Did you completely miss everyone tearing the "Invasion of Hawaii" scenario to shreds?The strength of the OP is simply that it guarentees the US carriers get destroyed. The US is not going to sit an wait for the Japanese to occupy all of Hawaii. So, Japan probably suffers more losses, such as a carrier or battleship, but they take out both carriers and take Hawaii. If this occurs, Japan pretty much can take Midwau unopposed soon after, and with the right roll of the dice win an engagement in 43 against a reconstituted US navy. In this scenario, US probably focuses on Europe and west coast defense. The bomb gets invented, and what follows is probably an invasion of Manchuria by the USSR. All of East Asia goes Communist and America makes peace with the Japan after Korea and northern Japanese islands are lost. USSR probably makes peace concurrently, not looking to fight alone. USSR, in this scenario, is also given much larger concessions in Europe, so they are the real winners.
I recall reading a survey of African-American newspapers during the war. The tenor of it was that while they were unhappy about Jim Crow, they recognized that the Nazis and the Japanese militaristswere worse. "Grind 'em into the ground."Based on OTL behavior, you're right.
Put the almost finished Yamato on a suicide run right into Pearl Harbor firing all guns, with plans to scuttle in the Sea Channel, blocking everything for a long timethen the next most useful thing would be to knock out Pearl Harbor as a naval base. Since Japanese military valued sacrifices,
Of course surviving the coastal defences to reach the channel might be a little difficult even for the YamatoPut the almost finished Yamato on a suicide run right into Pearl Harbor firing all guns, with plans to scuttle in the Sea Channel, blocking everything for a long time
She would do more as a blockship than anything else she possible could accomplish during the War
Oh, we've had multiple threads on just that scenario - I mean, it's not impossible that Yamamoto picks a weekend where Lexington and Enterprise are both at Pearl.WI task force 8 and 12 with the carriers were in PH on Dec 7? US loses the carriers and then Saratoga is sunk by a sub. USA also loses more ships playing defence. The public might want peace soon. Midterms in 42 could be a bloodbath for FDR
Yeah.Of course surviving the coastal defences to reach the channel might be a little difficult even for the Yamato
Not to mention a ship like Yamato on her own would be the wet dream of the skippers of the numerous destroyers in Pearl Harbor and quite frankly while USN torpedoes at this point were terrible in reliability with that many torpedoes it wouldn't matterYeah.
On December 7, 1941, the 16th Coast Artillery on Oahu had, by my count, fourteen 12"-14" guns that could reach a surface ship like Yamato well out to sea. On top of that, you have four U.S. battleships that might not be deployable but still afloat and which could use their batteries from where they were in the harbor, so that's potentially an additional 34 14" and 16" guns that could reach well out to sea, too.
That's not counting smaller guns and surviving bomber aircraft.
Of course, if this is a late 1942 scenario, then there's going to be a lot more available to fire on Yamato before she ever gets close to the channel. And even for a ship as tough as Yamato, that's a hell of a lot of firepower raining down on her.
If the Japanese would behave anywhere near as they did everywhere else in Hawaii then the war would resume the next day unless you think the 1940s US would tolerate the raping of is women!What I meant with "guarantees territorial integrity" was "give all the occupied american islands, uncluding Hawaii, back".
Ok, I admit that 2 Divisions are not enough. But with 3 to 4 japanese divisions plus air and naval superiority, you can't really say that the japanese stand no chance. Don't get me wrong, victory is never a certainity, but in this situation they got a good chance in my opinion.
And if were talking long run here (i.e. 43, 44) it's unlikely the japanese are able to hold Hawaii anyway. It's not so much about holding Hawaii than about taking it in a decisiive battle that cripples the US navy.
Didn't the japanese have air superiority during the Pearl Harbour attack? And fun fact, over the course of the war, the japanese had 350k soliders on Papua New Guinnea (i.e. not the best place supply wise), which only surrendered after the central government in Tokio did so. Yes, New Guinea is not as far away as Hawaii, but it has a lot less infrastructure and means to sustain troops. If the japanese take Midway on top, they would have pushed their defensive perimetre a lot further east (as someone allready mentioned), so a shipping route to Hawaii should be secured for at least a year (of course there would still be harasment by american subs).
I'm not saying it would be bloodless. But a US that remains decidedly isolationist in the face of a rapid fall of the USSR and a major defeat of the UK would give Germany, Italy, and Japan a chance for massive building programs with military technologies that might be 5-7 years ahead of the US. Potentially moreso if US leadership decides not to consider further research or remains blissfully ignorant of Axis ambitions.The only way this 1950 attack isn’t running into a wood chipper is if the US has been huffing lead paint.
The US response to the Fall of France was to order a 70% increase in Naval Strength, the House passed it 316 to 0. This was in addition to the buildup already initiated from the invasion of China and Anschluss which was a mere 20% increase in strength, as well as a smaller increase when WWII was declared. Similar increase occurred for the Armty at the same timeI'm not saying it would be bloodless. But a US that remains decidedly isolationist in the face of a rapid fall of the USSR and a major defeat of the UK would give Germany, Italy, and Japan a chance for massive building programs with military technologies that might be 5-7 years ahead of the US. Potentially moreso if US leadership decides not to consider further research or remains blissfully ignorant of Axis ambitions.
Nazi Germany didn't have the resources or doctrine to even try Sealion once. The USA had both of those and the grit, in spades. The USA is not surrendering in any conflict that looks remotely like OTL Pacific Theater. Hell, in our timeline, they didn't even give it first priority and they still out produced Japan to an outrageous degree. Political will was not lacking as I can't think of a single pro-peace voice in American politics after Pearl Harbor.
Ot at least not attack during peace negotiations!!And here's the great problem with every one of your scenarios: this is a problem the Japanese neatly solved for the US Navy by attacking Pearl Harbor. Well, for the next four years or so.
If you want Japan to have any sort of chance at a negotiated peace, you need to ditch Pearl Harbor.