Aside from Rakudai this season, what other anime has Japan winning the war in the Pacific, and how did they achieve it? For example in Rakudai they won using a magical samurai.
>Japan wins WW2
It could only happen in fiction.
>It could only happen in fiction.
Stop the flagwaving, burger. Japan could easily have won the Pacific war if Pearl Harbor went as planned. The Japanese fleet was very modern (built mostly by the French and British), but no match for the American fleet mostly because of its aircraft carriers. I think in total Japan had three while America had seven or something like that. The idea was to bomb a significant portion of the American fleet and all aircraft carriers in pearl harbor. However, three aircraft carriers were on patrol at the time of the strike while one was not damaged to the point of being beyond repair. As such, the Americans were still able to bring four aircraft carriers to the field, more than enough to defeat Japan.
Had the Japanese struck when all American aircraft carriers were in port, all Pacific territories between Japan and America would be Japanese, maybe even Alaska as well. Continental America would be impossible for the Japanese to take, that I agree on (not without consolidating Japanese power in its newly conquered territories (including densely populated Indonesia) to the point where they can start conscripting the locals), but conquering continental America was never part of Japans objectives. They merely desired dominance over the Pacific.
No good ones because you alt historyfags dont realize how difficult it actually would be to invade mainland usa.
Without magical bullshit explanations neither germany nor japan had the ability to do so.
>muh armed population
That is not a significant factor at all
All it would do would be delay the conquest of some major regions
You should put more faith in your national guard than some untrained rednecks carrying rifles
Even with a successful Pearl Harbour they hadn't have the industriar force to overcome the USA. By the start of the war, Japan had actually more battleships and aircraft carriers than the USA (which didn't have nor need a big fleet at the time). By the end of the war the USA fleet outnumbered even the initial Japanese fleet.
Because the US didn't have a completely unscathed Atlantic fleet, the Japanese wouldn't have to destroy west coast shipyards, and physically put boots on the ground in Hawaii
Also, anon is ignoring the fact that the USA fleet had the support of both the Britain and Australian fleets, meanwhile the Germans couldn't afford to send any ship to the Pacific theatre.
? the japs didnt get the carriers and the oil with their attack on pearl harbour, two things the burgers needed to fight
and even if they did get the carriers, burgerland would have popped out half a dozen in a few months v 1 jap carrier built for the whole year or something
and on the infantry v infantry level japs were smashed hard
just look at the battles, failure after failure
+ the reds wanted to grab japland to themselves with their dirty commie hands, millions of ivans would have come down on them
maybe instead of capitulating in 45, it would have been on 46, 47 etc. the loss was certain
Except, no matter how many ship Japan destroyed, America could have just built more. America was an industrial giant back then, even if Pearl Harbor had completely annihilated the Pacific Fleet, they could have never touched the harbors and steel yards they needed to in order to actually cripple the American war effort. Pearl Harbor was an attack based on a flawed premise, that the Americans would have rolled over after having their main force in the region curb stomped, which was never going to happen.
The problem with invading America is not really the armed populace, it's the fact that you have to cross a fucking ocean to get there and America is fucking huge, in general the Japanese and Germans never had the logistical capabilities to do anything more than harass the American mainland, an invasion would have been entirely impossible.
If pearl harbor was ravaged or even invaded, war would have been really difficult for the USA.
The supply problem would have been really difficult to overcome and in the meantime, India, Australia and China could have fallen.
The success of Japan was tied to German success. If German had failed, Soviet would have recked the Japanese on the land, making the long term success impossible.
>By the start of the war, Japan had actually more battleships and aircraft carriers than the USA
I don't think this is correct. Japan was only aiming to have more ships than the US Pacific fleet. If you add the Atlantic fleet in the US probably beats them on numbers.
The anime surely had a terrible job adapting I guess because I don't think anything in the show implies that.
In fact I picked it because the alternate history premise but until now didn't see a single thing about it.
USA had (in total) 5 large carriers when the war started, Japan had 6, all in the Pacific. You can argue that American carriers were larger, but still, the USA set sail several times more carriers than Japan each WWII's year.
I'm not even a burger. The Japanese were genuine shits in WW2 and had no chance of winning.
God that would be so great.
The most plausible way for Japan and Germany to win the war is to have the Soviets join them. Just change history in such a way that Strasser instead of Hitler rises to power.
>They merely desired dominance over the Pacific.
This is wrong too.
They didn't want dominance over the pacific at all. They wanted to re-orient the Asian economic sphere around themselves. To accomplish this, they would extend to two different rings.
The inner ring and outer ring. They realized a prolonged war was impossible, so the hope was to beat the US so handily in the first 6 months that the US would be willing to negotiate for peace, during which Japan would surrender the outer ring they had captured back to the US to make them happy.
The Pacific was not the goal, merely the tool.
God, this is why I avoid /his/ like the plague. Armchair historians everywhere.
>Japan had three while America had seven
How the fuck would there be a neutral zone? Does this guy honestly think they wouldn't fight for all those 100,000 square miles, if only so they could keep a better eye on the other side of the continent?
And where's Canada in all this? Did they not want it? It's the second largest landmass in the world, you'd think that would be important. Sure, it's butt-fucking cold for most of it, but they at least learned from their ski trip to Moscow, right? You know, considering they still won fucking WWII anyway?
It's important to note, that was the first major battle where proximity-fuse anti-aircraft shells were deployed in the pacific This is a major reason why they were slaughtered so handily. It wasn't just because of the inexperienced pilots, even the few experienced pilots they had were bewildered at the 'accuracy' of allied anti-aircraft guns in that battle.
Apparently, Dick couldn't imagine anybody declaring war on Canada.
>Dropping Man in the High Castle on the same day as Jessica Jones
Operation Barbarossa ws the reason why Hitler lost
He got too greedy, too fast.
With all the troops he lost at the soviet front he could have withstood any allied assault on central europe to a stand-still
>country with 3% of the world's industrial output defeating a country with 30% of the world's industrial output
>in a conventional war
It's World War 2.
It was never stated which side they were on though.
That's arguable. He probably WOULD have fought them to a standstill, but the allies could very well have cracked Germany if they tried enough for some odd reason.
The allied supremacy in production and supply is NOT to be underestimated.
And if supply was made incredibly hard to start back up, and America was struggling to start their war in the Pacific, I think they'd be much more hesitant to throw their hat into Europe. We only entered the European theater because we were making gains in the Pacific I think? It woke up American nationalism. Without America D-day likely doesn't happen, so I'm not sure what would happen with Germany. Likely still get assfucked thanks to Barbarossa.
> but the allies could very well have cracked Germany if they tried enough for some odd reason.
I doubt that, the only way the allied could crack into germany if the soviets didn't join in was with atom bombs.
If his soviet boner wasn't as big as it was he could have even negotiated an alliance or cooperation treaty
But what would happen is on the fiction side and I don't want to play as armchair WW2 general
If the Allied hadn't started their offensive, Germany likely had ended under Soviet control, and maybe France too, given that the British didn't have enough strength to launch an offensive on their own.
The question then would be if Japan had been able to stop the Russians and Chinese from eventually disembarking in Home Islands and taking over the country.
However if the Germans were able to completely decimate American morale and foster their own elements within the country to revolt; say, several nukes on major American cities (if they'd finished the race first) and complete success in Europe, if you could get American public support to collapse, and destroy quality of life with embargos and nuclear strikes, you might be able to foster revolts or even capitulation. THEN you could partition it.
Administering it would be another thing.
Okay, I felt I was getting something wrong. Thank you.
