In the six months after December 1941, the Japanese forces conqueres
many islands and territories in and around the western pacific. It
took over three years for the Allies to drive the Japanese back and
re-conquer these territories. Why was there this difference?

how come the japanese were so amazingly successful in the 6 months
after pearl harbor?

y did iy take the allies over three years to drive the japanese out of
the area the had conquered?

describe briefly what the japanese wanted, eg.. more land, raw materials ect.

explaine giving as many reasons as you can why the japanese had this success.

explain how from the mid 1942 the tide turned against the japanese..
although they now had all the oil they needed and more land than they
could defend.

even though allies were on the attact it still took the allies over
three years to finally defeat the japanese giveas many reasons as you
can WHY?

with all the questions there also needs to be great detail and dates
times, why where ect included.
.

---

Request for Question Clarification by scriptor-ga on 29 Aug 2004 06:45 PDT

Dear kizzykylie,

If you expect detailed answers to your multiple complex questions, you
might want to signifacantly raise the amount you offer. A look at the
pricing guide may help:
http://answers.google.com/answers/pricing.html

Regards,
Scriptor

I am guessing that the Japanese were attacking relatively undefended
places when they invaded.

I am also guessing that they would have been aggressively defending
their conquests against subsequent attackers.

But I don't know.

<quote>
In the six months after December 1941, the Japanese forces conqueres
many islands and territories in and around the western pacific. It
took over three years for the Allies to drive the Japanese back and
re-conquer these territories. Why was there this difference?
</quote>

As Scriptor said, the teritories were initially undefended, and when
the Americans attacked they were very well defended.

Also remember that the Japanese were /experienced/ at invasion, Korea and China.

<quote>
how come the japanese were so amazingly successful in the 6 months
after pearl harbor?
</quote>

Because they initiated the scrap, the other guys were not ready.

<quote>
y did iy take the allies over three years to drive the japanese out of
the area the had conquered?
</quote>

Because they were well dug in.

<quote>
describe briefly what the japanese wanted, eg.. more land, raw materials ect.
</quote>

Bear in mind a few things, the Japanese/Russian war of 1905 and the
Asian Co-prosperity Zone. They were industrializing amazingly quickly,
however my uneducated guess is that it was largely psychological -
perhaps a knee jerk reaction to the 'West' forcing them open to trade.

<quote>
explaine giving as many reasons as you can why the japanese had this success.
</quote>

I decline

<quote>
explain how from the mid 1942 the tide turned against the japanese..
although they now had all the oil they needed and more land than they
could defend.
</quote>

In Burma, their supply lines became extended, they literally walked
into a trap on the way to India. In the Pacific, I guess, the
Americans just got good at smoking out islands - practise makes
perfect.

Obviously there was a technological element involved, the culmination
being the two A Bombs, but prior to that the USA was getting pretty
good at mass producing munitions.

<quote>
even though allies were on the attact it still took the allies over
three years to finally defeat the japanese giveas many reasons as you
can WHY?
</quote>

I decline, but it is worth recognizing that the Japanese had been on a
military footing for quite some time, for example (I have been told in
Singapore) that the atrocities committed in Singapore were down to
Korean raised, Japanese speaking and Japanese officered regiments.

Personally I reckon that in 1940, Japan was in the same military phase
as Britain in 1860.

VERY good, frde ....

BUT you have made one MEGA mistake!

I wonder can anyone else spot it?

Go on, Probono, please put me out of my misery :)

One further snippet is that I've read that the Russians held back
large numbers of trained troops in Siberia, they believed the Japanese
were very interested in their mineral resources. When they were
brought back to the Western front, they made a massive difference (I
think it was for Moscow) as they were trained, well armed and used to
Winter conditions.

Rationally I would have expected the Japanese to have a go at the
Soviet Far East. Perhaps they were biding their time.

Sorry frde, for putting you in your misery.

But you wrote ...

'As Scriptor said, the teritories were initially undefended, and when
the Americans attacked they were very well defended.'

I have searched high and low but I still can't find any trace of
Scriptor having made such an enlightened comment.

Warmest regards

Bryan

Probono, that was not a MEGA cockup
- it was a minor misattribution
- still you had me scratching my head for a bit.

I've always been a bit puzzled why the Japanese attacked the USA, or
more specifically a remote outpost of the USA. True, the chance of
getting rid of a Pacific fleet must have been interesting, but to
fight a war of attrition with a large remote nation that would be
almost impossible to invade, just seems rather daft. (I still rather
doubt that the US /could/ have invaded Japan).

I can see the advantages of kicking the Europeans out of Asia, for a
start the locals would see them as liberators, handy. With
considerable foresight, grabbing the Soviet Far East would make the
same sense as the Alaska Purchase, but attacking the USA was useful to
Germany ... but not to Japan.
And it was not that useful to the Germans, as it precipitated overt
USA involvement.

Somehow, I suspect that the Germans conned the Japanese.
Peculiar.

Hi, frde

Take a look at:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=392901

What was for sure was that the US had provoked Japan who had been very
aggressive in the East from about 1933 onwards.

Also, Germany and Japan had signed a pact. They both had to be stopped.

What few people knew at the time was that Japan, Germany, Russia,
Britain and America were all working on the Atomic Bomb.

My guess is that Roosevelt and his Boys decided that an earlier
non-nuclear war was preferable to risking Hitler getting his hands on
such a weapon first. If that was the case, then they had taken a very
enlightened view.

I don't suppose that we shall ever learn the truth.

All the Best

Bryan

That was a very interesting link. Thanks.

I was unaware of the oil embargo, also that 80% of Japan's oil came from the USA
A little digging came up with this:
http://www.pbrla.com/war_120401b.html

One other thing that I once heard, was that British Intelligence
observed Japanese admirals sniffing around an Italian port where there
had been a Pearl Harbour like attack (I cannot remember the details)
and Churchill told Roosevelt.

Hi, Again, frde

That's one great link!

(I would have described it as a Mega link but I didn't dare risk
another accustaion of hyperbole.)

I've never heard a whisper about any Pearl Harbor type attack on an Italian port.

You are certainly turning up some interesting stuff.

Well done!

Bryan

A bit of digging, and I found this:
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/Pearl.htm

<quote>
In April 1940, obsolescent British Swordfish biplanes, nicknamed
"stringbags" for their flimsy construction, struck the Italian fleet
at Taranto. Within minutes significant damage was done to Italy?s
Mediterranean Fleet. To get around the inability to operate torpedoes
in the shallow waters of the harbor, the British attached fins to the
tail.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and his staff studied the attack on Taranto,
even constructing models of the harbor to study it.
</quote>

It sounds like the story I remember.

Hi, Again, frde

I suspect that the date of April 1940 for the Taranto raid is
incorrect. I believe that it happened after Italy had declared war.

I think that November 1940 is more likely.

Whichever, the Japanese may well have studied the tactics.

Well done!

Bryan

Hi Bryan,
You are absolutely correct.
A Google for : taranto italy swordfish
brings up a wealth of information - Nov 11th 1940

Go to the library.