3 ms·
I'm not any kind of an academic on the subject, but I'd guess a combination of lack of resources, and general lack of scale. Japan simply was not that big a co
by paulmd 5y ago
I'm not any kind of an academic on the subject, but I'd guess a combination of lack of resources, and general lack of scale.
Japan simply was not that big a country and even if you assume they had a disproportionate amount of intellectuals or amount of advancement per individual, they're a tiny tiny fraction of the size of the US, the US simply could be working on a lot more projects at once, and even long-shot ones that might not bear fruit, and they were working on the shorter-term ones at the same time. And that size factor also translates into much poorer availability of the strategic materials that are necessary for a lot of advanced research.
After Midway the Japanese military really shifted into field-expedient mode, you can see it even in things like the quality of their small arms production, they started cutting every corner that it was possible to safely cut and then some. At that point I imagine that a lot of the advanced research was cut hard unless it was really really important (iirc they still had, for example, a nuclear program) or seemed likely to bear immediate fruit.
The pacific front was really over when Japan didn't get the US carrier fleet at Pearl Harbor and it was definitely over after Midway, everything after that was just stubbornness. Same as the European front - there was really no chance of victory once the US shifted off a market-economy to a command-economy focused around war production and you had an industrial nation 2-3x the size of everyone else sitting 2000 miles away (which, realistically, might as well have been on the moon as far as Axis force projection) pumping war materiel into the battle. The US could build tanks faster than the Germans could blow them up, they could re-tool the Russian industry to modern standards, and they could build ships faster than the Japanese (or German u-boats) could sink them, all at the same time.
In that sense even if they had gotten the pacific fleet, the US probably still could have won in the long term, it would just have taken years longer. It's a "what if the germans had actually taken moscow" counterfactual... it probably still wouldn't have changed anything given the biggest factor, which is an untouchable foe sitting on the other side of the planet pumping out war materiel while you run out of your own resources.
But yeah in general the role of the military in Imperial Japan is very interesting... the army and the navy both had their own armies and navies and air forces, and they basically were in competition for the favor of the emperor. It wasn't quite what we think of as a modern professional military where everyone is at least theoretically "on the same side", the armed forces VERY MUCH did not like each other and would go out of their way to screw the other over. I could definitely see some disdain for eggheads, or refusing to adopt a technology because it came from the wrong branch too.
- caycep 5y agoI'm familiar with the industrial advantages...I'd had assumed that intellectual/engineering man hours would be easier to come by, but perhaps that was also limited in scale as well...or maybe it's a cultural thing that needs to get developed in a hypothetical Japanese equivalent of MIT/Harvard business school that did not yet exist...
- newsclues 5y agoCultural issues would be the aspect other than industrial, that gave the Americans a huge advantage. Decentralized command and initiative of low level officers and soldiers was a big factor. Can't remember the episode but this has been discussed on the Jocko Podcast I think.
- paulmd 5y agothat is actually still an advantage of the US (or at least western armies) today... one of the reasons that Russian tank column in Ukraine just sat there for weeks is that the russians have a very top-down command structure where you don't do ANYTHING unless you're ordered. They lost communications, so there they sat. And when they actually sent generals up to get things cleaned up, the Ukranians picked them off with drones and snipers. The number of generals in the Russian command structure is also completely wack by western standards. The US has a very very large military and we have about 200 generals per service. The Russian army has about 1,500 generals in their army. So the "you don't do anything unless the general tells you" makes sense in that context - they have a lot of generals to match, their command structure is just much more top-down. (tangent, but hopefully interesting!)
- newsclues 5y agoI respect the Russian style of pushing leaders towards the front lines. Russia doesn’t have an NCO rank system so they lack low level leadership at the tactical level. So they have more high level of leadership and need them closer to combat. Centralized command with poor communications infrastructure in a war zone with advanced electronic warfare, gives you good reasons for why the Russian military is struggling.