WI Japan declared war before Pearl Harbor?

Strategos' Risk said:
Historically, they were supposed to, just 30 minutes before the attack commenced.

Would it had made any difference at all?
Good question. It would make very little difference.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
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."
 

Gremlin

Banned
The 30 mins were just a formality - but what if they declared a day early?

Would there be a Pearl Harbour? how would that of unfolded?
 
What they need to do...

Japan would have to declare war in a way that the USA would regard as a "civilized" manner, and state the causes publicly. They would also have to tell the world what tehy want--and that would have to be something the American public would be willing to sacrifice.

Next, they need a major series of dramatic successes--without any setbacks that FRD could trumpet to the American people as major victories.

Now comes the hard part--convincing the Americans to negotiate, and offering them something to make it worthwhile. At a minimum, all American posessions would need to be returned, I'd expect.

Even so, they have a major uphill battle. America of 1941 had only negotiated peace with an unbeaten enemy once--with the British in 1814. All the otehr peace treaties were essentially dictated by Washington. Spain, Mexico, the CSA, Germany, the Barbary Pirates...all smashed, peace dictated at cannon's mouth. Even the war of 1812 was in the American psyche a great victory, a small, young nation humbling the British Empire--never mind the facts. The United States, to the ordinary citizen, had never lost a war--so why let those little yellow bastards, as they would be thought of then, win this one.

THAT, as much as American industry, is what Japan is up against--a "we can't be beat" attitude. Experiance in the ring tells me that attitude isn't everything--but it can sure help.
 
NapoleonXIV said:
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."

Man, that gives me delightful mental images right now about cartoon angry '40s-era Americans.
 
It's going to take away some of the propaganda and shock value. The main shock is still going to be the damage wrought to Pearl Harbor.

Before Pearl Harbor, the US was virtually evenly split on the topic of war, with 55 percent in favor, and 45 percent against. After Pearl Harbor, it was 97 percent in favor and 3 percent against.

Now, take away the Japanese declaring war after the fact, and you might get that down to a 95/5 split. If the Japanese don't have as damaging a Pearl Harbor attack, you might see that as low as 85/15, but even that's pretty low.
 

The Saint

Banned
The Japanese learnt a lot from the November 1940 attack on Taranto. When was the very earliest they might have had a chance of pulling off a success at Pearl Harbour? 3 months earlier? 6 months?

Would a June 1941 attack coniciding with Barbarossa have helped or hindered their goal of conquering Asia?
 
At that time, they have no reason to. Without the United States freezing the assets of Japan and cutting off oil imports, there is no reason for war, at least not in the immediate future. American aid to China is an annoyance, but not direct cause for war.
 

Tielhard

Banned
It makes no difference at all. I think NapoleonXIV has pretty much summed up the situation. Nasty little yellow things are not allowed to play white man's games. A dog does not declare war before it bites you.

Let's face it if you got a £5 every time the USA went to war without declaring so formally you'd be pretty rich.
 
The Saint said:
The Japanese learnt a lot from the November 1940 attack on Taranto. When was the very earliest they might have had a chance of pulling off a success at Pearl Harbour? 3 months earlier? 6 months?

Would a June 1941 attack coniciding with Barbarossa have helped or hindered their goal of conquering Asia?
Further expansion into mainland Asia, I feel, is not in the cards for the Japanese. First of all, the Japanese tried their luck against the Soviets in 1939, in the Nohoman conflict, and nearly got thrown out of Manchuko as a result. IIRC, the Soviets kept a fair number of troops in the east, even during the blackest parts of Barbarossa, so the Japanese would be wary about tackling the bear again. Second, the same problem that plagues "Japan invades Hawaii" scenarios is in play here as well, namely "Where are you going to get the armies?" Even without the Americans to deal with, Japanese forces are still going to be involved in policing Korea and Manchuko, maintaining control over the coast of China as well as keeping the Nationalists and Commies from growing too much, conquering Southeast Asia AND Indonesia, as well as nabbing any island possessions held by the Europeans. That's an awful lot on their plate, and I doubt any of these areas could be stripped of enough personnel to make a drive into Siberia possible (a drive that, by the way, would stand a pretty good chance of getting lost and milling around aimlessly).
 
The Japanese learnt a lot from the November 1940 attack on Taranto. When was the very earliest they might have had a chance of pulling off a success at Pearl Harbour? 3 months earlier? 6 months?
About 2 weeks, a month the outside. They hadn't perfected the torpedo drop process/mechanism to everyone's satisfaction. Would've been better to go a couple of weeks later, & maybe catch E & Lex in harbor, maybe Sara, too. Have to cut it fine to avoid North Pacific winter weather, tho.
 
Top