Interesting Guys, lets take it a little further
 

I haven't seen the show, but like tater I have read many a book about the battle and the war from all sides ( Canadian, British, American, Japenese and German ) In about that order. I don't intend in this response to take the battle of Midway and Disect it but I do intend to throw a few ideas out there for critisicm or agreement.

Lets begin with the possibility that the Americans lost the battle of midway. We'll go a little what if here,

1. The carriers were all sunk, to the cost of one Japenese carrier. The rest of the fleet had to retreat to PH. Giving up Midway in a heartbeat. What would the Japenese have done with their carriers next?? Can I suggest that they might have at least ran raids on PH and the island, kinda like the london Blitz that the Germans used?? ( after the decisive battle with the american fleet, that no offense without carrier support would have been a slaughter)

2. Would they have taken thier Carriers to support a Invasion of the Aluetions and then removed them from the battle to await furthur orders to attack any Capital Ship the Americans produced for the next 1 - 2 years. ( Kinda like the Brits did to the German Navy, Germany held the continent, but The Royal Navy never lost the Seas.)

3. Staged a blockade of the pacific ocean anywhere west of the island of midway.

4. A compleate withdrawl from the fight to Japan.

5. Awaited orders and plans to be made ( that never were made becuase they lost the battle of Midway) to possibly attack Hawaii. Lets remember here, they were brazen enough to do it December 7th, and if they were able to defeat them all the way across the ocean, they might have been insane enough to try it?? Just a thought and I know I'm going to take some flak for that one.

But my favorite idea and theory that I heard a long time ago from a British Captain of a Frigate is this.

The carriers would have been withdrawn immediately from the Midway sector of the battle, and moved south of the phillipines to assist in the eventual attack and Capture of Australia. His reasoning behind this was, The british were to involved in defending there own country, planning to take bag the Continent ( Dieppe, August 19, 1942.) that they would not have had the ability or the manpower or the public support to save australia.

Just a bunch of what if's but feedback is more then welcome. As it Is the Good guys won that battle and the Japenese Carrier Fleet was Removed from the picture long enough that American Industry could convert to full war production.

CSH,

All of your points serve to illustrate that it is not difficult at all to come up with reasonable ideas and alternate possible scenario's for the situation.

If you do take flak on point #5, well, welcome aboard mate! :lol: But I feel compelled to say in support of it that it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to think the Japanese might have at least attempted to take Hawaii if the U.S. Pac fleet was essentially destroyed and Japan ruled the waves in that part of the world (which they would have of course if the U.S. fleet had been destroyed, at least for a time). It's an undeniable fact that they did have a big enough "pair" to attack PH at least one time. :yep:

The Australian suggestion by your Frigate Captain friend is not one that I've considered or thought of before given the vast inland area of Australia and the already thin spread of the Japanese troops elsewhere in the Pacific. Taking and controlling all the populated coastal areas of Australia would be one thing, however occupying and controlling them for a long period of time would be another.

A similar arguement can obviously be made against an invasion and occupation of the Hawaiin Islands. Perhaps this is where the real question lies as FA Admiral (among others) have suggested. Could the Japanese have afforded at that point in time to stretch themselves any further in the Pacific Theater and still maintain all of their other operations? Would they have, and could they have, diverted resources and manpower to support an alternate scenario if they thought it could be successful/beneficial in the long run? We'll never know.

But it certainly is something to think about, that's for sure. Thanks for sharing a new idea/spin on the situation. :hmm:

I will leave it to others to find positions on your other suggestions, and like a good skipper, wait patiently for an opening . . . ;)

J/K folks, relax, there aren't any sharks in these waters . . . :yep: :D

BTW, I meant argument is a good way, I don't get all pissy about discussions :)

It would, however, be a better conversation if we were having it on the patio drinking beers :D

There is a good analysis of this scenario at combinedfleet.com. Bottom line is that while it would have delayed the end of the war, it would not have changed the outcome. By September 1943 we'd still be ahead of the game in fleet CVs, and if you counted jeep carriers, forget about it. The US also learned the lesson the IJN failed to learn. Massing CVs.

