• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What would happen if Pearl harbor wasn't bombed ?

What would happen if Pearl harbor wasn't bombed ?


  • Total voters
    26
It's all over with, but I believe that Russia would probably have defeated Germany without the USA's help.

Perhaps, one can't know for sure about these things. Russia had U.S. help and Germany had to worry about the western front as much as the eastern front and then there was Africa. Without Pearl, there would have been no landings in Northern Africa, at least when they happened. I do not think Germany would have had to keep as many troops on the Atlantic Wall if it was just worried about England without the U.S.. The bottom line is it is hard to tell. Even with Pearl being bombed, if Japan had went north and invaded Russia instead of going south, that would have prevented Stalin from moving masses of troops from east to west to take on the Germans.

Perhaps Stalin and the USSR could have eventually beat Hitler, but no one will really know. Pearl was bombed and what we have is a bunch of what if's.
 
Yeah, but it's already happened and you'll never put that toothpaste back in the tube.
In one way at least, it's good - no one wants to be the first to do it again, after seeing what happened the first time.
 
Too many 'if's' to answer, imo.

Does this assume that Japan never attacks America? How would they continue their war with China if America cut off it's oil deliveries to Japan? Under this scenario, then I assume Japan ends the China war and makes peace with CHina - whilst occupying large portions of the country.

What I find interesting is what would happen in Europe? America might not enter the European war - they only declared war on Germany after Pearl harbor AFTER Germany declared war on America. That would leave Germany/Italy against the Soviet Union and Great Britain.
I still think the Axis would have been defeated. But it probably would have taken a lot longer and been a lot bloodier (if that was possible).


Now that I think about it - it's an interesting scenario.
 
Too many 'if's' to answer, imo.

Does this assume that Japan never attacks America? How would they continue their war with China if America cut off it's oil deliveries to Japan? Under this scenario, then I assume Japan ends the China war and makes peace with CHina - whilst occupying large portions of the country.

What I find interesting is what would happen in Europe? America might not enter the European war - they only declared war on Germany after Pearl harbor AFTER Germany declared war on America. That would leave Germany/Italy against the Soviet Union and Great Britain.
I still think the Axis would have been defeated. But it probably would have taken a lot longer and been a lot bloodier (if that was possible).


Now that I think about it - it's an interesting scenario.

I have encountered a fiction book series that starts with Japan invading and conquering Hawaii, rather than just attacking it.
 
FDR is considered one of the three great presidents this country has had by historians. I agree with them. I will give you my best guess coming from what I have read about him, I think FDR was an Anglophile and was determined to do all he could to keep England from falling to the Nazis. Besides he and Churchill had a real good friendship. I do not think it had anything to do with getting us out of the Great Depression or even manufacturing. Lend Lease pretty much determined we were not going to get paid. I think FDR realized Hitler could very well conquer Europe and pretty much of Asia if we didn't get ourselves involved. He did have great foresight.

I wouldn't call FDR an Anglophile. I think early on he wanted to prop up England against the Nazis, not out of love for England but because he recognized what the Nazis were. Once we officially entered the war, FDR was pretty determined to use the war to break the English empire and create a new post imperialist world lead by the US. I think Churchill and FDR had a warm relationship, but Churchill let that relationship blind him to FDR's agenda. FDR never let the personal mix with the political.
 
Perhaps, one can't know for sure about these things. Russia had U.S. help and Germany had to worry about the western front as much as the eastern front and then there was Africa. Without Pearl, there would have been no landings in Northern Africa, at least when they happened. I do not think Germany would have had to keep as many troops on the Atlantic Wall if it was just worried about England without the U.S.. The bottom line is it is hard to tell. Even with Pearl being bombed, if Japan had went north and invaded Russia instead of going south, that would have prevented Stalin from moving masses of troops from east to west to take on the Germans.

Perhaps Stalin and the USSR could have eventually beat Hitler, but no one will really know. Pearl was bombed and what we have is a bunch of what if's.

Without US involvement, its possible Churchill's government might have eventually fallen and peace was made in the west. Hitler was willing to grant fairly generous terms to the British, as he admired the British Empire. That would've aided Germany's push east, but I don't think it would've been nearly enough. The logistics in Russia don't favor an invading force and Hitler's no retreat policy almost guaranteed that when fortunes did turn, it would be disastrous for the Germans, ala Stalingrad.

Japan going into Russia, just wouldn't work. They're army was still tied down in China, no way they could summon the manpower for a major invasion of Russia without fatally undermining their ability to hold their gains in China.
 
