From: COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan)
Subject: Re: What if there had been no Pearl Harbor?
Organization: Pacific-Plate Residents (Motto: 54-40 or Bust!)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:10:42 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <Oct.8.17.25.33.1992.17085@dropout.rutgers.edu> mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu writes:

:  
:  	mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
:  	So, here are the questions: Would the Japanese have had any
:  	chance of getting the US to agree to negotiations if
:  
:  	(a) the Japanese diplomats had not fumbled the translation of
:  	the declaration of war, i.e., the attack would have happened,
:  	say, an hour or even a few minutes after the declaration;
:  
:  ... no change.  The important fact was that the Japanese attacked,
:  really.  If they had declared war, then waited a week while Congress
:  dithered over a counter-declaration, and *then* attacked (but not at
:  Pearl, see below), it might have been different.  
:  

I don't think an hour would have mattered, but if had been announced a day
before (or the previous evening) it might have changed the psychological result
significantly. There was much made in the US about the "sneak attack", the 
"Day of Infamy" etc. The resulting impression that the Japanese victory 
was due to "cheating" had two important consequences. First, it gave the US
a clearly seen moral cause (i.e. punishing an unfair attack) which was lacking
in Korea and Viet Nam. Second, the many US military errors combined with 
racist prejudices to lead to the general confidence that the US would easily 
defeat Japan in a "fair fight". This is especially important since if the 
general population believed that Japan actually had a powerful military (which
it did), it is doubtful that they would have been as willing to commit at an 
early stage to the war in Europe.

:  	(b) the attack on Pearl Harbor had been timed to happen on the
:  	day after the declaration?
:  
:  ... some difference, though not perhaps like you think; the attack 
:  would have been significantly less effective.  Once the Japanese 
:  declared war, the USN would have put to sea.  Air defenses at Pearl
:  would have been at full alert (and radar reports of a large number
:  of aircraft incoming would not have been ignored.)  Somewhere at sea,
:  several US aircraft carriers and submarines would have been out
:  looking for the IJN.  
  
I am not so sure of this. The US was expecting an attack on the Phillipines
(declaration of war or no). This was especially true by the time it actually 
came, 10 hours after the attack began at Pearl. Still McArthur's airforce 
was destroyed as effectively as had been the planes on Oahu. The fact is, the 
Japanese had a superior air force, and the US would likely have been 
flat-footed on Oahu no matter what.

:  At home, things would have probably not have
:  been very different, so long as the first attack was carried out by
:  the Japanese.

I disagree with this (see above), but it would have been in Roosevelt's best

whether or not there was a declaration of war.

:  	(c) at Midway, despite the attack on Pearl Harbor occurring as
:  	it did historically, they had achieved their goal of sinking
:  	the US carriers?
:  

Without US carriers in the Pacific, the Japanese would have had no reason
for the Battle of Midway. It was in retaliation to Dolittle's raid (from a
carrier) and was intended to provoke a carrier battle (which it did) rather
than actual invade territory. Of course, had they wanted Midway, it would have
been a freebe.

I would speculate that the loss of the carrier fleet might have forced the 
US to do the sensible thing and evacuate the Phillipines.

:  ... it would have put off the US counter-offensive by about 6 months,
:  probably, until the new CV's that had been laid down were built
:  (something like 15 were being built in July, 1942).  The USN would
:  have been down to 2 CV's, but would have still been getting stronger
:  and stronger in land-based air (it is likely that had the Japanese
:  taken Midway, they would not have been able to hold it.)  I doubt that
:  it would have made the US less likely to continue the war; in the end,
:  it would have only insured an extremely large number of atomic bombs
:  to drop on Japan in the spring of 1946.  A reading of US public
:  sentiment in this time period doesn't really show any possibility of a
:  flagging of spirit; we were in it for the long haul.
:  
:  Charles

I agree that no matter how the war started, if Japan fired first, the US 
would not have rested until Japan was conquered. The Japanese military's hope
that the US would give up quickly (ala Tsarist Russia) after a convincing
tactical defeat was a genuine blunder. However, as I said above a different
scenario in the Pacific could have had a big impact on the War in Europe.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war