Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 12917
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 23 Jun 2022 05:52

I have to disagree with paulrward :the truth is that already before PH, isolationism was dead . Totally .
Examples
Lend Lease
The Atlantic Fleet chasing the U Boats
The elections of November 1940 were between FDR and the Republican FDR ,Wendell Willkie ,the candidate of the Eastern Establishment .
Economic sanctions against Germany and Japan
Conscription ( in peacetime ! )

Huszar666
Member
Posts: 125
Joined: 18 Dec 2021 14:02
Location: Budakeszi

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Huszar666 » 23 Jun 2022 06:11

Morning,

Just to make sure, everyone is on the same page:
the NEI was not under the controll of the "puppet regime" on the continent (there wasn't such), but under the exile regime in London. So, whatever government there was in the Netherlands proper could not sign over any colony. Or the colony would just rise the middle finger.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by paulrward » 23 Jun 2022 08:05

Hello All ;

Mr Ljadw posted:
#46 by ljadw » 22 Jun 2022 21:52
I have to disagree with paulrward :the truth is that already before PH, isolationism
was dead . Totally .
Examples
Lend Lease
The Atlantic Fleet chasing the U Boats
The elections of November 1940 were between FDR and the Republican FDR ,Wendell
Willkie ,the candidate of the Eastern Establishment .
Economic sanctions against Germany and Japan
Conscription ( in peacetime ! )

Lend Lease -

to quote Wikipedia:
Opposition to the Lend-Lease bill was strongest among isolationist Republicans in
Congress, who feared the measure would be "the longest single step this nation has yet
taken toward direct involvement in the war abroad". When the House of Representatives
finally took a roll call vote on February 9, 1941, the 260 to 165 vote was largely along
party lines. Democrats voted 238 to 25 in favor and Republicans 24 in favor and 135 against.[18]

The vote in the Senate, which occurred on 9 March, revealed a similar partisan difference:
49 Democrats (79 percent) voted "aye" with only 13 Democrats (21 percent) voting "nay".
In contrast, 17 Republicans (63 percent) voted "nay" while 10 Senate Republicans
(37 percent) sided with the Democrats to pass the bill.[19]

The Atlantic Fleet Chasing U boats:

Not authorized by Congress - and Roosevelt took a LOT of heat for putting our sailors in harms way
after the loss of the Reuben James.


The Elections of 1940 -

It must be remembered that Roosevelt's election platform was:

“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said
this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into
any foreign wars."

- FDR, October 1940

This made him the anti war candidate, which was quite possibly why he got re-elected.


Economic sanctions against Germany and Japan

And large numbers of U.S. businesses began policies of avoiding the sanctions by selling goods
to third parties in neutral nations who simply trans-shipped the goods to Japan and Germany
via Spain.


Conscription ( in peacetime ! )

Go back and look at the votes in the U.S. Senate and House on the Selective Service Act. About
1/3 of each body voted AGAINST the Act - and as 1941 went on, it got increasingly unpopular.
Young men began seeking ways to avoid the draft, and there was a rush to get into jobs that
it was felt would be ' reserved ' occupations that made one ineligible to be drafted.

In addition, the first group of men had been inducted for only 12 months of active service,
starting in October, 1940. In late summer of 1941, a common phrase among the draftees
was OHIO - Over The Hill in October !

When the Congress extended the term of service to 30 months, the vote passed in the
Congress by only ONE VOTE ! This shows how unpopular the draft was rapidly becoming.


Now, all this changed on December 8th, 1941. But, had there been no Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor, you might have had a Red Wave election in 1942 that would have ensured the
United States would stay Neutral unless attacked.


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

paulrward
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by paulrward » 23 Jun 2022 08:29

Hello All :

Mr. Huszar666 posted :
#47Post by Huszar666 » 22 Jun 2022 22:11

Just to make sure, everyone is on the same page:
the NEI was not under the controll of the "puppet regime" on the continent
(there wasn't such), but under the exile regime in London. So, whatever
government there was in the Netherlands proper could not sign over any
colony. Or the colony would just rise the middle finger.

Just to make sure that everyone is reading from the Same Book, there WAS a Puppet Regime,
it was the " Reichskommissariat Niederlande " , and was run by an Austrian named
Arthur Seyss-Inquart .

So, you go to Mr. Seyss-Inquart, have him fill out the necessary forms to transfer the NEI to
the Administration of Imperial Japan on a TEMPORARY BASIS , provide copies of the forms
to the Japanese, the United States, and to the Dutch Government In Exile in London.

( Governments in Exile as such sad little things - they start out with such high hopes, usually
in one of their old Embassies in a friendly nation, and then, as the money runs out, they have
to sell off the Embassy, and move to an Office in a High Rise, and then, as the money goes
dry, they end up in a ratty little apartment, running the Government in Exile out of a
Suitcase . )


So, Authorization in hand, ( waving the paper to dry the ink as quickly as possible ! ) the
Japanese send their forces down to the NEI. It is September, 1941. They send the four Kongos
and the two Nagatos, along with a quartet of Aircraft Carriers, a half dozen Heavy Cruisers,
a couple of Destroyer Squadrons, and every member of the SNLF who is available.

They inform the NEI navy ( five aging cruisers, a dozen or so destroyers, and an equal number of
Submarines ) that if there is any opposition to the Japanese Navy or their landing forces, they
will all be sunk.

The NEI Colonial Constabulary and the Military are informed that they have no hope of defeating
the Japanese, and that, for the sake of their families, they should go along with the inevitable.

The NEI Colonial Government is informed via agents who arrived a few weeks earlier as ' Tourists '
that if anyone in the NEi resists the Japanese, they and their families will be exterminated. The
technical experts who run the Oil Industry are informed that they will be given favorable
treatment as long as there is no damage or sabotage to the Oil Installations, and the Oil keeps
flowing.

The native people of the Indies are informed that this is a case of , " Meet The New Boss - Same
As The Old Boss "
and that as long as they cooperate, they will find that they are no longer second
class citizens to the Dutch - now they are all equal !


In effect, you do exactly what was done in French IndoChina.

How many Frenchmen raised their Middle Fingers to the Japanese in September of 1941 ?
And how did it turn out for them ?


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1614
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Peter89 » 23 Jun 2022 08:39

paulrward wrote:
23 Jun 2022 04:10
Hello All :

Mr. Peter89 posted
#28Post by Peter89 » 22 Jun 2022 11:19
I simply can not believe that sheer overconfidence led the Japanese to believe that
they can afford to go to battle like this. They knew that the US has a lot of carriers,
and before Coral sea none was lost (Saratoga was repaired). Thus theoretically they
could encounter 4 carriers at any given time (Lexington, Yorktown, Enterprise and
Hornet). Given the disparities in air group sizes, keeping the 6 fleet carriers together
would be essential.

I am also not sure that the air groups were depleted by the time of Coral sea or Midway;
at the Aleutian campaign the Junyo carried 18 Zeroes and 18 Vals and the Ryujo 12 Zeroes
and 18 Kates.

I believe there has to be some logical explanation for the apparent misjudgement of
the situation. (It took me a really long time to understand the real reasons why the
Germans attacked the Soviets, too.) I would be especially interested in the decision
making process behind Yamamoto's strategy. What would Japan lose by waiting until,
let's say, August? They could field 6 fleet carriers, 2 carriers and 2 light carriers against
the USN's 5 fleet carriers with Coral sea, and 6 fleet carriers, 2 carriers and 3 light
carriers vs 6 fleet carriers without it. I thought the Japanese were looking for a decisive
battle.

Okay: Mr Peter89, Let me explain this to you.

