Invading Pearl Harbor 1941?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ธ.ค. 2019
- On my Pacific War videos I quite regularly get comments of people suggesting the Japanese should have invaded Pearl Harbor (Oahu) and/or the Big Island (Hawaii) in the initial surprise attack on 7th December 1941.
We look at Japanese chances for an invasion of Pearl Harbor, the Pearl Harbor Defenses, Japanese plans and planning for an invasion, the Imperial Japanese Army's and Navy's capabilities to conduct such operations. Their actual experiences, e.g., Wake Island and many other aspects like landing ships.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Stephan, John J.: Hawaii Under the Rising Sun: Japan’s Plans for Conquest After Pearl Harbor. University of Hawaii Press: 2001, Hawaii, US.
Parshall, Jonathan: Invasion: Pearl Harbor! www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops... Accessed: 27th November 2019
Bartlett, Merrill (Ed.): Assault from the Sea. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, 1983.
Disclaimer: I received a complimentary copy of Assault from the Sea by Naval Institute Press for content production: www.usni.org/press/books/assa...
Gatchel, Theodore L.: At the Water’s Edge. Defending against the Modern Amphibious Assault. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, US, 2011 (1996).
Disclaimer: I received a complimentary copy of At the Water’s Edge by Naval Institute Press for content production: www.usni.org/press/books/wate...
Drea, Edward J.: In Service of the Emperor. Essays on the Imperial Japanese. University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, US, 1998.
Williford, Glen; McGovern, Terrance: Defenses of Pearl Harbor and Oahu 1907-50, Osprey: Oxford, UK, 2003.
Spector, Ronald H.: Eagle against the Sun. The American War with Japan. Cassell & Co: Cornwall, UK, 2000.
Dull, Paul S.: The Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, US, 1978.
Ladd, James D.. Assault from the Sea, 1939-45. David & Charles: 1976.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-clas...
#PearlHarbor #InvadingPearlHarbor #JapaneseInvasion
Minor detail. The US risked two carriers with the Doolittle raid, not one. USS Hornet carried the bombers, the USS Enterprise carried fighter escorts for the ships
"Makes Operation Sealion look like a walk in the park during a warm summer night while the faeries sing in the background." I'll go with that :)
But faeries stopped visiting our world when we invented firearms. You can occasionally see them dancing in mushroom circles but that's it.
That's according to this forest ranger. It's unclear if he ingested said mushrooms before making the claim.
One of the untold stories of WW II is the Pacific Theater. As bad as an European battles were the Pacific combat was worse. You should read the accounts from Australia and New Zealand and I wish Indian would publish their accounts in english.
@@CraigLYoung That claim definately requires clarification. A few things are obvious, like you don't mean total casualties, since the eastern front dwarfs all others by numbers.
If you are talking about treatment of POWs, however, easily.
But I think you are trying to quantify misery overall. Even if you somehow succeed, the answer would be meaningless. Even if you were to somehow quantify it with how many people, knowing exactly what was to happen to them beforehand, would choose which front, you also have to consider that different people are more or less sensitive to different types of physical and emotional pain. Some people would have more tolerance for freezing to death, others to disease. Emotionally, some people are more vulnerable to despair, others frustration, and others boredom even. So yeah, if this is what you mean (which is what I suspect you mean) you have to keep in mind that different people have different fears and experience pain in different ways.
Pacific is the worst if you get captured, hands down. Also a problem if you can't stand heat or disease. Probably one of the most paranoia-inducing theaters as well.
Eastern front is the worst if you can't stand the smell of death. Overwhelming casualties all in very concentrated areas, and still very difficult to get away from. Also, the same injury hurts a lot more when you are freezing, you can ask anyone that lives in an area that gets below 0*f. Cold metal is also a thing if something happens to your gloves/clothing. Lots of breakdowns and factors you can do nothing about if you are prone to despair.
N. Africa was a complete mess, and just the sensation that if things were more organized or small things could have been done differently you wouldn't have lost your army buddy has got to be an emotional drain. A lot of allied soldiers felt very humiliated being captured by the Italians and that humiliation might actually be something that gets underestimated. Still not close to the torture of the Japanese, but I think people take humiliation as an emotion too lightly in general. Also heat is a thing as well, and fighting in the desert during the daytime... just asking for misery.
I could go on, but you get the idea. It depends on what actually happens to you, what your actual job was, and what affects you how. Would much rather be a German pilot captured by the British than an American sailor captured by the Japanese. But as a tall thin guy, I'd much rather be fixing tanks behind the front line on a Pacific Island than doing the same in the freezing cold of Russia.
edit: I suppose you did say "battles," so I will rectify my last statement: I would much rather have to bail out of a plane over a Pacific Island than Russia, assuming I managed to do so over friendly territory.
101jir : With the screen name of 101jir, I suspect you've had military service. But you are caught up in in the European propaganda.
I've served in northern Europe and fought in the desert. I've also attended Jungle Warfare School. Believe me the desert is a cake walk compared to jungle and during WW II it was worse. Imagine a movement that should only take a couple hours taking days and you have to build your own supply route as you go. Company movements were determined by how much supplies the troops can carry and resupply had to be carried out by air if you found a field or could get to a mountain. If not you would spend 3 days cutting a drop zone.
Imagine getting 1 qt of water for 2 to 3 days and the only way to resupplied is to boil some water in your steel pot. Ever time you stopped for a break, you would buddy up to remove leeches. Dry socks was a myth.
More people will sub come to disease than combat injuries and you have to be aware of all your surrounding, horizontal and vertical. The Japanese were master of ambushes and in places like New Guinea, there were no front lines.
Tie in the fact that you are always at the end of the supply route and if you're injured the native barrier have to carry you to the aid station which wasn't close and it would take 2 to 3 days by foot over some very difficult terrain. Also the national goal was Europe first so you get what ever was left over. Weather it was food, clothing, ammunition or equipment , you got what was extra or left over.
What little armor vehicles there was was light armor but it was better than having none at all. Look at the old news reels, for every Sherman tank that you see there will be three to four Sheraton tanks. If they broke down you either repaired them on the front lines, scavenged them for parts, or destroyed them. Look at the Army Air Force readiness rate of any Squadron. Look how many hanger queens they had. An Armored Company could only keep one platoon up running after a month in combat.
Just look at the WW II celebrations, How come we celebrate D-Day and Market Garden but not the battles of the Pacific? How come in school we study all the major campaigns in Europe but only know that we conducted Island Hopping in the Pacific.
If you really interested in how bad WW II really was then study Australian or New Zealand history because there is very little written in American history. Or talk to a Pacific Veteran, you'll find a different story.
It was my experience in Jungle Warfare School that made me ask, "How did they do it during WW II?" When I started looking into it, my eyes were open. No my opinion hasn't changed, the hardest, bloodiest fighting during WW II was in the Pacific.
@@CraigLYoung I think you also have forgotten the Forgotten Army. They fought from the Japanese from December 1941 to VJ day, They fought through the jungle in Malaya, Burma and India. The forgotten other decisive battle is that of Kohima. This is where the Japanese were stopped.
And now there is a comprehensive video to point people to when this question keeps coming up 😀
Excellent as usual 😊
Sup Drach. When are you coming to Hawaii, if you ever consider it?
@@classifiedad1 whenever my second US trip ends up being :)
Drachinifel Nice. I’ll let you know of a few good places to see some naval history.
Including a few old naval fortifications.
Agreed. Logistics. They couldnt hold the tiny island of Guadalcanal but people wonder why they didnt invade Hawaii/Australia/Ceylon? All those ships in the back of Jane's that start with "A" matter, a lot.
