A comparison with Greek states confronting Rome clarifies Japan's expected sequence of attrition, decisive battle, and negotiation. In the analogy, a Greek victory normally opened bargaining, while Rome answered battlefield reverses by sending more legions. Japan likewise needed the United States or Britain to negotiate after the first major fleet defeat because Japanese industry could not replace losses through repeated rounds. It might challenge the first enemy fleet effectively, but not the second and third formations an industrial opponent could generate. Decisive-battle doctrine therefore depended on the adversary accepting the same political meaning of victory.
Notable Point · 1:59:28-2:01:39
A decisive battle mattered only if the enemy negotiated
A Greek-and-Roman analogy shows the fatal assumption behind Japan's plan: battlefield success could not compel peace if an industrial opponent simply returned with another fleet.