What were the reasons for Japan losing WWII???

[Habsburg]

In WW II I have noticed that the US beat the heck out of Japan and ended up boming them since they wuldn't surrender.

In a detailed (not brief) response why and how did Japan lose?
Did the U.S. forces always outnumber Jp. forces?
Did the the U.S. have better weapons and/or technology?

Also, I heard the U.S. took no Japanese prisoners during the war, Is that true?



Sinc.

Maximiliano

 

[Tetsu]

In WW II I have noticed that the US beat the heck out of Japan and ended up boming them since they wuldn't surrender.

In a detailed (not brief) response why and how did Japan lose?
Did the U.S. forces always outnumber Jp. forces?
Did the the U.S. have better weapons and/or technology?

Also, I heard the U.S. took no Japanese prisoners during the war, Is that true?



Sinc.

Maximiliano

In a word; economics. The Pacific War was INCREDIBLY one-sided. The USA had nearly twice Japan's population, 17 times their national income, five times more steel production, and seven times the coal production. Of all of the WW2 combatants, the USA was #1 in warmaking potential, with 42%. Germany was second, with only 14%. Japan was second to last, right above Italy, with 3%.

In almost every industry, the USA beat Japan tenfold. For example, airplane production- from 1939, the United States built 324,000. Japan built only 76,000.

Really, Japan's only way to win the Pacific War is to not fight in it. The United States would NEVER surrender to Japan, and it probably wouldn't have even accepted a conditional surrender from Japan, not after Pearl Harbor. I honestly don't know how the Japanese officials were able to rationalize a war with the USA; they weren't stupid.

I suppose they thought that the USA would cry and complain about it's initial defeats by Japan, but the opposite happened- the giant woke up and threw all of its overwhelming weight and power right at the Japanese. After that had happened, nothing could save the Japanese. Even an overwhelming Japanese victory at Midway would not have mattered in the long run; if we lost, say, three carriers, and the Japanese lost none (an incredibly unlikely scenario, considering our incredible surprise advantage), we would have broken even in carrier production by the middle of 1943.

In short, Japan had absolutely no chance to defeat the USA, due to lack of resources and a plain lack of economic power.

Japan may have had better equipment (they really didn't, though), but it wouldn't have mattered; they wouldn't have been able to manufacture it well enough. And yes, the USA always outnumbered the Japanese in population and military forces. (Also, I don't know where you heard that, but we did take Japanese prisoners. We just didn't treat them well, because the Japanese didn't treat ours well.)

 

[JLCook]

The reason why japan Lost??

Simple!

The State of California had a HIGHER GNP than did all of Japan, and factoring in the rest of the United States, the Japanese had no chance at all.

Japanese naval power was very real. They had a good fleet, with powerful carriers, cruisers, battleships, etc. What they couldn't do was build enough of them! Likewise with their aircraft! The Zero, Kate, Val, Betty etc were also very capable when introduced, but Japan couldn't produce the 50,000 or so of them that they'd have needed!

It is a fact, that US Naval production was such that had the IJN succeded in sinking all of America's carriers, and permenantly diabled everything in Pearl Harbor, by the end of 1942, say around November or December, the USN would be back, confronting the IJN with a BRAND NEW NAVY, that was in fact larger than theirs!

And the United States was able to do this, all the while waging a war against Germany at the same time! Consider: During WWI and for nearly every other power during WWII, naval construction of CAPITAL warships tended to cease! Destroyers and cargo ships yes, but battleships and carriers didn't see much construction. Except in US yards, during WWII! The US was able to build anything it wanted, faster than just about anyone else could even think about it! And in vast quantities!

The United States Navy, that existed, on this date, August 11, in 1945, was in fact the most powerful naval force ever assembled, anywhere, by anyone, and it outnumbered it's next nearest rival (the Royal Navy) by a vast, vast margin. The USN of August, 1945 had in fact, NO RIVALS of any kind, whatsoever! And most of that navy was less than two years old! Japan had no chance! Isoroku Yammamoto was absolutely correct!

 

[DMS]

No on the prisoners.

Japan had the larger and better carrier fleet in 1941. Better planes, better pilots, better training. The Japanese aim was to force the US to the bargaining table with a string of early victories on this basis. That became impossible when they failed to deliver the declaration of war before attacking Pearl Harbor.

The US was able to turn the tide quickly at Midway primarily because the Japanese thought we only had one carrier available. Over time, however, the difference in shipbuilding capacities would have led to the same outcome. For example, there is generally considered to be a lull in the naval war from late 1942, when the outcome of the war was still uncertain, to mid 1944, when it certainly wasn't, as the US began amphibious operations to recapture bases lost in the first six months after Pearl Harbor ("island-hopping"). In that period, Japan launched 1 CV, 5 CVL, and 2 CVE. The US launched 12 CV, 9 CVL, and 50 CVE. Game over.

 

[gtrof]

In WW II I have noticed that the US beat the heck out of Japan and ended up boming them since they wuldn't surrender.

In a detailed (not brief) response why and how did Japan lose?

I give the main reason for Japanese defeat was the following.

1. lack of supplies, Japan imported nearly everything espicaly Oil. The need for raw resources was the primary reason for going to War in 1941. Once they had the majority of these resources secured they needed to ship them to Japan. These log lines of supplies were quite succable to US subs and airpower. Japan never had a real convoy system like the UK and US did in the Atlantic. So US subs were able to kill the majority of the Japanese supply fleet.

2. US production, the US armed the allied forces of WWII. Japan could never match the production power of the United States. Although I don't know Japanese aircarft production numbers the US was able to produce 100,000 airplanes in one year. Not to metion Tanks, guns, ammo and ships. The US went from 3 carriers to 36 in four years. Japan never reached above 20 for the number of its carriers.

3. Japan's overconfidence, Japan showed a history of thinking they would out match the Americans at every battle. Japan believed the US would give in at Pearl harbor and give ammo to the Isolationist. Or that the US fleet would take so long to rebuild it wouldn't brake through the japanese defenses in the Pacfic. Japan misgussed their enemies reactions. Such as the US rallying after Pearl harbor. Then at Midway the Americans would do what their intelligence predicted. What if the Americans had a differnt idea? Even as the battle for Japan loomed. After the huge casulites at Okinoana and Hiroshima that American could handel the casulities suffered in an invasion and that world opinion would keep the US from dropping the A-Bomb again.

Did the U.S. forces always outnumber Jp. forces?

Not quite. Although I don't have numbers if you put Army against Army the Japanese had more troops due to occupation forces in China, Korea and Manchuria. Even with the peding US invasion of the home islands in 45 the majority of the Japanese Army was in Asia.

Did the the U.S. have better weapons and/or technology?

At first no. The AM6 Zero was far supierior to the P-40 in 1941. But as the war progressed Japanese aircarft Naval and Air Force were out classed by new US fighters like the P-51 and Corsiar. US used radar, submarines and Naval power more effectivly then Japan.

Also, I heard the U.S. took no Japanese prisoners during the war, Is that true?

Japanese troops took sucide or sucidal attacks before surrender. The bonzi charges against dug in US troops and kamakizes are the main showing of this. Japanese prisoners were taken. One of the midigt sub commanders at Pearl Harbor abandonded his sub and then was captured as he came ashore. He was US POW 001. I don't think that it reached the numbers of Germans or other Axis memebers taken.

 

[panzerjay]

why Japan lose?

simple. they tried to refight the last big war. the russo-japanese war.

a cardinal sin

 

[Derek Jackson]

I have also heard the claim that the ability of US submarines to devastate Japanese cargo ships and especially tankers was very important

 

[knightyknight]

I'm surprise anybody even replied to this guy. Should of just let him do his own research for his homework, instead of doing it for him... especially on an alternate history board.

 

[Valamyr]

I'm surprise anybody even replied to this guy. Should of just let him do his own research for his homework, instead of doing it for him... especially on an alternate history board.

Meh, whats the problem, we're supposed to be elitist about history knowledge now? Its great that people want to learn, really, there are too many misconceptions and errors. Some people couldnt even tell you if Japan was on the Axis side or not nowadays.

Frankly, im all in favor of seeing more people who want to learn, and less who think they already know everything. Especially on an alternate history board.

 

[Fiji]

I have also heard the claim that the ability of US submarines to devastate Japanese cargo ships and especially tankers was very important

yep, both sides were ignorent as to the power of submarines and both sides were very surprised by the number of kills the subs scored.

Had the US payed any attention to their sub force (or rather the attention it deserved) they wouldn't have fought half the war with defective torpedos.

as for the quality question, Japan indeed started out with higher quality in just about everything, but gradualy, the US overtook them.
Japaneese carriers never had decent damage control, the US carriers did (fe)
I think the only advantage the Japaneese had at the end was flahless gunpowder ... which is an asset in surface fights with a submarine but of little use otherwise.

In fact, the quality angle even hurt the Japaneese. They saw their pilots as elite and training was set up along those lines with only the very best being allowed to even start training.
In the US, pilots were seen as glorified busdrivers and pilots were trained by the truckload.
Japan never could replace it losses while the US had no such problems.

 

[Habsburg]

Thanks everyone.

Die Abbot

 

[Brilliantlight]

In fact, the quality angle even hurt the Japaneese. They saw their pilots as elite and training was set up along those lines with only the very best being allowed to even start training.

At the begining of the war, yes. The end of the war was even worse, they put up pilots with almost no training against seasoned veterans with better planes! Of course they had no other choice then to do that if they wanted to keep fighting.

 

[Kaiser]

Should of just let him do his own research

Why "should of" instead of "should have"?

 

[Leo Caesius]

Why "should of" instead of "should have"?

It's an Americanism. That's more or less how it's pronounced here in the States.

 

[Kaiser]

It's an Americanism. That's more or less how it's pronounced here in the States.

But isn't the spelling false?

 

[htgriffin]

Really, Japan's only way to win the Pacific War is to not fight in it. The United States would NEVER surrender to Japan, and it probably wouldn't have even accepted a conditional surrender from Japan, not after Pearl Harbor. I honestly don't know how the Japanese officials were able to rationalize a war with the USA; they weren't stupid.

I suppose they thought that the USA would cry and complain about it's initial defeats by Japan,

That was pretty much the reasoning. Admiral Yamamoto _planned_ the attack on Pearl Harbor and he initially told his superiors (to paraphrase) 'Look, we're outnumbered and outmuscled by these guys, and they don't have an enemy close at hand to worry about. Concentrate on picking off Euro colonies and maybe pull back in China'

His Superiors said 'So what, we have more spirit. Do it anyway.'

When it was clear that he did not take out the carriers Yamamoto knew Japan had lost. Frankly even if the Carrier Fleet went down anything resembling victory would have required a prompt offer to hand the Phillipines back and leave the U.S. strictly alone in return for a free hand in the Pacific... and even that is chancy.

HTG

 

[Grey Wolf]

But isn't the spelling false?

Yes its a contraction of should've, which of course is should have

Kids especially find this confusing because it SOUNDS like should of so they spell it that way

I was not aware that adults still continued with this error in the knowledge that it was wrong, though

Grey Wolf

 

[Kaiser]

Ah, thank you!

 

[Redbeard]

I think one very important factor need to be added: a serious miscalculation of US resolve when stepped so seriously over the toes.

Seen from before PH USA could appear like a nation that would do anything to avoid getting involed in messy wars abroad. So removing their practical means of waging war here and now (the Pacific Fleet) would most likely have them give up doing more about it. If Japan just had attacked European possessions and left it to the Americans to declare war, The Americans agreeing on somekind of armistice could very well have been the case, after some months of "phoney war". But with attacking PH and sinking so many of the highly prestigeous battleships in a "sneaky" attack, the Americans were provoked too much to ever give up.

But when that is said you can wonder why the Americans were surprised by Japan attacking, the Japanese were thoroughly cornered and should not be expected to just give up. But apparently the Americans made the classical intellingence error - they focussed on what the thought the enemy would do (Phillippine Islands) and did not go deep into studying what he could do (PH) - and I don't believe there was somekind of conspiracy!

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[wkwillis]

The Japanese were short of resources, specifically oil, cargo shipping, specifically tankers, industry, specifically aluminum for aircraft, and technology, specifically electronics, and science, specifically nucleonics..
If they had found the Daqing oil field in Manchuria they could have got on without the oil they imported from the US on US tankers. They wouldn't have needed the tankers, either. The oil would have gone by rail or pipeline to the coast, and over a short hop to Japan, proper.
If they had avoided fighting China after 1931 they could have built up a big electronics industry with the money they would have saved. China ate a lot of soldiers and money. A Japan with radar, proximity fuses, gun laying computers, and cyphering computers is a Japan that could kick ass.
As far as aluminum goes, they would have had to shift to the carbochloride process instead of the bauxite process everyone uses because it is so much cheaper. Incidentally, the carbochloride process also is usefull if you want to produce uranium.
Which leads to the last deficit. You need scientists to tell you what to work on next. Engineers are not enough.