would Japan have won the Pacific War?

[fcgv]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IF the Japanese had not split their forces and attacked head on to Midway the US probably would have lost it. The American's even with "intelligence" about the operation itself got some very serious lucky breaks.

However even IF Japan won at midway it doesn't mean that they would have won the war either. There are too many "what if's" to even speculate reasonably what would have happened afterwards. Even if the US lost Midway doesn't mean it would have lost it's flat tops.

[Bonam]

They would have lost sooner or later. Even if they had held off against the US for longer, the Soviet Union was poised to invade Japan shortly after they defeated Germany, and that woulda been the end of Japan.

[jbg]

Dictatorships always overreach. Thus, the defeat of Napolean, Hitler and Tojo. Democracies, which have to value the lives of their soldiers, fight more conservatively. That's normally an advantage in the long run.

Even so, we (the US) would up having to use its "Hail Mary" pass, the nuclear bomb, to defeat Japan without overwhelming casualties. The USSR would have faced the same problem. As they learned in Afghanistan, loss of life is an obstacle to continuing a military effort, even in a dictatorship.

[Figleaf]

Japan could not win the Pacific war. I did not have the population, resources, nor industrial capacity to confront the United States in a long conflict, and certainly not to defend against Asian hordes at the same time. And the Japanese regime knew this -- the Pearl Harbor strategy was deliberately conceived as a plan not to conquer America, but to deter it, at least until Japanese hegemony was fully established in South Asia and those populations and production brought on stream. The strategy was a pipe-dream, but it was all they could think of.

[jbg]

And the Japanese regime knew this -- the Pearl Harbor strategy was deliberately conceived as a plan not to conquer America, but to deter it, at least until Japanese hegemony was fully established in South Asia and those populations and production brought on stream. The strategy was a pipe-dream, but it was all they could think of.

Given the lack of US interest in the Pacific theatre pre-Pearl Harbor, attacking the US head-on was flat-out dumb.

[Wilber]

Given the lack of US interest in the Pacific theatre pre-Pearl Harbor, attacking the US head-on was flat-out dumb.

a

One wonders. Considering the isolationist sentiment in the US at the time, if Japan had just attacked British, French and Dutch colonial possessions in South East Asia, it might not have been enough to drag the US into the war at that time.

[Xander]

One wonders. Considering the isolationist sentiment in the US at the time, if Japan had just attacked British, French and Dutch colonial possessions in South East Asia, it might not have been enough to drag the US into the war at that time.

America chose not to enter the war because it felt that neither Japan or Hitlers Germany presented a large threat to America. This dose mean that the British, French, Dutch or any other country for that matter may very well not of been able to drag America into the war. However if numerous countries like the above mentioned ones met with constant loses that could very well bring the US into the war. They would of been fearful of two much success by any other country. They let Hitler role over Europe because were ever the German war machine when so also went destruction.

Although it controlled much of Europe the cost of this victory was that the infrastructure of each country was obliterated. This toll can been seen in the massive effort required after the war to rebuild Europe. In fact this may be part of the reason why Europe is ahead of North America in terms of pollution and fuel inefficiency. Although their has indisputably been a lot of political pressure witch has resulted in the high ranking, in term of efficiency and environmentalism, of Europe, much of the underlying infrastructure that these advancements depend on came into existence during the re-building of Europe after world war two.

Although this destruction meant that most of the countries were useless in terms of building up German's war machine it would eventually reach a point were German became powerful enough that although America was situated on a different continent America would see it as a treat and would therefore take measures to stop its growth and to diminish its power. The same would be true of Japan although it would be able to take over some foreign soil if successfully it would inevitably reach a point were America saw it as a potential threat. In their attack on pearl harbor they attempted to convince America that if they ever decided to fix its sights on Japan as an enemy the result would be devastating to American interests at home and abroad.

Although the attack on Pearl harbor only sped up the process the fact the it occurred at all shows the Japan saw that America would eventually enter the war.

[M.Dancer]

Given the lack of US interest in the Pacific theatre pre-Pearl Harbor, attacking the US head-on was flat-out dumb.

That isn't quite correct. Churchill waged an uphill battle against US public opinion...the US thought that China was of equal ( or greater) importance as Europe. It was no surpise that the bulk of the US fleet resided in the Pacific.

The gamble that Japan took attacking Pearl was risky, but had they the resources to hunt the carriers, mine the harbour and attack Australia, they would have faired better and lasted longer.

The fact though, which remains unshaken is the trmendous industrial strength of the US would be undimished and they would have persevered in the end, probably with the use of even more nukes.

[bush_cheney2004]

The fact though, which remains unshaken is the trmendous industrial strength of the US would be undimished and they would have persevered in the end, probably with the use of even more nukes.

Agreed, except that the US would have prevailed without any "nukes" at all.

[Xander]

It is true that they could of won without nukes but it is likely that whatever had happened America would of ended up using nukes unless it was a swift victory for them. America chose to use nuclear weapons not because they had to but because they would end the war much faster. America new that if they had to fight japan island to island they would suffer tremendous losses. They could of one in a war like this because of their advanced and high tech infrastructure. The farther they pushed into Japans territory the less power Japan would have to make war. Although the fight would almost certainly end in American victory it would be long, costly and bloody.

[jbg]

Agreed, except that the US would have prevailed without any "nukes" at all.

It is true that they could of won without nukes but it is likely that whatever had happened America would of ended up using nukes unless it was a swift victory for them. America chose to use nuclear weapons not because they had to but because they would end the war much faster.

Part of the reason that the US's hand was forced was that even with its immense natural resources and industrial productivity, its treasury was nearly bare and, according to McCullough's biography, Harry Truman the ability of bankers to raise more funds was near and end. In addition, as I have repeatedly noted, the casualty level, both for American troops and Japanese civilians would have been immense. Certainly the use of nukes minimized casualties. I am not certain that anyone had Japanese casualty minimzation as a paramount goal at that time. Given the fact that Japan is our closest non-English-speaking ally, the Japanes must not have been too upset with being nuked.

America chose not to enter the war because it felt that neither Japan or Hitlers Germany presented a large threat to America. This dose mean that the British, French, Dutch or any other country for that matter may very well not of been able to drag America into the war. However if numerous countries like the above mentioned ones met with constant loses that could very well bring the US into the war. They would of been fearful of two much success by any other country. They let Hitler role over Europe because were ever the German war machine when so also went destruction.

With my correction I agree with your post. Historically, the US has really only gone to the aid of English-speaking countries (including Israel) and not made the elected politicians pay a heavy price for the decision. In my humble opinion, the US will never let Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Israel be militarily imperiled. The US will commit limited amounts of men and materiel to other efforts, namely Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Bonam]

Given the fact that Japan is our closest non-English-speaking ally, the Japanes must not have been too upset with being nuked.

I don't think that it's their lack of upsetness at being nuked that made Japan an ally...

In my humble opinion, the US will never let Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Israel be militarily imperiled.

To be honest, while Britain, Canada, etc might be assured of US protection (while the US remains the leading superpower), I'm not so sure about Israel. Media around the world is trying as hard as it possibly can to smear and degrade Israel. Despite the efforts of those that try to argue objectively on Israel's behalf, Israel's standing is being rapidly tarnished by propaganda. Anti-Israeli viewpoints are already very virulent in Europe, and in Canada, and if things keep on going as they are going, these viewpoints will spread in the US further as well. How long until US policies start to reflect that? I don't know, perhaps a while, but not forever. Israel needs to make itself 100% militarily self-sufficient by then if it wants to retain its military advantage.