Gun Ownership may have prevented Japanese Empire Invasion WW2

I just saw on the history channel a few nights back that the Japanese Empire considered invading mainland USA because our standing Army was so small, but after careful consideration decided not to invade mainland USA because the majority of US males own(ed) rifles and would fight using guerilla tactics (as USA civilians did against the British in Revolutionary War and War 1812).

So there is an example of gun ownership serving one of the purposes the founding fathers intended.

Imagine if the majority of Chinese men owned rifles when the Japanese invaded China? It'd have made things a lot harder for the Japanese Army in China.

 

You lost me at "may have". Speculation is hardly fact. More likely the Empire of Japan did consider an invasion, but think they likely feared the logistical nightmare of it rather than a band of civilians with guns. The Japanese Infantry was a well trained, well geared, tough as nails, and fanatically motivated fighting force... I hardly think a armed civilian mob could stand against them.

Lots of great arguments for gun rights... but this is not one of them.

 

While I support the 2nd Amendment I would classify that as, "Yet another fantasy supporting gun ownership."

 

The Japanese did not have the weapon systems, logstics, or manpower to invade the US mainland. They couldn't even invade Hawaii. Japan was stupid for starting the war. They never had a plan to win it. They could have accomplished their primary objective without using force. They thought that they were fighting the Russians at the turn of the century.

 

I imagine that if the Japanese Empire would seriously consider an invasion of the US mainland, they wouldn't have shied away from invading Hawaii.

 

It would have made the war a lot shorter if they'd tried to invade the USA.

 

Can you post the title of the show or even better a clip or link to the full episode? Was the idea stated in the documentary based on Japanese documents or was it more conjecture?

 

Citations? I remember reading that the "rifle behind every blade of grass" quote was false...

 

Same here, but having 300+ million firearms is something to consider.....

 

But at the time how many were actually owned?

And what evidence is there to suggest they actually considered it?

 

I tried to research it and came up empty. The consideration part is unknown, it is simply impossible and lost to unwritten history. The 300+ was a current figure.

 

Yeah, think the number is up to 320 or so.

 

This must be based on an assumption that gun to gun fighting may occur. I doubt the Japanese would have that in mind.

More likely to create a state of fear by destroying infrastructure than by killing people. Look how the Palestinians live and then equate that to the USA.

 

The Japanese had a subsistence strategy for their troops, where they would send them to an area and tell them to subsist off of the land and local populations in that area. It worked at first but eventually stopped working as the war dragged on and supplies became scarcer.

I think this is actually a pretty feasible theory. The United States has a lot of resources and had a very small standing army at the onset of WWII. I'm sure they discussed an early ground invasion and then ruled it out, probably because of concerns like in the OP.

 

Admiral Yamamoto said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass."

 

When every citizen in your country is armed, you don't get invaded. Consider the amount of times Switzerland has been invaded.

 

There were many reasons the USA considered the lose of live - of both Americans and civilians - for an invasion was Japan was arming all civilian men and women of fighting age with rifles, grenades and mortars.

The response of Britian to potential invasion was to legally require every man in the country to be proficient in the long bow.

It was armed civilians in France joining with the French military that finally stopped the Muslim Western world conquest. But for armed French civilians we'd all be ending every message with "There is one prophet and Muhammed is his name" or be imprisoned if not.

 

Yes, when all civilians are combat ready nations normally don't get invaded. If you think about it this way, we are a nation of militia men.

 

How many countries have a citizenry at 100% gun ownership?

 

not any that i am aware of, but 70% is a lot more of a threat to would be invaders than 0%

 

It's not "may have" it's absolute fact.... I have read it in several books and it has been mentioned in several documentaries..

The Japanese were going to invade the US like they invaded China during the Sino-Japanese war.

 

Really? go read about the Sino-Japanese war... They had no problem invading China.

The Japanese were bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy...

Guns and patriots saved the US from a Japanese invasion...

 

I would say any percentage would be a moot point in a nuclear armed nation.

 

I have read many books on WWII myself as well as seen many documentaries that listed gun ownership as a mitigating factor and not the singular data point that led to the decision to not invade. Based upon my take on my research logistics was more of a concern as the further away from the homeland the fight the more of a logistical nightmare it creates. Another mitigating factor would be overextension of forces and having to simultaneously secure multiple supply lines.

 

Well, I'm talking about invasion. Nuclear weapons are a moot point if we are invaded. We can't nuke our own country.

You stop invaders with ground tactics if you did it with nuclear missiles you would be attacking your own country.

And again look at Switzerland, how many times have they been invaded? They certainly don't match us by far with nuclear weapons.