Last week the Japanese Navy submitted a public report on its losses in the first year of war. If Tokyo’s figures were suspect in details, they were also worth U.S. attention and analysis:
> The Navy said that three aircraft carriers and one battleship had been sunk. Two more carriers and a second battleship had been damaged badly enough to be included in another summary of specific losses. The Japanese thus admitted that five carriers and two battleships had been put out of action—a total very near the U.S. claim that six carriers and two battleships had been sunk.
> Tokyo said that 40 warships in all had been sunk, that 22 had been damaged. This was a far cry from the U.S. claim that 129 had been sunk, and a curious reversal of the usual ratio between sunk and damaged naval vessels. But the Japanese, significantly, did not detail their losses in cruisers, the category in which their losses have hurt the most.
> Tokyo said that a number of new battleships and aircraft carriers have gone into service. This statement was probably true: in 1941 Japan was building several battleships of more than 40,000 tons (Tokyo’s answer to the Iowa and New Jersey) and several aircraft carriers.
> Tokyo admitted the loss of 65 merchantmen. The U.S. claimed 108. But Premier Hideki Tojo, warning the Japanese that their shortage of shipping is serious, described Japan’s sea problem in terms much like those which the U.S. Navy uses on the same subject. Said Tojo: “The success or failure of southern reconstruction [in the conquered Pacific areas] depends chiefly … on the efficiency of water transportation. . . . Japan does not have surplus vessels, for Japan must maintain transportation within the extensive area of the Greater East Asia sphere, while she must [also] continue her gigantic [war] operation, continuously fighting one decisive battle after another.” In other words, U.S. attacks on Japanese merchantmen, cruisers and destroyers have hit Japan at her weakest point.
More Must-Reads from TIME
- Donald Trump Is TIME's 2024 Person of the Year
- Why We Chose Trump as Person of the Year
- Is Intermittent Fasting Good or Bad for You?
- The 100 Must-Read Books of 2024
- The 20 Best Christmas TV Episodes
- Column: If Optimism Feels Ridiculous Now, Try Hope
- The Future of Climate Action Is Trade Policy
- Merle Bombardieri Is Helping People Make the Baby Decision
Contact us at letters@time.com