Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 56 of 56

Thread: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    It didn't matter that the NEI, British and French "deserved" our support, Roosevelt just couldn't do it.
    Regardless of the American domestic situation, a major problem facing America in deciding whether to support the NEI was uncertainty about how the NEI would react to a threat from Japan. The last thing America needed was to commit itself to the support of the NEI if the NEI was going to accommodate Japan rather than fight.

    While the article focuses on the Australian-Dutch relationship regarding the NEI, America was central to that war planning so American considerations about defending the NEI are covered in some detail here. http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j29/herman.asp
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    544

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    Actually, RS, I believe that the smartest thing would have been NOT to attack Pearl Harbor. Had they not done so and had they not attacked the Philippines, the US never would have declared war on the Japanese for attacking the British, French and Dutch. Japan's thinking was deeply flawed here.
    And thus Hitler would have no reason to declare war on the USA.

    So in effect the Japanese by their actions set in train a chain reaction of events that would lead to the defeat of their Axis partner.

    The alternative raises the possibility of a Nazi victory against the Soviet Union and England.

    Either way, war was certain.

    digger

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    334

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    From An Army at Dawn, p. 16. Rick Atkins writes:

    I agree that King was brilliant. But he was hardly infallible with dropping the ball regarding the initially marauding U-boats off the East Coast. As for plans, how detailed and ready they were is up to perhaps whether one considers tentative contingency planning to be a war plan. I believe he was one of the backers of "Operation Sledgehammer," (an early, emergency invasion of France) which could more aptly have been called Operation Ball-peen hammer...
    If I'm reading Atkinson correctly, he's claiming that on July 10, 1942, that King had no specific plans relative to an offensive in the Pacific, that he could show to Roosevelt? And Roosevelt knew that no such plans existed?

    Does Atkinson offer any kind of footnotes on this statement?

    The reason I ask is that on April 16, Turner, Chief of Naval planning under King, presented a four-phase plan for the USN"s offensives in the Pacific and Roosevelt approved it. By July 10, King and Marshall had worked out detailed planning for the Solomons campaign, which was adopted on July 2 by the JCS. On July 6, MacArthur agreed to provide support for the offensive. So by July 10th, there could hardly be any doubt that detailed plans existed for Marshall's and King's intended moves in the Pacific.

    Moreover, King did not "drop the ball" over the initial U-boat offensive off the East Coast. That is a false assertion made primarily by British historians who have employed sloppy and just plain poor scholarship. Clay Blair, in "Hitler's U-boat War" has demolished that little myth. if you want, I will dig out the specific citations by Blair to that effect.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    334

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    We'll just have to disagree on this. Roosevelt (like Wilson before him) had run on a platform of staying out of the war. I think that a reading of the contemporaneous record, especially having to do with Congress, would show that there was no voting support for a unilateral declaration of war absent a direct attack. It didn't matter that the NEI, British and French "deserved" our support, Roosevelt just couldn't do it. Nor can I imagine the US public supporting a war over Malaysia or Singapore or Hong Kong. Most Americans didn't even know where Pearl Harbor was, much less any of those places. Honestly, I think the fact that we didn't act when western Europe was invaded does tell the story.
    Well, that's alright with me. I definitely think the US would end up in any war between the Brits and the Japanese; the only question would be how long would it take for Roosevelt to get the votes in the Senate.

    And by the Fall of 1941, the US was definitely in the war against Germany, at least the US Navy was in the shooting war against Germany in the Atlantic; Hitler had plenty of reason to declare war on the US months before Pearl Harbor.

