Japan's "formal" declaration....

What difference (if any) would it have made if the Japanese foreign ministry had delivered their declaration of war BEFORE the Pearl Harbor attack? Yamamoto seemed to be pre-occupied with not "enraging" the Americans, for fear that they (we) would perceive the attack as betrayal, or a stab in the back, and be filled with anger which we would use against the Japanese.

But, if you ask me, an attack is an attack regardless of formalities.

*edit- To clarify, I mean what effect would it have had on the American public's perception of the attack. If the declaration was delivered on time, Admiral Kimmel and General Short could have been given additional time to prepare, which might have resulted in a different version of the Pearl Harbor raid, but with little other affect on the war, except perhaps to accelerate American victory.
 
Last edited:
On the public not much... on-time, 15 minutes, 6 hours, 24 hours, it's still a surprise attack, Sunday morning, obviousy planned and launched (meaning the sailing of the fleet from KURE) before the declaration, and during talks.

The military, on-time, none what what so ever, a 24 hour early declaration, yes. Short most likely will have have limited patrols up, and asome planes and pilots on READY 15. Navy wouldn't had been on full Sunday routine. BUT still a Japanese tactical victory.

Now the the real change would be to the conspiracy nuts.... "FDR has an hour warning and still let the Japanese atack...bah, bah, bah"
 
I think it'd make a difference. Roosevelt would probably come under a little more criticism for his Asia policy, but I don't think it'd make a huge difference by itself.
 
I thought of this once.

I doubt it. The whole idea of little yellow monkeys daring to bother civilized Westerners just because we had pretty much treated them as subhumans and/or recalcitrant children for several centuries was pretty much the main offense to most Americans. We might in fact take even greater offense. "How dare they warn us? They have contempt for our abilities? We'll show them."
 
I feel that the americans aren't going to accept a defeat of sorts, against any non-western power (and probably not against any western power either). Also remember that anti-japanese propaganda would have had been spreading in the united states for years now. Most americans hated them.

The Japanese might get congress to agree to an enforced ultimatum, however. The US has one week to lift all embargoes on the empire of Japan. If, by the last day of the week, no such embargoes have been lifted, a state of war will exist between Japan and the United States.

Naturally, the fleet will sail in order to express the seriousness of the situation.

Now, if this is made public in the US, most people will know that THEY provoked the war, but most likely some form of propaganda can make them believe otherwise. Congress however, will be certain. Still, they wont back down to 'yellow midgets', I think.

Now, if the japanese manages many initial victories, could the US be forced to lift the embargoes? Can congress do this alone, or do they need the president?
 

Aurorum

Banned
I don't have a vagina! :(

Now, if the japanese manages many initial victories, could the US be forced to lift the embargoes? Can congress do this alone, or do they need the president?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9500E3DC1238E633A25755C2A9649C946496D6CF

"Quicki-"pedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/fdr4.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/embargoes-and-sanctions

"Even then, Roosevelt had to disguise his actions by claiming that the arms embargo actually endangered the peace of the United States. He also offered to bar American ships from designated war zones. He was thus able to persuade Congress to place arms on the same cash-and-carry basis as other commodities."

It is apparent: Embargoes have been declared, deactivated and resuscitated; often to fit the schemes of an individual. Terrorism! :cool:

Oh, ah, right; closer ties with "some other groups" would have allowed the Japanese to succeed [persist] for a bit longer, until those united States dropped the bomb or summoned Jesus.

My myriad legion is of numerous multitudinousness.
 
I am not certain about the exact time differences but WI Japan handed over the declaration of War at 6am Hawaii time (that would I think be early to mid morning DC time.

I guess there would be some messages sent to US bases in the Pacific, but how much effect would it have had.

I have an idea that people still tended to think that the actual shooting usually started days or weeks after a declaration of war.


I also think that it would still be perceived as a sneak attack.
 
Bombers

Those guys on the radar at Pearl Harbour probs wouldnt think that was a whole lot of birds flying toward them in the morning.....

The guys on the radar at PH did alert their superior officers. The superior officers blew it off and attributed the radar hit to a bomber flight that was due in to PH from the mainland at approximately the same same time that morning.
 

Markus

Banned
*edit- To clarify, I mean what effect would it have had on the American public's perception of the attack.

None! Anybody reading the newspaper could and should have known this was anything but a surprise.


If the declaration was delivered on time, Admiral Kimmel and General Short could have been given additional time to prepare, which might have resulted in a different version of the Pearl Harbor raid, but with little other affect on the war, except perhaps to accelerate American victory.
They had all the info the public had, plus a lot of good intel saying war could break out any day, but still lacked the initiative to do something.
 
Phillipines

Besides, all the guesses that the US had said that the Japanese were going to strike the Phillipines and maybe Guam, but not PH. Very few people thought that the Japanese would have had the gumption to hit PH by air.
 
Before PH, the ruling opinion in the US legal community considered formal declarations of war to be an outdated relic of European chivalry.

The sneak attack on Russia by Japan was considered to be OK.

But PH became a day of infamy.

Hypocrisy.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Before PH, the ruling opinion in the US legal community considered formal declarations of war to be an outdated relic of European chivalry.

The sneak attack on Russia by Japan was considered to be OK.

But PH became a day of infamy.

Hypocrisy.

Which, of course, is why, some 12 years after the end of the Japanese/Russian war, the President of the United States had to go to Congress and request a Declaration of War against Germany & the AH Empire.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The original Japanese intention was to inform the United States FIVE MINUTES before the attack (13:00 Washington DC time = 08:00 Hawaii time). In actual point of fact, the attack began at 07:55, so it would STILL have occurred before notification, even if everything had gone according to Plan.
 

Markus

Banned
Which, of course, is why, some 12 years after the end of the Japanese/Russian war, the President of the United States had to go to Congress and request a Declaration of War against Germany & the AH Empire.

And another 24 years later that formality was no longer needed to get the US into a shooting war with Germany.
 
Actually it was.

But only under the rules agreed upon in 1907, not in 1904

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague03.htm

Anglo-American legal minds were quite critical, but due to my weak google-fu I am offering only a simple example:

"Any sort of previous declaration therefore is an empty formality unless the enemy must be given time and opportunity to put himself in a state of defence, and it is needless to say that no one asserts such a Quixotism to be obligatory." (1)

But I must admit that a bellicae ceremoniae as described by Livius (2) and the subsequent actions of a fetialis including the throwing of a spear on enemy territory have a certain elegance.

------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Hall, William Edward. 1924. A Treatise on International Law. 8th ed. by A. Pearce Higgins. London: Humphrey Milford: Oxford University Press. (p. 444)

(2) Titus Livius 1, 24 and 1, 32
 
Top