What if the Japanese had restrained their more belligerent elements and, in response to the US imposed oil embargo, invaded the British and Netherlands Asian colonial possessions minus the attack on Pearl Harbour, the Philippines, Guam and Wake (i.e. leave the USA out of it).
What orders would Roosevelt issued to the Pacific Fleet without a Congressional declaration of war against Japan?
Would the American public have supported war considering Holland had already been occupied and Britain was at war with Germany (with no US direct involvement)?
Then Roosevelt might have been compelled to precipitate an incident with the Japan in order to bring about a war. US would unlikely stand by while Japan aggrandize herself at the expense of British chances in Europe.
Last edited by chuck on Mon May 07, 2007 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
chuck wrote:The Roosevelt might have been compelled to precipitate an incident with the Japan in order to bring about a war. US would unlikely stand by while Japan aggrandize herself at the expense of British chances in Europe.
Admiral Kemp Tolley said that in fact those were his 12/41 orders, and he was at sea East of the Philippines to accomplish a war incident when the Japanese plans caught up with him.
He fully expected to be captured or killed in the execution of a plan which would provide a pretense for declaration of war.
See "The Strange Assignment of USS Lanikai," United States Naval Institute Proceedings 83 (September 1962).
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
This information fits well into the theory that Roosevelt expected a Japanese attack in the Phillipines, not Hawaii. He may have felt that war was inevitable, and, by provoking an incident, could initiate hostilities at a location of his own choosing.
I have read Kemp Tolly"s fascinating book, which certainly seems to suggest that FDR wanted to precipitate a war. He did, but in the atlantic to support Britain, not against Japan- yet. Everyone knew that the Japanese would have to fight or give up their position in China once the oil embargo was announced, but the US War Department wanted to postpone the pacific war as long as the Japanese would allow. The US had finally awakened with the Two Ocean Navy bill and was training and building like mad. Suppose the war had been postponed until Dec, 1942 when the first Essex class ships were almost available. FDR would far rather have provoked Hitler to war (which he tried to do with convoying, Lend-Lease etc.) and stall the Japanese as long as possible.
j leyland wrote:I have read Kemp Tolly"s fascinating book, which certainly seems to suggest that FDR wanted to precipitate a war. He did, but in the atlantic to support Britain, not against Japan- yet. Everyone knew that the Japanese would have to fight or give up their position in China once the oil embargo was announced, but the US War Department wanted to postpone the pacific war as long as the Japanese would allow. The US had finally awakened with the Two Ocean Navy bill and was training and building like mad. Suppose the war had been postponed until Dec, 1942 when the first Essex class ships were almost available. FDR would far rather have provoked Hitler to war (which he tried to do with convoying, Lend-Lease etc.) and stall the Japanese as long as possible.
My reading of books from the Japanese perspective made it pretty clear that once the oil embargo was put on them, the Japanese saw either war or surrender of their position on the Asian mainland as inevitable. Being the proud people they are, surrender of their hard won positions were pretty much off the table. The Army was not rational in any case, they were fixed on the idea of a war with the Soviet Union although they had already felt the might of the red army. The Navy alone was a very rational organization and may have been willing to accept a peace that left them with some foothold in Asia. As long as the Army had a say, it was going to be war just for war's sake.
I have to agree with that. I think that you will find in general that Navies of all countries tend to be conservative and less influenced by politics than other branches of the Armed Services.
If you think about the approaches to war taken by the Japanese, the German, the British, and the American Navies you can see this is true.
Although the IJN was used as an instrument to initiate the war, they did this with some initial reluctance until ordered to do so by their military-dominated central government. Even then, they knew they could not win a war of attrition with the US, so gamboled on a crushing first strike strategy.
The same can be said for the German Navy. This service showed some real professionalism in resisting Nazi claptrap: no Nazi salutes, retention and promotion of Jews in service, a rational plan for a naval buildup resulting in a balanced navy by 1945. Like Japan's navy, they were shoved into war before they were really ready.
You can also see the conservatism in the RN and the USN. Dominance of battleship admirals, lack of emphasis on submarine development and tactics early in the war; the concept of aircraft carriers and submarines as support for fleet actions. The USN learned how to use aircraft carriers as strike force assets from the British and the Japanese. The USN and RN learned submarine offensive tactics from the Germans.
j leyland wrote:I have read Kemp Tolly"s fascinating book, which certainly seems to suggest that FDR wanted to precipitate a war. He did, but in the atlantic to support Britain, not against Japan- yet. Everyone knew that the Japanese would have to fight or give up their position in China once the oil embargo was announced, but the US War Department wanted to postpone the pacific war as long as the Japanese would allow. The US had finally awakened with the Two Ocean Navy bill and was training and building like mad. Suppose the war had been postponed until Dec, 1942 when the first Essex class ships were almost available. FDR would far rather have provoked Hitler to war (which he tried to do with convoying, Lend-Lease etc.) and stall the Japanese as long as possible.
My reading of books from the Japanese perspective made it pretty clear that once the oil embargo was put on them, the Japanese saw either war or surrender of their position on the Asian mainland as inevitable. Being the proud people they are, surrender of their hard won positions were pretty much off the table. The Army was not rational in any case, they were fixed on the idea of a war with the Soviet Union although they had already felt the might of the red army. The Navy alone was a very rational organization and may have been willing to accept a peace that left them with some foothold in Asia. As long as the Army had a say, it was going to be war just for war's sake.
Bob B
Thats a good point about the Army being in more control of politics, even so for the USA. MacArthur and Ike both told the navy where they were going once we got on the offensive. Thats the main reason Halsey sailed into a typhoon, because he had his orders.
Look at the overlooked Quebec (1942) Combined Chiefs of Staff plan for the Pacific war. It would have called for an immediate invasion of the Bonin Islands in preparation for bombardment of Japan (ala Germany). I wonder what the outcome might have been....
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
Had the Japanese executed some restraint and moved only to take the Netherlands East Indies and British colonial possessions, would FDR efforts to intimidate a war using the Pacific Fleet have received the same level of support for the war that FDR received resultant from the Pearl Harbour surprise attack?
Me thinks neither Congress nor the American public would have supported a war without the Pearl Harbour attack. Afterall, Germany had invaded and occupied the Netherlands; why would the American public and Congress be concerned about the occupation of European colonial possessions in the Far East?
Didn`t Hitler declare war on the USA after the USA declared war on Japan - this action being a Axis treaty obligation? This was a fortunate blunder for Britain.
Gone Asiatic wrote:Had the Japanese executed some restraint and moved only to take the Netherlands East Indies and British colonial possessions, would FDR efforts to intimidate a war using the Pacific Fleet have received the same level of support for the war that FDR received resultant from the Pearl Harbour surprise attack?
Me thinks neither Congress nor the American public would have supported a war without the Pearl Harbour attack. Afterall, Germany had invaded and occupied the Netherlands; why would the American public and Congress be concerned about the occupation of European colonial possessions in the Far East?
Didn`t Hitler declare war on the USA after the USA declared war on Japan - this action being a Axis treaty obligation? This was a fortunate blunder for Britain.
That in my mind was Hitler's major strategic blunder only just exceeding the the invasion of the Soviet Union. With out direct US involvement in the European War Germany might of been able to attain some sort of negotiated settlement with either Britian or the USSR. IMO it most likely would of been Britian. Lend Lease was a help but I think eventually the British would not of been able to continue the war and looked for some sort of settlement that left them independent and the RN intact. In that case the German/USSR war would probably led to a settlement that left Germany in a position similiar to the one it was in post the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Major territorial gains with the threat of bombings of the German industrial complex of the Ruhr gone.
It's my $.02, not yours. Feel free to spend yours. I won't stop you
Gone Asiatic wrote:
Didn`t Hitler declare war on the USA after the USA declared war on Japan - this action being a Axis treaty obligation? This was a fortunate blunder for Britain.
Yes not quite, the treaty obliged Germany to declare war in case of an attack against Japan or one of other Axis states...not in the case of Pearl Harbor which was Japan attacking...which makes Hitler's actions rather more inexplicable.