I think the war may have lasted longer though. Before Normandy let the Allies tear through France and the lowlands, were the Germans really that close to losing? IIRC they only lost Barbarossa because they were stupid and pushed in way too far despite the Winter.
Even if the Soviets did eventually win I think WW2 would extend by a couple years, though still not enough time to buy Japan anything. I doubt they could hold all of China even if they had it. Eventually after the war in Europe they'd funnel Mao weapons and cash while fighting with the Nationalists and they'd be kicked back, Soviets would just flood into Korea and Manchuria. And they'd probably just force Japan to release whatever Pacific possessions they gained back to America. (I don't think they'd be brazen enough to just hold up a middle finger to the world at that point, even if Stalin wanted to.)
I guess, but considering people can still live in places like Colorado, I'm still skeptical. Wouldn't they at least try to push the borders up to the mountains?
This will never not be funny to me.
>several nukes on major American cities
How. Crossing planes across the Atlantic is impossible at this time (especially without a return course), and Germany had no Navy capable of transporting one such plane.
I feel like that's something different. Roosevelt definitely wanted to go to war against Germany.
Most armies in europe still used horses for transportation so this is just a moot point
Hitler lost a ridiculous amount of troops in the soviet front, troops that would have been on france in D-Day or africa or even on a reverse D-Day on england
But again, thats on the realm of fantasy so I won't delve into it
The US had japan beat in both industry and manpower. It was retarded to think Pearl Harbor would take the US out if the war
That's where an action-thriller movie comes in at the end of the 40's where Nazi Germany has all but cinched success in Europe and in the wake of a massive defeat and crushing economic and morale depression we follow two mischievous Fascists who take smuggled in plans and steal materials to build and detonate a nuke in America for the Fuhrer!
>We only entered the European theater because we were making gains in the Pacific I think?
No. Germany declared war on the U.S within a week as per the alliance. Roosevelt immediatly made the executive decision to focus the majority of the U.S war effort on Germany and the European theater in order to save England from the Nazis.
I think we should all take a minute to reflect on what an absolute cunt MacArthur was.
By making the war in the Pacific about himself he caused threw away a lot more men and material than he had any right to and as a military leader he was completely hopeless.
The very definition of a politician general.
But if you made it so entering the war in the Pacific was a struggle, the victories wouldn't come as easy then, maybe more defeats would follow, and then that does a fuck ton to morale. Which really drove the industrial war machine in the first place.
Do you have any idea just how much war material the US has been producing and sending to their allies through lend-lease? There was a non-zero chance the US wouldn't have been able to overcome the losses at Pearl Harbor. And that's not factoring the Navy they had over in the Atlantic.
THIS IS A SUPER SERIOUS HISTORICAL DEBATE.
Not him, but I'd say Germany would have just waited the US out. It's not like the US could launch an invasion of Europe without Britain anyway, and then later on Germany would have had ICBMs and dominated the world.
>Roosevelt definitely wanted to go to war against Germany
Sure, but the american people didn't. Remember that it was Germany that declared war on the US, not the other way around.
And anyway, D-day would have looked a lot different if the whole might of Germany was on one front. I don't think the US would have even risked it.
This is a discussion about what if? fiction, games are fiction.
No, I am still learning all the time.
But didn't Germany have the potential industry to make a nuke? Before all hope was lost they seemed to be up to some crazy fucking things.
Excuse me, /a/ is for shameless otaku not brainless weebs.
Such a narrative cop-out. It doesn't even make any sense, who would they ally against? Fucking Germany, on the other side of the planet? Japan had zero interest in that. Unless Stalin become braindead and decided to ally with Germany, and than attacked Asia, Japan has zero reason to be involved in that scenario.
If you're talking about the banzai charge/mass attack it was used far more sparingly than Hollywood and the accounts of 2nd/3rd line POGs to their grandchildren would have you believe.
The US, being on the offensive, actually made more mass attacks than the Japanese ever did. The only difference is that US Marines didn't shout "banzai" when they did it. They just shouted "attack" or the rough equivalent of "MURIKA".
>People get mad at US for dropping the nukes that killed thousands and ended the war
>No one ever thinks about how many millions they saved by doing it
China sure as shit doesn't feel the same way
WWII Jap was just as bad as Germany
No, it's not a question of if the US joins the war or not, but whether or not Japan attacks the US or implodes from the lack of resources from the embargo first. Japan could not sustain their war machine without the oil from the US. They could either go on with their conquest without those resources (not happening), give up (even more of not happening) or take it from the then US territory Philaphines. Due to their full retard leadership, it is a matter of when, not if, Japan attacks the US.
I'm happy Japan didn't win.
It'd be a closed off, just starting to thaw country like China nowadays I think. We'd have no anime or Japanese cultural exports, it'd be completely traditional. If they held any major part of China and the Pacific we'd probably deal with them economically like the Chinese, or perhaps not, since we'd have burning hatred for them. I don't think Nixon would make a famous visit to Tokyo in the 70's.
Shit would suck
Or run headlong in machine gun fire?
Why don't wars happen like this anymore. Full frontal assault of American will. Is it because everyone we entangle ourselves with fight guerrilla-style?
>Not posting the Superior Battle
Germany stared their supposed nuclear program way before the US did. The US still managed to research, make and use a nuclear bomb before they did. That alone should be enough to tell you the Germany had shit for research in nukes.
>Beginning on March 27, 1945, 1,000 parachute-retarded influence mines with magnetic and acoustic exploders were initially dropped, followed by many more, including models with water pressure displacement exploders. This mining proved the most efficient means of destroying Japanese shipping during World War II. In terms of damage per unit of cost, it surpassed strategic bombing and the United States submarine campaign.
>Eventually most of the major ports and straits of Japan were repeatedly mined, severely disrupting Japanese logistics and troop movements for the remainder of the war with 35 of 47 essential convoy routes having to be abandoned. Operation Starvation sank more ship tonnage in the last six months of the war than the efforts of all other sources combined.
>After the war, the commander of Japan's minesweeping operations noted that he thought this mining campaign could have directly led to the defeat of Japan on its own had it begun earlier. Similar conclusions were reached by American analysts who reported in July 1946 in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey that it would have been more efficient to combine the United States' effective anti-shipping submarine effort with land- and carrier-based air power to strike harder against merchant shipping and begin a more extensive aerial mining campaign earlier in the war. This would have starved Japan, forcing an earlier end to the war.
>built mostly by the French and British
Mate, in 1941 most Japanese ships were made in Japan and more than half of all their destroyers were more than 10 years old. The high command knew each day they weren't bombing Pearl Harbour was a day their navy got shittier.
On that front, yes. I'm still not so sure they would have committed troops to the european theatre without soviet involvement. Hitler declaring war on the US doesn't guarantee that.
I think we can all agree that Japan would be crushed no matter what, but the topic was whether Germany could have succeeded if they didn't have to deal with the soviets. (Which is a very unrealistic scenario of course.)
Maybe if the Krauts had also pulled off both Sealion and Barbarossa as planned.
Even then the yanks would only sit still for five years or so until building up enough ships to do whatever they like.
Well, it's not that implausible. It just requires Japan to not become Yamato Damashii post WW1. Really, all of the full retardness Japan had during WWII was because they listened to the wrong people. Remove that one element and I can see Japan allying with the US.
Yes, America. Well, like another anon said, it'd probably be impossible to take the mainland US. And Japan had no interest in it. They'd just force a declaration of surrender, consequently shitting all over America's pride. I'm not sure what would happen in Europe, but even if we one I'm sure the public animosity would probably cause a radical president or two to get elected. Might slide into a depression.
The Japanese suicide attacks were immensely effective at striking a fear into the enemy. When you saw a wave of Japanese coming headlong at you, that's fucking terrifying.
>the topic was whether Germany could have succeeded if they didn't have to deal with the soviets. (Which is a very unrealistic scenario of course.)
Stalin never intended to start a war with Germany in first place. Of course the question is that ideologically the Nazis were practically obliged to start a war on the Soviets, even if it was unviable.
Impossible, Japan was at America's throat since the end of World War One. Don't forget that the military effectively ran Japan, and they were completely butt-blasted over the Washington naval treaty, America wanting to be a Pacific power and fact they were cock-blocking the jap's oil and rubber supplies.
If they sided earlier with the "interwar Entente"/Allies they may have been accepted on the prospect that their colonial efforts in China could be brought to bare to create a buffer zone in Asia against communism, as well as creating the possibility that CHINA WOULD ONCE AGAIN BE EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO TRADE WHICH WAS A BIG DEAL.
Japan would have wanted this because it gave their national ambitions something approaching international approval. Allowing them to continue eating China unmolested, and continue trading openly (which might have prevented the Pacific War even if they didn't ally).
I'm pretty sure there was a US diplomatic paper published 1934~ about this (unlikely) possibility, though it wasn't necessarily about a war against Germany, because at the time it was debated that Soviet aggression in Europe was more likely.
Yes. You'd have to break it up into multiple administrative regions and even then I don't think it'd be possible to stop them from going their own way unless you had direct military presence.
Do people seriously think that Japan had a chance?
Just look at this.
I think Stalin had mentioned that he was surprised by the Germany attack not because it was a stupid move, but because Hitler did it first. Stalin had every intention of attacking and invading Germany. If it wasn't the US declaring war on Germany, it would've been on the Soviets instead. All things considered, Germany was absolutely correct in their decision to attack the Soviets first.
Well, regardless of Stalin's wishes, war was pretty much inevitable between the nazis and soviets. The ideological differences and the simple threat of a unified western Europe would have led to the same situation, though perhaps at a late enough date for it to affect the outcome of the war.
That's because the Japanese got butthurt (rightly so) over getting nothing for their part in WW1. They pretty much emulated the Superpowers at the time that might = right. The US only embargoed the Japanese after they started invading shit in China.
Japan was grumpy about the naval treaty, but there wasn't antagonism coming from the west until the invasion of Manchuria. If the government was stronger able to reign in those rogue army officers responsible, things would have turned out differently.
The Soviets weren't ready for the war. Most of the combatants were civilians which were given a gun and sent to the frontlines, meanwhile the Germans had actual soldiers who had already fought several years in the war.
If something WWII probes that you can win just by throwing more tanks and planes to your enemy's face than he can manufacture, even if those are driven by farmers.
Nigga all but a couple ships that got destroyed in pearl harbor were repaired to fully operational status 6 months later, 1 year later they doubled the size of their Pacific fleet.
It took Germany all it had in the Atlantic to overcome US industrial capacity and they were only able to do that for one month and the crashed hard afterwards.
There was absolutely 0 chance of Japan winning against the allies
>completely decimate American morale and foster their own elements within the country to revolt; say, several nukes on major American cities
Would just make the U.S angrier really. The only reason why Japan surrendered was because Hirohito forced the Japanese government into surrendering as he was tired of seeing his country decimated by war.
Because they couldn't win their war with china without attacking and occupying allied territories
They already got BTFO by the soviets once and had no intention of trying that again
>Sure, but the american people didn't.
Just like the American people didn't want to go into WW1. Sure people didn't like the idea of the war, but they held no love for the Nazi's. It was easy work to whip up nationalistic propaganda to stir the citizens into a blood hungry fury.
So China wasn't part of the allies at the time they attacked?
Damn, their emperor should have slapped them the fuck up and told them to concentrate, the axis losing seems to me like it was just really shitty planning, like Hitler invading Russia, and Japan attacking America
>Implying the emperor wasn't just a figurehead.
The emperor effectively had zero power. Even when nukes hit and the emperor wanted to surrender, the military leaders were willing to throw a coup d'etat and kill the emperor to continue fighting.
Yeah. The Chinese were simply worse off due to a massive civil war. The Japanese really had no idea how to effectively wage war. Which makes sense since they were emulating the forms but not the functions of the major powers at the time.
We'd embargoed oil to Japan to so they would stop raping everyone in China and taking over the Pacific. Japan having no oil of its own or anywhere in its newly taken territories needed to find a source of fuel and fast. Since all the sources were occupied by either the Soviets or the Americans, they chose the Americans under the belief that we would be unable to effectively prosecute a global war across two oceans. They were wrong.
>15000 killed during the bombing of Pearl Harbor
>300000 killed during the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and many more due to radiation and cancer for more than 70 years and starting the cold war
>"AMURICA DID NUFFIN WRONG!!"
My god is that the average mindset of an American?
>why did Japan even try to attack America
Because it was only a matter of time before the US involved itself anyways to protect its financial interests - which is exactly what happened in 1916. At least with a preemptive strike Japan had a chance to alter the balance of power in the Pacific.
>Bunch of smelly looking savages rape and murder your people
Literally ISIS, look at everyone's reactions and compare it to the past, people are calling for the nuking of the middle east basically
We wouldn't have gotten anime bullshit if they didn't get btfo. Do you think the military government which was all about masculinity (no homo) would allow it?
Maybe they should've started suing for peace right after the first few major bombings, which is what any government that cares about its people do.
Oh wait, they didn't, to the point where they killed off the Okinawans.
Japs killed upwards of 300,000 CIVILIANS
This shit was literally a game to them
Anime used be oozing with masculinity.
You won't say that IJA floppy dog ear cap is cool will you?
The engagement was between what was basically a tiny U.S escort fleet and the remaining bulk of the Japanese Armada. This task fleet was basically a token guard left to defend the U.S transport ships carrying supplies to begin the final step in the island hopping campaign and the eventual invasion of the home islands. Not only did the task force keep the transports safe, we manged with vastly inferior ship fire power to sink ships several times their size and tonnage and freak the Japanese command out so much they decided to retreat.
Japan needed oil, they could only get it from the Dutch East Indies, the only reasonable routes to get that oil back to Japan was past the Philippines, which were an American protectorate. Therefore they needed to knock America out early to prevent future American interference.
What a horrible example of shitty Asian typeset.
Quite. Battles have a larger context and wars, a political one.
In the grander scheme of things, there was not a lot of willpower left in Japan to keep it up after the absolute beating it was getting. Whether or not they needed to be nuked is literally an academic question, but whichever way you think, the string of defeats out of country, and the full scale bombing (whether the conventional bombs had them feeling defeated, which is reasonable, a lot of people alive today recall them and their families felt miserable and defeated, or if you think the Atomic bomb was needed, whether to cow the Japanese or really, to intimidate Russia.)
That's another thread where it gets complicated. Even if it wasn't strictly needed to use the bomb to defeat Japan, it showed Russia and everyone else, but especially Russia "look what happens when we use our Bomb, which we have and you do not". This did not last, as they needed a Bomb after that, but that is a whole other discussion.
They knew they couldn't win a protracted war against a determined enemy, that's why they hoped to inflict a massive blow in a decisive attack that would make the Americans unwilling to fight on and sue for peace rather than suffer further losses.
You could say that they learned the wrong lesson from their victory over the Russians at Tsushima.
Step 1, disable the USN's Pacific Fleet.
Step 2, consolidate hold on East Asia while the Americans have no power in the Pacific.
Invading America was never really on their radar.
Yamamoto basically said that. The other military leaders didn't care/listen and did it anyway. As it hasn't been clear enough, the Japanese military leadership went full retard post WW1.
