Replies

The author nonsensically states that Soviet victory was inevitable because of a larger population and more resources, but then disregards both those factors in asserting that Japan could have defeated the U.S.

He has a point in their somewhere, but picked a very poor analogy to wrap it around.

The author nonsensically states that Soviet victory was inevitable because of a larger population and more resources, but then disregards both those factors in asserting that Japan could have defeated the U.S.

Your point is only partially valid as an analogy. The geographies are totally different, and the definition of victory is totally different. In other words, the author is not saying Japan could have ever beaten the US to the point of invading and occupying.....and it's pretty damned tough to drive tanks across the Pacific. You are trying to make a point with apples and oranges...

If the Japanese had gained control of the Pacific. They still could not have out produced the United States. Furthermore, if they had attacked the Soviet Union they could have taken pressure off of their ally, Nazi Germany.

I am with you, I searched the article up and down trying to find the point and it's analogous nature. I suppose it has something to do with preparedness and its absence.

There is one analogy which the author might well have made but failed to do so probably because it runs counter to his thesis: the Americans had broken the Japanese code and were generally aware of their intention to invade Midway. That knowledge was decisive in our winning that battle. In effect it was a World War II application of cyber warfare.

Today, it appears the Chinese are waging cyber warfare against us. We are by the president's own admission unprepared and outclassed by the Chinese in this respect at least. Midway was won partly by intelligence derived from technology, more accurately from "hacking." The analogy I draw from this is that hardware is indispensable but it is vulnerable to hacking as demonstrated by the battle of Midway and which recent developments are demonstrating in our own backyard.

Preparedness is a very difficult and complex undertaking dependent upon foresight, competence, dedication, wherewithal and national will. It is quite possible to spend the national treasure on building a Maginot line only to make a nation more vulnerable not more safe. It is quite possible to neutralize locally superior arms with superior intelligence, as did the Allies on D-Day. Our nation lacks the national will and the dedication to use its competence and dedication to conjure up the foresight to prepare for the next war. All the elements of arms must be balanced and timed perfectly; that is not an easy task and it certainly requires commitment. Therein lies our present malaise.

Some good commentary on this thread.

I would argue that it is not at all clear that the Nazis would have decisively beaten the Soviets without being preoccupied on the Western front.

90% of the war was being fought on the Eastern Front to begin with.

And Soviet victory really only meant not being conquered by Germany - for Germany victory meant conquering the Soviet Union and at least holding and controlling all of the Soviet territory west of the Urals.

For Japan, the goal would never have been invading the US west coast - people like to misquote Yamamoto on this point, but that was not even dreamt of.

Possibly controlling Hawaii and fighting a long term war of attrition against the US Fleet was the dream: that would have enabled Japan to increase its manufacturing base in Asia and improve its long term chances.

Yes, crazy. The fact is that in December 1941-Jan. 1942 some 80% of the heavy tanks outside Moscow were Brit and American, and it's highly likely Moscow falls in '42 without British/American support. The Battle of Kursk was similarly close, more a victory of Soviet airpower thanks to their superior spy network that allowed them to stage pre-battle raids debilitating the Luftwaffe.

Midway, on the other hand, even if the Japanese won, was never going to be the knockout blow. A great historical work on his is "Shattered Sword." Japan built ONE fleet carrier between 1941 and 1945. We built 17, plus another 25 "baby flattops." It wasn't close.