shallowdeep
Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006
From: California
Status: offline
|
First, a factual issue:
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
The BBs at Pearl were the oldest in the fleet and none mounted anything bigger than a 14" gun. All but two were tactical in less than six months....so no real losses cept for a couple of thousand body bags.
This is simply not true. The Washington Naval Treaty of 1923 and subsequent agreements had limited both total fleet and maximum capital ship tonnage, and capped battleship guns at 16". These agreements included a complete moratorium on new capital ships from April 1930 to 1937. The result was little change for almost two decades. As a consequence, at the time of attack the ships were not obsolete. California, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Maryland, in particular, were world-class battlewagons. Both the West Virginia and Maryland mounted 16" main batteries and the Tennessee's and California's 12 x 14"/50 batteries were some of the most powerful afloat. The ships had also undergone modernization including the addition of anti-aircraft guns and radar.
Only a handful of ships outclassed them on December 7, namely:
Germany's Tirpitz, the three British King George V class ships (King George V, Prince of Wales, and Duke of York) and maybe the older Japanese Nagoto and Mutsu. In the American Navy only the newly commissioned (in 1941) North Carolina and Washington were more powerful. Six months would see only limited changes to the world's fleets, with Japan commissioning the Yamoto and the US three South Dakota Class ships (South Dakota, Indiana, and Massachusetts).
Let's take a moment to compare the battleships at Pearl against the others in the US Fleet, looking at their year of commissioning and main battery:
At Pearl (Pacific Fleet)
1916 Arizona 12 x 14"/45
1921 California 12 x 14"/50
1921 Maryland 8 x 16"/45
1916 Nevada 10 x 14"/45
1916 Oklahoma 10 x 14"/45
1916 Pennsylvania 12 x 14"/45
1920 Tennessee 12 x 14"/50
1923 West Virginia 8 x 16"/45
Atlantic Fleet
1912 Arkansas 12 x 12"/50
1923 Colorado 8 x 16"/45
1919 Idaho 12 x 14"/50
1917 Mississippi 12 x 14"/50
1918 New Mexico 12 x 14"/50
1914 New York 10 x 14"/45
1941 North Carolina 9 x 16"/45
1914 Texas 10 x 14"/45
1941 Washington 9 x 16"/45
1912 Wyoming 12 x 12"/50 - obsolete trainer
Note that the Pacific Fleet is neither particularly older, nor less heavily armed than the other ships.
While the events of Pearl Harbor and the later sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse on December 10th would illustrate that aircraft, not battleships, would be critical to naval superiority, that was not the consensus prior to those events. A cavalier assumption that these ships were seen as expendable ignores the predominant contemporary view, something you can't do while ascribing motives to those who held the view. The perceived value of the ships, even after the aforementioned demonstrations of air power, is reflected in the fact that considerable effort went into re-floating and repairing all but the Arizona and Oklahoma to return them to service.
With facts out of the way...
I've read a number of arguments for a Pearl Harbor conspiracy and haven't found any compelling. The biggest problem though is, as SimplyMichael pointed out, the idea just doesn't make sense.
Any significant attack on US territory would have been enough of a casus belli for Congress to have declared war, regardless of the attack's level of success. It might or might not have been a 470-1 vote, but it would have carried by a large margin. Roosevelt may have been many things, but he wasn't stupid. There is no conceivable reason for a smart man to risk more than is necessary.
If Roosevelt truly had foreknowledge of the attack, why not (at the very least) alert the defenders? Failure to do so put not only the battleships, but also the 8 cruisers, 29 destroyers, 4 submarines and assorted auxiliary vessels anchored in the harbor at pointless risk. Not to mention the port facilities and hundreds of modern aircraft. On the other hand, alerting the defenders risks nothing, as Congress still surely declares war – and you have more ships to pursue that war with.
The idea that higher casualties were somehow necessary to bring Germany into the war is ludicrous. While I don't think Germany could have avoided war much longer after an attack in any event, they were under no treaty obligation to declare war on the US if Japan was the aggressor. The more egregious the Japanese attack, the more excuses Germany had to remain neutral.
If anything, a preemptive strike on the Japanese fleet just off Hawaii would have improved the chance of Germany's entry because, if Japan tried to deny an intent to attack (an argument no reasonable person would have bought), Germany might have felt compelled to honor its treaty obligations... but the near simultaneous attacks on Guam, the Philippines and Wake render this hypothetical moot.
The logic just isn't there.
|
RE: World War 2 Nostalgia - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread