Thrawn's Revenge
Off Topic => The Lounge => Topic started by: DarthRevansRevenge on August 22, 2017, 12:01:03 PM
-
mostly just wanted to see your opinions. warning: PLEASE don't make this political, just discuss Facts+opinions, and keep it polite.
we know in Our timeline, Japan bombed pearl harbor an hour before the Declare war note got to Rossevelt(sorry if i butchered it), and declared war on all the allies at once, which meant the biggest industrial power was at war. unsurprisingly, they lost. could it have gone differently?
-
mostly just wanted to see your opinions. warning: PLEASE don't make this political, just discuss Facts+opinions, and keep it polite.
we know in Our timeline, Japan bombed pearl harbor an hour before the Declare war note got to Rossevelt(sorry if i butchered it), and declared war on all the allies at once, which meant the biggest industrial power was at war. unsurprisingly, they lost. could it have gone differently?
In short no.
Japan didn't have the manpower, merchant shipping capacity or industrial capability to win a war that lasted longer than a year against the combined powers of the Allies and China. It's main military leaders even admitted privately that the only hope Japan had was if the US agreed to terms after their quick advances. If the US decided to continue the war there was no hope. Japan couldn't damage the US industry or it's infrastructure. Nearly every one of it's shipyards, aircraft manufactures and armament factories were all outside Japan's striking range whereas Japan's would be within US range within a year of base construction and technological increases in the war years. Add in Radar, the cracked codes and Japan's commitment to occupying and oppressing the locals in it's conquered territory tying down massive amounts of troops and material in China, Manchuria, Burma, New Guinea, Taiwan and French Indochina all of which had active resistance cells and hostile guerilla forces. Japan would have to continuously win perfect battles against the US for years without losses to maintain their veterans and ships that they couldn't replace, while the US could replace it's material and personnel losses with relative ease. Even if Japan had won a perfect battle at Midway and sunk all US carriers without any losses, then sucessfully captured hawaii and Port Arthur, it couldn't successfully invade Australia, finish off Burma or India, could not garrison China and could not hope to successfully invade the US mainland, all of which it would need to do to win.
To put it in perspective this site( http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm ) has the production output of the US vs Japan. It's absolutely staggering. Japan basically committed suicide when they went to war against the US, UK, and Dutch forces in the Pacific. Ironically Japan could not only have avoided this utterly futile and doomed war with the Allies but profited enormously had they instead gone North and attacked the USSR right after Germany did in 1941. The USSR had suffered terrible losses and was literally on the verge of collapse by October 1941, if japan had invaded through Manchuria the elite Siberian Divisions could not have been sent West and saved Moscow. Japan could very well have been the final straw that broke the Soviet Back in WWII. The Imperial Army was interested in this "Go North" plan, but the Imperial Navy wanted to 'Go South" instead to seize resources in southeast Asia instead seizing the oil and resources they needed from Siberia as this would put nearly all the glory and political power in the Army's hands.
Once they awoke the sleeping giant so to speak japan's only prayer was a negotiated peace, and the US and UK would not negotiate a peace other than unconditional surrender. They were all doomed before their planes even took off from the Fast Strike Force of those six Japanese Carriers that fateful morning in December.
-
And even if they would have gone north, that would have syphoned the manpower from the chineese front which could have led to it collapsing, leading to the chinese pushing right back up to korea, since even though the chineese industry and army was basicly a joke, the had millions of people to move into the fight. Not to mention that china was in a postponded civil war at the moment between the Communist People's Republic of China and the Koumintang led Republic of China. The key word was the communits. If japan would have declared war to the Soviets they would have got their hands on the chineese manpower. China was already fairing better and better in the war(both the army and the industry) and was already made serious progress against the japanese by 41. It is not out of the realm of impossibility that they could have helped out the soviets to hold out just a bit longer until they finish of japan on the mainland, then most of the combined soviet and chineese troopers could move on the german front with a now competent and veteran Soviet-Chinese force.
All in all, the second world war was lost for the Axis when the USA joined in, but that doesn't mean they(or as a hungarian should I say we?) wouldn't have lost either way.
Not to mention the german way of holding the Asxis together as it was.
Vichy france was a puppet government, They held Hungary and Romania by promising the return of the other half of Transylvania to both if they do what they say(and when hungary tried to get out of the war with Horthy's swing politics they just kidnapped his son and blackmailed us, and set up a puppet government...), Bulgaria was promissed a part of greece and was about the only real ally they had, and italy... well...
They had conflicting interests in the balkans, Italy was struggling in North Afrika and needed german aid, and when it was almost won the declared war on greece, then getting utterly beaten, syphoning away further german forces which delayed operation Barbarossa, which in turn led to the utter failture in the eastern frontlines as soon as the russian winter set in.
Let's face it. Xizer said it me the best in one of our private conversation about HOI.
Hitler must have thought that: "That Mussolini guy is the source of all my problems... Ever since I know him, everything went south." while Mussolini thought: "That Hitler guy is the source of all my problems... Ever since I know him, everything went south."
-
yup. the axis, if they had defeated the allies, they would then have collapsed and fought each other
In short no.
Japan didn't have the manpower, merchant shipping capacity or industrial capability to win a war that lasted longer than a year against the combined powers of the Allies and China. It's main military leaders even admitted privately that the only hope Japan had was if the US agreed to terms after their quick advances. If the US decided to continue the war there was no hope. Japan couldn't damage the US industry or it's infrastructure. Nearly every one of it's shipyards, aircraft manufactures and armament factories were all outside Japan's striking range whereas Japan's would be within US range within a year of base construction and technological increases in the war years. Add in Radar, the cracked codes and Japan's commitment to occupying and oppressing the locals in it's conquered territory tying down massive amounts of troops and material in China, Manchuria, Burma, New Guinea, Taiwan and French Indochina all of which had active resistance cells and hostile guerilla forces. Japan would have to continuously win perfect battles against the US for years without losses to maintain their veterans and ships that they couldn't replace, while the US could replace it's material and personnel losses with relative ease. Even if Japan had won a perfect battle at Midway and sunk all US carriers without any losses, then sucessfully captured hawaii and Port Arthur, it couldn't successfully invade Australia, finish off Burma or India, could not garrison China and could not hope to successfully invade the US mainland, all of which it would need to do to win.
