Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight

[OpanaPointer]

“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

Yep, we waited way too long. But FDR wasn't the only one doing the "preparedness" schtick. The Republican Party platform for 1940 elections include the word "defense" about ten times. The isolationist were loosing group almost daily. The Committee to Defend America First had a hard time distinguishing "Defend America" from "Interventionism".

Bit of trivia: Wendell Willkie, the GOP candidate for US President, was born and raised in Elwood, Indiana, population just over 10,000 in 1940. Willkie was known for his opposition to the KKK, said organization had strong presence in Elwood. I lived in the next town east when I was in grade school. There was a sign telling a certain group to "don't let the sun shine on your head here!" Even the GOP couldn't stomach them.

[T. A. Gardner]

Just a few notes on the Oahu fuel tank thing...

Would the Japanese also attack the commercial fuel farm at Honolulu? Yes, there was a fuel farm there for civilian shipping...

If the USN needed storage, temporary or permanent, they could do what they did historically: Requisition a number of suitable barges from Mississippi river transport use and bring them to Hawaii. Historically, the USN did this as part of their mobile base planning, with the typical fuel barge they pulled--along with more they had manufactured in a matter of months--the capacity was 66,000 bbl. each.

There would have been a firefighting effort, and it is highly likely some tanks would survive the Japanese attacks in any case. Some like the ones on Ford Island, aren't all that obvious.

Then there's the Red Hill fuel tanks under construction. That project could have been pushed to an earlier completion in whole or part for storage, and it was unassailable by air attack.

So, the Japanese would be wasting their time taking out the tank farms.

On the DEI:

The Dutch would not have let the Japanese occupy them on a demand. Trying to take the DEI with say a half dozen battalions of SNLF troops is utterly absurd on its face. It is also absolutely clear that the British and Americans will jump into the war if Japan tries this.

As for the PI, the slowness of US build up there had far more to do with available shipping space in peacetime than anything else. B-17's were flown out sans armament to save weight, drag, and make them more fuel efficient, that's all. Once they arrived, they installed the armament in short order and made the planes combat ready.

[thaddeus_c]

The important thing about the tanks at Pearl is that the IJN pilots didn't attack them.

If they had, they probably would have put the USN out of the war for the better part of 18 months.
At least that was the estimate of Admiral Husband Kimmel, who stated : " It would have forced
the withdrawal of the Fleet to the West Coast because there wasn't any oil anywhere else out
there to keep the Fleet operating. " ( Pearl Harbor Hearings, 6/2812)


Real Admiral Layton's book, ' And I Was There ' . On page 498, Captain
Roger Pineau recounts a meeting he had with Admiral Tomioka in 1949, during which they discussed the
bombing of the Pearl Harbor Fuel Tanks. Captain Pineau's estimate of the amount of time that would
have immobilized the USN ? Twelve to Eighteen Months !

what could Japan do with their "window of opportunity?"

[ljadw]

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 .

The Soviet Union attacked Japan shortly after the defeat of Germany. So for Japan, it didn't matter what German objectives were or whether or not their interests were served by war with the USSR. If the Soviets defeated the Germans, the Soviets would then attack the Japanese. So Japan attacking the USSR in 1942 was a pre-emptive war.

NO .
Before 1941 the Soviets had a lot of opportunities to attack Japan (Germany was too weak to be a threat to Russia /Germany was not interested in the Far East /Germany was hostile to Japan ) and Russia had no reason/no need to attack Japan :August 1939 : treaty between Ribbentrop and Molotov ,result was that there was no war between Russia and Japan .
The war between Russia and Japan was caused by what happened in the Far East ,which was that Japan was loosing/had lost . What happened in Europe had nothing to do with the attack on Japan in August 1945 .
When Japan invaded China ,Russia did nothing because this invasion was weakening Japan and China ,both rivals of the Soviet Union .
If Japan had won against the US and Russia had won against Germany, why would Russia attack Japan ?
Give me ONE reason why Russia would attack Japan .

[ljadw]

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.

So the Japanese cannot attempt the gambit because the Germans might say no? The Germans might also say yes. After all, Hitler was desperate to get the Japanese into the war, and if he refused this request, Japan might bow to US demands.

The same Hitler had explicitly forbidden to inform Japan about the Barbarossa Plans .

[ljadw]

The Japanese-German strategic cooperation was far from evident. I seriously doubt that any of them was interested in the other's ultimate victory, at least before their common enemies formed a grand coalition to reshape the world. I also don't see Japan to sacrifice its best armies to help the Germans.

I didn't suggest that Axis cooperation was their strong suit. I said that if the USSR defeated Germany, Japan was doomed. Therefore, after the completion of the 1st Phase operations, in the spring of 1942, the Japanese should have attacked the USSR in the Far East. This would have two possible outcomes. Either the Axis would manage to overpower the Soviets, or the Soviets would hold off their attackers and then start to make gains. Either outcome was better for Japan than what happened historically.

On the other hand I doubt that the Anglo-Saxon / Soviet alliance was unbreakable (it did break immediately after the war and never came to be before their common enemies pushed them into one fold).

The British were a secondary factor. The main question was whether the strategic cooperation between the Soviets and Americans could be broken. After Barbarossa, I have my doubts.

Now we know that the Germans needed more help from their partners to defeat the SU, but it wasn't obvious in 1941; not to them, not to their partners, not to the outside world.

Sorry, I thought the topic was, "Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight".

Japan was also doomed if Germany had defeated the Soviets .Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the outcome of Barbarossa .

[Takao]

NO .

