Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm sure others better-informed than I will chime in, but I would say, "yes."

If my history is correct, FDR felt that it was inevitable, and was looking for a way to get us in to the fight that would also satisfy the isolationists. The Japanese attack gave him just what he wanted, but I don't think the US would have stayed out permanently. The only scenario I can think of might be like the following...

No Pearl Harbor attack. Germans declare an end of hostilities towards the British and a defensive posture only in the West, hoping that the British will agree to a ceasefire, which they eventually do. The Germans and Japanese then concentrate on the USSR. The East front stays engaged until Germany gets the bomb. The USSR then capitulates. The US gets the bomb around the same time, so a cold war begins will the USA and UK free with continental Europe and all/most of the USSR under Axis domination. After that...dunno.

The US was planning on going after Germany and stalling in the Pacific. So no Pearl Harbor might have led to a faster defeat for Germany or possibly some ill-judged early adventures. As it happened the round-about runs to North Africa and the Solomons in 1942 were accidently perfect for what the US was really capable of in 1942. Both were a strain for the US, but resulted in significant defeats for the AXIS. Pearl Harbor probably helped the US by keeping the US from landing in Mainland Europe in 1942.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Same reason Canada made plans for war with the US. As I said on page 1, militarys make contingency plans for many events, not just likely events.

I might be wrong and no doubt you very well read fellows will put me right. I can well imagine that the US would of at some point put into action their plans against GB. They kept updating the plans right up to 39 i believe.

Obviously, Hitlers rise to power and the World War made sure that it didn't happen and the US got everything they wanted from Britain as it's ally ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The US was planning on going after Germany and stalling in the Pacific. So no Pearl Harbor might have led to a faster defeat for Germany or possibly some ill-judged early adventures. As it happened the round-about runs to North Africa and the Solomons in 1942 were accidently perfect for what the US was really capable of in 1942. Both were a strain for the US, but resulted in significant defeats for the AXIS. Pearl Harbor probably helped the US by keeping the US from landing in Mainland Europe in 1942.

You're vastly overestimating the level of preparedness of the U.S. Army prior to Pearl Harbor in if you think they could have landed in mainland Europe in 1942. Many of the newly-mobilized U.S. Army divisions drawn up by conscription starting in September 1940 were still practicing with wooden guns and trucks with the word "tank" painted on the side for most of 1942. Reading up on the history of the Torch invasion in North Africa gives a good idea of what the U.S. Army was actually capable of in late 1942 -- those landing were of course a success, they faced only very light resistance from French Colonial units, not from experienced Wehrmacht units. And even against the half-hearted French opposition, these landings still were not without their failures.

Even if you assume no Pearl Harbor and no war in the Pacific freeing up resources to concentrate on the war in Europe, had Operation Torch gone against mainland Europe instead, it would have been an absolute disaster. Among other things, Germans still had air superiority over the continent at that time...

First half of 1942 was also the "Happy Time" for German U-Boats in the North Atlantic. There's just no way the U.S. could have mustered and shepherded a force large enough to invade occupied Europe in 1942, even assuming arguendo no war with Japan on the other side of the globe,

Also if no Pearl Harbor, how does FDR deal with the strong isolationist camp in the U.S.? It would have been very hard for him to get U.S. public opinion 100% behind the the war without a casus belli like Pearl Harbor. Even assuming he could get the declaration through Congress, if he had initiated a declaration war in early 1942 without a casus belli, a substantial segment of the U.S. public would have been strongly against the war, and this would have limited the U.S. war effort substantially.

Edit to add: American forces weren't involved, but another indication of how ready the Allies were do execute an invasion of Mainland Europe in 1942 is, of course, Dieppe...

Link to post
Share on other sites
COD!!!! Haddock is the only choice to go with your chips,salt and vinegar mate

I must concur ( even though he's a Yorkshireman ;) ). Haddock is superior to Cod in every way, but I must admit to not really trying the more obscure varieties of fish available from ye proper chippie.

Haggis now ... OMG, what a taste sensation. And it's made from scraps ! Scraps ! Mwuahahaha ! :)

There's a restaurant in the centre of town that not only serves the finest steak I've ever had in the UK, but the best Haggis as well - with a creamy whisky sauce...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I must concur ( even though he's a Yorkshireman ;) ). Haddock is superior to Cod in every way, but I must admit to not really trying the more obscure varieties of fish available from ye proper chippie.

Haggis now ... OMG, what a taste sensation. And it's made from scraps ! Scraps ! Mwuahahaha ! :)

There's a restaurant in the centre of town that not only serves the finest steak I've ever had in the UK, but the best Haggis as well - with a creamy whisky sauce...

Haggis is lovely, I have workmate that is a Scot and she gets me it when visits her homeland. Her parents make it up for her.

Did you put lashings of salt and vinegar on your fish n chips Baneman?

Believe it or not, the best steak I have ever had so far was in Sharm El Sheik, October of last year and very cheap too, it was at about £5.

One more thing, Sharm El Sheik has the best McD's I have ever had! They do a meal called a Royal iirc and it is a huge double burger and cheese with a massive box of fries and it can't be far off 1.5 pints of coke. Cost was a about £4

Link to post
Share on other sites
Germany declared war on the US not the other way around.

Yes - exactly - the japanese attack made American involvement against the germans less likely not more as ordinary americans would have demanded a japan first policy without the german declaration of war. That declaration of war was probably hitlers second biggest mistake and europes luckiest break in the entire conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure others better-informed than I will chime in, but I would say, "yes."

If my history is correct, FDR felt that it was inevitable, and was looking for a way to get us in to the fight that would also satisfy the isolationists. The Japanese attack gave him just what he wanted, but I don't think the US would have stayed out permanently. The only scenario I can think of might be like the following...

No Pearl Harbor attack. Germans declare an end of hostilities towards the British and a defensive posture only in the West, hoping that the British will agree to a ceasefire, which they eventually do. The Germans and Japanese then concentrate on the USSR. The East front stays engaged until Germany gets the bomb. The USSR then capitulates. The US gets the bomb around the same time, so a cold war begins will the USA and UK free with continental Europe and all/most of the USSR under Axis domination. After that...dunno.

British?

Agree to a ceasefire?

Never

NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
A deep bow to a fellow member of the Japanese Wives Club!

Yes, I am a lucky man, indeed. Like anywhere, quality varies, but I agree--overall, it's the best food in the world. I no longer eat much western food and eat rice (usually the brown genmai) 2 to 3 times a day. Bread is an occasional weekend treat (great bakeries here).

I'm not in Tokyo, but have heard about Tsukiji. I'd like to see it, but the workers there have grown to rather hate the tourists. For some reason, many foreign tourists seem to lose any sense of manners while visiting there and are also oblivious to the fact that it is not actually a tourist site, but a functioning place of business. I remember seeing a report a couple of years ago showing hidden cam video of tourists doing things like spitting on the fish, or putting cigarette butts in it, or stealing one of the motorized carts they use to go for a joy ride. Crazy stuff.

So if you ever do go, don't take offense if the workers give you dirty looks. They've been given a good reason!

Yeah I was there at the time they began debating closing it. Personally as much as I liked checking out the auctions, I'd prefer they close it. I prefer my sushi without the side of spit or cig butts. Tsukiji may be the biggest, but all the fishing towns have some great fish markets. And deep frying fish? Geez the Brits really don't know how to eat do they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure if pearl harbour hadn't happened, some other convenient attack on the US would have. US governments always want war, its the American public who need to see a couple of thousand of their own killed before they want in.

I think by 1942 war was kind of inevitable for the US. They had poured so much money into military expansion and if Britain had gone under the economy would have been crippled. They could not really continue to progress while the rest of the developed world was tearing itself to bits.

The one I've always wondered is what if Russia had been defeated in late 42 or early 43?

I guess a land campaign on mainland europe would never have been an option for the west. Atomic bomb probably would have settled it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I was there at the time they began debating closing it. Personally as much as I liked checking out the auctions, I'd prefer they close it. I prefer my sushi without the side of spit or cig butts. Tsukiji may be the biggest, but all the fishing towns have some great fish markets. And deep frying fish? Geez the Brits really don't know how to eat do they?

(It was late when I read your post and didn't catch that you were actually posted at that office. Sorry!)

My UK experience was well before my Japan experience, so my taste may have changed, but I remember fish and chips as being super good. In general, I remember liking British food a lot. However, like with American food now, I'm sure I couldn't eat too much these days--due to the heaviness. I'm just used to much lighter, healthier stuff (I eat genmai and natto every day for breakfast, for example).

Now that others have mentioned it, I'm sure a lot of the fish and chips I ate were Haddock. I also had the best Chinese food I've ever had at a small restaurant in Edinburgh. As for haggis--I adore it (or did--it's been at least a decade since I last had it), but many Scots, including my former girlfriend, aren't that big on it (a bit like US southerners and liver pudding, I suppose).

I eat very little red meat these days, but as you know, Japanese steak is usually better than American steak, with its smaller portions, but higher marbling and tenderness.

But perhaps the thing that I like the most in Japan is access to good tasting produce. Quality varies, but it's still possible to usually get stuff that tastes like it is supposed to taste. It may be hard for Americans under say, 25, to understand that what they are eating in the way of fruit and vegetables are only ghosts of their formers selves, due to modern US agro methods.

When the Kyoho grapes are in season--oh, man!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that it was strange that you could buy Robin's eggs by the dozen in Japan. I lived in Kagawa-ken for over a year. You would need to buy 2 dozen for a decent sized omelet. Lived in Hong Kong for a while after marrying my wife (who is from Hong Kong) and found some of the best curry places there from displaced Indians. But also great fish.

