ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
I am sorry ljadw, while much of the information you have brought up is interesting, most of your assumptions in your last 2 posts make no sense and/or are contradictory.
re: 1. "Before the war, Italy [Japan] bought oil from a lot of countries (including the USSR [US/UK/DEI]) and the amount of oil was sufficient for Italy's [Japan's] "needs"."
Obvious, but a non-sequitur.
re: 2. "The fact remains that only a small part of the DEI oil was going to Japan, not because Japan did not need it, but because a shortage of tankers."
Japan started the war with ~4.5 million tons of tankers/transports, and built ~6 million tons of tankers/transports during the war. Japan ended the war with ~2.5 million tons of tankers/transports (much of which was immobilized in harbor by the mining operations) due to the sinking of the rest by the Allies (primarily the USN).
re 3. "In 1942 10 million barrels of DEI oil went to Japan, in 1943 14 million. That does not mean that Japan needed 4 million barrels more in 1943 than in 1942. In 1944 5 million, that does not mean that Japan needed only 5 million in 1944."
This contradicts your logic in #1 above. This is not a discussion about the possibility of Schrödinger's cat where the cat may be both dead and alive at the same time. Either Japan perceived the need for more (correctly or incorrectly), or actually needed more oil, in either case the threat of no affordable/reliable access to the amount of oil deemed necessary led to war.
The transport of only 5 million bbl of oil products to the Japanese mainland in 1945 also does not mean that they did not want/need to ship more to the mainland. They tried to import more, but the continued sinking of their tankers/transports prevented it.
As to the need to import to the Japanese mainland, I think I partially addressed that in my previous post. Most of the refined oil product from the DEI was shipped directly to the operational area where it was needed. Again, until the sinking of their tankers/transport eventually prevented this.
re 4. "It is also questionable to say that the capture of the oil fields and refineries would have been capable of supplying the Japanese needs for the foreseeable future, because Japan could not transport this oil: before the war Japanese tankers could transport only 50% of its oil imports. Other reason is that no one could known the Japanese oil needs in the future."
Japan would have built the tanker fleet needed if they had the time, to think that they would not means you would have to think they had less brains than a cucumber. The Japanese were just as smart as any of the western nations then, and are today.
As to "no one could have known the Japanese oil needs in the future", short of a failed war or some other catastrophic event, yes you can predict future needs to a reasonable degree. A ten year period estimate is used today for planning purposes of infrastructure needs by most nations, and works pretty well.
re 5. "The traditional history (especially in the US ) is that the embargo was the main, or the only reason for PH. I strongly doubt this. In last instance, the amount of the Japanese oil consumption was decided by Japan, not by the US."
The propaganda fed to the masses at the time really does not matter relative to this discussion. The US intercepted diplomatic communications during the run-up to Pearl Harbor, that clearly state the main reasons for the start of the war. They were the demands by the US that Japan pull out of China, and the US led embargo. Post-war US led debrief of Japanese political and military officials confirmed this. There have been thorough historical studies done since then that confirm this. And if the conclusions made/published by the US and other world nations that say this is so is not enough for you, there have been many historical studies done by the Japanese since WWII (including recent ones) that draw the same conclusions.
If you are interested, you might like to read the actual translations of the messages intercepted by Magic et al, I would direct you to this post in another thread:
"Could the Japanese have captured Hawaii if they had won the battle of Midway?"
PS The rest of the thread has a lot of good information related to the subject also.
re: 1. "Before the war, Italy [Japan] bought oil from a lot of countries (including the USSR [US/UK/DEI]) and the amount of oil was sufficient for Italy's [Japan's] "needs"."
Obvious, but a non-sequitur.
re: 2. "The fact remains that only a small part of the DEI oil was going to Japan, not because Japan did not need it, but because a shortage of tankers."
Japan started the war with ~4.5 million tons of tankers/transports, and built ~6 million tons of tankers/transports during the war. Japan ended the war with ~2.5 million tons of tankers/transports (much of which was immobilized in harbor by the mining operations) due to the sinking of the rest by the Allies (primarily the USN).
re 3. "In 1942 10 million barrels of DEI oil went to Japan, in 1943 14 million. That does not mean that Japan needed 4 million barrels more in 1943 than in 1942. In 1944 5 million, that does not mean that Japan needed only 5 million in 1944."
This contradicts your logic in #1 above. This is not a discussion about the possibility of Schrödinger's cat where the cat may be both dead and alive at the same time. Either Japan perceived the need for more (correctly or incorrectly), or actually needed more oil, in either case the threat of no affordable/reliable access to the amount of oil deemed necessary led to war.
The transport of only 5 million bbl of oil products to the Japanese mainland in 1945 also does not mean that they did not want/need to ship more to the mainland. They tried to import more, but the continued sinking of their tankers/transports prevented it.
As to the need to import to the Japanese mainland, I think I partially addressed that in my previous post. Most of the refined oil product from the DEI was shipped directly to the operational area where it was needed. Again, until the sinking of their tankers/transport eventually prevented this.
re 4. "It is also questionable to say that the capture of the oil fields and refineries would have been capable of supplying the Japanese needs for the foreseeable future, because Japan could not transport this oil: before the war Japanese tankers could transport only 50% of its oil imports. Other reason is that no one could known the Japanese oil needs in the future."
Japan would have built the tanker fleet needed if they had the time, to think that they would not means you would have to think they had less brains than a cucumber. The Japanese were just as smart as any of the western nations then, and are today.
As to "no one could have known the Japanese oil needs in the future", short of a failed war or some other catastrophic event, yes you can predict future needs to a reasonable degree. A ten year period estimate is used today for planning purposes of infrastructure needs by most nations, and works pretty well.
re 5. "The traditional history (especially in the US ) is that the embargo was the main, or the only reason for PH. I strongly doubt this. In last instance, the amount of the Japanese oil consumption was decided by Japan, not by the US."
The propaganda fed to the masses at the time really does not matter relative to this discussion. The US intercepted diplomatic communications during the run-up to Pearl Harbor, that clearly state the main reasons for the start of the war. They were the demands by the US that Japan pull out of China, and the US led embargo. Post-war US led debrief of Japanese political and military officials confirmed this. There have been thorough historical studies done since then that confirm this. And if the conclusions made/published by the US and other world nations that say this is so is not enough for you, there have been many historical studies done by the Japanese since WWII (including recent ones) that draw the same conclusions.
If you are interested, you might like to read the actual translations of the messages intercepted by Magic et al, I would direct you to this post in another thread:
"Could the Japanese have captured Hawaii if they had won the battle of Midway?"
PS The rest of the thread has a lot of good information related to the subject also.
Last edited:
