Midway Lost

[Snake Featherston]

Oh, to be sure there will be some within the US that will call it a humiliating defeat, etc, but the main downside of patriotism is that it is very easy to manipulate for the purposes of the state. Anybody who got too loud with the criticism of the peace would be shouted down alternately with labels of "How dare you criticize the fine American fighting forces that kept Hawaii" or "How many more thousand would you add to the butchers bill?".

Based on the logic of outrage sustaining a war effort, explain why in 1814, after the British having taken large swaths of US territory, ransacked Washington and generally made Pearl Harbour look like a small traffic accident in comparison, the US lept at the chance for peace with the British?

The US not only took it, they declared that it was not only an honourable peace, but a victory for the US. I'm sure that any proposed treaty would not be slanted too much in either Japan or the US favour, or at least not overtly so. I'm not suggesting that the Japanese Army will march into Washington DC and dictate terms, nor would you see a Pacific Brest-Livtosk style treaty, but more along the lines of a ceasing of hostilities and an understanding by the US that they can't embargo the Japanese.

The USA stuck with Lincoln in 1864 when his generals brought bloody, ceaseless warfare that seemed to promise nothing but stalemate and that was when the war was right there at home. There is nothing Imperial Japan can inflict on the US Navy that will kill US will to wage WWII and avenge Pearl Harbor. They can win all the tactical victories they damn well please, the USA will simply bury them in tonnage if it cannot win any other way.

 

[Boydfish]

You are assuming that the American mindset in the 1940's was the same as the American mindset in 1814 (War of 1812), 1950's (Korea), 1960's (Vietnam). This was simply not the case.

I agree that the US was not of the mindset in 1940, but would put to you that the US mindset was capable of adopting the position of a peace that didn't include a battle to the end. Would a defeat at Midway be enough to make Americans adopt that mindset? I'd say yes.

Consider that during the American Civil War the Union suffered more then its share of defeats. Yes there were growing calls for a negotiated peace but the majority of Americans in the North wanted to keep fighting and did despite huge casualty lists

I'm not suggesting that the US will and always has folded like a house of cards. They are capable of carrying forward in the face of adversity. However, when looked at in context, a US that has been soundly beaten in rapid succession is very capable of examining and adopting a peace treaty.

Regarding your next two paragraphs(Sorry, iPad cut 'n paste has gone wonky), can you reconcile how the American public can view Korea and Vietnam as distant and not a core interest, but Wake, Guam, the Phillipines and Midway are an intrinsic part of the US soul?

I agree that the invasion fears of the west coast were palpable, but that won't convince the eastern US. That fear could also work towards a peace as well: If Americans are worried about a Japanese invasion, when combined with fears that the USN can't beat the Japs, a peace deal would appeal.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I'm not suggesting that the US will and always has folded like a house of cards. They are capable of carrying forward in the face of adversity. However, when looked at in context, a US that has been soundly beaten in rapid succession is very capable of examining and adopting a peace treaty.

Regarding your next two paragraphs(Sorry, iPad cut 'n paste has gone wonky), can you reconcile how the American public can view Korea and Vietnam as distant and not a core interest, but Wake, Guam, the Phillipines and Midway are an intrinsic part of the US soul?

I agree that the invasion fears of the west coast were palpable, but that won't convince the eastern US. That fear could also work towards a peace as well: If Americans are worried about a Japanese invasion, when combined with fears that the USN can't beat the Japs, a peace deal would appeal.

This is not an accurate description of how the USA has ever really waged war. It persisted with Vietnam for years, and the idea that it never really put its heart into the fight is nothing but a US variant of the Dolchstosslegende in order to avoid looking at how Ho Chih Minh won that war. The problem here is the Battle of the Coral Sea, where the US Navy won a strategic victory and where that is unlikely to change in the scenario specified. If the US Navy clears the Aleutians there's another morale boost.

Japan cannot defeat the USA on its own in this war.

 

[Geon]

I'm not suggesting that the US will and always has folded like a house of cards. They are capable of carrying forward in the face of adversity. However, when looked at in context, a US that has been soundly beaten in rapid succession is very capable of examining and adopting a peace treaty.

