Even if USA didn't have any nuclear weapons, would imperial Japan had any chances winning WW2?
I've kinda gotten an impression that they never stood a chance. They were low on resources and slowly losing battles around the empire.
>>420208
>I've kinda gotten an impression that they never stood a chance. They were low on resources and slowly losing battles around the empire.
Yes, the truth is that despite their impressive military, navy, etc... they lacked in resources, logistics, and industrial output.
No country can hold out against a global war effort or coalition, with industrial capabilities and manpower beyond their own.
The Napoleonic Wars and WWI proved this, and WWII was simply a continuation of this theme... though there were other factors in each individual conflict.
I always found it more impressive these states managed to last as long as they did against such overwhelming odds, and its to their credit.
>>420208
Japan's intention was never to "win ww2," by which I assume you mean the war in the Pacific.
Japan's goal was to disable the American Pacific fleet in one strategic attack while shocking the American population into backing down from the sanctions.
The Japanese figured that even in worse case scenario, they would have 4-5 years until the US could rebuild it's fleet strong enough for a war. By that point Japan was planning on getting a peace agreement as they assumed they would have won the war in China by that point.
As it happens, the Japanese completely misread the situation, failed to even put a real dent in the Pacific fleet, and ended up with a very, very pissed off United States bombing and blockading the shit out of them.
tl;dr
Japan's Goal: Survive
I don't mean to sound harsh but how is that even a question.
The bombs didn't come out of nowhere during an evenly matched conflict that could go either way, some sort of a magical silver bullet, a deus ex machina resolution or whatever.
They came at the time where the allies, chiefly the Americans, had free reign of the Pacific.
The Japanese navy had a single one (1, less than two) capital ship remaining by mid-1945. American planes flew over the home islands with nigh impunity.
Basically the only obstacle the Japanese could mount was a last gasp, probably rather suicidal, last stand of the remnants of their forces on their home islands.
That is not having a chance of winning. That is not even having a potential chance of winning. That is not even possessing a minuscule chance of a possibility of perhaps entertaining the thought of doing anything other than losing.
tl'dr - no
>>420243
As for a general 'did Japan have a chance' - then the answer is also no. Maybe not as big as no as in the above case - meaning maybe they could have secured something other than being BTFO, such as slightly less bad conditions for their surrender.
The numbers speak for themselves - the Japanese had built some 15 or 17 or thereabouts carriers throughout the entire war. The Americans? About 150.
>>420236
>I always found it more impressive these states managed to last as long as they did against such overwhelming odds, and its to their credit.
desu I don't really understand this sort of... admiration? Like, did they really last that long? I don't think they did. Take Japan, it took half a year for the turning point of the war at Coral Sea. It was all steeply downhill with no chance of a win from there. Or even Germany. Personally I subscribe to the notion that they had blown their load and lost any chance of a victory at Moscow (since a swift victory was the only one they could have hoped to achieve) but even if you go for Stalingrad, that's just between a year and a year and a half after the initial invasion before it's over for the Germans.
their end games to get a good peace offer
putting their hands on the pacific and east asia
they didnt think americans wont negotiate till total destruction
and japan cant destroy the US
>>420273
In hindsight, the Americans believed they could defeat Japan in less of a time than it actually took, likewise the same was believed with Germany by the Western Allies before the Soviets or Americans were involved.
Both were underestimated, and its the only way I can see why they had the initial successes they did, not to mention it was the aim and goal of the US to antagonize both sides before Pearl Harbor or a German declaration of war, FDR publicly made this his case for war before either of these events, and he made provocative moves in either case which led to said outcomes. Everybody loves to debate this, while ignoring speeches or remarks in their respective context.
In the end, it took the weight of a few super powers + 50 other nations to take down each, the US being the decisive factor with beating Japan, and the Soviets for Germany.
>>420295
>to take down each
Well... more so Germany than Japan, but I think you get the point. I'm tired as fuck.
>>420295
>In hindsight, the Americans believed they could defeat Japan in less of a time than it actually took, likewise the same was believed with Germany by the Western Allies before the Soviets or Americans were involved.
Was it really? Have the western allies, meaning chiefly France and Britain, truly believed between 39 and 40 that they would defeat Germany quickly? Or has Britain alone believed that after the fall of France? I very much doubt that.
This makes me wonder, is the age of brilliant leaders with well composed armies(alexander the great, the mongols, frederick the great etc) defeating much larger powers over? or was this 'great person' thing never real to begin with and does it all come down to materialism?
>>420295
>In the end, it took the weight of a few super powers + 50 other nations to take down each, the US being the decisive factor with beating Japan, and the Soviets for Germany.
Sure, and they pretty much took them down without a hiccup. Once they were checked relatively early at Midway/Stalingrad, it was all downhill from there for the Japanese/Germans. Like, it couldn't have been reasonably faster in any significant amount, could it?
Sure by the odd month here and there, maybe Montgomery's plan for the coastline push and the hook past the Rhine is greenlit and succeeds, but still going by the predictions it would have meant some three or four months off the war.
>>420307
It was the original basis for the alliance between Britain, France, and Poland in the leadup to what became WW2.
I can't remember the exact name, as it might have been Rydz-Smigly, a Polish general of that time, he and others were championing the idea that Poland alone could beat Germany and be in Berlin in a matter of weeks, the French/British were there more to put Germany in a vice with a two-front war, in which they would utilize economic blockades and attacking from both sides to win... and its no secret what actually happened next.
>>420332
Well but it looks to me the western allies have not actually believed it, seeing as they had not acted on it in any way bar the extremely limited Saar offensive. And not just in light of the German quick success, but in their overall prewar plans - which despite assurances to Poland of military aid - were largely defensive in their nature.
>>420208
They were just barely sustaining their land advance against the objectively terrible ANZACs and a relatively minor USMC. Once the US flopped its production dick out, there was no way forward.
>>420327
Ehh... Montgomery's operation Market Garden was a waste... should have given the fuel to Patton, would have been a more efficient use of manpower and tech.
I'm not arguing the Soviet inclusion in all of this, I'm taking this in steps.
>>420335
The Saar offensive contradicts the idea they were purely defensive, as does the British occupation of Iceland and the drawing up of plans with the French to take Norway... in order to knock Sweden out, the prime supporter of German resources to keep them going.
In the end it became a race to see who could get where first, on top of the fact that yes, the Germans were definitely underestimated. The alternative to this is that the Western Allies knew full well their capabilities and were either complete idiots who were asking for it (the US included), or they were playing a dangerous game with human life.
If all sides were really 'that preperational for the Germans' then there would be a Anglo-French-Polish-Soviet pact in the mid 1930s.
>>420346
"Largely" is not "purely".
>>420295
>In hindsight, the Americans believed they could defeat Japan in less of a time than it actually took, likewise the same was believed with Germany by the Western Allies before the Soviets or Americans were involved.
[citation needed]
>>420350
Sure, but at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the Axis was underestimated in more ways than one, which is my core point here.
Neither is the fact that there were plans drawn up by the Western Allies to occupy/take land in the lead up, and if that is counted as defensive, then so is the German occupation of the Sudetenland/Poland, or the Soviet occupation of parts of Eastern Europe.
This isn't something I find ideal, only pointing out that what applies one way can apply another way.
>>420356
>[citation needed]
>what was the view of Polish high command in 1939
>what was the oil embargo against Japan viewed by either side
>>420359
Why are you bringing politics into this? I am talking about military operational planning, which, on the part of the western allies between 39 and 40, cannot be described as anything other than defensive. It is literally why what you described in >>420332 did not happen. Because the allies did not attack. Because they engaged in the 'Phoney War'. Because their plan was to let the Germans come and stop them - sort of like in WW1, except this time, much better prepared. I still haven't seen anything from you that would show the French and British believed in a quick victory against Germany. Wouldn't it even make more sense, had they truly expected that and underestimated Germany so greatly, for them to actually go on the offensive and knock them out quickly?
