Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

How Yamamoto screwed the poochFollow

#1 Dec 07 2011 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
Seventy years ago, the IJN attacked Pearl Harbor and other important military bases on the island of Oahu. The strike was amazingly successful despite the absence of our carriers - a target they were most eager to destroy. (The Arizona was hit as hard as it was partly due to its' berthing spot marked on their maps as being for one of our carriers.)

Most of the fighter planes on the island were destroyed. Our capital ships were sunk or heavily damaged and the state of the Army and Marines on the island was pretty abysmal. (Most of the heavy machine guns they had were of WWI vintage and were, frankly, in disrepair).

Given all of that:

I propose that if the attack had included a couple of divisions of the IJA they would have taken the island with little difficulty. I think that this would have set back any real offensive action on our part back at least 2-3 years and/or demoralized an already apathetic and isolationist body politic in the US.

At the very least, our carriers would have had to redeploy to fall-back bases in California and Washington state and given the IJN a free reign in the South Pacific, possibly including an invasion of Australia.


What I'd like to hear are opposing arguments as to why I might be full of crap on this one. Am I missing something? Would the native Hawaiians be happier with Japanese control? Would the loss of the islands made our resolve that much stronger to kick their asses? Gimme you thoughts on this one?





No; this isn't a dissertation, but I would have made it mine if I'd stayed in uni long enough to get a Doctorate in history.Smiley: tongue





____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#2 Dec 07 2011 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
The title got me so hopeful. Smiley: frown

Also, FDR wouldn't have let them attack Pearl Harbor if he thought they'd take the islands. All he was looking for was an excuse to get into the war. Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#3 Dec 07 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Note sure about the rest, but...

Quote:
Would the native Hawaiians be happier with Japanese control?


Seeing how the Japanese treated other people in the areas they controlled, hell no. I don't think native Hawaiians would be happier as sex slaves as opposed to disenfranchised Americans. Not that we treated them "well" when Hawaii was integrated into the US, but from what I've heard, the Japanese were much, much worse to non-Japanese folks.
#4 Dec 07 2011 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
Go on...


On the "happier" question:

1. At least they weren't white?
2. Significant population of Japanese descent?


These are questions, not statements.

Really hoping for Pikko to chime in on this one, as she may have a better idea of how wrong I am on these particular issues.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#5 Dec 07 2011 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:


1. At least they weren't white?
2. Significant population of Japanese descent?



Lot of mixed blood there even 70 years ago; that wouldn't go over well. Not to mention the sizable native population. Really a lot of what Locke said. I imagine prospects could have been better for pure-blood Japanese, but still that's far from everyone. Remember there's those among the 'Japanese' there left Japan for a reason too. Smiley: wink

Edited, Dec 7th 2011 9:48am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#6 Dec 07 2011 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Bijou wrote:
Would the loss of the islands made our resolve that much stronger to kick their asses?
You're old enough to have seen some of the propaganda that was being used around that era. Any more resolve and they'd have installed German easy-bake ovens in the detainment camps.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Dec 07 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
This is mostly a military/strategic/political question. I'd rather it didn't devolve into a racial one if possible.

On the other hand, I did muck up the questionnaire.Smiley: tongue
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#8 Dec 07 2011 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
You're forgetting a couple of things here.

The Japanese attack was by air, the aircraft carriers/boats never really got that close. in order to bring in troops, they'd have had to add a rather large number of troop transports to the convoy and as it was, they were already lucky to get by unnoticed. I think landing troops in Hawaii would've been far more difficult than you're thinking.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#9 Dec 07 2011 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
This is mostly a military/strategic/political question. I'd rather it didn't devolve into a racial one if possible.

On the other hand, I did muck up the questionnaire.Smiley: tongue


Well on that hand I stand by my tinfoilhat response. Smiley: grin

The 'FDR let it happen' line has been repeated so many times by my wife's family/friends/etc. (sometimes with race-based undertones) that it's the first thing I tend to think of when the question comes up. Something along the lines of how FDR wanted to help out Britain/France but wouldn't be able to convince congress to let him without an attack on US soil, etc. Add in not caring much about the non-white native population, and you have yourself an interesting little conspiracy theory where he ends up willfully ignorant at best...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#10 Dec 07 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,395 posts
Bijou wrote:
Seventy years ago, the IJN attacked Pearl Harbor and other important military bases on the island of Oahu. The strike was amazingly successful despite the absence of our carriers - a target they were most eager to destroy. (The Arizona was hit as hard as it was partly due to its' berthing spot marked on their maps as being for one of our carriers.)

Most of the fighter planes on the island were destroyed. Our capital ships were sunk or heavily damaged and the state of the Army and Marines on the island was pretty abysmal. (Most of the heavy machine guns they had were of WWI vintage and were, frankly, in disrepair).

Given all of that:

I propose that if the attack had included a couple of divisions of the IJA they would have taken the island with little difficulty. I think that this would have set back any real offensive action on our part back at least 2-3 years and/or demoralized an already apathetic and isolationist body politic in the US.

At the very least, our carriers would have had to redeploy to fall-back bases in California and Washington state and given the IJN a free reign in the South Pacific, possibly including an invasion of Australia.


What I'd like to hear are opposing arguments as to why I might be full of crap on this one. Am I missing something? Would the native Hawaiians be happier with Japanese control? Would the loss of the islands made our resolve that much stronger to kick their asses? Gimme you thoughts on this one?


I'll give this a shot.


While assaulting and capturing Pearl Harbour and the rest of the Hawaiian islands would have been quite the glancing blow against the US, it was not the aim of he attack. The attack didn't even achieve it's main goal, which was to completely cripple the US Navy stationed at Pearl Harbour. The increasingly important aircraft carriers weren't in port during the attack and the Japanese missed a great chance to knock the Navy out for quite a while longer than it ended up doing. They did manage to sink some battleships though, which, by the end of the war, were far from the most important kind of naval vessel.

Anyway, the thing about the idea of the Japanese capturing Hawaii, is that it's actually somewhat plausible. The Us Navy would be forced to sail out of ports on the west coast, and the Japanese would have the freedom to do what they want in the central and western pacific(seeing as they proved very quickly how England, France and the Dutch were completely unable to defend their holdings in the area).

However, when I hear about the plausibility of it, I never hear anyone mention thee fact that such an operation would seriously weaken Japanese military power elsewhere, especially after the inevitability of the Allies coming back, probably in '43. Considering the way the Japanese fought in the war, tens of thousands of both Japanese and Allied soldiers would have been killed both in the initial attacks, and in the case of the Allies re-taking of the Islands.

On the domestic side of things, knowing what we do about Japanese brutality during the war, I see no possibility of the vast majority of the civilians on the island liking Japanese rule.

In any case, the war would have ended the same way. The Japanese really just didn't have the resources to take and maintain control of the Pacific. The allies, on the other hand, had more than enough resources to fight their way across the ocean and bring the Japanese mainland under siege. Like we did.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#11 Dec 07 2011 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
It's much easier to prepare for combined arms engagements than surgical aerial strikes. The benefits of an aerial assault (ie hitting unprotected naval assets) would be wholly lost if you waited for the logistics of landing a ASL (Air,sea,land) takeover attempt. You can't predict exactly where those connect, but you sure as hell can see them coming. It's also not the kind of engagement the Japanese would have won.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#12 Dec 07 2011 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Back to the hypotheticals, if Germany was in a better position and had finished its untersee-mannschaftswagen, then there would be a stronger hypothetical. Having hidden landing craft pre-positioned would be a huge advantage, making it much cheaper (strategically) to take and hold rather than harass. It also offers the possibility of naval blitzing which would have been a strong counter to the large area of the US naval and coastal holdings.

If the Western portion of the War had proceeded less terribly it would have been an option further out on the timetable.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#13 Dec 07 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You're forgetting a couple of things here.

The Japanese attack was by air, the aircraft carriers/boats never really got that close. in order to bring in troops, they'd have had to add a rather large number of troop transports to the convoy and as it was, they were already lucky to get by unnoticed. I think landing troops in Hawaii would've been far more difficult than you're thinking.


This. We sometimes forget today just how far Hawaii is from Japan. It's one of the big flaws in the conspiracy theories about FDR wanting Japan to attack Pearl. At that time, the distance was pretty unthinkable in terms of launching any sort of direct attack. FDR was definitely attempting to bait the Japanese, but the choice to move the fleet to Hawaii was intended to put them within range to counter attack if/when Japan attacked one of our bases in the South Pacific, but at what was considered a very safe distance from attack itself. Obviously, they were wrong, but only just barely.

The positioning of forces and the actions (both military and diplomatic) of the US at the time were pretty much textbook methods for pressuring another nation. We still do the same thing to day, btw. We were trying to force Japan into a choice between halting hostilities in China or attacking our forward bases in the region. The fleet in Hawaii was supposed to be the stick threatening what would happen if Japan chose the latter option. Unfortunately, we miscalculated the potential range of an air attack from carriers, and Japan (somewhat brilliantly) found a third option. But that's the point. It was only an air strike from carriers which could have succeeded. A traditional attack of the day would have been picked up far enough out for the military forces in Hawaii to mobilize and prepare for the attack. Only a surprise air attack could have worked. Airplanes fly a hell of a lot faster than a fleet can sail.


So no, I don't think Japan could have succeeded in an invasion, and I don't think they had the logistical capabilities to maintain a force in Hawaii against the eventual counterattack anyway. Obviously, if they could do those things, it would have been better, but I don't think they could. Their objective was to remove the ability of the US to counterattack in the South Pacific in the near term. And to that end, the attack was successful. It took another year and a half before the US had any ability to challenge Japan directly with a naval force in that area. The ultimate failure of the attack in that regard is really a combination of the Japanese underestimating the US response to the attack, and frankly the Japanese military's inability to fully capitalize on it. They presumably expected to consolidate so much of the South Pacific that by the time the US had a fleet capable of even entering the area, they could repel us. Clearly, that didn't happen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Dec 07 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
@ gbaji. yes, that is a fine counterpoint to the reality of the war. What I'm aiming for here is a viable (if the IJM had thought it out) alternative. They had the resources, just not the foresight.

Edited, Dec 7th 2011 4:24pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#15 Dec 07 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You're forgetting a couple of things here.

The Japanese attack was by air, the aircraft carriers/boats never really got that close. in order to bring in troops, they'd have had to add a rather large number of troop transports to the convoy and as it was, they were already lucky to get by unnoticed. I think landing troops in Hawaii would've been far more difficult than you're thinking.

This is where I'm getting into strategic thinking on the part of the IJM. They had scads of infantry in Manchuko that were just sitting around with their thumbs in their asses that could have been used. Add in several oilers and quite a few transports (easily done then, even for them) and they could have pulled this off; if they would have thought ahead.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#16 Dec 07 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
What gbaji and I are pointing out is that they couldn't have done it. They never had the resources to do it. They couldn't simply add more boats to the fleet during the attack without getting spotted and thereby, not being able to make the surprise attack. Thewy would have had to fight to even get close to Pearl.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#17 Dec 07 2011 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
That's kinda the (whole) point of this OP. Rather than a "strike" this could easily have been a full blown invasion of the islands if they had thought it through.

Try not to back-view what did happen and follow through on what could have been. Again....what they were capable of and failed to do.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#18 Dec 07 2011 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
They weren't capable, that's the point.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#19 Dec 07 2011 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
I'll elucidate at this point that due to the coal and iron deposits in Manchucko, the IJE had all the resources it needed; it just failed to utilize them in a timely manner. They had had these resources available from at least 1938 on and dropped the ball.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#20 Dec 07 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
That's kinda the (whole) point of this OP. Rather than a "strike" this could easily have been a full blown invasion of the islands if they had thought it through.

Try not to back-view what did happen and follow through on what could have been. Again....what they were capable of and failed to do.


Ok. Here's what likely would have happened. First possibility: Japanese forces delay the air attack to coordinate with the invasion force:

Once the Japanese fleet got within a couple hundred miles of Hawaii, they would have been spotted. At that point, the islands would have gone on high alert. All the personnel would have gone to their defensive positions. Anti-aircraft guns would have been manned, aircraft would have been launched, fast moving ships would have been deployed in a picket. By the time the Japanese could have attacked they would have met stiff resistance instead of total surprise. The larger fleet ships would still have been in harbor (takes quite some time to get them up and moving), but would not have been nearly as defenseless. The low flying torpedo ships would not have been nearly as effective, and the higher flying dive bombers would have had to get through a large amount of defensive air power. In all likelihood, the attack would have been a failure, ground forces would have barely been able to land much less been able to effectively capture any ground. It would have had all the negatives of an attack on the US, but with none of the positives of actually hurting our military. And the cost would have been massive for the Japanese.

Second possibility: Japan makes the same surprise attack it did historically, but then follows it up a half day or so later with an amphibious assault on the islands.

This is presumably what you're thinking of. They just bring some troops transports and then take advantage of the chaos and destruction their surprise strike caused to land troops and take the islands. This is good in theory, but is problematic. Remember that they launched from several hundred miles away in order to avoid detection. This was sufficient for waves of attacks, but they were pretty much at the end of their effective safe attacking range (ie: they could not loiter around the battle, but had to strike and then return). But it would take the better part of a day for the fleet elements needed to land a ground assault to arrive at the islands. Yamamoto actually called off a planned third wave because air defenses in Hawaii were starting to respond and the cost/benefit of another wave wasn't worth it (fewer high value targets and more likelihood of losses to their own forces). The air attacks did not focus on island defenses, but on the fleet and air bases. It didn't need to because they counted on surprise to avoid having to deal with those defenses. Had they attempted to cover both, they'd have done less damage to the naval infrastructure, possibly very little. Remember, this was all about resources expended compared to costs to the enemy. They could have gone all in, but it also very likely would have ended in disaster. Hawaii did have a significant number of military personnel. By the time a full invasion could have occurred in this scenario, those forces would have been fully prepared. Even just a whole bunch of armed guys manning artillery and anti-aircraft weapons would have been sufficient to make any assault incredibly expensive.


I just don't think that they *could* have sent sufficient forces and been able to successfully take the islands. And, as I pointed out earlier, even if they had, they did not have the resources to maintain Hawaii as a military base. The US would have still rebuilt its fleet and the first place they'd have retaken would have been Hawaii. The idea that Japan would have maintained a fleet presence in Hawaii is interesting, and it's possible they could have made life very "interesting" for the US west coast, but it really does come down to the sheer distance. Hawaii was just too far for Japan to maintain with the capabilities of that day.

Japan was much better off doing what they tried to do. Had they been able to consolidate the South Pacific completely (specifically taking even portions of Australia), they could have similarly prevented the US from being able to do anything. The distance issue applies in reverse as well. The fact that Japan was not able to consolidate in the South Pacific shows that they certainly could not have done so in Hawaii. The same problems would have existed for them (failure to prevent us from supplying and using Australia and other islands as bases), but would have been much worse since they'd have had to keep significant resources in such a precarious position in Hawaii.


If Japan had possessed significantly greater resources, they could (and perhaps should) have taken and held Hawaii. But then again, if they'd possessed those resources, they wouldn't have needed to attack in the first place. Their entire reason for war was to gain access to greater resources they felt were needed to create an empire. The attack on Hawaii was intended to buy them the time to do so without US interference, and frankly it worked about as well as one could have hoped. Since that still wasn't enough to prevent defeat, it's hard to imagine any other scenario they could have tried which would have altered the ultimate outcome.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Dec 07 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
The IJN never had enough combat ships and planes to make an actual invasion on Hawaii. Now, are you asking if they had planned for it and built more ships, could they have done it?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#22 Dec 07 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll elucidate at this point that due to the coal and iron deposits in Manchucko, the IJE had all the resources it needed; it just failed to utilize them in a timely manner. They had had these resources available from at least 1938 on and dropped the ball.


Yup. So the issue hinged not on choices made with regard to the attack on Peal Harbor, but with the management of the resources they'd spent so much effort to obtain. Now we could play the "what if Japan had utilized those resources better" game, but that's an entirely different question. I still say that had they done that, they would not have felt the need to attack the US. They had what they wanted, and could have simply held the territory they'd gained against US intervention and done everything they could to avoid war. The reality is that they still felt that they didn't have sufficient resources and the US was standing in their way.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Dec 07 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,702 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Seeing how the Japanese treated other people in the areas they controlled, hell no. I don't think native Hawaiians would be happier as sex slaves as opposed to disenfranchised Americans. Not that we treated them "well" when Hawaii was integrated into the US, but from what I've heard, the Japanese were much, much worse to non-Japanese folks.


We need more discussion about this. Is there a historical backing for this comment or was it designed just to get my hopes up?
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#24 Dec 07 2011 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
So I think we need a new plan. Next time a country wants to take us on, 'stead of sending bombs, let's try this: Send everyone in the country a color television and a satellite dish. And give 'em the basic package, not HBO — ***** those people. And before the war starts, we make them all sit down. "Okay, we'll go to war with you. You want a piece of us, fine, fine. Before we go, I want you guys to understand us a little better, so you have to sit down and watch ESPN2 for 24 hours. 'Cause you watch ESPN2 for a full day, you're gonna understand America a lot better. 'Hi, we're America! We build monster trucks ... for fun! We developed the top fuel dragster, zero to three hundred thirty miles an hour in under five seconds, cause, pfft, we were bored. **** us off, heh, and see what we build! And we may feel bad about it later! Ask Japan. But before we feel bad ... we're gonna jack you up! And then we're gonna send you FOOD! 'Cause we're America; We're schizophrenic. Don't mess with a nation that needs medication!'"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#25 Dec 07 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You're forgetting a couple of things here.The Japanese attack was by air, the aircraft carriers/boats never really got that close. in order to bring in troops, they'd have had to add a rather large number of troop transports to the convoy and as it was, they were already lucky to get by unnoticed. I think landing troops in Hawaii would've been far more difficult than you're thinking.
That's the point of this thought exercise. IF they had thought to plan ahead for this plan.

Edited, Dec 7th 2011 7:14pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#26 Dec 07 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,972 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll elucidate at this point that due to the coal and iron deposits in Manchucko, the IJE had all the resources it needed; it just failed to utilize them in a timely manner. They had had these resources available from at least 1938 on and dropped the ball.


Yup. So the issue hinged not on choices made with regard to the attack on Peal Harbor, but with the management of the resources they'd spent so much effort to obtain. Now we could play the "what if Japan had utilized those resources better" game, but that's an entirely different question. They had what they wanted, and could have simply held the territory they'd gained against US intervention and done everything they could to avoid war
Yeah, welcome to the point.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 275 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (275)