What if the Japanese chose not to attack Pearl Harbor? - Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) Discussion

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

It was entirely reasonable for the Japanese to think that an attack on British and Dutch possessions in Asia would cause an American declaration of war. Given that, leaving the Philippines in US hands would have been foolish as they straddle Japans lines of communications with South East Asia.

I have heard it said that the US had decided not to intervene if that happened, but I can see the US using the Philippines to provide a sanctuary to Allied forces to operate against the Japanese similarly to how the Americans were assisting the RN in the Battle of the Atlantic. The US would also be providing Lend-lease to fight Japan.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HomerParrish 8 years ago

It was not entirely reasonable to think attacks on British and Dutch possessions in Asia would lead to an American declaration of war. Germany, Japan's ally, was attacking Britain itself, and the US did not declare war, so why would Japan attacking Britain cause a declaration from the US?

reply

[–] jwiles1 14 years ago

Its hard to say if the US would have declared war on Japan if they attacked British possessions. I think it would have happened eventually, but the declaration of war would have been a divisive issue and might have ended with a negotiated settlement instead of the hellbent for leather, accept unconditional surrender only way in which the US did enter the war. The Japanese really didn't grasp the intracies of US politics. No shame in that, since many americans don't understand them.

On a related subject, ie the declaration of war, I think that while Yamamoto had a good understanding of US industrial capacity, he didn't really understand US psyche. Attacking pearl harbor an hour after or an hour before Nomura delivered the final part of the message wouldn't have made a difference imo. That the Japanese had been negotiating while at the same time sending a fleet to attack would have been seen as a betrayal regardless of the timing of the letter.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ashley Pomeroy 13 years ago

(Edit - this was a reply to a message that, from what I remember, was some rant about the Japanese navy attacking the US nowadays, but it's been deleted. The joke is that I'm imagining what would happen if the Japanese navy of 1941 decided to attack the modern-day US Navy *without using time travel*, e.g. they just sat there and waited for seventy years).

Thing is, there are numerous practical problems with that scenario. Although the Japanese fleet would only be loitering - and let's assume that refuelling isn't a problem - the carriers would surely require at least one major refit in that time, which would be very difficult if they are to remain at sea. We would also have to assume that the crew are regularly replaced, otherwise they would be extremely old men by the time they launched their attack.

Could the Japanese fleet remain undetected for 68 years? It's unlikely, but detection is not necessarily a problem; until Japan declares war on the United States, the Japanese authorities can simply claim that the fleet is resting, or that the crew were eaten by sharks, or that there's a mechanical problem with one of the ships. By the 1970s the Japanese could pretend that the fleet is a giant functional World War Two nostalgia theme park, albeit that in this alternative reality World War Two didn't happen in quite the same way. And the war wasn't very fashionable in the 1970s.

But let's assume they charge �10 or so for entry, and you have to make your own way there, it would offset some of the costs of running the ships. Furthermore, they could hire the ships out to Hollywood. Let's imagine that in 1969, 1970, 20th Century Fox decides to make an alternative history film about a hypothetical attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese navy. It's a kind of Vietnam satire that would a good double-bill with Patton. And, old man, I'll write "harbour". Please die of old age! Thanks. The studio could simply hire the parked Japanese carriers and their crews and aeroplanes, rather than having to redress T6 Texans. The Japanese could use this as a secret dress rehearsal.

Of course, in 2009 there wasn't much reason for Japan to launch a military assault on the United States. The US has done enough over the last ten years to defeat itself, without Japanese help. But let's imagine that President Obama makes a diplomatic faux-pas and insults the Japanese PM. Or that the attack orders had been sent out to the Japanese fleet in early 1941, and by a terrible mistake the stenographer had put the wrong date on the cover sheet - December 2009 instead of December 1941. And that the Japanese admiralty had forgotten about this.

So they launch the attack, with a mixed force of Zeros, D3s, B5s. Along the way they almost meet a bunch of US F-14s which are being sucked through a time whirlpool. The first wave would probably get through, because no-one would expect an attack on a modern US military base by 70-year-old Japanese aeroplanes. They'd be spotted well in time, but even if the US defences immediately strike with full force - instead of messing up, stumbling around in confusion, which seems more likely - they still have weight of numbers. The second wave might even get through, and their bombs might well do horrendous damage, especially given that modern warships tend not to have as much armour as their WW2 equivalents.

Still, I doubt that either wave would make it back to their carriers, which would in short order be obliterated by US counterstrikes. At which point the US and Japanese governments would have a t�te-�-t�te, there would be compensation. It would be one of those things that pops up in the year-end news bulletins.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

There was a novel titled, "The Seventh Carrier".

It presupposed there were originally 7, not 6 carrier. The Seventh was trapped in the ice up near the Kamchatka peninsula for decades and was released during a recent thaw. The Japanese distilled their own fuel from local deposits, and like many Japanese holdouts like Hiroo Onoda (who did not surrender until 1974) refused to believe the surrender on the radio and dismissed all they heard as propaganda.

They then followed they last confirmed orders and attacked modern day Pearl.

Pretty well written despite the obvious flaws.

I've only read the first, but the author makes a whole Novel Series out of the 7th Carrier.
https://www.goodreads.com/series/95571-seventh-carrier

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Chris398 10 years ago

Sounds like your talking about the movie "Final Countdown" where the U.S.S. Nimitz goes back in time to Dec 7, 1941.

reply

[–] CGSailor 10 years ago

No.. just the opposite in fact.

Final Countdown is about a modern American carrier going back to WW2.

He is talking about a WW2 Japanese carrier attacking a modern Pearl Harbor.
Which is exactly what the Novel "The Seventh Carrier" that I mentioned is all about. NOT The Final Countdown.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] lvrepoman 14 years ago

Notwithstanding the beliefs of your Japanese friend, I've given a lot of thought to this, and I believe that the Japanese would have been far better off had they formally declared war say, six hours prior to the attack.

The most likely result would have been the same, catching the US fleet with their pants down, because no one believed that Japan would ever attack Pearl. That would have taken away the "sneak attack" morale builder from the American public.

But let's say that Admiral Kimmel managed to get his battleships out of Pearl during the night after such a declaration. The end result, I believe, would have been that the Japanese would have sunk most of these ships in deep water. As it was, the battleships sunk at Pearl were all raised and put back into the fleet except for the Arizona and the Oklahoma. The shallow waters of the harbor allowed for this.

What's more, I think that it is far more likely that the Japanese would have encountered at least one and possibly two American carriers under the circumstances I have described. Both the Enterprise and the Lexington would have undoubtedly tried to intercept the Japanese task force, and you would have had at best a case of six Japanese carriers against two American. Not good odds.

The only real threat the Japanese would have encountered would have been attack aircraft from American bases in Hawaii, and frankly, I don't believe this would have been much of a threat. The Americans at the time believed the B-17 to be the ultimate defense against ships. This, of course, was later proved to be false. The other American aircraft, Navy, Army, and Marine, were manned by unprepared pilots at the time. I don't think that they would have proven much of a threat to the Japanese fleet pilots. Look at how poorly MacArthur's pilots did at and around Clark Field.

I'm sure most historians would argue with me, but all in all, the Japanese would have been far better off declaring war first.

"He was running around like a rooster in a barnyard full of ducks."--Pat Novak

reply

[–] jwiles1 14 years ago

I think most historians would say that the Japanese would have been better off attacking the Russians instead of the US. Or better yet, not attacking anyone at all.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

They attacked south because they needed the Netherlands East Indoes oil and rubber to continue their war in China. Attacking the Soviets doesn't give them these materials. It would, in fact, make things worse as they would need more resourceas to fight the Soviets as well as the Chinese than just the Chinese alone.

