Does US declare war if Japan only attacks BE & DEI?

Does US delare war after Japan only attacking BE & DEI


  • Total voters
    99

LordKalvert

Banned
Roosevelt had authority to direct the US Armed Forces to attack German & Italian forces based on the orders which were given during 1941 during the Undeclared War in the Atlantic. FDR could give orders to directly attack Formosa or, more likely, to attack Japanese vessels that are within a 'Neutrality Zone' around the Philippines.
EDIT:


I don't think that you understand what US Presidential authority was in the early 1900s. You should read up on President Wilson's interventions in the 1910s as well as other interventions in the 1920s & 1930s.

I think you might want to familiarize American law concerning armed intervention particularly outside the Western Hemisphere. A very important part of Roosevelt's attacks on subs is that the sub had to be west of 25 degrees of longitude

If Roosevelt had had the authority you are asserting, don't you think he would have been bombing Germany like years earlier?
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Does Roosevelt really need to have the authority to commit acts of war requires a Congressional Act in order to make the Japanese retaliate.

Just sending B17s to find IJN convoys for RN/Dutch subs and sending escorted USN convoys with LL through the combat zone to supply forces fighting the IJA will make them very annoyed and almost certainly start an incident that gives Roosevelt all he needs to get an act...

I mean... not necessarily.

If American ships with American crews are used to carry war materials to Britain and some of them are sunk by the Germans on the way over, would you be in favor of going to war against Germany?

Yes................................ 27%

No................................ 61

No opinion......................... 12
 

nbcman

Donor
I mean... not necessarily.

If American ships with American crews are used to carry war materials to Britain and some of them are sunk by the Germans on the way over, would you be in favor of going to war against Germany?

Yes................................ 27%

No................................ 61

No opinion......................... 12

That poll is from February 1941. Here are more polls showing increased support for assisting Britain as 1941 progresses:

Interviewing Date 4/10-15/41

Survey #234-K Question #7

If it appears certain that Britain will be defeated unless we use part of our navy to protect ships going to Britain, would you favor or oppose such convoys?

Favor.............................. 71%

Oppose............................. 21

No opinion......................... 8

EUROPEAN WAR

Interviewing Date 5/8-13/41

Survey #236-K Question #5a

Should the United States navy be used to guard ships carrying war materials to Britain?

Yes................................ 52%

No................................ 41

No opinion......................... 7

Interviewing Date 6/26-7/1/41

Survey #240-K Question #1

Do you think the United States navy should be used to convoy ships carrying war materials to Britain?

Yes................................ 56%

No................................ 35

No opinion......................... 9

Interviewing Date 10/24-29/41

Survey #251-K Question #3

Should the Neutrality Act be changed to permit American merchant ships with American crews to carry war materials to Britain?

Yes................................ 61%

No................................ 31

No opinion......................... 8
 

nbcman

Donor
I think you might want to familiarize American law concerning armed intervention particularly outside the Western Hemisphere. A very important part of Roosevelt's attacks on subs is that the sub had to be west of 25 degrees of longitude

As Neutrality patrols went to Iceland, that is not true as Reyjavik is 22 degrees of longitude.

EDIT: Per the referenced document, The TC.15 convoy left Halifax on 14 October and was escorted to 22 W by US ships and the WS.12X convoy with over 20k British troops was escorted from Halifax all the way to Cape Town by a task force that included the USS Ranger.

If Roosevelt had had the authority you are asserting, don't you think he would have been bombing Germany like years earlier?

FDR was moving towards a more interventionist stance as the US public opinion allowed. As of late November 1941, there was no support to declaring war on Germany:

EUROPEAN WAR

Interviewing Date 11/7-12/41

Survey #252-K Question #11

It has been suggested that Congress pass a resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the United States and Germany. Would you favor or oppose such a resolution at this time?

Favor.............................. 26%

Oppose.............................63

No opinion......................... 11

But there was public support to actions short of declaring war as proven through the progressive changes to the Neutrality Patrol areas and Rules of Engagement.
 
Last edited:

LordKalvert

Banned
As Neutrality patrols went to Iceland, that is not true as Reyjavik is 22 degrees of longitude.

EDIT: Per the referenced document, The TC.15 convoy left Halifax on 14 October and was escorted to 22 W by US ships and the WS.12X convoy with over 20k British troops was escorted from Halifax all the way to Cape Town by a task force that included the USS Ranger.



FDR was moving towards a more interventionist stance as the US public opinion allowed. As of late November 1941, there was no support to declaring war on Germany:

EUROPEAN WAR

Interviewing Date 11/7-12/41

Survey #252-K Question #11

It has been suggested that Congress pass a resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the United States and Germany. Would you favor or oppose such a resolution at this time?

Favor.............................. 26%

Oppose.............................63

No opinion......................... 11

But there was public support to actions short of declaring war as proven through the progressive changes to the Neutrality Patrol areas and Rules of Engagement.

