Possibility of an earlier Pacific War

In the lead up to World War 2, Japan continuously acted more and more aggressive in East Asia, and consistently butted up against American interests. The Japanese invasion of China, in particular, completely undermined American investments, not to mention all the war crimes and naked aggression that was going on.

IOTL, America would eventually fight Japan, but not until December 1941, many years after tensions had been rising. So my question is: Is it possible to have the United States go to war with Japan much earlier, or inspire Japanese aggression against them with embargoes earlier? I imagine 1937 would be the earliest date, due to all the anti-Japanese agitation in the U.S and other countries thanks to the invasion of China. Could a more hawkish president than FDR (Or just a FDR making different decisions) push for more embargoes faster, or create a situation that would lead to war very quickly (not to mention outright declaring war)?

If so, we can probably assume:

A. America is sure to win, and it will probably be quicker than OTL. Japan has less time to build up, less chance of such a lucky streak than OTL, and are not going to be able to easily snag British and Dutch possessions. To be fair, they won't be fighting the British, either (although Britain will support the U.S from a neutral capacity), but that won't really matter when U.S industry ramps up. However....

B. The United States won't be as focused on unconditional surrender as they were IOTL, and the Japanese leadership won't be quite as set in stone as they would be later. This leaves the possibility open for a negotiated peace, albeit one where the U.S is clearly enforcing its demands.

C. The U.S economy will recover from the Depression thanks to the war. Fairly self explanatory.

So with this in mind, there are a few things to consider: At what point would the Japanese leadership be willing to give into whatever terms the United States is demanding? How quickly would the war last, or would it be a long slog until U.S industry wins out? What terms (besides the general pulling out of China and stop aggression and whatnot) would the U.S try to force upon Japan once victorious?

Would the USSR intervene and attack Japan, with a lot to gain and nothing really to lose? And what of the effects on Europe; would war be seen as more desirable, because the U.S economy recovered so quickly from it? In 1940/41, the U.S navy and army will be gigantic, and assuming the European War goes similarly to OTL, what kind of effect would this have on the European powers?

I'd imagine that Lend Lease to Britain will be even greater than IOTL, due to having all these materials left over from war. But what about the USSR? If they were to invade Manchuria as Japan collapsed, helping the Chinese Communist, that would certainly cause tensions between them and the Americans.

You can answer any or none of my questions, or talk about something completely different in the scenario. I'm just trying to kick off discussion.
 
One thing your have to remember is the Washington Naval Treaty still held weight. And kept navies having much weight. For example the U.S.'s navy was not at quick the size it was during the Second World War and the Two Oceans Navy was but a distant thought. In one way the Washington Naval Treaty did meet a measure of success.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The U.S. was woefully unprepared for war prior to the Pearl Harbor. In 1939 the ENTIRE U.S. military, all branches, was under 350,000 men. The U.S. Army was ranked somewhere around # 40, right behind Portugal.

The Japanese were not ready either, they needed the rest of their CV to be completed and for the A6M to enter squadron service, but compared to the U.S. they were cocked and locked.

The U.S. didn't shake off its lethargy until the Fall of France. Once that happen it, frankly, scared the bejeezus out of Washington and they passed the Two Oceans Navy Act, which was, in turn the blueprint for the huge buildup that rolled the Japanese later in the war.

The war probably takes just as long as IOTL, at least within a few months. Ships take time to build.
 
The U.S. was woefully unprepared for war prior to the Pearl Harbor. In 1939 the ENTIRE U.S. military, all branches, was under 350,000 men. The U.S. Army was ranked somewhere around # 40, right behind Portugal.

The Japanese were not ready either, they needed the rest of their CV to be completed and for the A6M to enter squadron service, but compared to the U.S. they were cocked and locked.

The U.S. didn't shake off its lethargy until the Fall of France. Once that happen it, frankly, scared the bejeezus out of Washington and they passed the Two Oceans Navy Act, which was, in turn the blueprint for the huge buildup that rolled the Japanese later in the war.

The war probably takes just as long as IOTL, at least within a few months. Ships take time to build.

Weren't you writing a TL to rival AANW, that was predicated on an earlier Pacific War Mr CalBear?
 
The U.S. was woefully unprepared for war prior to the Pearl Harbor. In 1939 the ENTIRE U.S. military, all branches, was under 350,000 men. The U.S. Army was ranked somewhere around # 40, right behind Portugal.

