# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  Without The US, The Second World War Would have Ended Differently

## Taxcutter

The robust strength of isolationism in 1930s America bedeviled FDR.   Isolationism was one thing he and his party never could agree on.   Try as he might and (giving him his due) this master of politics could not get Congress to give Britain any more aid than they got in November 1941 and the Soviets got nothing.   Yes, the 1940 Navy Act built the navy that dominated the Pacific and contributed mightily in the Atlantic, but building a Navy that had been neglected for two decades is a long way from going to war.

Without the provocation of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines the US would never have gotten in the Pacific.   The Japanese would have conquered the Britsih, French and Dutch colonies in the west Pacific...easily.   FDR would have been hoist on his own petard.   He had spent the 30s thundering against the evils of European colonialism.

Without the US, Britain gets forced to the peace table somewhere in 1942, especially after losing Malaya and Burma and being forced to defend India.  Hitler would not have been able to invade and conquer Britain, but Churchill would have been ousted and Britain would have been forced to ratify Hitler's conquests in Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Benelux countries, and France.   whether they were able to old onto Egypt is a variable, depending on the situation on the ground at the end of their involvement.

Without the US, the Third Reich and the USSR would have come to a "peace of mutual exhaustion" somewhere in 1944.

Japan could easily hold the colonial holding they grabbed, but totally pacification of China was beyond their means.   That war would have ended with japan holding the coastal citeis, Manchuria, Hainan, and the area around Beijing, with Chiang and Mao fighting it out over the back country.

Not my opinion.  These conclusions come from a long series of simulations run at the US Army War College at Carlisle Barracks.

----------

Knightkore (04-19-2018),Old Ridge Runner (05-22-2018),tlmjl (05-07-2022)

----------


## ruthless terrier

the Germans were smart and probably would have developed an atomic bomb and rockets to deliver it. Von Braun would have never defected. Hitler probably would have grown old like Fidel Castro. Just speculating.

----------

Knightkore (04-19-2018),Old Ridge Runner (05-22-2018),tlmjl (05-07-2022)

----------


## Traddles

There was quite a bit more to the naval picture on the US side than the 1940 Navy Act. For example:

* The Yorktown class of aircraft carriers (Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet); class leader Yorktown was laid down in 1934 and commissioned in 1937; Enterprise was commissioned in 1938; single ship classes Ranger and Wasp were commissioned in 1934 and early 1940;

* The North Carolina class of fast battleships (North Carolina and Washington); class leader North Carolina was laid down in 1937 and commissioned in 1941;

* The South Dakota class of fast battleships (South Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Alabama); class leader South Dakota was laid down in 1939;

* Cruisers; the Pensacola (2), Northampton (6), New Orleans (7), Indianapolis (2), Wichita (1) class heavy cruisers were all products of the late 1920s and the 1930s;

* There were similar developments of light cruisers (the Brooklyn class), destroyers and submarines throughout the 1930s.

Except in battleships the USN on 12/7/1941 was basically modern and substantial. Looking back in hindsight, the USN battle fleet was obsolescent, being unable to steam with the carriers (but the importance of that was not fully understood in 1941). The 1940 Navy Act did open the flood gates through which came the rest of the SoDak class and the Iowa class (4) of BBs, the Essex class of CVs, the Cleveland class of CLs, the Cleveland-based Independence class of CVLs, Fletcher class of DDs (to name just one class) and the Gato and Balao classes of subs.

----------

Quark (05-09-2022),tlmjl (05-07-2022)

----------


## Traddles

Picking out what seem to me the least certain points:




> Without the provocation of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines the US would never have gotten in the Pacific.


Japan could have forgone attacking PH, in principle, but the straight between Formosa (Taiwan) and the Philippines was a choke point between the Dutch East Indies and Japan's home islands. I have a hard time thinking they would forgo trying to secure that choke point in their supply line. So with taking the DEI and SE Asia for natural resources, taking the Philippines and attacking PH are kind of like logical falling dominoes to how I perceive Japanese thinking.




> Without the US, the Third Reich and the USSR would have come to a "peace of mutual exhaustion" somewhere in 1944.


Absent US aid, Russia becomes a race between the Russians bringing their armies from Siberia and reestablishing factories beyond German reach on one hand and the Germans being able irreparably damage Russia and establish themselves along a thoroughly defensible perimeter. I have a hard time believing Germany can achieve a stalemate - let alone victory - in Russia. I think US entry into WW2's ETO may have saved continental Europe from being dominated by Stalin.

----------

Dave37 (04-20-2018),Old Ridge Runner (05-22-2018),tlmjl (05-07-2022)

----------


## Tennyson

> Without the US, the Third Reich and the USSR would have come to a "peace of mutual exhaustion" somewhere in 1944.


That also applies to Wilson involving the US in WWI, which would have probably ended the same as the above quote, and WWII would probably have not have happened, or at least with the same players and dynamics.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-22-2018),Quark (05-09-2022)

----------


## Traddles

> There was quite a bit more to the naval picture on the US side than the 1940 Navy Act. For example:
> 
> * The Yorktown class of aircraft carriers (Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet); class leader Yorktown was laid down in 1934 and commissioned in 1937; Enterprise was commissioned in 1938; single ship classes Ranger and Wasp were commissioned in 1934 and early 1940;
> 
> * The North Carolina class of fast battleships (North Carolina and Washington); class leader North Carolina was laid down in 1937 and commissioned in 1941;
> 
> * The South Dakota class of fast battleships (South Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Alabama); class leader South Dakota was laid down in 1939;
> 
> * Cruisers; the Pensacola (2), Northampton (6), New Orleans (7), Indianapolis (2), Wichita (1) class heavy cruisers were all products of the late 1920s and the 1930s;
> ...


ETA, I don't carry ALL of that info around in my head. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships Online is a great information resource.

----------


## Taxcutter

The Yorktown-class carriers werre excellent ships for their size.   Lots of air capacity.  Difficult to sink, and very nimble.   Much of US carrier doctrine was refined just before Pearl Harbor.

Those two BB classes were excellent but not decisive.
The heavy cruisers launched in the 1920s were described as 'tinclads."   They had a rough war.

Don't forget that Chester Nimitz developed the "fleet train" techniques and ships that allowed long range operations.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-22-2018)

----------


## Taxcutter

> That also applies to Wilson involving the US in WWI, which would have probably ended the same as the above quote, and WWII would probably have not have happened, or at least with the same players and dynamics.



Taxcutter says:
Even more dramatically in 1917.   If the US intervenes 4-6 months later the Central Powers win in 1918.

----------

Tennyson (04-19-2018)

----------


## Robert Urbanek

If the US had not conquered the Philippines , we might never have butted heads with the Japanese.

----------

Authentic (05-07-2022),Quark (05-09-2022)

----------


## Canadianeye

Interesting topic. Thanks OP.

Found this, from (I think) Pat Buchanan, author, television, political analyst etc. Further information regarding the what ifs...and the whys of America entering WWII.

The American Cause: Why Did Japan Attack Us?



Of all the days that will "live in infamy" in American history, two stand out: Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 7, 1941.

But why did Japan, with a 10th of our industrial power, launch a sneak attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, an act of state terror that must ignite a war to the death it could not win? Were they insane? No, the Japanese were desperate.

To understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. "They are not bluffing," warned Wilson, as he capitulated. "We gave them what they should not have."

In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend.

Japan was now isolated, with Stalin's brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her.

When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was "shocked, shocked" that Japan would embark upon a course of "aggression." Said one Japanese diplomat, "Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge."

Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India – a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior.

When France capitulated in June 1940, Japan moved into northern French Indochina. And though the United States had no interest there, we imposed an embargo on steel and scrap metal. After Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Japan moved into southern Indochina. FDR ordered all Japanese assets frozen.

But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down.

Tokyo was now split between a War Party and a Peace Party, with the latter in power. Prime Minister Konoye called in Ambassador Joseph Grew and secretly offered to meet FDR in Juneau or anywhere in the Pacific. According to Grew, Konoye was willing to give up Indochina and China, except a buffer region in the north to protect her from Stalin, in return for the U.S. brokering a peace with China and opening up the oil pipeline. Konoye told Grew that Emperor Hirohito knew of his initiative and was ready to give the order for Japan's retreat.

Fearful of a "second Munich," America spurned the offer. Konoye fell from power and was replaced by Hideki Tojo. Still, war was not inevitable. U.S. diplomats prepared to offer Japan a "modus vivendi." If Japan withdrew from southern Indochina, the United States would partially lift the oil embargo. But Chiang Kai-shek became "hysterical," and his American adviser, one Owen Lattimore, intervened to abort the proposal.

Facing a choice between death of the empire or fighting for its life, Japan decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies. And the only force capable of interfering was the U.S. fleet that FDR had conveniently moved from San Diego out to Honolulu.

And so Japan attacked. And so she was crushed and forced out of Vietnam, out of China, out of Manchuria. And so they fell to Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. And so it was that American boys, not Japanese boys, would die fighting Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese to try to block the aggressions of a barbaric Asian communism.

Now Japan is disarmed and China is an Asian giant whose military boasts of pushing the Americans back across the Pacific. Had FDR met Prince Konoye, there might have been no Pearl Harbor, no Pacific war, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Korea, no Vietnam. How many of our fathers and uncles, brothers and friends, might still be alive?

"For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been.'" A few thoughts as the War Party pounds the drum for an all-out American war on Iraq and radical Islam.

----------

JMWinPR (05-12-2018),MisterVeritis (05-07-2022),Old Ridge Runner (05-22-2018)

----------


## Traddles

> *1* The Yorktown-class carriers werre excellent ships for their size.   Lots of air capacity.  Difficult to sink, and very nimble.   Much of US carrier doctrine was refined just before Pearl Harbor.
> 
> *2* Those two BB classes were excellent but not decisive.
> *3* The heavy cruisers launched in the 1920s were described as 'tinclads."   They had a rough war.
> 
> *4* Don't forget that Chester Nimitz developed the "fleet train" techniques and ships that allowed long range operations.


*1* That was kind of by definition, not diminishing your comment. Langley, Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown and (probably) Enterprise all started out flying biplanes. (ditto for Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu, and possibly Shokaku & Zuikaku). So the transition from biplanes to monoplanes - servicing, arming, launching, recovering, speed, payload and range - all changed enormously throughout the 1930s. And early in WW2 the USN went from task forces built around single carriers to task forces with task groups with multiple carriers per group.

*2* Speaking really broadly, carriers, with the capabilities developed in the late 30s and early 40s pretty much relegated most of the USN's BBs to heavy duty support fire for seaborne invasions. The USS Arkansas, New York class, Nevada class, Pennsylvania class, New Mexico class, Tennessee class and Colorado class BBs (15 BBs) were about 10 knots slower than the carriers. They fought just one significant surface gun battle, Surigao Straight in the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

The North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa class BBs were fast enough to steam with the carriers, and except for one night battle in the Solomons, escorting carriers (AA) and supporting landings was most of what they did.

