Pearl Harbor may never have happened

**Kyt** · 10-28-2007, 10:41 PM

Preemptive Strike America's plan to attack Japan first would have prevented Pearl Harbor

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. military's most humiliating defeat, need not have happened. America's defeat in the Philippines and the Bataan Death March need not have happened. The American surrender at Wake Island need not have happened. The timely implementation and execution of Joint Army/Navy Board 355, Serial 691 (the Joint Board Plan) would have preempted Japanese aggression in Southeast Asia and in the western Pacific. The Joint Board Plan called for bombing raids on Japanese interests to begin on November 1, 1941; it could have smashed Japanese troop transport ships destined to invade Malaya, the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines before they left port. The plan to bomb Pearl Harbor may have been postponed so that Japanese troops could combat U.S. guerilla air corps attacks that operated from secret bases in China. Alternately, with the timely implementation of the plan, Hawaii could have been on full alert with a widespread patrol effort and thus deprive Japan of the element of surprise.

Read the rest of the Flight Journal article here

**Kyt** · 10-28-2007, 10:48 PM

The above article is based on the book Preemptive Strike
which also has a website:

http://www.preemptivestrikethebook.com/index.html

**Antipodean Andy** · 10-29-2007, 12:08 AM

Were the US forces in any sort of state at this time to conduct an effective operation of this magnitude? To be honest, I don't think they were.

**Kyt** · 10-29-2007, 12:16 AM

Funny you should ask that. From Air Force Magazine Oct 2007:

The Air Force on the Eve of World War II

**Antipodean Andy** · 10-29-2007, 12:22 AM

That Secretary of War Woodring fellow was a bright boy.

**spidge** · 10-29-2007, 01:53 AM

Quite an interesting slant however doomed to never be enacted by the United States.

There is a lot there however there is not insurmountable proof that it was not more than a strategic plan approved in anticipation of changing circumstances.

**spidge** · 10-29-2007, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Andy in West Oz

That Secretary of War Woodring fellow was a bright boy.

Until Roosevelt appointed Marshall and Marshall appointed his chosen elite, they could not have taken the war to the Japanese.

morse1001 · 10-29-2007, 06:47 AM

Interesting plan, but surely its one of those that were made by many armed forces at different times in history.

The big questions would be, was the political resolve there to carry it out? And what if any consideration given to the colonial properties in the area?

morse1001 · 10-29-2007, 10:00 AM

Something has been bothering me! And that is, the part where Gen Marshal was suppossed to have vetoed the transfer of B17s to the CVG.

Because of the neutrality act, Britian had difficulty getting supplies and there had to be a clandistine arragnement whereby, military stocks were declared surplus and so could be released to Britian.

Surely, the same law would have applied to the CVG?

**Kyt** · 10-29-2007, 10:21 AM

Yes and no - in public it did but in private the volunteer group was well supported by the Administration.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/vets.htm

It's like a number of other ways that the Neutrality Act was bypassed. Another example was the British acquisition of Hudsons in 1941. Because they could not be flown out the States (a provision in the Act), they woul dbe flown to the border with Canada, manually towed across the border, and then flown to bases in Newfoundland etc for the ferry trip across the Atlantic.