>If we do a surprise act of aggression it will be easier to avoid large scale conflict with the US
What were they thinking???
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
>If we do a surprise act of aggression it will be easier to avoid large scale conflict with the US
What were they thinking???
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
There was 0% chance america would ever invade japan.
They thought the US would be easier to fight than the Soviets.
They weren't
>the americans clearly want war with us so we might as well start it by smashing their pacific fleet in one go
that's what they were thinking, they just fricked up the execution, plus were unfortunate that the carriers were not at pearl harbor
The Japs really should have either A) sent the 2nd wave or B) Attacked the Johnson islands, instead they chose C) go home only destroying one ship and damaging a handful.
They should've gotten their oil and steel by invading Siberia instead of provoking the UK + US
>provoking the US
except it was the US that was provoking and agitating Japan with its embargoes and demands of Japanese withdrawal from China.
The Japs for their part actually partook in diplomacy to try and appease the US but it didn't work as the US demanded they basically become a vassal of America. No soverign country would have accepted the american demands
Why not just invade the European colonies instead of attacking the US. In that case if the US went to war it would be for the sake of some far off colonies, which would likely be unpopular in the US once casualties mount. Attacking the US meant that there wasn’t going to be a quick peace like Japan had hoped, better to not attack them and let them come to you.
because contemporarily it's just not something you'd gamble.
"the US would totally have done nothing if Japan attacked the colonies"
Given the US's imperialist history, it just isn't going to happen. Roosevelt would get america involved into a war with japan regardless of public opinion.
But the chance for a peace favorable to Japan is higher if the US attacked Japan rather than the other way around.
Not him
I might be wrong about this, but the final straw for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was apparently a dream had by a japanese general. They could have easily not attacked pearl harbor when they did, or it could have been delayed by a year
Look up the Russian-Japanese war of 1905.
The japanese began that war with an attack on Russian ports, Port Arthur I believe it was called.
After thrashing the russian navy, the Russians sued for peace.
Why would this be any different for America?
People's opinions are skewed because of what happened. It's easy to say "America would never surrender" when America never actually suffered any major defeat like the Japanese did at Midway.
Had the Japanese smashed the US navy in either 1941 or by June 1942, then who knows what would have happened.
>The US had infinite resources and could just make more ships
I think it's actually alot more difficult to rebuild a navy during war against a superior adversary.
Even if the Japanese allowed the US to rebuild a whole new fleet by mid 1943, there's no guarantee that the Japanese wouldn't defeat this green fleet either.
Japan could not prevent the Atlantic ship yards from operating even with the entire Pacific fleet in Davy Jones locker. You all seem to forget the US and allies had an entire second shit tier fleet the Asiatic fleet that Japan spent until Midway dealing with pretty much solely so no matter how well pearl harbor goes the US has time. Third this isn't a Baku oil fields situation Japan knows it cannot ever get access to US oil. Even in defeat the US doesn't lift the trade embargo on oil it just leaves the Pacific. Japan's complete perfect victory never includes a land invasion of the US that was always literally a fairy tale that not even fanatics considered.
>the Russians sued for peace.
The Russians lost Port Arthur to a ground assault, and were suffering from severe political and economic turmoil that directly threatened the survival of the regime.
>Why would this be any different for America?
The USA wasn't in a revolutionary situation.
>I think it's actually alot more difficult to rebuild a navy during war against a superior adversary.
The US had over 11 aircraft carriers on order before Pearl Harbor.
>Even if the Japanese allowed the US to rebuild a whole new fleet by mid 1943
They have no capacity to stop any of it, especially given all the East Coast and Great Lakes shipyards. Hawaii was at the limit of their logistical capabilities.
> there's no guarantee that the Japanese wouldn't defeat this green fleet either
Newer ships, better ships, in greater quantity. Yeah, nothing in war is certain, but eking out a victory at that point would be highly unlikely. Just look at the Philippine Sea, where the Japanese theoretically had the initiative and still lost badly.
Sure, but wouldn't you rather wait for the US declaration of war in the off chance that the US goes with more sanctions and embargoes instead of actual war? The US economy was like 4x of Japan's at the time, the Japanese war machine that was already stretched thin didn't stand a chance even with the advantage of a first strike attack.
>didn't stand a chance
real life isn't HOI, not to mention they actually had a superior navy anyway
>real life isn't HOI
>thinks Japan actually stood a chance
lmao
>thinks japan didn't stand a chance
lmao
It literally didn't. The economy a quarter the size of the US's got most of its oil and iron from the US so the second the embargo happens that eco omy began shrinking while the US only grew more powerful. I mean the Japanese weren't even fully industrialized. Home shops participated in making weapons like the zero.
