WI no Pearl Harbour

[Grimm Reaper]

Tielhard, your hysteria is astounding. All I did was point out obvious truths:

1) Japan's own leadership had been racing down a path to economic hari kari for a generation and, as a result...

2) The Japanese economy was in such a miserable state that had FDR not banned sales of oil and scrap metal then Japan would STILL have been in a crisis less than two months after Pearl Harbor did not take place, as Japan would desperately need oil and metal and have exhausted her ability to pay for them.

 

[Tielhard]

zoomar,

"incindiary crap"

Incendiary? Yes, mea culpa. Crap alas no. My thesis is that if there is a difference between the behaviours of the USA and Japan, and I am not at all sure there is, then it is one of degree exacerbated by racism rather than one of type.

 

[Tielhard]

"your hysteria is astounding"

Thanks Grimm, my aspidistra is pretty wonderful too.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

So you basically surrender and admit that my point is correct regarding Japan's self-inflicted crisis of decision in late 1941? Cool!

 

[Tielhard]

No I take compliments where I can get them and suggest cosy up to the British get them most of what they need.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

An Anglo-Japanese understanding of some sort would have been Japan's best hope in WWII, just as an Anglo-German alliance would have been for WWI. Unfortunately, by 1941, the reality was that Britain and America were drifting together, and Britain was thoroughly suspicious of Japan's motives. I suspect we could have a British/Japanese alliance, but that would require a very different Britain, and probably a POD in the 1920's.

 

[stevep]

An Anglo-Japanese understanding of some sort would have been Japan's best hope in WWII, just as an Anglo-German alliance would have been for WWI. Unfortunately, by 1941, the reality was that Britain and America were drifting together, and Britain was thoroughly suspicious of Japan's motives. I suspect we could have a British/Japanese alliance, but that would require a very different Britain, and probably a POD in the 1920's.

BI

I think the problem with that is that Britain was becoming increasingly dependent on the US and it was strongly opposed to Japan. Becuase of its behaviour in China, the fact Japan was a naval rival and general racial mistrust that was all too common at the time. Coupled with Churchill's desire for close links with the US even if the Japanese had decided to try such a path it would have been rejected.

At the same time the intense racism in Japan itself and all the properganda against the western powers, [as well as other states] made such co-operation very unlikely.

Steve

 

[xchen08]

Each Yamato used up enough resources to build a dozen fleet carriers? If that is correct, then the Japanese made a very large miscalculation. That many fleet carriers would do far more damage to any enemy than one battleship, however enormous.

There were 4 of the things, 2 of them unfinished. I wasn't saying each one could give you a dozen carriers, rather that the whole class would, though the difficulty of shaping heavy armor and building heavy guns and their turrets(as opposed to building a big box for holding stuff) may actually have moved the tradeoff closer to your misinterpretation.

Incendiary? Yes, mea culpa. Crap alas no. My thesis is that if there is a difference between the behaviours of the USA and Japan, and I am not at all sure there is, then it is one of degree exacerbated by racism rather than one of type.

Even accepting most of your blanket statements, which few would do, there is one strong difference between the actions of the U.S. and that of Japan. The actions of the U.S. strengthened or at least did not significantly weaken the country, while the actions of Japan crippled its economy and tied up its military in unproductive tasks at the worst possible time. So if nothing else, there is a difference of competence.

 

[stevep]

The problem with attacking the Dutch, British, and French positions alone is that it leaves the Philippines right on the Japanese supply lines. And the Pearl Harbor attack was integral in seizing the Philippines. Attacking the DBF positions alone is not a viable option for long-term success. It leaves the Japanese open for blockade, and action that will put them at a disadvantage.

Attacking the Soviet Union and controlling the Northern Resource Area is their best option. It will likely allow them to gain immense amounts of territory for little loss, and would marginally help the Germans, although by Dec. 7, the first campaign was all but decided. You simply cannot separate the attacks on the European colonies from the attacks on the Philippines/Hawaii. It does the Japanese no good to have one without the other. If they take the Dutch East Indies and British Asian territories, they're still dependant on American forebearance to keep the oil coming.

