Draft Dodgers: Traitors?

[chequita guevara]

Dr Spin, you are making a classic mistake of conflating what is moral and ethical and right with what is Consitutional. Slavery was Constitutional, and yet I hope you would agree that it was immoral, unjust, and that no right minded person should have assisted in upholding the laws of slavery (Fugative Acts, etc.). The ethical person would have helped slaves escape, would have interfered with their recapture, etc.

Segregation was legal and Constituional. No just human being could have upheld those laws and the moral and ethical person would have broken those laws. (and did).

Etc.

[SlowwHand]

Mr. Floyd,

The last thing I'm going to say on the subject.
Look at the forum page, and make note of yours.
You don't appreciate the people or processes that guarantee your right to say what you think.
To me, it makes no sense, but that's your right, and is "no skin off my nose".
Go find someone with your great "intelligence".

Enjoy.

[Chris 62]

OK David, since you asked, it's time to give you a real education, as I hold a masters in 20th century history (specifically 1900-1945 period), and I will now disburse you you of your silly notions of world history.

Originally posted by David Floyd

Chris, if you think that the Central Powers could not have won the war absent US intervention, you should really read up on Germany's Spring 1918 offensive.

First off, you should carefully read up on tactics, unit effectiveness in battle, advance rates of non-mechenized formations involved in breaching fortified lines, and the effects of unit cohesion on formations in sustained combat.
Your simplistic answer here shows you know NOTHING about this subject, or you wouldn't believe the that the "Kaiserlact (Kaiser's battles)" could have won the war for the Central powers, this is one of the great myths of history, and a favorite of Adolph Hitler.
Germany suffered ENORMOUS losses in it's best units, it's Stosstruppen, in it's first break through attempt, against the British V Corps (Julian Byng commanding). The Germans had no adaquite reserves availible to exploit the small opening that was created, German Calvery could not effectivly cross no-man's land, nor could German logistics feed and rearm the advanced units, which needed rest badly.
The BRITISH broke the back of this, not the USA.

As a DIRECT result of the 2nd Battle of the Marne, and to a lesser extent Belleau Wood and a few other battles, all of which were fought at least equally by Americans as by Frenchmen and British, Germany was forced to cancel Operation Hagen, an even bigger offensive that could easily have forced multiple breaches in the French/British line, defeated the BEF, and enveloped and taken Paris.

You just described Ludendroff's pipedream, his fantasy "Paris" offensive. The Marne and Belleau wood were fought in phase two, after phase one had failed to break the lines in flanders.

France was bled white, and the French military was sick of the war, whereas Germany was riding a morale high after knocking the Russians out of the war, and also having hundreds of thousands of new troops available from the Eastern Front.

Another myth.
The French army mutinied in 1917, after the Chammes Des dames offensive failed, but the problems which caused this were addressed by the French high command, namely lack of leave time and a rotation system installed.
It was Imperial Germany that was on it's last legs, the allied food blockade had reduced German food stocks to starvation level, and it's military could barely be supplied with new munitions and equipment.
In fact, German artillery barrels were so worn that they were dropping shells miles short at this point, and could not be replaced.
In another factual matter, German frontline moral was shattered when the troops saw how their British enemies had meat, milk, eggs, tobacco, and other items in large supply, when their leaders claimed that the allies were as you said, "Bled white" by the U-Boat blocade, so they realized that their leaders were lieing to them, and this led to them not fighting, the "Black day of the German army" which followed the failed breakthrough.
The truth of the matter is that it would have only prolonged the war another year, and that meant MORE allied tanks, guns, and planes, and the starvation of the German people.
The Germans had NO chance in 1918, no matter what you previously believed.

I DO think that the mutinies, on all sides, show how evil the draft was and is - forcing people to get into trenches and charge into machine gun fire for no reason concerning them is quite frankly morally reprehensible, outright murder.

Yet they all put up with it for YEARS.
It was only after 3+ years that mutinees occured.

I've heard THIS bull**** before. Just explain to me HOW the Germans or Japanese could invade the US. Please. I'll probably end up laughing hysterically, but go ahead and try - impress me.

You should learn some respect, boy, cause throughout this thread, you have showed you don't know jack about history, but I will provide it for you.

