History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedCould the Pacific War have been avoided?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
rishubhav View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 21-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rishubhav Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Could the Pacific War have been avoided?
    Posted: 16-Mar-2009 at 22:10
By the beginning of 1941, with Japan part of the Tripartite Pact, and the U.S raw materials and fuel embargo against Japan in place, would it have been possible for Japan to have pulled back from the brink of war with the US, or would the pressure for resources have been too overwhelming?

Or, if the Japanese had put into effect a limited strike on just the Dutch East Indies, but not American possessions, would FDR have been politically able to move the American people towards war with Japan?
Back to Top
Ikki View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Guanarteme

Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 1358
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ikki Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 01:18
Originally posted by rishubhav rishubhav wrote:


Or, if the Japanese had put into effect a limited strike on just the Dutch East Indies, but not American possessions, would FDR have been politically able to move the American people towards war with Japan?
 
 
My opinion about this matter always have been the same: was impossible for FD Roosevelt to take USA into the war without a direct attack, the isolationism was too much strong there. The japanese attack to USA was a masterpiece in the tactic field, but a huge mistake in the political one, a direct attack to UK and Netherlands without attack USA was far better option.
Back to Top
Singidunum View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Mar-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 9
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Singidunum Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 03:53
I also agree that FDR could not start a war without a direct Japanese assault. It's interesting to know that America did not proclaimed state of war with Germany, Hitler beat them to it because, as the result of defeat at Moscow, he need it to look strong in the eyes of the German people. For Axis it would have been much better that Japan striked at Russia's back. It would have been much easier and cheaper war because bulk of Japans army was in China and Russia fought a battle of life or death far in the west.
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 10:08
Yes it was.
If the Japanese had had success in Russia in 1939, then they would not have attacked South. You should remember that their were two groups in the Japanese Government, the strike north group which wanted to go to Siberia and the less influential SOuthern Strike group; which wanted to go South.
 
The northern strike group was chosen, Siberia was contigious to China, where the Japanese already were, while the Southern Strike Option would mean
 
i) Fighting well away from home
ii) Streching the logistics to breaking point
iii) Inevitably a war with the US, the UK and France, who would no doubt dispatch their Navies there (and indeed had plans to do so, pre war the main adversary of each was conidered the JIN). The Dutch were less of a concern.
 
Unfortunatly for Japanese, when they moved into Siberia, they came up against a gentleman by the name of Zhukov (who would be heard from again on the other side of Eurasia) and suffered 250,000 casualties. Scrath THAT plan.
 
At the same time the European War started out and with the loss of France and Italy active in the war in the Med, it meant that instead of facing the French Navy and the entire British Grand Fleet along with the US Pacific Fleet, they were only left to face the latter with only minor reinforcements sent from the UK. In addition most of the garrisons which usually manned the East Indies were now in Europe (or in the case of the French and Dutch, busy in POW camps). The UK only started strengthening its garrison in Singapore in late 1941, too late, enough for 100,000+ Brits to be carted off when the time came.
 
Thus the Southern Strike option became attractive again and it is what was carried out, with one minor tweak; sink the US Pacific Fleet at anchor.
 
So you ask could the Pacific War have been avoided, yes I say if the following happened\
 
1) The French hold in the Ardennes in 1940
2) Churchill has sence beaten into him and the majority of ships are dispatched to Singapore in 1941 (early), which is what the Imperial General Staff wanted to do
3) Zhukov dies of a cirrohosis of the liver before meeting the Japanese, possible he loved his vodka.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 11:03
 
This thread belongs in the Modern History sub-forum Hard Working
 
 
Back to Top
rishubhav View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 21-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rishubhav Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 16:04
Sorry, could a mod move it please?
 
Do you think that a Japanese invasion into Siberia launched after Operation Barbarossa could have been successful, despite the previous Japanese defeat?
 
And if Japan had gone ahead with a limited strike, what would FDR have done?
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 23:09

1) The Japanese were unwilling to deal with the heavy hand of the Sovs again, justifiably as the events in August 1945 showed. The juingles of the Pacific hid the fact that the Japanese had an army suited for WWI not WWII. The fights in China, where they fell into what can be called a W Front type stalemate (except something like 3 times as many died in China) or the Imphal and later C Burma campaigns, where two British Armoured Divisions mauled the largest land formation the Japanese had, displayed that throughly.

2) Any move by the Japanese in SE Asia would mean war. The japanese would have been extremely stupid to conduct an action which was certain to bring the US to war and not at least try to neutralise the Pac Flt, hell if they could have gone to Scarpa Flow and sunk the British Grand Fleet they would have done so. What began the war was not Pearl Harbour, but the events in E Asia that Pearl Harbour was designed to make easier.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 08:02

Sorry, My post was in the wrong thread.

Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 18-Mar-2009 at 17:06
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 10:53
Lets remember the war in the Pacific and Burma was a side show to the Japanese, most of their army and more than 2-3rds of their air force were committed to China.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
nuvolari View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 263
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nuvolari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2009 at 10:44
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Lets remember the war in the Pacific and Burma was a side show to the Japanese, most of their army and more than 2-3rds of their air force were committed to China.
 
What years did this imbalance apply and did it continue throughout the whole war ?
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2009 at 11:55

Throughout. As the Americans neared, the Japanese did move planes and divisions home, but the great majority of troops surrendered in China.............to the Soviets.

Burma has the largest field formation, the Burma Area Army.
 
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
nuvolari View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 263
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nuvolari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2009 at 12:02
I was not aware of this.  When surrendered to the Russians, did the Japanese suffer the same fate as German POW's in Russian hands ?  i.e to be held for many years during which many of them died or were killed.
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2009 at 14:46
not a chance and saying the influence of the strike south isn't good is balony. The Japanese were primarily motivated by resources, which the south had, but not the north (mostly because Brunei and Atjeh in Indonesia had oil) and while Siberia has oil it was not and is not easily accessible. Even by the 1920's the U.S. had a great deal of incentives lying in the east (middle eastern oil).  Not only would Japan have held British (and the Brits were the biggest U.S. trading partner), Dutch and French colonial territory, Japan would also have blocked the Malllaka straits, which would no doubt have been unacceptable to U.S. interests. Its kind of like saying Rome would never have gone to war with Carthage, because Cathage took Syracusae from the Greeks. Of course they will go to war, because it is in their interest to do so. A strong state looks after its citizens wellfare and that wellfare has always been motivated by trade and resources. It is stupid not to look after your interest for strategic reasons.
 
Look at it from a general's or president's perspective (a good president that is, like FDR (second best U.S. president after Washington I would say), not someone like Obama, or Bush, or Carter, or even Kennedy for that matter). If you know that a nation has warred other nations before then it is likely to do so again (why stop when you have been undefeated, it was true for Japan and it was true for Germany), if your interest conflict then that nation poses a threat to you. Then you know war is inevitable, the only thing you don't know is when it errupts. Your interests conflict with Germany because it is not a democratic nation and that nation poses a threat to your main trading partner. Your interests conflict with Japan because of access to resources. Even if the resources are at different locations there may still be restricted access, because you still have to transport it. The problem and blessing for the United States is that it is locked between two oceans and it is a problem when you need to transport oil, because then the dillema arises where do you hold port? If you then lose Indonesia and Thailand you lose half your supply of oil. Tanks and aircaft need oil (lots of it) and you know war is likely, if your supply is down, then you will be weak and fighting will be harder, with more casualties and a greater likelyhood that you may lose the war. This is why operation market garden failed (they had no access to oil, because they had no access to Antwerp). So if you are president and you know you must fight anyway, then fight when and where it serves you best. Bush (junior that is) understood where to fight (I know its cryptic for someone who has no clue what the situation is of Iraq and Afghanistan and I doubt there are many who do understand it), but not when to fight. Kennedy understood when to fight, but not where to fight. Carter understood neither and Obama is probably the same as him.
 
Site and situation matters people, more so in war then it does in peacetime. Remember your Sun Tzu, locked in on hostile ground, you should fight, because doing nothing will lead to no avail, only to your demise.
 
FDR understood all of it. Had he not understood it, then many of us would not have been here in the first place and the world would have been a hell, a living nightmare. Had FDR not understood it, there would be no New York city. California and Alaska would have been Japanese, Eastern Europe a wasteland, England torched soil and the British islands a cesspool of Nationalists, Western Europe under tyrranical rule. Russia under tyrranical rule and plagued by war. Africa a genocidal wasteland, the middle east a wild west, Latin America a haven for despots and Asia and Oceania the domain of the Japanese emperor.
 
Site and situation has repercussions upon repercussions. FDR's vice-president Truman really did understand it as a domino effect, because it is a domino effect. The U.S. congress did not understand it, but FDR did understand it. FDR probably understood it, because of his family's history. Know how the Roosevelts made their money?
 
basically you can sum it up by quoting Kennedy

"For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal."

