Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 15161718192021222324252627282930313233 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 519

Thread: Fall of France

  1. #346
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Toby, do you have any substantive arguments to make?
    'Substantive' doesn't work either when it doesn't fit in with the agenda....I've tried varying degrees of intelligent comment and I'm either met with silence or ridicule. Which is fine by me because I have thicker skin than most.
    I'm either in a vacuum of academics, void of humour or there is a narrative agenda..Coz like I can produce all the same stats you can only maybe due to blood or maybe you'd like to call it ignorance I choose to have a laugh and a devils advocate approach along the way. I'm just alot more honest and up front than any of you that I've met so far. Apart from Tankie and I'm not sure he's who he says he is either. That answer your question sir?

  2. #347
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    'Substantive' doesn't work either when it doesn't fit in with the agenda....I've tried varying degrees of intelligent comment and I'm either met with silence or ridicule. Which is fine by me because I have thicker skin than most.
    I'm either in a vacuum of academics, void of humour or there is a narrative agenda..Coz like I can produce all the same stats you can only maybe due to blood or maybe you'd like to call it ignorance I choose to have a laugh and a devils advocate approach along the way. I'm just alot more honest and up front than any of you that I've met so far. Apart from Tankie and I'm not sure he's who he says he is either. That answer your question sir?
    Thus far you've only made comments that betray a shallow, lightweight, superficial knowledge, combined with layman assumptions regarding the subject matter being debated, which is painfully obvious to everyone participating in the discussion here. When this has been pointed out, you think it's personal.

  3. #348
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Thus far you've only made comments that betray a shallow, lightweight, superficial knowledge, combined with layman assumptions regarding the subject matter being debated, which is painfully obvious to everyone participating in the discussion here. When this has been pointed out, you think it's personal.
    more of the psychological angle ..interesting! By the way the title is the 'Fall of France' something which the US didn't help prevent and in fact aided in.

  4. #349
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    more of the psychological angle ..interesting! By the way the title is the 'Fall of France' something which the US didn't help prevent and in fact aided in.
    You should exit this thread. You're out of your depth, you're incapable of realizing it, and you're just resorting to some troll act.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 25 Jan 18, at 21:09.

  5. #350
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    You should exit this thread. You're out of your depth, you're incapable of realizing it, and you're just resorting to some troll act.
    Oh I'm going, this is my goodbye. Maybe you should do similar. Bye Dear!

  6. #351
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Thus far you've only made comments that betray a shallow, lightweight, superficial knowledge, combined with layman assumptions regarding the subject matter being debated, which is painfully obvious to everyone participating in the discussion here. When this has been pointed out, you think it's personal.
    I miss the 'like' function.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  7. #352
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    977
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    First, I reject the premise. Japan tried for Mongolia first. They did not double down on Changsha until they had a non-agression pact with the Soviets that closed off that avenue.
    Actually, it was the Chinese who stopped the Northern Strategy. The 1939-40 Winter Offensive forced the IJA to committ 800,000+ troops against a 500,000+ strong NRA force. From that point on, the IJA could not afford to weaken their strong points against the NRA. Even when the IJA reduced their units for defence against the US, it was never in the south nor central China but from the Kwantang Army facing a Neutral Pact Red Army.

    There's no bribe big enough for the Japanese to commit to a march north in 1941, even a border war, not without risking a general NRA offensive.

  8. #353
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    977
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    The larger the scale & the more room to move the bigger the problems. Thus even Chinese armies proved capable of beating them despite the many & varied problems that nation faced. Every time I think about what the Red Army would do to an IJA that could still be bested in battle by NRA forces I truly shudder.
    Now that I thought about it, the Japanese actually never had a strategy in China. To put it bluntly, doing what they were doing in China was never going to win them the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. I think they were counting on a KMT collapse after the Nanking Massacres but instead it pissed off the Chinese. The IJA had control of the railways and the major cities but the NRA had control of everywhere else. The IJA was never able to draw the NRA into a battle of annhilation because 1) - The IJA don't know squat about surrounding an enemy that refused to be surrounded and 2) - The NRA had replacement armies. The NRA had more depth than the IJA could handle and ironically, The Op ICHI-GO vicoty made the IJA weaker by spreading themselves so thin.