Regarding your next two paragraphs(Sorry, iPad cut 'n paste has gone wonky), can you reconcile how the American public can view Korea and Vietnam as distant and not a core interest, but Wake, Guam, the Phillipines and Midway are an intrinsic part of the US soul?

I agree that the invasion fears of the west coast were palpable, but that won't convince the eastern US. That fear could also work towards a peace as well: If Americans are worried about a Japanese invasion, when combined with fears that the USN can't beat the Japs, a peace deal would appeal.

To answer some of your questions, consider that in this timeline we are positing that both the Doolittle Raid and the Battle of the Coral Sea have occurred. Both of these have been major morale boosters and the Battle of Coral Sea has proven that the Japanese Navy is not invincible. In another thread of mine on this website I document from LIFE magazine an article by Phillip Wylie which included illustrations which talked of four hypothetical scenarios the Axis could have used for invading the USA. From our standpoint today these scenarios seem ridiculous but they weren't in 1942. There was a real fear on both the west and east coasts of Nazi/Japanese attack.

As to contrasting World War II with the Korean and Vietnam wars consider that South Vietnam and South Korea were considered friendly sovereign nations. We were assisting them in fighting off communist invasion. Wake Island, Guam, and Midway were U.S. possesions, and the Philippines at that time for all intents and purposes was a defacto possesion. The U.S. would not have tolerated allowing the Japanese to hold these territories.

Further lifting the embargo just would not be on the table. I don't see U.S. leaders allowing themselves to be put in a weak position whereby they are subjected to economic/military blackmail every time Japan wanted something.

Geon

 

[Boydfish]

This is not an accurate description of how the USA has ever really waged war

I suppose it is a matter of perspective, but you can't claim that the US has always fought wars with the only acceptable solution being outright occupation and complete victory.

The problem here is the Battle of the Coral Sea, where the US Navy won a strategic victory and where that is unlikely to change in the scenario specified. If the US Navy clears the Aleutians there's another morale boost.

You mean that if the US has even one success, they would never consider a negotiated deal? We're right back to New Orleans in 1814: The Coral Sea victory would be pointed at as "proof" of the US victory in the peace deal.

Ultimately, I'm not saying that a negotiated peace by the US is an absolute certainty, but just that if the change of Midway occurred, a peace deal short of total capitulation is a reasonable event.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I suppose it is a matter of perspective, but you can't claim that the US has always fought wars with the only acceptable solution being outright occupation and complete victory.

Given that the Indian population of what is now the United States was roughly 100% west of the Atlantic coast in the 1790s......yeah, we've pretty much never really had to fight any other kind of war. We either go all in and get whipped, or we go all in and we whip them.

You mean that if the US has even one success, they would never consider a negotiated deal? We're right back to New Orleans in 1814: The Coral Sea victory would be pointed at as "proof" of the US victory in the peace deal.

Ultimately, I'm not saying that a negotiated peace by the US is an absolute certainty, but just that if the change of Midway occurred, a peace deal short of total capitulation is a reasonable event.

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Midway would be seen as a prime example of why one does not gamble against overwhelming numbers (nobody would know of Project Engima at this point) without a damned good reason. The US public will want offensives with numbers so overwhelming the Japanese have no chance to resist. The real winner of course is Joe Stalin who buys months in East Asia and more concessions in Europe from the Allies.

 

[CalBear]

I think you vastly underestimate the utter hatred that was felt toward the Japanese. The feelings toward the 9/11 plotters in the days immediately after the attack on the Twin Towers was MILD compared to venomous view of the Japanese by Americans.

My Grandfather, to his dying day, wouldn't knowing buy anything made by "the $%#^&@ bastards". Most of my relatives of that generation were the same way. The chances of the United States seeking peace with Japan was nil. Any political leader who had voiced it would have been tarre and feathered, if not hanged outright.

The United States was a different place in the 1940s, a far tougher place, populated by people who had just gone through a REAL Depression (something that made the last few years look like an economic boom) without any sort of safety net from the government, except the occassional soup kitchen. The Japanese thought that the 1940s American was what 2011 Americans actually are, too soft to fight, too weak to accept the losses. A 2011 U.S., although it shames me to say it, might consider terms after six months of getting its ass kicked capped off by a huge loss, we are really NOT the people our grandparents were. They were tough, brave, and willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

Trying to put our views onto them is is an impossible fit.

I agree that the US was not of the mindset in 1940, but would put to you that the US mindset was capable of adopting the position of a peace that didn't include a battle to the end. Would a defeat at Midway be enough to make Americans adopt that mindset? I'd say yes.



I'm not suggesting that the US will and always has folded like a house of cards. They are capable of carrying forward in the face of adversity. However, when looked at in context, a US that has been soundly beaten in rapid succession is very capable of examining and adopting a peace treaty.

Regarding your next two paragraphs(Sorry, iPad cut 'n paste has gone wonky), can you reconcile how the American public can view Korea and Vietnam as distant and not a core interest, but Wake, Guam, the Phillipines and Midway are an intrinsic part of the US soul?

I agree that the invasion fears of the west coast were palpable, but that won't convince the eastern US. That fear could also work towards a peace as well: If Americans are worried about a Japanese invasion, when combined with fears that the USN can't beat the Japs, a peace deal would appeal.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I think you vastly underestimate the utter hatred that was felt toward the Japanese. The feelings toward the 9/11 plotters in the days immediately after the attack on the Twin Towers was MILD compared to venomous view of the Japanese by Americans.

My Grandfather, to his dying day, wouldn't knowing buy anything made by "the $%#^&@ bastards". Most of my relatives of that generation were the same way. The chances of the United States seeking peace with Japan was nil. Any political leader who had voiced it would have been tarre and feathered, if not hanged outright.

The United States was a different place in the 1940s, a far tougher place, populated by people who had just gone through a REAL Depression (something that made the last few years look like an economic boom) without any sort of safety net from the government, except the occassional soup kitchen. The Japanese thought that the 1940s American was what 2011 Americans actually are, too soft to fight, too weak to accept the losses. A 2011 U.S., although it shames me to say it, might consider terms after six months of getting its ass kicked capped off by a huge loss, we are really NOT the people our grandparents were. They were tough, brave, and willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

Trying to put our views onto them is is an impossible fit.

Our grandparents had to be drafted to fight a four-year war, we've fought a ten-year war in Iraq and Afghanistan without ever needing a draft. I don't think we're any weaker than they were, we've actually been the first generation to fight a long war without a draft.

 

[CalBear]

Given that the Indian population of what is now the United States was roughly 100% west of the Atlantic coast in the 1790s......yeah, we've pretty much never really had to fight any other kind of war. We either go all in and get whipped, or we go all in and we whip them.



...

I have to disagree with this part of your post. We went about 20% in Vietnam, and about 10% into Iraq. We fought with both hands behind our back in the 'Nam (not sure that more effort would have mattered in the long run, given the realities on the ground) but in the short term Hanoi, Haipong and anything else in the North that had more than four nails in it would have been gone.

In 2003 Iraq, we didn't even knock out the traffic lights in Baghdad (I will never forget the "war" coverage where the U.S. was supposedly going whole hog and the reporters in Baghdad were showing the regular morning commute taking place like any other day). At least in the 'Nam we put in enough infantry, even though it took a draft, albeit without giving the Forces the ability to use the tools properly. We tried to do Iraq on the cheap and it cost us a fortune.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I have to disagree with this part of your post. We went about 20% in Vietnam, and about 10% into Iraq. We fought with both hands behind our back in the 'Nam (not sure that more effort would have mattered in the long run, given the realities on the ground) but in the short term Hanoi, Haipong and anything else in the North that had more than four nails in it would have been gone.

In 2003 Iraq, we didn't even knock out the traffic lights in Baghdad (I will never forget the "war" coverage where the U.S. was supposedly going whole hog and the reporters in Baghdad were showing the regular morning commute taking place like any other day). At least in the 'Nam we put in enough infantry, even though it took a draft, albeit without giving the Forces the ability to use the tools properly. We tried to do Iraq on the cheap and it cost us a fortune.

We fought with one hand behind our back in the US Civil War (I mean if the North had wanted to wage Deep War the war would have ended in two years at most), we fought with one and a half in WWII (the idiot damn fool manpower cap that meant our armies enfeebled themselves winning and losing alike while completely ignoring the Pacific Theater due to the same manpower cap), and we won both of those pretty comprehensively. I don't think our grandparents were any much more tough than we were, WWII was fought on a deliberate manpower cap relative to what the USA could potentially have put in the field, the USA didn't even recruit blacks to maintain the existing units as well as they could have. That the armies won what they did is a testament to them but the USA has never had to wage a war as total as what the USSR was doing in WWII. I don't think anyone else in human history had to do that in fact. Which is why I said that we go all in and get whipped or all in and lose badly. The armies have no choice to because society in the USA has *never* gone in for full war, and to claim otherwise is not in my opinion fair to those troops.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Boydfish, a negotiated settlement under the circumstances you provide is not a reasonable possibility nor have you bothered to give any realistic basis for the US to even consider suing for peace.

All you've offered is that a different result at Midway might have convinced the US to surrender while forgetting the new ships, aircraft, army and marine units entering service in the very near future, along with the nonsense that surrendering US territory is somehow not surrendering US territory.

There is no chance of the US giving Japan a free hand in China and against the British, Australians, New Zealand...and no chance of the US giving Japan a veto on future embargos or other US economic policy.

Japan was @3 months from being unable to actually pay for US goods when they attacked Pearl Harbor so lifting the embargo means Japan can purchase whatever it can actually pay for in hard currency to the US...which will mean absolutely nothing in short order, regardless of any hypothetical treaty.

 

[CalBear]

Our grandparents had to be drafted to fight a four-year war, we've fought a ten-year war in Iraq and Afghanistan without ever needing a draft. I don't think we're any weaker than they were, we've actually been the first generation to fight a long war without a draft.

We drafted between 10 and 11.5 million people. 6,500,000 million volunteered, with that number being artificially low because the military eventully virtually stopped accepting volunteers since the Selective Service System was providing a nice steady flow into the training system. This was with a population of well under 150 million.


Todays entire military is under 3 million. Today's U.S. population is well over 300 million. I have great respect for today's volunteer military, but to equal the WW II level we would need to have 15 million people lined up to serve.

 

[Snake Featherston]

We drafted between 10 and 11.5 million people. 6,500,000 million volunteered, with that number being artificially low because the military eventully virtually stopped accepting volunteers since the Selective Service System was providing a nice steady flow into the training system. This was with a population of well under 150 million.


Todays entire military is under 3 million. Today's U.S. population is well over 300 million. I have great respect for today's volunteer military, but to equal the WW II level we would need to have 15 million people lined up to serve.

However we deliberately capped the number of regiments that 10 million people went to fill. That was a policy whose successes owe more to the skill of US generals than to the wisdom of US politicians in having made that cap in the first place. There is a level of attrition the Axis could potentially reach due to the cap where prosecuting the war might not be valid, but that requires Frederendall to be the most competent US general and the Axis to have a high command full of von Mansteins and no idiots of their own.

 

[Geon]

Embargo

Japan was @3 months from being unable to actually pay for US goods when they attacked Pearl Harbor so lifting the embargo means Japan can purchase whatever it can actually pay for in hard currency to the US...which will mean absolutely nothing in short order, regardless of any hypothetical treaty.

To add to Grimm Reaper's comment here, I'd like to say this. If we assume a "no embargo" as part of a hypothetical peace treaty I would have to add this remark. Given that the Japanese would have: taken U.S. territory, killed thousands of U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen, in some cases by starvation and torture (and this would come out when, not if, the POWs come home), and forced the U.S. to accept Japan's near genocidal war in China I do not see the U.S. even wanting to trade with Japan for the forseeable future. Like Calbear's grandfather I do not see the U.S. willingly wanting to buy anything with the label "Made in Japan" for several years.

And again, assuming that such an agreement was made by our political leaders (I don't see our military leaders doing so given the likes of Halsey, Nimitz, MacArthur, Eisenhower, or Patton)after a defeat at Midway I seriously doubt that any of those leaders would have survived either politically or physically for very long.

Would the U.S. count the cost? Yes. That is one of the reasons military leaders decided to use the Bomb against Japan rather then go with Operation Downfall. They saw the hypothetical balance sheet and realized the American people would only take so much slaughter of their sons on the battlefield. My argument is that the U.S. would still be very much wanting to continue the fight even if it had lost at Midway.

Geon

 

[burmafrd]

Boydfish has fallen into the same trap many contemporary media types have: equating different times. Using modern standards to measure previous eras.

As regards the mindset of the USA during WW2, I would suggest he do a little research using the newspapers and diaries and letters written by the people at the time. If he was to do so, he would find that Americans wanted to parade down a bombed out Tokyo and lynch the Emperor in his own Palace.

Nothing short of that would do; to suggest otherwise shows a fundamental failure to recognize reality.

There was quite a bit of anger at Truman for even allowing the Emperor to remain on the throne; and this was in Mid 1945.

America was much different; and to Snake, as someone whose Father was wounded in Cherbourg and whose Uncle was wounded on Iwo Jima, and who listened to their stories for years as well as those others who lived through that time, they were a much tougher generation. Hardened by the great depression, and forged in a WW that dwarfs anything in all ways since.


Because in WW2 we fought with the knowledge that we were truly under threat; that the war COULD come to our shores. We have never felt like that since until 9/11.

I do agree the manpower constraints hindered us; they were made for political and social reasons by Roosevelt and the cabinet. They wanted as little social upheavel as possible. That was why more women were not recruited into the military; and why deferments were so generous; and why more blacks were not utilized in both the military and industry.


Now as regards to Japan invading anything other then what they had already planned; it was truly impossible from a logistics point of view; they were already strained to the maximum as it was. Port Moresby was probably the only other possible added target.


I believe that the worst that could have happened at Midway was that the IJN not lose more than one carrier. They still would have lost a fair number of pilots; and that was a steady drip that wore away their most valuable military asset.

Midway was very tough to take; the landing force was about equal the garrison; not a promising factor. The IJN was lousy at gunfire support of the troops; the only time in the entire war that the IJN really hurt us was the Bombardment at Guadalcanal; and that was something that still took them some time and preparation to do; which they did not have at Midway.

And if somehow they had taken Midway, keeping it would have brought Guadalcanal type attrition to the IJN 3 months earlier.


True the Submarines would have been hampered if Midway was in the Japanese hands; but for how long?

 

[TxCoatl1970]

@CalBear I too feel that the WW2 generation showed us what we Americans could do. We've never had to show anywhere as much grit under fire since. Unfortunately, I feel that we fought Nam to not look like punks instead of win the war.
@ Snake saying WWII wasn't America waging a total war. It's by far the biggest mobilization we've ever seen in scale and involvement. If it took doing so, we were ready as we ever would be to do so. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were seen as evil incarnate and worth spending every dollar and drop of blood to assure their unconditional surrender. However, by 1944, we realized we didn't need to keep going 150% and started gearing down. We looked the war debt and got scared by the tab we'd owe ourselves for decades. That's why the manpower caps were put in place. Plus, after a certain point, what were we to do with 15-20 million men under arms?
Germany and Japan were going down, it was matter of when and how high the butcher's bill would be. Not enough to mobilize the extra five-ten million.

As to the OP, I think we agree that the USN goes on defensive/raid mode for a year, gets serious about unrestricted sub warfare on the Japanese merchant marine, which if they hit enough tankers, cripples the IJN as badly as sinking four carriers. Plus, I seriously doubt the IJN goes away unscathed at Midway anyway. They still lose at least 1 carrier and 100 pilots with battle damage to many other vessels.
By the time 1944 rolls around, the Essex carriers are launched and the US goes on a Central Pacific offensive that pounds the Japanese senseless and/or we get extremely serious about counter-punching through Burma in a land and air campaign that knocks Thailand out of the war and retakes Indochina. Between those two pincers, the Japanese are effectively cut off from their oil supply. Then, there's tons of options.

Japan goes down hard, guaranteed unless Yellowstone goes off or a random Trojan asteroid impact makes another Chicxulub.
Here's an ugly WI for the ASB forum-- WI Imperial Japan gets a Trident missile sub with a full load-out of D5's or Typhoon boomer with its full loadout in WW2?
Because outside of something like the above, Japan's going to to get ground down to dog food by 1946 on the outside. Eventually, the American and Allied planes, tactics and pilots get good enough to swamp the Japanese.
The Japanese could gear up but IIRC they were running flat out to make what they had and it wasn't even close to replacing combat losses.
Yamamoto knew we wouldn't back down once attacked. It'd take total strategic defeat and occupying Washington DC before we surrendered.
We could take tactical defeats and keep on trucking in a war of attrition.

 

[CalBear]

I actually worked with a few WW II vets when I was a kid. Those were some TOUGH bastards. One guy was a Honest to God survivor of Bataan, another was a Mustang Officer (wound up as a Captain) in the 442nd (actually there were three Nisei WW II vets there, but I am not sure where the other two served).

They were both well into their 60s at the time, I was 22, a big strong kid and I knew my way around. I still had the most uneasy feeling that either of them could have kicked my ass without breaking a sweat or spilling their coffee.

@CalBear I too feel that the WW2 generation showed us what we Americans could do. We've never had to show anywhere as much grit under fire since. Unfortunately, I feel that we fought Nam to not look like punks instead of win the war.
@ Snake saying WWII wasn't America waging a total war. It's by far the biggest mobilization we've ever seen in scale and involvement. If it took doing so, we were ready as we ever would be to do so. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were seen as evil incarnate and worth spending every dollar and drop of blood to assure their unconditional surrender. However, by 1944, we realized we didn't need to keep going 150% and started gearing down. We looked the war debt and got scared by the tab we'd owe ourselves for decades. That's why the manpower caps were put in place. Plus, after a certain point, what were we to do with 15-20 million men under arms?
Germany and Japan were going down, it was matter of when and how high the butcher's bill would be. Not enough to mobilize the extra five-ten million.

As to the OP, I think we agree that the USN goes on defensive/raid mode for a year, gets serious about unrestricted sub warfare on the Japanese merchant marine, which if they hit enough tankers, cripples the IJN as badly as sinking four carriers. Plus, I seriously doubt the IJN goes away unscathed at Midway anyway. They still lose at least 1 carrier and 100 pilots with battle damage to many other vessels.
By the time 1944 rolls around, the Essex carriers are launched and the US goes on a Central Pacific offensive that pounds the Japanese senseless and/or we get extremely serious about counter-punching through Burma in a land and air campaign that knocks Thailand out of the war and retakes Indochina. Between those two pincers, the Japanese are effectively cut off from their oil supply. Then, there's tons of options.

Japan goes down hard, guaranteed unless Yellowstone goes off or a random Trojan asteroid impact makes another Chicxulub.
Here's an ugly WI for the ASB forum-- WI Imperial Japan gets a Trident missile sub with a full load-out of D5's or Typhoon boomer with its full loadout in WW2?
Because outside of something like the above, Japan's going to to get ground down to dog food by 1946 on the outside. Eventually, the American and Allied planes, tactics and pilots get good enough to swamp the Japanese.
The Japanese could gear up but IIRC they were running flat out to make what they had and it wasn't even close to replacing combat losses.
Yamamoto knew we wouldn't back down once attacked. It'd take total strategic defeat and occupying Washington DC before we surrendered.
We could take tactical defeats and keep on trucking in a war of attrition.

 

[The Kiat]

Where would the Japanese go after Midway? Possibly southeast, attacking Fiji and Samoa?

 

[Fearless Leader]

Where would the Japanese go after Midway? Possibly southeast, attacking Fiji and Samoa?

Could the Japanese even have taken Midway Island though? They did plan to invade the island following their planned naval victory...but would it have worked out?

If one compares the troops the Japanese brought along to take the island, keeping in mind the poor state of their amphibious warfare doctrine, and compares it to the American defenses, the argument has been made that the Japanese wouldn't have been able to pull it off. Midway would have stood firm against the Japanese attacks, probably would've had the crap bombed out of it before the fleet was forced to retire.

In such a scenario...might the Japanese be tempted to try again to take Midway, this time allocating proper resources?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I'm curious if a Japanese victory in Midway has butterflies in the Chinese theater -- for example, could the PoD result in better morale during the Sichuan Invasion, thus leading to the fall of Chiang's forces?