From: Mike Fester <island!fester@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Japanese Strategy in WWII
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:58:51 GMT


From Mike Fester <island!fester@uunet.uu.net>

In article <Bx5Cy1.J0r@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>From jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
>
>>>No problem there, so what is the only sensibble conclusion?
>
>>If you don't believe this, why did you say in your post of
>>Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:32:30 GMT
>
>>"The Japanese always knew they could not win, their only goal was to
>>grab as much as they could and then grind the US down in a war of attrition.

>>In short, you are contradicting yourself here.

>Actually I am not, it is just that you don't seem to have understood my
>line of argument. That the Japanese ran a policy of attrition is,in IMHO,
>relatively clear. That they did it _and_expected_to_win is another matter.
>I do not think they thought so. That is, no sensible Japanese strategist
>(or anyone else since) would say that attrition was a winning policy but
>they did it anyway.  So why did they do it? You see I do believe that no

So you are saying that sane leaders deliberately pursue a course of action 
that they KNOW will have disasterous consequences.

>rational strategist believed they could win. Their goal was lunacy from
>the start and they knew it.

Do you have any quotes from anyone who thought such a goal was lunacy? Anyone
who was in on the decision-making chain here will do. Yamamoto was NOT such a
person, as he was forced OUT of the chain. All those who vocally opposed
such a course was (as mentioned numerous times) removed from a position of
decision-making.

BTW, if as you say "Their goal was lunacy from the start and they knew it."
WHY do you then believe that this goal would then be pursued by a leadership
you claim below "Perhaps their leadership wasn't so totally stupid as you 
would appear to have me believe."?

Again, this seems a rather blatant contradiction here.

>>The sensible conclusion was that the Japanese leadership was not a sane entity
>>at that time.
>
>You could opt for the 'they went totally insane' argument or you could look
>at the one country that did have a highly rational strategy and also won.
>Perhaps their leadership wasn't so totally stupid as you would appear to
>have me believe.

??? It would seem that any intelligent leadership would avoid a war it knew
it was going to lose. Or are you saying that the Japanese were somehow intel-
ligent (leadership-wise), KNEW that a war with the US would be a disaster, 
KNEW that any further expansion of the war in China would cause the US to 
embargo their oil, and then took the perfectly rational step of continuing 
a course of action that would lead to this disasterous war? I am terribly
sorry, but we seem to have fundamental difference of opinion regarding how a
sane, rational leadership would act.

>>>The Japanese did not hold a position of strength in the first place!
>>>A strategy of attrition is also the last refuge of the desparate! Not
>>>the first choice of the strong.
>
>>Again, from your post of the same day
>
>             < Irrelevant quote deleted >

Why are you deleting your own quotes as irrelevant?

>>This would APPEAR to indicate that you believe the Japanese at that point
>>had a very strong position, which I believe indicates a Japanese strategy
>>of siezing an "unassailable" position early, and waiting for the Americans
>>to get tired and go away.

>So Saddam beat the Kuwaiti army in 36odd hours, therefore they are in a
>strong position? Sorry I missed that one. The fact that the Japanese

??? Yes, apparantly you did. I was not aware that Hussein actually believed that
he would be fighting the United Nations at the time of the invasion. Or
are you going to present 'evidence' that Hussein was "forced" into the 
Kuwaiti war? 

>fought an superb opening campaign does *not* imply they had a position
>of strength. (see Saddam, above) As soon as the rest of the US Defense
>Forces arrived they were a thin red smear across some coral reefs (or
>desert sands in the Iraqi case) Is there any indication that the US
>would go away? I haven't seen any. What makes you think the Japanese
>thoguht some thing so stupid? This is, I think, a case of hindsight.
>"The Japanese started the war therefore they must have had a plan,
>therefore as this is the only one I can think up it must be this one"

I have very specifically stated that I see no evidence of any planning
entity existing at this time. I have further stated that I do not see the
then-current Japanese political situation as being one controlled by
rational people. Quite the opposite of your inference. In small words, here
it is again : There was no rational force in charge of the Japanese government
and/or war machine. The system was badly out of control. There were no
checks on the system any longer. This was the result of an internally pursued
campaign of elimination of any sort of dissent. The system at this time was
incapable of operating in a rational fashion.

>Well perhaps they didn't start the War in the first place (and that is
>the War in the Pacific not the War in China) it would be a lot more

Again, if you could provide a single reference, showing where the Japanese
were attempting to avoid this war, we might all read and evaluate it.

>rational than the idea that the US might suddenly give up. Even Russia
>in 1904 (which I am suprised noone has mentioned) didn't give up, the
>other powers forced a settlement.

"No one has mentioned"? I mentioned it in several posts. And the other powers
did NOT force a settlement: Japan asked the US to mediate, as they were
losing the battle of attrition (though winning victory after victory). Russia
simply refused to pay an indemnity to the Japanese, and the Japanese reluctantly
took the deal.

>>>>Agree that they thought the US had no stomach for a prolonged war.
>
>>>I wouldn't! :-) That they *hoped* the US had no stomache for a prolonged
>>>war perhaps.
>
>>They actully seemed to believe it.
>
>Who seemed to believe it? Have you ever seen a quote from Tojo say, where
>he says "The US has no stomache for this War"? Or anything remotely close?
>I certainly haven't.

For a discussion of how self-confident the Japanese were at this point, see
_Politics and Culture in Wartime Japan_, by Shillony. Adml Kato Kanji believed
that with sufficient will-power, the "impossible" victory against the US
could become possible. Even after the surrender speech, the defeat was 
explained as being due to "insufficient efforts and a lack of true patriotism
on our part". Also, military leaders had warned against "overreliance" on 
"material goods", as being "corrupting" to the soul of the Japanese Army
(Journal of Asian Studies, May 1962, p 319) You may also see _Pearl Harbor
as History_, Borg and Okamoto.

>>I'm very confused here. Your whole contention before this was that Japan was
>>forced into the war, as sane people would NOT try to pick a war with the US.
>>Now, you state the the titiular heads of government knew nothing about the
>>planned attack on the US. How does this support your claim that Japan was forced
>>into the war? It would seem that if the nominal LEADERS opposed the war, and
>>the plans for the strikes were carried out anyway, this argues agianst your
>>contention and FOR the contention that the Japanese system was out of
>>control at this point.
>
>What it fundamentally proves is that there was no plan of conquest like
>Hitler's. If there was no strong central government then by definition
>there can be no plan of aggression, at least from the people that MacArthur
>hanged as Class 1 War Criminals. Let me also stress the *nominal* nature
>of the Japanese Prime Minister, although as it doesn't help my argument
>maybe you'ld like to run with it. What there was was a crisis that could
>not be resolved by diplomatic means. They tried and they failed to do so.
>The Japanese system may or may not have been out of control at this point,
>that is not important, the real question is *why*. Why was it out of control

Actually, that is of PARAMOUNT importance. A system out of control is not
necessarily expected to behave rationally. Or do you disagree here?

>why were people prepared to do something so stupid? Why was there a crisis?
>(and so on) The answer couldn't be because the US had painted Japan into a
>corner could it?

??? Not that I can see, unless you are saying that somehow, agents of the US
got Japan to take more Chinese territory, then helped in the elimination of 
those Japanese who opposed war with the US.

Also I am not aware of a "definition" that precludes a nebulous power center
from conquest; Korea had already been conquored, had it not? War with China
had already been joined, had it not? All this, prior to any pending clash with
the US. 