I have had several arguments with people over this. The logistics of invasion ships and support ships just makes their eyes glaze over. They have some fantasy vision that just can't be shaken by facts. The best argument, the only one I have found that gets their attention, is to point out that those six carriers which attacked Pearl Harbor had something like 100 planes too damaged to participate in a third wave. Two waves, the first with complete surprise, and they already lost so many planes that even if there had been enough daylight for a third wave, there would not have been enough planes for a fourth wave. That seems to bring in numbers small enough to comprehend, but they still aren't convinced, thinking up weird schemes to transfer planes from cargo ships or something.
Pearl Harbor invasion just seems to make imaginations run wild, and no facts can convince people otherwise. And there were generals and politicians during the war who seemed to think it was not only possible, but that the Japanese could also have invaded California too, 2000 miles further away. It's an argument which can never be won.
On another note, not every US ship in Pearl Harbor had been put entirely out of action, and the Enterprise wasn't even there to begin with. So besides that it would have been an extremely high risk operation, the Japanese carriers would have had expended a good portion of their ammunitions and the landing forces of the Japanese army would have had to face the guns not only of the defence batteries, but also of the heavy cruisers and the battleships that had settled on even keel. The effectiveness of naval guns in defensive scenarios are pretty well documented with for example the Soviet battleships at Leningrad, the German heavy cruisers in 1944/45 along the Baltic coast and the Allied naval artillery fire repulsing the German counterattack at Salerno.
"soviet battleships"
ouch...
(still agree with everything else)
@@NoNameAtAll2 Well, that's what they were. Granted, pretty old WW1 dreadnoughts, but nonetheless.
Well, a ship that can't sink (further) is a pretty solid defensive position.
I doubt that most of the BBs at Pearl could have done anything effective but a lot depends on where the Japanese landed. Most likely, judging from the distances traveled the Japanese would land on the North/Northwest side of the Island of Oahu, probably at the Haleiwa Beach area. That way they could drive SE through the valley to Pearl Harbor. That roughly is a distance of 25-28 miles. The maximum range of a 14 inch naval gun in a modernized battleship is round 21 miles. The 16 inch gun might make the beach but at this point the only BB capable of firing in the initial attack would be the USS Maryland. Tennessee probably couldn't range in from that distance although she could engage the enemy forces as they pushed inland. Pennsylvania would have had to leave drydock and be re-armed which probably would take some time.
Most of the other battleships wouldn't have been able to do anything, at least not for several weeks to a month. Arizona was a burning mess. None of her systems were anywhere near working. Oklahoma of course was the same way. Nevada took several bombs and torpedo's and I am not sure would have been able to do much. West Virginia was completely flooded below, her electrical systems were completely out and half the ship was on fire. There is no way that ship could have done anything before mid 1942. California was also sitting on the bottom, her electrical systems were out and not easily put back into position. It is true the Gagnut was able to be partially put back into service as a floating battery but it took several months for this to happen and the ranges used was much less than 25 miles.
@@tcofield1967 Thanks for this info!
Funnily enough on seeing the title my first thought was logistical nightmare!
There’s a reason the US put the Pacific fleet in Hawaii. It cuts down on logistics problems of basing the fleet in California then trying to fight Japan.
@@kokofan50 I was referring to a Japanese invasion.
I know. My point is that US was trying to get around the logistics problems of supporting a fleet across the Pacific by making Hawaii a forward operating base, which just shows how vast the distances really are.
Book to read: "Defences of PH and Oahu 1906-50" That place was a fortress with a ton of fixed and another ton of mobile coast artillery. 3" guns, 155mm guns, 8" railway guns, fixed 12, 14 and 16" guns. Plus the not insignificant divisional artillery. And the island is small. Guns in the centre can shell the entire place.
8" railway guns? fascinating!
@@mysss29 Howitzers on narrow gauge cars actually.
Interesting discussion- thank you👍
The Animaniacs reference made my day! Thanks for another great video.
I like the parting words. I think a lot of people, my (younger) self included, overrate the abilities of planes and tanks, and planes. Its easy to see some documentaries on the terror of the Blitzkrieg (or whatever) and forget about their vulnerabilities and limitations. Sure you can bomb the harbor but invading Hawaii? and getting it all under your control? That's a tall order, even if they had ships ready.
I love your videos, they've given me a lot of perspective on why decisions like this one were made. Namely the invisible hand of logistics throwing out plans for operations
Yeah it's all fun and well with the military's latest toy... but capturing and holding anything still requires the good old bipedal rifle platform, aka. the infantryman.
we actually overrate capabilities of the warmachines, tanks, planes, ships, they look omeetimes like indestructible to us but... all of them are nothing without a major (vastly major) piece of old fashoned human infantry flesh killed arround them, and a atonishing amount of supplies, gas and ammno specially...
@@Mitaka.Kotsuka You're overstating it a bit.
Infantry is hopeless without supplies as well. Just look how well operation U Go went when they assumed they'll be able to capture supplies and packed lightly.
There's a time and a place for everything and a time and a place where a certain element is utterly useless. For example, all the infantry in the world can't break a naval blockade, nor can it win something like the Battle of Britain. But for tasks like capturing and holding, infantry is indispensable.
@@Slavic_Goblin Of course, i didnt mean you can win a war only with infantry (may be with only artillery, ok, HoI reference) but, the war is always about logistic and the logistics are only about capturing, holding and defending, aka securing ssupply lines and deposits... the infantry is the only whom could do 2 of that 3 things so...
"That's a tall order, even if they had ships ready" and it would have lost them the war because they would need to withdraw men and ships from all the other landings he mentioned and instead of string of massive successes they would only have one big failure in the first 6 months of the war, drastically affecting morale on both sides...
That answers my question. Thanks.
Yes. Well done.
I knew a guy who fought on Wake. According to him and a number of other people - the Marines were winning when the Naval Commander of the Island surrendered. The reason he surrendered was that he had lost contact with most of his defensive positions - and thought that they had been taken - when all that had really happened - was that the comm lines had been cut. This is also what happened on Corregidor and on Tarawa (to the Japanese (though they didn't surrender)).
Furthermore - the Wake Island Command radioed back "Issue in doubt" - which caused the Navy to stop the Saratoga which was just about to attack the Japanese heavy cruisers which had out ranged the defensive artillery and taken it out.
So - there is a very real possibility that Wake could have successfully been defended.
What you see in all the early Pacific Contests was a veteran Japanese Military going against the Peace Time Military's of the US & UK in the Pacific. The simple version of this - is that the US & UK military Commanders were incompetent - which they were. As the war progressed - those that remained got better and those that didn't get better got replaced.
.
'..while faeries sing in the background.' - I loved that!
For all the ink spilled on Pearl, at the time Wake was when captured the hearts and minds of the American people. The thought of leaving the Marines and the construction crew to twist in the wind infuriated people. My grandmother had these scrap books of news paper clippings, photos, old sermons, pressed flowers and Wake was a big deal. You could get her fired up about the New Deal and the relief convoy being turned back. The last sortie of VMF-211 is hard to wrap my head around; I mean that's a tough gig! Another good video btw.
Logistics and supply kills this argument before it even gets started. Great video btw.
'If Japanese landed in California they would penetrate all the way to Chicago' - Pearl Harbor movie.
lol
I like ham
pearl harbor sucked
Ben Affleck needs acting school
Yeah that's pretty bad script.
To be fair if the japanese had the capabilities to even land in california they've clearly got a god or three on their side.
I laughed at this even then. The Japanese wouldn’t have made it to East Compton let alone Chicago.
