I am curious to learn from other posters on their views on Japans chances during world war 2, or more specifically, could the Japanese have got a victory even with the Nazi's being defeated?

I do not know a great deal on the subject, so would like to learn a bit from this thread :)

I am wondering that if Japan had managed a feat such as a victory at Midway or similar if they could have gone on to win the war, even if the Germans were defated in Europe. Or, if the European front would have gone differently had the Japanese achieved such a thing. Could a situation have arose with the Japanese dominating the pacific whilst the allies defeated the Nazi's in Europe? What would have needed to occur to lead to such an occurance? And how would it have played out after an end to the European front?

The Japanese approach was to destroy as much of the US pacific fleet early on and seize territory quickly. They wanted to create a set of facts that would make a US victory a very long and costly slog ... hoping that the US would be unwilling to pay these costs and that a negotiated end to the war could then be made on terms favorable to them.

Theoretically the war could have been different had the Japanese succeeded in destroying the US carrier fleets in the first year of the war. It certainly would have kept the US on the defensive much longer. Whether or not the US would have given in however is a matter of opinion.

The Japanese certainly had no way of matching the industrial base of the US and would have eventually lost so long as the US remained committed to fighting the war.

Unless Germany developed the atom bomb and gave it to Japan earlier. Late in the war Germany was transferring jet engins and atom bomb plans to Japan but the u-boat taking it was stopped and it was too late in the war to make a diffirence.

I'd say no. US industry would have crushed the Japanese, and the USSR would have chipped in too.

However, if the Japs did better early on (A jap conquest of Australia?), the war could've went past the 1950 mark.

The Japanese approach was to destroy as much of the US pacific fleet early on and seize territory quickly. They wanted to create a set of facts that would make a US victory a very long and costly slog ... hoping that the US would be unwilling to pay these costs and that a negotiated end to the war could then be made on terms favorable to them.

Theoretically the war could have been different had the Japanese succeeded in destroying the US carrier fleets in the first year of the war. It certainly would have kept the US on the defensive much longer. Whether or not the US would have given in however is a matter of opinion.

The Japanese certainly had no way of matching the industrial base of the US and would have eventually lost so long as the US remained committed to fighting the war.
Yes I was thinking along the lines that had Japan destroyed the fleet, (mainly) either at Pearl Habour or Midway, and managed to invade Hawai, would the US have been willing to continue to fight them especially as they would have been busy fighting in Europe also? Also, had they lost Hawai and basically been driven off all land bases in the pacific, would they have gone for peace with Japan rather than risk bombing of the West Coast? And would Japan have been able to bomb the west coast?


I'd say no. US industry would have crushed the Japanese, and the USSR would have chipped in too.

However, if the Japs did better early on (A jap conquest of Australia?), the war could've went past the 1950 mark.

Well I was wondering, would the USSR really have 'chipped in' if Japan had the upper hand? If the Japanese had acheived victories such as a conquest of Australia, or at least a bombing campaign to subdue Australia, would the USSR have sent assistance or would it have tried to take advantage by in fact doing nothing and instead let the USA take more casualities as it knew that a show down (what became the cold war) was looming?

The Japanese had no real wish to fight the US. Japanese military thinking had for decades focused on Russia/Soviet Union as the real enemy.

The Japanese commanders, the with emperor's blessing, engaged in a high stakes gamble. The wanted the Dutch and British colonies to the south (oil, rubber, mines). Neither of these powers were in a position to hold on to a determined attack.
War with the US would be the consequence, but admiral Yamamoto who masterminded the campaign is said to have warned, that if they pulled the Pearl Harbour stunt, he would push forward until 1943, and from then on it would at best be fighting retreat.

The real hope was thet Germany would win in Europe, and the US would accept terms that let Japan keep the former Dutch and British colonies. There never was anything like a plan for the invasion of the US.
Pearl Harbour happened to a large extent because it seemed like it might come with a better pay off for Japan, than launching and offensive from Manchuria into Soviet Sibiria.

Verbose - what do you think would have needed to happen for Japan's plan to work?

Yes I was thinking along the lines that had Japan destroyed the fleet, (mainly) either at Pearl Habour or Midway, and managed to invade Hawai, would the US have been willing to continue to fight them especially as they would have been busy fighting in Europe also? Also, had they lost Hawai and basically been driven off all land bases in the pacific, would they have gone for peace with Japan rather than risk bombing of the West Coast? And would Japan have been able to bomb the west coast?

Yes. The Americans would have fought on. For intsance Britain lost alot planes and troops in France and faced terrible bombing and possible invasion and occupation and still never signed peace with Germany. And I think Hitler, like the Japanese with Americans, wanted a treaty with Britain wrather than a bogged down war.

Unless Germany developed the atom bomb and gave it to Japan earlier. Late in the war Germany was transferring jet engins and atom bomb plans to Japan but the u-boat taking it was stopped and it was too late in the war to make a diffirence.

It was also carrying nuclear material, meaning uranium. Enough for one dirty bomb which the Japanese could have dropped on a western coast city. The planned attack of this was August 17, but the uranium never arrived and the US dropped nukes on them.

Verbose - what do you think would have needed to happen for Japan's plan to work?
A British defeat, i.e. a successful German invasion of Britain. OR possibly Britain coming to an agreement with nazi-Germany along the lines that Britain keeps its empire (- possible bits going to Japan), leaving Japan and Germany free to deal with the Soviet union.

The US position if that had happened is a bit hard to predict, especially since I'm not really hot on US WWII history. I imagine that the US wouldn't have been too keen on carrying on the war in Europe alone if there had been a quick end to it, one that would leave Britain defeated, shut out of continetal politics but essentially OK and in charge of its empire. I have a hard time imagining the US in 1942 or so deciding to continue fighting for France or the Soviet Union.

Of course anything is possible in a what-if scenario. Including a US feeling of absolute need for pay-back for Pearl Harbour no matter what. That's kind of a lesson about the Japanese military decision making — the seem to have had no idea about the public reaction to the attack in the US. Pearl was a neat and daring operation to them, but they seem to have been unable to predict the general outcry and political fall-out of it in the US.

The Japanese generals were generally bad at that kind of socio-psychological assesments of their opponents. The suggested plot to assasinate Charlie Chaplin springs to mind as a particularily bizarre example. The idea was that considering Chaplin's popularity in the US, his murder would leave the nation so demoralized, it would give up the war. (This one was picked up on by US wartime anthropologists trying to work out how the Japanese figured things.)

Anyway, the number of conditions to be met for the Japanese to be successful were rather many. Though Germany winning the war in Europe was the primary one.

It was also carrying nuclear material, meaning uranium. Enough for one dirty bomb which the Japanese could have dropped on a western coast city. The planned attack of this was August 17, but the uranium never arrived and the US dropped nukes on them.
But the Germans were nowhere near building a bomb! A lot of the top physicits seem to have thought it near impossible anyway.

There are the British tapes of the captured German scientists reaction to the two US bombs. At first they were frankly disbelieving. Once they had accepted that the US had built the thing, they sat down and desperately tried to figure out how the dickens they had gone about it.
There is nothing indicating that either the Germans of the Japanese had any plans on building any kind of nuclear device in WWII. :confused: Got a source for your statement above? (Aug. 17 and the rest.)