Roosevelt declared war on Hitler, but the declaration of war needed to be ratified first by congress, which was problematic, because the support for it was marginal it could go either way). When Hitler heard about what Roosevelt did, he made a formal declaration of war to the United States, that is what ultimately pushed the United States in the war. Roosevelt was a clever man, even if the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, you can be sure that Roosevelt would find a way to push congress towards war. He didn't like it, but Roosevelt knew he had to.
 
Afterall what future scenario is better for the U.S.? A world under genocidal and tyrannical rule and a country all alone with no trading partners and no access to resources, or a free and democratic world and a U.S. with many trading partners and good access to resources?
 
If you have any common sense and morality, you would say it is the latter.


Edited by shugo - 27-Mar-2009 at 15:46
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2009 at 16:15
Originally posted by shugo shugo wrote:

Roosevelt declared war on Hitler, but the declaration of war needed to be ratified first by congress, which was problematic, because the support for it was marginal it could go either way). When Hitler heard about what Roosevelt did, he made a formal declaration of war to the United States, that is what ultimately pushed the United States in the war.
Roosevelt didn't declare war on anyone. US Presidents can't declare war. On December 11 Germany declared war on the US, alleging attacks by the US Navy on German vessels.  ( http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/germany-declares.htm  ). Moreover Mussolini beat Hitler to it.
 
Roosevelt asked Congress to recognise that a state of war existed with Germany.
 
With regard to Japan, since Japan didn't declare war, FDR asked Congress to declare war on Japan, as they did on the 8th December.
 
(Trivia question: who was the only member of the House to vote no on declaring war on Japan in 1941, on declaring war on Germany in 1917 and on recognising war with Germany in 1941?)
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2009 at 16:46
perhaps you did not understand the nuance
 
it said declare, it did not say formal declaration of war that was ratified by congress.
 
I can say I declare war upon you, but it does not mean I am actually at war with you.
 
gcle2003 you just made the same mistake Hitler made in 1941. Remember Roosevelt studied law, Hitler was but a mere bum with poor artistic skills.
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2009 at 17:06
Montana Republican Jeannette Rankin
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2009 at 18:04
go dig up the U.S. constitution
 
article 2, section 3 reads:
 
"he shall recieve ambassadors"
 
which is exactly what he did between the 7th and 11th of december
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 03:34
I think the Pacific War was inevitable. The Emperor of Japan was a much more active participant in the drive to expand Japanese power than post WW II history would indicate.
 
The Japanese Army had all but taken over the nation and fanatical officers killed any moderates that tried to derail long term expansion plans. The conquest of Manuchuria took place in 1933 and after that territory was digested the campaign to conquer China began. The continued Japanese expansion would have brought the empire into conflict with the US sooner or later.
 
And the US most likely would have entered WW II eventually on the side of the Allies as Germany expanded its' U-Boat campaign. US forces naval forces were already engaged with U-Boats long before Dec 7, 1941.
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 18:21
Originally posted by Singidunum Singidunum wrote:

I also agree that FDR could not start a war without a direct Japanese assault. It's interesting to know that America did not proclaimed state of war with Germany, Hitler beat them to it because, as the result of defeat at Moscow, he need it to look strong in the eyes of the German people. For Axis it would have been much better that Japan striked at Russia's back. It would have been much easier and cheaper war because bulk of Japans army was in China and Russia fought a battle of life or death far in the west.
 
Hitler beat them to it, because FDR provoked him (its easy to do that to a psychopath I suppose). The point is FDR had to do that because of the isolationists attitude of the U.S. FDR knew he only could get enough support, if Hitler proclaimed state of war first.
 
This is what I feel makes a good and strong leader. Knowing and acting upon something you know to be the right course of action when everyone else disagrees with you even though they are wrong from every strategic point imaginable and you are not wrong, shows a great sense of character and intelligence. FDR and Washington were one of the few presidents who had those qualities, it is what made them great statesmen.
Back to Top
shugo View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Location: groningen
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote shugo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 18:32
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

 
And the US most likely would have entered WW II eventually on the side of the Allies as Germany expanded its' U-Boat campaign. US forces naval forces were already engaged with U-Boats long before Dec 7, 1941.
 
true in every sense, but I do think judging from FDR's character and his insight and  knowledge of geopolitical strategy, that he would have acted regardless of wether Pearl Harbor happened or not.
 
Then again Pearl Harbor was inevitable, since a north strike was out of the question (it simply was not in the Japanese strategic interest to do so).
 
It reminds me of a quote of Napoleon were he mentioned after the battle waterloo, the he never was a master of the situation, but rather that the circumstances were master of him.
 
You can't place Japan on another part of the globe. Japan is located in Asia on the Pacific and that determines what neighbours they have deal with. It is that situation what made it unavoidable.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.