The old and new BBs also performed an "invisible" (mostly) job. They made it to dangerous and potentially costly for the IJN surface fleet to try to challenge landings or try to get among the carrier task groups. Surigao Straight was an example of what could and did happen (DD torpedoes did much of the work, but Oldendorf's BBs, CAs and CLs barred the door).

*3* There were tactical things that led to early heavy losses, but I think heavy cruisers - 8" guns - were not very useful. Their rate of fire was faster than BBs, but just didn't put enough shells in the air fast enough. I think the CLs, which had 15 6" guns (Brooklyn class) and an even faster rate of fire were more effective. That's my opinion, and together with $5 you coul get coffee and change at your favorite coffee shop.

*4* The US not only out-produced Japan in pretty much every class of combatant ship, but also out-produced in terms of auxiliaries - oilers, cargo ships, landing craft. That logistics support kept combat ships at sea or in forward bases - ready or readier to engage. Japan's merchant and auxiliary fleets were stretched at the start, and somewhere around 1943 losses to submarines and aircraft started to hurt.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-22-2018)

----------


## Traddles

> If the US had not conquered the Philippines , we might never have butted heads with the Japanese.


True, though the Spanish-American War, in which we received the Philippines, among other territories, was in 1898, while (IIRC) the Russo-Japanese War (think Tsushima Straight) ended in 1904. I doubt coming into conflict with Japan was a purpose in 1898, if it was even anticipated. The plans made long before WW2 to make the Philippines independent in 1946 kind of bear this out.

Our having the Philippines put us in position to interdict the Luzon Straight and the supply of oil and other strategic materials coming from the Dutch East Indies and Southeast Asia. left alone, that might have monkey-wrenched Japan's plans for conquest in that area.

----------


## Daily Bread

And Flypapers gene pool would have been eliminated before conception

----------


## patrickt

> The robust strength of isolationism in 1930s America bedeviled FDR.   Isolationism was one thing he and his party never could agree on.   Try as he might and (giving him his due) this master of politics could not get Congress to give Britain any more aid than they got in November 1941 and the Soviets got nothing.   Yes, the 1940 Navy Act built the navy that dominated the Pacific and contributed mightily in the Atlantic, but building a Navy that had been neglected for two decades is a long way from going to war.
> 
> Without the provocation of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines the US would never have gotten in the Pacific.   The Japanese would have conquered the Britsih, French and Dutch colonies in the west Pacific...easily.   FDR would have been hoist on his own petard.   He had spent the 30s thundering against the evils of European colonialism.
> 
> Without the US, Britain gets forced to the peace table somewhere in 1942, especially after losing Malaya and Burma and being forced to defend India.  Hitler would not have been able to invade and conquer Britain, but Churchill would have been ousted and Britain would have been forced to ratify Hitler's conquests in Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Benelux countries, and France.   whether they were able to old onto Egypt is a variable, depending on the situation on the ground at the end of their involvement.
> 
> Without the US, the Third Reich and the USSR would have come to a "peace of mutual exhaustion" somewhere in 1944.
> 
> Japan could easily hold the colonial holding they grabbed, but totally pacification of China was beyond their means.   That war would have ended with japan holding the coastal citeis, Manchuria, Hainan, and the area around Beijing, with Chiang and Mao fighting it out over the back country.
> ...


Without Hitler, WWII would have ended differently.

----------


## Dave37

Chinese, communists or nationalists, and unlike Americans who don't know whatever happened ten years ago, haven't forgotten Japan's actions against civilians, Nanking, or chemical and biological warfare.

----------

Rutabaga (05-22-2018)

----------


## Traddles

> Without Hitler, WWII would have ended differently.


"Alternate History" - "What if X didn't (or did) happen?" - pretty much invites over-simplification and even wild speculation. Most what-if scenarios sound simple, but the effects are extremely complex and guesses how people will react in the new circumstance are fraught with uncertainty. Thus my comment about the value of my speculative opinions.

----------


## Stonewall

> The robust strength of isolationism in 1930s America bedeviled FDR.   Isolationism was one thing he and his party never could agree on.   Try as he might and (giving him his due) this master of politics could not get Congress to give Britain any more aid than they got in November 1941 and the Soviets got nothing.   Yes, the 1940 Navy Act built the navy that dominated the Pacific and contributed mightily in the Atlantic, but building a Navy that had been neglected for two decades is a long way from going to war.
> 
> Without the provocation of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines the US would never have gotten in the Pacific.   The Japanese would have conquered the Britsih, French and Dutch colonies in the west Pacific...easily.   FDR would have been hoist on his own petard.   He had spent the 30s thundering against the evils of European colonialism.
> 
> Without the US, Britain gets forced to the peace table somewhere in 1942, especially after losing Malaya and Burma and being forced to defend India.  Hitler would not have been able to invade and conquer Britain, but Churchill would have been ousted and Britain would have been forced to ratify Hitler's conquests in Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Benelux countries, and France.   whether they were able to old onto Egypt is a variable, depending on the situation on the ground at the end of their involvement.
> 
> Without the US, the Third Reich and the USSR would have come to a "peace of mutual exhaustion" somewhere in 1944.
> 
> Japan could easily hold the colonial holding they grabbed, but totally pacification of China was beyond their means.   That war would have ended with japan holding the coastal citeis, Manchuria, Hainan, and the area around Beijing, with Chiang and Mao fighting it out over the back country.
> ...


Hitler lost the war very early on. The invasion of Russia was a mistake. There was no way Germany could have won. America helped in a quick demise but Germany could not have won while at the same time at war with the UK. And, Great Britain was not going to make peace. No way... Had Germany not invaded the Soviets then maybe someday somehow there would have been a peace.

----------

Canadianeye (05-12-2018),Swedgin (05-22-2018)

----------


## Taxcutter

Japan's mistake was cross into China proper in 1937.

While the West was "shocked" by Japan grabbing Manchuria in 1931, they did exactly nothing and if the Japanese had not gone further the West would have continued to do nothing.

Manchuria is resource-rich and the southern third of it can raise enough food to support 15 million people.   The Japanese could have vented off their population pressure for generations into 'settling' Manchuria.

Hell, the Chinese hated Manchuria.   When the Japanese took over Manchuria in 1931, six million Chinese bugged out on their own, leaving only three million in Manchuria.   Manchuria had the population it had because Sun Yat-sen had herded millions of Chinese into the province at bayonet point.   Chiang Kai-shek and Mao were locked in a civil war.   China was not a bit interested in retaking Manchuria.

Keep in mind that in 1937 Japan held all of Manchuria, all of Korea (1910), Formosa and the Pescadores Islands (1895), all of the Kuriles up to the Kamchatka Peninsula (this conferred access to the rich fishing grounds of the Sea of Ohotsk), and all of Sakhalen Island (small oil fields).

In 1937 the Japanese learned to leave Stalin alone.

If in 1937, the Japanese had had enough sense to leave China alone, they had great opportunity available.

As they did historically, they could have grabbed Indochina in 1940 and the US and Britain - as they did historically - would do nothing.

In 1942, the Japanese could have sailed Kido Butai peacefully past the PI and taken what they wanted of the Dutch East Indies:  An enclave around the big oil field of Palembang. enclaves on Java around Batavia and Soerabaja (how many of you rascals know where Soerabaja is?), thinly-populated Dutch Borneo and Celebes and maybe a few islands to control key straits, and settled for that.   They would be hip-deep in resources for at least eight decades.

FDR had thundered against European colonialism (particularly the DEI and Indochina) throughout the thirties.   Do you think he could have stirred America to drop isolationism to restore a couple of colonies?   He was(rhetorically) hoist on his own petard.

Lacking a viable _casus belli_, the US would not have done anything - despite having a vast navy built under the 1940 Navy Act.   Lacking a provocation the scale of Pearl Harbor the American people, still butt-hurt over getting snookered into the 1914-1918 unpleasantness (and getting nothing to show for it), would have no desire to go fight for dots in the Pacific.

Maybe FDR could have talked America into intervening in Europe.   Maybe not.    My read of contemporaneous writings indicate "No" unless Hitler launched some tom-fool provocative act (something he was eminently capable of but being neck-deep in Russia militates against that.

Come 1945, somebody wins in Europe - either Russia or Germany - but becomes an exhausted superpower.   The US, whether they intervene or not, is a superpower, Japan is a strong regional power, not worth messing with.   Britain is - at best - an island fortress and probably a US client-state, China is a civil war wracked basket case and India is about to become one as well.

Bottom line:  If Japan stays out of China proper they don't get stomped on and are a formidable regional power.

----------



----------


## Dave37

I've heard recriminations that America provoked Japan's attack on US by curtailing strategic materials to Japan after Japanese aggressions in the far east. Maybe the same kind of logic used by Hitler when he declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

----------

Swedgin (05-22-2018)

----------


## Stonewall

> I've heard recriminations that America provoked Japan's attack on US by curtailing strategic materials to Japan after Japanese aggressions in the far east. Maybe the same kind of logic used by Hitler when he declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor.



Japan attacked us because they believed we did not have enough resolve to carry out what it would take to carry the war on. We did not instigate war. We did what all nations do, we respond to aggression as best we can. Japan was not a good neighbor. It attacked all of it's neighbors and did so viciously. We responded with sanctions. We responded by helping, materially, China. We helped the countries attacked by Nazi Germany.

Hitler declared war on America but he knew at that point that all was lost. By December 7th, 1941 a German loss was inevitable. 

World War II was started by a declaration of war against Germany by Britain and France. They should not have promised a war to save Poland. Poland was not free until the 1980's. They never saved Poland. 

Millions died because of that promise of war.

----------

tlmjl (05-07-2022)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I've heard recriminations that America provoked Japan's attack on US by curtailing strategic materials to Japan after Japanese aggressions in the far east. Maybe the same kind of logic used by Hitler when he declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor.


We were Japan's main source of oil.  FDR cut of the oil and gave Japan a humiliating ultimatum if they wanted it back.  Of course the war FDR wanted was with Germany, but Japan had a mutual defense pact with Germany.  FDR expected Japan to attack he just didn't know where.  A lot of info on this comes from Prange "At Dawn we slept".

Harry Turtledove has written some good alternate histories of WWII.

----------

Swedgin (05-22-2018)

----------


## RobertLafollet

I would agree that WWI caused WWII and we are still living with it's after affects.

----------

Swedgin (05-22-2018)

----------


## patrickt

WWII would have ended differently without the U.S. but also without the USSR, England, or Poland. The French weren't so pivotal. That's why they allied with both sides. Of course, so did the Soviets.

----------


## Dave37

> We were Japan's main source of oil.  FDR cut of the oil and gave Japan a humiliating ultimatum if they wanted it back.  Of course the war FDR wanted was with Germany, but Japan had a mutual defense pact with Germany.  FDR expected Japan to attack he just didn't know where.  A lot of info on this comes from Prange "At Dawn we slept".
> 
> Harry Turtledove has written some good alternate histories of WWII.


Nothing much revelatory there. FDR's push to engage us in the european war was probably a good idea, the Japanese attack on us had been forecast about a lot by others than FDR and if Japan was humiliated maybe they should have stopped invading and killing Chinese/Koreans. I do like Turtledove but he is just fiction with a bent for history.

----------


## Canadianeye

> We were Japan's main source of oil.  FDR cut of the oil and gave Japan a humiliating ultimatum if they wanted it back.  Of course the war FDR wanted was with Germany, but Japan had a mutual defense pact with Germany.  FDR expected Japan to attack he just didn't know where.  A lot of info on this comes from Prange "At Dawn we slept".
> 
> Harry Turtledove has written some good alternate histories of WWII.


Your hatred of Japan is clouding your perspectives and judgements.

----------


## Taxcutter

Hitler could have beaten the USSR, but  whole lot of things had to line up.

1.  First and foremost, Hitler simply HAD to get Britain to the peace table (conquest not necessary).   Just stop the fighting sometime in 1941.   Allow Germany to "digest" its kills.
2.  Keep the US on the sidelines.   Tell Japan they are on their own if they mess with either the US or USSR.   If Britain has made some sort of peace the US does not declare war on Germany.
3.  Take two years to increase German logistical capabilities in eastern Europe (mainly Poland.)   This means lots of new rail lines and rolling stock   The USSR didn't move on roads.   It moved on rails.   Logistics is what beat Hitler - just like Napoleon - in Russia.  On Dec. 6, 1941, German recon units were in the outskirts of Moscow, but they were out of ammo, gas, and spare parts, not to mention freezing in inadequate clothing.   Von Paulus should have been able to sweep the Soviets out of Stalingrad, but he was out of ammo and gas in the summer of 1942.   With adequate logistical support, Hitler would have put his defesnible line of the Volga and Stalin would have been done for.

----------

Swedgin (05-22-2018),tlmjl (05-07-2022)

----------


## Swedgin

I have to disagree with some of the points made:

Certainly, the United States was needed to win the war.  Simply for our Industrial might, not to mention the fresh soldiers we put forward, the Pacific Theater, in particular.

In the Pacific, Japan likely would have easily run over most of the Western Colonies, although...Australia might have been a bit more than they could handle.  The BIG problem for them, and, one of the main motivations for attacking the US to begin with, is that we were blockading most of their oil resources.  We MAY have finally made an agreement, or, they MAY have finally gotten their hands on their own oil resources.  But, without the oil, they would have been slowed in conquest....

I do not think there was a way in hades that the Soviet Union would have made peace with Germany.  The abject hatred between the two sides, Hitler and Stalin, in particular, was almost beyond measure.  My opinion, is that the War in the East would have gone on for as long as it took one side, or the other to win.  Without the US, it certainly would have lasted longer, and, the Soviet Union may have ended up losing, but....it may have taken decades.

One thing is CERTAIN:  The USSR was as important and instrumental in defeating Germany as the USA was.  In fact, HAD Hitler not invaded, and, chosen instead to further relations with the Soviet Union, I doubt the Allies could have won at all.  The US could (and did) take on the Japanese, on our own, but....I don't know if an alliance of just the UK/USA would have had the manpower to get Germany out of France, or Italy.  Certainly not, if the USSR joined the AXIS powers.

The bulk of World War II was on the Eastern Front, where the Germans and Russians mauled the HELL out of each other.

America pretty much fought the War in the Pacific, with one hand behind our back (Well, one hand in Europe, the STRONGER hand), and a wee bit of allied help, mostly from Australia, and a few surviving British Forces.

The African Theater was pretty easy for the Allies, as Germany never put the full amount of required forces on the ground.  Plus, their supply lines were heavily hampered by British Sea power, and, the eventual Allied Air superiority....

----------


## Traddles

> We were Japan's main source of oil.  FDR cut of the oil and gave Japan a humiliating ultimatum if they wanted it back.  Of course the war FDR wanted was with Germany, but Japan had a mutual defense pact with Germany.  FDR expected Japan to attack he just didn't know where.  A lot of info on this comes from Prange "At Dawn we slept".
> 
> Harry Turtledove has written some good alternate histories of WWII.


Japan's decision process was a bit more involved. They needed the oil, and decided to get it from the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) rather than backing down in China (the "humiliating ultimatum"). But they looked at the map - the Luzon Straight in particular -  and realized they could not accept that potential choke point for their shipments of strategic commodities (rubber and tin, as well as oil). The Militarist--Ultra-Nationalists in Japan had a very inflated view of themselves as people and of their military might; and a corresponding low view of the Depression-mired US. They believed that smashing up the US Pacific and Asiatic Fleets could buy them the time to inflict crushing defeats in Asia and eastern Oceania and create a defensive perimeter and cause so much discouragement in the US that the US would soon give up and accept Japan's new-won empire.

Well the US didn't behave as Japan planned. And while the loss of 4 of their 6 fleet carriers at Midway ensured that Japan could not maintain their defensive perimeter, it's doubtful, IMO, that Japan could have maintained that perimeter even with 6 fleet carriers. Japan did not commission a new fleet carrier during WW2 until early 1944. Trying to cover their perimeter would have created a conundrum: keep all 6 together to avoid piecemeal and try to respond to threats as they happened, at 32 or 33 knots maximum speed; or disperse the fleet carriers around the perimeter, which would allow the USN to have numerical superiority by being able to choose where to attack.

That was something the IJN apparently did not learn from their early victories. By attacking PH and other places with all 6 fleet carriers, the Japanese were able to temporarily overwhelm local land-based air resources. By splitting up Kido Butai (their mobile attack fleet) they allowed the USN to have carrier parity at Coral Sea - the USN lost Lexington, the IJN lost light carrier Shoho, Shokaku was significantly damaged, and Zuikaku's air group suffered significant losses (as did Shokaku's). Because combining the two air groups was contrary to IJN doctrine, only 4 fleet carriers went to Midway, while the USN patched up Yorktown and had near parity at Midway (USN Yorktown class carriers had larger air groups than did IJN fleet carriers) plus surprise. Had Zuikaku been at Midway things might have gone somewhat differently.

I recommend Parshall & Tully's Shattered Sword regarding the Japanese side of Midway - strategic and tactical considerations as well as what the IJN fleet carriers were doing throughout the battle.

----------


## Canadianeye

> I have to disagree with some of the points made:
> 
> Certainly, the United States was needed to win the war.  Simply for our Industrial might, not to mention the fresh soldiers we put forward, the Pacific Theater, in particular.
> 
> In the Pacific, Japan likely would have easily run over most of the Western Colonies, although...Australia might have been a bit more than they could handle.  The BIG problem for them, and, one of the main motivations for attacking the US to begin with, is that we were blockading most of their oil resources.  We MAY have finally made an agreement, or, they MAY have finally gotten their hands on their own oil resources.  But, without the oil, they would have been slowed in conquest....
> 
> I do not think there was a way in hades that the Soviet Union would have made peace with Germany.  The abject hatred between the two sides, Hitler and Stalin, in particular, was almost beyond measure.  My opinion, is that the War in the East would have gone on for as long as it took one side, or the other to win.  Without the US, it certainly would have lasted longer, and, the Soviet Union may have ended up losing, but....it may have taken decades.
> 
> One thing is CERTAIN:  The USSR was as important and instrumental in defeating Germany as the USA was.  In fact, HAD Hitler not invaded, and, chosen instead to further relations with the Soviet Union, I doubt the Allies could have won at all.  The US could (and did) take on the Japanese, on our own, but....I don't know if an alliance of just the UK/USA would have had the manpower to get Germany out of France, or Italy.  Certainly not, if the USSR joined the AXIS powers.
> ...


Hitler hated communists, and he actually considered England to be kind of a kindred, like minded cousin of sorts. He took Austria with annexation, but it was a wildly popular and supported move in Austria. He dinked around in another place (czechs i think) with no real consequence, but then Poland drew in England, and I don't think Hitler really expected that to happen.

I actually bet he was shocked England declared.

----------

Swedgin (05-22-2018)

----------


## Swedgin

> Hitler hated communists, and he actually considered England to be kind of a kindred, like minded cousin of sorts. He took Austria with annexation, but it was a wildly popular and supported move in Austria. He dinked around in another place (czechs i think) with no real consequence, but then Poland drew in England, and I don't think Hitler really expected that to happen.
> 
> I actually bet he was shocked England declared.


I watched an interesting documentary on Stalin.

The narrator (and myself, although led), came to the conclusion that Stalin was ever bit as bad as Hitler, BUT...Stalin had the ability to learn from his mistakes.  Hitler did not seem to have that ability.

OF course, Hitler was probably goosed out by methamphetamines, by the end of the war, so he really wasn't all there, mentally.

Whatever the case, he made several huge military blunders, after his massive blunder of invading Russia......

----------

Canadianeye (05-23-2018)

----------


## Taxcutter

If the Japanese had not crossed the Marco Polo Bridge in 1937, the US would never have embargoed their oil in 1941.

Manchuria and French Indochina (in 1940) were not a _casus belli_ to isolationist Americans.

----------


## RobertLafollet

The US pushed Japan into war.

Hitler may well have thought Russia was going to attack him.  The Russians did have their army very near the border as though it might be getting ready to attack.

Stalin allied with Hitler to beat Poland.  Stalin regularly threatened to make a separate peace if a 2nd front was not opened.

Stalin had purged his general.  

German troops were greeted as liberators.  If Hitler had kept the SS out of Russia at least the Ukraine would have joined Germany.  Racism was a significant cause of Germany's losing.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Nothing much revelatory there. FDR's push to engage us in the european war was probably a good idea, the Japanese attack on us had been forecast about a lot by others than FDR and if Japan was humiliated maybe they should have stopped invading and killing Chinese/Koreans. I do like Turtledove but he is just fiction with a bent for history.


Turtledove was a professor of Byzantine history before his writing caught on.

----------


## Dave37

> Turtledove was a professor of Byzantine history before his writing caught on.


