Could the Japanese have captured Hawaii if they had won the battle of Midway?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The British armed Japan partly as a bulwark against Communist Russia. Then lost their Pacific fleet and some of the jewels of the Colonial Empire to them 15 years later.

Would you care to explain this?

The Kongo was the last major Japanese warship built by a non-Japanese company. her 3 sister ships were built in Japan with varying amounts of British Supplied materials.
The Kongo was completed 16 August 1913.

The Japanese helped hunt for German surface raiders in WW I. They had a small flotilla of ships in the Med assisting the British during or after the Dardanelles operation. They took over the German islands/possession in the Orient, part from greed and part to prevent them from being supply points for German raiders.

All of this was before the Russian revolution. Perhaps the British did assist the Japanese navy in modernising after WW 1 and perhaps it was to help counter bolshevism, but Japan had served as an ally during WW I and for the most part, the British were only "arming" Japan with technical knowledge about aircraft and aircraft operations. And selling small numbers of aircraft to Japan. Japan purchased no large ships from the British after WW I. The British certainly didn't "give" the Japanese much of anything in the way of weapons after WW I.
 
The oil embargo was placed on Japan due to invasion of French IndoChina in mid 1941.

They could move south because the Germans had invaded Soviet Union and so Soviets had more pressing matters than Manchuria and Vichy France was in charge and so the Japanese were invading an ally!

So China was not the issue but been part of the wider world war and threatening Western powers in the region was.
 
In a nutshell, the japanese did not have the capacity to invade and hold Hawaii. Oahu is large enough to hold multiple divisions and would be able to defend in depth using interior lines of communications. That is a hard nut to crack when relying on light infantry in an amphibious environment. And they would be fighting the battle without any important ports or anchorages within 2,000 miles, at the end of a logistical tether 4000 miles long. Not exactly heartwarming for the logisticians. Also consider this. An invasion would occur sometime in Q4 of 1942. The US was in far better shape militarily then than we were at the end of 1941. The main islands of Hawaii would be well reinforced and defended.
 
For much of the time Tsarist Russia was a pain in the side of the British Empire.
Ww1 when we were allied to Russia and France was historically abnormal.

Wars are not won by tactics and strategy but by having a decidedly bigger technology advanced military against weaker military.

I don't have the figures to hand but America in the 1930s built more cars than Japan. Big deal. Cars are not battleships. But its a huge deal.

To build a car you need skilled labour, factories, steel, rubber, energy, oil, tools, designers and other skilled manpower. And all that experience and knowledge then can be translated into building tanks.

Castle Bromwich is a good example of this.

Economic warfare is just as important. The U-boat campaign against Britain is another example of winning wars by trying to collapse an economy. Imperial Germany was defeated by economic means by the blockade. The German army itself was still viable but Germany had by 1918 been exhausted.
 

The Soviets benefited heavily from allied equipment and supplies, but lets keep in mind, the major Allied interventions all took place after Stalingrad, and the Germans never successfully conducted a major campaign after Stalingrad.

I'm sure D-Day helped accelerate matters but the truth is the Germans were already doomed more than a year before the first boot hit Omaha beach.
 

Tactics and strategy matter in two ways. Tactics make your units effectively better, often by leveraging whatever advantages you have in terms of kit while covering your weaknesses. When Julius Caesar invaded Gaul, his legions were using basically the same gear as the Gauls, who badly outnumbered him. He defeated them, and ultimately killed 3/4 of the population of what is now France, through tactics and strategy.

When the Germans invaded France in 1940, their tanks and airplanes weren't hugely superior to the ones France had. They just used them much more effectively - concentrating their armor, coordinating dive bomber attacks with forward air controllers, destroying road and rail links needed by the French and British armies, using their heavy AA guns for anti-tank defense and so on. When they invaded Russia they did all of the above and concentrated on deep penetration with armored columns and vast encirclements of large numbers of enemy troops. This again was a victory multiplier - by cutting off ten times as many troops as they actually fought, and forcing them to try to fight their way out of a pocket while cut off from supply and logistics, you weaken them dramatically and get to fight on ground of your own choosing.

It goes back to the concept of friction. If you have an armored battalion that due to kit and training is a 4 on a scale of 1-10, and I have one that is a 5 on a scale of 1-10, I don't have enough to win. But if through improved tactics I can make it a 10, i.e. double the effectiveness, then I'm far more certain of victory and will also suffer far fewer casualties among my own men.

Strategy, among other things, is what leads you to fight battles that degrade your opponents supply lines - like the U-boats you mentioned in the Battle of The Atlantic.
 
Informative...........but disheartening.
What the F is wrong with so many people. No honor? It occurs to me more and more that 10% of the people are basically evil, 10% are basically good, and the remaining 80% have no moral core and will bow to the prevailing winds of wichever 10% is dominant at the moment.
 

Just to put Britain's arming Japan against "communist Russia," into perspective, Japan had largely stopped importing weapons before the USSR existed. Before communism, Imperial Russia was a rival and threat to Britain's imperium. Russia didn't switch from an innocent, peace-loving country to an aggressive one.

Trying to get in topic....

Even though the USA of the time had serious human rights issues, most (like 99%) were the result of state and local governments' laws and policies (including tacit support of terrorist organizations), not federal ones (even the Japanese internment during WWII was pushed by local governments, although endorsed and enforced by the national one), there was not the sort of anti-US feeling among Hawaii's citizens as there was anti-imperium feeling as there was among the peoples under the British Raj, if for no other reason than Britain's deliberate destruction of local economic activity that inconvenienced the British. Japan would find even less support amongst the inhabitants of Hawaii than they did in the Raj.
 

The Soviets reieved 17,499,861 tons of aid. In '41 and '42 this aid was 16% of the total aid. In '43, '44 and '45 this aid was 84% of the total.
Engines of the Red Army in WW2
 
The Soviets reieved 17,499,861 tons of aid. In '41 and '42 this aid was 16% of the total aid. In '43, '44 and '45 this aid was 84% of the total.
Engines of the Red Army in WW2

True - as I said they got a lot of help particularly logistical. Aircraft sent by Britain and the US most definitely helped stabilize the front at a crucial time.

But lets not also forget - in each year of 1941, 1942, and 1943 the Soviets lost more casualties than all the US, UK and Commonwealth combined for the whole war. In 1944 it was about even, slightly less. That helps put things into perspective. Total Soviet casualties (military and civilian) were about 28 times US plus UK casualties. China, Japan and Germany also suffered shockingly catastrophic losses.

When you think what an impact the war had on us living in the UK and US, culturally, economically (both good and bad), spiritually - think of the other nations where the cost of the war was so much more extreme.
 
Last edited:

Kongo may have been the last Japanese battleship actually built in a British shipyard (in 1913) but the military - including naval and aircraft - technology transfers continued well into the 1930s. And not to put it all on Britain. Many other countries - France, Italy, Germany, Spain and the US, exported military technology to Japan somewhat recklessly. The chief aircraft designer for Blohm and Voss, Richard Vogt, was designing planes for Kawasaki in the 1920s and trained the Japanese designer Takeo Doi, who went on to draw up the blueprints for the Ki-61. The engine that powered the A6M Zero and the Ki-43 was based on a fusion of features derived from a license built Bristol Jupiter and a license built Wright Cyclone.

This is a pretty eye-opening article which gets into the details of all the other licensing agreements and other major tech transfers if you want to read more about it.

It is also true that Russia was a long time (on and off) enemy of England during Czarist times and only became more so after they became Communist, that Japan was an Ally of England and the US during WW1.

My point was only that Japan was perceived by most of these powers not as an equal, but as a pawn (and gradually more and more, as an upstart) useful in causing problems for other "real" states, i.e. the Great Powers. If Japan had continued to behave like an auxiliary or colonial State, arming them was harmless - and potentially quite useful! But of course, they failed to grasp that Japan had ambitions of her own and once Japan started to make that clear, the response was basically indignant contempt. It was a kind of hang over or the predatory colonial thinking of the 18th and 19th Century, (which was itself grown out of an era when Europeans were still being captured in slave raids and rivals from other cultures were every bit as predatory). The Japanese were grudgingly acknowledged by the other "Great Powers" as strong enough to be made a partner in their ruthless partition of China, but barely that.

