Pearl Harbor: A Sneak Attack?

I think many people , even some historicaly knowledgeable people, miss the importance of the political climate of the US at the time.
We were still in the grips of the Depression, although it was starting to ease , the Depression had turned the US into an extremely isolationist country, politically.
The man on the street had no interest in Europe's or Asia's woes, their fights were their fights. Many saw a connection between our involvement in The Great War and subsequent economic downturns.
It was actually Churchill who first realized that the US had to enter the war on a full time basis , or the war would be lost.
It was the US's industrial might that was most important at first, due to our isolationist stance our armed forces were wholey inadequate to take on the Axis at the start.
By being attacked by an axis power we were obligated to go to war with the other axis powers, we stood by our treaty obligations while the Europeans failed to, if the British, French , Belgians, Dutch and Poles, had fulfilled their treaty obligations to the Czechs WW 2 would have been a non starter.

In the end it was US industrial might that turned the tide of the war , it was the millions of tons of ammunition, thousands of aircraft and ships , tens of thousands of tanks, nearly a half million 1 ton trucks , enough boots and cold weather gear to equip the US army a couple of times over , went to our allies, in many instances before such things went to us troops.

Now , all that being said, the US had to enter the war before Europe was lost in its entirety.
And if we had preempted the attack on Pearl, all it would have done would be to re enforce the isolationist position, which is exactly what the Japanese wanted. They never envisioned such a successful strike, and the famous quote" I fear all we have done is waken a sleeping tiger" ,is exactly what happened.
If it had been left to basic sea battle or not quite so spectacular attack on Pearl, there likely would have been a political settlement , which is what Japan wanted.
They wanted us to stay out of their business, and they would stay out of ours.
All the while the Axis wpuld have solidified its position and built its industrial base beyond Germany and Japan proper, incorporating conquered territories and their resources.
And their technical prowess would have put them out of reach of the lone US.
It's a good thing for the world that the leader of the Axis was an insane unstable bastard, other wise had the Axis a competant leader, who followed the plan , the Axis would have had world wide dominion by 1950.

a reply to: punkinworks10

In the end it was US industrial might that turned the tide of the war

Oh dear, not this old chestnut again, It was America that won the war.

We here in Europe are sick to the back teeth of hearing this nonsense.

a reply to: alldaylong

He didn't say that America won the war, but our production capability. There's a difference. No other nation had intact production facilities, or were able to produce equipment the way that the US did. No, we didn't do it alone, but without our production capability there wouldn't have been 10,000 plane raids, or hundreds of ships turned out a month for convoy duty, and protection.

Name another nation that had intact facilities, and the resources to crank out over 12,000 B-17 sized aircraft in 7 years. Europe was in ruins.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you not think the 30 million troops the U.S.S.R. pitted again Nazi Germany had just as much impact of turning the war?
Also have a look at what The U.S.S.R. was producing ? You may be amazed.

a reply to: alldaylong

I'm well aware of that. But the Soviets would have been harder pressed without a second front. That front would have collapsed without US production and assistance replacing equipment. Without US production, and the lend/lease equipment sent to the Soviets, until they got their production up and running, they would have been in bad shape too. No one nation could have won the war, or turned the tide, but without production from the US allowing other nations to get their production up and running, things would have been different.

a reply to: Zaphod58

things would have been different.

You must know that for a fact from the crystal ball in your avatar.

No one knows what other scenarios may have come into play. And that is a fact.

a reply to: alldaylong

You can make a damn good guess based on what was going on at the time. At best, the war would have dragged on even longer, and more people would have died. It's a known fact that large bomber raids were responsible for destroying German infrastructure used to build more equipment. It's a known fact that large bomber raids destroyed resource stockpiles that would have been used to build more equipment. So which nations would have been able to build enough bombers to allow those large raids? Which nations would have been able to hold on, and in fact move the front back without US assistance and production? Please, point them out.

Again, the US didn't win the war, but allowed for multiple fronts, and helped push back the front with other nations. The US production allowed for equipment to get replaced, and for convoys to make it through carrying equipment and supplies when nations were running out.

a reply to: alldaylong

Like many "old chestnuts" there is a grain of truth in it.

US industrial capacity was unmatched by anyone in the early years of the war. Only the Sov's came close, but not until a bit later. Remember, they had to move much of their industrial capacity east, away from the oncoming Germans. You don't do that overnight.

Oddly enough, the most important item that enabled the Russians to hold on was the Studebaker truck. It was used for everything.

No, the U.S. didn't do it alone, odds are it couldn't have. We should all be glad it didn't come to that...

a reply to: Zaphod58

It was the winter weather that did for Hitler on The Russian Front, nothing to do with how much military hardware each side had. That is just one factor.

What would have happened if Hitler had lost his capability for oil production. That could have been another factor, his troops would have ground to a halt.

What if Britain had been defeated in 1940. Where would the invasion of Europe have been launched from? Maybe into Italy, but that would have been far more risky.

There are far to many scenarios to say what turned the tide of the war, without someone saying " it was US production that did it ".

Yes US production did help of course but that was not " the tide turning moment"

Total nonsense.

a reply to: alldaylong

Except Britain WASN'T defeated in 1940. Germany DIDN'T lose their oil production. You say that you can't say what would have happened without US production and then throw out hypotheticals about what could have happened, that we know DIDN'T happen. I'm talking about actual facts, not hypotheticals. Massive raids, and a second front against Germany turned the tide against them.

I get that you don't like the US, and are sick of hearing people saying things like that, but you're trying to rewrite history just as much as those hypothetical situations, or people saying that the US won the war.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you call stating this in your previous post?

things would have been different.

I am just stating how things COULD HAVE BEEN different. So what's your problem with that ?

I get that you don't like the US

I have no problem with The US. What i don't like us some Americans stating without the US Military Production the tide of the war wouldn't have been turned. As i have repeated several times, that was just one factor and not the " King Canute " moment.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you not think the 30 million troops the U.S.S.R. pitted again Nazi Germany had just as much impact of turning the war?
Also have a look at what The U.S.S.R. was producing ? You may be amazed.

Why do we not ask the man himself. Stalin

"Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."

Is that true? Depends on what you mean by win. Could the Soviets have retaken and held some of its territory? Most likely. Could they have been able to invade Poland and then Germany. Not likely without the trucks and rail needed to supply those fronts. Most likely it would have turned into a stalemate and lead to a separate Soviet German peace. Likely in that time the Germans would help finish off British forces in Africa and the Mid East and the UK itself without US aid would have been forced to ask for peace. Likely the Germans would take in return for most of the Empire so it could use those resources to prepare for another war with the USSR that no doubt be coming. The Soviets could no more have won the war their own than the US could have (before the bomb anyway). It was the combo of Soviet manpower and US production that won the war. It is odd that when both the Soviets and US agree on it that others would deny it.

a reply to: alldaylong

Because we know what DID happen. Large raids destroyed ball bearing plants, and fuel stores. Without those raids, the factories would have lasted longer. Without the B-17s, those raids wouldn't have happened on the scale that they did.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Without the B-17s, those raids wouldn't have happened on the scale that they did.

So the 21,000 British built Lancaster, Wellington and Stirling bombers had no impact on the bombing of Nazi Germany then?

Right, i see where you are coming from now.

i remember reading somewhere that winston churchill knew the japs were going to attack PH but didnt share the info with the US because england was essentially starving from all the u-boats sinking the food ships.....basically they needed the US in the war to survive as a country.
Also that the germans may have done more damage if they hadnt taken so much time making their tanks and such,production couldnt keep up with demand,because they were so festidious with assembly and reliability......they were out numbered by the manufacture of the sherman tanks

a reply to: alldaylong

And of course you bothered to look at the losses in the raids, right? To see how badly the RAF would have been hammered without 8th Air Force? By the end of the war, 8th Air Force alone had lost 26,000 men on bombing raids. Fully half of the USAAF casualties were in 8th AF alone.

As it was, the RAF bomber crews lost 55,573 crew members, out of 125,000 total. That's 44% of their bomber crews. Another 26,000 on top of that would have devastated the Bomber Command. Out of 100 men in RAF bomber crews, 55 were killed on average.

You don't "get where I'm coming from". You're trying to pigeon hole me into a slot with every other American that you can't stand, when the fact of the matter is that without US air crews, the RAF would have been virtually destroyed before the end of the war.

a reply to: hiddenNZ

basically they needed the US in the war to survive as a country.

History tells me that Rudolph Hess landed in Scotland in May 1941 to try and arrange a peace agreement between Britain and Germany.

The U.S. entered the war in December 1941.

a reply to: alldaylong

yes ive read that also......but how is that linked with what I wrote?
Cheers

a reply to: hiddenNZ

.basically they needed the US in the war to survive as a country.

Not necessarily. Churchill could have taken the Peace Route.

originally posted by: alldaylong
Not necessarily. Churchill could have taken the Peace Route.

The same as Poland, France, Belgium, Norway etc. etc. did!