Why was Nagumo in command at Santa Cruz?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Basket said:
The IJN would have been far better off trying to get as much territory as possible rather than trying a attrition battle with an enemy that can churn out ships like a conveyor belt.
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder what Japan's leaders would have thought had Germany declared war on the US in 1940, thus provoking earlier mobilization of the US war economy.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I sometimes wonder what Japan's leaders would have thought had Germany declared war on the US in 1940, thus provoking earlier mobilization of the US war economy.
Click to expand...

Had France already been conquered by the time of this hypothetical German declaration, I have no doubt the IJN would have won the North/South cabinet debate a year earlier than it actually did, and Japan could have gone into FIC earlier to set up and prep for later DEI conquests.

Attacking Pearl Harbor might not have happened, nor the Philippines, because the neutral US was already preoccupied. It really depends on how many fights FDR and Stimson want. The former was emotional, the latter sternly rational, so it's hard to say how that debate would unfold.

UK may have had more resources to defend Malaysia and Australia, either direct sales/LL from the US, or using USAAF forces to backfill for RAF forces deployed to SEA.

Germany had very few subs for Paukenschlag in spring of 42. They probably would have problems in 1940 capitalizing on any declaration of war that way. Also, Barbarossa might be postponed due to heavier prior Western involvement.

It could cut both ways. Without many subs, Germany would be hard-pressed to stop any build-up of US forces in the UK, but at the same time, without an Eastern Front, they could pack NW Europe and dare the Wallies to bring it, which would clearly require massive forces. Japan would perhaps have a freer hand, with the US already distracted, taking DEI without worrying about PI or Singapore -- if they're willing to run that risk.
 
GrauGeist said:
There is absolutely no way the Philippines were going to get out of being occupied.
Their geographic location was too dangerous to Japanese interests to be allowed to be under any other authority than Imperial Japan.
Click to expand...

I generally agree, as I've made plain elsewhere. I just think that in this hypothetical, the possibility remains that the Japanese may have gambled that they could afford the PI flanking sea-routes for a year or two.
 
I believe that on Dec 7th 1941 the US had 29 submarines based at Manila.

"Twenty-nine U.S. submarines were stationed in Manila Bay and 21 lay at Pearl Harbor. Of the Manila boats, six were of the old S-class, seven were fleet submarines of the transitional P-class, and 12 were more modern fleet boats of the U.S.S. Salmon (SS-182) class. Manila Bay units were commanded by Captain John Wilkes and serviced by two tenders and a converted merchant ship. "

From World War II Submarine Warfare

There was a large naval base at Subic bay which had been deactivated (mostly) in accord with the 1922 treaty. Could the Japanese take the chance that the US would not attempt to re-activate it if they bypassed the Philippines?

Can the Japanese take the risk of American reinforcement/rebuilding of facilities in the Philippines?
The flight of B-17s in the air at Pearl harbor were bound for the Philippines. A number of A-24s (Dauntless) dive bombers were in transit as cargo on ships. Not sure if the first P-40s and P-(shall not be named) to arrive in Australia were intended for the Philippines?
 
I would have avoided the Philippines at all costs. Even at the risk of American intervention.

There is the real possibility that USA would have stayed out of the conflict had it not been attacked.

American showed little regard for the imperial aspirations of the British or Dutch or French in SEA so maybe avoid America and attack everyone else. And if the Americans did get up to shenanigans then invaded Phillipines then.

Maybe not a good idea but sheer genius in comparison to what they actually did
 
The problem is, by October '41, the US was starting to move assets to the Philippines - if Japan ignored the Philippines, then the US would have still been increasing operational numbers.
And it wasn't just the Army, the USN was starting to shift assets to the Philippines as well.
*if* Japan did not attack the Philippines on 8 December (7 December US time), then they ran the risk of encountering a hardened and upgraded US/Philippine force at a later invasion date.
 
Had America attacked first then America would have been the agressor and not Japan.

Questions is how John Q Public in Murica would have perceived this.

USS Arizona was a priceless enlist tool but no Pearl Harbour means no mass war effort or mobilisation of the public consciousness. Japan can play the victim and America as the bad guy.

So the American resolve for total war and unconditional surrender would have been blunted. And since British rely on American logistics in Asia then Britain would have been unable to wage total war either.

Also having the Pacific Fleet moved to Philippines with substantial air and land forces could have given Japan it's decisive battle and if victorious could have knocked out America with one swift stroke.

