Ken Burns' -THE WAR on PBS

[sqk7744]

On now EDT

http://www.pbs.org/thewar/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_thewarbrakenburnsfilm_ 2007-09-23

[tater]

They just said the point of Midway to the japanese was to smash the remainder of the US pacific fleet (OK, true), take Hawaii (!), hold its people hostage and force us to sue for peace. That's the most clueless thing I've heard in a while.

[sqk7744]

They just said the point of Midway to the japanese was to smash the remainder of the US pacific fleet (OK, true), take Hawaii (!), hold its people hostage and force us to sue for peace. That's the most clueless thing I've heard in a while.

Yip!

Was VERY interested in hearing the Pacific theater details.

[Capt. Shark Bait]

taped it so i'll watch it sometime tonight, being as i'm off work:o

[John Channing]

They just said the point of Midway to the japanese was to smash the remainder of the US pacific fleet (OK, true), take Hawaii (!), hold its people hostage and force us to sue for peace. That's the most clueless thing I've heard in a while.

Yup... that was the first time I've heard that theory.

So far it seems a little jingoistic. It will be interesting to see how the end of the war in Europe is handled.

JCC

[Skyhawk]

If in fact the Japanese had managed to win the battle of Midway, the scenario presented in the show could very well have played out (Although I seriously doubt the U.S. administration and D.O.D. would have given in to such an attempt at "human leverage".).

It would have had dramatic consequences and definitely effected the war in the Pacific though, no doubt about that. I don't think that IF the Japanese won the Battle of Midway and gained control of Hawaii, it would be COMPLETELY beyond all reason, to wit "clueless", that they might try and use it as leverage against the U.S. on the offhand chance it might break the American spirit early. If you can accept the immediately preceeding statement, then who is to say that it was or was not the intention ("point") of the Japanese empire at the time? Certainly though, it remains a REASONABLE possibility.

At the beginning of WWII, both the U.S. people and the Japanese people were very ignorant of each other's way of thinking. A good example of this (also in the program) was when the U.S. forces surrendered in the Philipines and the commanding U.S. officer asked only one question of the Japanese, paraphrasing here - "Will my men be treated humanely and with respect if we surrender?". While the Japanese answered yes, it was in fact not true as the Japanese regarded those who surrender rather than die in battle as low-lifes not deserving of any respect whatsoever.

You must think of the "hostage" suggestion posed by this program in terms of the way Japanese leaders were thinking at the time. Not in terms of present day norms. They had plans to take over at least part of the world, same as Hitler planned to establish a world dominated by the "perfect" race and Mussolini wanted to re-establish the great Roman empire. It certainly would not have been "beyond" the Japanese Empire to employ such a tactic. Afterall, at least one of their allies would make an attempt at genocide before the war was over. Using the population of captured enemy territory as hostages pales in comparison by ANY standard of "radical" inclination.

Clueless? I don't think so friend.


. . . "The 'what-ifs' of history stand out when one considers the alternatives: what if Nimitz's intelligence appraisals had not been followed; what if superb navigation had not brought the American bombers over the Japanese task force simultaneously? What if, despite having sunk the enemy carriers, Spruance had pursued westward into the big guns of Yamamoto's Main Force battleships? What if we had lost our carriers and the Japanese and had occupied Midway? Would it have put the Hawaiian Islands in jeopardy and forced the American defense perimeter back to the West coast? How would this have affected Allied forces in Australia and Europe? To be sure, the war would have been lengthened, and America's will to win would have been put to the test." . . .

- From the Testimony on the Historical Significance of Midway Atoll and the Battle of Midway presented to the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 109th Congress, by William S. Dudley, Chief Historian, International Midway Memorial Foundation, on May 26, 2005 -


The entire article/testimony as it was originally posted can be found at this link. (http://www.subsowespac.org/blogs/the_patrol_zone/oct_2006/pz_2006_001.shtml)

Look before you leap . . . :hmm: :yep:

[SteamWake]

They just said the point of Midway to the japanese was to smash the remainder of the US pacific fleet (OK, true), take Hawaii (!), hold its people hostage and force us to sue for peace. That's the most clueless thing I've heard in a while.

Yup... that was the first time I've heard that theory.

So far it seems a little jingoistic. It will be interesting to see how the end of the war in Europe is handled.

JCC

Its PBS for crying out loud... what do you expect ?

[tater]

Yes, clueless.

One, the Japanese never seriously entertained invading Hawaii. So it's MOOT what "might have been." The show is supposed to be a history, correct? You could argue anyfantasy, but the fact is the show said their reason for going for Midway was in invade Hawaii, take the population hostage, and use this to get a peace settlement. CLUELESS. Sure, we could imagine a fantasy where this was the case, but it was NOT part of real life japanese planning at all. I don;t have to think about the meaning of the hostage term, the Japanese never planned to invade Hawaii so they couldn't have plans to hold hostages---however you define them.

Two, the only reason to invade Midway was to lure out the US fleet. Period.

1. Midway was untenable to maintain, it was a lot farther from the japanese bases than Wake, and Wake withered at the vine from early on.

2. Midway was within bombing range of Hawaii, but that's a 2-edged sword. The IJN never interdicted supply to Hawaii in any meaningful way. US bombers would be there daily, and the japanese could do squat about it. Their own bombers would be unescorted as well, it's over 1000 miles from Midway to PH---Rabaul to Guadalcanal was 650 miles and only allowed the zekes limited combat time before they needed to RTB.

3. Any attempt to hold Midway at any level would require a constant influx of planes. Planes that would come via aircraft carrier or ferry. Would make for an interesting SH4 campaign, wonder how many CVs would get sunk. All of them, I imagine ;)


tater

[FAdmiral]

In playing the game of "War in the Pacific", all this talk of distance & what ifs
plays out because the game can take any direction you want. I love playing it
because of the fact that anything can happen & usually does but the BIG
question of supply logistics comes in hard & yanks you back to reality....

JIM

[tater]

Logistics separates people who know how to fight battles, and people who know how to win wars.

The Axis in general had their collective heads up their asses regarding logistics.

tater

[John Channing]

Armchair Generals worrry about Battles.

Real Generals worry about Logistics.

JCC

[John Channing]

They just said the point of Midway to the japanese was to smash the remainder of the US pacific fleet (OK, true), take Hawaii (!), hold its people hostage and force us to sue for peace. That's the most clueless thing I've heard in a while.

Yup... that was the first time I've heard that theory.

So far it seems a little jingoistic. It will be interesting to see how the end of the war in Europe is handled.

JCC

Its PBS for crying out loud... what do you expect ?

Actually given that it is PBS I would have expected a slightly more left of center approach. This had (at times) a certain Fox Newsy "Let's roll up our sleeves and get 'er DUN, 'Merica!" kind of feel to it.

The personal stuff is interesting though.

