The Divisions tasked to invade Hawaii

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I also note the discontinuality in this thread and your past statements.

Well - writing quick without looking at materials requires one depend on long term memory. Writing after reading something specific - if you are honest - involves reporting what you read. They might indeed not be consistent. What one says ought to be related to what one knows - at the time one says it. I have heard that some people are never able to admit they got it wrong - or not perfectly right - but I don't find such an attitude useful myself.

I learned last night that the Japanese Army plan for Hawaii bound divisions involved adding flamethrowers (and detaching all horses). Flamethrowers were unpopular in IJA - I didn't guess that - and I did not put it in RHS. I also learned they sent one tank regiment - something I did guess right - and put in. I also learned they assigned a line engineer regiment - but didn't guess that - and I don't remember seeing that anywhere before. The material said that extraordinary measures were taken to keep secret the additional units added to the original plan - which is interesting - implying someone may have thought we might be getting OB data before a battle. The materials also suggest that fifth and sixth divisions might have been tasked for technical reasons. [They both came from the same part of Japan as most Hawaii Japanese, and they both had amphibious training]

Someone wanted to know the units assigned - so I sent for a book that I thought might have that - and this thread is about what that book says.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The real truth is that in virtually every military organization, "Somebody, Somewhere, had a 'plan'." The existance of such documents in the archives may suggest "intent"; but it may just as well indicate some annoyed Chief-of-Staff giving a bunch of junior officers some "busy work" to get them out of his hair. Discovering a reference to, or even the documents of, such a "plan" proves nothing except that some staff officers had worked on the problem. Until it recieves backing, approval, and dessemination to the actual forces, it's just a bunch of paper gathering dust in a file.


And when the most powerful naval force (the "carrier striking force") in the world sets to sea - backed by hundreds of ships and 100,000 men - one may fairly say it has indeed "recieved backing, approval, dessemination to the actual forces." THIS thread identifies the land divisions which also "recieved...dessemination" of the documents, and presumably were "actual forces" in the same sense naval units are.


Huh? KB went to Hawaii in December of 1941..., but there were no "hundreds of ships and 100,000 men" involved. Come June of 1942..., when invasion of Hawaii was already a "pipedream", KB returned to Midway with hundreds of ships involved (and burning way more oil than Japan could afford)--- but there were certainly no 100,000 men involved in the planned landings. Being "notified to begin preparation" is hardly "involved"...., more like making preliminary arraingements for the possible exploitation of a hoped for success.

Lets not get confused here: a strictly historical discussion of the invasion of Hawaii must be about the one that was attempted, not some other one that was contemplated but not in the end attempted. IRL the Army didn't become enthusiastic about the Eastern Operation until May, 1942. [I did not know until last night the IJA EVER had become enthusiastic about it. Seems the general in charge of operations converted first, a very unlikely candidate, and he got not just virtually but literally everyone else to follow his reasoning.] I have not identified units tasked in 1941 - until the post immediately above - because I didn't know what they might have been? This thread is mainly about what was attempted in 1942, not in 1941. An invasion in 1941 was not possible unless the Army had undergone a change that really occurred in April 1942 sometime during the summer of 1941. I rationalized how that might have happened in EOS (and its AIO clone) - putting joint minded Yamashita in charge of the offensive and using Tsuji's ad hoc joint (army navy civilian) planning committee with a broader mission (the entire offensive, not just Malaya)? I did not put it in the "strictly historical scenarios" - although I did propose OIO for those who want to test the concept with strictly historical forces - it would require a similar rationalization to implement. The Navy could only form up one division - and it never did after the invasion of Shanghai before what we think of as WWII began. The reason is the need for navy troops at many points - and I don't think forming a Grand Naval Landing Force is justifiable because that need remains. So the Army must want it - and that means you must persuade the General Staff to get it to happen.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And said success had no chance of coming about, given the piss-poor planning and completely inadequate number of troops meant to go to Midway.

No planning, no troops, no lift. Poor, poor, IJN.

Very few people know this, because the sources are written in an obscure Mongolian dialect of Japanese, which is impossible to translate in any case, but my great aunt was the secret advisor to the Japanese Emperor. She considered Sugiyama to be a ‘minor penis’, something that Westerners will not understand because Japan, and Japanese is so outside their understanding.

She says, and historians from Hokkaido all agree, that there weren’t any ships available to invade Hawaii, no matter big your ego. All the Hokkaido historians, who understand formal Japanese (that no one else does), agree that there were no available vessels that could be assigned to this operation, without eviscerating the Japanese merchant fleet.

