I wonder how the war would of changed if Japan had invaded and conquered Hawaii after bombing Pear Harbor. I know the Japanese only bombed the harbor to discourage America from disrupting them from expanding, but I feel if that had taken over Hawaii, the USA would have to concentrate on its lost state and possibly not participate on D-Day later on. After all Japan had a very large army while the US only had a very small one.
QUOTE (ACSephiroth @ Oct 11 2009, 11:18 PM) 
I wonder how the war would of changed if Japan had invaded and conquered Hawaii after bombing Pear Harbor. I know the Japanese only bombed the harbor to discourage America from disrupting them from expanding, but I feel if that had taken over Hawaii, the USA would have to concentrate on its lost state and possibly not participate on D-Day later on. After all Japan had a very large army while the US only had a very small one.
The same thing that happened in Japanese occupied Alaska would have played out. We'd of gone in, fought and died, then retaken the place.
This would have happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Infamy_series
But seriously, the US would have taken it back eventually, but whether it would affect the European/African theaters, I'm not so sure of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Infamy_series
But seriously, the US would have taken it back eventually, but whether it would affect the European/African theaters, I'm not so sure of.
QUOTE (Darth Andrew @ Oct 11 2009, 10:31 PM)
This would have happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Infamy_series
But seriously, the US would have taken it back eventually, but whether it would affect the European/African theaters, I'm not so sure of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Infamy_series
But seriously, the US would have taken it back eventually, but whether it would affect the European/African theaters, I'm not so sure of.
Read that series, I love that author.
Anyway, I agree that they would of retaken Hawaii, but it would of probably would of heavily affected the other fronts in the war. Hitler might even get his peace treaty he desired from the US once he realized that Japan had no intention of attacking Russia like he hoped.
Doesn't really seem like a good what/if question? I haven't studied Pearl Harbor very extensively, but all Japan intended on was scaring the then isolationist U.S. out of the war by unexpectedly wiping out most of their Pacific Naval power through a "quick" bombing.
It's not a better question, like what if the Japanese held Leyte?
It's not a better question, like what if the Japanese held Leyte?
QUOTE (ACSephiroth @ Oct 11 2009, 08:18 PM)
I wonder how the war would of changed if Japan had invaded and conquered Hawaii after bombing Pear Harbor. I know the Japanese only bombed the harbor to discourage America from disrupting them from expanding, but I feel if that had taken over Hawaii, the USA would have to concentrate on its lost state and possibly not participate on D-Day later on. After all Japan had a very large army while the US only had a very small one.
The reason Japan didn't conquer Hawaii was their humiliating defeat at Midway. Pearl Harbor was a strike against the USN, it could not possibly have been made into an amphibious invasion of the Hawaiian islands instead.
QUOTE (ACSephiroth @ Oct 12 2009, 02:41 PM)
Read that series, I love that author.
Anyway, I agree that they would of retaken Hawaii, but it would of probably would of heavily affected the other fronts in the war. Hitler might even get his peace treaty he desired from the US once he realized that Japan had no intention of attacking Russia like he hoped.
Anyway, I agree that they would of retaken Hawaii, but it would of probably would of heavily affected the other fronts in the war. Hitler might even get his peace treaty he desired from the US once he realized that Japan had no intention of attacking Russia like he hoped.
Hitler wasn't counting on Japanese intervention in Russia, and by the end of '41 the Germans were doing very well (almost) on their own in the USSR.
We would likely have focused more on the Japanese and ended that threat sooner but i don't think Hitler would have managed to take Russia in time so the war would have gone rather similar with Germany being taken out maybe 1 or 2 years later then it was. The only real question is if nukes would have been dropped or not.
QUOTE (anenu @ Oct 12 2009, 03:58 PM)
We would likely have focused more on the Japanese and ended that threat sooner but i don't think Hitler would have managed to take Russia in time so the war would have gone rather similar with Germany being taken out maybe 1 or 2 years later then it was. The only real question is if nukes would have been dropped or not.
Pretty sure they didn't have nukes then.
QUOTE (thedestro @ Oct 12 2009, 04:48 AM)
Doesn't really seem like a good what/if question? I haven't studied Pearl Harbor very extensively, but all Japan intended on was scaring the then isolationist U.S. out of the war by unexpectedly wiping out most of their Pacific Naval power through a "quick" bombing.
It's not a better question, like what if the Japanese held Leyte?
It's not a better question, like what if the Japanese held Leyte?
Wasn't Japan's strategic goal to knock the US Navy out for a few months, during which Japanese forces could establish and secure perimeter to settle down into a war of attrition? It would be extremely naive to think that a surprise raid would scare an great power out of the war like Denmark or something.
On topic, I think this would have prolonged the war, and possibly allow the USSR to reshape much more of postwar Europe since I can't conceive the US abandoning Hawaii to attack Germany when the latter had nothing to do with the actual attack. Japan can't really win against the United States, although if they had Hawaii it would deprive the US of a major base of operations. That would definitely buy some time.
QUOTE (Gustave5436 @ Oct 12 2009, 04:48 AM)
The reason Japan didn't conquer Hawaii was their humiliating defeat at Midway. Pearl Harbor was a strike against the USN, it could not possibly have been made into an amphibious invasion of the Hawaiian islands instead.
I don't understand what you mean. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was significantly prior to the battle of Midway.
QUOTE (ACSephiroth @ Oct 11 2009, 11:18 PM)
I wonder how the war would of changed if Japan had invaded and conquered Hawaii after bombing Pear Harbor. I know the Japanese only bombed the harbor to discourage America from disrupting them from expanding, but I feel if that had taken over Hawaii, the USA would have to concentrate on its lost state and possibly not participate on D-Day later on. After all Japan had a very large army while the US only had a very small one.
Just have to point out, it wasn't a state till 1959.
QUOTE (popsumpot @ Oct 12 2009, 04:37 AM)
Pretty sure they didn't have nukes then.
Actually, Germany was pretty close to them.
QUOTE (ty345 @ Oct 12 2009, 05:25 PM)
Actually, Germany was pretty close to them.
Not nearly as much as you think.
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 12 2009, 06:14 PM)
Not nearly as much as you think.
But still fairly close. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there was a theory that the Germans managed to build a very, VERY crude version of a nuke before we stole/found their scientists and created the Manhattan Project.
Just for laughs I'll throw this one out:
If the Japanese had devoted the resources to invading Hawaii with the objective of keeping it, it might have *shortened* the war.
1. Such a diversion of resources might have prevented them from allocating sufficient force to take Singapore or Manila.
2. Maintaining a supply line long enough to support an occupation force in Hawaii would have put their naval forces at constant risk from carriers on the American west coast.
3. Resistance forces in Hawaii would have been more easily supplied from America than similar forces in the Philippines.
4. None of the industrial base that overwhelmed Japan in reaction to Pearl Harbor would have been affected by an occupation of Hawaii. They would be taking on the same enemy but with their own forces spread even more thinly than the ones ultimately crushed by the USN and MacArthur.
If the Japanese had devoted the resources to invading Hawaii with the objective of keeping it, it might have *shortened* the war.
1. Such a diversion of resources might have prevented them from allocating sufficient force to take Singapore or Manila.
2. Maintaining a supply line long enough to support an occupation force in Hawaii would have put their naval forces at constant risk from carriers on the American west coast.
3. Resistance forces in Hawaii would have been more easily supplied from America than similar forces in the Philippines.
4. None of the industrial base that overwhelmed Japan in reaction to Pearl Harbor would have been affected by an occupation of Hawaii. They would be taking on the same enemy but with their own forces spread even more thinly than the ones ultimately crushed by the USN and MacArthur.
QUOTE (ty345 @ Oct 12 2009, 06:18 PM)
But still fairly close. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there was a theory that the Germans managed to build a very, VERY crude version of a nuke before we stole/found their scientists and created the Manhattan Project.
They weren't close. WE only achieved the bomb because of the incredible amount of resources poured into developing it. Resources which any other (and all) nations developing a bomb lacked. To my knowledge, Heisenberg told Speer they could not build a bomb before 1945 and even then without a huge amount of resources (sound familiar?).
Also, as always wiki manages to explain it better.
QUOTE
Comparison of the Manhattan Project and the Uranverein
The joint American, British, and Canadian Manhattan Project developed the uranium and plutonium atomic bombs, which helped bring an end to hostilities with Japan during World War II. Its success is attributable to meeting all four of the following conditions:[95]
1. A strong initial drive, by a small group of scientists, to launch the project.
2. Unconditional government support from a certain point in time.
3. Essentially unlimited manpower and industrial resources.
4. A concentration of brilliant scientists devoted to the project.
Even with all four of these conditions in place the Manhattan Project succeeded only after the war in Europe had been brought to a conclusion. In Germany however only the first condition was met, and then only in a weaker sense than for the Manhattan Project. Added to this mutual distrust between the German government and the scientists existed.
For the Manhattan Project, the second condition was met on 9 October 1941 or shortly thereafter. Significant here is that by the end of 1941 it was already apparent that the German nuclear energy project would not make a decisive contribution to ending the German war effort in the near term, and control of the project was relinquished by the Heereswaffenamt (HWA, Army Ordnance Office) to the Reichsforschungsrat (RFR, Reich Research Council) in July 1942, essentially making it only a research project with objectives far short of making a weapon.
Concerning condition three, the needs in materiel and manpower for a large-scale project necessary for the separation of isotopes for a uranium-based bomb and heavy water production for reactors for a plutonium-based bomb may have been possible in the early years of the war, but in the latter years it would have been impossible to mount such an effort. Also, these large-scale facilities would have been recognized and included as targets for the Allied bombing missions, which grew in intensity as the war continued.
As to condition four, the high priority allocated to the Manhattan Project allowed for the recruitment and concentration of capable scientists on the project; in Germany, the priority and a focused project for such recruitment and concentration of personnel did not exist past mid-1942.
Thus, weakly meeting only the first of these four conditions, Germany fell far short of what was required to make an atomic bomb.[
The joint American, British, and Canadian Manhattan Project developed the uranium and plutonium atomic bombs, which helped bring an end to hostilities with Japan during World War II. Its success is attributable to meeting all four of the following conditions:[95]
1. A strong initial drive, by a small group of scientists, to launch the project.
2. Unconditional government support from a certain point in time.
3. Essentially unlimited manpower and industrial resources.
4. A concentration of brilliant scientists devoted to the project.
Even with all four of these conditions in place the Manhattan Project succeeded only after the war in Europe had been brought to a conclusion. In Germany however only the first condition was met, and then only in a weaker sense than for the Manhattan Project. Added to this mutual distrust between the German government and the scientists existed.
For the Manhattan Project, the second condition was met on 9 October 1941 or shortly thereafter. Significant here is that by the end of 1941 it was already apparent that the German nuclear energy project would not make a decisive contribution to ending the German war effort in the near term, and control of the project was relinquished by the Heereswaffenamt (HWA, Army Ordnance Office) to the Reichsforschungsrat (RFR, Reich Research Council) in July 1942, essentially making it only a research project with objectives far short of making a weapon.
Concerning condition three, the needs in materiel and manpower for a large-scale project necessary for the separation of isotopes for a uranium-based bomb and heavy water production for reactors for a plutonium-based bomb may have been possible in the early years of the war, but in the latter years it would have been impossible to mount such an effort. Also, these large-scale facilities would have been recognized and included as targets for the Allied bombing missions, which grew in intensity as the war continued.
As to condition four, the high priority allocated to the Manhattan Project allowed for the recruitment and concentration of capable scientists on the project; in Germany, the priority and a focused project for such recruitment and concentration of personnel did not exist past mid-1942.
Thus, weakly meeting only the first of these four conditions, Germany fell far short of what was required to make an atomic bomb.[
QUOTE (Flatlander @ Oct 12 2009, 05:35 PM)
Just for laughs I'll throw this one out:
If the Japanese had devoted the resources to invading Hawaii with the objective of keeping it, it might have *shortened* the war.
1. Such a diversion of resources might have prevented them from allocating sufficient force to take Singapore or Manila.
2. Maintaining a supply line long enough to support an occupation force in Hawaii would have put their naval forces at constant risk from carriers on the American west coast.
3. Resistance forces in Hawaii would have been more easily supplied from America than similar forces in the Philippines.
4. None of the industrial base that overwhelmed Japan in reaction to Pearl Harbor would have been affected by an occupation of Hawaii. They would be taking on the same enemy but with their own forces spread even more thinly than the ones ultimately crushed by the USN and MacArthur.
If the Japanese had devoted the resources to invading Hawaii with the objective of keeping it, it might have *shortened* the war.
1. Such a diversion of resources might have prevented them from allocating sufficient force to take Singapore or Manila.
2. Maintaining a supply line long enough to support an occupation force in Hawaii would have put their naval forces at constant risk from carriers on the American west coast.
3. Resistance forces in Hawaii would have been more easily supplied from America than similar forces in the Philippines.
4. None of the industrial base that overwhelmed Japan in reaction to Pearl Harbor would have been affected by an occupation of Hawaii. They would be taking on the same enemy but with their own forces spread even more thinly than the ones ultimately crushed by the USN and MacArthur.
This, especially #2. The supply line for the American advance on Japan was much more favorable than any supply line for the Japanese advance on Hawaii would have been.
QUOTE (Aeternos Astramora @ Oct 12 2009, 08:19 PM)
This, especially #2. The supply line for the American advance on Japan was much more favorable than any supply line for the Japanese advance on Hawaii would have been.
Well, that's also considering the fact that America inched its way forward and the supply route was a fair bit more secure than having a line secure up to Hawaii then jumping all the way over to Okinawa.
QUOTE (popsumpot @ Oct 12 2009, 04:37 AM)
Pretty sure they didn't have nukes then.
ummm we did have nukes in WWII, hiroshima?
If you mean at the time of Pearl Harbor, perhaps not, i don't know the exact date we got them, but his point was that if the Japanese theater had changed would we still have used them to end the war.
QUOTE (Flatlander @ Oct 12 2009, 10:35 PM)
Just for laughs I'll throw this one out:
If the Japanese had devoted the resources to invading Hawaii with the objective of keeping it, it might have *shortened* the war.
1. Such a diversion of resources might have prevented them from allocating sufficient force to take Singapore or Manila.
2. Maintaining a supply line long enough to support an occupation force in Hawaii would have put their naval forces at constant risk from carriers on the American west coast.
3. Resistance forces in Hawaii would have been more easily supplied from America than similar forces in the Philippines.
4. None of the industrial base that overwhelmed Japan in reaction to Pearl Harbor would have been affected by an occupation of Hawaii. They would be taking on the same enemy but with their own forces spread even more thinly than the ones ultimately crushed by the USN and MacArthur.
If the Japanese had devoted the resources to invading Hawaii with the objective of keeping it, it might have *shortened* the war.
1. Such a diversion of resources might have prevented them from allocating sufficient force to take Singapore or Manila.
2. Maintaining a supply line long enough to support an occupation force in Hawaii would have put their naval forces at constant risk from carriers on the American west coast.
3. Resistance forces in Hawaii would have been more easily supplied from America than similar forces in the Philippines.
4. None of the industrial base that overwhelmed Japan in reaction to Pearl Harbor would have been affected by an occupation of Hawaii. They would be taking on the same enemy but with their own forces spread even more thinly than the ones ultimately crushed by the USN and MacArthur.
I think this guy has it about right, nice hypothetical question though. I am no WWI historian, but if I recall it took a good year or 2 to get the manufacuring and economy on a war footing. So Item 4 here wins the day in my book, even if the occupation had occurred the industrial base would have been sufficent over time, perhaps longer in the pacific, one more island to take...
QUOTE (deja @ Oct 12 2009, 09:53 AM)
I don't understand what you mean. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was significantly prior to the battle of Midway.
And Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack, behind enemy lines as it were, for the sole purpose of inflicting severe damage on the USN. Logistics simply would not have allowed for a military occupation of the islands given the strategic situation on December 7th, 1941. If they were actually going to conquer the islands, they first needed to clear out enemy presence to their rear and all that (following a successful strike on Pearl Harbor, preferably with the US carriers in port). However, when they moved onto that last stepping stone to Hawaii, their carrier fleet was destroyed, so any further conquest was made impossible.
QUOTE (Thorgrum @ Oct 13 2009, 07:20 AM)
I am no WWI historian, but if I recall it took a good year or 2 to get the manufacuring and economy on a war footing.
And at the time of Midway, just 7 months after the war began, Japan still had a definite advantage in naval power. Had it been a strategic Japanese victory, destroying the USN carriers rather than the reverse, an occupation of Hawaii becomes more plausible.
QUOTE (Gustave5436 @ Oct 13 2009, 11:03 AM)
And Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack, behind enemy lines as it were, for the sole purpose of inflicting severe damage on the USN. Logistics simply would not have allowed for a military occupation of the islands given the strategic situation on December 7th, 1941. If they were actually going to conquer the islands, they first needed to clear out enemy presence to their rear and all that (following a successful strike on Pearl Harbor, preferably with the US carriers in port). However, when they moved onto that last stepping stone to Hawaii, their carrier fleet was destroyed, so any further conquest was made impossible.
And at the time of Midway, just 7 months after the war began, Japan still had a definite advantage in naval power. Had it been a strategic Japanese victory, destroying the USN carriers rather than the reverse, an occupation of Hawaii becomes more plausible.
And at the time of Midway, just 7 months after the war began, Japan still had a definite advantage in naval power. Had it been a strategic Japanese victory, destroying the USN carriers rather than the reverse, an occupation of Hawaii becomes more plausible.
Well, that's really the key to it all then, isn't it? Carrier kills. Would Midway have even happened if Japan hit the USN carriers in Pearl Harbour? Even if they didn't and Midway still happened, did the US not score as many carriers as they did by chance?
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 13 2009, 09:11 AM)
Well, that's really the key to it all then, isn't it? Carrier kills. Would Midway have even happened if Japan hit the USN carriers in Pearl Harbour? Even if they didn't and Midway still happened, did the US not score as many carriers as they did by chance?
Not by chance ... by superior cryptography. Another factor that an occupation of Hawaii wouldn't have been likely to affect. We were reading their commanders orders, frequently before the commanders themselves received them.
QUOTE (Flatlander @ Oct 13 2009, 12:17 PM)
Not by chance ... by superior cryptography. Another factor that an occupation of Hawaii wouldn't have been likely to affect. We were reading their commanders orders, frequently before the commanders themselves received them.
The Dauntless bombers appeared, by chance, exactly at the moment the Japanese CAP was intercepting a flight of torpedo bombers. That Dauntless flight was the one that proved devastating.
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 13 2009, 09:29 AM)
The Dauntless bombers appeared, by chance, exactly at the moment the Japanese CAP was intercepting a flight of torpedo bombers. That Dauntless flight was the one that proved devastating.
My misunderstanding, I thought you were referring to finding the Japanese fleet as being lucky, not the decisive nature of the battle. You can certainly argue that fortune smiled on the USN with that.
QUOTE (Flatlander @ Oct 13 2009, 12:31 PM)
My misunderstanding, I thought you were referring to finding the Japanese fleet as being lucky, not the decisive nature of the battle. You can certainly argue that fortune smiled on the USN with that.
Fortune seemed to like the USN a whole lot.
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 13 2009, 09:32 AM)
Fortune seemed to like the USN a whole lot.
Yeah, but as Jefferson noted, "I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." Good commanders, good intelligence and an overwhelming advantage in industrial capacity never hurt.
QUOTE (Darth Andrew @ Oct 11 2009, 11:31 PM)
This would have happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Infamy_series
But seriously, the US would have taken it back eventually, but whether it would affect the European/African theaters, I'm not so sure of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Infamy_series
But seriously, the US would have taken it back eventually, but whether it would affect the European/African theaters, I'm not so sure of.
And I was going to mention those...
They pretty much make the point that it wouldn't have mattered too much in the end thanks to how pissed the Americans would have been and how they, with sufficient willpower (which they had in that world as well as this), would have easily out-macro-ed their Japanese opponents.
The smart thing for us would have been to keep nuking Japan until they sent someone over to tell their guys to get out.
But we probably would have expended significant effort in retaking it much earlier.
But we probably would have expended significant effort in retaking it much earlier.
QUOTE (Loki Ire @ Oct 15 2009, 09:21 PM)
The smart thing for us would have been to keep nuking Japan until they sent someone over to tell their guys to get out.
But we probably would have expended significant effort in retaking it much earlier.
But we probably would have expended significant effort in retaking it much earlier.
Pray tell, how would you nuke Japan without having a secure supply line and airbases from which to launch?
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 15 2009, 10:06 PM)
Pray tell, how would you nuke Japan without having a secure supply line and airbases from which to launch?
Indeed. ICBMS didn't exist at the time.
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 15 2009, 10:06 PM)
Pray tell, how would you nuke Japan without having a secure supply line and airbases from which to launch?
I would assume you load the bombs in the planes, take off from Tinian, and drop them over your targets.
But then, I'm no military expert.
QUOTE (Loki Ire @ Oct 15 2009, 10:51 PM)
I would assume you load the bombs in the planes, take off from Tinian, and drop them over your targets.
But then, I'm no military expert.
But then, I'm no military expert.
Cute. But you avoided the question and dilemma. How would you even operate a base on Tinian if you haven't taken the island? If you don't have a secure back and supply route from Hawaii and onward?
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 15 2009, 10:53 PM)
Cute. But you avoided the question and dilemma. How would you even operate a base on Tinian if you haven't taken the island? If you don't have a secure back and supply route from Hawaii and onward?
Hawaii was not the only place from which we could operate a navy. We had an entire west coast from which to launch ships filled with troops, guns, and bombs to take Tinian so we could build B-29 airfields and nuke Japan.
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 15 2009, 09:06 PM)
Pray tell, how would you nuke Japan without having a secure supply line and airbases from which to launch?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-36
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 15 2009, 08:57 PM)
From that same wiki:
QUOTE
First flight 8 August 1946
Introduced 1949
Introduced 1949
Basically, the war would've had to go a little bit longer than it did before we could've used that plane.
I agree with whoever it was up there though that figured the war in the pacific would be faster.
QUOTE (Asriel Belacqua @ Oct 15 2009, 11:21 PM)
From that same wiki:
Basically, the war would've had to go a little bit longer than it did before we could've used that plane.
I agree with whoever it was up there though that figured the war in the pacific would be faster.
Basically, the war would've had to go a little bit longer than it did before we could've used that plane.
I agree with whoever it was up there though that figured the war in the pacific would be faster.
Yes, but we could've conceivably not launched major offensives we had this thing up in the air
QUOTE (Loki Ire @ Oct 15 2009, 10:56 PM)
Hawaii was not the only place from which we could operate a navy. We had an entire west coast from which to launch ships filled with troops, guns, and bombs to take Tinian so we could build B-29 airfields and nuke Japan.
I think you have a sad understanding of logistics.
QUOTE (deja @ Oct 12 2009, 09:53 AM)
I don't understand what you mean. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was significantly prior to the battle of Midway.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack on the US navy to start off the war; the actual Japanese lines at the time were far back. In order to get a suitable line of logistics for an amphibious invasion, they needed to island hop their way East, and rapidly at that (to overcome superior US industry). The Japanese loss at Midway made further movement East impossible.
edit: oops already answered it before.
QUOTE (Kenadian_2006 @ Oct 13 2009, 09:11 AM)
Well, that's really the key to it all then, isn't it? Carrier kills. Would Midway have even happened if Japan hit the USN carriers in Pearl Harbour? Even if they didn't and Midway still happened, did the US not score as many carriers as they did by chance?
Had the carriers been lost at Pearl or Midway turned out differently for Japan a threat to Hawaii itself is a definite possibility, though I would still say implausible as we could still ship out soldiers, supplies, etc. from ports like San Diego.
Maybe the Japanese would have taken over the United States and I would be a very patriotic Japanese Citizen... Nihon ha ichiban! Nihon ha ichiban! (Translation: JAPAN IS NUMBER 1! JAPAN IS NUMBER 1!)
We'd also have giant robots by now. I don' know, but I think they'd of done worse in the long run. Supposedly they timed that attack with a bunch of other coordinated attacks on the same time frame so they made a ton of other major gains that would have been lost if they'd of taken over Hawaii.
We'd also have giant robots by now. I don' know, but I think they'd of done worse in the long run. Supposedly they timed that attack with a bunch of other coordinated attacks on the same time frame so they made a ton of other major gains that would have been lost if they'd of taken over Hawaii.
The most important thing to have not happened at Pearl was the Japanese didn't sink the carriers, so even if they had taken Hawaii, I don't think it would've made too much of a difference. It might've prolonged the war a bit but so long as the US had their carriers, they were still in a defendable position.
I thought another mistake the Japanese made was not destroying the repair facilities at Pearl. I forget where I read/heard that, but apparently it also sped up the repair time on the fleet at Pearl dramatically...
QUOTE (Arcturus Jefferson @ Oct 19 2009, 10:43 PM)
I thought another mistake the Japanese made was not destroying the repair facilities at Pearl. I forget where I read/heard that, but apparently it also sped up the repair time on the fleet at Pearl dramatically...
Since they had no idea where the carriers were, they were reluctant to launch a third attack wave, lest it leave their own carriers vulnerable to American counter-attack.
QUOTE (Gustave5436 @ Oct 20 2009, 02:11 AM)
Since they had no idea where the carriers were, they were reluctant to launch a third attack wave, lest it leave their own carriers vulnerable to American counter-attack.
Lucky for the U.S.A., those carriers were out doing maneuvers at the time and were no where to be seen.
Sucked for Japan though.
QUOTE (Darth Andrew @ Oct 11 2009, 11:31 PM)
This would have happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Infamy_series
But seriously, the US would have taken it back eventually, but whether it would affect the European/African theaters, I'm not so sure of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Infamy_series
But seriously, the US would have taken it back eventually, but whether it would affect the European/African theaters, I'm not so sure of.
Ah, Harry Turtledove. That series is amazing really, as is his Timeline-191 series. THAT series is worth a read.
tl;dr of the series: CSA wins Civil War and survives all the way up until WW2 times, goes through that whole time period.
As for the subject at hand, I agree with most ideas put forward. We would have retaken it, but alot of blood would have been shed. However, Japan could of used this move to take the initiative and smash our carriers at sea, then proceeded to at least attempt an invasion of the West Coast or Alaska or both.
QUOTE (Elrich von Richt @ Oct 21 2009, 10:03 AM)
Ah, Harry Turtledove. That series is amazing really, as is his Timeline-191 series. THAT series is worth a read.
tl;dr of the series: CSA wins Civil War and survives all the way up until WW2 times, goes through that whole time period.
As for the subject at hand, I agree with most ideas put forward. We would have retaken it, but alot of blood would have been shed. However, Japan could of used this move to take the initiative and smash our carriers at sea, then proceeded to at least attempt an invasion of the West Coast or Alaska or both.
tl;dr of the series: CSA wins Civil War and survives all the way up until WW2 times, goes through that whole time period.
As for the subject at hand, I agree with most ideas put forward. We would have retaken it, but alot of blood would have been shed. However, Japan could of used this move to take the initiative and smash our carriers at sea, then proceeded to at least attempt an invasion of the West Coast or Alaska or both.
They did invade Alaska.
Time once again for one of my favorite sections of Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, as Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto reflects on the course of the war while making his last inspection tour of besieged Japanese positions in the Solomons ....
QUOTE
Tojo and his claque of Imperial Army boneheads said to him, in effect: Why don't you go out and secure the Pacific Ocean for us, because we'll need a convenient shipping lane, say, oh, about ten thousand miles wide, in order to carry out our little plan to conquer South America, Alaska, and all of North America west of the Rockies. In the meantime, we'll finish mopping up China. Please attend to this ASAP.
By then they were running the country. They had assassinated anyone in their way, they had the emperor's ear, and it was hard to tell them that their plan was full of !@#$ and that the Americans were just going to get really pissed off and annihilate them. So, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto, a dutiful servant of the emperor, put a little bit of thought into the problem, sketched out a little plan, sent out one or two boats on a small jaunt halfway across the !@#$@#$ planet, and blew Pearl Harbor off the map. He timed it perfectly, right after the formal declaration of war. It was not half bad. He did his job.
One of his aides later crawled into his office -- in the nauseatingly craven posture that minions adopt when they are about to make you really, really unhappy -- and told him that there had been a mix-up in the embassy in Washington and that the diplomats there had not gotten around to delivering the declaration of war until well after the American Pacific Fleet had gone to the bottom.
To those Army $%&@heads, this is nothing -- just a typo, happens all the time. Isoruku Yamamoto has given up on trying to make them understand that the Americans are grudge-holders on a level that is inconceivable to the Nipponese, who learn to swallow their pride before they learn to swallow solid food. Even if he could get Tojo and his mob of shabby, ignorant thugs to comprehend how pissed off the Americans are, they'd laugh it off. What're they going to do about it? Throw a pie in your face, like the Three Stooges? Ha, ha, ha! Pass the sake and bring me another comfort girl!
Isoruku Yamamoto spent a lot of time playing poker with Yanks during his years in the States, smoking like a chimney to deaden the scent of their appalling aftershave. The Yanks are laughably rude and uncultured, of course; this hardly constitutes a sharp observation. Yamamoto, by contrast, attained some genuine insight as a side-effect of being robbed blind by Yanks at the poker table, realizing that the big freckled louts could be dreadfully cunning. Crude and stupid would be okay -- perfectly understandable, in fact.
But crude and clever is intolerable; this is what makes those red-headed ape-men extra double super loathsome. Yamamoto is still trying to drill the notion into the heads of his partners in the big Nipponese scheme to conquer everything between Karachi and Denver. He wishes that they would get the message. A lot of the Navy men have been around the world a few times and seen it for themselves, but those Army guys have spent their careers mowing down Chinamen and raping their women and they honestly believe that the Americans are just the same except taller and smellier. Come on guys, Yamamoto keeps telling them, the world is not just a big Nanjing. But they don't get it. If Yamamoto were running things, he'd make a rule: each Army officer would have to take some time out from bayoneting Neolithic savages in the jungle, go out on the wide Pacific in a ship, and swap 16-inch shells with an American task force for a while. Then maybe, they'd understand they're in a real scrap.
By then they were running the country. They had assassinated anyone in their way, they had the emperor's ear, and it was hard to tell them that their plan was full of !@#$ and that the Americans were just going to get really pissed off and annihilate them. So, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto, a dutiful servant of the emperor, put a little bit of thought into the problem, sketched out a little plan, sent out one or two boats on a small jaunt halfway across the !@#$@#$ planet, and blew Pearl Harbor off the map. He timed it perfectly, right after the formal declaration of war. It was not half bad. He did his job.
One of his aides later crawled into his office -- in the nauseatingly craven posture that minions adopt when they are about to make you really, really unhappy -- and told him that there had been a mix-up in the embassy in Washington and that the diplomats there had not gotten around to delivering the declaration of war until well after the American Pacific Fleet had gone to the bottom.
To those Army $%&@heads, this is nothing -- just a typo, happens all the time. Isoruku Yamamoto has given up on trying to make them understand that the Americans are grudge-holders on a level that is inconceivable to the Nipponese, who learn to swallow their pride before they learn to swallow solid food. Even if he could get Tojo and his mob of shabby, ignorant thugs to comprehend how pissed off the Americans are, they'd laugh it off. What're they going to do about it? Throw a pie in your face, like the Three Stooges? Ha, ha, ha! Pass the sake and bring me another comfort girl!
Isoruku Yamamoto spent a lot of time playing poker with Yanks during his years in the States, smoking like a chimney to deaden the scent of their appalling aftershave. The Yanks are laughably rude and uncultured, of course; this hardly constitutes a sharp observation. Yamamoto, by contrast, attained some genuine insight as a side-effect of being robbed blind by Yanks at the poker table, realizing that the big freckled louts could be dreadfully cunning. Crude and stupid would be okay -- perfectly understandable, in fact.
But crude and clever is intolerable; this is what makes those red-headed ape-men extra double super loathsome. Yamamoto is still trying to drill the notion into the heads of his partners in the big Nipponese scheme to conquer everything between Karachi and Denver. He wishes that they would get the message. A lot of the Navy men have been around the world a few times and seen it for themselves, but those Army guys have spent their careers mowing down Chinamen and raping their women and they honestly believe that the Americans are just the same except taller and smellier. Come on guys, Yamamoto keeps telling them, the world is not just a big Nanjing. But they don't get it. If Yamamoto were running things, he'd make a rule: each Army officer would have to take some time out from bayoneting Neolithic savages in the jungle, go out on the wide Pacific in a ship, and swap 16-inch shells with an American task force for a while. Then maybe, they'd understand they're in a real scrap.
Yes, but not mainland Alaska, just the Aleutian Islands.
QUOTE
The most important thing to have not happened at Pearl was the Japanese didn't sink the carriers, so even if they had taken Hawaii, I don't think it would've made too much of a difference. It might've prolonged the war a bit but so long as the US had their carriers, they were still in a defendable position.
Actually that was an irony of sorts, a large portion of the world was still under the influence that battleships were the key component of naval warfare and the air-craft carrier wasn't really well loved at that point as much as it was later in the war. To some extents, it is questionable whether they would have focussed on our carriers even if they were there over our battleships because of this mindset.
After all, I don't remember many german air-craft carriers, but everyone remembers the Bismark.
On the other hand, I always wondered if modern engineering could have taken the Japanese idea of making an under-water aircraft carrier and turned it into a (more feasible) reality. Imagine being able to bring your force projection system off the coast of an opponents shore and be able to launch an attack without their surveillance systems being able to note your position. Against smaller nations today that doesn't seem like a major advantage, but against a larger super-power with intelligence gather capabilities it could prove vital to allowing your air-force to project onto enemy territory without them destroying you en-route.
I always liked the idea, but I think a lot of other arm-chair generals think it's chimerical (at least they built them though
)http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/03/20/news/story1.html
Now here is a more interesting question... what would have happened if the Japanese would have taken Hawaii AND the Panama Canal? Or what if we had a similiar mindset to the Germans and only stuck with battleships while the Japanese figured out air-craft carrier warfare?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.