Your right, after the Neutrality act was repealed in 1941 the zone was extended. But that required Congressional action- i.e. the notion that the President could just bomb away on Formosa isn't supported
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
That poll is from February 1941. Here are more polls showing increased support for assisting Britain as 1941 progresses:

Except none of these supports the idea that the public would go to war over a naval engagement. In fact, the support of the public for naval moves and its opposition to war in general suggests they viewed these as different things, much like how people supported NATO air strikes in Libya but would have been unlikely supporters of a U.S. ground invasion.
 
Does Roosevelt really need to have the authority to commit acts of war requires a Congressional Act in order to make the Japanese retaliate.

FDR had the constitutional authority to order US armed forces in the Far East to assist the British and Dutch without any congressional authorization required. If Japan chose to attack Luzon in return then congress would issue a DOW. So the only real question would be, what if FDR attacks Formosa with B-17's and the Japanese do nothing?
 
Inspired by the other poll thread. I wonder would the US declare war on Japan in the event (however unlikely you may think) of attacking the colonial territories of Britain and the Netherlands.

Within 30 days,

month to 3 months,

3 months to 6 months,

6 months to a year,

not at all.

I went with not at all, as historically the German and Italian DoW's didn't do it, and the attack on the USS Panay didn't do it, so no US DoW on Japan/Axis until they directly start killing Americans is some way that more incites public outrage.

In WWI there were several sinkings of US ships, and even the Lusitania sinking was not enough to bring the USA into the fight, so we will need something to get the show on the road, as it were.

Food for thought.
 
Where is this documented?

FDR had the constitutional authority to order US armed forces in the Far East to assist the British and Dutch without any congressional authorization required. If Japan chose to attack Luzon in return then congress would issue a DOW. So the only real question would be, what if FDR attacks Formosa with B-17's and the Japanese do nothing?

Where is this documented? I don't remember Congress providing FDR with this authority.
 
The Japanese had had extensive contacts with the Americans for nearly a century and had dealt with other democracies as well. The concept would not have been alien to them

Ever heard of the Fugu Plan? It was a Japanese project to settle Jewish refugees in Manchuria. (Fugu is the Japanese name for the blowfish, which is considered a great delicacy even though it can be a deadly poison.) Several thousand European Jews got visas to enter the Japanese Empire in 1939-1940 as a result of the plan.

The Japanese started the plan because they read a lot of "Elders of Zion" Jewish-conspiracy rubbish in the 1930s, and believed it. They concluded that the reason they were getting so much blowback against their invasion of China and so on was that Japan had no Jews. The plan would bring a cohort of Jews into the Japanese state, who would then fix things with the Jews who really controlled the U.S. and Britain.

Of course this would be dangerous - thus the analogy to fugu.

But anyone who could believe the utterly delusionary premise was, yes, seriously naive about U.S. politics.
 
USA DOW against Japan would be delayed

If the Japanese only attacked the DEI and British possessions, I doubt very seriously that the US would have declared war on Japan.

Remember in 1940, FDR ran on the campaign that he would not get the US involved in any foreign wars. "Roosevelt, in a pledge that he would later regret, promised that he would "not send American boys into any foreign wars." At that time, the country was still leaning isolationist. As the surveys have shown, that attitude was changing in the public but there was still a significant number of isolationists in Congress. And the focus was on Europe.

FDR saw Germany as the bigger threat and was willing to delay actions against the Japanese for as long as possible. He was willing to hold off action against Germany even after they torpedoed the Kearny and sank the Reuben James. He knew the US military wasn't ready for war at that time.

The US defensive buildup in the Pacific was scheduled to be completed in spring/summer 1942. Once that buildup was completed, I can envision FDR ordering the USN to be more aggressive in the Western Pacific to give the US a causis belli for war with Japan. But even then I think the focus would first be on dealing with the Germans and then dealing with the Japanese afterwards.

Personally, I think that US would have done everything it could to have avoided war until summer of 1942 and then find a reason to declare war on the European Axis. The US would wait until the first of the Two Ocean Navy ships were commissioned (late 1943/early 1944 as originally planned) before they would feel comfortable dealing with the Japanese.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the following German declaration of war on 11 December changed that whole equation. It was Pearl Harbor that effectively silenced the Isolationists and changed the country's attitude completely.
 
In WWI there were several sinkings of US ships, and even the Lusitania sinking was not enough to bring the USA into the fight, so we will need something to get the show on the road, as it were.

Food for thought.


The Lusitania was not a US ship.

But is certainly true that the "threshold" for a casus belli had risen quite a bit since WW1, and even some American ships going down en route to Britain might well not have been enough to cause one.
 
This is a bit of a digression from the OP, but WI the Japanese don't invade anywhere until striking the French, British, and Dutch in 1941 (maybe the Control Faction slaps down the Kodoha faster than OTL)? They would have the bulk of the Kwantung Army available for the fighting in SE Asia (possibly threatening India?), and would be able to stockpile strategic materials without the massive expenditure of the China enterprise.

Without the Japanese invasion, would the KMT be able to finally crush the communists and bring the warlords to heel, or would the Chinese be about as vulnerable in 1950 as in 1937?
 
Last edited:
Top