Warbird Information Exchange

If we're playing "What if?" an idea I had recently (and I doubt I'm the first) was that Japan's best long term strategy might have been to attack the USSR instead of the US. That would have forced the USSR to pull resources from the German/Russian front and might have led to the defeat of the USSR. At that point, the US would have had to throw even more assets into the European conflict to prevent the loss of the UK, leaving the Japanese to fight an even thinner US presence in the Pacific.

Guess we are!

The UK was not at risk of invasion by 1941. Notwithstanding the important cash and carry and initial Lend Lease help by the US, Britain was no longer at risk.

As to Russia, we in the west are remarkably naive about the true cost and effort of the Soviet experience of the W.W.II era, which for them was very different to what we know. I don't believe Russia would ever have sued for piece or been defeated, anymore than the US (or Australia) were really at risk of mainland invasion.

We must remember that after the first modern naval engagement between Russian and Japan at the turn of the 19th-20 centuries, the Russians had returned their drubbing to the Japanese before W.W.II in the east, and the Japanese were therefore probably more realistic of the risk of awakening the Bear.

All, of course, unprovable, but interesting hypothesis to explore...

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Thanks Kyle. It's fun, but we are always in danger of heading into pure hypothesis, rather than building on what we know.

In the specific case of the potential invasion of Britain, we know that Hitler was never really interested in invading the UK; that the German forces were ill-equipped to do so, and never in a position to undertake the kind of operation that would be required for a amphibious landing. (They never did a major one.) Operation Sealion was the real plan, but most attempts to 'run' it show it would have failed, and the later you get, the buildup on either side of the Channel would always leave the advantage with the defenders. The best chance they had was May-June 1940, and they took a break then. Sealion was famously 'postponed' later in 1940, never cancelled, but had the Germans redirected effort into amphibious landing equipment and not had a focus on Russia, even then the kind of drubbing the got in Crete would have been the result.

Europe may well have remained occupied, with Britain rumbling on the periphery, and maybe in five-years or a decade Hitler might've tried it, and there we are in pure guesswork.

As to Russia, I suggest an examination of the relocation of the Soviet industrial base. We've rightly noted America's achievement in wartime industrialisation; the Russian achievement, in relocating and gearing up their industry driven by Stalin's bloody approach was in any real measure a greater (and real) achievement. Much rubbish is talked by western nations about 'fighting to the last man' never surrendering etc, etc. I cannot see Stalin's Soviet Russia being defeated. I visited the mass graves in Leningrad (as it was, then) - it was a different level of war.

Anyway, interesting tabletop Generalling.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

The Japanese and the USSR were clashing in Mongolia immediately before the war in Europe started. Without going into the causes, the conflict was brought to an abrupt end a day or two before the German marched into Poland. The Germans had made their agreement with the Soviets on the invasion, and it would have been unseemly for two of four allies to be fighting each other.
There would have been a small window of opportunity between the start of Barbarosa, and the attack on Pearl for the Japanese to attack the USSR, but they had signed a non-agression pact with the Soviets in 1941 and in any case, there would have been no reason to. Neither the USSR, or the Japanese would have gained anything from it, and it would have been a huge and costly distraction for both of them. The Japanese were never able to fully exploit the resources of their holdings in China as it was, so Siberia wouldn't have held any appeal.

In Kahlkin Gol, the Japanese failed to learn the lesson that would be their undoing in the air late. Attrition of Japanese pilots there was greater than their ability to train replacements. The same thing would happen fighting the US.

In fact, the ability to train replacement crews would be the single most decisive factor in the air war of WWII. The US and Russia with secure internal bases, and the British with secure Canadian and US training bases were able to train enough pilots to not only account for attrition, but to rotate weary crews out and fresh crews in.

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

Excellent post, thanks. As outlined, it was a more complex war than the simplification of W.W.II as 'us' vs 'them' rather than a number of shifting alliances primarily serving self-interest or self protection.

Certainly the most often underestimated and overlooked factor, as well (arguably, of course).