Without US involvement, its possible Churchill's government might have eventually fallen and peace was made in the west. Hitler was willing to grant fairly generous terms to the British, as he admired the British Empire. That would've aided Germany's push east, but I don't think it would've been nearly enough. The logistics in Russia don't favor an invading force and Hitler's no retreat policy almost guaranteed that when fortunes did turn, it would be disastrous for the Germans, ala Stalingrad.

Japan going into Russia, just wouldn't work. They're army was still tied down in China, no way they could summon the manpower for a major invasion of Russia without fatally undermining their ability to hold their gains in China.
Perhaps if Japan focused on controlling China, they would have been better off in the end...
 
That was their intention, but the oil embargo was severely hampering their ability to wage war in Japan, so they hoped to strike the US hard and quick and force a peace that would get the oil flowing again. Japan incorrectly believe the US had no stomach for war and would back down if Japan scored enough early victories.
 
vote ,thank you

Well Medusa, that question was asked over seventy years ago and was answered by those who know what would have happened.


What if the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor?

>" The operational use of Japanese Naval Aviation was designed around the IJN's strategic and operational plan to respond to a US Navy thrust to the Philippines and
force a decisive battle on Japanese terms.

The IJN recognized the US Navy as its primary foe from the end of the Russo-Japanese War. From 1906, the IJN began to craft a strategic and operational plan
for countering a US Navy thrust into the Western Pacific. Japan's naval building program was designed around the operational and tactical needs for executing the
Plan. From what we know now, the IJN was reasonably informed about US Navy strategic concepts for a war in the Pacific. Whether they knew the details or
not, or anything about the constant swings of power between the "thrusters", desiring an immediate all-out thrust to the Philippines at the start of a war and the
"cautionaries", who sought a deliberate, step by step offensive to Japan is probably moot. The US navy would come west and the IJN had to be prepared to stop
them.

Japanese scenarios start with an attack on US possessions and forces in the western Pacific, with or without a declaration of war. They then expected the US
Navy to mount an expedition, sooner or later, to relieve or recover the Philippines. With the acquisition of the Mandates, the IJN planned to enmesh the US Navy
within the Mandates in a campaign of attrition by Japanese light forces. When the American force had been sufficiently weakened, the Battle Force would sail from
the Sea of Japan and execute the "coup de grace".

By the 1930's, the IJN envisioned its light forces as consisting of land based aviation, carrier based aviation, heavy and light cruisers, destroyers and submarines,
along with some special systems "cooked up" especially for this campaign. Submarines and seaplanes would make the initial contact. They would shadow the US
force and guide other submarines and the land based aviation to the target. The submarines would begin to probe the US perimeter to distract US forces from the
oncoming bombers and torpedo planes. The submarines would also scatter mines and miniature subs in the US force's path. At night, Japanese cruisers and
destroyers would conduct long-range torpedo attacks with "Long Lances". The Japanese built special torpedo cruisers with 40 tubes installed quick reload gear for
torpedoes on their cruisers and destroyers and practiced hard at these tactics.

Once the US forces had been ground down, many ships damaged, the crews exhausted, the Japanese carriers would strike. Up to 1941, the IJN planned to use
their CVs in single carrier task forces. Thanks to Genda, the IJN developed a new doctrine and concentrated their carriers into a single strike force. They would
have struck at dawn, 4-6 CVs, dive-bombers, torpedo bombers and fighters. The fighters would have swept the skies over the Americans, and the strike forces
would have concentrated initially on the US CVs. Once the US naval aviation was broken and air superiority secured, denying use of the skies by the US
observation planes and securing its use by the Japanese, the battleships would come forward, and using aerial spotting engage in a long range gunnery duel. Once
the culminating point was reached, the Battle Force would close in on and destroy the Americans.

Meanwhile, the subs would be eliminating any wounded vessels, which left formation and tried to reach US ports. With the US forces broken, the remaining IJN
light forces, including the carriers and battle cruisers would pursue and complete the enemy's destruction.

How much the US Navy knew about this plan is not entirely known. But US attaches had divined most of the outline of this plan. Whether this had any impact on
the change over from a "immediate offensive" to a more cautious approach is also unproven. But the intent of the "thrusters" to charge forward to the Philippines
would have played into the IJN's hands. The more cautious approach of "nibbling" through the Japanese defenses was more realistic in its appraisal of both the US
and Imperial Japanese Navies.