    So, right now, it dawned on me to ask, what the hell were they thinking in attacking China?

  9. #354
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,809
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    So, right now, it dawned on me to ask, what the hell were they thinking in attacking China?
    I think the formation of the Second United Front in 1936 was the most direct reason. At that point China was no longer acquiescing to Japan, so the Japanese decided to move in and finish it and settle the matter once and for all. Having seen nothing but success in the wars and conquests the previous 43 years, they had basically the same mindset in 1937 as Hitler came to have after his successful Western campaigns in 1939-40.

    Japan also never had a WWI, at least not in the sense the Europeans did, their role in the war was tangential and they didn't have the experience of years of costly, drawn out war. They never learned or took into consideration the lessons from the wars on the WWI Western and Eastern fronts.

    It may be the case that they perceived the Second United Front as a threat, latent or otherwise, to their continued control over Manchuria, and once they decided to strike at China, mission creep began to set in.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 26 Jan 18, at 06:13.

  10. #355
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    977
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    It may be the case that they perceived the Second United Front as a threat, latent or otherwise, to their continued control over Manchuria, and once they decided to strike at China, mission creep began to set in.
    And this made Pearl Harbour even more astounding. The lost the 1941 2nd Battle at Changsha just weeks before Pearl Harbour and the whole reason for doing Pearl Harbour was to keep fighting in China. Even when oil was flowing freely before the US embargo, they were already stalemated in China and the Dutch East Indies was never going to replace American oil.

    I'm trying to wrap my head around their level of thinking but even including Japanese racist attitudes, the Chinese already proven they could not be knocked out. The 2nd Sino-Japanese War was unwinnable by Japan no matter what she do. So, why attack Pearl?

  11. #356
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,446
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    So, right now, it dawned on me to ask, what the hell were they thinking in attacking China?
    A very good question. Given Japan's domination of northern China by 1937 it doesn't seem necessary to secure the Empire. Perhaps that wasn't how it seemed in Japan. I wonder what role internal politics & inter service rivalries played. Maybe they saw ongoing Chinese resistance as a more serious issue than it really was. Ironduke seems to be on to something. I am particularly drawn to 'mission creep'. Imperialism can develop a logic all its own. The temptation to keep shifting the border until you hit an obstacle you can't shift is a recurring theme - think about the scramble for Africa or the British in Afghanistan.

    The foolishness of that decision goes far beyond the problems of dealing with the KMT. Absent the full scale invasion of China it is much harder to imagine the escalating conflict with the US that led to the oil embargo. Does that mean no Japanese invasion of Sth East Asia? Part of me says it might. Part of me can't see the Imperial government & the IJA just sitting by while the European colonies are unguarded. However, the whole dynamic of that decision changes without a deeper war in China. It certainly isn't as obvious a step, and the risks of sparking a war with the US might be calculated differently if defending conquest in China isn't a consideration.

    Butterfly's wings indeed.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  12. #357
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,809
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    And this made Pearl Harbour even more astounding. The lost the 1941 2nd Battle at Changsha just weeks before Pearl Harbour and the whole reason for doing Pearl Harbour was to keep fighting in China. Even when oil was flowing freely before the US embargo, they were already stalemated in China and the Dutch East Indies was never going to replace American oil.

    I'm trying to wrap my head around their level of thinking but even including Japanese racist attitudes, the Chinese already proven they could not be knocked out. The 2nd Sino-Japanese War was unwinnable by Japan no matter what she do. So, why attack Pearl?
    I'm not an expert in this subject by any means, and I'd have to think more carefully before I would even try to come up with an answer, but I think it's worth noting Tojo's words on October 14, 1941. This is three days before the end of the Konoe premiership and the start of Tojo's:

    For the past six months, ever since April, the foreign minister has made painstaking efforts to adjust relations [with the United States]. Although I respect him for that, we remain deadlocked ... The heart of the matter is the imposition on us of withdrawal from Indochina and China ... If we yield to America's demands, it will destroy the fruits of the China incident. Manchukuo will be endangered and our control of Korea undermined.
    As you said, without Manchuria and Korea there is no Japanese Empire. Because Tojo's view that these would be endangered as a result of a withdrawal from China, this seems to be a probable basis for Tojo continuing the Japanese war in China.

    Konoe, for his part, did want to withdraw from China by 1940 (excepting Manchuria). I believe he recruited Tojo as Minister of War to bring the Army around to his views on coming up with an exit strategy. I really don't know whether what Konoe was trying to do was relevant or meaningful in any kind of way in the first place though, as the Japanese military was a state within a state, independent from the civilian government.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 26 Jan 18, at 11:27.

  13. #358
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,576
    The foolishness of that decision goes far beyond the problems of dealing with the KMT. Absent the full scale invasion of China it is much harder to imagine the escalating conflict with the US that led to the oil embargo. Does that mean no Japanese invasion of Sth East Asia? Part of me says it might. Part of me can't see the Imperial government & the IJA just sitting by while the European colonies are unguarded. However, the whole dynamic of that decision changes without a deeper war in China. It certainly isn't as obvious a step, and the risks of sparking a war with the US might be calculated differently if defending conquest in China isn't a consideration.
    OTOH, the US wasn't going to declare war on Japan to save European colonies, either.

    i think it's important to note here that absent ONE admiral, everyone else in a position of power thought the US would sue for terms within a few months of Pearl, if not right afterwards. so in one fell stroke, they would not only guarantee the US stay out of its way, but to start selling Japan oil again.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  14. #359
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,576
    btw it's also important to remember the insane Japanese inter-service rivalry at this time-- made the US look like joint warfare experts in comparison.

    IJA struggles in China was GREAT propaganda for the IJN in their budget wars; IJN argued they could bring decisive strategic results while the IJA continued to muck around in China.

    which the IJN did, just not the way they envisioned.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  15. #360
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,446
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    OTOH, the US wasn't going to declare war on Japan to save European colonies, either.

    i think it's important to note here that absent ONE admiral, everyone else in a position of power thought the US would sue for terms within a few months of Pearl, if not right afterwards. so in one fell stroke, they would not only guarantee the US stay out of its way, but to start selling Japan oil again.
    That makes the decision to invade China look even more foolish in hindsight, if the US would have been prepared to stand by while Japan grabbed those colonies. If japan was really smart it could have just taken Indochina & the DEI and leave British colonies alone. That would secure an awful lot of oil & other resources, give Japan control of vital trade routes, a presence in the Indian ocean & 5 years to settle in while Europe beat itself up. Come 1945 France & the Netherlands could jump up and down all they want, nobody is going to dislodge Japan. With those resources & relative peace Japan can really build up that industrial base, increase the size of the IJN and work on modernizing the IJA.

    This is starting to sound as stupid as Italy declaring war on France & Britain.

    Here is another thought. If Japan isn't attracting all manner of unwanted attention from the US & if tensions in the Pacific aren't as high as they were before Japan & the US went to war, does the US end up at war in Europe? Do Japan & Germany become notional allies? Does Hitler declare war on the US? Is Roosevelt able to get the US into the war in Europe if he doesn't?


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 21 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 21 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Fall of Pelosi?
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 22:15
  2. The Fall Of Rome?
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 26 May 06,, 02:47
  3. The Fall of Communism
    By Leader in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26 Jul 05,, 10:40
  4. The fall of France
    By tarek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Sep 04,, 23:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •