Pearl Harbor and then??

Actually the battleships were the number one target. The CVs were second on the list from what I recall. The true impact of the carrier was far from clear at that point.

 

This is what I have found as for their goal. They at least wanted to stall for time enough to expand towards the South and obtain raw materials needed for their war machine. With the exception of Yamamoto, I do not think they were aware of the capability of the US to recover in such a short time.

 

formerjughead;

Ups..has this question of mine been discussed before?

Then I wonder what Y. would have left on historical anecdote if the carriers had been sunk.

It was more of an interpretation of contradicting assumtions.

For one the Japanese assume that taking out two carriers would lead to neutralizing the Americans threat for ...some time, whilst at the same time they envision Americas industrial greatness.

As brndirt 1 already forwarded it- Pearl might or was ment to buy time. It certainly (IMO) didn't mean taking the US out of the war. And this is the point that I am trying to make.

The Japanese attacked Pearl as such awakening a sleeping giant - no matter if the two carriers survived or would have been sunk - and then?

Okay as mcoffee forwarded - get their back free to get their hands on Guam and the Phillipines + some South East Asia - and then?

Even the Japanese must have been aware that attacking the US ment war - in the meantime they would occupy Asia - great - How many carriers did the Japanese have in planing at 1941 for 1943-45? to tward off a USA that had been placed at war since 1941?

Allright let's say the Japanese would have succeeded in Asia as they did historically in addition to two US carriers having been sunk in 1941.

No Midway, no Coral sea, - means the Japanese could have positioned themselves better against Australia and India.

They would however have certainly noticed that by 1943/44 the US were steaming across the Pacific towards their new Greater Asia - and then?

So who would wait for two years watching the enemy building up his forces? instead of using the enemies weakness and attack. But where are the plans for attacking the US mainland? Or did they have plans to occupy Pearl Harbour after the initial strike that would need to include the two carriers as having being sunk?

Sorry, I still don't get it.

Regards
Kruska

 

A kind of proof in regards to this statement would be of interest to me, as well as an existing plan to exploit the destruction of the US fleet in regards to attacking the US mainland or at least occupying Pearl Harbour.

Regards
Kruska

 

Yamamoto had spend a number of years in the US, studying at Harvard for a time and when he was called back to the home islands, he traveled across the US from east to west by train. This gave him a very good idea of not only the size of the US, but since the train lines went through a great many of our industrial centers on the route he was well aware of our industrial and agricultural capacity.

General Kurabayashi had also spent years in Canada studying, and at least one in the US, I think he was stationed at DC, but at a different time than Yamamoto. Both of these men were aware of the capability of the Americans in production, and both felt war with America would be folly.

Yamamoto took his assignment of devising a "quick and decisive blow" to heart and did his best. Pearl was his plan, as was Midway. But I think the Midway plan kept getting altered as time went on (I could be wrong). He never said the "sleeping giant" line BTW, that was invented for the film Tora, Tora, Tora. What he did say was that it was dishonorable to (paraphrasing); "strike a sleeping foe, and that he should be awakened before being struck." Referring to the lack of a declaration of war being delivered before the bombs dropped on Hawaii.

 

Here we find ouselves once again deployed to the slippery slope of the "Dead Horse". Occupation of Pearl Harbor and attacking the West Coast of the U.S. has been discussed ad nauseum. The latest ittiration of which posed that the Japanese would use english speaking superninjas disguised as US troops riding around the Island of Oahu in a bus full of prostitutes shooting dogs with silenced pistols and whacking sleepy shore patrols with nunchaku or flicking them with throwing stars all while Japanese troop ships were dropping anchor in Kaneohe bay.

It all boils down to the fact that Japan did not consider the consequences of attacking Pearl Harbor or what their actions would unleash upon the world in the summer of 1945.

 

I don't know if I can sign off on that logic. I think the Japanese could have very easily continued with the conquest of Malaysia and the Phillipines and the US might very well have stayed out of the mix until late '42.

In my opinion all Pearl Harbor accomplished was to galvanise the American resolve to avenge the attack, in the long term, as it didn't really change the balance of power in the Pacific.

I could be wrong though.

 

They didn't have to attack Pearl Harbor to get the US into the war is my point and in retrospect, due to the abscence of the Carriers, it really didn't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things. Even if the carriers had been present I don't think it would have been the devastating blow the Japanese had planned for. The ball was already rolling so to speak.

I don't see the necessity of it is all. Was Pearl Harbor the 1941 equivelant to the "World Trade center"?

 

So Pearl Harbor was attacked as much for what it represented than for what it was and the damage to any ships was just corollary.

That's the impression that I am getting from what you are saying and we generally don't disagree.

 

I am glad it's not just me. In that case I am going to stick with my ice cream theory.

 

Hello FJH,

I am not trying to make this a "What If" at all. It is not a question too me, what if the Japanese had continued to attack the West Coast.

As you mentioned already, the Japanese could have attacked Malaya, Singapore and Indonesia anyway without getting the US involved.
Attacking Pearl, or the Phillipines would not have solved their mineral and oil shortage problem - which they had or could have solved by attacking Indonesia and Malaya.

The Attack on Pearl was or can be considered as a pre-emtive strike against the US in order to prevent an imediate involvement by the US that might have hindered their conquest towards South East Asia.

However the attack on Pearl and the Phillipines made sure that now the US would be indeed involved including its vast industrial power. The destruction of the US Pacific Fleet could have been ment to buy time - for what? since as stated already - the Japanese could have attacked Malaya and Indonesia anyway.

If so then to me it leaves only three conclusions:

1. The Japanese had a solid reason to believe that the US would go against them within the next 6 month - therefore the Japs strike first
Did they have a solid reason due to the US Naval deployment from San Diego to Pearl as such, which might have had more to it (due to Japanese intel) than just a simple moving of forces - in that case they had indeed no choice, no matter how strong the US ecomomy would be or show to be.

2. The Japanese had a plan to exploit the weakness of the US Pacific fleet in regards to occupying Pearl as their own forward base - thus ridding the US of getting into striking distance towards the immediate Pacific area.
The further deployment of the San Diego forces to Pearl made the Japanese even more exited about attacking the fleet and taking Pearl.

And with a vast buildup of subs and warships to spread terror along the West coast of the US from Pearl during 1942 and 43. As such taking care of any US new builds trying to enter the Pacific.

Their intension to take Madagascar would enable them to intercept US ships that might try to enter from the US East coast via the Atlantic.

To my understanding Midway was about destroying the rest of the US Pacific Fleet and to occupy Midway and ..... Pearl?

Now the plan about Madagascar is known to be true. So once again, are their any recordings of plans form the Japanese to occupy Pearl before attacking Pearl in December 41, as part of a grand strategy towards the US?

3. It was all about ice cream version and a wrong lever used by a pilot.

Regards
Kruska

 

I started the "Ice Cream" theory this morning just to be a smart ass and get a laugh and I am sorry but Yamamoto telling the IJN that he was taking them out for Ice cream, and all the sailors on the flight decks running around with their arms in the air yelling BANZAI made me think : YAAAAAY ICE CREAM!!!!....I am still giggling.

I think it all boils down to America was going to go to war with Japan regardless of the attack on Pearl Harbor. If the US would have fared better on Dec 7th and the raid was not such a success then we would be saying remeber: Bataan, Corregidor, Wake etc, etc.