If Japan avoids Pearl Harbor...

HJ Tulp

Donor
Actually from what I have read it seems that if the Japanese would have gone for the DEI in 1940 - mid-1941 there would not have been a armed response from the UK and thus not from the US. In fact, on behest of the Royal Navy the UK refused to guarantee the territorial integrity of the DEI at several times. They would only do so if the US would guarantee their positions in turn. This stance caused the DEI government to take every precaution to ensure its neutrality vis-a-vis the allied war against Germany. This whole matter was the reason that the forces fighting Japan hadn't prepared for allied warfare causing the whole ABDA clusterf*ck.

Of course this all matters not given the state of mind of Japan which couldn't allow Anglo-American possessions on its SLOCs.
 
I think there is a basic disagreement on this thread about how willing America was to go to war in late 1941. I am with what I think is the minority on this thread. Namely that America would not go to war about an attack on a single US warship or even several attacks on different warships. I also believe the US was not willing to declare war to defend Dutch colonial possessions. I am uncertain how to resolve this disagreement.
 
The rumor was to goto Singapore, but I don't think that was ever confirmed
They were ordered to Borneo, Destroyer Division 57 to Balikpapan, 58 to Tarakan, four DDs in each Division, where they were at on the 7th

59 was patrolling from Manila, but was down two ships, they were under repair

And sunk destroyers, like Reuben James that started WWII in the Atlantic in October?
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/TF/AsiaticFlt-1.html#fn3
 
I think there is a basic disagreement on this thread about how willing America was to go to war in late 1941. I am with what I think is the minority on this thread. Namely that America would not go to war about an attack on a single US warship or even several attacks on different warships. I also believe the US was not willing to declare war to defend Dutch colonial possessions. I am uncertain how to resolve this disagreement.

i look at the history of what was actually happening 'on the ground'. the combined planning/coordination had taken place. usaffe/asiatic fleet were going to war along with DEI/GB. those destroyers were specifically heading 'in harm's way'.
 
The US thought that Japan will just declare war on them along with the Brits and Dutch. The PH attack wasn’t really anticipated but 5th column attacks in Hawaii were.
 
...what is the best she can do at war's end and how do you think the war ends?

I'll go ahead and ask. Do you mean that Japan attacks the USA, but doesn't do the Pearl Harbor attack, or that Japan doesn't attack the USA at all?
 
The US thought that Japan will just declare war on them along with the Brits and Dutch. The PH attack wasn’t really anticipated but 5th column attacks in Hawaii were.

attacks against philippines were especially anticipated. that's why the 'rush' to get reinforcements there since august. in that regard, i've wondered the outcome if, heeding military advice to wait on the 'embargo', roosevelt waited until the new year to implement. reinforcement was expected to be near completion by march/april '42.
 
may be of some interest, if only a snapshot https://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm
APAN

Interviewing Date 2/16-21/41


Survey #230-T Question #7a


Do you think the United States should try to keep Japan from seizing the Dutch East Indies and Singapore?

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

No................................ 24

No opinion......................... 20


Interviewing Date 2/16-21/41


Survey #230-T Question #7b


Do you think the United States should risk war with Japan, if necessary, in order to keep Japan from taking the Dutch East Indies and Singapore?


Yes................................ 39%

No................................ 46

No opinion......................... 1
5

changing to

Interviewing Date 10/24-29/41


Survey #251-K Question #9


Should the United States take steps now to prevent Japan from becoming more powerful, even if this means risking a war with Japan?


Yes................................ 64%

No................................ 25

No opinion......................... 11
 
attacks against philippines were especially anticipated. that's why the 'rush' to get reinforcements there since august. in that regard, i've wondered the outcome if, heeding military advice to wait on the 'embargo', roosevelt waited until the new year to implement. reinforcement was expected to be near completion by march/april '42.

No embargo = no reason for Japan to attack the US or anyone else. Those forced Japan into a impossible position where the desperate gamble of war seemed like a alternative. So yes delaying the embargo very likely delays a war. Maybe it even avoids it, with the Japanese leaders facing a clearly stronger opposition & accepting the humiliation of negotiating concessions & even a end to the China Incident.

This question can be turned around. WI the Embargos are imposed in November or December 1940, when Japan first lands soldiers in FIC ports and wrings concessions for occupation from retains government? This accelerates the situation approx six months, perhaps more.
 
It would be the smart thing to do but it would not work.

The oil sanctions were effective enough to stop almost all the oil. Japanese navy, air force and much of the army will slowly ground to a halt for lack of oil. The only possible oil source is Russia and with Germany at war with Russia and the Russian demands on their own oil, I doubt Japan will get much there.

The reason Japan when it did was this was the last chance to strike before it loses all.

I was referring to the weak near pointless sanctions of 1937-1940. Not those of the 1941 embargo. If Japan stays out of FIC the latter would not be imposed in 1941 & probably not in 1942 either.
 
Not many USN forces around the Dutch Possessions

Trying to explain to Congress on why the USN was shooting at IJN ships in the Luzon Strait outside the then current 3 nautical mile limit for territorial waters would not play well with the isolationists

The US was shooting at German submarines outside the three mile limit, and had sent the Navy/Marines to occupy Iceland in June 1941. The isolationist shouted, but Congress did not block those actions. The "Shoot on Sight" order issued in November 1941 was not limited to a three mile territorial limit. It authorized attacks on any Japanese military that appeared in threatening distance of US military bases or units. This order fully authorized local commanders to use their best judgement without buercratic delays in consulting with higher HQ. Congress did not sanction that order either.
 
...
I wonder if the capture of Hawai would of provided them with additional time to consolidate their position. It could of added 1-2 years to the war (short of US developing nuclear weapons and then carptet bombing the pacific till they get to Japanese islands. ...

There is a question of bypassing the Hawaiian islands. Japans new post 1942 strategy depended on the web of island posts delaying the US Navy indefinitely. Their leaders were nonplussed to see their key fortresses of Rabaul, Truk, and others bypassed. One of the things the Japanese never grasped about US strategy since the 1920s was the intent to seize only selected islands and leave the rest isolated. The 'Fleet Train' mobile logistics base was a second item the Japanese never anticipated. That enabled the USN to keep its fleet operating across the central Pacific without a massive infrastructure ashore. The forward base at Oahu was useful, but may not have been essential
 
I wished the questions did not use the phrase "risk war". It would be interesting to see the response to the questions when "risk war" is replaced with "go to war".

Also is the difference to the last 2 questions related the time between them or to the way they are phrased. Perhaps the respondents do not consider the Dutch East Indies and Singapore as strengthening Japan and being in the vital interests of the United States.

I think it is interesting to separate the actions of the United States government (such as sending troops to Iceland) from what the people wanted the government to do.
 
Exactly. It must be kept in mind that in 1941
IOTL the POTUS did not- as he does now-
have unlimited power in the field of foreign
affairs. One reason was that the US millitary
was far, far weaker than it is today(to a
degree that today we can’t even imagine).
Second, & even more importantly, was that
the Congress- again, unlike today- actually
took its responsibilities in foreign affairs ser-
iously. It actually sought to keep Presidents-
for good or bad- under control. Thus unless
like you said Saint you had a clear, suppos-
edly unprovoked attack on America there
would have been no shortage of people in
Congress who would have jumped on FDR
with everything they had & refused to go
along with him.

Indeed, thats why Congress prevented Roosevelt from Imposing a Exclusion Zone far into the Atlantic, ordering the USN & Army Air Corps to attack German warships there, sent US military personnel on 'training missions' to the UK, and sent US military forces to defend Iceland alongside British forces.

...wait, but Congress didn't prevent any of that.
 
