Home > Military Nuts

What if the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbour?

Gedanken
8 Jun 04, 19:01

Originally posted by spencer99:
60 years from now... people will say that Bush delibrately let Osama attack WTC so that he can launch a major war to setup a base in the Gulf and control the oil there.
Well, the warnings were there and coming in a steady stream since 1999. Why was nothing done about it? The congressional hearings about 9/11 have produced a lot of scapegoats, but isn't it odd how Rumsfeld, Wolfie and gang have so far gotten away relatively unscathed? It reminds me of how Douglas McArthur's career took off after he apparently screwed up the defence of the Phillipines, to the point of keeping the Air Force on the ground for an extra 9 hours.
Nelstar
8 Jun 04, 19:45

the reason why it was recorded as Americans were unprepared:

Will you go and tell your citizens that you heard about possible invasions and probably did nearly nothing about it because you don't believe it?

surely you wouldn't want to tell your children that you know that you might go bankrupt, risk it nearly got bankrupt and they had to suffer poverty becos of your poor decision making rights?
Typhoon
8 Jun 04, 19:52

- Historians have found a note from Lt. Cmdr Arthur McCullum, dated 7 Oct 1940 listing eight actions designed to incite a military action by Japan, including such actions as the blocking of the sale of oil to the Japanese, maintaining a heavy US naval presence in the Pacific, and supporting Chiang Kai-shek in China.

- Having cracked the Japanese Navy cipher, the US government was well aware of the preparations Japan was making to attack Pearl Harbour. They were also aware of the date the Japanese had chosen at least a week in advance. Coincidentially Yorktown, Hornet and Enterprise were not in Pearl during the attack but were later available to turn the tide at Midway.

- The entire purpose why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour was to cripple the US carrier fleet. The Japanese knew that the key to dominance of the Pacific was not the battleship but the aircraft carrier. If the 3 US carriers had been present at Pearl Harbour Japanese casualties would have been heavier but it would have ensured them winning the war.

Some books on the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory:

Morton A. Kaplan, Why Roosevelt Wanted Japan to attack Pearl Harbor

Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor
Langley
8 Jun 04, 21:52

There are no 'what ifs' in history. Reason being simply that anything could have happened. The US could have sat out the war. Or the US could still have decided that Japan was a threat and needed to be countered. Mathematically speaking, speculation is useless since there are close to infinite permutations with all of them having a roughly equal chance of coming true. And thinking of conspiracy theories is dangerous. Such theorists have it right when they argue that disasters like Pearl Harbour and 911 allow countries alot of leeway to pursue previously unthinkable policies eg. become a world power, control the Asia-Pacific/Middle East. But they are simply outlandish to believe that leaders would consciously murder their own citizens such that these policies could be pursued! Unless certain rogue elements of the government allow these things to happen.. All in all, its pointless to speculate.
Nelstar
8 Jun 04, 22:04

Originally posted by Typhoon:
- Historians have found a note from Lt. Cmdr Arthur McCullum, dated 7 Oct 1940 listing eight actions designed to incite a military action by Japan, including such actions as the blocking of the sale of oil to the Japanese, maintaining a heavy US naval presence in the Pacific, and supporting Chiang Kai-shek in China.

- Having cracked the Japanese Navy cipher, the US government was well aware of the preparations Japan was making to attack Pearl Harbour. They were also aware of the date the Japanese had chosen at least a week in advance. Coincidentially Yorktown, Hornet and Enterprise were not in Pearl during the attack but were later available to turn the tide at Midway.

- The entire purpose why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour was to cripple the US carrier fleet. The Japanese knew that the key to dominance of the Pacific was not the battleship but the aircraft carrier. If the 3 US carriers had been present at Pearl Harbour Japanese casualties would have been heavier but it would have ensured them winning the war.

Some books on the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory:

Morton A. Kaplan, Why Roosevelt Wanted Japan to attack Pearl Harbor

Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor
There are always sources quoting this type of discoveries as historians like to dig up shit. Afterall, they are the ones who forced the archaelogists to dig up bones.
Moxie
9 Jun 04, 02:07

The conspiracy theories sprouted primarily cuz relevant documents were being declassifed only 10 years ago, some even in the new milllineum & are ongoing.

What's established facts is that, while America is still largely isolationist, the FDR administration was very hawkish - for good reasons. Macro-ly, Europe was falling to the Nazis & Fascists, twingeing the idealistic instints of a great Democratic bastion. Micro-ly, the US Navy was already tangling with German U-boats in the months prior to Pearl Harbour.

Concurrently, the Neutrality Act was already been repealed bit by bit, the US miltary was starting to mobilise its troops (the entire pre-war active army was smaller than MacArthur's Phillipines command, if I'm correct), & FDR actually sanctioned the nuclear-war progam a day before Pearl Harbour.

Also, the cracking of the Japanese cipher is a true event; the USA knew beforehand that the militarists had won the day & that they've given up on diplomacy. What FDR didn't know, however, is when & where the attack or attacks would occur - & it is this which the conspiracy theorists are arguing about. What's no longer accepted is the idea of Pearl Harbour catching America 100% "blind".

I think thread has - inadvertently? - asked 2 geopolitical questions here:

(a) what if Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbour, as the topic title indicated? My guess is the ongoing U-boat entanglements would've been the persuasive catalyst for the FDR administration to seek a declaration of war from Congress. This could've taken a while, or maybe not - it's largely dependent on how much Hitler (who was focusing on Soviet Russia at this point) wanted to fight a 2nd front.

(b) what if the US had stopped the attack, as worded in the initial post, to elicit a stalemate or successfully beaten off the Japanese squadrons? This is easier to answer. Hitler wasn't informed of the surprise attack, but Germany (& Italy) had an agreement with Japan to support the latter in such a situation. So the 2 Axis powers would've still declared war on the USA days after the event, instead of vice-versa in history (post-attack, America declared war on them 1st, before they "returned the favor").

In both cases, I don't think the momentum towards a global war (i.e. European & Pacific theaters) could've been stemmed. Instead, IMHO the big alternative-history question is whether the USA & Nazi Germany would've each shied away from fighting 2 main fronts if they could. As it happened, Destiny decided for them ...
spencer99
9 Jun 04, 09:18

Originally posted by Typhoon:
- Historians have found a note from Lt. Cmdr Arthur McCullum, dated 7 Oct 1940 listing eight actions designed to incite a military action by Japan, including such actions as the blocking of the sale of oil to the Japanese, maintaining a heavy US naval presence in the Pacific, and supporting Chiang Kai-shek in China.

- Having cracked the Japanese Navy cipher, the US government was well aware of the preparations Japan was making to attack Pearl Harbour. They were also aware of the date the Japanese had chosen at least a week in advance. Coincidentially Yorktown, Hornet and Enterprise were not in Pearl during the attack but were later available to turn the tide at Midway.

- The entire purpose why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour was to cripple the US carrier fleet. The Japanese knew that the key to dominance of the Pacific was not the battleship but the aircraft carrier. If the 3 US carriers had been present at Pearl Harbour Japanese casualties would have been heavier but it would have ensured them winning the war.

Some books on the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory:

Morton A. Kaplan, Why Roosevelt Wanted Japan to attack Pearl Harbor

Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor
The 3 Hawaii based carriers at the point of the attack are the Enterprise, Lexington and Yorktown. But only two are in the Western Pacific. The two are ferrying planes to Guan and Wake Island in preparation for the coming war. The third carrier in the West coast undergoing repairs/overhaul.

The Hornet is moved from the Atlantic to the Pacific together with some BBs after the Pearl Harbour attack to meet the Japanese threat. Prior to the PH attack the Naval priority was in the Atlantic.
ferret69
9 Jun 04, 09:35

On an unrelated note but interesting to WW2 fans, this little bit of trivia.

Cost of Manhattan Project : $2 Billion

Cost of B-29 bomber development programme : $3 Billion
spencer99
9 Jun 04, 09:42

"In two hours 18 warships, 188 aircraft and 2,403 servicemen were lost in the attack. Luckily, the navy's three aircraft carriers, Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga, were all at sea at the time"

Sorry, the three carriers were Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga.
ferret69
9 Jun 04, 09:45

As for my thoughts on this "conspiracy" theories, I do not believe in them. The main failure of the United States was not in intelligence gathering, but in the systematic analysis of all these disparate pieces of info which would reveal a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and on other US interests.

Thus the impetus in drafting the National Security Act of 1947, creating the CIA tasked "with coordinating the nationÂ’s intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence which affects national security."
zenden9
9 Jun 04, 10:44

With or without pearl harbour attack! US will still declared war on Japan.As Japan was badly shortage of natural resources for its war industries even with conquest of Coastal China and Indochina.They need the oil field and other natural resources in Burma and Malaya to substance further.

US had warned any further invasion of Britain territories will trigger a war with US. Without Pearl Harbour attack,Japan will still attack the remain of southeast-asia and force the US pacific fleet to fight Japan.The asia WWII will end faster with US pacific Fleet intact and able to deal Japan a terrible defeat by using phillipine as a major attack base to strike all Japan base in asia and Japan.Plus Singapore will not fall! US army r far more superior than Japan.A jungle war will be advantage for US.
Gedanken
9 Jun 04, 11:42

Originally posted by ferret69:
The main failure of the United States was not in intelligence gathering, but in the systematic analysis of all these disparate pieces of info which would reveal a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and on other US interests.
I beg to differ. Over the course of 1941, the Americans had been warned by Australians, Germans (the German ambassador to the US was in fact an anti-Nazi subsersive), Peruvians and Russians (courtesy of Richard Sorge) that the Japanese were specifically going to attack Pearl Harbour in November or December. Days before the attack, the US intercepted a Japanese transmission giving the go-ahead for the attack on the morning of 7 December - the Americans, British and Chinese had already broken the code months prior to the message.

Despite all of this, CINCPAC Admiral Kimmel was never informed or warned of the impending attack. All of the information was there - it was just not passed on to the one person who needed it, even though pearl Harbour was already known to be the target.
Viper52
9 Jun 04, 21:48

Back to the original question, American would have still come into the war regardless or not the Japanese had hit Pearl Harbour on 7th December. This is because the Japanese will still have struck at East Asia including the Philippines on that date. The Americans would have been dragged in due to the attack on the Philippines and even if the Japanese had bypassed the Philippines and gone for Malaya and the East Indies purely, the US would have responded to the imminent threat and Japan would have to invade the Philippines sooner or later. The difference is without Pearl Harbour, the Americans might not have the same resolve to prosecute the war.

Nelstar, its always good to re-examine history using new facts and info that have been discovered. One such example is a theory slowly gaining ground that far from being the screw ups they have been painted as, the crew of the cruiser IJN Tone's infamous Scout No.4 at Midway did an excellent and accurate job of scouting for the Japanese at Midway and only bad luck prevented the information from being better used, based on a study of new facts done by a USN college.

We must however remember to use these new facts correctly and judge historical figures fairly despite these new facts. After all,
wd1
9 Jun 04, 22:44

the only way we'll know for sure is to send someone back in time and kill ADM Yamamoto's mum before she met his dad.

IMO the US entry into the war would have been inevitable once the Japs invaded the philippines and malaya. the USN would of course have been in a much stronger position to take on the IJN in terms of men and materiel, but i feel it would have suffered in terms of public support and the emotional drive of its men, since it took the massive surprise, shame and damage of pearl harbour to galvanise the US as a country to totally support the war. if pearl harbour didnt happen and the US went to war anyway you might have seen crowds going out on the streets to protest against the war like they are doing against the iraq war.
gaoyue
9 Jun 04, 23:43

Originally posted by method:
I've been thinking about this for quite awhile. What if the Americans somehow knew about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and prevented them from destroying the American ships. Would the Americans still have declared war on Japan? I've read from somewhere on the internet that the U.S. knew about the attack on Pearl harbour but did nothing to stop it. They needed the attack on Pearl harbour to go to war with the Japanese & get the support from the American people.
I think I'll just answer the main question.. This is just my 2 cents alright.

1. The attack will not take place, however, the American government will not attack Japan.
2. Japan will continue to be a police state under Yamagato.
3. Colonies under Japan rule will still be under its "protection", mainly SE Asia, Mongolia and South Korea.
4. The war in Europe will last a hellva longer, and Germany might win.
5. America will take the oppotunity to establish itself in Europe, becoming "friends" with Germany and it will used Japan's mistake to conclude an agreement for its own benefits.
6. Because of difference in idealogy between America and major powers in Europe, WW3 might occur around now.
7. Yamagato's influence will slowly fade away, and Ito-minded people will have the chance to take over as the major statesman of Japan. The royal family will continue to act as their symbol of power towards the people of Japan.

Well, might be.
Moxie
10 Jun 04, 16:45

The Pacific theater would've played 2nd fiddle if Pearl Harbour didn't happen. After all, the USA was more or less "reactive" - with measures like trade embargos & military aid - in attempting to stem the Japanese tide for much of the 1930s, notably in supporting Chiang Kai Shek's KMT regime.

