In this provocative history; James B. Wood challenges the received wisdom that Japan's defeat in the Pacific was historically inevitable. He argues instead that it was only when the Japanese military prematurely abandoned its original sound strategic plan—to secure the resources Japan needed and establish a viable defensible perimeter for the Empire—that the Allies were able to regain the initiative and lock Japanese forces into a war of attrition they were not prepared to fight. The book persuasively shows how the Japanese army and navy had both the opportunity and the capability to have fought a different and more successful war in the Pacific that could have influenced the course and outcome of World War II. It is therefore a study both of Japanese defeat and of what was needed to achieve a potential Japanese victory; or at the very least; to avoid total ruin. Wood's argument does not depend on signal individual historical events or dramatic accidents. Instead it examines how familiar events could have become more complicated or problematic under different; but nevertheless historically possible; conditions due to changes in the complex interaction of strategic and operational factors over time. Wood concludes that fighting a different war was well within the capacities of imperial Japan. He underscores the fact that the enormous task of achieving total military victory over Japan would have been even more difficult; perhaps too difficult; if the Japanese had waged a different war and the Allies had not fought as skillfully as they did. If Japan had traveled that alternate military road; the outcome of the Pacific War could have differed significantly from that we know so well—and; perhaps a little too complacently; accept.
#1259418 in Books Sheed n Ward 2004-11-26Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.10 x .71 x 6.20l; .70 #File Name: 0742531880248 pages
Review
2 of 11 people found the following review helpful. Sci-Fi Natural LawBy Peter P. FuchsHere is a recent example of this author's online reasoning; which he proposes others should be governed by in a free republic:"Let us assume that two planets which have not yet been inhabited by humans are to be colonized by them; on Planet Alpha; heterosexual couples only are assigned; on Planet Beta; only homosexual couples. In one hundred years; will both islands be populated assuming that reproductive technologies are not available to either group? I suggest that Planet Alpha will be; but Planet Beta will not. Why? The basic answer is to be found in the biological complementarity of the heterosexual couple necessary for procreation that is absent in same-sex couple. This is a scientific argument..."As I suspected; Natural Law theorists are about as serious as Trekkies