Posted on 06/05/2012 1:21:45 PM PDT by moonshot925
The subject was covered in a book called ‘Refighting the Pacific War’ published by the Naval Institute Press. Those scholars interviewed were unanimous in their view of the Japanese capability to successfully invade Hawaii - they simply lacked the assets required. They might have made it ashore, but not in a million years could they have stayed ashore.
http://www.amazon.com/Halseys-Bluff-Larry-Schweikart/dp/1605301299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238619567&sr=1-1
BTW, I had the book vetted and endorsed by the "Battle of Midway Rountable" of Midway vets.
From what I have read, both American and Japanese war games outcomes defined Japan’s defeat sooner rather than later.
Admiral Yamamoto did not believe Japan could defeat the U.S. and said he only believed he could mount effective offenses for six months—a prediction that proved accurate. And the Japanese Army command determined what has been stated elsewhere here, once they found out Americans owned guns—any Japanese offensive across the continent would have been a disaster because American civilians would have shot their army to pieces. Besides, not only would we have had a mounted American military presence of the Word War II army, Marines and Navy, we would have had the veteran survivors of WWI on the ground. The WWI guys were not all old men. Many or even most were middle age. In short, by the time the Japanese Imperial army got to Dallas, they would have been surrounded by hundreds of thousands of thoroughly urinated Americans. (Except I really think they would have been in real trouble by the time they got to Yuma.)
I've read extensively on the Aleutians war. That route would be problematic at best. Our commercial airlines who fly high over the Aleutians and ride the gulf stream from Tokyo to Seattle and back are uneventful because the fly far above the weather which is typical of that region: fog and constant storms.
Aviation had not advanced to that point in the 1940's. Even until the mid-1980's, direct flights were becoming common with the workhorse 747's, but refueling stops in Anchorage were even more common with lesser aircraft.
More sorties had to be canceled in the Aleutians theater of operations than were carried out. Japanese resupply of the two Aleutians which they occupied (Attu and Kiska) had to be done almost entirely by submarine. Even fast moving destroyer shuttles from the Japanese Kurile Island base at Parashimaro became too risky by the winter of 1942-43.
That just went on my “nook”. I read “Shattered Sword” last year ...
Jon Parshall is interviewed in 'Refighting' as well.
Not much different. Just would have taken longer, that’s all.
Our submariners would have suffered through a longer, even more intensive unrestricted submarine warfare campaign while we replaced our carriers and trained up some new naval aviators. Might have lost New Guinea and had a land campaign in Australia.
But we would have swept them from sea, any darn way.
We’d have started island-hopping in Hawaii, and we’d have started using nukes instead of Marines in any of the invasions after 1944.
Their Army was stretched mighty thin, too.
“... Japan gets nuked more than twice in 1948 ... “
.
And where would those bombers have taken off from?
You are assuming that we would have gone island hopping like we did in the early forties so as to make a slow approach to the Japanese islands in order to secure Pacific bases.
And what about Europe? No way that we could’ve maintained the lend-lease program, all of Europe would have fallen to the nazis, no shipping to Murmansk to help the Russkies, nazis riding roughshod all the way to the Urals and beyond, Britain defeated, mid-east oil in nazi hands, etc. etc., no D-Day.
In His mercy the Good Lord gave us Admiral Fletcher (The American Lord Nelson) and good and lucky decision making at Midway.
Yes, the vast bulk of it was tied down in China & Manchuria for the entire war.
What if your aunt had a p***s?
She’d be your uncle, I suppose, but in the end the question is pointless along with all possible answers.
Unless you’re Harry Turtledove, in which case you write another book and give your wife the kitchen makeover she’s been pestering you for.
Probably would have kept Yamamoto alive for at least a little while longer. Don't thinks that the Japanese would have tried to take Hawaii.
Take a look at “Midway Inquest”. Great book.
The loss of the four carriers was devastating to Japan. They could neither replace the ships or their flight crews.
However, what exactly was Japan’s plan to win the war?
Initially, they thought to knock the U.S. out, negotiate a peace, and continue undeterred by us with their crazy idea of creating a Japan-dominated East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. In other words, at some point, instead of continually sinking resources into their extended empire, they were to be enriched by it.
This is like thinking socialism, central planning, high taxes, and slavery works.
The key to us winning WWII was the Supreme Court declaring the National Recovery Act unconstitutional, delaying the socialization of the U.S. economy until Obama’s second term.
Because we still had a basically capitalist economy, we were able to not only supply our military, but Russia’s as well. Almost all their trucks were U.S.-built 2 1/2 tons, and more of their tanks were Shermans than T-34s. Ditto their warplanes.
But they didn't. And, if they had, the US would have doubled down and defeated the Japanese somewhere else in the Pacific. The Japanese supply lines were stretched too far by the time they got to Midway and Navy successes against their shipping were having a significant impact on the Japanese ability to re-supply their troops at the farthest points.
However, in light of current events upon which the very future of America as the beacon of freedom in an increasing oppressive world depends, discussing "what-if" questions about events that ocurred ~70 years ago is pretty pointless. Why not pose the question "What would the world be like today had Napoleon NOT have been defeated at Waterloo??" It's the same pointless exercise.
Japan was working on the Atom bomb as well and was very close, if not already successful in 1945. What would a delay of six more months have brought? Could you imagine first Pearl Harbor being nuked, then San Francisco, Seatle, and LA? Japan had already developed a sub that carried a plane. They had no shortage of suicide pilots and submariners either. If they couldn’t fly a bomb in, they could submarine one in. Japan was working on a lot of nasty stuff besides the Atom bomb too. I say it was close.
If we could come back from Pearl Harbor, we could come back from a loss at Midway. Japan could possibly have invaded Hawaii, but I don’t think they were capable of indefinitely holding it. They were capable of causing massive damage to the mainland, but not capable of holding it. American productive capacity and the overstretch straddling the Pacific would ultimately be too much.
US submarines and land based aircraft could have probably isolated and starved a garrison on Midway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.