No Pearl Harbour raid. Victory for Japan?

[phx1138]

The Philippines were US territories. They had US military there. Japan simply can't attack the Philippines without drawing the US into the war. Once the US is in the war, Japan is toast, no ifs ands or buts.

Don't bet on it. There's professional historiographers with the opinion Japan could've gotten away with it.

That Japan wouldn't attack Pearl, however, needs all-new IJN leadership. Why? Because the budget was going to IJA & the Southern Op. IJN agreeing to that effectively turns it into little more than the IJA Transport Service, & that ain't happening. So IJN's going to use Lend-Lease & the Neutrality Patrol as excuses to say the U.S. will come to Britain's aid, so the Pacific Fleet has to be attacked.

Bypassing P.I. entirely might have been the best, if risky, option in 20/20 hindsight.

Japan didn't have 20/20 hindsight.

As for Japan winning, even with Britain fighting without the U.S.? Fuggetaboudit. It might take until 1955, but Japan is going to get beaten. (And no, I really doubt it takes that long, either.)

IMO, in the long run, it would've been better for Britain had the U.S. stayed out. All the production that went to supply U.S. forces could have supplied Britain (& Canada, Oz, NZ, Free Franze, Free Poland...), instead--& that, IMO, means Germany loses sooner.
Edit:

their strategy of setting up a defensive perimeter and holding it until the Allies got tired of the conflict may have worked.

No, it wouldn't. The "barrier" strategy depends on IJN being able to defend SLOCs. That was impossible, because Japan's ASW doctrine was incompetent.

If the entire Pacific Fleet's surface strength had been destroyed 7/12, & none of the Two-Ocean surface units arrived, the Sub Force would have brought Japan's economy to the brink of ruin by mid-'45 latest, even changing nothing else. If Nimitz shows the slightest sign of better sense in deployments or BuOrd gets a fire lit under them any sooner at all, Japan loses sooner. It is unbelievably easy to make that happen.

And I've said it elsewhere, IMO, California alone could damn near have defeated Japan, with the rest of the States (mostly) sitting by eating popcorn. (With the occasional shoutout by Texas or Mass, "Hey, those are our guys!" when there are oilers or rifles being delivered. Kind of like a Canadian watching a Hollywood blockbuster. )

 

[Astrodragon]

But at Midway the Japanese intelligence suggested they'd have a day before encountering American carriers and their sub screens completely missed the US task forces. In addition their patrols didnt spot the carrier and the one that eventually did was late.

Nagumo did the right thing given his limited information in prepping for a second strike on midway, especially after reports that the airfield was still active.

No, Nagumo screwed up.
Assuming your intelligence is correct and assuming the enemy will do as you expect has been a really good way to lose battles throughout history.
No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. Which is why Nagumo should have had his staff prepare some contingency options if things had diverged from their initial expectations. Midway wasn't going anywhere, the carriers were far more dangerous and agile.

 

[phx1138]

No, Nagumo screwed up.
Assuming your intelligence is correct and assuming the enemy will do as you expect has been a really good way to lose battles throughout history.
No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. Which is why Nagumo should have had his staff prepare some contingency options if things had diverged from their initial expectations. Midway wasn't going anywhere, the carriers were far more dangerous and agile.

Was it really Nagumo's responsibility? I don't disagree, as such, but IMO, Yamamoto was ultimately at fault for not allowing for this--the whole plan was his, not Nagumo's.

 

[Zincwarrior]

We should note, Nagumo did well in shielding his carriers in later actions, employing an echelon strategy that focused US attacks on forward units while his carriers were protected.

 

[dwkelley]

It’s suggestions like this that demonstrate how misinformed and delusional Japan was about the American mindset and willingness to fight. These Americans are the people that took on and defeated the British empire only 160 years prior, and fought them again to a standstill 127 years ago, and then wiped out the Spanish empire 41 years ago, and then crushed the Germans only recently. What more does America need to do to demonstrate to Japan that it will not be kicked around? When did America ever demonstrate to Japan that it would stand down after any initial setback?

But in this case, Pearl Harbor hasn't happened, and the US is looking apprehensively at Germany. Japan says, "I get this quarter" - basically the north-west Pacific/Asia; the US / Australia get the rest. The US isn't going to be very happy about the loss of the Philippines, and neither are the Aussies. But it gives both some breathing room and time to build up defenses while the US concentrates on Germany. I think a deal like this would have been taken.

(Having said that ... this deal means no Pearl Harbor, so the US is later into the war, though I do think the US will eventually jump in to fight the Nazis. A longer and bloodier European campaign, possibly to the point that the atom bomb is dropped on Berlin instead. Lots of butterflies ...)

 

[MatthewB]

But in this case, Pearl Harbor hasn't happened, and the US is looking apprehensively at Germany. Japan says, "I get this quarter" - basically the north-west Pacific/Asia; the US / Australia get the rest.

Yes, but the Japanese embassies in both Berlin and Moscow should be reporting to Tokyo by November 1941 that things are not going well in Barbarossa, which was supposed to take three months to defeat the Soviets, but had ground to a halt by November 1941.

With good intel from its diplomats the Japanese should have stood down, and not put their faith in the Germans to save the day. One must wonder what Japan would have done if Pearl Harbour was delayed six months. By then it would be clear to all that Germany was finished.

 

[Draconis]

But in this case, Pearl Harbor hasn't happened, and the US is looking apprehensively at Germany. Japan says, "I get this quarter" - basically the north-west Pacific/Asia; the US / Australia get the rest. The US isn't going to be very happy about the loss of the Philippines, and neither are the Aussies. But it gives both some breathing room and time to build up defenses while the US concentrates on Germany. I think a deal like this would have been taken.

(Having said that ... this deal means no Pearl Harbor, so the US is later into the war, though I do think the US will eventually jump in to fight the Nazis. A longer and bloodier European campaign, possibly to the point that the atom bomb is dropped on Berlin instead. Lots of butterflies ...)

Yes. Thank you for reading and thinking about my opening post. I think there wouldn't have be the same emotional impact if the Pearl Harbour raid didn't happen. As stated previously the Americans were going to grant independence to the Philippines in 1944 anyway. I don't think there was a strong emotional attachment to the P.I. And if the Japanese leaders were savvy about it they should understood the bargaining chip they would have held holding the thousands of American POWs. There where members of the American public who would have taken the view the the U.S had no business in Asia anyway and they should not be fighting to preserve the British or Dutch empires.

It would have been quite a different WW2. And Japan would be defeated eventually. How it would have ended for a Japan neck deep in China and still at war with the Western Allies in 1945 is an interesting question.

 

[Histor32]

Doubt it, racist US would love the chance to teach the buck-toothed, yellow midgets a lesson over the Phillipines... which opens a very interesting scenario for a carrier battle around some Japanese island base with an overconfident USN against the IJN... whatever carriers the IJN sink go down for good.

That's somewhere caricature since Japanese are generally tall and not bucked tooth.. The yellow part I never understood .. Never met one that was yellow, their skin looks like mine.. Olive with a chance to tan and look golden

 

[nbcman]

That's somewhere caricature since Japanese are generally talk and not bucked tooth

In the early to mid 1900s, that was how Japanese were caricatured in the USA. For example, here are a series of images of comics that were distributed to US soldiers in WW2:

 

[phx1138]

Yes, but the Japanese embassies in both Berlin and Moscow should be reporting to Tokyo by November 1941 that things are not going well in Barbarossa, which was supposed to take three months to defeat the Soviets, but had ground to a halt by November 1941.

With good intel from its diplomats the Japanese should have stood down, and not put their faith in the Germans to save the day. One must wonder what Japan would have done if Pearl Harbour was delayed six months. By then it would be clear to all that Germany was finished.

I'd say Japan can't afford to wait, given the oil embargo.

And I wonder what rationale is going to keep IJN from advocating the Hawaii attack to begin with, & keep it from being adopted.

It looks like you need to avoid the war in China, first.

 

[DougM]

Oh com ON folks.
First off in 1941 the Philippines were controlled by the US and had US troops on them any attack/invasion IS going to start the war. This war may not start off with the US as upset as OH did assuming it is not a sneak attack otherwise it is still going to piss off most Americans. End result is a couple of mushroom clouds over Japanese cities.

Also what does it take to kill off the BS on this forum that WW2 would have been better for England and Russia and France if the US stayed out of it? I was picked on because I suggested that a thread would see that kind of comment (and it did) and here we see it again.

Thier is no way on this green earth that the war turns out as well much less better for the allies when you keep the country that had the Largest Navy, the Largest Airforce and the second largest army and produced more food and supplies and military equipment out of the war.

 

[phx1138]

any attack/invasion IS going to start the war.

That is the view now, but appears not to have been the view at the time, & I've seen (at least) Barrier & the Javelin suggest attack without provoking a broader response would have been viable. So are you smarter or better qualified?

BS on this forum that WW2 would have been better for England and Russia and France if the US stayed out of it?
... had the Largest Navy, the Largest Airforce and the second largest army

Dubious about army & navy size, but the rest is actually working against you...

and produced more food and supplies and military equipment out of the war.

Yes, & how much of that went to supplying the "largest navy" & "largest air force"? Instead of to supplying the Allies who were fighting Germans?

Notice, I've never said U.S. aid should be denied, only U.S. military involvement avoided. War between the U.S. & Japan had a direct benefit to Germany, & even Hitler understood that. (Too bad the Pearl Harbor conspiracy loons don't. ) Diverting materiel to U.S. forces actually hurts the Brits. More than U.S. manpower helps? IDK, but given U.S. inexperience, I'd say it's a wash.

 

[Athelstane]

I think there wouldn't have be the same emotional impact if the Pearl Harbour raid didn't happen. As stated previously the Americans were going to grant independence to the Philippines in 1944 anyway. I don't think there was a strong emotional attachment to the P.I.

It was 1946 for independence, BTW...

No, to be sure, confining the surprise attack to WestPac U.S. possessions would take something out of the emotional hit that Pearl Harbor was.

And yet: a pretty sizable slice of the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy were sitting in the Philippines. If Japan attacks, however, it has to defeat and destroy those forces.

Remember: the surrender on Bataan was the biggest mass surrender in U.S. military history. That's going to still be a big gut punch stateside. Tens of thousands of American men are going to be dead or in Japanese captivity - and the fact that it was inflicted by a society that Americans by and large had a certain measure of contempt for will be something of a shock.

And then look at Wake Island. Devereux's Alamo-like defense rang a lot of bells back home.

The PacFleet battle line being untouched might adjust U.S. behavior at the margins as a result - you might see a little more going to the ETO now, with Japan being seen as a bit less of an immediate threat, and inciting a bit less paranoia and anger than in OTL. But it is not going to make a real difference in the war's outcome. And yeah, once word gets out about the Bataan Death March - well, God help them.

And if the Japanese leaders were savvy about it they should understood the bargaining chip they would have held holding the thousands of American POWs.

For that to happen, alas, you need 1940's Japanese militarists to stop being 1940's Japanese militarists - the IJA pretty much did as it liked locally. It's like Nazi Germany ATL P.O.D.'s that require Hitler to stop being Hitler - avoid Holocaust, treat Slavic captive peoples well, etc. The Army and officers that conquered the Philippines in 1941 was the same one that had been utterly brutalizing Chinese for the previous decade.

Something happened to the collective psyche in the Japanese Army particularly in the interwar years; something radicalized them in ways only tangential to traditional Japanese honor codes.

 

[phx1138]

it is not going to make a real difference in the war's outcome.

That's for sure.

More to the point, tho, if Japan's attacking the P.I. at all, they're going to attack Pearl Harbor. That was the point: prevent the Pacific Fleet from interfering. Leaving the Battle Line, or CVs, intact, was exactly the opposite of what was desired.

That being so, a bypass is the only reasonable option--if you accept the U.S. will go to war over the P.I. Which I suspect Japan did (would), even if it's less certain now. And I expect Japan's reasoning from that to the Hawaii op wouldn't differ much from OTL, either, in that event.

Let me pose one: what evidence was there (then) for the U.S. not caring if the P.I. were invaded? Could Japanese intelligence reasonably conclude they could get away with it--& is there (enough? any?) evidence they were right?

 

[Jellico]

There is an old political saying. A constituent is always happy to receive something and never likes having something taken away.

Doesn't matter if it is a sunken shoal. You take something from American the people will want it back.

 

[Ian_W]

War between the U.S. & Japan had a direct benefit to Germany, & even Hitler understood that. (Too bad the Pearl Harbor conspiracy loons don't. ) Diverting materiel to U.S. forces actually hurts the Brits. More than U.S. manpower helps? IDK, but given U.S. inexperience, I'd say it's a wash.

Rubbish.

While they are neutral, there are limits to what Roosevelt can give the British.

Once they are co-belligerents against Japan, those limits go away.

At minimum, you see credit limits dropped and US warships escorting convoys against Japanese submarines in at Atlantic.

Additionally, you see.a US buildup for when they get to declare war on Germany.

 

[phx1138]

Rubbish.

While they are neutral, there are limits to what Roosevelt can give the British.

Once they are co-belligerents against Japan, those limits go away.

