Dropping the A-Bomb On Germany?

Great Debates
22

If you think this you haven’t been reading recent threads.
They knew full well what the US’s industrial advantage was. They would rather not have gone to war with the US. But Japan was practically forced to do something, by the blockade.
Their only hope was to deal a severe knock-out blow, right at the start, so that the US would either drop out of the war immediatly (best scenario) or be crippled long enough for them to consolidate their lightning conquest of the pacific and thereby discourage further US action by the daunting scope of actually having to conquer all that territory.

What they really hoped for was a weak resolve by the US to commit to the war.
They did know that if the US did commit itself they would be fuxored, so to speak.

There is a lot of speculation on why Hitler declared war too but I think the above hope/reasoning might have played for Hitler too.
By standing with the Japanese the prospect of war, for the US, would be even more daunting. Maybe just enough to over-awe them and keep them from entering for real. Maybe if the US decided to sue for peace a bargaigning point could be that they stop the supplies to England.

23

Considering I participated in most of those threads, it should be obvious I read them.

You misunderstood my post. What you’re describing is the underestimation I wrote about.

The Axis powers were aware that the United States would ultimately outproduce them. What they underestimated was the speed with which America could work itself up to its full potential. Germany and Japan figured that it would take five or ten years for America to build up its military to their level - and they would be able to defeat America during that period.

That was why Hitler declared war in 1941. Once Japan had attacked the United States, Hitler figured America would build up its military for that war with Japan. If Germany waited, it would be facing a stronger America. So Hitler decided to go to war with America in 1941 while he figured it was still weak.

24

That’s why I wondered, thought I remembered seeing you in those threads.
Guess we kind of agree then. Except maybe to emphasise that it wasn’t so much the underestimation of the US’s potential in their decision to go to war, although they did underestimate it. More that Japan, and Hitler, did not have much of a choice. A knock-out blow was their best bet.

25

Not so sure about this.

Prior to Japan’s attack the US was showing little interest in getting involved in the war.

If they had just left the US alone it is hard to say when, if ever, the US would have become more involved. Hell, I bet they could have taken the Philippines without getting the US populace too riled up. Attacking Hawaii galvanized the US into action though.

26

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Prior to Japan’s attack the US was showing little interest in getting involved in the war.
[/QUOTE]

We had them under embargo and were hurting them with that. It’s the primary reason they decided to pull the trigger on a war with the US (besides which, they pretty much knew that if they attacked the other European powers in the Pacific that it would most likely bring us into the war as well…and Japan needed that Southern Resource Area to build the type of empire they wanted, so sooner or later the US would have been involved).

I’d say it was inevitable that the US would have been involved (with Germany as well, since we had been fighting a secret war with them via the navy for quite a while before open hostilities were declared by Germany). Japan’s actions where leading them on a trajectory for a confrontation with the US, sooner or later (most likely sooner, since the next phase of their plan was to really start openly snatching territory from the other European powers).

Not a chance. Had they attacked the Philippines it would have brought us into the war just as surly as Pearl Harbor. Hell, we were actually expecting them to attack us there, so the only difference is we wouldn’t have been as surprised.

27

I’ve disputed this point in the past. I think Japan could have avoided a war with the United States in 1941 by attacking just the British and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia. As evidence, I’ve pointed out that the United States didn’t declare war when Japan attacked French Indochina nor did the United States declare war when Germany invaded France or the Netherlands. I think the United States would have continued to use economic and diplomatic sanctions short of anything less than an attack on American possessions like the Philippines or Hawaii.

War with the United States might have been inevitable at some point. But Germany and Japan would have been better off concentrating on finishing the European powers and securing their logistic base while keeping America technically neutral.

Let’s say the only difference is we shouldn’t have been caught by surprise. MacArthur hugely bungled the situation in 1941.

