[What if] Pearl Harbour and the Pacific.

[weemadando]

US could well have ceded the Philipinnes as part of an "honourable peace" in exchange for guaranteed trade etc with the new Empire. After all, why fight when you can get someone else to handle the issues in the region and you get produce at slightly above cost. And are you really trying to tell me that the isolationist American gov't of the late 30's and early 40's would have gone to war over Japan's continued occupation of China?

You're ignoring the Death March. One American soldier dead every few meters of a path that was a few hundred kilometers long (I can pull the exact numbers from Ghost Soldiers later, but I have an exam in half an hour). America would not overlook that.

*sigh*

The bataan death march wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't joined the war a la this scenario.

Hell, in order to keep the US onside, they would have likely shipped them to a neutral country and treated them like royalty.

You keep overlooking the obvious.

[Axis Kast]

An Imperial Japan would probably not have lasted to the Cold War.

Had one developed, we probably would have provided limited assistance - but only after Russia had more or less "kicked in the door" on their Manchurian holdings and threatened an invasion of Hokkaido from Sakhalin.

[Axis Kast]

An "honorable peace?" Hardly. We didn't want a Japanese lake any more than the British - even if for different reasons.

America would never be seen to bargain territory for the false promise of peace - even to the ascendant Empire of Japan.

[The Dark]

US could well have ceded the Philipinnes as part of an "honourable peace" in exchange for guaranteed trade etc with the new Empire. After all, why fight when you can get someone else to handle the issues in the region and you get produce at slightly above cost. And are you really trying to tell me that the isolationist American gov't of the late 30's and early 40's would have gone to war over Japan's continued occupation of China?

You're ignoring the Death March. One American soldier dead every few meters of a path that was a few hundred kilometers long (I can pull the exact numbers from Ghost Soldiers later, but I have an exam in half an hour). America would not overlook that.

*sigh*

The bataan death march wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't joined the war a la this scenario.

Hell, in order to keep the US onside, they would have likely shipped them to a neutral country and treated them like royalty.

You keep overlooking the obvious.

The Death March occurred not because of the fact of the war; indeed, the general in charge attempted to make it as easy as possible. Japanese Intelligence had underestimated the number of soldiers the US had by 2/3. Under this and the xenophobia of the Japanese Military, I find the presumption that something similar to the Death March would not occur to be a shaky argument.

[weemadando]

The Death March occurred not because of the fact of the war; indeed, the general in charge attempted to make it as easy as possible. Japanese Intelligence had underestimated the number of soldiers the US had by 2/3. Under this and the xenophobia of the Japanese Military, I find the presumption that something similar to the Death March would not occur to be a shaky argument.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! The stupidity burns my mind!

THE DEATH MARCH WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURED HAD THE WAR NOT OCCURED. THE DEATH MARCH WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE WAR.

[Thunderfire]

Although, if the US had waited just a couple years for war entry, the Germans would have a huge leap technology wise, possibly fielding squadrons of jet fighters with experienced pilots that would have decimated allied air forces.

The russians will decimate the germans long before this happens. Germany need the
defeat the russians if it want to get those toys. This only will happen with internal
help turning the russians into an german ally.

[Glocksman]

The russians will decimate the germans long before this happens. Germany need the defeat the russians if it want to get those toys.

Now this I doubt. The Germans were already fielding some of those toys in 1944. If the US had been genuinely (no Lend-Lease) neutral, the USSR would have been hard pressed to manufacture the numbers of weapons that they did.

How fewer tanks would the USSR have been able to produce if they also had to make up the loss of the 427,000 western built trucks and 210,000 automobiles that were supplied under lend-lease? Would the Red Army have been as effective without the 5 million tons of food that the US supplied?

IIRC, the US and Britain also supplied over half of the high octane avgas used by the USSR during the war.

Absent this aid and much more that I haven't listed, the Germans would have lasted much longer against a Red Army that would be short of some critical materials. Perhaps long enough to get some of their more interesting toys into operation.

