Recent comments in /f/history

raziel1012 t1_iy25nr2 wrote

Their initial strategy was exactly to buy those months and then heavily fortify the islands and have a strong defensive area set up by the time US had built up its navy again. (Aka what you said: make it less worth it for US) They surely would be outgunned in the longer term, but they were hoping to make the mid term gain strong and force US to the negotiating table. Would it have worked? Who knows.

1

Doberman7290 t1_iy21nu3 wrote

It would have never worked. You know it , I Know it , the world knows it.

Your four bullet points are funny - none could have been accomplished.

When the Japanese Navy stood toe to toe with the USA they went to the bottom.

That is history.

7

chronoboy1985 t1_iy1zzbi wrote

They would’ve had to constantly bomb every naval construction yard, dry dock and plane factory in the country to keep them from spitting out planes and ships, which would’ve been suicidal given the insane speed the US was pumping out war planes alone.

12

chronoboy1985 t1_iy1zjq1 wrote

It wouldn’t have worked no matter what they did unless they could cripple American industrial capacity, which would’ve required a very misguided invasion attempt. Their entire rationale was gambling that Americans wouldn’t have the stomach for a long war and would sue for peace once they lost the upper hand. Even had they decimated Hawaii, it would’ve just been a setback. Japan simply spread itself far too thin.

10

Peaurxnanski t1_iy1wntt wrote

The terms of lifting the embargo explicitly called for Japan to stop genociding China. That's what it said, and it's what I said.

Ascribing a motive to that is certainly your right, but I'd be interested to see how "stop genociding China" ties into US interest in the Philippines. Since you ascribed the motive, I'd be interested to see how you think it ties in.

16