Ken Burns' -THE WAR on PBS

[sqk7744]

On now EDT

http://www.pbs.org/thewar/?campaign=...ilm_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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Look before you leap . . . :hmm:

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by John Channing

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]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by John Channing

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.