Also, while Tojo was Prime Minister a mere two months before Pearl Harbor, he
had been Minister of the Department of War for a couple years before that (and
deputy minister prior to that). Yet, you state that he was not informed of
the Pearl Harbor plans at that time. Somehow, you derive from this "proof" that
this means the US forced Japan into the war, yet 

>>>Yamamoto, in a famous meeting, presented the differentials between the US
>>>and Japan. No one who was there could sensibly claim Japan would win a
>>>protracted war after seeing the figures. Nor could many of the top brass
>>>have been ignorant of them. You just have to look at the amount of Steel
>>>the two countries produced to realise that Japan had no chance of winning.
>
>>And as a result of his "traitorous" weakness, Yamamoto was in danger of being
>>assasinated, as were many others before him for their cautions against war
>>with the US. And as has been pointed out NUMEROUS times, Yamamoto was NOT
>>in on the decision-making loop by now. Could you please explain this issue?
>>Could you please explain the assainations of pacifists, by the military, in
>>the '30's? Could you at least ADDRESS it?

>Why do you want me to address this issue? I wouldn't have thought it relevant.

You wouldn't think it relevant that those leaders opposing war with the US
were systematically murdered? This seems improbable. Are you saying that
it is NOT important that all moderates were eliminated or silenced, and that
this has no relevance to the later Japanese intransigence? If the moderates
were eliminated, what mechanism remained in Japan to avert war? How does
this elimination have no bearing (or support) your claim that the US "forced"
Japan into the war? (unless you are going to posit that FDR was somehow
involved in elimnating these moderates).

If the fanatics eliminated all opposition, it seems like they actively forced
their situation upon themselves.

>But O.K. if you want. The Militarists were so angry at the people who talked
>about peace because they felt these people were selling Japan out. They were
>betraying Japan. This was because to cave in to US demands in effect meant
>the end of Japan as a Power. The US would then control Japan's lifeline.

And the alternative would be a disasterous war for Japan, at least as seen 
by "sane" people. So you are positting that elimination of those who would
avoid war was a sane act? Or are you saying that they were forced to eliminate
these "traitors", in order to fight a necessary war, which you already state
would be forced upon them?

>>>The Japanese *prayed* the Americans were weak willed and wouldn't fight.
>>>Not that a lack of will does much to make up for a lack of guns!
>
>>They believed that an army should not have an over-reliance on such things
>>as guns (I left this reference at home; I'll post it tomorrow) and this is
>>one of the factors that led them to attack the oft-mentioned Soviet positions
>>along the Manchurian border.
>
>Where they got their butts kicked and they should have learnt better

And obviously did not. Again, is this sane? BTW, the reference is is the
above Journal of Asian studies article.

>>Uh, why does any country start a war it cannot win?
>
>I don't know perhaps you might tell me, because the alternative is worse
>perhaps?

Or because they feel they can win. Was Hitler "forced" into war with Britain,
France, the USSR, the US, etc? It is difficult to imagine a worse fate than
that which befell Germany, yet Germany went to war.

>>You have yet to show any evidence of this. I have posted that the those leaders
>>who most actively opposed the war were either assasinated or were in danger
>>of being assasinated. You have AGREED that plans for an attack on the US were
>>HIDDEN FROM THE MAIN POLITICAL LEADER! How does this indicate the Japanese
>>were "forced" into the war?

>How does this show that their was a plan of aggression? It shows that there
>was a crisis in Japan caused by the oil boycott.

I believe their plan of aggression was adequately demonstrated by their 
expansion of the war in China. This expansion of the war was what led to the
oil boycott.

>>And again, FDR wanted into the EUROPEAN war, very vocally. And he and his allies
>>agreed that GERMANY, not Japan, was the most dangerous enemy. It really does
>>not sound like FDR was aching to get at the Japanese.
>
>He tried in 1938 to get Britian and the US to fight Japan. It sort of looks
>like it. Also a War against Japan was a War against Germany compare with
>Cold War and Vietnam

"It sort of looks like it"? Could you perhaps post a single reference? Almost
everything I've read indicates the opposite: that the US did not feel at all
inclined to fight to protect Britain's colonial possesions in the area.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 

Newsgroups: sci.military