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.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?
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.No war after Pearl Harbour is trending into ASB territory. Stopping Pearl Harbour is more realistic.
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.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.
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?
See Rankin, Jeanette for more detailsProbably 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.
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.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?
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.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.
See Rankin, Jeanette for more details
Scale was completely different, but who say the politics must have any proportional relation to real events?
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.