how big a threat was Japan to mainland US?

silverharp

.....in the minds of the US military at the time 41/42? did they consider an invasion a realistic threat, or just wanted to avoid the "face lost" if coastal cities were attacked from the air?

The question popped into my head when watching part of the Midway movie today. From a couple of the scenes , it seemed to be a concern of the brass.


Edit - feel free to move up to WW2 section, meant to put the post there

jonniebgood1

Any perceived fear of a japanese attack would have been a short lived reaction to pearl harbour. Japans aim was to create for themselves a super-power type nation in east and south-east asia to rival the US and european powers. The attack on pearl harbour taking out most of the US pacific fleet meant that their expansion in islands (singapore, philipines, etc) was uninhibited in the short term.

In logistical terms for Japan to attack mainland USA in 1941/42 would not have been possible. The difficulties in the D-day landings were for a relatively short crossing whereas the thousands of miles that Japan would have to cover would have been many times more difficult and unrealistic given their means at the time. Besides they had already well commited to Burma and other areas at the time.

pablomakaveli

I don't think the japanese ever planned to invade America. Americas west coast would have been too far away for the japanese to amount any sort of effective attack by air or sea.

The only form of attack that the japanese did use against the american mainland was the balloon bombs which were effectively useless although i think one of them did acutally kill a few people.

silverharp

I agree with above, without trying to use hindsight benefit, they had also just seen that crossing the English channel was a non runner. But as per the movie, the navy were under pressure non to leave the "west coast" undefended and had to hedge their bets when making tactical moves. Maybe it was just a short term overreaction

BrianD

The USA has such a natural strategic advantage of its geography that anything that Japan could do would only be short term.

Even if Japan could have expanded east into the pacific and say take Hawaii, they could have used it as a base to operate from and harass US forces from their. Even so Hawaii is remote from the USA mainland that it would be almost impossible US forces at bay. Deny them ports on the west coast and they ship them through the Panama canal or go the long way around.

Attacking the USA was probably Japans greatest strategic mistake but its hard to know what other option they had once they started the Pacific war.

helimachoptor

Agree with the above posters. A large scale invasion of the mainland was not possible. They could have done shock and awe type thing, drop in some paratroopers or a small amphibious landing and shell a city from the sea but ultimately they'd float in try and do some damage and then high tail it out of there, this type of attack would just to try to put some fear into the Americans.

They possibly may have been able to take and hold Hawaii but again their ability to use this as a launch pad for an invasion would have been negligible.

Delancey

All the above are correct . One minister in the Japanese cabinet observed that to knock the U.S. out of the war would mean '' marching into Washington D.C. '' - even the ' Hawks ' in the military knew that was impossible.

twinytwo

They bombed perl and got butt fcuked back to mainland japan... if they had tried to invade america they would have been owned.

Manic Moran

There is always this annecdote.

In 1960, Robert Menard was a commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces.
Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in each other.
Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question.
'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.'

However, in practice, I think the real reason the US military wasn't too worried about a Japanese invasion was because of all the service branches, the Navy was the only one which was in a reasonably capable condition at the outbreak of the war, and that would be the one (even without the battleships) which would deal with the Japanese supply line issue. Pearl Harbour was basically a defensive op to allow Japan to retain what it had, not to preclude an invasion of the American mainland.

NTM

Delancey

Quote:
In 1960, Robert Menard was a commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces.
Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in each other.
Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question.
'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.'

I'm surprised that little gem doesn't get trotted out by the National Rifle Association every time ' Gun Control ' is mentioned

Manic Moran

I'm surprised that little gem doesn't get trotted out by the National Rifle Association every time ' Gun Control ' is mentioned

It often is, in grossly mutated form, as a mis-attribution to Yamamoto. ("A rifle behind every blade of grass", is the common phrase).

However, the argument certainly stands, was in several of the Amicus Curiae briefs in the Heller Case, and has been similarly cited in opinion by the Chief Justice of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who, being a holocaust survivor, has his own opinions on the merits of an armed population.

Of course, Swiss policy is also routinely mentioned, and is closely related.

NTM