The Japanese had been disrupting US trade in China for four years. Their occupation of FIC disrupted the Global rubber trade, & gave the Japanese control of the Mekong rice exports. The US could not sit idle whlie Japan screwed around further with US global trade.
In 1948, the US lost all trade with China, but no one even thought of going to war over this. Has there ever been a time when the US imported any rice from the Mekong? If Mekong rice was vital to the United States, why didn't we fight the Vietnam war like world war II?
 
In 1948, the US lost all trade with China, but no one even thought of going to war over this.

Actually there was a lot of thought. We did send a lot of military material and other aid to the KMT government post 1945. Ultimately Trumans government had to make some tough choices and investment in rebuilding Europe was chosen over another war in collapsed China. Note how in the 1930s Japan had supposed China as a trading partner with the US. The former had been stagnated for decades & was close to 'failed state' status in current terminology.

Has there ever been a time when the US imported any rice from the Mekong? ...

It was part of a global trade network the US made a lot of wealth from. Germany and Japans efforts to create economic control over large regions & were badly disrupting that trade/cash flow that benefitted the US. The rice market was upset much like the the Japanese taking control of the Michelin rubber plantations. The US has never been a autarky. Even in colonial times the coastal settlements were heavily dependent on international trade. Over two centuries roughly two thirds of the US economy has depended on international or global trade & been tied to the free trade policies. One of the things that aggravated the Great Depression in the US was a post Great War reduction in unrestricted trade. On the surface the war exports to Britain, France, and a lesser extent smaller nations during 1939-41 hid the damage to the US economy as Germany & Japan turned the former global markets and trading system into wreckage. As the Interventionists saw it in 1941, were the Axis to continue there course the US would ultimately be economically limited to the western hemisphere & its former trade with industrial Europe or the prosperous China of the 19th Century reduced to a joke.

It must also be understood the intent of the Embargos responding to the FIC occupations were not intended to lead to war. It was expected the sanctions would force Japan to negotiate a settlement that would reduce its threat & eventually settle the China war. The risk was a bit underestimated by Roosevelt's group, and Congress in general. By the time the reality was realized Japans leaders had already grown desperate and made their decisions for war. When negotiations collapsed neither side had any clear or realistic idea how to avoid war.

If Mekong rice was vital to the United States, why didn't we fight the Vietnam war like world war II?

The US did deploy a army at similar density as in WWII, & did indulge in aircraft bombing at a scale larger than WWII. Viet Nam or SE Asia was just one region or theatre in WWII terms & it drew resources at that scale or larger in some items.
 
Not many USN forces around the Dutch Possessions

Trying to explain to Congress on why the USN was shooting at IJN ships in the Luzon Strait outside the then current 3 nautical mile limit for territorial waters would not play well with the isolationists

Easy.

"USN vessels engaged in a routine training mission were subjected to an unprovoked surprise attack by Japanese forces. The USS Unlucky has been sunk and hundreds of our men are feared dead."
 

Ramontxo

Donor
And yet if Japan strategy is to hit hard the USN and then negotiate from a strong position their only (and it is a rather small one) chance would be to lead the Americans into attacking them in Filipinas waters where they would be able to claim being victims of a perfidious action and ask immediately for negotiation. If the original action leads to the great Sea Battle they have been preparing for with the Kido Butay in its finest so much the better. But this still has so very small chance of convincing the Americans to accept to negotiate that the far better option would have been to accept terms to end the embargo which sadly is ASB.
 

elkarlo

Banned
And if you are not that comfortable with a victorious URSS as a neighbor you may convince your Army leadership (at least the senior ones) that it is time cutting war expenses and start modernizing. You have a good aircraft industry, and even better if they are not going to fight the Anglo-Saxons. Instead of churning out light tanks and fighters and bombers without self-sealing tanks take time and money to upgrade your industry. And international agreement with the USA and the UK recognising your new borders will go very far towards getting them into protecting you after the war. But as I said before all of this would require a sensible government in control of their armed forces so, sadly ASB
This, Japan had a chance with Manchuria to speed up it's industrialization. But with the greater CHina war, a massive amount of their GDP went to the war effort. They slowly cannibalized their industry to keep fighting wars
 
Top