What's new

Japan world war 2: A mistaken Strategy

sigatoka

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
0
While the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and eviction of U.S. forces from Philippines is considered a disaster in terms of strategy, I will argue that Japan may have waged a more effective war considering her special advantages and weaknesses. The use of force against the United States in the attack on peal harbor was the result of a belief that Japan required the use of resources of South East Asia; the acquisition of which through force would result inevitably in conflict with the U.S. The preemptive strike against the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor and the eviction of forces from Philippines was designed to give Japan the ability to quickly integrate the resource rich south east asian regions and establish a perimeter defense against the U.S. By aiming to inflict an unacceptable level of attrition on subsequent U.S. attempt to evict Japan from these regions; it was hoped that Japan through formal diplomatic acknowledgment or through an armistice would end hostilities with an enlarged, stronger empire.

Such a risky enterprise however is inconsistent with the strategic decisions of Japan's leadership. Firstly, the continuing expansion into China and later Burma attempting to break the British hold over India deprived the Japanese Army of crucial resources against a vastly superior ground forces at the disposal of the U.S. It also lacked coherency, it was the U.S. and not British that posed the greatest military threat to Japan.

A second perhaps more controversial criticism is the excessive resources devoted to the Imperial Navy at the expense of the Army and to a lesser degree the Air force. While the reliance on battleships is considered an inefficient allocation of resources, from Japan's perspective the inordinate resources allocated to aircraft carriers may also be considered an error. While aircraft carriers proved far more capable than battleships, they too were expensive in resources. Considering that Japan had roughly a tenth of the industrial output of the U.S., it proved disastrous.

Once the U.S. was evicted from Philippines and Western powers generally from South-East Asia, Japan would have been better served decisively shifting production priority from the Navy towards the Air-force and Army. With island hopping capabilities, there was no pressing requirement for further aircraft carriers to move aircraft within the empire. The shift in resources would have endowed the imperial Army of Japan with the requisite tanks, heavy guns and anti-aircraft artillery that it sorely lacked in engagements against the subsequent U.S. invasions and allowed the Japanese air-force to deny air-superiority to the opponent.

The lack of this shift in priorities was further exposed by expansion of Japan into the Islands such as Solomon's. Once the resource rich Dutch and English colonies of South-East Asia was conquered, further increasing the perimeter of the empire and spreading thin of inadequately equipped ground forces that was difficult to logistically supply with rations was ill-considered.

While the industrial capacity of the U.S. was a fearsome threat to Japan, greater coherence in strategy and more judicious use of resources would have assisted in increasing the cost to the U.S. of a military solution.
 
While the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and eviction of U.S. forces from Philippines is considered a disaster in terms of strategy, I will argue that Japan may have waged a more effective war considering her special advantages and weaknesses. The use of force against the United States in the attack on peal harbor was the result of a belief that Japan required the use of resources of South East Asia; the acquisition of which through force would result inevitably in conflict with the U.S. The preemptive strike against the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor and the eviction of forces from Philippines was designed to give Japan the ability to quickly integrate the resource rich south east asian regions and establish a perimeter defense against the U.S. By aiming to inflict an unacceptable level of attrition on subsequent U.S. attempt to evict Japan from these regions; it was hoped that Japan through formal diplomatic acknowledgment or through an armistice would end hostilities with an enlarged, stronger empire.

Such a risky enterprise however is inconsistent with the strategic decisions of Japan's leadership. Firstly, the continuing expansion into China and later Burma attempting to break the British hold over India deprived the Japanese Army of crucial resources against a vastly superior ground forces at the disposal of the U.S. It also lacked coherency, it was the U.S. and not British that posed the greatest military threat to Japan.

A second perhaps more controversial criticism is the excessive resources devoted to the Imperial Navy at the expense of the Army and to a lesser degree the Air force. While the reliance on battleships is considered an inefficient allocation of resources, from Japan's perspective the inordinate resources allocated to aircraft carriers may also be considered an error. While aircraft carriers proved far more capable than battleships, they too were expensive in resources. Considering that Japan had roughly a tenth of the industrial output of the U.S., it proved disastrous.

