What if Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor ?

[aloisius]

Would America still get into the war?


When?


Would the public be behind it as they were after being attacked?

[CrewDust]

Would America still get into the war?


When?


Would the public be behind it as they were after being attacked?


1. Yes
2. When Japan moved against the Philippines.
3. No, but there still would have been plenty of support.

[YankHibee]

I think the U.S. would have gotten involved, but perhaps too late. The situation, not only (but especially) in the Philipines, probably would have been horrible on the Treblinka scale. I think there would have been support, but I doubt there would have been enough to win the war.

[Owen Gohl]

Would America still get into the war?

Possibly, but later rather than sooner.

When?

Not until 1943 at the earliest and probably not until 1944 when many of the carrriers ordered in 1940 would have been available.


Would the public be behind it as they were after being attacked?

Probably a little less than they were behind our entry into World War I. There would have been very little enthusiasm.

Japan had a choice of gambles in 1941. Believing that war with America was inevitable, Japan gambled on striking the first blow. But Japan could have refused to attack any American possessions and gambled that the United States would (a) delay its entry into the Asian war, (b) enter the European war instead, or (c) continue to remain completely neutral. Only (a) would have posed problems for Japan, but not in the short term.

Assuming that the gamble failed and America entered the war immediately, Japan would not have been able to take Malaya, Burma, and other British and Dutch possessions as quickly as they did in 1941-42. They might have had to limit themselves to taking the Indonesian oilfields. In any event they would have had to have prepared contingency plans for invading the Philippines and executed them upon America's declaration of war. Of course that would have led to an encounter with a US fleet attempting to save the Philippines, a fleet that had not suffered the Pearl Harbor attack.

But would the odds at this encounter have been that much different from those at Midway? Most of the US battleships were too slow to deploy with the carriers and might well have remained in port. I haven't worked out the possible deployments for both sides in any detail but Japan probably would have had a slight advantage.

Even had they won this hypothetical Battle of the Philippine Sea Japan still would have lost the war. But had they won their gamble on American neutrality history might have been very different.

[Pauncho]

Is your question

(1) what would have happened to Japan and China if Japan had never attacked the United States, Britain and the Netherlands in the 1940s?

or is it

(2) what would World War II in the Pacific have been like if the Japanese attacks on December 7 and 8 of 1941 had not included the naval base at Oahu?

[Anthony]

Probably a little less than they were behind our entry into World War I. There would have been very little enthusiasm.

I have to agree. You just need to see how popular "America First" was in 1941. John Foster Dulles was giving money to the AFC as late as November 1941. And despite the attempt to paint the AFC as a bunch of Nazi sympathizers (though undoubtedly some were), most were really (i) anti-British and (ii) dissillusioned with the US participation in WWI.

I do believe that the US would have been at war with German sometime in 1942. The sub war in the Atlantic was rapidly coming more direct. But one only needs to look at Australia to see how the US would have responded. The Australians were not that entusiastic about WWII intially. They sent troops the Middle East, but there was none of the entushiaism that Australia initially greeted WWI with. Once the Japanese started running wild though, the Australians suddenly became very serious about the war.

I think without Pearl Harbor, the US entry into the war in say June 1942 would not have garnered the same enthusiaism and willingness to sacrifice. But I do believe that FDR wanted to avoid war with Japan and concentrate on Germany, which was the bigger threat to the US.

[JBigjake]

Who says they did? I surprised we haven't seen sebcoe or his replacement stevebiko posting photos & links showing that it was an inside plot?

More reasonable explanation? The same day, as Japan launched its invasions of the Phillippines & Malaysia.
"MacArthur anticipated Japanese aggression as early as late November when Japanese scouts were seen in northern Luzon frequently. In early December, Japanese bomber formations were observed flying within 20 miles of Lingayen Gulf beaches and returning to Formosa, presumably making trial runs in preparation for the attack. The actual attack came several hours after the Pearl Harbor attack, when Japanese air strikes destroyed half of MacArthur's air force on the ground. The Japanese army followed in three landing sites. 76 transport ships landed the 48th Division at Lingayen and the 16th Division at Lamon Bay, while the third landing was at Mindanao at the south of Luzon. The primary objectives of the land troops were to take airstrips so that they could continuously extend air superiority as they moved south"

[Anthony]

JBigJake

It is also possible that MacArthur though the Japanese were going to attack in February/March, not December. And the Filipino war plans were based on that assumption.

MacArthur was in the process of training the Philipine Army (in reality, there were few US ground troops in the Islands in 1941) and a few days befpre Pearl Harbor, indicated that he thought (and welcomed) a Japanese attack on Luzon in "3 months". And he thought that in three months, his army would be ready.

In reality he had only about 4 days and that screwed up the plans. The original war plan (from about 1910) called for the army to hold only Manila for about 4 months until the US Navy could launch a counterattack. The plan was then changed to hold the entrance to Manilla Bay (basically, the Bataan peninsula and Corrigador).

MacArthur changed the plan and he would have met the Japanese Army in the field. Unfortunately, he too got caught with his pants round his ankles, and the Filipino Army was not ready. Caught unaware, the army reverted back to the old plan and retreated to Baatan and Corrigador. But the supplies which were stockpiled there under the old plan were dispersed. AND the army did not reckon about the refugee problem.

It would have been OK had the Navy been able to launch a counter attack, but with the Pacific battle fleet out of action, the result was never really in doubt.

[JBigjake]

It would have been OK had the Navy been able to launch a counter attack, but with the Pacific battle fleet out of action, the result was never really in doubt.
Which, of course, is the reason for the simultaneous attack on Pearl Harbor. The two (3 if you count Malaysia) were part of an overall plan. One was not going to happen without the other. We seem to forget that Pearl Harbor was not a one-off sneak attack. It was part of a coordinated effort to knock out US reinforcements so that the other invasions could occur & succeed. Even if our entire fleet had been destroyed on Dec. 7, the US would have rebuilt & returned. It just would have taken longer.
The ultimate error made by Japan may have been assuming that the US would not fight, especially if dealt an early heavy defeat. Reasons, IMO? We were still in an economic depression. We did not have a militaristic culture. We had not joined in the European war, which had begun over 2 years earlier. Hawaii & the Phillippines were territories, not states on the mainland. Also, IMO, Japan underestimated the caliber of our forces.

[Malaga CF fan]

I'd take another tack on this given some reading I just did a couple of night ago. Interesting article in Smithsonian magazine on Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project, just everything surrounding the research in Los Alamos and how development of the A-bomb and eventual testing was proceeding. To me, if the US doesn't enter the war until 1942 or 1943, the entire timetable for the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific gets pushed back, but the timetable for the development of the A-bomb really doesn't.

In the article, one of the main points they mention is how the developments in the war, specifically the war in Europe affected the teams that were developing the bomb. When it appeared in March and April of 1945 that Germany was on the verge of surrender, it was a blow to the morale of the entire Los Alamos group and Oppenheimer in particular. I really think they had in mind having the bomb ready for the Germans and the Nazi war machine, Japan was in the periphery, but there was a feeling that the A-bomb needed to be used, not only strategically to win the war, but as a demonstration of power to discourage its use in the future. Nazi Germany was the primary target of the Manhattan project.

With the war timetable pushed back, even 6 months, but the A-bomb still having it's first test during the summer of 1945, you really give the Allies the option of using the bomb somewhere in Europe to defeat the Germans, instead of the Japanese. I really think we would not have seen a Hiroshima, but a Hamburg, or Leipzig, if that makes sense. The US still would have used the A-bomb, just on mainland Europe somewhere. It really changes a lot, not just some of the more strategic outcomes in 1942, 43, 44, but also the big EVENTS that happened in 1945.

Another consideration would be the Russians. Would we have been looking at an Iron Curtain closer to the Swiss/French border? Most of the War in Europe on the Eastern front proceeded independent of American/British involvement. One wonders how soon Russian would have reached Berlin and if they would have made it there about the same time in 1945 and if they would have continued West and South towards France, Holland, Belgium, and Italy.

[96Squig]

(...)Most of the War in Europe on the Eastern front proceeded independent of American/British involvement.(...)
Disagree here, the Russians depended on British and American economical help and know-how, they only had manpower and ressources.

[Anthony]

Disagree here, the Russians depended on British and American economical help and know-how, they only had manpower and ressources.

It is realy hard to say. After all, the Russian had better tanks than the Western allies, and of course huge land armies. One scenario I saw was that the Russians would have won at Stalingrad, but without American and British assistance, would have not been able to keep up the momentum.

[nicephoras]

Disagree here, the Russians depended on British and American economical help and know-how, they only had manpower and ressources.

That's entirely false. The Russian military machine was, in many ways, superior to that of the other Allies. They had better tanks, better artillery (the first to implement rockets) and probably the best generals of the war, since they were the only ones familiar with tank warfare aside from the Germans. Konev, Zhukov and Rokossovsky were excellent leaders.
The US provided little "know-how" to Russia. And the Russians were greatly aided by US economic aid, but given the delays and difficulties of obtaining it, I find it hard to credit that this aid was dispositive. To be sure, the war would have lasted longer if not for US aid, but then again, the Russians gave the Germans an unbelievable advantage in the early days of the war.

[nicephoras]

Another consideration would be the Russians. Would we have been looking at an Iron Curtain closer to the Swiss/French border? Most of the War in Europe on the Eastern front proceeded independent of American/British involvement. One wonders how soon Russian would have reached Berlin and if they would have made it there about the same time in 1945 and if they would have continued West and South towards France, Holland, Belgium, and Italy.

Wouldn't have made a difference. D-Day was as much about making sure France and parts of Germany didn't fall to the Russians as it was about liberating them.

[Toon³]

The Russians do owe alot to the Allies. The amount of food and vehicles sent to Russia made a huge difference. Nearly all of the trucks and jeeps used by the Russians were American. The Russian frontline troops were eating Spam for most of Stalingrad.

The British Arctic convoys were the most dangerous convoy routes of the war. The British wouldn't have taken such a risky route if the supplys they carried weren't essential to the Russian war effort.

Each Allied nation contributed something to the war effort and if one of them was removed then the war effort and progression would have suffered greatly.

[DoyleG]

History showed that once Russia got unto a war industrial footing (which didn't take long) the Arctic Convoys were rather insignificant comaped to US Aid comming over the Bering.

The ships would've been better served on the Atlantic runs.

[nicephoras]

The Russians do owe alot to the Allies. The amount of food and vehicles sent to Russia made a huge difference. Nearly all of the trucks and jeeps used by the Russians were American. The Russian frontline troops were eating Spam for most of Stalingrad.

Not quite. The jeeps were very important, but lets not overstate things here.

The British Arctic convoys were the most dangerous convoy routes of the war. The British wouldn't have taken such a risky route if the supplys they carried weren't essential to the Russian war effort.

That's awful logic. It simply wasn't possible for England to go via the Bering route, that's all.

Each Allied nation contributed something to the war effort and if one of them was removed then the war effort and progression would have suffered greatly.

Controversial statement there. ;)

[topcatcole]

Not quite. The jeeps were very important, but lets not overstate things here. The TRUCKS man, the TRUCKS.

There is an old statement about war to the effect that lieutenants study tactics, generals study logistics. Logistics is the realm of the truck.

Tanks are nice, but they are useless without fuel, ammunition and food for the crew. That is the realm of trucks. The fact that the Russian army was much more mobile and well-supplied due to the availability of motorized transport is major.

In addition (and this was not mentioned before) there were a huge number of aircraft sent. The servicing of ferry bases for these aircraft was the basis for completing the Alaska Highway after the end of the (admittedly tiny) Japanese threat to Alaska.

That's awful logic. It simply wasn't possible for England to go via the Bering route, that's all. It's not so awful if you include the political considerations. Churchill worked very hard to keep the Russians in the war and to do everything he could to provide support.

[Dan Loney]

I'm sure most of you have seen this, but I hadn't, so I'm sharing. WWII as an online chat:

http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/09/wwii-as-online-real-time-strategy-game.html