Besides, the Japanese would never have been able to bomb the US mainland anyway. They tried some desperate stuff, sending balloons to start forest fires etc. but nothing that really worked.
If they would have tried anything it would probably have been landing someone from a submarine.

One of the show from History Channel talks about Japanese navy in WWII. The Japanese generals back then all had the idea of "decisive victory" in the back of their mind. Japanese had defeated Chinese and Russian navy each with one decisive battle. In both situations, China and Russia both ceded their territories or colonies to Japan. Since then, decisive victory became the principle of Japanese navy. Too bad that Japanese never thought about an all out war. The Pearl Harbor attack was designed to destroy entire US fleet in one decisive battle. Even if the attack successfully destroyed all the ships, US would still produce enough in the coming years to overwhelm the Japanese. Japanese didn't have enough ships to blockade entire US coast and make war at the same time. I doubt they could stop US from producing ships.

Japan was also producing weapons for its over extended army. They wouldn't have enough materials to supply both army and navy.

Japan also had inferior technology and industry and scientists. The Japanese could not produce good air or land weapons. The industry could not mass produce reliable war machines. Japan had to depend on German technology later on. Japanese were afraid of Soviet army because they lost to Russian's superior army before the world war started. Russians had better technology on land.

Finally, the nuke pretty much put Japan out of its misery.

Japan could not win.

Verbose - Thanks for your insights :) I see you do not think a Japanese victory would have been possiable without a German one. I was thinking that maybe if Japan had managed to drive the US out of all land bases in the pacific that the US would have come to terms rather than fight a long drawn out war, despite the defeat of the Germans. But you reminded me that public opinion wanted revenge after Pearl Harbour, and I would guess that if Japan ever actually had captured Hawai that this public opinion would have turned into a fit of rage!

The Pearl Harbor attack was designed to destroy entire US fleet in one decisive battle. Even if the attack successfully destroyed all the ships, US would still produce enough in the coming years to overwhelm the Japanese. Japanese didn't have enough ships to blockade entire US coast and make war at the same time. I doubt they could stop US from producing ships.
Do you think that had the Japanese suceeded in destroying the US fleet in such a way that this would have had any bearing on the war in Europe?

------------------

Couple of questions.....

Would anyone like to speculate how Japanese victories would have effected the overall global conflict? And which victories would have had the most impact?

Also, would anyone like to speculate on whether the Japanese would have been able to invade Hawai and what would have needed to occur for this to happen?

Regarding the Nuclear aspect -

Japan surrendered in WW2 after a nuclear attack on it's homeland, but the US would not have been able to launch such an attack without air superiority as the bomb was dropped by plane. So, my line of thought was that if Japan had managed to destroy the US fleet either at Peral Harbour or after (Midway) then in 1945 they still would have had the ability to prevent the US launching air attacks on the Japanese home isles, thus taking away the allies nuclear advantage. Can anyone tell me whether this would have been a possiable situation, or would the US have been able to utilise their Nukes anyway?

... in 1945 they still would have had the ability to prevent the US launching air attacks on the Japanese home isles, thus taking away the allies nuclear advantage. Can anyone tell me whether this would have been a possiable situation, or would the US have been able to utilise their Nukes anyway?
I suppose USA could have sent a suicide-submarine with the nuke.

I don't think that Japan could have won without a German victory in Europe. First, Germany would have had to get Britain out of the way. Then they would have had to blockade the US East Coast. With Japan blockading the West Coast the US would have eventually given in. That's the only way I can see either one of them beating the United States. Even with a blockade however I doubt the US would have given in, because they have the industrial and agricultural power to carry on for a long time....now if they would have bombed the US into olbivion...that's a different story. It would have crippled US industrial power and with that mich time on their hands Germany would have been able to put their jets into service (destroying the American air force eventually) and eventually the atomic bomb. They would need this because a land invasion of North America would be nigh impossible.

While there are plenty of ways that Japan could have extended the wars and misery after Germany was defeated, it would have just led to more disaster for them.

Simply put, Japan just did not have the industrial might to take on the US. IT may have had access to South East Asian resources, but the military machine to produce thousands of tanks AND hundreds of ships month after relentless month was simply lacking. Because of this, the Japanese navy could not recover very easily from a Midway type defeat, whereas the US managed to rebuild the Pacific fleet soon enough to turn the tide.

The only way I could forsee a Japanese victory was if they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place.

in the conquest i can win with japan, so it is possiable, (but i can also conquer europe with the aztecs so it dosent say much)

Japan surrendered in WW2 after a nuclear attack on it's homeland, but the US would not have been able to launch such an attack without air superiority as the bomb was dropped by plane. So, my line of thought was that if Japan had managed to destroy the US fleet either at Peral Harbour or after (Midway) then in 1945 they still would have had the ability to prevent the US launching air attacks on the Japanese home isles, thus taking away the allies nuclear advantage. Can anyone tell me whether this would have been a possiable situation, or would the US have been able to utilise their Nukes anyway?

Even if Japan had sent every ship in the US Pacific Fleet to the bottom in 1941-42, the USN would have still been both much larger and qualitatively better then the IJN by 1943 as a result of new construction. If you cut one of the prongs off the US advance through the Pacific in 1943-44 (preferably the unessesary southern advance through New Guniea), then the US would have possesed bases in the Marianas by mid 1945, and the stage would be set for the inevitable atomic raid.

Japan could win the WW2 if it avoided war with America. If they concentrated on Soviet Union, the outcome could be diferent.

Soviet Union had it's best divisions on far east. They were largly spared from stalin's officer core purges, so they were efective. When Stalin got (from spies) information, that Japan would not atack them, he transfered them to the west and they stoped total defeat. IF (and that is not sure) Soviet Union could be totaly destroyed, then Japanese would have secure (transibirian railroad) means of getin raw materials from Germany. Japan and Germany would have it's backs covered, England would face german army alone and any invasion would be easily stoped.

US military inteligence had predicted, that Japan's oil and scrap metal embargo would lead to US - Japan war. Japan had no oil, so it's only way to get it was to invade oil fields..

Some intresting points there people:)

I shall adress a couple....

Simply put, Japan just did not have the industrial might to take on the US. IT may have had access to South East Asian resources, but the military machine to produce thousands of tanks AND hundreds of ships month after relentless month was simply lacking. Because of this, the Japanese navy could not recover very easily from a Midway type defeat, whereas the US managed to rebuild the Pacific fleet soon enough to turn the tide.
If Japan had won at Midway do you think they would have had a chance then?

in the conquest i can win with japan, so it is possiable,
Thats what i've been doing for the past 4 and a half hours :D

Even if Japan had sent every ship in the US Pacific Fleet to the bottom in 1941-42, the USN would have still been both much larger and qualitatively better then the IJN by 1943 as a result of new construction. If you cut one of the prongs off the US advance through the Pacific in 1943-44 (preferably the unessesary southern advance through New Guniea), then the US would have possesed bases in the Marianas by mid 1945, and the stage would be set for the inevitable atomic raid.
Ah, but what if Japan had, after destroying the US fleet in 41 and 42, proceeded to attempt to invade miday and pearl harbour (maybe in 43?). That would have significantly set back US plans for any US advance through the pacific!

