History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
What could Japan do differently?
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 07:27 PM UTC
Straying a little here


Quoted Text

making him impotent to do anything about the disastrous demands made in the Versailles treaties. Let alone the scandalous behaviour of France, Britian and the newly created Central European states vs Germany, Austria and Hungary (the remnants of Germany and the Habsburg Monarchy). With had (among other things) the result that through shrewd political manoevering Hitler could easily dominate Central Europe well before the Anschluss of Austria in 1938.



Germany got a very good deal out of Versailles, far better than they would have given had they been the victors. You only need to look at the treaty they pushed onto Russia (or the one with France after the Franco-Prussian War) to see that. Independent Belgium, and newly-indendendent Poland, Czechoslovakia and the other nations created post-WW1 would have had no place in a German peace.

As with the Japanese in WW2, propaganda on the home front disguised just how badly the war was going until it was too late, allowing those responsible (like Hindenburg) to pretend defeat was the result of factors other than their own political and military mistakes.
Halfyank
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 09:51 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Exactly, but the attack should have also covered the carriers. That failiure cost them



The attack was supposed to cover the carriers. The Japanes pilots certainly wanted carriers to be there, and all Japanese commanders were dissapointed that they weren't in Pearl. Again it was by the finger of fate that Enterprise wasn't there. She should have docked the night before, but was delayed by heavy seas. Lexington was on a mission and not due back yet. The task force didn't have the ability to pick and choose it's attack time to make sure that carriers were there before they attacked. They could only hope that they would be in port, which unfortunately for them didn't happen.


Quoted Text

War was inevitable with the US and as Vance and Roderick pointed out, Japan saw the sanctions as an act of war. Similar to the line N Korea took recently.



Yes, certainly war was inevitable but the thing is when? Japan certainly saw the sanctions as an act of war. The US probably would have seen similar sanctions against the US as a act of war also. The thing is though the main effect of the sanctions was to deprive Japan of raw materials. By attacking the British and Netherlands areas, and not the US, they would have been able to able to secure those resources, without direct conflict witht he US. If the US then chose to delcare war on Japan, which with the political climate of the times might not have been too easy to get the US congress to do. If that had happened then the US declaring war on Japan, without Japan having fired the first shot, would have the clause of the Tri-Partie pact kick in and Germany would be forced to declare war. As it was it was a monumental Hitler blunder that led to the declaration of war.

spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:16 PM UTC
Rodger, my comment on the carriers was in answer to the original question about what Japan could have done to make things end differently. I am aware that it was mostly luck that made 'em miss the carriers. But in my eyes, it's still probably the single biggest miss of the war for them, and a fatal one. And luck or not, it was a failure on the Japanese part. Reconaissance could have located the carriers, and Japan could then have decided what to attack.

As for the issues leading up to war with the US, if Pearl hadn't happened, war would most likely have broken out within the next 8-12 months. Most likely as the result of some small clash between navies or over the sinking of some cargo ship. Japan decided to pre-empt this with the Pearl strike. If not for Pearl, Japan would have been faced with war a year later, and one in which the US Pacific fleet was intact and prepared. It was a calculated gamble on the Japanese part, fortunately one that failed.

As for the comment on Pacific sea lanes, Japan had many trade links with South America (as they do today), and it would have been unrealistic to expect them to ignore the security of these and concentrate on SE Asia, anymore than it can be expected that the UK could ignore the Atlantic in favour of Europe and the Med.
Tigercat
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Member Since: July 20, 2005
entire network: 216 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:06 AM UTC
Right now were to start. There were a number of thing that the Japanese could have done differently:

A combined command structure to force the Army and Navy to work together and stop duplication task.

Use less complicated battle plans and don't cheat when war gaming plan to test it.

Install radios in all fighters to enable an effective Combat air patrol to be maintained.

Place greater priority on radar.

Increase the combat persistence of fighters by increasing ammo capacity of cannons. 60 rounds per cannon is not enough.

Install self sealing fuel tanks to all aircraft.

