That doesn't matter because Japan cannot defeat the United States in any case. The only question is whether a Japanese war with the USSR would ease Japan's transition into the US orbit.
Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
The point is that Japan refused a transition into the US orbit ,which meant to become a US satellite .
Besides : Japan had not to defeat the US,the US had to defeat Japan .
Besides : Japan had not to defeat the US,the US had to defeat Japan .
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
Excluding an early Pearl Harbor scenario, Japan's best bet if entering the war was to attack the Soviet Union in the period 1941-1942. If victorious Tokyo could negotiate with the US on the basis of the US focus on Germany. If the war was a failure, Tokyo could negotiate with Washington on the basis of the Soviet Army establishing hegemony in Asia if the US did not agree to negotiations.
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
The war would be a failure and Japan would be occupied by the US, not by the Soviets,because when Japan was defeated in 1939 by the Soviets,there was no Soviet hegemony in Asia ,thus the same would happen in 1941-1942 .
- T. A. Gardner
- Member
- Posts: 3546
- Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
- Location: Arizona
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
And, what happens if the US, Britain, and the Dutch put a full embargo on Japan as a result of that declaration? Without rubber, oil, manganese, and other vital resources the Japanese economy collapses. Japan couldn't go a year into a war with Russia facing an embargo by those nations, their war industry would be reduced to ruins.glenn239 wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 18:35Excluding an early Pearl Harbor scenario, Japan's best bet if entering the war was to attack the Soviet Union in the period 1941-1942. If victorious Tokyo could negotiate with the US on the basis of the US focus on Germany. If the war was a failure, Tokyo could negotiate with Washington on the basis of the Soviet Army establishing hegemony in Asia if the US did not agree to negotiations.
Would the IJN be willing to sink US shipping sending war materials to Russia in the Pacific? They certainly weren't willing to sink Russian shipping doing that in support of Germany.
If the war fails--which is the most likely scenario--then Russia is in a position to occupy some or all of Manchukuo. That too is disastrous for the Japanese.
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
Japan practically underwent a military coup, so it is very unlikely that without an utter defeat (one that shakes the population or at least the public psyché) they could undergo a major shift in foreign policy.
Japan and its politico-military leadership was systematically encouraged by the west in the past 70 years, so they developed an idea of invincibility. As long as they were operating in China, the world wouldn't react. But as soon as they'd compromise the Soviet war effort - practically the best if not the only chance to challenge German dominance on mainland Europe -, they'd cross the Rubicon.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
Japan's fundamental problem was the Sino-Japanese war. They simply couldn't take or defeat China on their own. And the West didn't want China become a Japanese fief. Prominent / visionary European politicians like Kossuth saw that China, once the most magnificent powerhouse in the world will have to be restored by the West because it causes a maelstorm of power vacuum.
I tend to agree with many of glenn's notions regarding the PTO and Japan. It was either an early all-out against the US / British&co. which could keep them at bay for the time window in which Soviet defeat and an Eurasian sphere of influence was remotely imagineable.
However, that would require concerted Axis efforts against the British, then against the Soviets. And sadly we have primary sources which confirm that neither of that's gonna happen. But as a what-if, it's not bad, like the Soviets join the Axis what-if.
I tend to agree with many of glenn's notions regarding the PTO and Japan. It was either an early all-out against the US / British&co. which could keep them at bay for the time window in which Soviet defeat and an Eurasian sphere of influence was remotely imagineable.
However, that would require concerted Axis efforts against the British, then against the Soviets. And sadly we have primary sources which confirm that neither of that's gonna happen. But as a what-if, it's not bad, like the Soviets join the Axis what-if.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
If Japan attacked Russia, it would be at the mercy of the US : a war with Russia would exhaust very fast Japan's oil reserves .
OTOH : if Japan attacked the US and Britain ( before or after Barbarossa ) ,Russia would remain neutral.
In April 1941 Japan made '' peace '' with the Soviets, there was no treaty, no pact with the US, because the US ''peace ''conditions were unacceptable for Japan . Russia, OTOH, had no demands for Japan : Stalin did not demand the Japanese withdrawal of China.
Last point : the What-if of the Soviets joining the Axis is totally ridiculous :there was no need for Stalin to join capitalist Germany and capitalist Italy in a war against capitalist Britain,France and USA .
About the PTO : before and after PH, Japan did not oppose to US/disguised US merchant ships sailing to Russia with supplies .
If they had stopped these merchant ships, the disadvantage for Russia would be very limited,while the disadvantages for Japan would hurt her strongly : end of the trade with Russia,or even war with Russia .
OTOH : if Japan attacked the US and Britain ( before or after Barbarossa ) ,Russia would remain neutral.
In April 1941 Japan made '' peace '' with the Soviets, there was no treaty, no pact with the US, because the US ''peace ''conditions were unacceptable for Japan . Russia, OTOH, had no demands for Japan : Stalin did not demand the Japanese withdrawal of China.
