I should add again that the guys at the sharp end didn't know this at all. The news was bad followed by bad for the first few months, and they'd have taken the idea that "we'll whip japan!" as propaganda, particularly given the to the last man nature of japanese fighting.

That the end game was certain can not be in doubt, but that doesn't factor the COST to reach that end.

Again you're looking at this through the advantage of hindsight where any bet, regardless of odds is a sure one. What i'm saying is that no conflict can be certain until it's over.

There is just too much that can go wrong and has gone wrong in other conflicts for any thinking man to believe victory is ever assured until the last bullet has been fired.

On the contrary, the prudent leader wins before the conflict has ever been fought. Sun-Tzu said as much in The Art of War, and his maxims hold true even today. War, or at least offensive war, is more the result of inadequate thinking than anything else. It's what happens when you screw up and give the enemy a fighting chance or a reason to fight, either through misplacement of tactical or strategic assets, or through political misguidance.

There is absolutely no reason why the US could not have secured its interests in the Pacific through purely diplomatic means. The sharper minds in the Japanese Army and Navy knew this before the war ever started. Even Hirohito himself saw the inevitable consequences of attacking America. This is where we diverge from the realm of military thinking into the realm of politics. FDR engineered a war with Japan, plain and simple. He left them with no other recourse by asking for completely unacceptable terms (in Japnese foreign policy and trade agreements) and then raising the bar when the Japanese accepted. It had nothing to do with military thinking, but it had everything to do with the political will of one power-hungry anglophilic jackass. It's lie military wisdom in complete reverse; engineer a conflict where there is no need for one.

I totally agree with tater. The cost in lives to achieve a questionable end was completely unacceptable, particularly when we espouse the ideals of freedom and self-determination as being superior to collectivism. If we really believed in the superiority of our own ideology, we'd be happy to let it stand on it's own, and for the most part, it has. But that's not what FDR wanted. He wanted to build a socialist state. He had an agenda to pursue and he was willing to waste lives to achieve it. Just look at what he did! What he tried! He was an awful, awful person, period. He is the reason that it took so many hundreds of thousands of lives to achieve victory over an enemy that was never at war with us. He is the reason that we spent decades and billions upon billions of dollars fighting the same communism that he purportedly detested all the way up until, what, Dec. 1941?

I could go on and on about the reasons why Roosevelt was a lousy leader, and why the PTO was totally uneccesary, but I trust the point is made. If not, I've got three or four books on the subject, and I'll be happy to subit references for review.

I don't think the cost was totally unacceptable once the Japanese attacked at all. I do, however, think that there are no plausible scenarios where the Japanese secure a negotiated peace after PH. None.

I am not a conspiracy theorist who thinks that FDR knew about PH, I don't even think that the war was engineered by FDR. One of the primary last minute pushes was in fact an error on the part of a lower level guy in the administration (I'll look it up, but it has to do with the specifics of stopping oil and metal shipments (I have a huge library, gotta remember where I read it)).

Bottom line is that while from the Jap POV, they felt pushed, the reality is that they were "Axis" and were engaging in a war of aggression with China. That the US, and all of Europe did similar things in China doesn't matter. They could have walked away, they chose not to. As ~3% of world GDP, the answer to being backed into a corner by 50% of world GDP (more with the UK) is to BACK DOWN. Period. Anything else is insanity or suicide.

The japs elected to—in their own words—face "national death."

The japs had no capability to attack the US. The US had no need of japanese held territory to maintain the war effort. There was simply no way Japan could compete with the US. Losing Midway would have been a speed bump. By the next year, we'd still have been starting to outpace them. By 1944?

The US built more merchant shipping in the spring of 1943 than Japan built—period (starting before the war, meaning the first months of '43 put more merchies down the ways than Japan did from the early 30s til war's end).

We built nearly 800 DE/DDs. 800! Around 140 aircraft carriers! There is no plausible scenario where Japan wins. None. They thought their 2M barrels of oil would last 2 years at war... by mid 1942, they were already in deep trouble. Many IJN operations were constrained by bunker oil supplies, and the fact that if they used too much more would not be forthcoming.

Then there is the other inevitable end. Come summer 1945, the US would have still had the bomb. 2 ready in August (3d was OTW, actually), and the ability to make one per month after that.

Your entire argument is hindsight, tater. Hindsight of what we were able to produce. Hindsight of Japans capabilities. Hindsight of what Japan was not able to achieve militarily. Hindsight of the effort we were able to put forth. Hindsight of the fortitude of our allies.

None of this was proven fact in 1942.

Interesting, so, if it was America that held the 3%, and Japan holding the 50, America would have agreed to any demand made by Japan?

Have you proof?

Wow, conspiracy theories and what looks like the Japanese version of Holocaust denial. S'cuse me while i go get a bowl of popcorn ready. :haha:

Bring lots of butter...

Not to take sides - but you don't think that we had a good estimation of our shipbuilding capabilities in '42? I think we did.

Estimates fail to become reality all the time mookie, you ought to know that. I'm sorry, so far nobody has convinced me that we went into ww2 KNOWING that we would win.

You'll have to decide for yourself if the evidence is convincing enough, I'll pick up the books from storage at my dad's house tomorrow. It has transcripts of communiques sent to the Embassy in Japan specifically stating that no agreement was to be reached no matter what the terms the Japanese offered, along with a host of other evidence.

Is it really proof? No, not in the sense that Roosevelt ever claimed to be purposely trying to pick a fight, though I have a hard time comprehending any other reason for deliberately sabotaging diplomatic efforts. Viewed in the context of Roosevelt's dogged determination to get into the war, amongst other things, it isn't hard to believe, either.

Now, I'll dig up the sources (figured I'd have to, and I need to go to dad's house to borrow the digital camera, anyway, as I found some cool stuff in my great uncle's war diary I'd like to share) but be honest with me, Steve. You already know what I'm going to show you, don't you? I'm pretty sure you've done enough research on the PTO to have seen the generous pre-war terms we rejected at least a few times. I also know you've read Shattered Sword and the description of the Japanese mentality towards war with the US therein. In that case, you probably already have a definitive opinion other than "I don't know":O:, so please either back me up or make an opposing case at some point. As fun as it is to present, debate, and if need be, modify my views in an effective manner (and I mean that, no sarcasm) I'd like to just skip to the part where you just totally blow everyone away with your vast knowledge on the subject every now and again. Especially the "now" part.:DL It might save me some typing.

Then I shall make it my personal mission to prove it to you. I'll dig out some more references detailing the ridiculous superiority the Allies had in men and machines, as well as the plans they were making for the Axis defeat well before even the Yalta conference.

However, you do have something of a point. Until Germany went to war with the Soviets, it was by no means clear that the Axis would be defeated. In fact, it was the great fear of Churchill himself that the Soviets would continue to honor the nonagression pact, or even continue to exist. I have a lot of first-hand testimony and quotes from the man himself to support that. Equally interesting is how rapidly he changes positions once Germany goes to war with the Soviet Union, but I digress.

By the time the US entered the war, however, it was abundantly clear what the outcome would be. The only question was how much it would cost in lives, finances, and material to overwhelm Germany. There was a school of thought that said the Soviets were the best bet for sacrificing the millions of soldiers needed to defeat the Wehrmacht, and there was a school of thought that was hell-bent on creating Stalin's much-desired "second front" for fear of losing the Soviets as an ally A third faction wanted to save Europe form the Soviets. As it so often turns out when matters of state and military interact, the outcome was the worst of all worlds, as I'm sure you're well-aware. We somehow went in knowing we would win and managed to end up with a worse Europe than we started with. That's what happens when the mission we think we're fighting for isn't the real objective. Every war is that way.....

I'm beginning to ramble, so I'll conclude by restating the point that we knew dang well that we were going to win that war. I think you're confusing propaganda with why we were really fighting.

That is a bit of an over reach. FDR had been trying to pressure the Japanese for years to stop their war of aggression in China, an aim I don't think anyone could argue with, considering how many chinese civilians the Imperial Japanese Army had butchered.

When talking failed, the US instituted a series of economic sanctions, including ultimately, freezing all japanese assets in July 1941. This made it impossible for Japan to pay for their oil imports. This is not unusual, the US has done the same thing against Iran. Gallup polls also showed these actions had the support of 90-96 % of the US public.

The Japanese are now claiming they would have lost face if they had been forced to stop killing civilians in China. That may be, but how far is the US supposed to bend over to accomodate a tin pot dictatorship?