Wednesday, April 23, 2014
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

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

By
February 8, 2011 | 4 Comments

EDITOR:

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.

LARRY McHENRY

Pollock Pines

Letters to the Editor

LEAVE A COMMENT

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
.

News

Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

 
More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 8 Comments

 
Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 102 Comments | Gallery

Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

 
Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3

 
.

Opinion

My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 73 Comments

 
Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

 
Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

.

Letters

‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 53 Comments

 
Ukranian situation

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

Misquote

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 11 Comments

 
Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 7 Comments

 
.

Sports

Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7 | Gallery

 
.

Prospecting

4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 2 Comments

 
Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5

 
.

Essentials

Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

 
Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2, 1 Comment

 
.

Obituaries

Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 6 Comments

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
.

Real Estate

.

Comics

New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Tundra

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Shoe

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Sudoku

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Rubes

By Contributor | From Page: A8