The Japanese were not ready either, they needed the rest of their CV to be completed and for the A6M to enter squadron service, but compared to the U.S. they were cocked and locked.

The U.S. didn't shake off its lethargy until the Fall of France. Once that happen it, frankly, scared the bejeezus out of Washington and they passed the Two Oceans Navy Act, which was, in turn the blueprint for the huge buildup that rolled the Japanese later in the war.

The war probably takes just as long as IOTL, at least within a few months. Ships take time to build.

Well, that's the goal: Getting the U.S into investing in the military. You'd probably need a more hawkish president than FDR, who wasn't exactly a pacifist anyways.

But IF the U.S was slightly more prepared, then when the Japanese invaded China (they probably would still do so, even with a U.S buildup), and said Hawkish President (Or a different FDR. He was a pretty flexible guy) was willing to stir up public opinion against Japan, is it not too out there to suggest a very early American-Japanese War?
 
Well one oft mentioned POD for an early War is the Panay Incident. As CalBear has mentioned the US military was well behind the times. It would take over a year before the US was in a position to truly take on Japan.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, that's the goal: Getting the U.S into investing in the military. You'd probably need a more hawkish president than FDR, who wasn't exactly a pacifist anyways.

But IF the U.S was slightly more prepared, then when the Japanese invaded China (they probably would still do so, even with a U.S buildup), and said Hawkish President (Or a different FDR. He was a pretty flexible guy) was willing to stir up public opinion against Japan, is it not too out there to suggest a very early American-Japanese War?

The issue is you need Congress to be prepared to spend the money. While Isolationism tends to get all the credit/blame for the size of the interwar U.S. military that was not the real driving force, although it certainly existed in some numbers. The real driver was taxes and the extreme reluctance of the Congress to impose them (voters like low taxes).

For most of the 1930's what would be considered the middle class tax rate (Adjusted taxable income that, when adjusted for inflation would be $50k today) was 4%. In 1941, to pay for the massive increase in defense spending, the rate nearly tripled to 11.1%, in 1942 it jumped to 20.3% and 24% in 1945. For the Upper class ($500K) the rates were 14.1% for most of the 1930s, 17.9% in 1939, 19.7% in 1940, 35% in 1941 and 52% in 1945 (Current rates are 13.3% for $50K and 28% for $500K). Voters tend to look for alternatives when their taxes triple for no good reason (unlike, say, Hitler rampaging across Europe and seeing newsreels of sinkings right in our ocean).
 
The issue is you need Congress to be prepared to spend the money. While Isolationism tends to get all the credit/blame for the size of the interwar U.S. military that was not the real driving force, although it certainly existed in some numbers. The real driver was taxes and the extreme reluctance of the Congress to impose them (voters like low taxes).

For most of the 1930's what would be considered the middle class tax rate (Adjusted taxable income that, when adjusted for inflation would be $50k today) was 4%. In 1941, to pay for the massive increase in defense spending, the rate nearly tripled to 11.1%, in 1942 it jumped to 20.3% and 24% in 1945. For the Upper class ($500K) the rates were 14.1% for most of the 1930s, 17.9% in 1939, 19.7% in 1940, 35% in 1941 and 52% in 1945 (Current rates are 13.3% for $50K and 28% for $500K). Voters tend to look for alternatives when their taxes triple for no good reason (unlike, say, Hitler rampaging across Europe and seeing newsreels of sinkings right in our ocean).
How about another Zimmerman? Say Nazi Germany was caught trying to find alliances in South America. Could that turn out to be a huge factor?
 

TinyTartar

Banned
How about another Zimmerman? Say Nazi Germany was caught trying to find alliances in South America. Could that turn out to be a huge factor?

Hitler was perfectly happy to keep the US out of things. He did not want to repeat the mistakes of the last war, no matter how much he hated the US (and he really did, seeing it as a country that fetishized race mongrelization, which was unforgivable).

I don't think that there would be any outreach that was like the Zimmerman telegraph, which quite frankly was a stupid peace of diplomacy that looked like it was written by a half-drunk Turtledove thinking up an Ameriscrew.

Now, if there is something similar to Peronism that emerges early, you might see some outreach to the Argentines, possibly trying to get them to jump in over the Falklands.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
...

I don't think that there would be any outreach that was like the Zimmerman telegraph, which quite frankly was a stupid peace of diplomacy that looked like it was written by a half-drunk Turtledove thinking up an Ameriscrew.

...

This should be inscribed on a monument somewhere.:D

Comment of the Month!
 
Top