What made Japan think they could ever force America into peace talks during the second world war...

This. The reasoning I've read was the since the Americans decided to sanction Japan in response to their romp over their neighbors; Japanese leadership felt the Americans were not only currently unprepared for war but too weak willed to fight them.
>Japans being cheeky AF murking Chinamen and claiming mad territory in the Pacific
>Burgerland finally responds by taking their oil away.
>Japs were expecting SMACK THE JAPS day 1 instead got League of Nations pussery. Hurr durr Gaijin too scared of glorious empire!
>Pearl Harbor
>P.T.O. happens, Japs get smacked.
>Japs get smacked in kilotons.
>Modern Japan
Anyone still surprised?

This is a cultural question. Japan had a totally different value system and a different understanding of how things worled, leading them to make bad predictions.

>Japanese leadership felt the Americans were not only currently unprepared for war but too weak willed to fight them.
They were right about this though. America used Soviet tier style to win

Attached: 1527176423613.jpg (745x492, 165K)

>They took the Philippines because they needed rubber.

The rubber was nice, but really it was about securing the supply lines from the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies.

The logistical problems of attacking a country halfway across the world. They figured with Pearl Habour and the Battle of Midway that if they could cripple the American fleet they could shore up defenses/fleet and supply lines from Dutch East Indies oil enough to repel any future American attack. There's a strong possibility it could've work, if American carriers were at Pearl Harbour.

Explain on how it may have worked

BANZI!!!!!!!
KAMAKAZI!!!!!!!

They also believed in a lot of stereotypes/racial myths about the Americans being soft, effette, lazy, merchant people whose democracy and greed would make them unwilling to stomach a prolonged engagement. Honestly I can't name a conflict or competition between states where underestimating your opponent worked out to your benefit.

Literally thought word for word "War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War" was a read I picked up at a used book store by en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Dower . It was good in that it addressed the way that a holy war and racial war defined both the American perception/actions in the Pacific but equally the Japanese. They just lacked the cultural nomenclature of more visceral stuff like slap-a-jap, slant-eyed yellow monkey and so on. Instead it was we being demons and onis with a peppering of Jewish conspiracy stuff. And how despite the rhetoric with the Co-prosperity sphere the Japanese recycled the exact same paternalistic 'brown savage ape' cultural nomenclature/visuals for all the asians they were trying to 'liberate'.

But their racial views of the Gajin, and the burger gajin specifically, helped fuel their assumption we'd be willing to negotiate.

Not even close to a Soviet style system. Americans just always get super pissed off and always have when some other country comes and sticks their dick in our shit

>They also believed in a lot of stereotypes/racial myths
Japs literally feel Aussie shitposting.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 23K)

I don't know, the whole thing was a shitshow, they started a co prosperity sphere based on superiority/inferiority and just expected everyone to fall in line, and the only thing they accomplished was ironically giving Asia over to either the Americans or communists, to a point where even their populace began to consider communism.

Honestly Japan's foreign policy is more of an enigma than China's

I've watched Jap pre-war propaganda that actually used NAZI anti-Jew propaganda film excerpts to illustrate Americans. There was also a IJN film of an admiral referring to wiping the white man off the planet. The Japs are still notorious chauvinists and will say their race is superior, when they get drunk

>Honestly I can't name a conflict or competition between states where underestimating your opponent worked out to your benefit.

Its like they still haven't learned from the Genpei war.

Japan had, hands down, the best heavy cruisers in the world. A larger main battery than U.S. ships (and much larger than British ships), comparable armoring, and torpedo tubes to boot. It wasn't until the post-war Des Moines-class CA that the U.S. produced a truly superior ship, via automatic 8" guns.

Attached: IMG_3996.png (1092x2188, 102K)

>tfw I imagined a full invasion of Japan after European campaign is over
>British, French, Soviets, Anzacs, China, and the USA all invading at the same time

Attached: 700CEB88-758D-455C-91F1-DE9E8FB486B2.jpg (585x900, 247K)

That would only have delayed the buttfucking they revieved by maybe a year. By the end of the war we were shitting out so many ships we basically rebuilt the entire IJN every few months

what kind of jap revisionism is this? i need source.

If they destroyed all the carriers, America would've gravely lost or avoided the Battle of Midway. For few months after that - which was too quick for the pacific naval fleet to be rebuilt - they would've effectively projected power across Hawaii unopposed. Supply lines to Australia would be cut off and it would likely fall to Japan. Hawaii would also likely fall to Japan. By the time the pacific fleet is rebuilt and sailors trained to comparable levels, it would take at least a year or two.

Then America has a much bigger job now because Hawaii becomes an unsinkable aircraft carrier with practically infinite capacity. Neither side can strike each other with land based aircraft, but Japan has an aircraft shield a few hundred miles off the coast of Hawaii.

Its far from definite that Japan could've won, but there was a very good chance Pearl Harbour would've let to huge strategic gains that would greatly increase Japan's position at the negotiating table. The alternative was letting the US keep Pearl Harbour and continue on their naval expansion which was sucidie.

How exactly do you plan on taking Pearl Harbor? You realize the stationed garrison there was twice the size of the Japanese Okinawan force, and that they actually have enough planes, fuel, weapons and food to hold out for over a year of protracted siege?

Furthermore, the operations in the South Pacific ALREADY were stretching the Japanese logistics trains to their limits, pray do tell how you plan to support a landing of at least 100,000 troops after an 8,000 mile sail through open ocean at the very tip of your operational range, when the entire American Atlantic Fleet has been moved to block you.

Pearl being an unsinkable aircraft carriers works even more to the benefit of the Americans in this scenario.

>Hawaii becomes an unsinkable aircraft carrier

Don't need to sink them if you can starve them out.
Japan was notorious for requisitioning supplies wherever they were, even in areas where they were popular. read up on the Philippines, which the Japanese made nominally independent.

>stationed garrison there was twice the size of the Japanese Okinawan force
In his defense, early in the war Japanese forces could overcome a numerically superior foe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore

So they could capture the chain. Holding it is a far different matter.

There is no way Japan will be able to take Hawaii. The logistics problems that such an operation would present to the Japanese navy would be insurmountable. Even if they did scrape together the transports needed, the Japanese amphibious assault capability and doctrine was weak (see what happened to the Japanese on Guadalcanal).

some good reading combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

not him but singapore is not a good example. hawaii is a speck in the middle of the pacific. to take it you have to:

>sweep the US Navy away
>scrape up transports from the thinly stretched japanese shipping fleet to move necessary men and supplies
>land the force directly in the face of heavy opposition(cant bypass since theres no way to go)
>sustain the landed invading force, stretching your transport fleet even more.

it's not possible

I meant the Singapore example more of saying the Japanese could defeat a numerically superior force.

To be fair, I think even the Japanese were surprised at the success of the Singapore campaign.

No, I realize that Japan managing to land troops on Hawaii would have been a Hail Mary pass at best, and capturing it would have needed to rely more on blind luck and American command ineptitude since their forces would have been stretched.

Even then, I don't think Japan could hold the islands. And I mean that just considering the logistics, not the problems that they would face from the population of Hawaii.

One thing I will never understand, is why Japan didn't invade Russia together with Germany.
Japanese Navy and Air force was superior and Army was pretty on par with Russia.
Also, Siberia have plenty of resources.

They tried to. The Soviets actually managed to hold the Japanese back to the point where they decided not to bother invading.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

The ability of the Soviets to move their forces around and achieve good concentration meant that the Soviets would always be fighting with local superiority. The IJA got their asses kicked in Khalkin Gol because logistics, trucks, and railroads win wars. The ability to mass forces would be decisive, and the Soviets could do it better than the Japanese.

Russian territory would have swallowed every man, woman, and child in Japan without making a dent in the outcome of the German front. Siberia had fuck all useful proven reserves at the time and getting them south would have been a gargantuanly difficult task.

Interesting.
Also, I see Zhukov was involved in this. No wonder Japan lose this one.

Not quite, it was more that if they destroyed enough of the US fleet to begin with and then destroyed or captured every possible base between continental american & japan, there was little the US could really do even if the US built a large enough pacific navy – the cost of mounting a campaign to retake anything would be too large just due to the distances involved and so a peace offer would be forthcoming.

The same reason Japan didn't invade hawaii, basically.

Apparently, in this guy's fantasy, The Philippines and Guam switched sides for some reason.

This here is a Nisei soldier who was captured by the Japanese. Say something nice about him.

Attached: fujita.jpg (377x500, 51K)

Those are the destinations of the different attack forces. This is about Pearl Harbor and the invasions that occurred right after.

Half of the aircraft were destroyed in the attack, ~90% was damaged. Even if you fixed those that's ~200 aircraft against the ~400 the Japanese fleet fielded. And the Japanese had complete naval superiority with the ability to bring its dozens of ships and their guns onto the island. So complete air superiority and unfettered naval artillery.

You're being generous with a hundred thousand with complete air and naval superiority. American boats don't have the range to attack logistic chains between Hawaii and Japan without Pearl Harbour, and obviously the US could not send the entire Atlantic fleet to Hawaii. Whatever it could send would take months.

>sweep the US navy away
Which happened in the pacific if the carriers were at Pearl Harbour.

>scrape up transports for thinly stretched fleet
Which they could do for singapore and the Philippines.

>land the force directly
With naval and aerial superiority? They tore through the whole of Malaya into singapore in weeks. They crossed hundreds of kilometers with artillery and bicycles through forest and poor roads, across the Singapore Malaysia strait and took Singapore. It's not only far from impossible, it's probable.

>sustain the troops
With more or less guarantee supply line safety from Japan to Hawaii, why not?

They thought the emperor was a god. Start there and all the other insanity fits into place

>Which they could do for singapore and the Philippines.
Bad example.
Singapore was also in mainland asia, and the Philipines were significantly closer to japan than the United States. The Philippines also shows more of the problems with occupying Hawaii: consider the deep unpopularity of Japanese forces there, in what was an allied republic. Yes, they could have landed troops in Hawaii, but once the US gets going they're essentially dead.

My great uncle was a 36th Infantry Division "T Patcher" in WWII. He started out in the 1st Ind Div, got wounded, transferred to the 34th Inf Div, got wounded again, then finished up with the 36th.

China was sufficiently busy with civil war.