What I am curious to know is whether or not Japan would have been able to (if it had achieved great Naval victories and sunk all the US carriers) launch such an invasion, how the US would have reacted, and whether they would have succeded.

A Japanese "win" at Midway would have only set the US victory back a few years. Ultimately, the US could outproduce Japan in everything. Moreover, the Japanese were stretched, and an invasion of Midway and Hawaii would have stretched Japan beyond the limited resources it could muster.

No doubt the battle of Midway was a turning point in the war, but it wasn't one which made the ultimate difference between victory and defeat. In that sense, victory may for the Japanese may have meant a complete and total destruction of the US Navy in the Pacific, but this goal could not be achieved without destroying the industrial complex which built this fleet in the first place. This, I believe was beyond the capabilities of the Japanese.

A Japanese "win" at Midway would have only set the US victory back a few years. Ultimately, the US could outproduce Japan in everything. Moreover, the Japanese were stretched, and an invasion of Midway and Hawaii would have stretched Japan beyond the limited resources it could muster.

No doubt the battle of Midway was a turning point in the war, but it wasn't one which made the ultimate difference between victory and defeat. In that sense, victory may for the Japanese may have meant a complete and total destruction of the US Navy in the Pacific, but this goal could not be achieved without destroying the industrial complex which built this fleet in the first place. This, I believe was beyond the capabilities of the Japanese.

Some good points there, I am in agreement with you.

I do think that, even if they were overstretched, Japan should have tried to invade Midway and then maybe Hawai. As it transpired they could not do this because of loosing the Battle of Midway, but I think that for them to have changed the course of the war they would have needed to invaded these islands. This would have caused the USA to have thrown more resources at the pacific, and maybe given the Germans a bit more breathing space to build up defences against the Allies in Europe and North Africa.
What would have happened after that though, I do not know. Eventually I think teh US would have been in posisition to take these islands back.....but I do not know enough on the subject to speculate anymore.

Actually, on second though, after destroying the US fleet I think that Japan should have focused on penatrating into India, attacking Australia and fighting the Chinese.

In effect, neautralising the US for maybe a year, giving them breathing space to try and deal severe blows to China and the Commenwealth.

Anyone else have theories on what Japan should have done?

I have focused rather alot of the Japan vs US aspect so far, but I would like to hear speculation on how Japan should have fought the war against it's other oppenants also.

The Japanese could never have over run Australia. Maybe they could have captured Darwin or Cairns but the thought of them fighting all the way down to Sydney or Melbourne is very far fetched. And then theres Perth and Adelaide. The Japanese had trouble enough getting their supplies to Papuan New Gineau let alone another couple of hundred miles to Northern Australia. The American submarine fleet was just too strong.

What if Japan never bombed peral habour, just invade russia. Without america in the war against germany, germany would of had a much better chance to beat russia, even better with japan attacking on the east. After the finished off russia, germany could have steped up the airforce and had a second battle of britain just to tie down britain. The germans could pump oil to japan, so japan would be have enough to ignor the us trade embargo. Then they could hit the dutch east indies and Commonwealth, but leave america alone. If america got angry then there would be a much more powerfull germany to back up japan. (after the fall of russia, north africa would of been easy, even a invasion into the middle east as well. After losing all of africa and middle east, britain would sign a peace treaty on the condition Aussie and NZ left alone (english speaking white people, are much more to germany and englands favor than pacific)

The Japanese could never have over run Australia. Maybe they could have captured Darwin or Cairns but the thought of them fighting all the way down to Sydney or Melbourne is very far fetched. And then theres Perth and Adelaide. The Japanese had trouble enough getting their supplies to Papuan New Gineau let alone another couple of hundred miles to Northern Australia. The American submarine fleet was just too strong.
The Japanese did bomb the Australian mainland during the war and the Australians were serioulsy worried about invasion. If Japan had kept up the pressure and continued the bombing than this could have prevented the Australians from serioulsy fighting back in Papa New Guinea, and maybe could have helped the Japanese to keep the Australains restricted to the mainland. The Japanese would have needed a serious bomber force to do this though and I don't know where they have got it from. They would have need to divert from another area....but where?

What if Japan never bombed peral habour, just invade russia.
Intresting possiability. The Russians did have forces statione din the far east to protect against such an assualt, and maybe the Russian 'trade land for time' trick would have payed off and helped them counter act such an attack.

-----

One thing that the Japanese could have done anyway was decided to ignore the US and hope that US isolationism would have worked in their favour by allowing them to attack the British and Dutch East Indies without needing to fight the US as well. The US would have applied even heavier sanctions but maybe they would have stayed out of the conflict, giving the Japanese enough time to defeat conquer enough resources and get an upper hand over the Commenwealth and Dutch, whilst continuing to battle the Chinese. The Japanese could have been able to penetrate into India, subduing the British in that area, and bombing them to the extent that commonwealth troops would have had to have stayed on the Australian mainland.

What if Japan never bombed pearl habour, just invade russia.

they fought 2 " undeclared " wars with russia in the late 1930's--they got whooped, they weren't going back for more.

The Japanese could have captured Oahu if they had followed up the attack on Pearl Harbor with infrantry immediately after the air strike. But they would have been unable to hold it. The US sub fleet would have isolated it and instead of landing at Guadacanal, we would have taken back Oahu and any other of the Hawaian islands. The Japanese did not have the ships to support that kind of thrust, and certainly could not follow it up with a landing on the US West Coast.

The Japanese has no hope of "dictating" peace to the US in the White House. They just did not have the resourses to do it. Not enough ships, manpower, or industrial strength to support such an effort. The objective of the High Command was to "waste" the US Fleet at Pearl (Yamamoto was very disappointed that the Carriers were not in Pearl at the time of the attack), and scoop up the necessary resourses in the far east and then try to get a neogiated peace with the US. Unfortuately for the Japanese, the sneak attack on Pearl was the one thing that would p*ss off the entire American population to the extent that the only possible outcome for the Pacific War was Japan's ultimate surrender!!

Even if the Japanese had captured Hawaii, the US would have still island-hopped back to Japan. San Diego would have been the jump-off point instead of Pearl, but the end result would have been the same.

The "decisive battle" the Japanese were dreaming about, was no longer a valid idea. It only worked when dealing with a country with poor industrial resources, the other country does not have the will to fight on, and one's ground forces can take advantage of the victory. The Japanese were dreaming of another victory like 1904 against the Russians when they should have been looking at the British victory in 1805 at Trafalgar. That battle ended Bonaparte's overseas dreams, but it took the British another 9 years to finish him off.

The Japanese could never have over run Australia. Maybe they could have captured Darwin or Cairns but the thought of them fighting all the way down to Sydney or Melbourne is very far fetched. And then theres Perth and Adelaide. The Japanese had trouble enough getting their supplies to Papuan New Gineau let alone another couple of hundred miles to Northern Australia. The American submarine fleet was just too strong.

Actually, they could have if they had won the battle of the Coral Sea. Than the troops sent to the Phillipines could have gone to Australia. Or, to follow another option, If they had not attacked the US, but attacked the other areas they actually did in December 1941, except for the Phillipines, it would be an interesting scenerio. The Russians were too busy with the Germans to want to fight them, and without the Pearl Harbor attack and an invasion of the Phillipines, would the US have actually declared war on Japan or just relied on "sanctions" to stop them? That would have given them all the islands and territory they wanted except the US lands.

This is the one real option open to the Japanese that might have changed the outcome of the Pacific War. It could/would have had far-reaching implications for the European War too. If the Japanese did not attack the US, Hitler would not have declared war on the US and Britain would have stood alone against Hitler on the Western Front...i.e. the beachs of Southern England!!

Historians have shown the FDR wanted to "get into" the war against the Nazis, but without Hitler declaring war on the US and the Japanese attacking Pear Harbor, the concensus is that FDR would not have been able to convince the US to declare war on Germany and certainly not Japan. Isolationism was still rampant in the US right up until 0755 on Dec 7, 1941!!

Which, BTW, is tomorrow!

if the japanese had overrun midway and hawaii the u.s. would of changed its " europe first " policy--meaning even more resourses flowing to the asian threater.

if the japanese had overrun midway and hawaii the u.s. would of changed its " europe first " policy--meaning even more resourses flowing to the asian threater.

Probably not. The same resourses that eventually defeated Japan would have been used to retake Midway and Hawaii first. Remember, the Pacific was primarily a naval war and Europe was an air/land war. The US West Coast, in real life, was expecting a Japanese invasion the day after the Pear Harbor attack.

Think neviden's got it right. Without the Pearl Harbor attack, the US public would not have supported the war whole heartedly. An attack on Vladisvostok and Siberia would not have generated the outrage in the US that Pearl Harbor did. US entry into the war would have been delayed or avoided. Very questionable if Stalin could have withstood a 2 front war. Been toying with this idea for a scenario. Although Japan did not know it at the time, Siberia was probably richer in resource than the SE Pacific.

Actually, they could have if they had won the battle of the Coral Sea. Than the troops sent to the Phillipines could have gone to Australia.


I'm not doubting they could land and acheive limited results but the immense size of Australia would be hard to over come. And I fail to believe they could keep troops in Australia well supplied.

they fought 2 " undeclared " wars with russia in the late 1930's--they got whooped, they weren't going back for more.

At the time germany was smashing there way though european russia.

The reason why the Russians whipped the Japanese in Manchuria was that they had been whipped by them 30 years back and fought them with respect and skill.

OTOH, the US and most Europeans, too used to seeing the Japanese as Asian midgets trying to imitate them, grossly underestimated the Japanese fighting skill and weaponry and paid a heavy price for it in Pearl Harbour, Malaya and Singapore.
I think the European colonial forces in the Far East were faw weaker than the Russian forces in Siberia and this may have prompted the Japanese to concentrate on South East Asia rather than Siberia.

Moreover, the Japanese also needed rubber and an easy access to oil very badly following the western embargo. While the former was completely unavailable in Siberia, oil too had not yet been discovered in significant quantities in SIberia to make it worth the Japanese efforts.

Needless to say, in order to continue with their conquest of South East ASia, they needed to neutralize the US PAcific Fleet, long enough to complete their conquest and try and hold off the Pacific Fleet when it is rebuilt.

Japanese army was not up to the standard of European nations. They could only produce light tank which has pretty thin armor. That is why Russians were able to whip their arses. Of course, elite Japanese army could defeat weak colonial reserve troops with the help of nationalism (Colonies wanted independence). Plus, most fightings are jungle fighting which does not favor the usage of tank.

Japanese army is only good when comparing to developing nations. The navy, however, is one of the best.

Agreed. As soon as the Japanese Army stoped fighting poorly trained and equiped colonial armies lead by second rate Generals it stopped winning battles. By 1943, the best Japanese Army formations were being routinely whipped by average American, Indian, British and Australian formations.

Re Japan attacking Russia in 1941; it was never going to happen, for the simple reason that Russia couldn't supply Japan with what she desperatly needed. As a result of the hole the bone-headed Japanese leadership had dug themselves in by provoking the Western countries into imposing an oil emargo, Japan needed to sieze oil fields in a hurry to survive as an industrial nation. At the time, the Siberian oil fields were largely undiscovered, and those that were known were a very long way from Japan and would require a very long land campaign which the Japanese army simply wasn't capable of, even if it had had the combat power (which it didn't).

In contrast, the East Indies had lots of known and easily exploitable oilfields which were known to be guarded by a relatively small force of third-rate troops, and which could be quickly and easily siezed by relatively small expeditionary forces supported by Japan's excelent Navy. The decision was easy (though, of course, the correct decision would to have not provoked the crisis in the first place by invading China).

Japanese army was not up to the standard of European nations. They could only produce light tank which has pretty thin armor. That is why Russians were able to whip their arses. Of course, elite Japanese army could defeat weak colonial reserve troops with the help of nationalism (Colonies wanted independence). Plus, most fightings are jungle fighting which does not favor the usage of tank.

Japanese army is only good when comparing to developing nations. The navy, however, is one of the best.

Not necessarily. Light tanks were good in jungles when the enemy did not have good anti-tank weaponry in the first place. It was only later in the war that the Japanese produced a good medium tank (Chi-ha or something like that), but it did not make a huge impact. The Japanese were actually the first to try and build a heavy tank, but it was a miserable failure to say the least. It never went into production.

The colonies did not support the Japanese much esp since the Japanese brutalized them worse than the Europeans. There were of course, exceptions like Subhash Chandra Bose who wanted Japanese help in overthrowing the British, but generally, the Japanese did not endear themselves to the native populace, especially in China.

The tank was effective in the early stages of the war since most of the colonial armies in the east were not mechanized. The Indian troops, who had never seen a tank before in battle, panicked at the sight of the metal monstrosity heading towards them and routed often. However, with the induction of tanks into the Indian army, and air superiority being wrested away from the Japanese, the tanks did not come into the picture at all.

But the Germans were nowhere near building a bomb! A lot of the top physicits seem to have thought it near impossible anyway.

There are the British tapes of the captured German scientists reaction to the two US bombs. At first they were frankly disbelieving. Once they had accepted that the US had built the thing, they sat down and desperately tried to figure out how the dickens they had gone about it.
There is nothing indicating that either the Germans of the Japanese had any plans on building any kind of nuclear device in WWII. :confused: Got a source for your statement above? (Aug. 17 and the rest.)

Besides, the Japanese would never have been able to bomb the US mainland anyway. They tried some desperate stuff, sending balloons to start forest fires etc. but nothing that really worked.
If they would have tried anything it would probably have been landing someone from a submarine.


Not a nuclear bomb, a dirty bomb. The Germans had developed the ability to create abomb, fuilled with raqdioactive material that when exploded would shoot the material into the air and give everything with a few miles a heavy dose of radiation. All the Japanese needed was some uranium, which was on the German submarine that surrenderd itself.

My source was a show on the history channel I think it was an episode of Dead Man's Secrets.

The US sub fleet would have isolated it

Early in the war, US torpedos did not work, many times hitting their target without exploding.

What everyone has thus far left out of the discussion is the fact that the US was routinely reading japanese encryted messages and knew where the punches were going (see Admiral Yamamoto's shoot down by P38's) Had japan gone for Vladisvostok, I don't see Roosevelt giving Stalin info about which trans=siberian railstop was next on the list. Without the safety of the Urals to relocate factories to, with no US front in the S. Pacific, could Stalin have produced enough T34's to hold Moscow? Would the British concede Singapore India and other possessions if there was no Russian distraction for Hitler?

I am curious to learn from other posters on their views on Japans chances during world war 2, or more specifically, could the Japanese have got a victory even with the Nazi's being defeated?

I do not know a great deal on the subject, so would like to learn a bit from this thread :)

I am wondering that if Japan had managed a feat such as a victory at Midway or similar if they could have gone on to win the war, even if the Germans were defated in Europe. Or, if the European front would have gone differently had the Japanese achieved such a thing. Could a situation have arose with the Japanese dominating the pacific whilst the allies defeated the Nazi's in Europe? What would have needed to occur to lead to such an occurance? And how would it have played out after an end to the European front?

If the Japanese had caught our carriers at Pearl Harbor, and done a much more thorough job of it, then defeated us at Miday, they most likely could have staged an invasion of Hawaii before America had fully thrown itself into the war effort and started mass production of planes and ships. They never could have marched down Pennsylcania avenue or anything, (Landing in California and marching across would be impossible, and trying to pass through a stormy and heavily defended Straight of Magellan would've caused massive casualties, not to mention the impossibility of holding on to anything on the US mainland even if they got there) They really just hoped to take over the South Pacific islands, and destroy enough of our navy to make us come to the bargaining table. Fortunately for us, they couldn't do that, and after we smashed them at Midway, they were on the retreat.

I'm not doubting they could land and acheive limited results but the immense size of Australia would be hard to over come. And I fail to believe they could keep troops in Australia well supplied.

But in 1941, most of that immense size was "wasteland" or "outback" with no real cities or industries. If the Japs captured the coastal areas and cities that would do it. And supply would not be a problem because 1: there would be no US subs if the US stays neutral, and 2: and the shipping used to occupy and supply the phillipines would be available to supply Australia.

Not a nuclear bomb, a dirty bomb. ...I highly doubt they knew enough about the properties of radiation for that.

The Japanese probably had no idea about a "dirty" bomb. It is also very over-rated in today's world too. It takes a lot of radiation to kill a person. A dirty bomb would cause some inconvenience and do some damage, but it is a far cry from a full-blown nuclear blast.

But the problem of building a dirty bomb, is how the hell do you get it to the target?

Towards the end of the war, the Japs had hardly any air force or navy worth the name left.
Their only hope would have been to send with a shipment of Pokemon cards!

Early in the war, US torpedos did not work, many times hitting their target without exploding.

What everyone has thus far left out of the discussion is the fact that the US was routinely reading japanese encryted messages and knew where the punches were going (see Admiral Yamamoto's shoot down by P38's) Had japan gone for Vladisvostok, I don't see Roosevelt giving Stalin info about which trans=siberian railstop was next on the list. Without the safety of the Urals to relocate factories to, with no US front in the S. Pacific, could Stalin have produced enough T34's to hold Moscow? Would the British concede Singapore India and other possessions if there was no Russian distraction for Hitler?

However, Japan did not enter the war, just so that awful movies like "Pearl Harbour" can nauseate us 50 years hence:p

Their specific goal was to get SE Asian oil and rubber to make up for the US and European embargo and garner themselves a nice Asian empire like everybody else.
They had no idea Hitler would attack Russia and even when Hitler urged them to help in attacking Russia, they saw no benefit to themselves in doing so.

Their invasion would have ground to a halt due to a lack of resources and heavy tanks to match what the Russians would throw at them. The memories of the defeat at Manchuria 10 years back still rankled and they did not want to be Hitler's whipping boys in the East.

The Japanese probably had no idea about a "dirty" bomb. It is also very over-rated in today's world too. It takes a lot of radiation to kill a person. A dirty bomb would cause some inconvenience and do some damage, but it is a far cry from a full-blown nuclear blast.

Well you'll have to take that up with the history channel, I haven't studied the subject :p

The Japanese also had plans to bomb the Panama Canal, which would have added 8000 miles to the journey the USA had to bring the Atlantic Fleet around. They also attempted to firebomb the Western forests, but they weren't dry enough to burn much at the time. I can see that given these factors Japan might have taken Australia and NZ and might have threatened the entire British force in the Far East.

They also attempted to firebomb the Western forests, but they weren't dry enough to burn much at the time.

if my memory is right wasn't that a seaplane off a sub and the pilot did it twice without being caught.

EDIT: nobuo fujita from sub I-25 in sept. 1942 in oregon. fogot about the balloon bombs :crazyeye:

I find it rather dissapointing that there is virtually no mention of teh British and Chinese involvemnt in the downfall of the japanese empire.

Without Britain and her empire and teh Chinese partisans and remenants from the Chinese army the battle for mainland asia would've been doomed allowing the mass movement of men and material from that theatre to teh island hopping campaign.

To put it simply however Japan was overstretched. The only way Japan could've won is if Britain had been defeated in Europe and Germany was still making progress through russia. With a British and commonwealth defeat at India and port naseby (sp) allowing a Japanese invasion of Australia which im not sure they had the troops to hold down as well as India china and the pacific islands. And most importantly that America didnt have the will to fight or had not fought in the first place. Im not sure that without pearl harbour the USA would've gotten involved anyway its likely both ways we can never know unless there was an actual piece of document stating American will to defend european intrests against japanese expansionism.

I find it rather dissapointing that there is virtually no mention of the British and Chinese involvemnt in the downfall of the japanese empire.


its true that when slim's 1944-45 campaigns are mentioned in history books its only a side note :(

After spending some time thinking on the subject and seeing what other posters have had to say, I reckon that Japans best option would have been to not attack the US and instead just fight the British/Chinese/Dutch East Indies. US isolationaism would have kept them out of the war long enough for the Japanese to achieve some serious gains, to the point where the US would have probably avoided war because of Japan strong posistion. I think Japan could have defeated China, the Dutch East Indies and the British Empire if the US had stayed out long enough, or at least with the Brits neogatiated a treaty which handed them some important resources and a fair bit of land. If the Japanese had ever managed to invade Australia, which would have been very possiable if not for the US, then Britian could very well have agreed to a peace that, in return for Japanese troops leaving Australain soil, saw Britain surrendering it's already lost territories rather than trying to win them back whilst still fighting the Nazi's in Europe and Africa. I think teh Brits would ultimutely have decided it was better to concentrate on fighting the Nazi's and let the Japanese have South East Asia rather than continue fighting and risking a Nazi victory.

I find it odd that Japan wanted to extend their influence by thousands of miles but never developed any good long range planes to defend their land

I find it odd that Japan wanted to extend their influence by thousands of miles but never developed any good long range planes to defend their land

did they have any long range bombers, even in planning stages?

EDIT:

betty--3765 mile range
b-17--3750 mile range
b--29--4200 mile range

differance acourse was the betty was 2 engine, no armour, no self sealed gas tanks vs. 4 engines, armoured, and self sealing tanks and a zillion machine guns for self defense.

I find it odd that Japan wanted to extend their influence by thousands of miles but never developed any good long range planes to defend their land
Thats why aircraft carries were so important for both the Japanese and the Americans ;)

Plus, many ferocious battles were fought over airstrips in the pacific theater!

consider: Japan doesn't do Pearl Harbor, has Saigon, and manages to capture Singapore (which has all its artillery pointed the wrong direction, to sea). Japan concentrates on China, Burma, India. Axis link up in Northern India? Course this supposes that Hitler was militarily competant and not a corporal with uber field marshal power.

@ sgt. hellfish - what happens if the Anzacs get diverted from N. Africa to India? just playing devils advocate here :mischief:

But in 1941, most of that immense size was "wasteland" or "outback" with no real cities or industries.

Good places for partisans to operate. I was never talking about if America wasn't involved- that was someone else's train of thought but I know the Japanese fighting in New Gineau in 1942 were going hungry.

consider: Japan doesn't do Pearl Harbor, has Saigon, and manages to capture Singapore (which has all its artillery pointed the wrong direction, to sea). Japan concentrates on China, Burma, India. Axis link up in Northern India? Course this supposes that Hitler was militarily competant and not a corporal with uber field marshal power.

@ sgt. hellfish - what happens if the Anzacs get diverted from N. Africa to India? just playing devils advocate here :mischief:


Interesting point, but the fact is that this would have left their eastern flank, completely exposed to the US, should the latter decide to enter the war at any time. For one thing, the US was trying to provoke the Japanese into war by cutting off their oil. If they saw that the Japanese were getting around this by capturing the South East Asian colonies, I think the US would have been tempted to get into the war and prevent Japan from getting too big for her boots. Let's also not forget that the Japanese attacked Phillipines as well because the Americans here were too close for comfort, and could threaten supply lines to South East Asia. If not Pearl Harbour, then an attack on the Phillippines would have definitely brought the US into the war. Once the US was in the war, Japan could not possibly hope to win it from then on, forced as they were to fighting on so many fronts.

its true that when slim's 1944-45 campaigns are mentioned in history books its only a side note :(

But Slim was 'The Man' :( :salute: :hatsoff:

Why was Japan expanding so much? They were occupying a hostile area many times their own size. Basically, I think they bit off more than they could chew.

Before Japan declared war on the USA, would the Commonwealth have considered a peace treaty?

Japan was expanding so much, because they were living in middle ages until US brought big ships with big guns and "opened" Japan to the world. After that, Japan picked up general understanding how big states should operate (all the bad habits). Look at UK.. had 1/4 of earth as their empire.. so why should not Japan do the same. They already belived they are good's chosen people (saved not once, but twice by hurrican) and can only win.

War got "serious" when US embargoed them.. because they had no oil of their own (and with nobody else to sell it to them), the HAD to get it by invasion.. no oil = no tanks, ships, airplanes,.. US goverment knew that Americans (US congress) will not want another war (so soon after WW1), and so it had to wait for Japan to make first move..

It was actually the Royal Navy that inspired them to build big ships, but I honestly do not see a connection between big empires and the need for sudden expansion. Those big empires did not appear overnight.

After occupying part of China, why did they continue expanding instead of trying to establish law and order?

Where was the oil they wanted? Why were they trying to occupy Australia?

Interesting point, but the fact is that this would have left their eastern flank, completely exposed to the US, should the latter decide to enter the war at any time. For one thing, the US was trying to provoke the Japanese into war by cutting off their oil. If they saw that the Japanese were getting around this by capturing the South East Asian colonies, I think the US would have been tempted to get into the war and prevent Japan from getting too big for her boots. Let's also not forget that the Japanese attacked Phillipines as well because the Americans here were too close for comfort, and could threaten supply lines to South East Asia. If not Pearl Harbour, then an attack on the Phillippines would have definitely brought the US into the war. Once the US was in the war, Japan could not possibly hope to win it from then on, forced as they were to fighting on so many fronts.
Would the US public have tolerated the US declaring war on Japan without any Japanese attack on them first? I don't think they would have for at least another couple of years (so not intill 1943).

By 'big ships with big guns' i mean Matthew Perry (1854) with his ships..
As for Japan..

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25637
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23063
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_expansionism

Neviden
until US brought big ships with big guns and "opened" Japan to the world.

Actually in the late middle ages to the colonial era, European powers actually transported guns and arms alongside other powders and 'opened' japan to the world. However Japans main supplier of ships and arms was the British Empire and when the japanese and russians fought just before the first world war when they achieved a great naval victory over the russians black sea fleet it was a triumph of Japanes naval code and of British engineering.


As for the query what would happen if the anzac troops in n.africa. Well thats a quandry. Most troops were indian and then britsh/anzac i belive (im not sure however) I would presume that troops would've been pulled from other commonwelath nations (eg South Africa, India etc), imperial policing and from home guard duties, the north african front was vital. The only place the war against the axis powers was being fought by the army also this was an area of extreme intrest to Churchill for the propaganda services and to show that Britain was still alive and kicking. I would think that troops would be found to fight the war and presuming that the americans are sending the british weapons in hte forms of tanks artillary etc i belive that things would've taken much longer however the result would've been similar. However groups such as the LRDG (long range desert group) and the infamous SAS which merged into one unit later on (the LRDG being amalgamated into the SAS) would've suffered from the dedication and loyalty not to mention the physical presence of anzac troops. They were extremely valuble and without them alot of other places in the empire would become rather vunderable(sp?) to attack.

I'd like to reverse the discussion a little. What happens if Pearl Harbor occurs and Adolph doesn't declare on the US. Does all the US force get channelled to the Pacific? Without the need to do convoy escort to Britain, the Atlantic fleet is free to transfer to the Pacific.

As a second diversion given the above, what if US forces forgo the SE Asia campaigns and make a run at Guam and Saipan in early 1942?

As a second diversion given the above, what if US forces forgo the SE Asia campaigns and make a run at Guam and Saipan in early 1942?

in 1942 the u.s. lacked the capacity to do any serious invading. in the solomans [guadencanel ] the u.s. navy used old WW I destroyers to throw equipment over the side and let it floot ashore or let the tide drag it there. no lsd,lcm's,ect yet. plus the japanese would have air superiority-- it was the continuious air warfare in the solomans 1942-1943 that ate the heart out of the japanese air force.

That link on Japanese expansionism didn't answer my question. It says "Japan took control of much China's coasts and port cities, but very carefully avoided European spheres of influence." but Japan went on to attack Dutch, French and Commonwealth territories!

The other links just say Japan hated the Americans and British for being liars and cheats, but how was Japan having oil good for Germany? :confused:

And where was the rubber?

Why question is, why did they continue to expand to places that wouldn't help secure the resources : iron, coal, oil?

they wanted a perimeter of steel surroundings their new conquests--if you just took dutch indies for resources, you don't want that to be the frontlines.
Plus their plan was to "bleed" the u.s. as it went through layer after layer of defenses till we cried enough.

Exactly! Japan didn't want Dutch Indies to be their front line... so wtf did they declare war on the UK/US when that was the edge of their empire? :confused:

Capturing the Dutch and French territories makes some sense, especially given that the motherlands didn't exist. But the British territories had no resources of strategic value.

The addition of buffer regions is supposed to be oportunistic, not suicidal.

well the dutch and england were allies so i assume--key word, that they thought if they attacked holland, the brit's would interfer and the u.s. would back england if attacked.

well the dutch and england were allies so i assume--key word, that they thought if they attacked holland, the brit's would interfer and the u.s. would back england if attacked.
Yeh I think so.

I think they underestimated American isolationism.....expecting America to attack them if they made a move against the other powers.

Actually, this page (http://www.m4040.com/Entertainment/Politics.htm) states that Japan and Germany had a mutual protection pact.

When Britain declared war on Germany, Japan declared war on Britain.
When USA mobilised for war on Japan, Germany declared war on USA.

Actually, this page (http://www.m4040.com/Entertainment/Politics.htm) states that Japan and Germany had a mutual protection pact.

When Britain declared war on Germany, Japan declared war on Britain.
When USA mobilised for war on Japan, Germany declared war on USA.

Yes, BUT, the mutual protection pact called for Germany to attack the USA only if the USA attacked Japan, first! Since the Japanese attacked first, the Germanys were under no obligation to come to their assistance. The key words being "mutual protection" . Hitler was just pi*ssed off at the USA for supplying Britain with war material.

Would the US public have tolerated the US declaring war on Japan without any Japanese attack on them first? I don't think they would have for at least another couple of years (so not intill 1943).


I am so tempted to bring Vietnam, Iraq, Nicaragua, Panama, and other such instances..but I shall desist because obviously the comparisions are not valid.

However, the fact remains that even if PEarl Harbour was not attacked, the Japanese would have attacked the Phillippines since it was too close to their main supply routes to Indo-China for comfort. I don't think the JApanese put too much faith in America's isolationism, given the kind of support that the Americans were giving to the British in Europe. It is entirely possible that the Japanese feared an even bigger American embargo and possibly intervention in South East Asia, and hence felt the urgent need to take out the American fleet in Pearl Harbour to make things easier for themselves.

Ace, Japan did not declare war on Britain until 1941.

Adler

US had extended convoy escort to middle of Atlantic even before the start of the war. There would not be much difference in number of ships at the start of the war. When war begun, US mobilised. US had 10x the industrial capacity of the Japan..

look at the times of invasion.. US declared oil and iron embargo on Japan in 1941 (after Germany atacked Soviet Union). Japan "very carefully avoided European spheres of influence" since 30's.. since it had oil for only 6 months, there was no way out for Japan.. If they atack Dutch or UK, the US would at very least help them with arms.. Japan figured, US would enter the way anyway, so why not use time untill US mobilizes to make good defence and try to win this way (they had no way to defeat US itself).. by sending US pacific fleet to the bottom, Japan would achive Sea dominance and would prevent US counteratack.. Atacking someone that can outproduce you 10 times, and with no way of invading them is stupid anyway, but if you had to do it, you better think how you can use all your advantages. Suprise was one of them..

Japan having oil had nothing to do with Germany atacking Soviet Union. US had Philippines and didn't want Japan to become strong enough to pose a threat. Since everybody was looking to Europe's wars, nobody noticed embargo (I think the official reason for it was "attack on China", but that was going on for 10 years).

And where was the rubber?
Oil and rubber: Duth East Indies, i.e. Indonesia.

Actually in the late middle ages to the colonial era, European powers actually transported guns and arms alongside other powders and 'opened' japan to the world.
Spanish arrived in 1542, and brought the first musket. The Japanese knew a good idea when they saw it, reverse engineered it (improving on bits) and mass poduced them. Christianity arrived with Fransiscus Xavier, co-founder of the jesuits order, in 1548.

The Tokugawas chucked all foreigners out in 1637 (and outlawed their religion), handing a monopoly on all foreign trade to the Dutch, but also severly limiting their access. From then on until 1853, the Japanese decided who could come and go and what they were going to pick up from abroad.

Japan was expanding so much, because they were living in middle ages until US brought big ships with big guns and "opened" Japan to the world. After that, Japan picked up general understanding how big states should operate (all the bad habits).
Don't underestimate the middle ages! ;)
I've seen historians compare Japan and the US when Commodore Perry arrived. Conclusion seems to be: Two nations, roughly equal population figures, literacy rates and GDP (very high level of the Japanese craftsmen vs. the early industrial US). Japan's real weakness was the "medieval" (17th c.) political structure and the technological lag. (Still the key technologies since the 16th c. such as sailing and weapons.)

The "bad habits" of colonialism came about partly because the Japanese never really could find the ideological constructs of "la mission civilisatrice" or "the white man's burden" to be anything but hypocritical window dressing. They never bothered with trying to make their power grabbing look good. It doesn't excuse them, but we can have an interesting argument over whether they were really much worse than the British and the French?

Isn't it like a game of Poker, where you take your time and make bids when the cards are favourable... instead of putting everything in and losing badly?

Ace, Japan did not declare war on Britain until 1941.

Adler

Yeah, on Dec 7, 1941. Japan set in motion her plans to create the "Greater East Asian Co-Prespertity Sphere" on that date, attacking the US, the Phillipines, Dutch East Indies, Singapore, Malaya, New Guinea, and several other places, like French Indo-China. No one can ever accuse the Japanese of being cheatskates about their war plans.

If the Japanese had taken a good look at the US's track record at War, they would have noticed that from 1860 to the present (in this case, 1941) The US never started a major conflict, but only entered one when attacked. Sure, it would have taken nerves of steel for the Japanese to ignore the US pacific fleet and the phillipines, but the rewards would have been worth the risk. If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, it is entirely possible that the US would have remained neutral for another year or three, if not for the entire WW2!! FDR and his administration believed (rightfully I think) that the US had to fight Hitler, but without the spark of Pear Harbor igniting the rage of the nation, it would have been extremely difficult for FDR to overcome the nation's isolationism and presuade the nation to go to war. Remember, even after Pear Harbor, America did not declare war on Germany until Hitler first declared War on the USA, in hindsite, the most stupid thing he ever did!

Yeah, on Dec 7, 1941. Japan set in motion her plans to create the "Greater East Asian Co-Prespertity Sphere" on that date, attacking the US, the Phillipines, Dutch East Indies, Singapore, Malaya, New Guinea, and several other places, like French Indo-China. No one can ever accuse the Japanese of being cheatskates about their war plans.