JCC

[seafarer]

Two, the only reason to invade Midway was to lure out the US fleet. Period.

1. Midway was untenable to maintain, it was a lot farther from the japanese bases than Wake, and Wake withered at the vine from early on.


I thought Yamamoto's own writings indicate that he clearly intended to hold Midway as a defensive position for the empire. He was in part motivated by the Doolittle raid, and a determination to maintain a forward defense. All of that was explicit in his plan MI.

Yamamoto also mentioned that he thought by destroying the US fleet at Midway, combined with the invasion of the Aleutians (about which he'd had no say), might push US casualities high enough that the US might be willing to negotiate a peace. Japan being much more willing to accept high casualities as a tool to a means.

[tater]

Well, the possible US losses (perhaps causing capitulation/negotiation) goes hand in hand with luring the fleet to the warped Mahanian "decisive victory" the IJN sought—their basic overall doctrine in fact. So yeah, that was the point. Lure the fleet out, and destroy them and see if that settles the issue.

They might well have tried to hold Midway, but it would have been a remarkable failure of logistical thinking to even try. It would have been a graveyard for the IJN.

tater

[SteamWake]

They just said the point of Midway to the japanese was to smash the remainder of the US pacific fleet (OK, true), take Hawaii (!), hold its people hostage and force us to sue for peace. That's the most clueless thing I've heard in a while.

Yup... that was the first time I've heard that theory.

So far it seems a little jingoistic. It will be interesting to see how the end of the war in Europe is handled.

JCC

Its PBS for crying out loud... what do you expect ?

Actually given that it is PBS I would have expected a slightly more left of center approach. This had (at times) a certain Fox Newsy "Let's roll up our sleeves and get 'er DUN, 'Merica!" kind of feel to it.

The personal stuff is interesting though.

JCC

I havent personally seen it. But Im pretty sure that PBS would have screened this befor putting it on the air and their.. uh... censors (for lack of a better word) deemed it 'suitable' for the PBS audience.

But Im making a lot of assumptions not having seen it first hand so Ill just leave it at that.

[tater]

Well, it was FDR's war, so they can forgive anything, even internment camps ;)

Actually, then specifically mentioned almost no one spoke out about the camps. Guess they didn't want to spoil the negative view of J. Edgar Hoover by mentioning he was against it from the start.

tater

[Subnuts]

[Nudges everyone in this thread in the ribs with my elbow]


Psstt...guys...read Shattered Sword. It'll totally, like, blow your mind! :rotfl:

[tater]

^^^ a must read book.

Another good set would be the First Team books by Lundstrom if you are into nitty gritty unit histories and the air war.

tater

[Skyhawk]

No doubt it would have been a logistical nightmare for Japan to say the least. Doesn't mean that the idea as presented is clueless though, it just means that the Japanese would have been clueless (given the logistical realities) to pursue such a course.

Myself, well I just wouldn't presume to know more about Japanese intentions at the time than the Japanese leaders did. I wouldn't have predicted Hitler's intent to try and exterminate an entire people on the scale he did either (hate, stereotyping, and bigotry of that magnitude are far beyond my reasoning), but it did happen. The question here is about intentions, not historical fact.

Nope, you can't believe everything you see on tv. But to throw a blanket over all PBS programming and treat it as a joke based on a single historical proposition from one show might be considered shortsighted, by some, to say the least.

I respect everyone's right to accept or reject anyone else's ideas, and that too, is a two-edged sword that we ALL must deal with. :yep:

[tater]

It's not about the japanese leaders, it's not about intentions, it's about Ken Burns. The documentary is CLUELESS. The japanese DID NOT HAVE SUCH PLANS. Sure, they might have done this or that, and it might have worked, but the documentary claimed that this was the PLAN for their Midway operation. It absolutely wasn't part of the plan for Midway, not at all, not even a little.

So stating as fact that the Midway operation had the threefold goals of:

1. Defeating the US fleet (true)

2. Invading Hawaii (no plans existed, it wasn't more than idle talk over sake back in Tokyo, they never took the idea very seriously)

3. Holding the population of Hawaii as a bargaining card (presumes #2)

Is absurd.

The Midway planning did not, as a matter of fact, include ANY plans for further action against Hawaii. Therefore any statements that the Japanese intent at Midway was to get ready to secure Hawaii is flat out wrong. Wasn't even on the radar.


tater

[ussvincennes]

Well let's go right to the facts out of the Japanese history books.

From the book, "The End of the Imperial Japanese Navy", by Masanori Ito (1956), translated from the original Japanese. (Masanori Ito was one of Japan's leading military commentators, and a personal friend of Admiral Yamamoto).

"Army leaders in Japan felt that the United States could be easily defeated....their hope was that Japan might quickly achieve such overwhelming successes that the United States would accept a compromise peace. The question then remained as to where the battle should be fought."

Midway (and the fake thrust at the Aleutians) became the final target.

IJN Naval Order #18, issued by Imperial General Headquarters, May 5, 1942. It directed Commander in Chief, Combined Fleet to:

"Invade and occupy Midway Island and key points in the western Aleutians in cooperation with the Army, in order to prevent enemy task forces from making attacks against the homeland. Destroy all enemy forces that may oppose the invasion."

The Army-Navy Central Agreement, issued at the same time, stated the Navy's tactical objective was to:

"Attack Midway Island and destroy the enemy's land-based air forces prior to the invasion, and support the landing operations with the main strength of the Combined Fleet."

Remember, Doolittle's raid on Tokyo had just occurred a month earlier (18 April, 1942). No mention is made (from the Army's directive standpoint) of engaging the American fleet.

Masanori Ito goes on....

"According to these directives, the primary objective was the seizure and occupation of Midway Island. But in Admiral Yamamoto's mind, the main (ultimate) goal was to lure the enemy fleet into a decisive surface battle." (meaning after the occupation of Midway, as they believed that the U.S. would not tolerate occupation of their soil east of the 180th meridian, and by occupying Midway, this would certainly lure the U.S. fleet into the final battle of annihilation. Also, as the Combined Fleet approached Midway, Task Force Commander Nagumo believed that no American carriers were anywhere near Midway. He was determined to proceed with the occupation order, according to Ito.)

There is probably some truth to the idea that the Japanese Army General Staff thought that by occupying Midway that the United States might be forced into a compromised peace due to their "drunk on victory" thinking at the time. Of course, the U.S. would never have agreed to that. Hell, the Japanese of 1942 had some goofy ideas, as we did. They believed that the blue-eyed American sailor was no match for the dark-eyed Japanese sailor in night vision, so they trained their Navy in night attacks. Go figure. (hehe, we also believed that all Japanese were near-sighted and wore glasses.)

