Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I do have a question about "Hokushin-ron" as all I know is from Wiki:
"General Kenkichi Ueda was a strong believer in the Hokushin-ron policy, believing that Japan's main enemy was communism and that Japan's destiny lay in conquest of the natural resources of the sparely populated north Asian mainland."
Bolding by me. What were the "known" natural resources in the area/s in question?
The southern option had known sources of oil, rubber, tin and perhaps other materials?
Thank you.
AS in many of the these cases the yield of the various oil fields is important. Going to war with Russian over small, low yield oil fields was probably not smart. May be different if they are high yield. I am questioning this as i have no idea as to how much was known about the resources in Northern Asia in the 1920s and 30s when this plan was being put forward.
A bit like nobody knew oil existed in Libya?
The Dutch East Indies crude was also pretty high grade stuff. It contained a lot of the "good stuff" to make high grade aviation fuel (at least high grade in the 1930s context.)
Not sure why the Japanese anti-sub effort was so poor. While attacking merchant ships was not a high priority for Japanese subs (direct involvement in the "decisive" battle was more their doctrine and may have carried over to the anti-sub effort). However the example of the Germans in both WW I and the first few years of WW II certainly showed the vulnerability of long sea supply lines.
Perhaps they were betting on taking out any bases the enemy subs could operate from?
Although they spent a lot of effort in building very long range subs themselves.
If the Japanese had let Yamamoto run the war according to his vision without constant restraint from senior "battleship admirals" and the Army (Tojo), I'm convinced his understanding of industrial capacity and the crucial importance of logistics would have led to the choking off of Hawaii and then Australia. He also understood the strategic importance of aircraft and submarines in a resource war in the Pacific. If Kido Butai had succeeded in destroying the American carriers at Pearl, and if it had been commanded by a bold, aggressive, aviator admiral, it could have stuck around Oahu a while longer and taken out the important oversights the first raid missed. Fueling and repair facilities, the submarine base, and long range patrol aircraft (besides the carriers of course) were what sustained the American war effort for the first few months of the war. Yamamoto understood this. A couple more waves of attacks could have eliminated these and left Hawaii essentially defenseless and difficult to supply. IJN doctrine wasted their extensive submarine fleet in a fruitless search for capital ships to sink, rather than the scouting and supply-line strangling which could have been their true value. Yamamoto understood this, but was powerless to change it. GG correctly points out that the majority of American shipbuilding and ordnance manufacturing was East Coast based. Aircraft manufacture, on the other hand (at least of the critical types) was concentrated In California and Washington. I know Bell, Chance Vought, Curtiss, Grumman, Martin, and Republic were East, but Boeing, Consolidated, Douglas, Lockheed, North American, and Northrop were all within easy air raid (or even battleship gun) range of the Pacific. With (as GG suggests) toe holds in Panama and the resource-rich American west coast a lot of the Japanese supply line dilemma would be eliminated, and (as the US later did) bypassed garrisons could be ignored and allowed to starve. With no safe haven Naval bases on the entire west coast, and Hawaii, the Philippines, and Australia gone, we would have been stymied in the Pacific and fighting a defensive war on the mainland. In December 41 and January 42 we would have been too shocked, demoralised, and disorganized to prevent the Japanese from making rapid territorial gains in the west and turning some of our own industrial might against us. They could have withdrawn most of the Kwantung Army from China and shipped them to California. Without foreign military aid neither Chiang nor Mao was any threat to Japan. The US would have had to concentrate its resources at home, leaving Britain and Russia vulnerable. If the Japanese forays into the Indian Ocean had been conducted with a conquest mentality rather than just raiding, India would have fallen, if treated properly, that huge suppressed population would have enthusiastically joined the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and kicked the "white oppressors" out of Asia entirely. So there you have it; Japan sitting securely on top of a major chunk of the world's resources, with no significant opponents in position to threaten its resources, its logistics, or its industry.
One of the many blunders of the IJN, was the understatement of their submarine fleet....Not sure why the Japanese anti-sub effort was so poor. While attacking merchant ships was not a high priority for Japanese subs (direct involvement in the "decisive" battle was more their doctrine and may have carried over to the anti-sub effort). However the example of the Germans in both WW I and the first few years of WW II certainly showed the vulnerability of long sea supply lines.
Perhaps they were betting on taking out any bases the enemy subs could operate from?
Although they spent a lot of effort in building very long range subs themselves.
Thank you.
AS in many of the these cases the yield of the various oil fields is important. Going to war with Russian over small, low yield oil fields was probably not smart. May be different if they are high yield. I am questioning this as i have no idea as to how much was known about the resources in Northern Asia in the 1920s and 30s when this plan was being put forward.
A bit like nobody knew oil existed in Libya?
The Dutch East Indies crude was also pretty high grade stuff. It contained a lot of the "good stuff" to make high grade aviation fuel (at least high grade in the 1930s context.)
Omissis
Even if the Japanese possessed a sizable number of ships capable of making the voyage the logistics are very against it. The voyage is many times longer than from the south island to the Philippines or Malaya so you need many more times the amount of rations for the troops and crew. You need to either carry water or install bigger desalination plants. Refueling the transports (and escorts) needs to be taken into account. The Japanese certainly cannot afford for the transports to make a one way trip and beach themselves on the California coast. .......The Japanese, assuming they can find fuel, have to send the ships back to Japan, reload and the sail back to the US. Replacement/reinforcements are weeks if not a couple of months away.
Not sure why the Japanese anti-sub effort was so poor. While attacking merchant ships was not a high priority for Japanese subs (direct involvement in the "decisive" battle was more their doctrine and may have carried over to the anti-sub effort). However the example of the Germans in both WW I and the first few years of WW II certainly showed the vulnerability of long sea supply lines.
Perhaps they were betting on taking out any bases the enemy subs could operate from?
Although they spent a lot of effort in building very long range subs themselves.