Why didn't the Japanese occupy Hawaii? (war, bomb, 1930's, Washington)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've often wondered why the Japanese didn't bring an invasion force with them to occupy and control the Hawaiian Islands for as long as they could?
Was it a completely political decision with the assumption that the US would want to make peace after the devastating losses at Pearl Harbor?
I've always considered this kind of a military blunder on their part. Seems to me that the US would have had a much more difficult time reestablishing their naval power in the Pacific without Hawaii.
I think this at least would have lengthened the war by months and even a year or more.
Because, strategically, Pearl Harbor was a diversion. It's only purpose was to buy time against the United States while crippling the American navy.
The Japanese were already undertaking a huge operation by overrunning the Philippines, Indonesia, Guam, Wake, Indochina, Siam, Burma, Malaysia, New Guinea, and Singapore all at once. All while keeping their armies supplied and fighting in China. For them to invade an archipelago 3,500 miles from the home islands across open ocean and keep their troops supplied would have been a mammoth undertaking.
Instead, their strategy was to seize a defensive perimeter while consolidating their conquests. Hawaii simply had no place in any of that.
I've often wondered why the Japanese didn't bring an invasion force with them to occupy and control the Hawaiian Islands for as long as they could?
Was it a completely political decision with the assumption that the US would want to make peace after the devastating losses at Pearl Harbor?
I've always considered this kind of a military blunder on their part. Seems to me that the US would have had a much more difficult time reestablishing their naval power in the Pacific without Hawaii.
I think this at least would have lengthened the war by months and even a year or more.
There was never really an opportunity. First they needed to completely neutralize the US navy. As devastating as the attack on Pearl Harbor was, it wasn't sufficient. They needed a second blow approximately 6 months after Pearl Harbor. But the Battle of Midway did not exactly go according to Japanese plans.
Also remember the US military bases on Hawaii were well fortified and could not be captured by simply landing troops there. Taking Hawaii would have required months long committed seige, not unlike battles of Iwo Jima or Okinawa.
There was a significant Army garrison in Hawaii at Schofield Barracks. The Japanese would have needed to bring along tens of thousands of combat and occupation troops with them, plus equipment, munitions and other supplies for them to fight and prevail. Additionally, they would have needed to secure the sea based supply lines as this expeditionary force spent several months attempting to conquer and occupy the island chain. It would have required a force an order of magnitude larger than the task force they brought for just the air raid. As the previous posters said, they had other plans for December 1941 that would provide larger returns than a landing on Hawaii.
But this is not a whacko question. I've also posited this as a "what if".
I've often wondered why the Japanese didn't bring an invasion force with them to occupy and control the Hawaiian Islands for as long as they could?
Was it a completely political decision with the assumption that the US would want to make peace after the devastating losses at Pearl Harbor?
I've always considered this kind of a military blunder on their part. Seems to me that the US would have had a much more difficult time reestablishing their naval power in the Pacific without Hawaii.
I think this at least would have lengthened the war by months and even a year or more.
I'm not a history major and I haven't read any other posts in this thread, but had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place, I don't think the US would have entered the war and I think the war would have been more drawn out due to that. However, I think the only reason they did mess with Hawaii was to break down the American forces before the Americans inevitably entered the war. Hawaii is a pretty fair distance away from Japan, and to completely occupy that island would have costed the Japanese a lot of money, fuel, supplies, and time.
Not to mention that they did have all the other islands and territories to occupy.
The Japanese needed to acquire and completely control their supply lines before even contemplating an invasion of the USA. If memory serves, Australia was next on the list for Japanese invasion and the US would most certainly join the war by that point, so a preemptive strike on the American Pacific Fleet was implemented to neutralize us before striking Australia.
But Japan obviously underestimated the U.S. response and must have know they couldn't have done anything about our own supply lines, so I have to wonder why Japan didn't just bide it's time and build up strength to go straight after America instead of just "poking a stick in the hornet's nest".
Because, strategically, Pearl Harbor was a diversion. It's only purpose was to buy time against the United States while crippling the American navy.
I wouldn't say that it was a diversion rather than a desperate gambit.
Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto, who devised the attack was a vociferous opponent of entering into war with the U.S, and was absolutely convinced that Japan could not win a protracted conflict. As a result, Yamamoto devised the plan for that attack on Pearl Harbor as being a single battle that would, "decide the fate of the war on the very first day," believing incorrectly that such an attack would shock the U.S. into negotiating a peaceful settlement.
