WW II Historical Thread, Discussion, Pics, Videos

[lightspeed]

By the time Japan invaded SE Asia, France and Netherlands have been defeated in Europe, Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany and threatened with invasion. I don't think any European countries could've done much to stop the Japanese even with American lend-lease aid.
FDR was determined to standup against Japanese aggression, but with the strong isolationist attitude in the United States, he would've had a much harder time to convince Americans to go to war if Japan didn't directly attack the US.
Eventually, the USA would've probably entered the war, but Japan could've had a few more years to consolidate its conquest in Asia.

the US lend-lease aid was vital to USSR for its military offensive in 1941-42. 40% of US lend-lease aid arrived in 1941 when the Soviets most needed them.

the US Pro-War interest groups supported by the British and Chinese had built up a very strong cause of US entering WW2. there were the Soviet agents of influence whom held positions of considerable influence in the Institute of Pacific Relations and the US State of Department, and they were fostering animosity between the US and Japan in an effort to advance Soviet interests. it was pretty amazing how these groups of people got together and skillfully maneuvered to exert their influence on US policy and public opinion which resulted in US entering the war.

even if Japan didn't directly attack the US. the Americans wouldn't watch from the sidelines and allowed Japan to conquer the Far East proper. they would realize the grave consequences of it and would stop the Japanese's advances. the Japanese knew the Americans would never allow them to grab more and more lands and resources in the Far East and that is why they did a Pearl Harbor.

 

[chuck731]

Exactly right, asif.

It is thought that follow on attacks would have taken out the oil storage and other facilites. Those second wave of strikes were intially planned as I undertsnad it, but Yamamoto ordered them to withdraw after he heard the damage that had been inflicted.

In the long run it probably would not have made much of a difference. But in the short run, it sure would have hampered and slowed initial operations being staged out of the Hawaiin Islands.

Actually, Yamamoto would have preferred that the attack continue. It was Nagumo, the task force commander, who ordered the Kito butai to withdraw without attacking the docks and the tank farms. Yamamoto expressed disappointment when he learned of the decision, but did not choose to countermand nagumo's decision.

Japanese command culture does not encourage high level officers to express themselves bluntly to eachother, to directly countermand orders of the officer on the spot would be considered the equivalent of a reprimend and an expression of no confidence. NAgumo was a highly respected admiral, and it would be a serious loss of face if he was countermanded by Yamamoto.

 

[chuck731]

Equipment standpoint the Axis hardware were better than the Allies. the Zero, the Messershermidt Bf-109, Junkers dive bombers, Panzers, Tiger tanks etc were superior to Allied weapons of similar nature especially early in the war. Their pilots were also better skilled until most were killed off mid war...A Sherman in a one on one battle would have NO CHANCE against a Panzer or Tiger. Heck the Germans even have the Sturmgewehr 44 which many considered the world's first assault rifle.

The Germans also had the Me 262 which if introduced even a year earlier would've wipe allied fighters and bombers off the skies of Europe. Luckily they came late when Germany's industrial capacity had greatly diminished and their relatively small numbers were insignificant to the overall war effort.

The Bismark and Yamato/Mushashi were even more capable than the Iowa class battleships!!

I would dispute that. There are at least as many examples of superior allied hardware as there are of superior axis hardware.

Take for example the soviet T-34 tank, the British spitfire fighter and Lancaster bomber. American B-29 bomber and the atomic bomb, even the French enjoyed substantial superiority over the Germans in quality of tanks during the short time when thenfrench were in the war.

Btw, I would not call Bismarck superior to the Iowa.

 

[chuck731]

I've been reading Retribution by Max Hastings. He proposed an interesting hypothetical scenario. What would've happened if Japan just went after the European colonies, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma,etc, and left the American colony Philippines alone? It is not a given that FDR could've obtain the domestic support to go to war against Japan.

I think FDR would have rallied enough support to wage war on japan, if by no other way then to engineer an incident with Japanese forces while the latter were busy shuttling forces to south east Asia. We know given the temperament of the Japanese military and gekokujo, it would not be hard for the US to provock and incident with japan and have the Japanese grossly overreact and thus give the us a legitimate casus belli.

 

[Jeff Head]

Actually, Yamamoto would have preferred that the attack continue. It was Nagumo, the task force commander, who ordered the Kito butai to withdraw without attacking the docks and the tank farms. Yamamoto expressed disappointment when he learned of the decision, but did not choose to countermand nagumo's decision.

Have you got a link to a source to verify that?

Yamamoto was the supreme commander on the spot, and was committed to trying to do as much damage to the US with the initial strike as possible. He and the Japanese command reckoned that the US production capabilities would ultimately make their position untenable unless they could make enough gains, and fortify them properly to be able to later negotiate with the US. (Which itself was a flawed premise).

It seems unlikely to me, despite the cultural issues, that as the top commander on the scene that he would either have not been involved in the withdrawal decision, or stood by and allowed a decision that he disagree with to be implemented.

However it may be couched, the order was given, they withdrew, and the supreme commander on the spot either gave that order or he went along with it...and that would indicate that it is much more likely that he was in tacit agreement with it. Otherwise, the very purpose of the strike was in jeopardy of being compromised...and in fact, because of the missed carriers, and the fuel depots left unscathed...it was.

 

[Jeff Head]

By the time Japan invaded SE Asia, France and Netherlands have been defeated in Europe, Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany and threatened with invasion. I don't think any European countries could've done much to stop the Japanese even with American lend-lease aid.

FDR was determined to standup against Japanese aggression, but with the strong isolationist attitude in the United States, he would've had a much harder time to convince Americans to go to war if Japan didn't directly attack the US.

I agree with Chuck on this.

Had the Japanese not attacked the US and waged war on the European colonies and bases, the specter of Europeans being attacked and savaged by the Japanese itself may have given FDR the ammunition it needed to get the US to declare war.

After all, at that point it would be US friends and allies that were being attacked by the Japanese. In addition, it would be obvious to almost anyone at that point that the Japanese successful domination of the entire South Pacific would be a bridge too far for the US to stand idly by and allow to happen.

Finally, with such attacks ongoing, it is almost certain, planned or not, that incidents would have occurred involving US forces in the area. And those US forces would now be on high alert and not as likely to be taken by surprise.

 

[Jeff Head]

Equipment standpoint the Axis hardware were better than the Allies. the Zero, the Messershermidt Bf-109, Junkers dive bombers, Panzers, Tiger tanks etc were superior to Allied weapons of similar nature especially early in the war. Their pilots were also better skilled until most were killed off mid war...A Sherman in a one on one battle would have NO CHANCE against a Panzer or Tiger. Heck the Germans even have the Sturmgewehr 44 which many considered the world's first assault rifle.

The Germans also had the Me 262 which if introduced even a year earlier would've wipe allied fighters and bombers off the skies of Europe. Luckily they came late when Germany's industrial capacity had greatly diminished and their relatively small numbers were insignificant to the overall war effort.

The Bismark and Yamato/Mushashi were even more capable than the Iowa class battleships!!

In terms of rocketry and jet engines there is no doubt that the Germans were well advanced over the allies. The west and Russia ultimately based their programs on the knowledge and expertise of the German program and scientists.

I underlined your one comment about in the early stages of the war, and I agree that it is so.

However, as time went on, in other areas, the Axis powers did not enjoy such advances. Regular engine aircraft. Heavy bombers. Production capabilities and expertise. Naval vessel technology. Radar. Sonar. Etc. The two Yamamoto class battleships were definitely the largest battleships with the most powerful weaponry. But there is more to it than that, and against the Iowa class weaponry, sensors, and fire control, and their screening escorts, I am fairly confidant that the Iowa class may well have prevailed.

IMHO, there would have been no real chance (short of a shot like she laid on the Hood...but for which the Iowa class were much better protected) that the Bismark could have prevailed against an Iowa class. But, at the time they were engaged, early in the war, you are right, the Bismark outclassed the vessels that she was pitted against.

The Japanese Zero at the outset was definitely the better fighter. But the US advances in this area outstripped what the Japanese could accomplish. The Mustang and the Corsair were both aircraft that the Japanese were not able to contend with.

The tanks? Well, the Tiger was, IMHO, the best heavy tank produced in the war. But they could not produce and deploy enough of them, and they were very heavy and not suited to some of the combat situations. The T-34, outside of that, in its 1942-1943 incarnations, was probably the best medium tank in the war.

Great discussion all around by the way.

 

[chuck731]

Have you got a link to a source to verify that?

Yamamoto was the supreme commander on the spot, and was committed to trying to do as much damage to the US with the initial strike as possible. He and the Japanese command reckoned that the US production capabilities would ultimately make their position untenable unless they could make enough gains, and fortify them properly to be able to later negotiate with the US. (Which itself was a flawed premise).

It seems unlikely to me, despite the cultural issues, that as the top commander on the scene that he would either have not been involved in the withdrawal decision, or stood by and allowed a decision that he disagree with to be implemented.

However it may be couched, the order was given, they withdrew, and the supreme commander on the spot either gave that order or he went along with it...and that would indicate that it is much more likely that he was in tacit agreement with it. Otherwise, the very purpose of the strike was in jeopardy of being compromised...and in fact, because of the missed carriers, and the fuel depots left unscathed...it was.

It was described in Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 by Peatties & Evans. Yamamoto was in overall command of Japanese combined fleet, but not the commander on the spot of both the carrier strike force and the Pearl Harbor operation. Nagumo, who was in charge of the actual operation and responsible for the kito butai, outlined 5 reasons why no additional attacks should be launched after the second wave. Yamamoto thought he should attack the tank farm and dockyards nonetheless, but refrained from either countermanding Nagumo on the spot or penalizing Nagumo later, but he did explicitly criticize Nagumo afterwards.

Two strong doctrines, one operational and one command, were in effect here. The operational doctrine of Japanese navy strongly emphasize defeat of enemy force and preservation of own force over complete destruction of enemy forces. The command doctrine of Japanese navy heavily emphasize the independence of the commander on the spot and non-interference of higher level commands far away.

From 1931 all the way to 1945, there were innumerable examples of Japanese system and culture of command and responsibility at upper and medium echelon not working well at all to produce the best diplomatic, military, and naval results for japan. This is just one.

 

[Jeff Head]

It was described in Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 by Peatties & Evans. Yamamoto was in overall command of Japanese combined fleet, but not the commander on the spot of both the carrier strike force and the Pearl Harbor operation. Nagumo, who was in charge of the actual operation and responsible for the kito butai, outlined 5 reasons why no additional attacks should be launched after the second wave. Yamamoto thought he should attack the tank farm and dockyards nonetheless, but refrained from either countermanding Nagumo on the spot or penalizing Nagumo later, but he did explicitly criticize Nagumo afterwards.

Two strong doctrines, one operational and one command, were in effect here. The operational doctrine of Japanese navy strongly emphasize defeat of enemy force and preservation of own force over complete destruction of enemy forces. The command doctrine of Japanese navy heavily emphasize the independence of the commander on the spot and non-interference of higher level commands far away.

From 1931 all the way to 1945, there were innumerable examples of Japanese system and culture of command and responsibility at upper and medium echelon not working well at all to produce the best diplomatic, military, and naval results for japan. This is just one.

Very good, thanks for that reference. I will definitely check it out.

If memory serves, Nagumo was also a battleship experienced officer. If that's so, there is no doubt he felt the destruction of so many US battleships, with relatively low loss in return (around 30 aircraft I believe) was more than sufficient for the victory they wanted, despite missing the carriers, which he would have been wary of in any case.

In the end, Yamamoto went along with the order. It seems like he did so with reservations, but not enough to countermand.

In the end, they missed an opportunity to forestall the US a little longer. But also in the end, it probably would not have made any sunstanative difference.

 

[shen]

I think FDR would have rallied enough support to wage war on japan, if by no other way then to engineer an incident with Japanese forces while the latter were busy shuttling forces to south east Asia. We know given the temperament of the Japanese military and gekokujo, it would not be hard for the US to provock and incident with japan and have the Japanese grossly overreact and thus give the us a legitimate casus belli.

I agree with Chuck on this.

Had the Japanese not attacked the US and waged war on the European colonies and bases, the specter of Europeans being attacked and savaged by the Japanese itself may have given FDR the ammunition it needed to get the US to declare war.

After all, at that point it would be US friends and allies that were being attacked by the Japanese. In addition, it would be obvious to almost anyone at that point that the Japanese successful domination of the entire South Pacific would be a bridge too far for the US to stand idly by and allow to happen.

Finally, with such attacks ongoing, it is almost certain, planned or not, that incidents would have occurred involving US forces in the area. And those US forces would now be on high alert and not as likely to be taken by surprise.

FDR have been trying to engineer incidents to get into the war for years. But even after a USN destroyer was sunk by German u-boat, it still wasn't enough to overcome American isolationism.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

gekokujo reach the peak of its influence in the failed coup of 1936 and lost much of its credibility in the aftermath.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By 1941, Europe has been at war for two years. France has been defeated. Nazi Germany occupied most of continental Europe. Japan has been at war in China for ten years. In 1940, Japan invaded French Indochina. Vichy France protested, but the US didn't come to its aid.