No one likes a PO'ed america
- Thread starter flamelord
- Start date
Anaxagoras
Banned
I suppose some sort of massive bombing of civilian areas in Hawaii, but that would have expended substantial resources for no military gain, so it's unlikely.
Suppose the Americans had kept the fleet in California rather than move it to Hawaii, and the surprise attack were mounted on San Francisco? The American people would likely be more enraged by an attack on the Continental United States than on a remote Pacific island. But obviously this raises all sorts of new problems for the Japanese.
Suppose the Americans had kept the fleet in California rather than move it to Hawaii, and the surprise attack were mounted on San Francisco? The American people would likely be more enraged by an attack on the Continental United States than on a remote Pacific island. But obviously this raises all sorts of new problems for the Japanese.
Killing innocent civilians on mass and occupying US territory would have to be the definitive ways. The former could be bombing raids on Hawaii or San Francisco and California, and perhaps some atomic bombing (what PO's the Japanese OTL will PO Americans ATL), the latter could be occupation of Hawaii or the west coast (Either California and Oregan or Alaska).
Last edited:
The Japanese had been experimenting with biological warfare on Chinese victims. If they had used such weapons on Pearl Harbor that would have been so shocking (even Hitler didn't try it in combat) it could have easily stirred even greater anger.
That could have mattered to the Allied war effort if the US decided to concentrate most of the war effort on the Japanese, even if Hitler had been stupid enough to declare war on the US. The US might have decided to do everything in its power to take out Japan first and only then worry about Germany.
That could have mattered to the Allied war effort if the US decided to concentrate most of the war effort on the Japanese, even if Hitler had been stupid enough to declare war on the US. The US might have decided to do everything in its power to take out Japan first and only then worry about Germany.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Keep it realistic the Japanese couldn't occupy either Hawaii or the West Coast.
Capturing MacArthur, putting him on trial, and beheading him. Throw in an extermination of POW's after the fall of Bataan and some good ol' fashioned "ethnic cleansing" of the native Filipinos and the rage of the American public would know no bounds. By September 1945 Japan would have been a glass parking lot.
"New problems" here means "the attack is impossible". Check the distances and ranges.
I'll second this. Japan already had a poor record of POW treatment. Given the Japanese military's long string of cultural misunderstandings, I could see them thinking that bragging about torturing POWs would intimidate the "cowardly" American soldiers, when of course it would have the reverse effect of making the troops that much more confident that they were battling the face of evil.
EDIT: Come to think of it, our troops in Iraq made this mistake. So there you have it -- anecdotal evidence to back the hypothesis.
This makes sense actually if the Japanese were more vicious they could have denied the whole Hawaii islands to the US for a bit as the bio weapons cleared out. And for not much more cost. The there would be more people killed mostly civilians. But not in the first attack. They US would have to hear about how the people of Hawaii are slowly dieing from the dastardly weapons of the Japanese that would make the people quite angry.
wide spread use of Dirty balloons.
Combine the Japanese Balloon Bombing, and the Chemical weapons program.
this is ASB-ish, but somewhat possible, the Japanese didn't do it in fear of the Americans striking back with their own Chemical weapons.
Combine the Japanese Balloon Bombing, and the Chemical weapons program.
this is ASB-ish, but somewhat possible, the Japanese didn't do it in fear of the Americans striking back with their own Chemical weapons.
While I agree that if chemical weapons had been used against the continental USA, this would have enraged the public opinion, it remains to be said that the actual practical effect would have been puny. On top of that, the actual Japanese balloon bombing offensive was censored. I wonder if the general US public opinion would have come to know about a chemical variant of it. What you don't know can't piss you off.
I have a TL I'm working on (exceedingly intermittently) where a Japanese plane bombs the hospital by accident. (Pilot sees stream of soldiers moving to a large building, investigates, someone shoots, he shoots back, strafing a column of what really are wounded being evacuated to the hospital, decides the hospital is a fort,bombs it.
All of the plane's actions captured on newsreel by a cameraman nearby.
Outrage would FLAME American oppinion. Moreover, since the Japanese pilot was honestly mistaken, the Japanese believe that the US is just inventing wild propaganda, and thus deny the whole thing. Now the US has documentary evidence, so they treat the Japanese refusal to apologize as gas on the fire.
