Japan helped the US during WWII?
4039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Wichita, KS, USA
Offline
Posted 1/12/12
Alright, I have a theory here that I have been pondering for sometime. About a decade before the Second World War broke out, Billy Mitchell was humiliated by his superiors after proving to them that ships would no longer dominate the seas like they use to, but aircraft would hold superiority. When WWII broke out for the US, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto proved to the world that not only that aircraft are superior to ships, but the aircraft carrier would become the most valuable asset to all navies from then on.

In my theory I feel the Japanese actually helped the US recognize that it not only needs to utilize the aircraft carrier, but it must have plenty of them at all times. Do any of you feel that the Japan helped the US in winning the war? Or do you feel the US was bound to using aircraft carriers even before the war started? Or could it have been a power from Europe?

"Get action. Seize the moment. Man was never intended to become an oyster." TR
Posted 1/12/12

Big_E1986 wrote:

Alright, I have a theory here that I have been pondering for sometime. About a decade before the Second World War broke out, Billy Mitchell was humiliated by his superiors after proving to them that ships would no longer dominate the seas like they use to, but aircraft would hold superiority. When WWII broke out for the US, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto proved to the world that not only that aircraft are superior to ships, but the aircraft carrier would become the most valuable asset to all navies from then on.

In my theory I feel the Japanese actually helped the US recognize that it not only needs to utilize the aircraft carrier, but it must have plenty of them at all times. Do any of you feel that the Japan helped the US in winning the war? Or do you feel the US was bound to using aircraft carriers even before the war started? Or could it have been a power from Europe?

"Get action. Seize the moment. Man was never intended to become an oyster." TR
No. No. And no.

First off, on the day of Pearl Harbor, the US Navy was already constructing 7 more aircraft carriers. Whereas the three carriers that were usually stationed at Pearl Harbor weren't there, because they were assigned to be at elsewhere.

Within two hours, six battleships had been sunk, another 112 vessels sunk or damaged, and 164 aircraft destroyed. Only chance saved three US aircraft carriers, usually stationed at Pearl Harbor but assigned elsewhere on the day.(citation)

If anything, the Japanese Royal Navy had helped the US Navy to get rid off 7 old battleships from their fleet, so that they can introduce the new aircraft carriers. Without themselves breaking The Washington Treaty of 1922.

The resulting Washington Naval Treaty limited both the design and numbers of battleships of the major powers, with the United States and Britain limited to 15 battleships, Japan to 10, and Italy and France to 5 each. All powers were limited to battleships of not more than 35,000 tons displacement with guns limited to 16" (406mm) caliber guns. Carriers were also limited in size and total tonnage. New battleships could not be constructed except to replace older battleships that had reached twenty years' age, and modernization of older battleships and carriers could not increase their displacement by more than 3000 tons nor increase the caliber of their main batteries. Cruisers were limited to 10,000 tons displacement and 8" (203mm) caliber guns. However, a proposal by Britain to outlaw submarines entirely was rejected by the other powers, especially Japan, whose submarine fleet was expected to play a major part in wearing down the U.S. Fleet as it crossed the Pacific to relieve the Philippines in any future war.(citaiton)

Please refrain yourself from overgeneralizing your mere hypothesis into a theory, without factual evidences to support your claim.
4039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Wichita, KS, USA
Offline
Posted 1/12/12
A simple no would have been fine.
Posted 1/12/12

Big_E1986 wrote:

A simple no would have been fine.
No, because in your original post you asked three separate and rather specific questions. Thus I have to look into all three of them, and then refute them all accordingly.
1)Do any of you feel that the Japan helped the US in winning the war? Or
2)do you feel the US was bound to using aircraft carriers even before the war started? Or
3)could it have been a power from Europe?
35796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Stoke, England
Offline
Posted 1/12/12

Big_E1986 wrote:

A simple no would have been fine.


In the extended discussion section?
Posted 1/12/12 , edited 1/12/12

Big_E1986 wrote:

Alright, I have a theory here that I have been pondering for sometime. About a decade before the Second World War broke out, Billy Mitchell was humiliated by his superiors after proving to them that ships would no longer dominate the seas like they use to, but aircraft would hold superiority. When WWII broke out for the US, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto proved to the world that not only that aircraft are superior to ships, but the aircraft carrier would become the most valuable asset to all navies from then on.

In my theory I feel the Japanese actually helped the US recognize that it not only needs to utilize the aircraft carrier, but it must have plenty of them at all times. Do any of you feel that the Japan helped the US in winning the war? Or do you feel the US was bound to using aircraft carriers even before the war started? Or could it have been a power from Europe?

"Get action. Seize the moment. Man was never intended to become an oyster." TR


tbh ww2 US joined health way throw to gain the glory
bunch of pussys ^^

and no Japan did not help US one reason nukes would of never gone off ~.~!!!!
Posted 1/12/12
There is some legitimacy to the notion that Japan's hawkishness in the 1930's acted as a spark to encourage American military development, more so than Germany's military buildup. This was all underway well before the Pearl Harbor incident, however.
Canute 
33380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/19/12

BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

There is some legitimacy to the notion that Japan's hawkishness in the 1930's acted as a spark to encourage American military development, more so than Germany's military buildup. This was all underway well before the Pearl Harbor incident, however.


I quite agree. Also, I remember hearing that a very similar attack to Pearl Harbor's happened in World War I. But no one gave it much thought.
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 1/21/12
If Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor... US is unable to participate in the war because of non-interventionism..right?
I'm not so sure actually.
42 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Boulder, Colorado.
Offline
Posted 1/27/12

shuyi000 wrote:

If Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor... US is unable to participate in the war because of non-interventionism..right?
I'm not so sure actually.


Actually, even if the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, I believe the US would have to eventually intervene (they already did by closing trade with the Japanese anyway). The Japanese were planning to take control of all the Pacific and back then, the US did have territories there to begin with.
Posted 1/29/12

CarboKill wrote:


Big_E1986 wrote:

A simple no would have been fine.


In the extended discussion section?


In that case, the reply should have been, "Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!"
You must be logged in to post.