2015 - December - Theme Read - Warfare in the Asia-Pacific Region

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

The December theme read is on any book or books of your choice covering any aspect of the War in the Asia-Pacific Region - land, air or sea.

[Betsy]

From the introduction to the book I intend to read, THE COASTWATCHERS: OPERATION FERDINAND and the FIGHT for the SOUTH PACIFIC by Eric Feldt:

"Guadalcanal saved the Pacific, and the Coastwatchers saved Guadalcanal." - William Halsey

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

And he would know what he was talking about eh! It should be a very interesting book Betsy and I'll be keen to hear your thoughts as you get into it.

[happy]

Ian Toll's new one is in for me at the library, just in time :)
Mrs Happy will bring it home for me tomorrow.

[Betsy]

The Toll book also sounds good. Hopefully, I'll get to it eventually.

As for Halsey, I don't it's surprising that he's so closely identified with Guadalcanal. After all the movie, "The Gallant Hours," paid homage to just that.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

happy wrote: "Ian Toll's new one is in for me at the library, just in time :)
Mrs Happy will bring it home for me tomorrow.

"

Keen to hear your views Happy, I have that book plus the second volume. I may try and squeeze the first one in as well if I can.

[Liam]

This month's theme read will provide me with a good reason to read Daniel Ford's Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and the American Volunteer Group. Every time I look at it I feel a bit guilty, because about 12 years ago Mr. Ford told me he thought I might enjoy it, and it's taken me this long to finally get around to reading it! After all, it's not been often that I've had the privilege of a recommendation from a writer of Mr. Ford's calibre...

[Mike, Assisting Moderator US Forces]

I thought it was pretty good Liam. I read the revised version published in 2007 with updated tallies on claims of both sides. Hope you enjoy it.

[Colin]

I knew and interviewed a few of the Flying Tigers, great guys, RIP

[Paul]

I'm currently reading "The Conquering Tide" by Ian Toll.



He mentions December 7, 1941, and then states that the Japanese always followed the method of bombing first and then landing troops to occupy, and this strategy was followed in the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, etc.

My question for the group (and one that Toll doesn't attempt to explain) is this: why didn't the Japanese invade Hawaii? The pretense of the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was one of liberating indigenous peoples from the influence of the Europeans; why didn't Hawaii qualify on those grounds? And although Hawaii was a territory of the U.S. (not becoming a state until 1959), there was much less certainty of victory in Singapore - the "Gibraltar of the East" - for the Japanese.

What are the thoughts of other members of the group on this subject?

[Manray9]

Paul wrote: "I'm currently reading "The Conquering Tide" by Ian Toll.



He mentions December 7, 1941, and then states that the Jap..."

Paul: I haven't read anything specific on the subject, but I would guess --

1. It's 6,500 miles from Tokyo to Hawaii. An invasion fleet probably wouldn't have escaped detection. The fleet would have been opposed by the U.S. Navy's carrier forces and subs before reaching Hawaiian waters. The logistics of supporting such a force so far out on a limb were daunting. Japan didn't possess a substantial fleet train.
2. Hawaii was a fortified outpost. Navy, air corps, and army elements were there in number. There were about 45,000 troops in two infantry divisions plus the National Guard present, along with 230 aircraft, a large coastal artillery establishment, and a significant naval force.
3. Most importantly, it wasn't in their planning to project that far away from the essential areas they wanted to control. Any forces left in Hawaii would have been left dangling. What would be the "upside" of occupying Hawaii? No oil, no rubber, no rice, just plenty of pineapples.

[Dimitri]

With Ian W. Toll taken, are The Two-Ocean War and Nemesis: The Battle For Japan, 1944 45not too overdone for this theme read ?

[Paul]

Manray9 wrote: "Paul wrote: "I'm currently reading "The Conquering Tide" by Ian Toll.



He mentions December 7, 1941, and then states..."

Playing devil's advocate, I think you're right about the dangling part and the lack of strategic resources, and the distance was rather large, but the forces and fortifications didn't keep them from attacking Singapore, Indonesia, New Guinea, etc. The distance was also not big enough to deter the planning of the attempted Midway invasion less than six months later. And if they could have captured the Hawaiian Islands, there would not have been any significant Allied presence between the West Coast of the U.S. and Australia.

I think as much as anything, the correct answer is your last sentence: "No oil, no rubber, no rice, just plenty of pineapples."

[Dimitri]

Jack wrote: "I am excited to read Robert Leckie's Strong Men Armed: The United States Marines Against Japan. This chronicles the Marines exploits from Guadalcanal through Okinawa. I'm a sucker fo..."

Leckie of the elegant pen ? that's a TBR !

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I will be interested to hear your views on Strong Men Armed: The United States Marines Against Japan. I have been tempted to buy a copy but have held off so far. I read his book on Guadalcanal not long ago:

by Robert Leckie

[Howard]

All the comments why the Japanese did not go for Hawaii, especially at an early stage, are well represented. Look at what happened at Kiska and Attu. The main point about Hawaii, other than hysterical conspiracy theories, is that the Japs blundered horribly by not striking (perhaps with another round of two waves, the oil storage and dock/repair facilities that would have forced the US to base out of the West Coast. It would have made the prosecution of the Pacific War a lot more difficult for the USA. Our submarine operations, which were one of our few weapons early on, would have really been stretched.

[Manray9]

Howard wrote: "All the comments why the Japanese did not go for Hawaii, especially at an early stage, are well represented. Look at what happened at Kiska and Attu. The main point about Hawaii, other than hysteri..."

I agree, Howard, but doubt there was enough striking power (i.e. aircraft capable of enough sorties and adequate bomb loads) in the Japanese carrier force to destroy the ships of the fleet, the shore-based air forces, the oil facilities and drydock/ship repair installations. It was a raid, not a sustained air campaign.

[Howard]

The Japanese focus on the South was so fixed, the only reason for the Pearl Harbor attack was to reduce our naval power to interfere. I think they actually considered it as a side operation, a parry rather than a thrust. They also gave up any plans for going against the Soviet Union. Their plan ran very well as far as it went, but was obviously flawed in a number of ways. The fact that they did not want to risk their carriers around Hawaii after surprise was lost argues for this idea. Yes, they knew they did not catch the carriers in port, but they sought to engage our carriers frequently and I haven't read anything about the Japanese fearing or even respecting our naval aviation until after Midway.

[carl]

Good to read the early reviews of the various books for the month.

I've had this one on the shelf, so I'll take off with this one :



Finish Forty and Home: The Untold World War II Story of B-24s in the Pacific

[Dj]

Paul wrote: "I'm currently reading "The Conquering Tide" by Ian Toll.



He mentions December 7, 1941, and then states that the Jap..."

So first most of the land invasions were performed by the Army. Early on the Army decided that Hawaii was to big with to large a military presence to far away to be supplied to take in the initial stages of the campaign. Also, the immediate concern for the Japanese was to create a barrier that the US would have to crack through. Hawaii wasn't on their list of objectives for this barrier at any time. Midway didn't get on the list until after the Doolittle Raid. Even Dutch Harbor was never actually put on that list as far as I can tell.

The initial stages of the war the Japanese were focused on two things, resources and the ability to be used in their defensive barrier. In a very real sense Hawaii has neither of these. A lack of raw materials and to close to the West Coast for the Japanese to feel at ease in being able to secure the islands, or even just one of them and fortify it with any appreciable speed. So their priority targets were more to the south.

Also there was a question of ability. The Japanese were using the bulk of their naval air to perform the attack on Pearl, but the rest of the fleet was spread far and wide conducting operations in many different and mutually unsupportable locations. To take the island the force would have to stay in the area for an extended amount of time which would throw off the time tables that were set in place. (The Japanese were big on very complex plans) Also at the time there was a general lack of regard for the power of air attacks. Not surprising when one considers the time frame, even with the Japanese having the best Naval Air Force in the world at the time, there was still concerns of their being able to pull off the attack on Pearl Harbor successfully. So much so that Yammamoto had to threaten to resign to get the go ahead. Something that would come back and bit the Japanese Navy in the future.

So all in all, an invasion of Hawaii was never really a deep consideration on the part of the Japanese.

[happy]

Paul wrote: "I'm currently reading "The Conquering Tide" by Ian Toll.



He mentions December 7, 1941, and then states that the Jap..."

I made a mistake in what Mrs Happy brought home from the library for me. It was this book she brought home. I started it today.

One slightly amusing observation from the prologue. It talking about the Solomon Islands, prewar Europeans said the most attractive view of the islands, "was from the stern of a departing ship".

Paul, James Scott goes into this a little bit in his book Target Tokyo: Jimmy Doolittle and the Raid That Avenged Pearl Harbor. It comes down to interservice rivalry. The original attack was always intended as a hit and run raid. The Navy had made plans for the invasion later on, but the Army was concentrating on China and South East Asia and wouldn't release the resources to accomplish it.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Hi Jack, I thought it was OK but nothing great but I think most readers enjoyed it a lot more than me. I'm not sure now why I only gave it 3 stars, maybe I need to go back and re-read it.

[Lee]

Paul wrote: My question for the group (and one that Toll doesn't attempt to explain) is this: why didn't the Japanese invade Hawaii? "

As mentioned above, the Japanese had neither the troops available nor the ships to move them.

Somewhere on the web (where, I can no longer find it), someone ran a map-analysis of Oahu, its beaches, and the defenses in place in 1941. The summary that I can remember ran something like this: The southern coast had the best beaches, and the existing prewar defenses were concentrated here. The east and west coasts had poor to no beaches and/or high surf, and were backed by mountains, allowing the defenders time to concentrate to meet them. The north coast was the farthest from Pearl Harbor, and also had poor beaches.

The Japanese Army's doctrine for landings was to try to land at unopposed beaches, seeking surprise. They had no training or equipment for naval gunfire support (their ships could and did shoot shore targets, but not with guidance from the beaches) or tactical air support. Going into a fortified position like Oahu would have been nearly impossible for them, IMO.

[carl]

If you ever get to Waikiki, besides the scenery, is Fort DeRussy, right there in the middle of the beach. It's a museum now, which has the underground bunkers that you can tour and shows how the shore batteries would operate. You don't hear about this in the tourist brouchures.

It had 14 inch guns, when they tested them after Pearl, the concussion did more damage to the hotels than the Japanese.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Another monthly theme read and in true WWII group it brings interesting discussion with it. Thanks to Paul for asking the question and other members for joining in to provide thoughts.

[Dj]

Lee wrote: "Paul wrote: My question for the group (and one that Toll doesn't attempt to explain) is this: why didn't the Japanese invade Hawaii? "

As mentioned above, the Japanese had neither the troops avail..."

It is an interesting point about equipment. Imagine a opposed beach landing in what basically amount to nothing more than Life Boats. Those nifty landing craft that they show in war movies (or talk about in books) were almost all developed during the war.

[Paul]

Howard wrote: "All the comments why the Japanese did not go for Hawaii, especially at an early stage, are well represented. Look at what happened at Kiska and Attu. The main point about Hawaii, other than hysteri..."

Yeah, that's why I asked the question - it would have made the front line in the naval war the west coast of the mainland, not Hawaii. All naval action by the U.S. in the theater would have been defensive.

Also, the Aleutians campaign wasn't begun until June 1942, so they didn't have that reference point.

[Paul]

happy wrote: "Paul wrote: "I'm currently reading "The Conquering Tide" by Ian Toll.



He mentions December 7, 1941, and then states..."

Thanks, happy. I'm glad you're reading the same book - the reason I started with this is because I thought you had the first one. (For those that don't know, happy and I share the same library system.)

Toll also talks about the interservice rivalry. I'm glad you brought up that it was a plan for later; that seems to answer the question partially, because even though the Aleutians campaign was meant primarily as a diversion (and the Aleutians did't have much in the way of resources or strategic value), it was not an exception to the rule of an invasion following the original attack as posed in my original question.

Thanks to everyone for the comments on this discussion!

[carl]

Dj wrote: " It is an interesting point about equipment. Imagine a opposed beach landing in what basically amount to nothing more than Life Boats

good point on the landing craft. On Wake Island, the Japanese finally resorted to beaching a ship full of men.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Some great posts here, a very interesting discussion indeed. I hope to join you guys with a good book soon. Maybe I should start with Toll's first book :)

[Betsy]

From Commander Feldt's book on the Coastwatchers, he discusses what qualities a coastwatcher needed to possess: "They would have to know, as well as or better than their superiors, what they were there for, what information was of value, and how it would be used."

Military discipline was not a top priority, but the ability to think for themselves was. Definitely a different kind of war.

[Betsy]

The coastwatchers needed to be handy at many tasks, including such things as impromptu dentistry. One coastwatcher named Williams was forced to pull three teeth of one of the native helpers who had developed an abcess. Using only pliers and a stiff drink of brandy as anesthetic, Williams pulled the teeth. Afterwards, he demanded a drink of brandy for himself, saying he needed it as much as the native. He was given a cup of tea.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

That's a great story Betsy! :)

[Betsy]

Have finished the Feldt book. Unfortunately, he became ill in March of 1943 so part of the book does not reflect his direct views, but he obviously was quite familiar with the events that followed.

After talking about the courage and ingenuity of the coastwatchers, and the loyalty and devotion of the natives who risked their lives to rid their islands of the Japanese, Feldt went on to say:

"For all the help that FERDINAND received from Allied forces, in a way it owed most to the unwitting help of the enemy. The mistakes made by the Japanese, the fact that they apparently never fully realized what damage was being done them by a few skillful, resolute men, did most to reward FERDINAND'S effort with success."

[happy]

Due to Christmas stuff, my read, The Conquering Tide: War in the Pacific Islands, 1942-1944, is not going as quickly as I'd like, but here are a couple of quotes that I like

Pg 5 Henry Stimpson, Sec of War on the causes of the interservice rivalry in the US military

"grew mainly from the peculiar psycology of the Navy Department, which frequently seemed to retire from the realm of logic into a dim religious world in which Neptune was God, Mahan his prophet and teh United States Navy the only true church"

pg 124 describing Nimitz trip to Noumea in Sept '42

"Nothing provided a more visceral sense of the immensity of the Pacific thatn flying across it in a World War II-era aircraft"

[Manray9]

happy wrote: "Due to Christmas stuff, my read, The Conquering Tide: War in the Pacific Islands, 1942-1944, is not going as quickly as I'd like, but here are a couple of quotes that I like

Pg 5 ..."

After all, Stimson was the Secretary of War.

[happy]

I was thinking of you as I typed that :)

[Manray9]

happy wrote: "I was thinking of you as I typed that :)"

What would Frank Knox or Jim Forrestal have said? We navy people always readily admitted:

"The U. S. Navy boasted 200 years of tradition, unhampered by progress."

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Great quotes Happy and MR9, I enjoyed them :)

[Michael]

I am not sure how this book would actually be categorized with regard to the theme read.

by Raghu Karnad

It deal with India and the role of at least some units of the Indian Army in World War 2. Some of the book takes place on the subcontinent so I am assuming it could fit for the Pacific Theater. However, some Indian units served in the European Theater so will let the moderators advise me.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

It will be fine for this theme read, keep us posted on how it's going.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Michael wrote: "I am not sure how this book would actually be categorized with regard to the theme read.

by [authorimage:Raghu Karnad|69..."

I'll be interested in your thoughts Michael.

[Colin]

Indian troops were heavily engaged in Malaya and Burma. I interviewed VC recipient Umrau Singh who served in that campaign.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I am going to start reading this book for the theme read although I am taking some liberty with the parameters of the theme :)

Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze by Peter Harmsen

I figured it involved the Japanese and it merges into WW2.

[Dimitri]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I am going to start reading this book for the theme read although I am taking some liberty with the parameters of the theme :)

"

So if we do a Chinese theater theme, we can reach out into the Pacfic ;-)

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I tend to have the very simplistic view that wherever the Japanese fought was the Pacific which I know isn't the case but I didn't feel like breaking it up into the various theatres :)

I changed the title of the thread to warfare in the Asia-Pacific Region.

[Michael]

Geevee wrote: "Michael wrote: "I am not sure how this book would actually be categorized with regard to the theme read.

by [authorimage..."

A couple of things I have read or thought so far with regard to India and WW2. I had not been aware that at least one Indian unit surrendered in Burma agreed to switch over to the Japanese. This apparently happened among Indian POW who were fighting against Germany and Italy as well. When one looks at the desire for Indian independence, the resistance the British toward Indian independence and the political climate in India prior to and during the war it is not surprising that these switches would take place.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

You might find this information on Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army (INA) of interest Michael:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_...

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

In my current book on the Battle of Shanghai in 1937 I found this account quite interesting:

" ... Like most other Japanese, Watanabe had been surprised by the tenacity of the Chinese defenders, and the sheer number of those willing to die for their cause. On the occasions when he had the chance to inspect conquered Chinese pillboxes, he was awestruck by the sight of dead defenders literally lying in layers. Childlike features showed that many of them couldn't even have reached the age of 20. Some of the Chinese corpses were still clutching their rifles, and the Japanese often found it impossible to prise them from their hands. It was, they said, as if their ghosts had returned to offer resistance."

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Also just read about 'China's Himmler', Chiang Kai-shek's spy master, Dai Li:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_Li

Book on the subject:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/...