>>420369
>what was the view of Polish high command in 1939
i don't know, you tell me what the "view of Polish high command in 1939" has to do with the beliefs of the Western Allies
and what the oil embargo imposed five months before any war between the US and japan started has to do with american beliefs in how long the war would be
>>420208
>would a country with 3% of the world's industrial output have any chance of winning against a country with 30% of the worlds industrial output in a conventional war
Highly doubtful op
>>420369
>>what was the view of Polish high command in 1939
well apparently the view of the polish high command in 1939 was that...
"the Polish Army, fighting in the initial phase of the war alone, would be compelled to defend the western regions of the country"
and also their plan "took into account, first of all, the numerical and material superiority of the enemy and, consequently, assumed the defensive character of Polish operations"
and also it looks like "the Polish intentions were: the defence of the western regions judged as indispensable for waging the war, the taking advantage of the propitious conditions for counterblows by reserve units, the avoidance of being smashed before the beginning of Allied operations in the West"
according admittedly to a wikipedia article, but one sourcing the above with a publication by the polish defense ministry, "Wojna Obronna Polski 1939"
>>420387
>>420374
Let me reiterate...
Poland was a part of the Western Allies, that is why it was brought up. They were by no means idle, or neutral in what ensued next.
I am also discussing the planning done by the Allies, which yes, does give the impression they didn't know Germany's full capabilities in 1939-1940, because if they genuinely believed they could take down their war machine with just that then they were naive or idiots.
With regards to what actually happened, it was the opening up of the Eastern Front with the USSR and taking up 85% of German casualties that was a primary cause of the Wehrmacht's downfall... the rest is secondary or came after the fact, basically.
>cannot be described as anything other than defensive.
I disagree, the Saar Offensive was seen by the French as an attack against Germany that met their obligations with the Poles, as did the later British occupation of Iceland and the drawing up of an attack with the French on Norway to put pressure on Sweden, and this happened before Germany attacked the low countries.
At this rate I am running out of steam, you can look up the rest, but it appears for the most part you are arguing perspective on how it happened, instead of maybe the facts on the ground. As I said before, I'm tired, so its probably best to leave it for now.
>>420401
You've read a fraction of it, and there were indeed generals inside their command who believed they could do what I outlined with British/French help, that and Polish nationalist propaganda at the time certainly wasn't shy of churning this out.
Later bud.
>>420414
You still haven't really shown the allies thought the war would be over quickly.
You just keep saying they did, but that doesn't make it so.
Especially when the "facts on the ground" are that they have dug in and waited for a German attack, not actively and significantly engaging the enemy in the main theater of the low countries and the F-G border.
That doesn't strike me as the actions of someone who 1) has underestimated the opposition so much as you seem to claim, and 2) believes he can win the war against this opposition that quickly.
>>420423
>You've read a fraction of it
you are right, which is why i have kept reading and found more stuff
stuff such as
>The plan assumed that Polish forces would be able to hold for several months but due to German numerical and technical superiority would be pushed back
>>420307
French troops were pretty much viewed as invincible killing machines by a lot of people after WWI
>>420208
They lost the war as soon as they attacked Pearl Harbor in a sneak attack. Had they not pre-emptively struck the United States in a way that was perceived by the vast majority of Americans as a sneaky, despicable, stab in the back and betrayal of trust, they might have been able to sue for peace, if they won Midway and everything else during 1942 and 1943. They miscalculated and misjudged the American people's resolve to defeat them after a betrayal like Peal Harbor.
And even then, the war was lost before it began in terms of logistics alone, assuming America gets involved. I find it extremely hard to believe that America would let Japan take over the Pacific even without Japan attacking America's naval bases in the region.
So no, they were fucked either way, should have helped Hitler take out Stalin and then focused their attention south.
>>420432
>>420439
>The plan assumed that Polish forces would be able to hold for several months but due to German numerical and technical superiority would be pushed back
>hold out for several months (theory)
>lose entire country in 3 months (fact)
>not an underestimation of the enemy, or an over estimation of their own capabilities
You need to do your own research on this, and not be spoonfed.
>>420457
>So no, they were fucked either way, should have helped Hitler take out Stalin and then focused their attention south.
they tried attacking the soviet union, you know
and they had lost
i don't think they would have been successful even if they coordinated their attack with the germans
the soviet military presence - despite some troops being diverted to the west - in the far eastern theatre DOUBLED in... was it in 1941 alone, or was it during the 12 months after barbarossa? one of those, doesn't really matter - the point is that it's not like the soviets suddenly emptied the entire eastern theater of troops just because someone attacked from the west
>>420458
I hate to sound like a broken record but you have, once again, failed to show how the western allies thought they would have defeated Germany quickly. Apparently in just a year, going by your original post.
Unless you mean that thinking "Poles will not get overwhelmed immediately" means "we will beat Germany real quick like."
(Oh and the French and British thought Poland would hold out for two months, three at a stretch - against Germany alone, not with the Soviets joining in.)
Or, if they had underestimated Germany so greatly - and believed they would be able to defeat it so quickly, why did France and Britain not mount a significant offensive, rather adopting a defensive posture and waiting for Germany to attack.
>>420457
Japan lost when they pissed off their former allies by destabilizing Qing china. Of course they were going to be dealt with, frost politicly, then economicly but in the end Japan opted for militarly. They were presented many outs but in the end they doomed themselves all because they couldn't just not fuck with china
>>420321
The American Civil War is essentially proof that that era has been over for a while. The North had the industrial, economic and population advantage, while the South had effective leaders (not that the Union didn't have any good generals, but there were far fewer times that Confederate forces lost due to general incompetence than the same thing happening to Union forces)
>>420236
>They lost the war as soon as they attacked Pearl Harbor in a sneak attack.
No, when they couldn't push any further into China, and the war turned into a war of attrition, they already lost the war by that point.
strong army/navy lacking in resources vs strong army/navy cranking out resources
and unlike the Civil war they had all the motivation to kick Japan's ass (what with the Pearl Harbor and all).
>>420239
if those political goals were met, that would be called winning
>>420208
Japan was negociating with the USSR when the nike were dropped
The goal of the nuking was to get Japan for America alone
If it wasnt for the nuke, Japan would have surrendered to both the USSR and USA, and would have ended up like Germany
>>420208
It was essentially over with the Battle of the Philippine Sea. They didn't have a single chance after that.
>>420243
>American planes flew over the home islands with nigh impunity.
That was more of less the case since 1942 though
The US air force bombed japanese cities for the 3 years of the war, killing millions of civilians
The nukes were just the final touch, but their toll was nothing compared to what had been inflicted by the constant regular bombings since the beginning of the war
>>420208
The Nuclear bombs were dropped so the US could colonize Japan before the USSR had time to shift troops from Berlin to Vladivostok, etc.
There was no military need for them. It was an economic and political move, although it did prevent having to invade Japan at all.
>>423642
>hat was more of less the case since 1942 though
not really. Japanese attacks on USN forces could still be a threat until 1944. When enough ships with the latest sensors and AA control were gathered into mutually supporting task groups, it made attacks very costly to the Japanese. At the same time the CICs fully came into play.
The B-29s suffered losses and were rather ineffective until they were based at Guam, Tinian , and Saipan.
>>423653
There was a military need for them. Every day of the war went on, men were dying. You have ordnance that can wipe out a city with minimal forces involved?
Use it.
>>423653
If the point of the Bombs was to prevent a Soviet invasion of Japan, why wouldn't the U.S. go for the much simpler route of just..... not providing the Soviets with landing craft to be able to perform an invasion of Japan?
>>423686
They wouldn't have, since so many craft were being collected for Operation Downfall.
>>423653
>there's no military need for a better bomb against an enemy during a time of war
haha
>>420239
Did some jap officials get beheaded for fucking up pearl harbor so badly
>>420273
The japs started shit in China as early as 1934 they were fighting for over a decade. Kids 6yrs+ of age grew up to be soldiers by the end of it all. They were going to use such young men and women to defend japan from a mainland invasion of the US and USSR + some aussies/canadians/brits. The jap were prepared to fight to near extinction until the nukes showed that they weren't going to be able to shed the blood of thier enemies.
>>423699
They did, historically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Hula
Which again goes to my point: If the U.S. wanted to keep the Soviets off of Japan, they could just not give the Soviets the means to get to Japan. Much simpler than dropping the atomic bomb.
>>423906
180 ships.
Which was basically nothing. For comparison, the USN Fast Carrier Task Force alone had more ships.
The Soviet Union didn't have the shipping available to do any kind of sizable operation.
>>423700
it was hardly a "time of war" at this point, except on paper. The Japanese had very little industry or manpower to throw at the states as it was.
i'm japanese
i think japan had no chance
cause of declaration war on USA is japan's Overconfidence.
japan had won on the twice war(vs china and rossia)so thay had overconfidence.
but those cause of victory is not japan's millitary power.
china had not developed weapon, and rossia had a big revolution in contory.
some of japanese military officer sad that, but they could not stop rising overconfident of japan.
The difference of National power was clear so we had no cance since
Outbreak of war.
>>420239
God their soldiers were such dogshit, and poorly equipped. I wonder what felt like to be a M1917 Browning gunner putting down a banzai charge?
>>427138
Japanese units never lose battle strength, idiot.
Have you ever played Civ5? They're just as dangerous wounded as they are healthy. That's what makes the Japs scary.
>>427138
Japs were actually great soldiers, vicious too, ours were just better
they were a fantastic army but had shitty world war I equipment, less food, less supplies and less everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt-cUWUrpEE
>>427403
They had worse KDR's than the Italians did fighting American soldiers on land in the same timeframe.
They were crap soldiers.
>>423896
This is flatout wrong. The nukes didn't convince Japan to surrender. They were prepared to fight to the end. Then 1 million angry Reds showed up in Manchukuo and the japs shit themselves at the thought of a Soviet invasion.
>>427138
Read "Helmet For My Pillow" by Robert Leckie. He was a Marine machine-gunner who fought at the Battle of the Tenaru on Guadalcanal. Pretty wild dude and a great writer.
He wrote a bretty gud poem about the battle.
>>427451
the japs also had a incredibly shit system of command, with a ton of generals happily ignoring orders because they wanted to seize personal glory
>>427451
Basing your infantry tactics off bushido spirit is almost as retarded as elan basically.
>>427460
The invasion they'd do with their non-existant fleet to carry them to Japan.
I've seen a lot of dumb things about WW2, but the "Japan was scared of a Soviet invasion" has got to be dumbest outside of pure Stormfaggotry.
>>427465
It changed the calculus of when an invasion of the home islands might happen (in Japanese eyes).
The speed at which the Soviets utterly routed was was once the Kwantung Army was not anticipated at all.
>>421011
You quoted the wrong person, that was OP.
>>420483
You are a broken record, and what is apparent here is that you need someone to hold your hand the whole way by doing the research for you, as its clear you don't understand the positions the Western Allies held during the period of 1939-1940.
>"Poles will not get overwhelmed immediately"
This is actually your own assumption made when reading this, because you begin with a conclusion and find or interpret anything to suit that conclusion, while at the same time you don't even know the circumstances for certain.