Amerigo & Mist

As Sargon said attacking the US was disastrous for the Japanese but waiting and forcing them to attack would have given them a good chance. Uncertain if Roosevelt would have felt strong enough to launch an attack to 'protect European colonies' as his opponents would have put it. Especially as since he was a realist he might have thought a Japan exhausting itself in China could have been ignored while the great threat was from Nazi Germany.

Even if the US does attack Japan this gives a drastically different background to the war. The US is not incensed by a sneak attack and a long war with heavy casualties might see the sort of negotiated peace the Japanese hoped to win. The Philippines lie across Japanese supply lined but this only makes them a danger if forces from there can attack those supply lines. At the time the US was in the process of preparing the Philippines for independence and had been talking of withdrawing from the region. It has the small, largely antiquated Asiatic fleet and a limited number of bombers. The islands are also virtually surrounded by Japanese territory. If the US attacks then the a/c can be quickly crushed and the islands rendered virtually no threat,

Furthermore they are an important bait. While the formal Plan Orange called for a slow build-up of forces to relieve the islands after the better part of a year I think the US government would have come under heavy pressure to do something a lot quicker. Especially if they need an early victory for an unpopular war. With the BBs present the fleet will have more surface firepower BUT it will need a lot more fuel and support and will be tied to the slower speed of the BBs. Given capital ships, supply ships, possible troop ships etc the escorting vessels will be much more thinly spread. This means they and especially the vital carriers are more exposed to both air attack and submarines. And the Japanese have torpedoes that work while at the time the USN probably won't have put as much emphasis on escort duties. There is a good chance that the Japanese might get a big naval victory that would both cripple US chances for attack until new construction arrives and boost hostility towards the war in Congress.

Going north is not a good option for the Japanese. They were badly mauled by the Russians a couple of years before and the more rational members of their army realised they were no match for the Soviets. If they go early enough that the Siberian troops are not sent west then they will be very roughly handled and you might even see Soviet forces advancing into Manchuria, although they might not have the supply support for this with the crisis in Europe. Possibly this might win the Germans Moscow, or delay the Soviet counter attack a bit but that will have no benefits for the Japanese. If the Japanese attack after the Siberians have started heading west they have better numerical odds but only little time before winter intervenes. Also while Vladivostok might be taken I doubt if there is any real gain for the Japanese in the way of resources, even if they occupy the entire Maritime Provinces. Either way they are using up a lot of irreplaceable military resources and supplies and the area can supply none of the materials they need so desperately.

Steve

 

[MerryPrankster]

What then is it Grimm that you think that Japan did in China that was so much worse than that which the USA had been doing since 1776?

The Rape of Nanking? Killing 300,000 in a single week, often in truly hideous ways, while raping enormous numbers of women. That's 1,000 My Lais with much more opportunity to stop it (the My Lai massacre was ended within hours by US troops who threatened to shoot their own--the Japanese high command had a week to stop it and did notthing).

Not to mention there's the matter of bioweapons testing on Chinese civilians. I imagine you'll try to morally equivocate between that and the US Tuskegee Experiment, but the number who died of untreated syphilis as part of the Experiment numbered no more than 100 and the number of Chinese killed by Unit 731 (or whatever it was) was a lot larger.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/bw/

200,000+, perhaps.

Not to mention there's a little thing called "scale." Most of what the US did was much smaller in scope than anything the Japanese did. There's also the fact that the Japanese committed their atrocities when other nations "knew better"--if they did what they did to China in 1700-1800, that'd be another thing.

And let's not forget the "comfort women."

And why do you care about Deseret? They were white colonial types, just like (according to your standards) the rest of the United States.