>jap's oil and rubber supplies.
And America also spent over a year dropping Napalm on mainland Japan with B-29s and killed over 300,000 civilians. This is in addition to the 300,000 that died in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
oh yeah, but there was a hundred different ways to do it but they decided fucking shit up would have been the best way which destroyed all its relationships and backing the losing side
>Taffy 3's few destroyers and slower destroyer escorts possessed neither the firepower nor armor to effectively oppose the Japanese force, but nevertheless desperately attacked with 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal guns and torpedoes to cover the retreat of their slow "jeep" carriers.
> In response and without consulting with his commanders, Evans ordered Johnston to "flank speed, full left rudder", beginning an action that earned him the Medal of Honor.
>Now the Japanese and American ships were intertwined in a confused jumble. Gambier Bay and Hoel were sinking. Finding targets was not difficult. After 0900, with Hoel and Samuel B. Roberts out of the fight, the crippled Johnston was an easy target. Fighting with all she had, she exchanged fire with a swarm of enemy ships, four cruisers and numerous destroyers.
>However, it was the Japanese themselves that first recognized Johnston ' s incredible actions that day: As a destroyer from the opposing fleet cruised slowly by, Robert Billie and several other crewmen watched as the Japanese captain saluted the sinking Johnston.
>But in exchange for the heavy losses for such a small force, they sank or disabled three Japanese cruisers and caused enough confusion to persuade the Japanese commander, Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita, to regroup and ultimately withdraw, rather than advancing to sink troop and supply ships at Leyte Gulf.
>This battle is often depicted as one of the major "what-ifs" in World War II. If Kurita had continued the attack instead of withdrawing, it is possible that the U.S. could have suffered heavy losses in troops and supplies, which would have delayed their capture of the Philippines. If Kurita's and Halsey's forces met, that would have been the long awaited "decisive battle" where both sides would have finally been able to pit their largest battleships against each other.
>China wasn't part of the allies
No. China was fighting the Japs before WWII even started in Europe. Although the Nationalists were the official government, they and the Communists fought each other just as much as they fought the Japs. It was just a huge mess back then.
Even today, China is still a bit unhappy since their contributions don't get talked about much after having lost the most people after the Soviets during the war.
And the Jewish population in Europe during WW2 was under 150.
>which destroyed all its relationships and backing the losing side
To be fair, their contributions were basically nothing except for dying and locking up some of the Japanese troops. Neither the KMT nor the CCP inflicted any significant damage to Japanese forces.
>man look at Americans
>a nation of shopkeepers and factory workers
>no match for a nation of TRUE WARRIORS
>no need to plan for a long war of attrition
History nerd here.
No, Japan could not have won WW2. If somebody told me to come up with a scenario wherein Japan could have won WW2, the world would have had to be so different that the thought experiment has no point.
First off, no, nobody can invade America and win. The logistics just don't make sense. If we're strictly talking about winning WW2, then it could have happened if the USA didn't join the war and Japan was left free to go wild across Asia. Of course, that means none of the other wacky scenarios here would happen.
If you want Japan to legit invade the USA and "win" traditionally, then we're have to go to an alternate timeline completely. In that world "Japan" would have to already include a large chunk of China before the 18th century. Then when the country goes through the Meiji Reformation, it would have become an industrial superpower dwarfing the European powers and the US. In that case, yeah, it could have won WW2. We would have seen a 20th century dominated by Japan instead of the USA. However, such a hypothetical nation wouldn't be "Japan", as it would be dominated by Chinese ethnicity.
So basically, no, "Japan" could not have "won" WW2.
>a society which submits the individual needs to the collective
>kills tallied for the squadron not the pilot
>most pilots fought solo, shitty radio tech didn't help
>aces were kept on the front lines as long as possible which resulted in them dying, with shit for replacements
>gear often was poorly maintained, poorly supplied, absolute shit logistics because not glorious enough
>members of a conformist society wanted personal glory
>society which prizes individuality and freedom
>kills tallied for the person, not the squadron
>most pilots fought in teams, to overcome Zero's maneuverability
>aces were pulled from the front lines to train rookies, sacrificed personal glory for the greater good
>maintenance and logistics polished and working like clockwork
>members of an individualist society working together for the greater good
from technical point of view in japan, their mainstay fighter mitsubishi zero was totally fragile to make up for their crucial shortage of materials and prioritize its mobility, so even one hit was fatal
this led to the significant loss of their capable and skilled pilots
additionally, they made light of the development of radar system despite which was invented by japanese known as Yagi-Uda antenna
but in any case, the completion of atomic bomb would have determined the outcome sooner or later
Listen you little political activist shitstain.
It's not that MURICA!!! did no wrong, it's that the japanese under their imperialism nonsense were a hell of a lot worse.
Read that for a bit, the mere fact that most of their war crimes can also be called "Massacres" should tell you a lot, let's not forget the fact of forced labor camps, the rape of and pillaging of entire nations across the coast of asia, executions beheading-style, women being repurposed as sex slaves for military officers, etc.
There's a reason why most of Asia has an unending hatred for the Japanese, and it's not because they censor their porn (Those barbarians)
>spubmarines comprised less than two percent of the U.S. Navy, but sank more than 30 percent of Japan's navy, including eight aircraft carriers. More important, American submarines contributed to the indirect decapitation of the Japanese economy by sinking almost five million tons of shipping — more than 60 percent of the Japanese merchant marine.
At least they have a porn industry. The rest of asia has either no internet, or have to rely on shitty cam sites to jerk off. I'll agree it's pretty barbaric, I mean how can I enjoy a teasing handjob video without seeing the hand or the job?
Well to be fair Americans actually tried to protect their shipping convoys so the Germans had a tougher job.
Meanwhile japan lost hundreds of ships in mere months to mines because incompetence.
They came from a xenophobic island nation and their only experience in warfare came from killing themselves and bullying other asian peasants and native tribes who can barely defend themselves.
Their xenophobia also meant they no tradition of recon or intel gathering. They composed elaborate plans while they expected the enemy to just sit there and take it. They also did not expect their codes to get broken.
Most of Southeast Asia is actually okay with Japan now. The ones who are least so are Singapore, who are still hilariously weeaboo.
I guess the magical samurai had with him the superior katana.
So this year we've seen, what? War crime denial, historical revisionism and completely inane alternate history wank that exists for the sole purpose of self-fellation.
When are we gonna get a series that just outright says Imperial Japan didn't do enough at Nanking or Korea or whatever?
Shokugeki no Soma claimed that Imperial Japanese Army never starved Allied prisoners, in fact they gave them perfectly good roots to eat but silly gaijins don't know how to eat root vegetables and think Japanese force them to eat inedible tree roots and think that is a war crime.
In the Treaty of Versailles, Japan wanted the inclusion of a racial equality clause. The other allies turned it down, which Japan interpreted as further evidence of the western powers seeking to sideline Japan.
What's with Japans inferiority complex?
I think they are even trying to out QE america.
Pretty soon JKs will only accept gold or
yuanfor enjo kosai.
Nah, they want Soviets to mediate the peace negotiations with the US. Which went out the window when the USSR fulfilled their promise to the US and declared war on them instead, then marched through Manchuria in the most well analyzed offensive in history that is taught in officer school .
Dick is a giant retard who played around with a marker. It doesn't show on that map, but the Mediterranean was actually drained of all its water so the Nazis can have more farmland too.
Look, even the designers of Operation Downfall said that it was going to be a bloody apocalypse. There was unrest in the US who just wanted the war to be over.
US needed help and USSR was in possession of the most battle hardened troops in the entire war.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the luckiest break in the war.
