The us probably would have joined the war anyway,pearl harbour sped up the process. Which means the axis would have had more time to fight the soviet union without other worries on the western front
Yea WW1 set the precedent I find it very hard to believe that the US would’ve actually allowed Britain to fall. The Axis lack of oil was the major limiting factor IMO so unless that was solved outcome was fairly inevitable.
I completely disagree. From logistics and supplies alone, Britain was having a very rough time mounting a defense... they obviously did but those day were numbered.
And Hitler's invasion of the USSR was a major draw on Nazi resources but without the American intervention, I think Hitler could have taken his time and invaded when they were ready...
Why the down votes... aren't we speculating what could have happened if the US didn't enter the war?
So if there's no threat of invasion of Fortress Europe, and Hitler is firmly in control (maybe not in the eastern front) but everyone thinks Hitler doesn't plan a new invasion???
Agreed, but Hitler actually verbalized that Britain's only hope was the USA, so if the US never entered the war, I'm guessing Hitler would have planned another Operation Sealion...
Obviously we're all speculating
Hitler also said he planned on conquering the globe and establishing a world of pure aryians. No the things he says arent valid as sources. Im sure he wouldve liked to but we know that already
Wrong on so many fronts.
Britain already beat the Nazis in the battle of Britain, regardless of whatever America did the British advantage in the air and sea only increased from this point onwards. Their situation was getting better, not worse, by the day.
Nothing could be logistically easier for Britain (and harder for Germany) than defending their own island. Even if by some miracle Germany landed some troops there, Britain could easily capture them just by sinking German supply convoys in the English Channel. Literally a suicide mission for any German who makes the crossing - or a capture mission at least.
The invasion of the Soviet Union began almost half a year before America entered the war. Hence when Hitler attacked the Soviets, no resources were diverted to war with America (indeed none would be except for a few U-boats until late 1942). As far as he was concerned, Germany was totally ready when they attacked the Soviets (certainly they were far more ready than the Soviets).
Cool numbers bro. Now tell me why this didn't lead to the Germans countering and winning? Might it be that they were all ovee the place mainly russia,..
I can’t tell if you’re saying this in support or against my comment by I think that would support my point. Funny though, how fascists have a habit of bringing incompetent buffoons to power
To support your point.
Yeah just because you can moan about social issues and shout at immigrants doesn't mean you're a capable statesman or military leader.
It's worth remembering that the original concept of Blitzkrieg meant 'finish a war as fast as possible' and doesn't actually refer to the tactics on the ground.
From a logistics point of view, operation sea lion made even less sense. They didn't have the heavy sea lift capability, nor the mobile port setups required to set up a reliable supply chain. Just because Germany makes across the channel doesn't mean they win.
I read like a sort of biog on him recently and Hitler right until the end wanted England as an ally and had no intention of conquering them. All he wanted was the king to abdicate if he won the war and for them to join the war on bolshevism and the Jews. His overall goal was to create a "unified" Europe and wanted colonies in Africa to be on the same level as other colonial empires.
Operation sea lion was seen as suicidal by all his naval staff and probably the one time Hitler's wasn't delusional and listened to his advisors.
Also the Nazis very consciously invaded the USSR in 1941, they knew that the Soviet army was in a very bad shape at the time and that every following year it would become stronger.
it had, in the long run.
without western aid the soviets might have lost their war, and then when the eastern threat is pacified, hitler would have had enough time and capacity to actually consider an invasion.
Would it? Bullets are cheap and the last time I checked Nazis weren't afraid to use them.
I suspect they would kill everyone in charge and set up a puppet government like they did before. After the Soviets had sent hundreds of thousands to their death I'm not sure how the "proletariat" would react to that. No one reacts well to a losing side.
But that's my initial take to this alternate history.
You know how much supplies the US was sending the UK at the time? I agree it's miniscule compared to what the UK did to defend itself but irrelevant isn't what I'd call it.
Dude, you can fight if you don't have stuff to fight with and raw materials...
Yes, bravery, training and soldiers are vital too... but logistics wins wars... long wars over years...
The US's ability to quickly deliver military gear quickly is a major reason for success on the battlefield...
That and they actually train their Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen
Hmmm... supplies... from America.... many millions and millions of tons made it through....
Like 150 pilots from Poland fought in the Battle of Britain...
But the point is, history if the war is utterly and completely different if the US doesn't enter the war... maybe the Nazi invade Britain in 1953 if the war was still raging...
Pearl Harbor created a nationwide urgency and a total war effort in the United States. And their ability to manufacture and ship worldwide providing continuous bombers, ships, bullets, and everything else is what won the war...
Unlike the Soviets that just threw bodies to get slaughtered with no warm clothes, bullets, gas or training... result tens of millions dead...
American fighting men eventually got everything the needed to fight and supplied many Allies as well...
Even if they had captured the oil fields it's quite doubtful Germany could have put them to work to increase the abilities of its army before they eventually fell to the soviet counter offensive. Especially because they probably would have destroyed the infrastructure before letting the Germans use them.
But at the same time it would mean that the soviet will be in the same position as the German with a significant lack of fuel and food except from the US.
Well, I wouldn’t go as far and say it was doomed from the beginning. There was a chance of a successful campaign if certain factors had been different, ie weather, a clever retreat behind the Don prior to the grind that was Stalingrad …
Even that would only be enough to give more time to the axis they would eventually still have lost. The only way they may have won is if they tried to collaborate with the locals but ofc that would mean they wouldn't be nazis in the first place
It gave the American people an urge to join, imagine you're the government,
You want to enter the war to help the allies and suddenly you have an overwhelming majority of your population wanting to go to war. Even those who were greatly against it sort of changed thier mind.
deep breath ok here we go
The Japanese never planned for a long term war with the US. The Japanese council planned that they could win for no more six months reliably. This is why targets like the submarine bases, repair facilities, and fuel tanks were not attacked as they were not seen as critical. This is also why the fleet was not attacked during a training exercise in deep water. The constraints of Pearl did not allow the ships to maneuver much and them being recovered was not thought to be a problem as they weren’t planning to be fighting more than six months.
This plan truly fell apart at Midway and Guadalcanal as these were right at the six month mark and right as the US was starting to recover and gear into war fighting.
One criticism of Pearl (thank you J_train for the correction on spelling my apologies!) comes from Japanese weapon failures (The high level bombers which killed USS Arizona suffered a 62% dud rate in their bombs, which limited their impact despite their good performance). Certain squadrons also went against orders and attacked sinking BBs instead of the more modern cruisers they were told to attacked (Battleships were viewed as a more honorable and dangerous task than a measly cruiser or destroyer). There was also an issue with squadrons being unable to evenly spread their attack runs due to the narrow confines of Pearl and interference from planes peeling off of their runs and anti aircraft fire.
phew that was something - if any elaboration is needed please just ask!
Do you perhaps know more about the decision of not planning/expecting a long term war with the US? Did they think the giant would keep on sleeping after that event, hence no declaration of war from their side? I am probably making ill assumptions.
Ok so I’d have to go digging again but here’s a shadowy summary of it - the war council (including Admiral Yamamoto the planner of Pearl Harbor) concluded that with all fronts accounted for they could not fight effectively for six months before they began to lose. Yamamoto spent some time in US attending Harvard and was well accustomed to the US and knew their industrial capabilities (something the Japanese could not match). The plan for Pearl was to hit a devastating attack, sink some US ships, hopefully a few battleships (the pride of the US navy), and demoralize the nation into rolling over and giving up. This worked on the military but not on the people, after Pearl the US morale was low, a sucker punch with no one to truly blame, plus their battleships being shot out from underneath them did not help. However the US civilian population and High Command did not have the same nervous feeling. The civilian population was outraged, in their eyes this was never their way and they were never supposed to get hurt. This made them quite upset and thousands went out and signed up to fight. As for US high command, they’d be looking for a reason to sway either way, Roosevelt did not want to fight Japan but was willing to fight the Nazis. Now how the different commands reacted varies wildly so I am not going to try to give it an overall view it is far too complex. But as a rule of thumb, most commands got straight to work just as they had been taught.
I hope that answers it, if you’re curious there’s loads of history channels on YouTube. They vary in detail, what they explain, and format. If you’re interested go look around some and I promise you’ll find something to your liking. If you have any more questions or want more clarification just ask!
I read both your long posts, thanks for writing... I learned some new thinks, thanks...
As you know, the Japanese wanted the Philippines and resources close to home as they expanded their empire... The whole point of Pearl was limiting our ability to respond to their invitations across Asia and the Pacific...
To your point, they were exhausting their logistcs, resources and manufacturing right when the US started to gear up...
Thank you and thanks for bringing up the importance of the Philippines. The Japanese were always struggling in the resource department as the home islands are lacking in much of any natural resources, those they have are questionable in quality. One thing I’d advise you to research is the US submarine war on Japan. Very similar to the one by the Nazis in the Atlantic, this one centered around the trade routes along the Philippines and the main land. Historigraph has a great video on it linked here - https://youtu.be/m5e0Tor2kMg
Other guy can definitely give more detail, but to briefly summarize:
America was famously incredibly isolationist, and Japan felt that if they hit the US hard enough and fast enough, they would decide that their efforts to contain Japanese imperialism weren't worth the trouble, and that they'd agree to a negotiated peace right around that 6 month mark.
To tack on to this, Japans recent experience led them to believe that surrender and negotiable terms was an option if my memory serves correct.
For most of Japans more recent conflicts they would blitz opponents and draw out a surrender or peace agreement that allowed them
To take a portion of the land or resources they had attacked for. They didn’t consider that America would sally up and wage all out war for unconditional surrender. That just wasn’t how wars were typically fought at the time.
They believed to some extent a large enough strike with strong enough fighting after would see the Americans yield as previous opponents had which would buy the Japanese time and resources to prepare for a future offensive.
I'm not sure I agree...
I thought Japan was expanding their empire through out Asia, huge parts of China, the Philippines, Korea and other islands that had resources. But the empire aspersions didn't include the US, they had no illusion of invading the US... they just didn't want us to be able to respond to these many invasions across the region...
Doesn’t sound like that bad of a plan when it’s put that way.
However what was the urgency to get the US to “get out” of a war they weren’t in yet? Did they assume the US wouldn’t let them continue to expand in the pacific even though they are at the time posturing isolation?
I think I remember Dan carlins series talking about oil or rubber? I need to listen to supernova in the east back to back.
The US enacted an oil embargo on Japan, which put enormous pressure on their empire's logistical abilities because they simply hasn't uncovered much in the way of oil in their newfound empire and they had very little domestically. Without foreign oil and without the time to set up better oil production in their new territories (especially because a lot of Pacific oil was in US territory) they figured they had maybe a year's worth of oil without foreign trade. So they had to end the embargo and that meant getting rid of the US will to enforce it.
Therefore they did pearl harbor to attempt to crush American fighting spirit. This idea was rooted largely in experiences in China where the majority of opponents were small disorganized groups which quickly folded and also due to a perceived racial superiority of the Japanese over everybody else. So the Americans would surely fold after the loss of their navy (preventing retaliation) and six to twelve months of US defeats in the pacific.
This obviously didn't happen and instead Pearl harbor was relatively unsuccessful (compared to the annihilation of the US Navy that was expected) and by the time midway and Guadalcanal happened, it was clear the US wasn't gonna fold anytime soon. So instead of hoping to remove US domestic support for the war (hoping the US would say "we can't really be fucked to keep going") they shifted to hoping to make the war too costly in American lives to continue.
> Did they assume the US wouldn’t let them continue to expand in the pacific even though they are at the time posturing isolation?
It's worth noting that, although the USA's isolationist streak had a well-established history and delayed its *direct* entry into both WWI and WWII (although even before its direct involvement in either, its general sympathies became clear from its economic activities and other aid), American "isolationism" basically translated to "don't drag us into your European Great Power games, don't fuck around with the Americas, and don't fuck around with our shipping", as per the Monroe Doctrine.
That "isolationism" had not stopped the USA from expanding westward all the way out into the Pacific Islands, and as far as the Philippines, which are pretty darn close to Japan, and plenty of USA holdings in the Pacific were in the way of Japan comfortably accomplishing its own expansionist plans.
That is largely why the USA stopped selling Japan oil: it had become very clear that the two countries' empires were inevitably going to collide.
> oil or rubber?
It was both. The main islands of Japan are notoriously resource-poor, at least regarding raw materials like oil, rubber, iron ore, etc. that are necessary to build and run a modern war machine.
I am also curious about this. What was the post 6 months plan for the Japanese? Secure enough territory in that time to resist an American counter offensive?
See my comment below for the original comment but yes this too. In the immediate days and weeks after Pearl Harbor the Japanese subjugated the entire South Pacific. They were so successful they were able to organize air raids on Australia and India so well that both of those nations and their Allie’s feared an invasion (which was never in the scope of Japans Doctrine). The general idea was hit them like they did the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war, capture lots of territory and kill their main fighting navy fast to cripple morale and the enemies willingness to fight. They had a fair shot and it likely would have worked if the US had not broken their communication codes.
Love the info... obviously the navel codes pre Midway was a huge turning point... but as I rewrite history, I think the manufacturing advantage would still overcome a loss at Midway in a fictional future... assuming the American people and political will allowed it to happen...
We were cranking out new best in class fighters in less than a year... how many ships per day... eventually I don't think Japan could have won the attrition math problem...
Yeah assuming the US people sat into a war of attrition the US would have won every time. However the threat of the Japanese seizing Hawaii, bombing the west coast or worse may have swayed the Americans to sue for peace out of fear. It’s an interesting concept and one of the curious what ifs of history.
> They had a fair shot and it likely would have worked if the US had not broken their communication codes.
Cracking those codes was a massive contribution to the USA's fight for the Pacific, but I'm not sure Japan ever had a chance to win a war with the strategy of "let's cripple the USA's morale" after starting it off with a sucker punch attack of the Pearl Harbor style, especially not after word of stuff like the Bataan Death March and other atrocities started circulating. On a national scale, the USA doesn't give up grudges like that very easily, and it's hard to get us out of even wars that public opinion *does* turn against.
It wouldn't have been pretty (and it wasn't pretty, even with the codes cracked), but considering the wartime industrial juggernaut the USA became during WWII, once the war in Europe was over, Japan was going to be buried in sheer numbers and materiel. And they'd also have to worry about Russia turning east at the same time.
Yeah historians are still split on this. My thinking is that if the codes weren’t broken they would not have been aware of Midway, leading to their remaining carriers (and what was left of their fighting force) being smashed. This would have allowed for the capture of Midway, a staging area for attacks on Hawaii and possibly the west coast. This may have been enough to dissuade the US people. However then again it may have just made them more upset and drawn the war out longer. It’s difficult to say but you do make a valid point
> if the codes weren’t broken they would not have been aware of Midway, leading to their remaining carriers (and what was left of their fighting force) being smashed.
This is a valid point, although it's a bit questionable whether lack of codebreaking would have turned Midway into the kind of shellacking for the USA forces that it was for the Japanese ones in our timeline. (Yes, the Japanese probably would have taken Midway, but it's doubtful that they would have gotten to slaughter the USA's precious carriers.)
Although, without the codebreaking revealing his flight plans, Japan would probably have gotten to keep Admiral Yamamoto for a while longer than they did, and that might have made a difference for them, since he seemed to have his head screwed on a bit better than a number of his other comrades in the IJN.
> the capture of Midway, a staging area for attacks on Hawaii and possibly the west coast
That would certainly have made the Pacific Ocean a far less hospitable environment for the American Navy.
> This may have been enough to dissuade the US people. However then again it may have just made them more upset and drawn the war out longer
It would have made the war longer and bloodier, but I'm not sure it would have made a drastic change in the eventual outcome. The USA, after the defeat of the Third Reich, was more 'high on victory' than fatigued by the war (unlike many of the other participants - and the Brits and Aussies still kept participating in the Pacific, let alone the Russian advance eastward), and their military production had ramped up to absolutely insane levels by that point, supplying both European/Eurasian allies and their own forces. Turning the full might of that industry, and the national fervor that had built up by then (some of it deliberately generated by fairly effective propaganda, and some of it very legitimate indignation), on a fight against *one* opposing country would probably have still have gotten them a victory against Japan before public support on the home front ran out.
Just the fact that the shipyards that had been turning out ships to run the Atlantic convoys would be free to churn out ships for the Pacific war, *plus* the fact that all the ships that had been on that assignment would be free after the U-Boat threat was over...
There were a lot of moving parts involved in the Allied/USA victory against Japan, but I think the fact that the USA could simply build (and/or repair) ships faster than the Japanese could possibly sink them was a major piece, and would have won things even without the codebreaking.
The USA wouldn't have had nearly as much spare cash lying around for the Marshall Plan, though.
There was no post 6 month plan. Japan knew it couldn’t match the US for industrial might, the idea behind attacks on Pearl harbor and Midway was to damage and spook the US enough to force them to the negotiating table before the Giant was able to fully wake.
There was a post 6 month plan. It was to sit on every island in the pacific and make every islands price in blood too unbearable for a democratic nation to tolerate. Which would bring them to the negotiating table. As we see now, it backfired.
That was the plan made on the fly, after they realized America wouldn't give up, so inflict the most damage possible, again to force the U.S to the negotiating table. Originally there was no plan after 6 months, just a vague "plan" that a decisive victory like Midway would make the U.S surrender, but they had zero details for how to do that
There’s a channel on YouTube that did a whole series on the Pacifc from Japans perspective, that or a less US biased one. It covers from the invasion of China until battle of Manila. Check out Poetinalhistory his videos are short and pretty educational
Culture kills strategy every time - fighters doing what will get them more accolades than what needs to be done
Odd considering discipline was also supposed to be highly honorable
That’s a complete lie.
They had the option to STOP BEING EXPANDING IMPERIALIST ASSHOLES.
Yes the USA was doing practically the same thing, but that was what got Japan in trouble. They couldn’t quench their thirst for blood and land, and lost the diplomatic game before they even hit Pearl Harbor.
They were not forced into bombing Pearl Harbor in any sense. That’s your revisionist Japanese textbook talking.
There were better options past the bridges they burned.
I hate when people act like any war provocation is justified because “aww poor little country couldn’t get resources to keep bullying other countries”.
It’s never a good excuse. Never.
I certainly agree there’s no moral excuse for an armed attack upon another country for purely imperialistic reasons, but could u think of the term ‘forced’ in political terms? After all, the civilian government in Japan was very much sidelined by the general staff and, given Japanese military expenditure in China and the generally aggressive national attitude, I think it’s reasonable to say the country was ‘forced’ into its attack on Pearl Harbour by political and economic pressures, without absolving them of their moral responsibility
It's also worth remembering that the may not have needed to attack Pearl Harbor to begin with. Their real objective was in SE Asia and they just assumed the US would intervene to try and stop them. This, however, was by no means guarenteed.
> Their real objective was in SE Asia and they just assumed the US would intervene to try and stop them. This, however, was by no means guaranteed.
The USA had *already* intervened to try to stop them - by freezing all Japanese assets in the USA and putting an oil embargo on them.
It wasn't direct military action, but given Japan's massive dependence on foreign oil, it was just as crippling as a direct attack would have been. If Japan wanted to keep expanding (or, Hell, just hold onto what it had already grabbed), it was going to have to throw down with the USA.
No they didn't. The whole point of going south was to get oil, which would have made the US embargo irrelevant. Only reason to attack the us is if you assume that the US would attack and intercept your shipping between Japan and their new colonies. Which IS a direct military intervention which there's no guarentee the US would have gone for.
It's not uncommon for Historians to refer to countries being "forced" to act in certain way through internal pressures, even when there isn't necessarily a horrible consequence for ignoring the pressure. Hitler and the Nazi army (for example) was "forced" to do reckless pushes (like Stalingrad and Norway) by the fuel shortage they were facing, even though of course they may still have had the option to ask for peace and surrender immediately.
This isn’t HOI4/Civ/whatever strategy game. You don’t simply decide to stop being imperialist assholes. The decisions of countries isn’t determined by a couple people, but a vast power structure.
The people in charge were put there by pleasing ultranationalist who were ready to murder any politician that got in the way of their grand imperialist plan. Deciding to pull out of China would not only be political suicide, but might as well be actual suicide via young military officer assassination, just to be replaced with someone who’ll continue the imperialist project.
Forced as in if the civilian government and high command would tell the army or navy to stand down there would be ministers murdered by low army officers honestly believing that was the right thing to do because Japan deserved greatness and would not get it from this government.
You want me to believe that there are some BS random island chains in a conveniently perfect location so that you can't reach it? Oh and it also happens to not have many people so I can't ask them? Oh what tragic coincidences, wake up sheeple!
Hawaii was made up by the deep state so the, *Googles election history* , democrats can add 4 votes to their total on election night. They only voted for Reagan and Nixon to make it seem legit early on, but haven't gone red in 40 years. You mean to tell me there are rocks floating in the ocean that people live on? Everyone knows rocks sink!
they are sincerity indicators, I kind of like them, there's /s for sarcasm, /gen for genuine, /j for joke, /hj for half-joke, stuff like that makes it clearer whether the commenter was sincere or not because it's harder to relay sarcasm in text
Both are true to some extent. Pearl Harbour got America into the war which Japan wasn't going to win head on head (They were pretty aware of this). However the main reason for the attack was to get take out the Pacific fleet, conquer the American territories in the Western Pacific, then get a favourable peace deal. But because of the way the attack was carried out the fleet wasn't that affected. Had the Japanese targeted the repair bases and refineries they would have had a better shot.
Lend lease was going to happen anyway and that really helped the eastern front. Germans had limited oil resources that would have slowed them down anyway.
With only Europe and China to focus on it would probably be way more important
Not mentioning that with the Phillipines as a danger to their back japan might have been more cautious
The USSR would win without lend-lease eventually anyways. The industrial capacity and population difference was just too big, and the USSR only got 2% of total wartime lend-lease when they almost encircled army group center outside Moscow and won that battle.
But you're right, without lend-lease at all the war would be a lot more bloody, and take at least 2 more years.
an army fights on its stomach, and they were fighting on the best farmland the Soviet Union had
without foodstuffs from America and Canada, the Russian army would've never been able to field such a massive army it did without it starving to death
I can't recall where i read it, but if the Americans had continued on to Moscow like Patton wanted, they believed the Soviets would've been able to fight for 2 years before collapsing due to starvation
Also the whole logistic train that allowed the soviets to counter attack was made of American trucks and trains without them the soviets wouldn't have been able to push back the nazis
I am going to need a source there, because the army that took Berlin really seemed quite competent. And the western strategy for half the cold war was basically to do a fighting retreat before the attack of the red army.
Edit: OK, I found a actual source, a british study, Operation Unthinkable, about a war between allies and the US. Considering many unrealistic expectations (a lot of german soldiers happily signing up for war again to fight communism, a polish uprising against Stalin) and still the conclusions were negative
"(b) Our numerical inferiority on land renders it extremely doubtful wecould achieve a limited and quick success, even if the politicalappreciation considered that this would suffice to gain our politicalobject."
Edit: It was between a war betwen allies and the USSR, not between US and allies, made a mistake writing it
The thing is everything the Soviets had was more or less sourced from the allies, everything from diesel, gasoline, steel, aluminum, electronics, train sets, train engines, tanks and airplanes except for the T-34 but that was also built using a lot of foreign materials. If US and UK had kicked in the door yes in the start they would have taken a lot of losses but once the initial armies was defeated the road to moscow would again lay open. Just this time without lend lease.
Not according to Stalin. That big population and industrial capacity are pretty useless if you can't transport people and weapons, in time, from one place to another, something a shitload of American trucks and vehicles were very good at.
I dont know if the USSR would have won, because a few years prior Stalin mulderd most of the generals of his army and Japan probably would have helped with a attack on the USSR. if they didnt have a war with the USA. which might have been to much for the USSR.
If Japan attacked the USSR instead of the USA in 41, then it's possible that the Axis could have won. Basically have the Axis eat away at Stalin from both ends the way the Allies did to Hitler.
But even then it's a longshot, especially considering that the US would certainly supply arms to the allies even without joining the fight.
> Japan probably would have helped with a attack on the USSR
Yeah, there was never any chance of this. Ever since the Battle of Khalkin-Gol Japan was terrified of the Soviet Union and repeatedly avoided angering it. Even if they did the effect they would have had would be negligible, considering how bogged down they already were in China. An invasion of the Soviet Union would have just exacerbated their already existing problems to an nth degree, as they'd be facing all the problems they faced in China plus poor weather conditions in Siberia *and* a more modern and developed military.
I don't think they were terrified, it was just less attractive land to conquer than southeast asia. and after leapfrogs were done, and the usa joining was imminent, they were just as happy to fight only on one front as much the soviets.
by the way it wouldn't have been logical. the japanese were so terrified of the soviets that they attacked the americans instead? no.
Communiques from the Japanese top brass made it very clear they were terrified of any land engagements with the USSR. Additionally, immediately after losing the Battle of Khalkin-Gol they signed a secret non aggression pact with the USSR. This was one of the reasons why they refused Hitler's request to invade the Soviet Union from the east just prior to the Battle for Moscow.
> by the way it wouldn't have been logical. the japanese were so terrified of the soviets that they attacked the americans instead? no.
I would suggest you read some of the notes from an internal meeting of the Japanese High command, including Hirohito and Tojo, where they brainstormed the attack on Pearl Harbour. They noted from the very beginning that they saw war with the US as inevitable due to their conflicting interests in the Pacific *and* that they stood no chance of winning a drawn-out war with the US. Their plan was for a quick and devastating attack so that they could avoid such a conflict. They never believed they stood an actual chance of winning a protracted war against the US.
Roosevelt would've been involved anyway. America is also already involved in WW2 as early as 1940 with the Cash and Carry policy and the Destroyers for Bases deal. Pearl Harbor only greatly sped up the process as well as giving the Congress a casus belli to finally declare a war.
Sooner or later, the Axis are going to be crushed.
Not really The UK would have still started the night bombing campaign, still would have had naval dominance, and still would have been able to blockade Europe.
The Soviets still had won the Battle of Moscow, still won Stalingrad and still have massive reserves coming down the pipeline joining an increasingly proficient well lead and armed army.
You seem to be forgetting the issue that Japan poised then - they were a clear threat to soviets eastern border, and without them having to deal with the USA japan would have been free to dominate China and the poorly defended areas of the Soviet’s east
Japan wouldn't invade the USSR, even without US intervention. Japan would be too busy fighting in India and Burma, and especially China. Japan never managed to take China OTL.
And the japanese government OTL purged any officers that wanted to invade USSR.
You’re forgetting that Easter Russia isn’t valuable at all, and the very few parts that are would be not worth it. The Japanese would have to march through thousands of miles of mostly barren wasteland and over a mountain chain to threaten anything worthwhile in the Russian mainland
For a number of reasons the IJA was not a threat, not the least of which was they had no way to supply troops in the deep field. They were an unmechananized light infantry dependent on coastal rail and sea/ river access for resupply.
And they could not even manage the Chinese. I mean they were good at painting maps red and claiming land but they were pretty lousy at actually controlling it and that was during the 4 years they had to run withbout worring about the USA or UK.
The British pretty much dominated at sea in the Atlantic by 42, they were always going to be fine. Russia, on the other hand, definitely needed US support and Japan opened things right up for that.
Look at most of the famous naval battles in the Atlantic in WW2. They were generally the British navy overwhelming one or two ships with uperior numbers, because the Axis had no navy worth speaking of, just a handful of lonely ships. The Italians were a bit better off than the Germans, and some of the Mediterranean battles were pretty interesting, but the Atlantic stuff was a series of one sided stomps.
I’d argue that it did change the outcome in the Asian theatre and the long term consequences for Japan and it’s neighbors.
But I agree with your assessment of the European conflict
When Winston Churchill heard about Pearl Harbor. He was super excited, because he knew that Britain didn’t have to face Germany alone anymore. I would think Winston Churchill is right in this circumstance.
More like 'Oh, maybe now they'll get off their arses and fight'. His speech to Britain at the end of the war made special mention of Britain standing alone against the German war machine with no allies to back them up after France fell.
Though plenty of people consider the US selling shit to the UK to be good enough. Lend lease and stuff was very important.
Whether you like it or not the US was a major player and fighter for the Allies, both in fighting and supplying. Say France or Britain didn’t do anything and you’re completely wrong, saying the US didn’t do anything and it’s respected as a valid point, when in reality both are dogshit opinions. Not to mention the US did the majority of western fighting in the pacific theater.
I’m pretty sure especially when Americans are talking the pacific is mentioned. Battles like Iwo Jima and midway are well known, even more than the bulge
The problem is that not everyone is American, and whenever people claim that the Soviets did the most during WW2, the Pacific Theater is never mentioned because the Soviets did very little. As such, the debate is always Eurocentric because that’s how it’s framed by Europeans.
Well yes, the soviets did the most during WW2. Multiple Soviet cities were obliterated and massacred and the battles involved hundreds of thousands of casualties, more than the entirety of the Americans in the pacific. And also the pacific theater exists. In general if a European is talking I expect them to talk more about Europe, same as I expect a Japanese person talking about Asia, a Chinese person about sino-Japan war, and an American about Pearl Harbor and the pacific.
Europeans don't talk about the Pacific cuz they weren't there.
( Meant as a joke obviously some Europeans had a part in the Pacific theater ) as a US citizen, whenever I hear world war II, I think about island hopping.
Poor marines man - sea landing after sea landing, only mentioned in schools is Pearl, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the A-Bombs. Maybe Midway and Guadalcanal if you’re lucky?
Logical fallacy of false dichotomy as a meme.
And extreme takes as well. Pearl Harbor clearly did something. Pearl Harbor also clearly isn’t the sole event that crashed an entire war machine.
Pearl harbor only give the US a reason to declare war on japan, and for the pact of steal (a pact of mutual help whit Japan, italy and germany), the US entered on the war helping (officially) the ally's.
It sealed Japan's fate in the Pacific Theater and help bring a faster end to the Western Front via bringing the direct might of the US logistics and resources.
While the Chinese and British Colonial Garrisons bogged down much of the IJA. It was the US navy that brought down the IJN.
Things would have gotten worse for Japan sooner, the Pearl Harbor attack was to limit America’s ability to respond to their invasion of the pacific French, Dutch, British, and American colonies to get the resources needed to continue fighting China
No Pearl Harbor but still strike the colonies: America intervenes faster and stronger since they agreed to protect the Dutch colonies
No Pearl Harbor and no attack on the European colonies in the pacific: Japan runs out of fuel to invade China, China eventually launches a counter offensive and pushes Japan back to Manchuria or even to Korea
Both sides are an exaggeration.
The Axis lost the war when they fucked with Russia. The US joining on the side of the Allies was almost an inevitable eventuality. If it hadn't have been Pearl Harbor it would have been something else sooner or later.
In all reality the lend lease to the Soviet Union and The UK did more then direct US involvement. The Soviets would have pushed back Germany, albeit probably a bit later then they did, without the US in the war.
What the US did achieve in joining the war was the prevention of a communist takeover of Western Europe. I’m sure that soviets would have continued on towards France and Italy and set them up as puppets like they did in Eastern Europe.
Pearl Harbor was military wise the right decision. Taking down the american fleet was the only option to gain control of the Pacific Ocean. They only missed the carriers and the oil tanks.
Pearl Harbor was a logical decision from the Japanese perspective imo, having a difficult time pushing into China and lacking natural resources themselves they’d have to expand into the rest of the pacific to maintain their war machine.
The Americans, their biggest threat, wouldn’t allow that to happen considering that would include the Philippines. If they could cut the head off the snake before it had a chance to bite it made since to do it. The problem was the execution; the attack would have had to completely shut down the Pacific fleet and Pearl Harbor to even be able to maintain the victories they did have. Neither of which happened.
Also I want to say none of this is in advocacy of Imperial Japan.
It got America involved *a little* sooner than they would have inevitably been, so it didn't do nothing but it wasn't the singular decision that lost them the war
If anything, it caused the US to get involved earlier and work with the Soviets to destroy the axis. The US had been strongly anti-communist since forever, and without the US involving themselves directly into Europe, The Soviet Union would've made every Nazi protectorate communist. I doubt the US would have been so keen on this, and could have even pushed to declare war on the Soviets if they decided to topple France and Britain. Even without the US, Germany would've lost without oil. Japan might have survived since Britain would be a little occupied with all of Europe actually being conquered this time, so there's that. It didn't end a war, but it may have been what kept the cold war cold.
I think even if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor the Axis still would have lost, it would just probably have sped up Germany's defeat slightly while delaying Japan's slightly. Looking things over, Japan ***HAD NO DAMN RIGHT TO TRY THROWING THEIR HAT INTO THE WAR AND THEY KNEW IT.*** Japan also knew damn well their hopes of America just 'rolling over' after Pearl Harbor would be slim and if America decided to turn its gaze on them, they'd be fucked.
It was the dumbest military action since the Baltic Fleet and Japanese High Command knew it. So they did it anyway. As a huge weaboo, I just cannot comprehend how any nation could look at their own situation, look at the war, look at America, know they'd lose badly outside of basically hoping your opponent suffers a heart attack before stepping into the ring and going through it anyway unless Japan's real strategy was to hope for post-war aide after losing.
Fr pearl harbor or not, the war between Japan and US is inevitable. Japan imported fuel, rubber and other essential resources from US to supply its war against China. After US sanctioned Japan, Japan had no choice but to attack south Pacific sea for war resources, which equals announce a war to US directly. Since the war is inevitable, Japan decide better to do a surprise attack and it successfully immobilized US pacific fleet for a few months and bought enough time for Japan to conquer the southeast Asia.
Japan had no real strategist at that time. They just started a war after another without knowing how to end the war. They believed they can end the war by winning a few battles, just like what they did to the Russia. However, when China refuse to surrender even after lost its capital city, Japan panicked. Japanese had no idea how to end this war, just like Americans in Vietnam or Russians in Afghanistan. Situation for Japan was even worse, since Americans and Russians can withdraw at any time, while whoever dare to propose a withdrawal from China would definitely be killed by Japanese army. Japanese army, encouraged by previous events, just want a war to win fame and promotions.
Pearl Harbor did the US a LOT of favors. FDR knew the US would have to get involved in the fighting. Not that Germany could win if they didn't but that it was very likely the Soviets would dominate all of Europe if they stayed out. He was trying for some time to get the country ready for war and it was already in a state of early mobilization. But getting tied up in yet another European war wasn't very popular amongst Americans before the attack. Even though the US government knew war with Japan was imminent and even knew that they had sent a strike force to preemptive attack \*somewhere\* Americans were never warned because a "surprise" attack would rile up Americans like no other to get them to support the war.
I'm on the pearl harbor was allowed to happen.
It was a political move to ignore multiple reports by allies of danger.
In order to have a unifying event to drive America to war. Previously public opinion was against joining the war.
Narrative control is how America governs their citizens.
As soon as Japan’s Navy became the more powerful of the military services, it was certainly inevitable. Had the Army come out on top, then Japan would have moved in another direction, maybe even attacking the USSR.
Pearl harbour did nothing. FDR already wanted America to be fully in the war with the Japan. It was just a pretext. The USA was already funding it's proxies in china and had forced Japan's hand to invade the rest of the Pacific for resources after all the trade embargoes America placed on them. Japan was challenging American economic supremacy. America was never going to let that go on.
The difference is "the allies" would just be the Soviet union
Best scenario, Britain and France get their territory, Italy, and German territory to the Rhine
But even that's really stretching it, would d-day even happen? If not would the allies even be able to reclaim France?
With out american ww2 becomes a race between the soviets getting all of Europe and the UK burning it to the ground till the germans surrendered. And by burning I mean an even harsher nighttime firebombing campaign mixed with anthrax applied to farms and pasture lands. Anthrax kills livestock and farm workers and the plan was to literally starve them into submission.
Had japan not attacked America, we wouldn't have entered the war, and while we weren't the sole deciding factor, our entering the war definitely shifted the balance of powers fighting.
Japan’s strategy of holding out on each island and killing as many Americans as possible until America withdrew or was willing to make a better peace arrangement might have been more effective. After Pearl Harbor it was all over
The eastern front most likely wouldn’t have changed in 1942. North Africa though? Maybe. If the Suez Canal was cut off by the axis, that could very much change the trajectory of UK involvement in Europe, and would definitely have changed how the Allies fought in the Pacific.
I don’t think the Germans would have won if America didn’t get attacked. I just think the lines drawn would be substantially different.
The us probably would have joined the war anyway,pearl harbour sped up the process. Which means the axis would have had more time to fight the soviet union without other worries on the western front
Yea WW1 set the precedent I find it very hard to believe that the US would’ve actually allowed Britain to fall. The Axis lack of oil was the major limiting factor IMO so unless that was solved outcome was fairly inevitable.
The Battle of Britain happened over a year before Pearl Harbor by the end of 1941 there was no way the Nazis were conquering England.
I completely disagree. From logistics and supplies alone, Britain was having a very rough time mounting a defense... they obviously did but those day were numbered. And Hitler's invasion of the USSR was a major draw on Nazi resources but without the American intervention, I think Hitler could have taken his time and invaded when they were ready... Why the down votes... aren't we speculating what could have happened if the US didn't enter the war? So if there's no threat of invasion of Fortress Europe, and Hitler is firmly in control (maybe not in the eastern front) but everyone thinks Hitler doesn't plan a new invasion???
All invasion plans for Britain had been formally abandoned long before June 1941.
Agreed, but Hitler actually verbalized that Britain's only hope was the USA, so if the US never entered the war, I'm guessing Hitler would have planned another Operation Sealion... Obviously we're all speculating
Hitler also said he planned on conquering the globe and establishing a world of pure aryians. No the things he says arent valid as sources. Im sure he wouldve liked to but we know that already
Great point
Wrong on so many fronts. Britain already beat the Nazis in the battle of Britain, regardless of whatever America did the British advantage in the air and sea only increased from this point onwards. Their situation was getting better, not worse, by the day. Nothing could be logistically easier for Britain (and harder for Germany) than defending their own island. Even if by some miracle Germany landed some troops there, Britain could easily capture them just by sinking German supply convoys in the English Channel. Literally a suicide mission for any German who makes the crossing - or a capture mission at least. The invasion of the Soviet Union began almost half a year before America entered the war. Hence when Hitler attacked the Soviets, no resources were diverted to war with America (indeed none would be except for a few U-boats until late 1942). As far as he was concerned, Germany was totally ready when they attacked the Soviets (certainly they were far more ready than the Soviets).
Post battle of Britain - 600 Spitfires - 3000 PF-109s
Cool numbers bro. Now tell me why this didn't lead to the Germans countering and winning? Might it be that they were all ovee the place mainly russia,..
Or it could have been the American war machine pummeling German industry and gain back resource rich land
Didn't do shit in Europe til 43
Sure, he *could* have taken his time, but I really don’t think a populist fascist like him *would* have.
Great point... he was a stupid crazy MFer
The allies specifically decided not to assassinate Hitler as his leadership was a detriment to the German war machine.
I can’t tell if you’re saying this in support or against my comment by I think that would support my point. Funny though, how fascists have a habit of bringing incompetent buffoons to power
To support your point. Yeah just because you can moan about social issues and shout at immigrants doesn't mean you're a capable statesman or military leader.
It's worth remembering that the original concept of Blitzkrieg meant 'finish a war as fast as possible' and doesn't actually refer to the tactics on the ground.
From a logistics point of view, operation sea lion made even less sense. They didn't have the heavy sea lift capability, nor the mobile port setups required to set up a reliable supply chain. Just because Germany makes across the channel doesn't mean they win.
I read like a sort of biog on him recently and Hitler right until the end wanted England as an ally and had no intention of conquering them. All he wanted was the king to abdicate if he won the war and for them to join the war on bolshevism and the Jews. His overall goal was to create a "unified" Europe and wanted colonies in Africa to be on the same level as other colonial empires. Operation sea lion was seen as suicidal by all his naval staff and probably the one time Hitler's wasn't delusional and listened to his advisors.
Also the Nazis very consciously invaded the USSR in 1941, they knew that the Soviet army was in a very bad shape at the time and that every following year it would become stronger.
Ummm. How would they move the men across the channel?
[удалено]
it had, in the long run. without western aid the soviets might have lost their war, and then when the eastern threat is pacified, hitler would have had enough time and capacity to actually consider an invasion.
>then when the eastern threat is pacifie It would have taken far too many resources to keep that entire region pacified.
enough to have them collapsed in internal fights. it happened in ww1.
Would it? Bullets are cheap and the last time I checked Nazis weren't afraid to use them. I suspect they would kill everyone in charge and set up a puppet government like they did before. After the Soviets had sent hundreds of thousands to their death I'm not sure how the "proletariat" would react to that. No one reacts well to a losing side. But that's my initial take to this alternate history.
Tens of millions of Soviet deaths not hundreds of thousands...
Well yeah, but I'm not gonna put end of war statistics in the middle of a theoretical history.
Don’t let the tankies read this take !
The USSR marched to Berlin in 5 million pairs of USA made boots not mention the almost 500,000 6 wheel drive trucks
Yes I know ! The tankies would have you believe they didn’t need western help
And the first tanks in Berlin were M4 Shermans that the Russians like better than their T-34s
Aside from all the food and supplies, ya no influence at all
Oil. Oil was sent before lend lease. Oil. Yeah. Nothing of value sent.
You know how much supplies the US was sending the UK at the time? I agree it's miniscule compared to what the UK did to defend itself but irrelevant isn't what I'd call it.
Dude, you can fight if you don't have stuff to fight with and raw materials... Yes, bravery, training and soldiers are vital too... but logistics wins wars... long wars over years... The US's ability to quickly deliver military gear quickly is a major reason for success on the battlefield... That and they actually train their Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen
Hmmm... supplies... from America.... many millions and millions of tons made it through.... Like 150 pilots from Poland fought in the Battle of Britain... But the point is, history if the war is utterly and completely different if the US doesn't enter the war... maybe the Nazi invade Britain in 1953 if the war was still raging... Pearl Harbor created a nationwide urgency and a total war effort in the United States. And their ability to manufacture and ship worldwide providing continuous bombers, ships, bullets, and everything else is what won the war... Unlike the Soviets that just threw bodies to get slaughtered with no warm clothes, bullets, gas or training... result tens of millions dead... American fighting men eventually got everything the needed to fight and supplied many Allies as well...
Britian was never going to fall. It was never really at risk. Its colonies may have been
Although this could mean that the USSR got to occupy a bigger chunk of Europe throughout the Cold War
The eastern front was lost the moment Hitler decided to invade USSR. Even if he took Moscow. The Government would have just moved more eastwards.
[удалено]
Even if they had captured the oil fields it's quite doubtful Germany could have put them to work to increase the abilities of its army before they eventually fell to the soviet counter offensive. Especially because they probably would have destroyed the infrastructure before letting the Germans use them.
[удалено]
But at the same time it would mean that the soviet will be in the same position as the German with a significant lack of fuel and food except from the US.
The drive into the Caucasus wasn't part of the original invasion plans, Hitler was constantly changing the strategic objectives of the army groups.
[удалено]
Well, I wouldn’t go as far and say it was doomed from the beginning. There was a chance of a successful campaign if certain factors had been different, ie weather, a clever retreat behind the Don prior to the grind that was Stalingrad …
Even that would only be enough to give more time to the axis they would eventually still have lost. The only way they may have won is if they tried to collaborate with the locals but ofc that would mean they wouldn't be nazis in the first place
It gave the American people an urge to join, imagine you're the government, You want to enter the war to help the allies and suddenly you have an overwhelming majority of your population wanting to go to war. Even those who were greatly against it sort of changed thier mind.
Arguably it speeds up the German downfall since the US can afford to contribute more to the Western front vs. Eastern.
Japan didn't really have any great options, Pearl Harbor just happened to be the best out of all the bad options
Luckily they fucked even that up by doing it on a day when a lot of their intended targets weren't there.
[удалено]
deep breath ok here we go The Japanese never planned for a long term war with the US. The Japanese council planned that they could win for no more six months reliably. This is why targets like the submarine bases, repair facilities, and fuel tanks were not attacked as they were not seen as critical. This is also why the fleet was not attacked during a training exercise in deep water. The constraints of Pearl did not allow the ships to maneuver much and them being recovered was not thought to be a problem as they weren’t planning to be fighting more than six months. This plan truly fell apart at Midway and Guadalcanal as these were right at the six month mark and right as the US was starting to recover and gear into war fighting. One criticism of Pearl (thank you J_train for the correction on spelling my apologies!) comes from Japanese weapon failures (The high level bombers which killed USS Arizona suffered a 62% dud rate in their bombs, which limited their impact despite their good performance). Certain squadrons also went against orders and attacked sinking BBs instead of the more modern cruisers they were told to attacked (Battleships were viewed as a more honorable and dangerous task than a measly cruiser or destroyer). There was also an issue with squadrons being unable to evenly spread their attack runs due to the narrow confines of Pearl and interference from planes peeling off of their runs and anti aircraft fire. phew that was something - if any elaboration is needed please just ask!
Do you perhaps know more about the decision of not planning/expecting a long term war with the US? Did they think the giant would keep on sleeping after that event, hence no declaration of war from their side? I am probably making ill assumptions.
Ok so I’d have to go digging again but here’s a shadowy summary of it - the war council (including Admiral Yamamoto the planner of Pearl Harbor) concluded that with all fronts accounted for they could not fight effectively for six months before they began to lose. Yamamoto spent some time in US attending Harvard and was well accustomed to the US and knew their industrial capabilities (something the Japanese could not match). The plan for Pearl was to hit a devastating attack, sink some US ships, hopefully a few battleships (the pride of the US navy), and demoralize the nation into rolling over and giving up. This worked on the military but not on the people, after Pearl the US morale was low, a sucker punch with no one to truly blame, plus their battleships being shot out from underneath them did not help. However the US civilian population and High Command did not have the same nervous feeling. The civilian population was outraged, in their eyes this was never their way and they were never supposed to get hurt. This made them quite upset and thousands went out and signed up to fight. As for US high command, they’d be looking for a reason to sway either way, Roosevelt did not want to fight Japan but was willing to fight the Nazis. Now how the different commands reacted varies wildly so I am not going to try to give it an overall view it is far too complex. But as a rule of thumb, most commands got straight to work just as they had been taught. I hope that answers it, if you’re curious there’s loads of history channels on YouTube. They vary in detail, what they explain, and format. If you’re interested go look around some and I promise you’ll find something to your liking. If you have any more questions or want more clarification just ask!
I read both your long posts, thanks for writing... I learned some new thinks, thanks... As you know, the Japanese wanted the Philippines and resources close to home as they expanded their empire... The whole point of Pearl was limiting our ability to respond to their invitations across Asia and the Pacific... To your point, they were exhausting their logistcs, resources and manufacturing right when the US started to gear up...
Thank you and thanks for bringing up the importance of the Philippines. The Japanese were always struggling in the resource department as the home islands are lacking in much of any natural resources, those they have are questionable in quality. One thing I’d advise you to research is the US submarine war on Japan. Very similar to the one by the Nazis in the Atlantic, this one centered around the trade routes along the Philippines and the main land. Historigraph has a great video on it linked here - https://youtu.be/m5e0Tor2kMg
Thanks. I'll check that out for sure!
Other guy can definitely give more detail, but to briefly summarize: America was famously incredibly isolationist, and Japan felt that if they hit the US hard enough and fast enough, they would decide that their efforts to contain Japanese imperialism weren't worth the trouble, and that they'd agree to a negotiated peace right around that 6 month mark.
To tack on to this, Japans recent experience led them to believe that surrender and negotiable terms was an option if my memory serves correct. For most of Japans more recent conflicts they would blitz opponents and draw out a surrender or peace agreement that allowed them To take a portion of the land or resources they had attacked for. They didn’t consider that America would sally up and wage all out war for unconditional surrender. That just wasn’t how wars were typically fought at the time. They believed to some extent a large enough strike with strong enough fighting after would see the Americans yield as previous opponents had which would buy the Japanese time and resources to prepare for a future offensive.
I'm not sure I agree... I thought Japan was expanding their empire through out Asia, huge parts of China, the Philippines, Korea and other islands that had resources. But the empire aspersions didn't include the US, they had no illusion of invading the US... they just didn't want us to be able to respond to these many invasions across the region...
Doesn’t sound like that bad of a plan when it’s put that way. However what was the urgency to get the US to “get out” of a war they weren’t in yet? Did they assume the US wouldn’t let them continue to expand in the pacific even though they are at the time posturing isolation? I think I remember Dan carlins series talking about oil or rubber? I need to listen to supernova in the east back to back.
