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 Basket said:
The bigger the economy, the bigger the industrial base and the bigger number of tanks I can build.
Click to expand...
This only works to a limited extent. A large economy based on, say , cotton production is going to have a hard time against a smaller economy based on steel production.



Sometimes we can come up with conspiracy theories where there were none. Many countries were licensing engines and aircraft designs around the world in the 20 s and early 30s.
Britain "exported" military technology to at least 14 countries during the 20s just counting the Bristol Jupiter engine alone.
France=Gnome-Rhone
Germany=Siemens-Halske
Japan=Nakajima
Poland=PZL
Italy=Alfa Romeo
Czechoslovakia=Walther
Russia=Shevtsov
and more.

From WIki, "By 1929 the Bristol Jupiter had flown in 262 different aircraft types,[13] it was noted in the French press at that year's Paris Air Show that the Jupiter and its license-built versions were powering 80% of the aircraft on display. "

Even if that is not 100% accurate it is still an astounding transfer of "technology" and doesn't seem to follow any particular ideology. The US "exporting" the Wright Whirlwind and the P&W Wasp "technology" but not to the same extent.

In the 1920s the Japanese were not seen as a threat or problem. just like many other countries were not seen as a threat but merely a market.
 
Hey guys,

Two more subjects worth reading - relative to the politics and developing tensions prior to WWII between Japan, the US, and the UK/Commonwealth - that address some of the information and views contributed by the forum members, and perhaps answer some questions:

Anglo-Japanese Alliance - Wikipedia

Racial Equality Proposal - Wikipedia

Thank you guys for the interesting information and views posted.

And with my apologies to Schweik for the continuing wander off the original topic of this thread.
 
A cotton based economy can build formidable T-shirt cannons. Also nasty slogans on T-shirts can have a negative effect on morale.

If a country based on a agricultural economy wants to fight an industrial economy, then sir, it will face the consequences of its actions.

Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

I suppose one is refering to CSA v USA and the economy theory here is spot on. The bigger, more industrial economy will win in attritional warfare everytime.

Selling weapons to future opponents is very much part and parcel of Western arms sales. The Falklands War tips that scale.

But Japanese military expansion was in big neon signs so hardly a conspiracy theory.

Building a powerful navy should be a big red flag. We want to war with Germany over the High Seas Fleet for this very reason and so should have been ditto for the IJN.
 

Not true. We had a naval arms race with Germany where we out produced them. We went to war over Belgium.
 
The Basket said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well tiny Finland defeated Russia in the war that happened in that period of the late 30's you were talking about. Their tactics were famous as being among the best developed by anybody during the war. Coincidence?
 

Germany was an industrialized economy and the Soviet Union was a weak agricultural economy for the most part, but Russia damn sure defeated the crap out of the Nazis.

And yes, supplies and weapons from the West helped but most of that arrived after Stalingrad which staggering victory by the Russians was mostly won on the strength of Russian made weapons: T-34s, KVs, Katyusha rockets, PPSh-41 machine guns, Sturmoviks, Lavochkin La-5s and Yak-1s.
 
Eh? Soviet Union was a weak agricultural society and yet they made Yak-1s?

The Finns were good, motivated and capable. But... In 1944 the Finns quickly surrendered to the Soviets. Surely their tactics were famous as being among the best developed by anybody during the war would mean another victory? But they surrendered? Hmmm.
 
The Basket said:
Eh? Soviet Union was a weak agricultural society and yet they made Yak-1s?
Click to expand...

You surely aren't implying that I suggested that it was purely an agricultural society with no industry at all? They were still in the 20th Century. But I think if you look up the ratio of farm workers to industrial workers in Germany vs. Soviet Union in say, 1939, there are far more farmers in Russia percentage wise.


By 1944 the Soviet tactics (and kit) were honed by 3 years of fighting the Germans - there was no longer such a wide disparity as there was in 1939-40. Combine that with their huge army and yes, the Finns were eager to reach an agreement. But it's notable that Finland was allowed to retain sovereignty and only ceded some border lands - they never had to face "unconditional surrender". This was not due to kindness or forbearance by Soviet leadership, it was cost-benefit analysis. The cost of fighting to the death in Finland would have been very high.
 
This might help illustrate my point:



Note the level of urbanization in the Soviet union is below Latin America at just over 10% in 1930 - and comparable to Africa, India, and China at that time. By 1940 they have climbed to slightly above it at a bit over 20% (a major accomplishment) but are still way below Europe "Oceania" (I think Japan figures heavily there) and North America.

Source is this study from the University of Michigan.
 
Economy and military power can be unrelated in the sense North Korea has a rubbish economy but a huge military and USA in the 1930s had a huge economy but a relatively small military.

Russia had serfdom until 1863 so you had a modern industry power in a medieval world.

Major problem is going that Finland did this or that so Japan should have done this or that. Which is totally false. Or using examples which don't follow the rule.

Midway was brilliantly organised and the Japanese had it all planned out. And fat good it did them.

Sticking to strategy and tactics can go horribly wrong if the tactics and strategy are no longer working.

The Battle of the Coral Sea is typical Japanese planning where its all organised and timed and it all goes to pot.

The Finns couldn't surrender fast enough to the Soviets. This is not the action of a unbeatable war machine. You can win battle after battle but if you don't have the economic or military or manpower might then you are going to lose. Regardless. Your only hope that you can kill enough enemy that he gives up. And that's political warfare and nothing to do with how many people in a given country have access to Wi-Fi.
 