--uss vincennes

[Skyhawk]

I just saw the portion of the first episode again that deals with Midway. Almost verbatum:

"The Japanese hoped to lure out the American fleet, destroy them, take the island, then take Hawaii and sue for peace".

The term "hostage" is not even used. They NEVER state in the show that the Midway planning included all of those goals. In fact, the show conveyed the implication that rather than to take and hold any islands long term, the ultimate goal of the plan was to get some leverage on the American psyche and as a result not have the U.S. as an active enemy in the Pacific theater.

Again, I wouldn't presume to know the intentions or "plans" of the Japanese leadership at the time.

If,

it is wrong or impossible for the producers of the show to KNOW what the Japanese plan was (no matter how well their proposition fits in with historical fact: The Japanese did attack the fleet at PH, the Japanese were attempting to draw out the rest of the fleet at Midway when they were "caught"),

Then,

how is it right or possible for anyone else to KNOW what the Japanese plan was?

They can't prove their proposition, it just makes historical sense. But it can't be proved wrong either. How it can be known what they were talking about over their sake back in Tokyo let alone what the real plan was is beyond me. Rhetoric sounds good but is just that, nothing of substance.

The documentary is making a logical historical proposition based on facts, on the other hand we have a differing opinion based on assumptions (it wasn't included in the Midway planning therefore it can't BE, period). Show me the facts that absolutely prove the Japanese had no intention of invading Hawaii. So far the producer's of the show have the attack at PH and a large portion of the Japanese Pacific Fleet sitting off the coast of Midway on their side of the leger. Show me something that exists to make your point. Don't talk about what the program's producers don't know, because they can't prove it! The whole other side of this debate is based on precisely, and only that. :yep:

Nope, still not persuaded by an arguement that doesn't exist. :hmm:

EDIT Thank you ussvincennes for adding to the discussion. I am definitely inclined to come to the same conclusions as the producers of the show given the facts you present in addition to what's already been stated. The IJN Naval Order #18 definitely does speak to the mindset and intentions of the Japanese leadership as regards this discussion.

[tater]

That's not almost verbatim at all. I had it tivoed last night (just buffer, didn't save) and I played it back 3 times before I typed.

tater

[tater]

The Japanese had hoped to smash what was left of the Pacific fleet, take Hawaii, hold its people hostage and force the United States to sue for peace.

Verbatim.

tater

[Skyhawk]

I stand corrected, excuse me. This makes my position wrong how? :hmm:

EDIT: Only serves to show how a person only hears/thinks what they want to when running on assumptions (Completely my bad as I assumed I was recalling that line from the program correctly). Lastly, why is it more important to prove me wrong on this count rather than to respond to the proof offered by ussvincennes?

Just because a person refuses to acknowledge something doesn't mean that it ceases to exist.

[tater]

In context in the show, they were discussing the jap aims at Midway. It was 100% clear that they were talking about japanese aims for the Midway operation.

The japanese NEVER planned to invade Hawaii. That is fact, no plans drawn up, wasn't part of the plan, didn't happen. Hawaii was in no way related to the Midway operation past the fact that they imagined it would be X days before they could expect a response by the USN (travel time from PH to Midway). It doesn't make sense just because we might say "it makes sense to invade Hawaii." Had it made sense to the IJN, they would have done it in December, or at least planned for its eventuality. They did neither.

That makes the "take hawaii" and "hold people" parts somewhat silly, no?

:)

tater

[tater]

To be clear:

As an attempt at history, speculation stated as fact doesn't cut it. I've read my fair share (more than my fair share?) of books on the IJN and Midway. NONE suggests the japanese wished (or thought they could) to take Hawaii, either in general, and certainly not related to Midway.

None.

So where does their definitive statement as to japanese intentions come from, exactly?

Had the wording been: "The Japanese had hoped to smash what was left of the Pacific fleet at Midway when they sortied to protect the valuable base. A success at Midway might have encouraged them to plan to take Hawaii, hold its people hostage and force the United States to sue for peace." We'd not have an argument.

tater

[FAdmiral]

We can read about history, see it on TV docs, and discuss the facts & what ifs.
BUT playing it out in "War in the Pacific" really opens up all possibilities. I have the
Japanese AI set for historical and before I go any further, I will say that the
ultimate goal was to get the needed resources for Japanese industry to keep the
war machine running. I took back Wake Island from the AI because the logistics
in the AI holding onto it was a nightmare. (too many resources used doing it)
LOGISTICS and SUPPLY must be maintained at all times or your forces just die
on the vine. This game REALLY teaches that very HARD fact....

JIM

[ussvincennes]

Interesting discussion guys.

I too can't recall ever reading of Japanese plans to attack and occupy Hawaii beyond Midway. Although the primary directive was to invade and occupy Midway, the underlying "carrot" was to lure the U.S. fleet into annihilation. Who knows what would have happened after that? That part may well be conjecture.

On other fronts, the Japanese were very busy and presently occupied to the maxx, with the idea of cutting off Australia by infiltration of the Solomons. They were spread too thin as it was. I don't think they could have invaded Hawaii and made it stick. I would love to know the basis of the assertion in the PBS show.

--uss vincennes

[Skyhawk]

@ Tater: To be clear, I view this thread as an intellectually stimulating discussion. Not an arguement. Before I go on, let me go OT for a second and thank you for your contribution to the Trigger Maru Mod. I wouldn't be using SH4 without it.

To continue:

Earlier I wrote something to the effect that "you can't believe everything you see on tv", and I meant it. Hell, sometimes you can't even believe what you believe you have seen on tv! :lol::huh: Do I think that the program was solidly based on fact with the "Midway statement? Nope, no way, no how.

Do I think the statement is clueless? Nope, no way, no how.


"I too can't recall ever reading of Japanese plans to attack and occupy Hawaii beyond Midway. Although the primary directive was to invade and occupy Midway, the underlying "carrot" was to lure the U.S. fleet into annihilation. Who knows what would have happened after that? That part may well be conjecture."

- ussvincennes -

Exactly the point I have been trying to make all along. "Who knows what would have happened after that?" NOBODY. Therefore it is wrong for the program to have represented it's "Midway statement" as if it were a generally well known historical fact rather than the conjecture that it is.

On the other hand, since it is entirely conjecture to say one way or the other, who is to say what would have happened if we had not caught the Japanese off of Midway and their best case scenario had been allowed to play out? Clearly, as per IJN Order #18 they had ideas about what they might do IF they could. Further, the fact that there was at least a very substantial attempt to complete the first part of the "Midway statement" lends some air of truth to it. Doesn't prove it mind you, but it gives it a hint of credibility imho.

Bottom line. The "Midway statement" was not historically correct and should not have been represented as such. But, the "Midway statement" didn't come out of left field either, that would be the clueless we are talking about. IJN Order #18 didn't originate on the writer's desks back at PBS. When you put that together with the attack at PH and the known Japanese plan for Midway, well it may be improbable, but it's not entirely clueless to think that the Japanese would have occupied Midway and Hawaii if they could have (which I agree they couldn't have done for much more than a heartbeat, and at great detriment to the rest of their Pacific theater plans and operations).