>
Or, if they had underestimated Germany so greatly - and believed they would be able to defeat it so quickly, why did France and Britain not mount a significant offensive, rather adopting a defensive posture and waiting for Germany to attack.
Also a misreading of my points.
They underestimated it to the point they believed the alliance they built and the manpower/equipment was enough to beat Germany with those two fronts, and if need be, bring in an economic blockade to help push for a German defeat or surrender.
The surprise to this came when Poland was beaten in rapid succession, not even the Soviets saw this coming, they expected the two sides to beat each other to a pulp (like the British/French did) where Stalin could come in and defeat to wearied opponents and be seen as the liberator.
Like I said already, do your own research, this threads purpose is to bait others to do the work for you.
Last response, any further requests beyond this will prove my point and wont receive a reply.
>>428049
two wearied* opponents*
>>427451
they fucking raped literally everyone else except for the USA
>>428305
and the soviets*
>>428305
Kill yourself weeb. Look up their casualties compared to the casualties they inflicted in the Pacific theatre. They were good at killing civilians and even then loads of japs died in China. When they came against any real resistance they got BTFO.
See: Kokoda.
>>428318
>point out how the japs rolled over everybody in Asia minus the Americans, Aussies and Soviets
>get called a weeb
what the fuck are you going on about?
They fucking decimated the Chinese, not to mention humiliated the brits and they had a fucking amazing navy until the US came along
>>427451
>KDR
Can we stop with this meme? Like it's literally irrelevant, not everyone values a soldier's life the same.
>>427451
The KDR in Pacific theatre is irrelevant because over 60% (80% in some areas like New Guinea and Solomon Islands) of Japanese troops died of starvation or sick caused by their collapsed logistics due to that over expansion.
Plus, it also led to thinly deployed forces, causing them a serious numerical inferiority in almost everywhere - they were always incredibly outnumbered/outgunned since the allied nations could focus on a few areas respectively while Japan had to deal with them at once by itself.
>>428318
>Kokoda
It's the memest battle ever, and the epitome of defeat caused by japan's lack of supply m8. They had kept advancing until their food/ammo was exhausted.
The Japanese are the best solders, hell, even in the US army the Japanese regiment is legendary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)
>>428318
>Kokoda
Kokoda wasn't "real resistance" mate. It was fucken chokos.
ITT the same idiots who banked on fighting spirit, élan, seishin, whatever bullshit myths to claim that the IJA was an effective fighting force.
Maybe if they adopted a infantry tactic that was cost effective, chosen a semi-auto rifle to do well in the jungles and didn't make piss poor decisions then maybe they could at least put a good fight against the gaijin.
>>428049
Few things:
Poles want sure until the end if German gonna go full war. Alternative option is that Hitler Gonna take Danzig, Corridor and Posen and then ask for peace claiming that he only want old Prussen territory back. That weight heavy in position of Polish army and make whole Army Posen inactive by first stage of war. Also this force Army to defend the whole Polish territory/border because they don't trust their allies willingness to go to war over Danzing. Politics over military.
Other thing is that Polish Army didn't defend cities. It was by order to avoid civilian casualties. Urban warfare is a nightmare for attacker and if Poles fight in cities it would definitely slow down Germans(like defense of Warsaw or Lwiw prove).
Another thing is that Polish Army mobilization was delayed to not provoke German reaction.
Add incompetence of Polish ruling military junta.
But main thing is that West Allies do nothing - completely nothing to relive polish front.
Not mention Soviet invasion.
I would not take polish propaganda to serious. It was meant for polish public as military junta that rule wasn't very popular and Poland was plagued by many social and economical problems. It was just show of strength to gain popularity.
>>428664
>weren't sure not want sure. damn.
>>428049
>Last response, any further requests beyond this will prove my point and wont receive a reply.
"look ma i won an internet argument"
"cuz i said so!"
"eeny neeny neenieeee"
top lads on /his/ at it again!
>>427529
Operation Downfall was already set for November of 45.
