Could Japan have won if they lost?

[mario50]

The big mistake of japan was thinking that destroyng perl harbour the US power was finish, if the defence listend YAMAMOTO he wante to hammer more the american navvy haway in that moment could be invaded by japan and the was could be finish in different way, off course USA it so big and strong economically but if jap0anese followed to hammer american flet Japan could be having anothe end, off course the atomic bom was one hammer in the japanese head as beat ine toddler by cassius clay off course in faithing any one use the power he have, japanese used kamikaze with successifull and american two atomic bomb , if they had niot the atomic i think wasd there combatting till now

[JR*]

Interesting discussion. It occurs to me that, even if Japan had adopted a "luring in" strategy, this would have amounted to an alternative means of engineering a "decisive battle". "Decisive battle", in this sense, was essentially a Western concept that had crystallised in the thinking of Clausewitz, and had been adopted by the Japanese wholesale. Hardly surprising; such experience as they had in foreign wars up to 1941 tended to confirm that this was the correct approach. As for the "luring on" option itself - I suppose a "Japanese Manstein" might have advocated such an idea, but there was no "Japanese Manstein". In any event - like most "classic Manstein" plans - it would have been ultra-high risk. It seems to me that Japan's hopes of victory lay in a delusion, a misinterpretation of the USA as a "soft", decadent country that, faced with the certainty of a bloody and economically costly war, would tolerate Japanese rule/hegemony in the Western Pacific and Far East, even when this had been achieved by military means directed in part against US forces and territory. This was a disastrous error. I do not believe that, following an outrage like Pearl Harbour - however "successful" such an incident might have been in pure military terms - there is any way that the US would have held back from exacting full retribution from Japan, however great the cost might have been in blood and treasure. There are, of course, no absolute certainties - but I find it hard to see how Japan, really, had much hope of achieving the favourable, but necessarily partial, victory over the US that they seem to have desired. Best regards, JR.

[Nickdfresh]

It should be noted that the Pearl Harbor operation was essentially a mixed bag and was not completely successful as they missed the carriers, hit mostly obsolete battleships or ones nearing obsolescence...

[JR*]

A good point, Nick. Without wishing to trivialise, I am reminded of a scene in the Mel Brooks movie, "Blazing Saddles" in which a man-mountain called "Mongo" appears. "Don't shoot him," says the Sheriff, "it'll only make him mad". In a way, however successful it might have been, Pearl Harbour was a Japanese way of, so to speak, shooting Mongo ... Best regards, JR.

[Nickdfresh]

LOL @ the 2:15 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwNJla8WvoY

I forgot to mention the biggest single failure of the Japanese airstrike was not hitting the fuel storage depots. Whether this would have made any difference in the grand scheme of the war I don't know. But it would have set the U.S. Navy back several months at least IIRC...

[Chevan]

It should be noted that the Pearl Harbor operation was essentially a mixed bag and was not completely successful as they missed the carriers, hit mostly obsolete battleships or ones nearing obsolescence...

Its' irony , but this statement is one basic argment of revisionists.The japanese actually targeted what they've found in harbour.COuld it be possible the US navy command deliberately send out the modern aircraft carriers , leaving the obsolet battleships in harbour, expecting ( or provoking) the Japanese strike?

[mario50]

The us command havent sent out the moder carier , the US did not know and did not immagine, Hirohito did not listen the adveise of many admirals that suggested to get peral harbuor and made it as a base for bonb USA, so politic won again on soldiers

[Nickdfresh]

Its' irony , but this statement is one basic argment of revisionists.The japanese actually targeted what they've found in harbour.COuld it be possible the US navy command deliberately send out the modern aircraft carriers , leaving the obsolet battleships in harbour, expecting ( or provoking) the Japanese strike?

The Americans were clearly expecting hostilities. But the revisionist argument misses the fact that the aircraft carriers were ferrying aircraft to island bases where the Japanese hostilities were considered likely. I'll have to check, but I believe one of the islands that received fighters was Midway...

[Eastwind]

They put a pretty good lick on us at Pearl Harbor and we still won the war. So the answer would be no. And even if events turned out that the Japanese failed at Pearl Harbor, there is no guarantee that the Navy would steam for the Japanese home islands. There were no Carrier strikes on Japan until late in the war, well after we had the strength to do it. Nor was any thought given to attacking the Japanese mainland until the central Pacific had been won.

[Rising Sun*]

They put a pretty good lick on us at Pearl Harbor and we still won the war.

Japan lost the war in large part because it lacked the shipping needed to sustain its advances and occupations in subsequent years, which is consistent with Japan's often short term and flawed strategic thinking in conducting the Pacific War.

Japan was pretty much doomed before it fired the first shot when compared with the US resources which would be pitted against it in a long war, which was recognised by some of Japan's own pre-war planners.

As for Pearl, America was lucky that significant ships weren't in the harbour at the time of Japan's attack, but it wouldn't have altered the end result apart from timing. http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

There were no Carrier strikes on Japan until late in the war, well after we had the strength to do it.

Towards the end of the war the air strikes on Japan were coming from the islands captured by the combined naval and land assaults. Meanwhile , shipping close to Japan was reduced to a bit of a turkey shoot by the USN against hopelessly depleted IJN and Japanese merchant shipping.

Nor was any thought given to attacking the Japanese mainland until the central Pacific had been won.

You might like to look a the history of planning for invasion of the Japanese home islands, which was in train long before the end of the central Pacific advance. Start with Operation Olympic.

[Eastwind]

We are in agreement with a slight variation on your last. By way of clarification the energy and immediate warfare efforts were focused on the central Pacific. You are correct, in the meantime, they were designing plans for the eventual invasion of Japan. We are in agreement again: it was Naval aviation, the Marine Corp. and the submarine force that won the war in the pacific. Of the three, subs probably played the biggest role. Although it would make for interesting conversation to rank the three in order of importance.

On an unrelated topic is there a thread debating the use of the bomb?

[Eastwind]

Oh, it is true bombing missions were conducted from Saipan and latter Okinawa AND the American carriers did indeed strike targets on the Japanese mainland, routinely. They may have started in late 44 but certainly, with great frequency in 45.

[Eastwind]

In fact, I think, the last casualty of the war was a navy fighter pilot shot down over Japan.

[Eastwind]

And it is also true that P-51 aircraft equipment with drop tanks flew for captured Islands on missions over Japan. There may have been other land based fighters to also make the run. The P-38 maybe? I can not remember. However, by January 45 the carriers had run out of targets and often hit the Japanese mainland land.