I was thinking more of the ballooning of the size of the US Army and Army Air Corps. The US Army conducted maneuvers in Louisiana in August/September 1941, the GHQ Maneuvers of 1941 involving 19 divisions and 500,000 men, the largest training maneuvers ever conducted by the US. Most of the forces didn’t exist in 1939.
About the two-ocean navy bill, large naval combatants (carriers, battleships, cruisers) take years to construct. To give an idea of the size of the bill, it authorized the construction of 18 Essex-class fleet carriers at a time when there were only 5 fleet carriers in the US Navy with 2 under construction.
Maybe its the obviousness of the baiting (I know the deployment of the US Asiatic Fleet on the outbreak of war off the top of my head and you really think I’ve never heard of the Panay incident?) but this really irks me. That you would consider the Panay to even be in the same universe as far as provocations go to attacking naval vessels sent to defend the Dutch East Indies in December 1941 is bizarre to say the least. Let’s compare: the Panay, a river gunboat, was bombed and strafed in 1937. Japan immediately declared it was attacked in error, apologized profusely and paid compensation for the loss. Taking the DEI and attacking the US Asiatic Fleet there: a deliberate, sustained attack on US naval vessels while invading islands they were sent to defend, in 1941. After four years of escalating mutual antagonism that had reached the point of the US cutting off Japan from oil, leaving them to rely on stockpiles and facing its economy being strangled to death once that ran out. Right after Japan had walked out on negotiations trying to resolve the issue peacefully, and the US considered war with Japan to be a near certainty and informed its forces to allow Japan to make the first overt act of hostilities if and when it came. One may as well say that the US would never go to war with Iraq over Kuwait in 1991, even if they attacked US forces in Saudi Arabia. After all they had put an Exocet into the USS Stark in 1987, said the attack was in error and the US hadn’t declared war on Iraq then.
There may have been more than a solitary dissenting voice in Congress as happened historically, but Roosevelt would have had no problems at all getting Congress to declare war on Japan after an attack on the US Navy in the Dutch East Indies. Once at war with Japan, Germany was one more Greer or Reuben James incident away from war; possibly even without war with Japan. U-boat attacks eventually drew a declaration of war from congress in WW1. That being the case, Hitler declaring war first may have been a good thing for Germany, as they were able to sink large numbers of merchants off the US coast in Operation Drumbeat at little cost, taking advantage of US unpreparedness as demonstrated by such things as the lack of even a blackout in coastal cities at night.
So you bring up the sinking of two American naval ships - the Panay by Japan and the Reuben James by Germany - both of which Congress let pass without declaring war. And you offer this as evidence that Congress would declare war if Japan sank any American naval ships.
You really don’t read for content, do you? You (snidely) brought up the Panay and well, I’m not going to go over why a Japanese attack on the Asiatic Fleet in the DEI would end in war all over again and is light-years removed from the Panay as a provocation. Or go over again that the Reuben James was escorting a British convey and had orders to shoot on sight against U-boats when it was torpedoed. So much for the US taking no action against Germany.:rolleyes: The Reuben James was sunk in what was an undeclared naval war with Germany; not in an accidental attack. That you think an official war with Germany was far off after it was sunk because it didn’t draw an immediate declaration of war is truly bizarre. It took the sinking of 7 American merchantmen to have Wilson ask Congress to declare war on Germany in WW1. By your logic the US would never have declared war on Germany in 1917 since they had already sunk one ship and it didn’t draw an immediate declaration of war.
The bankruptcy of your position is pretty evident by the fact that this is all you can say in response to the voluminous evidence that war with Japan was going to happen once they initated hostilities and have no response to the massively changed political climate of 1941 vs. 1937 with regards to Japan, the oil embargo, Japan walking out on negotiations, the massive buildup of the US military from 1939-41, war warnings sent to US Pacific forces telling them to be prepared for war but let Japan make the first overt hostile action, etc. etc.
Well gosh, the destroyers that were going to be sailing for Singapore got rather busy on December 7th. Must have had something to do with Japan attacking Pearl Harbor, Guam, Wake Island, the Philippines, Hong Kong, the Dutch East Indies, the Malay Peninsula… Damn them for not sailing for Singapore before Japan started the war, guess this proves if the US had already gone to war with Japan before sailing these destroyers to Singapore but sent them anyway an attack on them wouldn’t draw a second declaration of war showing the US really, really meant it.:rolleyes:
By the way, got any cite of even one military historian thinking the Battle of Moscow was a VERY close fight yet?
I really think you need to go over why a Japanese attack on the DEI would result in an American declaration of war. Because the reason you’ve offered so far aren’t convincing.
Because Japan attacked an European colony? Japan had attacked other European colonies and the United States hadn’t declared war.
Because Japan might sink some American naval ships? Japan (and Germany) had attacked other American naval ships and the United States hadn’t declared war.
Because the British and Dutch were being attacked by Japan? The British and Dutch had been attacked by Germany and the United States hadn’t declared war.
Because Japan and the United States had generally hostile relations? Japan and the United States had been having generally hostile relations for years and the United States hadn’t declared war.
I realize that the United States took a number of defensive actions before Pearl Harbor. But they were based on the concern that Japan might declare war against the United States. They were not a prelude to an American declaration of war against Japan.
Let’s try this one last time. The river gunboat Panay was sunk with the loss of two lives. Japan said it was attacked in error, apologized profusely and paid reparation. There is a newspaper article here from The Straits Times, 27 December 1937, Page 11, AMERICA ACCEPTS JAPAN’S PANAY APOLOGY. There’s a lengthy article on the sinking of the Panay here. Let’s see how things went, shall we?
Even leaving aside the intervening four years, you do see that a deliberate, sustained attack on and sinking of some of a light cruiser and destroyers as part of an invasion of the very island they were sent to help defend might draw a slightly different reaction? Particularly since it wouldn’t be followed by three formal apologies from the Japanese government but rather with a Japanese declaration of war on the Dutch? You do see the difference between the two, right?
The Reuben James, yet again. The US was already at war with Germany when it was sunk, albeit without a formal declaration of war. Let that sink in for a moment, I’ll repeat it: the US was already at war with Germany. It was acting as a belligerent vessel in the war. It was escorting the convoy of one belligerent (Britain) and had orders to attack the forces of the other belligerent (Germany) on sight. There is a lengthy US Naval Academy paper here (pdf file) entitled The U.S. Navy, the Neutrality Patrol, and Atlantic Fleet Escort Operations, 1939-1941. From the abstract:
There is a lengthy list here of “Belligerent Acts Prior to US Entry into WW2.” You might want to give it a read, some of the highlights regarding US/German relations:
Umm, this generally hostile relationship had been escalating for years and was headed inexorably on a course to war. I suppose Germany and Poland weren’t going to go to war on 1 Sept 1939. They had generally hostile relations for years up 'til then and hadn’t gone to war. Thus Germany would not declare war on Poland. You do see the error in this logic, right?
No, they were not based on the concern that Japan might declare war, they were based on the concern that Japan would initiate hostilities at any moment. Japan’s pattern of starting a war first and declaring war second was well known. The Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 ringing any bells?