There are limits to what Congress will accept. That's in no small part due to U.S. public opinion being against any direct U.S. involvement. Had FDR sold it as a way to avoid war, I'd say he could get more than he did.

Come to that, he had the authority, without reference to Congress, to declare surplus any U.S. military property. He could well have handed over all 125 or so 4-pipers to RN (& RCN & Free France), & dozens of R- & S-boats, & thousands of M1903 rifles, & millions of rounds of ammo, & hundreds of older a/c--& there wouldn't be a damn thing Congress could do about it.

Japanese submarines in at Atlantic

Huh?

As for escorting convoys, USN was doing that anyhow. It didn't have the effect FDR wanted: Hitler ignored U-boats being shot at by USN, & Congress ignored any USN sinkings...

Additionally, you see.a US buildup for when they get to declare war on Germany.

Presuming the U.S. does declare.

The credit limit? How much trouble did HMG get into by giving away production rights to radar, among other things, & not asking for royalties or credit?

 

[Athelstane]

More to the point, tho, if Japan's attacking the P.I. at all, they're going to attack Pearl Harbor. That was the point: prevent the Pacific Fleet from interfering. Leaving the Battle Line, or CVs, intact, was exactly the opposite of what was desired.

Well, not necessarily. Planning for Pearl Harbor only began in early 1941. And Yamamoto had to shove and push to get his way on that. Until then, Combined Fleet's carrier forces were planned to deploy only in WestPac (i.e., to cover the thrusts into the Southern Resource Area).

It is not a mortal lock that a 1941 decision to go to war means that Pearl Harbor must be attacked. Indeed, if either Yoshida (Yamamoto's predecessor) or Koga (Yamamoto's successor) are in charge of Combined Fleet in 1941, it's heavily likely that the IJN sticks to its more traditional plan for war with the U.S. and Britain.

Let me pose one: what evidence was there (then) for the U.S. not caring if the P.I. were invaded?

The United States had 31,000 American soldiers in the Philippines in 1941. That gives it 31,000 reasons to care very, very deeply all by itself!

But as @CalBear has pointed out repeatedly, the Japanese pretty badly misread the American mindset, and how it would react to a war. They were still thinking in terms of traditional dynastic and colonial wars - everyone would eventually come to the table, and Japan could retain some of what it had taken, and that would be that. But after 1914, great power wars were something to be fought to the finish.

 

[DougM]

Yes, & how much of that went to supplying the "largest navy" & "largest air force"? Instead of to supplying the Allies who were fighting Germans?

So what the heck do you think the US was doing? Fighting Martians?
Last time I talked with my various uncles about this (Rest In Peace) I seam to recall that they were fighting the Japanese and the Germans and the Italians.
Last time I talked with my Aunts about this the eldest talked about how they and Grandma worked in the military factories around Detroit and that my Grandfather spent the war building said factories.
And from what my father has said (he was a little kid in Germany in WW2) he recalls seeing B-17s flying over various parts of Germany. Presumably they were not site seeing trips like the B-17 that flys over my house now (the Yankee Lady).

This anti US, US sucks, US was useless, the US was not needed, the Alies would have been better off with out the US trope is getting out of hand and is ridiculous beyond measure. And frankly is offensive to those of us who had relatives that fought in that war. (Or others) Many of whom were injured or killed and almost all of whom went through unspeakable hardships and horrors.

This anti US trend is turning this once great site into a joke.

May I suggest for all you anti US folks that you go to a VA hospital and tell the Veterans of WW2 (those that remain) how useless Thier sacrifice was? I can give you the address of my grandfather that fought in WW1 to talk to but he passed away in the late 70s of medical issues that directly stemmed from the war.

And if you really believe this BS then explain to me why Winston Churchill was HAPPY the US was in the war? Because I think he had a heck of a lot better understanding of Britain’s situation then you do...

 

[Draconis]

It was 1946 for independence, BTW...

For that to happen, alas, you need 1940's Japanese militarists to stop being 1940's Japanese militarists - the IJA pretty much did as it liked locally. It's like Nazi Germany ATL P.O.D.'s that require Hitler to stop being Hitler - avoid Holocaust, treat Slavic captive peoples well, etc. The Army and officers that conquered the Philippines in 1941 was the same one that had been utterly brutalizing Chinese for the previous decade.

Something happened to the collective psyche in the Japanese Army particularly in the interwar years; something radicalized them in ways only tangential to traditional Japanese honor codes.

I'm inclined to agree with your summation. My scenario would have required a different mindset from Japans' leaders.