First off, an invasion of the US west coast was certinly within Japan's ability, and was being considered in early 1942, but the defeats of Corral sea and Midway caused the Japanese to concentrate on defense rather than offense.
In 1942, the USA had less than 10 trained divisions in the ENTIRE USA. It took 2 YEARS to train the armies that landed in Normandy, and the forces in North Africa and Italy were tiny (a few divisions).
Japan could move 100,000 men by sea for an attack on the US west cost in march of 1942, 7 full combat divisions, plus could augment this with another 150,000 withen 2 months (drawing forces from China and the SE Asia area), plus another 300,000 were availible in the home army for deployment to the USA.
The US would have lost it's best ship facilities in the Pacific (Puget sound and San Francisco), two major AC makers (Locheed and Boeing), and would have prolonged the war indefinately.
If the USN had lost those campaigns, there would have been NOTHING to stop the Japenese navy from bringing troops to the west coast.
Also, as a footnote, in early 1942, a plane from a Jap sub droped bombs on a forest in Oregon, and a sub shelled long Beach, California, so the US Mainland WAS attacked, FYI.

Still laughing? I don't think so.
Consider that others may know more on some subjects, young man, and you would avoid the "foot in mouth" you just provided.

That wasn't the point - the point was neither of these wars affected the freedom of those within the USA. And don't tell me that if the communists had won without a fight they would have invaded the US. Please don't tell me that.

Having lived through part of the cold war era, I remember it vividly.
Korea was a matter of forcing first the Soviet backed north, and than the Chinese to accept that their colonial ambitions would be checked.

Also, Vietnam is not as cut and dried as the leftist historians say these days, the USA had the support of Millions of Vietnamese, the North had the support of MORE.

Talk to the boat people and their children, who fled Vietnam, and you wouldn't be so smug about the USA being "wrong". It's another myth that we wern't wanted AT ALL by the Vietnamese, so get over that.

Also, I suggest you read some of the works of people who had to live through communism, like the Russian dissidents, and a whole new world would open up for you.
Communism, in all it's forms suck, pure and simple.

I'm just not inclined to give my life for a cause that I don't believe in, that's all.

Who is?
The point is, you can't "pick and choose" what laws you wish to obey, or society crumbles.
You elect leaders for that, and if you don't agree with said leaders, you elect new ones.

And despite what your youthful spirt thinks, freedom is not a gift, and NOBODY OWES YOU ANYTHING, no matter what the Constituition says, as you will find as you move through life.
Freedom must be defended, or it WILL be lost, and we have examples of it throughout history.
Want to know why I respect Che, even though I almost never agree with him? Because he sees that freedom can be stolen away so easily through both brute force and legislation, and it scares him, as it should all of us.

What angers Slowwhand is your selfish attitude, the "I'm not risking MY ass" thing, that he sees here.
A number of people show this, and it is dishartening to many of us, because we know that such an attitude may well lead to the downfall of western culture.
I know that sounds silly and alarmist, but think of the world 100 years ago, how different it was. Even 50 years ago. Things are changing fast, and NOT for the better.
For Sloww and me, and a lot of other guys, we did our bit, now the ball is in your court, and you guys are fumbling it.

For Navy:
Thanks for enlightening this bunch as to the true facts, "Stolen Valour" is a great book, isn't it?
You should tell them about Delayed stress symdrom next, it's quite illuminating.

[Seeker]

Ignoring the whole argument going on here, I am pleased to hear of a History MA!

But do you really believe Japan would have invaded California?? There are several factors that lead me to think this was not a 'real' plan.

1. Lack of fuel, marine and petrol. Japan's stockpiles were getting REALLY depleted by the 10 years of war in China. The foreign oil sources they secured were not terribly efficient due to many factors including magnetic mines, US subs, and lack of a real convoy system.

I just don't think the logistics of a siege of a major American city would've worked out for them. Maybe they could've taken Hawaii with a victory at Midway and Coral Sea but California??

2. Strategy: Once the strike south/fight america party won out in cabinet, the grand strategy for dealing with America seems to have been defensive and based on a political calculation, that without an effective navy the Americans would be so daunted by Japans in-depth defenses that detente or peace would result. I don't think the Japanese SERIOUSLY intended to do more than bomb docking facilities, shipyards and marine fuel depots in California.

3. US air power: The USA had a large amount of civilian pilots for the time, and we saw that within months they could churn out an awful lot of air craft.

