Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour?

  • 01-02-2011 9:52pm
    #1
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭


    Felt the Pacific theatre is a tad neglected in this forum so decided to kick start it again. Apologies if this has been asked before but I can't seem to find it if it has.

    Essentially my question is if Japan hadn't launched an attack on Pearl Harbour but instead invaded South East Asia and ignored the Phillippines would the war in Asia and the Pacific have taken a different course? Would the US have felt the need to become involved?
    Could the Japanese have turned more of their troops on India instead of the island campaigns?


Comments

  • #2
    marcsignal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭marcsignal


    Not to well up on the Pacific Theatre if I'm honest, but didn't the Americans have interests in the region anyway ? That considered, I doubt they would have stood idly by as the Japs ran riot over the place, especially if their fleet had been intact as a result of no attack on Pearl Harbour.

    just my thoughts on it anyway


  • #3
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    The US and Japan were on a collision course. Japan needed natural resources, and the level of resources required were not available on mainland Asia, so it was always going to be a Japanese seaborne empire, but they needed to take the USN out before the greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere could come into being properly


  • #4
    Ken.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,898 ✭✭✭✭Ken.


    Another interesting thing to ponder is would america have been the first with the atom bomb if japan hadn't attacked.


  • #5
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    marcsignal wrote: »
    Not to well up on the Pacific Theatre if I'm honest, but didn't the Americans have interests in the region anyway ? That considered, I doubt they would have stood idly by as the Japs ran riot over the place, especially if their fleet had been intact as a result of no attack on Pearl Harbour.

    just my thoughts on it anyway

    The US were still pretty isolationist at the time. Short of a direct assault on US territory (which would include the Phillippines I presume) I think most Americans were happy to stay out. They didn't become involve in Europe so would Asia be any different? It's interesting to consider.

    Actually what was the status of the Phillippines at the time? Where its inhabitants US citizens?
    lucyfur09 wrote: »
    Another interesting thing to ponder is would america have been the first with the atom bomb if japan hadn't attacked.

    It's quite interesting to ponder. Possibly they might have tested it on Germany but as I said if the US didn't become embroiled in a war with Japan would they have become involved in Europe at all?


  • #6
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,129 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Did the Japanese have any plans for Australia, or even New Zealand, in the grand scheme of things? I don't know what the ultimate aims of the Japanese were, never having had more than a general interest.

    Without any initial American involvement, I think the Australians would have had reason enough to get involved, given that they had a lot of interests spread around Australasian parts.

    The Australians were on good enough terms with the Americans post-war, in that they helped out in Vietnam, but would they have had the same relationship earlier, where the Americans would have come to their assistance fending off the Japanese?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement