Skip to main content
History

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Commented Apr 24, 2021 at 20:25
  • 1
    One problem here: At that point the Japanese strategy was not aimed at "winning", but rather at avoiding total defeat. The objective was to make actually conquering them so bloody we would let them be. That's why they surrendered when we started destroying their cities from high altitude--they no longer had the ability to make it too bloody, their strategy went out the window. Commented Apr 25, 2021 at 23:32
  • 1
    @LorenPechtel This assumes there was a strategy. When I look at their high command from 1944 I see infighting between the peace and holdout factions. Let's suppose it was their strategy, was it effective? The war began assuming the US wouldn't fight; that didn't work, why would it work now? Japan hadn't stopped a single invasion, why would they now? Japan was already taking heavy air and sea bombardment, losing Okinawa made it worse. They had over 1 mil soldiers spread across China instead of defending the home islands. If the goal was to negotiate better terms, they hardly tried. Commented Apr 26, 2021 at 4:46
  • @LorenPechtel If you'd like to discuss this more, please join the chat. The inner goings on inside the Japanese high command are a big topic. Commented Apr 26, 2021 at 4:53
  • This is a superb answer! The only addition I could suggest is that the question asks about its effectiveness as a "strategy". How was it in any way a strategy? It was a desperate response to a bad situation, not more. Commented Aug 4, 2023 at 21:24