To put it in perspective this site( http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm ) has the production output of the US vs Japan. It's absolutely staggering. Japan basically committed suicide when they went to war against the US, UK, and Dutch forces in the Pacific. Ironically Japan could not only have avoided this utterly futile and doomed war with the Allies but profited enormously had they instead gone North and attacked the USSR right after Germany did in 1941. The USSR had suffered terrible losses and was literally on the verge of collapse by October 1941, if japan had invaded through Manchuria the elite Siberian Divisions could not have been sent West and saved Moscow. Japan could very well have been the final straw that broke the Soviet Back in WWII. The Imperial Army was interested in this "Go North" plan, but the Imperial Navy wanted to 'Go South" instead to seize resources in southeast Asia instead seizing the oil and resources they needed from Siberia as this would put nearly all the glory and political power in the Army's hands.
Once they awoke the sleeping giant so to speak japan's only prayer was a negotiated peace, and the US and UK would not negotiate a peace other than unconditional surrender. They were all doomed before their planes even took off from the Fast Strike Force of those six Japanese Carriers that fateful morning in December.
And even if they would have gone north, that would have syphoned the manpower from the chineese front which could have led to it collapsing, leading to the chinese pushing right back up to korea, since even though the chineese industry and army was basicly a joke, the had millions of people to move into the fight. Not to mention that china was in a postponded civil war at the moment between the Communist People's Republic of China and the Koumintang led Republic of China. The key word was the communits. If japan would have declared war to the Soviets they would have got their hands on the chineese manpower. China was already fairing better and better in the war(both the army and the industry) and was already made serious progress against the japanese by 41. It is not out of the realm of impossibility that they could have helped out the soviets to hold out just a bit longer until they finish of japan on the mainland, then most of the combined soviet and chineese troopers could move on the german front with a now competent and veteran Soviet-Chinese force.
All in all, the second world war was lost for the Axis when the USA joined in, but that doesn't mean they(or as a hungarian should I say we?) wouldn't have lost either way.
Not to mention the german way of holding the Asxis together as it was.
Vichy france was a puppet government, They held Hungary and Romania by promising the return of the other half of Transylvania to both if they do what they say(and when hungary tried to get out of the war with Horthy's swing politics they just kidnapped his son and blackmailed us, and set up a puppet government...), Bulgaria was promissed a part of greece and was about the only real ally they had, and italy... well...
They had conflicting interests in the balkans, Italy was struggling in North Afrika and needed german aid, and when it was almost won the declared war on greece, then getting utterly beaten, syphoning away further german forces which delayed operation Barbarossa, which in turn led to the utter failture in the eastern frontlines as soon as the russian winter set in.
Let's face it. Xizer said it me the best in one of our private conversation about HOI.
Hitler must have thought that: "That Mussolini guy is the source of all my problems... Ever since I know him, everything went south." while Mussolini thought: "That Hitler guy is the source of all my problems... Ever since I know him, everything went south."
in answer to yours, it is a yes and no. however, some things could have changed the empire Drastically from what you said.
1. Dave, you mentioned Manpower, however, before all the shenanigans went down, the Japanese had at least 13 divisions plus Manchuko's army sitting on the border or accessable to the soviet front. so they could have seized all the territory they cared about and crushed Soviet response from and Aid.
2. China: the second sino-japanese started because the KMT leader(Chiang-Kai-Ceck(probably butchered that too) decided he was done with Japan nimbling away at his country. So he post-poned/paused the civil war to counter Japan. Had he not done that, it is likely china would have stayed embroiled in internal conflicts with more limited exchanges between Chiang-Kai-Ceck and Hirohito. Japan would have just slowly aligned warlords and nimbled away territory for years if the KMT devoted themselves to beating the CCP
3. truly allying with Germany. If they had allied with Germany earlier and gotten germany and Japanese engineers and Designers together, they would have stould a slightly better chance as the Japanses planes and later ships would be actually worth something, rather than Cardboard targets.
4. less brutality. If the japanese military was actually Competent, the conquered terriotries would have rather enjoyed freedom under a Japanese protector super-state, and, rather than resist, they would have raised more forces and built up resources and industry to fight the allies.
5. more pilots and better pilot rotation. By having Veteran pilots train the later generations and not only be with the one assignment, they would have stood better later on.
6. more centralized military: a big problem of Japan's was that the Navy and army were major rivals. Remove that, and you have a Japn who can make a singular goal, and stay unified with it and execute it
7. more industrialized Homeland and Territories: very important if Japan tries to go to war with anyone. If Japan joins the axis in 1936, then with Germany support they could better industrialize the japanese territories and puppet territories, then they can build more equipment and better use their limited resources
8. use the ethnic Japanese populations in American nations to rise up and create minor axis to divert allied attention temporarily. If you can create uprisings in Peru/Ecuador, a region that had a sizable Japanese population already, and suplied weapons and elite troops and officers, a sizable puppet diversion state could keep the allies pre-occupied for a few months. If established, then it can supply itself with Food, supplies, and even weapons, pilots, ships, and warplanes. Taking advantage of the the 1939 chaos to establish a government in a quick campaign that, once the government was established, wouldn't need to be supplied across the sea.
9. More build-up first: Because the Japanese would need to be able to hold on to their territory if they go after the Allied holdings, more carriers, cruisers, Battleships, destroyers, and transports. A timetable for expansion could look like war on the communists in august 1941, allies late 1942, when the navy is stronger, would benefit the Japanese more.
So, japan takes this plan, and Best Case scenario, it looks like this. For Pre-war events, I only outline what changes:
Japan and Germany sign an Alliance in 1935, and start standardizing designs to have all the strenghts of both nations philosophies. Larger population migration to Peru, Ecuador, the Phillipines, China, and the East Indes.
1936. Shanxi is defeated and incorporated into the Mengkukuo puppet state. Japan grabs a small amount more land in China.
1937. Chiang-Kai-Ceck doen't declare war on Japan, instead throwing more resources into reunifing China
1938. Thailand joins Japan, Japan plans for an eventual war
In Europe 1939, the situation is the same. But, on September 8th, Japan launches a limited official war in Peru and Ecuador, which also go through civil wars as Japanese populations revolt against the neutral governent. With the japanese Carriers taking out startegic targets, and rebels and Japs taking over, the governemnts would have to pulbicly bow to demands. The two nations are combined into Japanses America, a buffer stateish, which is the majorly industralized and turned into Japanese culture
1940. more excersions into China. However, as Chiang-Kai-Ceck warns Japan not to advance and Joins the allies, which are proven to be serious about Honoring defense pacts, japan halts their advance. Mao joins into the Comintern, which consisits of the USSR, Mongolia, Sinkaing(joins Mao 2 months after), Tannu Tuva, and the CCP.