It would have been interesting to see if Britain would have accepted a cease-fire from Germany in early-mid 1941. I am not sure of anything would have changed except that there would not have been a push in the west to meet the soviet push in the east. Maybe a communist Europe in 1947-8

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of good immigrant-owned Indian restaurants in Japan too. I think the fish is generally better in Asia, but watch out for the current cheap Asian shrimp--no matter what country you're eating it in. If the price seems too good to be true, it's probably from one of the (usually Thai, I think) battery farms where they basically pump in vast amounts of antibiotics and such to keep the shrimp alive in the horrid environment they grow them in.

If you're looking for less costly shrimp these days, you might want to make sure it's American shrimp. They have the regulations in place to make sure it is safe stuff.

On the cease-fire idea...

The only possible scenario I can think of where the US would have stayed out would be one where Britain was both free and at peace with Germany (and of course no attacks had been made on the US itself). The only chance I can see of that happening would have been for Germany not to have engaged in the Battle of Britain. Rather, had they immediately declared ceasefire after securing France and been willing to do whatever it took to make the Brits think that they were in acting in good faith (meaning absorbing British attacks without counter attack and perhaps even shipping aid to Britain, plus a major propaganda effort). No, Churchill would never have gone for it, but he may have been forced out, given enough public anti-war sentiment.

Once Hitler bombed the British Isles, that option was gone (along with a good part of his air force--which would have come in rather handy in the East...). At that point, Britain was never going to cease-fire or surrender, as Dave85 so rightly points out.

And, FDR was never going to allow Britain to fight alone--if it looked like they might actually lose the homeland. Had it ever come to that, I think he would have outright declared war and sod the isolationists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, FDR was never going to allow Britain to fight alone--if it looked like they might actually lose the homeland. Had it ever come to that, I think he would have outright declared war and sod the isolationists.

......But FDR did allow Britain to fight alone,for 18 months from June '40 to Dec '41 and it is difficult to imagine how much more likely it could look that we would lose our homeland at that time. We were on our knees after Dunkirk! It would have done no good whatsoever for FDR to wait until we were invaded before declaring war on Germany because without Britain as a base the Germans would have had control of the Atlantic and landings in North Africa and Normandy would have been impossible.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
......But FDR did allow Britain to fight alone...

"Allow" is probably the wrong word. U.S. public opinion was not clearly in support of getting involved in the war until after Pearl Harbor, and it's highly doubtful FDR could have gotten a Declaration of War through Congress until after December 7, 1941.

Roosevelt himself viewed U.S. involvement in the War as inevitable, and did what he could in 1940 and 1941 to help Britain. But the U.S. Presidency was not as powerful an office in 1940 as it is now, and there was simply no way Roosevelt could fully commit the U.S. to open hostilities without Congress' backing.

So it wasn't really FDR that was "Allowing" Britain to fight on alone, but rather Congress and the American people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it wasn't really FDR that was "Allowing" Britain to fight on alone, but rather Congress and the American people.

.....Good point. It would be interesting to know what would have happened if "Congress and the American people" had voted for a declaration of war on Germany during the course of the Battle of Britain. On that basis it's questionable whether Hitler would have invaved Russia at all!

Link to post
Share on other sites
It may be hard for Americans under say, 25, to understand that what they are eating in the way of fruit and vegetables are only ghosts of their formers selves, due to modern US agro methods.

Have to agree with you there. I despair over much of the fresh produce—especially fruit and tomatoes—in the markets these days. I think the changeover occurred about 40 years ago. Before that you could still find pretty good stuff in any of the better markets. In many cases, you're actually better off buying frozen fruits and veggies because they are more likely to have been allowed to ripen completely before picking.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, and if Britain and France had declared war when Germany rematerialized the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles there never would have been a Battle of Britain.

No declaration of war would even have been necessary. The provisions of the Treaty made it quite clear that whatever action was necessary to maintain the demilitarization of the Rhineland was perfectly legal.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding subject of thread, I think that, no matter what else we say, Japan would have done something to cause a war with the USA, given that they felt mortally threatened by the US oil and steel embargoes, by our diplomatic maneuvering to isolate them, and also given the xenophobic nature of their military-political leadership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the presence of the US in the Western Pacific, and given Japan's expansionist ambitions, it is fairly certain that an armed clash between the two nations was almost foreordained. However, that it became as large and as violent as it did was to some extent a product of the times. The war in Europe had left the British, French, and Dutch in a highly vulnerable position inviting conquest and occupation. That was a temptation Japan would not be able to resist. Given the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China and war with the British Empire and the Dutch East Indies, the US, given its strategic position in the Philippines, would inevitably get dragged into the conflict.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...