Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "Kantai Kessen (Japanese Decisive Battle Doctrine) - Method or Madness?" video.

Just a note. And I beg of you arm chair Admiral's: please! Remember to look back, and not forward. In a way all this makes sense as a stratagy for the Japanese to me. Consider their recent history. They fought the Russians. Won a major fleet action after winning a smaller fleet action/land skirmish (blockade) - they won the WAR They fought the Chinese and won a fleet action as well as battles of (relatively) limited scope. They won the WAR. How and why should fighting the USA be any different? We assume with the benefit of 2020 (literally!) Hindsight. That Japan knew this was a new type of total war. That America would fight until Japanese was a language spoken only in hell. That they would never give up. Never surrender. Whatever the case may be. From the Japanese POV, well why would America be any different? Their historical precident showed that once you beat a enemy on a decisive field. You win the war. America didn't invade Spain after taking the Philippines. They won some battles. Won the war. Moved on. Ww2 was very different. But nobody knew that in 1938! Though drachs video is (as ever) incredibly informative and I've enjoyed learning more (who doesn't!?). The temptation here is to use what resulted from the application of this doctrine to decide if the planners were wrong or not. That's fine... to a point. But we should not and must not use the historical end result to question whether or not the doctrine was a *sound concept for its time*. That's crucial. It made sense to the best thinkers of a nations generation. Just because they were proved to be wrong in certain circumstance later. Does not diminish the historical value of the entire area of study. The end of my point. Never judge with the benefit of hindsight. It may be "obvious" that xyz was silly to us, isnt it funny lol. But looking at history that way is a folly.
58
Just a note. And I beg of you arm chair Admiral's: please! Remember to look back, and not forward. In a way all this makes sense as a stratagy for the Japanese to me. Consider their recent history. They fought the Russians. Won a major fleet action after winning a smaller fleet action/land skirmish (blockade) - they won the WAR They fought the Chinese and won a fleet action as well as battles of (relatively) limited scope. They won the WAR. How and why should fighting the USA be any different? We assume with the benefit of 2020 (literally!) Hindsight. That Japan knew this was a new type of total war. That America would fight until Japanese was a language spoken only in hell. That they would never give up. Never surrender. Whatever the case may be. From the Japanese POV, well why would America be any different? Their historical precident showed that once you beat a enemy on a decisive field. You win the war. America didn't invade Spain after taking the Philippines. They won some battles. Won the war. Moved on. Ww2 was very different. But nobody knew that in 1938! Though drachs video is (as ever) incredibly informative and I've enjoyed learning more (who doesn't!?). The temptation here is to use what resulted from the application of this doctrine to decide if the planners were wrong or not. That's fine... to a point. But we should not and must not use the historical end result to question whether or not the doctrine was a *sound concept for its time*. That's crucial. It made sense to the best thinkers of a nations generation. Just because they were proved to be wrong in certain circumstance later. Does not diminish the historical value of the entire area of study. The end of my point. Never judge with the benefit of hindsight. It may be "obvious" that xyz was silly to us, isnt it funny lol. But looking at history that way is a folly.
6
@mwt3579 I'm not sure I can agree with your premise. Your saying that the most intelligent and experienced military thinkers in Japan KNEW that they had come up with a doctrine that was bound to fail? That makes no sense at all. In 1905 Russia was considered a world power. Yes the Crimea didn't go so well. But look who they were up against. Yes their economy was backwards compared to west European nations. But their military was large and well regarded. The fact that the Japanese won against Russia upset the world view of well, the world. It elevated them to great power status. Being on the winning side since the start of ww1 didn't hurt. As for America. I don't understand the 8th grade thing. But I know that's American. And your view is very American centric. The American civil war was just that. A civil war. Yes it was observed from a military point of view (on a technical level). But that was about it. The only other way it effected other countries was economically and as with any other civil war. The rest of the world adapted and carried on. If you look at America from the Japanese point of view. They were very much beatable. America from the outside was a country recently divided (your civil war). It had made lots of money from ww1 but entered late. This was due to a public who didn't want war. The 1920s saw economic collapse on a horrible scale. Military spending was pitiful. If you forget what we know now. If you don't consider things from an American point of view, but from the point of view of Japan. America was weak financially and morally. They'd avoid war if at all possible and were definitely not ready for war. In 1905 Russia was almost certainly a more daunting adversary than America was in the 1930s. Thankfully, you had a savvy president and the country used it's natural resources well. As a result we can look back with hindsight and think "good god, were the Japanese mad". But that's not how you study history.
4
@justarandomtechpriest1578 forgive me, I watched this video as it came out. Could you point me to the reference I made and how it reflects what drach said in the video? Ideally with a time stamp. I'll watch the video again and happily reply. :)
1
Insert high seas fleet for Japanese fleet - here -.
1