My take is that Japan's "Co-Prosperity Shere" mantle would've been purportedly anti-colonial enough (on the surface) to prompt the USA to give pause - & rein in any any aggressive or preemptive actions. The Americans would've "circled wagons" in the Philippines & frantically built up their strengths; MacAruthur's subsequent temporary withdrawal showed that the existing US-organized defenses weren't that far from the British's in Malaya.

In other words, IMHO the Americans would reevaluated the new geopolitical balance in the Pacific, with large territories under direct & psuedo Japanese protectorates. I know, it's hard to believe this retrospectively, but I don't think the outside world (inc. non-China Asians) knew then how brutal the militarists were, much like how the Nazi pogams were over in the European theater.

Their attention could thus return to Europe, always the more prominent priority, & see in particular how the German-Russia battles play themselves out. The wild-card is whether Hitler was arrogant enough to instruct his U-boats to be more aggressive as well, primarily to keep maritime channels open but ran the risk of engaging the US Navy big-time.

[Remember, the US Congress & general public remain generally isolationalist, even as the world's burning around them. Without Pearl Harbour, another powder keg (eg. sinking of a battleship) is needed to spark them into real active participation.]

I also speculate Roosevelt would've let MacArthur return to retirement in this scenario - i.e. no "I shall return" glory, with the different military & political variables at hand. William Leary or, more probably, Ernest King would've replaced him (Nimitz was a higher rank). Without MacArthur around as a booster, IMHO the Philippines would've accordingly be bypassed when the USA is ready to take the offensive. Guadacanal might have still happened, or King could've turned to Fomosa (Taiwan) as he intended as a launching point for the invasion of coastal China.
borgkilla
14 Jun 04, 12:06

well here's my 2 cents on the topic
had the japanese not attacked the americans in Pearl Harbour WW2 would have lasted a little longer.
Adolf Hitler would then not have declared war on the US ( this was the main reason US joined in the war against the Nazis , the attacked on Pearl Harbour meant only that the US declare war on the empire of Japan not Germany )
The Japanese occupation of Malaya, Singapore,Indonesia,China,Korea would have been extended and gave the japanese forces more time to gain footholds.
The Britsh/Australian/New Zealand forces would be too stretched as there would be no US forces to back them..
The Japanese navy would rule the South China Seas.... much of the Indian Ocean, and Pacific Ocean.
Without the US entering the European war.. the Nazi's would have further developed their ballistic missle technology and with allied bombing of their industries non-existant.. the Nazi's would have produced more V2 rockets to bomb the Britsh Isles, not to mention the development of jet-fighters and new MBTs.
It would have probably taken a while longer for the US to join in the allied effort.. but by then the UK may have been flattened and invaded. The Britsh forces in the Far east would be non-existant meaning the Japanese Imperial army can consilidate and expand influence in the region. Since the Japanese have not attacked the US..US forces would be sent to UK/Europe.. only after the Nazi's were defeated probably then the allies would look to the East.
I forgot to mention with the delay of the US entry into the US.. the Nazis would have completed their ethnic destruction of all Jews and other so called ' deviants' .
What a tragedy
So in some ways I think that the US intelligence did know of an attack on Pearl Harbour, but President Roosevelt knew he needed to push the American public into the war.. so Pearl Harbour was sacrificed.

well thats my 2 cent s.. whatcha guys think ?
Moxie
14 Jun 04, 15:24

For the record, Japan did achieve maritime superiority after they KO'd the British "Force Z"; they just extended it across the Pacific via the Pearl Harbor attack. Churchill commented that with the sinking of his 2 capital battleships ("Repulse" & "Prince of Wales") & whatever America could savage limping back to California, Japan completely dominated the Indian & Pacific Oceans.

When they progressively won control of the British airfields in Malaya, they achieved aerial superiority as well (in the sense of depriving the Allied air cover on any ground-based missions).

Retrospectively, Pearl Harbor was part of a 4-prong attack: sweeping down Malaya from IndoChina, attacking Hong Kong from coastal China, traversing to Clark Air Base & the Phillipines, & bombing Pearl Harbor. That's why I speculated MacArthur would've circled wagons & probably, like the British in Malaya, fought a retreating battle; the American-led forces at this stage were nowhere near the strength they would be upon mobilising the conscripts later on.