Anyone who reads "War Plan Orange" can see the development of both navies' strategic plans. More importantly, these plans both reveal the very important place
of aviation in the concepts. Both land and carrier based aviation was neither neglected nor ignored. As early as the 1920's, the USN incorporated air power in its
"island-hopping" campaign, sought to use seaplane bombers to reinforce the Fleet, developed a plan to convert fast liners and cargo vessels into auxiliary carriers
and developed an "end game" to Plan Orange that seized islands off Japan for bases to conduct a strategic bombing campaign.

But the IJN did attack Pearl Harbor. And I would contend that this operational decision was in line with current IJN doctrine..."<

Continue -> What if the Japanese had not attacke Pearl Harbor?
 
That was their intention, but the oil embargo was severely hampering their ability to wage war in China, so they hoped to strike the US hard and quick and force a peace that would get the oil flowing again. Japan incorrectly believe the US had no stomach for war and would back down if Japan scored enough early victories.

Fixed that for you, good post btw
 
I wouldn't call FDR an Anglophile. I think early on he wanted to prop up England against the Nazis, not out of love for England but because he recognized what the Nazis were. Once we officially entered the war, FDR was pretty determined to use the war to break the English empire and create a new post imperialist world lead by the US. I think Churchill and FDR had a warm relationship, but Churchill let that relationship blind him to FDR's agenda. FDR never let the personal mix with the political.

I do not know about Churchill letting the relationship blind him. From what I read FDR and Churchill had a few rows over the status of India after the war.
 
Not following this thread, but putting it out here- without the attack on PH, US people would not be so motivated and eager to get revenge...
 
I don't understand the point of "What if?" polls.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063316370 said:
The worst thing Japan could have done is bomb Pearl Harbor. It brought the US out of its depression and it ultimately ended Japan's and Hitler's quest for world domination.

If Pearl Harbor isn't bombed then the US war machine may have never gotten started in time to win WWII.

Also, who knows how long the depression may have lasted.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor shocked us into a steel-like resolve. I believe that we still would have eventually gotten involved, and still won, but it would have taken longer as it would have taken longer to get everything... especially public opinion & support... cranked up.
 
I do not know about Churchill letting the relationship blind him. From what I read FDR and Churchill had a few rows over the status of India after the war.

FDR died before the War ended.
 
The bombing of Pearl Harbor shocked us into a steel-like resolve. I believe that we still would have eventually gotten involved, and still won, but it would have taken longer as it would have taken longer to get everything... especially public opinion & support... cranked up.

Pearl Harbor-according to my late father who became a Naval Officer in 1944 and lost his older brother at Okinawa in 45 noted that the sneak attack sure made it easier for everyone he knew to support the horrific fire bombings of Tokyo and then the nuking of Japan. after Pearl Harbor, he noted, few Americans had any sympathy of what horror was visited on Japan, and when they learned of the fact that while only 1% of Americn POWs in Germany died, more than a third of our POWS held by Japan died in captivity, there was little if any remorse for what happened to Hiroshima etc
 
Pearl Harbor-according to my late father who became a Naval Officer in 1944 and lost his older brother at Okinawa in 45 noted that the sneak attack sure made it easier for everyone he knew to support the horrific fire bombings of Tokyo and then the nuking of Japan. after Pearl Harbor, he noted, few Americans had any sympathy of what horror was visited on Japan, and when they learned of the fact that while only 1% of Americn POWs in Germany died, more than a third of our POWS held by Japan died in captivity, there was little if any remorse for what happened to Hiroshima etc
I had never really thought about that aspect before, but that is very interesting.
 
I had never really thought about that aspect before, but that is very interesting.

a few POWS were murdered by the Nazis, a few were killed while escaping and most who died were badly wounded or burned aviators who bailed out.

If you want a harrowing picture of what American POWs faced read Pappy Boyington's book. IIRC he got the MOH as much for maintaining Morale among POWs as for shooting down lots of Japanese planes. I remember as a kid, my highly decorated WWI grandfather, had a large collection of WWII books and photographs. One book showed a Japanese officer about to behead a blind folded Australian POW.

I also recall after Japan was nuked, mobs tried to kill-sometimes successfully-American POWS In Boyington's case a young officer-from the Samurai class-refused to let the mob kill his prisoners-even fighting off come with his sword. I recall that while many Japanese guards were tried for war crimes and some higher ups shot or hung (and more than a few summarily executed by American soldiers shortly after occupation) Boyington defended this guard who was exonerated
 
If it hadn't happened, the US would probably have sat out the whole shebang. It would have spared us the imposition of Affleck's cruddy movie. lulz
 
Back
Top Bottom