Pearl Harbor never becomes a major Naval base?

Spherical_light

If I recall right, PH only became a base, or was prepared to become a main naval Base in 1938 or 39?


To my understanding, the whole idea of PH being Naval HQ for the Pacific was due to FDR or were there others who sought it as well? Am I correct in that?

Also, to my rather rusty knowledge, wasn't the Navy mostly against the idea of the PACFLTHQ being so far away from the West Coast?

How far back were the plans to make PH a main naval base conceived of?

What would've happened if FDR had been over-ruled in designating PH as the main Naval base on the Pacific?
Could he have been over ruled at the time?

What would it have taken to NOT have PH be made into a Naval base?

What changes would have to happen for the PH naval base proposal to never see the light of day?

How would a no PH scenario play out in WW2 [San Diego remains PACFLTHQ]?

Thoughts and Discussion welcomed.
 

Questerr

Spherical_light said:
If I recall right, PH only became a base, or was prepared to become a main naval Base in 1938 or 39?


To my understanding, the whole idea of PH being Naval HQ for the Pacific was due to FDR or were there others who sought it as well? Am I correct in that?

Also, to my rather rusty knowledge, wasn't the Navy mostly against the idea of the PACFLTHQ being so far away from the West Coast?

How far back were the plans to make PH a main naval base conceived of?

What would've happened if FDR had been over-ruled in designating PH as the main Naval base on the Pacific?
Could he have been over ruled at the time?

What would it have taken to NOT have PH be made into a Naval base?

What changes would have to happen for the PH naval base proposal to never see the light of day?

How would a no PH scenario play out in WW2 [San Diego remains PACFLTHQ]?

Thoughts and Discussion welcomed.
Click to expand...

This is wildly incorrect. The Navy had been steadily expanding Pearl Harbor since 1910. It’s too valuable a natural harbor and to well positioned for force projection to not be a major naval base.
 

Carl Schwamberger

Spherical_light said:
If I recall right, PH only became a base, or was prepared to become a main naval Base in 1938 or 39?


To my understanding, the whole idea of PH being Naval HQ for the Pacific was due to FDR or were there others who sought it as well? Am I correct in that?
Click to expand...

No, it had been established as a major naval base decades previous. Large fuel storage, dry-docks, machine/tool facilities, large radio communications facility, a radio monitoring station for collecting Japanese radio messages. It was regular used by the Pacific fleet for three decade. War Plan ORANGE identified it as a fleet base central to its strategy.

Spherical_light said:
Also, to my rather rusty knowledge, wasn't the Navy mostly against the idea of the PACFLTHQ being so far away from the West Coast?
Click to expand...

There were pros and cons. Some admirals disliked the place, others accepted it.

Spherical_light said:
How far back were the plans to make PH a main naval base conceived of?
Click to expand...

They reach back to when the US made the decision to annex Hawaii. After 1907 the Navy was asking for funds for a major forward base there. The construction occurred in many phases over three decades.
Spherical_light said:
What would've happened if FDR had been over-ruled in designating PH as the main Naval base on the Pacific?
Could he have been over ruled at the time?
Click to expand...

Technically no. He was the Commander in Chief. However a anti defense Congress could have defunded the Navy facility in any biannual budget bill, or possibly in a special budget bill.

Spherical_light said:
What would it have taken to NOT have PH be made into a Naval base?
Click to expand...

Eliminate the US business lobby pushing for protection of the "China Trade". That is US trade in Asia. Several wars were fought over territories in Asia and trade access. The Spanish American War, the Russo Japanese War were two major clashes. The Chinese internal war, the warlord period, was part of this. As the 20th Century advanced into the 1920s & 1930s the Japanese came to be seen as a threat to US economic interests in China/Asia. This business lobby worked hard to ensure US defense policy was to defend their trade in Asia. This led to things like the US Asiatic fleet with Marines based in the Philippines and maintaining permanent presence in China, the US Army 15th Regiment spending years in China, and well rehearsed war plans for a extended war in the Pacific and Asia.

Spherical_light said:
What changes would have to happen for the PH naval base proposal to never see the light of day?
Click to expand...

No business lobby, or Isolationism extends to Asia as well as towards Europe.
Spherical_light said:
How would a no PH scenario play out in WW2 [San Diego remains PACFLTHQ]?
Click to expand...

Even with Pacific Fleet HQ remaining on the US West Coast PH is essential as the naval base central to the various iterations of War Plan ORANGE, and its evolution into the RAINBOW plans.

Spherical_light said:
Thoughts and Discussion welcomed.
Click to expand...
 

HexWargamer

Spherical_light said:
What would it have taken to NOT have PH be made into a Naval base?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the Fleet was moved to Pearl when the Americans became concerned about possible Japanese agresssion towards the Phillipines.
Apparently the plan was that the Phillipines could be 'defended' from Pearl (only 2,000 miles away) better than from the west coast (3,000 miles away), which was at least better than the British plan to defend Malaya / Hong Kong (send their Home Fleet from 12,000 miles away) ....

