Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What If Pearl Harbour Wasnt Attacked?  
User currently offlineGrozzy From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 156 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

Reading the other thread on Japan in WW2, I am thinking the attack on Pearl Harbour was not a great idea. So what do you think would have happened if the USA wasnt provoked?

At what stage would the USA have got involved in the Pacific and European wars (if at all)?
Would any other countries have been able stand up to Japan?

China, England and Australia were fairly weak at that stage and couldnt have done much on their own. The USSR did not declare war on Japan until Germany was defeated, and Japans defeat was inevitable. I think the war would have been very different.

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13141 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

For at least 2 years before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the USA was supporting China with aircraft, guns, running supplies over the 'hump' (the Hymaliays) to China, supporting the 'Flying Tigers' and so on and we were doing 'lend-lease' and selling supplies including oil to the UK in their early years of WWII.
I think even if the Attack on Pearl Harbor had not occured, we still would have been involved deeply in early 1942 in Europe and in the Pacific. In parts due to various treaties, our colonial control of the Philippines and our South Pacific territories which had been captured by Japan, realizing the threat the both the Nazis and Japanese were to our allies, threats worldwide to shipping and trade, access to critical resources (natural rubber for example in south Asia) and to areas like the East coast and Alaska. We also may not have lost so many ships that would have made the sea war in the Pacific end sooner.

[Edited 2008-11-14 18:09:25]

User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Eventually, Japan and the U.S. would have come to blows. The Japanese war against Southeeast Asia, especailly China, would have meant war eventually. In what form, who knows? But I do think that had war been pushed back, Russia would have definitely gotten involved in that conflict (they technically did-after the atomic bombs were dropped), and that would have changed the face of Asia even more. It's possible the entire Korean peninsula would have been under Soviet Control.

And interesting "what if", to be sure. But, I do feel that the U.S. and Japan were put on a collision course as far back as a decade before Pearl Harbor, and, eventually, it would have meant war, even without Pearl Harbor.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3064 times:

The attack on Pearl Harbor came during a period when the US government was trying to get the Japanese to attack.

They had a couple ships in vulnerable positions in the seas near China, Taiwan and the Philippines.

The leading presumption was that either the sinking of a US Navy ship, or even better, an actual attack on the Philippines could be used to manipulate the US public into allowing a declaration of war.

Though the President and his top advisors hated the destruction and loss of life at Pearl Harbor, Guam and the Philippines, it was the perfect PR tool they needed to bring the US into the war.

The statement by Roosevelt in the Day of Infamy speech " While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack. " is either an outright lie, or the US government was completely stupid and unable to understand how the Japanese government worked.

US Ambassador to Japan Grew clearly recognized the Japanese statement as a declaration of war.

On Dec 6, 1941 there was much less public support in the US for war with Japan and even less for a war with Germany than there was in the US for the war in Iraq in 2003.

There are records of conversations about how to convince the people and a reluctant Congress that the war needed to also be against Germany. The declaration of war was against Japan alone, and not Germany or Italy.

There was great relief in Washington when Hitler lived up to his treaty and declared war on the US.

I don't think Russia would have ended up involved in the Pacific, because without Pearl Harbor the US may not have been able to enter the war in Germany until late 1943 or even mid-1944. The invasion of France and opening of the second front would not have occurred until 1946 or 1947.

I think Hitler would have been better prepared to fight against that invasion with jet fighters and possibly long range rockets able to hit the US east coast. Guidance would have been very flaky maybe one in 10 or 20 making it, but two stage rockets would have been used.

Though Hitler was enough of a nut case, surrounded by even more insane advisors, that he might have thrown away the advantage of more time and declared war on the US anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I do not think there is any credible evidence that people in Washington knew Pearl Harbor was a target.

They did know that the Japanese government placed great emphasis on having the declaration of war delivered to the US officially before 8 am Hawaii time. They knew something would happen that day.

Their lack of understanding of the Japanese culture and the way official decisions are made and official documents written contributed to Hull not recognizing the multi-part message as a declaration of war, which it was by Japanese standards.

