Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JALU3
Would the defense of the Philippine Islands or the Dutch East Indies (including British Malaysia and Singapore) ever an accomplishable task prior to the Japanese invasions? Would either of the three nations had been able to build up a sufficient force to defense those thousands of miles of coast line so far away from their production bases? How long could have Fortress Signapore and Bataan hold out if they had stuck with the more conservative original warplans?
Would the pacific portion of World War II been avoided if the West allowed Japan to continue its war against China unchallenged, or was it an inevitable outcome? Would the US have ever entered the war as an active combatant if it wasn't for Pearl Harbor?
|
Well, as always this is pure speculation, but to answer your first question; yes. In my mind the loss of the Phillipines was primarily due to a lack of military preparedness on the part of the defending nations. The U.S. , especially, could have put up a better fight had we learned from the First World War the value of keeping pace in military readiness, doctrine, and technology.
I won't answer the question concerning the battle plans for lack of detailed knowledge concerning force locations, dispotions and unit abilities.
As far as the Pacific portion of the war being avoided goes I feel it was a definite possibility. The U.S. had imposed severe sanctions on Japan for their invasion of China and there is evidence that the U.S. deliberately avoided reaching a diplomatic solution to get into the war. I'll place the titles of the books/research concerning this shortly as the titles/authors elude me at present.
Whether U.S. involvement could have been avoided indefinetely is simply a matter of politics. As I am sure you are well aware, the U.S., although "neutral" was already at war with Germany in all but name by the time Pearl Harbor rolled around.
The slick "Cash and Carry" policy, which allowed any belligerent nations to purchase U.S. material so long as they could ship it back in their own vessels was clearly biased towards Britain, who controlled the seas far more effectively than Germany could, especially early in the war. The "Lend-Lease" program didn't even go to those lengths to disguise U.S. favor towards Britain. These programs were primarily the brainchildren of FDR, who throughout the period, demonstrated quite clearly his Anglophillic(is that a word?) tendencies.
Since he was, in effect, eventually able to convince the American populace that Germany posed a direct (read "will invade") threat to the U.S., the war in the Western theatre could be said to be inevitable. As such I would posit that the U.S. would have become a combatant. U.S. favoritism towards Britain almost certainly would have translated to British holdings in the Far East and thus would have similarly made war against Japan inevitable.
All that aside, had the U.S. not pursued such agressive foreign policy in favor of Britain they could certainly have avoided conflict in either theatre. The notion that Japan or Germany (especially Germany) could ever mount a full-scale invasion of the U.S. (or even attempt one) is pure nonsense.
It could be said that the Axis powers might have posed an economic or ideological threat to the U.S. and its influence around the globe but the point is moot because we got that from the Soviets anyway.
Well, that's my perspective. I hope it helps a bit.