If Japan hadn't occupied south Indochina in '41, would US have embargoed oil anyway by end of '41?

No further southern expansion from June '41 on, embargo anyway by Jan '42?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 65.2%
  • No

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • Total voters
    23

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Japanese occupation of southern Indochina in July 1941 was the last straw eliminating any restraint in US economic pressure on Japan. After that move, the U.S. froze all Japanese assets in the U.S. and effectively implemented a complete oil embargo on that country.

The U.S. found the Japanese move provocative for a couple reasons. Most basically, the U.S. was seeking to curb and reverse Japanese expansion with lesser economic pressures, and when it did not work, total economic embargo was the only card left to play, and the U.S. was certainly unwilling to let a Japanese move on this scale go without a response.

Secondly, occupation of northern Indochina could be "justified" as a measure to gain an advantage in the China War, the Tripartite Pact could be "justified" as a measure to deter the U.S. from going to war over China rather than a measure preparatory toward wider aggression. However, southern Indochina added hardly anything to the Japanese war effort in China, rather it was most useful for further advances in the direction of Thailand, Malaya, and the DEI, and it broadened the threat to the Philippines. Therefore, to American strategists, it signaled a Japanese commitment or trajectory towards further aggression outside of China.

So, say the Japanese stand pat in northern Indochina and keep fighting in China, but they do not got south of Tonkin at all during 1941.

Assume “all else being equal” vis-à-vis Europe, rest of Asia, etc.

Would the U.S. still be letting the Japanese spend their assets in America and be letting the Japanese purchase American oil on New Years Day, 1942?

On the one hand, this should have been strategically tolerable to the U.S. because it demonstrates that previous measures had probably succeeded in arresting Japanese aggression towards the British Empire or USA. So why mess with it, or push the Japanese into a corner, when the U.S. would only be getting stronger vis-a-vis Japan during 1942, 1943 and 1944? Especially when the main American focus is against Germany, and there are hopes of making the Tripartite Pact a dead letter.

On the other hand, might other motives have made the U.S. go for the total embargo option anyway at some point between July and December 1941? For example, simply running out of patience with Japan's ongoing war with China, and an increased American consensus to show solidarity with China or boost China's morale? Or, perhaps restraint in the south by Japan could be read as Japanese intent to prepare for an assault on the Soviet Union, in cooperation with the Nazi invasion? If the Americans took this interpretation it would be logical to want to use any available economic levers to hobble such a Japanese initiative, because the Soviets surviving was seen as crucial to the chances of containing and defeating Hitler.

Your votes?

Your thoughts?
 
Another alternative is to avoid the China incident but take Indochina.

If it was just Manchuria in early 30s then Indochina with the support of Vichy France might things have been grudgingly tolerated
 
then Indochina with the support of Vichy France

The collapse of France did panic the US into mobilizing the National Guard & Reserves into active service, handing blank checks to the War & Navy Depts, attempting to mobilize industry for war, embarking on a naval construction program for a global navy. The Japanese entry into Indo China had a similar, tho not as swift galvanizing effect on US leaders.

Also the object of Petains government was to restore French power. Supporting the occupation of bits of the empire does not seem to be the way to do that. As it was Japan asked for German permission as the Franco/German Armistice required France to defend its colonies from all invaders. The French government did not like it, but Germany told them to suck it up and allow their putative ally in.
 
FDR wanted a war and would use any pretext - even the occupation of only northern Indochina - to make Japan inch closer to making a misstep in the region.
Moreover, I also don't see Tokyo actually being able to prevent an eventual occupation of South Indochina as the junior officers of the IJA often did whatever the hell they please.

More likely than not, central army command orders the occupation of only North Indochina, which is then utterly ignored by troops on the ground - this leads to all of Indochina being occupied and subsequently the embargo we have in OTL.
 
Last edited:

Hunter W.

Banned
It was inevitable, the United States wanted unequivocal withdrawal from China without exceptions. Their continual meddling there and constant 'incidents' with the USN would have ultimately led to some form of economic consequence.
 
The USA wanted the war, in a way or another Japan is fucked, the only way to avoid the war is if Japan crush and wipe out the first grade troops of the Chinese army in 1937 and capture shangai and Nanjing without any shit done to the foreigners and with no rape and shit done, alias behaving on the fields and ask a lenient peace on China that can be acceptable, like the recognition of Manchuria and maybe some economic concession, war ends in 1938. (Completely impossible considering the IJA behavior and the impotence of the civil government, maybe an Earlier pod where the Imperator steps in and take control of the army...)
 
For Japan to avoid a gradual ratcheting up of sanctions they needed to be at peace, otherwise I feel there would have incidents and massacres that would have gradually raised the tension. As the US rearmed and built up its fleet it had the ability to take a more assertive tone, which would have made conflict more likely.

I think the moment they set foot in Indochina they made it clear that they had no respect for keeping the peace and would simply prey on any weakness they found. It didn't matter where they entered the country, it was clear from the action that they did not respect international borders. Remember this came after invading China and testing the resolve of the Russians, it would be seen as simply testing the Europeans to see if they were weak enough to take on.

I don't think it is fair to say the US wanted war, but they certainly wanted Japan to cease and desist with its misbehaviour, and increasingly could handle the consequences of talking tough. I don't think the US or FDR should be seen as the warmonger here, they were attempting to protect the integrity of countries in the region.
 
Top