Historians all agree that this was the case; any historians who do not agree are, of course, revisionists, just because I said so (because my great aunt says so), and if anyone challenges my statements, it is because they have no respect for me or my great aunt or anything I have said, and have chilblains, besides.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
This thread is mainly based on Hawaii Under the Rising Sun.

This thread is based on the perceptions of the people who wish to participate. If you want to limit it to perceptions of your take on this or that book you may, or may not, have read, please say so up front. Otherwise, lets let the studio audience have their say.

[Ol_Dog]

I guess you get the red button with t

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Well - writing quick without looking at materials requires one depend on long term memory. Writing after reading something specific - if you are honest - involves reporting what you read. They might indeed not be consistent. What one says ought to be related to what one knows - at the time one says it.

Thats an odd thing for someone who's always chastising others to speak precisely or "technically". Apparantly you don't practice what you preach.

I have heard that some people are never able to admit they got it wrong - or not perfectly right - but I don't find such an attitude useful myself.

From reading your lengthy paragraphs....i'd say you've found it quite useful.

Someone wanted to know the units assigned - so I sent for a book that I thought might have that - and this thread is about what that book says.

Looks to me like this thread is about you weaving back and forth between 1941 or earlier and now 1942 in regards to the alleged "plan" against Hawaii and the time period in which such an operation is "valid". These "divisional" elements you "identified" were only mentioned and sent vague orders to "begin preperation" mere days before Nagumo's depleated Kido Butai set sail for it's date with destiny. Had the Americans done what Yamamotto expected of them and died like obediant enemies, perhaps something more substantial would have come of it. Perhaps not. One thing for sure, a reverse such as what was experienced at Midway or even a partial Midway would have quickly curbed any enthusiasm for a Hawaii adventure on the Army's part. The Army apparantly didn't realize how many American serviceman were stationed at Oahu by this point either...a little fact which also would have done much to dampen the initial enthusiasm created by Doolittle's sting.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: el cid again
This thread is mainly based on Hawaii Under the Rising Sun.

This thread is based on the perceptions of the people who wish to participate. If you want to limit it to perceptions of your take on this or that book you may, or may not, have read, please say so up front. Otherwise, lets let the studio audience have their say.

In theory - the person who started the thread should know what it was started about. That does not mean other things may not be written about. But there appears to have been confusion about what invasion was being described - also about what sources were being used for the information posted. I was attempting to clarify both points. Do you have a problem with that?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Well - writing quick without looking at materials requires one depend on long term memory. Writing after reading something specific - if you are honest - involves reporting what you read. They might indeed not be consistent. What one says ought to be related to what one knows - at the time one says it.

Thats an odd thing for someone who's always chastising others to speak precisely or "technically". Apparantly you don't practice what you preach.

You lost me here. I was attempting to expain how this thread might not be consistent with other things I have posted. It is full of things I either have just learned, or did not remember, and could not have posted, or could not have posted completely. When I learn something I report it accurately and honestly. You think it would be better to worry about being consistent with things previously said? Professional researchers and investigators are most valuable when they are open minded, willing to learn, willing to change what they have said in the past, and having no egoistic need to be consistent at the expense of present knowledge of the truth. It has been said in some threads that I am hard to persuade - but I try hard not to let that charge be true. I often write about what I once believed, how I learned something different, and I am completely open to learning still more. For me understanding is not cast in rigid stone or cement - and it is always subject to reasonable analysis including new data. And what has any of this to do with speaking precisely or technically? Indeed, it is sometimes said I mention this or that without enough supporting detail - but then when the supporting detail turns out to exist - they are still not happy. I do not require you believe what I believe. I do not intend to turn every topic into a full scale documentary contest (although I will claim I would win any such contest - on the basis that I probably have more of the documents than any 100 normal grognards combined). I am about to cease this level of debate - and convert over to a system of like it or lump it - in the interests of time. One thing the Forward to Shattered Sword is right about: our understanding is significantly changing as time passes - and many are upset that the original understandings are no longer universally accepted. I don't care what you choose to believe or not? I don't need anyone's approval to believe what I choose to believe - or to change my mind when new data becomes available to me.
There is no point in being critical about this. If you don't like the fact I am not rigidly narrow minded and wholly consistent - too bad.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I don't care what you choose to believe or not? I don't need anyone's approval to believe what I choose to believe - or to change my mind when new data becomes available to me.

Thats nice to hear. Myself, I'm content to let others believe what they want. However when they try to pass opinions and WAG's off as factual, I may on occasion take the time to point it out. Certainly when someone tells me something i've written is FALSE, i'll rise to the occasion and require proof.

There is no point in being critical about this. If you don't like the fact I am not rigidly narrow minded and wholly consistent - too bad.

