Why do Americans take their early WWII defeats by Japan with more equanimity than Commonwealthians ?

Ming777

Monthly Donor
For some of the bitterness, there was also the fact that Japan used to be an Ally of Britain for 21 years. Plus, alot of the Japanese technology or doctrines were influenced by the British, at least for the Navy.

Their post-dreadnought battleship lineage started with the Kongo-class, designed by a Brit, with Kongo herself was built by Vickers. The Fusos and subsequent Japanese dreadnoughts were derived from the Kongo class; the iconic Pagoda masts were platforms built on the original British-style tripod masts.

Their Naval Aviation was formed thanks to the British Sempill Mission, and started off with Gloster Sparrowhawks. The carrier Hosho had elements derived from the blueprints of HMS Argus and HMS Hermes, the latter being sunk by the Japanese. Plus, the attack on Pearl Harbour was based on the British raid on Taranto.
 
For some of the bitterness, there was also the fact that Japan used to be an Ally of Britain for 21 years. Plus, alot of the Japanese technology or doctrines were influenced by the British, at least for the Navy.

Their post-dreadnought battleship lineage started with the Kongo-class, designed by a Brit, with Kongo herself was built by Vickers. The Fusos and subsequent Japanese dreadnoughts were derived from the Kongo class; the iconic Pagoda masts were platforms built on the original British-style tripod masts.

Their Naval Aviation was formed thanks to the British Sempill Mission, and started off with Gloster Sparrowhawks. The carrier Hosho had elements derived from the blueprints of HMS Argus and HMS Hermes, the latter being sunk by the Japanese. Plus, the attack on Pearl Harbour was based on the British raid on Taranto.

Actually, the Pearl Harbor Raid wasn't at all based on Taranto, it was in fact based on Admiral Yarnell's 1932 mock attack on Pearl Harbor during one of the USN's Fleet Problem exercises. The only contribution the British attack on Taranto provided was that was in fact possible to use torpedoes in really shallow waters.

Alamo said:
I'd argue that the 1932 Fleet Exercise likely held a far stronger influence for the Japanese than Taranto. In that particular scenario, two fleets, one based in Hawaii, the other California, would square off. Admiral Yarnell, leading Blue force, made a radical choice when deciding how to attack Pearl Harbor. He detached his battleships and cruisers, and brought only two carriers with a light destroyer escort on a high-speed run to a point north of Oahu. From here, he launched a mass air attack of over 150 planes. Coming out of the clouds on a Sunday morning, Yarnell's planes caught the defenders completely off guard, first (simulating) bombing and strafing the airfields to squelch any attempts to contest the sky, before knocking out the ships at anchor in the harbor.

From this thread.
 
Actually, the Pearl Harbor Raid wasn't at all based on Taranto, it was in fact based on Admiral Yarnell's 1932 mock attack on Pearl Harbor during one of the USN's Fleet Problem exercises. The only contribution the British attack on Taranto provided was that was in fact possible to use torpedoes in really shallow waters.

Taranto seems to have been much more inspiration than example.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think the explanation lies in the British having a longer history of militarily dominating Asians and intimidating enemies in the Far East. America had done far less conquering in the Far East and for a much shorter period of time than the British

During the war, the British had less respect for *both* the Chinese and Japanese than the Americans did [the Americans did *hate* the Japanese, but took them seriously after Pearl].

Differing postwar experiences in Asia may have simply reinforced this tradition of greater regard for the threat of Asian enemies by Americans.

After WWII and America' complete but hard fought victory, America faced the Korean war stalemate and the Vietnam defeat. The British rolled out of the region mainly without fighting, and where they did have to fight, Malaya, they won.
 
I think the explanation lies in the British having a longer history of militarily dominating Asians and intimidating enemies in the Far East. America had done far less conquering in the Far East and for a much shorter period of time than the British

During the war, the British had less respect for *both* the Chinese and Japanese than the Americans did [the Americans did *hate* the Japanese, but took them seriously after Pearl].

Differing postwar experiences in Asia may have simply reinforced this tradition of greater regard for the threat of Asian enemies by Americans.

After WWII and America' complete but hard fought victory, America faced the Korean war stalemate and the Vietnam defeat. The British rolled out of the region mainly without fighting, and where they did have to fight, Malaya, they won.

I must disagree regarding the US's view of Japan after PH. They despised Japan and if the atrocities come before the war's end IMO the Americans would not care if the Japanese were the poster child on how to commit genocide
 
I must disagree regarding the US's view of Japan after PH. They despised Japan and if the atrocities come before the war's end IMO the Americans would not care if the Japanese were the poster child on how to commit genocide

Americans called for the unrepentant genocide of the Japanese before the end...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Americans at least those who write what if history in the 21st century can accept that America was caught unprepared and was rolled in the early months of the Pacific War by Japan's bold strokes. They rightfully acknowledge that given their prewar political-military culture, there would have needed to be a lot more than just some good luck to hold off the Japanese offensive. They acknowledge tactical skill/cleverness on the part of their adversary.

Commonwealthians who write what if history in the 21st century have a palpably harder time accepting that. They generally can hardly spare a second or a word to acknowledge what the Japanese accomplished at the beginning of the war instead it's all, "they got lucky" or "we woulda won if we just had one better commander in Singapore".

There just seems to be greater embarrassment and shame from their defeats than is the case with the Americans.

Commonwealthian what-iffers just want the British to have held Singapore and Malaya just *so much harder* than American what-iffers want to have held the Philippines.
 
In my experience (friends and family) the main issue with the Japanese isn't that they beat us but how they treated the pow's. I barely remember anyone commenting on the way they captured Singapore. My parents generation hated the japanese with a passion because of 'what they done to our people.' That hatred however never seemed to be transmitted to the younger generation.
 
They also hated the "sneak attack" that we were neogociating and they didn't declare war. I know there were a lot of reasons why but the US did not see it that way. The public wanted and got blood. Had Japan not surrendered they probably would have been wiped out.
 
I think a lot of it can be explained by the fact that while the Japanese attack marks the start of American global power, it marks the point where Britain's global dominance is seen by all to be over.
 
Last edited:
Top