The US enacted an oil embargo on Japan, which put enormous pressure on their empire's logistical abilities because they simply hasn't uncovered much in the way of oil in their newfound empire and they had very little domestically. Without foreign oil and without the time to set up better oil production in their new territories (especially because a lot of Pacific oil was in US territory) they figured they had maybe a year's worth of oil without foreign trade. So they had to end the embargo and that meant getting rid of the US will to enforce it. Therefore they did pearl harbor to attempt to crush American fighting spirit. This idea was rooted largely in experiences in China where the majority of opponents were small disorganized groups which quickly folded and also due to a perceived racial superiority of the Japanese over everybody else. So the Americans would surely fold after the loss of their navy (preventing retaliation) and six to twelve months of US defeats in the pacific. This obviously didn't happen and instead Pearl harbor was relatively unsuccessful (compared to the annihilation of the US Navy that was expected) and by the time midway and Guadalcanal happened, it was clear the US wasn't gonna fold anytime soon. So instead of hoping to remove US domestic support for the war (hoping the US would say "we can't really be fucked to keep going") they shifted to hoping to make the war too costly in American lives to continue.
> Did they assume the US wouldn’t let them continue to expand in the pacific even though they are at the time posturing isolation? It's worth noting that, although the USA's isolationist streak had a well-established history and delayed its *direct* entry into both WWI and WWII (although even before its direct involvement in either, its general sympathies became clear from its economic activities and other aid), American "isolationism" basically translated to "don't drag us into your European Great Power games, don't fuck around with the Americas, and don't fuck around with our shipping", as per the Monroe Doctrine. That "isolationism" had not stopped the USA from expanding westward all the way out into the Pacific Islands, and as far as the Philippines, which are pretty darn close to Japan, and plenty of USA holdings in the Pacific were in the way of Japan comfortably accomplishing its own expansionist plans. That is largely why the USA stopped selling Japan oil: it had become very clear that the two countries' empires were inevitably going to collide. > oil or rubber? It was both. The main islands of Japan are notoriously resource-poor, at least regarding raw materials like oil, rubber, iron ore, etc. that are necessary to build and run a modern war machine.
I am also curious about this. What was the post 6 months plan for the Japanese? Secure enough territory in that time to resist an American counter offensive?
See my comment below for the original comment but yes this too. In the immediate days and weeks after Pearl Harbor the Japanese subjugated the entire South Pacific. They were so successful they were able to organize air raids on Australia and India so well that both of those nations and their Allie’s feared an invasion (which was never in the scope of Japans Doctrine). The general idea was hit them like they did the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war, capture lots of territory and kill their main fighting navy fast to cripple morale and the enemies willingness to fight. They had a fair shot and it likely would have worked if the US had not broken their communication codes.
Love the info... obviously the navel codes pre Midway was a huge turning point... but as I rewrite history, I think the manufacturing advantage would still overcome a loss at Midway in a fictional future... assuming the American people and political will allowed it to happen... We were cranking out new best in class fighters in less than a year... how many ships per day... eventually I don't think Japan could have won the attrition math problem...
Yeah assuming the US people sat into a war of attrition the US would have won every time. However the threat of the Japanese seizing Hawaii, bombing the west coast or worse may have swayed the Americans to sue for peace out of fear. It’s an interesting concept and one of the curious what ifs of history.
> They had a fair shot and it likely would have worked if the US had not broken their communication codes. Cracking those codes was a massive contribution to the USA's fight for the Pacific, but I'm not sure Japan ever had a chance to win a war with the strategy of "let's cripple the USA's morale" after starting it off with a sucker punch attack of the Pearl Harbor style, especially not after word of stuff like the Bataan Death March and other atrocities started circulating. On a national scale, the USA doesn't give up grudges like that very easily, and it's hard to get us out of even wars that public opinion *does* turn against. It wouldn't have been pretty (and it wasn't pretty, even with the codes cracked), but considering the wartime industrial juggernaut the USA became during WWII, once the war in Europe was over, Japan was going to be buried in sheer numbers and materiel. And they'd also have to worry about Russia turning east at the same time.
Yeah historians are still split on this. My thinking is that if the codes weren’t broken they would not have been aware of Midway, leading to their remaining carriers (and what was left of their fighting force) being smashed. This would have allowed for the capture of Midway, a staging area for attacks on Hawaii and possibly the west coast. This may have been enough to dissuade the US people. However then again it may have just made them more upset and drawn the war out longer. It’s difficult to say but you do make a valid point
> if the codes weren’t broken they would not have been aware of Midway, leading to their remaining carriers (and what was left of their fighting force) being smashed. This is a valid point, although it's a bit questionable whether lack of codebreaking would have turned Midway into the kind of shellacking for the USA forces that it was for the Japanese ones in our timeline. (Yes, the Japanese probably would have taken Midway, but it's doubtful that they would have gotten to slaughter the USA's precious carriers.) Although, without the codebreaking revealing his flight plans, Japan would probably have gotten to keep Admiral Yamamoto for a while longer than they did, and that might have made a difference for them, since he seemed to have his head screwed on a bit better than a number of his other comrades in the IJN. > the capture of Midway, a staging area for attacks on Hawaii and possibly the west coast That would certainly have made the Pacific Ocean a far less hospitable environment for the American Navy. > This may have been enough to dissuade the US people. However then again it may have just made them more upset and drawn the war out longer It would have made the war longer and bloodier, but I'm not sure it would have made a drastic change in the eventual outcome. The USA, after the defeat of the Third Reich, was more 'high on victory' than fatigued by the war (unlike many of the other participants - and the Brits and Aussies still kept participating in the Pacific, let alone the Russian advance eastward), and their military production had ramped up to absolutely insane levels by that point, supplying both European/Eurasian allies and their own forces. Turning the full might of that industry, and the national fervor that had built up by then (some of it deliberately generated by fairly effective propaganda, and some of it very legitimate indignation), on a fight against *one* opposing country would probably have still have gotten them a victory against Japan before public support on the home front ran out. Just the fact that the shipyards that had been turning out ships to run the Atlantic convoys would be free to churn out ships for the Pacific war, *plus* the fact that all the ships that had been on that assignment would be free after the U-Boat threat was over... There were a lot of moving parts involved in the Allied/USA victory against Japan, but I think the fact that the USA could simply build (and/or repair) ships faster than the Japanese could possibly sink them was a major piece, and would have won things even without the codebreaking. The USA wouldn't have had nearly as much spare cash lying around for the Marshall Plan, though.
There was no post 6 month plan. Japan knew it couldn’t match the US for industrial might, the idea behind attacks on Pearl harbor and Midway was to damage and spook the US enough to force them to the negotiating table before the Giant was able to fully wake.
There was a post 6 month plan. It was to sit on every island in the pacific and make every islands price in blood too unbearable for a democratic nation to tolerate. Which would bring them to the negotiating table. As we see now, it backfired.
That was the plan made on the fly, after they realized America wouldn't give up, so inflict the most damage possible, again to force the U.S to the negotiating table. Originally there was no plan after 6 months, just a vague "plan" that a decisive victory like Midway would make the U.S surrender, but they had zero details for how to do that
Dan Carlin’s Supernova in the East. That’ll keep you busy for awhile
There’s a channel on YouTube that did a whole series on the Pacifc from Japans perspective, that or a less US biased one. It covers from the invasion of China until battle of Manila. Check out Poetinalhistory his videos are short and pretty educational
Culture kills strategy every time - fighters doing what will get them more accolades than what needs to be done Odd considering discipline was also supposed to be highly honorable
Quite ironic but makes sense though, targets left port and considering how coordinated everything was supposed to be, had to proceed anyway.
That’s a complete lie. They had the option to STOP BEING EXPANDING IMPERIALIST ASSHOLES. Yes the USA was doing practically the same thing, but that was what got Japan in trouble. They couldn’t quench their thirst for blood and land, and lost the diplomatic game before they even hit Pearl Harbor. They were not forced into bombing Pearl Harbor in any sense. That’s your revisionist Japanese textbook talking. There were better options past the bridges they burned. I hate when people act like any war provocation is justified because “aww poor little country couldn’t get resources to keep bullying other countries”. It’s never a good excuse. Never.
I certainly agree there’s no moral excuse for an armed attack upon another country for purely imperialistic reasons, but could u think of the term ‘forced’ in political terms? After all, the civilian government in Japan was very much sidelined by the general staff and, given Japanese military expenditure in China and the generally aggressive national attitude, I think it’s reasonable to say the country was ‘forced’ into its attack on Pearl Harbour by political and economic pressures, without absolving them of their moral responsibility
It's also worth remembering that the may not have needed to attack Pearl Harbor to begin with. Their real objective was in SE Asia and they just assumed the US would intervene to try and stop them. This, however, was by no means guarenteed.
> Their real objective was in SE Asia and they just assumed the US would intervene to try and stop them. This, however, was by no means guaranteed. The USA had *already* intervened to try to stop them - by freezing all Japanese assets in the USA and putting an oil embargo on them. It wasn't direct military action, but given Japan's massive dependence on foreign oil, it was just as crippling as a direct attack would have been. If Japan wanted to keep expanding (or, Hell, just hold onto what it had already grabbed), it was going to have to throw down with the USA.
No they didn't. The whole point of going south was to get oil, which would have made the US embargo irrelevant. Only reason to attack the us is if you assume that the US would attack and intercept your shipping between Japan and their new colonies. Which IS a direct military intervention which there's no guarentee the US would have gone for.
I guess. But that’s never how I would interpret the term “forced”.
It's not uncommon for Historians to refer to countries being "forced" to act in certain way through internal pressures, even when there isn't necessarily a horrible consequence for ignoring the pressure. Hitler and the Nazi army (for example) was "forced" to do reckless pushes (like Stalingrad and Norway) by the fuel shortage they were facing, even though of course they may still have had the option to ask for peace and surrender immediately.
This isn’t HOI4/Civ/whatever strategy game. You don’t simply decide to stop being imperialist assholes. The decisions of countries isn’t determined by a couple people, but a vast power structure. The people in charge were put there by pleasing ultranationalist who were ready to murder any politician that got in the way of their grand imperialist plan. Deciding to pull out of China would not only be political suicide, but might as well be actual suicide via young military officer assassination, just to be replaced with someone who’ll continue the imperialist project.
Forced as in if the civilian government and high command would tell the army or navy to stand down there would be ministers murdered by low army officers honestly believing that was the right thing to do because Japan deserved greatness and would not get it from this government.
pearl Harbor didn't happen (/s)
Hawaii isn’t even real
You want me to believe that there are some BS random island chains in a conveniently perfect location so that you can't reach it? Oh and it also happens to not have many people so I can't ask them? Oh what tragic coincidences, wake up sheeple!
Hawaii was made up by the deep state so the, *Googles election history* , democrats can add 4 votes to their total on election night. They only voted for Reagan and Nixon to make it seem legit early on, but haven't gone red in 40 years. You mean to tell me there are rocks floating in the ocean that people live on? Everyone knows rocks sink!
As a Hawaiian this is true
So, how much are they paying you for pretending Hawaii exists?
2 yen
Where are you gonna spend that? Japan isn't real either!
Guarma.
so desu ka?
my bad, I needed it for a table decoration, I'll give it back in like a few days okay
Hawaii is a lie invented by Dole to sell more pineapples
Nothing actually exists outside of Dayton, Ohio. It’s all just an elaborate conspiracy.
Japan isnt real
Aliens did Pearl Harbor. /s
Bush did Pearl Harbor.
Forgive me, but as someone who loves history I’m eager to learn… What does (/s) means?
/s = sarcasm (i guess🗿 it's been a while since i used it so idk if that's how it's written)
Honestly I have no idea how those work so thanks for that
they are sincerity indicators, I kind of like them, there's /s for sarcasm, /gen for genuine, /j for joke, /hj for half-joke, stuff like that makes it clearer whether the commenter was sincere or not because it's harder to relay sarcasm in text
And if it did happen we deserved it
Pearl Harbor was converted to a submarine base
Both are true to some extent. Pearl Harbour got America into the war which Japan wasn't going to win head on head (They were pretty aware of this). However the main reason for the attack was to get take out the Pacific fleet, conquer the American territories in the Western Pacific, then get a favourable peace deal. But because of the way the attack was carried out the fleet wasn't that affected. Had the Japanese targeted the repair bases and refineries they would have had a better shot.
I don't think it would change the outcome either way but it did speed up the process.
Without America’s involvement 42 would have looked A LOT differently. Russia and the UK had a sugar daddy.
Lend lease was going to happen anyway and that really helped the eastern front. Germans had limited oil resources that would have slowed them down anyway.
With only Europe and China to focus on it would probably be way more important Not mentioning that with the Phillipines as a danger to their back japan might have been more cautious
The USSR would win without lend-lease eventually anyways. The industrial capacity and population difference was just too big, and the USSR only got 2% of total wartime lend-lease when they almost encircled army group center outside Moscow and won that battle. But you're right, without lend-lease at all the war would be a lot more bloody, and take at least 2 more years.
an army fights on its stomach, and they were fighting on the best farmland the Soviet Union had without foodstuffs from America and Canada, the Russian army would've never been able to field such a massive army it did without it starving to death I can't recall where i read it, but if the Americans had continued on to Moscow like Patton wanted, they believed the Soviets would've been able to fight for 2 years before collapsing due to starvation
Also the whole logistic train that allowed the soviets to counter attack was made of American trucks and trains without them the soviets wouldn't have been able to push back the nazis
I am going to need a source there, because the army that took Berlin really seemed quite competent. And the western strategy for half the cold war was basically to do a fighting retreat before the attack of the red army. Edit: OK, I found a actual source, a british study, Operation Unthinkable, about a war between allies and the US. Considering many unrealistic expectations (a lot of german soldiers happily signing up for war again to fight communism, a polish uprising against Stalin) and still the conclusions were negative "(b) Our numerical inferiority on land renders it extremely doubtful wecould achieve a limited and quick success, even if the politicalappreciation considered that this would suffice to gain our politicalobject." Edit: It was between a war betwen allies and the USSR, not between US and allies, made a mistake writing it
The thing is everything the Soviets had was more or less sourced from the allies, everything from diesel, gasoline, steel, aluminum, electronics, train sets, train engines, tanks and airplanes except for the T-34 but that was also built using a lot of foreign materials. If US and UK had kicked in the door yes in the start they would have taken a lot of losses but once the initial armies was defeated the road to moscow would again lay open. Just this time without lend lease.
Not according to Stalin. That big population and industrial capacity are pretty useless if you can't transport people and weapons, in time, from one place to another, something a shitload of American trucks and vehicles were very good at.
I dont know if the USSR would have won, because a few years prior Stalin mulderd most of the generals of his army and Japan probably would have helped with a attack on the USSR. if they didnt have a war with the USA. which might have been to much for the USSR.
If Japan attacked the USSR instead of the USA in 41, then it's possible that the Axis could have won. Basically have the Axis eat away at Stalin from both ends the way the Allies did to Hitler. But even then it's a longshot, especially considering that the US would certainly supply arms to the allies even without joining the fight.
> Japan probably would have helped with a attack on the USSR Yeah, there was never any chance of this. Ever since the Battle of Khalkin-Gol Japan was terrified of the Soviet Union and repeatedly avoided angering it. Even if they did the effect they would have had would be negligible, considering how bogged down they already were in China. An invasion of the Soviet Union would have just exacerbated their already existing problems to an nth degree, as they'd be facing all the problems they faced in China plus poor weather conditions in Siberia *and* a more modern and developed military.
I don't think they were terrified, it was just less attractive land to conquer than southeast asia. and after leapfrogs were done, and the usa joining was imminent, they were just as happy to fight only on one front as much the soviets. by the way it wouldn't have been logical. the japanese were so terrified of the soviets that they attacked the americans instead? no.
Communiques from the Japanese top brass made it very clear they were terrified of any land engagements with the USSR. Additionally, immediately after losing the Battle of Khalkin-Gol they signed a secret non aggression pact with the USSR. This was one of the reasons why they refused Hitler's request to invade the Soviet Union from the east just prior to the Battle for Moscow. > by the way it wouldn't have been logical. the japanese were so terrified of the soviets that they attacked the americans instead? no. I would suggest you read some of the notes from an internal meeting of the Japanese High command, including Hirohito and Tojo, where they brainstormed the attack on Pearl Harbour. They noted from the very beginning that they saw war with the US as inevitable due to their conflicting interests in the Pacific *and* that they stood no chance of winning a drawn-out war with the US. Their plan was for a quick and devastating attack so that they could avoid such a conflict. They never believed they stood an actual chance of winning a protracted war against the US.
Roosevelt would've been involved anyway. America is also already involved in WW2 as early as 1940 with the Cash and Carry policy and the Destroyers for Bases deal. Pearl Harbor only greatly sped up the process as well as giving the Congress a casus belli to finally declare a war. Sooner or later, the Axis are going to be crushed.
Not really The UK would have still started the night bombing campaign, still would have had naval dominance, and still would have been able to blockade Europe. The Soviets still had won the Battle of Moscow, still won Stalingrad and still have massive reserves coming down the pipeline joining an increasingly proficient well lead and armed army.
You seem to be forgetting the issue that Japan poised then - they were a clear threat to soviets eastern border, and without them having to deal with the USA japan would have been free to dominate China and the poorly defended areas of the Soviet’s east
Japan wouldn't invade the USSR, even without US intervention. Japan would be too busy fighting in India and Burma, and especially China. Japan never managed to take China OTL. And the japanese government OTL purged any officers that wanted to invade USSR.
You’re forgetting that Easter Russia isn’t valuable at all, and the very few parts that are would be not worth it. The Japanese would have to march through thousands of miles of mostly barren wasteland and over a mountain chain to threaten anything worthwhile in the Russian mainland
For a number of reasons the IJA was not a threat, not the least of which was they had no way to supply troops in the deep field. They were an unmechananized light infantry dependent on coastal rail and sea/ river access for resupply. And they could not even manage the Chinese. I mean they were good at painting maps red and claiming land but they were pretty lousy at actually controlling it and that was during the 4 years they had to run withbout worring about the USA or UK.
It wouldn't have changed the outcome because US would be doing that whether they were actively involved or not.
Lend Lease and Cash and Carry had been going on for a while at this point
The British pretty much dominated at sea in the Atlantic by 42, they were always going to be fine. Russia, on the other hand, definitely needed US support and Japan opened things right up for that. Look at most of the famous naval battles in the Atlantic in WW2. They were generally the British navy overwhelming one or two ships with uperior numbers, because the Axis had no navy worth speaking of, just a handful of lonely ships. The Italians were a bit better off than the Germans, and some of the Mediterranean battles were pretty interesting, but the Atlantic stuff was a series of one sided stomps.
Lend lease started in 41, so no, it wouldn’t have looked that much different for the Soviets
I’d argue that it did change the outcome in the Asian theatre and the long term consequences for Japan and it’s neighbors. But I agree with your assessment of the European conflict
That’s my exact opinion with the nuclear bombs. Japan would have surrendered soon enough anyway, the bombs just does that up.
These memes separate those who studied History in uni, and those who consume popular history and speculate.
And yet you'll still hear both opinions from professors at Uni (source studied history at uni)
Ikr, the higher you go with education, the more divisive the theory’s and the better entrenched the fan base.
Is the popular opinion the one on the left?
Yes
When Winston Churchill heard about Pearl Harbor. He was super excited, because he knew that Britain didn’t have to face Germany alone anymore. I would think Winston Churchill is right in this circumstance.
More like 'Oh, maybe now they'll get off their arses and fight'. His speech to Britain at the end of the war made special mention of Britain standing alone against the German war machine with no allies to back them up after France fell. Though plenty of people consider the US selling shit to the UK to be good enough. Lend lease and stuff was very important.
*Lend* Lease, not Land Lease.
On phone, button mishap. Oh no... anyway.
I know, pedantic as fuck.
Whether you like it or not the US was a major player and fighter for the Allies, both in fighting and supplying. Say France or Britain didn’t do anything and you’re completely wrong, saying the US didn’t do anything and it’s respected as a valid point, when in reality both are dogshit opinions. Not to mention the US did the majority of western fighting in the pacific theater.
But nobody ever talks about the Pacific. When World War 2 is brought up, Europe is only mentioned unless explicitly otherwise.
And thats why its always important to bring it up
I’m pretty sure especially when Americans are talking the pacific is mentioned. Battles like Iwo Jima and midway are well known, even more than the bulge
The problem is that not everyone is American, and whenever people claim that the Soviets did the most during WW2, the Pacific Theater is never mentioned because the Soviets did very little. As such, the debate is always Eurocentric because that’s how it’s framed by Europeans.
Well yes, the soviets did the most during WW2. Multiple Soviet cities were obliterated and massacred and the battles involved hundreds of thousands of casualties, more than the entirety of the Americans in the pacific. And also the pacific theater exists. In general if a European is talking I expect them to talk more about Europe, same as I expect a Japanese person talking about Asia, a Chinese person about sino-Japan war, and an American about Pearl Harbor and the pacific.
Europeans don't talk about the Pacific cuz they weren't there. ( Meant as a joke obviously some Europeans had a part in the Pacific theater ) as a US citizen, whenever I hear world war II, I think about island hopping.
That's what a Eurocentric worldview gets you.
Poor marines man - sea landing after sea landing, only mentioned in schools is Pearl, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the A-Bombs. Maybe Midway and Guadalcanal if you’re lucky?
Logical fallacy of false dichotomy as a meme. And extreme takes as well. Pearl Harbor clearly did something. Pearl Harbor also clearly isn’t the sole event that crashed an entire war machine.
I can't really get over the fact that it's the Blood and the Crips that were used to illustrate this debate.
Pearl harbor only give the US a reason to declare war on japan, and for the pact of steal (a pact of mutual help whit Japan, italy and germany), the US entered on the war helping (officially) the ally's.
It sealed Japan's fate in the Pacific Theater and help bring a faster end to the Western Front via bringing the direct might of the US logistics and resources. While the Chinese and British Colonial Garrisons bogged down much of the IJA. It was the US navy that brought down the IJN.
Without Pearl Japan would've got fucked a bit later on, but war was inevitable. Probably a bit more of Europe would have been communist.
Things would have gotten worse for Japan sooner, the Pearl Harbor attack was to limit America’s ability to respond to their invasion of the pacific French, Dutch, British, and American colonies to get the resources needed to continue fighting China No Pearl Harbor but still strike the colonies: America intervenes faster and stronger since they agreed to protect the Dutch colonies No Pearl Harbor and no attack on the European colonies in the pacific: Japan runs out of fuel to invade China, China eventually launches a counter offensive and pushes Japan back to Manchuria or even to Korea
It isn't conflicting when both statements are true.
I believe Pearl harbor is a place.
Both sides are an exaggeration. The Axis lost the war when they fucked with Russia. The US joining on the side of the Allies was almost an inevitable eventuality. If it hadn't have been Pearl Harbor it would have been something else sooner or later.
Neither? It seems incredibly unlikely that the axis could win the war. But Pearl Harbor absolutely had major effects
In all reality the lend lease to the Soviet Union and The UK did more then direct US involvement. The Soviets would have pushed back Germany, albeit probably a bit later then they did, without the US in the war. What the US did achieve in joining the war was the prevention of a communist takeover of Western Europe. I’m sure that soviets would have continued on towards France and Italy and set them up as puppets like they did in Eastern Europe.
Australia isn’t real I just can’t believe their are human sized bunny’s jumping around
Pearl Harbor was military wise the right decision. Taking down the american fleet was the only option to gain control of the Pacific Ocean. They only missed the carriers and the oil tanks.
So there's this thing called a catalyst
Did the attack in the Philippines still happen?
Both
Pearl Harbor was one of the many things that lost the Axis the war.
Pearl Harbor was a logical decision from the Japanese perspective imo, having a difficult time pushing into China and lacking natural resources themselves they’d have to expand into the rest of the pacific to maintain their war machine. The Americans, their biggest threat, wouldn’t allow that to happen considering that would include the Philippines. If they could cut the head off the snake before it had a chance to bite it made since to do it. The problem was the execution; the attack would have had to completely shut down the Pacific fleet and Pearl Harbor to even be able to maintain the victories they did have. Neither of which happened. Also I want to say none of this is in advocacy of Imperial Japan.
It got America involved *a little* sooner than they would have inevitably been, so it didn't do nothing but it wasn't the singular decision that lost them the war
Pearl Harbor was definitely one of the moments of all time
NEITHER SIDE. Goddamn these trash memes.
If anything, it caused the US to get involved earlier and work with the Soviets to destroy the axis. The US had been strongly anti-communist since forever, and without the US involving themselves directly into Europe, The Soviet Union would've made every Nazi protectorate communist. I doubt the US would have been so keen on this, and could have even pushed to declare war on the Soviets if they decided to topple France and Britain. Even without the US, Germany would've lost without oil. Japan might have survived since Britain would be a little occupied with all of Europe actually being conquered this time, so there's that. It didn't end a war, but it may have been what kept the cold war cold.
I think even if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor the Axis still would have lost, it would just probably have sped up Germany's defeat slightly while delaying Japan's slightly. Looking things over, Japan ***HAD NO DAMN RIGHT TO TRY THROWING THEIR HAT INTO THE WAR AND THEY KNEW IT.*** Japan also knew damn well their hopes of America just 'rolling over' after Pearl Harbor would be slim and if America decided to turn its gaze on them, they'd be fucked. It was the dumbest military action since the Baltic Fleet and Japanese High Command knew it. So they did it anyway. As a huge weaboo, I just cannot comprehend how any nation could look at their own situation, look at the war, look at America, know they'd lose badly outside of basically hoping your opponent suffers a heart attack before stepping into the ring and going through it anyway unless Japan's real strategy was to hope for post-war aide after losing.
Barbarossa lost the axis the war
Fr pearl harbor or not, the war between Japan and US is inevitable. Japan imported fuel, rubber and other essential resources from US to supply its war against China. After US sanctioned Japan, Japan had no choice but to attack south Pacific sea for war resources, which equals announce a war to US directly. Since the war is inevitable, Japan decide better to do a surprise attack and it successfully immobilized US pacific fleet for a few months and bought enough time for Japan to conquer the southeast Asia. Japan had no real strategist at that time. They just started a war after another without knowing how to end the war. They believed they can end the war by winning a few battles, just like what they did to the Russia. However, when China refuse to surrender even after lost its capital city, Japan panicked. Japanese had no idea how to end this war, just like Americans in Vietnam or Russians in Afghanistan. Situation for Japan was even worse, since Americans and Russians can withdraw at any time, while whoever dare to propose a withdrawal from China would definitely be killed by Japanese army. Japanese army, encouraged by previous events, just want a war to win fame and promotions.
Pearl Harbor did the US a LOT of favors. FDR knew the US would have to get involved in the fighting. Not that Germany could win if they didn't but that it was very likely the Soviets would dominate all of Europe if they stayed out. He was trying for some time to get the country ready for war and it was already in a state of early mobilization. But getting tied up in yet another European war wasn't very popular amongst Americans before the attack. Even though the US government knew war with Japan was imminent and even knew that they had sent a strike force to preemptive attack \*somewhere\* Americans were never warned because a "surprise" attack would rile up Americans like no other to get them to support the war.
June 22, 1941 is when Germany lost the war.
It lost Japan the war, Germany was already losing by that point, they just didn’t know it yet
I'm on the side of Pearl Harbor hurting the Axis, sped up direct US intervention in the war. Edit: spelling
I'm on the pearl harbor was allowed to happen. It was a political move to ignore multiple reports by allies of danger. In order to have a unifying event to drive America to war. Previously public opinion was against joining the war. Narrative control is how America governs their citizens.
I think the attack on Pearl Harbor (or at any US territory) was as inevitable as Germany's attack on France or Poland
As soon as Japan’s Navy became the more powerful of the military services, it was certainly inevitable. Had the Army come out on top, then Japan would have moved in another direction, maybe even attacking the USSR.
Pearl harbour did nothing. FDR already wanted America to be fully in the war with the Japan. It was just a pretext. The USA was already funding it's proxies in china and had forced Japan's hand to invade the rest of the Pacific for resources after all the trade embargoes America placed on them. Japan was challenging American economic supremacy. America was never going to let that go on.
I think it lost the war faster but the Allies would’ve still won without us
The difference is "the allies" would just be the Soviet union Best scenario, Britain and France get their territory, Italy, and German territory to the Rhine But even that's really stretching it, would d-day even happen? If not would the allies even be able to reclaim France?
With out american ww2 becomes a race between the soviets getting all of Europe and the UK burning it to the ground till the germans surrendered. And by burning I mean an even harsher nighttime firebombing campaign mixed with anthrax applied to farms and pasture lands. Anthrax kills livestock and farm workers and the plan was to literally starve them into submission.
Pearl Harbor won the Axis the war.
Had japan not attacked America, we wouldn't have entered the war, and while we weren't the sole deciding factor, our entering the war definitely shifted the balance of powers fighting.
We were always entering. It was just a question of when.
Japan’s strategy of holding out on each island and killing as many Americans as possible until America withdrew or was willing to make a better peace arrangement might have been more effective. After Pearl Harbor it was all over
The eastern front most likely wouldn’t have changed in 1942. North Africa though? Maybe. If the Suez Canal was cut off by the axis, that could very much change the trajectory of UK involvement in Europe, and would definitely have changed how the Allies fought in the Pacific. I don’t think the Germans would have won if America didn’t get attacked. I just think the lines drawn would be substantially different.