>The economy a quarter the size of the US's
it was even smaller, it had 1/5 of the soviet union and 1/11 of the US industrial output. when japan was making the mitsubishi zeros they hauled them off in oxcarts because they didn't even have enough trucks around
>except it was the US that was provoking and agitating Japan with its embargoes and demands of Japanese withdrawal from China.
moron alert. The Japs were provoking and agitating everyone, they attacked everyone. The US was supplying them and told them to stop or they'll cut the aid but the Japs didn't care.
>they attacked everyone.
>calls others morons
>apan purposefully took withdraw from China to mean all of China
no it didn't, it actually wanted to withdraw from China by this time, but there was obviously a miscommunication here.
yeah bro they totally just started a war they knew they couldn't win /s
You clearly no nothing about Japan then. During this time period right before the war it was called government by assassination. There are letters from thr PM before Tojo to the old Meiji oligarchs asking if they could somehow stop this. Pretty much everyone knew they couldn't win in Japanese high command they just would rather go down fighting isntead of being assassinated. Also they did not want to withdraw from China the Japanese people wouldn't allow it. And thus they had to go to war with the US to maintain their Chinese ambitions. I don't know why I am helping you morons. Read a book.
>hey had to go to war with the US to maintain their Chinese ambitions
no, they had to go to war with the US because the US embargoed them and so that they could get the oil from dutch colonies
They could have taken the colonies without attacking the US. There was no real guarantee the US would intervene if Japan took the European colonies, and if they did intervene there’s a high chance the American public wouldn’t think it’d be worth it.
>the american public
and what did the american public think of the war with spain?
public opinion doesn't matter to governments, see basically every war (or special military operation) the US has been involved in since ww2.
>invading China, Indonesia, etc
>not attacking
Pick one, you fricking subhuman
they invaded indonesia after the US you nonce
God you embargo was an act of aggression moronic are the worst. Not selling someone the means to kill people, especially your friends is. Ot an act of aggression by any standard. And the US did try diplomacy and would have allowed Japan to keep Manchuria and lift the embargoes, but Japan purposefully took withdraw from China to mean all of China which the US was literally being like Manchuria isn't China you can keep it. Japan had created a death cult around the emperor and the elites couldn't control the people. The elites were forced by the people into their foolish war against the US they knew they couldn't win.
Hiroboo cope. Japan was an aggressor with active plans to genocide most of China and seize U.S territories in the Pacific to create their own empire.
Japan was the aggressor.
It's not cope, it's projection.
>cope projection
it's neither, itsa grasp on reality
>USA IS INVINCIBRU
is cope and projection
>except it was the US that was provoking and agitating Japan with its embargoes
>"You HAVE to sell us YOUR oil so that we can kill YOUR friends or that's an act of aggression!"
>your friends
sure
how do you think the US would react if China stopped selling them the raw materials used to manufacture computer chips ?
Get computer chips from Taiwan instead.
Taiwan is part of china and thus my question
But they're two separate political entities. There's also no reason for Taiwan to do such a thing. A more accurate question would be, "Would the US embargo China if they invaded Taiwan" and the answer is pretty clearly yes.
nice way to avoid the question
>pretty clearly yes.
it really isn't clear that the US would tank their own economy.
Those chips are made by Dutch and other Western companies.
absolutely anus annihilated
Are you genuinely moronic or trolling?
>Aaaaaa what the frick do you mean I can't just invade your ally and massacre Chinese by the millions and also increasingly threaten your other ally???? Wtf AmeriKKKans keeping the Jap man down!
There are theories that pearl harbor was fake and gay and staged by the OSS
It was that or give up their greater east asia ambitions. They took a risk. Didn't work out.
they assumed that if they in their first strike took the pacific fleet out of the equation. They would have the time to achieve their goals and take over their side of the pacific.
The amricans would find them selves in a position where they had no way to win and would thus seek to negotiate.
As they assumed correctly that crossing to pacific to give decisive battle was not an option and even more so without bases along the way and in the eastern pacific.
What they got wrong as not taking out the carriers. And that the americans coming to the same conclusion about the problems with a decisive battle. Where leaning into other strategies.
And those holding those new strategies back were in the battleship fleet and those got sunk.
In effect the japanese sunk their victory condition. ie strike first, that what you need hope the amricans don't come but if they do sink their fleet and force them to talks.
They fell for their own memes. Germany and Japan got high off their own supply and genuinely thought the Americans were "merchant mutts who can't fight" and the Soviets were "Bolshevik subhumans with no intelligence". homosexuals got BTFO because they severely underestimated the enemy