Until WW2 was underway few, if any, people had thought that battleships might be obsolescent.
Pearl Harbor never becomes a major Naval base?
- Thread starter Spherical_light
- Start date
muddyleathers
Banned
One could argue that with the advent of the fast battleship, the bb’s lost at pearl were obsolete before they hit the bottom.
Although past their best, they would still have been useful [1] as a threat to any Japanese transport convoys (tying up escort vessels and fuel they couldn't spare or risking major losses of unescorted transports), also as something that put the great battle theory at risk by tipping the odds in US favour, and in general as a potential threat to Japanese carrier and cruiser groups. Even if only on convoy protection duty to free up faster battleships for carrier escort duty the Pearl Harbour battleships would have been a concern for the IJN if still operational.
[1] so obsolescent - becoming obsolete - rather than actually obsolete.
in Dec of 1941 when supposedly the ”Evil Genius” FDR was plotting to get is entire battle fleet destroyed the US had just commissioned (2) North Carolina Class, was activly building (4) South Dakota Class, Had 4 of the Iowas under construction and 2 more on order. and was actively working on the Montana Class 5 of which had been Authorized.
That is if i am doing my math right, 8 under active construction or just commissioned and 7 more Authorized. for a total of 15.
That is a n F-Ton of money and resources being committed to building what some folks seam to think were ships that were KNOWN to be obsolete and pointless. So much so that the best use the Former Assistant secertary of the navy and current cammander in chief of the military could find to use them for was to let them get destroyed to start a war with an enemy he didnt want to fight in hopes of getting a declairation if war against the enemy he DID want to fight,
Sorry, but this is beyond a doubt the dumbest conspiracy theory in History and is yet another example of people reinventing history not based on any historical fact but simply because they have an agenda (in this case making the US look bad) and then it is parroted by people with like interests or that know nothing.
I apologize for being blunt and mean about it but the acceptance on this forum of this kind of crap be folks that either have an agenda or know nothing or both typical aimed at making the US look bad has gotten out of control, and needs to be reeled in before this forum goes down the toilet and becomes a laughing stock dominated by talking heads with a agenda.
It is one thing to discuss alternative history such as how does WW2 go if Japan cant attack the US flert at PH because it is not there. That is an interesting question.
The Idea that the US president sacrificed the USN Battle fleet is complete BS and a total conspiracy theory. And doesnt this site have an anti conspiracy theory policy?
That is if i am doing my math right, 8 under active construction or just commissioned and 7 more Authorized. for a total of 15.
That is a n F-Ton of money and resources being committed to building what some folks seam to think were ships that were KNOWN to be obsolete and pointless. So much so that the best use the Former Assistant secertary of the navy and current cammander in chief of the military could find to use them for was to let them get destroyed to start a war with an enemy he didnt want to fight in hopes of getting a declairation if war against the enemy he DID want to fight,
Sorry, but this is beyond a doubt the dumbest conspiracy theory in History and is yet another example of people reinventing history not based on any historical fact but simply because they have an agenda (in this case making the US look bad) and then it is parroted by people with like interests or that know nothing.
I apologize for being blunt and mean about it but the acceptance on this forum of this kind of crap be folks that either have an agenda or know nothing or both typical aimed at making the US look bad has gotten out of control, and needs to be reeled in before this forum goes down the toilet and becomes a laughing stock dominated by talking heads with a agenda.
It is one thing to discuss alternative history such as how does WW2 go if Japan cant attack the US flert at PH because it is not there. That is an interesting question.
The Idea that the US president sacrificed the USN Battle fleet is complete BS and a total conspiracy theory. And doesnt this site have an anti conspiracy theory policy?
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
This post is a great example of why conspiracy bullshit isn’t welcome here. No evidence whatsoever for your extraordinary claim, but then you get aggressive and rude demanding other people disprove your assertions.
Kicked for a week, keep this garbage out of the board when you get back.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
You say “feel” a whole lot instead of actually making a good argument, and it appears your only source of knowledge is YouTube. Take a week off to actually read a book or two, and don’t post conspiracy garbage when you get back.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
I especially like the implication in the OP that establishing a base at Pearl Harbor must have been part of some conspiracy because (usual conspiracy mumbo jumbo)
Nick P
Donor
If Hawaii were British then it would still be a prime target for Japan to attack in 1941. Taking out the Royal Navy could prevent evacuation or reinforcement of Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Dutch East Indies. It also clears the path for IJN operations across the Pacific too.
There would probably be a smaller fleet in port on that day too - The Royal Navy and RAN, RNZN, RCN et al would be spread out across the Pacific and much of it in the Atlantic facing off against the main threat from Germany. But the radar and AA gun crews would be trained with some experience, a suitable air defence plan would be in place, aircraft safely dispersed in sandbag pens, and experienced pilots ready to fly - all based on lessons learnt in the Battle of Britain.
The big hope for the Allies would be that elements of the US Navy are visiting PH on that day, get attacked, and that drags the USA into the Pacific War.
I think that’s a bit of an assumption tbh, I mean we have the OTL level of investment/performance of British/Commonwealth forces to base there reactions on. I think first it would depend on who might be in charge and how aggressively they planned for an attack (ie would it be another Percival type commander), second whether or not they had received enough current hardware and manpower to set those defences, had the Imperial staff planned and resourced such a U.K. naval base for an attack by Japan?
On the other hand, assuming Singapore would still be the main naval base, would there even be major units in Pearl at this point if it were British? Assuming OTL then the cupboard is pretty bare, so maybe at most Force Z there instead of at Singapore? If not then the Japanese main attack might spread themselves thinner rather than concentrate on Hawaii?
Where does this conspiracy theory come from? Is this a recent thing on par with more recent false flag lunacy, or has it been around? I'd never read such lunacy (on FDR) before??
It goes back to before PH. Isolationists, America Firsters, and a lot of other people who did not like Roosevelt were accusing him & his administration of many evil things from his election in 1932. Speculation about the Pacific Fleet and PH started when in early 1941 Roosevelt ordered Admiral Richardson, the fleet commander, to park the fleet at PH instead of returning to the West Coast when the winter fleet exercises ended. It was common for the fleet to move to Hawaii for these exercises or war games. Several occasions they went south and practiced defending the Panama Cannal. Richardson protested the retention of the fleet at Hawaii so strongly he was asked to step aside in favor of a new fleet commander. Adm. Richardsons objections were mostly logistics, PH was not built up enough for long term support of the fleet. Parts of it would still have to be rotated back to the US for maintenance. The vulnerability to attack was not recognized by everyone in the Navy, There were tactical and strategic pros and cons, and there were arguments the vulnerability could be eliminated. ie: The US Army had been arguing for two decades its bomber force would locate and destroy any enemy fleet approaching any major US base.
Last edited:
Obsolete as they were four of the eight were back in action before the end of 1942.
The rescue the Philippines strategy had been demonstrated a bad idea back in the 1920s. A series of fleet exercises, staff studies, and map exercises showed it consistently led to a sunk fleet . For most of two decades War Plan ORANGE (vs Japan) consisted of 24+ months of build up during a defensive phase, the a methodical advance across the Central Pacific, seizing islands bases for the fleet. Sound familiar? WP ORANGE was defect initiated in 1940 with the two Ocean Navy Act. That started a large scale construction of a entire new fleet, built mostly for a Pacific war. When the Japanese understood this construction project it scared the hell out of them.
The US business in the "China Trade" or with Asia in general had been suffering from Japanese expansion. Japans seizure of large parts of China forces US businessmen to deal with the Japanese & that was losing them money. When the Japanese army occupied French Indo China in the winter of 1940-41 they took control of a major part of the worlds Latex Rubber production, of the Into China Tin exports, and of major importance the Mekong Rice production. In the previous half century the Mekong had been developed as a massive Rice factory that helped offset the frequent crop failures and famines in Asia. Japan now controlled this. Brian, the Dutch, and US feared Japanese manipulation of this Rice source, making famines in India or elsewhere worse and more frequent. Up to 1937 the US economic interest in the Philippines had been dwarfed by its other Asian trade. Absent US political control of PI there's still a significant economic loss from Japans Imperial economic policies.
US prosperity was heavily dependent on 19th Century free trade. When ever the global re the US suffered. German and Japanese conquest and economic policy was threatening US recovery from the Depression.
If Japan has waited a few years the PI would have been independent. But tensions between theUS and Japan were far broader than just the question of the Philippines.
The US battleships at Pearl Harbor, and RN battleships similar of vintage (Royal Sovereigns, etc.), were still very useful and important weapons in WW II even if they were not as useful in their original purpose, the decisive weapon of the US fleet, as when they werecomnissioned. This was shown time again, time again--and not just for fire support in landing.
The US Standards guns could destroy any other surface ship except for some of the newer battleships. Shells from a US Standard's 14" could even inflict significant damage on newer battleships, and shells from a Stardard with 16" gun more so. Likewise Royal Navy 15" guns could harm most surface ships. The presents of these older ships required the Axis navies to take into account to them as a threat. German commerce raiders were instructed to avoid contact with them. Basically the older battleships served as a sort of fleet-in-being, limiting Axis options.
The US Standards guns could destroy any other surface ship except for some of the newer battleships. Shells from a US Standard's 14" could even inflict significant damage on newer battleships, and shells from a Stardard with 16" gun more so. Likewise Royal Navy 15" guns could harm most surface ships. The presents of these older ships required the Axis navies to take into account to them as a threat. German commerce raiders were instructed to avoid contact with them. Basically the older battleships served as a sort of fleet-in-being, limiting Axis options.
This is more or less the same conspiracy theory that is based on the carriers being away from Peril Harbor at the time of the attack.
It just has a different shirt on..
And is the other side of the disc/argument from a little bit ago that Japan could have done much better.
In all cases it appears as if it is predicted on a few basic assumptions. And as such is similar to the various topics such as the ongoing one about the US not needing to use the bomb nor to invade and Japan would just magically give up.
Or any of the many many many topics about how the Bomb was useless and not needed and it was only nasty US wanting to demon them that caused them to be used. Or the various topics about how the US was not needed to win WW2 in Europ, or the D-Day invasions were not the result of good planning by the US/GB but was because Germany blew it.
Basically these are mot so much alternative history discussions as they are atte,most to show/prove that The US was not the good guys or was nothing special. and they all work more or less as follows.
1) The people in charge of the US at the timer were either idiots or criminals/traitors or both.
2) the US was as much responsible for the war as anyone else.
3) The US was not any more important or in some cases was not needed to win the war.
Why do we see these types of posts? Who knows. I suspect a number of different ”goals“ in them but they all more or less involve in revising history to make the US and sometimes all the Wallies look worse.
But this is nothing new. While in HS and at university my various history teachers/professors where already starting to emphasize all aspects that made the US specifically, The western nations in general and all use of military in as bad a view as it could be. And this was 35 or more years ago.
It was much like the way the American Civil war was taught for a LONG time. Trying to make the Union the bad guys (The war of Norther Aggression) And the way many still view norther Generals. It was only larger numbers or better supplies that allowed them to win and that it was typically A Southern General losing a fight not a northern one winning one. Of course most of this narrative was a result of all the southern authors and the result of the same things that gave us the Lost Cause myth.
But now we are aiming at a more recent event. But if you think about it in the 50s and 60s the US was 90 to 100 years removed from the Civil war and now we are 80 to 85 years out from WW2. So it is relatively the same thing.
Note Neither the messed up “History” of the ACW and the so called Lost cause myth nor the current revisionist history are an active conspiracy as such in that they had a central ring leader. They were and are a result of many individuals that have individual beliefs and goals and as such they ”manipulate” the facts a bit. And then we have even more people that have had such limited and bad education in History that it is easy to influence them. This is much the same way we get the various dumb bs we get such as
-”Faked Moon Landings”
-any of the various JFK assassinations theories.
-anti Vax
-The various Peril Harbor myths
-The Atomic Bombs were not needed but was simply the US showing off
-“Flat Earth”
-The Twin Towers were imploded or were an inside job or whatever other 911 myths
And any other of the many many many. BS myths and conspiracy theories that we have going.
It just has a different shirt on..
And is the other side of the disc/argument from a little bit ago that Japan could have done much better.
In all cases it appears as if it is predicted on a few basic assumptions. And as such is similar to the various topics such as the ongoing one about the US not needing to use the bomb nor to invade and Japan would just magically give up.
Or any of the many many many topics about how the Bomb was useless and not needed and it was only nasty US wanting to demon them that caused them to be used. Or the various topics about how the US was not needed to win WW2 in Europ, or the D-Day invasions were not the result of good planning by the US/GB but was because Germany blew it.
Basically these are mot so much alternative history discussions as they are atte,most to show/prove that The US was not the good guys or was nothing special. and they all work more or less as follows.
1) The people in charge of the US at the timer were either idiots or criminals/traitors or both.
2) the US was as much responsible for the war as anyone else.
3) The US was not any more important or in some cases was not needed to win the war.
Why do we see these types of posts? Who knows. I suspect a number of different ”goals“ in them but they all more or less involve in revising history to make the US and sometimes all the Wallies look worse.
But this is nothing new. While in HS and at university my various history teachers/professors where already starting to emphasize all aspects that made the US specifically, The western nations in general and all use of military in as bad a view as it could be. And this was 35 or more years ago.
It was much like the way the American Civil war was taught for a LONG time. Trying to make the Union the bad guys (The war of Norther Aggression) And the way many still view norther Generals. It was only larger numbers or better supplies that allowed them to win and that it was typically A Southern General losing a fight not a northern one winning one. Of course most of this narrative was a result of all the southern authors and the result of the same things that gave us the Lost Cause myth.
But now we are aiming at a more recent event. But if you think about it in the 50s and 60s the US was 90 to 100 years removed from the Civil war and now we are 80 to 85 years out from WW2. So it is relatively the same thing.
Note Neither the messed up “History” of the ACW and the so called Lost cause myth nor the current revisionist history are an active conspiracy as such in that they had a central ring leader. They were and are a result of many individuals that have individual beliefs and goals and as such they ”manipulate” the facts a bit. And then we have even more people that have had such limited and bad education in History that it is easy to influence them. This is much the same way we get the various dumb bs we get such as
-”Faked Moon Landings”
-any of the various JFK assassinations theories.
-anti Vax
-The various Peril Harbor myths
-The Atomic Bombs were not needed but was simply the US showing off
-“Flat Earth”
-The Twin Towers were imploded or were an inside job or whatever other 911 myths
And any other of the many many many. BS myths and conspiracy theories that we have going.
Driftless
Donor
Just to throw a wild card in here.... IF the British added Hawaii to the Empire circa 1900 +/-, and Pearl Harbor becomes a second tier base, might it get administartively attached to Canada, or, Australia, or New Zealand at some point? OR, even a wilder card, Oahu/Pearl Harbor gets whiffled into the Bases for Destroyers agreement (though obtaining the world class Pearl Harbor would be a mighty lopsided swap)
WP ORANGE had Hawaii as a important forward base for sustaining the Central Pacific offensive. Without it the USN has to come up with another suitable location. There are a fair number of islands, but few large enough or in a decent location. We should all take a look at the maps.