Oh yeah, the twin British counter plans (Operation Matador, Force Z) were designed & activated after the Japanese cipher code had been broken. Unlike the Americans who didn't precisely know when/where the attacks would come, the British situation was more predictable (if politically complicated). It was always gonna be at Kota Bahru, Patani & Singora due to the airfields & transport links nearby, but the latter two were located in Thailand & Britain would've had to invade a neutral country to preempt the Japanese.
Moxie
15 Jun 04, 14:43

I found a good book - Dan Van de Vat's "The Pacific Campaign: the US-Japanese Naval War 1941-45" - from my personal library that summarized well what went down.

The Japs' Southern Strategy was operationally devised from their late '41 "Outline for the Execution of the Empire's National Policy http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/monos/150/150app02.html - which recommended 3 offensive stages:

(a) invading into, &/or securing aerial superiority, in SE Asia (southern Thailand, Malaya, Philippines, Borneo, Dutch East Indies);

(b) consolidating & strengthening the perimeter of its newly-acquired colonies (i.e. the various Pacific islands);

(c) sit tight within its fortified sphere, ward off counterattacks & sap the US will to fight, while exploiting natural resources.

Militarily, Pearl Harbour - "PH" - had to be included in Stage A since, as with the other great naval base (Singapore) they hosted the maritime bulwark that could've stymied any invasion maneuvers. The difference is Singapore had to be occupied, while Pearl Harbour was only to be neutralized so that Japan could occupy - with reference to American interests - Guam & Wake Island according to Stage B.

In this light, I'm very doubtful about "what if the Japanese didn't attack PH". They had to deter the US Navy enough in their own Pacific "backyard", whether or not the Americans are going to proactively aid Britain in the Far East.

But if they really hadn't, or if the forewarned Americans had beaten them off, then IMHO Wake Island would've been the Midway of a parallel universe, whether FDR declared war or not.

The reality was that Wake managed to held out for around 2 weeks (until withdrawal orders was given), unlike Guam which fell very quickly. The Phillipines was losing - Bataan, Corregidor, etc. - but MacArthur won't formally leave for 4-5 months. So perhaps the US Navy would've either used its new staging area to traverse & beef up its strength there or - if aggressive enough (topically unlikely) - invade Jap-occupied Formosa & threathen their main islands, with or without Chiang Kai-Shek's help.

[The actuality is the crippled-but-regrouped US Navy started to turn the tide with the Battles of the Coral Sea & of Midway.]
Laplace
15 Jun 04, 22:13

Follow up expansion of the discussion;

what would have happened if Japan won the Battle of Midway?
Moxie
17 Jun 04, 20:45

Too speculative a scenario. There's just too many underlying variables - some diverging - that could've subtlely influence the Pacific-theater developments in one way or another. Like, what if certain naval vessels hadn't (or had) been sunk, or the Zero fighter losing (or just depleting) its aura of superiority, or the relative impact on American morale (with all pre-attack preparations in place, thanks to their codebreakers).

At the very least, I'll say that Japan would've reclaimed the psychological edge of homeland "immunity" which the Doolittle Raid had earlier debunked. Midway was the direct consequence of this daring incident, & not so much being Hawaii's "backyard" as the latter similarly is to continental USA. IMHO Japan's original defensive perimeter wasn't supposed to extend thus far eastwards either.

The preceding Battle of Coral Sea was variously interpreted in its results - it's fairest to poclaim a statemate, with a tactical win for Japan but a strategic victory for America - but if they weren't stopped at Midway (let alone lost the battle), I think the Japs would've mightily strengthened its geopolitical status to eventually sue for "detente" as originally planned.

My bet is it's also likely, as far as the US-Japan naval confrontation goes, the battle arena would've continued north of Australia in the South Pacific. There's no internal consensus that Japan wanna invade the ANZAC countries, who remained that staunchly pro-Allied & who took in the withdrawing British that didn't aim for India. Japan did desire to colonize all of the Pacific islands nearby - Guadacanal, Papua, New Guinea (Port Moseley), New Caledonia, etc. - as part of its defensive perimeter. Coral Sea was fought partly with these territories as prizes &, later, the US Marines' costly "island-hopping" attempts to retake them also showed just how palpably sound the Japs' "fortified boundary" blueprint was.

Without a Midway defeat, IMHO Japan would've constructed even more airfields in these territories in order to entrench their air-cover advantage. Whether they would've become springboards or staging posts for the ultimate assault on Australia is open to debate, but they would've certainly rendered it more difficult for the US Marines to re-secure than in actuality once the Americans were on the offensive.