I agree with the 2nd part of your self analysis.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have heard that some people are never able to admit they got it wrong - or not perfectly right - but I don't find such an attitude useful myself.

From reading your lengthy paragraphs....i'd say you've found it quite useful.

REPLY: Only because you have a negative attitude. You are turning my explanation around backwards. First you object to my not being consistent. Then you are saying - what? That I am consistent? You cannot have it both ways. Unless in your mind it is always right to say I am always wrong - in which case I suppose you could.

Someone wanted to know the units assigned - so I sent for a book that I thought might have that - and this thread is about what that book says.

Looks to me like this thread is about you weaving back and forth between 1941 or earlier and now 1942 in regards to the alleged "plan" against Hawaii and the time period in which such an operation is "valid". These "divisional" elements you "identified" were only mentioned and sent vague orders to "begin preperation" mere days before Nagumo's depleated Kido Butai set sail for it's date with destiny. Had the Americans done what Yamamotto expected of them and died like obediant enemies, perhaps something more substantial would have come of it. Perhaps not. One thing for sure, a reverse such as what was experienced at Midway or even a partial Midway would have quickly curbed any enthusiasm for a Hawaii adventure on the Army's part. The Army apparantly didn't realize how many American serviceman were stationed at Oahu by this point either...a little fact which also would have done much to dampen the initial enthusiasm created by Doolittle's sting.

It is impossible not to weave back and forth. The material does that. And much of what is known requires filling in the blanks by doing exactly that.

Your reasonable sounding analysis also is perfectly wrong - so clearly you never read any of the material in any language. The bureaucracy didn't work that way - and continued detail planning well into 1944.

And this disclaimer: I told everyone before - and here again - that everything Japanese is complicated. It always is.
It is never completely integrated, consistent, logical, well thought through - with very rare exceptions - most of them too late to matter. This is not entirely a Japanese problem: the US long had exactly the same number of shipping administrations of perfectly analogous institutions (Army, Navy and Civilian). The US long had very bad relations between service branches - not just Army and Navy - and one study indicates only about 20% of our general officers were competent. Not everything on any side is all roses or all spades. We often get in trouble because of sweeping statements amounting to "Japan had zip" technology, plans, capabilities, name it. That is virtually never true. Start using reasonable qualifiers and we may agree as much as anyone agrees with me (which is never 100% of the time, but usually 90% or so).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I don't care what you choose to believe or not? I don't need anyone's approval to believe what I choose to believe - or to change my mind when new data becomes available to me.

Thats nice to hear. Myself, I'm content to let others believe what they want. However when they try to pass opinions and WAG's off as factual, I may on occasion take the time to point it out. Certainly when someone tells me something i've written is FALSE, i'll rise to the occasion and require proof.

There is no point in being critical about this. If you don't like the fact I am not rigidly narrow minded and wholly consistent - too bad.

I agree with the 2nd part of your self analysis.

Really? Do you understand a double negative in English usage? If so - I am impressed that you would so agree.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


REPLY: Only because you have a negative attitude. You are turning my explanation around backwards. First you object to my not being consistent. Then you are saying - what? That I am consistent? You cannot have it both ways. Unless in your mind it is always right to say I am always wrong - in which case I suppose you could.

Typical. When confronted, you try to make it an issue about you. LoL

It is impossible not to weave back and forth. The material does that. And much of what is known requires filling in the blanks by doing exactly that.

Your right....it's the material's fault that your inconsistant. Not you. Never you.

Your reasonable sounding analysis also is perfectly wrong - so clearly you never read any of the material in any language. The bureaucracy didn't work that way - and continued detail planning well into 1944.

So you say...and without anything concrete to back it up.

And this disclaimer: I told everyone before - and here again - that everything Japanese is complicated. It always is.

How convenient an excuse.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Really? Do you understand a double negative in English usage? If so - I am impressed that you would so agree.

My night is complete that i've impressed you. Really......it is.

[DuckofTindalos]

Perhaps Big T has not himself read Lundstrum's Forward to Shattered Sword? It is Lundstrum who says it is a revisionist history.

Perhaps you should go look up the word "revisionist" and note all its negative connotations, like how revisionism is in fact a Communist doctrine and is about changing history to fit the present without doing much actual work. Lundstrom uses the term "revolutionary" which is quite different from "revisionist"...

And I gave a precise quote from the foreword (please spell it correctly) regarding the indications about an attack on Midway. Please do me the same courtesy and give me a precise quote as to where the words "revisionist" or "revisionism" are used.

Except, of course, that you can't. You never could.

Do me the favour of turning the button back on, and don't call me "Big T". That indicates a level of familiarity and friendliness between us that can never exist.

