Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "IJN I13 / Type AM class - Guide 398" video.

@bkjeong4302 it's interesting you mentioned 'commissioning' new battleships when they were becoming obsolete. I'd say it's important to remember two things. 1, at the time it wasn't obvious they were about to be obsolete. 2, it definitely wasn't even considered when the ships were ordered and laid down. Hindsight is a sin everyone interested in history is guilty of. :)
3
@WALTERBROADDUS you make an interesting point about long wars. It's correct. But the hundred years war and the crusades aren't great examples as both were groups of separate wars that history groups together out of convenience (in the case of the hundred years) and/or because of popular understanding. Much like the Napoleonic wars or the wars of Spanish succession. Interestingly, both Japan against the USA and Germany Vs France/the UK and Russia are good examples where the leaders (political and military) knew they couldn't win a long war. But ended up starting them anyway
3
@bkjeong4302 I'm sorry probably fluffed what I was trying to say... You make a point about strategic nonsense. But Japan made that mistake. It took on the preeminent naval power for the last 3+ centuries and a country with only a few colonies and a lot of industrial slack. That was a stratagem that certainly in hindsight is about as sensible as playing russian roulette, but then telling everyone else you get he first 5 out of 6 goes. Again though that's with hindsight. I can understand that Japan looked at the USA as a nearly failed economy (great depression) which had an obsession with isolationism and whos political leaders were war shy (inspite of Japan seeing the last 25 years of history and going "they made war and made untold riches. They must be dumb not to want that again). As for the empire of great Britain. They worried about war debt so sold their future fleet for a treaty that screwed Japan. They lost their biggest ally and had to attack their fleet (France obviously). And the Germans had them reeling with a forlorn hope that America would save them (the UK was fighting alone...playing for time.... And it was running out). From a strategic sense. I can totally see how the Japanese decision to attack and get the resources they needed made total sense..yes with hindsight we know it didn't work. But arguing on a YouTube history channel that Japan was silly, wrong, should have known better to not do xyz I just don't understand. Hence my comments As for arguing battleships were a silly idea. Again. Nobody knew so until the war in the Pacific ran half it's course. Which took a blink in the eye of the history of a battleline deciding the fate of nations..and was fraction of the time it took to politically decide to, economically plan for and then logistically commit to building the most advanced pieces of technology on the planet. Had the royal navy done so in 1910 then Jutland would be something else. Had the union done so when planning monitor. The us civil war could have lasted another 6 months or a year. Had Stalin put his generals to work in 34-39 instead of to death Germany could have spent the cold war united under a red banner. It's all a silly waste of hindsight and what if. Yamato, Iowa, Nelson, Bismarck, littorio. All made sense when ordered. Saying "they should have'. Is just a waste of time that could be better spent learning more about history. Isn't that why we are here? I say all this after a week of nights I may be tired but I mean my comments in a friendly way. I remember your questions on the very first dry docks. You may not remember my replies 🤣
3
@WALTERBROADDUS the date there has confused me a bit. I wouldn't say 'the war on terror' is a good example. Terror has existed since recorded history began and it's had a religious justification since....well recorded history began. Religious/tribal warfare in Afghanistan goes back since... I'm a broken record by now right? I'm not sure we can bring Iraq into 'the war on terror' given that it was an illegal war sold to multiple publics through lies. (I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't every bit as bad as Hitler or Stalin, he was. Just pointing out that the casus belli was a willing falsehood). That "war" won't end. It'll keep going forever and I don't think can be classified in a historical context. ... I say that because yes the crusades and the 100 years war are often misunderstood. But though they don't have a fixed beggining and end..they do have a time before and a time after. The exact dates are down to technicalities. The quasi religious excuse for terrorism and it's justification for a war are timeless and (sadly) probably endless.
3