28

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I’ve disputed this point in the past. I think Japan could have avoided a war with the United States in 1941 by attacking just the British and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia. As evidence, I’ve pointed out that the United States didn’t declare war when Japan attacked French Indochina nor did the United States declare war when Germany invaded France or the Netherlands. I think the United States would have continued to use economic and diplomatic sanctions short of anything less than an attack on American possessions like the Philippines or Hawaii.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree, obviously. The thing is that the level of tension on both sides is cumulative. The US was clearly moving towards hostility with Japan, and in fact we were preparing, mentally, for some sort of conflict with them prior to Pearl Harbor. We simply guessed wrong about where the Japanese would strike or how they would go about it, and so our initial plans were wrong. On the other side, the Japanese equally clearly considered the US to be in increasing threat, and our embargo was hurting them. They couldn’t know what the trigger point would be for the US (i.e., when we would see their expansion as a clear threat to our own position in the Pacific), and instead of waiting for that trigger point to be reached, decided to take the initiative.

Certainly…but this is like the alternative history discussions about Germany attacking Russia. Pretty clearly (in retrospect) Germany would have been better off not attacking Russia as they did, and instead finishing off the UK (at a minimum forcing them to accept peace) first. However, Germany’s entire war aims involved Russia and Russian territory for elbow room, so realistically they weren’t going to stop. Same with Japan…their entire war aims were to secure the Southern Resource Area…which put them in direct conflict with the US, regardless of Pearl Harbor. We would have (rightfully) seen that as a direct threat to US interests had Japan proceed with their aims, with or without a direct military attack on us. And that would have brought us into conflict.

Oh, no doubt we would have still lost the PI…but we wouldn’t have been as surprised by such an attack. Our own plans at that point, IIRC, was to sally the fleet from Pearl to support against an attack on the PI, which is what we expected. But the point was that we were already thinking in terms of open conflict with Japan, and it was seen as a likely event PRIOR to Pearl Harbor. We were just shocked as to where they actually attacked us…and, frankly, how successful they were at it.

29

But that’s a major difference. Any AH where Germany doesn’t attack the Soviet Union is unlikely because conquering the Soviet Union was Germany’s main war goal. But neither Germany or Japan had any war goals regarding the United States directly. They weren’t looking to occupy North America. Their declarations of war against America were just a means to achieve some other end.

As for American-Japanese tension, it was certainly there. But I still maintain it would have fallen short of war without a Japanese attack on American territory. Can you really imagine FDR going before Congress in 1941 and asking them to declare war because the Japanese had invaded Borneo?

30

The US was already in an undeclared naval war with Germany since summer 1941. The US Navy was escorting British convoys with orders to shoot on sight at any U-boat they encountered. The US was also picking a fight with Japan due to their designs on Asia and the war they were waging in China. Japan refused to budge, and neither did the US. The final act of pressure was the oil and steel embargo. Japan’s choices at that point were to back down and quit China, or go to war to take a source of oil in the Dutch East Indies, meaning war with the US.

Not a chance in hell. If they did not take oil by force their ability to wage war in China would come to a screeching halt in perhaps 18 months. Taking the oil was going to mean war with the US. Attacking the Philippines was going to mean war with the US. I’ve disagreed with Little Nemo about the plausibility of invading the DEI without causing immediate war with the US and the UK in the past and still do, but I’ll leave it at that with only the note that attacking the DEI meant attacking the US Navy; the US Asiatic Fleet had dispersed to the DEI from its main base at Manila prior to the Japanese attack. We are it seems in total agreement about the Philippines, though. That meant war with the US, no questions asked.

31

But as Little Nemo pointed out, exactly how would the United States initiate hostilities? We’ve gotten so used to the President and the Pentagon deciding to commit to military action and dragging Congress along as an afterthought that it’s easy to forget that once upon a time we took “declarations of war” seriously. There was a huge pacifist and neutrality sentiment in the US, and I don’t see how FDR could have sold America on starting a conflict without a causus belli.

32

He had already started a conflict in the Atlantic with Germany without a declaration of war. The US Navy and U-boats of the Kreigsmarine had been shooting at each other all summer. There’s a chronology here of the run up to the war. To note but a few:

For a more complete history there is an abstract on The U.S. Navy, the Neutrality Patrol, and Atlantic Fleet Escort Operations, 1939-1941 with a link to the 325 page pdf file.

The pacifist and neutrality sentiment wasn’t anywhere near as huge as its made out to be. Shots were being fired, American lives were being lost, the first peace time draft in US history had already been approved in September 1940, and FDR had no problems getting Congress to pass the Two Ocean Navy Act, the largest naval appropriations bill in history and the largest peacetime expansion of the US Army and Army Air Corp in history.