THAT would be lot worse than OTL's Pearl!
All of the plane's actions captured on newsreel by a cameraman nearby.
Outrage would FLAME American oppinion. Moreover, since the Japanese pilot was honestly mistaken, the Japanese believe that the US is just inventing wild propaganda, and thus deny the whole thing. Now the US has documentary evidence, so they treat the Japanese refusal to apologize as gas on the fire.
THAT would be lot worse than OTL's Pearl!
When I wrote my earlier post I had a thought running around in my head that hadn't quite gelled. I have re-read these posts and finally realized what it was.
Without a doubt, the Japanese could have pissed us off more than they did. But the real question is, would it have made a difference? Would an angrier America produce more, fight harder, or conduct the war any differently than they did?
The American public gave up meat on certain days, new tires for their cars (hell, no new cars at all!), accepted gasoline rationing, etc., etc. Young men flooded recruiting offices by the tens of thousands, eager to fight and kill Japs and that eagerness manifested itself in legendary battles like Bloody Ridge and Midway. Our industry worked three shifts 365 days a year producing amounts of war materiel that is simply beyond comprehension (check out John Parshall's economics article on www.combinedfleet.com). We even undertook the most massive scientific endeavor in history which produced the most powerful weapon known to man and used that weapon against the Japanese.
In the OTL, we fought the Japanese with a cold, deliberate fury and buried them under an astronomical amount of materiel. In December, 1941 we were on the ropes with a samurai sword to our collective throats and in just three and a half years we delivered the most total crushing defeat in the history of modern warfare. ITTL with all other factors being the same at the beginning of the war, could we have fought any harder in the battles (smarter, yes. Harder, no, but that is another story), and would a half dozen more carriers or battleships and a thousand more planes over and above what we already had in 1944 or 45 make a significant difference in how the war turned out? How much more of an ass-whooping could we have realistically delivered that we already didn't?
I don't think being angrier at the start would have made a big difference, at least not until the end of the war. MacArthur may have been forced by politics to take a heavier and stricter hand with Japan during the occupation. But war weariness and a desire to put the war behind us would have tempered any desire for revenge.
Dave
www.pigboats.com
Without a doubt, the Japanese could have pissed us off more than they did. But the real question is, would it have made a difference? Would an angrier America produce more, fight harder, or conduct the war any differently than they did?
The American public gave up meat on certain days, new tires for their cars (hell, no new cars at all!), accepted gasoline rationing, etc., etc. Young men flooded recruiting offices by the tens of thousands, eager to fight and kill Japs and that eagerness manifested itself in legendary battles like Bloody Ridge and Midway. Our industry worked three shifts 365 days a year producing amounts of war materiel that is simply beyond comprehension (check out John Parshall's economics article on www.combinedfleet.com). We even undertook the most massive scientific endeavor in history which produced the most powerful weapon known to man and used that weapon against the Japanese.
In the OTL, we fought the Japanese with a cold, deliberate fury and buried them under an astronomical amount of materiel. In December, 1941 we were on the ropes with a samurai sword to our collective throats and in just three and a half years we delivered the most total crushing defeat in the history of modern warfare. ITTL with all other factors being the same at the beginning of the war, could we have fought any harder in the battles (smarter, yes. Harder, no, but that is another story), and would a half dozen more carriers or battleships and a thousand more planes over and above what we already had in 1944 or 45 make a significant difference in how the war turned out? How much more of an ass-whooping could we have realistically delivered that we already didn't?
I don't think being angrier at the start would have made a big difference, at least not until the end of the war. MacArthur may have been forced by politics to take a heavier and stricter hand with Japan during the occupation. But war weariness and a desire to put the war behind us would have tempered any desire for revenge.
Dave
www.pigboats.com
Not sure that beheading MacArthur alone would do it.
Now you take out the American troops captured in the PI, on Wake & on Guam and do a nice showy series of executions, including something about "this is how we treat cowards" and you will have an even more PO'd American Population.
I actually shudder to think of what the U.S. would have done to that Japan.