WW II: What if Japan attacked the west coast?

Thiel

New Member
Citizens soldiers have a long history in the USA, the british did not do very well. Not many country has the guns the USA does or a people that have been handling guns alll their lives. I think the Japnese would have been in for a nasty susprise.
So? The Japanese had been at war for about seven years by 1943, and they would be bringing tanks, mortar and artillery with them.
And unlike the British during the war of independence, they wouldn't have any qualms about burning entire cities to the ground, leaving any guerrillas without safe havens.
 

ltdanjuly10

New Member
Japanese light tanks and tankettes would be facing far more advanced American tanks.
Their sparse amounts of artillery would be facing large numbers of superior American guns. During WW2 the only military things the Japanese made well were naval vessels and binoculars.

As for Americas proud history of fire arms and militias
Historically you should no underestimate partisans like the British who were kicked out of the new world by large numbers of poorly trained but well armed fighters (with good marksmanship and guerrilla tactics) and had to return with the largest invasion fleet in the history of the world (at that time) only to once again be disappointed and defeated by Americas "minutemen" (with help from the french). By 1940, Americans were well armed and had been training militias and building defenses. Remember the Japanese never succeeded in china despite the fact that they were facing peasants and poorly equipped rebels. Also While one frightened, overweight sales clerk who shoots a Japanese infantryman in the chest with a shotgun may not seem like anything, when it has the potential to happen millions of times (attrition) it can be a war winner.
 

Thiel

New Member
Japanese light tanks and tankettes would be facing far more advanced American tanks.
Their sparse amounts of artillery would be facing large numbers of superior American guns. During WW2 the only military things the Japanese made well were naval vessels and binoculars.
True, but the question was what influence gun toting civilians would have had.

As for Americas proud history of fire arms and militias
Historically you should no underestimate partisans like the British who were kicked out of the new world by large numbers of poorly trained but well armed fighters (with good marksmanship and guerrilla tactics) and had to return with the largest invasion fleet in the history of the world (at that time) only to once again be disappointed and defeated by Americas "minutemen" (with help from the french). By 1940, Americans were well armed and had been training militias and building defenses. Remember the Japanese never succeeded in china despite the fact that they were facing peasants and poorly equipped rebels. Also While one frightened, overweight sales clerk who shoots a Japanese infantryman in the chest with a shotgun may not seem like anything, when it has the potential to happen millions of times (attrition) it can be a war winner.
Yes, but how long will they keep it up if the Japanese retaliates by killing an entire block every time said fat clerk pulls out his gun?
 

Locarnus

New Member
True, but the question was what influence gun toting civilians would have had.

Yes, but how long will they keep it up if the Japanese retaliates by killing an entire block every time said fat clerk pulls out his gun?
About the civilian impact (not the overall scenario, which is totally out of the question).
I agree, civilians only have a credible impact if the military has restrictions in dealing with them (opportunity costs).
If not, they will just wipe the floor with the armed civilians. Everything else is just hollywood/fanboy romantics.
 

ltdanjuly10

New Member
True, but the question was what influence gun toting civilians would have had.


Yes, but how long will they keep it up if the Japanese retaliates by killing an entire block every time said fat clerk pulls out his gun?
Oh yes...That Strategy...
Sure Worked well for the Nazis in France and Russia, did wonders for us in Philippines and Vietnam and has ended the war between Israel and Palestine....Since today is not opposite day (at least were i am) I must be acting sarcastic

Said Counter-Insurgency Strategy only wastes ammo and inflames the local populace
 

AMERICANMAN

Banned Member
So? The Japanese had been at war for about seven years by 1943, and they would be bringing tanks, mortar and artillery with them.
And unlike the British during the war of independence, they wouldn't have any qualms about burning entire cities to the ground, leaving any guerrillas without safe havens.
I dont think it would matter, I have seen my brother shoot a crow out of the air flying at half mile. Once his mind was made up he would fight and their are lot of americans like him. He does not like people all that much anyway. I think most americans would decide if you did not fight you deserved what ever you got. Over 80 million americans own guns and most more then one I am not sure any occupier ever run into that before, except maybe the British...and the fighting would not be in just the cities.
 

Locarnus

New Member
Oh yes...That Strategy...
Sure Worked well for the Nazis in France and Russia, did wonders for us in Philippines and Vietnam and has ended the war between Israel and Palestine....Since today is not opposite day (at least were i am) I must be acting sarcastic

Said Counter-Insurgency Strategy only wastes ammo and inflames the local populace
The Nazis needed the locals during the war/had not the resources to wipe them during the war.
If occupation is out of the question and all you care for is torched earth, the opinion of the locals is of no concern, because dead people dont have opinions.
And there are enough examples in history for that strategy. And it worked.

I dont think it would matter, I have seen my brother shoot a crow out of the air flying at half mile. Once his mind was made up he would fight and their are lot of americans like him. He does not like people all that much anyway. I think most americans would decide if you did not fight you deserved what ever you got. Over 80 million americans own guns and most more then one I am not sure any occupier ever run into that before, except maybe the British...and the fighting would not be in just the cities.
Well, the US frequently runs into those kinds of people. Often after giving those people the guns ;) .
And although a dead Afghan costs only a few hundred $ or so, the international public opinion would not like the wiping. It s not like this is theoretical. Vietnam massacres anyone?
Still even in Vietnam with an organized enemy the kill ratio was strongly in favour for US and allies. And look at Iraq. No chance whatsover in military terms for "insurgents".
 

AMERICANMAN

Banned Member
The Nazis needed the locals during the war/had not the resources to wipe them during the war.
If occupation is out of the question and all you care for is torched earth, the opinion of the locals is of no concern, because dead people dont have opinions.
And there are enough examples in history for that strategy. And it worked.



Well, the US frequently runs into those kinds of people. Often after giving those people the guns ;) .
And although a dead Afghan costs only a few hundred $ or so, the international public opinion would not like the wiping. It s not like this is theoretical. Vietnam massacres anyone?
Still even in Vietnam with an organized enemy the kill ratio was strongly in favour for US and allies. And look at Iraq. No chance whatsover in military terms for "insurgents".
In Iraq according to the polls more the Iraqi people were for the USA getting rid of Saddam then supported Saddam. It would not have been that way with an Japnese invasion of the USA>
 

Locarnus

New Member
In Iraq according to the polls more the Iraqi people were for the USA getting rid of Saddam then supported Saddam. It would not have been that way with an Japnese invasion of the USA>
I d like to see those polls ;) .

Anyway as others stated here, the Japs would aim for scorched earth in this hypothetical scenario.
The US cant do that in Iraq, at least not to the extent the Japs would have been able to.
 

Thiel

New Member
I dont think it would matter, I have seen my brother shoot a crow out of the air flying at half mile. Once his mind was made up he would fight and their are lot of americans like him. He does not like people all that much anyway. I think most americans would decide if you did not fight you deserved what ever you got. Over 80 million americans own guns and most more then one I am not sure any occupier ever run into that before, except maybe the British...and the fighting would not be in just the cities.
So? The Chineese had weapons and will as well, both during the Japanese occupation and during the Boxer rebellion. So did the Mexicans. Didn't help them much though.

And THAT tactic does work, so long as you're brutal enough. Look at the Roman Empire. A city rebels, what do you do? Reconquer it and slaughter everyone, spread salt on the fields so nothing will grow there for the next couple of years and poison all the water sources.
Even if the locals still wants to rebel after that, they wont have the means to do so.

A Japanese invasion of the US homeland would be a smash and bash. A supersized raid really.The goal wouldn't be to conquer the US, but to cripple its war industry. That means blowing factories and infrastructure and yes, killing workers by the thousands. Once the US gets back on its feet, they'll pack up their gear and scoot back across the Pacific. That means the opinion of the locals wont matter shit to them.
 

eastwatch

New Member
Japanese light tanks and tankettes would be facing far more advanced American tanks.
Their sparse amounts of artillery would be facing large numbers of superior American guns. During WW2 the only military things the Japanese made well were naval vessels and binoculars.

As for Americas proud history of fire arms and militias
Historically you should no underestimate partisans like the British who were kicked out of the new world by large numbers of poorly trained but well armed fighters (with good marksmanship and guerrilla tactics) and had to return with the largest invasion fleet in the history of the world (at that time) only to once again be disappointed and defeated by Americas "minutemen" (with help from the french). By 1940, Americans were well armed and had been training militias and building defenses. Remember the Japanese never succeeded in china despite the fact that they were facing peasants and poorly equipped rebels. Also While one frightened, overweight sales clerk who shoots a Japanese infantryman in the chest with a shotgun may not seem like anything, when it has the potential to happen millions of times (attrition) it can be a war winner.
Japanese intention was not to invade US west, but its only intention was to protect its vital sea lanes around the southeast asia from being re-captured by the US. US naval camps in Hawaii had the potentiality to stage an US comeback to the Philippines and east asia. So, the main target of the Japanese was to destroy the US military potential there.

If the Japanese had the intention of attacking the west coast, they would have done so with proper planning. They would not have spread throughout the entire zone. Rather, they would have concentrated to a few points without venturing deep. Any such attacks would have alarmed the US so much that it would not have dared to engage itself in the european theatre, leaving Germany free to take over the entire europe.

But, history did not move in the direction that the initiator of this thread assumes. Japanese did not attack west coast after they had successfully destroyed Hawaii. Japan had no such intention to capture any parts of the US.

People here are saying of guerrilla war if Japan had done so. I do not think, a guerrilla war would have made any dent to the merciless Japanese. They would have killed millions and raped all the women, that would have forced the civilians to flee to the far interior. If US mobilized its troops in the west coast, then it could not perhaps involve itself in the european war.
 

Locarnus

New Member
Japanese intention was not to invade US west, but its only intention was to protect its vital sea lanes around the southeast asia from being re-captured by the US. US naval camps in Hawaii had the potentiality to stage an US comeback to the Philippines and east asia. So, the main target of the Japanese was to destroy the US military potential there.
Well, the intention was to protect their sea lanes, but within their codex/doctrine. And thats the main reason why they offered so little resistance compared to what they would have been able to.
They didn t attack the fuel bunkers or supply depots and so on in hawai, they sticked to the warships, in line with their doctrine. A strike against the supply facilities would have had a much greater impact on the US ability to respond, than to cripple/sink some more warships.
The same goes for the subs. While the US raided the Japs supplies, the use of military equipment against merchants was seen as inappropriate. They wanted to use the subs mainly against US military ships, and let the US supply pass freely. :lol3
And then their training doctrine... :rolleyes:
And so on...

The problem for the Japs was, that they were able to win their previous conflicts with the starting doctrines, fairly quickly. So they never needed to adapt on a grand scale during a conflict, so they never implemented the mechanisms to do so. A terminal flaw in a prolonged war.
 

eastwatch

New Member
Japanese had no intention nor they had the capability to make an assault on the US west coast mainland. The distance is about 10,000 km (correct?) from Japan. Hawaii was approximately in between. Japanese attacked Hawaii without first declaring a war on USA.

The Hawaii assault was successful because it was unexpected. But, to attack the west coast, win a little territory and then hold it was almost impossible for the Japanese. It was a 10,000 km distance that they would have to cover to keep their supply line intact.

So, even if the Japanese had captured a part of west and killed the inhabitants, it would have not been possible for it to hold the piece of land. Pacific was full of US submarines. So, Japan's supply line would have been all at risk being destroyed by US navy. There was no way Japan could have held the territory in such a situation.
 
Last edited:

AMERICANMAN

Banned Member
Japanese had no intention nor they had the capability to make an assault on the US west coast mainland. The distance is about 10,000 km (correct?) from Japan. Hawaii was approximately in between. Japanese made attacked Hawaii without first declaring a war on USA.

The Hawaii assault was successful because it was unexpected. But, to attack the west coast, win a little territory and then hold it was almost impossible for the Japanese. It was a 10,000 km distance that they would have to cover to keep their supply line intact.

So, even if the Japanese had captured a part of west and killed the inhabitants, it would have not been possible for it to hold the piece of land. Pacific was full of US submarines. So, Japan's supply line would have been all at risk being destroyed by US navy. There was no way Japan could have held the territory in such a situation.
The thread is about what would have happened if they had invaded the USA and I maintain they would have been slaughtered by about 40 million americans that had used weapons since they were children.. The fact is a lot of americans like to fight.
 

eastwatch

New Member
The thread is about what would have happened if they had invaded the USA and I maintain they would have been slaughtered by about 40 million americans that had used weapons since they were children.. The fact is a lot of americans like to fight.
Your point noted. If Japan had successfully landed in the US west coast with a force of say 300,000 blood thirsty troops, they would not have certainly faced all the americans (what was the population then, 80 million?), because american paradise was too large. It is so large that the time difference between the two coasts is 3 hrs.

So, how do you expect these trigger-happy cowboys from all over the country to come to a single point? At 55 million, Japan was too overpopulated. Japanese military would have captured only those places that could produce enough food for the troops, administration and the poor Japanese they would have settled there to do the agriculture.

Japanese planners would have selected only those points that were self-sufficient in food, energy and other goods. All the whites would have been banished a thousand kms away from the occupied lands, and dissatisfied blacks would have been hired for doing menial jobs under strict military supervision. So, there arises no question of a guerrilla war.

These Japanese were so brute that they would roasted alive a few white americans in the public places only to discourage a revolt. Thousands of white women would have been gang-raped in public places, so that no one ever would have dared to venture into the occupied territory.

So, how the cowboy america would have reacted successfully in a situation like that?
 

AMERICANMAN

Banned Member
Your point noted. If Japan had successfully landed in the US west coast with a force of say 300,000 blood thirsty troops, they would not have certainly faced all the americans (what was the population then, 80 million?), because american paradise was too large. It is so large that the time difference between the two coasts is 3 hrs.

So, how do you expect these trigger-happy cowboys from all over the country to come to a single point? At 55 million, Japan was too overpopulated. Japanese military would have captured only those places that could produce enough food for the troops, administration and the poor Japanese they would have settled there to do the agriculture.

Japanese planners would have selected only those points that were self-sufficient in food, energy and other goods. All the whites would have been banished a thousand kms away from the occupied lands, and dissatisfied blacks would have been hired for doing menial jobs under strict military supervision. So, there arises no question of a guerrilla war.

These Japanese were so brute that they would roasted alive a few white americans in the public places only to discourage a revolt. Thousands of white women would have been gang-raped in public places, so that no one ever would have dared to venture into the occupied territory.

So, how the cowboy america would have reacted successfully in a situation like that?
Soon as the Japanese landed they would have been attacked, day and night and every hour thousands of more americans, men, women, children all armed and used to useing weapons.would be on the attack. Any brutality by the Japanese would have just made the american more angery and more determined. Every Japanese in america would have be slaughterd. An americans most prized posession would have been a Japanese scalp.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
This whole conversation is moot anyway considering it was not within Imperial Japans capability to even threaten CONUS with anything other than a carrier based air strike. Too much Red Dawn watching methinks.
 

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

This whole conversation is moot anyway considering it was not within Imperial Japans capability to even threaten CONUS with anything other than a carrier based air strike. Too much Red Dawn watching methinks.
I-400 based seiran carrying chemical/biological weapons eg uji bombs. Thankfully never happened but they had the capability.
 

ltdanjuly10

New Member
[QUOTE So, how the cowboy america would have reacted successfully in a situation like that?[/QUOTE]

Probably by using its superior manufacturing capability and population size to drive the invaders from its shores and back across the pacific. Then given the culture (Racial superiority, White Mans Burden, ETC) at the time the Americans would deem the Japanese people sub-human. This would lead to a great human tragedy as an ethnic cleansing campaign would ensue using Atom Bombs and probably Chemicals and Biological weapons. The Soviets would join in to grab some land and show solidarity. End Result The destruction of the Japanese people (some might survive in America), a white wash of the history books and Germany might survive till 1946.
Impact on Americas culture would be massive, collaborators would be executed, and it might be used to "justify" harsher race laws.

So be joyful "cowboy" America has never been forced into a situation like that because if you think America acts reckless now, wait until someone commits mass atrocity on our shores. after all, most Americans at that time were only one generation removed from the old world mentality
 

eastwatch

New Member
Probably by using its superior manufacturing capability and population size to drive the invaders from its shores and back across the pacific. Then given the culture (Racial superiority, White Mans Burden, ETC) at the time the Americans would deem the Japanese people sub-human. This would lead to a great human tragedy as an ethnic cleansing campaign would ensue using Atom Bombs and probably Chemicals and Biological weapons. The Soviets would join in to grab some land and show solidarity. End Result The destruction of the Japanese people (some might survive in America), a white wash of the history books and Germany might survive till 1946.
Impact on Americas culture would be massive, collaborators would be executed, and it might be used to "justify" harsher race laws.

So be joyful "cowboy" America has never been forced into a situation like that because if you think America acts reckless now, wait until someone commits mass atrocity on our shores. after all, most Americans at that time were only one generation removed from the old world mentality

You are talking as if USA had already stolen atomic technology from the fleeing european scientists when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. If it were so that the USA had already built the big bombs at that time, then there would not have been a pearl harbour at all.

About military myth and white supremacy, note that Japan defeated the then strongest white Russian Baltic naval duck in 1905. Japan had single handedly drove away the white humans from the asian lands. Japan single-handedly defeated the British in Hongkong, Singapore, Malay and Burma.

It defeated another white duck called France and drove it away from Indo-China including Vietnam. It drove away another smaller white duck called Netherland from Indonesia. Then it drove away the biggest white duck called United States of America from the Philippines.

This is how Japan alone defeated all the western white ELEPHANTS, who just decided to surrender to a stronger force rather than fighting like RAMBO. Ramboes do not die in the films, but the fun-loving whites die in real life because they cannot fight.

So, US cowboys could have done nothing to the Japanese settlers even if they had captured a 100, 000 sq.km of W. Coast land. Then, of course, after a few years, USA would have annihilated the settlements with atoms. But, that is another topic.
 
Top