Help support TMP


"What If Japan Had Never Attacked Pearl Harbor?" Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Naval Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two at Sea

Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Workbench Article

Basing Small-Scale Aircraft for Wargames

Mal Wright Fezian experiments to find a better way to mount aircraft for wargaming.


Featured Profile Article

Report from Bayou Wars 2006

The Editor heads for Vicksburg...


859 hits since 25 Nov 2017
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0125 Nov 2017 10:38 p.m. PST

"Suppose Robert E. Lee had laid hands on a shipment of AK-47s in 1864. How would American history have unfolded? Differently than it did, one imagines.

Historians frown on alt-history, and oftentimes for good reason. Change too many variables, and you veer speedily into fiction. The chain connecting cause to effect gets too diffuse to trace, and history loses all power to instruct. Change a major variable, especially in a fanciful way—for instance, positing that machine-gun-toting Confederates took the field against Ulysses S. Grant's army at the Battle of the Wilderness—and the same fate befalls you. Good storytelling may teach little.

What if Japan had never attacked Pearl Harbor? Now that's a question we can take on without running afoul of historical scruples. As long as we refrain from inserting nuclear-powered aircraft carriers sporting Tomcat fighters into our deliberations, at any rate…"
Main page
link


Amicalement
Armand

Allen5726 Nov 2017 9:50 a.m. PST

I am always skeptical of the impact of the what ifs on history. If Lee could equip his whole army with AK47s It would have made a difference. By increasing your firepower you basically increase the size of your army. Would the Confederates have won? Maybe. Or perhaps the Union would have increased production of multi shot fire arms like lever action rifles and adopted tactics to cope with the Confederate firepower. Or maybe the Union would have captured a couple AK47s and designed their own assault rifle. Speculation can go on and on.

I feel Pearl Harbor had more impact on Americas attitude towards going to war than did the loss of a couple of outdated battleships. Yes we probably would have entered the war without Pearl Harbor but would we have mobilized both our military and our industry as quickly and as heavily as we did? What would the impact on WWII have been if the US Congress bickered over such things?

rmaker26 Nov 2017 11:24 a.m. PST

While Pearl Harbor aroused almost all Americans, I think the attacks on the Philippines would have done the job almost as effectively, and Wake Island would have iced the cake.

basileus6626 Nov 2017 10:53 p.m. PST

If Robert E Lee would have magically got a shipment of AK47s nothing would have happened: Confederates hadn't either the technological or industrial capabilities to reproduce, mass distribute and supply them to the troops; and don't even start with the ammunition! You need to have the know-how in order to be able to operate a weapons system effectively. AKs are easy to use and produce, but not that easy.

Japan not attacking Pearl Harbor is a totally different proposition. It was a clear strategic option, that was discussed by military and political leadership in Japan. All of us know the story about Yamamoto opposing the attack. There was nothing inevitable about Japan launching a surprise attack on a major military US base. In fact, it can be argued that Japan could have forced the Dutch to supply her with oil and rubber without resorting to open war. It is doubtful that Britain would have opposed the move, neither is probable that Roosevelt would have been able to bypass Congress oposition and declare war against Japan in that scenario.

Japanese leadership wasn't able to interpret correctly the political decision process in democracies. They didn't realize that even if willing to declare war Roosevelt administration was bound by legal and political constrains that couldn't be ignored. The author of the article argues that even a Japanese attack on the Philippines could have been insufficient cause to provoke US retaliation. Imagine if no attack against US posessions would have happened; that only political pressure would have been exercised upon the Dutch, who were in no position to resist; maybe Australia would have wanted to retaliate, but she couldn't have done anything without Britain's and US' support.

Before Pearl Harbor, it was more probable that US would have declared war to Germany and Italy, than to Japan.

PrivateSnafu27 Nov 2017 12:42 p.m. PST

We'd have never got 1941.

Never mess with the space time continuum.

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP01 Dec 2017 11:05 a.m. PST

Do you mean not attack Pearl Harbor but go ahead and attack the Philippines, Wake, etc. Of not go to war with the US at all? Makes a big difference. :)

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.