The Japanese lacked the transport shipping to invade British, US, and Dutch holdings in the south AND Hawaii. They would also have major difficulties supplying a Hawaiian garrison.
They wouldn't have been able to make a foothold in Australia, much less 4,000 kms farther east from the Marshal Islands.
IIRC, the Army had conducted invasion counter maneuvers the three weekends prior to the December 7th attacks.
I once remember hearing someone say it was a mistake for the Japanese not to try to land troops. There's a big difference between fast carriers and their escorts, and massive number of troops and supply ships being moved across the world's largest ocean.
Plus even if everything went right and somehow they did capture the Island, holding it would have been a matter all on it own.
Here is a funny story about December 7th, 1941. A friend of mine, he lived with his Grandfather who was territorial Governor of Hawaii. Their house was close by to the Japanese embassy. They had Japanese Gardners. On that fateful morning, their Japanese Gardners raised Japanese flags at the Governors Mansion so the wouldn't be bombed!!
Admiral Yamamoto didnt plan for an invasion, because he knew if the Japanese didnt finish the war after a year, they would have had no chances of victory .
Thing is, it is one thing to look at this in 2019. It is an entirely different thing in early 1942.
Are you sure? Because the Japanese clearly looked at it even in 1940 and saw it like we see it now. As did the US military, as they were already looking far to the west Pacific...
Thanks, I'd wondered why that didn't happen.
Nice summary...especially the fairies! Even better analysis though.
10:41 Remember, though, that since all Marines are -- first and foremost riflemen -- the ground crews and remaining pilots would have also defended the island and would have been taught to crew the machine guns.
The luftwaffe did exactly that.
could you talk about continuation war?
Great video on an interesting subject.
But I'm having some issue with your pronunciation of the numbers, only due to my basic knowledge of naval speeds do I gather that you're saying fourteen and not forty.
Bernhard, what about invading Midway directly after Pearl Harbor?
The carrier strike group was already out there and had to pass it anyway. So attacking from west and east would be possible, too.
Would have been easier to supply for sure. And would have been an easier target?
My parents were bombed at Pearl Harbor. They said everyone was shocked that they failed to bomb the oil and gas storage tanks next to the harbor. My father helped block the fairways at the golf course to prevent planes from landing. Locals said an invasion would have been a breeze for the Japanese.
Oahu isn't an English word so the mispronunciation is understandable, but it is pronounced Oh ah hu. :)
Latin pronunciation? Must be Latin. :)
In the Hawaiian Islands, what were the defending Army and Marine infantry units in December 1941?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_of_the_Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#United_States
@@b.griffin317 so about 3 divisions or so.
@@lexington476 In short, it would have taken an army strength unit to succesfully land.
Japan could not carry out a landing comparable in size with the D Day landing across 4000 nautical miles.
Not even the US could at this point.
I wonder if the U.S. Navy would have discovered (and admitted) to torpedo deficiencies sooner as submarines and aircraft attempted to attack a slow moving invasion fleet. When only bomb-dropping aircraft score hits on the invasion fleet, even the thick-headed Bureau of Ordinance would realize that "something is wrong with our torpedoes."
Don't be silly they'd just make more submarines. ;)
@@ABrit-bt6ce With 10 forward firing torpedo tubes for a bigger salvo, surely that's the issue.
What were the bureau thinking?!
@@fulcrum2951 that it would never happen, obviously.
The Bureau of Ordinace because they "knew" the torpedoes worked. Or so they thought. It turns they did no live tests because they were $10,000 a pop and the target ships weren't free either. It might surprise you but people were much tighter with military budgets than they are now. It turns out the issue was with the Mark 6 exploder..aka a magnetic fuze on the torpedo. The subs commanders figured out a quick fix for it and got them half assed working before BoO got the problem fixed but that was only after they had repeated reports from too many sub captain's to ignore. The US Navy suspects they lost two subs early in the war due to premature detonation of their torps and their Mark 6 Exploders.
Is it just me or were the graphics on the slides too high to read everything (note: I am on a chromebook, not my phone or usual laptop)?
It's you.................. time to get a real computer.
@@PelicanIslandLabs k.m.a.
Did you really suggest that the Japanese would waste tonnage bringing in supplies for prisoners or the civilian population ??
You really don't know much about Imperial Japan's navy or army and their values and attitudes towards prisoners of war and enemy civilians.
still, they would need the prisioners to be able to work, even slaves need food, unless you want an bad work, so why even make prisioners work in first place?
You may forget they still need to supply the garrison
@@marrvynswillames4975 You really should study the history of Imperial Japan's treatment of prisoners. They WANTED to work them to death. They saw pow's as a waste of resources.
@@richardm3023 an interesting and radical change from how they acted during the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, where their compassion was renowned
The first landing attempt at a Japanese landing on Wake Island was early on the morning of 11 December 1941 and was repulsed. That was the only time in the Pacific war that a landing attempt was repulsed by an island's defenders. It wasn't till the Japanese Navy detach the Second Carrier Division, (Sōryū and Hiryū), that was returning from the attack on Pearl Harbor, that the Marines were finally overwhelmed with a second invasion on 23 December 1941.
Not bad considering they had no real hope of winning or a relief force arriving; and would have certainly caused far more Japanese casualties by fighting to the death.
They probably would have, better understanding how Japanese treated prisoners. A number of them would be executed after all...
Was the word "wherewithal" to difficult to pronounce?
I wonder if Japan could have sent an invasion fleet to Midway with some destroyer and a one or two light cruiser escorts as the main carrier force hits Pearl Harbor. Then when that force is heading back it hits Midway as the invasion force approaches.
Remember Admiral Yamamoto was stationed in America and had a realistic view of this country, and feared the awakened giant, the heroic defense of Wake Island proved him right.
Alternative question: would the Japanese have been better off not attacking Pearl at all, and fighting the US Navy when they arrived instead? Considering battleships were still considered the main striking force of the Pacific Fleet by men like Admiral Kimmel, and that the US didn't full know the capabilities of the Japanese carrier force till Pearl Harbor (as far as I can tell), seems like there is the definite possibility for a disastrous US defeat in that scenario, which would probably have a more negative impact on US public opinion since they wouldn't have cared as much about the Philippines and so on.
I would argue "no". It introduces too many variables. The Japanese would have no idea when/where the US force would arrive. Without being crippled at Pearl the entire US Pacific Fleet can begin interfering with Japanese operations to seize the Southern Resources Area immediately. The only thing the Japanese would gain is leveraging their land-based strike aircraft, but I don't think that's worth surrendering the strategic initiative. Pearl Harbor was the most controlled scenario available to the Japanese for knocking out the Pacific Fleet.
@@Noble713 "The only thing the Japanese would gain is leveraging their land-based strike aircraft [...]" Which to my knowledge were Army planes and thus brings us back to the inter-service rivalry that crippled the Japanese and largely prevented combined operations.
honestly, that kind of battle would have been a pretty bad gamble for the japanese. The American pacific fleet, if massed for that kind of battle, would have had a significant tonnage advantage over the IJN. arguably the Japanese had something of a quality advantage, though a lot of it's navy was also still much older designs so it wouldn't have been as great as people often argue.
Even if Japan wins the battle, it's odds of doing enough damage without it being a completely Pyrrhic victory were pretty low, and they knew the Americans would recover far faster than they could dream of. So from a risk/reward standpoint, that would not have been a good idea. Basically anything but a highly unlikely crushing victory would have left them almost defenseless.
with the Pearl Harbor raid, even losing the entire carrier force would have left most of the navy intact.