Wow...I have just envisioned a realistic Japanese victory.
 
Murica was not too happy with the Japanese doings in China to begin with.
One of the reasons for the steel embargo followed by the oil embargo. Invading the Dutch east indies and by passing the Philippines is too great a risk. The "Muricans" were becoming less isolationist what with the war in the North Atlantic and several actions involving US ships, including the Ruben James.
The US was moving all kinds of military equipment to the Philippines, including light tanks and 75mm guns on half tracks.

The scenario where the US sits back and does nothing while Java is invaded after the US convices the Dutch government in exile not to sell oil to the Japanese seems more than a little hopeful.
 
The President was not happy.

John Q Public was enraged and vengeful after Pearl. Public support for total war would have been lukewarm especially if America is the bad guy.

So America involving itself in war and been seen as the agressor and then getting the ass kicked out of them would have played very badly in Washington. It would have doomed Roosevelt.
 
Anyhoo back to Nagumo.

Insubordination was a no no. But then again yes.

If your insubordination was war bad then that bad.

If your insubordination was war good and the high command wasn't aggressive enough and I am out of my head loony tunes nuts aggressive then that was accepted. In an extremist world view then extreme extremists were trail brazers and seen as fully embracing Bushido and Japanese manifest destiny. And since thier loony tunes couldn't be argued against because it was simply a logical extension of a more mainstream loony tunes then they got their way.

So an example of this would be Renya Mutaguchi who wasn't a clown but the full circus. Nagumo looks like a saint in comparison.
 
I usually agree with most of your posts but can't really get on board with this one.

I can't see a scenario where America attacks first, I can see Roosevelt pushing more and more ordinance farther west into the Pacific perhaps to goad the Japanese into attacking. But anti-Japanese sentiment was already at an all time high since their depredations in China and the Panay Incident.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but Japan was never going to realistically be able to knock America out of the war in one decisive battle, that's what they never understood. In fact, with more maneuvering and diplomacy, had Japan waited 8 months to a year to attack, the U. S. would have been in a much better position to knock them for six much earlier. Between the 100,000 plane promise and the Fleet Program (can we spell Essex?) WWII was a no go for Japan from the start.

As the Webster character in Band of Brothers yelled to the conquered Germans on the autobahn, "SAY HELLO to FORD and GENERAL FUCKING MOTORS... You have horses... what were you thinking?"
 
You agree with with most of my posts?
I am not sure if I am honoured or horrified!

The gist is that Japan plays nice with USA and avoids all conflict with USA but does the Singapore and Dutch East Indies and simply avoids all American colonial outposts.

This means the diplomatic pressure and sanctions against Japan have failed leaving USA with two options of go hard or go home.

So they must first strike or build up enough forces in the Philippines that the Japanese will have to first strike.

If USA builds up military power in Philippines and declares war against Japan and the Japanese are able to defeat the Americans then it creates issues. You have started a war and got beat so the question is what happens next. Would public opinion or the rabid isolationists say for round 2? Or get out and leave Asia alone?
 
Does America have a Choice?

The Dutch government in exile stops selling oil to Japan at America's request.
Japan invades the Dutch colony with the oil and America does nothing?

Japan attacks Singapore while the Americans are escorting British convoys partwar across the Atlantic and has started lend lease and America says "too bad, not our problem"??
 
What did America do when France was invaded? Too bad not our problem.

Or China or Indo China?

Marco Polo Bridge incident was 1937 and so was whatever did or don't happen in Nanking.

So America was not called a sleeping giant for nothing.

So would America Bleed for the Dutch East Indies? Their view on European colonies was actually quite negative. Apart from American colonies which they were 100% for!

Which is a problem in Burma as the Americans were not happy to defeat the Japanese so the British can march back in. Americans were not fighting for the resumption of the British Empire.

So I wouldn't say they wouldn't.
 
So it was the United State's responsability to immediately go to war when the Japanese attacked European colonies?

Where were the Europeans when Manchuria or China was over-run?

At least the U.S. was taking diplomatic actions by emplacing embargoes on exports to Japan in the hopes that they would cease their military expansion.

It all boils down to the fact that the U.S. did not want to be involved in any war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why was it?
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
yulzari
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
963
Jabberwocky
J
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
B
Was the AT-10 Wichita Used at Kelly Field 1942?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Popeye53
P
Menu
Log in
Register