From: parasite@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Leslie Mills)
Subject: Re: What if there had been no Pearl Harbor?
Keywords: WWII, Pearl Harbor
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:58:12 GMT

> (introduction deleted...)
>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;
>

The American public would still have felt "stabbed in the back".  From
what I heard, the declaration of war was worded in such a roundabout
manner the Americans would have felt lied to regardless of the timing.


>(b) the attack on Pearl Harbor had been timed to happen on the day
>after the declaration? 
>

Believe it or not, the Japanese arguably did the Americans a lot of good
by destroying the American fleet at Pearl Harbor.  Here are my reasons
(feel free to shoot them down):

	- The American battleships (with layor upon layor of paint which
	  burned with such devestating effect) were sunk in relatively
	  shallow water, allowing most of them to be raised, and later,
	  improved (better AA armament, better damage control procedures,
	  and a better understanding of the battleship's new role come to
	  my fevered mind).  Imagine what would have happened if the Japanese
	  met the ill-prepared American fleet and defeated it in the
	  high seas.

	- Aircraft carrior tactics were studied as the main branch of
	  naval warfare (with the Pacific Battleship fleet inoperative,
	  the debate which hampered the Japanese Navy no longer applied
	  to the Americans, who had no other choice of tactics).

	- The Americans lost a great number of obsolete aircraft, but did
	  not lose their aircrews.  (It is far faster and easier to
	  build a new plane than to train a new pilot, a lesson the 
	  Japanese did not learn until it was too late).

>(c) at Midway, despite the attack on Pearl Harbor occurring as it did
>historically, they had achieved their goal of sinking the US carriers? 
>
>( valid considerations deleted for brevity's sake )

That is a hard topic.  The battle of Midway came about partially because
of the Doolittle raid launched from the deck of the Aircraft Carrior
Hornet.  If the Americans had no Aircraft Carriors after Pearl Harbor,
no attack would have been made, and Yamamoto (apologies if I misspelled his
name) may not have been able to convince the Army-controlled government
to undertake the operation.

But with no navy left to oppose them... who knows?

Here's a thought that is nagging at my mind.  Would the Japanese surrendered
if the Americans had developed the atomic bomb before they gained supremacy
in the Pacific?  

Here is the scenario that comes to my mind: the Japanese
win the battle of Midway without loss of their carriors, or maintain the
upper hand long enough to prevent the Americans from their "Island Hopping"
campaign until 1945 (far-fetched, I know, the Americans outproduced Japan
3-1 and less than 20% of their war effort was diverted to the Pacific).
The Americans, desparate for a quick low-casualty (ie. few of American/
Allied lives lost) end to the war decide to launch a Doolittle-like
raid upon Japan.  Would Japan, her military might still strong, her conquests
still intact, be shocked into surrender, or would the bombs only fan
the flames of anger to a bezerker fury?

I'll shut up now, you know I should quit when I start using pharses like the
last one.

-- 
Leslie Mills

If you love something, set it free, if it doesn't come back to you,
Hunt it down, and kill it -- Thus sayeth a T-shirt