Once the U.S. was evicted from Philippines and Western powers generally from South-East Asia, Japan would have been better served decisively shifting production priority from the Navy towards the Air-force and Army. With island hopping capabilities, there was no pressing requirement for further aircraft carriers to move aircraft within the empire. The shift in resources would have endowed the imperial Army of Japan with the requisite tanks, heavy guns and anti-aircraft artillery that it sorely lacked in engagements against the subsequent U.S. invasions and allowed the Japanese air-force to deny air-superiority to the opponent.

The lack of this shift in priorities was further exposed by expansion of Japan into the Islands such as Solomon's. Once the resource rich Dutch and English colonies of South-East Asia was conquered, further increasing the perimeter of the empire and spreading thin of inadequately equipped ground forces that was difficult to logistically supply with rations was ill-considered.

While the industrial capacity of the U.S. was a fearsome threat to Japan, greater coherence in strategy and more judicious use of resources would have assisted in increasing the cost to the U.S. of a military solution.

It is easy to be judgmental in hindsight. Considering that US would ( & did) pose the only danger to Japanese intentions in 42 it was somewhat correct to put them out of the way by the preemptive strike @ Pearl harbour. However, not getting the carriers was bad.

As regards changing strategy as highlighted above, the brits had little to offer in SE Asia then in form of resistance. Threats if any would have been from the sea. What Mc Arthur did later was also mostly dependent on sea routes. Therefore dependence on carriers to detect & destroy the enemy while at a distance was a sound option.

Only, the "Co Prosperity sphere" kept getting larger as once an Island was captured, the next became important too.. thus stretching troops like the mountains do.
 
It is easy to be judgmental in hindsight. Considering that US would ( & did) pose the only danger to Japanese intentions in 42 it was somewhat correct to put them out of the way by the preemptive strike @ Pearl harbour. However, not getting the carriers was bad.

As regards changing strategy as highlighted above, the brits had little to offer in SE Asia then in form of resistance. Threats if any would have been from the sea. What Mc Arthur did later was also mostly dependent on sea routes. Therefore dependence on carriers to detect & destroy the enemy while at a distance was a sound option.

Only, the "Co Prosperity sphere" kept getting larger as once an Island was captured, the next became important too.. thus stretching troops like the mountains do.

Being judgmental would be to judge any military action by Japan against the U.S. a disaster considering the vast difference in industrial capabilities between the two nations.

The presence of American carriers in pearl harbor would have made for high value targets but simultaneously would have made the task of the Japanese carrier forces more difficult since they would have had to face the airpower of the American carriers in their attacks. Pearl harbor represented a weakening of American naval power in the pacific but more than that represented that Battleships were vulnerable to attack from the air and required better anti-air capabilities.

The resource rich south east asian region was the prize for Japan, there was no need to set forth and meet the Americans in the open sea for a decisive battle. Japanese naval forces operating close to islands of South East Asia would have access to better air support from land based air squadrons and would not have unnecessarily lengthened supply lines as occurred due to their ever expanding defensive perimeter stretching all the way to Pacific Islands. This led to losses that Japan could ill afford against an opponent better able to sustain such. The battle for Iwo Jima and Okinawa demonstrated that the by then crippled Japanese forces fighting along a much compressed front could inflict far greater casualties than could be achieved in the Solomon Islands when Japan still had access to far greater resources.

It is to be admitted that there is a continuum of choices available, to conquer no new territory and defend a very small perimeter or to conquer large swathes of the Asian and Pacific region that can only be defended lightly. The decision to conquer one region should not in itself compel the conquering of ten. Each subsequent expansion must be judged on it's own merit, the resources that can be gained balanced against the ability of the armed forces to defend it effectively. If the South East Asian region was a target rich in natural resources, that should not in itself be a reason for mindless expansion into far flung Pacific Islands that had spread Japanese defense so thin. While the justification advanced was to knock out Australia, this was ill conceived as Australia had a minor industrial capacity to wage war against Japan and its resources could not be accessed regardless unless Japan could mount an invasion which it did not have the forces for.
 
I think, sigatoka's opinion that the Japanese made a blunder by invading Hawaii is resulted from the end result of that Pacific war, whereby the Japanese lost that war. Japan was a very poor and very underdeveloped country until the Meiji REstoration (Revolution) in 1860s. Since that time, it has always been the dream of Japanese to catch up with the west.

When it became a little industrialized and gained a little military strength in the early 20th Century, it started to behave like a western colonial power. It captured the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan, and annexed these two territories. These two events brought Japan to the direct rivalry of and conflict with the western powers like UK, USA and Russia.

To safeguard its interest in NE asia, Rusiia sent its Black sea Fleet to the Sea of Japan. In the ensuing naval war, the Japanese fleet annihilated the world's strongest naval fleet in 1904-1905 in the battle of Tsushima.

This event completely changed the psychology of the Japanese.They started to expand inside China where England was in upper hand. They established a puppet kingdom in Manchuria of China. So, the following few decades saw the escalation of Japanese control of the territories around them. This was completely unacceptable by the western powers.

In protest of certain event, USA cut Japan's oil supply sea-route from Indonesia. In return, Japan expelled McArthur's troops from the Phillipines. He retorted, "I shall return." Yes, he did return and it was to the mainland Japan at the end of Pacific War.

Hawaii lies almost half the distance between Japan and USA. It was great that Japan decided to invade the strategically located US naval base there, so that the USA cannot again return to east asia. The mission was certainly a success because Japan sent its aircraft carriers to do the assault. Hundreds of planes participated in the attack and the naval base was completely crippled. But, at the end of the day, USA returned to east asia.

This event gained Japan an uninterrupted sea route to get oil supply from Indonesia, which was already under their control after they had expelled Holland from there. With this oil power, it expelled the British from Singapore, Malaysia and Burma, and France from Indo-China.

Yes, Japan expanded too far. But, Japan was to be defeated by this way or that. Because, the Japanese were very abusive in all their possessions making the locals to go against them. Even if they had just concentrated their colonies in Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria, then also they would have been expelled from those territories because USA involved itself in an offensive war against Japan. Finally, it was defeated.

Whatever may be the self-centered character of Japanese, it is the only Asian country who fought simultaneously against the western powers like England, Holland, USA, Russia and France. At the same time, it fought against both the nationalist and communist Chinese. The Japanese people have some ggod qualities that have made their country also the economic superpower after the war. It is only second to the USA.
 
Last edited:
Sigatoka : Join date oct 2005

Might be the oldest member alive after webby :rofl::rofl:

Welcome back. Webby must publish a list of seniority by the date of joining.

(I know by the way he'll never do so:azn:)

And yes I almost forgot this is a great article. On the other hand I am one of those who really think Attack on Pearl Harbour a misadventure. But it was really surprising and successful attack.

KIT Out
 
Sigatoka : Join date oct 2005

Might be the oldest member alive after webby :rofl::rofl:

Welcome back. Webby must publish a list of seniority by the date of joining.

(I know by the way he'll never do so:azn:)

And yes I almost forgot this is a great article. On the other hand I am one of those who really think Attack on Pearl Harbour a misadventure. But it was really surprising and successful attack.

KIT Out
Could you give reasons for your opinion that Pearl Harbour was a great mistake by the Japanese? I have a different opinion than you, which I have explained in my previous post. I would like to add that an US naval base at a mid point in Pacific was a security threat to Japan and its Co-prosperity region in Asia.

Surely, US public opinion went in favour of joining the war because of this attack, but its destruction by the Japanese also made USA a weak power in the asian drama, though this was reversed by the USA at a later time.
 
Could you give reasons for your opinion that Pearl Harbour was a great mistake by the Japanese? I have a different opinion than you, which I have explained in my previous post. I would like to add that an US naval base at a mid point in Pacific was a security threat to Japan and its Co-prosperity region in Asia.

Above all as you have mentioned this enraged US to declare war against Japan. I do not agree to anyone who says that without an attack on Pearl Harbour, US govt. or congress would have agreed to declare war against Japan. An attack on Pearl Harbour seems to have no reason in particular.

Surely, US public opinion went in favour of joining the war because of this attack, but its destruction by the Japanese also made USA a weak power in the asian drama, though this was reversed by the USA at a later time.

To this I must say that Japanese did not fully utilize the element of surprise. Luck on that day was on their side but eventually they failed to get more results than they got. Ships were not sunk in deep water but in shallow water close to harbour as they were docked, complete desturction of USS Arizona is a fact along with destruction of main ships. Indeed US Navy went to a defensive position, but Japanese did not attack the repair and maintenance facilities, submarine base and fuel supplies, hence stamping their defeat. The submarines later stopped movements of any ships of Japan, heavy ships rather, whether trading or war-ships, hence again affecting the economy of Japan at a very critical time. After this specific attack US depended merely on Aircraft Carriers, which proved to be the most destructive war machines during WWII for Japan. Though very late as you mentioned but very effective.

KIT Over n Out
 
Lets see what US navy claims about their success after Pearl Harbour attack.

The U.S. Submarine Campaign in the Pacific: 1941-45

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in a significant loss of strength for the U.S. Navy and placed that Navy in a defensive posture. The only weapon system immediately available to take the war to the enemy was the U.S. Submarine Force. Indeed, FDR had decided prior to the start of the war that "unrestricted submarine warfare" would be undertaken in the event of hostilities with Japan. Throughout the war, the growing U.S. submarine force was employed in attacks on Japanese merchant shipping as well as on Japanese fleet units when the opportunity presented itself. In both these tasks, the American submarine force was aided by magic- intelligence derived from broken Japanese codes. The Japanese Navy, with Mahanian intellectual roots, prepared tardily and insufficiently for an onslaught not directly related to "decisive battle." The American Navy won a spectacular victory.

The Japanese Merchant Marine lost 8.1 million tons of vessels during the war, with submarines accounting for 4.9 million tons (60%) of the losses. Additionally, U.S. submarines sank 700,000 tons of naval ships (about 30% of the total lost) including 8 aircraft carriers, 1 battleship and 11 cruisers. Of the total 288 U.S. submarines deployed throughout the war (including those stationed in the Atlantic), 52 submarines were lost with 48 destroyed in the war zones of the Pacific. American submariners, who comprised only 1.6% of the Navy, suffered the highest loss rate in the U.S. Armed Forces, with 22% killed.

The American Pacific submarine campaign had substantial direct, indirect and second- order effects on the Japanese economy and the four bases of Japanese military power- Japanese airpower, the Army, the Imperial Japanese Navy and the merchant marine. I will analyze the effects of the American guerre de course in each of these areas. It is important to note that the submarine was the predominant, but not the only, factor in the destruction of Japanese commerce and the ensuing damage to the Japanese economy. We cannot realistically look at the submarine campaign in complete isolation from other attacks against the Japanese transportation system.

Loss of Shipping Impoverishes Japanese Industrial Strength

The Japanese merchant marine started the war with 6 million tons of shipping. The Japanese Army and Navy each requisitioned a part of the merchant marine to transport and supply their respective operating forces. The Japanese leadership believed they needed to retain 3 million tons of shipping in order to meet the industrial and civilian needs of the economy- although this estimate was probably too low. Two important points need to be made in order to understand the effect of the war on the Japanese transportation system. First, Japan's industrial capacity was proportional to her ability to import needed material. Secondly, due to the extensive drafting of merchant vessels for military needs as well as high losses from American attacks, Japan never achieved the minimum of 3 million tons of capacity required for industrial and civilian uses.

Losses of merchant vessels combined with the indirect loss of a portion of the merchant marine fleet due to convoying significantly reduced Japanese economic strength. Imports of 16 key materials fell from 20 million tons in 1941 to 10 million tons in 1944 and 2.7 million tons in the first 6 months of 1945. The specifics were impressive:

"Bauxite imports fell off 88% just between the summer and fall of 1944. In 1945, pig iron imports plunged 89%, pulp 90%, raw cotton and wool 91%, fats and oils 92%, iron ore 95%, soda and cement 96%, lumber 98%, fodder 99%, and not one ounce of sugar or raw rubber reached Japan."

Moreover, the reduction in imports of raw materials mirrored problems importing food. During 1944, average caloric intake fell 12% below the minimum daily requirement for the non-farming population. The enormous drop in importation of raw materials resulted in a significant drop in Japanese industrial production. In fact, the Japanese mobilization committee stated in a late 1944 report: "Shipping lost or damaged since the beginning of the war amounts to two and one half times newly constructed shipping and formed the chief cause of the constant impoverishment of national strength."

