Back to WWII...

[colonial]

@Malthus

I suspect that if a serious effort had been made to enlist Japanese aid, more evidence of it would be extant.

And I suspect effort was present from the start.

@Malthus

There is no question that US “neutrality” was anything but, and the Germans knew it. However, it was far superior to outright US war against Germany.

It was close enough to make Churchill himself say only the submarine
campaign ever made him doubt victory was inevitable, and that was
with the US fully committed. Without the US involvement the UK would
certainly have suffered mass starvation.

@Malthus

I disagree. Those in the US had far different feelings towards the Japanese as opposed to the Germans, for many reasons.

Both countries were correctly viewed as wanton aggressors.

Germany was viewed as the most dangerous by the most people,
and it was not close: see this poll result:

1941 Poll Results

(from link):
Question (12/23/41): Which country is the greater threat to America’s future- Germany or Japan?
Answer: Germany 64% Japan 15%

Question (12/10/41): Should President Roosevelt have asked Congress to declare war on Germany was well as Japan?
Answer: Yes 90% No 10% (Nb Germany declared war on the US 12/11)

Since your point of departure is falsified by these poll results there is
no need for further rebuttal on this point, but I have some comments
to make anyway.

@Malthus

First, there was the lengthy history of pro-China sentiment, the special relationship that Americans felt existed with China. Japanese aggression towards China, including such measures as the ‘Rape of Nanking’ (well publicised pre-war in newsreels), seriously inflamed Amercan attitudes towards the Japanese, to an extent that Hitler’s enormities (still mostly unknown in the US) did not.

Hitler was universally known to have committed enormity after enormity
by invasion without declaration of war of nine countries 1939-41.
Those enormities weighed more on American consciousness than
anything Japan had done.

@Malthus

There were several incidents, pre-war, in which Japanese 'accidentally" attacked Americans in China.

This is an incidental point, and in any case Panay and other occasions
were no larger in the public mind than Reuben James.

@Malthus

Second, American general racism towards the Japanese made fighting them more palatable than fighting Germans - many prominent Americans in public life were themselves of German descent, of course.

I sorry, but this is nonsense. American men and women of German
descent from Eisenhower on down were as wholeheartedly committed
against Germany as against Japan. What anti-Japanese racism that
did exist did not affect any aspect of the US war effort and morale except
perhaps in the case of a few (very few) cases of overconfidence soon
dispelled by the obvious prowess of Japanese arms.

@Malthus

Third, and most important, the Japanese had attacked the US in what was widely seen as a sneaky, underhanded attack - completely in line with previous American conceptions of Japanese gov’t behaviour (point 1) and American prejudices concerning the Japanese character (point 2).

All of this undermined American isolationism when it came to the Japanese.

Addressed by the poll citations. Relative antagonism toward Japan
would if anything have been worse due to Pearl Harbor, yet 90%
of the country favored war against Germany even before Germany
settled the matter by its own declaration of war.

@Malthus

The US was already flooding the UK with provisions. What the changed status meant was that the US would now be involved in a war of its very own - diverting attention from the European war; which ought to have suited Hitler just fine. US support for the UK, while galling, was something that Hitler had been prepared to tolerate prior to the Japanese attack. This was undoubtedly the correct strategic move - because the alternative, outright war with the US, was undeniably worse. Hitler was in no position to do much more against the US than extend the U-Boat campaign against them - which, while racking up some impressive tonnage-sunk figures initially against an unprepared US, had the effect of pitting an already-straining U-Boat fleet against the might of American manufacture and navy - not a good trade.

Surely you will not contest that US supply to allies increased by several
factors of 10 post-PH? Again: the UK would have starved if provisions had
been left at pre-PH levels, and I do not think the US would have allowed
that to happen to an ally, even if it meant adopting shoot-on-sight
antisubmarine tactics far beyond the earlier limits.

As for the Uboat fleet 312 were built 1935-41 and 841 were built 1942-45.
See link:

U-boat construction 1935-45

@parmalee

Perhaps, but Hitler never really understood the depth of UK resolve, or thought it was genuine. He had good reason for this - the pusilanimous behaviour of the UK gov’t prior to the war, the support for some sort of appeasement in UK upper class circles even after, the fact that the UK generally lacked military victories against the germans, etc. Hitler could be forgiven for thinking that if he crushed Stalin and united Eurasia under his rule, the UK would cut a deal. Going it alone, they had no chance of defeating a Hitler who was ruler of Eurasia.

I think Hitler understood UK resolution well enough by the end of 1940.
Regardless of his feelings England and then the UK gone to war and
stayed at war against all potential continental hegemons going to QE2.

@Malthus

If the US never got involved in the war in the first place, of course, they would have no choice but to agree to abide by a German conquest.

With US assistance they could still be fighting today.

@Malthus

I’m not saying Hitler knew with any precision how many troops were stationed in the far east, but he surely had to know that some were, and that absent a two-front confrontation they would be available to fight him.

Even Hitler would have had 2nd thoughts about Typhoon if he had had
any idea a million fresh troops awaited.