I came to mention that, and note that it’s also been used in a broader context (not just Japanese).
All good points.
But it needs to be noted that the Imperial Japanese forces would only have a oil shortage* if they continued the war in China. * If they had withdrawn to Manchukuo (and maybe a couple treaty ports, etc) and rested on their laurels, the US would have relaxed the embargos. It was their insistence on continuing their war of aggression that was running their oil out AND causing their diplomatic problems.
Some historians and myself disagree on the next point. The Isolationist movement (“we got suckered into WWI, never again!”) was so strong that FDR needed a distinct act of war vs the USA itself to declare war. The USA- IMHO- would piss & moan, send aid, and not actually go to war. It took a Pearl Harbor to do that. Remember, we watched the Nazis roll over The Netherlands, France, and attack England, and did nothing but send aid- and the American people were more emotionally attached to Europe. The Imperial Japanese invaded China and we didnt declare war. They invaded French Indochina and we didn’t declare war.
It’s ridiculous to think that the USA would watch the invasion of ;
The Netherlands, France, Poland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, China, Ethiopia, Greece, French Indochina, and a host of others, and suddenly react with WAR! when they invaded Dutch East Indies. Really? Or even British Colonies? Why would the USA react with WAR! if the Imperial Japanese attacked Singapore and New Guinea when we didnt when Egypt, Britain and British territories were attacked or invaded?
While there’s some merit to this, you still have to consider three points:
-
FDR and Congress might have known their intentions but that doesn’t mean Japan could be completely sure. Leaving a powerful American force right in the middle of their trade routes and would-be empire on the *assumption *that the Americans - who were openly hostile to Japanese intentions and leading the very embargo Japan sought to break - would remain isolationist is, well, taking one hell of a huge risk.
-
American isolationism was well in decline by this point. The U.S. was not building up its armed services so it could hold larger parades; it was quite clear to anyone in America or watching it that the U.S. government was preparing for general war.
-
Furthermore, relations between the U.S. and Germany had by late 1941 broken down into unofficial naval warfare that almost all observers, save perhaps the most insanely optimistic isolationists, felt would inevitably lead to full scale war no later than 1942. The sleeping giant, to use the (probably apocryphal) Yamamoto metaphor, WAS going to wake up, and fairly soon. The Japanese gambled they’d be better off kicking him while he was still dozing.
I’ve seen this suggestion advanced a few times and I’ve never really seen it backed up with convincing numbers. The US was the worlds largest oil producer and exporter at the time, with a lot of production in california. Every gallon of oil that went through the depot came originally from the west coast on a tanker, and when the pacific war kicked off properly a vast proportion of it was also loaded from the depot onto fleet tankers that went off to replenish ships in forward areas.
During the war (construction was actually underway at the time of the raid) they built and filled an additional underground fuel depot with enough capacity to hold (IIRC) 250 battleship-loads of fuel with the first of the 20 tanks finished in Oct 42.
It would have been a PITA to deal with reconstructing the existing facilities and filling up the buffer stock, and would have needed a lot more tanker capacity, but in the grand scheme of things I think it would have been an annoyance rather than a disaster - the huge oil-guzzling two-ocean navy wouldn’t have been operational during the time when the shortage was most noticeable.
But why should they have retreated? According to one poster in this thread, it was “ridiculous” to think that “the USA would watch the invasion of ; The Netherlands, France, Poland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, China, Ethiopia, Greece, French Indochina, and a host of others, and suddenly react with WAR! when they invaded Dutch East Indies.”
I happen to agree with you, DrDeth, that Japan was facing the economy crippling embargo (which was essentially a worldwide embargo only of all war material, not simply an “ oil shortage” as well has having their assets in the US frozen) because of the war in China and their invasion of French Indochina. The US was taking these active measures against Japan, as well as fortifying their positions in the Pacific; they has passed the Two-Ocean Act authorizing the large increase in military spending.
A little background information. The principal naval powers had agreed to various limitations in sizes of their navies. Japan was limited to fewer ships than Britain and the US because Japan only was concerned about the Pacific, where Britain and the US would need fleets for both oceans. As a concession to Japan, the US had agreed to not fortify its possessions in the Pacific, hence these islands, were not as protected as would have otherwise happened.
In 1936, Japan denounced the treaty and informed the other parties it was going to rearm. By Pearl Harbor, they had several of the best battleships in the world, as well as six fleet carriers and four smaller carriers. The US was considerably behind them, and the Two-Ocean Naval Act was an attempt to catch up.
The Act was not done in a vacuum, but as part of this real pressure which DrDeth discussed. I have no problem with his argument. That pressure was considerable and threatened the very existence of Japan. There were key top US officials who warned that these measures were boxing in that country because of the nature of the Japanese military and government. These officials warned that these measures would be seen as escalation by Japan and would lead to war.
My argument is not that the US should not have taken those steps, or that it was in the wrong. Clearly, Japan was country at fault. However, it must be acknowledged that the steps were in forcing Japan’s hand.
So, while I agree with DrDeth I have to disagree is with this other poster, who we call DrDeth. His arguments are silly, overly simply an extremely complex situation and misrepresent the event. They also directly contradict the point which DrDeth makes.
One simply cannot ague, as DrDeth does, that there is only one standard for judging action. One simply cannot look at the scores or hundreds of steps leading to war and simplify everything to “declare war” or “didn’t declare war.” That’s silly, or rather, absurd. It’s also the mistake which Hitler made when none of his previous moves of aggression resulted in any particularly strong responses, yet the invasion of Poland did.
I can just see Hitler calling the naysayers “ridiculous” for warning of that danger. After all Britain and France had done nothing to hinter the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, stood by when Germany and Italy intervened in the Spanish Civil War, twiddled their thumbs nothing when Germany broke the Versailles Treaty by rearming past its limit of 10,000 troops. They ho-hummed, or simply protested when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland in direct disregard to the treaty. Then there was the non-response to Austria and even, in the name of peace, enabling the takeover of Czechoslovakia, the latter with a large military and alliances with France and the USSR.
Yet, the Western powers did nothing. There were red lines, but for the other players, wasn’t really known where those red lines existed. This is the “ridiculous” part about DrDeth’s labeling of Japan’s worries “ridiculous,” even before we examine the material differences between the situations.
First, DrDeth’s argument lumps the US response to German actions with their response to Japan actions, which really are not comparable for many reasons which I’ll skip for now, but the argument fails in that it sets the bar so low (declaration of war) that all the US actions are ignored.
The US was not in direct negotiations with Germany prior to the outbreak of the war to attempt to prevent a war which both felt was imminent. The US was not actively building up military facilities and defenses in areas which would threaten the German empire. The US did not take specific, drastic steps in response to German aggression. The US did not lead a world-wide boycott of resources to Germany, in response to German invasions of other countries, and did not demand that Germany step down. Germany and the US were not threats to each other’s interests. US actions did not threaten the economy or existence to Germany. And finally, the US never gave an ultimatum to Nazi Germany to withdraw from its conquered countries.
None of these can be said about the state of affairs between Japan and the US. DrDeth is right and DrDeth is wrong.
In DrDeth’s list of actions, if you separate those concerning Germany and Japan, you have the question of what actions did the US take concerning Japan’s invasion of China and French Indochina. As DrDeth points out, the military, economic and political measures had placed Japan into a shitload of trouble.
How can one argue, as DrDeth is attempting in vain, that the US stood by Japan’s aggression without doing anything? That argument is either grossly misleading or uninformed.
Even now, in the 21 Century, we don’t know enough about the world and other countries to predict the best course of action. How in the world can one expect the non-democratic, xenophobic Japan of the early 1940s to understand the intention of the United States, even if it were absolutely true that internal pressure would prevent the Senate from approving war against Japan? Roosevelt gave his honest opinion to Churchill that he wanted to support Britain but he couldn’t guaranty that the Senate would automatically follow. However, it is “ridiculous” to assume that the Japanese would be so astute as to understand how to capitalize on that, assuming that they could actually read the public will let alone appreciate its power.
As Rick points out, the risk was far too great. There simply was no guaranty that the US would actually follow through and end the embargo, even if Japan complied. This was debated by the Japanese military in the lead up to the war.
As I noted in my earlier post, there was a real danger of Japanese local military commanders acting on their own, without the blessings of headquarters. That had happened in both Manchuria and China. The US ambassador was worried about it.
The unprecedented peace-time military buildup targeting Japan and then the embargo were setting outer limits to the window of opportunity to wage war against Western powers. Within a few years, Japan would not be capable of fighting the US. (Certainly, this was a bed of their own making, I’m not arguing they were in the right, simply that they felt they could not wait.)
In late 1941, the Japanese believed that Germany was winning against the Soviets. They thought that Germany would then put much more pressure on Britain. Most then thought that with a knockout punch to the US fleet, the US public would elect to not fight on its own and would negotiate. There were those who went along because they didn’t see an alternative.
Did they misread the US? Certainly, just as all of the other major powers misread the situation in both the Pacific and in Europe. It does not mean that their beliefs were “ridiculous.” Just crazy.
You are right to a point, although as noted previously, by the fall of 1941, the United States was already in a de facto state of war with Germany, providing supplies and weapons to both the British Empire and the Soviet Union, as well conducting anti-submarine patrols against the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic. Around the same time, German submarines had begun targeting and sinking American shipping as well.
You’re right, it is a wonderment how one can argue that point. * Except I didn’t.*
Here’s what I said (adding some bolding) "
It’s ridiculous to think that the USA would watch the invasion of ;
The Netherlands, France, Poland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, China, Ethiopia, Greece, French Indochina, and a host of others, and **suddenly react with WAR! **when they invaded Dutch East Indies. Really? Or even British Colonies? Why would the USA react with WAR! if the Imperial Japanese attacked Singapore and New Guinea when we didnt when Egypt, Britain and British territories were attacked or invaded?"
Of course the USA would continue with harsher and harsher steps, more aid to the Allies, etc. Never said or implied otherwise.
What I said is that* the USA would not react with WAR! until actually attacked. * And not just a gunboat or something, but a serious attack, such as Pearl Harbor.
But it’s a pretty little strawman you put up and it’s especially nice you put my name on it. :rolleyes:
Well gee, maybe because the US Asiatic Fleet had dispersed from Manila Bay in early December as a result of war warnings and was located in the Dutch East Indies with a destroyer squadron slated to set sail for Singapore and join up with British Force Z patrolling for the Japanese invasion force off the coast of Malaya? This has, of course, already been pointed out to you at least a half dozen times in as many threads, but you choose to continue to ignore the inconvenient fact that attacking the Dutch East Indies or Singapore meant attacking the US Navy, unlike the German invasion of Norway or the Italian invasion of Egypt.
The idea that any nation, much less Imperial Japan with the ultranationalists at the wheel, would consider such an abjectly humiliating action as surrendering what it had spent four years conquering in China and having its foreign policy dictated from Washington DC is absurd; calling it ‘resting on their laurels’ even more so. The idea of even ending their war in China in place in response to US actions was never given a moment’s serious consideration. Any official publicly suggesting Japan withdrawal from China in 1940-41 was very likely to be assassinated. Here’s a map to give you an idea of just how much territory you’re suggesting Imperial Japan voluntarily give up. Japan was more than willing to go to war with the US, UK, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, etc. in order to continue its war in China.
Umm, dude? Sure you mentioned that many times. No one other than you thinks it’s worth much. In time of War Neutrals have to get out of belligerent ports, and the IJN simply wouldnt target them if they really thought it necessary- which they wouldnt. They’d just wait until the US fleet sailed out and the tiny and pitifully inadequate (but very brave!) Koninklijke Marine sailed then blow the two small Dutch light cruisers out of the water. They didnt need a sneak attack on that tiny squadron.
And the Houston was in the Philippines. The Marblehead ( a outdated WWI period light cruiser) was anchored off Tarakan in the DEI, but not in port, with 4 destroyers. The IJN would have simply ignored them. They would have not legally been able to sail with the Koninklijke Marine or stay in port.
Of course the ultranationalists wouldnt consider it. But that’s their problem. The idea that the USA forced Imperial Japan into war is laughable. Also do note, if you read Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy it was by no means inevitable that the ultranationalists would be in control.
You’re (intentionally?) missing the point, which is that you (or the other guy) were arguing that the US didn’t do anything when (list of countries) were invaded so it is “ridiculous” to believe that the US would suddenly declare war if the DEI were invaded.
I noted that your list is bogus. Only two of the countries concerned Japan’s actions and the US, did in fact, take drastic steps after those countries were invaded. I also showed how the US was rapidly militarizing, etc.
Do you have anything to address these points?
I note that you didn’t address Rick’s rebuttal either.
Still beating that strawman, and misquoting me, eh? I didnt say the USA would do “nothing”. :dubious: Of course the USA would “take steps”- sanctions, aid, military buildup.
But the USA would not declare WAR! until attacked.
Nor does RickJay disagree with my main point. I mostly agree with his points, they do not disagree with what I said.
Let me say it again: **The USA would NOT react with WAR! if the Dutch East Indies were invaded by Imperial Japan. **
Please stop putting words in my mouth and trying to twist my posts into the strawman you are currently beating on. Disingenuous and rude.