To elaborate, the British Empire's air training element included training in New Zealand, Australia, Rhodesia and South Africa and even the Caribbean, as well as hugely in Canada, plus some in the USA. So comprehensive was the axis' inability to understand the importance of this, the Germans even failed to significantly disrupt the Operational Training / Conversion Units in the UK.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

interesting that until the ussr signed a non aggression treaty with japan they had a large garrison on the pacific coast that was freed up to help fight the Germans,some historians(as i said before I'm reading "refighting the pacific war")say that this helped Russia when the were on their knee's,there was also a part of the Japanese government that wanted to fight Russia (the army)and the navy wanted to go south and fight the US and get oil from the current Indonesia and expand the Asian co-prosperity sphere.
after the 1939 clashes had shown that the Russians were superior in several places the strike north idea was dropped and the strike south group got they're way.
odd to think like the war we're getting out of in a large part this was about oil

On the contrary. Historically wars have always been fought over the acquisition, retention or distribution of finite resources - oil, coal, land,fish even populations. Even 'civil wars', where the resource is internal political power.
The concept of the 'total war', 'victory at all costs' and 'unconditional surrender" as a term of victory, is a 20th century aberration. WWI and II were unusual cases and have left a wrong-headed definition of winning that colors too many perceptions of war.
The Russian-Georgian conflict over South Ossettia is a fine recent example of a classic war. A political question settled by force of arms, that left both countries intact and viable.

The people that protest "No Blood For Oil" have very naive view and lack of historical perspective. "Blood For Oil" is a perfectly valid exchange. Better to protest "No Blood For Vague, Unspecified and Probably Untenable Ideological Concepts"

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

I think Pearl is over rated as a base by most here.

The Fleets MAJOR battle damage repair facilities were not at Pearl. They were at Mare Island and Bremerton. Augumented by the facilities at San Diego, and Long Beach. Pearl was important but no where near the end all and be all of repair facilities.

If you really wanted to cripple the West Coast you would have to have taken out the San Francisco Bay Area: Mare Island NSY, Hunters Point NSY, NAS Alameda, COMSUBPAC in Stockton,Treasure Island, Kaiser Shipyards, Presidio of San Francisco ( HQ 6th Army and Pacific forces); Hamiliton AFB; Fairfield Army Depot; the Oakland Army Base ( logistical HQ for the Pacific), Port Chicago (Ammo Storage facility for the Pacific fleet), Benicia Arsenal (Weapons storage and shipping point for the Pacific), North of Mare Island was the fleet communications center for the entire west coast, and lets not forget all the MAJOR oil refineries in Richmond, Martinez and Pinole. Oh, yeah and Sperry Mills in Vallejo from which 1/4 of the WORLDS commercial flower was processed and shipped.

No Pearl was important but only as a forward operating base.It was, in many ways in the same class as Subic Bay. And we all know how unimportant Subic turned out to be in the course of WW2.

Ask yourself this instead; what would have happened if Hitler had NOT declared war on the US?

As it was FDR was able to say, in effect: "Those darn sneaky Japanese started this war and are invading American Soil ( the Phillipeans)...lets go kick some German butt".

If FDR had had to wait even 6 months to a year to declare war on Germany the Nation would have demanded immediate action, and that action would in most likely hood have been the defense of the Philipeans.

check out this New Zealand newspaper report filed three days before the Japanese attacked Malaya and Hawaii, and published two days before:

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bi ... apanese+--

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 137, 6 December 1941, Page 9

NEW BORDER INCIDENT

(Rec. 1 p.m.) LOS ANGELES, December 5.

Hsinking radio reports ''another bomber incident" on the ManchuHuo- Siberian frontier in which Russian soldiers fired on a Japanese garrison which replied, killing one Russian.

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz

I don't know that Pearl Harbor was overrated......It was an absolutely required refueling point in 1941, look at the distances you had to travel.....
Its something like 3300 miles from San Francisco to Hawaii.....
New York to London is about 3000 miles, to cross the pacific to Japan is at least 6000 miles
I've been told, by people who claim to know about such things, that pre war US warships generally had a range of a bit over 3000 miles.......ships built during the war had ranges of at least 6000 miles, due to the navy recognizing the need to sail across the pacific without refueling.
Had the Japanese landed even a token force on oahu on Dec 7th, they would have probably easily taken the island, probably all of them.....that would have extended the war by several years, but still wouldn't have changed the final outcome, due to Japans lack of industrial capacity.....
Just my .02 cents......

Considering that within just a space of a few weeks the Japanese forces landed at and overan Malaya and Singapore, Borneo, Wake, the Phillipines, Hong Kong, Macau and the Dutch East indies plus many places in between and parts of Papua New Guinea, your point that a landing force could have taken Hawaii is quite pertinent and rather scary, it may have changed the entire course of the war, and certainly would have meant more danger for Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, New Zealand and Australia without that vital port in Hawaii.

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz