Anarcho-primitivism, Green Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Social Conservative, Social Democrat, Social Liberal, Market Liberal and so on... and after a few more pages of political ideology's we end up at Conservative Republican... and then after a few more pages of ideology's and we reach Communism.

It's not as simple as you put it above.
Its not black or white.. - Its not The Republican party or Mao Zedong.



This is probablly the wrong plase for this, we should get back to topic.


The notion that everybody is "indoctrinated" is very self-serving. Do you say that because that is what you have been indoctrinated to say? Is it possible to form one's own opinion if, as you say, everyone is indoctrinated? How do we tell the difference between an indoctrinated belief and a self-formed opinion? You say Jim is "indoctrinated". Is that what you have been indoctrinated to say, or is this just something you say when you want to dismiss opinions you don't like? Is it possible to form one's own opinion that agrees with what one was "indoctrinated" to believe? Your statement reminds me of the sort of illogical thing we sometimes hear from the left, such as "It is true that there is no such thing as truth". Of course, if you disagree with me it's just because you are repeating what you have been indoctrinated to say.[;)]





Dili -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 11:43:10 PM)

quote:

IJA's generals


This is the problem with games and this game tries to deal with it from distance with political points. IJA generals were not monolithic and even less were part of a Umpire like we are in our games. Unfortunately there are no games that i know that make you compete for resources with next cabinet general on same side, with that we will grasp how much more parochial(in negative sense) were the things. For a better picture we need to learn how the Japanese GHQ worked, how many generals drove its policy, career changes , how many competing theories, it's age, were they men with 40-50 years old or were 60.70's? Probably the IJA policy result was a set of compromises, and we know how compromises can end in something without logic. And the drive to South and against USA was more of a Navy trying to get a playground to compete with IJA playground in China.




P.Hausser -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 11:57:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

You missed my meaning. It’s not the level of socialism that matters. It’s the power granted to the government over the people Socialism needs to work.



If I would like to get all my services through private insurances then I have that option, and will in that case not need to pay the level of tax that I do (27%). Effectively I can pick what system I want for my self.


About the military, I feel that military is Obsolete. Sevreal of the European nations you talk about considered to have Nuke's instead of Nato, but decided upon Nato. Without it, I think more would had Nukes instead, fairly cheap to maintain and very effective.

Small nations only need some Nukes, and a small military force.
Large scale military combat is obsolete, Nuks can defend you.






Cyber Me -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/18/2010 11:59:23 PM)

Yamamoto was against a war with the USA and opened showed his disapproval of the Triparite Pact of 1940. While he was Deputy Navy Minister he apologized to the USA for the sinking of the USS Panay in Dec 1937. He receieved so many death threats and hate mail that he was forced to take command of a ship to avoid being assassinated. But with the UK and USSR committed in their war with Germany the Japanese thought they saw a window to success. But their failure to declare war before the surprise attack probably was Japan's biggest mistake as it committed USA and UK on a road for revenge and unwilling to negotiate.
(Today- 18th April is the anniversary of Operation Vengeance- the attack of Yamamoto's Betty by P38s and his death.




Q-Ball -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 12:06:55 AM)

Radicalized IJA generals were a factor, but certainly not the only one, and even the Army had a peace faction. The real movers and shakers in Japan were the Army and Navy, but neither would have gone to war without the consent of the Emperor, who though not active in politics could have stopped it if he chose to.

Japanese politics and decision making in the 30s and 40s was very complicated.

PS: Jim Burns and Hauser, stop your discussion, does not belong on this forum




bklooste -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 1:15:02 AM)

meh... IJA could have whipped China ( which really was a set of disconnected countries with their own agenda.) at any time ( eg Ichi Go)  but to what end  to deal with corrupt local offcials , bandits and guerillas ?  Industrializing Manchuria was more than enough for Japan. Who is smarted George Bush who skipped Iraq in the first gulf war or George W  ? By that comparision the IJA generals dont come of too bad.

I think Japans actions were heavily cultural eg once the oil embargo was made they couldnt lose face and give in and the negotiator didnt allow them to save face giving up conquests in CHina was never going to happen.




Graycompany -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 1:27:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Wrong discussion in the wrong place.
Stop that.
This forum is not the place to advertise right wing views or any other political view.
Read the forum rules if you don't understand.


Perhaps you should read the title of the original poster, talking about dumb mistakes, and do we really understand. Jim was pointing out, and rightly so, something that took place in Europe over the last 60 years, and giving a pov on this, as compared to something the IJA did, in the 30's and 40's. The odd thing here is that you would claim that his views are right wing. I am Marine, and Independent, and while i watch both sides of politics make mistakes, saying that his pov is right wing, without any basis or bias, is wrong, Your post would have been far more effective, by saying that the forum is not the place to advertise any political view, but alas, you couldnt help it. To jims post, I dont think he is giving a political view, he was commenting, by giving an example ( A good one) to the point. Nothing more, nothing less.




fbs -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 1:34:38 AM)


All this is really interesting discussion (although some parts border into ideology, terrain which I usually don't get into).

But I'm still at loss. War is a very messy, uncertain, costly and dangerous thing to get into, specially against much stronger enemies. It is one thing to see an uneducated soldier to believe the official propaganda, but it is another to the high-level veteran officers to believe in that. As they say, when the shooting starts, the bs stops.

So I can see the German military going after their old enemies for vengeance, and to undo the perceived losses of the previous war. Vengeance is a fairly common reason for war. But Japan didn't lose anything in WW1 on in a previous wars; was not under threat by anyone; and economically was much stronger than 30 years before.

So why go on a total war against half the world? I see that uneducated soldier believing in winning such war, but a high-level officer? Of course, one can always say that the Japanese leadership undertook incredibly dangerous and unfavorable decisions because they didn't know better (because of social/ideologic/political/etc... factors), but that's to say the most industrialized country in Asia (at the time), with a culture spanning 4000 years, just decided blindly to jump off the cliff.

I can certainly accept that in the end (it's kind of the common thinking), but it is a very, very depressing thing to accept, as if it happened once, it can happen again. I'm probably kind of naive; I expected to hear "it was all Tojo's fault".




Rainer -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 1:44:30 AM)

He said
quote:

I doubt Europe would be as socialist as it is today
.

Calling the Europe of Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi and other European leaders "socialistic" is probably an indicator of his view.

But again: wrong discussion, wrong place.
I will not participate anymore.

EDIT: THis is not a reply or contribution to fbs' original or other postings from him.




Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 1:54:31 AM)

People seem to be operating under a mistaken impression that Japan wanted to conquer China militarily. This was never their plan nor was it ideal. Similarly, there was never an option for peace with China
In the 1930’s, Japan was pursuing a strategy of divide and conquer towards China. Japan was like England in that it was a highly industrialized country that depended on overseas markets for its manufactured goods. Japan had been quietly exploiting the Chinese market the same as the rest of Europe since the end of the 19th century. The devastation of the Great Depression had added urgency to the Japanese goal of turning China into their exclusive economic sphere. This ran counter to a rising tide of Anti-Japanese Chinese nationalism that had been growing ever since the end of World War 1 when Shandong had been transferred from Germany to Japan despite the fact that China was part of the Allies along with Japan.

Japan’s model for it’s mission in China was British India. Like Britain, they didn’t have the manpower or money to directly rule such a vast territory or large population so they were intent on setting up compliant local governments that would be subordinate to Japan’s political and economic interests. Unfortunately for Japan and China, the Rising Sun had begun setting up its empire 50 years too late. Like British India, China in the 20’s and 30’s had no shortage of local despots who were willing to suborn themselves to an outside power in return for money and influence. If the strongman proved hostile, the Japanese military would kill and replace him.
As part of this policy, Japan started splitting parts of China away from any Chinese central authority. In 1931, they created Manchukuo. Over the next six years, Japan had successfully fought in “incidents” all across north China and effectively placed most of Northern China in their sphere of influence. There was resistance, but it was local and sporadic, and not supported by the Chinese central government in Nanjing.

Zhang Xueliang, had been deposed from Manchuria by the Japanese along with his army after they killed his father. He kidnapped Chiang Kai Shek in December of 1936 and forced him to stop his war with the communists focus on fighting the Japanese. Eight months later, another “incident” happened in Beijing. A local dispute between Japanese and Chinese forces gradually escalated. Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese central government wanted a full scale war and the Japanese weren’t deployed for one.

For the nationalist government in the south, it was a nightmare. Officially, the Chinese forces in theater outnumbered the Japanese ten to one, but they were all of questionable quality and loyalty. The Japanese were more than capable of winning the local battles and detaching yet another small part of China. This was their plan (or the plan of the generals in Manchuria) in 1937. Total war was not desired nor were the Japanese prepared for it.

The Japanese had been nibbling away China’s sovereignty successfully for six years. Except now, Chiang was bound by domestic political pressure resist. He decided to launch a massive and fatal gamble to try to make the Japanese choke by forcing them to go to war with the whole country. Chinese forces moved into Shanghai threatening the Japanese concession. The Chinese forces around Shanghai were loyal, well armed and German trained. Unlike the North, this was a battle that the Chiang thought he could win.

For two weeks, the Chinese did just that, pushing the Japanese almost into the river. But massive Japanese reinforcements and flanking maneuvers doomed the Chinese position and the best troops that the Chinese army had were destroyed in the first three months of the war. Had the Chinese won in Shanghai, the whole war would have been different. It’s a turning point comparable to the initial German push through Ardennes. Without Shanghai, and forced to rely on local forces, the Chinese defence collapsed and the Northern half of the country and most of the coastal cities were seized by the end of 1938. Without them, the Japanese were confident that Chiang and the KMT would be forced into a peace favorable to Japan.

Then Chiang didn't surrender. He couldn't surrender. Politics meant that the KMT had to keep resisting, at least on paper.

The Japanese campaign in China shouldn't be described as "conquest." It should be described as "punitive occupation." All of their campaigns were intended to force the Chinese government to the negotiating table. At no time was total occupation and lebensraum style border expansion strategic goals.

An occupied China with no native Chinese government and 2 million Japanese troops on the ground was worse than losing, so Japan chose not to pursue the total conquest of China and instead launched punitive campaigns and economic blockades. It was within Japan's capabilities to occupy most of China in 1941 (or at least a lot more than they did) if they had wanted to, but they knew that the occupation would be so costly, so incomplete, so rife with partisans that their only hope of victory was a settlement with the Chinese government. When a settlement wasn't achieved, they created a new puppet government, but official Japanese administration of the occupied areas was never contemplated.

The only way for Japan to have peace in China was to withdraw to the 1937 borders. Total conquest would not bring peace. Think of the problems the US had in Iraq after achieving "victory." Now add in the fact that the Japanese are orders of magnitude more brutal, much less well equipped, not really mobile, and vastly more outnumbered.

The Japanese were the kid with the hand caught in the cookie jar. They weren't willing to let go of the cookies, but they didn't want to break the cookie jar either.

Their only hope was to outlast the Chinese and wait for the Chinese government to negotiate. The US could do enormous damage to Japan economically without firing a shot. The war in China was already way too expensive for Japan and their economy was getting worse. Attacking the British and the Dutch was their only option.
If they had decided not to hit the Americans at the same time, they would have given up the strategic initiative and given the Americans time to build a bigger fleet. Even without a declaration of war, America could still go on war footing and the opportunity for a Pearl Harbor blow to the American Navy might not come again. Furthermore, the cost of the war would be even higher because the eventual war with the US would now have be fought subsequent to the war with the Europeans which would drive the price tag up.




Jim D Burns -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 2:26:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer
is probably an indicator of his view.


Well as mentioned politics are not appropriate in the forums and I do admit I got drawn into a discussion that got more and more political. That said I need to clear the slander about me you posted. I am not right wing, left wing or any wing and my views are strictly libertarian and neutral.

I dislike all extreme political parties no matter which side of the scale they fall on and think people should be left alone to live their lives however they see fit. But being a libertarian does place me firmly against strong governments (no matter who runs them), so if you’re a fan of socialism I guess my views would anger you and perhaps that prompted you to try and slander me as an ideolog while trying to hide behind the noble cover of forum police.

Jim




Q-Ball -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 3:44:57 AM)

Does anyone have a good book recommendation on the decision making process and politics in Japan in the 30s and up to WWII? I have read on the Feb 1936 incident and the Imperial Way Faction, but I'm still hazy on the subject. It's very complicated, because there was a way it worked on paper, and a completely different way decisions were made in Japan in reality.

Kaigun does a good job describing the internal politics of the Imperial Japanese Navy; peace/war factions, air/BB factions, about they only thing they could agree on was that they were more important than the Army.




Cuttlefish -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 4:55:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Does anyone have a good book recommendation on the decision making process and politics in Japan in the 30s and up to WWII? I have read on the Feb 1936 incident and the Imperial Way Faction, but I'm still hazy on the subject. It's very complicated, because there was a way it worked on paper, and a completely different way decisions were made in Japan in reality.

Kaigun does a good job describing the internal politics of the Imperial Japanese Navy; peace/war factions, air/BB factions, about they only thing they could agree on was that they were more important than the Army.


Q-Ball, John Toland's "The Rising Sun" does an excellent job of presenting the decisions that were made from the Japanese point of view. The reader gets a lot of good insight into the factors in Japanese culture and politics that led, finally, to the decision to go to war.

I have also recently read a fascinating book called "The Pacific War, 1931-1945" by Saburo Ienaga. It was originally published in Japan in the 1960s and recently reprinted in English. Ienaga's scholarship is questionable (he draws many sweeping conclusions on the basis of little evidence) and he has obvious Communist sympathies but I still recommend it. The reason: the author is very, very angry at the governement and military that dragged Japan into disaster. There are few, if any, other books from a Japanese point of view that cover the 1930s with such scathing honesty and venom.

It is almost worth reading just for his descriptions of the indoctrination he was subjected to as a young boy in school during the pre-war years. Chilling.





wdolson -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 6:05:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Does anyone have a good book recommendation on the decision making process and politics in Japan in the 30s and up to WWII? I have read on the Feb 1936 incident and the Imperial Way Faction, but I'm still hazy on the subject. It's very complicated, because there was a way it worked on paper, and a completely different way decisions were made in Japan in reality.

Kaigun does a good job describing the internal politics of the Imperial Japanese Navy; peace/war factions, air/BB factions, about they only thing they could agree on was that they were more important than the Army.


Arguably, the Navy probably was more important to Japan for the survival of the country. Geographically, Japan is a natural naval power, just like England. Both are dependent on overseas trade to bring in resources and goods necessary to keep the country running. Up to 1945, that required a strong navy to ensure the sea lanes stayed open. Some army is necessary, but a large army is a luxury naval powers usually can't afford. Britain's army has historically done best when close to shorelines where the navy can support them.

Japan built a large army, but they would have been better off if they had left China alone. They probably could have taken more territory and reinforced it better if they didn't have to garrison so much territory in China. China gave them little in the way of resources and a lot of headaches. The SRA had just about everything they needed to build a strong economy and for that, they needed a strong navy.

The IJA got bogged down fighting a war in China that could not promise to return anything close to the cost. It was a black hole that became their Burmese monkey trap. They grabbed on and refused to let go.

Bill




JeffroK -> RE: Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions? (4/19/2010 7:17:30 AM)

The japanese soldier, "The greatest fighting insect in the world" W.Slim, G-G of Australia.

Above them, fighting insects that got promoted.

The IJA, IMHO, had few quality generals who would approach the comparable leaders in Germany, Russia USA & UK . You could name Yamashita (who was sent to Coventry, well Manchuria for his beliefs.) and very few others, same for the IJN & JAAF. Whatever reputation they gotr was achieved against underprepared & underequipped soldiers more attuned to a peacetime role than war.

So add this to the political infighting, poor doctrine, logistics and material support and you come out with a ill led, ill supplied, ill equipped force which managed to scare the world into believing in its invincibility!




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6870117