Pacific War Question

nbcman

Donor
I think you are wrong. In Korea, the US was willing to accept a stalemate and in Vietnam a defeat. Granted there are other reasons, but in neither case did the NVA or the NKPA attack the US treacherously.

The problem is the Japanese couldn't create a condition where they could stalemate the US let alone defeat them. The force imbalance was too great to ever have 3 or 4 Tarawa situations and the US military had improved their tactics in the next invasion at Kwajalein. Japan was doomed once they set on the path of war against the USA.

EDIT: See Combined Fleet for more information on the 'Grim Economic Realities'.
 
Last edited:
That's what propaganda is for. Americans will not give two shits about whether Japan followed the niceties of war.

This. Absolutely this. Whether Japan followed the legalities or not is totally irrelevant to how they will be painted by the US. IT would be much the same even if the US struck first, probably. Think about how the US talks about nations today who refuse to join in on their side of unjustified military action, now think about how they might talk about a nation which attacked them. A prior declaration of war is NOT what will be remembered from that episode.
 
This. Absolutely this. Whether Japan followed the legalities or not is totally irrelevant to how they will be painted by the US. IT would be much the same even if the US struck first, probably. Think about how the US talks about nations today who refuse to join in on their side of unjustified military action, now think about how they might talk about a nation which attacked them. A prior declaration of war is NOT what will be remembered from that episode.

Evidence please.

You are confusing the 1940s USA with today's USA. Although the 1940s version was more bigoted and racist, it was also far more interested in playing the rules. Just think of what Roosevelt could have gotten away with under modern rules. Back then, things were different. Heck, the US passed Neutrality laws and followed them.
 
Evidence please.

You are confusing the 1940s USA with today's USA. Although the 1940s version was more bigoted and racist, it was also far more interested in playing the rules. Just think of what Roosevelt could have gotten away with under modern rules. Back then, things were different. Heck, the US passed Neutrality laws and followed them.

Yeah destroyer's for bases and Lend-Lease would like a word with those Neutrality laws.
 
The problem is the Japanese couldn't create a condition where they could stalemate the US let alone defeat them. The force imbalance was too great to ever have 3 or 4 Tarawa situations and the US military had improved their tactics in the next invasion at Kwajalein. Japan was doomed once they set on the path of war against the USA.

Err, why. I agree that it would be difficult, but it is at least possible for the US to get much more bloodied than OTL. The Japanese could have adopted Iwo Jima tactics much earlier than they did, for one example. They could have used their submarines better for another.

I fully agree that under the OTL circumstances the Japanese could not beat the US. Their only chance was to make the US get tired of the war, and the Pearl Harbor attack ensured the US would not get tired before Japan's surrender. ITTL there is at least a chance that the US could get tired. It may be only a 5-10% chance, but that is infinitely better then the not a chance in hell they had in OTL.

The US didn't force Spain to surrender uncomnditionally in the Spanish American war, even though it eventually could have. OTL, the nature of the Pearl Harbor attack ensured the US would not give up. ITTL, the US would not have that same sense of outrage. It might still be outraged, but more because its military is getting humiliated.
 
Yes, back in the 40s we bent those rules, and Roosevelt had to carefully sell it to the public. Today, they are quait relics that don't even slow us down.

Oh can't forget the "war zones in all but name" he declared against German subs before the war as well effectively making all of the Atlantic up to the effectively US territory.
 
Trevayne said:
Yes it would, but it would be harder to maintain popular support without the "Day of Infamy". Yes, the US might still call it that, but without a treacherous attack it doesn't have the same punch.
Nonsense. It's not like the U.S. hesitated to keep hammering Germany into the ground, & the only attack was on a USN tincan that deserved getting hit.:rolleyes:
Trevayne said:
US might hesitate after the third or fourth Tarawa.
Third or fourth?:rolleyes: How incompetent do you think the U.S. is?
Trevayne said:
they might have some hesitation about unrestricted submarine warfare
Don't count on it. The U.S. wanted the cruiser rules respected when their own merchantmen were being shot at; there weren't any qualms about shooting Japan's.

As for Lend-Lease & the Neutrality Patrol, recall who's benefitting: Britain. Congresscritters aren't all total morons. They know Britain (& France) hold a lot of debt. They know Germany winning is a bad thing. They also know Japan dominating China is not good for U.S. exports. (That China ended up Communist somebody should have foreseen, given the desire for SU aid against Japan well past the point it was obviously unnecessary...:rolleyes:)
 

Caspian

Banned
You are confusing the 1940s USA with today's USA.

You literally just confused the 1950's and 1960's USA with the 1940's USA. Not only that, but Korea and Vietnam are totally different situations, for one reason - the bomb.

Although the 1940s version was more bigoted and racist, it was also far more interested in playing the rules. Just think of what Roosevelt could have gotten away with under modern rules. Back then, things were different. Heck, the US passed Neutrality laws and followed them.

This is the FDR who wanted to pack the Supreme Court and who regularly flouted U.S. neutrality every chance he got.
 
I think you are wrong. In Korea, the US was willing to accept a stalemate and in Vietnam a defeat. Granted there are other reasons, but in neither case did the NVA or the NKPA attack the US treacherously.

Minor conflicts where it was clear the future of the US was not at stake. Its clear you do not understand the attitudes of the US population of 1939 - 1945 & the changes they went through. Neither do you seem to understand the role the leaders had in these decisions, vs that of the general population or the voters.
 
Yeah unlike the Japanese we tended to actually learn from our mistakes.

Absolutely, like when the USMC allowed the IJA to turn Tarawa into a fortress, then assaulted it for heavy casualties. Later, after capturing Marianas, the USMC put that hard won lesson into practice by waiting six to ten months to allow the IJA to turn Iwo Jima and Okinawa into fortresses, then assaulting them for heavy casualties when the IJA signalled they were ready.
 

iddt3

Donor
Suppose a senior individual in the Japanese government had an inkling of how badly the Pacific War could go for Japan and decided to accept tactical risk and avoid strategic doom. Specifically, the Japanese deliver an unequivocal declaration of war citing their grievances with the US, especially the oil embargo on 5 Dec 41.

They then go ahead with the 7 Dec 41 attack. Given the warning, they probably suffer heavier casualties, but they probably inflict similar losses. Assuming the IJN loses 100 aircraft, with say 230 air crew, for similar damage to the battleships, and lower US aircraft losses, how does the war go from there? In particular, since it clearly wasn't a dastardly sneak attack during peace negotiations, how does this affect the US resolve to fight until the Japanese surrender unconditionally?

If this has been discussed before, could someone please point me to the thread?
The US was still attacked, and they still declared war on us. While there won't quite be the Infamy shtick, remember that a good deal of the discontent about Korea and Vietnam was that we weren't fighting hard *enough* not that we were there at all. Combine that with the blatant racism of the the time, and the fact that initial US performance will be better (and therefore less demoralizing), and the end result is pretty much exactly OTL, except maybe the Japanese lose a bit earlier.
 
You would have to do away with the Bataan Death March as well. Once we find out about that, that will be the main propaganda piece. You would have to change a lot for there to be a chance of negotiated peace.
 
Nonsense. It's not like the U.S. hesitated to keep hammering Germany into the ground, & the only attack was on a USN tincan that deserved getting hit.:rolleyes:)

Err no, we fought Germany because they declared war on the US and we knew how dangerous they were.

Third or fourth?:rolleyes: How incompetent do you think the U.S. is?

It is more a matter of Japanese competence. The Japanese could have invented better tactics earlier. Compare Iwo Jima and Peleiu to Kwajelein. They didn't have to use Banzai charges.

Don't count on it. The U.S. wanted the cruiser rules respected when their own merchantmen were being shot at; there weren't any qualms about shooting Japan's.

Certainly, but we adopted unrestricted submarine warfare only after OTL Pearl Harbor. I don't recall any serious US training for USW before the war, and while maybe we would have used it in a by the rules war with Japan, on the other hand, maybe not.

As for Lend-Lease & the Neutrality Patrol, recall who's benefitting: Britain. Congresscritters aren't all total morons. They know Britain (& France) hold a lot of debt. They know Germany winning is a bad thing. They also know Japan dominating China is not good for U.S. exports. (That China ended up Communist somebody should have foreseen, given the desire for SU aid against Japan well past the point it was obviously unnecessary...:rolleyes:)

Sure, but how fervantly can the war be prosecuted without that white hot desire for revenge after OTL's Pearl Harbor? There will be more isolationists pointing out that Americans are dying for Roosevelts folly and the greed of the bankers. People like senator Nye will still be listened to. There was a major backlash in the 1930s against the "Merchants of Death". That would not be blown away by Pearl Harbor ITTL.
 
Glenn239 said:
Absolutely, like when the USMC allowed the IJA to turn Tarawa into a fortress
I don't think it was their call...:rolleyes: Yes, Nimitz bungled :)eek:) with the Makin Raid, drawing Japan's attention to how weak the local defenses were...
Glenn239 said:
the USMC put that hard won lesson into practice by waiting six to ten months to allow the IJA to turn Iwo Jima and Okinawa into fortresses
Again, not their call. This one can be traced to MacArthur's insistence on taking the P.I.:mad: Had that not happened, reinforcements bound for P.I. wouldn't have been intercepted en route & marooned on either Okinawa or Iwo Jima (along with some equipment), nor would there have been a 6mo delay while the P.I. were conquered... (Not to mention, the war would have been over sooner...:mad:)
 
I don't think it was their call...:rolleyes: Yes, Nimitz bungled :)eek:) with the Makin Raid, drawing Japan's attention to how weak the local defenses were...
Glenn239 said:
the USMC put that hard won lesson into practice by waiting six to ten months to allow the IJA to turn Iwo Jima and Okinawa into fortresses
Again, not their call. This one can be traced to MacArthur's insistence on taking the P.I.:mad: Had that not happened, reinforcements bound for P.I. wouldn't have been intercepted en route & marooned on either Okinawa or Iwo Jima (along with some equipment), nor would there have been a 6mo delay while the P.I. were conquered... (Not to mention, the war would have been over sooner...:mad:)

Actually I think the mistake was not planning for the PI from the get go. They were going to be taken MacArthur or no MacArthur. The PI was one of the major US territories before the war. Politically speaking they had to be taken, not abandoned.
 
Top