Author Topic: US Carriers Sunk in Pearl Harbour Attack  (Read 6999 times)

Offline MaxHeadroom

  • The man has built a jet Stuka, need we say more?
Re: US Carriers Sunk in Pearl Harbour Attack
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2015, 03:16:13 AM »
Nazigermany never declared war to the Soviet Union, it was an assault.
Same to Japan, it didn't declare war to the USA, but the day after the USA declares war to Japan... so Nazigermany and faschist Italy were "forced" because of the terms of the treaty.

Norbert

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: US Carriers Sunk in Pearl Harbour Attack
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2015, 03:24:09 AM »
I believe the decision of Hitler to declare war on the USA was field by numerous reasons and that the Tripartite Pact was only one aspect.  For the reports/analysis I have read it certainly wasn't the predominant reason.  I also don't think Germany (or more rightly Hitler here) would have felt forced to do so by the terms of the pact.  Other reasons might have
forced' him though.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: US Carriers Sunk in Pearl Harbour Attack
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2015, 03:33:56 AM »
Nazigermany never declared war to the Soviet Union, it was an assault.
Same to Japan, it didn't declare war to the USA, but the day after the USA declares war to Japan... so Nazigermany and faschist Italy were "forced" because of the terms of the treaty.

Those were both actually timed declarations of war. Neither country was given advance warning, but formal declarations of war were still given to them at the time of attack. I don't say that to justify the actions of Germany and Japan—far from it—but they still declared war, so the original statement isn't wrong. Again, though, the fact that it was an offensive action, not a defensive one, meant that Germany and Italy weren't obligated to declare war on the US, just as Japan wasn't obligated to declare war on the USSR five months earlier.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: US Carriers Sunk in Pearl Harbour Attack
« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2015, 03:43:04 AM »
Forced? Umm, no, how was Japan going to force Germany to declare war on the US?
Through what mechanism? By declaring war on Germany?
 :-X

Sorry, but none of the various pacts made before either of the World Wars had any ability to force
anyone to do anything, all the 'honoring our agreements' bullshit was just making excuses for doing
what some of those bloody-minded assholes wanted to do all along.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: US Carriers Sunk in Pearl Harbour Attack
« Reply #29 on: December 16, 2015, 02:20:36 PM »
I think there may be another topic somewhere this may fit in but could Japan have offered to go to war against Germany after the fall of western Europe, in exchange for the UK and perhaps the Dutch East Indies, breaking the US embargos?  Could Japan have offered more to the UK than the US?

Back to the original topic, if there were no (or fewer) US carriers in the Pacific in 1942 then the New Guinea campaign could have been quite different.  As I mentioned in another topic, the Australian reaction to the raids on Darwin from 19 February 1942 was to concentrate on the defence of Darwin to the detriment of Port Moresby, the saving grace for new Guinea being the availability of US carrier based aircraft to back up the single RAAF squadron.  No carriers, no help for Port Moresby and possibly a successful sea borne invasion, or at least less support for the defenders fighting along the Kokoda Track. 

The pacific campaign was a close run thing in the early months with Japan proving to have not quite enough resources to fight US and the Commonwealth across multiple fronts.  No US carriers could have seen the fall of New guinea, no ongoing fighting in New guinea would give them a better chance in Guadalcanal, this could have allowed them to better isolate Australia.

Overall effect I don't know but Japans entry into the war did see the withdrawal of Australian land forces from the Middle East and ensured they played no part in Italy or Western Europe, while once US forces were fully mobilised in the Pacific, US policy saw Australia perhaps playing a far less prominent role than they would have say in France.  No US carriers would have perhaps seen a more prominent role for Australia in the Pacific.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: US Carriers Sunk in Pearl Harbour Attack
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2015, 07:00:06 PM »
I think there may be another topic somewhere this may fit in but could Japan have offered to go to war against Germany after the fall of western Europe, in exchange for the UK and perhaps the Dutch East Indies, breaking the US embargos?  Could Japan have offered more to the UK than the US?

Only if you begin when the Anglo-Japanese defence treaty was not renewed in 1921.  You would need a non-militarist Government in Japan to achieve that.  Something which was very doubtful to happen and be sustained in the period before WWII.