Was Japan actions WW2 'logical'?

[fgalkin]

Ironically had Germany been more successful and taken Leningrad their food problems would only have compounded. It would be interesting if their are any estimates on what food production could have been in they had taken a more hands off approach in Poland,Ukraine etc and granted them a level of autonomy with heavy tribute. IIRC the German actually kept the hated collective farms.

The Germans had no intention of "taking" Leningrad. They intended to raze it to the ground and massacre the entire population.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[PainRack]

The problem really is that the idea you become a second-class state because you don't have colonies is illusory. You can, in fact, grow obscenely rich and become a major world power even without regularly shooting up some people in a foreign country.

See how Japan became the world's second (now third) largest economy post-war without a single colonial possession.

There is nothing wrong with making alliances to ensure your security. Japan's problem is that it chose to pursue bloody conquests at the expense of the goodwill of nations that it was actually dependent on - most particularly the United States.

I'm sorry, we only know that NOW, from the experiences of Japan and Germany AFTER world war 2 during the Cold War period. Japan on the other hand had very vivid examples of what happened when a nation military power weakened due to a declining economy/lack of resources.

Ischiwara plan for the IJA modernisation, combined with the IJN own fleet modernisation plans all led to actions that increased the risk of war with Western powers, an action we now deride as absurd because of the sheer........ stupid and impossibility of Japan being able to achieve her plans. While its still irrational since a simple comparison would show the impossibility of Japan achieving her goals, the question here is regarding the logic of Japan plans.

Accepting a second class military would equate to exploitation by foreign powers such as the Russians/Soviet Union, the primary fear of many IJA leaders. These were the same leaders that led Japan to her disastrous actions in Manchuria/China and the need to maintain her conquests in China.
Going through their logic, is there a fatal flaw? Namely, Japan could still have retained a military that would not have led to an embarrassing defeat like China?

I would say that history actually supports their logic since even after years of militarisation, modernisation, the Russians spanked the IJA in Manchuria without ANY problems whatsoever. And there was every reason to believe that second class power= fate of China.



The Japanese certainly faced many reminders against trusting in free trade and international alliances. The Anglo Japanese alliance was abandoned by the British, severing a firm alliance the Japs had. With regards to autarky, the protectionism of the Great Depression shortcircuited Japan economy, ditto to the withdrawal of investment. All this were ample reminders for Japan to be self sufficient, both in terms of access to resources and markets as well as her own military capabilities.

[Zinegata]

Belgium was the world's sixth largest economy in 1914. You can't say Japan didn't have the benefit of hindsight. Economic powers without corresponding military might already existed during the time it was too busy wedding itself with "CONQUER TO GET STRONGER" ideology.

Moreover, anything can be justified through "logic". The problem is that Japan's premise from the get-go was wrong. They did not need that much military power or conquest to achieve security.

[PainRack]

Belgium was ALSO an Imperial power.

And lest you forget, Germany was also showing the rest of the world what happened to even European powers whoose military power was insufficient for self defence, although I will not use this to justify Japan logic since we can find no statements by any Japanese leaders about Germany actions and Imperial defence.

Also, how was Japan premise wrong? This thread was created to ask that very question! There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a country with insufficient military power was secure in that era. Czechoslovakia shows this. And China was always the example cited in Imperial Japan.

[Zinegata]

Belgium had exactly one colony; which was the personal property of the king and thus contributed almost nothing to the actual national wealth.

And there's also Switzerland. And Sweden. And probably a few other countries that were quite rich in the early 1900s without having big militaries OR colonies.

And do note that Belgium had insufficient military power and yet survived German invasion in 1914-1918 without having to give up territory. Which again shows that the idea that you need colonies or military might to remain secure is illusory.

Indeed, your example of Czechoslovakia falling due to insufficient military power is wrong - the Czechs, had they been allowed to fight, would have given the Germans a bloody nose. Instead, the Czechs were backstabbed by the British and French and forced to give up their frontier positions as part of the Munich peace deal. Czech military power actually amounted to zilch because of political maneuvering.

