I started to write a rebuttal to this thread. Then I read this link and realized that this says it better than I ever could.
Guys Read The Link!
Short answer, No f'ckn way.
Thanks.
Saved me from posting the link AGAIN.
I started to write a rebuttal to this thread. Then I read this link and realized that this says it better than I ever could.
Guys Read The Link!
Short answer, No f'ckn way.
'Double back'? So Japan is going to take shipping that it does not have to move troops from the war-starting, cassus belli campaign against the Philippines, go well past its range, invade Hawaii, and then get up and go back to the Philippines, giving up the element of surprise and ignoring the entire reason of going to war in the first place, which was to nullify the Philippines?
Japan's plans focused so much on the Philippines that they wouldn't occupy the East Indies until they took care of the Philippines.
The US did lose the bulk of the Pacific Fleet on Day One. We call it... Pearl Harbor.![]()
Really? On a discussion forum, you can't be bothered discussing ideas? do you see the problem in that Shimbo?To be honest Dean I can't be arsed discussing it with you. You can take it as read though that I don't think you are as clever as you think you are.
So they're not going to attack locations with needed supplies, but try to futily hold on to a distant outpost where they get raped as soon as possible?The only real possibility is if they invade right at the start of hostilities and and as there are not enough troops and logistics to invade Hawaii in addition to the other attacks, another major attack has to be canceled.
Why invade Hawaii in the first place though? the logistics alone kills the attempt, and the Phillipines are more important to the Japanese.What if the troops that in OTL attacked the Philippines attack Hawaii and then double back to attack the Philippines? That might be possible, but it's going to make the invasion of the Philippines much tougher.
Two Words: Pearl Harbor.Of course, the industrial disparity between the USA and Japan will inevitably tell eventually but irretrievably losing the bulk of the Pacific Fleet on Day One will be a heavy blow to the USA.
So they're not going to attack locations with needed supplies, but try to futily hold on to a distant outpost where they get raped as soon as possible?
Why invade Hawaii in the first place though? the logistics alone kills the attempt, and the Phillipines are more important to the Japanese.
True, I'm simply so used to Crazy Japanese things to be perverse and not military related.I think his point is that if the Japanese for some crazy reason obsessed with taking Hawaii at all costs this is the only way it could maybe work. The why isn't important as far as his point was just what was the best way if pulling it off if they wanted to at all costs. Even than it has problems as the US is probably going to notice what is going on sooner or later.
To be honest dean I can't be arsed discussing it with you. You can take it as read though that I don't think you are as clever as you think you are.
But the Japanese navy didn't have any reason to have a crazy obsession with Hawaii. Japanese naval doctrine since the turn of the century had been that the US-Japanese naval showdown would be near Japan, after Japan harassed the American fleet during the draw-up. The Japanese knew, even they knew, that they couldn't keep Midway in supply once they seized it: Hawaii is even farther, and many times larger.I think his point is that if the Japanese for some crazy reason obsessed with taking Hawaii at all costs this is the only way it could maybe work. The why isn't important as far as his point was just what was the best way if pulling it off if they wanted to at all costs. Even than it has problems as the US is probably going to notice what is going on sooner or later.
Australia was never in danger of a serious invasion for the same reason Hawaii wasn't: it's too far. More importantly, Australia is too big, and the defenders would have the interior lines of movement and communication.Attacking Hawaii could have given the Japanese time. The US would have been too busy trying to get the Hawaiian islands back that they would forget about Australia leaving Australia vulnerable to an attack.
What are you talking about? You made an incredibly absurd suggestion: Why would Japan seize Hawaii?
A) It does not further their entrenched naval doctrine for a decisive battle in the Western Pacific.
B) It does not prevent the US from sailing beyond Hawaii. The US Navy can still sail through the South Pacific, by the other numerous US islands.
C) It is not a guaranteed destruction of the Pacific Fleet, which in worst case can sail from Hawaii back to the mainland intact.
D) Hawaii can not be supplied.
E) Hawaii can not be kept.
F) Throwing the men and shipping at Hawaii means diverting distinctly finite resources from the vital actions of the Philippines, the East Indies, and the British Pacific strongholds.
G) Even if the Navy won the impossible and convinced the Army to pony up more men, managed to sail to Hawaii, and attack, there's no guarantee they even could invade and beat the American garrison.
Raiding Hawaii serves only the goal of temporarily weakening the US navy. Conquering Hawaii does only the same thing, but at extreme costs.
The question of if Japan could take Hawaii has already been addressed: they couldn't, even if they did want to. That's a fact. All the reasons they would want to take Hawaii come from why they would want Hawaii in the first place: to deter the American navy from distrubing trade routes from a southern Pacific empire. Which is why the Philippines, British garrisons, and Dutch East Indies were more important. Which is why Hawaii is effectively undermined.Agreed, but that isn't the arguement. Take the "Japan wants Hawaii at all costs" as granted. The arguement isn't SHOULD Japan take Hawaii but how best they could pull it off if they wanted to. It would take years and it would still be damn hard to pull off.
Not really, continuing the war after they took Manchuria was what was a mistake. They had basically decapitated the Chinese Industry, and got themselves all the land they needed. Had they stayed on a Defensive platform in Manchuria, things might have gone better on the Chinese front.And what someone said above is true. The Japanese economy was suffering because of the long war in China. Attacking China was a mistake.