I.J.N Question

amphibulous

Banned
Because Churchill and Roosevelt had assured the other that a Japanese attack on the possessions of either country would result in a declaration of war from the other.

No.

1. The Japanese have to know of such a thing for it to inform their actions; the most FDR can offer WC is private goodwill

2. FDR can't make a meaningful commitment like that without having it ratified by Congress; this never happens - and can't

3. If he declares war to defend British imperialism then Congree overrides him: it isn't viable

I.e. you have just imagined a big chunk of WW2 history...
 

amphibulous

Banned
The use of coal makes no sense.

In addition to the reasons already stated, coal would be contrary to the whole underlying philosophy of the Japanese Navy. The Japanese Navy predicated it overall strategy on a decisive battle in which individual Japanese ships would be superior to those of the United States Navy. The use of coal would render this strategy impossible.

That's an excellent point. They were utterly obsessive about this - hence their amazing lack of convoy escorts.
 
Last edited:

Rubicon

Banned
Just to point out one of the advantages of coal, coal bunks give added protection against hits, contrary to oil bunks which instead reinforces hits.
 
No.

1. The Japanese have to know of such a thing for it to inform their actions; the most FDR can offer WC is private goodwill

2. FDR can't make a meaningful commitment like that without having it ratified by Congress; this never happens - and can't

3. If he declares war to defend British imperialism then Congree overrides him: it isn't viable

I.e. you have just imagined a big chunk of WW2 history...

Well I'm not the first as I've seen plenty of people say that on here :) In any case the Japanese attack on SEA and DEI made a war with America inevitable, and that made the need to conquer the Phillipines all the more pressing.
 
I'm probably entirely wrong here but I believe the Japanese didn't have any easy access to good coal. In the early years of their industrialization they made use of what was immediately available, but were increasingly dependent upon imported coal, particularly for the navy. The home islands are fairly mineral poor. It would have been much harder for them to have carried out their Pacific campaign if they were still dependent upon coal.
Define 'imported'. OTL, Manchuria and Korea were well subjugated and provided lots of coal that they didn't have to pay hard currency for. To the Japanese at the time that coal was 'domestic'. To you it's probably 'imported'. Both are reasonable interpretations, but de facto, the Japanese view at the time was closer to reality.
 

Cook

Banned
I.e. you have just imagined a big chunk of WW2 history...
Throughout 1941 the United States made steadily stronger commitments to the British and Dutch, and consequently issued stronger warnings to Japan regarding any possible Japanese expansion into South East Asia. When the Japanese deployed ships and aircraft to Cam Ranh Bay the United States responded by freezing all Japanese funds and assets in the United States. The U.S. had previously ceased oil exports to Japan in response to the Japanese occupation of northern French Indo-China. British, Dutch, and American naval representatives met regularly from mid-1941 to discuss joint action in the event of war with Japan.

In late November 1941 Roosevelt assured the British that if Japan attacked British and Dutch possessions in the Far East, “we should obviously all be together”. In the start of December 1941, Roosevelt told Halifax that in the event of Japanese attack on Malaya, Borneo, the Dutch East Indies or Thailand, the United States would respond in force.

The reason isn’t hard to discern: with Japanese occupation of the British and Dutch colonies, the Philippines would be completely surrounded and isolated. As it was the United States had already taken to routing shipping and aircraft traveling to the Philippines along more southerly and longer routes that bypasses most Japanese controlled islands in the western Pacific and were closer to Australia.

Japan received each warning from the United States and so clearly understood the threat implied by them. Moreover, they were fully aware of the joint British, Dutch and American naval meetings taking place in Singapore – very little took place in Singapore that the Japanese were not aware of; their intelligence network in South East Asia was extremely extensive.

ie. Do a small amount of research before making sweeping statements.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No.

1. The Japanese have to know of such a thing for it to inform their actions; the most FDR can offer WC is private goodwill

2. FDR can't make a meaningful commitment like that without having it ratified by Congress; this never happens - and can't

3. If he declares war to defend British imperialism then Congree overrides him: it isn't viable

I.e. you have just imagined a big chunk of WW2 history...


The Japanese actually believe that the U.S. would go to war if they attacked the UK possessions. They had a remarkable lack of understanding of the American political system, despite having years of diplomatic relations with the U.S.

The Japanese government assumed that the U.S. government was going to react in an identical manner to what would happen in Tokyo. It was just one of the numerous glaring errors in understanding that Imperial Japan had toward the U.S., errors that, had anyone in authority actually been willing to correct, might well have avoided the entire lunge South.
 

amphibulous

Banned
Well I'm not the first as I've seen plenty of people say that on here :)

A popular stupidity is still stupid.

In any case the Japanese attack on SEA and DEI made a war with America inevitable,

Absolutely not. There is no evidence at all that Congress would have allowed FDR to declare war under these circumstances. There is vital evidence otherwise - the lack of a treaty. If you're willing to go to war to defend someone else's territory, a treaty gives deterrence value, making it less likely you will have to do so.
 

amphibulous

Banned
The Japanese actually believe that the U.S. would go to war if they attacked the UK possessions.

Yes - and the interesting thing is *why* they believed this. Or perhaps better, who they chose this as their operative belief, rather than the more rational alternative - that FDR would find it very hard to get the US involved in a war to defend someone else's imperial possessions.

The Japanese government assumed that the U.S. government was going to react in an identical manner to what would happen in Tokyo.

Well... their core assumption was that the US would behave utterly *unlike* Japan - e.g. that it would lose the will to fight after a single decisive battle, behaving like an even less determined version of Imperial Russia. And which semi-ally's possessions would the Japanese have gone to war to defend???

When you look at the consensus Japanese mental model of the USA it doesn't make any sense at all. It's a hodgepodge of contradictory elements - the result not of rational analysis but internal politics, wishful thinking and paranoia. Which in the end amounts to "They were idiots."
 
IIRC China and Korea both have a lot of coal, and coal can be converted to oil. Did the Japanese do much of that?
 

amphibulous

Banned
IIRC China and Korea both have a lot of coal, and coal can be converted to oil. Did the Japanese do much of that?

That was very advanced tech for the time. The Germans did some of this, but even if they had told the Japanese how the process worked, I doubt the industrial investment was one their economy was capable of making.

It can't be said enough: the Japanese were crazy to go to war. They didn't have enough merchant ships to supply the garrisons they planted, or the escorts to protect the ones that they did. If you give them more oil for the battle fleet and aviation it doesn't really make mush difference.
 
Top