I think the "what iff" factor is one of the reasons that the Pearl Harbour attack is still so widely studied and still causes so many arguments. What iff;
The Japanese had hit the oil storage farms and repair facilities
Nagumo had ordered a second strike
The strike force had commenced a search for the carriers after hitting Pearl
The strike force had been spotted prior to the attack
If USN subs or carriers had managed to put in a counter attack
All fascinating things to think about. For me one of the great unanswered questions is the role of Russia, the strike force passed a Russian merchant man, did they report the sighting to Moscow? Did Moscow do anything with such a report?
Sadly it is also a magnet for conspiracy theories, I personally think the one about the President ignoring intel to engineer America's entry into the war particularly absurd, if you want to have a war you don't start it by getting the enemy to destroy your main weapon!!!
I've always thought the USN hhas been harshly judged. Both America and the British were expecting war with Japan, but both expected an attack either against Malaya/Singapore, or the Dutch East Indies or the Phillippines, they grossy under estimated Japan's ability to launch an attack against all three objectives simultaneously as well as neutralise the USN in the Pacific. However given that both military staffs expected an attack into SE Asia in some form and had based their preparations on this assumption the failure of Percival in Singapore and MaCarthur in the Phillippines seems much greater than the failings of the USN in Pearl as no US intel agency seriously predicted that strike. Percival and MaCarthur had been provided with forces that for all their failings should have put up a much more effective resistance if they'd been well prepared and led. Just my 2 cents,
Justin
|