That is erroneous.

Before 1941 the Soviets had a lot of opportunities to attack Japan (Germany was too weak to be a threat to Russia /Germany was not interested in the Far East /Germany was hostile to Japan )

Germany was not hostile to Japan. Hence the 1936 Anti-Comintern Pact.

Opportunity is meaningless without motive.

and Russia had no reason/no need to attack Japan :August 1939 : treaty between Ribbentrop and Molotov ,result was that there was no war between Russia and Japan .

Ah, no...That would be the April, 1941 Russo-Japanese Treaty of Nonagression.

The war between Russia and Japan was caused by what happened in the Far East ,which was that Japan was loosing/had lost . What happened in Europe had nothing to do with the attack on Japan in August 1945 .

Untrue. Stalin said he would fight the Japanese 3 months after Germany was defeated.

When Japan invaded China ,Russia did nothing because this invasion was weakening Japan and China ,both rivals of the Soviet Union .

Rewriting the dictionary?

The Soviets sent hundreds of millions of dollars of war material to China to be used against the Japanese. The Soviets sent thousands of Soviet troops to act as military advisors to train the Chinese Army. The Soviet Union sent roughly 2,000 pilots to fight the Japanese and train the Chinese pilots.

Nothing? That is nothing but a bald-faced lie.

If Japan had won against the US and Russia had won against Germany, why would Russia attack Japan ?
Give me ONE reason why Russia would attack Japan .

Because they were a threat.

[ljadw]

In 1944 Stalin agreed to sell 50000 tons of oil to Japan.
If in 1945 Japan with its destroyed economy and cities was a threat to Russia, it was also a threat to Russia in 1944 and before 1939 :and before 1939 Stalin did not attack Japan .
And Stalin was a politician, thus what he said was irrelevant.
After the German-Russian treaty of August 1939, Stalin had all opportunities to attack Japan : who would have prevented him, and he did not attack Japan .
This proves that what happened in Europe had no influence on what happened in the Far East .
The only reason why Stalin attacked Japan in 1945 was that Japan was already defeated and that he wanted his part of the
booty .
If Japan had won,Stalin would do nothing .
If there was no PH Stalin would do nothing : he would not attack Japan .

[ljadw]

The same Stalin sold the Eastern Chinese Railway to Japan , and his pilots ( whose activities were mainly propaganda ) were withdrawn in 1939 .
There was also a German military mission in China and Germany also was selling weapons to the KMT, for only one reason : to make money .
The war between China and Japan (which Japan could not win ) was very good for the Soviets :both countries were weakening each other,while the Soviets were trading with both countries .
Stalin did not attack Japan because there was no longer a German threat ,but because there was no longer a Japanese threat .

[Takao]

In 1944 Stalin agreed to sell 50000 tons of oil to Japan.

This, according to you, is irrelevant. Stalin is a politician and what he says is irrelevant.

If in 1945 Japan with its destroyed economy and cities was a threat to Russia, it was also a threat to Russia in 1944 and before 1939 :and before 1939 Stalin did not attack Japan .

You asked for ONE reason why Stalin would attack Japan.
I gave you one reason why Stalin would attack Japan.
How many reasons do you want now?

And Stalin was a politician, thus what he said was irrelevant.

That makes this whole line of reasoning irrelevant.

After the German-Russian treaty of August 1939, Stalin had all opportunities to attack Japan : who would have prevented him, and he did not attack Japan .

Opportunities are irrelevant without motive.

What is/are Stalin's motive/motives for attacking Japan 1939-1944

This proves that what happened in Europe had no influence on what happened in the Far East .

Actually, it disproves it.

The only reason why Stalin attacked Japan in 1945 was that Japan was already defeated and that he wanted his part of the
booty .

Japan was not yet defeated...If Japan was defeated, they would have surrendered and the war would be over.

If Japan had won,Stalin would do nothing .
If there was no PH Stalin would do nothing : he would not attack Japan .

Neither are provable, because such events never transpired. Thus, it is all pure speculation on your part.

[Takao]

The same Stalin sold the Eastern Chinese Railway to Japan ,

Proving?

and his pilots ( whose activities were mainly propaganda ) were withdrawn in 1939 .

A lie. They were hardly there for propaganda. Nor were they withdrawn in 1939.

There was also a German military mission in China and Germany also was selling weapons to the KMT, for only one reason : to make money .

Um no. Germany was not making money selling weapons to China. You see, you cannot make money, when you are not being paid in money.

[Peter89]

How about establishing a rule for the sake of civility where we say "wrong" or "I don't agree" instead of "that's a lie"?

[Takao]

How about establishing a rule for the sake of civility where we say "wrong" or "I don't agree" instead of "that's a lie"?

I play by ljadw's rules.

How about "a conscious falsification of the truth."

[Peter89]

How about establishing a rule for the sake of civility where we say "wrong" or "I don't agree" instead of "that's a lie"?

I play by ljadw's rules.

How about "a conscious falsification of the truth."

I think his logic doesn't always work as it should, but I doubt that he or anyone would lie intentionally, because I don't see why or how that is lucrative.

Yes, people can be wrong, stupid, stubborn and all that, but we are not talking in front of a court room so it makes no sense "to lie".

[OpanaPointer]

Regarding fuel for the US Fleet at Oahu, tankers would have, if needed, directly fueled the ships. I mentioned the 30 day and 90 day resupplying of the tanks around Pearl. Two more on a continuous cycle could have been used for direct replenishment. Of course this would have been exploited after a crash program to finish it.