There are things we know.
And there are things we don't know.
Now, there are things we know that we know,
but there are things we don't know that we know.
And, there are things we know that we don't know,
as well as things that we don't know that we don't know.
And, finally, there are things we know that we know, which are..... wrong......




Here is what the Japanese knew:

At the outbreak of the war, the USN had four fleet carriers: Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, and
Yorktown. There was also light carriers Ranger and Wasp, and the uncompleted fleet carrier
Hornet. This means that there were four fleet carriers and two light carriers, with the two CVLs
in the Atlantic, and the four CVAs in the Pacific.

Right after Pearl Harbor, a Japanese Submarine sank one of the Lexington Class. That leaves three.
Then, at the Coral Sea, the aircraft from the Zuikaku and Shokaku sank the other Lexington Class
carrier, and one of the two Enterprise class carriers. That leaves ONE Enterprise class carrier in
the Pacfic to oppose the Japanese attack on Midway.

This is what the Japanese knew. They did NOT know that the Saratoga had NOT been sunk.
They did NOT know that the Yorktown had NOT been sunk. And they did NOT know that the
Hornet was in the Pacific.

If they had waited, they might have run into four CVAs, and possibly even a CVL ( Wasp ) - along
with the Midway defenses, which were only going to get stronger with the passage of time.

Now, ignoring all the BS about the IJN wanting a decisive battle, What Could Yamamoto have
done to improve his chances? First, after Coral Sea, the Zuikaku was undamaged. If you
take all the aircraft from the damaged Shokaku, and transfer them and their crews to the
Zuikaku, you could put together a complete air group. ( I checked, you would have had some
aircraft to spare.)

Next, take the Zuiho and the Ryujo, and add them to the Kido Butai. Together, the two carriers
would have had about 45 aircraft, making them almost equal to a CVA. Finally, add the Chitose
and Chiyoda, and use their floatplanes as scouts each day to look for the lone USN carrier. Leave
the midget submarines in the Inland Sea. They aren't needed to take Midway. Add in all four
Kongo's, and the two Tone's, and you have a fast, ballanced force able to fight anything.

Next, take Junyo, Hosho, Taiyo, and Unyo if she is ready, and combine them into a second line
carrier squadron. They are carrying some obsolete aircraft, and they are slow, so you leave them
with the Invasion Force, escorting the transports and the supply ships. You can add Nishin to give
them some floatplane search capbility. The slower battleships will also be in this group.

This means that there will be no attack on the Aleutians. You will explain to the Army that this
will take place in July or August, after Midway is occupied.

Remind them of the passage from SunTzu - "The Tiger uses all of it's strength, even when attacking
the lowly rabbit."


That's the best way to improve your chances in the battle of Midway. Lots of Carriers, Lots of Floatplanes,
lots of options.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Hello Paul,

a few thoughts:

Do you have sources to prove that the Japanese believed they sank Saratoga, Yorktown and Lexington before the battle of Midway?

As far as I know, the Zuiho was with the main body at Midway. The Junyo was actually not a slow escort carrier. I wrote above that she, together with Ryujo carried 66 aircraft for the AL operation.
It was also written above that carriers operated in pairs with their own air group, so that kinda leaves Zuikaku out of the picture.

In any case, the Japanese could have waited for a few more months exactly in order to meet all the US carriers. I thought this was their intention. A decisive, one time encounter that would leave the US with practically no deployable carrier force so they could cut off Australia and improve their defensive perimeter. Or wasn't that the Japanese strategy?

...and I still don't understand how could they send 2 carriers to the Coral sea when even by your intelligence estimation, they could encounter superior forces?
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12917
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 23 Jun 2022 11:34

paulrward wrote:
23 Jun 2022 08:05
Hello All ;

Mr Ljadw posted:
#46 by ljadw » 22 Jun 2022 21:52
I have to disagree with paulrward :the truth is that already before PH, isolationism
was dead . Totally .
Examples
Lend Lease
The Atlantic Fleet chasing the U Boats
The elections of November 1940 were between FDR and the Republican FDR ,Wendell
Willkie ,the candidate of the Eastern Establishment .
Economic sanctions against Germany and Japan
Conscription ( in peacetime ! )

Lend Lease -

to quote Wikipedia:
Opposition to the Lend-Lease bill was strongest among isolationist Republicans in
Congress, who feared the measure would be "the longest single step this nation has yet
taken toward direct involvement in the war abroad". When the House of Representatives
finally took a roll call vote on February 9, 1941, the 260 to 165 vote was largely along
party lines. Democrats voted 238 to 25 in favor and Republicans 24 in favor and 135 against.[18]

The vote in the Senate, which occurred on 9 March, revealed a similar partisan difference:
49 Democrats (79 percent) voted "aye" with only 13 Democrats (21 percent) voting "nay".
In contrast, 17 Republicans (63 percent) voted "nay" while 10 Senate Republicans
(37 percent) sided with the Democrats to pass the bill.[19]

The Atlantic Fleet Chasing U boats:

Not authorized by Congress - and Roosevelt took a LOT of heat for putting our sailors in harms way
after the loss of the Reuben James.


The Elections of 1940 -

It must be remembered that Roosevelt's election platform was:

“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said
this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into
any foreign wars."

- FDR, October 1940

This made him the anti war candidate, which was quite possibly why he got re-elected.


Economic sanctions against Germany and Japan

And large numbers of U.S. businesses began policies of avoiding the sanctions by selling goods
to third parties in neutral nations who simply trans-shipped the goods to Japan and Germany
via Spain.


Conscription ( in peacetime ! )

Go back and look at the votes in the U.S. Senate and House on the Selective Service Act. About
1/3 of each body voted AGAINST the Act - and as 1941 went on, it got increasingly unpopular.
Young men began seeking ways to avoid the draft, and there was a rush to get into jobs that
it was felt would be ' reserved ' occupations that made one ineligible to be drafted.

In addition, the first group of men had been inducted for only 12 months of active service,
starting in October, 1940. In late summer of 1941, a common phrase among the draftees
was OHIO - Over The Hill in October !

When the Congress extended the term of service to 30 months, the vote passed in the
Congress by only ONE VOTE ! This shows how unpopular the draft was rapidly becoming.


Now, all this changed on December 8th, 1941. But, had there been no Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor, you might have had a Red Wave election in 1942 that would have ensured the
United States would stay Neutral unless attacked.


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward
1 Lend Lease : the vote in Congress was
House 260-165
Senate 59-30
Thus easy win for FDR
Lend Lease was giving FDR a lot of popular votes : from farmers and from everyone who was trading with Britain
2 The Atlantic Fleet chasing the U Boats : no authorization from Congress was needed
3 That conscription was extended with one vote,does not prove that conscription was not popular ,but that the extension of conscription was not popular .
And,it is not so that 1/3 of Congress voted against conscription, but 2/3 of Congress voted for conscription .
4 What FDR said during the election campaign ,was totally irrelevant : people did not vote for him because of what he said during the campaign .
5 The FACT remains that the establishment of the GOP supported the foreign policy of FDR,otherwise Stimson and Knox would not have become secretary of war and the navy .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12917
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 23 Jun 2022 11:49

paulrward wrote:
23 Jun 2022 08:29
Hello All :

Mr. Huszar666 posted :
#47Post by Huszar666 » 22 Jun 2022 22:11

Just to make sure, everyone is on the same page:
the NEI was not under the controll of the "puppet regime" on the continent
(there wasn't such), but under the exile regime in London. So, whatever
government there was in the Netherlands proper could not sign over any
colony. Or the colony would just rise the middle finger.

Just to make sure that everyone is reading from the Same Book, there WAS a Puppet Regime,
it was the " Reichskommissariat Niederlande " , and was run by an Austrian named
Arthur Seyss-Inquart .

So, you go to Mr. Seyss-Inquart, have him fill out the necessary forms to transfer the NEI to
the Administration of Imperial Japan on a TEMPORARY BASIS , provide copies of the forms
to the Japanese, the United States, and to the Dutch Government In Exile in London.

( Governments in Exile as such sad little things - they start out with such high hopes, usually
in one of their old Embassies in a friendly nation, and then, as the money runs out, they have
to sell off the Embassy, and move to an Office in a High Rise, and then, as the money goes
dry, they end up in a ratty little apartment, running the Government in Exile out of a
Suitcase . )


So, Authorization in hand, ( waving the paper to dry the ink as quickly as possible ! ) the
Japanese send their forces down to the NEI. It is September, 1941. They send the four Kongos
and the two Nagatos, along with a quartet of Aircraft Carriers, a half dozen Heavy Cruisers,
a couple of Destroyer Squadrons, and every member of the SNLF who is available.

They inform the NEI navy ( five aging cruisers, a dozen or so destroyers, and an equal number of
Submarines ) that if there is any opposition to the Japanese Navy or their landing forces, they
will all be sunk.

The NEI Colonial Constabulary and the Military are informed that they have no hope of defeating
the Japanese, and that, for the sake of their families, they should go along with the inevitable.

The NEI Colonial Government is informed via agents who arrived a few weeks earlier as ' Tourists '
that if anyone in the NEi resists the Japanese, they and their families will be exterminated. The
technical experts who run the Oil Industry are informed that they will be given favorable
treatment as long as there is no damage or sabotage to the Oil Installations, and the Oil keeps
flowing.

The native people of the Indies are informed that this is a case of , " Meet The New Boss - Same
As The Old Boss "
and that as long as they cooperate, they will find that they are no longer second
class citizens to the Dutch - now they are all equal !


In effect, you do exactly what was done in French IndoChina.

How many Frenchmen raised their Middle Fingers to the Japanese in September of 1941 ?
And how did it turn out for them ?


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward
There was NO puppet regime in the Netherlands,there was one in Czechia ,led by Hacha .
Seys-Inquart was not accepted as head of the Dutch government, by no one in the Netherlands and outside the Netherlands .
The head of state (queen Wilhelmina ) was in Britain .
The same for the PM (De Geer ) and the government .
The GG and the administration of the DEI obeyed the orders of the head of state and the PM not the orders of the collaborationist movement of Mussert .
The war continued : German nationals and possible collaborators were in prison in the DEI.
In 1941 Japan demanded almost all oil exports of the DEI, the Dutch refused .But,even if they accepted the Japanese demands, Japan would still attack the US .

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5578
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 23 Jun 2022 17:30

Peter89 wrote:
22 Jun 2022 22:15
German goals were far from clear in the Soviet Union, and light years away from reality. They counted too much on the collapse of the Soviets, and didn't want to share the spoils. Japan had little to gain there, and exactly no intention to let another European player into the Pacific - the one which trained the Chinese, and whose colonies they took in the Great War -, so it is no wonder they didn't coordinate their strategy.
German goals in the Soviet Union are irrelevant to what I just said. IF the Soviet Union were to defeat Germany, then Japan was doomed. Period.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5578
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 23 Jun 2022 17:34

T. A. Gardner wrote:
22 Jun 2022 22:59
Actually, the best strategy would have been for the US player to avoid combat altogether and conserve the carriers while letting the Japanese take more losses trying for another strike on Pearl Harbor. They really weren't going to do much more damage than had already been inflicted, and the losses they would take--much heavier than the first two strikes since the US would now be fully alert and ready with what remained--would be hard to replace.
Agreed. I expected to see the US player concentrate his carriers roughly east or southeast of Oahu, using the island's air defenses as the glacis upon which the IJN raid would break. But that's not what he did. He doled them out one each along the routes of approach and used the carriers as the sentinels for Oahu. IMO, had Nimitz played this wargame in December 1941, it is possible that the US player might have made the same mistake, and in this case, the game is highly instructive and Nimitz would have come away with a solid principle - do not distribute your carriers as sentinels for Oahu.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5578
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 23 Jun 2022 17:39

paulrward wrote:
23 Jun 2022 08:29
So, Authorization in hand, ( waving the paper to dry the ink as quickly as possible ! ) the
Japanese send their forces down to the NEI. It is September, 1941. They send the four Kongos
and the two Nagatos, along with a quartet of Aircraft Carriers, a half dozen Heavy Cruisers,
a couple of Destroyer Squadrons, and every member of the SNLF who is available.

They inform the NEI navy ( five aging cruisers, a dozen or so destroyers, and an equal number of
Submarines ) that if there is any opposition to the Japanese Navy or their landing forces, they
will all be sunk.
Seems like a reasonable gamble.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5578
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by glenn239 » 23 Jun 2022 17:49

ljadw wrote:
23 Jun 2022 11:49
Seys-Inquart was not accepted as head of the Dutch government, by no one in the Netherlands and outside the Netherlands .
You're thinking the Imperial Japanese Navy would give a rat's ass who the British considered the official head of the Dutch government? Paul is outlining a gambit to after the NEI directly, where the US public could look at the competing claims of Dutch leadership and say, "not worth our intervention".

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12917
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 23 Jun 2022 18:36

Japan did between May 1940 and December 1941 business with the Dutch government and not with Seys Inquart .
There were no competing claims of Dutch leadership . There were 7000 Germans in the DEI, mostly in prison .
Point .
And for Tokyo,the words ''not worth our intervention '' were only postwar propaganda : the risk that an attack on the DEI would result in war with the US was too great :US were reinforcing their forces in the Philippines and these forces constituted a real danger for the oil transports between the DEI and Japan .
The gambit is not only a non sequitur but a wast .
Japan would have been very stupid not to attack the US .
The conquest of the DEI was not enough to guarantee Japan the oil it needed.The conquest of the Philippines also was needed .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12917
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by ljadw » 23 Jun 2022 18:40

glenn239 wrote:
23 Jun 2022 17:30
Peter89 wrote:
22 Jun 2022 22:15
German goals were far from clear in the Soviet Union, and light years away from reality. They counted too much on the collapse of the Soviets, and didn't want to share the spoils. Japan had little to gain there, and exactly no intention to let another European player into the Pacific - the one which trained the Chinese, and whose colonies they took in the Great War -, so it is no wonder they didn't coordinate their strategy.
German goals in the Soviet Union are irrelevant to what I just said. IF the Soviet Union were to defeat Germany, then Japan was doomed. Period.
There is no proof that Japan was doomed if the Soviet Union defeated Germany ,because the defeat of Germany does not mean war between the SU and Japan .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3528
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by Takao » 23 Jun 2022 18:45

glenn239 wrote:
23 Jun 2022 17:49
You're thinking the Imperial Japanese Navy would give a rat's ass who the British considered the official head of the Dutch government? Paul is outlining a gambit to after the NEI directly, where the US public could look at the competing claims of Dutch leadership and say, "not worth our intervention".
Paul ignores the fact that the Germans also coveted the DEI...You know "controlling the Dutch Government" and all that. So, if the Germans are "winning" the war, they are highly unlikely to sign over their prize over to the Japanese.

Paul also ignores the fact that the Japanese were directly negotiating with the DEI from late-1940 through June, 1941.
Thus establishing the fact that the Hague & Germany have zero control politically over the DEI.

As much as Paul revels in using the epithet "freewheeling Franklin" around, the Franklin in Paul's fantasies is quite benign.
The only "freewheeling" one seems to be Paul with his outlandish fantasies.
Last edited by Takao on 23 Jun 2022 19:31, edited 1 time in total.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

Post by paulrward » 23 Jun 2022 19:21

Hello All :

Mr. Takao posted :
#59 by Takao » 23 Jun 2022 10:45

Paul ignores the fact that the Germans also coveted the DEI...You know "controlling the
Dutch Government" and all that. So, if the Germans are "winning" the war, they are highly
unlikely to sign over their prize over to the Japanese.
I did NOT ignore it ! I merely considered that a German Government that could see further than the
end of it's own johnson would realize that trading French Indochina and the NEI for ALL of the Soviet
Union west of the Urals, including the Baku Oil Fields and the Granary that is the Ukraine, would be
a VERY good trade ! But, perhaps Mr. Takao is ..... nearsighted......


Mr. Ljadw posted :
#57 by ljadw » 23 Jun 2022 10:36
Japan did between May 1940 and December 1941 business with the Dutch government and
not with Seys Inquart .
There were no competing claims of Dutch leadership . There were 7000 Germans in the DEI,
mostly in prison .
And for Tokyo,the words ''not worth our intervention '' were only postwar propaganda : the risk
that an attack on the DEI would result in war with the US was too great :US were reinforcing
their forces in the Philippines and these forces constituted a real danger for the oil transports
between the DEI and Japan .
The gambit is not only a non sequitur but a waste .
Japan would have been very stupid not to attack the US .
The conquest of the DEI was not enough to guarantee Japan the oil it needed.The conquest of
the Philippines also was needed .

I am going to dismantle this screed clause by clause:

Japan did between May 1940 and December 1941 business with the Dutch government and
not with Seys Inquart .


Yes, and after the invasion of French IndoChina, the Dutch cut off their oil shipments to Japan, at
the behest of the USA. That means, since Japan is no longer getting any oil from Queen Wilhemina,
they don't need her anymore. When the cow stops giving milk, you make hamburger.....


There were no competing claims of Dutch leadership . There were 7000 Germans in the DEI,
mostly in prison .


" Hey, Adolph - you sign the NEI over to me, and I will free the 7000 Germans they are holding in
prison ! " Mr. Ljadw, didn't you think about this one at all ?


And for Tokyo,the words ''not worth our intervention '' were only postwar propaganda : the
risk that an attack on the DEI would result in war with the US was too great :US were reinforcing
their forces in the Philippines and these forces constituted a real danger for the oil transports
between the DEI and Japan .


So, let me get this straight: You think that Japan will NOT invade the NEI for fear of starting a war
with the USA, and instead attacks Pearl Harbor and invades the NEI, starting a war with the USA. Uh,
yeah..... sure...... I get it.......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwSts2s4ba4


The gambit is not only a non sequitur but a waste .

Yeah, kind of like invading Finland, the Baltics, and Bessarabia......... A gambit is a waste ONLY if it
fails, otherwise it results in a gain in material ( pieces ) or even a Checkmate !

Japan would have been very stupid not to attack the US .

Right..... Japan would be STUPID not to attack a nation twice it's size, with unlimited resources in
terms of fuel and metals, and a huge pool of military aged men to draw on.
Just like the Soviet Union would be STUPID not to invade Afghanistan........


The conquest of the DEI was not enough to guarantee Japan the oil it needed.The conquest of
the Philippines also was needed .


The NEI would give them at least 4.5 million barrels per year. That is enough, with their accumulated
supply, to keep Japan going until about 1948. By which time the Philippines have gained their independence,
and Japan can politely invite them to join the GEACPS. Politely.

There is no proof that Japan was doomed if the Soviet Union defeated Germany ,
because the defeat of Germany does not mean war between the SU and Japan .
And yet, as soon as they had finished off the Germans in Europe, the Soviets attacked Japan and began
to beat the sushi out of them.



Mr. Ljadw, many people have wondered how the Germans could actually believe that the Russians were so
incompetent and stupid that they could be conquered very easily. Thank you for clarifying this for me.



Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

Return to “What if”