The simple fact of the matter is this: If Japan thought their security was threatened and the life of the nation was at stake, they were simply being stupidly paranoid. Heck, no Western power ever actually attacked Japan as part of an all-out war - it was actually Japan which initiated pretty much all of the wars that it got embroiled in!

Much more like is that the Japanese were simply subscribing to stupid ideology - "CONQUER TO GROW STRONG" - which are actual slogans promulgated by the politicians that actually gained power (since those who disagreed tended to get assassinated). Sure, they tried to idealize their campaigns of mass conquest and genocide by saying "Asians for Asians" and other nonsense crap, but everything they did boiled down to supporting this stupid ideology more than anything else. Why do you think they were crazy enough to believe they can actually keep their conquests in 1941?

Japan's premise was wrong because they acting paranoid because of non-existent threats; and their "solution" for this problem was incredibly fucking retarded because it almost never actually work.

As demonstrated by Belgium, the way to resolve these "problems" much more productively is via diplomacy and not by war. Japan basically closed its eyes to diplomacy and tried to shoot anyone who disagreed (including their own moderate politicians), so when the truly strong powers with many more bullets came along they simply got pasted.

[Zinegata]

Edit: Also, forgot to mention this, but it bears remembering:

Japan's retard imperialism started since the Russo-Japanese War. Going "But look, the Germans were so successful in 1939-41!" is meaningless when the premise of Japan's policy had been around since before the turn of the century.

Seriously it starts with this:

"We need resources! We want all of Korea! Screw negotiations with the Russians! ATTACK!" (Japan attacks Russia. Russo-Japanese War ensues)

Followed by this:

"Russia will try to avenge its humiliation! We must become even stronger! Enslaving the Koreans isn't supercharging our economy like we thought! INVADE CHINA!" (Sino-Japanese War ensues)

Followed by this:

"China resists us! The United States has slapped sanctions on us. FIGHT EVERYONE!" (Japan gets pasted by the US, UK, and USSR combined)

And note that I do know this is a gross generalization, but really, this entire fucking mess boils down to Japan persistently doubling down on their stupid ideology every time they don't get what they want, without realizing that the premise of their ideology was incredibly wrong in the first place. They were NEVER going to get what they wanted if they followed their ideology, and the evidence all shows - even with the data available at the time - that "conquering empires" tend to end up on the losing side of history.

Seriously, what Japan did is the equivalent of banging your head against the wall, cracking your skull each time, and yet persisting in doing it over and over again because you believe that voodoo magic makes your head harder than the wall. Their premise was that wrong.

[Sea Skimmer]

Part of the issue is the actions of the army in Korea, and then china from 1931-1937 were not part of a planned policy at all. Japan didn't have a coherent plan in China until after the fall of Nanjing in 1937 when they decided given the scale of the troops already deployed, it was time to just try to overrun the entire country. Everything before that was initiated by the local army units, or the Chinese nationalist counter moves to aggression, such as the entire fatal 1937 Shanghai campaign. Some of these moves did have high level supporters in Tokyo, but high level supporters were not the same as formal policy. Certainly this was a huge issue with ideology, but it would have been a much better situation had that ideology been controlled from the top down, rather then just spreading at will.

[PainRack]

Edit: Also, forgot to mention this, but it bears remembering:

Japan's retard imperialism started since the Russo-Japanese War. Going "But look, the Germans were so successful in 1939-41!" is meaningless when the premise of Japan's policy had been around since before the turn of the century.

Seriously it starts with this:

"We need resources! We want all of Korea! Screw negotiations with the Russians! ATTACK!" (Japan attacks Russia. Russo-Japanese War ensues)

A misrepresentation of Japan plans, isn't it? Yamagata speech before the diet made it clear that for Japan, she considered that in order to adequately protect herself from invasion from Russia, she needed to prevent Russia from having a springing board in Korea and to secure Korea for her own use instead.
Russia refusal to withdraw from Manchuria was interpreted by Japan as an attempt of Russia to expand her own imperial power in the Far East and the concomittant dangers this pose to Japan.

"Russia will try to avenge its humiliation! We must become even stronger! Enslaving the Koreans isn't supercharging our economy like we thought! INVADE CHINA!" (Sino-Japanese War ensues)

And the caus belli in this case was when China sent troops into Korea despite a diplomatic agreement between both sides not to do so. Or are you referring to the 2nd Sino Japanese war, which has way more complicated reasons than just invade China for resources.

Belgium had exactly one colony; which was the personal property of the king and thus contributed almost nothing to the actual national wealth.

And there's also Switzerland. And Sweden. And probably a few other countries that were quite rich in the early 1900s without having big militaries OR colonies.

Nations which in generally were trading partners. Which was also WHAT Japan did until the Great Depression convinced many that she needed secure markets in which she could sell goods under her own umbrella of protectionism, as opposed to be being barred out by tarriffs.

And do note that Belgium had insufficient military power and yet survived German invasion in 1914-1918 without having to give up territory. Which again shows that the idea that you need colonies or military might to remain secure is illusory.

And Japan own Anglo-Japan alliance went which way?

The simple fact of the matter is this: If Japan thought their security was threatened and the life of the nation was at stake, they were simply being stupidly paranoid. Heck, no Western power ever actually attacked Japan as part of an all-out war - it was actually Japan which initiated pretty much all of the wars that it got embroiled in!

Ah.... That's the rub isn't it? Even if their chain of logic was correct, it still wouldn't change the fact that their ideology was irrational and that they were increasingly paranoid, about threats to Japanese purity, culture and Empire.


I did an interesting thought experiment once, by once going through Japanese propaganda and motives for actions she took in the 2nd Sino Japanese war up to her defeat, and inserting America and the War on Terror into it.... It was shockingly eerie.

Sure, statements like "Europeans are descended from monkeys, but we are descended from the Emperor of Japan/Sun God, that is why we won" won't translate directly, but the same aura of paranoia, right wing conservatism and ideology, racism and etc translate quite well. Some of Japan reasons for torture echo current statements now, just replace terrorists with the words commandoes and insurgents and its a direct fit.

[aieeegrunt]

The problem with expanding through conquering is that the yet to be conquered can see the trend and will band together to bring you down.

Bismarck understood this very well, which is why he counseled moderation and no new provinces after completing German reunification. He was heeded in 1866. He was overruled in 1870 making a permanent enemy out of France, and that plus all the colonial bombast made enemies out of both Great Britian and Russia, to Germany's eventual doom.

[Zinegata]

PainRack, again, what part of it's intentionally a "gross generalization" do you not comprehend that triggered the above attempt to find exceptions and excuses? Yeah, there's the Anglo-Japanese treaty. Yeah, there are a whole bunch of politicians who earnestly tried to get peace. No, it doesn't change my main point one bit.

The main point remains that again, the Japanese doubled down on their "CONQUER TO BE STRONG" when each time they "conquered" or attempted to "conquer". Despite the fact they became less secure and even less able to achieve their objectives every time they did so?

As Skimmer pointed out, the best that you can say about the Japanese leadership is that they didn't have an actual policy and they let underlings railroad them into doubling down; but the fact that their underlings were indoctrinated with stupid "Conquer to get strong!" bullshit and allowed to get away with it demonstrates the utter lack of sentient thought in their decision-making.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm confused. Is PainRack saying that the "conquer to become strong!" mindset was right? Or saying that it's understandable how the Japanese thought that way?

I could see how a nation about one generation removed from the Middle Ages, and surrounded by examples of foreigners using their advanced weapons to control and subjugate other nations, would think strength comes about that way. Japan didn't exactly have a background that makes it easy to say 'economic power > military conquest.' They were worried about being on the receiving end of other people's conquests.

[Dominarch's Hope]

The problem with that theory is that without your own secured access to key natural resources, you are always dependent on those that have them to be willing to sell them to you. Otherwise, they can always tell you to fuck off.

Both Japan and Germany recognized this from day one, and they knew they couldnt rely on guaranteed access if they displeased their suppliers. So pure economic power is great, but when the key resources you require arent yours, you are always forced to please whoever does have them. You arent free to do as you please. Which is what both wantes.


To be able to ignore any embargoes and blockades. In Germany's case, it was directly a insult to Britain, because Britain alone never possesed the power to invade conventionally after France fell. And they didnt want a repeat of WWI where they were starved out. Had the Nazis secured Eastern Europe up to the Urals and Cauacuses like they planned, they would have proceeded to not only ignore the blockade, but go about fighting off the Bomber camlaign. And the pack mules would have been sent back to Germany for the most part. Funny thing, the only thing that prevent Blitzkrieg from being as operationally grandiose as Deep Battle was shitpoor logistics and inadequate supplies. In many ways, Deep Battle was exactly the same, but with World Class logistics and a focus on securing the skies only during major operations as needed.


Japan also knew that without secure access to oil and iron, they were forever beholden to whoever supplied it.


WWII was the attempt of two regional powers to secure the supplies necessary to be a Super Power/World Power.


Yes Im ignoring Italy. I will always ignore Italy.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Dominarch, will you recant these statements about German Ukraine and the Blitzkrieg now, or wait for the ravening hordes of people who know their shit to tear you down? That's the question.

[Zinegata]

The idea that people will withold key resources from you is again very, very silly. Because resources that remain unsold don't benefit the owner of those resources.

When the United States stopped selling oil to Japan, it hurt the US too. All that oil that was being bought by Japan didn't get sold to someone else. It either just sat around in storage tanks doing nothing or people simply shut down production capacity. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances threatening national security, embargos are just dumb on this basic principle.

Japan crossed the line, which is why it became the victim of an embargo where key resources where witheld from them. If they weren't such idiots who subscribed to the "CONQUER TO BECOME STRONGER" stupidity (which resulted in millions of Chinese dead), then their supply of resources would never have been cut in the first place.

Again; people who think that they should "own" resources that they don't have are stupid. Trade exists for a reason.

[Dominarch's Hope]

It didnt hurt the US that much. Now, if the US did a general embargo against the WWI Entente in response to the blockade, maybe, but IIRC 95% of the US economy was internal at the time.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Dominarch, will you recant these statements about German Ukraine and the Blitzkrieg now, or wait for the ravening hordes of people who know their shit to tear you down? That's the question.

German Ukraine? Thats done with.

The Blitzkrieg? It literally was a direct precursor to Deep Battle. Sure, Zhukov did something very similar to identical earlier, but it wasnt capitalized upon until Stalin had his hands forced. The West didnt care because "loleasterners".


The Blitzkrieg was a world class operational theory. But it had regional class logistics. At best.

Deep Battle was markedly superior, and had the best logistics possible and all the ammo it desired. So no fucking shit it accomplished more. Also behind it was a larger pool to recruit and train from.

Soviet Deep Battle is fucking brilliant. But it no way was it invented out of the ether. It was learned through the best teacher possible. Practical experience.

The key differences aside from logistics were a focus on artillery instead of using CAS as a substitute. cAS was used as well though.

[Sea Skimmer]

German Ukraine? Thats done with.

The Blitzkrieg? It literally was a direct precursor to Deep Battle. Sure, Zhukov did something very similar to identical earlier, but it wasnt capitalized upon until Stalin had his hands forced. The West didnt care because "loleasterners".