    I think you are giving too much credence to American public opinion about staying out of any war. By 1941, the attitude had changed dramatically.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    We'll just have to disagree on this. Roosevelt (like Wilson before him) had run on a platform of staying out of the war. I think that a reading of the contemporaneous record, especially having to do with Congress, would show that there was no voting support for a unilateral declaration of war absent a direct attack. It didn't matter that the NEI, British and French "deserved" our support, Roosevelt just couldn't do it. Nor can I imagine the US public supporting a war over Malaysia or Singapore or Hong Kong. Most Americans didn't even know where Pearl Harbor was, much less any of those places. Honestly, I think the fact that we didn't act when western Europe was invaded does tell the story.
    Roosevelt ran on a peace/modified-isolationist platform, then proceeded to introduce the first peacetime conscription, and one of the largest arms buildup, in US history. He was also attempting to goad the Germans into "incidents" by authorizing what amounted to a secret, undeclared War on the U-boats resulting in a few confrontations between US destroyers and Kriegsmarine subs resulting in the sinking of a US Navy destroyer IIRC. The Fall of France had changed things dramatically in the US and even many isolationists were clamoring for an overhaul and modernization of the US military...

    Above all else, if the the Japanese had launched operations against everyone short of the US, there is little doubt that even if the US hadn't become a direct belligerent, there would have been various political and military escalations designed to force a conflict between the US and Japan. It's not out of realm of possibly that the US could have sent active fighter squadrons to China, rather than the Flying Tiger mercenaries, under the guise of protecting the Chinese from Japanese aggression and area bombing...

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    334

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Roosevelt ran on a peace/modified-isolationist platform, then proceeded to introduce the first peacetime conscription, and one of the largest arms buildup, in US history. He was also attempting to goad the Germans into "incidents" by authorizing what amounted to a secret, undeclared War on the U-boats resulting in a few confrontations between US destroyers and Kriegsmarine subs resulting in the sinking of a US Navy destroyer IIRC. The Fall of France had changed things dramatically in the US and even many isolationists were clamoring for an overhaul and modernization of the US military...

    Above all else, if the the Japanese had launched operations against everyone short of the US, there is little doubt that even if the US hadn't become a direct belligerent, there would have been various political and military escalations designed to force a conflict between the US and Japan. It's not out of realm of possibly that the US could have sent active fighter squadrons to China, rather than the Flying Tiger mercenaries, under the guise of protecting the Chinese from Japanese aggression and area bombing...
    All quite true. I seriously doubt that there was any way Roosevelt could have sat idly by and let the Japanese rampage through the western Pacific.

    The fall of France in June, 1940, changed the political reality in the US. Nothing exemplifies this more than the passage of the Two-Ocean Navy Act in July of that year. Just as it's name implies, the Two Ocean Navy Act authorized the establishment of a Navy capable of successfully fighting in the Atlantic and Pacific simultaneously. In both cases, the enemy would be Axis countries; Germany and Italy in the Atlantic, and Japan in the Pacific. By 1941, Roosevelt had the political support necessary to declare war on Japan if it attacked Britain or the Netherlands, or their territories, in the Pacific.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    I agree. Furthermore, a general Japanese offensive against the Brits and Dutch probably would have mistakenly killed some US personnel at some point...

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    I agree. Furthermore, a general Japanese offensive against the Brits and Dutch probably would have mistakenly killed some US personnel at some point...
    Probably, Nickd, but it would also probably not have resulted in a declaration of war by the US. There were already US personnel being killed in the Atlantic and that did not lead to a declaration of war against the Germans. Personally, I am certain the Roosevelt DID want to get in on the war for the simple reason that he was pretty sure we would have to do so eventually. The political reality in Congress and around the country made it impossible for him to make a unilateral declaration of war no matter how mkuch he might have wished it. We sometimes thjink of the US as being some sort of monolith - at least back then - but it was anything but that. US involvement in WW2 seems inevitable today, but it wasn't.
    Last edited by royal744; 01-27-2010 at 03:49 PM. Reason: text

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    Quote Originally Posted by Digger View Post
    And thus Hitler would have no reason to declare war on the USA.

    So in effect the Japanese by their actions set in train a chain reaction of events that would lead to the defeat of their Axis partner.

    The alternative raises the possibility of a Nazi victory against the Soviet Union and England.

    Either way, war was certain.

    digger
    Interesting, but I doubt either outcome would have occurred. The Germans were actually incapable of invading England and their navy couldn't guarantee a corridor wide enough to afford protection to the army. Add to that the fact that they had already been defeated in the air by the RAF and invasion was basically unthinkable.
    As for the Russians, frankly, they could have defeated the Germans all on their own. It would just have taken longer and cost even more lives than the horrific numbers already incurred. The allied invasion of Europe shortened the war by about two years, I figure, but the Germans were already statistically beaten. Of course, massive amounts of allied aid played a crucial part in all this. Not to mention, by the by, that a Russian defeat of Germany would have engulfed all of western Europe in the process, save for England, not a happy prospect.
    Last edited by royal744; 01-27-2010 at 02:49 PM. Reason: content, again content

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    That's true. But keep in mind that Japan was also occupying China with large numbers of men not only engaged in combat against the Kuomintang and Peoples Liberation Armies, but also to deter any Soviet aggression. Britain and Australia both also allocated resources against Japan, not least of which were significant numbers of ground troops. Secondly, the "resources" have to be looked at. I believe in At Army at Dawn, Atkinson states that it took essentially two cargo ships resupply an avg. US division in the Mediterranean (for a certain period of time), North Africa, or Europe whereas in the Pacific it took ten ships, making a quick rolling up of the IJA in say--Manchuria--a very costly, difficult task.

    Adm. King, an Anglophobe (people-phobe actually ), pushed for a Pacific "First" strategy in the midst of contentious talks with the British. I believe Marshall and FDR asked him what his plan was, he began to sputter as he had none, which effectively ended any internal debate...
    It is true that Japan's main concern was China. That and oil, and that was in the DEI. The Pacific War for Japan didn't consume all that many troops but was for the most part a naval war. Once their navy was finished, it was basically all over for Japan in the Pacific.
    Last edited by royal744; 01-27-2010 at 02:58 PM. Reason: content

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    334

    Default Re: My Thoughts on Imperial Japan

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    Interesting, but I doubt either outcome would have occurred. The Germans were actually incapable of invading England and their navy couldn't guarantee a corridor wide enough to afford protection to the army. Add to that the fact that they had already been defeated in the air by the RAF and invasion was basically unthinkable.
    I pretty much agree with you here; a German invasion of Britain during WW II just wasn't a practical possibility due to the weakness of the German navy, and the inability of the Luftwaffe to suppress the RAF.

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    As for the Russians, frankly, they could have defeated the Germans all on their own. It would just have taken longer and cost even more lives than the horrific numbers already incurred. The allied invasion of Europe shortened the war by about two years, I figure, but the Germans were already statistically beaten. Of course, massive amounts of allied aid played a crucial part in all this. Not to mention, by the by, that a Russian defeat of Germany would have engulfed all of western Europe in the process, save for England, not a happy prospect.
    I also pretty much agree that the Soviets probably could have beaten the Germans eventually, though the timing would be long term. I do however see the possibility of a stalemate between the Germans and Soviets; something along the lines of WW I, when Russia was not defeated outright but was unable to stay in the war due to domestic troubles being exacerbated by the war. I think that could have happened to either the Soviets or the Germans.

    However, in either case, Japan would have seen numerous opportunities to profit by grabbing territories in Asia and the Pacific. The only way I can see the US staying out of a Pacific war, is if Japan had refrained from "striking South" and attacked the Soviet Union. The United States perceived it as vital to US interests to maintain trade relations with China and the rest of Asia. That was directly contrary to Japanese ambitions of hegemony in Asia and everyone knew it. Once the United States passed the "Two Ocean Navy Act" in 1940, was with Japan was inevitable; neither country was willing to give up what each perceived as their vital interests in Asia.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •