WW2 USN Strategic Bombing Capability

".... off-topic "?
Strictly speaking, Shin, yes , but I put it to you that the meanderings and side-tracks all lead us to the US Navy at war with Japan with the Allies facing the nightmare of invasion, and that is the topic, n'est-ce pas .

The Japanese victory over Czarist Russia had a profound effect on the course of events in the 20th Century. The Russian regime was so corrupt and in need of reform and the Russian conduct of the war ... not the fighting man but the leaders and generals ... so mismanaged that the war became a spark for the 1905 Russian Revolution ... which failed.

In hindsight that failure was a shame IMO, . If it had succeeded it would not likely have been a Communist revolution ... more likely a socialist revolution. The new government, 9 years in power, would, IMO, have been less likely to rush into mobilization against Austria-Germany in 1914 and WW1 might have just fizzled out instead of catching hold. The collapse of The Imperial regime in 1905 would also have created additional opportunities for Japan to enlarge her economic sphere of influence in Mongolia and the Siberian far east, easing the quest for resources elsewhere somewhat, IMO.

Unfortunately the 1905 revolution was crushed and the rest is 'history' ... as they say. But the birth of modern Japan was poorly understood by the caucasian west and this led directly to misunderstandings .... in 1905 at the Treaty of Portsmouth and again in 1918 in the territorial settlements spelled out at Versailles. These misunderstandings were, with time, inflamed and reinforced a view that Japan couldn't trust the west to accept her presence as a major player on the world stage. This manner of thought distorts reality and induces political neurosis (just as failure to accept defeat in 1918 led directly to the emergence of Hitler).

So I believe that, like Nomonhan, the Russo-Japan was vastly important to the flow of history ... and not as most western pundits thought at the time simply because an Asian nation had defeated a 'western' Christian nation.

And Stalin's strategy to teach the IJA a lesson at Nomonhan, humiliate and discredit them, was influenced by the outcome in 1905 and the trauma and fear that Japan had induced in Russia.

Appreciate your thoughts on this, Shin,

"Human Bullets" is a great insight into what a ghastly war it was.

How Jack London covered the Russo-Japan War .... terrific read

Jack London War Correspondent

About 20 years ago I did a fairly large research project on the Russo-Japanese war, the 1905 revolution and the Boer War, I'd say MM that your analysis pretty spot on. I came to consider however that the 1905 revolution, had it succeeded, or at least succeeded partially, is having Imperial Russia headed toward a constitutional monarchy similar to the English version, not necessarily socialist, YMMV though. With that a possible different chain of events in 1914, although I'm not convinced that it would have prevented the First World War.

I still think one of the great tragedies of the twentieth century was the fall of Tsarist Russia and the installation of the communist empire. So much misery came out of that, but I digress.

EDIT - There was a Japanese movie in the early 1980's, "Battle of Port Artur" or "Attack at Port Arthur", can't remember, but I recall it was an interesting take on the affair. "Battle of Port Arthur", that's it, google comes to the rescue.

Continuing the meandering, was the purpose of the Allied Embargo to prevent a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union? The normal interpretations tend to mention China (Utley, Going to War with Japan) or the Netherlands East Indies (Marshall, To have and to have not). However, it was clearly in the interests of both Britain and the USA to prevent a Strike North and they were reading traffic between Tokyo and Berlin which might have suggested that it was imminent.

I think the US embargoes were reactions to events in China such as Nanking Massacre. The US was very empathetic with the fate of Chinese despite the obvious corruption and treachery .... as Vinegar Joe Stilwell discovered when he was tossed under the bus. The writings of Pearl Buck .. The Good Earth .. caught the imagination of many Christian Americans. This subjectivity led to some strategic mistakes, IMO

michaelmaltby said:

I think the US embargoes were reactions to events in China such as Nanking Massacre. The US was very empathetic with the fate of Chinese despite the obvious corruption and treachery .... as Vinegar Joe Stilwell discovered when he was tossed under the bus. The writings of Pearl Buck .. The Good Earth .. caught the imagination of many Christian Americans. This subjectivity led to some strategic mistakes, IMO

Click to expand...

The USS Panay incident sure didn't help matters much...

No doubt about that.

But the Panay Incident and the Nanking Massacre occurred in 1937 and the USA accepted Japan's apology for the Panay sinking. What had changed in 1941?

cherry blossom said:

But the Panay Incident and the Nanking Massacre occurred in 1937 and the USA accepted Japan's apology for the Panay sinking. What had changed in 1941?

Click to expand...

Marco Polo Bridge incident in July 1937 started the war with China, the U.S. and Western nations strongly condemned Japan for the incident and the start of war.

The attack of the USS Panay on 12 December and the Nanking incident on 13 December of 1937 brought even stronger condemnation, leading to a series of trade restrictions by the U.S. starting in 1938.