The obvious 'no Pearl base' is to remove the need. Just bring forward the plan to give the Phillipines their independence. No US prescence in the far east == nothing to defend, no point in building up Pearl.

Of course 'retreating' from the Phillipines might well send the 'wrong'message to Japan (that they are welcome to walk in). It also means that Japan might conlcude that they need have no fear of US armed intervention (the isolationists will oppose any attempt to do so) & they have no reason to attack the USA.
Especially if no Fleet at Pearl to be attacked ....
 

muddyleathers

Banned
So, we all know that FDR "wanted" war with Germany, he was justlooking for a good excuse to get the population riled up enough. Was he so inclined with Japan as well? He did send the fleet to Pearl against the wishes of several admirals. And really, is there any real difference between 2 and 3,000 miles? An extra couple days steaming? Did FDR take into account the vulnerability of Pearl and send the fleet out there as bait?
The whole Phillipine independence thing is an interesting question. If they are set free, would forces be pulled back? That opens up the scenario above. What would be the threshold for war with Japan with no Pearl attack, and PI independent. Would they go after Guam or Wake or Midway? Remember, they are crazy, desperate, and stupid. Would they try to strike the fleet in San Diego? I know its out of the range of the carriers, but a mass submarine raid on the harbor? Would the isolationists be able to deter FDR enough to not go to war after Japan strikes south? With no US in the PI is it even necessary to take them? PI has no air force or navy to intervene, just set up a blockade of the islands and play up to the isolationists in the States by not provoking the US(ha, Imperial Japan not provoking, ha).
 

Spherical_light

Kick
Yeah, shows what I used to know.

And I did watch a video or two after I posted this, so I know it started in the 1910s. [Edited]

I've seen other questions on here or timelines that attempt to divide Spain's holdings more regionally. I've always been more of a "one should stick to what they can produce within their own borders" type. If people want that type of foreign food, then they should be willing to pay entire cost associated with importing that without complaint [wishful I know].

Hawaii was good as a fuel stop, and that was the general feeling of the Navy as well to a degree, but as far as a fleet HQ base, I think San Diego would've been fine remaining as it was.

Yet, I stand on the point that having most of the standards moved to Hawaii was a form of bait even if it was more intended to be as a jumping point for forces. FDR knew that people wouldnt necessarily be enraged enough if just the P.I. got attacked as that was waaaaay over there. So, hence pushed the standards over to PH.

That's my understanding anyway.

Additionally, there was some form jockeying going on around Hawaii and 1900-1910 ish where while Hawaii was nominally under U.S. unofficial control at the turn of the century, both Britain and Japan were also working to some degree. Just that for whatever reasons [over reach, costs, etc], the other two fell short for lack of resources to gain influence or power.

Again, that is my understanding of it.

Also, I have seen a very interesting video on Hawaii's power grid systemS.

Every island inhabited had their own power plant, and while it isn't said in any of the videos I've seen, it is likely that this was the case of the 1930s and 40s as well.

Thanks for helping me to remember some of what I learned long ago... Appreciate it.

On that topic where Japan would go if not PH, Dr Alexander Clarke did a video/stream related to this "If not PH..." was something like the title, where he outlines the scenarios where Japan would look at the other options more seriously. I've often considered San Diego has a possible for alternate attack. Mostly coming from off the tip of the Baja with aircraft at night striking SD from the south. Very difficult to pull off due top the logistics required for such a long venture, very dangerous too.

Comments and more thoughts?
 
Last edited:

jlckansas

If you want to consider something "Baiting Japan to Attack" the oil and resource embargo is what people look at. Moving the fleet to Pearl meant nothing to the Japanese because the US would still have to fight there way through the Mandates to even get close to anything important according to Japans plans.
 
Derek Pullem

Derek Pullem

Donor
Spherical_light said:
Yeah, shows what I used to know.

And I did watch a video or two after I posted this, so I know it started in the 1910s, but as for where I got the impression FDR looking to "bait" Japan [He might've read a copy of Hector Bywater's book too], I'm not entirely sure. I just feel like there was some sort of "baiting" being done to entice Japan to attack.

I've seen other questions on here or timelines that attempt to divide Spain's holdings more regionally. I've always been more of a "one should stick to what they can produce within their own borders" type. If people want that type of foreign food, then they should be willing to pay entire cost associated with importing that without complaint [wishful I know].

To me, it just feels like there was some sort of hidden situation going revolving around Japan, FDR and Hawaii that no one really has said, just that it seemed to be a mystery.

Hawaii was good as a fuel stop, and that was the general feeling of the Navy as well to a degree, but as far as a fleet HQ base, I think San Diego would've been fine remaining as it was.

