Japan could have won WW2

[Binarycow]

In the long run, we did the Japanese a huge favor by spanking their collective arse as hard as we did. They were running around Asia getting big in the head and thought they were invincible. We woke them up to reality with our naval might and the two nukes.

I personally believe that without their ultimate defeat they would not have been as prosperous in the long run as they were.

 

[PlatinumRice]

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/196709--.htm

 

[mugs]

I didn't watch the OP's video, because I'm watching something that doesn't suck right now. Japan lost World War II on December 8, 1941. They never had a chance. It doesn't matter if they were "inches away from developing an atomic bomb," they were incapable of delivering it anywhere worthwhile by the end of the war.

 

[Ichinisan]

Could of, but didn't.

Have
Have
Have
Have
Have

 

[rudeguy]

ok...my fault. I thought we were playing a fun game of "history what if?"

I didn't realize there were crazies actually taking this stuff seriously.


The real answer is no, Japan had no chance. Their belief that America could be bullied into cowering in a corner was completely flawed. They had no real way of matching our manufacturing power, NONE. They thought their code was unbreakable while we knew every move they were making.

They would have survived much longer if they had focused on Alaska instead of Midway. They would have lasted much longer if they had attacked our carriers instead of our battleships. They could have done a lot of things. But once they decided to attack us, they were destined to surrender to us.

 

[marvdmartian]

Nothing they could do about it? First they only built a small handful if I-400s and they could only hold 3 aircraft each. Not exactly an overwhelming force. Furthermore the Aichi M6A was not really built for mixing it up in the air so, once intercepted, it stood little chance.

Its maximum loadout was around 1800lbs. Thats about 8,000lbs too light for an atomic weapon of that era and such a small conventional bomb loadout wasnt going to affect the war really in any way

Of course, that's not to say that they couldn't have loaded one of those weapons onto a long-range submarine, sail it into San Francisco, LA or San Diego harbors, surface, and blow the atomic weapon. While the physical devastation wouldn't have been as severe as an air launched weapon blowing at altitude, the psychological devastation to the American psyche, especially at that point in the war (when we considered the Japanese to be nearly beaten), would have been tremendous.

Part of the reason why Truman considered using the atomic weapons we had developed, is because the American people were tired of war, and the attitude toward absolute surrender of the Japanese was wearing thin with them. Plus, the war was getting very costly, and a full scale invasion of the Japanese islands would have likely added 1-2 years to the war, and a lot more debt. So if the Japanese had blown even a small atomic weapon inside a west coast harbor, I'm betting that either the American people would have demanded a truce.....or the attitudes after would have made the attitudes after Pearl Harbor pale in comparison.

 

[sdifox]

Of course, that's not to say that they couldn't have loaded one of those weapons onto a long-range submarine, sail it into San Francisco, LA or San Diego harbors, surface, and blow the atomic weapon. While the physical devastation wouldn't have been as severe as an air launched weapon blowing at altitude, the psychological devastation to the American psyche, especially at that point in the war (when we considered the Japanese to be nearly beaten), would have been tremendous.

Part of the reason why Truman considered using the atomic weapons we had developed, is because the American people were tired of war, and the attitude toward absolute surrender of the Japanese was wearing thin with them. Plus, the war was getting very costly, and a full scale invasion of the Japanese islands would have likely added 1-2 years to the war, and a lot more debt. So if the Japanese had blown even a small atomic weapon inside a west coast harbor, I'm betting that either the American people would have demanded a truce.....or the attitudes after would have made the attitudes after Pearl Harbor pale in comparison.

People were tired of the supply restrictions and loss of soldiers. If Japan managed to nuke LA or SF, Truman would have people screaming for wiping Japan off the face of the earth.

The American resolve was what made the world respect USA.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

People were tired of the supply restrictions and loss of soldiers. If Japan managed to nuke LA or SF, Truman would have people screaming for wiping Japan off the face of the earth.

The American resolve was what made the world respect USA.

If we lost our whole navy, had Japanese footholds right off the west coast, just had Russia smash our European armies in a surprise attack, and Japan nuked LA, I bet the people calling for continuing the war would be overruled. It's easy to have resolve when you're winning or at least have a chance.

I could see Japan possibly winning the war if they destroyed our carriers and consolidated their expansion sufficiently before we could start an offensive. Yamamoto knew to have a chance they needed to wipe out the pacific fleet right away, and he knew the importance of air power. I'm being lazy to double check, but I've heard from several places that he realized the war was over when he didn't get the carriers at Pearl Harbor.

lulz, they would be hunted down. Wars are won on the back of logistics. And Japan just didn't have the logistics in its favour.
Say they managed to take out San Francisco, so what? That does not a war win. USA doesn't even have to drop the nukes to win the war. It was just the least expensive in terms of American lives.

It wasn't just a matter of least expensive. Russia had just smashed Japan's Manchurian armies and would have launched their own invasion if we gave them the chance. Ending the war quickly ensured we didn't get a North Japan/South Japan situation.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Actually, the Japanese were stupid to think we would not use their attack as an excuse to enter into WW2. We were already on the verge of declaring war on the European front. We already started ramping up industry for our allies.

The Japanese almost seemed blind with tunnel vision to not even consider the aspects of America 'looking for an excuse' to enter the war. Complete idiots, IMO.

 

[Exterous]

If we lost our whole navy, had Japanese footholds right off the west coast, just had Russia smash our European armies in a surprise attack, and Japan nuked LA, I bet the people calling for continuing the war would be overruled. It's easy to have resolve when you're winning or at least have a chance.

Lost our entire navy? We built and launched over 4,600 ships by the end of the war. The first Essex fleet carrier was commissioned in '42. In 1943 we had 6 fleet carriers and 9 light carriers commissioned. The Japanese had just 5 new carriers in 1943 and all were light carriers. In fact in that one year we produced 1 less carrier than Japan would produce total for the rest of the war (including emergency conversions)

That doesn't even include the 24 CVEs launched in 1943

By the time the Russians were in position to launch any type of surprise attack there was no way the Japanese could keep down the USN

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Actually, the Japanese were stupid to think we would not use their attack as an excuse to enter into WW2. We were already on the verge of declaring war on the European front. We already started ramping up industry for our allies.

The Japanese almost seemed blind with tunnel vision to not even consider the aspects of America 'looking for an excuse' to enter the war. Complete idiots, IMO.

They might have hoped we would buckle, but going to war with us was out of necessity from their point of view as a newly expanding empire (they felt like they had the same rights as Europe to go imperialist). They were simply being resource strangled because of our policies in the pacific. There was no winning scenario for them except to beat us in a war.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Lost our entire navy? Then how did the Russians smash our armies in a surprise attack in Europe? We built and launched over 4,600 ships by the end of the war. The first Essex fleet carrier was commissioned in '42. In 1943 we had 6 fleet carriers and 9 light carriers commissioned. The Japanese had just 5 new carriers in 1943 and all were light carriers. In fact in that one year we produced 1 less carrier than Japan would produce total for the rest of the war (including emergency conversions)

That doesn't even include the 24 CVEs launched in 1943

By the time the Russians were in position to launch any type of surprise attack there was no way the Japanese could keep down the USN

I simply stated the situation Japan was in at the end of the war in the US's perspective, and pointing out that saying things about American resolve is pretty silly since we were never in a truly dire situation. Also, the war could have went much differently if they destroyed our carriers at pearl harbor. What would we have done without carriers at the battle of midway (the turning point in the war). By the time we could attempt a real offensive the natural resource disparity would have been much different, and we would have had a much farther trek across the Pacific to try to win.

 

[sdifox]

I simply stated the situation Japan was in at the end of the war in the US's perspective, and pointing out that saying things about American resolve is pretty silly since we were never in a truly dire situation. Also, the war could have went much differently if they destroyed our carriers at pearl harbor. What would we have done without carriers at the battle of midway (the turning point in the war). By the time we could attempt a real offensive the natural resource disparity would have been much different, and we would have had a much farther trek across the Pacific to try to win.

Two carriers. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/index.html


It would have teken longer, and cost a great deal more lives, but ultimately the result would still be the same. The fire bombing would have reduced Japan to a huge smoking stinking funeral pyle.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Two carriers. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/index.html


It would have teken longer, and cost a great deal more lives, but ultimately the result would still be the same. The fire bombing would have reduced Japan to a huge smoking stinking funeral pyle.

Without being able to match them at sea, they would have went apeshit across our holdings in the pacific much faster. By the time we were on an even footing again, Japan would likely have Hawaii and the Aleutian islands. Maybe have closed off the panama canal. Strikes on the western coast would have been possible. The war would have looked much different. Not guaranteed for Japan, but not nearly as predictable as it was.

 

[sdifox]

Without being able to match them at sea, they would have went apeshit across our holdings in the pacific much faster. By the time we were on an even footing again, Japan would likely have Hawaii and the Aleutian islands. Maybe have closed off the panama canal. Strikes on the western coast would have been possible. The war would have looked much different. Not guaranteed for Japan, but not nearly as predictable as it was.

No oil means no way to maintain suppy chain.

GB alone had more materiel production tha Japan.... had Midway gone Japan's way. Canada would have ramped up its Pacific efforts. Up til then Canada was concentrating on keeping the supply line to GB clear of the U boats. Hell, USA was just doing holding action in the Pacific.


http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-Fwd.html

Logistics wins wars.

 

[zerocool84]

Germany could have won if Hitler had built a time machine and sent back a killer robot to kill the mother's of all his opposition so they are not born.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NDRDVavpWs&t=23m50s

In a word, no.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No oil means no way to maintain suppy chain.

GB alone had more materiel production tha Japan.... had Midway gone Japan's way. Canada would have ramped up its Pacific efforts. Up til then Canada was concentrating on keeping the supply line to GB clear of the U boats. Hell, USA was just doing holding action in the Pacific.


http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-Fwd.html

Logistics wins wars.

Very true, but not many people know about Canadas efforts in the war.

Americans don't really know about anything else than that it was Europe and the US won and most seem to think that it was France they were at war with and Japan was the ally.

Might have something to do with France winning the war against Britain to earn the US freedom and they never forgave the French for that. I don't blame them, if i wasn't born a Brit i would blame whoever was guilty of that transgression too.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

No oil means no way to maintain suppy chain.

GB alone had more materiel production tha Japan.... had Midway gone Japan's way. Canada would have ramped up its Pacific efforts. Up til then Canada was concentrating on keeping the supply line to GB clear of the U boats. Hell, USA was just doing holding action in the Pacific.


http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-Fwd.html

Logistics wins wars.

At the time of Japan's opening moves, U-boats were still very successful. Saying Canada could just divert would mean woes for Great Britain. Japan was also rapidly expanding. Once consolidated, they'd have the oil they needed.

If logistics were everything, Germany would have rolled over Great Britain long before we went to seriously help them. With less of a materials disparity and a much better position than us in the pacific, it would have been very difficult to turn things around even with our resources.

 

[sdifox]

At the time of Japan's opening moves, U-boats were still very successful. Saying Canada could just divert would mean woes for Great Britain. Japan was also rapidly expanding. Once consolidated, they'd have the oil they needed.

If logistics were everything, Germany would have rolled over Great Britain long before we went to seriously help them. With less of a materials disparity and a much better position than us in the pacific, it would have been very difficult to turn things around even with our resources.

Thank Hitler for that. He made a few blunders that allowed UK to survive. I didn't say Canada would divert all its attention, just that the pacific theatre would not have been neglected. Same with US. Majority of effort was on the Atlantic theatre, ensuring UK remains in Allied hands. I think that was the right call.

Retaking Hawaii is a cakewalk compared to retaking UK.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Thank Hitler for that. He made a few blunders that allowed UK to survive. I didn't say Canada would divert all its attention, just that the pacific theatre would not have been neglected. Same with US. Majority of effort was on the Atlantic theatre, ensuring UK remains in Allied hands. I think that was the right call.

Retaking Hawaii is a cakewalk compared to retaking UK.

It wouldn't need to divert all of them. Any amount would have hurt badly. There's a reason their focus was there. Retaking either would be a difficult thing; America would need more than a supply advantage to cross half the pacific with an invasion force ready to go. Position means a ton; there's no good place to launch a force one Hawaii goes. You look all throughout history and you find wars where the better supplied side lost due to shifts in the tides of war. While a big advantage, it's simply stupid to say more supplies = game over; there's more to war than that.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

It wouldn't need to divert all of them. Any amount would have hurt badly. There's a reason their focus was there. Retaking either would be a difficult thing; America would need more than a supply advantage to cross half the pacific with an invasion force ready to go. Position means a ton; there's no good place to launch a force one Hawaii goes. You look all throughout history and you find wars where the better supplied side lost due to shifts in the tides of war. While a big advantage, it's simply stupid to say more supplies = game over; there's more to war than that.

Did you even look at the history of WW2 in the Pacfic? The distances were immense and the ships at the time couldn't do much too far from home. Japan expanded outward one island at a time and the US retook it one island at a time. Capture, build a new base, forward deploy from there. It's pretty basic. If Hawaii and Midway fell it just would have been a little extra time to recapture the whole Pacific theater. Instead of starting in Hawaii and expanding from there we would have started in San Diego, retaken Hawaii and then followed the same path from there. It's just ONE extra link in a very long chain. The material/manufacturing advantage was the key to re-taking the Pacific, not whoever held Hawaii in January 1942. As long as our manufacturing base on the mainland was left to churn out war machines at the rate they were doing it Japan couldn't do jack-shit with Hawaii, Midway and Wake no matter who won those early battles. We flooded the Pacific with men, planes and ships and we would have flooded the Pacific with the same men, planes and ships whether we started in Hawaii or in San Diego.

 

[sdifox]

It wouldn't need to divert all of them. Any amount would have hurt badly. There's a reason their focus was there. Retaking either would be a difficult thing; America would need more than a supply advantage to cross half the pacific with an invasion force ready to go. Position means a ton; there's no good place to launch a force one Hawaii goes. You look all throughout history and you find wars where the better supplied side lost due to shifts in the tides of war. While a big advantage, it's simply stupid to say more supplies = game over; there's more to war than that.

Resupplying an occupation force in the middle of the pacific ocean would not be what I call fun. In contrat to losing UK, Hawaii is a lot less important.
http://www.valoratsea.com/subwar.htm

 

[iGas]

The only way Japan could have won the war if everyone take it laying down, because Japan didn't have any natural resources such as iron, coal, and oil.

add

Why was Japan's oil supply cut off in World War 2 and why was this such a threat to them?

"At the time Japan was dependent on the U.S. for their oil supplies (there was no OPEC yet). Japan's military operations in China were seen as dangerous to the U.S. so Roosevelt cut off the oil shipments to Japan knowing that without it their Navy and army would ground to a halt eventually. He hoped this would make them come to the bargaining table instead they came to pearl harbor, and Singapore, etc.."

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Resupplying an occupation force in the middle of the pacific ocean would not be what I call fun. In contrat to losing UK, Hawaii is a lot less important.
http://www.valoratsea.com/subwar.htm

Where do you think the bulk of the sub force was operated out of during the war?

Did you even look at the history of WW2 in the Pacfic? The distances were immense and the ships at the time couldn't do much too far from home. Japan expanded outward one island at a time and the US retook it one island at a time. Capture, build a new base, forward deploy from there. It's pretty basic. If Hawaii and Midway fell it just would have been a little extra time to recapture the whole Pacific theater. Instead of starting in Hawaii and expanding from there we would have started in San Diego, retaken Hawaii and then followed the same path from there. It's just ONE extra link in a very long chain. The material/manufacturing advantage was the key to re-taking the Pacific, not whoever held Hawaii in January 1942. As long as our manufacturing base on the mainland was left to churn out war machines at the rate they were doing it Japan couldn't do jack-shit with Hawaii, Midway and Wake no matter who won those early battles. We flooded the Pacific with men, planes and ships and we would have flooded the Pacific with the same men, planes and ships whether we started in Hawaii or in San Diego.

The distance to Hawaii from San Diego was an order of magnitude larger. With Hawaii as a launching off point the West coast would not be safe from bombing either, and likely the Panama canal would have been closed. It would have been far harder for the US to gain momentum even with the resource advantage. Did you bother to look at a map of the Pacific before you posted?