The Pacific Theater - WW2 (What won the war?)

That was not even a surrender proposal, it was an armistice at quid pro quo ante bellum.

None of the Allied powers would have accepted that. They basically allowed Germany to end WWI like that, and look at what it got them.

 

I'm afraid I doubt it. They might have had the theory worked out, but I don't see how they could have scraped the resources together to build the facilities to actually turn the theory into hardware. Lesley Groves 'borrowed' 14,000 tons of pure silver from the US Mint because he couldn't get the copper he needed for electromagnet windings. The Japanese would have had no such option. But even if they had, there is no way they could have protected the facilities from the B-29 raids. The Calutron building at Oak Ridge covered 44 acres. There is no way the Japanese could have either hidden such a structure or protected it.

 

As I said, they were in Hungnam, in what is now North Korea. The Industrial Complex at Konan was the largest in all of Asia. The nearby Chosin Reservoir (630 megawatts) and satellite power production facilities produced over 1.1 gigawatts of power, just slightly less then that of the Columbia Generating Station (which at 1.2 gigawatts was the reason for the placement of the Hanford facility). And the facilities were all tunneled into the mountains surrounding the area.

And remember, the US was pursuing 2 different ways of producing U-238. They were trying both gaseous diffusion, as well as a gas centrifuge, which was what required so much copper. Japan was not trying centrifuges at all as part of the refinement, only during their initial research back in Japan.

Oak Ridge was actually trying 3 forms of enrichment, with electromagnetic separation (with large cyclotrons) being a third technique.

So the "material shortages" you are bringing up do not apply, Japan was using a method that did work, but without as much requirements for raw resources. It was simply slower, which is why they at most only produced enough U-238/239 for a single bomb, while the US produced enough for 6 bombs (3 of which they used, 3 completed by January 1946).

 

Midway, most historians would agree...was the turning point. Intelligence was the decisive factor.

After this the war was mostly defensive for Imperialist Japan.

What spared allied and Japanese lives from a ground invasion was uncontested aerial bombardment (conventional and atomic), a naval blockade preventing anything that floats from going in or going out of Japan's main islands, and finally Stalin's decision to declare war on Japan in August '45.

Without the island hopping campaigns conducted by the Marines and the Army, air bases would not have been established to allow long range bombers with adequate fuel reserves to reach the main islands and return to base.

Without the support of U.S. submarines intercepting merchant and IJN ship convoys supporting the garrisoned Japanese troops on these islands, the Marines and Army would have had a tougher time than they already did seizing them.

Without aerial and naval bombardment softening up the islands pre-invasion...the island hopping campaign would have been even more fierce than it already was.

In a nutshell basically...perhaps a simplistic synopsis.

Conclusion:

It was a joint effort, one single piece of the puzzle could not stand alone as having defeated Imperialist Japan.

I will concede, that naval intelligence played a key role in turning the tide of war at Midway..therefore it's importance cannot be overshadowed.

 

The abilty to out produce Japan in every area, some Japanese leaders knew this before they even started the war. The only other thing is along the lines you mentioned; the American fighting mans determination to make the other guy die for his country and the willingness to do what it took to accomplish the mission.

 

Not to diminish the courage and skill of our fighting men, but any overwhelming superiority in the production of everything made the rest somewhat superfluous. We could have lost at Midway but within a couple years still would have had an overwhelming advantage in the number of carriers.

 

Japan's production capabilities were 10% of the United States. The war was over basically, before it started. Imperialist Japan had hoped a decisive pre-emptive attack on the USN fleet would have kept them out of the Pacific theater and remain isolationist. Obviously that decision didn't pan out. However...the U.S. and the allies avoided a ground invasion of the main islands of Japan...and this has been my focus in the discussion. Logistics, production capacity, oil reserves...it's a given the United States dominated Imperialist Japan in those areas.

 

Yes, my point of contention was in the prevention of a ground campaign on the main islands of Japan. An event that would have exceeded, in all probability, the European Theater of Operations in terms of American casualties. Imperialist Japan was hoping to avoid unconditional surrender at all costs.

 

Hence two atomic bombs were dropped to get them to do the right thing. In reality there were worse bombings than those two instances but the idea of one bomb each doing so much damage was too much to deal with. In reality dropping the bomb probably saved the lives of Millions of Americans and Japanese.

 

I have absolutely no doubt that an invasion of Japan would have had vastly more casualties, both on the Allied and Japanese sides.

We saw on Saipan the extent that normal civilians would have gone to in order to resist surrender. And we saw on Okinawa the extent that the Japanese military would go to in order to prevent civilians from surrendering.

An invasion would have been a pure and simple bloodbath, to a scale never seen before. I believe that the Shockley Report is more then likely the most accurate appraisal of expected casualties. With 1.7-4 US million casualties, 400-800,000 US deaths, and the death of an estimated 5-10 million Japanese.

There is simply no comparison to the willingness to die of those in Japan with any other culture on the planet. Or their ability to "endure the unendurable" if asked of them.

 

The Japanese should have invaded Siberia in 1941 and left the US alone.

Wherever the IJA cut the Trans-Siberian railroad - everything east of there was out of supply and untenable.

Stavka had moved the elite Siberian divisions to the Moscow area in September. Attacking out of Manchuria, the IJA probably taken Ulan-Ude after a helluva fight and the USSR's eastern border line would be the Kultuk gap.

Without the egregious provocation of Pearl Harbor the US would never intervene. In December 1941, the US had watched from the sidelines for 26 months.

 

For the sake of what? The primary reason Japan attacked USA was USA pushing them to do it with oil embargo. They've lacked enthusiasm to fight with USSR after Khasan and Khalkhin Gol.

I wonder when you stop spreding that self-righteous BS? Have you ever seen a terrain down there? It is literally unpassible from the south(mountain chains and swamps).

Moreover, the divisions were moved out of there for the sole reason: USSR knew that Japanese Empire is going to attack USA due to excellent job Richard Sorge had made. Thus, this argument makes no sence.

 

So declaring war on the U.S. gave them more oil? Fascinating.

 

Yep. Particulary occupation of oil-rich Philippines in 1942.


Yet another example of how miserable sanctions are.

 

So how much oil did they manage to draw out of the Philippines, and the other oil rich British and Dutch protectorates they invaded? Doesn't seem to have been enough.

 

In case you havn't noticed, I am not a Google application. Do research yourself.
Oil embargo was what triggered the war and that is a historical fact. Full stop.

 

I am not all that sure Stalin was convinced by those reports. What I see is a calculated move to downgrade the Soviet forces from capable of obliterating any potential Japanese attack to one designed to hold the Japanese attack in check until the more pressing German front had been sorted out

 

Only in the most indirect manner.

For one, it was not only the US that placed embargos upon Japan. We were simply the largest exporter of oil at the time, so that hurt the worst. Japan needed 2 raw materials more then anything else, oil and rubber. And the closest supply of both was the neighborhood of Indonesia. And this area was already supposed to belong to the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere in the first place.

So in reality, the primary reason that Japan attacked the US had not a single thing to do with the US, other then the fact that they had some large bases on the Philippines, which were being increased in size. Japan was going to war with the UK, and they were not about to leave a giant US threat sitting astride their supply lines.

Think tactically, not politically.

And the oil reserves in the Philippines were not even discovered until the late 1960's. And the technology to pull them from the ground was not developed until the 1970's. So no, they did not attack the Philippines for oil, they did not even know there was oil there (other then coconut oil). Do not make the mistake of injecting 2010 era knowledge onto 1940 era people.

 

Not sure about that, I am not an expert on the subject. Thought, I heard that at some point forces, defending Soviet far East, consisted of several infantry battalions and BT-7 regreements.

I admit that I've confused Indonesia oil reserves with Phillipine ones. But that doesn't make my point somehow invalid. With oil embargo by the US, their military and industry would become non-worthy in the matter of a year. Consequently, Japanese regarded that as a potential threat to their security and defencive capabilities in terms of preemptive war by Allies as well as obstacle on their goal to occupy East Indies.
They' had only two options left on the table. Step down and degradade to 3-rd rate power or start a major war. They've chosen the latter.
That resulted into Japanese hitting the US at pearl Harbor, despite a significant part of their high command knew that was almost a suicide mission in the long run.

Summary, if US didn't put the oil embargo, they would not attack the US in the matter of years/decades if would attack ever.

 

That 2008 map does not show the Philippines was or was known to be oil rich in 1941.

 

You are confusing cause and effect here.

What if the nearest oil reserves had been not in Indonesia, but in Kamchatka. Does anybody think they would have then attacked the Soviet Union in order to secure them?

And would this attack then be the fault of the United States?

Japan attacking the US had noting to do with the oil embargo. It had to do with their wanting to secure their own source of oil, and the US was sitting on the supply line they had to transport that oil back home. Plus the Philippines were supposed to be part of the GEACPS, so it was going to be attacked eventually no matter what.

And yea, they were going to eventually attack the Soviet Union no matter what. They also had a great deal of what was rightfully "Japanese territory". But do not confuse one thing with another. Plus they also needed the rubber in Indonesia, and the US was a net importer of rubber, that was why so much research was being done in the US on "synthetic rubber".

 

I do not think they could have even extracted that oil with 1940's technology, let alone discover it. At that time offshore oil drilling was in very shallow water, rarely more then 40 feet deep. The real history of "offshore oil drilling" did not really start until the 1950's, as onshore sources were being depleted, and they finally had to move to find outer sources.

After all, if you can simply put in a well in Los Angeles and pull oil out of the ground, why try to do it out on the ocean?

http://petrowiki.org/History_of_offshore_drilling_units

 

If there was all neccessary infrastructure to use it - yes. That would be a perfectly logical move by them.

You are confusing "fault" and the "reason" here. Japanese Empire attacking the US wasn't US fault, but, in fact, US pushed them to do so. Unwittingly, of course.

Logical (*)(*)(*)(*) up over here. If the US avoided putting embargo on them, their expansion would be directed further into Asia and British India perhaps. But, since USA put an embargo, they were forced to attack the region and your forces, as you've said, were a significant obstacle. Surrendering their Empire was not an option for them.

They were going to do so after Moscow falling to the hands of the German pigs. Never happened.

You kinda getting me wrong here. I am not defending theim and do not have a wish to do so. They were horrible and were commiting horrible crimes.
But, as we speak, you've made yourself the main target and the enemy, despite their high command knew that this war was impossible to win.

 

You still do not seem to realize that the US was not the target, nor was it the enemy. They simply could not leave a large US presence in what they viewed as "their territory".

As a wise man once said, "It was not personal, it was business". They also eventually would have eventually gone after the US, with or without the oil embargo. As well as England, Australia, and anybody else setting within their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

 

I've noticed you know nothing about the topic, and I don't need Google, I have a library, but thanks.

And yet you can't back up this 'fact'.