A Memorial Day Thought - Japanese Style

In 1960 an unusual conference was convened, between American Naval/Security officers and their Japanese counterparts to discuss conduct of WW II.

At one point in the conference, the US Officers asked the Japanese why they didn't invade the US Mainland after Pearl Harbour.

The Japanese made a few excuses, like logistics, war planning, resources etc. But when they were pressed, they said that invasion of the US homeland was never really on the agenda...because (their words) "we knew behind every blade of grass was an American Rifleman."

Funny how this story doesn't get told more often ... might give some of our current enemies pause, that private gun ownership could cause unacceptable losses.

 

Still interesting that the Japanese did fire on the U.S.
I sure wouldn't call it an invasion, but a round or so
from the Land of the Rising Sun did land on U.S soil..>
www.militarymuseum.org/LAWWII.html

 

Yeah so, it's the very same resoning behind us not invading the home islands.

 

Actually we didn't need to invade and they couldn't invade.

 

Certainly the widespread ownership of firearms in the US would have been something for hypothetical Japanese invaders to contend with, but "logistics" is hardly a vague or evasive excuse. After all, it took the combined might of the US, Great Britain, and Canada at the peak of their wartime strength to transport just a few divisions the distance of the English Channel, under conditions of Allied air and naval superiority, against a beleaguered and reduced enemy that had shifted the bulk of their armed forces eastwards against the USSR. Even then it was a very chancy thing.

If that was a "logistical" problem that was difficult even for the United States in 1944 to solve, imagine the task that Japanese planners would have faced. Absolutely no way they could have done it, even had they wanted to, even if privately-owned firearms had been outlawed and confiscated in 1865. This is in no way meant to denigrate the exceptional valor and sacrifice of American troops in the Pacific Theater, but in a certain fundamental way, Japan was never really a direct "threat" to the US in the sense that Germany was a "threat" to France or the USSR, due in large part to our geographical isolation from militarily powerful enemies.

 

It's interesting to look back at the events leading up to US involvement in WWII. It really was almost inevitable that Japan would have to confront the US if it was to continue on its imperialist track toward Pacific domination, but what if they had decided to take a diplomatic rather than military route?
Rather than attacking the Philippines and Hawaii, what if they had simply stayed their course in mainland Asia, consolidating the siezed territories and playing nice with the US otherwise?
It probably would have taken direct action by Germany, such as the use of long-range bombers to attack US cities, for the American government to get moving against the Axis.

Anyway, the only reason Japan was not swept clean by a land offensive was the bomb. The Japanese people owe the scientists of the Manhattan project their deepest gratitude for preserving them as a nation.

 

I've seen that same quote attribute to Admiral Yamamoto. It would be nice to track down exactly where it came from, or if it has an authenticated source at all.

As far as why they didn't invade, they really never planned to land troops in California. They did take some islands up here, but only as a diversion. However, if Midway had gone their way they might well have followed up on those landings by rolling up the Aleutians in 1943 and taking Kodiak and strategic areas in SE. From there they could have bombed Vancouver and Seattle.

Long term, however, they had NO plans of taking over the US and no resources to do it if they did have plans. The wanted to force us to give up territorial claims and end sanctions agains them for their invasion of China. Pretty much as we had done with the Spanish and they had done with the Russians a generation earlier. However, they seriously underestimated the resolve of the US. There was never a possibility that we would give into their demands, because their attack on us

 

I've seen this myth, in various forms,

on every firearms board I've ever visited.

It's a quote from Yamamoto; it's a Japanese officer to an American one at a naval conference; it's a dockworker who USED to be an IJN officer to an American officer when the latter's ship comes into Tokyo - it's utter drivel.

As has been noted above, pure logistics precluded a Japanese invasion of the American homeland. The rest is jingoistic fabrication.

 

But, but, Ayoob said it's true, so it must be!

 

But they did invade and got their azzez kicked by a bunch of Inuick(sic?) Servicemen,,,

 

Hardly an "invasion"

The entire operation was merely a diversion from the attack on Midway. It was never a serious effort.

And it's "Inuit" if you mean the native population. The servicemen were whatever were assigned there.

 

crucial perceptions

Maybe someone can verify. I had read somewhere; sorry I forgot to take my memory pill this morning, that what encouraged the attack on the US in the first place was reports from spies -diplomats, that our soldiers in the Southern military bases, LA in particular, were training with broomsticks instead of rifles. It was concluded that we had a shortage of rifles and more important the lack of will power to supply an army, and that army to fight.

So what? Well today with our troops being mostly NG and R.Reserve, we may be percieved by our enemies as vunerable again. The "dowsizing" it was called, of our military forces that occurred in the eighties and ninetys has weakened our national defense.

Yes, we have new sophisticated, advanced weaponry, etc. But it is all hyperexpensive, that is very limited in quantities, and difficult also to replace in the event that there is a critical requirement for more. It also requires long training periods for the operators of it to replace any personnel that are gone.

Finally, the funds obtained by cutting our military have not been used to reduce taxes upon us, but instead have merely been transferred laterally to other government programs that ingraciate our senators and representatives with their constituency. Greed and corruption instead of strong defense of the USA is what I'm implying.

Salute to all you veterans and patriots.

Jim Thomas

 

Yes, it was a diversion. But that's not all it was. The Japanese Army had longer term plans to roll up the chain into Kodiak and Anchorage. Moreover, the attacks they did conduct were extremely serious efforts. Their immediate goal was to divert naval forces to the North Pacific, but that doesn't mean the force was a paper tiger. The battle to liberate Attu was the second bloodiest of the war for Americans in proportion of troops engaged. Only Iwo Jima was worse. The military kept the truth of how bad it was from the American people, and even today most folks think the Japanese never really drew blood on American soil. That's a myth. The took over our territory, bombed our towns and fought like hell to keep their toe-hold in the air on the seas and on the ground.

When they first arrived in 1942, there were almost no regular army troops in the state. The residents of Kodiak and Anchorage were told they would have to choose whether to give up or fight if the Japanese landed. We had ALMOST NOTHING to stop them at that time in the formal military forces. The air forces consisted of some outdated trainers and some Catalinas, which were so heroically used against the enemy positions the Japanese buried the pilots who crashed on land with full honors. Nobody remembers this, which is pretty sad esp. on Memorial Day.

If the Japanese had opted to push forward in '42, it would have been up to a rag-tag mix of territorial guard units and locals with rifles to stop them.

Many thousands of Inuit and Yupik natives were in fact trained as armed scouts and served in that capacity. They continued to serve through the Cold War, when they were the only real ground defense we had in the more remote border regions near the USSR.

Also, let us never forget that Japanese territorial desires may not have included California, but they most certainly included Hawaii and Alaska. While the oil reserves in Kenai and the slope hadn't been found, the state was a known repository if unbelievable amounts of coal and precious metals. This was not lost on the Japanese and if the US sued for peace as expected the territory would most certainly have been on their list of demanded concessions.

 

This story has been repeated many times. I think that it is apocryphal though, as no one can seem to come up with a reference to the actual meeting, or conversation.

 

yea, you know what else was impossible? Torpedos working in Pearl Harbor because the bay is too shallow. Impossible, cannot be done. I guess aliens must have sunken those ships.

You know what else was impossible, constructing of two battleships who were extremely bigger than anythign any other nation in the world could float, when under careful supervision and restriction, out of what was for the most part scrap metal.

Sure, the logistics of landing a japanese force on US soil seems impossible, but that is because no one bothered putting the work into making it possible. I have no doubt that if the japanese desired it so, they could have delayed pearl by a year or two and made more ships, planes, etc, and also concentrated on huge troop transports.

