Why didn’t Japan invade Hawaii in 1941 immediately post Pearl Harbour? How would the conquest of Hawaii affected WW2 in the Pacific?
They didn’t want to invade Pearl Harbour. They wanted to knock out US military presence (esp USN ) in the Pacific so their sphere of influence could remain undisturbed. They did invade other areas of the Pacfic though, so the picture is not quite as simple as that, but it’s a good start.
Also, it was a hotly contested battle plan as it was. Besides the physical damage to the USN’s Pacific Fleet capablities, there was also supposed to be a psychological trauma to the US, at least that’s what some of the Japanese militarists hoped. Then, they could sue the US for peace treaties favourable to their Pacific/Asian plans.
Again, this is bare bones info from the top of my head in the early AM. Cites will come later (from me or others, I have to go to work)
Did the Japanese even have the logistic capabiliy to launch an invasion of a large, heavily-populated group of islands, halfway across the Pacific?
Probably, but they’d have been compelled to abandon the plan to sieze oil resources in the Dutch Colonies. So, no go.
Resupplying would have been a bitch. Now if instead of Pearl, what if they took Midway on Dec 7? That, they could have pulled off. The US has a big but older fleet and probably less incentive from the public.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor was supposed to accomplish two things. First, it was intended to seriously knock out the American Pacific fleet, which it did to some extent. Second, it was to make the Americans think twice about going head to head with Japan. We know how that one turned out - no need to rehash.
If Japan had wanted to invade the US, a more logical follow up would have been to take the Aleutians up by Alaska. Not only are they closer to Japan, they are closer to the US mainland. They would have made a better launch pad than Hawaii ever could have.
Not sure you’re right here: the Aleutians have the small issue of severe winter, which Hawaii does not have.
Also, due to the permafrost up there, the airstrips had the disturbing property to bounce P-40s about 20 feet into the air when they came in for landings. The only reason the US fought to defend the Aleutians was because the Japanese were trying to take them. WE couldn’t figure out what they wanted with them, but it seemed like a good idea to keep them from getting it. :rolleyes:
Maus Magill, you are aware that for the first year of the war, there was a hotly contested battle in the Aleutians? Just curious, because your comments sound like you’re discussing something contrary to fact, not expanding on something that did happen. It was fought, on both sides, with resources available after other campaigns, but it was hot and heavy.
To the OP: As other posters have said, the Japanese didn’t want to gain control of Hawaii. Remember, while most landlubbers consider Hawaii the stepping stone of the US to the Pacific it’s some four thousand miles from both the US mainland and the Japanese home islands. It would have been a logistical nightmare, and would probably have required the Japanese to take Hawaii instead of other campaigns. In 1941, Japan was heavily involved in fighting in China, and was deeply interested in taking The Phillipines, Indonesia, Burma, and Indochina.
The cause of the war with the US was complex. At it’s most simple, however, it’s not incredibly innaccurate to say that the Japanese war aim against the US was not really against any US interest (I grant the Phillipines makes this statement satisfying, but inaccurate - even though I will say that the US could have lost the Phillipines without suffering any indignation or even public concern.) but to keep the US from supporting the British defense of the British (and other European controlled) territories the Japanese intended to take to secure a resource base for their industry. The attack on Pearl Harbor was intended to achieve a specific strategic goal: Cripple the US Pacific fleet, and especially the US carrier fleet.
In the aftermath, the Pearl Harbor attack is a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences: On the most narrow level, Pearl Harbor was a stunning Japanese victory, that set up their ultimate defeat. The only goal that the attack didn’t achieve was the destruction of the US Pacific carrier fleet. Other than that, militarily it was everything Yamamoto, Nogumo and Togo could have asked for. Politically, it was a disaster - which Yamamoto suspect it would be, even before the attack, and acknowledged as soon as he learned that the declaration of war had been delayed in Washington: “We have awakened the sleeping giant.”
An actual invasion of Hawaii would have magnified all the political costs of Pearl Harbor tenfold - at least. For all the US propaganda at the time, and histories since, about the Japanese military’s atrocious conduct towards white troops in the Phillipines, or Singapore, can you imagine how the US public would have responded to having Japanese Imperial troops conscripting white women to be a comfort detachment for their conquest forces in Hawaii?
On preview, I think that the whole Aleutian Island campaign had been considered a strategic distraction for the enemy, by both sides, useful for the forces that weren’t available for the main campaigns, but not important in any real sense.
Excuse me. I’m trying to spread misinformation to prevent the invasion of the US here.
Yeah… That’s the ticket.
Pearl Harbor was a major success for Japan but also a major disappointment.
They were more successful then expected in terms of low casualties and wiping out aircraft on the ground. They disabled or sunk many battleships but the disappointment was in the fact, there were no Carriers. They did not have the logistics to take Hawaii without setting back there pacific rim actions. There goal was a quick surgical strike on US Navy in hopes of crippling it and possibly negotiating for peace from the advantage.
Good cite from wikipedia.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
…snip… Politically, it was a disaster - which Yamamoto suspect it would be, even before the attack, and acknowledged as soon as he learned that the declaration of war had been delayed in Washington: “We have awakened the sleeping giant.” …snip…
[QUOTE]
Tis one of my favorite quotes, but he probably never said it
Additional things the attack did that backfired.
>>>The loss of the battleships finally allowed the American Pro-Carrier Naval personnel to gain prominence, the entrenched old guard was still favoring battleships but the remaining carriers’ successes and the easy loss of battleships to carrier attack turned the US Navy into a carrier navy
>>>(IMHO) The many of the ships that sank in port were old vessels of questionable frontline use. If they had been deployed in front line use, the loss life probably would have been higher.
Japan didn’t have the logistic capability to invade Hawaii in 1941. They needed whatever troops they had for other targets like the Philipines, Indonesia, and other islands that were closer to Japan.
Funnily enough, the UKTV History Channel has just had a program on the battle of Midway, and it mentioned that there was an attack on the Aleutians as a diversion.
I hope he actually said his 'run wild in the Pacific for six months quote. If note I’m going to be seriously discombobulated.
That’s certainly a valid criticism. A lot (I’m not sure about all, but certainly a lot) of the ships in Pearl were WWI era 14 inch ships. Those returned to service did a great deal of good - but very little of it as front-line battleships. Personally, I want to make a pilgramage to the USS Texas, but that’s because I can’t get to the USS Nevada. She’s about as far down as Lexington is. If you want an interesting site, discussing the ins and outs of battleships - try this one. The parent site is a lot of fun, too.
I tihink it is worthmentioning again that Pearl Harbor was not the principal focus of the Japanese attack; it was a supporting operation. In the Western, esp. American, psyche, Pearl has become the principal event of the launch of the Pacific War, but it really wasn’t. The bulk of Japan’s efforts went into conquering Allied-held territory in the southwestern Pacific - Hong Kong, Singapore, the Phillippines, Indonesia, etc.
Japan COULD have invaded Hawaii, and to be honest I think they would have succeeded. But then they would have had to turn down the opportunity to take Singapore, or Manila, or what have you, which they justifiably felt were more valuable prizes.
Oh, one more thing - what really killed the BB in the Pacific war, wasn’t Pearl - it was the destruction of Force Z, the HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales, shortly after that. Unlike Pearl, Force Z was expecting to face the Imperial Navy. They were being rushed to shore up the defenses of Singapore. They thought they knew the threat - were alert and prepared. And Prince of Wales, at least, was one of the most modern ships afloat at that time.
And they were sunk within 30 minutes, IIRC.
Well, it seems to be working…
I’ve often heard that part of the Japanese reasoning for the attack on Pearl Harbor was that they would cripple US naval forces in the Pacific, and then seek to negotiate from a position of strength for a new Japanese sphere of influnece in the Pacific. But did they every try to follow through on the negotiating part? Were they waiting for us to sue for peace?