Last point : the What-if of the Soviets joining the Axis is totally ridiculous :there was no need for Stalin to join capitalist Germany and capitalist Italy in a war against capitalist Britain,France and USA .
About the PTO : before and after PH, Japan did not oppose to US/disguised US merchant ships sailing to Russia with supplies .
If they had stopped these merchant ships, the disadvantage for Russia would be very limited,while the disadvantages for Japan would hurt her strongly : end of the trade with Russia,or even war with Russia .
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
Seriously people. No US merchant ships, disguised or otherwise, were carrying Lend-Lease supplies to Russia.
There were US merchant ships that were first transfered to the Soviet Union, then used to carry LL goods, but they were doing it as Soviet owned & Soviet flagged ships.
Yes, the Japanese did stop & search these ships to make sure they were not carrying war material through Japanese territorial waters. Any war material was offloaded before entering Japanese territorial waters and shipped overland to Soviet railheads.
There were US merchant ships that were first transfered to the Soviet Union, then used to carry LL goods, but they were doing it as Soviet owned & Soviet flagged ships.
Yes, the Japanese did stop & search these ships to make sure they were not carrying war material through Japanese territorial waters. Any war material was offloaded before entering Japanese territorial waters and shipped overland to Soviet railheads.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 00:17
- Location: Israel
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
At 1.30 in this clip, the general tells Roosevelt: "If the Japanese invade us right now, they could penetrate as far as Chicago before we could stop them!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFhY6IaUJ40
Were these words actually said, and was this the actual paltriness of US defences at that time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFhY6IaUJ40
Were these words actually said, and was this the actual paltriness of US defences at that time?
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
God, what a fantastic outcome that would have been for Japan, that with its merchant fleet, cities, and industries virtually intact, that a western embargo would force the military to relinquish power back to the civilian government and make peace with the Americans in 1943.T. A. Gardner wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 19:17And, what happens if the US, Britain, and the Dutch put a full embargo on Japan as a result of that declaration? Without rubber, oil, manganese, and other vital resources the Japanese economy collapses. Japan couldn't go a year into a war with Russia facing an embargo by those nations, their war industry would be reduced to ruins.
Why would the US send war material to Japanese forces occupying Vladivostok?Would the IJN be willing to sink US shipping sending war materials to Russia in the Pacific? They certainly weren't willing to sink Russian shipping doing that in support of Germany.
Not just Manchuria, all of Korea, (south Korea will not exist), Hong Kong and Taiwan will be swept up into the Communist orbit.If the war fails--which is the most likely scenario--then Russia is in a position to occupy some or all of Manchukuo. That too is disastrous for the Japanese.
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
Once concept that seems difficult to convey, but is crucial for understanding the nearly hopeless situation Japan was in, was that it was far better for Japan to gamble spectacularly for all the marbles and lose the war quickly than it was to drag things out and get into a brutal war of attrition. Too many posters seem to think that the point of the war for Japan is to lose at as late a date as possible.Peter89 wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 19:47I tend to agree with many of glenn's notions regarding the PTO and Japan. It was either an early all-out against the US / British&co. which could keep them at bay for the time window in which Soviet defeat and an Eurasian sphere of influence was remotely imagineable.
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
Please stop the stupid right now.Von Schadewald wrote: ↑29 Jun 2022, 00:48At 1.30 in this clip, the general tells Roosevelt: "If the Japanese invade us right now, they could penetrate as far as Chicago before we could stop them!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFhY6IaUJ40
Were these words actually said, and was this the actual paltriness of US defences at that time?
Tapping on the hull was from the battleship USS OKLAHOMA.
I am uncertain why the first actor says Arizona. I am even more uncertain why the actors playing the knowledgeable military advisors did not correct the first actor on his mistake.
It was at this point I stopped watching...
What Hollyweird movie. Is this?
Last edited by Takao on 29 Jun 2022, 02:01, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10056
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Best Japanese strategic choice with hindsight
Matches my first thoughts.
T. A. Gardner wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 19:17And, what happens if the US, Britain, and the Dutch put a full embargo on Japan as a result of that declaration? Without rubber, oil, manganese, and other vital resources the Japanese economy collapses. Japan couldn't go a year into a war with Russia facing an embargo by those nations, their war industry would be reduced to ruins.glenn239 wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 18:35Excluding an early Pearl Harbor scenario, Japan's best bet if entering the war was to attack the Soviet Union in the period 1941-1942. If victorious Tokyo could negotiate with the US on the basis of the US focus on Germany. If the war was a failure, Tokyo could negotiate with Washington on the basis of the Soviet Army establishing hegemony in Asia if the US did not agree to negotiations.
Would the IJN be willing to sink US shipping sending war materials to Russia in the Pacific? They certainly weren't willing to sink Russian shipping doing that in support of Germany.
If the war fails--which is the most likely scenario--then Russia is in a position to occupy some or all of Manchukuo. That too is disastrous for the Japanese.