Yes, the USA is in a nice location strategically, but only because Canada and Mexico never became world powers in their own right, and only because these same nations never became partners with our enemy. And believe me, during WWI, the germans tried to get the mexicans to join them and invade the US from the south as a diversion. I have on doubt that if this diversion, or the Japanese diversion in Alaska had worked, once the fighting had settled down elseware, the 'diversion' woudl have become the 'new front'

 

It's a good point, though the danger of invasion of the mainland was extremely remote in the 40's. However, *IF* the war had gone the way Japan hoped we would have given them our Pacific territories and likely promised not to build a Pacific navy again. This would have put them in the driver's seat for the next half century. The Japan of 1942 was in no position to launch a full scale invasion of the US mainland, but what about the Empire of Japan of 1962? Thanks to the sacrifice of those we honor today, we never had to find out.

 

Reality check

Utter nonsense. The British proved the viability of shallow-running torpedoes in their successful attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto (which probably gave the Japanese the idea).

An equally implausible and unsubstantiated assertion. Each ship was well engineered and of the highest quality material available (just because it began as scrap metal does not mean it was never refined and reforged). Both Yamato and Nagato - the ships you failed to identify - were built in huge sheds which covered the dock they were built in, as each was well beyond the limits of the naval treaty. Security was absolute, for obvious reasons.

There is NO basis for your declaration that these ships were "extremely bigger than anythign [sic] any other nation in the world could float;" other nations simply did not allocate their resources to their navy as much as Japan, a small island nation, needed to. Note that Germany, while primarily a land power, still built Bismarck, Tirpitz, Graf Spee and other superb warships.

We got hammered at Pearl because the respective commanders - like this country in general at that time - had their heads up their butts. NO perimeter patrols, NO aircraft umbrella, NO ammunition in forward areas (Gen Short was more afraid of guerillas than invasion); even NO RESPONSE after Ward sank the Jap mini-sub trying to enter Pearl Harbor.

It's not hard to defeat an opponent who's deaf, dumb and blind........

 

Yamato's sister ship was name Musashi, not Nagato. Nagato was laid down in 1917. She actually survived the war and was expended as a test target at Bikini Atoll.

But Yamato and Musashi were constructed in secret, in violation of the Washington Treaty.

 

Can't vouch for the veracity of the following, but have no reason to doubt.
A few yrs back a friend reported that he had been flying back east from CA. He had a copy of American Rifleman for reading to pass the time. Seated next to him was an attractive Asian woman (aren't they all?!). During the ensuing conversation she disclosed that her grandfather had been on the Japanese General Staff (his name now escapes me) and he had said the same as above; i.e.: Invasion of the US mainland was thought of impossible to achieve victory due to the armed citizenry.

Bob

 

Great quote--if it's true. Sounds like an urban legend. Got a way to authenticate that for us?

K

 

I stand by my assessment of "impossible", although I don't believe I actually used that word. Designing shallow-water torpedoes and unusually large battleships is one thing, mounting a cross-ocean invasion of the most industrially powerful nation on Earth with an army and navy that was already in 1941 perilously overextended and and on very shaky logistical grounds, to say nothing of their comparative backwardness in small arms and particularly armor, if not aviation and shipbuilding (at least at the outbreak of the war) is another. I would dispute the plausibility of Japan even assembling a theoretically sufficient force and getting it to the coast without it being mauled to the point of uselessness, let alone its fate were it to successfully establish a beachhead.

Although the use of nuclear weapons mooted "Downfall", it was considered by many (such as Admiral Nimitz) to be a very doubtful operation, and that was an invasion plan by a nation at the peak of its industrial and military might, possessed of relatively efficient and secure lines of communication, against an enemy whose industrial plant was in ruins and whose armed forces were essentially destroyed.

 

-----------quote----------
yea, you know what else was impossible? Torpedos working in Pearl Harbor because the bay is too shallow. Impossible, cannot be done. I guess aliens must have sunken those ships.
--------------------------

Not really an apt comparison. The belief that the depth of Pearl was a defense against torpedoes was mistaken, and it was demonstrably mistaken even at the time because the British had already successfully attacked the Italian fleet at Taranto under similar conditions.

