Does someone really understand IJA's dumb decisions?

[fbs]

Historians always come with smart reasons why countries behave like they did. For example, in Germany the usual culprit is Hitler; all the smart decisions were taken by brilliant generals, while the bad decisions somehow trace back to Hitler. While I'm pretty sure Hitler was responsible for a lot of bad decisions, I think that it became an easy option to just blame him for every bad jugement; but, never mind, he was mad, and blaming him is usually pretty accurate.

Now, the Japanese Army is a mystery. I was watching a program the other day, and a British soldier that retreated through Burma was saying "they were wonderful soldiers; they threw everything they had at you... they had a fantastic drill". I think that's a pretty accurate description of the IJA at tactical level. The usual description of the IJA is that they took at a strategic level the same concepts that worked at a tactical level: be very aggressive, stay in the offensive, do a lot with little resources, trust the spirit to overcome numerical and material disadvantages. That is easy explanation, but... hmm... I don't know.

My point is: IJA's generals were not stupid, yet they took over the country and directed it at all the wrong directions. Tracing that back to a "Samurai spirit" is easy, but I'm not sure how accurate, as the generals spend a lot of time studying strategy -- what is not a Samurai thing. The leader of any army does not think like an infantryman, and that has been true for centuries. Japan was a successful militaristic culture, and I reckon that their generals knew a thing or two about strategy.

Yet IJA's generals were in China from 31 to 41, and with no victory in sight they decided to go after even bigger countries. How dumb is that? The usual explanation is that they didn't know the true capabilities of the USA and UK, but yet Japan was allied to both in WW1, I'm pretty confident several officers were in Europe in WW1 as liaisons and observers, so there is no way they didn't know how much men and material they could pour. Moreoever, the IJA was already strained to its maximum in China; it's not possible that the generals didn't realize that.

Add to that blatant violations against the civilian government, constant insubordination within the army (even at very high levels), rogue actions by entire army groups, lack of planning for long-term action, complete lack of industrial planning, ignoring completely logistical aspects, and more importantly, lack of any kind of realistic strategy.

It baffles me. I really don't understand how very smart, very dedicated generals behaved like Lemmings with barely any exception note. Anyone gets that at all?

[topeverest]

FBS,

Wartime decisions made in real time are rarely perfect. A backward facing analysis of any war opens many questions. That said, I dont think there ever was a chance of a non-violent government installation in Burma. Think of how violently Japan treated China, Manchuko, and Korea leading up to the Burma conquest. In the present tense and in that context, I am not sure why Japan's leadership would even consider a different approach to a 'new' puppet state. Perhaps I dont know my history well enough, but that is my impression.

[Canoerebel]

The Japanese were in a similar position to American southerners in the 1850s and early '60s.  Both groups saw themselves in a deteriorating political position - Japan on a global scale, the South on a national scale.  Both were concerned about their economies deteriorating.  Both had a strong military heritage.  And Japan also saw an opportunity to strike while Britian, and to a lesser extent American, were focused on Germany.  The Japanese knew they were stepping into it, but figured their chances would never be better.

[CaptDave]

I think there were some social factors at work. How much they contributed I don't know, but I believe their influence was not trivial.

First, the leaders truly believed that it was Japan's divine right to rule all of Asia. Nah, wars are never started over religious convictions, are they? [:)]

Second, many of their egos were on a par with that dark-haired chap with the funny mustache half a world away. They were personally incapable of admitting to the possibility of being wrong.

Third, there's the age-old concept of "face." Even without the ego issue, they had to avoid losing face, and therefore the respect of those they governed. They couldn't just go back and tell all the grieving families (and yes, they grieved) "oh, sorry, but we've decided your son/husband/brother died in vain in a war we never had any chance of wining."

[Jim D Burns]

Japan had gambled in China and it failed to pay off. So by 1941 world opinion had turned against her and when the US turned off the scrap metal and oil spigots, Japan only had two choices. Stop the war in China or try and take what they needed to keep the war effort going.

I think it was the tradition of Bushido in Japan that made them take the suicidal route. To them stopping the war in China was tantamount to surrender. So it was simply not an option for them, they had no choice but to take the plunge into world war because their culture blinded them to any other option.

It’s easy for us to look back now and question the logic or insanity of their decision. But you have to remember it was their culture. There was no question to them that giving up in China wasn’t an option. They couldn’t possibly have seen the insanity of their decision to expand the war the way we see it today.

I liken it to the Islamic terrorists today. Their religion and societal culture teaches them it is ok to kill non-believers. So they’ll never see a rational solution to their problems. The fact that Saturday afternoon cartoons in the Middle East glorify suicide bombings and teaches their children to hate is a stark example of what I mean by being blinded by your own culture.

Jim

[Grit]

In very simple terms. (I'm sort of a simple minded guy.)

Japan underestimated the resolve of the Allies. They thought they would be able to make a settlement especially when the American public saw such a high body count of dead soldiers, marines, airman, and sailors. They also didn't have much respect for the Allied fighting man.

There is no doubt the Japanese soldier was an incredibly tenacious fighter. But they were overwhelmed by a much better led, supplied, and technologically advanced foe.

Lastly, I think they just tried to take too much. They were overextended and couldn't hold what they took. It was a major effort for the Allies to supply their troops. How did Japan expect to supply all their troops? While at the same time supplying the homeland.

[chesmart]

The Japanese army and navy were planning for war from the mid 1920s when USA passed a bill that stopped emigration from japan. They always planned for a short war in which they would fight a decisive battle. They knew they could not win but they planned to fight 2 year war in which t hey will fight a decisive battle a la Tsushima and then USA would sue for peace. The Japanese navy at first opposed these plans as they knew it was crazy but in in the late 30s the hawks took over and they pushed as much as the army for war. I think the problem with the Japanese is that after beating Russia they thought they could do the same thing to the allies especially as they were fighting Germany and at that time Germany was winning so they saw a window of opportunity which they could take. looking at it in 20/20 hindsight it looks crazy but at that time it was the best chance they had. I would recommend to read Kaigun as it shows what was going behind the curtains in japan especially the infighting between the navy and army for the scarce budget resources.

[P.Hausser]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

So they’ll never see a rational solution to their problems. The fact that Saturday afternoon cartoons in the Middle East glorify suicide bombings and teaches their children to hate is a stark example of what I mean by being blinded by your own culture.

Jim

Jim , It goes both ways.
Culture learns you a lot of strange things,

Just as an example, I can say that I have a co-worker, and he is actually from Louisiana. He is a Socialist, and say that he moved from the US because of this kind of things.


Few takes the time to research things, and thus fail to come up with their own independent opinions.
The same probably applies to Islamic fundamentalists.

We are all indoctrinated, we just don't know it.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser
Just as an example, I can say that I have a co-worker, and he is actually from Louisiana. He is a Socialist, and say that he moved from the US because of this kind of things.

We are all indoctrinated, we just don't know it.

The reason a lot of people hate socialism and communism today isn’t because people are indoctrinated into being against it, though I guess it’s what communists like to tell themselves is the reason. It’s because it makes the government all powerful over the people. That sets the stage for violent leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. to come in a wreak havoc.

If history ever taught anyone anything, it is never trust a government or any other organization that gives someone total power over masses of people. Governments are just as corrupt and likely to kill as religions are. And in the past 100 years or so, socialism and communism have killed far more people than all the worlds religions combined.

Jim

[crsutton]

Yes, I do.

[P.Hausser]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The reason a lot of people hate socialism and communism today isn’t because people are indoctrinated into being against it, though I guess it’s what communists like to tell themselves is the reason. It’s because it makes the government all powerful over the people. That sets the stage for violent leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. to come in a wreak havoc.

If history ever taught anyone anything, it is never trust a government or any other organization that gives someone total power over masses of people. Governments are just as corrupt and likely to kill as religions are. And in the past 100 years or so, socialism and communism have killed far more people than all the worlds religions combined.

Jim

Sure, I agree with you in that.
But now you seem a little indoctrinated [;)]

There are many forms for socialism, and several are very successfully states,
Ie. 8 of the 10 most developed nations in the world are democratic states based on socialistic values, Google HDI 2009 for the list.

This was just some examples of course, but I wanted to point out for you that things are not black or white,
in this nations the Governments are no less democratic then in the US, they do often own cooperations (domestic or international) but on the same time corruption and prices are often among the lowest in the world, so is crime and on the same time purchasing power pr average family is among the highest.. freedom is at least as high in this nations as in the US.. you get my point.


So, when I now with a little smile called you Indoctrinated, I referred to your ability of differentiating between Anarcho-pacifism, Left anarchism, Anarcho-primitivism, Green Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Social Conservative, Social Democrat, Social Liberal, Market Liberal and so on... and after a few more pages of political ideology's we end up at Conservative Republican... and then after a few more pages of ideology's and we reach Communism.

It's not as simple as you put it above.
Its not black or white.. - Its not The Republican party or Mao Zedong.



This is probablly the wrong plase for this, we should get back to topic.

[Jim D Burns]

You missed my meaning. It’s not the level of socialism that matters. It’s the power granted to the government over the people Socialism needs to work. So your statement should have said it’s not Mao Zedong… yet. The system is in place for a Mao to rise in most socialist states, and the steps he’d need to take to take permanent control would be far fewer than what Chavez had to take to grab power in Venezuela.

Socialism has worked in Europe only due to the US welfare program which subsidizes Europe’s defense. Were it not for the fact the US military paid for a huge portion of Europe’s defense over the past 60 years or so, I doubt Europe would be as socialist as it is today.

Were the US to pull out tomorrow, Europe would find itself hard pressed to come up with funding to adequately protect itself. Something would have to give.

So Europe can thank good old fashioned American Capitalism and its profits for its socialist utopia. And given the crazy spending our government here is going through right now, I suspect you’ll see the US leaving very soon as we run out of cash to pay our own bills back home.

Jim

[wdolson]

Germany, Japan, and to some extent Italy were all driven by blind ideology.  Each culture had a different ideology, but they all had extreme and absolute ones.  When they had initial successes, the leaders congratulated themselves on the power of their ideologies over other nations' weaker ideals.  Japan had the Code of Bushido and Germany the Aryan Race mythos.

When the war turned against them, they got even more fanatical in their ideals with the wishful thinking that purer ideals will turn the tide back their way.  In their minds it was the ideology, not poor Allies preparation that led to the early war victories.

Sometimes ideologues win wars, but usually only short ones.  Longer wars are always won by realists.

Bill

[Rainer]

Wrong discussion in the wrong place.
Stop that.
This forum is not the place to advertise right wing views or any other political view.
Read the forum rules if you don't understand.

[DeriKuk]

When it comes to military [and industrial] strategy, it's a miracle that anything gets done. Things usually get done despite the strategy - not because of it. The victors end up in a position that allows them to sweep their scandals and incompetence under the rugs, while the vanquished sit around and rationalize their screw-ups . . . and eventually come to some mythical explanation that soothes their cognitive dissonance. It takes a few more generations of historians to peel away the layers of B-S, and then many of them have to face the scornful accusation of "revisionist". [8|]

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The reason a lot of people hate socialism and communism today isn’t because people are indoctrinated into being against it, though I guess it’s what communists like to tell themselves is the reason. It’s because it makes the government all powerful over the people. That sets the stage for violent leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. to come in a wreak havoc.

If history ever taught anyone anything, it is never trust a government or any other organization that gives someone total power over masses of people. Governments are just as corrupt and likely to kill as religions are. And in the past 100 years or so, socialism and communism have killed far more people than all the worlds religions combined.

Jim

Sure, I agree with you in that.
But now you seem a little indoctrinated [;)]

There are many forms for socialism, and several are very successfully states,
Ie. 8 of the 10 most developed nations in the world are democratic states based on socialistic values, Google HDI 2009 for the list.

This was just some examples of course, but I wanted to point out for you that things are not black or white,
in this nations the Governments are no less democratic then in the US, they do often own cooperations (domestic or international) but on the same time corruption and prices are often among the lowest in the world, so is crime and on the same time purchasing power pr average family is among the highest.. freedom is at least as high in this nations as in the US.. you get my point.


So, when I now with a little smile called you Indoctrinated, I referred to your ability of differentiating between Anarcho-pacifism, Left anarchism, Anarcho-primitivism, Green Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Social Conservative, Social Democrat, Social Liberal, Market Liberal and so on... and after a few more pages of political ideology's we end up at Conservative Republican... and then after a few more pages of ideology's and we reach Communism.

It's not as simple as you put it above.
Its not black or white.. - Its not The Republican party or Mao Zedong.



This is probablly the wrong plase for this, we should get back to topic.

The notion that everybody is "indoctrinated" is very self-serving. Do you say that because that is what you have been indoctrinated to say? Is it possible to form one's own opinion if, as you say, everyone is indoctrinated? How do we tell the difference between an indoctrinated belief and a self-formed opinion? You say Jim is "indoctrinated". Is that what you have been indoctrinated to say, or is this just something you say when you want to dismiss opinions you don't like? Is it possible to form one's own opinion that agrees with what one was "indoctrinated" to believe? Your statement reminds me of the sort of illogical thing we sometimes hear from the left, such as "It is true that there is no such thing as truth". Of course, if you disagree with me it's just because you are repeating what you have been indoctrinated to say.[;)]

[Dili]

IJA's generals

This is the problem with games and this game tries to deal with it from distance with political points. IJA generals were not monolithic and even less were part of a Umpire like we are in our games. Unfortunately there are no games that i know that make you compete for resources with next cabinet general on same side, with that we will grasp how much more parochial(in negative sense) were the things. For a better picture we need to learn how the Japanese GHQ worked, how many generals drove its policy, career changes , how many competing theories, it's age, were they men with 40-50 years old or were 60.70's? Probably the IJA policy result was a set of compromises, and we know how compromises can end in something without logic. And the drive to South and against USA was more of a Navy trying to get a playground to compete with IJA playground in China.

[P.Hausser]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

You missed my meaning. It’s not the level of socialism that matters. It’s the power granted to the government over the people Socialism needs to work.

If I would like to get all my services through private insurances then I have that option, and will in that case not need to pay the level of tax that I do (27%). Effectively I can pick what system I want for my self.


About the military, I feel that military is Obsolete. Sevreal of the European nations you talk about considered to have Nuke's instead of Nato, but decided upon Nato. Without it, I think more would had Nukes instead, fairly cheap to maintain and very effective.

Small nations only need some Nukes, and a small military force.
Large scale military combat is obsolete, Nuks can defend you.

[Cyber Me]

Yamamoto was against a war with the USA and opened showed his disapproval of the Triparite Pact of 1940. While he was Deputy Navy Minister he apologized to the USA for the sinking of the USS Panay in Dec 1937. He receieved so many death threats and hate mail that he was forced to take command of a ship to avoid being assassinated. But with the UK and USSR committed in their war with Germany the Japanese thought they saw a window to success. But their failure to declare war before the surprise attack probably was Japan's biggest mistake as it committed USA and UK on a road for revenge and unwilling to negotiate.
(Today- 18th April is the anniversary of Operation Vengeance- the attack of Yamamoto's Betty by P38s and his death.

[Q-Ball]

Radicalized IJA generals were a factor, but certainly not the only one, and even the Army had a peace faction. The real movers and shakers in Japan were the Army and Navy, but neither would have gone to war without the consent of the Emperor, who though not active in politics could have stopped it if he chose to.

Japanese politics and decision making in the 30s and 40s was very complicated.

PS: Jim Burns and Hauser, stop your discussion, does not belong on this forum