Missed this the first time. French Indochina was occupied in September, 1940, not July 1941, and the US began the oil embargo before before the Japanese occupation of Indochina. The actual history of the oil embargo is this:
Nonsense?:rolleyes: Great intellectual argument.
Sure, they were. But it doesn’t matter- even the invasion of unarmed neutral nations did not bring Congress or the voters to want to get back into actual war.
Right-nothing to gain- except winning the war.
I said those dozens of fresh divisions (with better officers, too) would never have arrived just in time, nothing about Siberian troops at Moscow. But freeing up the Eastern troops still meant dozens of divisions to add into the battle for Moscow.
- “worst kinds of pop history*” is your opinion, and one not shared by most military historians.
I guess one can argue that the Axis could not have won WWII by any decision. But I say that by not attacking the USA, and thus keeping most US might out of it- and by acting as allies- the Axis could have won. It’s about the only way.
So I guess it’s a semantic difference we have here. If a country sends its army into another country, shooting guns and dropping bombs, and they kill a bunch of soldiers - that’s what I call that an attack. You may use a different term.
In the spirit of cooperation, I’ll amend my previous post as follows: “The United States wouldn’t sit by if Britain and the Netherlands were forcibly visited? Do you see the flaw in that argument? If Congress wasn’t going to declare war to defend London and Amsterdam, why would it declare war to defend Singapore and Batavia? Congress hadn’t declared war when Japan forcibly visited China or the Soviet Union or French Indochina. The evidence is that only a Japanese forcible visit on an American possession would be seen as a cause for war.” None of which changes the point I made.
Yes, but what if the Axis conquered the US before we were able to develop the nuclear weapons? In fact, they might even steal the nuclear technology we had made. They would’ve nuked us.
It was an invasion. It didn’t last long, as happens when one side is so much more powerful than the other. However, to claim that this wasn’t an attack by Japan on Vichy France is just bizarre. They fought it out for a week or so, and then the Vichy forces capitulated. This is hardly controversial, lol.
Nope, sorry. Whenever someone says that ‘the Germans could have done X or Y’ and they would have defeated the Soviets, it’s almost always BS. Look at the bloody production statistics. Look at the manpower losses. Read Guderian’s memoirs carefully. The only chance that Germany had to defeat the Soviet Union was to ally with Britain or the USA, or Japan. If not, they were screwed.
And, you are correct. Nothing but a declaration of war or a direct attack would bring the USA fully into WWII. Sure, Lend-lease would have been stepped up. But the USA would not have gone into a war economy, etc.
Sure, that’s a reasonable argument. But I have played out the Japanese helps Germany scenario in dozens of different wargames, and it is the only one that ever works. Maybe nothing would have worked sure, but if anything worked, keeping the USA out would have been it.
Where to even begin. Yes, it is nonsense to bring in a “how was the play Mrs. Lincoln” when responding to the fact that the US and Germany were already at war. Escorting convoys of a belligerant nation, firing on U-boats and having US destroyers sunk are all acts of war. It was only a matter of time before war was officially declared.
Continuing to parrot this doesn’t make it any more true. Japan did not have the ability to both attack the USSR and south for oil at the same time. Going north meant running out of oil and economic collapse is short order.
Read your quote again. "Tojo could have then attacked the Russians. Altho this attack would not done much for the Japanese it would have won the war for the Germans, as those dozens of fresh divisions (with better officers, too) would never have arrived just in time to save Stalingrad [sic]. " The divisions in districts facing Japanese forces had troops being sent to fight the Germans from the start of the invasion. They did not arrive in the nick of time, and you did claim they were just in the nick of time to save Moscow (which you accidentally referred to as Stalingrad).
Sorry, it’s not my opinion, its the opinion of the vast majority of military historians. I dare you to name one reputible historian who thinks that the battle of Moscow was a very close run thing. Hell, I dare you to name one book on the Eastern Front by a reputible historian that you have even read. The only place you’ll hear this tripe is on the [del]Hitler[/del]History Channel.
They could not keep the US out of the war. By Pearl Harbor, the US was already in a shooting war with Germany, and it’s an absurd pipe dream that the Japanese could sieze the DEI and British posessions in the area without war with the US. As I noted and you have failed to achknowedge, the US Navy had moved to bases in the DEI at Balikpapan and Tarakan and were heading for the British base at Singapore. In case you don’t know what Balikpapan and Tarakan were
The final proof is in the pudding, Japan wanted the oil in the DEI. If they thought that siezing the DEI wouldn’t provoke an immideate war with the US, why didn’t they just do that and not attack the US as well?
In the interest of cooperation, I’ll assume that when you said Japan attacked the Soviet Union, you actually meant Japan attacked Soviet and Mongolian troops in the disputed border between Mongolia and Manchuria, not that Japan actually attacked the nation of the Soviet Union. Equally, when you said Japan attacked French Indochina you meant they muscled their way in with the threat of force rather than an actual attack.
It wasn’t an invasion, but I’ll split the difference. I had forgotten that there was some fighting from Sept 23-26 over Japan breaching the wording of the accord allowing Japan to occupy Indochina. From wiki
not a chance in hell would the japanese have in creating an eastern front for the soviets. those 40 siberian divisions would have been on the scene (moscow) regardless. there are a number of sites that chronicled the border engagement between the russians and the japanese and the japanese were completely outclassed except in the air (which had very little bearing.) their tanks were inferior. and woe to the troops who discovered that their anti-tank weapons were useful only for ww1-type armor (1/4" riveted steel plates), and not for modern tanks.
the japanese simply could not mount a large mechanized ground attack against the soviets.
You can assume whatever you wish. Although you’d be incorrect. But these aren’t the central issues. I’m pretty much assuming that your desire to nitpick over trivia is a concession that you’re unable to dispute the main point I made.
Nonsense.
Worst kind of pop history.
Tripe.
Pipe dreams.
Absurd.
More nonsense.
I’m willing to let it slide as a disagreement over semantics, I regarded your use of ‘attacking the Soviet Union’ as an attack on the Soviet Union proper, not as attacks on Soviet forces in Mongolia, which is and was not in fact a part of the Soviet Union. However, it’s quite absurd of you to use this to claim I’m unable to dispute your main point. I suggest you re-read post 56 among others. The only thing you choose to reply to was this bit of trivia; you choose to not respond to any of the points made demolishing your main point.
DrDeth: I’ll take that as an admission that you cannot in fact point to any respectable historian who thinks the battle of Moscow was ‘a VERY close fight’ since it in fact wasn’t; or able to make any coherent reply to anything else. By the by, I hope this
isn’t the basis of your knowledge and opinion on the matter. Wargames are great entertainment, but from the pure beer & pretzels of Axis and Allies to monster games such as the Europa series requiring something the size of a large dinner table to even begin thinking of setting it up, they are entertainment, not an actual depiction of history or what was or was not possible. Or should I quote the American entry rules from World in Flames, note that on average in the game the US will be able to declare war by sometime in 1942 if it is not attacked first and claim case closed?
No, I felt that pointing out your error should have ended the issue. And let me repeat as you seem to be missing it - you are in error, Japanese forces crossed the Manchurian-Soviet border in July 29, 1938. Not Mongolia. Not Manchukuo. They invaded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The reason I have only responded to this trivial point is because as far as I can tell, it’s the only issue you have disputed. If you want to argue that the United States did declare war on Japan prior to 1941, I’ll be happy to prove you’re wrong about that as well. But what I expect is that since you’ve argued about the meaning of “Soviet Union”, “French Indochina”, and “attack”, you’re probably going to come up with some unusual definition of “declaring war” as well.
This is bordering on theater of the absurd. This is now the third time I’ve said I’m willing to drop the issue as a matter of semantics, and the third time you’ve claimed I’m nitpicking it and again refuse to address that I in fact have responded to your main issue. Do you simply have nothing to respond with?
For the record, and for god’s sake let it drop already, Lake Khasan July 29, 1938
To reiterate, your claim was this:
I’ll restate the points I’ve made that you continue to avoid:
-
The Dutch and the British joined the oil embargo of Japan at the behest of the US. The US could hardly sit twiddling its thumbs while Japan took over the Dutch East Indies by force.
-
The US was expecting war with Japan. The US was not happy with Japan’s invasion of China, and tensions continued to escalate. Neither side was willing to back down, and by the end of 1941 Japan was faced with the choice of leaving China or seizing a source of oil by force, the Dutch East Indies being the only plausible option. When negotiations broke down in November, the US considered war with Japan to be imminent and issued war warning to forces in the Pacific.
-
As a result of these war warnings, the US Asiatic Fleet dispersed from Manila bay, and as of December 7 a light cruiser, 9 destroyers and a destroyer tender were in harbor at major oil producing cities in Borneo, Dutch East Indies. Four of those destroyers were about to head for Singapore, the main British base in the Pacific. How exactly was Japan to take Borneo and Singapore without attacking these forces?
-
The US was already in an undeclared naval war with Germany in the Atlantic. US destroyers were escorting British convoys to mid-Atlantic, had order to shoot on sight against German U-boats, and two US destroyers had already been torpedoed by U-boats, with one of them sunk.
-
Japan clearly did not think it could simply take over the Dutch East Indies and British possessions in the area without provoking war with the US. It attacked the US at the same time as moving against the British and the Dutch East Indies. Like the US, with the breakdown of negotiations Japan considered itself faced with two options: withdraw from China or go to war to seize a source of oil, a war that would clearly involve war with the US.
Now, would you care to address any of these points or are you going to continue to feign blindness to anything but semantic disputes over Soviet-Japanese border fighting?
i don’t believe there was any conclusive US involvement before the pearl harbor attack. you could bully on the bargaining table, lease out 50 old destroyers, send token flag carriers, etc. that is called being on a war footing, not going to war. i would consider a congressional assent, a sudden jump in the draft, and the harnessing of private industries and finances as the sure mark of going into a hot war.
No problem. Here’s what I said.
You claimed that the United States wouldn’t sit idly by if the United Kingdom and the Netherlands were attacked. I pointed out that both countries had been attacked by Germany and the United States had sat idly by when it happened. You have not explained why the United States would ignore a German attack against the British and Dutch but feel obligated to declare war if the Japanese attacked the British and Dutch. You say:
But you haven’t produced any evidence to support this claim. Had the United States signed some treaty with the British or Dutch governments? Was there some diplomatic understanding? Had Roosevelt made any policy statements on this issue? The answer is no. So the United States could very easily have done nothing while Japan took over the Dutch East Indies just as it had sat by when Japan took over other areas.
No disputing that the United States was unhappy with Japan. But Japan had been at war with China since 1937 (or maybe 1931 depending on how you counted it). But the United States had not declared war against Japan in 1931 or 1937 or 1940. So what evidence do you have that the United States was going to declare war against Japan in 1941? The evidence is that the United States would have continued its ongoing policy of diplomatic and economic sanctions but stayed short of war.
The same way Japan had attacked American forces in China when it invaded that country without it causing the United States to declare war. (I’ll pause while you quickly read the Wikipedia entry of the USS Panay and the Shanghai International Settlement.)
And what does this have to do with Japan at all? All this seems to prove is how reluctant the United States was to declare and how much it was willing to overlook.
Which is about what the Japanese government was thinking not what the American government was thinking.
Nothing you’ve said disproves what I said in the first place: The evidence is that only a Japanese attack on an American possession would be seen as a cause for war.
Not an attack on some other Asian country. Not an attack on some European colony in Asia. Not even an attack on American military units stationed in another country. All of these things had already happened and none of them had caused the United States to declare war against Japan.
I guess you hadn’t noticed the oil embargo of Japan. Or the escalation of tensions with Japan over China that had reached the point that the War Department sent out warn warnings to Pacific forces that war with Japan was expected imminently. Then there is that untidy bit where US support for the British had reached the point of US vessels escorting British convoys to mid-Atlantic and trading shots with German U-boats. You know, silly things like 141 American sailors killed on the Reuben James when it was torpedoed and sunk by a U-boat. Yes, the US was entirely ignoring Germany and any actions they took.
I see, so the Japanese were going to just miracle away the US Asiatic Fleet so that they didn’t kill any Americans while taking over the DEI. Good plan, I don’t know why they didn’t run with that.
Umm, the war warnings that war with Japan was imminently expected? The fact that US naval vessels were dispatched to the DEI? Oh I forgot, they were going to be miracled out of the line of fire.
Gotcha. The US hadn’t declared war in 1937, so nothing had changed by 1941 that would make war happen. No evidence at all that war with Japan was about to happen over some silly thing like an attack on US military units. Nothing like this from the Nov 28 war warning:
I don’t know why Japan didn’t follow such a brilliant course of action that your illogic would dictate. It should have gone something like this:
Attack the Dutch East Indies, and use their super ninja skills to avoid any exchange of fire with the US Navy that was located there. Next take the Malay Peninsula and Singapore while again ninjaing around any US forces.
The next logical action after this would be to invade Mexico, and then Canada. Not being US possessions, there would of course be no reaction from the US. They may as well spend a few years building up forces and massing on the former Mexican and Canadian borders to the US, and then invade the US which would of course have taken no action to prepare for war by this point.
Oh wait, the US had already authorized the Two Ocean Navy Bill back in July 1940. You know, the largest naval expansion in US history that produced all those ships coming off the slipways from 1942? Guess we’ll just miracle them away as well, they obviously weren’t being built with a likely war with Japan in mind.
Psst - Congress had authorized the first peacetime draft in US history in September 1940. It also authorized and paid for the largest expansion of the US military in history as well.
ah, i didn’t know that. was this the resultion to build a two-ocean navy?