Economic and logistic realities are a different kettle of fish. The assertion that logistic and economic power win wars is not a mistaken assumption, then, now, or ever.

The Japanese never had the resources to militarily defeat the US on the battle field. Many of them were too fanatical to see that, but some of them knew. Yammamoto himself predicted that he could "run wild" against the Americans for 6 months to a year before American industry was fully mobilized and US superiority became crushing. That prediction turned out to be just about exactly true.

An inferior power undertaking a surprise raid and scoring an unexpected short term victory? Sure, it can happen and it did happen at Pearl Harbor. But translating that into a long term victory over a totally superior power, invading and occupying the US? No way. Wasn't going to happen. The best they could have hoped for was discouraging the American will to fight and settling a negotiated peace.

---------quote-------------
It really was almost inevitable that Japan would have to confront the US if it was to continue on its imperialist track toward Pacific domination, but what if they had decided to take a diplomatic rather than military route?
Rather than attacking the Philippines and Hawaii, what if they had simply stayed their course in mainland Asia, consolidating the siezed territories and playing nice with the US otherwise?
---------------------------

Not so sure about this one. Before Pearl Harbor, the isolationist mood was dominant in American politics. The idea of going to war to defend some far-off Asian country's interests would have been a very difficult sell.

I don't think Japan had the option of continuing war against China under the US economic sanctions, because they were dangerously short of petroleum. For the Dec '41 offensives, they had to use up their strategic oil stockpiles with no feasible way of ever replenishing them, unless they were able to capture oil resources in Indonesia or get the US to drop the sanctions. The Philipines sat across the sea routes between Indonesia and Japan, and so the Japanese felt they had to control the Philipines in order to secure their access to Indoneisan oil fields.

An interesting alternative history is what would have happened if the Japanese had gone after Indonesia etc., but left the Philipines and Pearl Harbor alone? If the US didn't go to war to protect Manchuria or China, I doubt we would have gone to war to protect Indonesia. In that scenario, the Japanese might have gotten everything they wanted without ever having to fight the US, and it's a question whether we even would have wound up fighting Germany since it was Pearl Harbor and the US declaration of war on Japan that led Hitler to declare war on the US.

 

Don't forget they actually built three of those things, but the Shinano was changed to an aircraft carrier while under contruction. Never operational and sunk by a US sub, IIRC.

The mention of fuel reserves remind me of something: When the Yamato went on its grand suicide mission, the Japanese were out of bunker oil, almost completely. They sent a bunch of troops into the depot's storage tanks with hand pumps and buckets to get whatever was left in order to tank up the battleship.

 

Was the US really considered the most industrially powerful country on earth? I thought that really didn't happen until WWII and after. We had a very small and weak military before the war. Many of the aircraft and weapons that really won the war were developed during it with some important exceptions. I don't think we even started looking at ramping up the military until 1939 or 1940.

I had a miliary history professor who thought the Japanese screwed up by attacking Pearl. He thought they should have invaded the Phillipines which would have obligated us to send our fleet out. At the beginning of the war, the Japanese navy had better planes, pilots, and better naval gunnery and operations (especially night operations). Ignoring US possessions all together as mentioned above might have been a good move as well.

Also, I would say the Japanese wouldn't have invaded mainland US simply due to lack of troops and desire. They were sending conscripts from mainland Asia to Gaudalcanal. They also had other land operations in the works for New Guniea and Australia. I think things would have to have really gone their way for a couple years before they would consider such a move.

 

These are the only quotes I could find from Gen
Yamamoto..Don't see anything about the sleeping
monster. From here.
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/9969/milquote.html#y

ps, I can't copy it as it's under the author's copyright rules,
and I do try and adhere to a person's wishes regarding
this. It's under "Y" towards the bottom.