They certainly would have been better off not fighting anyone. Peaceful trade and investment with China, a huge market even then, without the unaffordable military spending they were indulging in would have been far more to theuir advantage.

reply

[–] jwiles1 14 years ago

WWII was decided on the Russian front (and in US factories). The Russian army wore the Germans down. Russia losing is the best chance for the Axis. With Russia out of the war, Japan can move into Dutch lands and the US, fearful of a German dominated Europe, might decide to let the Japanese have them. Even if the US did decide to stop the Japanese, a war between the US/UK and Germany/Japan is much more winnable than the war as it played out.

The Japanese wouldn't have beaten the Russian army, but maybe they might force the Russians to hold enough troops in the East to affect the war in the West. Probably not, but imo thats the only real chance Japan had in winning a global war.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

With Russia out of the war, Japan can move into Dutch lands and the US

The problem is that Japan needs the oil now, not months or years from now.

thats the only real chance Japan had in winning a global war.

Japan isn't really fighting a global war. The Germans aren't either. They're fighting their own separate wars which happen to be against some of the same people. The British Empire and the Americans are really the only ones who are.

reply

[–] jwiles1 14 years ago

Japan had about 18-24 months reserve at the point the US cutoff supplies, if memory serves. And in a war against Russia, their fleet wouldn't be of much use, so they would have used less. They could have moved against Russia in the summer of 41, then seizeed the dutch oil fields 6 months to a year later.

And I realize that they were not thinking globally, my point is they should have. They ended up being part of a global war whether that was their plan or not. Knocking russia out before the US came into the war was really their's and germany's only shot at winning as things stood in the latter part of 1941.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

If the Axis somehow manages to knock out the Soviet Union, which is unlikely, then the delay still doesn't help the Japanese. They end up attacking the NEI when they're much lower in fuel and the US is even readier to fight. The Burma Road will remain open for that time instead of being cut as it was in early 1942 and the CVhinese get more aid eaasier than they did historically.

The forces the Soviets need to hold the Japanese in the far east are small enough not to affect whether the Germans beat them or not - and as you recall, the Germans did not beat them. Even if the Japanese aren't thrashed again as they were by the Red Army in 1939, the distance and lines of communication between the Soviet Far East and anything of real value are to great for them to be able to help the Germans.

reply

[–] jwiles1 14 years ago

Because they believed that the Japanese were not going to attack them, the Soviets were able to transfer several divisions to the German front. These divisions played a key role in the counter attacks around Moscow in dec 41, and they allowed the Soviets time to get new recruits, in preparation for the 1942 operations. Had the Japanese been planning on attacking the Soviets, fewer or perhaps no units would have been xferred, and that alone would have been of some benefit to the Germans. The Russians likely would have won anyway, but it would have been a closer thing.

As far as the US being more ready to fight in 1942 than in 1941, I am not sure that is true. Certainly, the Navy wouldn't have been more ready in terms of numbers and types of carriers and carrier aircraft than it was in 1941. They would have had a few more BB's, Cruisers, and smaller ships, but the new carriers were not ready till mid 1943. And if (and I admit its a big if) the Russians were knocked out of the war, the US would have to focus a lot more of its assets in the European and Atlantic theater.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

The Russians likely would have won anyway, but it would have been a closer thing.

If it won’t help to defeat the Soviet Union, there’s no point in doing it. Instead, the IJA will be bogged down fighting the Soviets instead of the Western Allies. Besides, extending the war in Europe only means that Germany gets some instant sunshine before Japan.

As far as the US being more ready to fight in 1942 than in 1941, I am not sure that is true.

On 1 December 1941, the USN had 7 fleet carriers and 1 escort carrier in commission. On 1 January 1943 they had added an additional fleet carrier and eleven more escort carriers. By the end of the first quarter of 1943, the USN had added two more of each. As for aircraft, the US was producing Wildcats, Dauntless, and Avengers in significant numbers already. There’s no reason why that would be reduced and they’d have had no combat losses until the war started. Certainly there would be enough to equip the carriers built and replace obsolescent types like the Dauntless and Buffalo.
As important were the ships of the fleet train that would allow the USN to project power across the Pacific. These are being built and commissioned throughput 1942 as is the rest of the Two Ocean Navy.
Remember that if Japan goes to war with the Soviet Union, They won’t be going to war with the US for at least a year assuming a rapid victory – something we agree is unlikely. That means that they’re facing the 1943 USN rather than the weaker 1942 USN - with the difference that this 1943 USN hasn’t suffered the 1942 losses.