By 1939, the U.S. rescinded it's 1911 trade agreement with Japan and by 1940, the Export Control Act was passed by Congress. None of these measures convinced Japan to stop it's expansion in the region and/or terminate the war with China.

With Japan joining the Axis and continuing to expand into colonial territories held by European countries, and failed peace negotiations, the U.S. froze Japanese assets and terminated oil exports by early 1941.

With only a two year oil reserve, Japan felt it had to act quickly and a plan of war with the U.S. was brought to the table.

With the sinking of the Panay and the many questions not having satisfactory answers revolving around the incident, the stage was pretty much set.

Accepting a apology diplomatically, and actually accepting it is two different things.
And then there's " forgive, but never forget ".

GrauGeist said:

The USS Panay incident sure didn't help matters much...

Click to expand...

Soon followed by the Allison incident
John Moore Allison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...What had changed in 1941?"

The Axis Alliance was now in place* .... and by 1941 everyone who cared knew what Germany was doing.

*[....on September 27, 1940, Germany, Italy, and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact, which became known as the Axis alliance.]

gjs238 said:

Soon followed by the Allison incident
John Moore Allison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Yes, I should ave included this, because his assault and the U.S. Embassy in Nanking being ransacked and looted was also something that did not sit well with Congress.

Was not there UK behind Japan to support ?
She was hard to teach Japanese the aviation torpedo bombing in the 1920s.
Yamamoto was grateful for it.

Point well taken, the Royal Navy was a great supporter/teacher for the IJN at the turn of the century, in fact, the RN observers with Admiral Togo at Tsushima Straight were quite proud of their "students" and the way they totally handled the Tsarist fleet. Not to mention the Kongo of 1911(?) was built in England to Japanese specs.

England and Japan had an alliance dating from I believe 1902 until about 1920-21. One might posit that the U.S. and Japan were set on a collision course once Great Britain opted out of the treaty. Which is rather ironic because Japan was seeking to avoid a future war with the U.S., but circumstances being what they were, put the U.S. and Japan on a collision course twenty years in the making.

The United States was worried that Japan would take over trade in China, Commonwealth governments were worried that a war would break out between the U.S. and Japan over China and wanted to make nice with the Americans and the Japanese were trying to both expand and not upset the balance of power in the Pacific while avoiding a war with the U.S.. When you really delve into the situation it can make your head spin. In the end, it just seems that no matter what (sadly), there was going to be a war in the Pacific.

Peter Gunn said:

Point well taken, the Royal Navy was a great supporter/teacher for the IJN at the turn of the century, in fact, the RN observers with Admiral Togo at Tsushima Straight were quite proud of their "students" and the way they totally handled the Tsarist fleet. Not to mention the Kongo of 1911(?) was built in England to Japanese specs.

England and Japan had an alliance dating from I believe 1902 until about 1920-21. One might posit that the U.S. and Japan were set on a collision course once Great Britain opted out of the treaty. Which is rather ironic because Japan was seeking to avoid a future war with the U.S., but circumstances being what they were, put the U.S. and Japan on a collision course twenty years in the making.

The United States was worried that Japan would take over trade in China, Commonwealth governments were worried that a war would break out between the U.S. and Japan over China and wanted to make nice with the Americans and the Japanese were trying to both expand and not upset the balance of power in the Pacific while avoiding a war with the U.S.. When you really delve into the situation it can make your head spin. In the end, it just seems that no matter what (sadly), there was going to be a war in the Pacific.

Click to expand...

More about the January 30, 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Preceded by the July 16, 1894 Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Commerce and Navigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shinpachi said:

Was not there UK behind Japan to support ?
She was hard to teach Japanese the aviation torpedo bombing in the 1920s.
Yamamoto was grateful for it.

Click to expand...

UK had been our best teacher and friend since Meiji Reformation in 1868 till 1926 when Japan refused UK's suggestion to punish Chiang Kai-shek for his Northern Expedition because Anglo-Japanese Alliance was expired in 1923.

On the other hand, there were no Americans in China till the ww1 was over.
They were a new comer and not necessarily welcomed by old comers.
This would be why UK taught Japanese her latest military technologies in the 1920s.
However, result was terrible.

"... there were no Americans in China till the ww1 was over"

American trade with China started in 1784.

But Shinpachi, remember that the U.S. was in China prior to WW1 and the U.S. Marines were used to protect the Foreign Legations during the Boxer Rebellion.

And an interesting note regarding Japan's navy - the first modern armored warship of Japan, the Kōtetsu, was a forrmer Confederate ironclad, the CSS Stonewall. She was taken by the United States after the Confederate States surrendered, being sold and delivered to Japan in 1869.