# Minus the European war would WW2 still occured in the Pacific **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213 "2014-04-28T20:37:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/41 "2014-05-01T13:44:13Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Finally, unlike the German situation, where U-boats needed to transit either the Bay of Biscay—close to Allied airfields in Britain, or the G-I-U.K Gap, also close to Allied airfields in Iceland, the Faroes, and Greenland, U.S. submarines didn’t face any similar narrow choke-points that they had to transit on the surface, until they reached their operating areas in either the Inland Sea or the Sea of Japan. I respectfully disagree. The Luzon straits, the Formosa straits, the Malacca straits, and the Java Sea, Sulu Sea, all are/have narrow choke points surrounded by, or easilly within range of, many airfields. > [@](#): > > Japan also had nothing like the sheer numbers of heavy bombers that were converted to maritime patrol aircraft that the Allies had. They’d be left to patrolling much larger areas of water with fewer aircraft. Perhaps they could have adopted a sanitize-the-convoy approach to utilizing their limited air assets, but then they still would have faced their inability to conduct effective nighttime maritime patrols due to their lack of airborne radar. I agree the lack of a focus on airborne radar helped the US, but the Japanese had respectable maritime patrol aircraft in the Nell, Betty, Mavis, and Emily types, all with good range, and enough payload to mount a threat on a diesel submarine. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/42 "2014-05-01T17:16:27Z")
> [@nevadaexile](#): > > TLDR ( actually I did, but I don’t feel the need to address each comment individually) Impressive rebuttal, moreso since you in fact go on to address each comment individually.:rolleyes: > [@nevadaexile](#): > > Hawaii and the PI were the home of the two major American military installations in the Pacific. The Japanese attacked one (bot not completely as they failed to destroy the facilities there which allowed for ships to be repaired and oil to be refined) and the conquered the second and held it for two years (the PI). Which means what, exactly? I guess you didn’t read since I pointed out to you that the US Navy used Nouméa, New Caledonia as its main base of operations during the Solomons campaign. It didn’t need Pearl Harbor to operate out of, and while Pearl was convenient for moderate repair work, most major repair work was done stateside in any event. > [@nevadaexile](#): > > If the Japanese had sunk all of carriers at Midway, then perhaps new carriers could have been built, but that would have done little to address the loss of so many pilots and naval crews. Planes didn’t fly themselves in the 1940s and it would have taken months for the US to field new aviators to replace those who would have been lost. That was what helped to the Japanese was that many of the pilots who participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor were subsequently killed during the Battle of Midway. > Japan was never truly able to replace these losses and the effectiveness of their naval aviation after Midway makes that fact more clearly than I ever could. There is no perhaps; again I guess you in fact did not read what I wrote. Those carriers were already under construction. To reiterate, there were more Essex-class fleet carriers under construction when war broke out as a result of the Two Ocean Navy Act than there were carriers in the entire Japanese navy. You clearly have not been reading either what others have written or the links I’ve provided, as the inability of Japan to produce skilled pilots in any appreciable quantity during wartime has already been noted by both **TokyoBayer** and the link I’ve cited. > [@nevadaexile](#): > > Please feel free to re-read what I wrote. > The US was never going to LOSE a war against Japan. > However, had things gone far worse for the US from Pearl Harbor to mid-1943, then the end of the conflict wouldn’t have been the same or similar to what it was in our iteration of history. Please feel free to give what I wrote an actual first reading. Had things gone far worse for the US from Pearl Harbor to mid-1943, even had the US lost catastrophically at Midway, the end result would have been exactly the same. ---
**Author:** ![Mince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mince)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/43 "2014-05-03T09:19:34Z")
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor only after an assurance from Hitler that he would declare war on the U.S. afterward. And he did, four days later, December 11, 1941 (that, above all else was the deciding factor for Japan’s attack, and, IMO, the result of the war). No Hitler, no assurance, no attack. ---
**Author:** ![Mince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mince)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/44 "2014-05-03T09:36:16Z")
No way Hirohito would have expected his forces to defeat the combined, unencumbered forces of America and England (and there would have been more) at the time without the considerable force and empowerment of Germany. ---
**Author:** ![Mince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mince)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/45 "2014-05-03T09:52:35Z")
[quote=“nevadaexile, post:23, topic:687213”] [li] **A Japanese victory at Midway** - American naval aircraft lucked out and found the Japanese during the Battle of Midway. Had they run out or fuel or turned back sooner, it’s likely that the Japanese would have won that battle and thus forced an American counter-attack after Pearl Harbor to early 1943 or later.[/li][/QUOTE] It sounds like you’re forming this opinion based on the movie [Midway](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074899/) which is skewed to treat its viewers with drama to make it interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/46 "2014-05-03T10:06:16Z")
One really cannot blame the Japanese for seeking to expand beyond their borders considering how all the western powers had been doing the same. Look at the US for example. We helped the Philippines achieve independence in 1898, but then we went in to become their new landlords. Prior to that in the 1850’s Japan had been a nation content within its own borders until the US forced them to open up. A military expedition to Korea in the 1870’s did the same to them. Japan had also become embroiled in the Opium Wars started by Great Britain in China around 1900. GB 100 years earlier had taken over Australia and New Zealand. In fact every European power; Germany, the Netherlands, and France all had Asian colonies. So looking at the region its no wonder Japan wanted in before they were cut off and maybe colonized themselves. Now throw into that many “colonies” had strong forces pushing for independence. It was a very volatile coming so yes, war would have come sooner or later. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/47 "2014-05-03T17:28:13Z")
> [@Mince](#): > > Japan attacked Pearl Harbor only after an assurance from Hitler that he would declare war on the U.S. afterward. And he did, four days later, December 11, 1941 (that, above all else was the deciding factor for Japan’s attack, and, IMO, the result of the war). No Hitler, no assurance, no attack. Japan didn’t seek or get assurance from Hitler that he would declare war on the US if it attacked Pearl Harbor; Hitler had no idea Japan planned to attack US and British possessions on Dec 7, 1941 until after it happened. Neither was he obliged to declare war in support of Japan, the Tripartite Pact was a defensive pact, which is why Japan was not obliged to declare war on the USSR when Germany invaded it on June 22, 1941. From [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor) on consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor: > [@](#): > > Having been unaware of Japanese plans, Hitler was initially furious that the United States had been dragged into the war at a time when he had not yet acquired full control of continental Europe — on the very day of the Pearl Harbor attack, Hitler himself had issued his Nacht und Nebel decree, concerning the suppression of resistance activities within Nazi-occupied lands. Hitler, who had previously declared the Japanese “Honorary Aryans” claimed that this is what happens when your allies are not Anglo-Saxons.[10][citation needed] However, he decided war with the United States was unavoidable, and the Pearl Harbor attack, the publication of Rainbow Five, and Roosevelt’s post-Pearl Harbor address, which focused on European affairs as well as the situation with Japan, probably contributed to the declaration. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/48 "2014-05-05T14:51:16Z")
> [@Mince](#): > > No way Hirohito would have expected his forces to defeat the combined, unencumbered forces of America and England (and there would have been more) at the time without the considerable force and empowerment of Germany. Hirohito was not at the center of the planning for the war, and in fact his constitutional role was to “accept the advice” of the cabinet. His decision to impose his will and force the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War and the cabinet to surrender was actually beyond his constitutional role. In reality, as I noted several times in this thread, local commanders were making decisions and taking actions which placed Japan in war with various countries. Feel free to direct any comments to those posts. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Japan didn’t seek or get assurance from Hitler that he would declare war on the US if it attacked Pearl Harbor; Hitler had no idea Japan planned to attack US and British possessions on Dec 7, 1941 until after it happened. Neither was he obliged to declare war in support of Japan, the Tripartite Pact was a defensive pact, which is why Japan was not obliged to declare war on the USSR when Germany invaded it on June 22, 1941. From [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor) on consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor: To further your comments with something which others may not know, this directly led to the [Second Happy Time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time) in which the U-Boats made hay while the sun shined. > [@](#): > > The Second Happy Time lasted from January 1942 to about August of that year and involved several German naval operations including Operation Paukenschlag (or Operation Drumbeat) and Operation Neuland. German submariners named it the happy time or the golden time as defense measures were weak and disorganized,[2]:p292 and the U-boats were able to inflict massive damage with little risk. During this period, Axis submarines sank 609 ships totaling 3.1 million tons and the loss of thousands of lives, mainly those of merchant mariners, against a loss of only 22 U-boats. This was roughly one quarter of all shipping sunk by U-boats during the entire Second World War. Historian Michael Gannon called it “America’s Second Pearl Harbor” and placed the blame for the nation’s failure to respond quickly to the attacks on the inaction of Admiral Ernest J. King, commander-in-chief of the U.S. fleet. The US stupidly failed to take basic steps such as coastal blackouts, run convoys and such. As a point of reference, Allied submarines sank about 5 million tons of Japanese shipping during the entire war. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/49 "2014-05-05T14:58:58Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > So looking at the region its no wonder Japan wanted in before they were cut off and maybe colonized themselves. > > Now throw into that many “colonies” had strong forces pushing for independence. > > It was a very volatile coming so yes, war would have come sooner or later. By 1941 there was zero chance of Japan becoming colonized. Even by 1905 when they defeated the Tsar’s navy or by 1895 when they beat China the first time. Actually, it was well before that, but that can be a different debate. I’m not sure the reason for the double quotes around “colonies,” perhaps you could let us know what you mean. In the late 30s and early 40s, where there any “colonies” (with or without the double quotes) which had strong forces pushing for independence which contributed to Japan’s eagerness for war? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/50 "2014-05-05T17:16:56Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > I’ll argue that without a war in Europe, the US would have been more, and not less likely to go to war with Japan. I looked into this before, and public opinion polls in around 1940 and 1941 showed that a good amount of people expected a war with Japan. The US government, military and public all underestimated the Japanese military capacity and were surprised once the war started. Without the fear of getting entangled in another European affair, I think that the US would have pushed harder against Japan. > > During the 20’s and 30’s the majority in the U.S. were not interested in another European war and there was little interest in an Asian war. Until Pearl Harbor. Then, somebody was going to get their ass kicked. I don’t see the US declaring war on Japan, I see the US taking actions such as the oil embargo which then leads Japan to make the first move. > [@](#): > > IIRC, the U.S. military had been considered 17th best/strongest in the world. Hardly a credible threat to G.B., France, Germany, or Japan. Which may be one reason the Japanese were as foolhardy as they were. But it’s more likely that they were simply fools. > [@](#): > > Shared British technology help jump start the U.S. war machine and its nuclear effort. U.S. ingenuity, manufacturing, and manpower created the rest. How much “shared British technology” are you claiming for the “jump starting” the nuclear effort? Cite, please. > [@](#): > > Imperial Japan had been creating its modern war machine for decades. One-on-one, Imperial Japan’s navy would have been a match for G.B. or France or Russia or Germany. Ummm. No. Japan had not been creating a modern war machine for “decades.” Like the other powers, any of their planes and ships over a few years old were obsolete. They did have the advantage of war experience in China and that no one was paying any attention to them. However, if there hadn’t have been that Hitler thing going on to distract everyone, lots more countries would have been looking at their aircraft. Japan was never going to get into a war with Germany. The comparison is meaningless. Likewise, the battle with the USSR would primarily be on land. Naval power would not play a part. The IJN could have beaten up the French navy a bit and would have done very well against the RN, but they would not have had the luxury of picking just one. Without a war in Europe, the French, the British and the US would have gotten involved. Another thing to not overlook is the problem that the IJN had less than one year’s worth of oil reserves, and as they would not have been able to cease the DEI, there would only be a limited amount of action that those super battleships could have done. Regardless of any initial naval successes they may possible have had against a set of non-distracted Allies, if they had any of significance the IJA did not have the capacity to defeat the British and French armies which would have been stationed in Singapore, Malay and Indochina. In this hypothetical, either the US is more interested in Japan, in which the Philippines are better prepared and the IJA is unable to take it or it is less interested, in which the Pacific fleet is safely back in San Diago, and the US and Filipino forces fall back on their planned retreat to Baatan, but they would be more likely to have food supplies to hold out for the planned six months. At either rate, along with cooperation with the other Allies, the US would be able to better withstand a Japanese attack. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/51 "2014-05-05T20:55:14Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > …How much “shared British technology” are you claiming for the “jump starting” the nuclear effort? Cite, please. (post shortened) In 1940, Great Britain had the expertise and the desire to build an atomic weapon. What it didn’t believe it had was the time, money, and manpower. G.B. had a more pressing traditional fight on its hands. Sharing atomic programs and designs (The Rolls Royce Merlin engine was built in the U.S. by the Packard Motor Car Company) made wartime sense. \*Frisch & Peierls In February 1940, Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls, working at the University of Birmingham in the UK, considered the possibility of fast fission in uranium-235. They estimated the critical mass of pure U-235 was only “a pound or two”, and that much of this mass would react before the rest was blown away by the explosion. They estimated the likely effects of the bomb, possible methods of assembly and made estimates on how feasible it was to separate the uranium-235. They prepared a memorandum, the Frisch–Peierls memorandum, on their discovery and gave a copy to their professor, Marcus Oliphant, who passed to Henry Tizard, the chairman of the Committee on the Scientific Survey of Air Defence, which was the most important scientific committee for defence in Britain.\* And then there’s MAUD. \*First meetings At Tizard’s behest, the Maud Committee first met on 10 April 1940 to consider Britain’s actions regarding the “uranium problem”. A research programme on isotope separation and fast fission was agreed upon. In June 1940 Franz Simon was commissioned to research on isotope separation through gaseous diffusion. Ralph H. Fowler was also asked to send the progress reports to Lyman Briggs in America from that date. The Maud Committee acquired its code name in July 1941 by the British Government. MAUD stands for Military Applications of Uranium Detonation, hence MAUD. The MAUD Committee consisted of: Sir George Paget Thomson, Chairman Marcus Oliphant Patrick Blackett James Chadwick Philip Moon John Cockcroft Although the original work had been done by Frisch and Peierls, one was German, one was Austrian and so were “officially” classified as “enemy aliens” and could not be a part of a wartime committee. ( **Later they both made significant contributions at Los Alamos as part of the British Mission**.)\* > **[MAUD Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAUD_Committee)** > > The MAUD Committee was a British scientific working group formed during the Second World War. It was established to perform the research required to determine if an atomic bomb was feasible. The name MAUD came from a strange line in a telegram from Danish physicist Niels Bohr referring to his housekeeper, Maud Ray. > The MAUD Committee was founded in response to the Frisch–Peierls memorandum, which was written in March 1940 by Rudolf Peierls and Otto Frisch, two physicists who were refugees from N... ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213/52 "2014-05-05T21:36:42Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > …Ummm. No. Japan had not been creating a modern war machine for “decades.” Like the other powers, any of their planes and ships over a few years old were obsolete. > > They did have the advantage of war experience in China and that no one was paying any attention to them. > > However, if there hadn’t have been that Hitler thing going on to distract everyone, lots more countries would have been looking at their aircraft. > > Japan was never going to get into a war with Germany. The comparison is meaningless. > > Likewise, the battle with the USSR would primarily be on land. Naval power would not play a part. > > The IJN could have beaten up the French navy a bit and would have done very well against the RN, but they would not have had the luxury of picking just one. Without a war in Europe, the French, the British and the US would have gotten involved. (post shortened) Decades = twenty or more years. Modern military buildups began again after WWI ended. (Except in the U.S…) Obsolete is a relative term. Technology was changing quickly, but just like a street racer, a nation would run-what-they-brung when the bullets started flying and people started dying. In this thread, the thing with Adolf didn’t occur. Imperial Japan began it’s current expansion in 1931. It’s unlikely that Imperial Japan would have attacked multiple colonies of different European powers, at the same time. If Germany had become involved or was thought to be standing in the way of Imperial Japanese expansion, it’s very possible that Germany and Imperial Japan would have gone toe-to-toe. Unlike with Russia, which was still embareassed by it’s last dust up with Imperial Japan and Stalin was busy murdering Russian military and civilians. The U.S. wouldn’t have been involved in an Asia-(insert European country name here) war unless someone began shooting at U.S… No one, not the U.S. government, not the U.S. business establishment, not the U.S. workers, not the Allied powers, not the Axis powers actually understood how large the U.S. could build it’s military (from 500,000 in 1940 to 12 million in 1945) or how quickly the U.S. could build tanks, planes, firearms, ships, clothing, and still feed such a large, scattered force. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minus-the-european-war-would-ww2-still-occured-in-the-pacific/687213.md?page=2)