DBWI: attak on Pearl Harbor (thread circa 2011)

I know this has been done a lot but what if Japan had gone with the Pearl Habor Attak instead of going for the Philippines.

My main questions are;

What affect does this have on the cold war ?

How much tougher will FDR be in the pacific theatre (will he be tougher ) ?

what affect will there be on Asia's other major nations China and India?

and lastly how does this affect the British Empires’ war effort in the far east?
 
Totally ASB. Pearl Harbor is too shallow to make any surprise air attack feasible. Torpedoes dropped from Japanese planes would have just buried themselves in the bottom of the harbor.
 
since when did total ASBness stop Japan :D ? yes it is ASB but if they had gone though with it what would of happened?

Perhaps FDR would have gotten through with his ultimatum of unconditional surrender. We might have seen a completely occupied Japan, or a war lasting long into '45.

In that case, Japan would have lost a lot more than Manchuria and Korea. Chiang was making a lot of noise about Taiwan, maybe he would have gotten it. If he ran there when things went downhill on the mainland, who knows how things would have ended up there.

If the pacific war lasted longer, would there be enough ships available to mount an invasion of Europe in '44?
 
theman from the ministery

It would have depended on the success of the attack. I can't see it being as effective as what the Japanese did to the US fleet when Roosevelt pressurised it into that rash bid to relieve the Philippines. The problem of attacking at such a distance from any base, against a well defended naval base. Don't forger Hawaii had radar so they would probably see the attack coming. Not to mention it would have to be a carrier attack only, without land based air support. As well as the point Pseudonym Sam mentioned. You can't see the Japs learning from the tactics the Brits did at Taranto can you?

Instead the defeat of the US Pacific fleet in Mar 42 put back the war in the Pacific at least a year. Six battleships and four carriers, plus all the supporting elements, along with those damaged. :( True the Japanese lost a couple of Kongos and the Amagi but it put the allies on the defensive for over a year.

Steve
 
theman from the ministery

It would have depended on the success of the attack. I can't see it being as effective as what the Japanese did to the US fleet when Roosevelt pressurised it into that rash bid to relieve the Philippines. The problem of attacking at such a distance from any base, against a well defended naval base. Don't forger Hawaii had radar so they would probably see the attack coming. Not to mention it would have to be a carrier attack only, without land based air support. As well as the point Pseudonym Sam mentioned. You can't see the Japs learning from the tactics the Brits did at Taranto can you?

Instead the defeat of the US Pacific fleet in Mar 42 put back the war in the Pacific at least a year. Six battleships and four carriers, plus all the supporting elements, along with those damaged. :( True the Japanese lost a couple of Kongos and the Amagi but it put the allies on the defensive for over a year.

Steve

For arguments sake they did it? With the only half US fleet of action -and I'm guessing a more Pacific focused Japan- what would we still see Japanese Troops crossing into India? If not would this speed up -Japanese Troops never commit the war crimes they did the Indians feel that there’s no need for British Protection- and would Jinnah have still got the Anglo-Indian defence Treaties?
 
Top