If Japan attacked the DEI the US would not need to initiate hostilities, the Japanese would have by attacking. As I said, the US Asiatic Fleet had dispersed from Manila Bay to Balikpapan and Tarakan in the DEI prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. There’s an oob and location of the vessels of the Asiatic Fleet on the outbreak of war here. Balikpapan and Tarakan were ports through which huge amounts of oil from Borneo flowed.

33

Did the US have a formal defense alliance with the Netherlands? As mentioned upthread the US didn’t react to the occupation of French Indochina. And as for the Atlantic conflict, it might not be comparable because of a now almost forgotten sentiment: Pre-WW2, submarines were regarded as illicit, almost piratical violators of the “laws of the sea”. The standard towards cargo vessels by blockade ships and commerce raiders had traditionally been to confront them openly with flags flying and demand the vessel’s surrender, whereupon prize crews would take control of the captured vessel. Submarines couldn’t do this- they had to simply shoot vessels bound for enemy waters without warning.

I’m not doubting that the Roosevelt administration took every step in it’s power to side against Germany, and that Congress approved economic and diplomatic sanctions against Germany and Japan. Maybe they were actively trying to provoke the Axis into committing an act of war against America. But it would still have been a big hurdle to ask Congress for a declaration of war, making America the initiator of hostilities.

34

When Japan strong armed its way into French Indochina by threatening to invade if they were not allowed in they didn’t sink any ships of the US Navy or kill any Americans; there were no US forces present in French Indochina. The US Navy was located in Borneo; attacking it would necessitate attacking the US Navy, sinking US warships and killing American sailors. The US most certainly did react to the occupation of French Indochina by Japan; the embargo of steel, iron and oil was a result of it. The reason Japan forced their way into Indochina should be noted as well, it was to cut off aid to China from being sent through that route. It was one more step in the continued escalation of tensions between the US and Japan where neither side was willing to back down. The US, UK and the Dutch had already held talks pre war for collective defense that resulted in the ABDA (American, British, Dutch, and Australian) command being set up when hostilities started. Probably most damning is the fact that the Japanese didn’t consider for a moment that they would be able to seize the Dutch East Indies without provoking war with both the US and UK.

This falls apart as an argument by looking at WW1. Prior to US entry into the war in 1917 the US took no direct military action against Germany, didn’t attack German U-boats, didn’t escort British convoys, didn’t arm US merchant ships or authorize them to sail into warzones, etc. Prior to US entry into WW2 the US Navy was actively escorting British convoys, attacking U-boats, had been given orders to shoot on sight against German U-boats, seized German blockade runners on the high seas, armed merchants and authorized them to enter warzones, actively participated in the hunt for the Bismarck (she was sighted by a US PBY), etc.

Again, the US would not be initiating hostilities, Japan would. Attacking the Dutch East Indies would by necessity mean attacking US forces located there, and as I noted Japan entertained no illusions that such an attack would mean war with the US and UK. Congress was not just approving diplomatic and economic actions against the Axis; they had authorized the first peacetime draft and the largest military expansion in US history prior to US entry into the war. A look at WW1 is again illustrative; practically nothing had been done to ready the US for war when the US entered in 1917.

35

As Dissonance noted, he and I have discussed this issue in other threads and we disagree.

I’ll note that in his own posts he gives examples of previous incidents where American ships were attacked without the United States declaring war on the attackers. I’ll also note that there were no American bases in the DEI; the American ships that were there were just stopping at local ports for a few days. (There were also American units in South African and Canadian ports on December 7, 1941. Those countries were at war with Germany but using their ports didn’t mean we joined their war.) Nor was there any alliance between the United States and the Netherlands or any other existing commitment by the United States to defend Dutch territory.

36

Missed the edit and it’s probably evident, but I meant such an attack wouldn’t mean war.

37

Japan invaded China and sank the USS Panay in 1937. Did the United States declare war on Japan in 1937?

38

I do regret that things got so heated between us discussing this issue in the past, it’s just something that we’re not going to agree on. The attacks on and sinking of US destroyers in the Atlantic in 1941 didn’t result in a formal declaration of war, but they were sunk/attacked in what was already an undeclared war. The river gunboat Panay was sunk by accident by Japan in 1937, but Japan could not apologize fast enough or often enough for that incident.