And let us remember the US occupied Cuba after coming to the aid of anti-Spanish rebels who were being subjected to nasty behavior (and no, not all of it was made up by the "yellow press"). You're not going to give the US credit for that?

 

[Wendell]

When one's hatred for the United States is ceaseless, one manages to give due diligence to inconvenient facts.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

BI

I think the problem with that is that Britain was becoming increasingly dependent on the US and it was strongly opposed to Japan. Becuase of its behaviour in China, the fact Japan was a naval rival and general racial mistrust that was all too common at the time. Coupled with Churchill's desire for close links with the US even if the Japanese had decided to try such a path it would have been rejected.

At the same time the intense racism in Japan itself and all the properganda against the western powers, [as well as other states] made such co-operation very unlikely.

Steve

I agree. Any degree of Anglo-Japanese cooperation by 1941 would require a very different British and Japanese government and a POD at least in the 1920's.
Japan essentially had no chance to achieve their goals of resource independence. Pearl Harbor was a desperate gambit which failed, but in reality, had virtually no chance of succeeding.
The most ideal situation for the Japanese Empire would have been a strong free-trading relationship with either the U.S. or Britain. Unfortunately, it took 14 years of warfare and millions of dead for that to become reality in Japan.

 

[Tielhard]

Tielhard wrote:

What then is it Grimm that you think that Japan did in China that was so much worse than that which the USA had been doing since 1776?

To which MerryPrankster replied:

The Rape of Nanking? Killing 300,000 in a single week <material omitted>

The Philippine-American War estimated civilian casualties in the occupied population not less than 250,000 possibly as high as 1,000,000.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo.

These are just a quick couple of near conteporaneous examples.

 

[MerryPrankster]

The Philippine-American War estimated civilian casualties in the occupied population not less than 250,000 possibly as high as 1,000,000.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo.

These are just a quick couple of near conteporaneous examples.

The Filipino War took over a decade, and it was very politically divisive--the first major antiwar movement in the US was active at the time (either JP Morgan or Andrew Carnegie actually offered to BUY the islands from the government to stop the war). The Rape of Nanking took a week, and I don't recall any Japanese objecting to it.

And the Japanese did very icky things to lots of Filipinos too.

And while you're defending the Japanese, how about you defend Germany? Or is that not "progressive"?

 

[Earling]

I went with the boring "do nothing" option.

Possibly not the most realistic thing for Japan to do but certainly the most sensible.

I can't see how Japan will take the Dutch East Indies (let alone Malaya) without a fight. The US and the UK have no reason to accept the transfer and numerous reasons to refuse accepting it. As to whether Japan was on the road to bankruptcy or not its rather irrelevent to the question of whether FDR and others were opposed to Japanese expansion. They clearly were.

Whether or not FDR could muster a declaration of war for a Japanese invasion of these islands is debatable however its hardly impossible to see an incident occuring with the Phillipines right in the centre of Japanese lines. Besides there would certainly be increased hostility due to such an action. A japan slowly dieing of attrition in China is one thing, a Japan with enough resources to sustain that conquest almost indefinately is quite another. If Japan declares war on Britain and the Dutch do people really think the US will sit idle on the sidelines for a significant period of time?

An attack north would be a debacle. If timed to perfection its possible the sacrifice would be enough to bring about the fall of Moscow and possibly the subsequent collapse of the USSR. This is however highly unlikely. Its more probable that Stalin would write off East Asia, the Japanese can aquire only so much before their logistics fail and come 1944-5 they get hammered all the way back to Korea. Theres the debate as how significant the effect on Lend-lease would be were Japan to go in this direction and that could have a lasting impact on the war, but unless the attack north see's a complete collapse of the USSR the incapacity to hold onto their gains once the USSR can throw its weight in their direction is not in doubt.

