Japanese navy and army

[The Basket]

In the West we don't understand why there was no or little cooperation between the Japanese Navy and Army. In the West the Navy and Army are usually under some joint command under the political power of the day.

In Japan...During the 1930s...The Navy and Army were 2 separate power blocks which were not subservient to the government and therefore there was no one to tell them to cooperate and they could do as they wanted.
In fact they were rivals for money and materials so that made it even worse.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Japan and Britain; two resource starved island nations dependant on sea trade for their economic viability: why did one win and the other lose? Both had notions of racial superiority, and both had figurehead monarchies with a "civilian" political structure to administer day to day governmental operations, and yet one successfully? assembled and thrived upon an empire for several centuries, while the other collided head-on with the world order and was vanquished.
I suggest it was a matter of: A) Timing, and B) Evolution vs Revolution.
Both started out as isolated feudal societies protected by water, but Japan's "Divine Wind" repeatedly saved her from invasion and allowed her to become insular, while Britain was invaded by Normans, Danes, Swedes and (by invitation) Dutch and forcefully kept in touch (and interrelated) with the many cultures around her. Brits developed a penchant for seafaring and trading which led to exploration, conquest, and exploitation. Thus was allowed a long slow evolution from an absolute feudal monarchy to a functioning parliamentary democracy with a symbolic monarch. Society's habits and values were able to keep up with the political changes. Thus Britain got a head start in the race to carve up the world's surface into national empires.
Japan, on the other hand, reveling in her solitude, was really subjected to only one significant external cultural influence: China and her derivatives. And of that she could choose how much she wanted. Result? Centuries of stagnation, absorbed in "navel contemplation" and ignoring the big bad world outside.
And then in the mid 19th century, 16th century Japan is suddenly snatched into the modern world. Progressive thinking Japanese quickly realize that the feudal Shogun system is not appropriate to the modern world, and the Meiji Restoration (fancy term for revolution) happens. A figurehead monarchy with parliamentary democracy government emerges, but the habits and values of a people accustomed to an authoritarian, paternalistic, unchanging society can't keep pace. The structures of democracy are overshadowed by the institutions that reflect the traditional values of the former feudal society: honor, alliegence, duty, obedience; in other words, the armed forces.
Activists within the armed forces compete to display greater devotion to the Emperor than their rivals can. The ills of society are seen as the results of treasonous bad counsel given the Emperor by those who wish to diminish the glory of The Empire. Thus the duty of any honorable officer who can see truth is to terminate the traitorous influence "with extreme prejudice". Military inspired political assassinations decimate the civilian political leadership between the world wars and hamstring attempts at moderation and diplomacy.
IJN, IJA, and IJA's delinquent stepchild, the Kwantung Army, all have vastly different visions of the future Japanese Empire and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Each seeks to acquire the resources and the strategic capacity to bring their vision to life.
That's my take on it, as an admittedly ethno-centric American. What's your view, Shinpachi?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Shortround6]

Ah, one might also look at the industrial capability of both nations and then look at the industrial capability of the "empires" of both nations.
The Japanese were trying to play catch-up with Britain when Britain had about a 100 year head start in the industrial age.
The British "Empire" was more far reaching and richer in resources. And in fact some members of the "Empire" provided considerable support over and above raw materials or food.
For instance Canada supplied (but not limited to)
800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms.
348, ten thousand-ton, merchant ships
16,000 military aircraft
Australia and India also produced large amounts of war material and supplied vast numbers of soldiers (India over 2.5 million and Australia just under 1 million)

An old French saying is "God always favours the big battalions" or some variation. Britain won because it field more battalions (Ships, aircraft, artillery, etc)

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The Japanese were trying to play catch-up with Britain when Britain had about a 100 year head start in the industrial age.
The British "Empire" was more far reaching and richer in resources.

Ah, but why was this so?
I suggest it might have had something to do with the events of circa 1600. That's about the time Britain (still a mostly feudal society) achieved a level of seafaring competence and resources to support serious empire building. That's also about the time Japan (also feudal) began her 250 year game of "Rip Van Winkle". Britain and her empire evolved; Japan stagnated. When the Japanese were suddenly yanked into the 19th and then the 20th century, their social habits and political skills, accustomed to centuries of unchanging tradition, couldn't evolve as fast as their impressive technical abilities did. This led to the infatuation with the armed forces and their cut-throat rivalry and the resulting "politics by assassination" mentioned in my earlier post.
Cheers!
Wes

 

[parsifal]

Britain's ability to grow and exploit arose from her unique geographical position in relation to the rest of Europe. In the 1500sshe competed with Spain for Maritime dominance. In the 1600s it was the Dutch and in the 1700s it was the French. Each of these nations mounted strong challenges but I think it fair to say that the geographical advantages that Britain enjoyed made it possible to defeat, or at least neutralise the nations by various means, some fair, some foul. Some nations descended into war and internal strife such as the 30 years war, others to revolution, but all were forced, one way or another to give up the fight at some stage.


But a key to all these nations was that, for their time, they had to be progressive and outward thinking in their dealings. Perhaps not by our modern standards but certainly in the context of much of the rest of Europe. Being maritime nations opened or exposed these nations to progressive ideas, new technology, wealth and power. That's what seapower does, even today.


In contrast to this, from about 1550, Japanese society became a massively insular and isolated society, cut off from contact with the outside world. Japanese society ceased to grow in outlook and was shielded from new ideas and technology. Its forms of government and even its societal philosophies stagnated relative to the rest of the world until 1853 with the arrival of the US Commodore Perry. Their weakness exposed, the Japanese were forced to modernize, and unite as a nation, from about 1870. Similar to Germany and Italy, this was rather late as a kick off point to modernise. By that time, the world markets, dictated by the divisions of world empires and colonial interests left japans ability to access world markets in a tight spot, along with their limited access to many strategic raw materials.


Even today, the most significant relic to world financial markets is probably the most significant leftover relic of the colonial era. The world is finally beginning to turn on its head, as asia begins to flex its financial muscles, but the UK still remains a major creditor nation. Much of the worlds railway networks was built using US and UK based finances. There are many areas of infrastructure investment that remain owned by US and british banking interests, but China and the Arab nations are getting stronger with every passing year.

 

[michaelmaltby]

two words account for Britain's unique contribution to world history: magna carta. All else flowed from that one bold initiative, IMHO.

 

[swampyankee]

two words account for Britain's unique contribution to world history: magna carta. All else flowed from that one bold initiative, IMHO.

England probably had one of the more egalitarian societies in Europe, with a fairly large number of small freeholders (the yeomanry) and an inheritance system that tended to maintain wealth in large pieces. On the Continent, holdings were divided among sons, leading to noble estates about the size of a cheap suburban lot. The Wars of the Roses also broke a lot of noble families

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Hey, I think we're mostly all singing in the same chorus here, just different parts of the harmony. Michaelm, I tend to look rather suspiciously on "single pivotal event" interpretations of history. Usually if you can get past the big event, you'll find a lot going on in the background driving the forces that led to the event, and would've led to something simliar if the event hadn't occurred as it did. Given the forces at work in England at the time, some limit on the divine right of kings was bound to happen. Fortunately, and this is the real achievement, it was bloodless. This time.
Personal prejudice, but I prefer the "interplay of forces" view of history over the "string of events" approach.
If you want to play the string game, you can't leave out Drake, the Armada, colonization of America, India, and Africa, Cromwell and the Puritan Revolution, Trafalgar, Crimea, ad infinitum.
Y'all have fun now, hear?
Wes

 

[michaelmaltby]

.... there is always an "interplay" of events, , but Magna Carta was catalytic because it signaled not just a challenge to Divine Rights but an agreement (tacit) by the ruling nobility to pay taxes to the crown in response to "representation". No other European government was able to achieve this understanding and, consequently, European nobility persisted in taxing those who had nothing ... the peasants .... which became ever more futile and unproductive. It all came down to $$$$, and trade, a strong navy, entrepreneurism, initiative, empire and reforms all flowed from the initial Maga Carta encounter, IMHO.

 

[Shortround6]

Britain was THE major industrial power from about 1760 until near the end of the 19th century or beginning of the 20th century. Granted in the late 1700s the difference was not so great as to give Britain automatic victories in war or even much of a material advantage .By around 1860 this had changed. While Britain could field only small armies in comparison to what some other nations could, British industrial output in terms of iron and steel was unmatched. The British transport system of railroads was better than any other nation (density=how far one had to travel by foot or wagon to reach a railroad) and with Steam ships coming into play. These brought economic advantages in trade, both Foreign and domestic.
Being an Island coastal boat traffic had also been a help. Rivers help but only so much and canals were a dead end technology vs railroads.
Britain had been blessed with a number of raw materials in close proximity. Lead, copper, and tin had been mined in Roman times (and is one reason the Romans came to Britain) and British (Welsh) coal was high quality and not all that far from the mines that produced iron ore. This was enough to establish and sustain the early technology before exotic alloys and chemicals became important.

A stable (relatively) government certainly helped (unlike France in the 1800s) that kept it's hands off of trade and manufacturing (for the most part) helped economic growth for the country even if not for the people as a whole.

This is obviously more than a bit simplistic but a lot of things have to come together. For instance a greater sense of nation and earlier unification would not have helped Italy as much because of problems with geography and lack of domestic mineral wealth.

You cannot become an industrial world leader from an agrarian society without having domestic mineral resources. You can import technology (iron production and mining equipment and knowledge) importing the raw materials and paying for them with food stuffs is cost prohibitive.

 

[swampyankee]

.... there is always an "interplay" of events, , but Magna Carta was catalytic because it signaled not just a challenge to Divine Rights but an agreement (tacit) by the ruling nobility to pay taxes to the crown in response to "representation". No other European government was able to achieve this understanding and, consequently, European nobility persisted in taxing those who had nothing ... the peasants .... which became ever more futile and unproductive. It all came down to $$$$, and trade, a strong navy, entrepreneurism, initiative, empire and reforms all flowed from the initial Maga Carta encounter, IMHO.

I think that another problem was that laws applied to the nobility in England, but not in many of the Continental powers. Taxation in ancien regime France relied heavily on internal tariffs (one of the reasons these are forbidden by the Constitution) and heavy taxes on basic commodities, like salt, all collected by a privatized system of tax collectors.

 

[The Basket]

I think is Japan is very geological with tsunami and earthquake and Godzilla attacks
UK is very geological stable and that is a huge help. It means your not having to rebuild your factory every 5 years.