WW2: Most pivotal battle in the Pacific/CBI (1 Viewer)

[lancer]

Yes, i agree, this is a very interesting thread. I think the pivotal battle was Pearl Harbour because it brought the U.S. into the war. It would have been interesting if Hitler was aware of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbour and was then able to convince the Japanese that by attacking the U.S. or any of its possessions such as the Philippines was a mistake for both of their countries. If the Japanese only attacked British, Dutch, French and other European possessions in Asia, would the U.S. still have entered the war?

Tom

I agree with Mitch's response. The situation in the Pacific was such that a US-Japanese confrontation was guaranteed. Antagonism and conflict of interest between the two had been ongoing for years and was coming to a head. US trade sanctions had made Japanese action neccesary and there was going to be no action without the US being involved. The US bases in the Pacific, especially at Pearl Harbor (the US fleet had been moved from San Diego to Pearl Harbor just for this reason), and the Philippines were a direct threat to any moves the Japanese could make. There was going to be no way for Japan to act in SE Asia or anywhere in the Pacific without engaging the US. -- Al

 

[Currahee Chris]

Another very interesting thread "Most pivotal battle in the Pacific/CBI" by CC. It prompted me to review a previous thread "Ten most decisive battles in world history" also by CC.

Cheers to that Raymond- admittedly, I was starting the thread and thinking to myself "Dude, didnt you do this thread already?? {sm4}"

Funny thing was when I was getting ready to post it I thought to myself "Wonder if anyone put PH down". whaddya know, lots of people really see that as a pivotal battle as its the catalyst that brought us to the dance. Interesting that it was such a decisive Japanese victory yet viewed strategically as the doom of the Axis powers.

 

[theBaron]

...Until this point in the Pacific the Japanese Army had not met a force in the field that they didnt take to pieces...

They had gotten bloodied in a brief, undeclared war against the Soviets on the Manchurian border, though.

It's interesting that from our perspective in the West, that is, as Americans and Brits, Aussies, Kiwis and Canucks (no particular order there), the IJN was the bigger threat, with the Japanese Army in second place. That's natural, given the geography. We often forget about what that Army was doing. And there was also that dichotomy in Japanese strategic thinking. The Navy focused on the Pacific and the showdown with us, while the Army looked to the Asian landmass. They were also terrified of getting bogged down against the Soviets, on top of their campaign in China. We're fortunate that the Japanese military culture was so dysfunctional that the services looked on each other as enemies almost as much as they did us. If they had been able to agree on strategy, Japan could have caused much greater trouble than she did.

Prost!
Brad

 

[TomNT]

Tom...

I think any aggressive acts towards these and other parts of the pacific would have meant the US having a war with Japan. There was too much at stake in that area as a whole for the US to stand by and let the japanese take over. War with japan and the US was inevitable no matter how hard some at that time thought otherwise.
Mitch

QUOTE=TomNT;528296]Yes, i agree, this is a very interesting thread. I think the pivotal battle was Pearl Harbour because it brought the U.S. into the war. It would have been interesting if Hitler was aware of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbour and was then able to convince the Japanese that by attacking the U.S. or any of its possessions such as the Philippines was a mistake for both of their countries. If the Japanese only attacked British, Dutch, French and other European possessions in Asia, would the U.S. still have entered the war?

Tom

[/QUOTE]

I agree with Mitch's response. The situation in the Pacific was such that a US-Japanese confrontation was guaranteed. Antagonism and conflict of interest between the two had been ongoing for years and was coming to a head. US trade sanctions had made Japanese action neccesary and there was going to be no action without the US being involved. The US bases in the Pacific, especially at Pearl Harbor (the US fleet had been moved from San Diego to Pearl Harbor just for this reason), and the Philippines were a direct threat to any moves the Japanese could make. There was going to be no way for Japan to act in SE Asia or anywhere in the Pacific without engaging the US. -- Al

Yes, i agree, the U.S. was going to be dragged into the war eventually, but it's interesting to discuss the "what if's"! Another "what if" is, if the Japanese were able to diasable or sink the U.S. carriers based at Pearl (if they were in port and not out on excercises as they were) what path do you think the war would have taken from there?

Tom

 

[Mitch]

Tom...

Your what if would not have changed the final outcome an allied victory. The US compared to japan had longevity in its economic output but, it would have been a harder longer and, more costly war to all the allied forces in that theatre whilst the US rebuilt their carrier fleet.

Mitch




Yes, i agree, the U.S. was going to be dragged into the war eventually, but it's interesting to discuss the "what if's"! Another "what if" is, if the Japanese were able to diasable or sink the U.S. carriers based at Pearl (if they were in port and not out on excercises as they were) what path do you think the war would have taken from there?

Tom[/QUOTE]

 

[lancer]

They had gotten bloodied in a brief, undeclared war against the Soviets on the Manchurian border, though.

It's interesting that from our perspective in the West, that is, as Americans and Brits, Aussies, Kiwis and Canucks (no particular order there), the IJN was the bigger threat, with the Japanese Army in second place. That's natural, given the geography. We often forget about what that Army was doing. And there was also that dichotomy in Japanese strategic thinking. The Navy focused on the Pacific and the showdown with us, while the Army looked to the Asian landmass. They were also terrified of getting bogged down against the Soviets, on top of their campaign in China. We're fortunate that the Japanese military culture was so dysfunctional that the services looked on each other as enemies almost as much as they did us. If they had been able to agree on strategy, Japan could have caused much greater trouble than she did.

Prost!
Brad

Some excellent points. The Russo-Japanese conflict at Nomonhon was a rather important incident in terms of later developements. The Russians absolutely mauled the Japanese, which came as a very rude shock to the Japanese High Command. This influenced the Japanese to avoid future battle with the Russians, and turn their attentions to other areas. This decision was discovered through intelligence operations by the Russians. It was a big factor when the Germans invaded Russia. The Russians were able to move troops from the east to meet the German threat without fear that the Japanese might attack them from the 'rear'. The Nomonhon Incident, a small affair in relative numbers, was thus pretty important to the overall picture. -- Al

 

[lancer]

Tom...

Your what if would not have changed the final outcome an allied victory. The US compared to japan had longevity in its economic output but, it would have been a harder longer and, more costly war to all the allied forces in that theatre whilst the US rebuilt their carrier fleet.

Mitch





Yes, i agree, the U.S. was going to be dragged into the war eventually, but it's interesting to discuss the "what if's"! Another "what if" is, if the Japanese were able to diasable or sink the U.S. carriers based at Pearl (if they were in port and not out on excercises as they were) what path do you think the war would have taken from there?

Tom

[/QUOTE]Agreed. The crux of the problem for the Japanese was that they had no good options if they intended to go on being a belligerent power, pursuing their goal to be THE power in the Pacific. They had to go to war with the US, a war they had no chance to win. All the early victories the Japanese achieved, or all the early victories that could have been achieved, would, in the long run, only delay Japan's final defeat. The economic power and resources of all sorts that the US possessed doomed the Japanese from the start. -- Al

 

[glossman]

Cheers to that Raymond- admittedly, I was starting the thread and thinking to myself "Dude, didnt you do this thread already?? {sm4}" ..................

CC,

I thought it was great idea on your part to start this new thread which I see as different from the previous thread of "Ten most decisive battles in world history". There does not seem to be much discussion on the PTO/CBI, as there is on the ETO for WWII. Perhaps the discussion may generate and revive some interest in the PTO/CBI, collecting wise.

Raymond

 

[TomNT]

Tom...

Your what if would not have changed the final outcome an allied victory. The US compared to japan had longevity in its economic output but, it would have been a harder longer and, more costly war to all the allied forces in that theatre whilst the US rebuilt their carrier fleet.

Mitch





Yes, i agree, the U.S. was going to be dragged into the war eventually, but it's interesting to discuss the "what if's"! Another "what if" is, if the Japanese were able to diasable or sink the U.S. carriers based at Pearl (if they were in port and not out on excercises as they were) what path do you think the war would have taken from there?

Tom

[/QUOTE]

Agreed. The crux of the problem for the Japanese was that they had no good options if they intended to go on being a belligerent power, pursuing their goal to be THE power in the Pacific. They had to go to war with the US, a war they had no chance to win. All the early victories the Japanese achieved, or all the early victories that could have been achieved, would, in the long run, only delay Japan's final defeat. The economic power and resources of all sorts that the US possessed doomed the Japanese from the start. -- Al[/QUOTE]


Yes, agreed again it would have possibly prolonged the war and the Japanese could have successfully occupied PNG and mounted a successful invasion of Northern Australia. They may have even invaded Ceylon (Sri-Lanka today) and wiped out the rest of the British Pacific Fleet as well as invaded India. Without the fear of an opposing carrier fleet to worry about it would have freed up Japanese Naval resources to contemplate such enterprises.

Tom

 

[glossman]

To continue in the Pacific, I thought this article on Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was a well written synopsis of this senior Japanese officer who was Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet, Imperial Japanese Navy. He strongly opposed war, but ironically was tasked with planning the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941.

This is a quote from the article published in the New York Times on 6th December 2011 :

Yamamoto appreciated the irony: having risked his life to prevent war with the United States, he was now its architect. “What a strange position I find myself in,” he wrote a friend, “having been assigned the mission diametrically opposed to my own personal opinion, with no choice but to push full speed in pursuance of that mission. Alas, is that fate?”

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/opinion/a-reluctant-enemy.html?pagewanted=all

Raymond

 

[Mitch]

Interesting read
Mitch

To continue in the Pacific, I thought this article on Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was a well written synopsis of this senior Japanese officer who was Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet, Imperial Japanese Navy. He strongly opposed war, but ironically was tasked with planning the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941.

This is a quote from the article published in the New York Times on 6th December 2011 :

Yamamoto appreciated the irony: having risked his life to prevent war with the United States, he was now its architect. “What a strange position I find myself in,” he wrote a friend, “having been assigned the mission diametrically opposed to my own personal opinion, with no choice but to push full speed in pursuance of that mission. Alas, is that fate?”

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/opinion/a-reluctant-enemy.html?pagewanted=all

Raymond

 

[semperrandyfi]

I put 4 years in The CORPS but gotta give the Squids their due....MIDWAY stopped the Japs cold(they never recovered )and the astounding,raw courage of Taffy 3 ,10/44 Samar,P.I..My helmet is off to the (gasp) NAVY!!!