Is there anyone who would try and solve Pearl Harbour through diplomacy rather than declaring war?

RNG

Banned
Is there anyone who would try and solve Pearl Harbour through diplomacy rather than declaring war? Or would anyone who would just be overridden by the public and congress? Is there any chance this might of happened?
 

Moglwi

Monthly Donor
There is realy no diplomatic way to solve a military attack that has caused mass casualties and sunk major surface combat units. What could Japan offer it not like the panny incident where they could claim accident this involved major units of the IJN and diplomatic messages. I can not see how you can avoid war
 

nbcman

Donor
Is there anyone who would try and solve Pearl Harbour through diplomacy rather than declaring war? Or would anyone who would just be overridden by the public and congress? Is there any chance this might of happened?
There was more than just an attack at PH. There were attacks all over the Pacific against US, Philippine, and Commonwealth Forces. It wasn’t anything that could be presented as an accident like the Panay Incident. No chance of a diplomatic option short of Japanese surrender after what occurred.
 
Both sides don't have to want war for one to occur, if one side wants a war then the other side has to either capitulate or fight for a different result.
 

RNG

Banned
No war after Pearl Harbour is trending into ASB territory. Stopping Pearl Harbour is more realistic.
Could it be that if a President does mange to make some deal with Japan, maybe opening up trade or giving them some islands or [in a act of madness] the Philippines, then this President is most likely be toppled out of power by congress and the public, via resignation or impeachment, then depending on what position America is in after this charade and what land in the Pacific they have left may change the outcome of the war. Eg maybe if he did give the Philippines to keep the Japanese at bay then the war with Japan may take longer, and depending on how long America stayed out of the war after Pearl Harbour perhaps a stalemate might occur in Europe, perhaps due to the Nazis eventually building nuclear weapons. This President may be seen along the same lines as Chamberlain, perhaps because of this President Chamberlain might manage to escape the harsh criticism he gets.
 

nbcman

Donor
Could it be that if a President does mange to make some deal with Japan, maybe opening up trade or giving them some islands or [in a act of madness] the Philippines, then this President is most likely be toppled out of power by congress and the public, via resignation or impeachment, then depending on what position America is in after this charade and what land in the Pacific they have left may change the outcome of the war. Eg maybe if he did give the Philippines to keep the Japanese at bay then the war with Japan may take longer, and depending on how long America stayed out of the war after Pearl Harbour perhaps a stalemate might occur in Europe, perhaps due to the Nazis eventually building nuclear weapons. This President may be seen along the same lines as Chamberlain, perhaps because of this President Chamberlain might manage to escape the harsh criticism he gets.
Only in the fevered dreams of the strictest Imperial Japanese mind. In the real world, no way that a US president would reopen trade and hand over a territory after being attacked as OTL.
 
Is there anyone who would try and solve Pearl Harbour through diplomacy rather than declaring war? Or would anyone who would just be overridden by the public and congress? Is there any chance this might of happened?

Probably not.

Think about it: The Japanese launched multiple surprise attacks on Hawaii, the Philippines, Wake Island and Guam, with casualties on Oahu alone totalling as much as three thousand sailors and civilians. All while a Japanese delegation was being entertained in Washington.

"Peace in our Time" will not come close to abandoning the Pacific after that big a slap to the face. The public and Congress would be itching for war, and anyone in government trying to "oppose" a DoW would be quickly ousted from their seat.
 
Probably not.

Think about it: The Japanese launched multiple surprise attacks on Hawaii, the Philippines, Wake Island and Guam, with casualties on Oahu alone totalling as much as three thousand sailors and civilians. All while a Japanese delegation was being entertained in Washington.

"Peace in our Time" will not come close to abandoning the Pacific after that big a slap to the face. The public and Congress would be itching for war, and anyone in government trying to "oppose" a DoW would be quickly ousted from their seat.
See Rankin, Jeanette for more details
 

trurle

Banned
Is there anyone who would try and solve Pearl Harbour through diplomacy rather than declaring war? Or would anyone who would just be overridden by the public and congress? Is there any chance this might of happened?
IOTL, the Japanese declaration of war has contributed more to the mutual declaration of war. Would it included a hints for doable de-escalation (like offering compensation for sunk US vessels, and terms for trade relation restoration like resumption of the oil imports), the Congress would have at least considered it. The isolationist sentiment in the US was real, but OTL Japanese declaration wording has not left a single chance for the isolationists to save a face.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan...r_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire

Well, precedent for the peaceful resolution of the Japanese attack on US did exist though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Panay_incident
Scale was completely different, but who say the politics must have any proportional relation to real events?
 
Last edited:
No, it would be like the United States withdrawing from the Middle East after 9/11. Pearl Harbor being saved by actual Alien Space Bats is more likely.
 

trurle

Banned
No, it would be like the United States withdrawing from the Middle East after 9/11. Pearl Harbor being saved by actual Alien Space Bats is more likely.
Not quite comparable. US of 2001 has much more involvement in Middle East compared to involvement with Japan in 1941, and disparity of forces was also larger in 2001, making decision to go to war easier for the US.
 
Scale was completely different, but who say the politics must have any proportional relation to real events?

I would argue that the casualty count and property damage would have an effect, as well as the location of the incident.

The USS Panay did patrol the Yangtze while the Japanese were close to Nanking, and the sinking of the gunboat was easily explained as an accident--regardless of the explanation's veracity, of course--and paid for with indemnities and a formal apology.

Pearl Harbor was a completely different kettle of fish. You have thousands dead or wounded and a major naval base in smoke, with much of the fleet stationed there either listing or already at the bottom; meanwhile, the nation's colonies all across the ocean were struck as well. And all this happened at the tail end of the perpetrator's logistics train.

I just don't see how isolationists in Congress would be able to keep the US out of war in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, even with a more modified Japanese DoW. Perhaps if American territory weren't blindsided by a surprise attack at all, they can provide stronger opposition to a declaration of war, with the support of much more of the population.
 

MadDog

Banned
The only way i see it happen is That they Reach the deal and manage to cancell all attacks except pearl harbor. They also warn USA about the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Perhaps they cant get in contant with Taskforce perhaps commander goes rogue.
 

GarethC

Donor
The Panay was in China while Japan was at war with China, and in somebody else's war zone sometimes things happen. Japan said sorry and made restitution.

Kido Butai had to spend two weeks sailing two-thirds of the way across the Pacific to sink five battleships and kill three thousand people in America while also striking Guam (America), Wake (America) and the Phillipines (American-owned for forty years). The level of "sorry" and of restitution required to appease an America now wrapped in a bloody shirt is something like "all the Mandates, Formosa, Korea, the whole of the IJN, and the heads of Tojo, Yamamoto, and Nagumo on spikes". Which is not really sellable in Japan.
 
Once the IJN attacked PH and the Japanese diplomats in Washington handed the DOW over to the Americans, the odds of the US backing off of a DOW against Japan is so small as to be nonexistent. That would be like a swarm of piranha not attacking a cow that is bleeding after they've been starved for a week.
'
 
Could it be that if a President does mange to make some deal with Japan, maybe opening up trade or giving them some islands or [in a act of madness] the Philippines, then this President is most likely be toppled out of power by congress and the public, via resignation or impeachment, then depending on what position America is in after this charade and what land in the Pacific they have left may change the outcome of the war. Eg maybe if he did give the Philippines to keep the Japanese at bay then the war with Japan may take longer, and depending on how long America stayed out of the war after Pearl Harbour perhaps a stalemate might occur in Europe, perhaps due to the Nazis eventually building nuclear weapons. This President may be seen along the same lines as Chamberlain, perhaps because of this President Chamberlain might manage to escape the harsh criticism he gets.

The President who agrees to cede American territory to the Japanese is dead in the water. In fact, if he so much as suggests it within earshot of any particularly annoying member of the public, he might as well make his next statement “I resign” even if it’s obvious he’s kidding.

The only possible concession would be an easing of sanctions against Japan. I think hell would freeze over before FDR would agree to that, and in the odd chance he steps aside in 1940 and endorses Garner, I bet my house that FDR wants to stay involved in Garner’s administration, possibly even as a Cabinet member. As such, he would grab Garner by the throat and prevent him from making concessions to the Japanese.

So the only way it happens is with the Republicans in charge. And if the GOP makes concessions and Pearl Harbor still gets bombed, the whole party ends up in a deep pit of shit - expect to see every Republican Congressman run out in 1942 while everyone from Concord to California demands the President run out of town on a train. It may even be the end of the GOP, with Eisenhower running as a Democrat and driving a stake through the Republican Party.
 

nbcman

Donor
Regardless of whatever the US President at the time may do, it is the US Congress who has the responsibility to declare war per Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. And based on OTL results, there isn't a chance that the US Congress will not declare war with or without the US President's concurrence. So it would take mind control of the Congress to avoid a US DoW, not the US President.
 
Top