Could you plausibly claim that the US provoked Japan before Pearl Harbor

[Jellico]

Yeah. And you think obstruction tactics by minority political extremists in the US is bad.

It is hard to see a result in 30s Japan that doesn't end in blood tears and humiliation by a foreign force. No local force can tame the extremists and the extremists don't know how to say "that's enough".

 

[HexWargamer]

Back to the OP, and at the risk of being acused of Trolling ...
This side of the pond we suspect that Churchill encouraged FDR to take a hard line and push sancions against Japan knowing it would lead to war - this being the only way to get the US Cavalry to ride to our rescue (hey, we were loosing) - and not a few are convinced that Bletchly Park had cracked the Jap. Diplomatic codes and Churchil knew exactly what the Japs were about to do. What none of us can fathom is how Chruchil got Hitler to declare war on the USA ....

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Back to the OP, and at the risk of being acused of Trolling ...
This side of the pond we suspect that Churchill encouraged FDR to take a hard line and push sancions against Japan knowing it would lead to war - this being the only way to get the US Cavalry to ride to our rescue (hey, we were loosing) - and not a few are convinced that Bletchly Park had cracked the Jap. Diplomatic codes and Churchil knew exactly what the Japs were about to do. What none of us can fathom is how Chruchil got Hitler to declare war on the USA ....

Yes, because what the British really wanted was the destruction of the US Pacific Fleet, an American asset that the British thought would curtail the Japanese. If the British really knew what Mobile Fleet was about to do they would have told the US.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Yes, because what the British really wanted was the destruction of the US Pacific Fleet, an American asset that the British thought would curtail the Japanese. If the British really knew what Mobile Fleet was about to do they would have told the US.

Better question, if the British knew exactly what the Japanese were about to do, how come Britain's forces in the Far East and South East got caught with their pants down?

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Better question, if the British knew exactly what the Japanese were about to do, how come Britain's forces in the Far East and South East got caught with their pants down?

That too. A naval enthusiast like Churchill was never going to send Force Z to its doom.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

That too. A naval enthusiast like Churchill was never going to send Force Z to its doom.

*intentionally

Wasting naval assets on fool's errands was very much in Churchill's wheelhouse.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

*intentionally

Wasting naval assets on fool's errands was very much in Churchill's wheelhouse.

Yeah, that's a good addition. Gallipoli in particular always seemed like an awful idea. Though that's with the benefit of hindsight I suppose.

 

[Athelstane]

Hull's note made it quite clear that would not be enough to get Japan any economic relief.

You're right, but there is some evidence that FDR himself would have taken an offer like that seriously, and it's not at all impossible that a full withdrawal from Indochina could hav impelled him to override Hull and ease the embargo to some degree.

 

[Dilvish]

Better question, if the British knew exactly what the Japanese were about to do, how come Britain's forces in the Far East and South East got caught with their pants down?

Reason 1) Letting all those commanders and other top officials know what is going on risks spilling the beans.

Reason 2) The massive defeats gave the Commonwealth the fear and anger to carry onward to total victory. All part of the grand conspiracy.

Reason 3) Churchill and his fellow plotters didn't think that far down the list. They may have assumed that the Japanese weren't as good as they were, and that the Imperial forces would be able to defeat the Japanese offensives.

It all makes sense to me.

 

[Dilvish]

You're right, but there is some evidence that FDR himself would have taken an offer like that seriously, and it's not at all impossible that a full withdrawal from Indochina could hav impelled him to override Hull and ease the embargo to some degree.

I am thinking the same thing. A withdrawal from Indochina would lead to some reciprocal action from the USA. Also, what would the British, Dutch, and Australia/New Zealand want to do in response?

 

[Fulton 44]

I believe that the US actually "froze" Japanese assets and bank accounts in the US (what Carter did to Iran). On the other hand, their enormous dependence on our oil and scrap iron should have made them more circumspect in dealing with us. As I understand it, they depended not only on the oil itself but on our tankers to haul it to them. So without their own oil and with an inadequate supply of their own tankers, the whole notion of the war was badly conceived. It would have made more sense for them to pull out of Vietnam to placate us. To settle for the status quo in China and to attack the USSR to help Germany. If the USSR goes down, the whole situation changes and they can resume pushing into China and SE Asia.

 

[Green Painting]

The US tried to stop Japan from gaining what’s not theirs. It wasn’t a provocation.

 

[Jellico]

Reason 2) The massive defeats gave the Commonwealth the fear and anger to carry onward to total victory. All part of the grand conspiracy.

And destroy the British Empire. The British inability to even pretend to support the Eastern Empire led directly to the end of Empire east of Suez. And all the relevant players were told this beforehand.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Yeah, that's a good addition. Gallipoli in particular always seemed like an awful idea. Though that's with the benefit of hindsight I suppose.

To be fair the Dardanelles had virtually no defenses when the Mediterranean Fleet's Battlecruisers showed up to bombard it in November 1914. Alas this alerted the Ottomans who corrected the problem which meant later efforts ended poorly

 

[Raferty]

No, the refusal to trade with a country is not a casus belli. Blockading Japanese ports would have been, but that is not what happened.

 

[Matt Wiser]

Original question: No.

Now, as for Admiral Yamamoto: he was a pragmatist and a realist. He knew full well, based on his time in the U.S., that if Japan got into a prolonged war with the U.S., it would lose. He did oppose the decision to go to war, and had the Pearl Harbor plan going well before the decision, as we know, but he expected a diplomatic solution. Even as late as 18 Nov, when there was a final meeting prior to Kido Butai deploying to the Kurils before sailing for Hawaii, he reminded the assembled officers that Japan's diplomats were still trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement, and that if there was a settlement, the fleet would be recalled at once. When there were protests, he demanded that anyone who would proceed with an attack even if a diplomatic solution had been reached, then he would accept their resignations.

Also keep in mind that he got the Combined Fleet command because of his opposition to the alliance with Germany and Italy. Ultranationalists threatened his life, and being at sea was seen as safer than the snake pit of Tokyo.

 

[CalBear]

Back to the OP, and at the risk of being acused of Trolling ...
This side of the pond we suspect that Churchill encouraged FDR to take a hard line and push sancions against Japan knowing it would lead to war - this being the only way to get the US Cavalry to ride to our rescue (hey, we were loosing) - and not a few are convinced that Bletchly Park had cracked the Jap. Diplomatic codes and Churchil knew exactly what the Japs were about to do. What none of us can fathom is how Chruchil got Hitler to declare war on the USA ....

Strongly advise you to refrain from promoting conspiracy theories, especially ones that have been co0mpetely and utterly debunked time and again for the last 60 years of so.

Will not warn on this issue again.