. . . if there should be a war between Japan and America, then our aim, of course, ought not to be Guam or the Philippines, nor Hawaii or Hong Kong, but a capitulation at the White House, in Washington itself. I wonder whether the politicians of the day really have the willingness to make sacrifices, and the confidence, that this would entail.
But that is where our disagreement ends because as you point out an invasion of Hawaii would have been a huge logistical nightmare for the Japanese, for example Hawaii is well with the combat range of B-17's based along the west coast, and U.S and American resources were so vast, as Yamamoto recognized. It would have been impossible for Japan to maintain an occupation of Hawaii without sacrificing the very reasons that it had engaged in war in the first place.
I'm not a history major and I haven't read any other posts in this thread, but had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place, I don't think the US would have entered the war and I think the war would have been more drawn out due to that. However, I think the only reason they did mess with Hawaii was to break down the American forces before the Americans inevitably entered the war. Hawaii is a pretty fair distance away from Japan, and to completely occupy that island would have costed the Japanese a lot of money, fuel, supplies, and time.
Not to mention that they did have all the other islands and territories to occupy.
The Japanese essentially had no choice but to attack the American fleet when they did. The oil embargo that the Allies had placed on Japan meant that they were running critically short on oil to fuel their war machine. They needed to attack and secure the oil resources in the southern Pacific, but that meant going after British and Dutch interests. Of course, the Phillipines lie right in between those areas and Japan, so that US interest would need to be taken as well.
The Japanese knew that the largest threat to their goals was the US fleet, so it needed to be as neutralized as possible before they launched their attacks. The goal was to disable as much of the fleet as possible to by them time to establish a "defensive perimeter" in the Pacific. From this reinforced defensive ring, they planned to wait out the US response and engage the US fleet in one large decisive naval battle to decide the war. Of course, it didn't exactly play out the way they envisioned.
As for landing troops in Hawaii...
I think the first reason they didn't is obvious, they simply had too many other things on their plate that were of much more critical importance, namely the US, British and Dutch interests in the South Pacific. Without securing the oil and resources in those areas, they could not continue the war, so those areas had to be taken and the bulk of their troops were sent against it. Even if the Japanese had enough troops to spread around, transport and supply assets were hard to come by. The IJA and IJN were rival organizations and each possessed their own supply and transport resources. Neither was willing to really help out the other and guarded these limited assets. Mainly it was the IJA that didn't want to risk their assets on other attacks, because they needed those ships to supply their army in China.
The second reason was simply the difficulty of getting troops there. The entire Pearl Harbor operation hinged on surprise. Troop transports are very slow and very thirsty, so the entire attack force would have been much more noticable while on the move. Additionally Hawaii was basically at the furthest reaches of what the IJN could reach with their existing assets. The transport ships would have required a very large refueling fleet to accompany them all the way to Hawaii, further slowing down the operation and increasing the chances of being detected, even if the Japanese could muster enough refueling ships to do it.
Finally, we have the other point folks have made. Taking Hawaii would have been a very drawn out operation that would have required the Japanese to have domination of the sea and air, meaning the fleet would have had to stay on station to do it, something they were not really capable of operationally, in terms of fuel, so far from home. Additionally, the garrison and population of Hawaii would not have rolled over easily, so there would have been protracted fighting requiring constant supplies and reinforcements.
Even once Hawaii was taken, it would have been a far greater liability then an asset. It would have immediately become the US's number one priority to retake and it simply wouldn't have been possible for the Japanese to maintain a massive garrison there given the distance they would have been from main supply bases. Any troops in Hawaii would have essentially been forfeit.
There was never really an opportunity. First they needed to completely neutralize the US navy. As devastating as the attack on Pearl Harbor was, it wasn't sufficient. They needed a second blow approximately 6 months after Pearl Harbor. But the Battle of Midway did not exactly go according to Japanese plans.
Also remember the US military bases on Hawaii were well fortified and could not be captured by simply landing troops there. Taking Hawaii would have required months long committed seige, not unlike battles of Iwo Jima or Okinawa.
Ok, so we had a pretty strong military presense there then? Thanks, I always thought for some reason it was pretty much Navy and not much else.
Even after all these years I still find the analysis that they could attack the US and we'd kinda take it and then sue for peace to be eye poppingly mistaken. Of course there were those that knew the reality but they were shouted down. It's almost like mob mentality where they whipped themselves into a frenzy where reality flew out the window.
To say Japan was emboldened by their successes in the 1930's and viewed everyone else as *lacking* is an extreme understatement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
