zephyreks [none/use name] @ zephyreks @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

63

Joined

2 yr. ago

Lend-lease over the Himalayas was rather futile and happened more of political reasons than for strategic value.

As for the embargo? It's a byproduct of US war profiteering given that Japan imported something like 70% of their iron, 80% of their oil, and 90% of their copper from the US in 1939.

The Pacific War is a valid point insofar as it forced Japanese industrial capacity to focus on naval strength rather than land arms, but it's a rather misguided one given that a huge chunk of Japanese forces was stuck in China locked in a stalemate, which made the Pacific Theater far less contested than it otherwise would have been (notably, this meant that Australia was safe from Japanese occupation because Japan lacked the resources to invade Australia).

In what fantasy land are you living in? By 1941, Japan was locked in a stalemate and slowly getting whittled down by the sheer number of bodies China could throw at the problem. In 1944, Japan's Ichi-Go operation showcased the futility of Japanese offensives: despite Japanese strategic successes, China could fight an asymmetric guerilla war and stretch out supply lines even while the Nationalists and Communists were themselves stuck in an unsteady balance of power. By 1945, the USSR had an army large enough to rout any Japanese occupation in mainland Asia and technology that was simply superior to what was available to Japan.

Allied efforts to supply China over "The Hump" were costly and largely ineffective, delivering just 351 machine guns, 96 mountain cannon, 618 antitank rifles, 28 antitank guns, and 50 million rounds of rifle ammunition between May 1942 and September 1944 (Taylor 2009).

Did the US play a role in the Pacific Theater? Absolutely. Would the Japanese have won if the US hadn't gotten involved? I doubt it.

Turns out that an offensive is really hard. Who would've thought? Definitely not centuries of military doctrine.