did japan had to attack america?

here comes that great theory again of the attack on Pearl Harbor

 

Nothing like going in circles.

It would still be a matter of convincing the American people who, before Pearl Harbour, a majority were anti war.

 

The only U.S. "colonies" threatened by Japanese expansion were the Philipines, who had already been promised independance.

 

can we conclude off this that when japan could expand and the us would only protest politicfly but would go to war. in that case the japanese were so stupid of attack pearl harbor

 

Wow, a triple post :lol: !!!

No, I disagree. Whether US "Colonies" were being directly threatened or not, it was increasingly apparent that the US and Japan were on a collision course. If it hadn't been Pearl Harbour there would have been an incident sooner or later that would have resulted in open hostilities between the two.

 

We have to remember that US was actually at shooting war already by Dec 1941. It was only matter of time when US would officially join at war.

 

idd, a tripple post. computer was to so slow this morning so i became inpatient and start cliking on submit (three times so it seems because i posted three times the same)

 

The U.S. and Japan were on a collosion course, colonies or not. Only a retreat by the Japanese in China could have prevented it. The Japanese simply made it very easy and popular by bombing Pearl Harbor.

 

a politician can't go to war if his people don't stand behind them. as long as jack the farmer, bob the builder, joe the taxidriver and so on (just saying the normal people) says: "hey, it isn't on our continent and we aren't attacked so why do we have to fight for someone else?" then the politician beter shuts up or they don't elect him anymore

 

Interesting thread. I have always found that the Japanese really messed up by attack Pearl and thus bringing the US into a war it otherwise did not want.

Hmm, I don't really agree with that statement. The British would most likely react violently for a number of reasons. First of all, they could not afford to see the security of their allies and former/present colonies jeopardized. Nor would Chirchill likely accept this without a fight.

The US is, however, another matter entirely. Historically, we have seen nations beat around the bush for years without end even if their house is basically on fire. Nowadays, it's mostly a European phenomenon. But the rise of the various dictators in the 20's and 30's, the Spanish Civil War, Münich and what not showed that unless directly attacked, nobody really gave a damn. That line of thinking was still, subconsciously or not, dominant in the US in the very early 40's. Quite frankly, FDR did not have the political, public, nor military backing to engage the Empire of Japan in open conflict.

I just can' t see the Americans committing combat troops to defend the european colonial empires or even over the China issue. China was a sore spot, as Canambridge notes, but most americans really didn't give a damn. FDR might want to, but as stated above, he did not have the backing to do so without a direct attack, as Quillin states.

In regards to Singapore, I believe you're right. But the Philippines could have been bypassed as they posed little real threat. The Japanese were the neighbourhood strong boys at that time, they could choke off the American supply lines if and when they wnated too. Unless the US stationed serious firepower on the isles, the danger was neglible.

The Japanese should basically have ignored the US and have relied on the US to declare war and steam for the Philippines, where the Kido Butai could slaughter the American battleline!

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluenote.

 

Sounds very neat and tidy. Where would that have gotten them though? They would still have involved themselves in a war that they couldn't win.
The outcome would have been the same.

 

Well, perhaps not. It all depends on the US declaring war in the first place - hard to image without Pearl, right?

And if so, the extra time and resources would secure the Japanese a way stronger hand. The US would of course also get stronger, but would still focus on "old school" tactics and doctrines (read: battleships instead of carries). Furthermore, the fact that the US was not attacked, thus no public outcry etc etc, but soundly defeated in the faraway Philippines - and the ships sunk on open ocean, not where they could be raised - would change the political landscape profoundly. With such a defeat - and I have no doubt that the IJN at this point in time would defeat the USN -, FDR would be in real trouble, and without his drive, who can tell in which direction the US might go, eh?!

Best regards!

- B.

 

mr.bluenote wrote:

Are you contradicting yourself?

you wrote:

This was not a peculiarly US weakness. All nations were still building battleships. The IJN squandered untold national resources on the ill conceived Yamato and Musashi as well as the third folly that was in construction when converted to a carrier. The US carrier force was not so insignificant as to be discounted either.

If, as you imply, battleships were useless what difference would it make if they were raised or not? Do you seriously believe that there would be no outcry in the US if the fleet were sunk and that the US would not wage war on Japan after they sunk our Pacific fleet.

No serious historian, military or otherwise credits the Japanese with having a chance to militarily defeat the US(in the long run).
While I'm not saying we should adopt their opinions because they are authorities it would be wise to have some convincing arguments to counter the overwhelming weight of consensus. I fail to see a persuasive argument for Japan waging a successful war against the US.

 

I don't think so. What I meant was, and I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, that without the Japanese attack on Pearl, there would have been no shooting war between the Empire and the United States. If it did come down to war of any sort, however, it would be far better from the Japanese perspective for the US to declare it and then wait for the USN to steam all the long way across the Pacofic and hit them at their most vulnerable, just before reaching the Philippines - where I presume they would be going.

The IJN had placed an at that time unseen emphasis on carriers - I think it was even more so than the British, who still was somewhat in love battleships.

I do not as such discount the USN, but at this point in time, they too were very much taken with the big, bad battlewagons. More importantly, the IJN's naval aviators were wihtout any doubt the finest pilots of the world and they were well armed for their task as well!

Furthermore, the Japanses had developed various tactics and doctrines for fighting with their carriers and saw them as central to all their naval stratagems - I seems to me that the USN only did so rather reluctantly , because carriers more or less were all they had left after Pearl.

The difference lies in perception. If the battleships got sunk out on the open ocean, they would be gone for good - a severe blow to any nation -, not lying were the could be raised etc etc. Furthermore, their crews would most likely all be dead as well. Not something you'd like to see in the news papers as the president who ordered them there in the frist place in spite of public opinion.

I seriously believe that the situation and the mood in the US would be way different if the USN got handed its head by the Japanese somewhere near Manilla, yes!

Let's recapitulate: The Japs plays it smart, they stay out of US territory and offer no direct provacations as such - they overrun all of the territory as they really did, but launch no attack on the US of any sort -, nonetheless FDR succedes in declaring war. The US public is lukewarm to the idea at best. The USN's battleline steams out aross the Pacific as according to some old colour coded warplan to reinforce the Philippines and later to teach those pesky yellow monkeys a lesson (the US were notoriously racist in their perception of the Japanese at the time) or two.

Somewhere along the way IJN subs, planes or what not spot the USN PacFleet and the Japanes begin to assemble the Kido Butai. The Japanese have a fairly good idea as to where the USN PacFleet is heading, they'll need supplies etc etc after their trip and the only real palce they can get that is probably around Manilla.

The USN are far from incompetent, they do spot the Kido Butai comming and orders its attacked. Some Subs attacks without any effect as their torpedoes fail to detonate, their planes get slaughtered by superior IJN naval aviators and then the Japanese launch their counterattack. The capital ships never even engage and the next morning a few battered lighter vessels steam into Manila Bay, haunted by lIJN subs and air planes.

In Washington, FDR is in trouble as the fury of the American people is more directed at him than at the Japanese...

Ah, but the point is, that with such a defeat as stated above, there is a good chance that the war would not be prolonged, but be more of a stand off. FDR would most likely be tied by Congress for the remainder of his term and no real offensive actions thus be taken. The Japs keeps hammering at the Europeans and Chinse. With a new Republican president som sort of peace might happen, right?

The Japanese would not want a prolonged conflict in the first place, and their failed strategy called for the US to tire of the war, basically, and just throw the towl in at some point. Pearl had just the opposite effect, it infuriated the US Public. And if you read my posts, you'll notice that I argue that the Japanes can win battles, not a war with the US. This is as I said the whole point, if there is to be a war, let the US declare it and then manhandle their navy. That changes the whole equation in my view.

Best regards!

- Mr. B.

 

Mr. Bluenote,
IMO your central thesis is flawed. You fail to understand the socio-cultural aspects of US society at the time. You attempt to use modern US political standards to judge how these events would be interpreted at home. I have no doubt that the US public would have been just as angry and motivated to go to war with Japan had the US fleet been sunk at sea rather than at anchor. Also it's rather naive to think that Roosevelt would just declare war on Japan without some justifying action. Even his detractors (of which I am one, to an extent) do not deny his poltical skill and savvy. That is precisely why he embargoed scrap steel and oil. Japan's hand was forced and her bluff was called. Don't doubt that FDR was aware of what he was doing when he took that action.

The same aviators were present at Midway and failed to carry the action.

I think this statement betrays a bias and lack of objectivity in this analysis that skews your perceptions. It's true that there was racism on all sides in this war. One could scarcely study this conflict and fail to note that the Japanese were just as racist as the Americans. That same bias IMO leads you to overestimate the potency of the IJN and you seem to buy into the Japanese invincibilty myth that was disproven long ago.

 

You seem to misunderstand my point, Grieg. I do not believe that it would come to a war between the US and Japan, if Japan did not attack American targets directly! Therefor I believe Japan made a colossal mistake when they launched their attack on Pearl.

So far so good!

But, as I wrote earlier, if war somehow did erupt, say FDR over some minor issue declared war - only real reason I can think of -, then the American public would not really be behind the war, lacking the psychological effect of the infamous sneak attack at Pearl. Without a direct attack by Japan, FDR would appear, just as he do today in some people's eyes, to have provoked the war. The fact that the US is now fighting a war few other than the President and his closets allies really want change the equation quite a bit.

Not if under said circumstances, the USN with its reliance on battleships, old school commanders - Kimmel fx. - and doctrine sally forth in accordance with their warplan (can't remember the colour) and get shot to pieces by IJN airpower - which they would, no question what so ever about that! Then the President becomes a lame duck, to use a modern expression, and the war most likely will fizzle out as Washington goes political. Come next election, unless the Japanese really mess up - say by invading US territory -, an uneasy peace will emerge.

Yes, but if you grasp the details about Midway, you'll know that it was a close call. Blind luck played a major role here, the USN was in their post-Pearl phase - meaning they used carriers as their main weapon -, men like Spruance and Nimitz was in command etc etc. Oh, yes, and the USN knew what the Japanese were up to - the Japanese codes being broken and all.

Sigh, I metioned the racist part, because the American commanders in general did not take the Japanese serious as an opponent before Pearl. Jezz, some idiot in the US thought that the Japs could not see by night, was inheridtly bad pilots and what not... While the Japanses saw the Americans as inferior, they had respect for the sheer power of the American nation! Point being, the Japanese calculated with the American strenght, while the US up untill Pearl saw only Japanese weakness.

Now consider this; we have a nation in a war only their President want, and a war fought over some non-essential insult most likely - perhaps even China -, the US Navy has lost its battleline and that to an opponent not thought much of. How will the public respond? They'll want to see heads roll big time and a change in leadership ASAP. FDR in pre-Pearl America was the only one really pushing for, and in a position to do so, war with the Axis powers. With a defeat under his belt, he'll be mirred in internal conflict and thus unable to do much about the Japanese or even the Germans.

My regards!

- B.

 

What do you think Japan was going to do about the steel and oil embargo?

Again I state, the misunderstanding is on your part. You underestimate FDR's political skill as well as the determination of the American people.

How does the current President and the war in Iraq change anything about what took place then?

IMO you continue to make the same invalid assumptions regarding how the American public of the 40's would react to war with Japan. You also way overestimate the US reliance on battleships. Where do you think the US carriers that won the Midway battle came from? Do you think that they were whipped up out of thin air over the previous six months since the Pearl Harbor attack? They were already in existence or already building, the pilots and planes were trained or in training already.

Yes, luck played a part, as it does in any battle but so did the bombs that were dropped on the decks of the Japanese carriers by well trained US pilots from planes and carriers that as previously pointed out were already in the pipeline. The breaking of the Japanese naval code wasn't luck either, it was the result of hard work by ingenious cryptographers.

Had the Japanese "calculated with the American strength" as you say, why would they launch an unwinnable war that would ultimately mean the destruction of their regime? The US underestimated Japan but to say that they "saw only Japanese weakness" is incorrect and overstates the case. They, of course, knew how many carriers and battleships the IJN could put to sea.

That might happen today (or it might not) but none of this scenario is likely if one takes into account the attitudes of the American people of that time. You seem to think that it was only the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor that was responsible for the people of the US rising up to enlist in record numbers and gear up for war. Pearl Harbor was a factor but by no means the only factor involved.

 

Invade non-American areas that have suitable quantities of these raw materials, such as the oil in the Dutch Indies.

You are right about FDR, but I think you overestimate the American people at that time. The majority of Americans, although supportive of Britain, favoured isolationalism. Roosevelt new it, and based his 1940 platform on anti war: "And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars!"
As you can clearly see, he provides that the US will not take place in any foreign wars, leaving a loophole, so to speak, for war after provocation of a foreign aggressor against the US itself. But thats another matter.

In any case, yes, Roosevelt aided Britian in many ways, but they were bound by a common language, race, culture, etc. and Hitler, no matter who you are, was an evil dick.

In the Pacific, Roosevelt had hopes for China, mainly the elusive China market, but, overall, it was not a country worth fighting over, nor were the various Pacific colonies of the Dutch, British, and French. America was strongly anti-imperialist, but watching one empire take the land of another's was no cause for war.

The Japanese had hoped that by attacking Pearl Harbour, they could bring the US to their knees and sign some sort of treaty, in the Japanese government's favour of course. The Japanese knew they could not win against a prolonged war against the Americans, all odds were against them. They did not (except maybe Yamamoto)plan on the US rising from the ashes of Pearl Harbour and continue fighting the war, but, as you very well know, was a grave assumption on their part.

 

Um, I think Mr Bluenote means 'now' as in 1941, in keeping with his story.

Nobody has said that they were not in existence.
What has been pointed out is that if they were commanded by somebody who is a rigid Battleship man? Especially if they meet an enemy admiral who is a Carrier man...

Mr Bluenote did not attribute the code-breaking to luck...
As a point of interest (as I do not know exactly) when were the Japanese codes broken?

But believed, as did most 'Western' nations, that Japanese equipment was nowt but inferior copies of Western stuff.

But the attitude was mostly one of isolationism. I have heard several Americans say 'no it was not', but have heard no indication of this beyond an opinion.

Americans were certainly unwilling to get involved when an American gunboat was sunk by the Japanese in the 1930s.

 

What has been pointed out is that if they were commanded by somebody who is a rigid Battleship man? Especially if they meet an enemy admiral who is a Carrier man...

Spruance didn't do too badly at Midway and he was a Cruiser man, similarly so was Nagumo I believe. What about Yamamoto? Regarded as the ultimate Carrier man, he nevertheless husbanded Japan's Battleships as he believed the decisive engagement would be between the two surface fleets.

Even at Midway, the plan originally was for the carriers and invasion force to capture and subdue the Atoll's defences and the following Battleships and crusiers to deal with the US counter-attack.

The myth of the Japanese being the visionaries of carrier warfare is just that really, a myth. Carriers they seemed to see as useful for raiding and as an adjunct to the surface fleet, but the Japanese as with every navy still believed in the fundamental superiority of the Battleship. If that were not the case Yamato and Musashi would have been completed with flight decks, yet they were completed as Super-Battleships intended to overpower any enemy Battleship they encountered.

At Midway Yamamoto, often creditted with almost supernatural foresight when it came to Carrier warfare, chose to sail with the Battleship group in that battle (Whose plan he had to fight the Navy staff long and hard to implement), not the Carriers which historically bore the brunt of the action. If he believed in Carriers so strongly, why was he not with them?

"Carrier men" were as rare in the IJN as they were in the USN, if not more so, if for no better reason than the fact that Carriers had not been around that long.

We can continue to speculate about the views of the American public in 1940/41, I have never seen the results of opinion polls or similar from the time, but I do believe in general that isolationists were losing ground by then and that the US as a whole was starting to realise that they could not stay away from international problems indefinitely.

That I admit is just my opinion though, but it seems that the US was gradually becoming more involved in international affairs and less isolationist.

More importantly, the IJN's naval aviators were wihtout any doubt the finest pilots of the world and they were well armed for their task as well!

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Both the Val and Kate had respectable enough performance, but lacked armour or self sealing tanks (As did almost every Japanese aircraft at the time), and were structurally weaker than comparable US machines. A short burst of gunfire and either would disintegrate or fireball.

The same applies to the A6M2 Zeke/Zero, it was structurally much weaker than most if not all western fighters and lacked armour or self sealing fuel tanks, although fairly powerfully armed (Roughly comparable armament to the Bf109E), it's only real defence lay in its manouevrability.

By comparison USN pilots in their Grumman Wildcats had a strucurally strong aircraft with adequate armament, albeit poorer manouevrability and overall performance (I believe, I'm going from memory here) to the Japanese Zero, however in spite of this in roughly equal combat situations against the Zero they generally came off equal to the Japanese.

The USN pilots I think were at least the equal to the IJN, and their equipment in all respects apart from a truly dismal aerial torpedo as good if not better.

(Apologees for the multiple edits, just clearing up typos!)