Could Japan have won the pacific war?

[taupin121]

For instance, their planes were pretty much outdated by 1944-45, and the United States was blasting them out of the sky.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.

[Jagen Eripsa]

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For instance, their planes were pretty much outdated by 1944-45, and the United States was blasting them out of the sky.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 competed with his American counterparts.

[taupin121]

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 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.

[Jagen Eripsa]

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...

[Admiral Stephen]

[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 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.

[0ffkilter]

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.

[Jagen Eripsa]

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.

[0ffkilter]

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

[Jagen Eripsa]

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.

[0ffkilter]

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)

[Jagen Eripsa]

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.