Yes, but how much does that make his literary plots of alternative histories in other parts of the world anything insightful? If he studied Constantinople does that make his alternative history of the Confederacy that more insightful? I think he found a niche and capitalized on it but I don't think he's got a better view of history than someone else. But you may have an inferior alternative history view if you want to blame the US for pushing the Japanese into war. Might as well blame the victim of a crime instead of the perpetrator.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Yes, but how much does that make his literary plots of alternative histories in other parts of the world anything insightful? If he studied Constantinople does that make his alternative history of the Confederacy that more insightful? I think he found a niche and capitalized on it but I don't think he's got a better view of history than someone else. But you may have an inferior alternative history view if you want to blame the US for pushing the Japanese into war. Might as well blame the victim of a crime instead of the perpetrator.


That comes from a lot of sources including Prange "At Dawn We Slept".  The US was isolationist in 1940 Roosevelt wasn't.  We started escorting convoys in June 1941.  That was an act of war.  Hitler ordered U-boat captains not to shoot back at  US ships.  
31st October 1941: USS Reuben James torpedoed in Atlantic
Hitler disciplined Tropp and apologized.

----------


## Swedgin

> The US pushed Japan into war.


--I do not know about "pushed," but, certainly, the Japanese Generals felt so.  We were cutting off their oil supply.  They sorta needed that to keep on conquering. 




> Hitler may well have thought Russia was going to attack him. The Russians did have their army very near the border as though it might be getting ready to attack.


--He may have, but, I still feel that his decision was based entirely on his arrogance, and dreams of "Liebensraum...."  Whatever the case, invading Russia was almost as idiotic, as his planning, and commanding of the invasion.  (I sometimes wonder if Hitler could even win a game of Risk, he made such disasterous decisions....




> Stalin allied with Hitler to beat Poland. Stalin regularly threatened to make a separate peace if a 2nd front was not opened.


--Now, HAD Stalin tried to make peace with Hitler, there is the possibility they might have come to an agreement.  But....I think Stalin and the Russians were too pissed off, by then, and, well...Hitler was just too fucking stupid.  Certainly would have changed the outcome, I think....




> Stalin had purged his general.


--And Majors.  And Colonels.  Hell, he went right down the line.  In the early days of the War, the Soviet Army simply had no real leadership.  Eventually, Stalin did allow some Generals to take charge, and do their jobs (Even as Hitler demanded more and more direct control....).  Of course, after the war, Stalin had his chief Generals either shot, or sent to Gulags....(Joe wasn't one to "share" power, and, he was paranoid to his core...)




> German troops were greeted as liberators. If Hitler had kept the SS out of Russia at least the Ukraine would have joined Germany. Racism was a significant cause of Germany's losing.


--One of many, many, many stupid choices by Hitler and the NAZI's.  The Ukranians would have FOUGHT for him, and, while they did not have a lot of industry, they had FOOD, and people.

----------

Canadianeye (05-23-2018)

----------


## Oberon

> That comes from a lot of sources including Prange "At Dawn We Slept".  The US was isolationist in 1940 Roosevelt wasn't.  We started escorting convoys in June 1941.  That was an act of war.  Hitler ordered U-boat captains not to shoot back at  US ships.  
> 31st October 1941: USS Reuben James torpedoed in Atlantic
> Hitler disciplined Tropp and apologized.


lol what rubbish.

Declaring 'unrestricted submarine warfare' as a policy and sinking hundreds of neutral vessels is an act of war, period. FDR didn't have to make up excuses, the Germans and Japanese provided all that was necessary, and that is a fact. The 'isolationists' are to blame for how damaging both World Wars were, and they need to deflect from the utter failures of their own political fantasies and ideological rubbish, obviously, of which many are still trying to peddle today as 'viable', just never mind it has never worked, ever; all it does is let scum grow and grow and grow until it reaches huge sizes, can no longer be ignored, and does a lot more damage and costs a hell of a lot more money and lives when it comes time to eradicate it. Roosevelt learned a lot as Navy Secretary, like how small the world really was becoming, and what was necessary to defend against it. The right wingers were busy amusing themselves by hiding out on their country estates behind private armies, and screaming for the govt. to shoot down all the proles, and crying about having to pay taxes to build up the military, typical of the losers who didn't think they themselves should be subjected to the 'science' of social darwinism' and ruthless competition.

This FDR bashing hobby has gotten so completely ridiculous it's amazing its peddlers can manage to keep themselves out of being locked up in loony bins. Stop taking everything Ann Coulters says as fact, already; she's just having fun writing silly rubbish and seeing where it flies, and doesn't believe a fraction of what she writes. If one wants to see where 'conservatism' started to fail, just look no further than the blatant hypocrisy of the right during and in the aftermath of the Depression; very few ever practiced what they preached, so they had little sway, especially after Hitler started sinking American ships.

----------


## Oberon

Hitler had little choice but war and plundering his neighbors after the failure of his economic Plan in 1938. He was always planning on invading Russia, just as Stalin was always planning on invading in any direction he thought he could get away with invading, east or west. Russia was no different under the Commies than it was under Peter the Great; they were always expansionist, and ideology didn't moderate that drive one iota. 

The problem for Europe was its own feckless inability to find diplomatic solutions to anything, and letting nutjobs like Hitler achieve power in modern industrial countries via stupid policies, like the Versailles Treaty.

----------

Swedgin (05-24-2018)

----------


## Canadianeye

> Hitler had little choice but war and plundering his neighbors after the failure of his economic Plan in 1938. He was always planning on invading Russia, just as Stalin was always planning on invading in any direction he thought he could get away with invading, east or west. Russia was no different under the Commies than it was under Peter the Great; they were always expansionist, and ideology didn't moderate that drive one iota. 
> 
> The problem for Europe was its own feckless inability to find diplomatic solutions to anything, and letting nutjobs like Hitler achieve power in modern industrial countries via stupid policies, like the Versailles Treaty.


People tend to forget, or not even aware of how many competeing parties that Hitler and eventually the NAZIs rose from to be ones taking power. I mean, there was riotous fighting in the streets between all these different parties. Small parties, middle sized parties, big parties. Probably 20+ of them in this time frame.

Everybody was at base furious with Versailles Treaty, and everything that had happened to Germany because of that.

Hitler came out of that dog pile...but there were an awful lot of other dogs involved.

JFK notes have apparently been discovered about him liking Hitler. I see it, and have written about it in the past. It makes sense.

Hitlers strength, when you listen to his speeches, was all about taking a nation...and putting them to work FOR their nation. Rise up for Germany, because it is Germany. Don't think of yourself...think of Germany and other Germans above all else. The horrific poverty of the Weimar Republic was the catalyst for the NSDAP rise obviously, with seething anger at the VT.

JFK had some very similar famous words to the same effect.

----------

Oberon (05-23-2018),Swedgin (05-24-2018)

----------


## Oberon

Joe Kennedy's liking of Hitler was never a secret, neither was Lingberg's or many other Americans' like for him. The Commie were fielding private armies in the street of Germany long before any of the right winger parties did, and in fact the Reds were the primary reasons the street thugs of the Nazis were popular and grew. Versailles limited the German Army to 100,000 men, not even remotely enough to maintain order in a collapsed state, much less against street armies numbering in the millions, like the 2 million 'Spartans' fielded by the Commies alone, and Hitler's own faction in the Nazi Party numbered over a million, loyal only to him personally, and this is not counting the several other factions and armies running around, in Prussia under a former Kruppe manager, for instance. It's debatable that Hitler was even the worst possible outcome of all that, when one looks at the others.

----------


## RobertLafollet

We would have been better off and so would the world if we'd stayed out of WWI.   

Hitler was popular in 1932.  He led the world out of the Great Depression.  He moved slowly on his racist policies.  He also moved slowly on his war policies.

----------


## Canadianeye

> Joe Kennedy's liking of Hitler was never a secret, neither was Lingberg's or many other Americans' like for him. The Commie were fielding private armies in the street of Germany long before any of the right winger parties did, and in fact the Reds were the primary reasons the street thugs of the Nazis were popular and grew. Versailles limited the German Army to 100,000 men, not even remotely enough to maintain order in a collapsed state, much less against street armies numbering in the millions, like the 2 million 'Spartans' fielded by the Commies alone, and Hitler's own faction in the Nazi Party numbered over a million, loyal only to him personally, and this is not counting the several other factions and armies running around, in Prussia under a former Kruppe manager, for instance. It's debatable that Hitler was even the worst possible outcome of all that, when one looks at the others.


It is extremely debateable. As I mentioned earlier, Hitler hated Communists far more than anyone. To him it was a fairly simple equation.

Bolshevism = Russia = Jews = Germany as the next intended target.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> The robust strength of isolationism in 1930s America bedeviled FDR.   Isolationism was one thing he and his party never could agree on.   Try as he might and (giving him his due) this master of politics could not get Congress to give Britain any more aid than they got in November 1941 and the Soviets got nothing.   Yes, the 1940 Navy Act built the navy that dominated the Pacific and contributed mightily in the Atlantic, but building a Navy that had been neglected for two decades is a long way from going to war.
> 
> Without the provocation of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines the US would never have gotten in the Pacific.   The Japanese would have conquered the Britsih, French and Dutch colonies in the west Pacific...easily.   FDR would have been hoist on his own petard.   He had spent the 30s thundering against the evils of European colonialism.
> 
> Without the US, Britain gets forced to the peace table somewhere in 1942, especially after losing Malaya and Burma and being forced to defend India.  Hitler would not have been able to invade and conquer Britain, but Churchill would have been ousted and Britain would have been forced to ratify Hitler's conquests in Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Benelux countries, and France.   whether they were able to old onto Egypt is a variable, depending on the situation on the ground at the end of their involvement.
> 
> Without the US, the Third Reich and the USSR would have come to a "peace of mutual exhaustion" somewhere in 1944.
> 
> Japan could easily hold the colonial holding they grabbed, but totally pacification of China was beyond their means.   That war would have ended with japan holding the coastal citeis, Manchuria, Hainan, and the area around Beijing, with Chiang and Mao fighting it out over the back country.
> ...


Without the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, America doesn't even enter the war. Roosevelt certainly would never have given orders for our aircraft carriers and battleships to steam 12,000 nautical miles to try to save MacArthur and the Philippines from Japan's attack, and they knocked the British navy out of the war on December 8th, 1941, sinking the capital battleships, "Prince Of Wales" and "Repulse" which the Jap air force caught in open seas without air cover. Although America was totally isolationist prior to December 7, 1941, FDR did get the Lend Lease Act through Congress, which, from a German POV was an act of war. However, the German U-Boats didn't start sinking American merchant ships bound for England until after Hitler declared war, then the U-Boat packs went after the merchant shipping with vengeance. 