On topic, I think that the statement is still clueless on Burns' part. No serious historian I have read has that take, while it's pretty much universally known that the japanese had no extant plans to invade Hawaii. Had Midway succeeded, sure, they might have given it a second thought, but at the time of Midway, it was not even a on the table. The show statement is just wrong.

Order 18 is clearly referring to Midway alone. The attack on PH was Yamamoto's show, and had nothing at all to do with invasion. Actually, as daring as it was, it was well within the core IJN doctrine. Doctrine means everything. The idea was to whittle down the US fleet en route to the western Pacific where the "decisive battle" was to occur (assuming the USN was idiotic enough to oblige IJN plans). PH was literally just an extreme of standard IJN planning for decades.

;) he he

A 'Letters from Iwo Jima' type flick would be very interesting.

sqk7744,

I've gone down to my local library and put in a request to get "Shattered Sword" on loan from another library. I did google the title, and from what I've read so far about the book, It seems that Yamamoto was entirely bent on seeing to the American fleet's destruction out of frustration at not having found the American carriers at PH, and the Doolittle raid. Looks like I'll have to read the book though to see if there is evidence/material regarding the Japanese plans IF they had been successful at Midway.

Will have to reserve judgement until I actually get to read the book, but the authors claim that there are many fallacies about the Battle of Midway which warrant clarification and closer examination.

I look forward to reading the book, thanks for coming back and reminding us yet again about it. With just the little bit I've been able to research so far, it seems it is a very definitive source on the subject from the Japanese perspective.

Tater,

The next time I'm sitting on my back patio enjoying a cold one I will surely think of this discussion/arguement. :up: I will agree to saying it was wrong of them to represent their idea in a factual way. But I still don't think the idea is completely without merit/silly. Maybe I'll be convinced to finish the 180* turn after reading "Shattered Sword". I just have a hard time putting anything past the Japanese mindset of the day, arrogance and a delusion of complete supremacy.

Regardless, your ideas have given me pause to reflect on my own, and hopefully somewhere in this process I have learned something new. I sure learned to not say I'm quoting something "almost verbatim" when I'm not %100 sure that I'm getting it right. Thanks for keeping me honest, next cold one is on me.:yep:

EDIT: Given the recommendations made here and what I have read on the internet about "Shattered Sword", decided to cancel the public library loaner and order my own copy. Retail is about $35 USD, Got it off of Amazon for $20 USD plus $3 USD S&H (normal ground delivery) in case anyone else is interested

As a very wise man once said to me... "Hold on to your opinions, just not too tightly".

JCC

Couldn't agree more JCC, ALL of us would do well to live by that pearl of wisdom. It is equally applicable to our opinions of others too, eh? :hmm: :yep:

"Skyhawk"

Thanks Skyhawk, but the original posting credit for Shattered Sword goes to Subnuts, not me.

This is a great discussion Gents! As living in the virtual Pacific Theater has shown this history buff (me), we grasp and question more than the average teenager being spoon fed history from Fox News.

IMHO

Roger that sqk7744, guess I wasn't clear. Was thanking you for bringing it up the second time ("again") and refusing to let the recommendation slip into oblivion as it were.

My bad for not acknowledging Subnut for having brought the title up in the first place.

My sincere thanks to both of you. :yep: :up:

In a few more weeks after I've had a chance to read it, I will definitely come back and share what I have found out pertinent to this thread. If I recall correctly . . . ahemmmm :huh: :lol: . . . it is about 640 pages.

Thanks again. :rock:

You bet Skyhawk!

Looking forward to your report :up:
(Silent Victory under one arm and Shattered Sword under the other)

Cheers!

Is it just me,or are they running the 9:00pm show with a more graphic content?
:o

Leftist swaying, Socialist TV. :damn: They couldnt argue a point even if it meant fighting out of a wet paper bag.

Ouch! :arrgh!:

Maybe a little harsh. I hate programs that dont look at the REAL picture and report or show it as it was; but rather sway in an agenda that benefits them, not all.

Stories that make people believe....LIES. :doh:

I won't get a chance to see this for quite some time, so I'm just going on hearsay. I love a good documentary, and I respect Ken Burns, but it sounds like this one doesn't hold a candle to the 30-year-old World At War.