Tehran Conference - U.S. Decision

>>2075285
>Throughout World War II, it was the Japanese Empire that was the Americans' real enemy
Have you never heard of the "Germany first" doctrine?

>>2075285

>Throughout World War II, it was the Japanese Empire that was the Americans' real enemy - Germany was just a sideline, an ally of Japan.

This is incorrect. All of Roosevelt's political maneuvering from 1939 onward was to get involved in Europe. The Manhattan project was begun before the U.S. was even in the war out of worries that Germany, not Japan, would get to the nuke first. Lend -Lease was established before the war to help the UK, then fighting Germany, not fighting Japan. The overwhelming majority of U.S. war industry was allocated towards things that would be there to crush Germany, not Japan.


Germany was the first and foremost enemy of the administration.

>>2075285
Let me put this lightly.
>1
Japan never came close to be a threat to the United States. It was never remotely close to winning. It lost to a United States that was focused half way around the world trying to kill the Germans.
>2
If the Germans were to win World War 2 and maintain a hegemony over Europe (pretty impossible at that point) they would be a legitimate threat to the United States in the long run.

>>2075291
>>2075295
>>2075307
"The strategic situation in the Pacific and related logistical requirements dominated the United States' actions after its entry into the war and led to an initial focus on the Pacific."

Gray, Anthony W., Jr. (1997). "Chapter 6: Joint Logistics in the Pacific Theater". In Alan Gropman. The Big 'L' — American Logistics in World War II. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press. Retrieved 2007-12-30.

The "Europe First" thing was all talk. The American military and public overwhelmingly saw Japan - not Germany - as the primary enemy, which created tension within the government. Everyone realized the War in Europe was only being fought to prop up the British. whereas the War in the Pacific was a legitimate war of retaliation.

>Japan never came close to be a threat to the United States. It was never remotely close to winning. It lost to a United States that was focused half way around the world trying to kill the Germans.

Japan had carriers and a fleet that was not bottled up. They could power project further than the Germans. If the Japanese won Midway then they could potentially occupy Hawaii and use it as a resupply station on their way to bombing the west coast.

>U.S. statistics show that the United States devoted more resources in the early part of the war to stopping the advance of Japan, and not until 1944 was a clear preponderance of U.S. resources allocated toward the defeat of Germany.

>>2075341
>"The strategic situation in the Pacific and related logistical requirements dominated the United States' actions after its entry into the war and led to an initial focus on the Pacific."


You do realize that this doesn't contradict anything the three peolpe you responded to said, right?

Your FIRST response is not the same thing as your MAIN response. It has nothing to do with the political goals of the administration, which FLASHPOINT, might not be the same as where public outcry is directed.

Retard.

Also, nice wiki cite. #11. I'm sure if you bothered to scroll down just a few paragraphs more, you could see the part about how Ernest King was complaining about how the Pacific wasn't even getting 30% of the US commitment.


>>2075371


> If the Japanese won Midway then they could potentially occupy Hawaii and use it as a resupply station on their way to bombing the west coast.

Pretty much every part of that sentence is wrong. There is no way even a crushing US defeat at Midway, all 3 carriers lost for no Japanese losses, could lead to an invasion of Hawaii, because the number of land based planes set in the islands is bigger than any force solely carrier based the Japanese could muster, and even if it was, they didn't have the logistical tail to support an invasion that would need to clear out about a division and a half when their closest base of support is thousands of kilometers away.

>>2075371
Hawaii was never any in any risk of ocupation the Japanese were already way overextended by the battle of Midway. They didn't have the resources to mount an invasion and occupation of Hawaii.

>>2075420
They could still rebomb Pearl Harbor and put the bases out of use for months. If they can't occupy, then they can raid.

>>2075435
Yeah maybe but it would still be difficult with the land defenses in place, but that is very different from occupying and using it as a base to bomb the west coast, which is what I was arguing against

>>2075341
This doesn't contradict anything claimed by those anons.

>>2075435

Not him, but not with all the LBA hanging around. They'd be lucky if their carrier force wasn't obliterated, they're walking into something that's now armed for bear against exactly this sort of a thing.


Also, raiding from cvp to put port facilities out of action? Do you know how impossible that is with WW2 tech? The British tried raiding German controlled ports (mostly in France) with huge, heavy 4 engined bombers, carrying 30 times the bomb load those little Vals and Kates could apiece, and could only rarely put a port out of action for any time, and a lot of the ones that they did wreck weren't repaired because it was easier just to shift operations somewhere else than fix the damage; Hawaii is in a critical location and Pearl Harbor's repair would be of maximum priority.

>>2075435
If they wanted to act retarded, yeah.

>>2075435
>Rebomb pearl harbour
Oh do elaborate

>>2075459
These are the Japanese naval commanders we're talking about, anon.