Hawaii was the most strategically important set of islands for the U.S during the war. East of the islands was empty sea with no place for a base of operations like Hawaii was during the U.S invasions of the japanese pacific islands. My question is why the japanese didnt instead seize hawaii entirely which wouldve given them complete control of all U.S land in the pacific (except for the Aluetian islands in the north). What ive read is that the japanese caught the americans completely of guard during their attack on Pearl harbor, why not also include an amphibious invasion on the already wounded and shocked troops stationed after the aerial attack?
John Parshall, one of the authors of Shattered Sword (one of the major texts on the Battle of Midway), published an article on his website . The long and the short of it is that Japan simply did not have the shipping resources to take the islands, despite the strategic benefit they would have accrued. The American garrison was much too large for the Japanese amphibious forces to actually take the islands. The amount of Japanese shipping needed to crack Hawaii would have taxed Japanese resources. While the IJA as willing to part with forces for the southern drive, they would not have sanctioned such a major diversion. Japanese shipping in December 1941 barely had enough hulls to cover the invasions in East Asia and provide for the Home Islands. Attacking Hawaii would have meant abandoning any drive on the SE Asia for the foreseeable future, which was the whole rationale for the Japanese air raid in the first place: to prevent the US fleet from interfering in Japan's Southern drive.