# Pearl Harbor attack - was it Japan's wisest course of action? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2016, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187 "2016-12-08T09:33:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/81 "2016-12-12T22:07:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > According to this logic, the United States should have surrendered in 1941. It had no means to attack Germany at hand. Oh but it did. It had the massive aircraft carrier that was Britain in which to assemble a huge invasion force and with the US Navy and Royal Navy it had control of the Atlantic Ocean as well as total domination in the air. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/82 "2016-12-12T22:15:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > . . . If the war had gone slightly better for Germany in 1942, they could have built an invasion fleet and crossed the Atlantic around 1945. Seems really unlikely. Naval power, air power, and sheer distance make this extremely hard to accomplish. Could Operation Overlord have succeeded if it had to launch from Newfoundland, and not Britain? Just the advance warning time alone would make it so much more difficult. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/83 "2016-12-12T22:27:11Z")
Yeah , it’s pretty laughable that Germany could have invaded North America without a staging area, as I brought up a few posts earlier. At the slightest wiff of cooperation with Germany Im sure Mexico, Cuba or the Bahamas would have found themselves under American guns pretty damn quick. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/84 "2016-12-12T22:30:01Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > I don’t concur. Per “Hitler’s Engineers” by Blaine Tayor: > > ``` > "on Rohland's return, he confronted Todt in a conference on November 28 [1941], concluding that the war against Russia could not be won. The following day, Rohland and Todt met with Hitler. Rohland repeated his finding in Russia, and adding to that his knowledge of British and American industry, he concluded: "once the United States entered the conflict, there would be no way of winning the war" > > ``` > > Todt insisted to Hitler that the war could not be won by military means, only politically. Hitler had already discussed with possibility with Goebbels in August 1941 . . . " > So Hitler believed, or was considering that the war was lost in December 1941 when the invasion failed. So where high level Nazis. > > Hitler later in the war stated to Speer that the German people had proven themselves weaker than the people in the east, therefore they should be allowed to perish. These two items taken together are why my prof thought that Hitler declared war on the US, to ensure that the destruction of Germany occurred. While I’m not sure I concur with him, I understand his logic. > > Either way, it was clear to some that with the failure of Barbarossa, and undefeated Britain and an untouchable US, that the war was almost certainly lost. You may not concur, but I would be highly skeptical of even the most reputable author’s allegations of what Hitler was supposedly being told in private and what he supposedly believed, much less so from an author of no great repute, and still less when it contradicts all the available evidence that I’ve already briefly highlighted. Are we supposed to believe that Hitler went from boastful confidence about winning the war with Russia to complete despondency a mere six months after it began? Hitler fired a couple of his generals over the failure to take Moscow but the battle raged on – at that point they were 14 months away from the turning point at Stalingrad, and Hitler occupied nearly all of Europe – in fact, Hitler’s empire was still growing and would not reach its peak for another three months. This is just nonsense. My refutation of the nonsense isn’t based on some author’s dubious allegations, but on the things that actually happened from day to day as reported by wartime correspondents and recorded in the archives of the _New York Times_. Here, for instance, is a summary taken from the NYT publication of a selection of those archives, this summary pertaining to the events of the first half of 1942, and recalling that your claim is that “Hitler believed, or was considering that the war was lost in December 1941”. It gives a good sense of where things actually stood during the periods indicated: _January - February, 1942_ There was little news that was good. Benghazi in Libya fell to Rommel’s Afrika Korps; submarine sinkings reached new heights. The one ray of hope lay on the Eastern Front where the German armies were stuck in the snow and bitter weather, though far from defeated. Ilya Ehrenburg, the famous Soviet war correspondent, wrote for The Times from the front line where General Zhukov, Stalin’s military troubleshooter, claimed that the Germans had at last tasted “real war,” having grown too “used to easy victories.” … Although the Pacific took pride of place in news reports, Roosevelt was clear when he met Churchill in Washington for the Arcadia conference in December 1941 that the priority was to destroy the German threat. On January 26 the first units of an American Expeditionary Force landed in Northern Ireland, the early contingents of what was to become the largest overseas army ever raised by the United States. _March - June 1942_ … The spring and summer of 1942 saw the Axis powers reach their fullest territorial extent. German forces rallied in the spring and recaptured the city of Kharkov, while Hitler ordered a new major operation, code-named “Blue,” to capture the oil and wheat areas of southern Russia and the Caucasus. Operation Blue was launched by the Germans on June 28 after they first destroyed the Russian port of Sevastopol. In North Africa, Rommel’s German and Italian armies proved unstoppable as they swept through Libya to seize the port of Tobruk on June 21 with the capture of 32,000 British Empire and Allied forces. … The universal bad news put pressure on Churchill’s leadership in Britain. The failure in North Africa, the relentless bombing of the island base of Malta, and the rising losses in the Atlantic war all raised a chorus of criticism of Britain’s strategic leadership. “Churchill Weathers Storm,” reported The Times, but it was evident that the British public, after more than two years of war, was tired of failure. Does that sound like the Germans has just about totally lost the war at that point? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/85 "2016-12-12T23:04:44Z")
You know, citing what the political face of the government was regarding a German threat isn’t all that useful given that the government wanted to build up support for the war. The simple fact is that a German attack on the U.S. was logistically almost impossible. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2016, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/86 "2016-12-12T23:47:10Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Yeah , it’s pretty laughable that Germany could have invaded North America without a staging area, as I brought up a few posts earlier. At the slightest wiff of cooperation with Germany Im sure Mexico, Cuba or the Bahamas would have found themselves under American guns pretty damn quick. The first person that comes to mind when I think of someone declaring that “we are invulnerable” is that little Austrian with the funny mustache that has been the subject of these conversations. He was wrong. Turns out, too, that Japan had no trouble getting to Pearl Harbor over all that water, the Soviets had no trouble installing nuclear missiles in Cuba pointed at the US, and the US had no trouble installing nuclear missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviets. If Hitler had succeeded in his ambitions, the Third Reich would have been **the** global superpower in the world, and a small matter like taking possession of a territorial foothold on this continent would not have been a difficulty. > [@CarnalK](#): > > You know, citing what the political face of the government was regarding a German threat isn’t all that useful given that the government wanted to build up support for the war. The simple fact is that a German attack on the U.S. was logistically almost impossible. So what are you saying, the president and military commanders lied to the American people because they felt like having a European war as well as a Pacific one, for no particular reason? The war that they’d all been trying for more than two years to stay out of (although with increasing conviction that sooner or later they’d have to be in it)? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/87 "2016-12-13T02:24:27Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So what are you saying, the president and military commanders lied to the American people because they felt like having a European war as well as a Pacific one, for no particular reason? The war that they’d all been trying for more than two years to stay out of (although with increasing conviction that sooner or later they’d have to be in it)? Wow you’re right. The idea that the military and political leadership would lie to America to pump up appetite for a war is utterly unfathomable. Of course, hindsight would be useful when examining whether such an unbelievable event took place. And you might want to look at a few articles on the subject as to how hard the president wanted to stay out of the war. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/88 "2016-12-13T02:31:22Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You may not concur, but I would be highly skeptical of even the most reputable author’s allegations of what Hitler was supposedly being told in private and what he supposedly believed, much less so from an author of no great repute, and still less when it contradicts all the available evidence that I’ve already briefly highlighted. OK. How about a quote from Joachim Fest’s biography of Hitler, believed by many to be the seminal work on Hitler from an immensely well respected authority on Nazi Germany: "But by the middle of November [1941], at any rate, he seems to have been filled with forebodings. He spoke to a small group about the idea of a “negotiated peace” and once again voiced vague hopes that the conservative ruling class of England would see the light. . . Ten days later, when the disastrous cold descended, he seemed for the first time to have an intimation that he was facing more than an isolated failure. In a military conference held toward the end of the war General Jodl stated that already then, in view of the calamity of the Russian winter, Hitler as well as he realized that “victory could no longer be achieved.” . . . “We have reacted the end of our human and material forces.” > [@wolfpup](#): > > Are we supposed to believe that Hitler went from boastful confidence about winning the war with Russia to complete despondency a mere six months after it began? Sure we are! What part of history tells you that Hitler was rational? And what did you expect him to do once he realized the war was over? Just step down as the leader and say “sorry?” He’d started this war. He’d created concentration camps. He’d killed millions, even at this point. Both he, and as importantly _his inner and not so inner circle_ were going to be held accountable for this hell they had made of Europe. He had no option but to keep up appearances and continue the war. To further quote Fest: "And at the same evening [in November, 1941] in one of those bleak, misanthropic moods that so often assailed him during the crises of his life, Hitler told a foreign visitor: “If the German people are no longer so strong and ready for sacrifice that they will stake their own blood on their existence, they deserve to pass away and get annihilated by another stronger people. . . If that were the case, I would not shed a tear for the German people.” This is why my prof thought Hitler declared war on the US. I can’t image why you believe that Germany could successfully invade the US, if they couldn’t even conduct Operation Sea Lion, a mere 19 miles away. The US while only half the size of the Soviet Union, is still the third largest nation in the world, with double the population of Germany. At one point in the war, the US had over 150 aircraft carriers for God’s sake (including fleet and jeep carriers). How you think Germany is going to sail 4,000 miles with a force sufficient to defeat the US is beyond comprehension to be frank. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/89 "2016-12-13T02:53:44Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > At one point in the war, the US had over 150 aircraft carriers for God’s sake (including fleet and jeep carriers). > > How you think Germany is going to sail 4,000 miles with a force sufficient to defeat the US is beyond comprehension to be frank. I generally agree with you, but could those 150 aircraft carriers abandon the war with Japan and sail 4,000 miles to attack Germany? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/90 "2016-12-13T02:57:54Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > I can’t image why you believe that Germany could successfully invade the US, if they couldn’t even conduct Operation Sea Lion, a mere 19 miles away. The US while only half the size of the Soviet Union, is still the third largest nation in the world, with double the population of Germany. At one point in the war, the US had over 150 aircraft carriers for God’s sake (including fleet and jeep carriers). > > How you think Germany is going to sail 4,000 miles with a force sufficient to defeat the US is beyond comprehension to be frank. I’ve pointed this out several times. 1940 is not 1945. What if Germany had had those 150 aircraft carriers instead of the United States? ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/91 "2016-12-13T03:54:14Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > Hell Germany couldn’t defeat or invade Britain that is just 19 frick’n miles away. How are they going to travel 4,000 miles away and attack America? This is preposterous. > [@spifflog](#): > > How you think Germany is going to sail 4,000 miles with a force sufficient to defeat the US is beyond comprehension to be frank. Exactly. Britain is a _harder_ potential nut for the Wehrmacht to crack than North America. The ratio of force to frontage far favors the British defenders over the North Americans. The daunting problem in the North American case, of course, is even getting the sufficient shipping capacity together for a trans-Atlantic expeditionary force, let alone getting it there in more or less one piece. However, the fact that the US was able to actually mount such an expedition less than a year after Pearl Harbor (the Western Task Force in [Operation Torch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch#/media/File:Operation_Torch.jpg) sailed directly from the US to the beaches of Morocco) leads me to think that such a project would not be beyond the capabilities of a nascent German Empire. Still, there was no way Nazi Germany could’ve conceivably mounted an invasion of the Western Hemisphere without first prevailing in the Battle of the Atlantic with its U-boat fleets. I actually think that being able to more fully wage that battle could have been a saner reason pushing Hitler to declare war on the US in our timeline. The U-boat commanders had a quite a [good run of things](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time) in the months after Pearl Harbor. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/92 "2016-12-13T18:31:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve pointed this out several times. 1940 is not 1945. What if Germany had had those 150 aircraft carriers instead of the United States? First and foremost, if Britain is still in the war, with their navy, Germany isn’t sailing 150 carriers, or the invasion fleet anywhere. And if Britain is still in the war, American and British air power wouldn’t allow the German shipbuilding industry less than 50 miles away to build 150 carriers, and their support ships, and the invasion fleet. These arguments must have some basis in fact right? It’s just not within the realm of possibility for Germany to do that. Not to mention just invent carrier aviation out of whole cloth which would be a huge challange. > [@Fuji](#): > > Exactly. Britain is a _harder_ potential nut for the Wehrmacht to crack than North America. The ratio of force to frontage far favors the British defenders over the North Americans. The daunting problem in the North American case, of course, is even getting the sufficient shipping capacity together for a trans-Atlantic expeditionary force, let alone getting it there in more or less one piece. However, the fact that the US was able to actually mount such an expedition less than a year after Pearl Harbor (the Western Task Force in [Operation Torch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch#/media/File:Operation_Torch.jpg) sailed directly from the US to the beaches of Morocco) leads me to think that such a project would not be beyond the capabilities of a nascent German Empire.? I continue to be perplexed (and at this point, I guess it’s just me) as to why people think that Germany is going to build an invasion fleet, and sail it 4,000 miles and successfully invade the United States. Past the fleet of US. Past the fleet of Britain. Past the air power of the United States. And then through the third largest nation in the world. The invasion of Europe took 156,000 men, with constant re-supply. How the hell do you imagine that Germany is going to do that?? Where is the staging area? > [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I generally agree with you, but could those 150 aircraft carriers abandon the war with Japan and sail 4,000 miles to attack Germany? That a good question. Some of those (jeep) carriers were in the Atlantic already. And I think if the US felt that an invasion was actually a possibility, a significant portion of the Pacific fleet would be sailing east in a hurry. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/93 "2016-12-13T20:44:29Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > However, the fact that the US was able to actually mount such an expedition less than a year after Pearl Harbor (the Western Task Force in [Operation Torch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch#/media/File:Operation_Torch.jpg) sailed directly from the US to the beaches of Morocco) leads me to think that such a project would not be beyond the capabilities of a nascent German Empire. The western wing of an operation landing at a time that your wiki link notes “much of North Africa [was] already under Allied control”. I’m not sure that’s a solid enough proof of concept to sell me on a viable German invasion of North America. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/94 "2016-12-13T22:17:55Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > First and foremost, if Britain is still in the war, with their navy, Germany isn’t sailing 150 carriers, or the invasion fleet anywhere. > > And if Britain is still in the war, American and British air power wouldn’t allow the German shipbuilding industry less than 50 miles away to build 150 carriers, and their support ships, and the invasion fleet. > > These arguments must have some basis in fact right? It’s just not within the realm of possibility for Germany to do that. Not to mention just invent carrier aviation out of whole cloth which would be a huge challange. It’s plausible. Just suppose something as simple as the Germans changing their coding system. The Americans and the British would no longer be able to read German radio transmissions and follow German u-boat movement. The Battle of the Atlantic, which was a close fought battle, would have tilted in Germany’s favor. Churchill himself said after the war that the Battle of the Atlantic was the most critical danger to Britain during the war. Britain came very close to being starved into seeking terms with Germany. And Churchill also said that if it had come down to it, one of the things that would have been put on the table was the British fleet. So Britain stays independent but drops out of the war. America no longer has Britain as a staging area for bombing or invasion planing. The Germans now control the British fleet along with their own original ships plus the Italian and French fleets. Germany is able to cut off most of America’s lend lease to Russia. In the Spring of 1942, Germany launches its summer offensive (Operation Blue) on the Soviet front. This time, the less equipped Red Army is to unable to stop the Wehrmacht from taking Stalingrad and Baku. The Germans now have access to the Caucasian oil fields. Germany follows this victory up with further advances in 1943 and the Soviet Union offers terms. Germany rules all of Europe west of the Urals. So it’s 1944. Germany controls Europe. Britain and the Soviet Union are out of the war and America is fighting all on its own. The Germans already have a fleet and have the capacity to build more ships as needed. There are no bombs falling on German cities or factories. What would you say the strategic balance is at this point? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/95 "2016-12-13T22:35:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > . > > What would you say the strategic balance is at this point? Oh, no change. According to you and wolfpup it would have been perfectly feasible for the U.S. to invade Europe without that silly English staging area. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/96 "2016-12-13T23:43:41Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > OK. How about a quote from Joachim Fest’s biography of Hitler, believed by many to be the seminal work on Hitler from an immensely well respected authority on Nazi Germany: > > "But by the middle of November [1941], at any rate, he seems to have been filled with forebodings. He spoke to a small group about the idea of a “negotiated peace” and once again voiced vague hopes that the conservative ruling class of England would see the light. . . Ten days later, when the disastrous cold descended, he seemed for the first time to have an intimation that he was facing more than an isolated failure. In a military conference held toward the end of the war General Jodl stated that already then, in view of the calamity of the Russian winter, Hitler as well as he realized that “victory could no longer be achieved.” . . . “We have reacted the end of our human and material forces.” That’s quite different than the statement of alleged fact you quoted before that all was lost at that point. What was true, and I stated this already, is that after overrunning Europe with an unbroken series of military successes, this was Hitler’s first setback. It’s no surprise that a manic-depressive psychotic like Hitler would initially react badly to it. But as I showed earlier, the war was actually looking pretty bleak for the allies in November-December 1941. After a period of depression and fury, Hitler concluded that his generals were incompetent and started running the eastern campaign himself. > [@spifflog](#): > > I can’t image why you believe that Germany could successfully invade the US, if they couldn’t even conduct Operation Sea Lion, a mere 19 miles away. Many reasons. Germany had many other things on their plate at the same time, Hitler continued to believe that he could still forge peace with Britain, and the fact that it was a small body of water that could be exceedingly well patrolled and defended. It would be absurd to conclude that Roosevelt and Churchill both felt that Britain was safe, no problem! Britain was not, and in the longer term, neither was the US. > [@spifflog](#): > > First and foremost, if Britain is still in the war, with their navy, Germany isn’t sailing 150 carriers, or the invasion fleet anywhere. > > And if Britain is still in the war, American and British air power wouldn’t allow the German shipbuilding industry less than 50 miles away to build 150 carriers, and their support ships, and the invasion fleet. That statement seems like a failure of imagination. There is no “Britain is still in the war” in this scenario. The hypothetical here is that Germany and all its conquered European territory and a conquered Soviet Union are all one gigantic superpower. Britain at this point is either part of that empire, allied with it, or party to some kind of uneasy peace settlement where at best it is neutral and interferes with German ambitions against the US at its existential peril. This is the scenario that US leadership could see at the time, and the fact that it turned out very differently should not cloud one’s judgment of what might have been. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/97 "2016-12-14T01:00:58Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Oh, no change. According to you and wolfpup it would have been perfectly feasible for the U.S. to invade Europe without that silly English staging area. So you feel it’s possible for the United States to cross the Atlantic Ocean but you think it’s impossible for Germany to do it? What do you base that on? Ocean currents? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/98 "2016-12-14T01:24:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So you feel it’s possible for the United States to cross the Atlantic Ocean but you think it’s impossible for Germany to do it? What do you base that on? Ocean currents? This comment makes me think you’re not really reading what I’m typing. Or you’ve developed a serious overconfidence in your military knowledge playing board games that don’t include line of supply or air support rules. The existence of the massive, friendly, air protected English isles was crucial to the American invasion of Europe. You are stupefyingly ignoring that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/99 "2016-12-14T03:30:14Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > I continue to be perplexed (and at this point, I guess it’s just me) as to why people think that Germany is going to build an invasion fleet, and sail it 4,000 miles and successfully invade the United States. Past the fleet of US. Past the fleet of Britain. Past the air power of the United States. And then through the third largest nation in the world. As earlier stipulated, a precondition for an Axis trans-Atlantic invasion would be Axis victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. As **Little Nemo** noted, this was the battle Churchill knew he could not lose and still remain in the war, and it was a close-run affair IRL. > [@](#): > > The invasion of Europe took 156,000 men, with constant re-supply. How the hell do you imagine that Germany is going to do that?? Where is the staging area? Yes, and it also required air supremacy and two artificial harbors. Again, this is because the force/frontage ratio strongly favors the defender in this situation unless the invader has overwhelming strength. > [@CarnalK](#): > > The western wing of an operation landing at a time that your wiki link notes “much of North Africa [was] already under Allied control”. I’m not sure that’s a solid enough proof of concept to sell me on a viable German invasion of North America. If Germany had prevailed in its U-boat war with the British and Americans, then the Atlantic balance changes drastically between the Axis (now including Italy’s _Regia Marina_, freed from its Mediterranean prison) and the Allies (now without the UK or its Royal Navy) such that I can envision a non-fanciful scenario permitting a successful landing of significant numbers of Axis troops in the Western Hemisphere. (Obviously, a successful conquest of the USA would be orders of magnitude more unlikely, but first, a successful landing would be a precondition.) > [@CarnalK](#): > > Oh, no change. According to you and wolfpup it would have been perfectly feasible for the U.S. to invade Europe without that silly English staging area. I think even if the Axis did win the Battle of the Atlantic, I wouldn’t put it past the USA to successfully mount an expeditionary landing in some peripheral theater, such as Portugal or Morocco. However, as you allude, a successful conquest of an Axis European empire would be an entirely different kettle of fish. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187/100 "2016-12-14T18:11:52Z")
I guess I’ll have to agree to disagree with you then. I’ll leave with this. In many ways, the Battle or Britain was a precursor to Operation Sea Lion. And the Germans were certain of two things with regard to Sea Lion. They absolutely had to have air supremacy, and they had to have control of the sea. Of course neither was possible, so Sea Lion was a farce. But you needed both, just one wouldn’t do. You also must have a sea base with which to launch the attack. I can’t imagine any of you are going to argue that the invasion of the US was going to start in France and go directly to the shores of North America. So you either need to invade Cuba and use that for a base, or invade Mexico or Venezuela or something and work your way up from there. Keep in mind that in 1941, or 35, or 25, or 1915, Germany is not a sea power. Yes she had submarines, but she didn’t not any surface ships to speak of since WWI. In her entire history, Germany has launched only one aircraft carrier, but it was never operational. But out of nowhere, she is going to build a fleet to transport, and support 150,000 troops over 4,000 miles. Not to mention supply them and maintain sea and air superiority. I think you also failing to take into account the vast logistical nightmare that D-day and the supply of troops in Europe was. You can’t “live off the land” as you once could. On D+5, the allies had landed 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies. I just don’t see how Germany is going to do that. Not to mention supply the continuing invasion. But for all of your scenarios, you have to have all of these eventualities take place as well: -The Soviet Union is either defeated or surrenders -The United States does not perfect the atomic bomb -In concert with this, Japan is not defeated -Britain surrenders or is defeated Unless all of those are in place, your invasion doesn’t stand a chance. And I don’t see how it has any chance in any event [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pearl-harbor-attack-was-it-japans-wisest-course-of-action/774187.md?page=6)