WI US warning to Japan, June 1941?

A warning prior to embargo could have deterred Japan


  • Total voters
    31

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if the US explicitly warned Japan in the days of 23-30 June 1941 that any southward move within Indochina, towards Thailand or the British and Dutch empires, or northward to the Soviet Union would lead instantly to a complete oil embargo and a “grave situation” in the Pacific. However, short of these territorial aggrandizement on Japan's part, America was not interested in curtailing trade any further Furthermore, the warning could add that once an American embargo imposed, simply rolling back the situation to the May 1940 status quo ante n Asia would not be "simple" if "indeed it were possible at all".

Japan might be deterred through mid-1942 at which point they may either try something or become permanently deterred.

Or it may not be deterred at all.

Japanese behavior may vary depending on how much internal discussion and consensus has been reached on the decision to occupy southern Indochina.
 
What if the US explicitly warned Japan in the days of 23-30 June 1941 that any southward move within Indochina, towards Thailand or the British and Dutch empires, or northward to the Soviet Union would lead instantly to a complete oil embargo and a “grave situation” in the Pacific. However, short of these territorial aggrandizement on Japan's part, America was not interested in curtailing trade any further Furthermore, the warning could add that once an American embargo imposed, simply rolling back the situation to the May 1940 status quo ante n Asia would not be "simple" if "indeed it were possible at all".

Japan might be deterred through mid-1942 at which point they may either try something or become permanently deterred.

Or it may not be deterred at all.

Japanese behavior may vary depending on how much internal discussion and consensus has been reached on the decision to occupy southern Indochina.
1) i doubt it would make a difference
2) the us wouldnt want to constrain itself to no more pressure, as they wanted japan out of its recent conquests
3) otls oil embargo was, iirc, more comprehensive than originally intended, so theyre not likely to threaten the whole thing, maybe.
4) the whole situation with french indochina was very iffy, in some ways, as the vichy regime there 'invited' the japanese in.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
1) i doubt it would make a difference
2) the us wouldnt want to constrain itself to no more pressure, as they wanted japan out of its recent conquests
3) otls oil embargo was, iirc, more comprehensive than originally intended, so theyre not likely to threaten the whole thing, maybe.
4) the whole situation with french indochina was very iffy, in some ways, as the vichy regime there 'invited' the japanese in.

#4 is the important point, really. It's really hard to justify being outraged at what is on the surface a "completely voluntary handing over of territory from a neutral party". Japan would ignore this, seeing it as nothing more than a double standard, much like the Washington Naval Treaty.

This message is approved by the Fluteman Greg! Keep on flutin'!
 
Is there a way to switch votes? I voted yes, hopeful that it would work, but after sleeping I should have voted no. Japan was planning already that the US would get involved if Japan went south; announcing that the US will actually intervene changes nothing from the Japanese POV.
 
Top