Switch to fighter tactics too mutually supporting pairs instead of vics of 3 flying in close formation.

Train and equip reserve carrier airwings. Zuikaku was unable to take part at Midway as airwing was still being rebuilt.

Rotate experienced aircrew to training duty, to build up institutional knowledge.

Conduct an aggressive submarine offensive against allied supply lines. Placing great importance on oil tankers


I also agree with Rodger that Japan should have devoted more effort to ASW operations. One depth charge attack dose not mean the sub has been sunk.

David
thathaway3
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Member Since: September 10, 2004
entire network: 1,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 265 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 02:15 AM UTC
I agree that had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, the war would have most likely broken out eventually. How that would have gone has some interesting contradictions. On the one hand, if the war had been delayed for 12 months, assuming that the post Pearl Harbor construction tempo had occurred (not necessarily a GOOD assumption), the US Navy would have started to receive the first of the Essex Class Carriers.

That would have been extremely bad for the Japanese with respect to beginning a war. In some respects, the knowledge that these ships WERE coming (and that fact was NOT top secret, although specific details were) was part of why Japan felt they needed a preemptive strike when they did.

But HAVING those ships is NOT the same thing as knowing what to DO with them. It is NOT altogether clear that the prevailing "wisdom" in the pre-Dec 7th Navy really understood that the carrier and NOT the battleship was now the "capital" ship of the fleet.

There were some visionaries for sure, but the battleship admirals still ran the Navy. The early campaigns that may have been waged by these leaders almost certainly would have resulted in a lot more losses than occurred at Pearl Harbor. As bad as the attack was, the net result (eventually) was two (WW I aged) battleships lost. The rest were salvaged and played some part in the war, even if it was only shore bombardment.

A high seas engagement with the IJN at the beginning of a theoretical late 1942 start to the War in the Pacific would have probably been much more costly in terms of ships and lives lost. In an ironic way, the destruction of the battleships at Pearl Harbor actually had three positive effects:

1) It proved without doubt the capability of the aircraft carrier.

2) It forced the US Navy to use the aircraft carrier and the submarine to take the war to the enemy, to great effect.

3) The NATURE of the attack aroused so much anger in the US, that it ensured that there was plenty of "popular support" for the war. Enlistments and 24/7 schedules in shipyards were never a problem because of the way the attack was conducted.


So what could they have done differently?

1) Not start the war in the first place.

2) Not start the war the WAY they did.

3) Launch a third strike and destroy the shipyard and fuel depots that they left intact.


Tom
DutchBird
#068
Visit this Community
Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Member Since: April 09, 2003
entire network: 1,144 Posts
KitMaker Network: 230 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 05:52 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Straying a little here

Germany got a very good deal out of Versailles, far better than they would have given had they been the victors. You only need to look at the treaty they pushed onto Russia (or the one with France after the Franco-Prussian War) to see that. Independent Belgium, and newly-indendendent Poland, Czechoslovakia and the other nations created post-WW1 would have had no place in a German peace.

As with the Japanese in WW2, propaganda on the home front disguised just how badly the war was going until it was too late, allowing those responsible (like Hindenburg) to pretend defeat was the result of factors other than their own political and military mistakes.



Straying even further....

Saying that Germany got a very good deal because it was comparatively better then the brest-Litovsk treaty is very bad reasoning. It is IMHO not even an argument... to give you a few of the pointers:

1). The war reparations demanded from Germany amounted to a bigger amount of money then was arguably in existance at that time. In fact, the annual amount demanded was so large that Germany could not rebuild its economy. It would prevent Germany from even feeding its population, let alone producing anything. Add to that the fact that much of Germanies industry was no longer under her control. large parts of the industries in the East were now Polish, while most in the West (Saarland and Rhineland) was under french control.

No country could afford them. It completely crippled Germany, was the cause of hyperinflation and made them dependent on American loans. Which came back to haunt them in late 1929.

2) The war guilt clause: Almost every country "wanted"
the war. And if you would have to finger two or three countries, the culprits would be Serbia, Austria-Hungary and Russia. In reality all but Belgium and Britain were the real culprits.

3) The new states you mention had been fighting loyally on the side of the Axis untill practically the day of the armistice. Their punishment was that they got whatever they demanded from Austria, Hungary and Germany at Versailles, and what they took thereafter. They not only gained their independence, they also gained much more territory then they could claim on ethnic and histrical grounds. Territory that happened to coincide with the economically most valuable sections of Hungary ie.

As far as your argument about the propaganda goes, that is true, largely... though the defeat was not so obvious. In fact, in the east the war was won, in the west continuing the fight was hopeless, but at first glance not lost. No German territory had yet been occupied, nor were most Grman troops captured... So for most of the population the war did truly not seem lost.

Cheers,

Harm
Zacman
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 08:50 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

If they had of used there alliance with German better, attacking Russia, consolidate China and force Russia, to fight a war on to fronts, (German, in this plan, must avoid war with England/ France, untill Russia is tacken) By that time with the resources from Russia and China they could have then been a threat to main land U.S.



Japan did attack Russia, once in 1938 at Lake Khasan, Japan was defeated (this conflict lasted about 2 weeks) and again in 1939 with the Khalkin Gol campaign, once again they were defeated (this conflict lasting 8 months, with huge portions of the Japanese force being destroyed by the soviets, including the entire 23rd Manchukuo Division.) Japanese Prince Higashikuni ran from the battlefield during this campaign, an event naturally covered up by the army during the war......


For it to of worked Japan and Germany need to attack at the same time, Russia would have fallen, faster than flies to [auto-censored]!
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:31 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Saying that Germany got a very good deal because it was comparatively better then the brest-Litovsk treaty is very bad reasoning. It is IMHO not even an argument...



Have to agree with Harm here. Germany might have got a relatively better deal than they would have dished out, but that's all it is -- relative. Versailles was probably the single biggest reason for Hitler's political success in the '30s and eventually for the outbreak of WW2. In other words, popular discontent caused by hardship imposed on the common man. It was a very shortsighted policy by the victors, and the Allied policies on Germany post WW2 clearly show that the lesson had been well learned
USMarine
Visit this Community
Christchurch, New Zealand
Member Since: September 17, 2005
entire network: 475 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:11 PM UTC
if they knew what would happen in the future back then they probly do nothing they pretty much own the seas and all the fish and whales because they keep on taking all ours only because they have killed all theres.

matt
Zacman
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:17 AM UTC
In my point Germany insn't at war with the Allies(france,Brtian) only the states to the east, with all there man power on one front, no naval battles with the English etc, and with Russia splilt on two major fronts, with no U.S. assistance, how long do you really think russia, could have lasted remembering the damage done to the areas around the Ukraine etc, thats with not even half the german fire power. Don't forget the internal problems in russia.
It didn;t happen so the argement is pointless any way, you can make any view point as it never happened.
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 12:14 PM UTC

Quoted Text

In my point Germany insn't at war with the Allies(france,Brtian) only the states to the east, with all there man power on one front, no naval battles with the English etc,



How do you see this happening? Germany was at war with the western Allies before it went to war with the USSR. Germany's invasion of Poland had already brought Britain and France in. At the time, Germany had a pact with the USSR, and while Stalin might have dedicated a part of his force to keeping an eye on Europe, he would have had ample opportunity to crush the Japanese.

Remember that Japan never had the concentrated mailed fist on land that countries like Germany, the USSR and Britain had, and could hardly have gone toe-to-toe with Soviet armoured divisions. The only massed 'mechanized' battles Japan fought were at sea. On land, it was usually jungle fighting, which while divisions took part, usually meant battalions and even companies fighting individual battles with little armour and air support. This was the reason Japan was able to hold of the Allies for so long (and possibly why she fared so badly in China). The Japanese Army would have been anhilated had it been forced to fight in terrain like northern Asia or Europe.
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Friday, April 21, 2006 - 01:35 AM UTC
Nothing Japan could have done would have altered the fnal outcome. The primary reason for the loss was the aggressive submarine warfare of the US against their shipping. Developing a system like the US used against the German wolfpacs would be my strongest recommendation. Like has been mentioned, develop more ASW tactics like convoying, more protection, radar, and depth-charge techniques might have helped considerably.

I also like the thoughts on upgrading their aircraft sooner, by wars end the Japanese were putting out some fine fighters, but like the Germans too little , too late. But rotating pilots in the 2 or 3 years prior to the outbreak and building up some reserve aircrews was a brilliant thought someone had. That too was a key reason in Japanese losing. By 1944 they had lost almost all their trained pilots. They had neglected to keep training new ones prior to the losses sustained at Midway. The ones after that were just thrown into batte as soon as they learned to fly.

War (meaning actual combat with regards to Rodders comments about embargo being an act of war to the Japanese) with the US being delayed and avoided while securing the oil and rubber resources of the British and Dutch coloies in the W Pacific aera would be my lst suggestion.

Once again, the final outcome wouldn't change but the long term course of world events would have significantly altered. The wr would have started a yar or so later and probably dragged on much later. The US was making the ESSEX class and the fast Battleships, but not being on a war footing means they probably wouldn't have completed any of them until 1943 and it would have been middle of 44 before they would have been seen in any kind of quantity and 45 before they were rolling out of the shipyards (as oppossed to late 43)
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 11:53 AM UTC

Quoted Text

That's the thing, the Japanese curriculum teaches that the embargo WAS an act of war and PRECIPITATED the attack on Pearl Harbor. But please believe me, this IS NOT my opinion and indeed angers me, but it's a topic for another discussion (current affairs, not history)



I've heard that the Japanese school curriculum (unlike the German) on WW2 history is questionable, but I'm not so sure they're wrong on this point. Wars are often continuations of policy, and often some countries are forced into military action by another nation's trade or political actions. The thinking at the time was different to present day thought on cause. Currently we see many such actions, and in hindsight, it's not hard to empathize with SOME of the motivations behind Japan's (and Germany's) move to war.

:-) Running for cover now.
Zacman
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 06:41 AM UTC
[)[/quote]

I've heard that the Japanese school curriculum (unlike the German) on WW2 history is questionable, but I'm not so sure they're wrong on this point. Wars are often continuations of policy, and often some countries are forced into military action by another nation's trade or political actions. The thinking at the time was different to present day thought on cause. Currently we see many such actions, and in hindsight, it's not hard to empathize with SOME of the motivations behind Japan's (and Germany's) move to war.

.[/quote]
STOP SNIFFING THE GLUE!
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:55 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The thinking at the time was different to present day thought on cause. Currently we see many such actions, and in hindsight, it's not hard to empathize with SOME of the motivations behind Japan's (and Germany's) move to war.



Understand the thinking behind such decisions perhaps even if we don't share it.
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 06:03 PM UTC

Quoted Text

STOP SNIFFING THE GLUE!



Do you have ANYthing useful to say or did you just start up this thread to help you with your history homework?
Zacman
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 09:36 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

STOP SNIFFING THE GLUE!



Not the most well thought out of comments there Mark


It was only about 6 months ago you had rioting in china towards the japanese embassy about this very same isusse. Japan not coming to terms with what they did during this period.
Zacman
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Member Since: January 27, 2006
entire network: 210 Posts
KitMaker Network: 109 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 09:42 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

STOP SNIFFING THE GLUE!



Do you have ANYthing useful to say or did you just start up this thread to help you with your history homework?


Honestly give 1 reason which justly accounts for Japan's brutality towards civilian's throughout asia?
Every bit of materail for the Japanese war effert was forcefully taken, stolen, from asia?
We just had ANZAC day here in australia and new zealand, in Australia we have decieded to let our enemys march as well, except for the Japanese- so what japan did during ww2 is still pretty sensertive.