"Killing Yamamoto" Topic

The US made a special effort to successfully intercept and shoot down Admiral Yamamoto's aircraft during WWII.

How much of an impact did this have on the war in the Pacific? On a scale of 0 (none) to 10 (major impact).

I was Yamamoto once in a Check Your 5 game. They got me.

I think it had little impact, aside from propaganda.
He was not brilliant in operations, merely competent.
He predicted accurately that the Japanese would run riot for 6 months before the tide began to turn. He was right.
His plan for the Midway operation my have been too complicated.

He was OK, and his replacements were neither better nor worse.

For American propaganda, and for putting a number in the Poll, I give his assassination a … 3.

Yes, I called it an assassination. In a total war, nothing wrong with that. The winners persecute the war criminals, and we won.

I was Yamamoto once in a Check Your 5 game. They got me.

That's because you're supposed to check your six, not your five!

Gack!
Too late to edit and fix my typo now, I've been caught!

My tactics were brilliant, but riding in a Kate (or was it a Betty?) and evading P-38s gives only so much safety. Sooner or later, I zigged when I should have zagged.
I crashed one turn away from the runway.

I agree with John, probably a 3 or 4. It's damaging to an organization when a leader is removed, but he wasn't particularly notable.

As for it being an assassination, I disagree. I don't think it's "assassination" when an enemy combatant is specifically targeted. Like you said though, it's total war, so "enemy" gets broadly defined (anyone in the opposing country), but "combatant" remains a pretty firm definition, at least in those military theaters where guerrillas/partisans are not present.

In Check Your 6, a P-38 would have to whiff his damage roll to NOT tear up a Betty in one pass…even the later Bettys are only R2 in that game, right?

I think its a 1.

Admiral Yamamoto was unable to affect the progress of the war after Midway and the subsequent US operations.

I wish he could have survived the war, like Rommel, we lost a great man IMHO.

They would not have hesitated to kill one of our Admirals. The Brits tried to kill Rommel.
I think it had a great morale effect-my father thought so.

At that point in the war 1 or 2 at best.

More a morale than an operational effect.

Morale – maybe a 4/5 Ops maybe a 2

To quote Napoleon "The morale is to the physical as three to one." Not only was Yamamoto, the man who planned Pearl Harbour, a major boost to American morale it was an emotional blow to the Japanese people and leadership which shouldn't be underestimated.

Fatman

Japan had already lost the war before Yamamoto's death so I'm not sure it had much effect.

Personally, in something as nasty as war I can't see any problem in targeting an enemy leader.

Note that I do not consider assassination necessarily a Bad Thing.
to the pilots it was a bomber to be shot down. The fact that they knew who was on board is irrelevant. Just don't tell the Japanese if you are shot down.
"He was on the plane? Gosh!"
Not that it would help any…

At that point in the war, it is not difficult to imagine Yamamoto having a Death Wish: not wanting to survive the war to face trial at the hands of the victorious Allies as a war criminal.

Yamamoto seems to have been the one senior Japanese officer with any real understanding of American capabilities. Whether that would have translated into any meaningful difference to the outcome of the war is another question.

Targeting a uniformed enemy combatant in war(a Declared one at that) is NOT an assassination. Geez. *shakes head*

Just a wild thought – with his understanding of the US and its culture and its industrial potential, his realistic appreciation of what could and could not be achieved – if he had lived might he have been able to persuade his Government to end the war earlier?

"Just a wild thought – with his understanding of the US and its culture and its industrial potential, his realistic appreciation of what could and could not be achieved – if he had lived might he have been able to persuade his Government to end the war earlier?"

Very interesting thought. I wonder, though, in such an instance,if the Japanese High Command/government might have killed him.

At that point in the war, it is not difficult to imagine Yamamoto having a Death Wish: not wanting to survive the war to face trial at the hands of the victorious Allies as a war criminal.

What war crime did he commit?

None but several Japanese officers who hadn't were charged with and found guilty of war crimes. However as the US government considered all the casualties of the Pearl Harbour attack as noncombatants

Well Rallynow, Yamamoto planned Pearl Harbor and Halsey wanted him dead. A major reason for shooting him down and had he survived a reason to try him. Interestkingly by that time his military ability would have had limited impact and as speculated above he might have moderated the high command's views on continuing the war.

For example, General Homma was ostensibly tried for the 'Death March' but it was noted at the time that the trial was conducted to reach a predetermined verdict. At least one historian has stated that Homma's real crime was in beating MacArthur.

As noted above the victors decide what constitutes a 'war crime.'

Sorry premature posting that should have continued …, a state of war not being declared when the attack occurred, they would no doubt have used that.

Fatman

Admiral Raeder was prosecuted at Nuremberg, charged with "Planing And Waging Wars Of Aggression", specifically with his involvement in the invasion of Norway. I suspect Yamamoto would have been charged with the same crime if he had survived the war and hadn't committed suicide. I can't see how his involvement with the raid on Pearl Harbour was any less of a crime than the invasion of Norway.

Nope, you have to make a better case than that. Lots of Japanese who committed horrible atrocities got off without even being charged and resumed normal lives and went to work for major corporations.

As far as I know Yamamoto did not commit or order large scale murdering of civilians and POWs. Many Japanese of all ranks did just that and they were never brought to trail.

Halsey wanting him dead is not a crime. Pearl Harbor was an act of war not a crime. The Japanese did the same thing in the Russo/Japanese war. The Israelis started the six day war with a preemptive strike with no declaration of war.

It is a very effective tactic. The problem with Pearl Harbor was the third strike was never launched so the dry docks, submarine pens and the fleet oil reserve were left untouched. Lucky for us our carriers were at sea.

But of course it was madness to even contemplate going to war with the U.S. and Yamamoto knew it. He was one of the few who did not underestimate the American will to fight.

Raeder was to be charged for waging unrestricted submarine warfare. Oh wait, we did the same thing to the Japanese. But it is true that the victors get to decide who is a criminal and who isn't. Imagine if it was the other way around.

The charge of "waging aggressive war" was invented to keep the Soviets in the game. They wanted the German leadership dead, most notably any of Prussian decent, quite regardless of whether they had or had not followed the usual and customary rules of war.

Since the Soviets held many of these German leaders captive, and the Western Allies really wanted the Soviets to participate in the trials, the "waging aggressive war" charge was concocted. It got them to participate and turn over several, though not all, of the German leaders they held. In the end the Soviets participated in the trials at Nuremberg, but also held their own separate trials as well.

Or so I've come to understand…

In the Pacific there was really no need to mollify the Soviets, so no concocted charges to bring highly covetted captives out of Soviet hands.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)