How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of hindsight?

[LoBaron]

The US granted a plan to increase the 5-3-3 ratio in major combatants to 10-5-3 (US-UK-IJN) in 1944 a couple of months
before the war started. (could be that I´m wrong on the latter numbers, I´m at work now so cannot take a look).

Restrictions were already put on Japanese economy as early as 1939, which at that time already relied heavily on imports (IIRC they had to import about
80% of tungsten, rubber and oil from areas such as the DEI´s and the US - at least before the trade embargo was in effect because of
their China adventure).
The US condition for reentering a trade agreement with Japan was retreat to their pre-1937 borders which was deemed unacceptable.
The close distance to the Phillippines which had the potential of growing into a US military bastion soon was a threat to any southern expansion.

It is plausable that they decided to strike now, not later, and to eliminate the US Pac Fleet as a militarey threat even though there were always doubts that
a sustained war could be won. The outlook to try something similar later would have looked even bleaker.

All in all Japan was a country just recently emerging as an industrialized nation but acting like a major power, with many social and economical elements still not far away
from a middle age rural society. Their economy could not sutain their population.
Happened often enough in history that such factors combined ended in war.

[LoBaron]

Btw Schatten, they DID attack Russia. And all they got was a bloody nose.

[Schatten]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Btw Schatten, they DID attack Russia. And all they got was a bloody nose.

yep, years bevore and alone so Russia was able to throw everything at them.
nothing to compare with 1941 as Russia was at the end (Russia´s counterattack early 1942 was performed mainly by the forces they have took from far east after the Japanese attack as they have known now they safe from this side...their west army was at this point nearly completly destroyed).

and Philpines were of course a threat but as long there was no War not more....there was no need for this attack it, the whole plan was a epic failure.
If they have tried it with negotations and the tactic against the dutch colonies as i have wrote above they would gain nearly all they have want without big fight if any.

anyway as said its past now...but in germany we say too *if you have such allies as we have had you need no enemy*...this both for WWI and II^^

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Schatten

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Btw Schatten, they DID attack Russia. And all they got was a bloody nose.

yep, years before and alone so Russia was able to throw everything at them.

Yet both times the Japanese "tried" the Russians before WW II, it was the local Soviet Garrison forces that kicked their teeth in. If the Japs could have somehow arranged to fight the Russians in the Jungles of SE Asia they might have had a chance. On the barren hills and plains of Manchuria the Soviet armor and artillery superiority made the IJA so much "dogmeat"...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Btw Schatten, they DID attack Russia. And all they got was a bloody nose.

In terms of Operational objective yes. They however gave as good as they got in terms of casualties despite the material advantage of Russian armor and arty. However even the Japanese themselves had to conceed that they lost the battle based on the fact that the Russians held the contested ground at the close of hostilities.

[Alfred]

Let us not downplay too much the Soviet performance. By the tine of the second confrontation in 1939, the Soviet purge had arrived in the Far East.

Alfred

[Nikademus]

I wasn't.