As for Japan, once they had conquered the Dutch, French and British colonial holdings in Asia, they had everything they needed to fight a war, copper, tin, oil, etc. The viciousness of their troops in mishandling the peoples they conquered, particularly in Korea and China, precluded their success in maintaining control of those colonies. They might have held some Chinese coastal cities and Korea, but not for very long. Unlike Germany, Japan's war aims for a Japanese controlled Pacific sphere of influence, something they actually obtained much, much later through economic instead of military power. 

Germany? If the U-Boats had cut the sea lanes to America, England would have been forced to negotiate a surrender. The Germans and Russians would accuarately predicted, exhausted themselves, and divided up Poland and other Central European nations. The problem with that ending, essentially a stalemate like in Napoleon's time, is that it would have left Germany with the means to develop the atomic bomb, and that would have been used on America. Vis a Vis - America developed the atomic bomb, not to use against Japan, although they richly deserved it, but to eliminate Germany and Hitler, Nazism being the much more evil threat. Whether Hitler and their Final Solution for Slavic and Jewish heritage peoples in Eastern Europe would have been ended with a stalemate with Russia, the answer is very probably not........ - Stan -

----------


## Oberon

> It is extremely debateable. As I mentioned earlier, Hitler hated Communists far more than anyone. To him it was a fairly simple equation.
> 
> Bolshevism = Russia = Jews = Germany as the next intended target.


I meant between the possible 'winners' in Germany's civil war. Hitler was not the worst possible gangster to come in 'first', imo; Himmler would have been worse, as would any one of the Reds, as examples.

----------


## Oberon

The Japanese did  not have much oil; the Dutch did a great job of sabotage in their oil fields, and the Japanese didn't have a lot of skilled techs, not enough to run a military of the size they wanted. They attacked Pearl because after Standard launched their embargo they had a window of maybe three years tops before then ran out and would have to curtail their operations. They compounded the mistake by putting nearly their entire  contingent of available oil techs on one ship, about 800, out of 1,000 or so, and an American sub sank it on its way to the captured Dutch fields. They couldn't survive long with an American embargo, whether oil or anything else, steel, etc., and neither could Germany stand as long as we were neutral and continues our trade with everybody and anybody we felt like.

I still think it was mistake to prop up the Soviets; we could have done well enough without them.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> The Japanese did  not have much oil; the Dutch did a great job of sabotage in their oil fields, and the Japanese didn't have a lot of skilled techs, not enough to run a military of the size they wanted. They attacked Pearl because after Standard launched their embargo they had a window of maybe three years tops before then ran out and would have to curtail their operations. They compounded the mistake by putting nearly their entire  contingent of available oil techs on one ship, about 800, out of 1,000 or so, and an American sub sank it on its way to the captured Dutch fields. They couldn't survive long with an American embargo, whether oil or anything else, steel, etc., and neither could Germany stand as long as we were neutral and continues our trade with everybody and anybody we felt like.
> 
> I still think it was mistake to prop up the Soviets; we could have done well enough without them.


No, we had to supply the Soviets, or Hitler and Nazism rules Europe, and the atomic bomb would have been developed and used against us, without allies. Hitler had an almost feminine intuition about America, knew that our entry into World War One had led to Germany's defeat, and he needed to deal with us without allies. If need be, Hitler would have dropped an atomic bomb on London, and another on Moscow or Stalingrad. American arms put the Soviet Army on wheels, but they developed a massive industrial complex far inland out of reach of the Luftwaffe to counter the German invasion. America's supplies, although they continued to Russia throughout the war, were the stopgap they needed to fight Germany initially. Stalin repeatedly called for a second front against Germany from America and England, it didn't occur until 1944. The Soviet Army cut the heart out of the German Army during the war, with American aid assisting, but mainly with a much larger industrial capacity then Hitler had. They recovered from his three-pronged hammer invasion in 1941, and assisted by the Russian winter (Germany launched the invasion in June without winter provisions for the troops), fought them back foot by foot. When it came to a decision of who to support, Stalin in the 1940's or Hitler, the choice was clear, support the Soviets, they were killing Germans who would not face our troops in the invasion of France. Allowing the Soviet army to continue on without the second front would have had them controlling the entire European continent. We are fortunate that they stopped at the chop lines in 1945 around Berlin. The Cold War developed because of the hostility the Soviets had for America as the alliance fell apart. Once they had the atomic bomb in 1949, the odds were even, and the intent of the Cold War was to keep their armies from advancing past those chop lines.   - Stan -

----------


## Taxcutter

> They attacked Pearl because after Standard launched their embargo they had a window of maybe three years tops ...



Taxcutter says:
Again discussing the symptom rather than the root cause.   If Japan had not invaded China proper (even the Chinese did not consider Manchuria to be anything but a territory) in 1937, the US would not hve embargoed oil and steel shipments to Japan in 1941.   FDR had spent the Thirties thundering against European colonialism.   He would not have gotten Congress (mostly his own party) to go along with an embargo over the occupation of Indochina without the pre-existing irritation of the war in China.

Get it?   No war in China - no embargo - no Pearl Harbor.   Period.   Isolationism was dominant in US politics prior to Pearl Harbor.
Maybe ... if there were no war in China maybe the 1940 Navy Act is not so gigantic.

----------


## Taxcutter

> Without the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, America doesn't even enter the war.


Taxcutter says:
I totally agree.   I'm not even sure an attack on the PI would have had the effect of the Pearl Harbor attack.   The US was due to evacuate the PI in 1946 anyway.





> FDR did get the Lend Lease Act through Congress, which, from a German POV was an act of war.


Taxcutter says:
This is why it was imperative that Hitler bring Britain to the peace table in 1941 and certainly BEFORE tearing into the USSR.   No Britain at war = no further Lend-Lease.




> As for Japan ... They might have held some Chinese coastal cities and Korea, but not for very long.



Taxcutter says:
The Japanese obtained Korea in 1910 and they never had any trouble pacifying the place.

As for China, really only the coastal cities were worth the effort, but that unbalanced the Chinese civil war because Chiang Kai-shek and Mao.
Mao's political support was mostly in rural northern china (north of the Yellow River).   Chiang's stronghold was coastal and southern China.   If they had taken only one area there would be a winner in the civil war nd Japan would have to face a united enemy.   So in 1937 they attacked by land into northern China and drove mao into the mountains SW of Beijing, and they used amphibious attacks to grab most of the coastal cities and drove up the Yangtzee valley.   Eventually this isolated both sides.   But China proper was always a huge white elephant for the Japanese.   If they had left China proper alone would have left the US irritated but not enough to overcome US isolationism.   By ignoring Chin and grabbing orphaned colonies in Indochina and the DEI would have left Japan with enough resource to keep them happy for generations.   Japan didn't need to mess with Malaya and Burma.   Indochina and the DEI would have supplied everything they needed. 

I don't think Hitler had  chance in the 1939-1945 time frame of making Britain surrender, but they could have brought them to the peace table much as had Napoleon had done after the battles of Jena and Auerstadt had punched out Britain's last continental ally.   The was Alexandria.   take that and Britain has to bug out of the eastern Med and defense of the Persian Gulf oil fields is very difficult.   If invasion of Britain is off the table I think the British cut a deal and try to hold onto India.   Hitler in 1941 is a t peace and again trading with the Western Hemisphere.   Peace obviously ends the British blockade  of Germany.

Hitler could then take his time and economically exploit his conquests.   If the German General Staff had any logistical sense, he builds up the rail net in western Poland and prepares for war in 1944 with Stalin.   And he has a fine old time with his "Final Solution" in Europe.   By 1944 times re really hard in the conquered countries and Hitler has plenty of manpower for support of an invasion of the USSR.   For out-of-work Frenchmen, dutchmen, and Poles working on Hitler's rail repair and operations units might be the only work available.   We can see this from the SS "Viking" division in 1943-45.   It was almost entirely made up of out-of-work Swedes.   It is much easier to recruit for railroad repair units than combat units.   Hitler needed 12-15 railroad repair units instead of the historical four to keep his army supplied and strategically mobile in the vast plains of Russia.   Further, the remaining industries of the occupied nations could be employed fully to supply the invasion of the USSR.

Scary thought for Russians.   If the Germans could have married their tactical excellence with the logistical prowess the US showed in the Pacific, Stalin would not have a chance.

----------


## QuaseMarco

_The Man in the High Castle_ (1962) is an alternate history novel by American writer Philip K. Dick. Set in 1962, fifteen years after an alternative ending to World War II, the novel concerns intrigues between the victorious Axis Powers — primarily, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany — as they rule over the former United States, as well as daily life under the resulting totalitarian rule. _The Man in the High Castle_ won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1963. Beginning in 2015, the book was adapted as a multi-season TV series, with Dick's daughter, Isa Dick Hackett, serving as one of the show's producers.

The Man in the High Castle - Wikipedia

See: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5646866/

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> I've heard recriminations that America provoked Japan's attack on US by curtailing strategic materials to Japan after Japanese aggressions in the far east. Maybe the same kind of logic used by Hitler when he declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor.


Admiral Yamamoto was against any attack on America, but when it was forced upon him to execute, he decided that for Japan to succeed with its East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere idea, he wanted no part of the American navy, and insisted on taking it out right at the start. When the Japanese got all of MacArthur's 200-plus combat aircraft, lined up wing tip to wing tip, at Cavete Naval Base in the Phillippines, that island nation was no longer defensible with ground troops. America would never have steamed 12,000 nautical miles and risked the navy to reinforce the Phillippines and MacArthur. Roosevelt ordered him out of there by submarine, to avoid the risk of his capture and the Japs using him as a prized propaganda hostage.

Had the Japanese moved solely within their Pacific backyard, the odds of clashing with America were quite slim. Isolationism was king in America until the day after Pearl Harbor. That also was the day Hitler declared war on America, fully expecting Japan to follow with a quid pro quo declaration of war against the Soviet Union. Japan never followed up, and Stalin could use all of his resources in the East of the USSR to fight Germany, without worrying about a Japanese invasion that would have bled off supplies and manpower in Asia.

Overall, Japan's war aims were regional, not world domination like Hitler and Germany's. Hitler's mistake (although he outlined it in his book), of attacking the Soviet Union, finished Germany's bid for domination. Had the Nazi's stayed at the halfway jump off point in Poland (their chop lines from the secret alliance with Stalin), and concentrated on Central Europe, England would eventually have come to peace terms with the Germans, and The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Italy, would have remained under the heel of the Nazi boot. America wouldn't have got involved. 

