This isn’t a read on how great American military might was back in 1941. Rather this is a perspective of how strategically unwise Axis power Japan was by striking Pearl Harbor. In fact, I would argue that this strategic blunder cost the Axis the war, or more specifically, the Russian campaign.
State of the War Prior to Pearl Harbor
In North Africa, the Britain launched Operation Crusader which later resulted in a major victory for the British in this theatre. In the European Theatre, the main focus for Nazi Germany was advancing on the Russian front. It’s important to note that the Soviet Union had a numerical and terrain advantage over the Germans, however, Germany started out with a distinct advantage in technology and the capability of using it. After clearing the Balkans and Greece because Axis power Italy couldn’t, Germany commenced Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941. The campaign was off to a good start but Bock’s Army Group Center was forced to relieve the campaign in Kiev, one of Hitler’s most disastrous decisions. This decision bought Moscow more time to prepare. By December 5th, two days prior two Pearl Harbor, Moscow was heavily reinforced.
Image from Westpoint
What Japan should have done
The United States was Japan’s naval rival in the Pacific. America could collectively outnumber Japanese forces. This is similar to Germany and USSR prior to Operation Barbarossa. However, there were many prizes to be won from Britain, France in the South. Japan should have pursued those. But in an effort to help their allies and gain crucial resources, Japan should have launched an attack on the Soviet Union. Japan hadn’t had a whole lot of success attacking the Soviets in the past. At very least, this would have prevented the Soviets from reinforcing their western front with the well trained Siberian forces, designed for winter. This would have changed the Battle of Moscow in Germany’s favor. Odds are, Moscow would have fallen without these reinforcements. Japan’s gains in the north may have been nominal but the damage to the Soviet Union would have been devastating. With the fall of Moscow, Hitler could have devoted Army Group Center and Army Group South to seize Stalingrad and the oil-rich Caucus Mountains. With immediate attention to the west, Japan could have eventually worn away Russian forces and made significant gains of their own.
In the Pacific, Japan could have simultaneously handled anyone who wasn’t the United States. They could have isolated Australia and have developed grand infrastructure for a maritime empire. This would have left the Philippines surrounded discouraging the US from intervening.
What Japan actually did
Instead of helping allies, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Believing Americans didn’t have the stomach for war, they expected America to take it. Japan to their credit launched several successful attacks to seize land from European nations. Eventually, America cracked their code and was a step ahead in crucial battles such as Midway.
Hitler was then coerced into declaring war on the US without any major preparations. The US helped Britain turn the tides in the Mediterranean and eventually invaded Europe from multiple fronts. With the reinforcements from the east, the Russians were able to hold Moscow in one of World War 2’s most crucial battles. Russia was bought enough time to make some technological advancements that turned defense into offense.
Fighting on multiple fronts is not a recipe for success unless you’re America. It’s very possible the Soviet Union would have fallen in a two-front war. The demise of Nazi Germany is often credited to Operation Barbarossa, but Russia was a beatable opponent for Hitler. I would say Hitler lost because his allies sucked. Japan got Germany into wars they didn’t want, and Italy couldn’t hold their own and always needed Nazi support. Perhaps Hitler should have allied with Spain to help cut off supply lines for Britain. There are a lot of what ifs in World War Two, but its a good thing evil has a hard time finding quality friends unless you’re Stalin, but even that didn’t last long. Japan attacking Pearl Harbor ensures we’ll never know what would have happened if they had simply been strategically minded.
Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.
Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.
It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.
As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)
This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:
May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.
“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”
This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.
The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/
from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.
Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?
So why is this important?
Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.
Memorial Day – Remembering those who gave their lives for freedom
As Americans, it’s important to acknowledge the sacrifices of the men and women in uniform that died to defend her. Civil society only survives in a world of violence and tyranny if there are those willing to do violence on our behalf.
In his 1982 Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery, President Ronald Reagan reminds us of the ultimate cost of freedom:
“Yet, we must try to honor them—not for their sakes alone, but for our own. And if words cannot repay the debt we owe these men, surely with our actions we must strive to keep faith with them and with the vision that led them to battle and to final sacrifice.
Our first obligation to them and ourselves is plain enough: The United States and the freedom for which it stands, the freedom for which they died, must endure and prosper. Their lives remind us that freedom is not bought cheaply. It has a cost; it imposes a burden. And just as they whom we commemorate were willing to sacrifice, so too must we—in a less final, less heroic way—be willing to give of ourselves.”
Scripture tells us in John 15:13 (New Living Translation), “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” While Memorial Day is considered the official kick-off of summer, I hope you’ll take a moment to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives to protect and defend our liberty. Freedom only exists in America because of them.
Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.
Video: Celebrate the “Assault Weapon*” Tricentennial!
How time flies, it’s been 3 Centuries [1718 – 2018] since the invention of the Puckle gun – one of the many early “Assault Weapons*”
Image Credit: littlegun.be
When they aren’t spouting nonsensical lines such as “30 magazine clip in ½ a second”, Liberty grabber Leftists love to parrot the lie that back before the ratification of the Constitution, (1788) they only had one shot muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. The reality is that repeating and other early versions of ‘automatic weapons‘ were in existence long before this time period. Imagine that, the national Socialist Left lying about an important historical fact that furthers their agenda?
This is a full video exposition of this historic gun from Forgotten Weapons
The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.
This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.
It utilised a revolving cylinder to bring a projectile and powder charge to the breach of the gun. In essence, it was a manual revolver, but it was in existence 70 years BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. So much for the ‘One shot musket Lie’. One could have several of these revolving cylinders loaded and ready to be placed on the gun – making them something akin to the first “High capacity magazines*”.
*Yes, we’re playing it a bit fast and loose with these terms, but since they have no set definition, that doesn’t matter. In point of fact, that term (and others) were made up by the Liberty grabbers as a way of destroying the basic human Right of self-defense while maintaining the fiction supporting it. The tactic is to use a term such as this so it’s an easy progression to destroy any civil or natural right. In the case of the Liberty of self-defense, the definition is simply expanded to include just about every gun in existence.