No Pearl Harbor attack

[Peter Cowan]

I'm sure this has been done before but what if the Japanese only attacked British and Dutch East Indian territories in December 1941? Could the USA intervene - I think trying to persuade the US public to enter a war to save european empires might be difficult.

OK, from the Japanese perspective there are some extremely vulnerable sea lines of communication with the US controlled Philipines but on the other hand all the resources used to invade those islands are now available for SE Asia and maybe even New Guinea / Australia. Pushing to the extreme the Japanese could even try to invade Ceylon (present day Sri Lanka) as a prelude to invading India after they have taken the East Indies and Burma - certainly the RN in the Indian Ocean was significantly inferior to the whole Japanese fleet.

 

[David S Poepoe]

There would be pressure in the US to assist China and, of course, increased pressure from Japan for the US to end aid to China. One problem is that Hawaii figures pretty predominately in the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Pearl Harbor and Singapore are to form the east and west 'Gibralters'.

We've determined that the Japanese couldn't occupy Australia successfully. The Japanese Navy can't quite be used 'all over the board' until the US Pacific Fleet has been neutralized.

However, with the idea of No Pearl Harbor Attack one could consider that there would be one less terrible Ben Affleck movie.

 

[Peter Cowan]

However, with the idea of No Pearl Harbor Attack one could consider that there would be one less terrible Ben Affleck movie

Lol...for which the non-existent gods would be be praised, Shame it actually happened. I prefer Tora,Tora,Tora

I take your point about the threat of the US fleet-in-being. On the other hand the Japanese did suffer from a bad case of "Victory Disease". I suspect that they would probably stop at Port Moresby and then move on Ceylon. The greater strategic plan might be knock out the europeans, then turn on the Philipines / US. Whether or not that would work is another matter - Japan was probably never strong enough to take on the US.

 

[Dave Howery]

while I was less than impressed with Afleck's acting talents, I did like the movie overall.... I'm a sucker for CGI affects, and the ones with the Japanese planes attacking PH were superb.... I was always hoping they'd do another one about Midway....

 

[David S Poepoe]

while I was less than impressed with Afleck's acting talents, I did like the movie overall.... I'm a sucker for CGI affects, and the ones with the Japanese planes attacking PH were superb.... I was always hoping they'd do another one about Midway....

But they screwed up the entire scene of hitting Battleship Row. There was no indication that there were several attack waves.

 

[Dave Howery]

But they screwed up the entire scene of hitting Battleship Row. There was no indication that there were several attack waves.

well, the movie showed brief shots of the planes attacking the Row... no indication that there was or wasn't several waves.... and they were great shots.... doing something similar with Midway would be even neater, a lot more planes and ships in action....

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

AFAIK, President Roosevelt had promised that he would assist Britain if their Far East possessions were attacked. I'll find the exact reference.

 

[Karlos]

Don't know if FDR would get support enough to declare war. Even better for Japan would be to grab the european colonies in summer 1940, just after the fall of France and the Netherlands, and with Britain against the ropes. Nobody then would be in position to declare war on the Japanese, not even the british if the japanse went only for Java and its oil.

 

[Redbeard]

AFAIK, President Roosevelt had promised that he would assist Britain if their Far East possessions were attacked. I'll find the exact reference.

I believe it was part of the meeting between FDR and WC in the Atlantic in August (?) 1941, that FDR promised a US declaration of war in case of a Japanese attack on the commonwealth.

I doubt he did that without being sure of also getting the necessary political support in the Congress. After all the relation to Japan was very tense, and a policy was set leading to war sooner or later. AFAIK even the isolationists acknowledged that USA had overseas interests that needed protection.

But USA entering the war without the provocation of PH will indeed be a lot less determined, and a smart Japanese diplomacy might have gotten off with a compromise after the main targets were taken in SEA but before the USN was ready to cross the Pacific in force. But diplomacy certainly wasn't the strong side of the Japanese in WWII.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[PMN1]

AFAIK, President Roosevelt had promised that he would assist Britain if their Far East possessions were attacked. I'll find the exact reference.

It would be intresting if you could find that as from what i've read, Churchill gave assurances the UK would come to the US's aid if the US was attacked but didn't get a similar offer from Roosevelt in return.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

It would be intresting if you could find that as from what i've read, Churchill gave assurances the UK would come to the US's aid if the US was attacked but didn't get a similar offer from Roosevelt in return.

Yes, you're right, I had my facts backwards again. And I don't think the U.S. public would be ready for a war even if the Japanese did attack British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. What exactly was Japan's reasoning that they'd have to knock the U.S. fleet out before taking those areas? Did they just consider the Phillipines a necessary acquisition too?

 

[kingdobbs]

Yes, you're right, I had my facts backwards again. And I don't think the U.S. public would be ready for a war even if the Japanese did attack British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. What exactly was Japan's reasoning that they'd have to knock the U.S. fleet out before taking those areas? Did they just consider the Phillipines a necessary acquisition too?

The Japanese hope, from my understanding of it, was that the strike at Pearl Harbor would cause the US to knuckle under and let the Japanese have free reign in the Pacific (simultaneously, it would also knock out US retaliation capacity for a certain length of time, assuming they also managed to catch carriers in the Harbor, even if they didn't shrink away from the fight), also relieving the pressure of the economic sanctions the US was putting on Japan (in two ways, given the capture of Malayan and East Indian resources that would make the embargo, to a degree, irrelevant). The US would be too busy (or incapable) to respond, and British fleet strength in the region likely would not have been strong enough to defeat the entire Japanese fleet.

The Philippines, I don't believe, were as resource concentrated as Malaya or the East Indies, but would've provided an extra labor pool for Japanese industry, and would've rid the Japanese of the only other imperialist power in the region (aside from the Soviets, but they were at least territorially an Asian power, while Europe and the US were obviously not). I think "Get the US out!" was the overwhelming strategic concern there.

 

[Melvin Loh]

Well, without PH, WI the Japs had decided to conduct covert espionage activities against US forces in Hawaii, the Philippines and poss even CONUS ? Could such evidence of systematic enemy covert activity have caused the US to declare war even without Pearl ?

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Yes, you're right, I had my facts backwards again. And I don't think the U.S. public would be ready for a war even if the Japanese did attack British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. What exactly was Japan's reasoning that they'd have to knock the U.S. fleet out before taking those areas? Did they just consider the Phillipines a necessary acquisition too?

As I recall the Japanese felt that war with the US was inevitable by the later half of 1941, so it seemed prudent to start the war before the US could really start to build up its forces, and launch a surprise attack in hopes of winning the war before the US could bring significant force to bear.

 

[PaleHorseRiding]

another interesting POD is if it had of been a more succesful pearl harbour attack catch the carriers and the oil fields. This would have changed all of the pacific war.

The reason the Japanese attacked pearl Harbour is because the US was in the middle of a revamping of their navy which would have made any attack any where a giant hazard.

Also the embargo was an ACT OF WAR any way.

if the entire world cut off the US oil supply and all other trading with the US would u not call that an act of war.

 

[David S Poepoe]

another interesting POD is if it had of been a more succesful pearl harbour attack catch the carriers and the oil fields. This would have changed all of the pacific war.

The reason the Japanese attacked pearl Harbour is because the US was in the middle of a revamping of their navy which would have made any attack any where a giant hazard.

Also the embargo was an ACT OF WAR any way.

if the entire world cut off the US oil supply and all other trading with the US would u not call that an act of war.

An embargo is not necessarily an act of war. However, the moving of the US Pacific Fleet to Hawaii from San Diego was regarded as a potentially hostile act. A portion of the oil fields at Pearl Harbor are underground and invulnerable to aerial attack.

 

[PMN1]

Also the embargo was an ACT OF WAR any way.

if the entire world cut off the US oil supply and all other trading with the US would u not call that an act of war.

There was this little issue of genocide which Japan had been carrying out in China since 1937.

And if the US wanted to be really picky, it could have made something of the Japanese attack on the USS Panay in 1937.