The most amazing decision of World War II on America's behalf wasn't developing or dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, our Navy and Marines fought the Pacific War precisely as was outlined for 20-years at the West Point War College, with Japan as the target, once we destroyed their naval power and air power in the Midway battle. It was George C. Marshal insisting that America take advantage of the Yankee anger against Japan, recruit and train a huge new general issue army (GI's), and convincing Roosevelt the Pacific could wait and tackling Nazi Germany as the more dangerous enemy. It worked. With the exception of a casual brush with Rommel at the Kasserine Pass in Africa, the American army never lost a battle to German troops in World War I or World War II. Marshal was right, and Roosevelt was correct to listen to long heads like him, Admiral King, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz and Spruance, Bradley and eventually Patton, allowing them to run the war without political interference, which was Hitler's Achilles Heel, in fact, it also was Winston Churchill's problem too, meddling in military affairs...... 

- Stan -

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Hitler hated communists, and he actually considered England to be kind of a kindred, like minded cousin of sorts. He took Austria with annexation, but it was a wildly popular and supported move in Austria. He dinked around in another place (czechs i think) with no real consequence, but then Poland drew in England, and I don't think Hitler really expected that to happen.
> 
> I actually bet he was shocked England declared.


 It has been documented many times in history texts that Hitler and the German General staff were shocked when the Western Declarations of War came over their cables in support of Poland. Hitler never thought England and France would fight over the issue of Poland, and the German's did have some claims with the Poles from the Versailles Treaty, regarding the Danzig Corridor in that country. The German General staff knew that at some point the Western democracies would march, but they never expected it to be over the issue of Poland.  

Also, one has to remember that the 1939 nation of Poland was just as anti-semantic as Germany was, which is why they put so many concentration camps there. Hitler's main enemy was first France, to avenge the German defeat in World War I and eliminate the Versailles Treaty. He understood the French defensive thinking, with their Maginot Line. They had lost an entire generation of youth in World War I, and would do just about anything to prevent a repeat. But their idea that the defense had the advantage over the offensive movements of armored vehicles, tanks and artillery, coupled with Germany's Luftwaffe Stuka dive bomber, which terrorized civilian populations and was an excellent, slow, ground support aircraft, negated the defensive thinking of France, with the Blitzkrieg. The lightning-like movement of the German army knocked France out of the war in six weeks.

Hitler's other mistake, before invading the Soviet Union in 1941, was his secret treaty with Stalin to divide Poland. When Germany attacked Poland (and the French could have sent a million man army crashing through the paper thin defensive perimeter of West Germany while the army was engaged with Poland), but didn't. Hitler understood the French well and took the chance. When Germany invaded Poland, the cables came into General Jodl notifying him that the Russians were on the march, the secret treaty with Stalin gave them half of Poland. Jodl's surprised remark is ironic, he stated "Against who?" Stalin never would have moved against Hitler taking Poland, and if they hadn't made the pact to divide Poland, the German Army would have stepped off against the Soviets in 1941 300-miles closer. As it was, the German army got to the outskirts of Moscow, within sight of the Kremlin, long before the weather turned icy and winter arrived and would have taken the capital and been entrenched before the Russian counter-offensive. Hitler's biggest mistake wasn't just invading the USSR, it was his secret pact with Stalin which doomed the German army two years later.......... - Stan -

----------



----------


## Stonewall

> It has been documented many times in history texts that Hitler and the German General staff were shocked when the Western Declarations of War came over their cables in support of Poland. Hitler never thought England and France would fight over the issue of Poland, and the German's did have some claims with the Poles from the Versailles Treaty, regarding the Danzig Corridor in that country. The German General staff knew that at some point the Western democracies would march, but they never expected it to be over the issue of Poland.  
> 
> Also, one has to remember that the 1939 nation of Poland was just as anti-semantic as Germany was, which is why they put so many concentration camps there. Hitler's main enemy was first France, to avenge the German defeat in World War I and eliminate the Versailles Treaty. He understood the French defensive thinking, with their Maginot Line. They had lost an entire generation of youth in World War I, and would do just about anything to prevent a repeat. But their idea that the defense had the advantage over the offensive movements of armored vehicles, tanks and artillery, coupled with Germany's Luftwaffe Stuka dive bomber, which terrorized civilian populations and was an excellent, slow, ground support aircraft, negated the defensive thinking of France, with the Blitzkrieg. The lightning-like movement of the German army knocked France out of the war in six weeks.
> 
> Hitler's other mistake, before invading the Soviet Union in 1941, was his secret treaty with Stalin to divide Poland. When Germany attacked Poland (and the French could have sent a million man army crashing through the paper thin defensive perimeter of West Germany while the army was engaged with Poland), but didn't. Hitler understood the French well and took the chance. When Germany invaded Poland, the cables came into General Jodl notifying him that the Russians were on the march, the secret treaty with Stalin gave them half of Poland. Jodl's surprised remark is ironic, he stated "Against who?" Stalin never would have moved against Hitler taking Poland, and if they hadn't made the pact to divide Poland, the German Army would have stepped off against the Soviets in 1941 300-miles closer. As it was, the German army got to the outskirts of Moscow, within sight of the Kremlin, long before the weather turned icy and winter arrived and would have taken the capital and been entrenched before the Russian counter-offensive. Hitler's biggest mistake wasn't just invading the USSR, it was his secret pact with Stalin which doomed the German army two years later.......... - Stan -





Shocked?

Only in the way that a thief is surprised when his plans are foiled. Nazi Germany was not shocked because a tree suddenly landed on their head. They were up to no good.

The Generals were only surprised when the Allies did nothing at all. And, by the time they did? Hitler was a God. By the time Hitler invaded Poland, the General Staff were believers... and defeating France in less than a month? Well, invading the Soviet Union was an easy request.

----------


## RobertLafollet

The country was isolationist I think the evidence shows Roosevelt wanted to intervene.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

> Shocked?
> 
> Only in the way that a thief is surprised when his plans are foiled. Nazi Germany was not shocked because a tree suddenly landed on their head. They were up to no good.
> 
> The Generals were only surprised when the Allies did nothing at all. And, by the time they did? Hitler was a God. By the time Hitler invaded Poland, the General Staff were believers... and defeating France in less than a month? Well, invading the Soviet Union was an easy request.


Actually, the General Staff was afraid the French would move against Germany's western border if they moved against Poland in the East, and they had no knowledge until they actually attacked, that the Soviet Union had a secret pact with Hitler permitting them to take one half of Poland without firing a shot. The General Staff didn't really become believers in Hitler's plans, they had postponed the Polish and later the French invasion numerous times before executing it. Guderian came up with the idea of sending the armored attack through the Ardennes Forest, surprising and cutting off the French from the British BEF and knocking France out of the war, sending the Brits scurrying across the channel with their army, but no supplies. 

Had the General Staff had a plan in effect for Sea Lion, the invasion of England, Hitler probably would have initiated it. That was one of his strengths and vision that he trusted himself over his Generals, and proved his vision several times. That Britain was able to rescue 300,000 troops off of the Dunkirk beaches with a ragtag flotilla of scraped together leisure craft and fishing boats, proves that had the Germans had a plan to invade England in place, Hitler probably would have used it. 

The British insist the RAF and their navy would have wreaked havoc in the narrow English Channel to an attacking army, however, England's navy was scattered across the globe at the time. Their job was to keep the sea lanes open to America, or England would have starved. A U-Boat blockade of the English Channel to protect an invading force from France, would have stood a good chance of succeeding, the Luftwaffe was an equal match for the RAF, and one of the reasons the RAF won the 1940 Battle of Britain was that London was the tethered end of the Luftwaffe's reach. German bombers and fighters could only stay over the target for about 10-minutes before having to turn back to France to refuel. Every German aircraft shot down was a lost pilot, while any RAF plane shot down, the pilot landed on friendly soil. 

Actually, German surprise that England even went to war over Poland was possibly the fact that in his heart, Hitler expected them to sue for peace when France fell, and he didn't have the heart to destroy them. The German panzers arrived at the English Channel, flush with victory in Poland, The Netherlands, Belgium, and France, in less than six weeks, accomplishing what they couldn't in years in World War I. That the General Staff, still leery of Hitler's intentions and interference; that staff was in place for 100 years before World War II started; didn't have a plan to cross 23 miles of shallow water to England, was unfortunate for them. They had a good chance to end the war right then and there in 1940, which would have allowed them to consolidate power on the Continent and in England with a Vichy-type government, and invade the Soviet Union without an enemy in their rear. 

Shocked? Yes, the General Staff was about the Western Democracies going to war over Poland, and they failed Hitler because they didn't understand the speed in which armor could destroy defensive positions - or move quickly around it, as they did with France's Maginot Line. The Guderian plan through the Ardennes was a last minute change of offense for the German Army, which Hitler chanced, they were unfortunate in that they had no plan for Sea Lion to succeed, and went the air route, which was unsuccessful in trying to bring England to their knees. England was never really in danger of a crossing after about a month of Germany occupying France. They missed their chance........ - Stan -

----------


## Dave37

I think the US was isolationist because it remembered the senseless carnage of W1 but England and eventually the US had to face the fact the 2nd WW was different than the first. Still ironically, it turned out Hitler was the one of the best weapons the allies had.

----------


## Oberon

> Taxcutter says:
> Again discussing the symptom rather than the root cause.   If Japan had not invaded China proper (even the Chinese did not consider Manchuria to be anything but a territory) in 1937, the US would not hve embargoed oil and steel shipments to Japan in 1941.   FDR had spent the Thirties thundering against European colonialism.   He would not have gotten Congress (mostly his own party) to go along with an embargo over the occupation of Indochina without the pre-existing irritation of the war in China.
> 
> Get it?   No war in China - no embargo - no Pearl Harbor.   Period.   Isolationism was dominant in US politics prior to Pearl Harbor.
> Maybe ... if there were no war in China maybe the 1940 Navy Act is not so gigantic.


Actually as long as U.S. companies and our Euro allies were allowed to do business in China, the U.S. would have had no problems with Japan. The embargo actually aided the moderates in the Japanese govt. in promoting an open trading policy. What caused the war was Hitler's invasion of France, and the toppling of the moderates in Japan, followed by extorting Viet Nam and other French colonies and occupying them, and then making demands on the Dutch and British for similar 'concessions', endangering Roosevelt's 'Open Door' policy and threatening our tin, rubber, and oil concessions in Asia and the trade routes that go with them. The oil was strategically important at the time, before the Middle East fields were known to be as huge as they were discovered to be, and of course we had the usual mutual defense treaties with the Brits and Dutch to honor when the Japanese attacked them. If Hitler hadn't invaded and toppled France, the Japanese right wing, wouldn't have been so successful and taken over. The 1940 Navy Act was fine, it was the Japanese fascists being inspired by Hitler that caused the war, not China per se; if that were the U.S. concern, we would have allied with the Tsar in 1904.

----------


## Oberon

> I think the US was isolationist because it remembered the senseless carnage of W1 but England and eventually the US had to face the fact the 2nd WW was different than the first. Still ironically, it turned out Hitler was the one of the best weapons the allies had.


Mostly it was because wealth was highly concentrated in the U.S., the middle class was tiny compared to what it became after 1947, and the only people who could be taxed to support a standing army effectively were the giant corporation owners. They were no different then than now, all about 'globalism' and 'free trade', but didn't want to pay for the costs and the consequences of their own greed, same as today. The two policies are highly contradictory and can't work unilaterally, never have and never will,plus, if you let other powers take over unhindered, sooner or later you get eaten yourself. I would far prefer to avoid the latter, and fight small wars on other peoples' soil before they get big enough to start big wars. 

Currently, our wealthy class wants to cozy up to Red China, and could care less about the U.S. any more. They have no patriotism, don't give a rat's ass about 'free trade' or any of that BS, they only care about stuffing their own pockets, so no reason to be giving them all kinds of subsidies and support, let them go live in Peking with their new best friends; taking back America is taking our govt. back from international pirates, embezzlers, and labor racketeers, and deporting their domestic fans as well, almost all Democrats, and a large chunk of Republicans, too. Let some other countries enjoy them and their 'enlightened world views' for a while, like Somalia or Yemen.

----------



----------


## Thing 1

> If the US had not conquered the Philippines , we might never have butted heads with the Japanese.


Blame it on Spain and remember the Maine!

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Blame it on Spain and remember the Maine!


Highly unlikely Spain had anything to do with the Maine sinking.

----------


## Traddles

> Highly unlikely Spain had anything to do with the Maine sinking.


There are *conflicting modern studies*, but I think the most likely explanation is a coal fire in a bunker adjacent to a magazine that cooked of powder in that magazine. The Maine wasn't the height of naval architecture when she was commissioned. The *Indiana class of battleships*, while not spectacular, were more in the mainstream in 1898.

*USS Maine:*

USS_Maine_ACR-1_in_Havana_harbor_before_explosion_1898.jpg


h73975.jpg

----------


## Thing 1

"I Will Be Right Here Waiting For You" - Richard Marx.

----------


## StanAtStanFan

American policy until Pearl Harbor was isolationist, I am not aware of any mutual defense treaties we had with England or The Netherlands to support them if attacked, by Germany or Japan. When Pearl Harbor occurred, there was a surge of Yankee anger against "the yellow peril" and hundreds of thousands of men enlisted in our Armed Forces. Chief of Staff General Marshal rightly convinced Roosevelt that the huge buildup of U.S. general issues forces (GI's), should be used against Germany, not Japan, as the former were the more dangerous enemy. Admiral King and the Navy were told to hold until we had sufficient supplies and manpower to move against the Japanese. The victory at Midway destroying four Japanese aircraft carriers, and all their front line experienced pilots who hit Pearl Harbor, was decisive, however, Guadalcanal and other island hopping in the Pacific, moving toward Japan, was carried out with minimum forces at first. The Navy under Admiral Sprague, actually sailed away from protecting the Marines on Guadalcanal leaving them to their fate. They fought that battle using captured Japanese gasoline, inch by inch, hand-to-hand, as the Jap navy continued to nightly roll new supplies and troops down "The Slot." Roosevelt even spoke of Guadalcanal as a "mistake" which is political-speak for we are going to abandon the Marines. Fortunately Admiral King replaced Sprague with Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the Navy returned to protecting the island and Marines, and engaging the Jap navy moving down the straights at night, and America won that fight. 

General Marshal always was jealous of the publicity the American Marines received for their actions in World War I in France, and he made sure they were not used in the European theater, although their tactics of landing craft were. The Marines went "island hopping" across the Pacific with the Navy, tackling some of the hardest combat target ever; Tarawa; Guam; Saipan; Bougainvillea; Iwo Jima, Okinawa. Always building airfields on those islands, to aid the B-29 bombers returning from Tinian after bombing the home island of Japan, where many were damaged. After the American Army surrender at Bataan and Corrigedor in the Philippines, and the loss of the Cavite Naval Base there, which forced American submarines to return all the way back to Midway and Hawaii to refuel, the Army did little in the Pacific. MacArthur did have a land-based assault running parallel to the Navy through New Guinea, but it was the Marines and the Army Air Force which really broke Japan. The heroic and horrible fight on Iwo Jima, a tiny sulpher-infested island which took over a month and cost 3,800 thousand American lives, was simply attacked to build an airfield to allow the B-29's a place to land if damaged, hafway between Japan and Tinian. 

The Marines and the Army fight in different ways, although the D-Day landing was an entirely Marine-based operation in Europe, no Marines were taking part. The Marines are first in, establish a perimeter and control point, then leap forward again, and do exactly the same thing, waiting for the Army to move into the vacated area with the big guns, manpower, and tanks to move forward mopping up the enemy. In the Pacific, at one of the joint Marine-Army fights on the islands, Third Marine Division Commander, Howling "Mad" Smith, ordered the Army commander off of the battlefield for failing to move forward as required. Caused all sorts of political flak in Washington, but the order was obeyed, and General Smith's judgment was correct. General MacArthur was supposedly in command of the Pacific Theatre with Adrmiral Nimitz his counterpart in the Navy, but Mac was heading the land-based assault. Nimitez had control of the Naval and Marines contingent.

An interesting sidebar to the Pacific theater operations in World War II. Many of the Marines who were circling out in the ocean in the landing craft awaiting the order to move on the beaches, observed that the palm trees on the islands they attacked were in perfect rows  like they had been planted that way. They were. All of them were the property of the Colgate-Palmolive Company based out of Hawaii. Quietly, after the war, the U.S. Congress voted to reimburse Colgate-Palmolive $75 for every palm tree the Marines knocked down in the Pacific War on those islands. Consequently, my father, who was in the Third Marine Division, a Corporal, who received a Purple Heart on Guam, and invaded Bougainvillea, Guam and Iwo Jima, never allowed Colgate toothpaste or other products of that company, in our house. He also never used any Japanese products if he could avoid them, and never, ever rode in a Japanese automobile until the day he died..........- Stan -

----------


## Thing 1

So fake news (CNN) was alive and well in 1898?

----------


## Dave37

Sadly I saw a documentary on American troop burials in the Pacific in which the burials were lost, forgotten and sometimes built over. Reminded me of a similar story of WWI troops buried in the Middle East whose graveyard was now a swamp that nobody visits. Memorial day is to remember those who would be forgotten.

----------


## Traddles

> The victory at Midway destroying four Japanese aircraft carriers, and all their front line experienced pilots who hit Pearl Harbor ...


The PH attack was carried out by 6 carriers, not 4. Shokaku was damaged at Coral Sea, and Zuikaku suffered losses to her air group. So those two carriers and their air groups were not at Midway. Second, many IJN pilots from Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and Hiryu survived. Probably the worst losses to the IJN in personnel were the mechanics, plane handlers and armorers, who were as essential to carrier operations as were the pilots.

Kaga lost 21 air crewmen (pilots and crew)

Soryu lost 10 air crewmen

Akagi lost 7 air crewmen

Hiryu lost 72 air crewmen (hers was the air group that attacked both Midway _and_ TF17)

An additional 11 floatplane crewmen were lost (from cruisers and battleships). Among them, the carriers of Kido Butai lost 721 aircraft mechanics and technicians.

By way of context, IJN lost 110 aviators at Eastern Solomons in August, and 145 at Santa Cruz in October. At Eastern Solomons USS Enterprise was seriously damaged, and at Santa Cruz USS Hornet was sunk and Enterprise damaged again.

----------

Thing 1 (05-28-2018)

----------


## Traddles

Calling Midway decisive gets into messy, "What do words mean?" territory. If Midway never happened, if Kido Butai remained intact, the IJN would have 6 fleet carriers; the USN would have had, in July, 1942, Saratoga, Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet and Wasp (plus Ranger, which was deemed unsuitable for service in the Pacific). A year later the IJN had no new fleet carriers (and wouldn't for another year), while the USN's Essex class carriers were coming into commission. In battleships (BBs), most of the older BBs sunk at PH had been repaired and modernized, and beginning in the latter half of 1942, the two North Carolinas, four South Dakotas, and four Iowas started coming into the Pacific Theater. On the Japanese side, Yamato's sister, Musashi came into commission, but Nagato's sister, Mutsu sank due to a magazine explosion. In other words, Japan was going to lose, regardless of whether or not Midway happened. And in that sense, Midway was not decisive.

What was accomplished by Midway was a shifting of initiative from the IJN to the USN. The IJN's losses left it with just 2 fleet carriers, plus a handful of less useful light carriers; the USN had 4 fleet carriers, enough to encourage the attack at Guadalcanal. The Solomons were a meat grinder, but the IJN was much less able to replace losses, and despite losing Hornet and Wasp (and many cruisers and destroyers) the USN retained the initiative and never lost it. Taken together,Coral Sea, Midway and the Solomons reversed the momentum of the war in the Pacific.

----------


## Thing 1

> On the Japanese side, Yamato's sister, Musashi came into commission, but Nagato's sister, Mutsu sank due to a magazine explosion.


Not a "clip" explosion?

----------

Traddles (05-29-2018)

----------


## Traddles

> Not a "clip" explosion?


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  Well, I'm sure sure whether it held 5.5" or 16" shells, but it was definitely a high capacity magazine.

----------

Thing 1 (05-29-2018)

----------


## Taxcutter

> The PH attack was carried out by 6 carriers, not 4. Shokaku was damaged at Coral Sea, and Zuikaku suffered losses to her air group. So those two carriers and their air groups were not at Midway. Second, many IJN pilots from Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and Hiryu survived. Probably the worst losses to the IJN in personnel were the mechanics, plane handlers and armorers, who were as essential to carrier operations as were the pilots.
> 
> Kaga lost 21 air crewmen (pilots and crew)
> 
> Soryu lost 10 air crewmen
> 
> Akagi lost 7 air crewmen
> 
> Hiryu lost 72 air crewmen (hers was the air group that attacked both Midway _and_ TF17)
> ...


Taxcutter says:
Excellent point.   Carrier deck operations - a high art unto itself if you've ever seen it - was never the same for the IJN.
As the war ground on the IJN/IJA had the same thing happen to ground-based units.   Bases got neutralized and bypassed and all the mechanics had to do was figure out how to grow food on coral atolls.   It got so bad the IJNwas sending out its ever-more-scarce submarines to fetch mechanics off by-passed islands.




> By way of context, IJN lost 110 aviators at Eastern Solomons in August, and 145 at Santa Cruz in October. At Eastern Solomons USS Enterprise was seriously damaged, and at Santa Cruz USS Hornet was sunk and Enterprise damaged again.


Taxcutter says:
Another good point.   The Battle of Santa Cruz was the first use of the VT fuses in 5" DP guns.   The IJN pilots thought we had invented a 127mm machine gun.

Slightly off-topic.   In one of those battles the skipper of the _Enterprise_ pulled off an act of supreme seamanship.   He defeated a perfectly-executed "hammerhead" torpedo attack by eight Kates.   At flank speed, he tightened his turn by reversing two engines to comb one wake then threw his helm hard over and reversed the other two and went flank ahead on the first two to comb the second.   All four turbines were damaged but the _Enterprise_ came away with no torpedo holes.

----------


## Taxcutter

> Not a "clip" explosion?


The _Mutsu_, like the British ships used cordite propellant.   Cordite is unstable in the tropics.   IIRC the British had a battleship blow up somewhere in the tropics.   Cordite was deemed the culprit.

----------


## Taxcutter

> Calling Midway decisive gets into messy, "What do words mean?" territory. If Midway never happened, if Kido Butai remained intact, the IJN would have 6 fleet carriers; the USN would have had, in July, 1942, Saratoga, Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet and Wasp (plus Ranger, which was deemed unsuitable for service in the Pacific). A year later the IJN had no new fleet carriers (and wouldn't for another year), while the USN's Essex class carriers were coming into commission. In battleships (BBs), most of the older BBs sunk at PH had been repaired and modernized, and beginning in the latter half of 1942, the two North Carolinas, four South Dakotas, and four Iowas started coming into the Pacific Theater. On the Japanese side, Yamato's sister, Musashi came into commission, but Nagato's sister, Mutsu sank due to a magazine explosion. In other words, Japan was going to lose, regardless of whether or not Midway happened. And in that sense, Midway was not decisive.
> 
> What was accomplished by Midway was a shifting of initiative from the IJN to the USN. The IJN's losses left it with just 2 fleet carriers, plus a handful of less useful light carriers; the USN had 4 fleet carriers, enough to encourage the attack at Guadalcanal. The Solomons were a meat grinder, but the IJN was much less able to replace losses, and despite losing Hornet and Wasp (and many cruisers and destroyers) the USN retained the initiative and never lost it. Taken together,Coral Sea, Midway and the Solomons reversed the momentum of the war in the Pacific.



Taxcutter says:
In a way, the Solomons were the perfect place for the USN to square off against the IJN - inexperience and questionable equipment not withstanding.   Guadalcanal is about equidistant from Tokyo and San Francisco.   The USN's logistic advantage (just beginning to flex its muscles in summer/fall of 1942) gave the US a huge advantage.

Logistical excellence was the US ace in the hole.

----------

Authentic (05-07-2022)

----------


## Traddles

> Taxcutter says:
> Excellent point.   Carrier deck operations - a high art unto itself if you've ever seen it - was never the same for the IJN.


The whole process of gassing and arming, manhandling planes onto elevators, and then manhandling them to the rear of the flight deck was like a brute force ballet. Per Parshall & Tully, just the process of moving planes from hangars to flight deck, spotting the planes and arming the dive bombers for a full deck strike took 30-45 minutes. Of the 6 carriers of Kido Butai, Akagi and Kaga had the most experienced plane handlers and armorers, and Hiryu and Soryu were probably of similar skill. Shokaku and Zuikaku were relatively new, and their crews were still not up to what the older four carriers could do. Mechanics were a critical loss, too, because 1930s-1940s Japan was not as mechanized as the US, making for a deeper training learning curve.




> As the war ground on the IJN/IJA had the same thing happen to ground-based units.   Bases got neutralized and bypassed and all the mechanics had to do was figure out how to grow food on coral atolls.   It got so bad the IJNwas sending out its ever-more-scarce submarines to fetch mechanics off by-passed islands.


Probably by some time in 1943 the IJN's submarines had mostly been roped into supply and evacuation missions. Their boats were decent enough, but IJN culture spurned attacking non-combatant ships and focused on using submarines against warships. There were successes in the latter role - Yorktown and Wasp sunk, Saratoga hit twice and out of action for months each time, and North Carolina being hit. But an anti-shipping campaign like the USN did was just not IJN doctrine. Also, the IJN proliferated classes and capabilities. The USN had several pre-war classes, but they all were evolutionary steps toward the main WW2 classes, Gato and Balao.




> Taxcutter says:
> Another good point.   The Battle of Santa Cruz was the first use of the VT fuses in 5" DP guns.   The IJN pilots thought we had invented a 127mm machine gun.


The 5"/38 was an excellent weapon (and USN directors were also great, improving through the war). It was reasonably effective for surface battle but the mounts allowed use for AA. It also had a fairly fast firing rate because of how the ammunition was designed and it being "light" enough for manual loading. Prior to VT fuses (I don't know whether the IJN ever developed an equivalent) the targets' altitude was estimated and an appropriate time delay set. This wasn't great if the estimate was off or if the target was diving rapidly. The VT fuse had a little radar set that detected when it was within a certain distance of a plane and exploded the shell. Altitude was no longer part of the AA crew's problem, and if a 5" shell exploded, it did damage.

Slightly off-topic.   In one of those battles the skipper of the _Enterprise_ pulled off an act of supreme seamanship.   He defeated a perfectly-executed "hammerhead" torpedo attack by eight Kates.   At flank speed, he tightened his turn by reversing two engines to comb one wake then threw his helm hard over and reversed the other two and went flank ahead on the first two to comb the second.   All four turbines were damaged but the _Enterprise_ came away with no torpedo holes.[/QUOTE]

Another term for that attack was hammer-and-anvil. Basically it means that planes came in two groups, on on each side of the bow, angled so that no matter how the ship maneuvered it would almost certainly be hit. Doing that maneuver successfully with a 20,000 ton carrier was a crazy feat of timing and seamanship. Lexington and Saratoga could not have done it; they were 1920s battle cruiser conversions built for speed, not maneuverability (ditto Akagi, BTW). The Yorktown class carriers were purpose-designed carriers that incorporated all kinds of lessons learned in the Lexington class.

----------

Dave37 (05-29-2018)

----------


## Traddles

> The _Mutsu_, like the British ships used cordite propellant.   Cordite is unstable in the tropics.   IIRC the British had a battleship blow up somewhere in the tropics.   Cordite was deemed the culprit.


The contemporaneous IJN investigation concluded that it was due to a gunner's mate who was about to be court martialed for petty theft. One possibility ruled out, based on evidence and experiment, was a certain type of incendiary shell having caught fire. An alternate post-war theory is that there was an electrical fire in an adjoining compartment that raised the temperature in the magazine (of #3 main gun turret) high enough for the propellant to explode. Samples of propellant salvaged from Mutsu were compared to older and newer samples of the same propellant and were found to be unchanged. *This is a very brief history of Mutsu.*

----------


## Traddles

Since my posts about Midway are taking this thread pretty far from its much broader and more general topic, I'm going to copy my Midway-related posts and adapt them to my *book review thread about Shattered Sword*, and possibly continue on some of those points.

----------

Oberon (06-06-2018)

----------


## Oberon

> American policy until Pearl Harbor was isolationist, I am not aware of any mutual defense treaties we had with England or The Netherlands to support them if attacked, by Germany or Japan.  -


Five Power Agreement, violated by Japan, Four Power Treaty, also violated by Japan, Nine Power Treaty, violated by Japan. The latter was the 'Open Door Policy' for China', a premise Roosevelt and many Republicans as well expected to have for all of Asia.

Other treaties outside the League Of Nations framework contributed indirectly, Locarno, etc. to the eventual neutering of the League, and thus to international instability; Japan's right wing in particular thought all this were signs of weakness, and acted accordingly.

----------


## MrogersNhood

The Japs were brutal in China, thank God they got stopped.


Atrocities worse than one could imagine.

There's a reason we nuked their ass.

They had to be stopped.

As did the 3rd reich.


Torpedoing cruise ships? Really?

You gotta go.


I had an uncle that invaded Normandy, and if he fell asleep in his chair, sometimes, he'd have nightmares and be right there on the beach.

----------


## Authentic

> If the US had not conquered the Philippines , we might never have butted heads with the Japanese.


Maybe post of the century!

I believe that the Spanish-American War was the United States' worst mistake.

F- the _Maine_!

----------


## Authentic

> Taxcutter says:
> In a way, the Solomons were the perfect place for the USN to square off against the IJN - inexperience and questionable equipment not withstanding.   Guadalcanal is about equidistant from Tokyo and San Francisco.   The USN's logistic advantage (just beginning to flex its muscles in summer/fall of 1942) gave the US a huge advantage.
> 
> Logistical excellence was the US ace in the hole.


Yeah, except for the U.S. Navy running from Guadalcanal in early August 1942, with many of thevammo, weapons, and food that they were tasked with supplying the 1 Marine chapter.

----------


## Traddles

Since we're into alternate-history speculation ... Japan acquired the island of Formosa from China in 1897, through the first Sino-Japanese War. IMO, whether still a Spanish colony, a US territory, or independent, I think Japan would still have invaded and conquered the Philippines,  so as to secure the passage of oil and other resources through the Luzon Strait.

The first few days at sea at Guadalcanal were a cluster-____. The cargo ships with supplies for the Marines were not "combat loaded", i.e. loaded in such a way that the lost important things got offloaded earliest. The unloading process was ill coordinated. The overly-cautious Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher over-estimated the risk of Japanese land-based air and pulled out his carrier force. The Battle of Savo Island. With the carriers gone and most of the covering cruisers on the bottom of Iron Bottom Sound, the unprotected cargo ships pulled out.

However, though not as quickly as needed, the USN did get supplies, reinforcements, and aircraft to Guadalcanal, and while the IJN could deliver troops, they were not able to deliver the supplies to keep them fed nor the heavy weaponry and ammunition the IJA needed. Henderson Field, USN carriers, and USN surface forces combined to prevent the IJA from getting the supplies they needed, at great cost to the USN in carriers, cruisers, and destroyers.

Logistically, 1942 was operating on a shoestring for the USN, but 1943 was when things were turning around. OTOH, Japan was operating on a shoestring from the start, and were never really able to replace their losses, let alone increase their auxiliary and merchant fleets.

----------

Authentic (05-09-2022)

----------


## Quark

> That also applies to Wilson involving the US in WWI, which would have probably ended the same as the above quote, and WWII would probably have not have happened, or at least with the same players and dynamics.


You beat me too it. Without US involvement in WWI there would most likely not have been a WWII ands Hitler would have been a nobody.

----------


## ruthless terrier

i think it is silly trying to speculate what would have happened had the US not been involved. I also believe that Germany was going to war no matter what. for WW2 to have ended differently it would have meant that WW1 ended differently.

----------