And if . . . the Russians were knocked out of the war, the US would have to focus a lot more of its assets in the European and Atlantic theater.

Why? The German Navy wouldn’t be any stronger than it was historically. If anything, it would reduce work as there would no longer be convoys to Murmansk to escort.

reply

[–] jwiles1 14 years ago

The only chance the Japanese/Germans had was to knock out russia. If they were bound and determined to go to war, they should have gambled all on that.

Regarding assets in Europe, I was thinking about Air and Army assets. Without the Russians in the war, the US has to place a lot more Army and Air Force assets in Europe. Maybe Naval assets as well, if germany feels they can build more Uboats and long range aircraft with Russia out of the war.

The first Essex class carrier was added in Dec of 42, but there is a difference between commissioning date and combat readiness date. She didn't finish shakedown until May of 43. They would have been slightly more ready to fight, but the Japanese Navy would still have been superior in many aspects.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

The only chance the Japanese/Germans had was to knock out russia

Even if the USSR is beaten, the Allies would still win. In fact, it would be worse for Germany as the US would be able to make it radioactive starting in August 1945. Even if hat were not true, Japan still has to eventually strike south or lose the war in China. Attacking once the USN has had a year or two year more to outbuild the IJN doesn't make things better. Historically, after a year of war, the USN was down to three operational carriers. In this scenario, assuming the same losses, the USN would be more than able to maintain pre-war force levels until surpassing them by the end of the year.

Maybe Naval assets as well, if germany feels they can build more Uboats and long range aircraft with Russia out of the war.

By the time they could switch production to these, assuming they could, the Allies would have closed the Mid-Atlantic Gap as they did historically. That means adding more submarines and aircraft means adding more targets, It certainly doesn't require more fleet carriers, amphibious ships, or fleet logisitics vessels.

the Japanese Navy would still have been superior in many aspects.

Not in numbers. The Japanese didn't add any fleet carriers until 1944 and
started with one less. The USN had seven of them in December 1941. The USN also had markedly more battleships (17 operational plus 8 building compared to 10 and 3 for Japan), cruisers, destroyers, and submarines than did the IJN. American carrier aircraft and pilots were at least equal to the Japanese.

reply

[–] Storm_Thunder_Infantry 14 years ago

Add with that the Japanese submarine fleet wasn't very successful in general, throughout the entire war.

The USN would have still deployed plenty of subs to knock out Japanese shipping routes, which strangely, the Japanese paid very little attention to most of the time.

Let the world change the punishment for sexual-related crimes to execution

reply

[–] jwiles1 14 years ago

In hindsight, Japanese strategy regarding submarines was flawed. They went after major warships instead of support vessels. And they were relatively successful at this, especially during the Solomons campaign. Japanese subs sank the Wasp, put Saratoga and North Carolina out of action for a crucial phase of the campaign, and sank several smaller ships. But Nimitz had less than 10 tankers during the Solomons campaign, and if the Japanese had taken out a few of these, it might have had an even greater effect on the campaign than taking out the carriers did.

reply

[–] jwiles1 14 years ago

By superior, I meant qualitatively, not in numbers. The Japanese were better fighters at the beginning, and it took the US a little while to catch up.

reply

[–] Wakanohana 11 years ago

The two military options being considered were "Go North" and "Go South." But the argument against "Go North" versus Russia was the defeat suffered during the Border War of 1939, when lightly armed Soviet troops (led by then-colonel Zhukov) supported with attack aircraft crushed a Japanese army, inflicting approximately 45,000 casualties.

There must be comprehensive histories examining the conflict between the Japanese army and navy. But only a handful of graduate students would be interested in studying the subject now. The navy won the debate in 1941.

reply

[–] Fashionably_Straight 9 years ago

As far as WWII, most of my interest has always been in the European theater, but i had some questions to throw out there for some of you who may be more of an authority on this. Hypothetically in terms of a scenario...

Couldn't Japan have legitimately(militarily speaking)...immediately followed up the Dec 7th attack with an attempt at occupying Pearl Harbor/Hawaiian Islands? I understand they were concerned with our 3 unaccounted-for aircraft carriers. But still...the US would have had little to no response to a Japanese paratroop/full scale land invasion following the destruction of the air attack.

I mean, from how i understand it...the US was unable to truly respond militarily in the Pacific until early summer 1942(approx 6 months later). Japan wanted to cripple our Pacific fleet so they could get on with it in SE Asia and they did just that. They bought themselves some time. If Japan had the military might and capability to occupy and control the Hawaiian islands then why didn't they when the US was clearly wounded and in shock?

If Japan been able to base operations in Hawaii by early 1942...one has to wonder if the US would've been forced to drop the bomb a little sooner. How different would the Pacific war had been?

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 9 years ago

Couldn't Japan have legitimately(militarily speaking)...immediately followed up the Dec 7th attack with an attempt at occupying Pearl Harbor/Hawaiian Islands? I understand they were concerned with our 3 unaccounted-for aircraft carriers. But still...the US would have had little to no response to a Japanese paratroop/full scale land invasion following the destruction of the air attack.

It would have taken many months to mount an amphibious operation against Hawaii like that. Japan's reason for going to war was to seize the Dutch East Indies for the vital oil that America and the Dutch had embargoed, and it was there and points nearby (including the Philippines) where Japan had to focus amphibious efforts for about six months. The attack on Hawaii had to be confined to a raid, not a campaign.

A paratrooper assault on Hawaii was impossible without Midway, and Japan lost badly at Midway in June 1942. The nearest significant Japanese base to Hawaii was Kwajalein, more than 2000 miles distant. Seizing Midway would have cut the distance by about half, but that was still very far for the technology of the period, so it might still have been impossible.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] porfle 8 years ago

What if the Japanese chose not to attack Pearl Harbor, but instead accidentally attacked BURL Harbor, where Burl Ives lived? Or MERLE Harbor, Merle Haggard's oceanfront vacation estate? It might have seriously altered the outcome of the war.

reply

[–] R011DaveAAA 14 years ago

he was absolutely certain that FDR was planning to attack

The US had no plans at all to attack Japan or go to war without some obvious casus belli - like a Japanese attack on American possessions. The US government's public statements and military dispositions at the time gave no indications, even inadvertently, that the US was preparing an attack. US public opinion, though hostile to Japan, was not then supportive of an unprovoked war.

The US was prepared to ease or eliminate economic sanctions if Japan ceased its war in China and withdrew from there and French Indochina.

reply

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

by Stevicus-2 » Sun Jun 12 2011 08:06:54
IMDb member since September 1999
One of the reasons given for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines was to disable the U.S. ability to respond to Japanese expansionism in French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies. They ostensibly believed that a U.S. declaration of war on Japan was imminent and that they needed to take out the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor and other U.S. Pacific bases in a pre-emptive strike.

I recently had an online argument with a Japanese person about this, and he was absolutely certain that FDR was planning to attack Japan which necessitated the Japanese strike at Pearl Harbor. The general implication of his argument was that the Japanese had no other choice but to attack.

But would the U.S. have declared war if the Japanese didn't attack our bases in the Pacific? Were there any U.S. intentions or plans to attack Japan prior to December 7, 1941?

From the Japanese point of view, was the attack on Pearl Harbor and other U.S. bases even necessary at all?

Only if FDR and his joint chiefs were convinced a Japanese attack was high inevitable, and even then the directive from the White House and General Marshall was that Japan make the first overt move.

Otherwise no. The Japanese person you argued with is wrong.

The whole purpose of the sanctions against Japan was designed to hurt them economically and to get them to pull out of China by starving them of oil, steel and other materials.

The White House even told them so.

It was Japan's "shogun" in the form of General Tojo who overrode the Emperor, and ordered the attack because of a pure military like thinking. From his standpoint, the sanctions were a strategy designed to defeat Japan, which was correct.

What he was wrong about was that we had no designs on Japan. If we had, then our fleet would have been staged more forward at the Philippines and other islands, and we would have directly intervened in the China and Korean matter earlier on, which in retrospect, we probably should have done (and sort of did, but on a minuscule scale).

Tojo brought ruin to his nation. It took the US to help Japan rebuild herself, and reform her political structure to what it is today.

reply

[–] ronaldt49 10 years ago

Not addressed by anyone is the fact that if Japan had not attacked pearl Harbor, the USA would have maintained the same ships for quite some time with no reason to modernize to the extent that we did.

Ships such as the Arizona, Oklahoma, Utah, etc. possibly would have been engaged in the North Atlantic or elsewhere with fewer ships at PH.

We'll never know!!

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 10 years ago

Not addressed by anyone is the fact that if Japan had not attacked pearl Harbor, the USA would have maintained the same ships for quite some time with no reason to modernize to the extent that we did.

Your "fact" is speculation, and contrary to history.

The USA was in the midst of a huge naval expansion program when Pear Harbor was attacked. This may have been part of what motivated Japan to attack when they did, during the last moment while the US Navy was still weak enough to have a chance to defeat.

The Two Ocean Navy Act, passed in June 1940 as France fell to the Nazis, authorized construction of 18 aircraft carriers, 7 battleships, 33 cruisers, and more than 150 other warships. This was not the first or only significant authorization. Those 7 battleships included the last two of the Iowa Class (Illinois and Kentucky, never completed) and the five Montana class, never started. In other words, all of the wartime battleship completions were from authorizations that preceded the Two Ocean Navy Act and therefore preceded Pearl Harbor by more than a year and a half. Battleships were the slowest types to complete, and Mahanian strategy was to focus on smaller ships that can be built quickly once a war starts.

So the US Navy was modernizing at a rate never seen before or since, regardless of Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor and the resulting war reduced the focus on battleships and increased the priority given to other types, like escorts, transports, and landing craft.

 Live long and prosper.

reply

[–] CGSailor 10 years ago

Bingo!

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 10 years ago

Thanks.

If anything, the coming of war reduced US battleship construction as wartime construction logically prioritized smaller vessels (emergency construction), and kept the older battleships in service longer as they were needed for shelling land targets and protecting amphibious forces. All ten of the battleships the US completed in wartime were authorized long before Pearl Harbor was attacked. Wartime priorities forced the five Montanas to be set aside and slowed the construction of the last two Iowas so that they were never completed, and all seven of these ships were authorized in mid-1940.

The mention of the Oklahoma is interesting. She capsized from torpedo hits at Pearl Harbor. She was slowly righted by 21 5hp electric motors attached to concrete structures built on Ford Island for that purpose, with steel cables run out to the ship. Once righted, she was pumped dry and sealed up to be towed to the West Coast for scrapping. But she sank in rough seas while being towed. That was 1944.

Her sister, the Nevada, had a much more impressive end, being one of the epically difficult sinkings ranking with those of Yamato, Musashi, and Hornet.

 Live long and prosper.

reply

[–] phillipsdan83 8 years ago

If the Japanese had left Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines alone, odds are that American isolationists may have said that this was none of the United States' business. Most of the reason they even fought us to begin with was that they were counting on Japanese spiritual strength to trump mere material superiority, which was a polite way of saying "kill enough white men and they'll just quit". They believed Americans were weak and had no warrior spirit. And Americans partly thought the Japanese couldn't pull off a Pearl Harbor and partly didn't see that if the Imperial Japanese Army pulled out of China, that would have been an unacceptable loss of face, and some suicides amongst their generals would have been the result.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]