What if Pearl Harbor failed?

[JoanDrake]

My understanding is that there were enough planes at Hickham Field to give the Japanese attackers at least a good fight if they had heeded the Radar warning they got and had them in the air waiting. (The operators thought they were returning friendly planes)

What if the attack had failed, and spectacularly because the American planes followed the attackers back and then more planes and ships from Pearl attacked the Task Force.

Would the Tojo cabinet fall? and can a government call off a war they started.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It did fail anyway as they only succeeded in bringing USA into the war and didn't achieve their objectives, not enough US ships and infrastructure destroyed.

 

[Cathbad]

It did fail anyway as they only succeeded in bringing USA into the war and didn't achieve their objectives, not enough US ships and infrastructure destroyed.

But had they pressed their advantage... ?

 

[Shyrka]

Hard to say but from what I've read it didn't make a huge difference to the war in the pacific - crucially the US didn't lose any aircraft carriers (they lost a significant number of battleships but these were quickly becoming obsolete). If they'd actually been there and had been sunk or damaged, it would have made a much greater difference.

 

[Cathbad]

Yes, but the Japanese never even tried to follow up on their attack. That was (thank the gods) a vital strategic mistake.

 

[The Ace]

Did you see what happened when P-40s and F4Fs tangled with Zeros ?

While Japanese casualties would've undoubtedly been heavier, Japan's superiority in fighters would've given them the advantage - the bombers acting as bait for the US fighters, and the Japanese giving them a doing.

The Japanese may've been persuaded to send in a third wave - and clobber the fuel supplies and dockyard facilities that historically survived - but the USA would've been brought into the War on the Allied side just the same, and the war would've pretty much followed its historical course.

In some ways, Pearl Harbour was a failure. Aircrews watched their planes destroyed on the ground, but survived to fight again. Sailors leapt from their burning ships and swam ashore, and every single one of them wanted his revenge on the, "Little Yellow B*st*rds." The failure to launch a third wave simply gave them the means to make a start.

 

[Toby Frost]

Er, shouldn't this thread be in the history forum?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Good point - moved!

 

[BAYLOR]

Even had it failed, it still would have still been enough to bring the Us into the war . It's failure would have dealt Japan a huge blow both Militarily and morally. It might even have shorted the war in the pacific . But the question is what would Germany have done in response? Would seeing a failure on the part of of Japan at Pearl Harbor make Hitler hesitate to declare war on the US?

 

[BAYLOR]

Yes, but the Japanese never even tried to follow up on their attack. That was (thank the gods) a vital strategic mistake.

A third attack would taken out the fuel depots and the ship yards.

 

[Foxbat]

Pearl Harbour was never meant than anything more than a delaying tactic.

Yamamoto knew that Japan could never defeat the USA once its industrial might had been geared for war. The plan (based on the UK's attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto) was to make it so costly for the Americans to rebuild that they'd sue for peace rather than enter a prolonged conflict. As Yamamoto put it, they had a tiger by the tail.

The fact that the USA didn't sue for peace and continued until they gained unconditional surrender means that Pearl Harbour was a failure.

An even greater failure was Japanese submarine strategy. If they'd used them as the Germans did (as commerce raiders) they could have caused much more damage than they did by just targeting military vessels and would have forced the allies to commit large numbers of ships to convoy duty.

 

[BAYLOR]

Pearl Harbour was never meant than anything more than a delaying tactic.

Yamamoto knew that Japan could never defeat the USA once its industrial might had been geared for war. The plan (based on the UK's attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto) was to make it so costly for the Americans to rebuild that they'd sue for peace rather than enter a prolonged conflict. As Yamamoto put it, they had a tiger by the tail.

The fact that the USA didn't sue for peace and continued until they gained unconditional surrender means that Pearl Harbour was a failure.

An even greater failure was Japanese submarine strategy. If they'd used them as the Germans did (as commerce raiders) they could have caused much more damage than they did by just targeting military vessels and would have forced the allies to commit large numbers of ships to convoy duty.

Japans sat that time industrial capacity and output was about 1/5 that of the US.

 

[Caledfwlch]

It is highly unlikely that even a severe ass kicking would have forced the Emperor and his cabinet to back away from a War.

Even losing 1 City to the first Atomic bomb was not enough. Remember, when talking about Imperial Japan in the 40's we are talking about a Civil and Military Leadership that was not even remotely sane and sensible. We are talking about a Brutal regime sent collectively mad by militaristic delusions, and the vision of their Emperor as half God.

As horrifying as the result of 2 Atom Bombs detonating were, a conventional invasion of the Home Islands would have led to incredible Allied Casualties for every single foot of land, and the Japanese casualties would have been completely mind boggling - whilst, eventually the Allies would have won, we are probably talking about a near enough extinction of Japanese Males of Military age, and just as boggling figures of women and children who have committed suicide rather than be captured/occupied.