Informative as usual. Fyi, it's pronounced oh-AH-hoo. Thanks.
No... Oh, Wah, Who. Sheesh....
@@casparcoaster1936 mike, i studued hawaiian formally with a native speaker for a year and lived there for 12. When the letter 'w' is used it is pronounced as english speakers woul say the letter 'v'. You might want to do some research.
It was a bit funny hearing it in his accent, sounded more like Ohio. Imagine Japanese managing to land there lol
@@Arbiter099 Future video idea. Could Japan have invaded Ohio in 194x??? Can't wait to find out!
MHV: Most Americans, how do you pronounce Oahu? 'Oh Wah Hoo?' Great thanks!
Lol...
Nice wall. It goes well with your beard and shirt.
Good, thorough video on why an invasion of Hawaii had worse than a snowball's chance in hell to succeed.
Nice shirt
Uh I'm pretty sure, Yakko sang nations of the world
Operation Ichi-Go is an operation conducted by the Japanese Army on the Chinese mainland from April 17th to December 10th, 1944 during the Sino-Japanese War.
It was the last major offensive of the Japanese Army, which caused the National Revolutionary Army to be hit hard and affected during the Chinese Civil War. However, on the other hand, the United States is also mediating the conclusion of the Double Tenth Agreement with Chiang Kai-shek in order to avoid a civil war.
According to a study by Barbara W. Tuchman, the results of this operation had a more significant impact on the subsequent war situation than the Japanese had imagined, and had a decisive impact on Japan's fate. According to it, Franklin Roosevelt has consistently strongly trusted and supported Chiang Kai-shek since the beginning of the war, and encouraged him in the war against Japan so that he would not drop out of the Allies in a single peace with Japan during the Cairo Conference. However, he said that he changed his mind because the front of Chiang Kai-shek collapsed due to this operation. In fact, Chiang Kai-shek has not been invited to important Allied conferences ("Yalta Conference" and "Potsdam Conference") since then.
According to the Stilwell document, Roosevelt said, "Can China win?" Stilwell said, "There is no choice but to eliminate Chiang Kai-shek." During the 1944 Hengyang battle, he could not sleep at night and twice. He says he thought about suicide. The American side also planned to assassinate Chiang Kai-shek, and three methods of "poisoning", "aircraft incident", and "pretending to be suicide" were considered, but it was canceled in 1944 due to changes in the international situation such as Burma. The successor that the United States envisioned is Sun Fountain.
As Roosevelt's Chief of Staff George Marshall and General Joseph Stilwell have long insisted, Chiang Kai-shek's army is actually a demoralized and corrupt organization that does not form an army. It became clear that he had no desire or ability to fight with the United States and other Allied forces.
As a result, President Roosevelt changed the scenario of the operation against Japan from the conventional bombing of Japan and other countries from the air bases of mainland China to the one that MacArthur and others claimed to occupy the islands of the Pacific Ocean one after another.
China was dismissed at the Yalta Conference, and the Allied nation's footsteps were disturbed, with angry Chiang Kai-shek presenting a peace plan to Japan against the will of the United States.
The Japanese Operation Ichi-Go attack left the National Revolutionary Army with 750,000 casualties. This caused the Kuomintang to lose to the Communist Party in the civil war. China would not have been dominated by the dictatorship Communist Party if it had made peace with Japan and cooperated in protecting it from communism.
Amateurs talk about tactics. Professionals talk about logistics.
The only time this quote is used accurately
Yeah but if you have shit tactics then you can still waste all your logistics
@@AFGuidesHD And if you have shit logistics you can waste all you're tactics. See how that works? They are both important but good logistics is what enables good tactics simple as that.
I was under the impression that the Pacific was unusually calm waters, is the North Pacific different?
Watch "Deadliest Catch". It's in the Bering Sea but not too far from the Northern Pacific.
It is known as the Pacific or Peaceful Ocean because the waters through Drake's passage were much calmer than the terrible waters around Cape Horn.
@@markwilliams2620 It's a different place with land mass near it that changes everything in it. Just because it's not that far away distance wise doesn't mean that much. The North Sea and Irish sea are nothing like eachother.
The Pacific Ocean is the best tank ditch!
Not in Imperial Japan's experience...
Haha nice 🤣🤣🤣
This had been thought about by the American Novelist Harry Turtledove in his alternative history series:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Infamy_series
War Gamer:
An invasion is a bit of a strech I agree! But a second return air strike in the afternoon of Dec 7 on the Harber isn't out of the question. Yes, they would be somewhat prepared but crippled units would have been finished off. This second attack may have inflicted another 25-35% naval losses. Good video on the potential for a japanese invasion.
Steve Irwin true but wasn’t U.S.S. Enterprise within striking range of the Japanese fleet? I thought part of the reason the Japanese left when they did was for lack of knowledge on where the American carriers were and fear of being on the receiving end of a carrier strike with their aircraft out on mission.
@@rileyboulay361 True and It may have been involed with a second wave attack. If the Japanese found the enterprise and sunk her, it would have been the blow the Japanese wished to inflict. Four Japanese Carrier air groups vs one USN!
Steve Irwin yes but that would only work if the Japanese fighter groups were armed, fueled, and ready to launch when Enterprise launched her attack instead of being in the middle of launching dive and torpedo bombers, having said aircraft rearming, or having all aircraft en route to or in the middle of attacking Pearl. If the Japanese got lucky then Enterprise would be doomed, if not Enterprise would either sink/damage several ships in the carrier group or do exactly what happened at Midway with the land based attacks and prevent the Japanese from launching or landing any strike groups. If Enterprise managed the former it would effectively accomplish what the Doolittle raid set out to do and get revenge for the attacks, and if she managed the latter the defenders at Pearl Harbor would continue to mount an increasingly effective defense while getting just about any functioning aircraft that could oppose further attacks airborne. So the US loses a carrier (a major setback in the war but not one the fleet couldn’t work around eventually) and slows or prevents further attacks on the island, stall the Japanese strike group from landing/taking off and allowing the defenders to mount a better defense or have pilots ditch due to lack of fuel either losing the Japanese valuable men and planes, or the Japanese carrier force has one or more ships damaged/destroyed. No matter the outcome both sides lose more men and equipment and Japan runs out of ships, planes, and experienced crews in the end.
@@rileyboulay361
All of what you say is posibly true. But your assuming the Enterprise is ready for combat on super short notice. I'm not so sure after a training exercise. I have seen this senerio gamed out using seapower minitures rules and almost every time the Japanese player comes back for a second wave and sometimes a third. Yes the result are diminishing after each wave mostly from the target rich enviroment disapearing over time. Hence the lower sinking results of 25-35%. You also have more planes attacking the fleet because you now have the planes that were used to attack land air bases joining in the fight. Even if half the Zero's stay back for Combat Air Patrol, that should be plenty to fend off one carrier group and provide escort for the attacking waves. A more aggressive Admiral would have done this. Yamamoto was a very good Admiral but the most agressive.
Regardless attacking Pearl Harbor and declaring war on the USA was a huge mistake. I think the Japanese could have gone to war with the Dutch and English and the USA would have stayed out until it was too late to matter. It's really hard to say how far the Japanese could have pushed the British and kept the USA from entering the war! Invading Austrialia could have provided that event but who know? But the Indian Ocean would have become a Japanese lake and China and India would have fallen after becoming isolated from supply.
Yamamoto was a very good Admiral but NOT the most agressive.
The Japanese were incredibly lucky as a bit more awareness by the us military it could have ended very badly for the Japanese navy
Not even awareness, just not breakdown in communication.
O'ahu. Oh ah hu. Mahalo!
Last time I was this early,Japan was still feudal.
it's all logistics, distance, and time.
No invasion was physically feasible for the reasons stated. A more aggressive attack would have proceeded, after the 2 historical waves, to send in a 3rd wave to strike the oil tanks, dry dock and other facilities, while concurrently sending out search planes to see if they could find the American carriers (and yes, this would raise the same issues that faced Admiral Nagumo while he was waiting to recover his Midway strike and he got a report about the Yorktown).
14:04 "bring in supplies for the prisoners of war" ...about that....
Capturing pearl harbor is one thing. Holding it is another thing considering the long supply line. Considering that the Americans have enormous industrial potential, they can just wait for another year to recapture it.
This is interesting. The Japanese released a film a few years ago, about the life of admiral yamamoto. In the film, the admiral is shown as reluctant or outright against the pearl harbor attack. But I never knew, that he threatened to resign had the plan not being approved.
I guess the film is nothing but revisionism.
No. Yamamoto opposed to go to war with US, but the military government decided to do it. After that the question was how to strike the US best. Yamamoto developed the Pearl Harbor attack and more or less said: "If we must go to war, then we must strike Pearl Harbor and hope for a short war, or Japan is lost anyway."
What if they hit midway instead of pearl harboor and invaided 🤔
That would not have achieved their goal, which was to destroy the U.S. fleet.
The thing is after the attack on pearl harbor it would have been easy for the Japanese to conquer Hawaii because the United States troops needed amo and food and all the Japanese have to do like they did in the Philippines.
Japan's best effort in power projection was the invasion of Singapore/Malaysia. Even if Japanese Army agreed to postpone their own objective and agreed to execute the Navy objective of conquering Hawaii, do you think an army force of 36000 (OK led by a brilliant general) plus 440 artillery piece, would be able to conquer Hawaii? Japan wouldn't be able to resupply or reinforce the initial troops since the bulk of the US Navy would be blockading Hawaii thereafter.
People do not understand the distances. There almost is no other point. Everything is about supply lines. I could see 1,000's of Americans getting their rifles, jumping on private boats and sailing from California, lol. If Yamamoto had a chance to see your video of how the Japanese could not win, he might have changed his mind. (you are rocking that beard bro!)
I'm sure he realized how difficult it would be to prevail against the US in the long run if the Americans choose to fight on in spite of casualties. Probably the Japanese hoped that the Americans would not see the fight worth the cost at some point and would negotiate a peace that's sufficiently favorable to the Japanese. That was the only way for them to save their continental conquests (assuming the Chinese wouldn't just suddenly fold).
The right choice would, of course, have been to abandon their conquests but that's not an easy thing to decide when you're not yet actually losing.
@@seneca983 That is where they went wrong. They assumed we would take a hit and then give up.
so if the japanese didn't have the ships to effect an invasion of hawaii, how'd they do it to the philipines? isn't that a similar, albeit much closer to the japan, example?
As stated in video they didn't have enough free ships to invade and support logistic of landing foces. Japan transpot ships were used to support Japan war economy, there were no free tonage.
Also the Philippines are way bigger than Oahu so the Japanese had plenty of undefended beaches to land their troops on. In other words, they didn’t need a great landing fleet because at the time they were unopposed landings with much shorter supply lines.
@@majordbag2 I agree, also shorter distance from mainland of Japan and Taiwan give better starting point for Japaness. It was just much shorter jump to make than attack on Oahu.
There were three raids planned on Hawaii on December 7th. The third didnt happen because the American carriers were not in port. A better question is should the third raid have been launched.
The problem is, if they had intended to go through with a third strike, there were many factors to consider.
1. The time window between recovering the strike planes, rearming and refueling, launching again, and getting back to the target would have been insane. Between 4-6 hours. There would be no more suprise on their side.
2. Losses. They lost 9 planes in the first wave. 20 in the second. 74 planes were damaged to one degree or another. (20 were chucked over the side because they were too badly damaged to fly again) That was roughly 50 planes lost, 1/9th of their entire air arm. A third strike would have definitely resulted in massive more losses that they couldn't really afford since the carriers and their planes were going to be needed to help drive the offensive in the south Pacific.
3. American carriers. The last intelligence reports the Japanese had of Pearl harbor was that all three carriers were supposed to be there on the day of the attack, so imagine the shock that Nugumo had to learn that they suddenly had no idea where the hell they were.
Combine all those factors and it's easy to see why the third strike never happened.
Pearl Harbor raid was a huge risk and it paid off because it was a fast strike on a unalerted opponent. Trying to sail a invasion fleet at speed into the Hawaii region would have been noticed even if only at 200 miles it still gives plenty of time for full alert before troopships arive or even combat ships get in range to start bombardment.
Not necessearly. North of Hawaii is nothing but open ocean, and if Kido Butai sprints ahead only in the final southward stretch of 500 or so nms, the landing force could arrive within 20 hours of the initial strike.
Granted, that is a day to prepare defences, and recall the carriers, but a days warning on an operational scale doesnt allow for much preparation.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 500NM at 9 knots, the speed of the transport ships that do the actual invading is just over 2 days. not 20 hours.
@@mikealpha2611 The speed of the transport ships is 19 knots, 13 knots at cruise, and if they move cotemporaneous with the carriers, than they have the time it takes for the carriers to arrive plus the delay.
The Kaga could do 28 knots at flank, which means it takes them 18 hours to get into position.
38 hours is more than enough for the transports to arive.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 A few fast transports could do 19 most did 9. but yes the warships could get there sooner and drop some men and bombard I guess.
Another thing to think about would have been the attack plans. Had the Japanese taken out all of the fuel and supplies they could have before an invasion. They would just starved themselves out.
"....Convinced them the Pacific was an important thetre..."? Wow. Meanwhile, setting up shop in a forward defence right next door to the West Coast sounds like the war might have gone on a bit longer, but with no followup plans, pretty useless strategy.
It's not so much that the japanese couldn't take Hawaii. It's that they could not hold it, and even moreso that it was strategicly absolutely unsound to invade Hawaii.
The japanese had a very limited naval transport capacity. They would have to make a choice: Attack Hawaii or South East Asia.
And the ressources of South East Asia (most importantly the oil in the Dutch East Indies) were the main reason why Japan went to war with the Allies in the first place.
Attacking Pearl Harbour wasn't a stupid move though (at least from the military perspective). After the US had placed an oil embargo on Japan, they were in desperate need of an alternate source of petrolium in order to be able to continue the war in China. This oil could be found in the DEI.
However, as multiple scolars (including S.M.C Paine in her book "The Japanese Empire") pointed out, had Japan attacked the DEI, the US would most likely have decleared war on Japan.
So if you have to go to war with the US anyway, you might aswell launch a surprise attack on their main naval base. And the PH Operation was an operational victory for the Japanese.
Japan didn't dig it's grave by attacking Pearl Harbour. It dug it's grave with their aggressive expansion in 1940 and 1941 that lead to the US oil embargo and made such an attack necessary.
What was the range of the Japanese fleet? Would it be able to assist Sea Lion and the Kriegsmarine in general if it would leave the US alone and concentrate on the Royal Navy instead? If only they made it to France I am sure the Kriegsmarine would allow them to use as many bases as they would require.
The Japanese Navy and Army couldn't really coordinate with each other...
Lol that's some wacky Hoi4 stuff.
Unable to resupply...... next question.
About Pearl Harbor in 1941. In 1941 the Japanese still had doubts what direction of expansion to choose. Either a land option - the USSR, or a sea option - as in reality. Hitler insisted on attacking the USSR promising quick success. The key was the Smolensk battle. Yes, the Germans won it in the end but it lasted two months which was not envisaged in German war plans altogether. So after a very long consideration the Japanese decided to choose the sea option. They remembered Khalkhin-Gol and Japanese intelligence knew that the Soviets kept in their Far Eastern areas around one million men army even in most dire months of 1941. So they decided not to go to Russia. But if Barbarossa went as planned and the Red Army was resoundly beaten in two months as was scheduled there is no doubt that the Japanese would attack Soviet Far East and Siberia.
It’s pretty much was the reason an Australian invasion by the Japanese was out of the question as well. The Japanese Army was loath to seriously tapping its Manchurian reserve to send many more divisions to the Pacific.
I've heard that Yamamoto's initial plan for the attack was to launch a one-way raid so that the carriers could retreat out of any possibility of the American fleet catching them. This sounds incredibly stupid--but I wonder, if it's actually something he did propose, was he trying to shock the leadership into realizing just what a terrible idea war with the United States was?
As for actually invading Hawaii, Harry Turtledove wrote a couple of alternate-history novels about that. He's more of a storyteller than a military analyst, but I don't think that was a completely off-the-wall premise. Yamashita (who leads the invasion in the first novel) defeated a far larger force in the Malayan campaign, and the two "divisions" stationed in Hawaii were really the old Hawaiian division split in half but not brought up to the strength or equipment levels of the new triangular divisions Marshall was forming back on the mainland. And the Marines? Well, FDR had sent the Marines to Iceland.
Logistics was the problem. Try didn’t have the capacity to launch or maintain such an operation.
They could have taken Pearl had that been the plan..... after the second wave of aircraft had they landed troops the war might have ended differently or years latter than it did.... Yamamoto knew he had one shot, but Tojo made it impossible for him and it cost them the war.
logistics no?
no spoilers :P but it is far beyond that.
What's the saying? Amateurs talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics.
@@stanklepoot thats from napoleon at least quote him
@@affentaktik2810 Had I remembered it at the time I would have, but I don't remember everything at all times.
@@affentaktik2810 i don't think napoleon said that
I think MHV did not understand question correctly. Whole point is not weather Japanese had that capability in 1941, which they clearly did not have, but should've they been working towards having such capability and preparing for it since 1930's. It would require many divisions trained in naval landings, landing doctrines, capable transport and landing ships and plenty of fuel and supplies to make it work. But if it worked and they managed to capture Hawaii instead of bombing it, they coul've make it into an fortress which would be hard nut to crack for the Americans (but not imposible, clearly) to recapture. But without such base in the middle of the Pacific, there in no way Americans could come into position to bomb Japanese industry in 1944 or use submarines to block Japanese ore and oil transports from Dutch East Indies. This would make huge changes in Japanese fleet capabilities (fuel being major factor to it's inacivity), industry and pilot training (fuel shortage...). Americans whould have to focus it's entire might to recapture Hawaii in 1944, maybe even 1945 while Japan continues to fortify it's other Pacific forts and train pilots and produce airframes. It would create very different Pacific campaign that would last way into 1946 and where Soviets would be ultimate victors in the end. Maybe it would even change result of European front because with Hawaii under occupation, there is no knowing would Germany first strategy be implemented by US, thus giving Germany more ground to duke it out with Soviets...
The logistics are just so ugly, I think the Japanese (who weren't exactly sharp on the matter) even figured that out. They didn't have the ships nor the available Army divisions adding insult to injury.
Oahu is a dream for a defender having few decent beaches allowing anything more than light draft shipping. It also has few ports capable of handling even medium sized shipping. Much of the terrain is so rough the contour lines on a map are solid brown....
Not saying they absolutely couldn't have done it but the cost of doing so and the more expensive costs of trying to sustain it are massive. You think the outrage over the attack on Oahu was bad, think what an occupation of it would have accomplished. It definitely would have ended the Germany first campaign stateside which would have been a historical game changer.
I had once thought that if the Japanese could have successfully invaded Hawaii the war would be very different but I realize now it would have been a logistical nightmare. I think best chance Japan would have was if it ignored angering the US by not invading Hawaii or the Philippines in the first place
Idiot....
@@lazynow1 haha ya it’s funny how people learn things
So the next question would be: why didn't the Japanese navy build a more serious amphibious capable fleet for the Pacific theater?
that question was basically already answered in the video already.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I watched it two times and I didn't get it, other than the navy simply didn't invest in it because the army wasn't helping which seems like a poor strategic logic considering navies are built in decades, I don't think they were stupid so maybe the industry didn't help them out as you stated they lacked enough supply ships too. A video explaining Japanese naval focus would be useful.
They didn't need it. They were attacking poorly defended islands. Regiment or brigade size landing forces were what they had to transport.
@@stevenweaver3386 Weird logic, to then wake up to the fact that capturing Hawaii would be a good idea after all, unless it was common for the British to do that too (small capacity landing crafts only) and they simply went with it as well.
“It was primarily the Japanese army which had specialized in amphibious warfare, the navy to a lesser degree.” (Lehmann, Hans G. von; Halbig, Michael C. (translator): Japanese Landing Operations in World War Two. In: Bartlett, Merrill (Ed.): Assault from the Sea. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, 1983, p. 195)
“It [the Doolittle Raid] accomplished what neither the Combined Fleet nor the Navy General staff had been able to do. It convinced army leaders that the Pacific was an important theater. For the first time, the Army General Staff paid serious attention to the Pacific in general and to Hawaii in particular.” (Stephan, John J.: Hawaii Under the Rising Sun: Japan’s Plans for Conquest After Pearl Harbor. University of Hawaii Press: 2001, Hawaii, US, p. 114)
The only way Japan could have pulled off an invasion of Hawaii would have been if it had been far stronger at the beginning - so a change in something which makes them win against China by 1935, which would also have given them the manpower and industrial capacity to do better against Russia in 1939. With more and better ships, they might have been able to bring enough troops to Hawaii to conquer it and even have the capacity to fight off counter attacks. But even then, the rapid military expansion of the US and the atomic bomb would have meant that there would be little difference in the outcome...
and if it hadn't been so starved for resources in 1941 it has no need to attack America, so really if it had been able to invade Hawaii, in wouldn't have needed to invade Hawaii
The oil boycott by the allies would probably hit even harder after a win over China - more people who consume oil, and Russia taking part in the boycott and mostly supplying rebellious provinces with it.
Had taking the island had been the goal, they would have taken it. They had total suprise and control of the sea and the air at that point with Zero risk of military counter attack.. if Japan had wanted it they could have taken it.... Tojo would not work with Yamamoto and it cost them the war....
Are those Military Fairies 🧚🏻♀️
Until 1943 the U.S. Navy submarines were handicapped by ineffective sh$tty torpedoes. If the Mark 14 torpedo had worked during the invasion of the Philippines, numerous Japanese ships transporting the invasion would have been sunk. There’s a big difference between an invasion and an opposed invasion
Animaniacs aired in Austria, to?
ja!
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Well, Hellooooooo nurse!
Could they have had enough paratroopers to have held Hawaii? I don't think Japan had much experience in paratroops?
Paratroopers? Dropped from UFO? No drop transport plane for the next 30 or so years had range to reach Hawaii from Japan, and you can forget about something as insane as trying to do it from carriers. Also, I don't think whole world combined had 50.000 paratroopers in 1941...
also, paratroopers alone weren't an good idea to take control of something, like the germans in Crete, they would need help
@@KuK137 Well USSR had 5 airborne corps (they were actually more of divisions with just over 8,000 men each as regulation required,but instead of regiments they had brigades) at start of operation Barbarossa,so that was already over 40k men, and Germans had over 20k,so at least as far as the numbers go,there were over 50k airborne capable soldiers in the world in 1941.
Aside form being a logistical nightmare of supplying an invasion/occupying force over such a distance, the whole point of Pearl Harbour was not to invade it, but to invade Asia without the Yanks being able to interfere. It worked till Midway.
The better question would be, what would have happened if the Japanese made another attack against the oil reserves.
Could the US Navy have operated as they did with their largest fuel supply in up in smoke?
There would have been further losses of planes and pilots, but the loss of fuel reserves would have compelled what was left of the Pacific Fleet, and Army forces to withdraw to California. Hawaii wouldn't have been usable as a forward base for maybe a couple years, until fuel tanks could be rebuilt and restocked.
And all I'm trying to say is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you
I always wondered what would've happened had Japan not attacked pearl harbor. Or what would've happened had Hitler not foolishly not declared war on the US following Pearl harbor? Would the US go to war over the Philippines? If yes then could Japan have been able to achieve success without invading the Philippines too? Basically could Japan have achieved their strategic aims without provoking the US?
In the US the popular mood at the time was overwhelmingly against going to war (%75-80 against war), so I don't think anything short of a large scale attack on the US would've made the US declare war.
Of all the theories I've heard about how the axis could've won the war the I think the best is Japan not attacking pearl harbor and/or Germany not declaring war on the US afterwards.
Mt. Baldwin The US would have gone to war over the Philippines as they were part of the US commonwealth
The US would've gotten involved eventually. The Japanese biggest concern was resources (they rationed and saved whenever they could) and the Philippines was seen as a jumping off point for a direct attack on the Home Islands. Their thinking was if they went for South East Asia and Indonesia but not the Philippines they'd be screwed because America probably would declare war and use the Philippines to cut off the Japanese from SEA and Indonesia (just like America did in reality when they liberated the Philippines, which partly cause Ichi Go to happen). And even if Germany didn't declare war the US would do it anyway since Japan, Italy and Germany was the "Axis of Evil". And with the UK in the corner it was in it'd only be a matter of time before the US came in to help, as Winston Churchill said "until the new world, with all it's might and power stepped forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old"
The war in China combined with the US not trading with them is taking a toll on Japan's resources, and japan attacking not only the US but the UK, the Netherlands colonies will be inevitable
This is a question that is overlooked I would like to postulate that had Japan simply ignored the Americans they could have invaded the Dutch East Indies, French Indonesia, and Singapore without any military reprisals from America. To support this position I would ask the question what was America’s reaction when Germany attacked the French Dutch and English or when Japan invaded Manchuria ? It was economic not military or in other words aid not troops were offered. In a world where Americans would not support going to war to protect European countries how could anyone argue that America would fight for the colonies of those European powers, particularly when the anti-colonial attitudes of America are taken into consideration? From these points I would argue that whatever America’s response was from a Japanese invasion of the southern resource zone it wouldn’t be military as long as US possessions were not attacked.
@@scottl9660 www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3dxlh4/what_did_japan_hope_to_accomplish_by_attacking/
Generally I agree an invasion of Hawaii was not feasible however I do think they should have had it as part of the plan and thus created the logistics required. Even if this meant putting off the PI and Malaysian campaigns. Taking Hawaii would have finished what they started towards crippling the US Pacific fleet, forced the US Carries to stay near Hawaii to aid in the Defense and forced more ships from the Atlantic Fleet to shift coasts. The same ships that the US salvaged from Pearl Harbor would also have been available to the Japanese to use as their own. Yes it would have been a forlorn hope but so was the actual attack along with the invasions they did conduct which did prevail. My true estimation is that they should have ignored the US for a while longer and just attacked the British holdings including Australia. This would have aided the other Axes powers far more then an attack on the US, which I think would have waited on the side lines, at least another year had it been left alone before intervening.
The Japanese strategy can be a bit more haphazard than you expect. See this video for example (it has its own sources listed): th-cam.com/video/qE_iNUXhrfw/w-d-xo.html. You need organizations to handle anything complex - strategy included. But once you have a lot of people involved, it's hard to coordinate for a cohesive plan. Imperial Japan is probably not the only entity plagued by that.
The only way that Japan could have invaded Hawaii was if the carriers were located and eliminated. The initial attack on the Hawaiian fleet in Pearl Harbor should have been considered an absolute failure given the primary objectives were not accomplished. But let's say that the carriers were in port or located and destroyed, only then could the Japanese have a chance at a successful invasion. After all, Wake island was invaded successfully regardless of the losses. Midway was an invasion plan on a base also designed for island invasion defense. The Japanese brought their logistics on that one.
The Japanese did have the resources and logistics for an invasion of Hawaii. If the U.S. Carriers were destroyed and much of the fleet in Pearl Harbor, especially if a second wave was ordered, then the Japanese battleships would have pulled up and pounded Oahu defenses until it was opened up to gaps in the defenses enough for the troops to land. If even the Japanese wanted to capture the other islands for staging the troops for invasion and gain time for all aspects of the ground assault to come together (logistics), US forces in Hawaii would have to consider surrender for the sheer fact that the US had no other major forces in the theater to intervene. That was it....everything else was in San Francisco. The US in Hawaii was not like the US in the Philippines. At least in the Philippines the US withdrew to Australia. There was no where else to go from Hawaii. No re-supply....no retreat....no help....no evacuation....only continuous bombardment until the Japanese land forces arrived, and they eventually would have. US military in Hawaii was not self dependent on supplies. It was heavily dependent on imports from the US mainland, so was much of the population.
With a heavy loss like that for the US, they would have agreed to terms of a peace treaty with Japan. The Japanese already knew this would be the case if the original Pearl Harbor attack had resulted in the loss of the carriers at Hawaii.
Logistics are much easier once an enemy's main force has been defeated. Japan had become very good at logistics in all its other conquests.
Even if the question of US submarines lurking around searching for the Japanese invasion force, Japanese destroyers were excellent submarine hunters and were in abundance.
Yes, a Hawaiian invasion would have been a huge operation requiring huge resources and logistics, but the reward for a quick settlement for peace from the US in the Pacific theater with most of the US fleet destroyed and the US' largest Pacific base taken would have been well worth the planning and attempt.... if only those US carriers were verified laying in port.
Wake and Midway are barely comparable. Look at a map.
thing is: in no moment since the start of the century all american carriers were in the base at the same time, only the Enterprise was scheduled to arrive at december 6, but it would be out before any other carrier arrives
German had a tiny fleet when they started to cross the northern sea
Yes, not a few thousand miles of ocean,
but they did it pretty fast while they also conquered Denmark and prepared the invasion of France + Benelux.
They were never in a prefered position to achieve a landing success but finally they planned and found a way.
Crete is even far bigger than Hawaii and the germans had no fleet, but they did it again, step by step.
Why shouldn't the japanese been able to attack Hawai in the north with a landing force ?
Great + long shore without much defense or fortifications back then?
Embark 2 few divisions on passenger ships, cross the pacific and disembark them to landing crafts ... A few battlecruiser would protect the landing beaches and kill every american tank + fortification while the carrierfleet comes close to Pearl Harbor easily attacking again and again from the carriers which would be effectively while the american were fighting the fire and rescueing. The closer the distance the heavier the more often japanese attacks - without having to deal with airplanes or airfields they had destroyed in the first 2 attacks.
Won't happen mindset ...limits your force,
instead of asking:
What can be achieved if I had to invade now and how?
Ask Rommel and he would have foubd a way to attack, same for Montgomery, maybe Patton. Rommel arrived in Africa, played a fooling or deception game and attacked on his own - he was subordinated to the Italians he did not ask for permission to attack.
Guns n Roses: use your illusion
Regardless of all circumstances and why nots play the ace of hoe can I achieve and then you'll find different answers than now, were you simply anticipated a landing in Pearl Harbour (vicinity) ...
No one head thought that the japanese could attack that way,
no one had thought that the battle of the bulge attack was possible ,
no one had believed that a german sub could enter the grand fleets base Scapa Flow, but
★ Prien went in
★ he attacked and sunk
★ and even left the harbour
★ close to undamaged
So, why not invade Oahu from the northern shore taking 1 or 2 airfields or building them on the long straight streets along the coast ?
😂
What?
Sorry but why didnt you compare it to the Invasion of the Philippines or the Malayan Campaign? In both cases the Japanese landed divisional forces and managed to defeat a numerically superior opponent, again seemingly “safe” areas that couldnt be conquered.
If you have been to Oahu, you quickly realize that there are few areas that allow for any kind of landing namely about 7 beaches of a few miles in length each, and all of them were heavily fortified with pillboxes and medium artillery.
Further inland multiple summits were hollowed out and turned into elaborate bunker complexes.
A volcanic crater was turned into a fortress, with the edges serving as walls some 400m high, nearly vertical at the top.
It was a very formadible fortification system, manned by some 25000 marine infantry, plus tens of thousands more other service personell.
Japan basically would have had to pull off a D Day at the end of a 5000 naval mile supply chain.
Conversely, the Philippines, and other "safe" locations the japanese sucxessfully captured were much larger, had much more suitable landing locations that were not fortified, and were significantly closer to home.
There are quite a few differences between Japanese invasion of the Philippines and theoretical invasion of the Oahu island, that are making your argument void.
Japanese in Philippines landed on mostly undefended beaches,were well within range of ground based air force and their supply lines,they locally outnumbered US Navy, archipelago was too big to be effectively defended by US army,so they focused on island of Luzon at Bataan peninsula and island of Coreggidor,with strong fortifications,at the mouth of Manila bay.Japanese had tremendous difficulty dislodging them,they needed over 5 months to secure it.Deteriorating logistics were the decisive factor in defeat of US/Philippino army there.At Oahu,things wouldn't have been so easy for Japanese, and US Navy would have been much stronger there, even jast after the attack on Pearl Harbor.Tons of other factors,but I don't have that much time or will to describe it.
I thought Yamamoto was against attacking US? Why insist to attack Pearl Harbor?
Any scenario where the Japanese force a negotiated armistice that allowed them to keep the resource rich European colonies would require the effective annihilation of the US Pacific fleet,or at least that's what their pre-war arithmetic suggested to them. The Americans had 8 or 9 battleships in the Pacific and the British had 5 or 6 battleships in the Indian Ocean, plus "Force Z" at Singapore which had the Prince of Wales and Repulse plus a cruiser detachment... additionally the Dutch had a cruiser squadron in Java and the Americans had a cruiser squadron in Manila as well as a modern air wing that was formidable at least on paper. In order to secure the southern colonies the Japanese were obliged to knock out the American battle line in the central Pacific with the carrier strike group so the main part of the IJN battle line (Fusos, Nagatos, Yamashiros) could be responsible for the defense of the home islands while the 4 rebuilt Kongo battlecruisers did escort duties for the carrier group and operated in support of the ground invasions of Hong Kong and Malaya.
He was, but could not convince the Imperial Cabinet it was a bad idea.
Once the decision was made, he did his best as a naval officer to cripple their main opponent.
They could wait and take on the Pacific Fleet in a Jutland type naval battle in the mid Pacific, as first planned. Or, they could hit the Americans in their harbour, ensuring the rescue of the Phillipines never even started. Maybe if they were hurt badly enough the Americans would be compelled to negotiate a peace.
because he knew the only prayer the Japanese had was a quick and decisive attack. He was well aware that American industry would give it a huge upper hand in a prolonged war, which was the primary reason he wasn't eager to fight them. He hoped that if he could do enough damage, America would be sidelines long enough for Japan to negotiate a settlement.
honestly it was the only choice he realistically had.
The transport ships would have had to leave Japan in 1937.....
Every country on Planet Earth, not just the United States, would discover a fleet drifting out at sea for four years. Definitely by December of 1941. Pearl Harbor would have not only NOT been a surprise attack, a considerable bulk of the American armed forces would have been there to defend Oahu from the invasion force. Thousands of Japanese would have been massacred, and Japan would have lost its carrier fleet a lot sooner than Midway Island. World War II probably would have ended in the Pacific as much as a year before Germany fell in this scenario.
While the aerial bombing of Pearl Harbor was still among the dumbest military moves in human history, an attempt at an invasion would have been silliness personified. I'm glad the Japanese were at least smart enough to not even be that retarded.
This isn't exactly related, but I think the Japanese had a seriously warped view of what the American public's reaction to Pearl Harbor would be. Did they look at the outcome of the Sino-Japanese Warn, the rapid fall of European democracies, the American pleasure-seeking zeitgeist (after a decade of enormous suffering) and assume the Americans to be passive, unfit for war as a people, and that an overwhelming naval victory would bring us to the negotiating table? I may be way off and not educated enough on this, I'm just speculating. Was it just deemed necessary despite the risk of America going 0-100 in a matter of hours? It's probably somewhere in between ignorance and calculated risk, as I see it.
I know the Japanese were extremely nervous about the potential of the Philippines, but was there some other way to avoid provoking such an overwhelming reaction amongst the American public? Was taking the Phil. necessary?
Culturally Japan and America had little or no cultural understanding of each other.
Keep in mind the Japanese embassy was late delivering their declaration of war due to ineptitude.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Yeah, I am aware, but would that have even mattered? The images and story that came out of Pearl Harbor are still powerful and moving today. Notice or not, it was the worst thing Japan could've done from a psyops perspective
They were trying for a knock out blow, bet all on red.
Japanese ecpectation indeed was that the US would swiftly surrender.
This was born of a wildly irrational racial superioruty ethos very similar to that of the Nazis.
I don't disagree with this video except that if the Japanese could've seen the outcome of the war they would have put up the resources and found away to occupy the Hawaiian islands. The American fleet would then have to sail from their west coast and fight and win a Midway-style battle before they could even contemplate a return to the central Pacific.
There is no "finding a way" they just weren't capable of that large an operation.
Fact - Pearl Harbor was a massive tactical failure on the part of the Japanese Imperial Navy. Because they didn't accomplish their main objective, to destroy the most important target.....the 4.5 million gallons of oil stored in giant tanks on Oahu. Which at the time was the sole source of Oil for the U.S. Navy in the entire Pacific theatre of WWII. Not to mention the dry docks which went undamaged and were instrumental in repairing most of the ships.
Had the third wave of planes been unleashed, the attack would have been complete. Forcing the American Navy to pull back to the west coast of California, making Dolittle's surprise raid impossible, Midway never happens and the entire complexion of the Pacific war would have changed beyond recognition. Now, America would have prevailed regardless. However the war with Japan might have lasted well into 1948, with the cost in dollars, resources and human life being incalculable.
My two cents - not sending the third wave was the worst mistake the Japanese ever made in the course of WWII. They failed to heed the advice of pilots who wanted to bomb said oil tanks and repair facilities, which is mind boggling.
didn't the us also had oil tankers that could carry enough fuel to compensate? granted it would be still a blow
Oahu is pronounced Oh-ah-hū.