Japan's mistake

Right =]

 

Very well, I am sorry for not filling in all gaps, I am just stating that they didn't face the entire American armed Forces.

 

NP tomcat .

 

If the US lost all their Island possessions, how would they deliver the bomb to Japan? Especially considering Japan would have a wall of fighter cover along the west coast (constant bombing raids against the west coast). If Japan did that chances are Japan could get peace in which the US had to lift their embargo and hand over some Islands.

There was no way Japan would invade the US mainland and that was never their intention in the first place. Japan wanted the US to give up some strategically important Islands, the Phillipines and most importantly lift the oil embargo. The bombing would be intended just to keep all shipyards on the west coast non-operational as part of denying them all access to the pacific, as well as some terror-bombing to make them more willing to negotiate. IF the US saw it had was now in a position of stalemate and their people were being bombed, chances are they would be more willing to negotiate peace. The only major problem I can see is Japan maintaining it's air superiority over the US west coast. The navy was the most important branch of the military in the pacific front. They were more vital to the war than the marines, who were a small, highly specialised branch of the army used for amphibious assaults. The navy and the merchant marine were the key factor in winning the war.

I completely agree there, in fact I said it in my first post on this thread. I was just saying this is the absolute minimum Japan would have to achieve in order to have any chance at peace. I agree that it's completely implausible which is pretty much my first point of Japan was doomed from the start.

 

They probably could never had achieved such a thing, but why would American lift its embargo just becuase all the pacific islands, and say Australia was captured?

How would Japan bomb America? it is out of the combat range of any real bombers capable of delivering enough damage to even make them think twice, and out of the effective range of any surface ships, which would never be allowed to travel that far due to the fact that they would all be sunk by the americans both at Midway but also Peral Harbour and any ships and aircraft left on the west coast.

I still don;t understand why the Americans would seek for peace just becuase they were bombed, please explain?

The Marines were a much larger force then "small", but yes they were ampbhious troops, based on the fact that they were need in that type of island war.

I don't think any one area of any branch of any army/navy, or the air force can single handed win a war. The Navy and the merchant marines bwing the key factor? without the Marines the Navy in enemy territory would be demolished by the Japanese, so in reality they Marines are need to take and hold these islands, only in a combined effort can a war both be waged and finally won, not singlely.

 

I don't know where to start with this. But here goes. Im not attacking you but explain some of this. After the attack on Pearl Harbor there was no longer an embargo on oil was there? The only way Japan would have had peace is only if they had never attacked the US in the first place. No amount of lost islands would blunt the determination to get revenge and punish the Japanese. It would have taken longer to defeat the Japanese. But it would still have happened. And please tell us.Where pray tell would all the USAAC,US Navy and US Marine Corps fighter and bomber squadrons be? And what would they be doing while the Japanese are busy bombing and raiding the West Coast? And where would this " wall of fighter cover along the west coast " come from? The Japanese Carriers? And how many fighters would that be? Do you seriously think that the total landbased airforce contingents combined of the USAAC,Navy,and Marines,not to mention the US naval forces and AA units would stand idly by while the Japanese launched air attacks on the West Coast? And just to point out too that not all the shipyards and aircraft factories were on the West Coast. Most were on the East Coast. And how would bombing the ones on the West Coast deny the US Navy access to the Pacific? And as to the Marines they were not part of the Army but of the Navy.

 

JC, I couldn't have said it better. I noticed the Marine part, too.

 

What I basically said was that the absolute minimum any chance for peace talks with the US for Japan was that they'd have to capture all US-held pacific islands, Panama canal and Falkland islands so that they could deny US access to the pacific via Panama canal or Magellan strait. Also large-scale bombing from Islands close to the US mainland targeting shipyards (ships built on the east coast wouldn't be able to get into the pacific) and civilian populations on the west coast would also be required.

I repeat again, I know that Japan would never be able to achieve this and I believe that they were doomed from the start. I'm just saying this is the absolute minimum of what Japan would have to achieve before there are any chances of peace talks with the US. Again I repeat that I think Japan would have no hope of actually pulling it off, just so we're all clear on that one.

 

I think I understand now mate, I thought you were arguing that they could have achieved it by doing this, which I see now that that was not what you are saying, so I think that we all agree that it is not possible.

 

OK if you say so. But even if this is theoretical for Japan to get a Peace with the US it has to have a basis in some reality right? So just to point out that even if they had the Falklands it would not prevent the US Navy from going around South America to access the Pacific The Falkland Islands are too small and vulnerable to present a threat to the US Navy. Not to mention the British and Argentines.The Japanese would not be able to base a sizable amount of aircraft to be a threat nor could it be used as a suitable naval base. Not to mention the distance and difficulty of supplying it. Also If they could't even have the resources to invade the US then how could they attack,take and hold the Panama Canal and the Falklands. And large scale bombing from what Islands close to the US? Hawaii? The Aleutians? The only land based bomber that would have been close to being able to hit the US would have been the Nakajima G10N and development of that didn't start until 1943. Like I said the only way for the Japanese to have Peace would have not to attacked the US at all.

 

It's easily big enough to hold an airfield and a naval port (over 10 000km2), from which aircraft and a sizeable fleet could destroy anything that tries to go through the Magellan strait, which would act as a choke point for anything trying to pass through. The existing British facilities would probably have to be expanded but the geography wouldn't pose any bigger problem than it did in Pearl or Truk.

As I mentioned before (several times), I'm not saying Japan had the capabilities to do it. I'm saying it's the minimum of what they'd have to do for the US to consider peace talks. Basically denial of the Pacific to the US and constant strategic and terror bombing on the mainland. As I've said before I don't think Japan had the capabilities to do it. I'm thinking in terms of how much it would take to bring the US to consider peace talks rather than what Japan was capable of.

 

So the actual question is what would force the US opt for peace in the Pacific with Japan after the debacle at Pearl Harbor?
I'd say that with the political atmosphere in the US at that time, anyone in the US govt who would suggest this idea publicly would be committing political suicide. Remember, the general idea of the Allies, which was later formalized, was UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. No ifs, buts or conditions and this rules out the option of accepting a peace agreement with Japan. In other words, the general political message was a fight to the finish. "You started it, we'll finish it."

 

Round and Round

Just like JCF said, how could they not only take but hold such locations?, How would the panama canal fall, you think the Americans didn't realise its importance, but not that it mattered they would just round south America. Now even if they were to take it hold it and some how manage to run supplies all the way from japan to the bases there, they would, be sorrounded by from the American forces from the pacific and eastern forces floating around in teh Carribean, so why would they risk any sizable force to this plain suicide, which in reality would do nothing. The mainland America would still be intact, the Government is still in power, and all her industry and shipyards are still working at full throttle, so again why would they negoiate while they are in such a strong postition.

I know you keep saying itd not possible, and yadda yadda yadda. But why post it without something to back it up, Ok you say "this is what they would have to do to achive a peace treaty", fine why?, and why with some real facts and possiblities, everything you have said just dosn't make sense.

 

Come on Tomcat, each to his own illusions. if I may quote the Bard:

 

'
Yes you are right, so I going to leave that discussion now, it is only going in circles anyway.

 

I'd have to concede to Tomcat's point. Something more substantive should raised here. On a personal note, I never thought I'd come to the point that I'd post something like this.

 

I find it kinda funny how the people who start it, lose it!