|
Personally, I think the battleships were a waste, at least considering that the materials could have been better built elsewhere. Throughout WW2 if one thing was proven it was the vast superiority of air power over sea power. The British learned it in Europe, and the Americans learnt at Pearl Harbour. With Air superiority any battleship is just a floating target, and air planes can strike that battleship at a far larger range from a carrier then a Battleship can hope to strike back at.
That said, while Pearl Harbour itself was a masterstroke, the idea of attacking the Americans and trying to get them to capitulate within 2 years was wrong headed. Any American president would have known he could easily replace their naval losses due to the large industrial capacity available in America. Likewise, due to the fact that America was attacked, they would not have any war weariness issues to deal with, as Americans citizens would be entirely behind the war effort.
However, to be fair to the Japanese, they didn't really have many options, they needed to take south east asia for war material, and they knew that if they did, the US would be quick to intervene. Also, if Germany had successfully defeated the Soviet Union, the likelihood of a favourable peace resolution for Japan was a lot higher. Japan only had to weaken America enough to keep them away long enough for Germany to win. And to be fair, they did manage that.
I would argue that for Japan their loss of Manchuria to the Soviets was as decisive as the loss of Iwo Jima or the atom bombs. The war was lost for Japan and Germany in Stalingrad.
|