What did Japan even expect to gain by starting a war with America? What were her war aims? Surely they couldn't have thought they had a chance to conquer it. They were getting embargo'd but how would starting a war change that situation?
>>363408
they wanted to knock the US navy out fast and force to US to trade with them again
>>363408
oil
>>363408
> They were getting embargo'd but how would starting a war change that situation?
I'm going to answer this one first.
Japan wants to continue the war in China at the very least, and keep a war economy going, which requires oil. Prior to this, they had been importing something like 80% of their oil from the U.S., who turned off the spigot in retaliation for the Japanese annexing Indo-China from Vichy France's government.
There is one major source of oil within the Japanese reach, what's now Indonesia, then a Dutch colony.
FDR had promised, publicly, to defend the interests of the Dutch Government-in-Exile, and the Japanese at the very least took this seriously, they thought that if they went into the NEI and seized the oil wells, America would retaliate.
>hat did Japan even expect to gain by starting a war with America? What were her war aims? Surely they couldn't have thought they had a chance to conquer it.
So to answer your first and main question, the plan was to hit the U.S. Pacific fleet real hard in a surprise attack, sink as many capital ships as possible. They gambled, erroneously, that the U.S. wouldn't commit to a long war, you'd have 6 months of shooting, a few ships sunk, and then they'd go home if things got too tough. By catching the U.S. with its proverbial pants down, they could eliminate any real threat for the duration of what they thought would be a short, limited war.
It turned out to be a grave miscalculation, in large part because of how America reacted to a "perfidious sneak attack."
One of my favorite alt-hist questions, one I don't think gets nearly enough attention, is what would have happened if the Japanese called FDR's bluff. Would America have actually declared war to defend the Indonesians? And if so, would it have been the total, almost holy war that historically developed, or could Japan's plan of fighting a short war and coming to the peace table with honor have actually happened?
>>363408
In short oil and trying to cripple US naval forces
>>363408
>surely they couldn't have thought they had the chance to conquer it
Which is why you should never listen to American historical propaganda
>>363429
>Japan conquering a land mass nearly the size of Russia where a large part of the population owned firearms
>>363437
As in, listening to the idea that the Japanese were aiming to conquer America
To place all of Asia within the co-prosperity sphere
>>363422
>One of my favorite alt-hist questions, one I don't think gets nearly enough attention, is what would have happened if the Japanese called FDR's bluff?
As an armchair rebuttal, I think events might have dragged them into war with the USA inevitably - the culture of Imperial Japan at the time was all of Asia, including British colonial possessions. If they gambled and took Indonesia by calling the US bluff, they'd simply keep on taking. And while Americans might not have objected to the loss of Indonesia, the loss of British influence in SEA, the loss of Commonwealth forces (assuming that Britain makes similar decisions here to commit the Dominions in the defence of Hong Kong and Singapore, etc.), the threat to Australia, and so forth would all hit a lot closer to home.
I don't think the USA would ever have settled for the sort of Co-Prosperity Sphere that Imperial Japan wanted, and I think the rabid fervour of Imperial Japan had gotten to the point where there was little possibility of compromise.
Even without Pearl, it's quite likely that Japanese treatment of POWs, atrocities against civilians, and unwillingness to surrender (or take prisoners) would probably have turned the war very nasty in similar ways.
>>363437
>small SE asian nation with nothing but rice farmers with WW2 guns destroying clapistan.
>>363422
Super interesting.
>>363951
America is still there last time I checked.
>>363422
I've heard the Japanese concept of "declaring war" wasn't the same as the West. Is this true?
>>364745
No. They did actually send a declaration of war, but due to incompetence, it arrived in D.C. just 30 minutes before the attack.
>>363422
>would it have been the total, almost holy war that historically developed
Probably not. America wouldn't have a reason to have the nationalistic fervor that happened after a "dishonorable sneak attack"
>>363951
>destroying = causing enough negative public opinion that America was forced to withdraw
>destroying = getting rekt so hard in a stand up fight (Tet Offensive) that you have to sign Tricky Dick's peace agreement so you can spend a few years rebuilding your forces for the final assault on the South Vietnamese government
Nice meme m8.
>>364771
>billions wasted
>no objectives achieved
>thousands dead
>"that's a win right?"
>>363412
That was a really retarded idea. It's not even a matter of hindsight either.
>>364785
Why are you so butthurt? No one in this thread said America won the Vietnam war. They are calling you a retard for comparing the American defeat there with a land invasion of America.
Would Britain have been able to successfully defend Singapore and destroy imperial Japan themselves if Nazi Germany/Fascist Italy wasn't happening at the same time tying them down in Europe?
>>364864
That depends on how many carriers they had.
>>363951
>just lasting through getting #rekt in a guerrilla war and waiting for them to leave is the same as conquering a giant ass country
youre retarded
>>364864
Singapore? Probably not. The loss of the Malay campaign was more due to massive incompeteence and mis-use of the resources in theater than it was a deal of "Not enough".
I'd have to do more research as to British carrier capabilities for the other question, but my gut says no, or at least not quickly and easily. British carriers in WW2 quite frankly were shit.
>>365026
It seems like the Brits only use carriers as escorts.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_aircraft_carriers
>>364864
nah
nobody else had that insane production capabilities the US demonstrated in the war.
>>365058
That's an assumption.
>>364758
I read a slightly different version: that they did intend to declare war just a short while before the attack, but due to incompetence as you say it arrived after the fact.
>>364832
From their perspective I suppose it could've been seen as reacting the Russo-Japanese war.
>>363408
To gain respect
>>363408
Stoping the USA from Imperialism in the Pacific and forcing them to lift the oil embargo.
>>364842
can we say it ended in a stalemate?
Does anyone know if they made peace offers in 42?
The idea was to trade the Philippines and other US territories back, probably also the British Empire territories too, in exchange for the kind of situation they had in French Indochina in the rest of the territories.
Really, they should have just left the China War to go rotten on the vine; cut funding to the IJA, let them lose and go home, accept that it will take another half decade to get back in a good oil situation to have another swing at some treaty ports or something. Controlling China is not worth the effort (and if it works, you're already Chinese), but doing business with them, controlling the deals, is amazing.
The Japanese thought America was too multicultural for us to get our shit together, so maybe we'd just roll over for them. Little did they know America is a fucking beast, for better or worse, and beyond some fighting spirit, we'd have some German-Jews and others develop a bomb that would obliterate cities in an instant.
>>364842
>Why are you so butthurt?
Projecting much?
>>367566
Dude, why are you making such a big deal? This is about America and Japan. What the hell are you going on about?
>>363422
They would never have called the bluff. The price for the IJA's commitment's to the Navy's "Strike South" strategy was that the Philippines had to be removed as a menace to the troopships and supply lines. To take the Philippines, you had to destroy the US Pacific Fleet. Leaving the Americans in your rear areas was an unacceptable risk.
>>368375
Except of course, that historically, the two invasions were launched simultaneously. They were already running the risk that something would go wrong from the American presence (mostly air) in the Phillipines, it hadn't been neutralized when they hit the NEI.
>>367566
Protip: Americans butthurt about Veitnam don't call it a defeat. They call it a withdrawal.
The more you know...
>>363422
OK, I need to step in and correct this.
The Dutch East Indies were peripheral to the Japanese war aims.
Japan had enough oil stockpiled to last until 1950. It's shortages were in refined, high octane fuel, which only a few nations on earth could provide, and Japan did not have the industrial capacity to produce themselves.
U.S. blocked Japan from trading with other nations for it by effectively seizing Japanese gold held in New York.
Oil from the Dutch East Indies would still have to be shipped to California to be useful to the Japanese.
>>368497
>Should we lose in the Philippines operations, even though the fleet should be left, the shipping lane to the south would be completely cut off so that the fleet, if it should come back to Japanese waters, could not obtain its fuel supply. If it should remain in southern waters, it could not receive supplies of ammunition and arms. There would be no sense in saving the fleet at the expense of the loss of the Philippines.
Soemu Toyoda, commander of the Combined Fleet, on why they committed the way they did to the Battle of the Phillipene Sea.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-75.html
You saying he didn't know what he was talking about?