4. Hawaii would be a difficult enough target, and probably sufficient to knock the US out of the Pacific for years.

5. Other fish to fry: If Hawaii had fallen, other more pressing fronts required Japan's attention. The war in India, Australia, China, and possibly the SU.

Conclusion: I am well aware that the were plans for San Francisco, but my opinion is that these were just nationalistic dreams.

Note: I am not discussing this in connection to any conscription question. Just purely out of historical interest.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Seeker
Ignoring the whole argument going on here, I am pleased to hear of a History MA!

But do you really believe Japan would have invaded California?? There are several factors that lead me to think this was not a 'real' plan.

1. Lack of fuel, marine and petrol. Japan's stockpiles were getting REALLY depleted by the 10 years of war in China. The foreign oil sources they secured were not terribly efficient due to many factors including magnetic mines, US subs, and lack of a real convoy system.

I just don't think the logistics of a siege of a major American city would've worked out for them. Maybe they could've taken Hawaii with a victory at Midway and Coral Sea but California??

2. Strategy: Once the strike south/fight america party won out in cabinet, the grand strategy for dealing with America seems to have been defensive and based on a political calculation, that without an effective navy the Americans would be so daunted by Japans in-depth defenses that detente or peace would result. I don't think the Japanese SERIOUSLY intended to do more than bomb docking facilities, shipyards and marine fuel depots in California.

3. US air power: The USA had a large amount of civilian pilots for the time, and we saw that within months they could churn out an awful lot of air craft.

4. Hawaii would be a difficult enough target, and probably sufficient to knock the US out of the Pacific for years.

5. Other fish to fry: If Hawaii had fallen, other more pressing fronts required Japan's attention. The war in India, Australia, China, and possibly the SU.

Conclusion: I am well aware that the were plans for San Francisco, but my opinion is that these were just nationalistic dreams.

Note: I am not discussing this in connection to any conscription question. Just purely out of historical interest.

There's a big difference between would they have done it as evaluated by people 50 years later with access to Japanese info--AND--we're getting shot at now, should we consider this a threat?

It's irrelevant anyway. The Japanes attqacked our fleet, killed thousands of poeple and sank several ships. They attacked us. So we fought back.

[Dr Spin]

Dr Spin, you are making a classic mistake of conflating what is moral and ethical and right with what is Consitutional.

The only criteria which matters for discussion regarding ethics, is the law. Otherwise (outside the law), you are free to live by any moral code you want to.

Slavery was Constitutional, and yet I hope you would agree that it was immoral, unjust, and that no right minded person should have assisted in upholding the laws of slavery (Fugative Acts, etc.). The ethical person would have helped slaves escape, would have interfered with their recapture, etc.

For me, slavery is immoral. I sympathize with slaves, and wouldn't want to be one myself. For someone who believes that slaves are inferior or non-human, they too are acting ethically and morally by owning them. If the evidence were such that slaves were inferior creatures, it would be immoral to help them escape, exactly like it is immoral for PETA to 'free' animals which don't belong to them.

Segregation was legal and Constituional. No just human being could have upheld those laws and the moral and ethical person would have broken those laws. (and did).

Why break the law when the mechanism exists for changing the law? Some people are just too damn lazy to do the work required, and want child-like instant gratification.

You don't really want to live in a world where people feel that they are justified in breaking the law. There are far too many pissed-off people out there willing to justify almost anything.

[Seeker]

"It's irrelevant anyway. The Japanes attqacked our fleet, killed thousands of poeple and sank several ships. They attacked us. So we fought back."

My point wasn't about the war starting, or anything like that.

I was just curious about your analysis of a historical problem, from a purely abstract POV.

I wasn't questioning any sort of moral thing.

[chequita guevara]

Dr. Spin,
the political channels to which you wish to fall back on did not exist for Black people under segregation. Had Black people not made themselves ungovernable, the system of segregation as it existed in the US would exist today. The same is true for South Africa. When you simply petition for a redress of greiveneces, as say the ANC did for its first 50 years, then its easy for the authorities to ignore you.

When those same people start making your society fall apart, refusing to go along with your laws, you have to deal with their demands. You can do what was done in the US and SA, beat and kill and jail people, but sooner or later your jails will be filled and those people will start fighting back, and they did, which is why both Jim Crow and Apartheid are now history.

As far as wanting instant gratification, "Justice delayed is justice denied." The same with freedom. Freedom is not something that you can parcel out to people, giving them only what you think they deserve. Freedom is right that must be taken, and you only get as much as you take. Freedom has never been gained in any other way.

[Dr Spin]

the political channels to which you wish to fall back on did not exist for Black people under segregation.

That's true, of course. However, they exist for would-be draft dodgers, or a black man who finds himself discriminated against today.

Segregation and slavery are based on the unfactual belief that some human races (whatever that means) are intrinsically inferior to others. Once you have the facts, the law as it was couldn't hold.

Freedom is not something that you can parcel out to people, giving them only what you think they deserve.

I think you're being a bit dramatic and over-simple. If a fellow decides that 'the man' has been keeping 'his people' down long enough, and thus justifies stealing my car, his freedom will be revoked.

Freedom is right that must be taken, and you only get as much as you take. Freedom has never been gained in any other way.

Define 'take' please. By force? By legal means?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Spin
Segregation and slavery are based on the unfactual belief that some human races (whatever that means) are intrinsically inferior to others. Once you have the facts, the law as it was couldn't hold.

Incorrect. The belief in Black inferiority was the justification for those policies, not the reason. The reason was to create and control a source of cheap labor. Slavery in the US existed 170 years prior to the vicious racism that eventually came to accompany it and was a result of the American Revolution. Slavery was incompatable with the stated ideals of the revolution and could not be justified unless Black people were inferior to whites, and thus undeserving of equality.

It was the same with Jim Crow. It was after these laws were created that the myth of the lawless negro, of Reconstruction, of the nobel and heroic Klan were created. It was the same with Apartheid.

I think you're being a bit dramatic and over-simple. If a fellow decides that 'the man' has been keeping 'his people' down long enough, and thus justifies stealing my car, his freedom will be revoked.

I doubt there will ever be a significant number of people convinced of the right to steal cars. I also think it unlikely that someone would steal a car as part of some scheme to redistribute wealth. More likely it would be a rationalization for the theft than an actual motivation.

Define 'take' please. By force? By legal means?

To quote Malcolm X, "by any means necessary."

[Simpson II]

Originally posted by Dr Spin
The only criteria which matters for discussion regarding ethics, is the law. Otherwise (outside the law), you are free to live by any moral code you want to.

I think I see where you are coming from, but your argument is IMO falacious. The position that the law is the arbiter of morality is itself a moral position, and is subjective in just the same way as any of the other personal moral position is. The fact that your yardstick is precisely defined does not make it the only yardstick.

Why break the law when the mechanism exists for changing the law? Some people are just too damn lazy to do the work required, and want child-like instant gratification.


You don't really want to live in a world where people feel that they are justified in breaking the law. There are far too many pissed-off people out there willing to justify almost anything.

I do live in a place where people feel they're free to break the law; it's called Ireland! It would be hilarious if the government tried to introduce the draf over here, everyone would either ignore it or bugger off to the UK.

Anyway; no one person is going to change the law. You can work towards it, but in the meantime you have to get on with your life, and just ignoring the law is a reasonable way of doing that.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Seeker
Ignoring the whole argument going on here, I am pleased to hear of a History MA!
But do you really believe Japan would have invaded California?? There are several factors that lead me to think this was not a 'real' plan.

I don't think they would have been able to sustain it, but it was withen their capability.

1. Lack of fuel, marine and petrol. Japan's stockpiles were getting REALLY depleted by the 10 years of war in China. The foreign oil sources they secured were not terribly efficient due to many factors including magnetic mines, US subs, and lack of a real convoy system.

According to Japanese sources (See "Battle history of IJN" by PS Dull for a good translation of this) Japan had fuel for 2 years of sustained operations in december 1941, enough for this phase of the war.
US subs were ineffective in 41-early 43 period due to faulty torpedoes, so were not a major factor in the early war period. Mine laying is problamatic, many were laid by A/C in the latter part of the war, only a handful of US subs could do it in early 42

I just don't think the logistics of a siege of a major American city would've worked out for them. Maybe they could've taken Hawaii with a victory at Midway and Coral Sea but California??

Why not? They took Hong Kong and Singapore, both cities of equivelent size to any Califorinian city (As a footnote, there was a Canadain Regiment in Hong Kong in december of 1941, did you know that? )

2. Strategy: Once the strike south/fight america party won out in cabinet, the grand strategy for dealing with America seems to have been defensive and based on a political calculation, that without an effective navy the Americans would be so daunted by Japans in-depth defenses that detente or peace would result. I don't think the Japanese SERIOUSLY intended to do more than bomb docking facilities, shipyards and marine fuel depots in California.

The Japanese where always looking for the decisive battle, another Tshusima, to win the war. As long as they won, they advanced. Guadalcanal wasn't in the original war plan, nor was Midway, they were added later (Guad to blocade Australia, Midway to protect Japan from airattacks like Doolittle's). If Coral sea and Midway had been victoriuos for Japan, a GIANT if, they may very well have tried for the knockout in California.

3. US air power: The USA had a large amount of civilian pilots for the time, and we saw that within months they could churn out an awful lot of air craft.

Ah, but in early 42 they didn't, US airpower isn't really felt untill late 43, a looong time if Frisco fell. Plus Locheed produced P-38s, the war winner against Japan, and Boeing the B-17.

4. Hawaii would be a difficult enough target, and probably sufficient to knock the US out of the Pacific for years.

A great error on Japan's part, they should have siezed the place on the 7th of december 41, only 2 army divisions guarded it, with munitions for only 2 weeks of combat (See "At dawn we slept", can't remember the author)

5. Other fish to fry: If Hawaii had fallen, other more pressing fronts required Japan's attention. The war in India, Australia, China, and possibly the SU.

An invasion of Australia was what the army wanted, the Navy insisted on Midway.

Conclusion: I am well aware that the were plans for San Francisco, but my opinion is that these were just nationalistic dreams.

It was a real possibilty, as I tried to tell David, and they could have brought it off (they had the means), but Japan was aware that they probaly couldn't hold it for any length of time.
It's another great "what if", like the many in WWII, that in the end, cost the Axis the war.
To be frank, the Japanese got overcautious after midway, and never regained the upper hand in the war.

Note: I am not discussing this in connection to any conscription question. Just purely out of historical interest.

Threads go where they wish to.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Seeker
"It's irrelevant anyway. The Japanes attqacked our fleet, killed thousands of poeple and sank several ships. They attacked us. So we fought back."

My point wasn't about the war starting, or anything like that.

I was just curious about your analysis of a historical problem, from a purely abstract POV.

I wasn't questioning any sort of moral thing.

yer roight...you said that...

just wanted to put a spotlight on the difference in perspective of people who are in the moment and historians afterwards and the difference between a threat and a probable event...as these tend to be muddled (by others than you )

[David Floyd]

OK Chris. I'll respond as best I can on WW1 - although I'll say right now you do know more about the subject. I'm on much firmer ground regarding WW2, though...

Anyway...

First off, you should carefully read up on tactics, unit effectiveness in battle, advance rates of non-mechenized formations involved in breaching fortified lines, and the effects of unit cohesion on formations in sustained combat.
Your simplistic answer here shows you know NOTHING about this subject, or you wouldn't believe the that the "Kaiserlact (Kaiser's battles)" could have won the war for the Central powers, this is one of the great myths of history, and a favorite of Adolph Hitler.
Germany suffered ENORMOUS losses in it's best units, it's Stosstruppen, in it's first break through attempt, against the British V Corps (Julian Byng commanding). The Germans had no adaquite reserves availible to exploit the small opening that was created, German Calvery could not effectivly cross no-man's land, nor could German logistics feed and rearm the advanced units, which needed rest badly.
The BRITISH broke the back of this, not the USA.

First of all, I would say you are underestimating the success of German infiltration units.
Secondly, we aren't talking about fights in Flanders vs. the British, we are talking about Belleau Wood and ESPECIALLY the 2nd Battle of the Marne. So what if the British stopped the Germans in Flanders? The British didn't even participate in 2nd Marne or Belleau Wood - those were American and French battles. In fact, IIRC, Americans comprised nearly half of the Allied troops involved in 2nd Marne. Take away those troops, and the Germans were faced with a 50% less opposition. Actually, American troops had already proven that they would fight hard, in some cases put up more of a fight than the French, so I'd wager it would be MORE than a 50% reduction. Granted, the Germans were low on reserves, but if they had won 2nd Marne, and the other surrounding battles where the Americans were involved, then at the VERY LEAST they would have ceased the initiative and demoralized the British and French forces.

The truth of the matter is that it would have only prolonged the war another year, and that meant MORE allied tanks, guns, and planes, and the starvation of the German people.

More starvation, granted. However, Germany would have had the initiative, and the morale of the German army would have been much higher after victories in Spring and Summer of 1918. After knocking Russia out of the war, Germany was fighting a one front war, after all.

Actually, I just realized that this is mostly irrelevant.

When the United States entered the war, in April, I believe, the British lost 887,000 tons of merchant shipping, with no end in sight. A few more months of this and Britain would have been out of the war, because it would have been BRITISH civilians starving. What brought an end to this was a)the convoy system, pushed for by the Americans, and b)American destroyers, which were able to take up a lot of the slack from the British, who had, IIRC, over 100 destroyers badly needed to fight the U-Boats guarding the Home Fleet.

British commanders themselves admitted the war was close to being lost because of the U-Boat threat.

Britain would have been out of the war by early 1918 in this scenario. Obviously, in order to prevent a major breakthrough, the French would have had to thin out their lines all across the front to take over the sector held by the BEF, in Flanders. This, of course, would have been problematic, because, as you yourself have stated, it was the British who stopped the first phase of the German Spring offensive - thinned out French formations, probably demoralized by a sudden lack of allies, namely the British, would have been much harder pressed to stop this offensive, and the first few attacks, followed by "Ludendorff's Pipedream" - Operation Hagen - could very well have succeeded.

On to WW2:

First off, an invasion of the US west coast was certinly within Japan's ability, and was being considered in early 1942, but the defeats of Corral sea and Midway caused the Japanese to concentrate on defense rather than offense.
In 1942, the USA had less than 10 trained divisions in the ENTIRE USA. It took 2 YEARS to train the armies that landed in Normandy, and the forces in North Africa and Italy were tiny (a few divisions).
Japan could move 100,000 men by sea for an attack on the US west cost in march of 1942, 7 full combat divisions, plus could augment this with another 150,000 withen 2 months (drawing forces from China and the SE Asia area), plus another 300,000 were availible in the home army for deployment to the USA.
The US would have lost it's best ship facilities in the Pacific (Puget sound and San Francisco), two major AC makers (Locheed and Boeing), and would have prolonged the war indefinately.
If the USN had lost those campaigns, there would have been NOTHING to stop the Japenese navy from bringing troops to the west coast.

Let's look at a possible invasion scenario. For an invasion to take place, Hawaii would have to be invaded and taken. Granted, Japan should have taken Hawaii at the beginning, when they launched Pearl Harbor. This was just not going to happen, though - the army-dominated Imperial Staff barely even allowed the Pearl Harbor attack itself to go on. Releasing several divisions of troops for use against Hawaii - releasing them from China, the Army's pet project for the entire war, by the way - would have been unacceptable. The troops really couldn't have come from elsewhere, as those troops were needed where they were, in order to take the Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, Wake, Truk, Rabaul, etc.
So, when is the next logical chance for a Japanese invasion of Hawaii? I would say after Midway. Midway took place in June of 1942. Now, it is unreasonable to assume that the Japanese could have destroyed the American fleet, while taking no losses of their own. However, for purposes of this, I'll go ahead and let the Japanese take out all three US carriers for the cost of one of their heavies. As always, though, after prolonged operations, and judging by the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese carriers would have been seriously depleted of both aircraft, and more importantly, trained pilots. This means they can't go after Hawaii right away - which, by the way, gets heavily reinforced by the US after the spector of Midway, so far more than 2 divisions are on the island, along with SIGNIFICANT armor support - the Japanese couldn't even handle Lee tanks, much less Shermans. US tanks were more superior to Japanese ones than Tigers were to Shermans with 75mm guns.
Fortunately for Japan, though, the delay in going after Hawaii ensures that the Shokaku and Zuikaku become available for operations, as do the light carriers from the Aleutians operation - Zuiho and Junyo. Along with the old Honsho, this gives Japan 8 carriers available to go after Hawaii with - albeit with less-well-trained pilots than before. To go after Hawaii, Japan would need an invasion force of probably 150,000 men at a minimum. These 150,000 men, however, would still not offset the US superiority in armor, along with the obvious superiority of fighting on home turf, or at least nearly home turf, especially with all the other troops the US threw in. The US could fight the battle for the US IN Hawaii, much as MacArthur fought the battle for Australia in New Zealand - with the caveat that even assuming a Japanese victory, it would be months more before they could go after the West Coast.
So, Japan goes after Hawaii, probably in late 1942 - maybe as early as October. They get hit the whole way there by B-17s, of course - granted, these aircraft were never good against ships, but with so many Japanese ships massed together they were bound to hit something eventually. The US throws in every submarine it has available - granted the torpedos were ****ty, but again, put enough in there and you have to get a few ships. The targets would have, obviously, been the carriers and transports. I think it's reasonable to assume one Japanese carrier is sunk, probable damage to a few escorts, maybe a coupla destroyers sunk, and with luck four or five thousand Japanese soldiers killed in their transports. The US would also use the remainder of its naval power - basically, the carrier Wasp, the escort carrier Long Island, and the 7 remaining battleships on the West Coast, with what escorts were available. In this battle, the US will NOT get the intelligence coup it got against Midway, and will not be able to surprise the Japanese. However, this force will be fighting under friendly air cover, meaning that the slow battleships won't be AS vulnerable as they would otherwise be. Aircraft from the Wasp and Long Island strike at the Japanese fleet, and I'll again be generous to the Japanese and let them lose a single light carrier, and possibly a couple cruisers and destroyers. Japanese counterattacks take out the Wasp and probably the Long Island, probably a couple of battleships as well. However, with the loss of two carriers and their air wings, and subsequent battles with US air cover from Hawaii, Japanese naval airpower is becoming a bit depleted, once again. They are certainly far inferior in numbers to US airpower on Hawaii, and I just don't see them gaining air superiority at this point, although they could effect a blockade of Hawaii, more than likely, losing a couple of ships here and there to US submarines.

The main battle, on the various islands of Hawaii, is fought under US air cover, with vast US armored superiority. For that matter, US weapons in general tended to be superior to those of the Japanese, especially machine guns and infantry rifles. The US also would have had a preponderance of artillery. Japanese landings would have been opposed on the beaches, and probably driven back into the sea in a few places. I think that they would, however, establish themselves at various points, but the battle would be decided by US air superiority and US armored units, which the Japanese could not combat effectively, even late in the war.

So, in essence, I'm not even sure Japan could take Hawaii after failing to do so during Pearl Harbor, much less invade the Continental US.

Also, as a footnote, in early 1942, a plane from a Jap sub droped bombs on a forest in Oregon, and a sub shelled long Beach, California, so the US Mainland WAS attacked, FYI.

OK, OK, yes I know about that, slipped my mind, but you'll forgive me if I don't exactly count those as threats

Having lived through part of the cold war era, I remember it vividly.
Korea was a matter of forcing first the Soviet backed north, and than the Chinese to accept that their colonial ambitions would be checked.

Also, Vietnam is not as cut and dried as the leftist historians say these days, the USA had the support of Millions of Vietnamese, the North had the support of MORE.

Talk to the boat people and their children, who fled Vietnam, and you wouldn't be so smug about the USA being "wrong". It's another myth that we wern't wanted AT ALL by the Vietnamese, so get over that.

Also, I suggest you read some of the works of people who had to live through communism, like the Russian dissidents, and a whole new world would open up for you.
Communism, in all it's forms suck, pure and simple.

I agree. Communism sucks. But I'm sorry, it isn't our business to intervene in other nations in those ways. I'm truly sorry some poor bastard in Vietnam or Poland or Bulgaria had the dumb luck to be born at the wrong place at the wrong time - but I'm not gonna lay my life on the line to fix that, unfair as it may be.

Why not? They took Hong Kong and Singapore, both cities of equivelent size to any Califorinian city (As a footnote, there was a Canadain Regiment in Hong Kong in december of 1941, did you know that? )

Well, technically it was 4 Canadian battalions - 2 were already there, and the Canadian government offered two more prior to the outbreak of war

That's enough on this subject for me, for now...I think this post is long enough as it is.

[Alexander's Horse]

I see the quote and counter quote brigade have moved in on this thread.

There goes the neighbourhood