Yet, I stand on the point that having most of the standards moved to Hawaii was a form of bait. FDR knew that people wouldnt necessarily be enraged enough if just the P.I. got attacked as that was waaaaay over there. So, hence pushed the standards over to PH.

That's my understanding anyway.

Additionally, there was some form jockeying going on around Hawaii and 1900-1910 ish where while Hawaii was nominally under U.S. unofficial control at the turn of the century, both Britain and Japan were also working to some degree. Just that for whatever reasons [over reach, costs, etc], the other two fell short for lack of resources to gain influence or power.

Again, that is my understanding of it.

Also, I have seen a very interesting video on Hawaii's power grid systemS.

Every island inhabited had their own power plant, and while it isn't said in any of the videos I've seen, it is likely that this was the case of the 1930s and 40s as well.

Thanks for helping me to remember some of what I learned long ago... Appreciate it.

On that topic where Japan would go if not PH, Dr Alexander Clarke did a video/stream related to this "If not PH..." was something like the title, where he outlines the scenarios where Japan would look at the other options more seriously. I've often considered San Diego has a possible for alternate attack. Mostly coming from off the tip of the Baja with aircraft at night striking SD from the south. Very difficult to pull off due top the logistics required for such a long venture, very dangerous too.

Comments and more thoughts?
Click to expand...
I would be careful suggesting that FDR "baited" the Japanese into starting the Pacific War. Verging awfully close to tin-foil territory.

San Diego is a virtual impossibility for a Japanese main fleet strike - Pearl Harbour was already at the ragged edge of the destroyer escort range. Japanese did not do night carrier attacks on specific targets - they did do harassment raids around Guadacanal and later developed night-time torpedo bombing to avoid heavy losses.
 

Spherical_light

I blame my unorthodox US history teachers for part of my thinking I guess.

The other stuff mostly comes from fanciful what if thoughts... Anyway, my inquiries have been answered.

Merci.

Edit:

So, I implied the thread was done/ended at this point. in my threads that I've done, I've usually indicated clearly when I've considered my questions answered and the thread done with. Having had the misfortune to go through what I did because apparently I did not make clear enough that I considered the thread over and done with [not to mention poor wording choices]. I will stipulate that anytime people see that I have implied that one of my threads is at an end. Any further posts are on the person who posts after that.

Anytime I do make a thread at least, once my query has been answered, no matter the answer, I will indicate that the thread is ended. I apologize for not making that distinctive with this thread.
 
Last edited:

DougM

NOBODY on earth is so freaking stupid and criminally insane as to use half of there entire navy that has cost a kings ransom and that has taken decades to build the ships and base and train the crews as sitting ducks to start a war,

This dumb a#$ crud has GOT to stop.

If the US wanted to “in-site” a war Japan there are a hell of a lot better cheeper and safer ways of doing it then risking the damn fleet you will need to actually fight said war WITH.
This is probably the absolutely dumbest conspiracy theory on the plant except for flat earth,

Lets think it through for a moment.
1) FDR wants to fight Germany
2) so FDR provokes Japan because a TWO front war is a GREAT idea.
3) in order to get Japan to Attack the US and assure the US goes to war you put the most expensive and hardest to replace military assets in harms way. And the one you need to fight said war with and that you are a couple years away from being able to replace…
4) All this in hopes that Japan will attack you so that
5) Congress will declare war on Japan, thus
6) doing NOTHING to help you get your declaration if war on Germany.

Frankly anyone that even half believes this idea must think that FDR is the dumbest man to have ever run any country ever in the history of the world,
Oh and. for extra bonus points in why this is so dumb and idea… Remember FDW was ine assistant secretary of the Navy so he should have a pretty good grasp on how hard and expensive and time consuming it will be to rebuild his fleet after letting Japan destroy it,
 

CaptainCalvert

Nivek said:
USA never gets Hawaii,San Diego is the biggest port in the Pacific
Click to expand...
This likely means independent Hawaii or British dependent Hawaii. If it was actually British controlled, however, it would more than likely be a strategic naval facility, and thus also a prime US target of a destroyers for bases deal.

Whoever controls Hawaii, I can't see the US being happy with the prospect of a Japanese base there, so it's very likely to become a de-facto US base -at least for WW2.

On independent Phillipines, wouldn't that be a good justification for building up Pearl Harbour rather than not developing it? Without the Phillipines, the US needs a base in the Pacific, both to keep unwanted guests away from the West Coast and to respond more easily to threats to or from the Phillipines or from nearby Japanese territories.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
^^^^ If for no other reason, the British Empire makes a move out of resource denial against other powers (i.e. Germany, France, Japan, Russia, US)
 

muddyleathers

Banned
Kick
@DougM, do you mean the battleships that amounted to fuck all in the pacific war?
I didn’t say it was to enable a war against Germany, I wondered if he wanted a war against Japan, if you have any evidence either way, please post.

If the US wanted to “in-site” a war

It’s incite, learn to spell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top