Signifgance of midway

[Chris Allen]

Any history of this battle clearly states it was the turning point when
"The balance of the Pacfic War changed sides in just 5 minutes"

That may be obvious to us now but was it obvious at the time?
When did the seneior commanders, on both sides, appreaciate that Japan
had lost the intiative?

[Bill]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:25:39 -0500, Chris Allen

Post by Chris Allen
That may be obvious to us now but was it obvious at the time?
When did the seneior commanders, on both sides, appreaciate that Japan
had lost the intiative?

When the third Japanese carrier was sunk...

Midway was a trap, more properly, an ambush.

The US Navy knew what the Japanese target was and lay in wait for
them.

Then they sank four Japanese carriers and killed most of the
experienced Japanese aircrews...

After that there was no means to carry a Japanese initiative forwards.

[Al Montestruc]

Post by Bill
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:25:39 -0500, Chris Allen

Post by Chris Allen
That may be obvious to us now but was it obvious at the time?
When did the seneior commanders, on both sides, appreaciate that Japan
had lost the intiative?

When the third Japanese carrier was sunk...
Midway was a trap, more properly, an ambush.
The US Navy knew what the Japanese target was and lay in wait for
them.
Then they sank four Japanese carriers and killed most of the
experienced Japanese aircrews...

That last is not correct. Read "Shattered Sword", the majority of
Japanese aircrews on those carriers survived to fight another day.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/83nrb8q


The carriers were not however replaceable in a reasonable amount
of time. Worse, by the time they were, the Americans would have
built many times that number.

Post by Bill
After that there was no means to carry a Japanese initiative forwards.

It was a mistake from the git go. Japan should never have attacked
the USA at all regardless of the provocation. Their opinion that
Americans were decadent was not totally off-base, but to play that
card to the best effect they needed to force the US government to
attack them. Republics always fight better when the public is
convinced the war is defensive, and never as well when the Republic
is engaged in naked aggression. They should also have used a lot
of propaganda on the US public to the effect that Japan would only
fight to defend her interests and do you want your boy Johnny
dying in an Asian jungle to protect the business interests of
Royal Dutch Shell, and so on.

If they had forced Roosevelt to attack them first, in order
to stop the takeover of Indonesia or to aid the Chinese, the
American public would not have supported that, and you would
see an anti-war movement like that of the Vietnam era.

The USA would not have been able to pull off a Pearl Harbor
type attack that would cripple the Japanese, so quite possibly
the USA settles with Japan gaining next to nothing.

Post by Bill
After that there was no means to carry a Japanese initiative forwards.

[Alan Meyer]

On 01/06/2015 12:34 AM, Al Montestruc wrote:
...

Post by Al Montestruc
It was a mistake from the git go. Japan should never have attacked
the USA at all regardless of the provocation. Their opinion that
Americans were decadent was not totally off-base, but to play that
card to the best effect they needed to force the US government to
attack them.

...

Of course a better way to put this would be to say that Japan (and
Germany and Italy) should never have attacked _anyone_ unless there was
a severe provocation.

I won't say that no one has ever gained anything from imperialism and
military conquest. Such a claim would require the examination of lots
of conquests from the Hittites to the Islamic State, and I haven't done
such an examination and don't know who has. But if we look at how Japan
and Germany fared after the war it's pretty clear that peace brought
more dividends to their people and even to their ruling economic class,
than fascism, jingoism, and imperialist war ever did.

Maybe if Japan and Germany had won the war their people would have been
better off than they are today, but I doubt it. In the long run, I
think prosperity is something you have to create, not steal from others.

It's easy to slip into the mindset of the fascists and analyze outcomes
from their point of view. We often see discussions on this newsgroup
of how the Japanese or Germans could have better achieved their goals.
It's a useful way of thinking about the war. But we should never forget
that the goals of racial supremacy and world conquest were never
attainable, never worth attaining, and could never have had the benefits
that the fascists imagined for them.

Alan

[WJHopwood]

Post by Chris Allen
Any history of this battle clearly states it was the turning point when
"The balance of the Pacfic War changed sides in just 5 minutes"

Rather than "five minutes" I believe the victory at Midway can be
more accurately traced to the radio intelligence accomplishments
of the US Naval Communication Station Hypo at Pearl Harbor
which confirmed by intercepting and breaking Japanese coded messages as early as five weeks prior to the battle that the
Japanese were planning to occupy Midway.
And that despite the argument of NavCom Washington that
Hypo was wrong and that the target of the attack could well be elsewhere and not until the middle of June--ten days later than the actual battle took place.

Post by Chris Allen
That may be obvious to us now but was it obvious at the time?
When did the seneior commanders, on both sides, appreciate that
Japan had lost the intiative?

The victory was considered of considerable importance to the U.S.
high command but not necessarily the "turning point in the war" as
has later become universally accepted . Admiral Nimitz remarked at
the time of the victory that "Pearl Harbor has now been partially
avenged. Vengeance will not be complete until Japanese sea power
is reduced to impotence."
While Admiral King, in Washington noted that "....(Midway)
put an end to the long period of Japanese offensive action and
restored the balance of naval power in the Pacific."
And of course the fact remains that after Midway there were
over three more years of hard fighting and two atomic weapons
which had to be used before complete victory over Japan was
finally obtained.

WJH

[David Wilma]

That's a dramatic turn of phrase, but not the complete story as is pointed
out above. Certainly the climax of the battle was the dive bomber hits on
the Japanese carriers, but there was much before that five minutes and
some to follow.

As for knowing at the time that it was the turning point I think leaders knew
the battle was important and that the Japanese would be hard pressed
to replace the carriers, planes, and pilots. I think it was Admiral Spruance
who said the whole thing was "shot through with luck." Napoleon preferred
lucky generals to good ones.

Despite the disaster at Pearl Harbor and the defeat in the Philippines the
long hard road to Tokyo was always in the U.S. favor. Any other outcome
did not pencil out unless the Allies decided on a negotiated peace and
that was not going to happen.

Five minutes that was the turning point in the war? How about the Japanese
decision to attack in the summer of 1941?

[Michael Emrys]

...the Japanese would be hard pressed to replace the carriers,
planes, and pilots.

They didn't lose all that many pilots, the majority of them survived the
battle. But for a while there weren't any carriers for them to fly off
of. So they flew and fought from land bases in the Solomons campaign,
which is where most of them died. By the time Japan had built new
carriers, most of their best pilots were dead.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Post by Chris Allen
When did the seneior commanders, on both sides, appreaciate that Japan
had lost the intiative?

Probably not until after Guadalcanal had been taken and held from the
Japanese. So, at least after February, 1943. I think that was about the
same time that the Japanese offensive overland against Port Moresby was
halted. Those two events truly marked the end of Japanese conquests in
the Pacific and the rollback of the Japanese Empire.

Michael

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Chris Allen
Any history of this battle clearly states it was the turning point when
"The balance of the Pacfic War changed sides in just 5 minutes"

This simple proposition includes two rhetorical errors.

#1. We may accurately say that the balance changed,
or that XYZ changed sides. But it is an error to say
"the balance changed sides."
#2. The suggested underlying idea is mechanical,
viz. that future events are determined by conditions
today, that 9000 men or ships will always defeat
8000 men or ships etc. etc. But real generals and
admirals know this is not true: they spend a lifetime
learning how to alter the supposed "balance."

It seems prudent and safe to classify this proposition
as headline rhetoric rather than a tool that explains anything.

[WJHopwood]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 2:09:53 PM Don Phillipson

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Chris Allen
Any history of this battle clearly states it was the
turning point when "The balance of the Pacfic War
changed sides in just 5 minutes"

#1. We may accurately say that the balance changed,
or that XYZ changed sides. But it is an error to say
"the balance changed sides."
#2. real generals and admirals...spend a lifetime
learning how to alter the supposed "balance."

True, but semantics aside, the meaning iis clear that
based on the perspective of hindsight it has become
the conventional wisdom of most historians that Midway
was the turning point of WWII in the Pacific. It also
seems clear that for the U.S. top brass at the time, the
U.S. victory resulted in little more than the
establishment of a balance of naval power in the Pacific
between the U.S.and Japan, not the case prior to Midway.
As for the reaction of the Japanese to their losses
at Midway, [n Tokyo the battle was announced to the public
as a great Japanese victory. However in reality it was the
death knell of what had been known as the Japanese
"Eastern Operation" which had included Midwsy as a first
step in the plan for invasion of the major Hawaiian islands.
Yamamoto's strategy was to destroy the U.S. fleer, occupy
Hawaii and establish negotiations with the U.S. for a
peaceful settlement of the war. But as Prof. John J.
Stephan in his book "Hawaii under the Rising Sun" put it:
"Midway marked a turning point in Japanese naval
strategy. The Combined Fleet had lost the strategic
initiative in the Pacific once and for all ...Stung by the
awesome suddeness of such a reverse Yamamoto became
obsessively cautious and) shifted to a defensive posture.
After June 1942 the Combined Fleet launched tactical
attacks .... but these were ...limited and regional in
character. They only served to postpone the inexorable
onslaught of a crushing American counteroffensive..."

But it still took over 3 more years to overcome Japan.

WJH '.

[Alan Meyer]

Post by Chris Allen
Any history of this battle clearly states it was the turning point when
"The balance of the Pacfic War changed sides in just 5 minutes"
That may be obvious to us now but was it obvious at the time?
When did the seneior commanders, on both sides, appreaciate that Japan
had lost the intiative?

The US Navy knew how many and what types of warships the Japanese had -
just as the IJN knew the same about the USN. The IJN had six large
fleet carriers and four were lost at Midway, 2/3 of their most powerful
ships. So I think it was obvious to the US military and political
leadership that the victory was at least highly significant.

Perhaps the immediate effect of this knowledge was that the Roosevelt
administration could feel freer to pour more resources into the European
theater. They were more confident that the situation in the Pacific was
under control. Although the U.S. was not yet rolling up Japanese
conquests and not yet on the offensive, the commander in chief could at
least be confident that no Japanese carrier group was going to show up
off the California coast or even at Hawaii.

That seems to me to be one kind of turning point, and one that was fully
appreciated at the time.

Alan