Originally posted by AThousandYoungActually, Japan's strategy was to grab a big chunk of the Pacific and force the United States to retake it island by island at huge cost; they counted on the US not having the stomach for this and negotiating a peace that would leave them in possession of a lot of real estate in East Asia.
Japan's strategy as I understand it was to hold off the U.S. until Japan had conquered a huge chunk of Asia. Having done so, the Japanese Empire would then have had tremendous production potential, as well as the general naval superiority they lost at Midway.
I think if nothing else the atomic bomb would have won this war. But do you think that this would have been necessary? Would the U.S. have still taken Japan through economic means?
Your premise is incorrect: none of the areas that the Japanese could realisticly hope to conquer had much large scale production, so in the short and medium term they could not hope to match US industrial power. Japan also never had overall naval superiority over the United States; the United states always outnumbered the Japanese in total ships but choose to leave the bulk of her war ships in the Atlantic as FDR rightly concluded that Germany was the greater threat and those ships were needed to insure the shipment of supplies, equipment and men to the European theater. At any rate, the US shipbuilder programme dwarfed anything the Japanese could hope for and while the Japanese did acheive tactical superiority at times, they could never hope for strategic naval superiority.
Country don't "take" other countries by economic means, but the ability to mass produce weaponry at a higher rate than you enemy is what characterizes the victor in a long conventional modern war. The aomic bomb was unnecessary to end the war and even if it had never been built (which it unfortunately was) the victory of the United States over Japan was a foregone conclusion IF the US was willing to pay the price necessary (and after Pearl Harbor the people in the US certainly were).
Originally posted by no1marauderHirohito received the worst advice from his military advisors; namely that they could beat the US in the Pacific. They didn't take into account the vast US manufacturing capacity or at least glossed it over, like you say, they were hoping the US would quit.
Actually, Japan's strategy was to grab a big chunk of the Pacific and force the United States to retake it island by island at huge cost; they counted on the US not having the stomach for this and negotiating a peace that would leave them in possession of a lot of real estate in East Asia.
Your premise is incorrect: none of the ar ...[text shortened]... willing to pay the price necessary (and after Pearl Harbor the people in the US certainly were).
The Nazis would have liked the Japanese to attack the Soviets but this too was a fond hope, the Japanese army was inferior to Russia's, especially in armour, besides that the whole idea didn't fit into the Japanese vision of themselves at the head of a united Asia.
Originally posted by KneverKnightIt is an interesting fact of history that the Nazis and the Japanese never committed to each other to go to war with either the USSR and the US. The Japanese army had received a very bloody nose in some rather large clashes with the Soviet army in 1938 on the Soviet-Manchurian border and were not keen for war with the Soviets AND the US + the Brits. The Soviets and Japanese didn't go to war at all until the last few days of WWII and the Japanese army in Manuchuria was smashed in a few days by the Soviets.
Hirohito received the worst advice from his military advisors; namely that they could beat the US in the Pacific. They didn't take into account the vast US manufacturing capacity or at least glossed it over, like you say, they were hoping the US would quit.
The Nazis would have liked the Japanese to attack the Soviets but this too was a fond hope, the ...[text shortened]... he whole idea didn't fit into the Japanese vision of themselves at the head of a united Asia.
The Nazis were not told in advance by the Japanese of the Pearl Harbor attack. FDR in his famous "Day of infamy" speech the day after Pearl Harbor did not mention Germany at all and it is somewhat doubtful if the US Congress would have declared war on Germany at all! Hitler solved that problem by declaring war on December 11, 1941 ostensibly because American warships were already convoying merchant shipping in the Atlantic and had traded fire with German submarines several times. Hitler seemed to believe that almost being at war with the United States was the same as being at war with the United States, but he soon discovered that there was quite a difference. He also grossly overestimated Japanese military strength.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell my knowledge of the war in the Pacific comes mostly from the Axis and Allies boardgame and a couple brief Google searches - and a friend who claimed the Battle of Midway was critical to winning the war. I bow to someone who seems to actually know what he's talking about.
It is an interesting fact of history that the Nazis and the Japanese never committed to each other to go to war with either the USSR and the US. The Japanese army had received a very bloody nose in some rather large clashes with th ...[text shortened]... ference. He also grossly overestimated Japanese military strength.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHitler - and Churchill, and for that matter most of Europe - hugely underestimated how powerful the US had become by the 1940's. Max Hastings, in Armageddon, comments that in mid-1944 over 40% of ALL munitions used across every theatre of war were supplied by the US. Considering how unmobilised the US was in say 1941, that's a vast achievement.
It is an interesting fact of history that the Nazis and the Japanese never committed to each other to go to war with either the USSR and the US. The Japanese army had received a very bloody nose in some rather large clashes with th ...[text shortened]... ference. He also grossly overestimated Japanese military strength.
Originally posted by Brother EdwinWho is they? Anyway everyone knows that using knights in battle was outlawed in the world treaty of 1712. They were the first weapon of mass destruction. Just ask matelouse, they are always destroying him apparently.
I think they should of used knights n the 18th century.
Hitler bragged that the Japanese were "never beaten" in a war, overlooking the clash with the Soviets. It's true that much earlier, around 1905, the Japanese solidly routed the Tsar's navy. The Japanese had modelled their modern navy on the Royal Navy, which at that time was the best in the world. I wonder if the British model is why they drive cars on the left to this day.
Near the end of the war, the Japanese government asked the Soviets to convey a message, probably surrender conditions, to the other Allies; the Soviets declared war instead and the atom bombs were dropped.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, Midway was an important battle: the Japanese lost 4 aircraft carriers and they never again attempted any large scale offensive operations in the Pacific. Those were 4 of the 6 carriers that were in the Pearl Harbor strike force and the pilots on them were the best naval aviators the Japanese had. It certainly contributed to the US victory in a big way and probably hastened the end of the war by at least 6 months in the long term. When I was a kid, I had an Avalon Hill board game on the Battle of Midway, but whenever we played the Japanese seemed to win!
Well my knowledge of the war in the Pacific comes mostly from the Axis and Allies boardgame and a couple brief Google searches - and a friend who claimed the Battle of Midway was critical to winning the war. I bow to someone who seems to actually know what he's talking about.
Originally posted by no1marauderI used to have that same game. A little simplistic, but still a fun game. I didn't find that the Japanese always won, though. My experience was that whichever side I played always won.
Well, Midway was an important battle: the Japanese lost 4 aircraft carriers and they never again attempted any large scale offensive operations in the Pacific. Those were 4 of the 6 carriers that were in the Pearl Harbor strike force and the pilots on them were the best naval aviators the Japanese had. It certainly contributed to the US victory in ...[text shortened]... alon Hill board game on the Battle of Midway, but whenever we played the Japanese seemed to win!
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettDid anybody have Jutland? It didn't even have a board; you needn't too much room to maneuver, we played as kids on the living room floor. You'd be moving around 50-60 die cut, cardboard ships, putting rulers down to see if you were in range to fire and then rolling dice to see how much damage you did. God, that was a blast! Anybody know if you can still find it anywhere; I believe it was another Avalon Hill game.
I used to have that same game. A little simplistic, but still a fun game. I didn't find that the Japanese always won, though. My experience was that whichever side I played always won.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt was Avalon Hill. I never had it, but I was familiar with the game. Check on Ebay. You can probably find a copy there.
Did anybody have Jutland? It didn't even have a board; you needn't too much room to maneuver, we played as kids on the living room floor. You'd be moving around 50-60 die cut, cardboard ships, putting rulers down to see if you were in range to fire and then rolling dice to see how much damage you did. God, that was a blast! Anybody know if you can still find it anywhere; I believe it was another Avalon Hill game.
Wooden Ship & Iron Men was one of my favorite Avalon Hill games. Ship to ship combat in the age of the sail. Excellent game.