1941
Japan signs non-agression pact with the Soviet Union in February 1941, and builds up with 20 divisions(no major war in china), plus 10 more from Manchukuo and Mengkukuo, plus 3 raised from Korea, and they have the German patent/design equipment, so better than Japanese equipment in our timeline.
Germany Declares war on the Soviet Union June 22nd, followed by Finland(June 23rd), Slovakia(June 23rd), Hungary(June 24th), Romania(June 27th), Bulgaria(July 1st), and Italy(July 1st). Eastern front follows the same pattern as before
Japan has 5 more divisions on the soviet front by August 15th, when they declare war. 38 Divisions attack the CCP, Mongolia, and the Soviet Union, easily taking the Soviet Far East, Eastern CCP, and eastern Mongolia. Chiang-Kai-Ceck gains against the communist as they have more pressure put on them.
By November 1941, the Germans are in the same place as our Timeline, but Russia has also lost the Far east, Eastern china, and 35% of Mongolia territory and 75% of Mongolia's army. The Tannu Tuvan army is 90% gone, as the Soviets, with only 4 remaining divisions and no airforce in the east, have had to rely on it's puppets forces to resist the Japanese, and the Chinese warlords(aside from Mao hiding in Far western China) have been defeated, or almost defeated.
1942 goes similar in Europe, but not in Asia. With no ocean spanning major war, the Japanese continue to build up forces and industrialize their territory. But japan stirs up the Hornet's nest on December 6th
apposing forces in the Pacific in Late 1942
Current Number(under construction/training)USA build figures are for united fleet. For Aircraft, it's production per month
Japan USA UK China Other allies Total allied
Battleships 12(+5) 10(+8) 3(+1) 0(+1) 2(+1) 15(+11)
CVs 6(+8) 4(+10) 0(+2) 0(0) 0(0) 4(+12)
CVLs 6(+2) 0(0) 1(+1) 0(+1) 0(0) 1(+2)
CVEs 5(+5) 3(+4) 1(+1) 1(+1) 0(0) 5(+6)
H. Cruisers 24(+4) 9(+15) 4(+2) 1(+1) 6(+1) 20(+18)
L.Cruisers 27(+8) 10(+9) 5(+6) 2(+6) 8(+2) 25(+23)
Destroyers 160(+17) 84(+125) 25(+10) 21(+8) 25(+9) 155(+154)
Submarines 85(+65) 65(+58) 12(+9) 12(+10) 8(+3) 97(+80)
Aircraft 4.5K(500) 1.5k(440) 300(250) 600(190) 200(75) 2.6k(935)
Divisions 30(+35 vs.C) 7 6 90 8 111
so, at the Start, Japan is out-matched, but the initial tide is in their Favor. At Pearl Harbor, the allied Naval capital of the Pacific, the Carrier fleet takes out USS Lexington, 8 Battleships, 2 Escort Carriers, 7 cruisers, 17 destroyers/Submarines/support ships, 450 aircraft, and destroyer the American Fuel dumps and Sub pens. Even with the Pacific fleet Mauled, it is only a small number of Japanese starting victories like in out timeline, which take out the British capital ships, 60 additional allied ships, 585 planes, and 9 divisions in 3 months after pearl harbor, and that doesn't include China, which the japanese push back a large distance in the sneak attack.
By March 1943, The Axis are at a High point. The Germans have seized Stalingrad and the caucasus oil fields(in this timeline, the soviets never have the troops to retak Stalingrad as their also fighting the japanese), the allies have been hamstringed in the Pacific, the minor Comintern powers are on the verge of Collapse, with UlaanBaater under seige, North africa, because of later america support, is firmly in Italy's control. And the allies want vengeance on Japan, as the america war machine ramps up.
With more German Success, allied Pacific strategy at the beginning in Containment, not annihilation of Japan, while they attack the Germans. The Americans larger carrier fleet clashs with Japan 3 time in May, June, and August, which destroyes 3 American CVs and damages 3 more, forcing them to the west coast, as Pearl Harbor is out of commission until october, when the installations are fixed. Japan, on the other hand, loses 2 CVLs and 2 CVs, with 2 more damaged. By August, however, the Chinese fleet has been completely destroyed as japn's superior ships destroyed them in the south china sea in late March. However, because of the Americans, the Japanese failed to take Guadacanal fully by 1944, but do take New Guinea in addition to every american holdong west of midway, and all of the Indes, Burma, China coast, Mongolia, Malaysia, and are digging in.
while this is a very optimistic scenario for Japan, as I can't think anymore, what, with this situation would have happened eventaully; Peru and the Pacific in Japan's Hands, a weaker USSR, a stronger, more powerful European axis, a Divided China, and a Japan that is Better organized, equiped, Trained, and Industrialized then in our timeline?
-
DarthRevansRevenge, and Kucsidave I'm afraid i will have to disagree with you on some of your points while agreeing with a few.
The Kwangtung army in Manchuria had enough manpower to threaten the Soviet Far East and it could be quickly reinforced with divisions from the chinese coast and home islands that could quadruple it's size and offensive potential.
A Chinese/Soviet alliance was not impossible but also very difficult as Chinese Communism and Soviet Communism(basically Stalinism at this point in time) were not compatible as their end objectives were very different, with the USSR wanting China as a communist puppet state and the Chinese communist army wanting sole control of its lands. Also your analysis of Chang is only partially correct, he did collaborate with Japan at first by ceding territory and not sending his professional troops to fight the Japanese so that he could focus his fight against his rival warlords in China and the Communists. He even offered to ally with Japan and recognize both their puppet government and territory in China if they would recognize his government and cease advancing. However this created a popular backlash against him and in order to win back support he denounced Japan and after being more or less forced to, entered into a very tense alliance with the communists. So a united Chinese/Soviet counter offensive against Japan followed by an advance on Germany is very unlikely. China while making gains in the interior could not achieve any sizeable victories near the coast where japanese air and sea power effectively ruled. The Nationalists were more invested in the south and central China and so would not commit troops to the far North and possibly even Russia as it would weaken their grip on their power base in china. The same with the Communists though they held more interest in the North mainly in hopes of Soviet backing to defeat the nationalists, not the Japanese. The USSR was also in no state to offer the material to equip the Chinese en masse against the Japanese at this stage of the war. After Stalin's purges, the corruption of the NKVD and the massive losses in men and material against the German/Finnish/Italian/Hungarian/Romanian/Albanian invasion in the West Stalin would not send officers, men and badly needed material to China when he was literally funneling everything to fight Hitler. Had Japan gone North the Soviet Union very likely would have collapsed in the winter of 1941 if not early spring of 42. In addition this leaves the US still neutral and secures Japan oil to replace US trade thus drastically lowering their dependence on the US and weakening the Embargo. It's likely with the fall of the Soviet Union to the combined Germany/Japan invasion on two fronts that it would encourage further aggressive expansion that would ultimately destroy the Axis as they couldn't digest all the territory they had taken so quickly. At best we see Germany, Hungary, Romania, Albania and Italy shift troops back to the Mediterranean front and possibly secure it thus leaving Germany master of mainland Europe, Italy the dominant land power in north africa(until something goes wrong with it in the British fleet, native populations and the basic lack of equipment quality in the Italian army) and Japan holding sway over the Northern pacific with Manchuria, Taiwan, coastal china and the Russian far east.I don't see the military situation in China changing drastically from this invasion of Russia, likely the Chinese would have made some gains inland but again not had any success near their coast.