Submarine attacks on the oil flow to Japan were a second critical factor in destroying Japanese military potential. Japanese oil imports fell from 1.75 million barrels per month in August 1943 to 360,000 barrels per month in July 1944. In October 1944, imports fell even more due to high losses around the Philippine battlefields. After September 1943, the ratio of petroleum successfully shipped from the southern regions that reached Japan never exceeded 28%, and during the last 15 months of the war the ratio only averaged 9%. These losses are especially impressive when one considers that the Japanese Navy alone required 1.6 million barrels monthly to operate. Much anecdotal evidence describes Japan's often desperate responses to the American guerre de course. For example, in early 1945, the Japanese Navy loaded crude oil barrels on battleships to import home, while at the same time the nation experimented with producing gasoline from potatoes.

The loss of raw materials and petroleum and inability to transport items to the front lines lay at the heart of Japan's weakening ability to maintain effective military strength. Munitions Minister Toyoda said as much when interrogated after the war: "the shipping shortage and the scarcity of oil were the two main factors that assumed utmost importance in Japan's war efforts." We will now look at the specific effects of the drop in industrial production and inability to transport goods on Japanese airpower, naval and merchant marine shipbuilding and the army.

Effects on Japanese Airpower

Aircraft production was strongly affected by the war against Japanese sea lines of communication (SLOCs) due to the lack of raw materials. By April 1944, aircraft engine production had fallen to "critical" levels. The Japanese significantly reduced aircraft engine testing due to lack of aviation gas: from about 8 hours and 5 flights for each engine in 1941 to 2 hours of testing on 10% of the engines built at war's end. The reduction of bauxite imports by 500,000 tons from Indonesia and Malaysia resulted in a 70% drop in aluminum production in 1944. As a result, by the end of 1944, 80% of every plane was made from aluminum pilings, which significantly reduced aircraft quality. By the spring of 1945, the Japanese fabricated major parts of aircraft from wood and they actively planned to construct entire aircraft out of wood.

The war against Japanese SLOCs resulted in significant indirect effects on Japanese air strength. In fact, the reduction in Japan's air power strength was not so much due to the reduction of aircraft quality or production but due to the reduction in pilot quality. Fuel shortages substantially reduced pilot training. In 1944, the great Japanese naval aviator Fuchida complained about the "inadequate training" aviators received prior to attachment to an operational unit. Moreover, once Japanese pilots reached operational units, their training opportunities often did not improve. For example, prior to the Battle of the Philippine Sea, Admiral Toyoda stationed his carriers at Tawitawi near the Borneo oil supplies due to the effective submarine campaign against Japanese tankers. U.S. commanders vectored submarines into the area. Alerted to the danger, the Japanese commander refused to sortie for training- with the result that what little skills his undertrained pilots possessed atrophied. The resulting Japanese aerial defeat became known as the Marinas Turkey Shoot.

An additional indirect effect of the war against Japanese transportation should be noted. Inadequate numbers of merchants and fear of additional losses resulted in the use of barges and small boats to ferry supplies in the empire's combat zones. As a consequence, the Japanese undersupplied forward-deployed units, including ground based aviation units. As an example, one air staff officer noted "a 75% drop in aircraft serviceability in New Guinea from such causes [loss of shipping] and blamed the loss of aerial supremacy over that strategic island on transport shortages."

Effects on the Japanese Navy

The submarine offensive gravely weakened a second pillar of Japanese power: the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). As previously discussed, 30% of total Japanese Navy losses were caused by U.S. submarines. Submarines played another important role in reducing IJN capabilities. Damage to ships, caused in part by submarines, significantly increased ship repair time in Japanese shipyards, thereby reducing opportunities for new construction. The Japanese Navy spent 12% of its construction budget on ship repairs in 1943 and 1944; the figure increased to 34% in 1945. Additionally, the submarine campaign had two important second order effects on the Japanese Navy. First, the necessity to build merchant ships to replace losses resulted in a reduction of potential naval construction. Private shipyards devoted to naval construction fell from 44% of the total in 1942 to 30% in 1943. Secondly, the requirement to build escort ships and naval transports (also to replace merchant losses) reduced the potential to build more powerful combatants. As a result, while the IJN used 14% of its construction budget for escorts and transports in 1941, the percentage shot up to 54.3% in 1944. More astonishing, the need for escorts and merchants was so grave, that after 1943, the Japanese Navy started construction on no ship bigger than a destroyer! Finally, the American stranglehold on imports, in this case, iron ore, proved fatal to any long term ability to build adequate numbers of warships to replace losses. By September 1944, the Japanese had so little steel that naval construction fell precipitously.

Effects on the Japanese Merchant Marine

In addition to the direct loss of merchant hulls already described, the Japanese suffered an important indirect effect of submarine warfare caused by the loss of efficiency due to convoying. The entire merchant marine (including that shipping throughout the empire that was not convoyed) had a loss of "carrying efficiency" of 8% between January 1942 and January 1944 with a further reduction of 21% by 1945. However, on the critical line between Singapore and Japan, efficiency declined by 45% between May 1943 and May 1944, with further substantial declines later. Not only did Japan have too few ships, but their ships took longer and longer throughout the war to carry badly needed cargoes the same distances.

In response to American attacks, the Japanese attempted to increase construction of merchants to replace losses. The Japanese used 7% of their total steel production on merchants in 1941 but 46% in 1945. Despite their best efforts, the import crisis hit merchant construction hard. Of note, concentrated submarine attacks on tankers resulted in the Japanese augmenting construction of the vital petroleum carriers at the expense of general-purpose ships. In the fall of 1944, lack of steel forced significant cutbacks on production. Despite considerable efforts, Japan never succeeded in building more than 45% of her losses. In the words of the Strategic Bombing Study, the Japanese "didn't have the production potential to surpass wartime shipping losses." The inability to protect merchants and replace losses could only result in disaster for such a nation so dependent on imports for survival.

Effects on the Japanese Army

The breakdown of the Japanese merchant marine placed grievous logistical constraints on the ability of the Japanese Empire to supply her army deployed throughout the Central and Southern Pacific. Japanese logistical problems first became apparent in 1942 during the Guadalcanal campaign, when an overstrained logistical system and relentless U.S. air attacks resulted in frontline Japanese units receiving only 10% of the supplies comparable American units received. U.S. submarines attacks directly affected the ability of the Japanese to move troops and supplies into important combat zones. For example, concentrated submarine attacks on shipping delivering the experienced 32nd and 35th Infantry divisions to the New Guinea theater resulted in the Japanese convoy disembarking the surviving troops over 500 miles from their destination. As a consequence, the Japanese barged ineffectual penny packets of troops to combat McArthur's forces in Biak and Hollandia. In another case, U.S. submarines destroyed 6 transports loaded with troops destined to boost the defenses of the Marinas before the U.S. invasion of those islands, and sank ships loaded with vital concrete and wire needed for the islands' fortification. The rate of successful delivery of military supplies to front line units averaged 96% in 1942, declining to 83% in 1943, 67% in 1944 and 51% in 1945. These statistics fail to capture the extraordinary indirect effects of both U.S. submarine and air attacks on Japanese merchants as the Japanese had to resort to carrying much of their supplies within the combat zones by slow, inefficient means such as barges, fishing boats and the like. These direct and indirect effects of U.S. attacks clearly impacted Japanese army units. Throughout the war, munitions deliveries were 15% below front line needs, and 33 to 50% of all food sent to the front was lost due to attack or spoilage. Accounts from front line units depict significant efforts to make up for lack of food deliveries by gardening, fishing, or bartering with natives with sporadic accounts of cannibalism in especially poorly supplied areas like New Guinea.

Misplaced Resources and Strategic Immobility

Several important second order and indirect effects must be noted in the U.S. submarine campaign. First, the Japanese used a portion of their submarine force to supply bypassed units. Indeed, the Japanese army and navy each built significant numbers of submarines designed for the express purpose of carrying cargo. Not only were scarce resources wasted in this way, but Japanese submarines that could have been used to attack the extended American logistics train were not properly employed. Another important combined direct and indirect effect of the U.S. campaign against the Emperor's lines of communication was strategic immobility. The inadequacy of total lift and reliance on barges in theater meant large number of Japanese troops could not be quickly moved around the empire. U.S. sea and airpower usually prevented the Japanese from reinforcing islands under attack or removing defeated troops from an island under assault. Therefore, the Japanese could not exploit their advantage of interior lines of communication to move and supply adequate numbers of troops to defeat any of the three major Allied lines of advance in the Pacific theater.

Michel Thomas Poirier, Commander, USN. This is indeed a US version of events, I would be glad to know your version about these events discussed.

For a complete article

RESULTS OF THE AMERICAN PACIFIC SUBMARINE CAMPAIGN OF WORLD WAR II

KIT Over
 
Japan had indeed a formidable potential in 1941, however the strategy was competely flawed from the outset. It squandered its forces peacemeal in small naval engagements and occupying remote, useless locations (Wewak, Rabaul, Guadalcanal, Wake, etc), without inflicting major loses on the US.
1) Without forcing the US into the war, Japan could have easily eliminated the British from the Indian Ocean by invading Ceylon, Aden, Madagascar and the southern tips of Africa and India on Dec 7, 1941. The American public would have seen Britain as a loser and pressed the US government to stop providing aid to GB. This would have deprived GB of the troops and resources from India, Australia, Iraq, Iran, etc, dealing it a fatal blow.
Japan then could have invaded Iran & Iraq, gaining acces to oil and depriving Stalin of this oil and forcing the Soviets to fight in another front and also to be ragarded as a loser by the isolationist American public. Simultaneously the Japanese army captures Vladivostok, etc, forcing the Soviets to fight in a faraway front and to lose more planes and pilots. Thus Japan gains invaluable resources for the Axis, threatens the oilfields of Baku and weakens two powerful foes of the Axis, instead of dragging the formidable US into the war.

2) If Japan wants to fight the US, then its only chance is not to fight GB, to leave only enough forces to defend Japan and the most valuable parts of China and to gather its invinceble fleet in order to invade on January 1 (hangover time), 1942 Panama (with a small fleet and army), Seattle (capturing the naval base at Bellingham, Boeing, the hydroelectric plants along the Columbia which are used to rpoduce aluminum, explosives, etc,) and California (capturing the bases at San Diego, etc, the oil fields, refineries, airplane industry, etc,). American torpedoes are useless in the Pacific and new torpedoes cannot be supplied. Airplanes and ships in the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, etc, cannot contribute to defend against the invasion, so are useless at the crucial time and can be easily destroyed or siolated afterward.
Thus dealing the US a major blow, isolating Hawaii, the Philippines, Midway, etc, denying America access to the eastern Pacific, except around South America and gaining invaluable resources. With B-17s, DC-3s, etc, Japan can bomb American industry and advance West, gradually weakening the US. The US is no position now to send aid to GB or the USSR, so Rommel breaks through to Suez (AUchinlek does not have the tanks, airplanes, fuel, etc, from the US to stop Rommel. The Germans do not have to send planes, tanks and men that are badly needed in Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc to fight in North Africa (operation Torch never takes place). The Germans do not lose thousands of pilots, planes, tanks, trucks, troops to the American and advance much faster in the USSR.
 
From the very start of the war, Japan could not have won against its opponents during WWII militarily, I do believe that if Japan had a different policy regarding its actions, then at least their motives would have been looked on in a better light and they would have been able to garner the full cooperation of the captured territories that they possessed. Much has to do with the Japanese military mentality of this period and should have begun far earlier with its preexisting territories such as Korea and during the war with newly gained ones in South-East Asia.

Japan's attitude toward the peoples of the territories it conquered should have been not that of a conquerer, but as a liberator. Japan's "Asia for Asians" slogan could have been truly been followed through as this was a prime opportunity for them to gain the trust and popularity of the locals. Already, sentiments within the Asian colonies were simmering, just waiting to overthrow the white Europeans and Americans. Japan could take advantage of this and claim that they were freeing them from the white oppressors and grant them their independences provided they remain friendly to Japan (trade, cooperation) and military activities and joint-occupations with local police forces. In a sense, puppet governments as this was necessary for Japan in wartime, but nonetheless, sovereign nations.

These actions alone, if demonstrated positively, would have incited patriotic responses in other colonies that were still in the hands of the Europeans possibly causing them trouble and unrest and should Japan go against these respective colonies, the response from the local population would have mostly likely been appreciative and cooperative. Not to mention European armies that were made up of predominant native soldiers such as the Indian sepoys would have possibly experienced mutinous behavior depending on the war situation.

The general attitude of the Japanese soldiers was that because they were soldiers of the emperor, they were free to do whatever they wished with the spoils of war be it property or people. This alienated and antagonized the locals to the extent of open hostilities such as guerrilla warfare such as in the Philippines, and lasting grudges that can be seen even in today's politics in Asia. The Japanese army, which was the primary occupation force in the territories did not possess the necessary diplomatic skills, knowledge and means to deal with the citizens in the occupied territories in a respectable manner and this led to hastily thought policies such as those of comfort women and military brothels which coerced and kidnapped women to serve as sexual slaves in order to "pacify" the troops without any regard for the existing locals.

Japan was in a war and supplies were already stretched to a limit, however I believe that if Japan had planned for these policies beforehand and had prearranged supplies and funds to provide visible humanitarian aid to needy populations in their territories, then that would have done much to improve relations between the occupation forces and the occupied peoples. Those and little things such as not requiring people to bow whenever Japanese soldiers passed by.

The Japanese possessed a well disciplined army back then and I believe that if the army high command in Tokyo prioritized the necessity of good relations between the locals and occupation forces, then changes would have definitely occurred in the ranks thus leading to a far more amiable relations with the local populations instead of letting the soldiers run amok and destroy everything in their path, notably tragedies such as Nanking and Manila among others.

These policies I stated would not have militarily benefited Japan in the long run for the war apart from better relations within its territories. Its military would not have been able to effectively use the resources in the territories as freely as they'd like due to the bureaucratic complications of the "sovereign" territories. Some possible benefits that could have come out of this though were that Japan would not need as many occupational troops in its territories and can commit them to the on-going war effort. Also with the lowered antagonistic feelings toward the occupiers, conduct such as trade and movement within the territories would have gone much smoother.

In the end, with Japan inevitably losing the war, the former European colonies would most likely be retaken as colonies by the white Europeans and Americans. However by then, patriotic sentiment within the local peoples would be too great for the new occupiers to handle, and by this time, maintaining a colony would far outweigh the benefits and the former colonies would become legitimate sovereign nations, with Japan viewed in a far more positive light.

Now this was, at the least, nearly impossible as much of the Japanese military mentality was embedded in a far more harsher way of waging war, but this, at least is my outtake on one of the greatest Japanese blunders during the war.
 
It doesn't matter how good the strategy the Japanese could come up with, the achilles heel in their war effort is the lack of petroleum and resources to continue the war. If it ends up as stale mate in the Pacific with U.S. naval forces and in China with the combine forces of the KMT and Mao's, the Japanese are in trouble. America's industrial might and China's huge numbers in troops eventually would eat up too much of Japan's war resources to rebuild to keep pace with her opponents.
 
Had the nuke not been invented, WW2 would be going on even now judging by Tojo's promise to continue fighting for a hundred years if needed for the empire.
 
JAPAN LACKED THE ART OF EMPIRE BUILDING, MEANING IT DID NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY POLITICAL FORESIGHT, FLEXIBILTY & GUILE. JAPAN PAID A HIGH PRICE FOR THIS LACK.
 
Had the nuke not been invented, WW2 would be going on even now judging by Tojo's promise to continue fighting for a hundred years if needed for the empire.


In hind sight that's easy to see, but then again if the war was to continue in the Japanese homeland itself it will a long fought bloody battle, but for how long is the question. Japan was going through some political turmoil towards the end of the war between loyalists of the emperor and the military generals who wants to continue the war campaign. I don't think Japan would have enough sources to continue, plus the politics were pretty fragile as their government knew the inevitable was about to happen. They were fighting to maintain whatever land they had conquered during the war and hoping to reach a stalemate for negotiation of peace with the Allies.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom