FDR and the oil embargo.

If he had stuck by the first option he would have been accused of selling out the Chinese - it as I recall refers to negotiations between the Chinese & Japanese - as if such negotiations would be on an equal basis, and by ensuring that it is only the Chinese Nationalists that the US recognised - it stopped Japan coming up with some Quisling 'puppet'.
But even if he had gone with the first option - unlikely the Japanese would have accepted.

 

My - you are a cynic.
According to Gordon Prange (Pearl Harbor the Verdict of History), p.181
While the Army and Navy were not too happy with some of the provisions, they agreed to go along with the modus vivendi, which was to remain in effect for three months.
However, Hull's scheme cam to nothing because of the vigorous protests from the Chinese, seconded by Churchill. "i remember very clearly how upset Mr Hull was," Stark told the congressional committee, "of his telling me how the Hill was crying appeasement, .."
"As a result on November 26 Hull offered the Japanese the ten point proposal originally intended to be attached to the modus vivendi as subjects for a general settlement if the temporary arrangement had been accepted."

 

Assuming the document was mistranslated is one of two theories. Toland relates that “Japanese” historians believe the document was deliberately mistranslated, and that too is a viable theory. What we know is that the document which appeared on Hull’s desk was a version that was highly unflattering to the Japanese. Whether by design or accident can be argued. However, if one supposes accident than the laws of probability state that in each case an accident was made, it was equally likely that the translation would be MORE flattering to the Japanese. If, for example, ten times out of ten that an error occurred the translation was LESS flattering, then the odds of this occurring by accident were .5^10: that would be odds of 1,024 to 1 against.

Now, if the translation errors were accidental, then to prove that all you have to do is cite a few cases where the translation hitting Hull's desk altered the Japanese original into a more moderate version. Do you have such examples? Toland gave none, (but that doesn't mean they don't exist).
.

 

If the translation errors were accidental, then to prove that all you have to do is cite a few cases where the translation hitting Hull's desk altered the Japanese original into a more moderate version. Do you have such examples? Toland gave none, (but that doesn't mean they don't exist).

BTW - the laws of probability do not change on the basis of testimony. If you flip a coin 15 times the odds that it comes up heads every time is 32,768 to 1.

 

Infamy. A good read along the narrative style of Massie’s Castles of Steel, with the blending of personal accounts, strategy, military events, diplomacy and policy decisions woven into the narrative. Like all general accounts, there are some errors in it, but a great general history of the war, IMO.

For another example, Hull worked behind the scenes to scuttle Prince Konoye’s proposal to meet directly with FDR in August 1941. One theory is that Hull understood such a meeting must be counterproductive to American interests. However, Hull must also have realised that undermining Konoye would strengthen the war party in Tokyo - and why would Hull want to do that?

The tactic of circulating a proposal in order to scuttle it is old hat to anyone schooled in rudimentary office politics, where everyone will object to everything if given the forum. To suppose that those rising to the level of control of state policy would be somehow less inclined or less familiar with office political tactics than Joe Average out there is, IMO, not viable.

Why would Hull even allow the Chinese to have input in American policy decisions?

 

My request was clearly worded; please provide several examples of these translation errors whereby the accident caused the US version to become more flattering to the Japanese than was the Japanese original.

If it is the case that a number of examples exist, then it can be strongly argued that accident was indeed the cause of these errors.

If it is the case that no examples exists, then it becomes pedantic to argue that the mistranslations must have been errors, because the laws of probability rule that it is extremely unlikely that the error would always be against the Japanese.

 

Am I to understand then that you don’t have a single example of a mistranslation that became more flattering to the Japanese?
Not even one?
.

 

Such a meeting assumes that Konoye had a history of 'peace loving' actions. Yet, his governemnts had presided over times of most aggressive Japanese acts from the attack on the USS Panay, the Nanking incident, and the Tripartite Pact. Moreover, according to Prange p.171
"The Japanese government had gone into a virtual tailspin when on August 28 Nomura let slip to the washington press that Konoye had sent a personal message to Roosevelt. Grew became so upset over this leak that in his opinion Nomura would be to blame had Konoye been assinated. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to see how Grew could have expected anything constructive to come from a conference so controversial that even a hint of it might result in Konoye's murder.

American policy - was all about trying to stop Japanese aggression in China. So why wouldn't China have an input?
The US is learning from the Anglo-French mistake in regard to Italy and its war on Ethiopa, there was talk of an oil embargo, but that's all it was - Italy was 'appeassed'. The war went ahead.
The difference, with China is that it is a much bigger country - the war takes longer. Time for US policy to evolve.
Do you really think that if the original proposal had gone ahead, war would have been averted? Despite the fact that the carriers were already on their way.

 

Actuallly no they don't. Especially on something like this. A translation errors occur because of both lack of comprehension and misunderstandings. Depending on the individual they can be significantly biased in one direction or another. The writing style can also effect this.

 

The United States never demanded the resignation of Konoye as a precondition to negotiations.

If Konoye comes to Hawaii and makes silly demands, then this benefits the US. If he comes and makes an agreement and then reneges, this benefits the US. If he comes and makes an agreement and keeps his word, this benefits the US.
So in all cases, it benefits the US to meet with Konoye. Why doesn't Hull want it?

Because the Chinese had no leverage upon Washington to justify a veto on US policy. Turn it around; what threat did the Nationalists have available to make Washington bend to their will? Which was this mysterious power that could become the patron to the Chinese in the absence of the United States?

If negotiations had continued into 1942, it would soon be clear in Tokyo that Barbarossa had failed and Germany was going to lose the war. At that point, war becomes more and more unlikely.

.

 

Prior to me embarking on this time consuming quest:
Do you have examples of mistranslations that accidentally made the Japanese appear more moderate? If yes, please cite. If no, please state as such.