As to your argument Revan about German and Japanese scientists cooperating, they did the bare minimum of this as both saw the other as a future rival and possible threat. As such they only shared a very few technological secrets with one another and seldom cooperated militarily in a mutually beneficial way.
Your statement about a "Japanese super state' being beneficial to the populace of it's components is not only far fetched it's the exact OPPOSITE of how Japan's conquests were treated. Chinese were raped, butchered and used in mass slave labor, Filipinos were oppressed and treated as subhuman, Vietnamese were hunted for sport, Koreans were forced into suicide units for the army, comfort girls for the military and slave labor. Japan RUTHLESSLY dominated and exploited their conquered territories and brutally crushed any protest. There is a reason so many of their conquered subjects rebelled and fought as commandos.
Japan's pilot rotation was not like US policy of sending vets back to teach, they had instructors and left vets on the front until they were killed. That's part of why their flying program deteriorated so fast after 1942.
Japan had zero interest in using Japanese americans for insurgency or intel, they actually excommunicated or mocked any Japanese that had US roots and considered them suspicious and likely traitors. As such they would not have used them for your suggested purposes.
centralizing the army and navy would likely have been just as troublesome as their rivalry, for good examples of this look at the italian Navy and German Navy of WWII being centrally controlled from on high rather than commanders on the scene. Japan's faults were in it's archaic thinking of the decisive battle and not seizing initiatives earlier on with risking their main fleet elements when they had the advantage and relying too heavily on carriers of offensive combat instead of protecting their surface elements in combined operations.
Even if japan won the territory and resources it would take years to build up the infrastructure and industry to profit from it.
What you suggest is a what if scenario, but one inherently flawed because it discards the basic ideology of the Japanese leadership, basic cultural xenophobia and their "Warrior mentality' at this time in their history. Japan couldn't have held it's conquered territories for long as it couldn't even really defeat the Chinese.
Ultimately even if Japan went North at some point they'd have to retreat from most of inland china, they could hold coasts but little more.
-
I have to agree with the position that Japan, in the long term, never really stood a chance against the Allied Powers overall or the US specifically. Their only hope was that the attack on Pearl Harbor would cripple the US in the Pacific to the point that the US would withdraw its influence and territorial claims and not enter a full-scale war, and I don't think this was ever a realistic possibility. Even had the US Pacific carriers been caught and destroyed at Pearl Harbor, I do not think the US would have backed down from war, but instead the Pacific War would just have taken longer for the US to win - it would still be entering the war at the same time, and it would still have completed the Manhattan Project at the same time, at which point all Japanese naval dominance stops meaning anything because their carriers can just be nuked into oblivion. Only a successful invasion of the US mainland could have prevented this outcome, and that was never in the cards.
Regarding technology, I think that treating Japanese planes during WWII as "cardboard" is unfair - the Japanese planes were competently designed and effective, but they required highly trained and skilled hands to make use of that effectiveness in dogfighting. Think of a Zero like you would a TIE Interceptor: it's fast, maneuverable, and has enough firepower for taking down enemy fighters or bombers, but its fragility means it has to rely on the speed and maneuverability to survive, and only skilled pilots can make full use of those traits. The US went the X-wing route: we designed fighters that could take one hell of a beating and keep flying (in many cases with over 100 bullet holes in them), and combat tactics that depended less on pilot skill than on proper positioning and teamwork. Unlike the Empire, Japan didn't have the resource or numbers advantage, so its strategy was doomed to failure.
The Axis nation that could have pulled off a win, at least for a time? Germany. I don't think long-term peace beyond a decade would have been possible with Hitler controlling most of central Europe, but he screwed up both the Battle of Britain and the invasion of the USSR: both could have gone in Germany's favor and both the UK and USSR largely defeated before Japan pulled the US in. Had that happened - Germany controls France, the UK, and the USSR, and Japan destroys the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor - then I could possibly see the US deciding it wasn't worth trying to fight fascism on its own, despite the bloody nose.
Edit: then again, had the German invasions of the USSR and UK gone in Germany's favor, with the capture of Moscow in the fall of '41 causing a collapse of the entire nation and a de facto German victory after a successful invasion of Britain, Japan may well not have felt the need to attack the US at all. With Germany now at peace and controlling Soviet oil reserves, it could probably have taken the US's place as Japan's main supplier of oil through trade. Japan would have been able to feed its military machine without seizing US or US allied territories and focus on defeating China, as well as potentially gobbling up the eastern bits of the USSR as it collapsed. The US in this situation would have likely continued sitting on the sidelines.
-
which is why i brought it up. these things you are contradicting me on are things I BROUGHT UP as additional reasons why the allies advanced faster. Had the Japanese not been brutal, and kept their plan of Ethnic cleanse secret till after the war, and shown up as Liberaters and given these people some sense of independence, but in alliance with Japan, they could also have slowed the "oppressers"(allied colonial empires) from regaining ground.
as for Pilot rotation, that is why the Marianas Turkey Shoot happened, because by June 1943 in OTL, they were all dead. half of them at least were dead by June 10th 1942, and while more gained experience, the grind of New Guinea/the Solomons killed the rest of them. Had Japan rotated the pilots, making sure that new pilots got experience outside of the Carrier theater, and that the Vets weren't always on the front, but training new troops as well, then the late war would have gone differently
as for the Fighters, the Zero/TIE/LN is a good analogy, but by September 1943, the "X-Wing"(P-40, F4F) had been replaced with "A-Wings"(P-51, F4U) and "XJ X-Wing"(P-47, F6F). Japan's plans were very easy to kill with just a few shots by 1944
the What If? is really Japan's only chance, and they would have to change that to keep from WW2 going south from June onward like in our timeline. not truly being at war with China, a mostly crushed soviet/communist front, and a Massive Navy of Elites that can wip at entire fleets from the Get-go and secure enough territory and time to dig in and Create the secret weapons to hopefully demoralize or even defeat the allies
LordXizer, my scenario was specifically a "if this Changed, would Japan be in a better position?" scenario, and it required a lot. but for the most part, yes, Japan never had a prayer
-
Apologies, when I first read I thought you were saying Japan could have and would have done those alternatives you listed.
-
sorry if i sounded harsh, it was right after i got up, and i really didn't want to start school yet. But yes, i got your points, and i was saying if Japan had made these changes, they might have had a better chance
-
Japan bit off way more than it could chew for reasons already discussed. Had it followed a different strategy and not been bogged down in a very costly war with the Chinese, I still think the US would have defeated it in the end. Japan could not keep up in manpower and industrial capacity. Admiral Yamamoto is often considered defeatist for arguing Japan had no chance, but he was being realistic.
-
Yes, while publically supporting the drive to war with the US in pvt all senior leadership in both the government and the military admitted to grave fears about it. I recommend the book Japan 1941 as it has many of the memos, private journals and memoirs of those involved. It's staggering how nearly everyone knew the war would be a disaster but felt it would be preferable to peaceful loss of face.
They rationalized they could possibly force the US to come to terms because they had done the same with Russian in the Russo Japanese War and to a degree with China in the Sino Japanese war. However they ignored that both of these instances involved countries with massive internal dissent and weariness from local conflict, neither of which were the case with the US.
-
I'm reading a lot about WWII aviation and doing few researches on the subject so that way I know a little grand strategy and other component of WWII armed forces. I am therefor surprised that you guys here know more than the average members of dedicated forums !
half of them at least were dead by June 10th 1942, and while more gained experience, the grind of New Guinea/the Solomons killed the rest of them.
You made a point here that is often overlooked so I had to complete it :
The IJN suffered a loss of 110 aircrew (not just pilots, in fact less than the Americans that lost 188 aircrew), most of them (72) from the Hiryu. So despite the losses of most (2/3 if not counting the escort aircraft carriers) of its carriers, the IJN still had a pool of 2000+ qualified carrier pilots available. More important was the loss of 721 mechanics (40% of the total of the Kido Butai), a less glamorous work for the young wannabe samuraï and therefor far more difficult to replace. But in fact these valuable skilled pilots were wasted in the long land based campaigns of attrition of New Guinea and the Solomons. It was an enormous mistake to accept such a campaign of attrition with (specialised) pilots that would be utterly needed in the forthcoming decisive battles (particulary knowing the importance of such decisive battles in the japanese doctrine/way of thinking). Probably of little importance of your big overview of the events but still worth mentioning.
-
It's staggering how nearly everyone knew the war would be a disaster but felt it would be preferable to peaceful loss of face.
I hadn't read about this before, but it doesn't surprise me too much. Face is really important in Asian cultures, especially Confucian ones. I think it's fair to say the Japanese took it a step further with their samurai inspired sense of honour.
-
Yeah, Japan had no way to win the Pacific. Having family who served in the Japanese Army during both World Wars, I can corroborate what Xizer said in that most knew there was no way to win the war. A lot of good points have been made as to why this was, but another one that was missed was the ruthlessness of the Japanese army internally. For example, when an officer would become sick or wounded, the soldiers under his command would often kill him. Thus not only was the Japanese military throwing their vets to the front line to be killed by the enemy, but they were killing off their own vets.
-
Yeah, Japan had no way to win the Pacific. Having family who served in the Japanese Army during both World Wars, I can corroborate what Xizer said in that most knew there was no way to win the war. A lot of good points have been made as to why this was, but another one that was missed was the ruthlessness of the Japanese army internally. For example, when an officer would become sick or wounded, the soldiers under his command would often kill him. Thus not only was the Japanese military throwing their vets to the front line to be killed by the enemy, but they were killing off their own vets.
Often this was due to the extremely poor treatment at the hands of most mid level officers due to class and rank being viciously enforced, coupled with the often appalling living conditions on their island garrisons suicide and banzai charges were considered preferable to a slow agonizing death from malnutrition and dysentery.
-
I'm reading a lot about WWII aviation and doing few researches on the subject so that way I know a little grand strategy and other component of WWII armed forces. I am therefor surprised that you guys here know more than the average members of dedicated forums !
You made a point here that is often overlooked so I had to complete it :
The IJN suffered a loss of 110 aircrew (not just pilots, in fact less than the Americans that lost 188 aircrew), most of them (72) from the Hiryu. So despite the losses of most (2/3 if not counting the escort aircraft carriers) of its carriers, the IJN still had a pool of 2000+ qualified carrier pilots available. More important was the loss of 721 mechanics (40% of the total of the Kido Butai), a less glamorous work for the young wannabe samuraï and therefor far more difficult to replace. But in fact these valuable skilled pilots were wasted in the long land based campaigns of attrition of New Guinea and the Solomons. It was an enormous mistake to accept such a campaign of attrition with (specialised) pilots that would be utterly needed in the forthcoming decisive battles (particulary knowing the importance of such decisive battles in the japanese doctrine/way of thinking). Probably of little importance of your big overview of the events but still worth mentioning.
Am both a history major and a military history enthusiast with a particular love of the history of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Digging up any and all info on it was more or less my obsessive hobby for over a decade.
You are absolutely right, the IJN could not readily replace the support staff that ran the CV groups, in many ways this was even more devastating than the loss of the pilots. In general Japan's greatest weakness wasn't it's combat arm, but it's logistical one. Japanese merchant shipping couldn't keep up with peacetime demand, much less wartime even BEFORE losses. Japan often couldn't afford to send out it's heaviest vessels regularly due to the need for fuelers and transport ships to conduct offensive operations over an extended period of time. Japanese troops often rode on the decks of the IJN's warships simply because there was not enough shipping to both ferry resources back to the home Islands and garrisons AND carry troops. Compare this to the allied ratio which usually had a 50 or 60 to one ratio of merchant ships to warships Japan had barely a 3 to 1 ratio before the outbreak of war with the US, UK, Aus, and Dutch.
Finally Japanese focus was on obtaining honor, glory, rank and prestige in it's command staff and recruitment, as such vital jobs that were less 'glorious' and 'honorable' than front line fighting forces were often badly neglected, like it's Submarine arm. Japan had the best subs and torpedoes of WWII yet never employed Wolfpack or raiding tactics like Germany did to great success. Instead they mostly used their subs to try and target warships in single ambushes and for supplying distant posts. Anti submarine warfare with their Destroyer fleet was badly neglected with DDs reserved for surface engagement and troop running. The fact that US subs routinely penetrated IJN DD escorts, torpedoes CAs, BBs, or even CVs and then escaped with ease highlights the failings of the IJN DD employment.
-
Finally Japanese focus was on obtaining honor, glory, rank and prestige in it's command staff and recruitment, as such vital jobs that were less 'glorious' and 'honorable' than front line fighting forces were often badly neglected, like it's Submarine arm. Japan had the best subs and torpedoes of WWII yet never employed Wolfpack or raiding tactics like Germany did to great success.
I totally agree and there's also the fact that Japanese sub crew did not consider glorious to sunk merchant ships and were only seeking for warships !
-
Often this was due to the extremely poor treatment at the hands of most mid level officers due to class and rank being viciously enforced, coupled with the often appalling living conditions on their island garrisons suicide and banzai charges were considered preferable to a slow agonizing death from malnutrition and dysentery.
Precisely
-
For goo reading material i recommend
The Imperial Japanese navy in the Pacific War
The Reluctant Admiral
Yamato Class Battleships vs USN Carrier Planes
A Glorious Way to Die
Battleship Musashi
IJN Battleships of WWII
IJN Heavy Cruisers of WWII
IJN Destroyers vs USN Destroyers
Japan 1941
Rising Sun Victorious(an alternate history of WWII)
And the site, http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
-
I've read a few of these Duel on aviation topics, can't say I was impressed (I now avoid them but maybe I was unlucky on those I read or maybe only the ones on aviation topics were dispensable), but I enjoyed much of the Aircraft of the Aces, Aviation Elite Units or Combat Aircraft series.
If I can advice book on the air war over the Pacific :
John Lundstrom's The First Team serie
Shattered Sword : The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway by Jon Parshall & Anthony Tully
As I said, I read most at tactical level :
Genda's Blade : Japan's Squadron of Aces : 343 Kokutai by Henry Sakaida & Koji Takaki (they lately produced a more general on a more wider subject Aircraft of the Aces on the subject)
Eagles of the Southern Sky - The Tainan Air Group in WWII by Luca Ruffato & Michael Claringbould (the book
For USAAF bomber unit histories in the Pacific, have a look here : http://irandpcorp.com/current-projects-2/
I have also : Bruce Gamble's serie about Rabaul and William Wolf's serie about V Fighter Command, but not sure how good it is.
Thanks for the link BTW
-
I've read a few of these Duel on aviation topics, can't say I was impressed (I now avoid them but maybe I was unlucky on those I read or maybe only the ones on aviation topics were dispensable), but I enjoyed much of the Aircraft of the Aces, Aviation Elite Units or Combat Aircraft series.
If I can advice book on the air war over the Pacific :
John Lundstrom's The First Team serie
Shattered Sword : The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway by Jon Parshall & Anthony Tully
As I said, I read most at tactical level :
Genda's Blade : Japan's Squadron of Aces : 343 Kokutai by Henry Sakaida & Koji Takaki (they lately produced a more general on a more wider subject Aircraft of the Aces on the subject)
Eagles of the Southern Sky - The Tainan Air Group in WWII by Luca Ruffato & Michael Claringbould (the book
For USAAF bomber unit histories in the Pacific, have a look here : http://irandpcorp.com/current-projects-2/
I have also : Bruce Gamble's serie about Rabaul and William Wolf's serie about V Fighter Command, but not sure how good it is.
Thanks for the link BTW
You are most welcome for the link, I do have Shattered Sword, not sure how I forgot to list it. I do highly recommend the vs books that deal with naval ships, far more interesting and in depth than the aircraft ones in my opinion.
-
Another Book on the Pacific War, Victory at Sea, has everything on why and how they won. very good read
-
Another Book on the Pacific War, Victory at Sea, has everything on why and how they won. very good read
Also a great tv series
-
IMO the pacific war was being lost the moment after the midway crisis where enterprise and hornet were the last 2 aircraft carriers left in the pacific until 1943 while japan did sink hronet they could never finish off the enterprise they lost too many of their ace pilots and carriers too early on to match americas industrialization of 1943.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGNvkbKrLqE
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGNvkbKrLqE
I love these vids.
-
Glad you like it :)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGNvkbKrLqE
I too have enjoyed watching these videos; I just watched this one the other day coincidentally enough. I agree with this video. The United States still would have won in the end. They had so many advantages over Japan in terms of manpower, industry, technology, etc, that it would have always been a matter of time until the United States won, especially with Japan so spread out over the Pacific. With this, I don't think Japan would have been able to win the war.
-
Winning in the sense of conquering the US was never on the table. Winning in the sense of hurting the US enough that it wouldn't keep fighting over control of the Pacific? Still highly unlikely, I think, but Midway going the other way would've made it at least a possibility.
What I do think the video is wrong about is that the Japanese would not have been able to take Midway Island had the naval battle gone their way. Yes, US troops managed to take islands defended by larger numbers of Japanese troops later on in the war, but this was done under cover of naval and air supremacy that could support landings and diminish the ability of Japanese land forces to concentrate strength effectively. The US garrison was about equal in number to the Japanese landing force brought along, and I see no reason to simply assume that Japanese naval and air dominance couldn't have supported their own troops just as effectively - if Japanese forces were as pathetic as this video makes them out to be, they'd never have conquered the Philippines as easily as they did (23,000 US troops killed/captured there).
Now, even had Midway fallen, Hawaii by this point was already too heavily defended by land-based planes to make a naval invasion feasible, so Midway would've been as far as the push east went - Japan afterward would have likely tried to consolidate control over Pacific islands to deny the US potential bases among them to support a counter-attack. Forcing the US to accept de facto Japanese control over the Pacific at this point would not have been beyond the realm of possibility, especially as the US and other allies were trying to concentrate their efforts on the European front and things weren't going the Allies' way there yet either.
-
Winning in the sense of conquering the US was never on the table. Winning in the sense of hurting the US enough that it wouldn't keep fighting over control of the Pacific? Still highly unlikely, I think, but Midway going the other way would've made it at least a possibility.
What I do think the video is wrong about is that the Japanese would not have been able to take Midway Island had the naval battle gone their way. Yes, US troops managed to take islands defended by larger numbers of Japanese troops later on in the war, but this was done under cover of naval and air supremacy that could support landings and diminish the ability of Japanese land forces to concentrate strength effectively. The US garrison was about equal in number to the Japanese landing force brought along, and I see no reason to simply assume that Japanese naval and air dominance couldn't have supported their own troops just as effectively - if Japanese forces were as pathetic as this video makes them out to be, they'd never have conquered the Philippines as easily as they did (23,000 US troops killed/captured there).
Now, even had Midway fallen, Hawaii by this point was already too heavily defended by land-based planes to make a naval invasion feasible, so Midway would've been as far as the push east went - Japan afterward would have likely tried to consolidate control over Pacific islands to deny the US potential bases among them to support a counter-attack. Forcing the US to accept de facto Japanese control over the Pacific at this point would not have been beyond the realm of possibility, especially as the US and other allies were trying to concentrate their efforts on the European front and things weren't going the Allies' way there yet either.
I would bring up a couple points here, had Midway been a total IJN victory, the follow up operation later in the year specified Hawaii as a priority target for acquisition along with the Aleutian islands. Without its carriers a combined IJN CV force of six to eight CVs could suppress the islands air garrison while the IJN BBs and CAs bombarded it. Had they been inclined to commit fully to it, Japan could have taken Hawaii, they just wouldn't be able to hold it. Each success they had in the Pacific also only fueled US desire for revenge. There was no scenario where Japan goes to war with the US that would end favorably for them.
-
Agreed regarding US resolve, which makes me think stopping at Midway after a Japanese victory would have been the smart move - prior to the war I doubt most Americans could have named Midway, but Hawaii was already “ours” in people’s minds and was well on the way to statehood. Stopping after a Midway win and seeking a truce that recognized Japanese supremacy in the west Pacific would have been Japan’s best hope (and Hitler tried asking Britain for a similar treaty after conquering France), but it is definitely questionable that the US would have accepted such.
-
It is easy to forget the importance of events in Europe. However, the USSR did fight Japan in Manchuria during the last weeks of the war. Any speculation is incomplete without considering the impact of the Soviets turning their attention eastward.
-
It is easy to forget the importance of events in Europe. However, the USSR did fight Japan in Manchuria during the last weeks of the war. Any speculation is incomplete without considering the impact of the Soviets turning their attention eastward.
Had the fighting in the Pacific died down after a Japanese victory in the summer of 42, with Japan being recognized by the US and other Allied powers (which were in no condition to oppose Japan in the Pacific at this point) as ruler of a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere involving most Pacific islands west of Midway and north of Australia (including New Guinea and Indonesia, and any already held or soon-to-be-seized territory in China and Manchuria), I honestly wouldn't expect the USSR to declare against Japan in late 45. They'd have had 3 years at that point of uncontested fortifying of their new holdings, along with having successfully secured the time and territory required to develop the resources to support their expanded military. The Soviet Pacific fleet was of minimal strength, and couldn't have possibly stood up to an IJN that hadn't been smashed by US naval power - hell, even in late 45 in the real history the Soviet Pacific fleet was a pathetic thing consisting of only a few dozen light ships, and while the Soviets were able to push Japan out of Korea and Manchuria they were in no position to invade Japan itself.
-
Had the fighting in the Pacific died down after a Japanese victory in the summer of 42, with Japan being recognized by the US and other Allied powers (which were in no condition to oppose Japan in the Pacific at this point) as ruler of a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere involving most Pacific islands west of Midway and north of Australia (including New Guinea and Indonesia, and any already held or soon-to-be-seized territory in China and Manchuria), I honestly wouldn't expect the USSR to declare against Japan in late 45. They'd have had 3 years at that point of uncontested fortifying of their new holdings, along with having successfully secured the time and territory required to develop the resources to support their expanded military. The Soviet Pacific fleet was of minimal strength, and couldn't have possibly stood up to an IJN that hadn't been smashed by US naval power - hell, even in late 45 in the real history the Soviet Pacific fleet was a pathetic thing consisting of only a few dozen light ships, and while the Soviets were able to push Japan out of Korea and Manchuria they were in no position to invade Japan itself.
Recall too that the only reasons the USSR attacked Japan in 1945 was as part of a deal with the US and because they saw an opportunity to create a puppet government in Manchuria to back up their goals in the region. If Japan is victorious in the Pacific these two reasons do not exist in that alternative scenario.
-
Once they attacked Pearl H and the American War Machine mobilized it was over. They could never match it , they needed to cripple the fleet in that initial strike
-
Once they attacked Pearl H and the American War Machine mobilized it was over. They could never match it , they needed to cripple the fleet in that initial strike
Even if they had fully annihilated that fleet at Pearl it would have bought them 8 months tops as nearly every main ship there minus the carriers were already obsolete and replaced before August 1942.
-
Japan is an isle, with few minerals and a lot less population than the United States. Pearl Harbor was for them the beginning of the end. Their eyes were bigger than the belly, like the Nazis with the USSR.
-
Well they never wanted to completely "beat" the US - the plan was to get as much territory and then the US would sue for peace/not attack back. But since when has a large slap in the face ever gone unreturned?
-
Even if they had fully annihilated that fleet at Pearl it would have bought them 8 months tops as nearly every main ship there minus the carriers were already obsolete and replaced before August 1942.
The battleships were almost obsolete once the dive-bombers and torpedo aircraft were introduced (battleships could only be used with the advantage of surprise and preferably by night). The Japanese know that but they nevertheless targeted them in priority and not the stock of oil of Pearl Harbor (had it been destroyed that would have delayed US effort in the Pacific for about 6 month). In my opinion, Pearl Harbor was a psychological attack and on this aspect it was a success.
-
Japan is an isle, with few minerals and a lot less population than the United States. Pearl Harbor was for them the beginning of the end. Their eyes were bigger than the belly, like the Nazis with the USSR.
This was their big problem. An island like that could not have hoped to keep up with the United States industrial might once the war started. Their technology also didn't advance much during the war either. For instance, their planes were pretty much outdated by 1944-45, and the United States was blasting them out of the sky. The Japanese also couldn't replace their losses, and it got to the point where they thought kamikaze attacks on American ships would be more effective than trying to engage them by conventional means (torpedoes, dive bombers, etc.) Nearly every factor (Industry, resources, replacing losses, technology, etc.) was working against Japan against the United States in the Pacific War. As others in the thread have said, unless the U.S. gave up the Pacific War if the Japanese had won at Midway, they were going to lose regardless of what happened.
-
For instance, their planes were pretty much outdated by 1944-45, and the United States was blasting them out of the sky.
The planes they introduced in late 1944 and 1945 were up to the Allied standards but as their planes were lagging behind in 1943 and early 1944, flying without protection (either armor or self-sealing fuel tanks) and their pilots were on the front line until (definitely) losts, by late 1944 there was only a handful confirmed pilots available that had to cope with their ill-trained wingmen (Japan had difficulty, thanks to US subs and minelaying B-29s, to import oil from Dutch East Indies and what was imported was of poor quality), poor manufacturing of the planes (they sent most of their workers, and also most of the skilled aircraft mechanics, in combat) and, of course, overwhelming superiority of the allied air forces (Japan produced 75,000 aircraft during the War while the USA produced about 300,000). Anyway it was more a question of pilot or oil than aircraft.
The Japanese also couldn't replace their losses, and it got to the point where they thought kamikaze attacks on American ships would be more effective than trying to engage them by conventional means (torpedoes, dive bombers, etc.)
Japanese aircraft have not sunk an allied carrier for 2 years when they took this decision. On the first official (I mean by a dedicated unit) Kamikaze attack they sunk one. It was on 25 October 1944. But what they did not know is that a regular bomber sunk a US carrier on 24 October.
-
In my opinion, Pearl Harbor was a psychological attack and on this aspect it was a success.
Interesting point of view.
I propose another: the Japanese won the war. They turned their defeat, after two atomic bombs, into a fruitful partnership with the United States. In this region, those who have really lost are the Koreans, subjected to the same partition as Germany... While they were the invadeds and not the invaders.
For instance, their planes were pretty much outdated by 1944-45, and the United States was blasting them out of the sky.
I disagree. The Zero Fighter was was very manoeuvrable, and the Nakajima Ki-84 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-84) competed with his American counterparts.
-
Interesting point of view.
Before the War, the Americans didn't think the Japanese to be capable to refuel in high sea and to conduct disciplined carrier based air raid while pre-war exercises had proved that Pearl Harbor was at risk. The Japanese got insight from the raid on Taranto (from both side) while the American still believed no torpedo attack could be conducted in a harbor.
A well know aviation mag published in 1941 an article about japanese air forces and said they couldn't be good pilot as their eyesight was hapered by their diet based on rice and because of their slanting eyes... They never tough of Japan as more than a turbulent yaping country.
I propose another: the Japanese won the war. They turned their defeat, after two atomic bombs, into a fruitful partnership with the United States. In this region, those who have really lost are the Koreans, subjected to the same partition as Germany... While they were the invadeds and not the invaders.
That is another war, the Cold War, who dictated it. And they're still denying a good number of war crimes in the way.
The Zero Fighter was was very manoeuvrable, and the Nakajima Ki-84 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-84) competed with his American counterparts.
Manoeuvrability is good but no that important if you use the good tactics. But Ki-84, N1K2-J, Ki-100 and J2M were on par with their american counterparts, same can be true for other types of aircraft. But as I said, raw performance did not all.
-
Yes, it was a question of men first and foremost. The Japanese did not h ave the manpower to carry out their offensive strategy - very costly with the "zero captive" policy. And there, the Japanese, with their policy of conquest that alienated all other Asian populations, could not compete for a moment with the Americans.
That is another war, the Cold War, who dictated it. And they're still denying a good number of war crimes in the way.
That's right. Partly because there have been no Nuremberg trials in the Pacific, no more than regime change...
-
[quote author=Jagen Eripsa link=topic=6903.msg69140#msg69140 date=1518803986
I disagree. The Zero Fighter was was very manoeuvrable, and the Nakajima Ki-84 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-84) competed with his American counterparts.
[/quote]
I guess I misspoke here. It was a maneuverable aircraft, but their lack of good tactics and experienced pilots is what really did them in.
-
Interesting point of view.
I propose another: the Japanese won the war. They turned their defeat, after two atomic bombs, into a fruitful partnership with the United States. In this region, those who have really lost are the Koreans, subjected to the same partition as Germany... While they were the invadeds and not the invaders.
Interesting thought, and definitely a different outcome than Germany post WW1 - but one might also argue that because the Americans had so much influence on them after the war (occupation, etc) that they didn't develop perhaps as they wanted to because they didn't really have a choice, even if the end result is still good.
-
WW1 and WW2 can not really be compared. The first is a war of empires, nations and peoples, a war finally classic that is distinguished only by its death toll and its global scale. The second is a war between ideologies: fascisms against an alliance between democracies and communists (which then exploded during the Cold War).
The central empires capitulated in 1918 and then exploded, with the peace treaties imposed on them, both on the basis of self-determination (led by Woodrow Wilson) and the desire to revenge of the Entente, especially the French led by Clemenceau. While in 1945, they were crushed, reduced to ruins. Italy first (although it was limited, because of the revolt that drove Mussolini into the north of the country), and especially Germany. In 1918 the Entente had only crossed the border. In 1945, Berlin was devastated, like the rest of the country, everything was even more violent.
-
It was not so much a comparison of the wars as the effects of it. Whereas both wars devastated the loser, WW1 left the conquered in a horrible state which only set the stage for a second war. After WW2 the victor nations spent more time and attention to make sure they reconstructed Japan and Germany well, and to make sure there was not a third world war
-
In fact Germany was not doing too badly even after the WW1. Most of the fighting took place on French soil, the devastation took place there (I live in these areas, I can testify that the craters of the shells are still visible in some forests). The damage was mostly human (the soldiers killed), financial (the war debt - which has never been paid until the end) and military, with disarmament. And there was the issue of amputations of territory, which certainly was problematic.
But I think World War II would never have happened if the crisis of 1929 had not destroyed the German economy, dragging the entire society in its wake.
-
Yes, you're completely right in that World War II destroyed infrastructure way more than WW1, I was mostly thinking about the war reparations and forced disarmament that caused bad feelings between the countries. I agree with you on your last point as well, if there was no reason for the Germans to be angry I don't think the war would have happened (at least not in the 40s)
-
I was mostly thinking about the war reparations and forced disarmament that caused bad feelings between the countries.
Yes, it caused a lot of resentment...
It's really a very interesting time to study. On one side we have the worst warmongers, and on the other, pacifists and utopians like Coudenhove-Kalergi. France has its share of responsibility in trying to impose very difficult conditions on Germany... Even if, at the time, they were considered as measured against the trauma caused by the WW1.