[el cid again]

It has been so long - I had forgotten - but there was once a time that I used to contend with actual communists of various stripes. I was never willing to conceed to them any terminology - or respect their usages. I am content when a scholar says he is writing a forward for a history that it is a significant revision to think the small letter adjective revisionist applies. I also copied the nickname Big T from another Forum member - since it is a recognized handle - and easier to type than the whole word. And since you explicitly refuse to be civil to me - I explicitly refuse to do what might please you. I note, for the record, however, that I am not using the word "never" as you did: I am always willing to consider the possibility you might become honorable, civil and even familiar. It has happened before - and I am patient. Sooner or later you may just notice that I am always constructive and usually right, but willing to consider other perspectives.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


Your reasonable sounding analysis also is perfectly wrong - so clearly you never read any of the material in any language. The bureaucracy didn't work that way - and continued detail planning well into 1944.

So you say...and without anything concrete to back it up.

You might try Hawaii Under the Rising Sun. Or perhaps that isn't concrete?

It is SOP that different bureaucracies work on something in Japan - almost always without coordination - often with rules not to talk to anyone in a different agency? It is SOP in all countries that, once begun, a bureaucracy will continue with its mandate, until told to stop. You can know what happened if you want to. And if you don't want to know, fine by me. Just don't get upset when I say something about it. You once allegedly wanted to know where esoteric information came from. Now it appears you don't really intend to accept it - no matter its quality - or even examine it. I no longer feel it is worth my time bothering to point at these matters for you. Since you already know everything that can be known, and are offended if there is any diviation from that, it is not worth the time to actually try to help. I am more used to people interested in getting at the truth - and while I can spar - for me the object remains to achieve a better understanding. You cannot learn if you already know I am wrong.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


You might try Hawaii Under the Rising Sun. Or perhaps that isn't concrete.

Depends on what it says. If all it mentions is the units that were given an alert order in May42, then i've already commented about it and i'm still waiting for you to back up your latest declaration of FALSE with the detailed magical mystery tour of Oahu in 41 or prior.

You can know what happened if you want to. And if you don't want to know, fine by me. Just don't get upset when I say something about it. You once allegedly wanted to know where esoteric information came from. Now it appears you don't really intend to accept it - no matter its quality - or even examine it.

I examined your "evidence" and found it typically etherial and inconsistant with past arguments about the viability of a Hawaiian adventure nor did it constitute proof of a detailed, dedicated plan to invade Hawaii. Ah....but it's JAPAN!......its all very complicated. [8|]

I no longer feel it is worth my time bothering to point at these matters for you. Since you already know everything that can be known, and are offended if there is any diviation from that, it is not worth the time to actually try to help. I am more used to people interested in getting at the truth - and while I can spar - for me the object remains to achieve a better understanding. You cannot learn if you already know I am wrong.

Sounds like your the one who's getting upset. A marked petulance is oozing out from behind that mask of smug superiority you like to wear.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Sooner or later you may just notice that I am always constructive and usually right, but willing to consider other perspectives.

No, you're only "constructive" when people agree with you, hardly ever right and never willing to consider other perspectives that don't fit snugly into your "vision" of reality.

I also note that your previously stated "I never get upset" stance is starting to develop a marked list to port; maybe some counterflooding to starboard is in order?

But I will give you this: you're quite often funny. I can still chuckle over your "I have command presence" bit. That was hilarious!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


Your reasonable sounding analysis also is perfectly wrong - so clearly you never read any of the material in any language. The bureaucracy didn't work that way - and continued detail planning well into 1944.

So you say...and without anything concrete to back it up.

You might try Hawaii Under the Rising Sun. Or perhaps that isn't concrete?

It is SOP that different bureaucracies work on something in Japan - almost always without coordination - often with rules not to talk to anyone in a different agency. It is SOP in all countries that, once begun, a bureaucracy will continue with its mandate, until told to stop. You can know what happened if you want to. And if you don't want to know, fine by me. Just don't get upset when I say something about it. You once allegedly wanted to know where esoteric information came from? Now it appears you don't really intend to accept it - no matter its quality - or even examine it. I no longer feel it is worth my time bothering to point at these matters for you. Since you already know everything that can be known, and are offended if there is any diviation from that, it is not worth the time to actually try to help. I am more used to people interested in getting at the truth - and while I can spar - for me the object remains to achieve a better understanding. You cannot learn if you already know I am wrong.

[Nikademus]

If your going to simply repeat your posts....at least strive to properly document who said what. The Forum FAQ can also be of help in instructing you on the proper use of the 'Quote' command.