>MUH INCOMPETENT ALLY MAYMAY
>/k/ knowing history that doens't exclusively have to do with guns
War does have to do with guns, but is overall much to complex and has too many factors for the average /k/ poster. It's fucking /his/ man.
An interest in Japan (among other things) will inevitable result in an interest in WWII. The recognition that Japan is pretty shit is what separates people who like anime/manga and actual weeaboos.
Man why is Japan so fucking shit? And why are Japanese so... weird and generally also shit? I mean I know some factors and facts, but I don't think that they could actually form the whole picture.
Man what the shit. The western civilization is so much fucking better. For now.
It improved considerably after the May affair.
Funny thing is, the Germans addressed their problem with defective torpedos exponentially faster and more effectively than the Murkens.
No need to be a expert in anything to know that Japan was heading for a total defeat the moment they bombed Pearl Harbor. Their entire strategy hinged on the US not excepting massive war losses and then call for a peace treaty. Can't really get that when you sneak attack on a Sunday morning, and kill over 2,000 Americans in their sleep.
Forget Japan's inferiority complex for a second.
Why are they so terrible at making super-state maps? It's like they're just going nuts with a paint tool rather than considering political nuances.
Japan recognized that China was no longer the cultural powerhouse it was. They looked elsewhere to leech ideas from to bastardize. Western Europe was the new China. And in 19th century Western Europe they found Social Darwinism.
>Japan starts the war with ten "battleships"
>four of these "Battleships" are actually 1912 vintage Armored Cruisers that were literally built before the term "Battlecruiser" existed
>two of them are members of the Fuso class, also built in 1912
>they are so terrible and outdated that even JAPAN doesn't want to use them until literally nothing else is left
>two more are of the Ise class, which is like if you took a Fuso and made the crew quarters even shittier
>regarded widely as one of the most uninhabitable classes of ship ever made
>Japan doesn't even want them as part of the battle line, decides to turn them into Battleship-Carrier hybrid freaks that can't actually do the job of either class
>the final two are the Nagato class, which while being a decent design, are poorly protected and use an ancient turtle back armor scheme from the Ironclad era
>Neither of the Yamato class are prepared before the war begins, partly because Japan found out that they could sail further than they wanted them to, which required them to sit in the yard for an extra four months as they reduced the fuel capacity
>at Leyte Gulf Yamato did not land a single shot
>shittier war record than the Armored Cruisers
Strangely enough, the Board of Ordnance dragging their feet on the torpedo issue might of given the US its enormous advantage later in 1943. The Japanese may have pushed more effort into convoys and ASW earlier, if the big losses a working Mark 14 torpedo would of done had happened in 1942. But, that obviously never happened, and in 1943, the US not only had a working torpedo, but a far bigger submarine force to to really slam into Japan's unguarded merchant fleet with a far greater force then what could of been applied in 1942.
>in the future, Europe is part of Africa.
>the west writes stories about the U.S. winning Vietnam
>everything is worse overall and international tensions are always portrayed as even higher
>Japan writes about them winning the war for no real reason
>2nd battle of Guadalcanal
>middle of the night
>Kirishima tries to shoot an American battleship that can't fire back due to a power surge in the engine rooms knocking the out all electricity
>five broadsides and twelve salvos with 14" guns at a target 10,0000 yards away
>only a single shell hits the American battleship, striking the barbette of turret #3 and failing to actually do anything
>another American battleship spots Kirishima on radar
>closes to 12,000 yards undetected because
>fires sixty-five 16" shells
>nineteen of them Kirishima
>rolls over and sinks
muh night battles!
>Ise class [...] made the crew quarters even shittier
>regarded widely as one of the most uninhabitable classes of ship ever made
>Yamato class are prepared before the war begins, partly because Japan found out that they could sail further than they wanted them to, which required them to sit in the yard for an extra four months as they reduced the fuel capacity
Reminds me of how we went to the extra effort of giving the South Dakota class weaker engines because, as usual, our military brass was (and still is) comprised of retards.
>Japan slaughters 25 million civs across Asia
>uses slave labour
>soldiers shove blades into vaginas of sex slaves
>force feed them their fetuses
>Unit 731 with biological warfarme
>plans to use bubonic plague on USA
>loses only 1 million to bombings
>most of evidence destroyed so trials aren't effective
>America rebuilds Japan economically afterwards
>"B-b-but what about American war crimes?! ;_;"
Please tell me you want to keep talking about what is "fair".
What Japan really should have done was to take the army's "Northern Plan" instead of the navy's "Southern Plan," and gear up for war against the Soviet Union.
Some things to consider:
>Not enough steel and fuel
This was due to the government giving priority to the navy, due to giving in to their "Southern Plan" proposal. The navy and army had a rivalry for decades before the war and were fighting for the government's approval. The army proposed pushing into the Asian continent and fighting the USSR, while the navy pushed for a Pacific expansion and confronting the US. The government's decision to take the navy's side was due to the army's failure to defeat the Soviets at Khalkin Gol. I feel that the government should have given the army another chance and allow them to improve on their deficiencies, such as their logistical problems and lack of adequate armor.
>Japan's tanks and weapons are shit
A lot of Japan's equipment was actually pretty okay or even good. Tanks such as the Type 97 Chi-Ha and Type 95 Ha-Go were good for the time that they introduced. Although they wouldn't have stood up to new Soviet tanks, one should note that Japan's available army equipment may have been better if the Northern Plan was taken. If Japan didn't pour all of their resources into giant battleships and super submarines, the army would have had better equipment by 1941. The Type 1 Chi-He would have been available in 1941 in large numbers, and something better would follow. Look at the Germans, they started the war with Panzer IIs, Panzer IIIs, and howitzer equiped Panzer IVs. By 1942 and 1943, they started fielding long barreled Panzer IVs, Tigers, and Panthers. Given additional resources, Japan would have been able to do the same.
Their infantry weapons were also fine. Their rifles were strong and robust. Their light machine guns were reliable and ergonomic. Their "knee mortars" proved highly effective in the Pacific, and were supplied in large numbers.
>but more specifically WW2
USA committed no war crimes in WW2.
I'm saying it as someone living in an Axis country.
If you had said Vietnam for instance I'd say yeah sure, but WW2. No. Unfuck yourself.
>Although they wouldn't have stood up to new Soviet tanks
They wouldn't have been facing any new Soviet tanks. There was no way to get them to the East Coast of Russia at that time. In fact for many years to come there wouldn't have been a way to do it.
I don't see how that would've changed anything, Japan would've still lost the war and any advantage they would've had in the end.
Not how, a lot of "America wins Vietnam" stories usually involve superheroes or some other supernatural force. Watchmen had Dr. Manhattan get involved, for the most famous example.
What I meant is that there's meaningful purpose to this point of divergence.
Basically the Ise's are shortened version of the Fuso with a different turret layout.
Unfortunately, at the same time they reduced the size of the ship, they increased the number of crew, resulting in horrific overcrowding.
>Reminds me of how we went to the extra effort of giving the South Dakota class weaker engines because, as usual, our military brass was (and still is) comprised of retards.
the South Dakotas actually had a more powerful powerplant and went faster than the Preceding class.
You have to remember that this was a treaty ship, and it had to weigh in at 35,000 tons or under. In order to add engine power, you need bigger engines that weigh more. To keep under the limit, you would have to sacrifice armor.
The Iowa class battleships were basically South Dakotas that added another 10,000 tons in exchange for a 6 knot speed increase and no additional protection.
Are you dumb? Japan fought to a stalemate on mainland China. They didn't even conquer the entirety of it, and despite that the Chinese are responsible for more casualties inflicted on the Japanese armed forces. Sure America had a part in wrapping up the war with strategic victories and two bombings, but are you forgetting that the Chinks had been fighting the Japanese and each other since 1937, slowly whittling down their manpower. Also Japan is an island, lack of resources and oil. They were never able to fully exploit what negligible reserves there were in their annexed territories.
The nukes were completely unnecessary. Murika argues that they wanted to spare lives, but they could have done that by accepting the conditional surrender. In the end they let Hirohito live, so the entire thing was pointless.
Being a member of a former Axis nation doesn't make you an expert on WWII. Things like the Bombings of Tokyo or Dresden or the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans could easily have been considered war crimes. And that's ignoring the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US won though, so there was no way to persecute anyone.
They nuked Japan because the Emperor had no power at that time. His proposals were completely irrelevant and no one in the country would have accepted it.
The fighting spirit of the Japanese Army had to be crushed first.
Really USA did what they should've done in Iraq 10 years ago.
What's happening now is what would've been happening after WW2 if the Japanese and Germans weren't crushed so thoroughly. You can't erase an ideology by simply signing a treaty.
>muh Japanese camps in USA
That's not a war crime. That's sound thinking.
We're at war with Islam now, there's no camps and the results are plain to see.
I wish our political leaders had the same insight the ones during WW2 had. Unfortunately they are retards.
Actually, as someone with some understanding of history, economics and military capabilities involved, magic samurai is as good an alt history for Japan winning in the Pacific as any.
In actual reality, Japan was no match for the US and the Japanese KNEW IT.
>Soviet Union too strong
Yes, the Japanese did lose at Khalkin Gol, but it wasn't a crushing defeat as many believed. The Japanese lost because they fielded less troops and had to withdraw due to losing too much of this already small number of troops. The Soviets actually took heavier losses despite field far far more troops, tanks, and other equipment. Despite this disparity in numbers and equipment, the Soviets took very heavy losses themselves. They lost more tanks despite having arguably better tanks (BT-5s, BT-7s). The Japanese also lost because they failed to implement a proper "combined arms" strategy like the Soviets did, and ended up being encircled. If the Japanese learned from these mistakes in Khalkin Gol, they would have fared better.
Another thing, if the Japanese got ready by 1941, they would have been able to coordinate with Germany. Stalin did garrison the Soviet Far East, but had to move 10 or so divisions to the West to save Moscow. I think a Japanese attack would have prevented this and contributed to better gains by the Germans.
>Soviet Union too big
Japan wouldn't have to punch that deep in the USSR. Tying up the Far East garrisons would have allowed Germany to take Moscow, and maybe even Stalingrad, and then the Caucasian oil fields. It would have been well-worth it. Even though Japan had fuel problems, it was estimated that they had enough fuel to fight for 2-3 years, which would have been enough time for the Germans to grab the Soviet oil fields. Also, the US only implemented that oil embargo in response to Japan's invasion of Indochina. They wouldn't have invaded Indochina if the Northern Plan was taken, and thus they would probably be able to keep their oil.
>Soviet Union too cold
Japanese soldiers knew how to fight in winter combat. Their divisions based in Hokkaido were especially well-trained for these conditions. Ironically, those divisions were sent to fight in Malaya because of the Southern Plan.
Fun fact, Japanese ship captains claimed they didn't need radar for night combat because Japanese dark eyes absorb more light and have superior night vision compared to blue gaijin eyes.
It's relevant, because the samurai who won WW2 for Japan is the protagonist's grandfather and an inspiration to him. It also explains why everyone actively encourages high schoolers to kill each other in death matches for sport.
Thank you. There is a level of "whataboutism" that is asinine even by weeb standards. They invariably end up cribbing from Gar Alperovitz when the salient facts are pointed out to them.
I'm not saying that Germany and Japan didn't commit war crimes too, or that many of the Allied actions weren't justified. But these things caused lots of death and could easily be considered unjustified force.
Really though, it wasn't. Many of the people imprisoned were second generation immigrants and American citizens. These people had little to no remaining connection to Japan and were not much of a threat to the US.
That is a completely different issue.
>this leaves the United States to walk all over the Pacific
If Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor, the US probably wouldn't have entered the war, even though the US was giving material support the the UK. The American public was very against getting involved in WW2 before Pearl Harbor. Even if Congress somehow approved to enter the war, paying for the war would have been difficult. Civilians were convinced by the government to buy bonds, which ended up paying for half of the war costs. In this situation that US would enter the war without a real incentive, the citizens would not have bought bonds and there would be far less volunteers to fight.
>How many American stories just casually rewrite history?
Funny enough, American's write more "USA loses to enemy of the century" stories more than anyone else. The US military for all the mockery it receives never lost a really big conflict outside of Vietnam.
Screwing around with the Soviets would have allowed the Germans to make better gains. The Caucasian oil fields provided like 70% of Soviet oil. Also one of the reasons why the Soviets were able to save themselves and outproduce the Germans was because they moved a lot of their industry to the east. Japan could have targeted this industry to support the Germans.
It was fucking shit. Nothing really happened and we got some completely unnecessary meta shit in the end. I liked Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep but PKD is overrated as fuck.
As long as Japan was engaged in their China adventure, war with the US was inevitable. Everyone on the world stage knew this. The escalation to war was long and troubling -- Japan just struck first. If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl, the US was certainly going to attack a little later. It's amazing how people can talk so much shit about WW2 without understanding anything about the economy and geopolitics.
One more thing I want to add. Russians don't want to admit it, but American lend-lease was one of the reasons why the Russians were able to survive the war. If the Americans did not join the war, the Soviets would not have received lend-lease from the US. Even if the US decided that helping communists was in its interest, the Pacific Route, where the Soviets received around half of their lend-lease goods and equipment, would have been closed off by the Japanese. IRL, the Japanese allowed Soviet-flagged ships to gets its goods from the American west coast. This would not have happened if the Japanese waged war on the Soviets.
I don't get why Japan is so salty. It's not like we made movies where we won Vietnam just so we can have a world where we said we did. We just made cool war movies and got an awesome soundtrack out of it.
likely not, because the American public would not have supported it nor would they have bought the bonds that were needed to pay for the war. We like to think that America is for justice and fighting evil, but we only participated to get revenge for Pearl Harbor. This was the main driving factor.
America was pushing Japan to declare war on them by enacting an embargo on goods and fuel to them. Hell, they explicitly ORDERED mexicans to not sell them one barrel of oil.
>If the Allied hadn't started their offensive, Germany likely had ended under Soviet control, and maybe France too, given that the British didn't have enough strength to launch an offensive on their own.
desu if the US wouldve been completely neutral like the claimed germany wouldve won the war in europe.
Uh no, while the Chinese invasion did lead to sanctions, it wasn't the reason for the all important oil supply getting embargoed. Funny enough, no one agreed with Japan interfering in China's civil war, not even Italy and Germany, who funded and trained the Chinese military.
The TV series version has more political intrigue between the Nazis and the Japanese and minimal pawnshop. The ending is inconclusive though and they're clearly leaving things open for another season
though Hitler trolling everyone by turning out to be the Man in the High Castle all along was hilarious
It's not like any worthwhile writer in Japan writes about magical samurai winning ww2, those kind of material are all in garbage meant for mass consumption, like anime. If you look in the right places there's no doubt you'd find bargain-bin alt-history books about how America would've won Vietnam.
Look at WW2 as the last gasp of the imperial era -- you had these middle powers that were late to the industrial revolution when the established powers were locking everything down, and these smaller guys wanted a piece. The West and Russia weren't going to let them. It's that simple.
So as long as Japan was trying to take stuff, war with the US was inevitable.
>India, Australia, China
Impossible. Japan was already struggling with a stalemate in China as it was, even before the war Pearl Harbour when they had nothing to distract from the Chinese front they weren't able to make any headway into mainland China.
As for India and Australia, neither is possible given the logistical issues involved and the massive investment of manpower required. It doesn't matter if Japan had total naval dominance in the Pacific, the IJA simply lacked the manpower and material required to take and hold India and Australia, let alone even one of the two in addition to all of mainland China.
/a/ would probably blow a gasket from watching the show because the show's creators have no fucking clue how to believably depict a Japanese society.
>HERBAL MEDICINES COST SIX YEN
>ANTIQUE .45 COLT COST 100 YEN EACH
>THE YAKUZA ARE CHARGING 50,000 RANSOM WE CAN'T POSSIBLY GET THAT MUCH MONEY
>The main female lead thanks a shopkeeper with どうもありがとう instead of ありがとうございます
>An angry Kenpeitai officer orders his men to move out with the polite and friendly 行きましょう in the middle of a raid.
>naming an airport after the Showa Emperor's given name which the use of is a massive SHAMEFUR DISPRAY, and they wrote it in katakana too the dumbfucks
Who said anything about "fair"? I'm talking about wrongdoing, and we've done plenty.
>indiscriminate bombing of population centers with little strategic/military value
>shooting surrendering enemies
>starving POWs/leaving them out to freeze to death
>looting and depredation of civilians
>no war crimes
Our rap list is sizable enough.
Japan had a bigger empire than most European nations, and a bigger army and navy that was allowed in the multiple treaties through the early 20th century. They had such an inferiority complex, they thought they were being specifically targeted by the West, when it was Germany that was being treated as the punching bag.
Not a battle buddy. Just like Vietnam wasn't officially a war, it was a conflict. Still undefeated baby.
The embargo was implemented to get the Japanese out of French Indochina. There is little evidence that there was a conspiracy to lure Japan into attacking us.
>they explicitly ORDERED mexicans to not sell them one barrel of oil
Well yeah, that's what an embargo is. You stop selling things to someone and tell everyone to do the same.
>indiscriminate bombing of population centers with little strategic/military value
The Japanese were employing the civilians to create weapons and ammo in their homes, so bombing them wasn't of little strategic/military value.
>shooting surrendering enemies
Suicide bombing and feign surrender was a typical tactic employed by the Japanese military.
Can't argue about the other two.
Or, Japan could have always given in to demands to withdraw from French Indochina and China. They still would have had one of the largest empires in history. There was no conspiracy, the Japanese government was just fucking stupid.
>Can't argue about the other two.
You can, however, understand them. Japanese did exactly the opposite of ingratiating themselves to the US. Even some Nazis had better tact. See: Karl Dönitz
>Pretty sure Germans didn't employ such tactics.
The indiscriminate bombing of Dresden was a RAF thing. The Lancaster bombers the British used did not have the surgical strike equipment of the B-17s, so they bombed at night.
Yeah, and they were allowed to have the third biggest navy in the world, bigger then the French, the Italians, everyone not the USA/Britain. Hell, Germany was not even allowed a Navy until the late 1930s. What's funny is how everyone seems to think that Japan was industrial/resource starved, but the big chunks of Asia it colonized, and it's fairly large hegemony saw it rise up to being one of the leading industrial power in the world. They were paranoid through and through.
>Pretty sure Germans didn't employ such tactics.
As many civilians killed in Warsaw as in Dresden.
Oh, and the entire city was reduced to rubble 5 years later, even after the resistance surrendered, just because they were feeling vindictive.
Most of Japan's successes in Asia were the outcome of short-term subterfuge and taking advantage of their neighbours social and political crises, prime example in Manchuoku, which was barely a puppet state. Compare that the Britain, where the Isles alone, with a similar size and resource base, beat out Japan in industrial output by miles.
Their power was completely dwarfed and eclipsed by America and the European imperial nations in effectiveness, size, technology, industrial output, experience, colonial support and control.
They were the jobbers of the end of the imperial age.
The US warned Japan before they dropped the first bomb, then asked them to surrender, then warned them before they dropped the second bomb, then asked them to surrender
War is hell man why do people pretend like the nukes were the only terrible thing that happened
Japan learned so many wrong lessons from the Russo-Japanese War that they'd probably have been better off losing it.
Native Americans were named honorary Aryans in the hopes they'd rise up against the US Government, actually.
Perhaps "The IJN constructed about as many destroyers as the US constructed carriers" or "The IJN total fleet was about equal to the number of US destroyers" would be better comparisons.
Not only that, the military leaders attempt a coup d'etat the night before the emperor officially announce they were surrendering so they can continue fighting despite being nuked twice. They somehow managed to go beyond full retard.
>naval wars can be won by winning a single huge decisive battle
>offensive factors like speed and range are more important than defensive ones like armor and damage control
>stealth and misdirection and clever battle plans count more than strength
>endurance and habitability should be cut to the bare minimum to improve combat capability.
None of these lessons were applicable in WW2.
To the Japanese, warfare was an artistic endeavor, to the USA it was a matter of industry.
To oversimplify, the Japanese thought in terms of blades (hence their obsession with very fast ships and very long range) and the Americans in terms of tools (hence their obsession with durability).
This played out in the Pacific war with US aircraft and ships frequently surviving damage that would have destroyed their Japanese counterparts twice over.
And Japan having a torpedo that's so powerful and long ranged that ships carrying them risked exploding and sinking if the torpedo room suffered even a minor hit. Like what happened when USS White Plains became the only aircraft carrier ever to win a gunfight with a heavy cruiser (with a piddly little 5 inch gun, at that)
>the South Dakotas actually had a more powerful powerplant and went faster than the Preceding class
I know; read up on the development process. They could've had even more powerful engines and gone faster than what we ultimately got, but the brasshats favored spending more time/effort/money/resources on developing downgraded engines for it.
>Like what happened when USS White Plains became the only aircraft carrier ever to win a gunfight with a heavy cruiser (with a piddly little 5 inch gun, at that)
Was that the expected outcome upon firing or were both sides confused as fuck after all was said and done?
>Japan had contacted the Allies and offered to surrender with the aole condition that they wanted to be allowed to continue to treat the Emperor as a deity.
America refused because they wanted an unconditional surrender. So they dropped the first nuke.
Again Japan offered to surrender if they could still deify the Emperor. But America decided to drop the second bomb.
That was the reason the US used nukes - they just wanted to destroy Japan's religion. Ot's too bad tha most American's aren't even aware of that.
That way of thinking is what won the war though. You don't want a top of the line stuff for everything, you want mass-producable reliable stuff. There's a damn good reason why almost everyone was using Sherman's in the Western front. It was one of the few thing that actually work when they needed it to.
The whole Battle off Samar was a confusing clusterfuck for both sides as the Americans used every trick in the book to try to not die against a massively superior Japanese force so it was probably an accident. Escort carriers aren't meant to be gunfighting at all.
The leadership wanted a negotiated settlement that left Japanese society and politics unchanged, precluded Allied occupation, and gave them full control over war trials. No concrete terms were proposed by the Japanese leadership or by unauthorized parties from Japan.
I also think that some of their geopolitical were the wrong ones as well, such as the idea that Japan was ready to take on industrial superpowers through sheer grit and determination, when as >>133765697 shows was more due to total incompetence on the part of the Russians and then Teddy Roosevelt making a timely intervention right after their decisive battle.
I don't think so, they instead doubled down on the Yamato Deishii/honorabu sacrifice rhetoric and started to think they could actually punch above their weight in geopolitics and should be treated like a great power instead of just getting incredibly lucky.
>but no match for the American fleet mostly because of its aircraft carriers. I think in total Japan had three while America had seven or something like that.
Japanese: Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu, (Midway carriers,) Shoukaku and Zuikaku. Hosho was an obsolete little POS only good for training or launching scoutplanes so she doesn't count. (There was also Shōhō and Ryūjō, light carriers moderately worse than Ranger and Wasp.)
Americans: The Lexington class (Lexington, Saratoga,) and the Yorktown class (Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet.) There was Ranger (so small and old that it was kept in the Atlantic for ground attack and convoy escort) and Wasp (which was about the same size as Ranger, 15,000 tons, and only built to use up the remaining allowed treaty tonnage. Just a light carrier at best.)
So in fleet carriers? Six Japanese to five American. Light carriers? Two versus two. Atop of that nobody considered aircraft carriers to be the real capital ship until midwar, when multiple battles had proved the point - the Japanese kept seeking their Decisive Battle with a battleship engagement and the Americans HAD to use their carriers because they had little else.
Please be trolling.
Some of those attributes was good for a time. They're insane level of dedication for night fighting saw them thrash the USN in a couple of battles during 1942, before the US became their equal in 1943 with better tactics and radar.
That statement wasn't quite accurate. There were eight torpedoes were mounted on the Chokai's deck, and the White Plains's five inch gun set them off (each of them had 1080 pounds of explosive and a tank of pure oxygen), which it could not have done if they were not up on the decks because its gun was totally incapable of penetrating a heavy cruiser's armor.
The explosion knocked out Chokai's rudder and engines and took her out of the fight (so yes an escort carrier killed a heavy cruiser with a gun), but she didn't actually sink until another Japanese ship scuttled her with torpedoes.
>In a telegram, Shun'ichi Kase, Japan's ambassador to Switzerland, observed that "unconditional surrender" applied only to the military and not to the government or the people, and he pleaded that it should be understood that the careful language of Potsdam appeared "to have occasioned a great deal of thought" on the part of the signatory governments—"they seem to have taken pains to save face for us on various points."
> In an attempt to manage public perception, Prime Minister Suzuki met with the press, and stated: I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu).... The meaning of mokusatsu, literally "kill with silence," can range from "ignore" to "treat with contempt"—which rather accurately described the range of reactions within the government.
I'd give you a reaction image but I'm not sure I've got one suitable for my face right now.
As an addendum to this, basically Japan learned from the Russo-Japanese war that they were at the very least culturally equal (if not culturally and racially superior) to Europeans because they beat one European Great Power, ignored the fact that another Great Power had intervened in their favor to get them that, and the military saw itself as the central piece of Japanese society for getting them there. This led to the military's increased radicalization, tearing down Taisho Democracy, and then going into China which led them to their loss in WWII. Militarism had been on the rise during the entire Meiji period but had they lost the Russo-Japanese war they might have been humbled enough not to make the same assumptions that led them to think they could challenge the United States.
I mean that they were in talks with Russia who could theoretically help to convince the US to accept Japan's surrender with the conditions that Japan wanted (leaving their Emperor alone).
What is important is that
If the axis had won WW2, we would not have animu because Japan was a crazy nationalistic bloodlustful state back then and the atomic bombs managed to emasculate then
And conversely it's what lost Japan the war (and probably Germany too with all their crazy superweapons as well). The Yamato was the greatest battleship ever constructed, but it didn't matter when 200 planes launched from miles away could take it down. Shimakaze was one of the fastest destroyers ever, but they could only build one.
Lets break some myths here
>If america's ships were destroyed in pearl harbor america could just make more
In the time they were building the ships japan would have claimed a good deal of their objective, that is the domination of the pacific islands and a foothold in alaska.
>No one can invade america
True, but it isn't because of "muh armed redneck populace", its a logistic hell to invade another country on the other side of the ocean, specially a continent sized one
>The nukes were used to avoid further casualties
The nukes were used as a message to the soviets, japan was already looking for surrender options when the nukes dropped
>Stalin hated Hitler
Russia and Germany had a NAP , if hitler didn't have a hate boner and greediness he could have held the entire central europe and north africa territories unscathed.
>m-muh victory over Tsarist Russian
That's like bragging over beating mobs of illiterate mud farmers, in fact, it IS LITERALLY bragging over beating mobs of illiterate mud farmers.
Japs got completely, utterly crushed at Manchuria. It wasn't even a contest. Use a more recent example next time.
>True, but it isn't because of "muh armed redneck populace", its a logistic hell to invade another country on the other side of the ocean, specially a continent sized one
But also because of "muh armed redneck populace". The American militia would be one of the largest armies in the world.
Watch the world largest militia scatter under the shelling of artillery and carpet bombing
Not to mention how you would organize them, no hierarchy, no chain of command, no supply lines.
This is one of the biggest myths that america has woven around themselves, yet they forget that your average joe isn't trained to deal with the stress of real war.
If it ever came to the invasion of america, this means that the army got defeated, the navy probably broken and the air force in shambles, if any country in the world could do that its not some armed joes that could beat them back
Reader's comprehension. It would've taken FAR LESS to build the SUPERIOR engines than to build the downgraded engines. Besides, they "corrected" it anyway with the Iowa class. They could've saved themselves the trouble and expenses by not downgrading the engines in the first place!
I mean if we are talking a hastily formed militia versus an entire military then, yeah, obviously the militia would be blown the fuck out. But it wouldn't happen in a vacuum.
Once the US government knew that the mainland was in danger of being invaded they would start training the militia themselves. You know how the green beret, CIA, and other assorted spooks goes around to other countries and trains and arms random rebels to fight insurgencies? They would do that within the US instead of abroad.
I assure you that contingency plans of this nature exist and it is nothing to scoff at.
I think my biggest concern with this is what happens if the dams are destroyed and suddenly the lakes rise up 200 meters?
The waves would wreck the shit out of all the coastal cities and probably fuck everything up for a good long time.
So you're essentially pointing two large guns at the heads of all the coastal cities and going "Boy sure hope nothing pulls the trigger on this thing."
Definitely impossible. Even if you could control a number of large cities you would pretty much never be able to control all of it's land unless you set up an effective puppet government. Even if you did that it might not work.
No, the "nukes as intimidation" thesis has been thoroughly debunked over and over. The Alperovitz thesis has been rejected by historians of modern Japan repeatedly. The Japanese leadership desired a negotiated peace and had not sought surrender. Those "feelers" were unauthorized personnel with no concrete surrender terms themselves.
>naval wars can be won by winning a single huge decisive battle
>offensive factors like speed and range are more important than defensive ones like armor and damage control
>stealth and misdirection and clever battle plans count more than strength
>endurance and habitability should be cut to the bare minimum to improve combat capability.
It's funny how accurate this description is to anime fights.
>bottom left caucasian nose
Westaboos are even more delusional than Wapanese.
Mainly by not doing it, really.
The British Empire was largely one of trade - the world's first real megacorp. If you look at a map and it says "British Empire" with India et al coloured in the Union Jack, it's lying to you. Britain went places, made money, and if they couldn't make enough money (or people refused to make money with them) they sent in warships, murdered the obstacles, and put people in place who would make money with them.
So "British India" was largely ruled by a) Indians who were willing to make money for Britain, and b) accountants, initially from the East India Company, then later from the Foreign Office.
Of course, you can't apply a general model to the British Empire, because it largely expanded by happenstance and opportunity - there are genuinely moments in history when new chunks of territory are added, and London's response was "whoops". But that was the general rule - they ran it like an international corporation runs subsidiaries it doesn't fully understand.