I don't think they would have won, but it would have lasted a lot longer.

[MKSheppard]

THE DEATH MARCH WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURED HAD THE WAR NOT OCCURED. THE DEATH MARCH WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE WAR.

You can't invade the phillipines and not expect the US of A to come out
and fucking kick your ass into next fucking year....honourable peace my
ass...

[Gandalf]

If Japan had played their cards right, they could have been seen as a force against Communism-- but then again, the US was only moderatly concerned about Russian Communism at that point (compared to the later hysteria and Red Scare).

Actually the "Western Powers" at this point were still scared as hell about communism, especially now Stalin was at the helm of a very big and scary army.

[weemadando]

THE DEATH MARCH WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURED HAD THE WAR NOT OCCURED. THE DEATH MARCH WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE WAR.

You can't invade the phillipines and not expect the US of A to come out
and fucking kick your ass into next fucking year....honourable peace my
ass...

Grrrr... You people are missing the point. Had the Japanese not been at war with the US, would they still have invaded the Phillipines? Or would there have been a diplomatic arrangement made?

The concept of an "honourable peace" was very popular amongst the Japanese government and diplomatic corps. And like I've said, had the US been guaranteed trade with the new Japan and access to all its holdings, would they have bothered going to war in the pacific? Especially if Hawaii and the Aleutians weren't threatened.

[phongn]

Grrrr... You people are missing the point. Had the Japanese not been at war with the US, would they still have invaded the Phillipines? Or would there have been a diplomatic arrangement made?

I think they would have hit the Phillipine Islands. It would remain a very dangerous chink in their defense plans - it had quite a few troops, an USAAF that was gaining in strength as well as the facilities to support the USN.

The concept of an "honourable peace" was very popular amongst the Japanese government and diplomatic corps.

An honorable peace by their viewpoint, but the US diplomatic position certainly did not match it. The US demands that they withdraw from Manchuria were particularly vexing; and at this point in time the miltary is still the dominant force in Imperial Japan.

And like I've said, had the US been guaranteed trade with the new Japan and access to all its holdings, would they have bothered going to war in the pacific?

Why would we trade with Japan, though? It was the US who laid down the embargo with Japan despite the very real possibility of trade with them.

Especially if Hawaii and the Aleutians weren't threatened.

But Japanese encroachment throughout Asia would threaten a certain protectorate which was an important component of War Plan Orange and it's Japanese counterpart.

[The Dark]

THE DEATH MARCH WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURED HAD THE WAR NOT OCCURED. THE DEATH MARCH WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE WAR.

You can't invade the phillipines and not expect the US of A to come out
and fucking kick your ass into next fucking year....honourable peace my
ass...

Grrrr... You people are missing the point. Had the Japanese not been at war with the US, would they still have invaded the Phillipines? Or would there have been a diplomatic arrangement made?

America had already levied an embargo against Japan, and Japan wanted all of Asia as part of their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. It is unlikely that Japan would have sought a diplomatic solution, and a snowball's chance in Hell that the US would have surrendered the Philippines to them.

The concept of an "honourable peace" was very popular amongst the Japanese government and diplomatic corps.

Unfortunately, the military ran the government, in particular the Army, and they had no desire for peace. The diplomats literally did not know their own nation's foreign policy (as evidenced by the Pearl Harbor diplomatic incident).

And like I've said, had the US been guaranteed trade with the new Japan and access to all its holdings, would they have bothered going to war in the pacific? Especially if Hawaii and the Aleutians weren't threatened.

Yes, because the US did still care about its allies. They were isolationist enough not to get embroiled in a war in China, but the State Department forged passports for the AVG and supplied them with 100 aircraft to fight for the Chinese. As far as I can tell, the USA wanted to contain Japan where it currently held territory, much like the Cold War and the USSR. If Japan tried to expand its influence, the US would increase pressure to attempt to force them back within their borders, whether diplomatically, economically, or (as a last resort) militarily.

[Thunderfire]

The russians will decimate the germans long before this happens. Germany need the defeat the russians if it want to get those toys.

Now this I doubt. The Germans were already fielding some of those toys in 1944. If the US had been genuinely (no Lend-Lease) neutral, the USSR would have been hard pressed to manufacture the numbers of weapons that they did.

Lend-lease will still happen in some way or another. Several US comanies even
supplied germany well into 42-43.

[Glocksman]

Lend-lease will still happen in some way or another. Several US comanies even
supplied germany well into 42-43.

It may have happened in some way in the beginning, but how long do you think it would have went on without the US entry into the war?

The US public was sympathetic towards Britain.

By no means did the USSR inspire the same sympathy (outside of the usual circle of left wing idiots). Without the war to force the US, UK, and the USSR into what was an unnatural alliance of the democracies with the world's most repressive dictatorship, how long would USSR Lend-Lease last?

Not very damn long with Senators like Truman who once stated that we should help the side that is losing so they can wipe each other out.

Roosevelt would have been willing to aid the USSR (as he hated Germany), but Congress probably wouldn't have gone along with it in the end as control of both the House and Senate rested in the hands of an alliance of southern (conservative) Democrats and Republicans. The 1942 elections were not good ones for 'progressive' Democrats who would have backed FDR.

Mind you, all this is absent US entry into the European war. Hitler foolishly honored his treaty with the Japanese and declared war on the US aftert they attacked PH.

Before this, however, Hitler was going out of his way to avoid giving FDR a casus belli, while FDR was doing everything he could to both provide aid to Britain and provoke Hitler in an undeclared naval war in the Atlantic.

Perhaps the more interesting question would be what if Hitler hadn't honored that treaty and didn't declare war on the US?

[phongn]

Perhaps the more interesting question would be what if Hitler hadn't honored that treaty and didn't declare war on the US?

We'd be sucked in eventually with that undeclared war in the Atlantic. We had already lost the Reuban James.

[Sea Skimmer]

Japan could never tolerate the Philippines remaining in American hands, and an attack on those islands would bring the US down on Japan just as Pearl Harbor had.

The only reason why a Pearl Harbor strike was not part of Japanese war plans earlier in history was that they thought they'd need at least three fleet carriers to take on the Philippines. But the introduction of the long ranged Zero allowed them to have fighter cover out of Formosa, which combined with the addition of several more carriers to the fleet gave them quite a lot of combat power with nothing else to attack.

[Sea Skimmer]

I doubt they'd be able to even attempt to invade Hawaii, the logistics of it are the stuff of nightmares.

They'd have needed somthing like a half million tons of shipping to supply an invasion force and support it. Mind you, Japan started the war with 6.5 million tons, but needed 10 million tons to run its economy with only the war in China.

[Axis Kast]

Pearl Harbor was an attempt to blunt the American Pacific Fleet in anticipation of retaliation over the conquest of the Phillipines. An invasion of the later necessitated destruction of the former. Hawaii was in fact a secondary – or even tertiary – objective as compared to the American infrastructure and fighting units on Luzon, Panay, and Mindanao. The point of the matter was that Pearl Harbor’s destruction was necessary in order to secure their flank against potential American retaliation. The Japanese were already wary over what kind of portents Roosevelt’s economic sanctions carried with them. There was no reason to assume that if sucked into the war with Germany – which again seemed quite likely given Lend Lease and unrestricted submarine warfare –, Japan wouldn’t ultimately follow once Britain and France decided to go a second round in the Pacific.

[phongn]

I doubt they'd be able to even attempt to invade Hawaii, the logistics of it are the stuff of nightmares.

They'd have needed somthing like a half million tons of shipping to supply an invasion force and support it. Mind you, Japan started the war with 6.5 million tons, but needed 10 million tons to run its economy with only the war in China.

All those freighters probably would be easy targets for the Pacific Fleet's submarine force, even with their defective torpedos.

[Sea Skimmer]

All those freighters probably would be easy targets for the Pacific Fleet's submarine force, even with their defective torpedos.

Not to mention surface raiders and carrier strikes, even if they went south through the Marshals first, which would add thousands of miles to the trip, any convoy would be highly exposed for a considerable time.

Escorts would be weak at best, the trip from the Marshals take up most of the fuel supply of your average IJN DD, and that from Japan proper requires a fueling. They'd also need carriers and cruisers at the least. To avoid being cut to pieces by the Ranger or whatever carriers are still left until the Essex shows up.

Though the whole thing would never happen. The fuel doesn't exist to refill the DD's with, the shipping can't be spare, and Japan simply doesn't have much of any chance of taking the Islands. They always had a couple divisions as a garrison, and Japans attempts at opposed landings did very poorly. An attack on Dec7th wouldn't be viable, Japan has no troops to spare for such a secondary invasion and can't give up any of her main objectives, while later on the islands are basically impregnable.

Combindfleet.com has a good page on why a Japanese invasion of the Hawaiian islands couldn't be launched in the first place and even if it could, why it wouldn't work and why even if it did it would gain Japan nothing while absorbing huge amounts of resources.

[Coyote]

Had I been in charge of the Japanese war plans, I'd've had subs waiting off the Hawaiian Islands and several battle groups tasked to the area. Then attack the Phillippines-- if the US makes bellicose comments but nothing else; fine. But if they declare war, make them to come to me at the end of their logistical chain...

Have the subs and surface groups harry them so that it will be a battered and demoralized fleet that reaches the Phillipines; have other sub groups take out any supply vessels generating out of San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. Basically apply what the Germans had learned in the Atlantic seaboard.

If the US fleet is sunk out by the Phillipines, in the high seas, it would be unrecoverable/unsalvageable. They were still thinking in terms of the battleship being the prime strike arm, so they may well have made similar erroneous assumptions about the Imperial Japanese fleet... Make sure carriers go to the bottom first so even if the Yanks catch on to the new way of war on the high seas, it'll be too late. Then send the battleships down, or as they present themselves if they get aggressive with the carriers. Additional sub screens will help with this...

Afterwards, offer the Yanks a chance to sue for peace, explain that we really care about China and use he magic words 'fighting Communism'. Even if they don't call off the war, or continue but in a truncated and pedestrian manner, an announcement like that will give a sop to the isolationists and those who saw Stalin as more of a threat than the Axis.

If they persist, keep the war bottled up close to the West Coast with subs, maybe mount daring raids to sieze the Panama Canal, Aleuts, or Hawaii-- mostly as a propaganda coup.

[Sea Skimmer]

The IJN could only maintain a naval taskforce off Pearl Harbor for about one day before it would have to withdraw to refuel. Such a force would also be very easily detected and be venerable if it remained close to the base without striking at it.

[Frank Hipper]

A few problems with your scenario....

The U.S. fleet would have sent the Japanese to the bottom in a surface action. Numerical superiority and a qualitative edge.

The Japanese never learned how to use their fine submarines.

[Sea Skimmer]

A few problems with your scenario....

The U.S. fleet would have sent the Japanese to the bottom in a surface action. Numerical superiority and a qualitative edge.

The Japanese never learned how to use their fine submarines.

They proved quite able at diving to the bottom of the ocean and never again surfacing to evade further attacks........

[Glocksman]

Afterwards, offer the Yanks a chance to sue for peace, explain that we really care about China and use he magic words 'fighting Communism'.

After sinking the entire Pacific Fleet while occupying the Philippines, the only peace the US would consider making with Japan at that point would be a Carthaginian peace.

In other words, the US war machine would spring to life and focus on Japan.

What a lot of people don't realize about the Pacific war was that it was a sideshow to the European war for the US until VE day. FDR and Churchill had a 'Europe first' strategy from the very beginning of the US entry into the war.

Sink the entire PacFlt and FDR wouldn't have been able to resist the public demand for vengeance on Japan.

More practically, the need to replace the entire lost fleet would divert resources from Europe to the Japanese war.