A more equanimous - and circumspect approach seems like it would have been wiser, in hindsight.
 
Last edited:

It is a bit isn't it. This worried a lot of people - But it needs to be put in perspective. A lot of time and effort in the 20th Century, particularly in the wake of ww2, was spent trying to figure out just how nasty ordinary people really are deep down. There is no doubt that we should be extremely wary of telling ourselves that there was something uniquely different about the Germans, Soviets, Japanese and so on that made them do all the nasty things which were done in WW2. There is nothing unique about them in this sense, all people, all nations can behave this way. Most have more than once. China in the late 19th Century was a colonial target and a host of circumstances divided the colonial powers from the common people there. And armies, any armies, can go really 'off' sometimes especially in a sack type scenario.



Contrary to some though I think most people are 'mostly' good deep down, but can be swayed all too easily even to act against their own interest and to be predatory toward other groups (other counries, people in other socioeconomic sectors of their own country etc.)- the science of swaying them has been getting better and better which brings with it certain dangers. And just as in an individual person, the mass culture of a State can get sick, rotten, crazy. When that happens most people prefer to go along with what people around them are doing even if the overall trends worry them. It's very hard to buck the social norms and stand up to the strong social pressure to confirm even when you know this is happening.

I was part of the punk counterculture "in the day", a long time ago before everything alternative was so accepted in the West. It could be a very uncomfortable, sometimes physically dangerous route to take, to be even a little bit out of sync with the accepted norms. What made it possible to endure was the friendship and support of many others who felt the same as I did. On your own, purely on your own - it's very hard. And these days, despite (or perhaps because of) social media, a lot of us are more isolated and alone than ever before.

So we should make sure our culture doesn't go too far off the rails, and it's a good idea to try to make friends even though it can be hard .
 
Last edited:
Trade was international, and there was nothing like the current international agreements limiting technology transfer. For example, BMW had a license for the PWAC Hornet, ALFA was a Bristol licensee, and Wright sold licenses for the Cyclone to the USSR
 

I don't want to keep bringing up bummer stuff but lets not forget though US colonial policies for example in the Spanish American War (notably in the Philippines) and also down in South and Central America and so on - and in China which I already pointed out. US Federal government policy could be pretty ruthless and nasty just like the Europeans (or the Japanese).

And then there is all the firebombing during WWII, then Korea etc.
 
All quite true. From a strictly military point of view, I suspect Japan could not occupy and hold all of Hawaii. It may have been able to occupy and hold Oahu long enough to destroy it as a useful base, though. Given the Japanese methods of rule, they would not make any friends in the archipelago.
 
And unlike the poor unarmed Chinese Peasants that they could simply do with what they pleased, many of those living on Hawaii may have been armed. Not actually sure of how well civilians on the island were armed, but at that time the mainland USA was very well armed.(I still don't see them having a prayer of successfully invading Oahu)
 

Their hatred of communism has been cited as the real reason that IJ surrendered. The argument is that they feared a Red Army occupation more than the bomb.
 
I remember watching something on the American civil war and the Generals were going 'What would Napoleon do?'

If tactics and strategy were important then the Luxembourg army is set to conquer the world.

The bigger the economy, the bigger the industrial base and the bigger number of tanks I can build.

One thing missing is context. In the late 30s 40s everything is going on. I got civil war in Spain and invasion and surrender of France and Battle of Britain and unrestricted U-boat warfare in the Atlantic and USSR invading Finland and Baltic states and Italians in Ethiopia and then Germany invades USSR.

So China is not top of the USA list. Human rights abuses in China maybe rampant but I got Stalin and Hitler trying to kill millions of people. So taking the eye off Japan and missing the red flags is understandable.
 

Users who are viewing this thread