Actually deep battle dates to the later 1920s and 1930s and was based on British ideas from WW1 and after, as well as more generalized WW1 experiences by all powers. Its leading but not lone developer, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, ended up being shot by Stalin as too much of a threat at a time when the Germans were still working out Blitzkrieg, and were rather aware of Tukhachevsky's ideas. You are completely wrong claiming that it was the result of experience in WW2. Stalin did impede it, but mainly because the men, rather then the idea were a problem. In fact Stalin blundered badly by attempting to have inadequate officers launch a deep battle styles of attack in early 1942.

The key differences aside from logistics were a focus on artillery instead of using CAS as a substitute. cAS was used as well though.

The Soviets ended up immensely more CAS focused then the Germans ever were. Only select German units were ever trained for close air support missions, and indeed during the invasion of Poland only a single squadron of Hs129 biplanes was assigned to the job full time. German CAS was generally arranged at a high level and only for specific operations. The Luftwaffe far preferred to fly interdiction missions. Just like about any air force generally does, because the targets are softer and no serious problem exists with bombing your own ground forces.

Meanwhile the Russians by 1943 almost all offensive daylight missions were flown close to the front lines. This is why the Il-2 attack plane and Pe-2, a very lightweight bomber, so completely dominated Russian production of offensive aircraft. They barely even built medium bombers, a few thousand Tu-2s are about it as I recall. German CAS did increase in proportion as the war went on, but in no small part because the bomber forces had simply been decimated in combat.

[Dominarch's Hope]

I thought Zhukov did some actions against the Japanese in the East prewar too?


As for the CAS, I was referring to Stukas and such. Inadequate as hell and nonsurvivable in contested air.


And in terms of scale, thr Soviets most definately focused more on heavy artillery. Its just that the scale they operated was much fucking greater. Which is the point I was making to some degree.


However, its always fun to poke around history forums and get educated with interesting reads. Heading off to bed now.

[Sea Skimmer]

I thought Zhukov did some actions against the Japanese in the East prewar too?

Yes, he commanded the Soviet counterstroke at Khalkhin Gol. This has very little to do with the origination of deep battle theory as you were rambling about, it was just a chance to prove that it worked in combat.

As for the CAS, I was referring to Stukas and such. Inadequate as hell and nonsurvivable in contested air.

About all CAS planes are hopeless against strong enemy opposition, its the nature of the job that they will not be good at withstanding fighter interception without a strong escort. Armor, heavy guns, strong structure, they don't turn into a plane that will do well. This is not helped by flying low, meaning you cannot dive away from an attacker. The Stuka however still mostly flew for interdiction and wasn't well protected anyway, at least not on earlier models. The best German CAS plane early war was felt to be the Hs 123 biplane dive bomber, a very small, absurdly rugged aircraft. While formally replaced by the Stuka in 1937, they were flown in combat until 1944 when only a handful were even left.

And in terms of scale, thr Soviets most definately focused more on heavy artillery. Its just that the scale they operated was much fucking greater. Which is the point I was making to some degree.

The Soviets actually had rather little heavy artillery, all the more so considering the size of forces they had. The vast majority of the weapons they had were only 76mm and 85mm field guns, with a limited number of 122mm pieces in a division later in the war, while the Germans standard divisional field pieces were 105mm and 150mm from the get go. Both sides saw artillery as very important, sure the Germans never had the raw numbers, but that had a lot to do with the shear number of German guns firing at allied aircraft too. Soviet air defenses generally were not good. The disparity in ammunition meanwhile was much less then the disparity in tubes.

The Germans also had the same problem they had many other places when it came to artillery, too many designs, many of them senseless, if cool like the M1 355mm howitzer which was road mobile in a mere seven pieces each pulled by a large halftrack and yet out ranged by weapons half its own caliber. The Soviets meanwhile picked a few designs as spammed them. But this doesn't really show that that one side thought the weapons more important then another. After all a Panzer division had lots of artillery, and SS Panzer division had the heaviest organic artillery of any division in the war thanks to its 17cm gun battalion.

Lack of Soviet heavy guns is a big reason BTW why the Soviets fielded so many cheaper mortars and rocket launchers. Shell sizes were not big, but they could fire a lot of rounds rapidly, for short sudden bombardments. They did mass some immense barrages, but actual ammunition expenditure overall was low. This is also why the Soviets liked assault guns so much, fielding very few SP guns for indirect fire, the Germans a fair many. Direct fire could have much greater effect with a fewer shells fired, and didn't need complicated command and control to do so.

[xthetenth]

Meanwhile the Russians by 1943 almost all offensive daylight missions were flown close to the front lines. This is why the Il-2 attack plane and Pe-2, a very lightweight bomber, so completely dominated Russian production of offensive aircraft. They barely even built medium bombers, a few thousand Tu-2s are about it as I recall. German CAS did increase in proportion as the war went on, but in no small part because the bomber forces had simply been decimated in combat.

What about the DB-3 and Il-4? The Yer-2 was built in tiny numbers so it hardly matters. I assume the Pe-2 is counted as a ground attack plane or something like that? I'm not that familiar with how the Pe-2 was actually used overall.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Pe-2 was a light bomber capable of dive bombing, which it generally did. Normally it was used within about 20km of the front lines bombing tactical targets alongside the Il-2, often the two types would attack together. DB-3 was well out of production before the war started. Il-4 production was serious though ended in 1944, but it was only slightly larger then a Pe-2. It did have a fair bit larger payload from not being designed for dive bombing. The USSR also got around a thousand B-25s, which was a serious medium bomber, and a fair number of various allied light types, but many of these were only supplied late in the war, and only on the condition that they be used against Japan.

Never heard of a Ye-2 bomber, and Google is only turning up a 1950s jet interceptor prototype for that designation. I think you mean Yak-2, of which around a hundred were ever made,about a hundred of the follow on Yak-4s were also made. It was very lightweight, lighter then even many single engine engine fighters of the war fully loaded, like the F4U Corsair.

[Agent Sorchus]

He means this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yermolayev_Yer-2, of course according to this it was canceled after the war started for more Il-2 production so..

[Sea Skimmer]

Yeah, came to me a minute after I posted, I was actually looking at the Yak bombers the other week for some really random reason. I think because I was looking at the Yak jet bombers, which generally shared the same trait as Yak-2/4 of having high performance for the time, but really silly low bomb loads. I like Yak-28 anyway.

They are really a good demo though in why WW2 style lightweight bombers died out completely in the world by the early 1950s (though you might count a Predator drone as a light bomber now) because the things were using two engines and three plus men men to actually deliver less bombs then a fighter bomber with one engine of higher power. All you gain is a couple defensive machine guns, which hardly make up for the fact that your much slower. Bombing accuracy might be a little better too, but the fighter bombers can make for that by being far more numerous.

[Zinegata]

It didnt hurt the US that much.

Which matters how? Again, why would a nation forgo sales and let resources sit uselessly when there are buyers?

Again, embargos are stupid unless there is a specific national threat. Japan wasn't a threat to the US until they started shooting up other countries because they were besotted by the retard "CONQUER TO GET STRONGER" ideology.

[PKRudeBoy]

It didnt hurt the US that much.

Which matters how? Again, why would a nation forgo sales and let resources sit uselessly when there are buyers?

Again, embargos are stupid unless there is a specific national threat. Japan wasn't a threat to the US until they started shooting up other countries because they were besotted by the retard "CONQUER TO GET STRONGER" ideology.

Why are you assuming that the nation being embargoed is the only customer for those resources? Especially for vital resources like oil, if we cut off trade in it to one country, why on earth wouldn't it be sold to another country or private enterprise?

Furthermore, whether or not the embargo hurts the country enforcing it really depends on the relative size of the economy. For instance, if the US was to end trade with China, it would absolutely hurt both countries, but I really don't see any harm to the US from its embargo of Cuba or North Korea.

Now, that's not to say that they are necessarily a good policy tool, since it can cause a country to lash out, in the case of Japan, or provide an enemy to blame for problems, like North Korea or Cuba.