Wednesday, April 16, 2014

World War II Japan’s war plans for Southeast Pacific…

February 8, 2011 | 4 Comments


When exceptionally important questions were to be discussed, the emperor would attend a meeting known as the “Privy Council.” The emperor along with his military staff did review the war plan, dated Sept. 6, 1941, that defined the Imperial Japanese Army and the Imperial Japanese Navy  operational goals in Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific, including the Pearl Harbor attack.

After Pearl Harbor, the thrust of the IJA’s position was to secure the Southeast Pacific area as these acquisitions would protect the gains of the  Sept. 6, 1941, war plan, that is, making Japan self-supporting as an industrial power and support the Japanese war machine.

The IJA and the IJN were separate-but-equal entities, each with its own air force. The IJA and the IJN must agree on a joint undertaking, otherwise the operation had to be postponed or abandoned.

By January 1942, when it appeared that all Sept. 6 war plan operational goals would be achieved, the IJA and IJN wanted to strengthen their grip on Southeast Pacific. The IJN favored an attack on Australia. But the IJA absolutely refused to agree to this operation due to long supply lines, immense distances and 100 divisions. Then the IJA counter-proposed the capture of Fort Moresby (Southeast New Guinea.) The IJN, in turn, proposed the progressive occupation of strategic points in New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, the Fiji Islands and Samoa. But the IJA refused to agree to the New Caledonia, Fiji and Samoa invasions. Both the IJA and IJN agreed on the invasion of Port Moresby as well as the Solomon Islands.

The Japanese plan was to choke off Australia by breaking the supply line between Australia and the U.S.

Because of Admiral Yamamoto’s immense prestige, his Combined Fleet Staff exercised great influence to determine strategy. They had considered an attack against Australia, but decided instead to plan an attack on Hawaii. However, they soon concluded that Hawaii was too distant, too well defended and too large for a fleet attack to succeed.

Then Admiral Yamamoto and his CFS favored an attack on Midway Island, 1,100 miles west of Hawaii, the purpose being to draw out the Pacific Fleet/aircraft carriers and strengthen Japan’s defensive perimeter. Note: the IJA did approve the Midway invasion, but only supplied an enhanced regiment team from Saipan, with the agreement that it would be withdrawn once the island was secured.

On April 18, 1942, James Doolittle’s B-25 raid on Tokyo forced Japan to accelerate plans to invade New Guinea/Solomons and Midway Island.

The U.S. crypto/intelligence pointed to a Japanese attack on Port Moresby (code letters MO) in early May. At this time U.S. crypto reported that the Central Pacific area had nil radio traffic. This intelligence permitted Admiral Nimitz to station two U.S. aircraft carriers in the Coral Sea. The resulting naval battle ended any Japanese invasion of Port Moresby by sea. And two Japanese carriers were scratched from the Midway invasion fleet. Thus Admiral Yamamoto had only four carriers for the Midway attack, scheduled for the first week of June 1942.

The large commitment of Japanese army troops to this Southeast Pacific operation meant that the Japanese army would not have had troops available to support a Hawaii invasion, assuming that the Midway Battle had been won by Japan, as letter writer James Longhofer has conjectured.


Pollock Pines

Letters to the Editor


Discussion | 4 comments

  • James LonghoferFebruary 08, 2011 - 10:44 am

    Mr.McHenry, this subject is getting a bit stale. The topic was never whether sufficient troops would have been available, the topic was whether Japan had a plan to invade Hawaii and then southern California. There was such a plan and it went down with its author and ship during the Midway battle -- this was confirmed by Mr. Stephan's book "Hawaii Under The Rising Sun, Japan's Plans for Conquest After Pearl Harbor." Finis.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James LonghoferFebruary 14, 2011 - 5:26 pm

    Mr. McHenry, your letter will be published in the paper. I've tried twice to get a response to also be published in the paper, but with no luck. Strange, very strange. If the Editors feel this subject is past its stale date, why did they published your letter? So, debate is now quashed for print readers. Censorship? Strange, very strange.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James LonghoferFebruary 15, 2011 - 1:14 pm

    Perhaps the Editor can come on the web and explain. I didn't use bad words and I didn't call Mr. McHenry an idiot. I only reminded him he was attacking the wrong hill. Maybe my politics have angered the Editor? Who knows? The silence is deafening.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James LonghoferFebruary 15, 2011 - 1:20 pm

    There are, of course, three "Editors" at the Mt. Democrat. Only one need reply if so inclined.

    Reply | Report abusive comment


Greenwood School being restored

By Rebecca Murphy | From Page: A1 | Gallery

Cal Fire increasing staffing, hiring

By Cal Fire | From Page: B1

EID restricts watering days

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A1, 10 Comments

Lover’s Leap fall injures man

By Tahoe Tribune | From Page: A1

EDH Fire Dept. annexing Latrobe

By Noel Stack | From Page: A1, 7 Comments

Motorcycle fatality in Greenwood

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1

Tea Party meeting April 17

By Tea Party Patriots Of El Dorado Hills | From Page: A3, 41 Comments

Town Hall Meeting on Underage Drinking May 1

By El Dorado Hills Community Vision Coalition | From Page: A6

Floating body not a body

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A7

Old mill a goner

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A11, 6 Comments | Gallery



My turn: A fair California flat income tax

By Mark Belden | From Page: A4

DA Pierson has been outstanding

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4, 21 Comments



A great big thanks

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5

Murder? Suicide?

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 5 Comments

‘Drive Clean’

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 3 Comments

Middle class getting poorer?

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 37 Comments

Real estate lies

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 6 Comments



Outside with Charlie: Switch gear

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A8

Ponderosa volleyball is a family affair

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A8 | Gallery

Aussie team makes visit

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A8

Griz have challenging day

By Mike Bush | From Page: A8 | Gallery

Roundup: April 15, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A9 | Gallery



Runners stampede for Sugarloaf scholarships

By El Dorado County Office of Education | From Page: B2 | Gallery

At a glance: Take aim on fun

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2

Men to walk a mile in her shoes

By Center For Violence-Free Relationships | From Page: B2 | Gallery

Team works to fight disease

By Placerville Kiwanis | From Page: B3

COOL School is accepting applications

By Rescue Union | From Page: B4

Band of Miwoks fund mission

By Shingle Springs Band Of Miwok Indians | From Page: B12



Crime Log: March 25-27

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

Weather stats 4-15-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2



Numa Edward “Ed” Roberts

By Contributor | From Page: A2

Ronald Russell Rohrer

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 2 Comments


Real Estate




By Contributor | From Page: A10

Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A10

Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A10

Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A10


By Contributor | From Page: A10


By Contributor | From Page: A10

New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A10


By Contributor | From Page: A10

Horoscope, Thursday, April 17, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A10

Horoscope, Wednesday, April 16, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A10

TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A10