Back to WWII...

[colonial]

@CitizenPained

In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. never seemed to be fond of fighting people who look like themselves.

I never noticed that the US was fond of fighting anybody.

I have noticed that a European nation was the foremost
enemy in its two bloodiest wars, and that it has warred
against several other European nations.

[Farmer_Jane]

@colonial

I never noticed that the US was fond of fighting anybody.
.

You don’t think one is a harder sell?

[colonial]

@CitizenPained

You don’t think one is a harder sell?

No, and I provided effective rebuttal in the case of our biggest war (WW2)
in several posts to this thread, especially #34 and #38.

[Malthus]

@sjc

If the Americans thought that the Germans were behind the attack on Pearl Harbour, it seems like they would be more likely to support a war against them rather than less.

Of course they were. That’s my point.

We have poll data that suggests that following Pearl Harbour the American public thought that the Germans were a bigger threat than Japan and that President should have declared war on Germany too (which he hadn’t at that point). Your response to this poll data seems to be essentially: “The American public wouldn’t support going to war with Germany because they thought the Germans represented a bigger threat”.

I don’t really have a horse in this race, so to speak, but based on what has been presented here I’m inclined to think that following Pearl Harbour the US public was at least favourably inclined towards war with Germany.

The American people certainly were favourably inclined to war with Germany. The question is why.

The cites above definitively demonstrate why the US public was in favour of war with Germany following Pearl Harbor - because they thought (incorrectly) that the Japanese attack there was orchestrated by Germany.

Had Germany convincingly disclaimed all knowledge of the attack or responsibility for the attack (which was in fact true - Germany had nothing to do with it), Roosevelt would have found it difficult to declare war on Germany - because the American people were angered, not by anyything Germany had actually done, but by the Japanese attack.

Remember what the issue is - was Hitler’s declaration of war on the US a mistake or not?

My thesis is that it was a mistake, because with adroit handling Hitler could have fended off US anger agaisnt Germany - which was based on the (mistaken!!!) belief that the Germans were behind Pearl Harbor - thus avoiding adding the US to its legions of enemies.

The counter thesis is that the US was going to war with Germany anyway, no matter what Germany did. The fact that the US pop. was most angry at Germany because of Pearl Harbor indicates that matters were not irretrievable for Hitler.

[Malthus]

@colonial

The source is useful only for the poll results in its index.

Hey, you don’t get to pick and choose which bits of a source you cite are “useful”. Fact is that the main thesis of the source you yourself cited is directly againt your point.

Your point was that Americans were more hostile toward
Japan both before and after PH, and that isolationist
sentiments were weaker in the case of Japan.

So yes, the point is falsified, unless you insist on going to
the extreme of (A) denying precise correlation between
perception of a greatest threat and feelings of greatest
hostility, and (B) denying that wanting to declare war signifies
total absence of isolationist sentiment.

I stand by my evaluation of polling data already cited, and
I submit the following additional polling examples:

You are mixing up concepts here.

Every thoughtful American would have acknowledged that Germany was the greater threat, as having the greater power.

In fact, Americans much underestimated Japanese power.

The reason for this was the average racism/de-humanization of Japanese as a people.

Examine your polls again. The significant figures are not those wanting or willing to go to war - those tend to be about equal for both Germany and Japan, fluctuating around 60-70% each - it is the numbers of those not wanting to go to war. Those figures are far higher for Germany than for Japan.

See for example:

JAPAN
Interviewing Date 8/21-26/41
Survey #245-K Question #13
Should the United States take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if it means risking a war with Japan?
Yes…70%
No… 18
No opinion… 2

EUROPEAN WAR
Interviewing Date 9/19-24/41
Survey #248-K Question #4a
Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war or that Germany be defeated?
Germany be defeated…70%
Keep out of war…30

In both cases, the “pro-war” vote is the same - 70%. However, the “anti-war” vote is radically different: 18% in the case of Japan, vs. 30% in the case of Germany.

That of course assumes that these figures are valid, and the questions comparable - I notice that the Japan one doesn’t add up to 100%, and the German one doesn’t have a “no opinion” category.

However, assuming the figures you produced are accurate and relevant, they show more opposition to war with Germany … which was the point.

Ergo you are trying to have it both ways.

Americans were more hostile and less isolationist toward
Japan even though Japan was Germany’s mere puppet, and
furthermore Americans knew it!

American isolationism against Germany could not have been
promoted relative to Japan by the view that incompetent Japan
was a significant threat only if directed by the German “puppetmaster”.

I don’t understand your point here.

The issue is that, without the Japanese attack, the US would not have gone to war (and indeed, had not gone to war) - polls or no polls.

The Germans were, as it were, smeared by association with the dasterdly Japanese. In spite of all the German’s bad behaviour, what finally pushed the US into war footing vs. Germany was something Japan had done.

[colonial]

[QUOTE=Malthus]

Hey, you don’t get to pick and choose which bits of a source you cite are “useful”.
[/QUOTE]

Yes I do.

[QUOTE=Malthus]

Fact is that the main thesis of the source you yourself cited is directly againt your point.
[/QUOTE]

The fact is that anyone is entitled to use any data provided
by any source, with no obligation to evaluate the data the
same way the source does.

[QUOTE=Malthus]

You are mixing up concepts here.
[/QUOTE]

What concepts and how are they mixed up?

I equate “hostility” with willingness to risk war or go to war,
and there is nothing mixed up about it.

[QUOTE=Malthus]

Every thoughtful American would have acknowledged that Germany was the greater threat, as having the greater power.

In fact, Americans much underestimated Japanese power.

The reason for this was the average racism/de-humanization of Japanese as a people.
[/QUOTE]

This passage is only a redundant interjection of something we agree on.

[QUOTE=Malthus]

Examine your polls again. The significant figures are not those wanting or willing to go to war - those tend to be about equal for both Germany and Japan, fluctuating around 60-70% each - it is the numbers of those not wanting to go to war. Those figures are far higher for Germany than for Japan.

See for example:
Quote:
JAPAN
Interviewing Date 8/21-26/41
Survey #245-K Question #13
Should the United States take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if it means risking a war with Japan?
Yes…70%
No… 18
No opinion…12 (typo corrected by colonial)

EUROPEAN WAR
Interviewing Date 9/19-24/41
Survey #248-K Question #4a
Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war or that Germany be defeated?
Germany be defeated…70%
Keep out of war…30

In both cases, the “pro-war” vote is the same - 70%. However, the “anti-war” vote is radically different: 18% in the case of Japan, vs. 30% in the case of Germany.

That of course assumes that these figures are valid, and the questions comparable - I notice that the Japan one doesn’t add up to 100% (typo corrected) , and the German one doesn’t have a “no opinion” category.

However, assuming the figures you produced are accurate and relevant, they show more opposition to war with Germany … which was the point.
[/QUOTE]

You are doing a bit of cherry picking yourself, aren’t you?

I made an honest effort to supply all polling data on the critical
“risk war” question for the whole year 1941, and you grasp two
polls while opining they are not comparable because one of them
offers two answers and the other offers three. Then you omit
the following poll which puts your cherry-pick in different light:

JAPAN
Interviewing Date 2/16-21/41
Survey #230-T Question #7a
Do you think the United States should risk war with Japan, if necessary, to keep Japan from taking the Dutch East Indies and Singapore?
Yes…40%
No…39
No opinion…21

The fact is that American public opinion was not set, but volatiile,
with many respondents changing their minds from month to month.
That happens today too.
Here is another poll you omitted which does give three options
about Germany.

EUROPEAN WAR
Interviewing Date 4/10-15/41
Survey #234-K Question #8b
If it appeared certain that there was no other way to defeat Germany and Italy except for the United States to go to war against them, would you be in favor of the United States going to war?
Yes… 68%
No…24
No opinion…8

Even assuming a modern margin of error of 3%, there is no
statistically significant difference between the immediately
preceding and the results you have cherry-picked.

Also, I do not accept there is a coherent distinction between
“No” and “No opinion” in the ultimately drastic question of
whether or not one’s country should go to war: “No opinion”
responders, if forced to make a yes or no choice would surely
choose “No” in almost every case.

[QUOTE=Malthus]

I don’t understand your point here.
[/QUOTE]

Let me frame your argument as a syllogism:

Premise #1: US underestimated Japan because of racism
Premise #2: US thought Germany instigated PH
Conclusion: Therefore the US was more reluctant to go to war vs Germany than vv Japan.

Your conclusion is not logically consequent even if both premises
are true, your conclusion is counterintuitive even if both premises
are true, and your conclusion is contradicted by polling data.

[QUOTE=Malthus]

The issue is that, without the Japanese attack, the US would not have gone to war (and indeed, had not gone to war) - polls or no polls.
[/QUOTE]

OK. So what?

[QUOTE=Malthus]

The Germans were, as it were, smeared by association with the dasterdly Japanese.
[/QUOTE]

It is absolutely, completely, 100% certain that Nazi Germany needed
no help smearing itself from 1/30/1933 to 5/9/45 1945. No doubt
whatever. It would have made no difference if Japan had never existed.

In fact Japan was virtually non-existent in this poll which I cited before- remember?:

Interviewing Date 7/1-6/39
Survey #162 Question #2
What country do you like least?
Germany… 58%
Italy… …12
Russia…8
Others…22

And events later than July 1939 could not have improved Germany’s image.

[QUOTE=Malthus]

In spite of all the German’s bad behaviour, what finally pushed the US into war footing vs. Germany was something Japan had done.
[/QUOTE]

OK. So what?