Speaking of "What if" .. Dec 7, 1941

Aloha "heck cat",
The term you used is similar to "irrigated" as liquid was involved.

"What If" is not a conversation. It is a dead end.

Have respect for the history of 7 Dec. and the men who fought that day.

Let us study the facts. Myths and fiction are only generated by "what if".
Mahalo nui loa,
David Aiken

You need to go away now. And you also need to study some history here. RESPECT!!!???? ... how old are you kid? RESPECT!!!??? .... go look up a few of my posts if you want to learn respect. My father was a Navy pilot in WW2 and my uncle was killed in Europe during WW2 ... don't tell me about respect kid. My father has more of a connection to Pearl Harbor than you ever will. You need to let this one go David, it's going no-where and you need to work on your respect. You have a problem with this post, you simply don't post. Now go away before I really get pissed. Scott you can ban me now .... After this idiot, I'd be glad to be banned.

[k5083]

Aloha All,
Ohanashimasuka? I learned what Japanese I know by choice, not by force of arms...and I thank the Allied infantry for that option. The infantryman holds every bit of turf after all other types of weapons are expended.

One can "What If" a topic forever, only the "What Did" matters.

So many folk seem to want the US to lose wars that they dream of ways of saying "What If" this or that happened, how would the enemy win.

"What If" did not win, and "What Did"...did win!

Happy VE and VJ Day!
Cheers,
David Aiken

David,

There was never even a tiny chance that you would have had to learn Japanese by force of arms. Japan never had any serious notion of invading, or even attacking, the United States (Hawaii and Alaska were not the United States then). They attacked US military installations for one purpose only, which was to discourage what they perceived as the US's interference with their imperial campaign in Asia. "Victory" for Japan would have meant the US deciding they weren't worth the trouble of restraining, lifting the embargo, and both sides leaving each other alone while Japan continued to rape China. No more, no less. Anything else is just wartime propaganda to motivate both servicemen and civilians.

It was, of course, a gross miscalculation on the part of the Japanese to think that you could slap the US in the face and expect it to walk away. Many of their leaders who had been to the US realized that. Although (fun fact:) there is no evidence that Yamamoto ever uttered the line about awakening a sleeping giant that is often attributed to him.

August

[David_Aiken]

Aloha August,
Ahhh, thank you for your insight into Pearl Harbor...the facts.

As to ...."(fun fact:) there is no evidence that Yamamoto ever uttered the line about awakening a sleeping giant that is often attributed to him. " The phrase stated by Yamamoto was "Nekubi o kaite wa ikenai"
("It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man."), an old Samurai quote that refers to their rule to awaken their enemy prior to killing him.

This came from my interviews of two sources...Masataka Chihaya, on Admiral Yamamoto's staff and Roger Pineau, American interrogator of Japanese Staff immediately after the war and on the staff of Admiral Morison [author of the official USN war history]. Both confirm what the Admiral said.
Hope this helps,
Cheers,
David Aiken, a director: Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.

[k5083]

Thank you David -- fascinating. Your quote goes to a totally different point -- he was making a point about honor, presumably rueful over the diplomatic cock-up that caused the attack to occur before war was declared, rather than making a strategic point about arousing a large somnolent potential enemy. The fact that the two quotes (your real, and Tora Tora Tora's imaginary) have only a reference to sleep in common makes me wonder if they have anything to do with each other. Is there some reason to think that this particular utterance by him got distorted into the famous pseudo-quote?

August

[JDK]

Treading carefully, not wanting to cause a controversy... IMHO, there's nothing wrong with posing 'what if' questions. They are a perfectly sensible historical and planning exercise, and most military organisations 'refight' historic battles for officer and strategic training.

I fail to see why someone would see it as 'dishonouring' anyone, or 'myth creation'. Not my view, or, clearly Hellcat's, IMHO. (I do agree, I think with David, that we need a basic understanding of what did happen before we can discuss what might have happened; otherwise the exercise is genuinely founded on quicksand and is thus pointless. But changing one factor in an equation is a legitimate effort, I think.)

The 'Battle of Britain What If' thread resulted in some interesting discussions at least one cracking joke, and a bit of mental exercise for some. It also pulled out some previously un-discussed facts.

Likewise this thread has thrown up a couple of worthwhile historical sidelights, which I for one have found interesting, both from David A and others. I appreciate David's input here, but his response to Hellcat's question does his experience and contribution no credit, which is a pity, and is a slip from his usual high standards, I feel. I've often enjoyed David's unique insight to Pearl Harbor, and I'd hope that we can all 'play nicely' and continue a useful discussion on the matter -

- which leads to... My understanding is just about any account of the Pacific War states how important it was that the carriers of the Pacific fleet were not in harbour on that day, it is often given as a cornerstone of America's ability to fight back, and the development of the campaign. On that basis, it seems to me a very legitimate question to ask 'what if they had been sunk there', and it seems to me that the thread is (arguably, very arguably) already showing that the survival of the carriers might not have been as critical as normally stated. That is, to me, very interesting, and I value my American friends' insight into the reality or viability of that hypothesis.

In addition, if the carries based at Pearl Harbor had been sunk, it is a reasonable assumption that the weight of Japanese attack (being the same) would thus have not sunk some of the other ships (there were a finite number of Japanese bombs and bombers). If a couple of capital ships had thus survived, how would they have done in the following battles (Battleships, not Carriers at Midway?) and would that have driven US strategy in a different ship-production direction (build more carriers quicker? Or less?)

(And of course that is not to ignore, but to accept that the death or survival of real people isn't trivial; but studying history, we can ask these, sometimes emotive questions, without having to circumnavigate personal feelings on these losses (or survival.))

Cheers,

[k5083]

Good point James. In fact, decent history is impossible without what-ifs. Any statement about causation implies a what-if. And without statements about causation, history is just a recounting of facts, without even a basis to identify which facts are significant. Which is to say, it is dull and uninformative history. One might object to a particular what-if as an implausible flight of fancy, but not to the exercise itself.

August