But the US leadership was still operating with a peace time mentality - they utterly failed to grasp the significance of the deadline. And failed to warn their field commanders, though to be fair they had no real 'fast' communications system in 1941.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3063 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 3):
Though Hitler was enough of a nut case, surrounded by even more insane advisors, that he might have thrown away the advantage of more time and declared war on the US anyway.

And the happiest man on the planet that day was Winston Churchill, because he knew, at that moment, Hitler was beaten.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3047 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
And the happiest man on the planet that day was Winston Churchill, because he knew, at that moment, Hitler was beaten.

I disagree.When russia was attacked,The winter climate caused the germans to face difficulties,that was the turning point of WW2.

On the topic.In case Pearl harbour was not attacked,either another flashpoint would have arisen or Japan would have been a peaceful nation with no expansion plans then.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineGrozzy From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3033 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 3):
There was great relief in Washington when Hitler lived up to his treaty and declared war on the US.

So it was Germany who declared war on the US due to their treaty with Japan? I had always assumed it was the other way round.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

Pearl Harbor was only one of many attacks. At the same time, the Japanese (making use of bases kindly provided by the Vichy French) bombed Hong Kong and Singapore, sank two British battleships off the coast of Malaya, and sent in invasion fleets to occupy Malaya, Burma, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies.

It's quite clear that a strategy had been cooked up by Hitler and Tojo for Japan to seize the oilfields that they needed, capture the key naval base at Singapore, and attack westwards through India. While, at the same time, Rommel kicked the British out of North Africa, seized the Suez Canal, and attacked eastwards through Iran to 'link hands' with the Japanese in India.

The basis of that plan was that the British were already over-stretched and would not be able to spare enough resources both to defend India and to hold Suez; and that the Americans, having lost their battlefleet, would be unable to reinforce the Philippines across the vastness of the Pacific in face of the Japanese Navy. It helped that, at that time, Russia appeared to have been thoroughly beaten and likely to sue for peace at any moment.

The idea was that, once the Germans and the Japanese had linked up, from Europe all the way to South-East Asia, they would literally have secured 'world domination.' Neither Britain nor the USA could possibly have assembled enough forces to drive them out of the vast territories that they had conquered.

Sounds an incredibly-optimistic plan with the benefit of hindsight; but to the 'mad dictators' running the Axis, it must have looked all too possible.

Indeed, had the British not succeeded in holding the Suez Canal; had the British and Indian armies not stopped the Japanese on the eastern borders of India; and, above all, had the USN's aircraft-carriers been in harbour at Pearl so that they could have been destroyed along with the battleships; the plan might well have succeeded.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineGreggarious From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2984 times:



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5):
or Japan would have been a peaceful nation with no expansion plans then.

Whoops... If not Pearl Harbor, then someplace else. And I definitely don't think that Japan would indefinitely shelve its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Master Plans (TM) for lack of sneak attacks on the American Navy, in favor of peaceful non-expansion. 1930s China can definitely attest to that!


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2952 times:

At least this monstrosity would never seen the day,



[edit post]
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2922 times:



Quoting Grozzy (Reply 6):
So it was Germany who declared war on the US due to their treaty with Japan? I had always assumed it was the other way round.

On Dec 8, 1941 (US time) the Congress of the United States passed a joint resolution

Quote:
"Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

War with Germany, and Italy, was not officially discussed on that day.

On Dec 11, 1941, the Roosevelt administration notified Congress that

Quote:
"To the Congress of the United States:

"On the morning of December 11, the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States.

"The long known and the long expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere.

"Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty, and civilization.

"Delay invites greater danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism.

"Italy also has declared war against the United States.

"I, therefore, request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/decmenu.asp

All three of the declarations of war specifically point out that the United States did not initiate the war, but only responded to the actions of other nations.


(Boy I hate that spell check has been broken on this site for over a month).


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2891 times:

I agree that at some point, Japan and the US would have clashed.
Japan thought so, hence the attempt to knock the US Pacific Fleet out at Pearl.
Since in their grab for resources across the Asia-Pacific region, they would, as already pointed out, collide with US interests/bases.

FDR emotionally knew Hitler would have to be confronted at some point, he probably came to this conclusion during 1940, however the fact that Britain neither fell nor would, under Churchill, surrender/try to seek an accomodation, with Nazi Germany, probably gave in his mind, some considerable breathing space.
For domestic political reasons, he fought the 1940 election on a ticket of keeping America out of the war.
That was true at that time, given the circumstances.

Then there was the aid given to the UK, which more and more strained at the official US stance of neutrality.
This had been helpful to FDR, an extension to his own policies of kick starting the US economy in the wake of the great depression.

For many in the US, this aid in itself was taking sides, Germany increasingly thought so.
As the Battle Of The Atlantic escalated, this ocean became another theatre where the US and an Axis power were on a collision course.

It is also hard to see how Hitler, once ordering (verbally only) the 'Final Solution' to the 'Jewish question' in mid 1941, would have ever been content in leaving the Jews in the US alone.
If the secret of what had happened to the Jews in Europe ever got out..............

Here, the dreams of Hitler and the practical reality clashed (not for the first time), perhaps this explains the proposed mass expansion of German seapower under the 'Z-Plan', but the onset of WW2 delayed then ended that plan.
Then there was Hitler's great interest in rockets, again progress here was blunted as other demands took priority, though they still managed, eventually, the revolutionary A4 (V2).
Clearly this was to be the forerunner of bigger and bigger rockets, transatlantic capable ones. Perhaps one day carrying this new power of atoms that some of his scientists talked about.

It was no surprise that it was Hitler who declared war on the US in the wake of Pearl Harbour, it made no strategic sense, rather it was him expressing his long term aims, however impractical.
When stuck in prison writing Mein Kampf years before, with it's clear statements on establishing a great Eastern Empire, or 'living space', for Germany - destroying what he saw as 'Jewish-Bolshevism' in the process, this idea would have seemed totally absurd, given his own circumstances and that of Germany - militarily and economically at that time.
But here he was, about to it seemed, realise that Eastern empire, why not dream of bending the US to his will, one day?

In 1941, though most in the US did not know it, America was on a path to war with both Germany and Japan.
It was inevitable, Japan just forced the issue by attempting a devastating strike on the US Pacific Fleet.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2751 times:



Quoting Grozzy (Thread starter):
At what stage would the USA have got involved in the Pacific and European wars (if at all)?
Would any other countries have been able stand up to Japan?



Quoting Greggarious (Reply 8):
Whoops... If not Pearl Harbor, then someplace else.



Quoting GDB (Reply 11):
I agree that at some point, Japan and the US would have clashed.

I think the question really comes down to, "What would have happened if Japan had not entered the War?"

Having once decided to get involved, Japan had no option but to attempt to 'neutralise' US forces at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. Conversely, had they decided against getting involved, and not directly attacked the USA, US public opinion would have remained so solidly against getting involved that Roosevelt could never have hoped to get a declaration of war through Congress. However, he would have continued with 'all aid short of war,' including Lendlease.

So, logically, the war would have continued in the form of Britain and the Commonwealth and Russia against Germany and Italy - and largely confined to Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

It can be said that the turning-points of both those campaigns occurred in one month; October 1942. In that month, British and Commonwealth forces totally defeated the Germans and itialians, under Rommel, at El Alamein; and the Russians cut off, surrounded, and defeated the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad.

From then on, Hitler and Mussolini would have been virtually 'bottled up' in Europe. Neither of them had planned on a long war - their forces were organised and equipped only for the 'blitzkrieg' tactics that had been so successful in France in 1940.

Conversely:-

1. The British had perfected their heavy bomber designs, capable of carrying up to ten tons of bombs, and was getting them into service in increasing numbers.

2. The British and Canadian Navies were getting the measure of the U-boat campaign in the North Atlantic (much helped by the US Navy, which was helping to escort convoys in the western half of the Atlantic (effectively daring the U-boats to attack them, and risk enraging America to the point where it entered the War).

3. Russia, with the benefit of Lendlease, was building up huge mechanised field armies which the German armies could never have hoped to resist indefinitely.

So, as I see it - minus the entry of either Japan or the United States into the war - the British would nevertheless have carried out relentless heavy bombing attacks on the Axis (probably giving priority at first to Italy, with very good prospects of knocking them out of the War) and would have contunied to blockade German and Italian ports, making it impossible for them to import raw materials or food. Meanwhile, the Russians would have mounted an equally-relentless land offensive along the whole length of the Eastern Front.

So Germany would eventually have been defeated anyway. BUT- it would have meant European cities being even more smashed up than they were, and Russia very probably occupying the whole of Eastern Europe, Germany, the Balkans, and even Greece, and forming them into an even larger USSR.

There is another (rather nightmare) scenario. By May 1941 The British had validated the feasibility of the uranium bomb (later built as 'Thin Man') and also settled on the method of manufacture. And they even had aeroplanes that could carry a five-ton bomb coniming into service. However, there were obvious risks in setting up the masssive construction plants required to build it within range of German bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. Plans were afoot to build it in Canada, and talks were also held with the United States. Of course, witihn a few months, the USA was in the War, and it naturally made most sense to continue the work over there.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/MAUD.shtml

So there was a distinct possibillty that WW2 could still have ended with the 'atomic age' being ushered in in 1945. Not at the expense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but at that of Berlin, Cologne, or even Rome......



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2710 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
And the happiest man on the planet that day was Winston Churchill, because he knew, at that moment, Hitler was beaten.



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5):
I disagree.When russia was attacked,The winter climate caused the germans to face difficulties,that was the turning point of WW2

MEL, there are all sorts of threads about who really beat the Germans -- the Russians or the US/UK (general consensus seems to be: they both did.)

But that's not what Falcon84 is saying. He is referring to a specific change in Winston Churchill's outlook on the war.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2701 times:



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5):
I disagree.When russia was attacked,The winter climate caused the germans to face difficulties,that was the turning point of WW2.

Got to agree, when he broke his treaty with Stalin is when Hitler really eff'd up.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 9):
At least this monstrosity would never seen the day,

God ain't that the truth.

We also wouldn't have to deal with history revisionists who try and claim that FDR was trying to get us into the war.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDC10extender From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2526 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5):

But thats when Churchill knew. He was woken up by his butler who told him that Pearl Harbor was attacked. He said "So, we're going to win after all" and then rolled over and went back to sleep.



Did you ever read on your birth certificate that life is fair? Thats cause its not there.
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7385 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2514 times:



Quoting Grozzy (Thread starter):
Reading the other thread on Japan in WW2, I am thinking the attack on Pearl Harbour was not a great idea.

Beg to differ from a military point of view, Yamato had it correct, if the carriers were in port, the attack would have accomplished its mission, which was to buy time for the politicians to work out a compromise. It is a given that the US and Japan would have eventually got into a shooting war, too much was taking place to avoid this and no real talks were in the works, some within the US military were pushing for a confrontation, others on the political end were pushing for less confrontation and condemnation of Japan's aggression.

The attack from a military point of view was predictable, practised by the Americans before hand, they knew it could happen. The better topic from a conspiracy point of view would be did they allow it to happen. Reality is the the reason Pearl Harbour has such a place in US history is not the birlliance of the attack, or its audacity but the fact that it occured while they were talking about war, essentially it was a sneak attack, which wiped out any military benefit the attack brought to Japan. Whether the sneak part was deliberate or accidental is matter of theorist and historians, people live in reality and it was a sneak attack which meant that unless Japan could defeat the US unconditionally, they were doomed to defeat.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2471 times:



Quoting Arniepie (Reply 9):

Never saw that version of history, but there's no doubt that "Tora! Tora! Tora!" was one of the great war movies of all time. I enjoy the historical movies more than the fictional tales anyway. "Midway" was great if you take out the love stories.  Big grin


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2394 times:



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
Pearl Harbor was only one of many attacks. At the same time, the Japanese (making use of bases kindly provided by the Vichy French) bombed Hong Kong and Singapore, sank two British battleships off the coast of Malaya, and sent in invasion fleets to occupy Malaya, Burma, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies.

During the initial planning of the Pearl Harbor operation Admiral Nagano Osami was of the opinion that Japan should not strike the US. Japan in his view should only strike at British and Dutch interests in the Western Pacific. He thought that FDR would have been hard pressed to convince Congress and the American people to go to war over British and Dutch colonies. And he was probably right. However I do agree with the people on this thread that a war between the two would have been inevitable.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 16):
Beg to differ from a military point of view, Yamato had it correct, if the carriers were in port, the attack would have accomplished its mission, which was to buy time for the politicians to work out a compromise. It is a given that the US and Japan would have eventually got into a shooting war, too much was taking place to avoid this and no real talks were in the works, some within the US military were pushing for a confrontation, others on the political end were pushing for less confrontation and condemnation of Japan's aggression.

Even if the carriers had been in port and sunk it would not have changed the situation between the US and Japan. First, not all of the US Navy's carriers were based at Pearl Harbor. The Saratoga was on the west coast undergoing refit. The Wasp was in the Atlantic as was the Hornet and Ranger. So the navy still would have had carriers in which to use. Second, the first of the Essex class carriers were already under construction on Dec 7. Third, it would have been political suicide for FDR to say to Congress and the American people that he was going to negotiate with the Japanese. Not that it would have entered his mind anyway.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2391 times:



Quoting Arniepie (Reply 9):
At least this monstrosity would never seen the day,

Truly one of the worst historical based movies ever made. The only thing good about it were the special affects.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2375 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 16):
Yamato had it correct, if the carriers were in port, the attack would have accomplished its mission, which was to buy time for the politicians to work out a compromise.

While the carriers were important and their destruction would have bought time - the fuel stored at Pearl was a much more valuable, vital target.

The vast majority of US tanker assest were on the opposite ocean, supporting the European war. There was very limited tanker capacity on the west coast, and not enough to support the level of operations in 1942 and early 1943.

Logistics wins wars, or more importantly - loses wars, not weapons.

Those are only large expensive hunks of metal without the logistics support necessary to keep them at the front.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 18):
Even if the carriers had been in port and sunk it would not have changed the situation between the US and Japan. First, not all of the US Navy's carriers were based at Pearl Harbor. The Saratoga was on the west coast undergoing refit. The Wasp was in the Atlantic as was the Hornet and Ranger. So the navy still would have had carriers in which to use. Second, the first of the Essex class carriers were already under construction on Dec 7. Third, it would have been political suicide for FDR to say to Congress and the American people that he was going to negotiate with the Japanese. Not that it would have entered his mind anyway.

Yamato hoped for a year - that the attack at Pearl could damage the fleet and it's logistics and repair capacity to give the Japanese a year to stabilize their expansion, secure their own oil sources in Batavia and prepare.

He also expected the US to commit to at least one major battle.

He knew it was essential for the people of the US to have some time to process the attack, and it was absolutely critical that the Japanese Declaration of War be delivered before the attack at Pearl.

But Yamato also knew the US better than most Japanese military and political leaders. He clearly doubted that such a plan was doomed to failure without (1) prior notification so it could not be called a surprise, (2) destruction of much of the fighting capacity of the US Navy, (3) destruction of the fuel and repair facilities in Pearl.

Even if those objectives were achieved, he doubted that the war with the US could be settled without the destruction of the Japanese Navy.

However, his superiors and the politicial leadership were operating in a fantasy world and never understood the US mindset.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2275 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 20):
He knew it was essential for the people of the US to have some time to process the attack, and it was absolutely critical that the Japanese Declaration of War be delivered before the attack at Pearl.

But Yamato also knew the US better than most Japanese military and political leaders. He clearly doubted that such a plan was doomed to failure without (1) prior notification so it could not be called a surprise, (2) destruction of much of the fighting capacity of the US Navy, (3) destruction of the fuel and repair facilities in Pearl.

Yamamoto might have thought prior notification was very important in the grand scheme of things. However it would not have made much difference to the USA had they received the notification thirty minutes prior to the attack. To American eyes it still would have appeared as a suprise attack.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 20):
However, his superiors and the politicial leadership were operating in a fantasy world and never understood the US mindset.

Both sides were guilty of not fully understanding their enemy. Of course Japan paid a much heavier price for thier lack of understanding.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2252 times:

The question should be if the US knew the attack on Pearl was coming and how they would have stopped it. With Yamamoto's plan in was no doubt that the Imperial Japanese Navy was going to attack Pearl, it was their only way to buy time to consildate their gains in the south Pacific.
With Pearl on alert and forces deployed the Japaneses attack would have failed with our forces going after their 4 flattops in the attack force.
But on the other hand. ships like the WW1 Arizona and Oklahoma would have been easy targets for dive bombers for the lack of decent or modern AA batteries and the max 17 knot speed which lagged behind the flattops which would have been a even bigger loss of life. Plus the USN at the time was run by battleship adimirals and the sub community tatics were to be a recon for the BB's instead of the hunter killer tactics they used later to bring japan to her knees.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2241 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 22):
The question should be if the US knew the attack on Pearl was coming and how they would have stopped it. With Yamamoto's plan in was no doubt that the Imperial Japanese Navy was going to attack Pearl, it was their only way to buy time to consildate their gains in the south Pacific.
With Pearl on alert and forces deployed the Japaneses attack would have failed with our forces going after their 4 flattops in the attack force.
But on the other hand. ships like the WW1 Arizona and Oklahoma would have been easy targets for dive bombers for the lack of decent or modern AA batteries and the max 17 knot speed which lagged behind the flattops which would have been a even bigger loss of life. Plus the USN at the time was run by battleship adimirals and the sub community tatics were to be a recon for the BB's instead of the hunter killer tactics they used later to bring japan to her knees.

It was probably a blessing in disguise that the US was unaware of the Pearl Harbor operation. If the fleet had sortied from Pearl Harbor and engaged the IJN task force it would have ended badly for the USN.

There were only two carriers, the Enterprise and Lexington, which were available at the time. They would have gone up against six IJN fleet carriers on the open ocean. Not only were numbers against them but crew proficiency and coordination between carriers as well. The Japanese at the time had the best naval aviators in the world. Add to that their experience coordinating strikes between the various carriers. In the USN there was little coordination between the flattops. That became rather evident at Midway.

Like you pointed out those old slow battleships would have been fat targets for Japanese torpedo planes. There would have been no raising those ships out at sea either like at Pearl Harbor.


User currently offlineJetBlueGuy2006 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1662 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2230 times:



Quoting Grozzy (Thread starter):

Well, I am actually writing a paper about this right now. I looked at this question from the perspective of American culture.

I don't think Women and minorities would have come as far as they have if it weren't for PH. I say that because of the reason that if they had not entered WWII, Women probably wouldn't have entered the factories to build material and equipment and African-American's would not have had the Tuskegee Airman; which I believe help lay the foundation for the Civil Rights movement.



Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
25 NAV20 : Not sure that it would have 'failed' in any case, Venus6971. As you go on to say, the 'air arm' held most of the cards in the early 1940s. Just as a
26 GDB : I suppose the RN's Fleet Air Arm should, indirectly, take some blame for Pearl Harbour. After, the result of their attack, (with 21 Swordfish aircraft
27 LMP737 : Fortunately for the USN Nagumo was more concerned with high tailing it out of the area. In all fairness to him it was his responsibility for the safe
28 Venus6971 : If they the US Armed Forces then were in a different mindset instead of a weekends off peacetime military maybe they would have taken the radar repor
29 LMP737 : The Japanese were a victim of their own success during the war with Russia in 1905. There they learned the lesson that in one decisive battle they co
30 Victrola : I don't know if you can say that FDR was trying to get us into the war. However I think it is accurate to say that FDR was going to do everything pos
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What If... McCain-Obama Ticket? posted Sun Mar 9 2008 20:14:03 by Yellowstone
What If Guys Suffered From PMS posted Wed Jan 30 2008 11:52:04 by AndesSMF
What If Howard Dean Won 2004 Nomination? posted Tue Jan 1 2008 12:23:51 by Bmacleod
What If The Queen Elizabeth Did Not Burn? posted Thu Oct 18 2007 19:28:52 by 747400sp
What If The SS Normandie Did Not Burn? posted Thu Oct 18 2007 11:06:53 by 747400sp
What If A Hurricane Crossed Oceans? posted Sun Sep 2 2007 21:44:53 by Inbound
What If My Passport Doesn't Come? posted Mon Jun 25 2007 07:08:56 by Ebs757
What If Any GPS Do You Use? posted Fri Jun 8 2007 05:23:33 by Don81603
What If George Bush Was A Black President? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 16:57:37 by VHVXB
What If A.Net Were A City? Your Involvment? posted Thu Oct 5 2006 09:08:02 by JetsGo