No, Logistically the amount of Japanese troops to impose a regime across all of china was not supportable if there was no political settlement, and I don't think the Japanese were offeringa regime attractive enough to enough Chinese to stop those outside of immediate reach repressive power of the Japanese Army resisting and not supporting the Japanese occupation,. China is a huge country to impose a pretty much repressive regime across the entirely of china is a lot of manpower, and the logistical support network was not developed enough to support that sized occupation.Could they? As in destruction of bulk Chinese forces and a surrender?
Good pointLike the Athenians trying to defeat Sparta by starting a new war with Syracuse, the Japanese try to win the war in China by attacking the US, UK and Netherlands (in part at least). Why do people think they can win a stalemated war by starting a second one?
The Japanese assumed that the war with Western powers would be a quick one with few casualties. The entire strategy of making massive and coordinated surprise attacks at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Hong Kong and Malaya were meant to give a huge shock to the Allies and preventing them of making any organised response against Japanese aggression, and more importantly, to make the war not to drag on for too long.Good point
It has to do with different factions me thinks.... China was mostly the army.... The Pacific war was mostly Navy (as in "we
ll show those army boys how a war is won")... Alternatively it can be to draw attention away from one's own failures (
while they are busy fighting the US, they wont notice we messed up in China)