Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I am sorry but the Donkey was right. They were kicking our ass. We lost the phillipines. Our Allies lost IndoChina, Burman, Thailands, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. We were reading their codes so we were able to stop them at coral sea when they were going to invade northern Australia. And because of reading their codes we got them at Midway. The thing was when they lost a carrier they couldn't replace it and we just kept producing them. If we had lost at Midway we would have still won because our production would outproduce theirs. We really won WWII based on Logistics. We could produce more so we simply overwhelmed them. I think they built like two carriers during the conflict with the US and we built like twenty. The Japanese knew that they could not sustain a long war with us because of our industrial capability. They were hoping that a devasting blow at Pearl Harbour would force us into a peace agreement. The underestimated the US public's rage at the Attack.
|
I'm not sure whose side you are supporting, but what you posted is based on a speculative conclusion. Whereas, I am pointing to facts that directly contradict the numerical-superiority part of NB's original post.
My point was that they weren't kicking our asses based on numbers when the tide turned. The tide turned at Midway. Midway was in June 1942, basically 6 months after Pearl Harbor. We were not even close to a numerical superiority then. Particularly not in available naval power. We had 3 available carriers to show in the Pacific at the time of Midway, and one of them (Yorktown?) was limping out of drydock from (heavy) damage at the Coral Sea. We even asked the British to lend us one of theirs from the Indian?? ocean, and they said "nyet" to Admiral King.
Meantime, the Japanese had the Hiryu, the Soryu, the Kaga and the Akagi, all of which they lost. They also had numerous additional carriers like the Shokaku and the Zuikaku out and about, though I think one had been recently damaged.
So it wasn't numerical superiority.
As for the speculative part of your post, what would have happened if we didn't knock out (maybe) half the available Japanese carriers at Midway? Well, the whole reason they attacked Pearl Harbor was because the oil embargo was slowly strangling them. Its not like they really liked Nazis! They got their oil from the Dutch East Indies I think. What happens when they suddenly lose half their offensive striking power 6 months after they started? Suddenly, their oil supplies aren't so well protected. Suddenly, they aren't able to continue rolling up islands. Don't know where they would have went if they were able to grab Midway, but I think it would have been somewhere a bit closer to Pearl Harbor.
Meantime, what happens if the Germans didn't divert forces to the Caucasus area? Suddenly, maybe they could have knocked Russia out of the war.
So I don't agree with your implication that defeat of the Japanese was inevitable based on materials and resources. The Europe-first strategy would have been that much harder if the Germans didn't manage to lose 3 million soldiers on the Eastern front after fucking up the first two drives.
On a side-note to a thread a few weeks ago, the Japanese attacked us because we were threatening their oil supplies. The Germans diverted to the Caucusus mountains (or whever) to secure oil supplies.
I again recommend reading "The Prize" if anyone here has not read it yet. Oil is explained as a huge common factor that drives the outcomes of events over the past 100 years.
Anyhoo, I'm just saying, I don't know what would have happened, but they weren't kicking our asses until we overwhelmed them with our masses. The tide turned before we had masses to overwhelm them with. The Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet were just about all that was standing between us and Japan's offense for a few critical weeks where the tide turned and the U.S. kicked started kicking ass.
Which is why I said I disagree with the absolute truth of his statement. It was partly true (as is implicitly acknowledged), but its not true in the absolute sense in which it was presented.
And, since Not_Bob is probably the most civil poster on these boards except for maybe the Larry David Experience, I will just note that I'm not attacking him. I'm just quibbling with his statement as a bit overbroad.
Hello