If the Japanese had taken a good look at the US's track record at War, they would have noticed that from 1860 to the present (in this case, 1941) The US never started a major conflict, but only entered one when attacked. Sure, it would have taken nerves of steel for the Japanese to ignore the US pacific fleet and the phillipines, but the rewards would have been worth the risk. If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, it is entirely possible that the US would have remained neutral for another year or three, if not for the entire WW2!! FDR and his administration believed (rightfully I think) that the US had to fight Hitler, but without the spark of Pear Harbor igniting the rage of the nation, it would have been extremely difficult for FDR to overcome the nation's isolationism and presuade the nation to go to war. Remember, even after Pear Harbor, America did not declare war on Germany until Hitler first declared War on the USA, in hindsite, the most stupid thing he ever did!
Very good post, I agree with what you are saying :goodjob:

Like you said, the Japanese would have needed 'nerves of steel' but with hindsight is a gamble they should have taken, it would probably have payed off better than attacking the USA.

Let's not ignore the very deliberate fact that the US had imposed an embargo on oil and iron on the Japanese.

I don't suppose FDR and the rest of the administration would have sat back and applauded as the Japanese went around the embargo by invading South East Asia!!!

In Civ3 terms, you just piss off the AI, tell him to get rid off your territory or Declare War, or just plain cut him off from vital resources...you don't tarnish your rep by declaring war; put the AI in a situation where HE has to declare war on you...

It was a simple strategy on the part of the US. They WANTED to get into the war. just not be seen as the aggressors that's all. You don't send across tons of military equipment and some volunteers just for the newspaper ratings:p

Where did Hitler stand with the Japs racially?

Hitler was a very odd man when deciding his racial policies. He had respect for the Japanese and often referred to them as the "Aryans of the east/orient", but he hated Slavic people even though they bear more resemblance to northern Europeans (Germanics) than the Japanese did.

What’s even more unusual is that so many white supremacists respect Hitler even though he probably killed more Northern Europeans by starting WWII than anybody else in human history.

Let's not ignore the very deliberate fact that the US had imposed an embargo on oil and iron on the Japanese.

I don't suppose FDR and the rest of the administration would have sat back and applauded as the Japanese went around the embargo by invading South East Asia!!!

In Civ3 terms, you just piss off the AI, tell him to get rid off your territory or Declare War, or just plain cut him off from vital resources...you don't tarnish your rep by declaring war; put the AI in a situation where HE has to declare war on you...

It was a simple strategy on the part of the US. They WANTED to get into the war. just not be seen as the aggressors that's all. You don't send across tons of military equipment and some volunteers just for the newspaper ratings:p

Ahh, this is really true to civ 2!! FDR and his administration wanted to get into the war, but, since he was in Democracy, the damn senate stopped him until the Japanese attacked the US.

Yes, the US had embargoed oil and scrap metal for the Japanese because of their invasion of China. But, just like Iraq in 2003, sanctions and embargos are not much good unless backed up with bullets. FDR and his admin could yell and scream about war all he wanted, but until the country was ready for war, after being sneak attacked, there was very little chance of FDR getting the US into WW2. I am not saying we should not have entered, but the isolationist mood of the country would not have allowed it. It took the sneak attack on Pear Harbor to angry the country enough to get into the war and even than Hitler had to declare war on the US.

Unfortunately for the Japanese, they believed we would attack them if they went after the oil and other resourses they wanted.

@verbose - you read some interesting books.
Conclusion seems to be: Two nations, roughly equal population figures, literacy rates and GDP (very high level of the Japanese craftsmen vs. the early industrial US). Japan's real weakness was the "medieval" (17th c.) political structure and the technological lag. (Still the key technologies since the 16th c. such as sailing and weapons.)


May I have the title? I'd like to read it.

Let's not ignore the very deliberate fact that the US had imposed an embargo on oil and iron on the Japanese.

...

It was a simple strategy on the part of the US. They WANTED to get into the war. just not be seen as the aggressors that's all. You don't send across tons of military equipment and some volunteers just for the newspaper ratings:p

Not necessarily. The purpose of the embargo against Japan was to force her to end her agressive actions. If the Japanese leadership were capable of rational action, they would have responded to the embargo by complying with the Americans demands, or at least enough of them to achieve a negotiated solution.

Not necessarily. The purpose of the embargo against Japan was to force her to end her agressive actions. If the Japanese leadership were capable of rational action, they would have responded to the embargo by complying with the Americans demands, or at least enough of them to achieve a negotiated solution.

And what were American demands?

Japan was under no ilusion that it's oil embargo would be lifted, even if Japan stoped the same day. America had Philipines as a colony and it used force to crush independence movement - 250.000 dead. Japan did basicly the same for 10 years in China, and now sudenly US had a problem with that.. even if all of the demands would have been meet, new demands would be put forward. And of course Japan had no intentions of leaving mineral rich China.. That would only mean that US (or anyone else) would be free to get it..

@verbose - you read some interesting books.


May I have the title? I'd like to read it.
Sure. Only my reading habits are a bit polyglot. :) It's a collection of historical essays by an economic journalist named Olle Bolang, "Plogen från Formosa". (The Plow from Formosa) It's an economic world history in essay form with emphasis on East Asia, Japan in particular.

Of course, this comparison between Japan and the US may be a little unorthodox, but in general economic historians have worked hard to try to understand how come Japan quickly and successfully could modernize while China languished.
A very well developed and complex financial system was part it, just like good centralized administration (way stronger than China's), and a very high level of literacy.
You can pick up pretty much any more or less recent textbook on Japanse history and get the stuff about Japanse monetary standards based on the koku of rice that allowed the traders at the Osaka Rice Exchange to trade in "futures" way ahead of the westernes. I get a lot of it from Reischauer and Craig "Japan: Traditionand Transformation" (1978).

The only way Japan could have won is if they could have keep the US out of the war. Japan plotted the attack on Pearl Harbor as a means of knocking the US out of the war in one shot but it was a fundimentally flawed idea. There was nothing to stop the US from raising and repairing the ships that were "sunk" in the shallow waters of the harbor; this in fact what happened, with one of the repaired ships escorting the USS Missouri into Tokyo Bay in 1945. It also, as already pointed out, failed to take into account the industrial capacity of the US that was out of most bombers of the times from areas that could concievably be used as bases for enemy planes. Also, the carriers were out to sea on manuevers and thus escaped damage. those carriers were the same ones that fought in to Battle of Midway.

Ultimately there was no way for Japan to hold on to any of its gains since they could niether avoid being overrun or expect to be allowed to keep them in peace negociations.

Unless of course their seaman, sailors and soldiers proved much superior to their American foes. Meaning any manpower or equipment problems would be over shadowed by their skill.

The only way Japan could have won is if they could have keep the US out of the war. Japan plotted the attack on Pearl Harbor as a means of knocking the US out of the war in one shot but it was a fundimentally flawed idea. There was nothing to stop the US from raising and repairing the ships that were "sunk" in the shallow waters of the harbor; this in fact what happened, with one of the repaired ships escorting the USS Missouri into Tokyo Bay in 1945. It also, as already pointed out, failed to take into account the industrial capacity of the US that was out of most bombers of the times from areas that could concievably be used as bases for enemy planes. Also, the carriers were out to sea on manuevers and thus escaped damage. those carriers were the same ones that fought in to Battle of Midway.

Ultimately there was no way for Japan to hold on to any of its gains since they could niether avoid being overrun or expect to be allowed to keep them in peace negociations.
What do you think the US would have done if Japan had not attacked them but still proceeded to attack the British Empire and the Dutch East Indies?