I don't believe Japan had any plans to take Hawaii. I think their warped plan was to knock the US out of the Pacific with a disastrous attack on US forces. It that didn't immediately work, cause a significant delay of response to after Japan had solidified a defense ring which the US would not have the tenacity to penetrate, since Americans were notoriously soft. I am sure they were well aware of the Gallipoli campaign where Britain with hundreds of thousands of troops and twenty five battleship types and twelve cruiser types, with limited landing areas, could not penetrate well entrenched troops and artillery in mountainous terrain.

I do think the loss of Midway would have a significant impact on the following war. With the loss of the entire Pacific Navy, the civilian populace of the west coast would look out over the Pacific ocean and think to themselves, while not realistic, that the only thing that stood in the way of the a navy, which had conquered almost the entire Pacific in a few months and destroyed our fleet with one blow, was....nothing. The panic public pressure on congress to defend the West Coast would be overpowering. The government would be required to build up forces. By June, 1942, the US had built a large number of reasonably capable fighters, P-38s, highly capable but brand new and limited in numbers, P-39s, quite fast and capable up to about 12-14 thousand feet (accurate Japanese bomber altitude?), thousands of P-40s, very capable when flown by experienced pilots but also altitude limited, surprisingly quite a few very capable Allison P-51s, and a thousand F4Fs, out performed by Zero, but tough and in expert hands, dangerous. Approximately 9000 of these fighters, mostly P-39s and P-40s, had been built. Many of these had been directed to foreign operators and shipped. However, I am sure there were a large number available in an emergency to be redirected, if possible, and sent west with a considerable number put on what aircraft carriers were available and other transports to support defense of Hawaii. A problem may be experienced pilots. The war progress in Europe would suffer.
 
Gallipoli is how not to not a never do again.

You can't say Gallipoli failed so all amphibious landings will always fail.

Problem here is Japan wants oil. So it needs oil. So its going Dutch East Indies not California. Its strategic needs will point its nose. So Hawaii or the West Coast are just vague notions. It only went for Midway to take in the carriers.

Had the Pearl Harbour attack been a crushing defeat and invasion for USA then all America has to do is bring the subs on and create a kill zone around Hawaii.

Hawai is not sustainable as a a military garrison or where you priorities lie. Japan has its own axes to grind and USA is only one of the list.
 
The Basket said:
Gallipoli is how not to not a never do again.
Click to expand...

And that lesson is not to attack a well fortified island with limited access covered by high terrain, unless you have massive advantage in attacking forces. See Iwo Jima, Okinawa, which didn't have limited access, just well fortified high terrain.

You can't say Gallipoli failed so all amphibious landings will always fail.
Click to expand...

No. You just need massive overpowering forces to take properly defended high terrain. See Gustav Line.

Problem here is Japan wants oil. So it needs oil. So its going Dutch East Indies not California. Its strategic needs will point its nose. So Hawaii or the West Coast are just vague notions. It only went for Midway to take in the carriers.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons I said "I don't believe Japan had any plans to take Hawaii"


I'm not so sure all those subs with all those lousy torpedoes could do the job, but, anyway, you're right. Japan could never hold it for long.
 
Japanese would have to plan although most Japanese planning doesn't take into account enemy action. Unless they do exactly as they should. I would assume they didn't know about poor torpedoes in 1941 but they would assume they would have to defend Hawaii.

Since Japanese ASW was not top of the list then it could have been a subs delight.

The poor torpedo may have been found out sooner.

One could say D-Day succeeded bacause Gallipoli failed.

Or how about the Japanese Fleet moving to the Atlantic! Yamato and Musashi against the convoys! With Tirpitz! That would be a naval war worth watching!

But alas no. Never Yamato against the Royal Navy.
 
Hawaii invasion was dependent on success at Midway. Midway/Aleutians was a half thought out plan forced by the Dolittle raids on Tokyo 1942. I think it was Nimitz who said when he learned the Japanese Navy was raiding Aleutians the same time as Midway that "they had no sense of modern warfare". Japan would have been better served sitting tight for 18 months then engaging the new US carrier groups off the Philippines etc Losses here could have forced a reevaluation by the US, instead the IJN spent 2 years in Solomons/Guadalacanal attritioning their own veteran crews, and teaching the USN how to beat them!

The US were virtually employing a Fabian strategy where they forced the IJN to battle at their worst odds.
 
I think Japan's only real option was not to start a war with a country that had 10 times the industrial capacity and, at that time, a sense of national pride and unity brought together by a 'sneak attack' the likes of which will never be seen again. When your outnumbered, outgunned, outproduced and facing a united enemy that would have had little problem with completely exterminating your entire island, the best way to save face might be to quietly negotiate the best deal you can.
 
Japan is East Asia. Oceania covers Australia, New Zealand, PNG, and most Pacific Islands.
 
Great thread here guys. Have really enjoyed reading this one. Great give and take and learned a lot. My thoughts are the only reason Yamamoto pursued Midway was to lure out the US carriers for the one decisive battle. Then after destroying them, with the threat the now Japanese occupied Midway posed to Hawaii, was to then have Japan sue for peace with the US. It was the only way they could survive, to end the war before attrition took over. I think they totally missed the Pearl Harbor "sneak attack" effect had on the US. Even if Hawaii was threatened by Midway, I don't believe there was any way the US would have entered into any meaningful negotiations. The US's resolve would have just ramped up higher and I think the Pacific would have received a higher priority. And Japan would have been left with "Gee, what do we do now?". Maintaining Midway would become an incredible drain on their dwindling resources and I think they would be looking for the first opportunity to leave and consolidate their holdings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Greg Boeser
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
2 3
Replies
48
Views
974
RCAFson
R
S
Battle of Britain:
Replies
15
Views
772
fubar57
S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
GregP
G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register