2 ms·

My understanding is that while the US losing her carriers at Midway would have allowed Japan free reign in the South Pacific for a few months, that was already

My understanding is that while the US losing her carriers at Midway would have allowed Japan free reign in the South Pacific for a few months, that was already the case for anywhere that all 6 fleet carriers showed up. Nothing the US had - combined, worldwide - could match those 6. Killing the US carriers at Midway was just to turn it from a 6v3 to a 6v0 - instead it ended up 2v2, but so goes war. Japan invading Hawaii would have caused a famine if they succeeded - it'd be even harder to keep supplied than Midway, but with dozens of times the population. In my opinion Midway marked the turning point of the war in the Pacific, but that turning point was inevitable as long as the US could credibly say "we're going to commission 6 fleet carriers with a full suite of aircraft over a 12 month period". There's a great video here [0] that illustrates the differences in production over the course of the war. For instance, the US commissioned 17 fleet carriers and 9 light carriers from 1941 on - Japan commissioned 7 and 1, respectively. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
You are right of the unarguability of US manufacturing against Imperial Japan's, but that inevitability still doesn't eliminate the time recapturing territory that had Japanese presence. Their no surrender policy made island recaptures slow, brutal and ugly. Even with carrier provided air superiority. Had they got to Hawaii, I imagine the experience would have been similar to all Japanese occupied territories -- famine, brutality, extensive forced labour and systemic murder. So long as the troops are fed, and enough comfort women can be found, nothing much else mattered...
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Island captures could have been easy and with little loss of life just by blockading the islands until the defenders were starved out. But the admirals thought that wasn't glorious enough, and having lots of marines die made good drama, so we had mass landings and horrendous casualties. Its role in reducing sexual competition for older officers is necessary to understand any offensive war.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

You are right of the unarguability of US manufacturing against Imperial Japan's, but that inevitability still doesn't eliminate the time recapturing territory that had Japanese presence. Their no surrender policy made island recaptures slow, brutal and ugly. Even with carrier provided air superiority. Had they got to Hawaii, I imagine the experience would have been similar to all Japanese occupied territories -- famine, brutality, extensive forced labour and systemic murder. So long as the troops are fed, and enough comfort women can be found, nothing much else mattered...

ncmncm 7y ago
Island captures could have been easy and with little loss of life just by blockading the islands until the defenders were starved out. But the admirals thought that wasn't glorious enough, and having lots of marines die made good drama, so we had mass landings and horrendous casualties. Its role in reducing sexual competition for older officers is necessary to understand any offensive war.