Whilst Hitler and a lot of the top Nazis were not exactly Sane, at least many of the senior men in the Wehrmacht were.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Even losing 1 City to the first Atomic bomb was not enough

An American distortion.
They WERE discussing surrender. The Russians were doing very well in the north.
If neither bomb had been dropped, it's plausible they would have surrendered within months, with combination of Russian advance and American blockade. Conventional bombing had killed more Japanese than an Atomic bomb and would have continued.

a conventional invasion of the Home Islands would have led to incredible Allied Casualties for every single foot of land,

Another American justification. Simply faulty extrapolation of Okinawa, that was ignoring Russian gains in the North. There was no need for Americans to advance.

The Atomic bombs were not needed. The Western governments will never admit it as they were war crimes. They may have helped avert an Atomic WWIII, as they were a strong message to the Russians / USSR.

 

[BAYLOR]

An American distortion.
They WERE discussing surrender. The Russians were doing very well in the north.
If neither bomb had been dropped, it's plausible they would have surrendered within months, with combination of Russian advance and American blockade. Conventional bombing had killed more Japanese than an Atomic bomb and would have continued.


Another American justification. Simply faulty extrapolation of Okinawa, that was ignoring Russian gains in the North. There was no need for Americans to advance.

The Atomic bombs were not needed. The Western governments will never admit it as they were war crimes. They may have helped avert an Atomic WWIII, as they were a strong message to the Russians / USSR.

Okinawa gave us a hint of what we would gotten had we invaded. Japan's government was determined to fight on and that would meant a very costly invasion which would of meant massive casualties on both sides and it would prolonged the war fro a another year two. The bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war an ultimately saved lives and eded the war.

 

[Foxbat]

Figures for Okinawa
Allied casualties - 12,500 listed killed or missing. 82000 casualties in total.
An estimated 110,071 Japanese soldiers killed.
It's estimated that between 30,000 and 100,000 civilians died. Some from mass suicides. Both sides shot at civilians indiscriminately.

I often wonder if a naval blockade would have been a better choice. The Allies could have continued to degrade what was left of the Japanese military through bombardment and bombing.

If the Allies had been prepared to wait then the nukes might not have been necessary. I tend to think that there was an element of politics involved and that Truman wanted the Soviets to see what the Americans had in their arsenal. Also, I don't think they'd want the USSR to make too many advances and therefore went for a swift conclusion to the war.

 

[BAYLOR]

Figures for Okinawa
Allied casualties - 12,500 listed killed or missing. 82000 casualties in total.
An estimated 110,071 Japanese soldiers killed.
It's estimated that between 30,000 and 100,000 civilians died. Some from mass suicides. Both sides shot at civilians indiscriminately.

I often wonder if a naval blockade would have been a better choice. The Allies could have continued to degrade what was left of the Japanese military through bombardment and bombing.

If the Allies had been prepared to wait then the nukes might not have been necessary. I tend to think that there was an element of politics involved and that Truman wanted the Soviets to see what the Americans had in their arsenal. Also, I don't think they'd want the USSR to make too many advances and therefore went for a swift conclusion to the war.

The japanese had kamikaze planes, Ships , submarines and motorboats all ready for action. The japanese populace was also prepared to wage war against any incoming invasion force. If we had invaded would been a nightmare for everyone.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The japanese had kamikaze planes, Ships , submarines and motorboats all ready for action. The japanese populace was also prepared to wage war against any incoming invasion force. If we had invaded would been a nightmare for everyone.

Yet the Russians were dramatically advancing.

I just simply don't believe any American media / government statements about the end of the War in the Pacific any longer. They ignore the USSR rapid advance* and the Japanese documents to spin the Atom bomb justification based on the Okinawa scenario, which would not have been repeated.
Blockade.

It wasn't about winning, but sending a message to the USSR.

[*The USSR had been neutral and only declared war / started attacking Japan a little earlier as resources arrived from the west via rail]

 

[nzreader]

The bomb was for Russia telling them to watch out. I think it gave Hirohito a wake up call too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lynnfredricks]

I just simply don't believe any American media / government statements about the end of the War in the Pacific any longer. They ignore the USSR rapid advance* and the Japanese documents to spin the Atom bomb justification based on the Okinawa scenario, which would not have been repeated.

The US had troops cached in the Aleutian Islands in preparation for a fight with the USSR. They were not ignoring it.

Although the Japanese were considering alternatives, there was no reason for the US to wait, see and accept anything but an unconditional surrender and the end of the empire of Japan.

The few days between the two bombs seems a bit short to me. US planes dropped messages which basically said "Surrender now, look at what just happened in Hiroshima" but that had little apparent effect. Maybe there was a channel of communication open in which the Japanese could have made a decision to surrender and communicate that to the US.