Was doing nothing an option? Probably not given the people at the time. It would have required sudden cuts in spending in regards to the armed forces and this is probably unacceptable. Assassination would probably be on the cards for anyone to raise such a policy, however its the only way Japan might be able to keep a hold on some of their possessions. If they go south I think war with the USA is unavoidable and without Pearl Harbour they are in a worse military position to sustain that war. The USA has no real reason to negotiate unless they are extremely unfortunate in the prosecution of this war. Hostilities shall shall feed rascist views that shall make comprimise impossible. Japan shall only hold onto northern gains if the USSR dies and I don't think it shall. As such the Japanese empire is almost certainly doomed.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

It's hard to imagine them not; even witht he Philippines independent, or the possession of some other nation, from what I've read they'd still be likely to attack, becasue the top minds (with the exception of Yamamoto and any other sane people) believed they could knock the U.S. out.

After all, just becasue the PHilippines happens to be in the middle of supply lines isn't a problem for lines that are going through water - it's not like they had to march through there to get someplace.I just can't see them coming to an agreement with the U.S., unless the government drastically changes.

 

[Tielhard]

Merry,

You wrote: "The Filipino War took over a decade <material omitted> Rape of Nanking took a week, <material omitted>"

Which demonstrates the point I was making exactly; the difference between the behaviours of JApan and the USA was only one of degree not one of substance.

You also said: "And while you're defending the Japanese, <material omitted"

Again you are missing the point I am not defending Japan just showing it is not significantly worse than the USA.

 

[Ghost 88]

It's hard to imagine them not; even witht he Philippines independent, or the possession of some other nation, from what I've read they'd still be likely to attack, becasue the top minds (with the exception of Yamamoto and any other sane people) believed they could knock the U.S. out.

After all, just becasue the PHilippines happens to be in the middle of supply lines isn't a problem for lines that are going through water - it's not like they had to march through there to get someplace.I just can't see them coming to an agreement with the U.S., unless the government drastically changes.

Cavite= US submarine base right on the water route. Clark Army Airfield= an unsinkable Aircraft Carrier that can bomb Formosa. There is no way for the IJN to route a convoy that would not come within range of a US airfield.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Cavite= US submarine base right on the water route. Clark Army Airfield= an unsinkable Aircraft Carrier that can bomb Formosa. There is no way for the IJN to route a convoy that would not come within range of a US airfield.

Even in 1941? Okay, I'd underestimated the capacity of pre-war U.S. planes to hit Japanese shipping, then. And, yes, I concede that even with an independent Philippines these bases would be there; it would likely be a condition of independence, IMO, given U.S. interests at that time, or even if independence is granted 30 years earlier.

I wasn't aware of the sub route; it looks so much different when you just look at a map I just picture ships going right past territorial waters. Then again, I'm not sure what was considered territorial waters back then; I must admit I'm used to the debates about it with Libya in the 1980s, and it was something like 6 versus 12 miles offshore.

 

[Ghost 88]

Even in 1941? Okay, I'd underestimated the capacity of pre-war U.S. planes to hit Japanese shipping, then. And, yes, I concede that even with an independent Philippines these bases would be there; it would likely be a condition of independence, IMO, given U.S. interests at that time, or even if independence is granted 30 years earlier.

I wasn't aware of the sub route; it looks so much different when you just look at a map I just picture ships going right past territorial waters. Then again, I'm not sure what was considered territorial waters back then; I must admit I'm used to the debates about it with Libya in the 1980s, and it was something like 6 versus 12 miles offshore.

If the US does not go to war the strategic value of the Philipines is moot and the IJN can sail the convoys as they please. If the US goes to war with Japan the American bases must be eliminated or Japan's industry grinds to a halt. Thats the whole reason the Japanese attacked Pearl,the Philipines,and Singapore,to eliminate the bases or Fleets that could disrupte the shiping lanes in the South China Sea. In any struggle with the US the IJN has to knock out the Philipines.

From all I have ever read our divebombers were the as good if not better than any others in the world,so the South China Sea would swarm with them.