So i agree that it is silly for them to have represented this as a fact, but I don't agree that it is silly or clueless to think the Japanese would have occupied Midway and the rest of the Hawaiin Islands if they could have, which is more or less the same idea as the one represented in the "Midway statement".

Just my .02, thanks to all who have participated in this thread with thoughts relating to the topic at hand.

As far as PBS being the joke that some would have others think it to be . . .

Well, all I can say is watch VH1 and tune into "Flava of Luv", now that is just one shining example of hundreds of U.S. television/cable networks and programs that define and give new meaning to the term clueless. Point being, there are much better examples to poke fun at. Get some real ammunition in the chamber. :yep:

Happy Hunting Gents :lurk:

[CanadianSilentHunter]

I haven't seen the show, but like tater I have read many a book about the battle and the war from all sides ( Canadian, British, American, Japenese and German ) In about that order. I don't intend in this response to take the battle of Midway and Disect it but I do intend to throw a few ideas out there for critisicm or agreement.

Lets begin with the possibility that the Americans lost the battle of midway. We'll go a little what if here,

1. The carriers were all sunk, to the cost of one Japenese carrier. The rest of the fleet had to retreat to PH. Giving up Midway in a heartbeat. What would the Japenese have done with their carriers next?? Can I suggest that they might have at least ran raids on PH and the island, kinda like the london Blitz that the Germans used?? ( after the decisive battle with the american fleet, that no offense without carrier support would have been a slaughter)

2. Would they have taken thier Carriers to support a Invasion of the Aluetions and then removed them from the battle to await furthur orders to attack any Capital Ship the Americans produced for the next 1 - 2 years. ( Kinda like the Brits did to the German Navy, Germany held the continent, but The Royal Navy never lost the Seas.)

3. Staged a blockade of the pacific ocean anywhere west of the island of midway.

4. A compleate withdrawl from the fight to Japan.

5. Awaited orders and plans to be made ( that never were made becuase they lost the battle of Midway) to possibly attack Hawaii. Lets remember here, they were brazen enough to do it December 7th, and if they were able to defeat them all the way across the ocean, they might have been insane enough to try it?? Just a thought and I know I'm going to take some flak for that one.

But my favorite idea and theory that I heard a long time ago from a British Captain of a Frigate is this.

The carriers would have been withdrawn immediately from the Midway sector of the battle, and moved south of the phillipines to assist in the eventual attack and Capture of Australia. His reasoning behind this was, The british were to involved in defending there own country, planning to take bag the Continent ( Dieppe, August 19, 1942.) that they would not have had the ability or the manpower or the public support to save australia.

Just a bunch of what if's but feedback is more then welcome. As it Is the Good guys won that battle and the Japenese Carrier Fleet was Removed from the picture long enough that American Industry could convert to full war production.

[Skyhawk]

CSH,

All of your points serve to illustrate that it is not difficult at all to come up with reasonable ideas and alternate possible scenario's for the situation.

If you do take flak on point #5, well, welcome aboard mate! :lol: But I feel compelled to say in support of it that it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to think the Japanese might have at least attempted to take Hawaii if the U.S. Pac fleet was essentially destroyed and Japan ruled the waves in that part of the world (which they would have of course if the U.S. fleet had been destroyed, at least for a time). It's an undeniable fact that they did have a big enough "pair" to attack PH at least one time. :yep:

The Australian suggestion by your Frigate Captain friend is not one that I've considered or thought of before given the vast inland area of Australia and the already thin spread of the Japanese troops elsewhere in the Pacific. Taking and controlling all the populated coastal areas of Australia would be one thing, however occupying and controlling them for a long period of time would be another.

A similar arguement can obviously be made against an invasion and occupation of the Hawaiin Islands. Perhaps this is where the real question lies as FA Admiral (among others) have suggested. Could the Japanese have afforded at that point in time to stretch themselves any further in the Pacific Theater and still maintain all of their other operations? Would they have, and could they have, diverted resources and manpower to support an alternate scenario if they thought it could be successful/beneficial in the long run? We'll never know.

But it certainly is something to think about, that's for sure. Thanks for sharing a new idea/spin on the situation. :hmm:

I will leave it to others to find positions on your other suggestions, and like a good skipper, wait patiently for an opening . . . ;)

J/K folks, relax, there aren't any sharks in these waters . . . :yep: :D

[tater]

BTW, I meant argument is a good way, I don't get all pissy about discussions :)

It would, however, be a better conversation if we were having it on the patio drinking beers :D

There is a good analysis of this scenario at combinedfleet.com. Bottom line is that while it would have delayed the end of the war, it would not have changed the outcome. By September 1943 we'd still be ahead of the game in fleet CVs, and if you counted jeep carriers, forget about it. The US also learned the lesson the IJN failed to learn. Massing CVs.

On topic, I think that the statement is still clueless on Burns' part. No serious historian I have read has that take, while it's pretty much universally known that the japanese had no extant plans to invade Hawaii. Had Midway succeeded, sure, they might have given it a second thought, but at the time of Midway, it was not even a on the table. The show statement is just wrong.

Order 18 is clearly referring to Midway alone. The attack on PH was Yamamoto's show, and had nothing at all to do with invasion. Actually, as daring as it was, it was well within the core IJN doctrine. Doctrine means everything. The idea was to whittle down the US fleet en route to the western Pacific where the "decisive battle" was to occur (assuming the USN was idiotic enough to oblige IJN plans). PH was literally just an extreme of standard IJN planning for decades.

[sqk7744]

[Nudges everyone in this thread in the ribs with my elbow]


Psstt...guys...read Shattered Sword. It'll totally, like, blow your mind! :rotfl:

;) he he

A 'Letters from Iwo Jima' type flick would be very interesting.

[Skyhawk]

sqk7744,

I've gone down to my local library and put in a request to get "Shattered Sword" on loan from another library. I did google the title, and from what I've read so far about the book, It seems that Yamamoto was entirely bent on seeing to the American fleet's destruction out of frustration at not having found the American carriers at PH, and the Doolittle raid. Looks like I'll have to read the book though to see if there is evidence/material regarding the Japanese plans IF they had been successful at Midway.

Will have to reserve judgement until I actually get to read the book, but the authors claim that there are many fallacies about the Battle of Midway which warrant clarification and closer examination.

I look forward to reading the book, thanks for coming back and reminding us yet again about it. With just the little bit I've been able to research so far, it seems it is a very definitive source on the subject from the Japanese perspective.

Tater,

The next time I'm sitting on my back patio enjoying a cold one I will surely think of this discussion/arguement. :up: I will agree to saying it was wrong of them to represent their idea in a factual way. But I still don't think the idea is completely without merit/silly. Maybe I'll be convinced to finish the 180* turn after reading "Shattered Sword". I just have a hard time putting anything past the Japanese mindset of the day, arrogance and a delusion of complete supremacy.

Regardless, your ideas have given me pause to reflect on my own, and hopefully somewhere in this process I have learned something new. I sure learned to not say I'm quoting something "almost verbatim" when I'm not %100 sure that I'm getting it right. Thanks for keeping me honest, next cold one is on me.:yep:

EDIT: Given the recommendations made here and what I have read on the internet about "Shattered Sword", decided to cancel the public library loaner and order my own copy. Retail is about $35 USD, Got it off of Amazon for $20 USD plus $3 USD S&H (normal ground delivery) in case anyone else is interested

[John Channing]

As a very wise man once said to me... "Hold on to your opinions, just not too tightly".

JCC

[Skyhawk]

Couldn't agree more JCC, ALL of us would do well to live by that pearl of wisdom. It is equally applicable to our opinions of others too, eh? :hmm: :yep:

"Skyhawk"

[sqk7744]

sqk7744,

I've gone down to my local library and put in a request to get "Shattered Sword" on loan from another library. I did google the title, and from what I've read so far about the book, It seems that Yamamoto was entirely bent on seeing to the American fleet's destruction out of frustration at not having found the American carriers at PH, and the Doolittle raid. Looks like I'll have to read the book though to see if there is evidence/material regarding the Japanese plans IF they had been successful at Midway.

Will have to reserve judgement until I actually get to read the book, but the authors claim that there are many fallacies about the Battle of Midway which warrant clarification and closer examination.

EDIT: Given the recommendations made here and what I have read on the internet about "Shattered Sword", decided to cancel the public library loaner and order my own copy. Retail is about $35 USD, Got it off of Amazon for $20 USD plus $3 USD S&H (normal ground delivery) in case anyone else is interested
Thanks Skyhawk, but the original posting credit for Shattered Sword goes to Subnuts, not me.

This is a great discussion Gents! As living in the virtual Pacific Theater has shown this history buff (me), we grasp and question more than the average teenager being spoon fed history from Fox News.

IMHO

[Skyhawk]

Roger that sqk7744, guess I wasn't clear. Was thanking you for bringing it up the second time ("again") and refusing to let the recommendation slip into oblivion as it were.

My bad for not acknowledging Subnut for having brought the title up in the first place.

My sincere thanks to both of you. :yep: :up:

In a few more weeks after I've had a chance to read it, I will definitely come back and share what I have found out pertinent to this thread. If I recall correctly . . . ahemmmm :huh: :lol: . . . it is about 640 pages.

Thanks again. :rock:

[sqk7744]

Roger that sqk7744, guess I wasn't clear. Was thanking you for bringing it up the second time ("again") and refusing to let the recommendation slip into oblivion as it were.

My bad for not acknowledging Subnut for having brought the title up in the first place.

My sincere thanks to both of you. :yep: :up:

In a few more weeks after I've had a chance to read it, I will definitely come back and share what I have found out pertinent to this thread. If I recall correctly . . . ahemmmm :huh: :lol: . . . it is about 640 pages.

Thanks again. :rock:
You bet Skyhawk!

Looking forward to your report :up:
(Silent Victory under one arm and Shattered Sword under the other)

Cheers!

[gymrat57]

Is it just me,or are they running the 9:00pm show with a more graphic content?
:o

[chopped50ford]

They just said the point of Midway to the japanese was to smash the remainder of the US pacific fleet (OK, true), take Hawaii (!), hold its people hostage and force us to sue for peace. That's the most clueless thing I've heard in a while.

Yup... that was the first time I've heard that theory.

So far it seems a little jingoistic. It will be interesting to see how the end of the war in Europe is handled.

JCC

Its PBS for crying out loud... what do you expect ?

Leftist swaying, Socialist TV. :damn: They couldnt argue a point even if it meant fighting out of a wet paper bag.

[sqk7744]

They just said the point of Midway to the japanese was to smash the remainder of the US pacific fleet (OK, true), take Hawaii (!), hold its people hostage and force us to sue for peace. That's the most clueless thing I've heard in a while.
Yup... that was the first time I've heard that theory.

So far it seems a little jingoistic. It will be interesting to see how the end of the war in Europe is handled.

JCC
Its PBS for crying out loud... what do you expect ?
Leftist swaying, Socialist TV. :damn: They couldnt argue a point even if it meant fighting out of a wet paper bag.

Ouch! :arrgh!:

[chopped50ford]

Maybe a little harsh. I hate programs that dont look at the REAL picture and report or show it as it was; but rather sway in an agenda that benefits them, not all.

Stories that make people believe....LIES. :doh:

[Sailor Steve]

I won't get a chance to see this for quite some time, so I'm just going on hearsay. I love a good documentary, and I respect Ken Burns, but it sounds like this one doesn't hold a candle to the 30-year-old World At War.

[mrbeast]

Ken Burns finest docu has to be The Civil War, possibly the best documentary series I've ever seen, got it my dad on DVD as a present. Very atmospheric and not a silly 'dramatisation' of events in sight.

I know its a little off topic but there were some prototype submarines used in the American Civil War IIRC :hmm:

[sqk7744]

Ken Burns finest docu has to be The Civil War, possibly the best documentary series I've ever seen, got it my dad on DVD as a present. Very atmospheric and not a silly 'dramatisation' of events in sight.

I know its a little off topic but there were some prototype submarines used in the American Civil War IIRC :hmm:
Hi Mrbeast,

Right, that's what I was expecting with this Doc.

Cheers,
:arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

I know its a little off topic but there were some prototype submarines used in the American Civil War IIRC :hmm:
If you recall correctly? You mean you don't know?

I won't go into it here, but start with this page:
http://www.charlestonillustrated.com/hunley/

[Skyhawk]

In the recently aired interview with Ken Burns, he clearly conveys that he was trying to cover the war from the "ground up" and not do a traditional documentary covering the grand strategies, military doctrines, etc. of the war. Rather, he was trying (with this show) to cover the war from the perspective of the soldiers who fought it and how it effected both the soldiers and those "back home" - from both an emotional and practical standpoint. Comparing his "Civil War" series to this one is apples to oranges.

If you want to see a program that is a dramatical interpretation of WWII events in an effort to put you into the mindset of the era, watch this show. If you are looking for a documentary on WWII then this is not the program for you, simple as that. My take is that it certainly isn't worth throwing out this program altogether or PBS programming in general for the reasons some others have stated here so far. But, to each their own, I have no problem with that.

Just got my copy of "Shattered Sword" (Hardcover First Edition- Chapter 6 is entitled, "Fog and Preparations"; illustration 6.1 on page 95 is a photo of Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher, commander of the American carrier forces.).

If anyone wants to continue discussing the topic of the Japanese intentions/plans/strategy for Hawaii and Midway, send me a pm or start another thread. I'd be happy to share and discuss my findings from "Shattered Sword" if anyone is interested when I am finished reading it.

"Resume firing for effect." :hmm:

[Spruence M]

anti poll bump

[U-96]

Ken Burns has the horrible habit of having chest thumping patriotism in his historical documentaries at the expense of historical accuracy and impartiality. He also encourages the stereotypes of the enemies. Look at his Civil War documentaries and they are simply laughably absurd. So I'm not surprised that his latest work is hogwash as well.

A quote of him sums him right up.

'Look at the Soviet union falling apart, Yugoslavia falling apart. Our great American example is the example of Union'

He makes himself laughable, I don't need to do it for him.

[Skyhawk]

"Ken Burns has the horrible habit of having chest thumping patriotism in his historical documentaries at the expense of historical accuracy and impartiality. He also encourages the stereotypes of the enemies. Look at his Civil War documentaries and they are simply laughably absurd. So I'm not surprised that his latest work is hogwash as well.

A quote of him sums him right up.

'Look at the Soviet union falling apart, Yugoslavia falling apart. Our great American example is the example of Union'

He makes himself laughable, I don't need to do it for him."

1) Please explain how you find the dissolution of the former U.S.S.R. and the problems in Yugoslavia better examples of people united in patriotism for their country than the people of the United States.

2) Please explain how the erroneous stereotypes of enemy combatants towards each other are irrelevant in a reasonable examination of war.

I respect your right to formulate your thoughts as you see fit, I'm just curious as to how you formed them in the first place (am just trying to understand your point of view).

[U-96]

"Ken Burns has the horrible habit of having chest thumping patriotism in his historical documentaries at the expense of historical accuracy and impartiality. He also encourages the stereotypes of the enemies. Look at his Civil War documentaries and they are simply laughably absurd. So I'm not surprised that his latest work is hogwash as well.

A quote of him sums him right up.

'Look at the Soviet union falling apart, Yugoslavia falling apart. Our great American example is the example of Union'

He makes himself laughable, I don't need to do it for him."

1) Please explain how you find the dissolution of the former U.S.S.R. and the problems in Yugoslavia better examples of people united in patriotism for their country than the people of the United States.

2) Please explain how the erroneous stereotypes of enemy combatants towards each other are irrelevant in a reasonable examination of war.

I respect your right to formulate your thoughts as you see fit, I'm just curious as to how you formed them in the first place (am just trying to understand your point of view).

Admittingly I did not watch his WWII documentary, as his Civil War documentaries were already rife with such things, I did not want to risk a repeat of such trash.


1) You misunderstand me, I'm not saying by implication The Soviet Union or the Yugoslavia were better. But they weren't worse either, The U.S. frequently suffers from division and is on a path to self destruction much like the Soviet Union was. But he displays both arrogance and pretention in that the United States is the pinnacle of civilization when it is infact rather low, even today. It's not his patriotism that I find bothersome, it's the delusions of grandeur he likes to convey which has no place in documentaries.

2) The main American stereotypes when it comes to historical documentaries (At least in the Civil War documentaries that I have seen.) In which it was down to good and evil. the Federal Army of the United States being the good noble, slave freeing people. While their Confederate opponants were stupid evil slavers, He speaks highly of Robert E Lee but that's the end of his praise for the vanquished of the Civil War.

Simply put, Ken Burns does not have a good track record of unbiased historical accuracy.

[nikimcbee]

"Ken Burns has the horrible habit of having chest thumping patriotism in his historical documentaries at the expense of historical accuracy and impartiality. He also encourages the stereotypes of the enemies. Look at his Civil War documentaries and they are simply laughably absurd. So I'm not surprised that his latest work is hogwash as well.

A quote of him sums him right up.

'Look at the Soviet union falling apart, Yugoslavia falling apart. Our great American example is the example of Union'

He makes himself laughable, I don't need to do it for him."

1) Please explain how you find the dissolution of the former U.S.S.R. and the problems in Yugoslavia better examples of people united in patriotism for their country than the people of the United States.

2) Please explain how the erroneous stereotypes of enemy combatants towards each other are irrelevant in a reasonable examination of war.

I respect your right to formulate your thoughts as you see fit, I'm just curious as to how you formed them in the first place (am just trying to understand your point of view).

I'm impressed you stayed awake through a PBS show.:dead:

[Skyhawk]

@ U96: Thanks for making the effort to offer an explanation. I will still have to agree to disagree though, and admit that a lot of what you have stated doesn't bring me to reach the same conclusions as you do.

For instance, while I readily will admit that the U.S. "unity" is at an all time low, I would still place it higher than the unity represented by a country that essentially doesn't exist anymore (has fundamentally changed) and has broken up into several countries already. I'm not saying the U.S. is "all that" by any means, but the fact is that the right to be diverse in our thinking is something Americans embrace, so long as freedom is a given.

We may lose our country to foreign powers if American presidents like George W. continue to stretch the American military to the maximum without the support of the American people, but I don't think we'll be self-destructing anytime soon because we have differences of opinion. Hell, our forefathers were arguing with each other over whether or not to declare our independence in the first place come to think of it. :hmm:

Are you not proud to be a Canadian? Surely you can relate to being proud of your country and patriotic on some level. I don't get the jump from proud or patriotic to delusions of grandeur, again no disrespect intended. Also, when watching his "Civil War" series, I definitely didn't see the biased treatment of material covering the North over the South. If it seems that Burns treated the ideas of slavery and the ill treatment/dehumanization of people based on race negatively, well, that is because IT IS evil. It is also why there has been an ongoing Civil Rights movement in the U.S. in one form or another since even before the Civil War. It is an "evil" still being fought to this day here in the U.S (and all over the world for that matter).

At any rate, take care and thanks for the response, it was interesting and appreciated.

Now, in order to take care of several things at once, my final thoughts on the idea of a WWII Japanese invasion of Hawaii being nonsense/silly:

After reading only the first 100 pages or so of the book, "Shattered Sword", I've found myself going full circle and arriving right back where I started in my first reply in this thread.

Ken Burns (and the producers of the show) were quite grounded in FACT, not their own self-serving fiction, when describing Japanese plans which included an invasion of Hawaii.

* As a matter of fact, after the successful attack on PH and the other numerous early Japanese successes in the Pacific theater, there was a big debate going on amongst the Japanese military leaders as to exactly what Japan should do next.

One of the options was to go after Australia, the other (Yamamoto's idea) included an invasion of the Aleutian Islands ("to push the defensive perimeter of Japan outwards . . . Potential incursions from the north, and communication links between the United States and Russia would then be obstructed . . . important point given the quantity of American supplies being sent to Russia via the Barents Sea . . .Furthermore, Japanese possession of the Aleutians was 'conceived as a flanking movement to protect . . . Midway from a possible attack from the north', once the island was secured.").

Three days after the initial attack on the Aleutians, the attack and invasion of Midway was to occur. The Doolittle raid not only frustrated Yamamoto further that the American carriers hadn't been taken out at PH, it upset other Japanese military leaders as well.

General Tanaka (Japanese Army) expressed to a Captain Tomioka that he was rethinking his previous reservations about the Midway operations. He wound up approving/backing up Yamamoto's plan by committing troops for the assault of Midway, then he went on to press Captain Tomioka for more details on the "Eastern Operation", which marked a significant change in the Japanese Army leadership's position on the whole Midway operation.

Why? Well they originally committed troops for the invasion of Midway with the explicit understanding the troops would not get dragged into operations aimed at Hawaii, then they did an about face and issued orders to several units to begin preparing for an amphibious attack against Hawaii. So only days before the attack at Midway was to begin, Yamamoto had achieved support for operations in the Central Pacific all for the purposes of finishing the destruction of the American fleet and the subsequent capture of Hawaii.

How would it all have turned out if the Japanese had been successful at Midway? We will never know although implementing Yamamoto's plan would have been problematic and unrealistic in a practical sense to say the least. If only he knew then what is common knowledge to us all now (without the given Japanese bias towards Americans in general and American military personnel of the day).

Yup, plans to invade Hawaii did in fact exist as well as plans to invade the Aleutian Islands. The ultimate goal of all these plans being to give the United States a serious enough reason to NOT want to fight the Japanese in the Pacific Theater (kind of sounds like wanting to "sue for peace" doesn't it?).

All this makes Ken Burns (and the producers of the show) silly for saying so? In the final analysis I don't think so.

I'll be holding onto this opinion tightly . . .

* The bold print above includes quotes and paraphrasing from the foreward of the book "Shattered Sword" written by John B. Lundstrom, and from the authors of the book "Shattered Sword" who are Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully.

Their credentials:
John B. Lundstrom is Curator Emeritus of History at the Milwaukee Public Museum where he has worked since 1967. He is the author of five books including "The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway" and "Black Shoe Carrier Admiral: Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway & Guadalcanal".

From the jacket cover of "Shattered Sword",

'Both Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully were consultants to a 1999 mission to the Midway battle site by the Nauticos Corporation and the U.S. Navy Oceanographic Office.

Parshall has been widely published on naval history in journals and magazines and has contributed to a number of books on the topic. he has also appeared on the Discovery channel and served as a historical advisor for the BBC . . .

Tully has been published in such leading military journals as "Warship International" and the "U.S. Naval War College Review" . . .

To anyone sincerely interested in the Battle of Midway, take the advice offered by others in this thread and get/read "Shattered Sword". I won't make an effort to try and document all it's sources here, get the book, see for yourself. :yep:

It will "blow your mind". :up: My personal and sincere thanks to those who recommended it in the first place.

Regarding the question of a Japanese invasion of Hawaii, well suffice it to say that Ken Burns and his crew didn't pull the idea out of their "arse", hehe. I rest my case. Time for me to stand down.

[tater]

I've read both Lundstrom's books, and more than 100 pages (indeed all) of Shattered Sword.

The Army being open to a Hawaiian invasion (vs being utterly shut down tot he notion) makes it talk.

Again, in the context of the show, the PURPOSE of the Midway operation was to smash the US fleet (true), to invade Hawaii, hold the population hostage, and sue for peace.

The last bits were in no way the purpose of the Midway Operation, they were in fact by definiiton conditional on its success to even be considered operational.

As I said from the start, it's all in the wording, had they said that success at Midway would have allowed them to consider invading Hawaii, there'd be no arguement. Saying that the purpose of Midway was to invade Hawaii is like saying the purpose of the Pearl Harbor attack was to invade the Dutch East Indies (the IJN absolutely believed the latter required the former to occur).

The purpose of the PH attack was to smash the US fleet, however.

tater

[Skyhawk]

@ tater:

I will in fact finish reading the book, so no worries there.

Yes, the part of Yamamoto's overall/longterm plan which included the invasion and taking of Midway, had the purpose of drawing out the American carriers/fleet for destruction. No arguements here on that statement. But to say that statement in itself makes the program "silly" is still erroneous imho.

THE exact quote from the program offered by you:

"The Japanese had hoped to smash what was left of the Pacific fleet, take Hawaii, hold its people hostage and force the United States to sue for peace."

The statement itself is offered as the overall Japanese strategy "in a nutshell", not THE program's fictional substitution for the reason to invade Midway. How is it wrong for the program, based on fact, to state the "ends" that Midway was the "means" to achieving?

That's the same in my mind as saying the purpose for the landing at Normandy (establishing an allied foothold in Europe) makes making a factual statement about the Allied overall plans for VE a silly thing to do.

The only difference is that the Allied plans were successful whereas the Japanese plans were not.

You have stated elsewhere in this thread:

"The japanese NEVER planned to invade Hawaii. That is fact, no plans drawn up, wasn't part of the plan, didn't happen. Hawaii was in no way related to the Midway operation . . ."

"As an attempt at history, speculation stated as fact doesn't cut it. I've read my fair share (more than my fair share?) of books on the IJN and Midway. NONE suggests the japanese wished (or thought they could) to take Hawaii, either in general, and certainly not related to Midway"

You must at least admit there might be some error in statements you have made in this thread?

Do you really think that orders to Japanese Army units from their CG to begin preparations for an invasion of Hawaii are "speculation" or "talk"?

Believing these things is your prerogative and I respect that, but still beg to differ.

[nikimcbee]

Been watching this all day, much more interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rLS6iuNMfI
:|\\

[tater]

I thought I should clearly remark to the quote (this is an edit, I forgot before). It was in the context of explaining Midway alone. It was clearly talking about the japanese rationale for the Midway Operation narrowly and nothing else. It was to put the battle in context for the viewer. Note that they typical view for "The War" might not be expected to know Midway from D-Day. It was one of a few errors I've heard talked about in just the first couple shows as well. I think they said Guadalcanal was the first allied success on the ground in the war with Japan, too. Apparently Milne Bay didn't count ;) .

So yes, the IJN talked about it (invading Hawaii), but the IJ ARMY refused to participate. The fact that the IJN even considered it caused the IJA to remove all their troops from both Midway and the Aleutian campaigns. You cannot underestimate the pathological inter-service rivalry between the two services. The IJA had to have its own navy because the IJN wouldn't task their ships as escorts, or ferry planes for them (we have one in SH4, Aktisu Maru).

Explicit denial by the IJA, was tantamount to turning any IJN thoughts in the matter to pure fantasy. So I'd stand by never planned as long as you construe it to mean they never had serious plans in place. The IJA would have been required (not assumed, but active, willing participation in planning the campaign) for any Hawaiian invasion to be taken seriously. The Special Naval Landing Forces only numbered in total about 1 division worth of troops (something like 20 groups of ~1200 men), and there is zero chance all of them could have been pulled out of island defenses to invade Hawaii. Army participation was critical.

As I said, had Midway been a resounding success, they might have reconsidered it (even if they had wiped out the US CVs for no losses, their Midway invasion was by no means a sure thing, BTW, it very likely would have failed even in the face of a naval victory, and would have been promptly reversed as soon as the IJN had to run home (which they would have). I don't see any likely scenarios where the IJA comes on board, frankly.

The facts are simply too nuanced for the bumpersticker statement they made. People unaware of Midway watching the show would almost certainly have come away assuming that the Midway Operation included an invasion of Hawaii, organically, as part of the campaign. Not that it was a situation that maybe, possibly, with a glowing victory they could have convinced Tojo, et al to participate in.

tater

PS--regarding Normandy: If you said the Allied plan regarding the D-Day invasion as an isolated event was "to invade Normandy to get a foothold in Northern Europe," (true) but when on to add, "to capture Berlin, and end the war" you'd be stretching it pretty thin. Sure, the end game seems to follow (nevermind we planned on stopping before Berlin, I know that ;) ), but it's clearly beyond the planning for D-Day. Heck, they hadn't even planned Market Garden yet at that point (though it might have been talked about among Monty's staff, I have no idea).

[simsurfer]

Nice link, thanks.

[tater]

BTW, I'll admit "clueless" was a bit overstated ;)

Still, given the viewership, I think that they should have stuck to a more narrow narrative, or at least made it clear that while the IJN might have wished such an invasion to be possible, it was very likely completely beyond their grasp to attempt, regardless of the outcome of the Midway battle. I think that the show's failure was in trying to edit down something complex into a sound bite. Literally a word or two could have corrected the issue IMO.

An interesting discussion.

<S> Skyhawk

tater

[SteminDemon13]

This thread is kick @$$. Many times I look at these threads and really appreciate the knowlege and numerous facts that are posted around here. I sure learn alot in the process. I just wanted to say thanks, not only to this thread but everyone. Everyone has there own areas of passion and interest. Mine being Steam Propulsion, women:rock: ,for the reactivation of our battleships, and other stuff. So thank you and keep posting!

[Skyhawk]

Right on SteminDemon13.

When a discussion proves to be the catalyst for learning, well that is as good as it gets in my book. Whether one is on the "right" or "wrong" side of the discussion becomes irrelevant in the end, what everyone gains from the discussion is the most important thing. There are many such discussions that have taken place in this forum and for all of them I too am grateful. Was a real privilege to have a part in this one.

"tater", my personal thanks to you again for challenging what was in the program in the first place, it was the spark to a better understanding of some of the events that took place in the WWII Pacific Theater for many of us. The longest journey begins with a single step, thanks for compelling us to dust off the gears and get the wheels turning up in our brain-housings. :D

My appreciation as well for having been introduced to "Shattered Sword". It was one of the best books I've read in a long time. Not only due to it's factual content, but because of the way it challenges the reader to reconsider many common fallacies regarding the Battle of Midway.

Best regards and happy hunting!

"Skyhawk"

[tater]

BTW, a few great books that I know Tully and Parshall also like regarding the IJN and or early war:

Kaigun (Evans and Peatie) (history of the IJN to the eve of the war)

Sunburst (Peatie) (history of IJN aviation to the eve of the war)

Empires in the Balance (Willmott) (pre-war planning and wartime execution of the early war until April, 1942. Covers all sides, excellent book.)

The First Team and The First Team: Guadalcanal (Lundstrom) (USN aviation. Detailed unit histories, practically talks about every single flight that left US CV flight decks down to daily CAPs in the middle of nowhere.)

All are exceptional books.

tater

[mookiemookie]

My appreciation as well for having been introduced to "Shattered Sword". It was one of the best books I've read in a long time. Not only due to it's factual content, but because of the way it challenges the reader to reconsider many common fallacies regarding the Battle of Midway.


Man, that's great to hear. I had just ordered this one the other day. :rock:

[tater]

One of the most common Midway errors is the notion that the flight decks of Kaga, Akagi, Soryu, and Hiryu were crammed with aircraft when the SBDs pushed over.

That's completely untrue. The CVs had been conducting TO and landing ops for their CAPs within minutes of the dive bombing attacks, and it took them longer than that to spot a strike from the hanger to the flight deck. IJN doctrine was to rearm, refuel, and warm up planes BELOW, unlike the USN that did everything on the flight deck and reserved the hanger mostly for maintenance and spare planes.

So the IJN CVs were indeed rearming the planes, but they were crammed in the hanger spaces below the flight deck. This exacerbated the problem of bombs going off because the fuel, etc was confined.

tater

[Skyhawk]

Thanks for the reading material references "tater". When the kids are home for Thanksgiving and start on me with "What do you want for Christmas Dad?", I will have a list ready for them. :up:

In my amazon searches for "Shattered Sword" I did come across a couple of the books you mention (along with many others). Same here for me as with "mookiemookie", it's nice to get a thumbs up before making the effort (or putting out the money) to get your hands on some of them. There are so many out there that sometimes it's hard to "pick the flysh*t out of the pepper" if you know what I mean. ;)

"mookiemookie", "Shattered Sword" is a slow read (in a good way) if you take the time necessary to really absorb all the information and ideas it covers. All the photos, diagrams, and illustrations really help to round out the presentation of the material. As I read about the various Japanese leaders and looked at their photos, it really seemed for the first time as if I was getting inside their heads and really "getting to know" them. This is just one facet of this book that sets it apart from others imho. :yep:

Best regards gents,

"Skyhawk"

[tater]

Lundstrom's books are rather slow reading as well, but the detail...

One thing I really appreciated about the First Team books was that he bothered to go into detail about guys that didn't make it who weren't "war heros" (meaning in the press, etc). You'll get an account of a guy, a little about him, and the fact that his F4F lost power taking off for routine CAP far from the enemy, his plane went in, and he couldn't get out before it sank. Maybe he never saw a Zero, never saw any combat, but he was there, doing his dangerous job (combat or not, still dangerous), and would otherwise have been forgotten by all but his family. Same for other pilots who did make it, but didn't rack up kills.

Puts a little different spin on "routine" operations.

Also, he finds out who the F4F drivers actually attacked. Not just that Butch O'Hare attacked G4Ms, but who piloted each one, even the flight crew names, sometimes pictures. Damn impressive work.

When in doubt, buy anything that has "Naval Institute Press" on the spine :up:

tater