Japan's financial position at the start of WW2?

[innonimatu]

The issue of the US's oil embargo on Japan as a cause of the Pearl Harbor attack comes up very often. But I was wondering: just how able was Japan to continue to buy the raw materials necessary to its war effort, even without an embargo? Japan was already a heavily populated country, but not a particularly advanced one, industrially? What did it export? Could they continue to pay for the raw materials used in their war in China, had they not gone down the invasion route?

I assume that iron and coal were available from Korea and Manchuria, but they would still need oil, rubber and several metals for alloys.

 

[Cutlass]

I think the issue at the time was more that the export market for oil at that time was dominated by the US. IIRC, the Dutch East India exports were spoken for. And the Mideast was a fledgling in the oil industry at the time, and hadn't yet developed the capacity for large scale exports. So I don't think there really was a place for Japan to replace the lost US oil from. Not in the short run in 1941 in any case.

 

[innonimatu]

True. But my question is not so much whether Japan could obtain oil elsewhere, but whether, in the absence of an embargo, Japan's economy could sustain its war in China for much longer.

 

[Zardnaar]

The Japanese had invested heavily in Manchukuo and had around 18 months of oil stockpiled. I'll dpo some digging and see waht I can fined but theres a book called , War Economy and Society 1939-45 by Alan S Milward that gives a excellent rundown of the Japanese economy.

 

[Racsoviale]

At least it seems to have been more realistic and thoughtout than the Nazi economy. Though this is mostly based on what the ww2 buffs here have said about the nazi economy.

 

[Zardnaar]

Japan wasn't quite so nutty in rearmament.

 

[Tee Kay]

Japan was already a heavily populated country, but not a particularly advanced one, industrially?

Not advanced compared to, say, the United Kingdom, Germany or the United States at the time. Industry for the most part remain small-scale and labor-intensive, but this was changing in the 1930s as heavy industry developed. IIRC its industrial output (including Korea) was around that of Italy, and France by the end of the 1930s.

What did it export?

Textiles, mostly. But when war broke out the textile industry was suppressed in favor of heavy industry and military production.

True. But my question is not so much whether Japan could obtain oil elsewhere, but whether, in the absence of an embargo, Japan's economy could sustain its war in China for much longer.

AFAIK Japan was already heavily in debt by 1940 from borrowing to finance the China War. It would still be able to keep going in China for a while, but its economy would still be wrecked in the long run.

 

[innonimatu]

Not advanced compared to, say, the United Kingdom, Germany or the United States at the time. Industry for the most part remain small-scale and labor-intensive, but this was changing in the 1930s as heavy industry developed. IIRC its industrial output (including Korea) was around that of Italy, and France by the end of the 1930s.

Thanks. I still find it hard to believe that they could match France technologically, but the output of their heavy industryes may have been comparable indeed.

AFAIK Japan was already heavily in debt by 1940 from borrowing to finance the China War. It would still be able to keep going in China for a while, but its economy would still be wrecked in the long run.

Interesting. So the political oil embargo might have been replaced by a simple refusal to sell to a bankrupt buyer a few years later? They were already going to lose in China, and losing would mean eventually be drivel all the way out of Korea?

 

[Zardnaar]

Japan was probably more advanced than France with the exception of tanks. Better naval tech, planes and later jets.

 

[Cutlass]

Were Japanese planes advanced? i never thought so. And they didn't seem to evolve much over the course of the war. While German, Soviet, American and British planes did evolve, and the models when the same were considerably changed. And many more new models were introduced in the other nations in the war.

 

[Zardnaar]

Best Japanese planes were almost as good as the Allied planes and they built jet prototypes. They weren't as advanced as the best German and Allied planes but they were more advanced IMHO than French models. The Nakajima Ki44 was tested against an imported BF-109 and could out fly it, and a captured Nakajima Ki-84 was tested and it could out climb and outmaneover a P=51H and P-47N.

 

[Tee Kay]

Interesting. So the political oil embargo might have been replaced by a simple refusal to sell to a bankrupt buyer a few years later? They were already going to lose in China, and losing would mean eventually be drivel all the way out of Korea?

I don't know if the Chinese were in a position to mount a large-scale successful offensive against the Japanese forces in eastern China without Allied involvement, much less pursue the Japanese through Manchuria all the way to Fusan, even against an IJA starved of oil. Japanese equipment, training, organization, etc are still superior to the bulk of the Chinese forces. Nevertheless continued attacks by the Chinese could force the Japanese to withdraw from "China Proper". They'd still most likely keep Manchukuo and Chosen though.

 

[Luckymoose]

The issue of the US's oil embargo on Japan as a cause of the Pearl Harbor attack comes up very often. But I was wondering: just how able was Japan to continue to buy the raw materials necessary to its war effort, even without an embargo? Japan was already a heavily populated country, but not a particularly advanced one, industrially? What did it export? Could they continue to pay for the raw materials used in their war in China, had they not gone down the invasion route?

I assume that iron and coal were available from Korea and Manchuria, but they would still need oil, rubber and several metals for alloys.

The assumption that Japan was imbalanced population-industry wise is ridiculous. The nation was comparable to most European states on the level of density of industries in the 1930s, the depression did cause a number of problems, but the wars in Asia helped earlier recovery a good bit, especially with the exploitation of Korean workers/resources and the setting up of Manchukuo. The oil embargo had an effect, sure, but it wasn't necessarily damning to their war effort, as much as one might think, there have been numerous studies done the situation in the Pacific that seem to indicate that the Japanese could have continued on without much issue for a few years. The kicker is that the hawks in Japan were pushing Hirohito to war and giving him false information as to the projection power of the Imperial Navy, leading him to believe that smacking around the U.S would give Japan free reign over the Chinese, which the Americans were supplying quite diligently, I might add. On the issues of oil, rubber and rarer metals, Manchuria had a bit of everything and where they didn't have rubber, up until a point the British/Dutch/Burmese/Thai were willing to make deals, so it's more a case of gunboat diplomacy gone awry.

 

[xchen08]

Were Japanese planes advanced? i never thought so. And they didn't seem to evolve much over the course of the war. While German, Soviet, American and British planes did evolve, and the models when the same were considerably changed. And many more new models were introduced in the other nations in the war.

They had excellent airframes, which evolved considerably during the war. What they did not have was the ability to mass produce the high power engines those airframes needed, or the high octane fuel needed to maximize performance.

As already mentioned, post war tests using American fuel yielded highly competitive results. That's certainly better than you can say for France.

 

[Lord Baal]

They had excellent airframes, which evolved considerably during the war. What they did not have was the ability to mass produce the high power engines those airframes needed, or the high octane fuel needed to maximize performance.

As already mentioned, post war tests using American fuel yielded highly competitive results. That's certainly better than you can say for France.

I was going to say this. Japan's planes were on par if not superior to their American counter-parts. What they lacked was sufficient number of planes and experienced pilots, as well as sufficient fuel for the planes they had. The Zero especially was an exellent fighter for its time.

 

[Verbose]

Best Japanese planes were almost as good as the Allied planes and they built jet prototypes. They weren't as advanced as the best German and Allied planes but they were more advanced IMHO than French models. The Nakajima Ki44 was tested against an imported BF-109 and could out fly it, and a captured Nakajima Ki-84 was tested and it could out climb and outmaneover a P=51H and P-47N.

Not that I'm going to argue that Japan didn't build excellent aircraft in WWII, but the comparison in particular with the French gear is kind of halting here.

The Ki44 was introduced in 1942. That's two years of quite rapid technological development among all the major combatants, after France was occupied, which effectively cut short the French involvement in said technological competition. I'm not at all so sure for instance the Mitsubishi A6M (introduced in 1940) would make French designs like the Bloch M.B.152, the Dewoitine D.520 or the Arsenal VG-33 fighters, which were at least developed but production for obvious reasons was cut short in 1940, look too dull by comparison. Possibly excepting carrier technology, I really can't see any reason to assess French technology as less advanced up to 1940. They might have invested in the wrong stuff, used things in less successful ways, but not really due to technological lag.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Were Japanese planes advanced? i never thought so. And they didn't seem to evolve much over the course of the war. While German, Soviet, American and British planes did evolve, and the models when the same were considerably changed. And many more new models were introduced in the other nations in the war.

They advanced but newer models were never really introduced, because of limitations in production.

 

[Antilogic]

I won't do a quote-response thing because it would get confusing, but I have some notes.

On Japanese Industry
To my knowledge, the Japanese had a lack of trained mechanics and other industrially proficient people during the war, relative to the US, UK, and France. Additionally, the native shipbuilding capacity of the Japanese could not equal the US or UK.

This is particularly evident in their lack of effective damage control personnel, problems getting more mechanics, etc. This leads to their inability to replace the 4 large carriers after Midway and the trained crews that operated them. Shattered Sword has the figures for pilot and crew survival, and many pilots made it through the battle and were later transferred to other air groups. But the crews as well as the ships could not be replaced quickly enough.

On Japanese Aircraft
Japanese aircraft have always been overrated in my eyes. The A6M Zeros, despite being hailed as awesome planes, had no armor, limited firepower relative to American planes, and no self-sealing fuel tanks. It's advantage in maneuverability was countered by good tactics such as the Thach Weave and later by American planes that could match it.

The problem with a maneuverability-focused plane is that you had to survive the approach (head-to-head unless you had an ambush situation) to use your agility in a turning fight. In the initial approach, armor and firepower matter much more. Another metric to use for the opening engagement would be operating ceiling (how high the planes can fly), where the Zero is comparable to the F4F Wildcat and loses to the F6F Hellcat.

Specifically, the low armor meant that if any of the American's 6 machine guns (standard armament, although some US planes used gun-cannon combos) hit the fuselage there was a good chance the pilot would be killed or the fuel tank would explode, taking the plane down. The Zero's most common armament (2 machine guns, 2 cannons) had a much harder time against the American armor--machine gun rounds had difficulty penetrating vital areas of the American plane, so the Zero was essentially down to 2 effective guns vs. 6 effective guns.

Although it performs well in 1942, the introduction of the F6F Hellcat in 1943 turns the Zero into a flying coffin. If memory serves, the kill rate was something like 1 Hellcat to 19 Zeros for the entire war, a historic record. It was a nimble coffin, but a coffin nonetheless.

EDIT: I realize after posting that I failed to mention this comparison holds for late-model Zeros introduced after 1942. No, I'm not making the mistake of comparing a '43 model exclusively to a '40 model, I'm comparing the entire series of planes as a whole. I hope this clarifies the post.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not that I'm going to argue that Japan didn't build excellent aircraft in WWII, but the comparison in particular with the French gear is kind of halting here.

The Ki44 was introduced in 1942. That's two years of quite rapid technological development among all the major combatants, after France was occupied, which effectively cut short the French involvement in said technological competition. I'm not at all so sure for instance the Mitsubishi A6M (introduced in 1940) would make French designs like the Bloch M.B.152, the Dewoitine D.520 or the Arsenal VG-33 fighters, which were at least developed but production for obvious reasons was cut short in 1940, look too dull by comparison. Possibly excepting carrier technology, I really can't see any reason to assess French technology as less advanced up to 1940. They might have invested in the wrong stuff, used things in less successful ways, but not really due to technological lag.

I'm not claiming Japanese stuff was drastically beter than the French, but I was mostly refuting the claim that the Japanese were drstically behind the French. Also Vichy France did continue to develop their equipment and the French tank desinged in 44/45 was a joke despite the French having access to Allied tanks for comparison and captured German Panthers and blueprints. Why the French just didn't rip off the Panzer IV or Panther??????

 

[xchen08]

EDIT: I realize after posting that I failed to mention this comparison holds for late-model Zeros introduced after 1942. No, I'm not making the mistake of comparing a '43 model exclusively to a '40 model, I'm comparing the entire series of planes as a whole. I hope this clarifies the post.

Which is still an unfair comparison. The Zero was fundamentally a design constrained by Japanese industry, namely the anemic Nakajima Sakae engine that was one of the few reliable radials Japan was able to mass produce. The Japanese realized that the only way to get acceptable performance with that few horsepower was to strip the aircraft down, and continued producing said aircraft throughout the war because increasing the armor and armament without more horsepower would only make things worse. (see later marks of the Brewster Buffalo for what happens when you do that)

Not to mention that basing any part of the comparison of the aircraft on kill ratios is grossly flawed. The U.S. racked up nearly as absurd kill ratios against enemies flying slightly or greatly (early on) aircraft, and the communist pilots at least had the fuel to actually train. All that proves is that pilot quality trumps a lot of technical concerns.

Ignoring industrial, strategic, or resource concerns, "George", ie Shiden first flew about the same time as the Hellcat, and matches it despite greatly inferior fuel. With American quality fuel, it would have been a match for the Corsair. Had Japan had America's industrial capability, it would have been actually mass produced, and a year earlier, again roughly the same time as the Hellcat.