How would you have avoided the attack on Pearl Harbor?

No, it's a completely valid point.
Three of the top 4 national origins in the USA during the 1940's? German, Italian & Irish - all at war with Britain or hostile to British interests.
On the other hand, there were far fewer with Japanese origins, and many couldn't vote anyways.

No, because most Americans were not expecting a war (if there was one) to last very long, or to have many casualties.
While most would expect a European war to be a similar bloodbath to WWI, conflict against Japan would be easy, because Japan's military was so obviously inferior. (so they thought ) War with Japan might be expected to be similar to the Spanish-American war of 40 years earlier, with a superior American fleet sinking the enemy, and then the other country would sue for peace.

History has proved your point to be in error - many, many times.

 

Why? The US has major commercial interests & colonial possesions in the Pacific, but not in Europe

I'd hardly call the USA a "Rotting Empire" in 1941 The US was protecting it's own commercial & territorial interests, not those of any other country.

....Which the public would not have known about in any event.

The Pearl Harbor attack "BARELY" qualified?

Make no mistake, the US was going to go to war to stop Japanese expansion, not anything to do with European colonies.

The US profited far more from British armament purchases after WWII began, not before.

 

Misplaced Attribution. Whoa! Somebody is putting, or attempting to put, words in my mouth AND has a poor grasp of history.

>The Pearl Harbor attack "BARELY" qualified?<

I made no mention of Hawaii, did I? I said Guam and the Philippines. Hawaii was "accumulated" earlier, and more "American" than the Far East. As if an attack on Manila would equate to an attack on San Francisco in the American public's mind. But...maybe you forgot *MY* premise I was discussing---NO American territories attacked, merely European colonies. America did not enter into war when France was invaded; why would she when French Asian colonies were invaded? America did not go to war with Germany when the British Channel Islands were overtaken, and London bombed; why would she go to war over takeover of Hong Kong? America did not go to war when Rotterdam was thrashed: why go to war if Djakarta was?

>Make no mistake, the US was going to go to war to stop Japanese expansion, <

Pretty bold statement. Basis? Did polls at the time indicate such? Which Senators and Congressmen (who would be voting to declare war) were of that mindset? Didn't think so.

>Why? The US has major commercial interests & colonial possesions in the Pacific, but not in Europe<

Are you kidding? OK, no "colonial interests", but MAJOR commercial interests, and...if Britain went under because we diddled about and "let" her fall, there goes all that "British armament purchasing".

The American public was well aware that we were "negotiating" tensely with the Japanese over Asian issues, just not the details.

re: Provocations: >History has proved your point to be in error - many, many times.<

Not in the Post-WWI era of industrialized warfare on a major scale. Point one out to me. "Aggressor nations" like Germany, Soviet Union, and Japan, maybe, but not those "victim" nations squabbling over slights. France did not declare war on Germany when she re-occupied "French" Rhineland. Poland ARGUED over the Corridor, but did not go to war. History since 1918 has PROVED my point that major nations faced with hostile, aggressor nations did NOT want to go to war in this bloody, modern era of mechanized warfare.

 

Because FDR persuaded Churchill to support the US embargo, with the explicit understanding that the US would support the Allies in the event of war with Japan.

Yes.


Interviewing Date 2/16-21/41
Survey #230-T Question #7a
Do you think the United States should try to keep Japan from seizing the Dutch East Indies and Singapore?
Yes................................ 56%
No................................ 24
No opinion......................... 20

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

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

NEUTRALITY
Interviewing Date 8/21-26/41
Survey #245-K Question #11b
If Lindbergh, Wheeler, Nye, and others start a "Keep-Out-of-War" party and enter candidates in the next congressional elections, would you vote for the candidate of this party?
Yes................................ 16%
No................................ 84

Interviewing Date 9/11-16/41
Survey #247-K Question #11
Asked of Republicans: Should the Republican party support the Administration's foreign policy, or oppose it?
Support............................60%
Oppose............................. 23
No opinion......................... 17

Interviewing Date 9/19-24/41
Survey #248-K Question #6
In general, do you approve or disapprove of having the United States navy shoot at German submarines or warships on sight?
Approve.......................... 62%
Disapprove.........................28
No opinion......................... 10

Interviewing Date 10/9-14/41
Survey #250-K Question #3
Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war, or that Germany be defeated?
Keep out of war..................... 32%
Defeat Germany..................... 68

Interviewing Date 10/24-29/41
Survey #251-K Question #9
Should the United States take steps now to prevent Japan from becoming more powerful, even if this means risking a war with Japan?
Yes................................ 64%
No................................ 25
No opinion......................... 11


Interviewing Date 11/27-12/1/41
Survey #254-K Question #4
Do you think the United States will go to war against Japan sometime in the near future?
Yes................................ 52%
No................................27
No opinion.........................21

Read the results yourself in Ibiblio - gallup records
Index of /pha/Gallup

 

But as I'm sure you know, the President has the authority to initiate military action without prior congressional approval.

Philippines & Guam were US colonies.
The US had gone to war in the Philippines to assert control over the territory, so regardless if you call it Benevolent assimilation or protectorate or whatever - the Philippines was in fact a de facto colony, and was threatened by Japanese expansion.
The US also didn't want to get shut out from trade with China & the Pacific if Japan came to dominate the region.

You didn't exclude "Aggressor nations" you just wrote that "No country is going to take that step without SEVERE provocation."

Examples?
Like The USSR invading Afganistan?
Or Iraq invading Kuwait?
Or Argentina invading the Falklands?
Or N. Korea invading S. Korea?

What was the SEVERE provocation by the nations that were invaded?

But they do, in fact, go to war, as happened in each of my four examples, except the first. (which was an undeclared war with support for the resisrtance instead)

 

freebird,

Don't mind CTBurke & his rants, because they have no basis in fact. For instance, we have his first rant

However, Gallup Polls from 1941 show us a much different America than what CTBurke assumes; from http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup.pdf

p.155 - Feb 24, 1941.

As, you can see Americans favor doing something to prevent a Japanese aggression against "COLONIAL interests of rotting empires", but stop short of actually going to war. A less than a month later we have
p. 157, March 14, 1941

While those in favor of war with Japan have not gained much, the decidedly "No" vote has slipped more than a few percentage points. Then, many months later, the question is re-phrased, and we get on P.185 - September 7, 1941

As you can see, there is now very strong support for action to be take against Japan, even if it means risking war, and sending "its dearest generation off to die." Finally, a little over two months later we have on p.195 - November 14, 1941.

So, even after two months, and much negotiations with Japan, there is still a decidedly strong favoritism amongst the American public, that war is necessary to combat Japanese aggression in the Pacific.

All of this, mind you, WITHOUT any so-called "SEVERE provocation."

Then he includes this little gem in his rant

Conveniently forgetting that the annexation of Hawaii only took place LESS THAN ONE YEAR BEFORE the annexation of of Guam, the Philippines, etc.

Wow, what a difference...less than a year...

He remains oblivious to this time difference, because he later states

Hawaii was "accumulated" on July 6, 1898 with the US Senate passing the Newlands Resolution, Guam and the Philippines were "accumulated" on February 6, 1899, with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. Of course, this fails to mention that the US had already fought to retain the Philippines by fighting the Philippine-American War aka the Philippine Insurrection.


Now, we finally get to his premise that without American territories being attacked, America will not got to war if only European colonies are attacked.

Of course, this falls completely apart given American naval dispositions in the Pacific. Before Japan played the "War" card, America had positioned one light cruiser, two destroyer squadrons, and a destroyer tender, within Dutch waters around Borneo. One of those squadrons would later be sent to British-controlled Singapore to join with the British "Force Z". However "Force Z" would leave for it own fate shortly before those destroyers arrived, and the US destroyers, instead of providing escort, would hunt for survivors. So, regardless, American forces are going to be in the middle of a shooting war, and the will be fighting with the British and Dutch forces.


He further speculates with

I've already posted the polls. Further, 1941 is well before the War Powers Resolution is passed in 1973, thus the President can still get the US into war if he sees fit, and as the polls I have posted show, the "surveyed" public was behind him on going to war against the Japanese.


Finally, we have this last tid-bit

I'm having a WaitaminuteWHUT! moment.

Your saying, that major nations, say, like Britain and France, did not want to go to war. Yet, they did, and furthermore, they declared war when they were not directly attacked. But you insist that America doesn't want war and will not got to war unless directly attacked. I'm confuzed??? Since Britain and France went to war without being directly attacked, does that make them "Aggressor nations" like Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan??? Or is this just "wooly thinking", which is just to the right of "fuzzy" logic.

 

The most relevant interpretation of the polls is that of President Roosevelt, who did not consider that they gave him the basis to ask for a declaration of war. People accepted that we would probably end up in the war eventually, but there was no willingness to take the step ourselves.

The September and November numbers are interesting; as the prospect of actual war became more likely, and people had more time to think about it, there was a slight decrease in the number of people willing to risk it (no doubt it will be suggested that this is just the margin of error). And again, the wording is "even if it risks war with Japan?", not that the US should take the initiative.

None of the polls cited ever seem to have asked the straightforward question "Should the US enter the war?" They're all in terms of risking or accepting war in order to forestall Japanese (or German) aggression.

 

re: Polls and such-- I just *LOVE IT* when people post "proof" that argues AGAINST their own position, which both Freebird and Takao have done. Mind you, I truly RESPECT you both and you have done an excellent job of providing "poll" quotes of the time (I had synopses available, but not some of the actual polls---thank you) but...

I could have SWORN I had posted that war was more likely against Germany than Japan...wait a minute, I *DID* post it, and Takao refuted that vehemently, then brings up the polls that show that in March, 1941 only 40% of America was willing to risk war with Japan, but some 70% was willing to risk war with Germany!! Good going! Here we have an America that has not even reached the tipping point of "heads-or-tails" regarding Japan, yet is just about ready to grab the ol' M-1 against Germany! But yes, months later there was greater American "risk" to war with Japan, but by Nov. when "push was closer to shove", the numbers went DOWN (a bit) as America had more second thoughts about war with Japan with "incidents" against Germany piling up. Somehow, though, I think that Jeannete Rankin would be joined by DOZENS of other Congresspersons if a declaration of war were tried to be shoved through Congress at that point without a SEVERE PROVOCATION.

re: "direct attack" being the trigger (or NOT) for the war against Germany. Takao says that neither Britain nor France was directly attacked and yet they declared war on Germany. Hoo boy. Playing with semantics. Maybe it wasn't "smart", but the TREATY France and Britain had with Poland was that an attack on one was CONSIDERED an attack on the others. And Germany knew that going in, but I guess Takao "didn't get the memo".

So WHERE is such a "treaty" that involves the US similarly with China, or the Dutch, French, or British in Asia??? Didn't think so.

I read the ABDA "agreements" as, "if we are ALL involved in a war with Japan, we will help each other out".

re: "American Interests and colonies"--*OF COURSE* the Philippines were a virtual American colony! "We" were talking about American "interests" or colonies in EUROPE (vs Asia)! America had no colonies in Europe, but MASSIVE investment and interests. Britain was (and I believe still is, unless our economic fix put China there) *THE* largest outside investor in America. If she goes under while our indecision prevents us from taking action in Europe, WE LOSE BIG TIME.

And Yes, the President can precipitate "military action" in his role as head of American foreign policy, however, that is LIMITED military action, not a commitment of a nation to war. The fact that later "wars" like Korea were never declared is hindsight history, not the facts of 1941.

Hawaii was virtually American CONTROLLED in 1887 (note: 11 years earlier than our war/takeover in the Philippines), with a brief "Prague Spring" for four years, and a re-takeover by American interests. The "official" annexation date was, yes, close to that of the Philippines. If we are talking minutiae, you "win".

And the *MEAGRE* US naval forces (nothing powerful or noteworthy lest we "upset" the over-sensitive Japanese) operating "with" the Dutch were co-ordinating and comparing. Remember, this was still peacetime, and nations could mingle ships, even warships, without being bound to defend each other. I don't see that working WITH the Dutch ships AUTOMATICALLY means that they would FIGHT with the Dutch ships if a Japan-vs-Netherlands war broke out. The President (or Congress) would have to authorize it. Please find me that authorization (and PUH-LEEZE don't use vague words like "support"). Same with U.S. ships mingling with British ships. We were "testing out" how we might function together (and, of course, parading our "friendship" with the British/Dutch to let Japan know of the POSSIBILITIES of actual co-belligerency, not ACTUAL co-belligerency).

 

"How will it play in Peoria?"

The Ehrlichman/Nixon phrase for "how will Middle America respond?" is apt here. The polls for "war fever" were MUCH higher on the "elitist" coasts of America than in the heartland. Ya gotta convince the American Everyman if you want to commit the entire nation to war. Middle America was NOT ready for war in late 1941---UNLESS it was dropped into their lap.

I am not one of those who dreamily think that America was rabidly isolationist in late 1941 and that war was out of the question. It WAS in the question, but not the answer. America had "woken up" to the fact that tyrants with extensive military power were abusing it and yes, SOMETHING needed to be done. But war?? REAL war?? As Carronnade said, the polls did NOT ask about actually declaring war; it only asked if one might risk war. And that is asking for TALK about possible action, NOT action. Would America "put its money where its mouth was"? I say, not yet (then in late 1941).

 

"Congressional Vote"? We know a bit about the sometimes convoluted political processes of Congress: There is always a lot of "posturing", lectures, debate and "hot air" blown about in Congress, but when an idea is hatched that might be turned into legislation, committees are formed, proposals bandied about, and then a massaged version hits the floor of Congress for a vote. Most often it is voted down, and it goes "back to committee" for re-working before it is presented again.

Frankly, I admit ignorance to the ACTUAL goings-on in Congress in late 1941, so those in the know, PLEASE help me out. But...I cannot recall any vote on a declaration of war being brought to the floor in Congress, nor resolution "in committee" getting advanced enough to be brought to the floor prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. In my mind, if we were THAT CLOSE (you have to imagine my index finger and thumb a half-millimeter apart, close enough so that the "mirage" of touching is there despite the gap) to declaring war on either Axis power, as Freebird and Takao seem to intimate, then resolutions would be presented for Congressional vote pre-maturely, kind of as a "straw vote" to indicate where loyalties lay, fail, and be re-presented to Congress as the yea/nay vote ratio strengthens each time it appears as war-like incidents pile up. **Did that ever happen**??

If it didn't, then I can't believe that public groundswell for war was SO OVERWHELMING as F & T seem to think.

Please, prove me wrong!

 

Are you reading the same data that I am?

First, please note that some polls include "no opinion", some don't, so le't only consider those people who expressed opinion.


Interviewing Date 12/18-23/40
Survey #226-K Question #1
Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do — keep out of the war ourselves, or help England win, even at the risk of war?
Roosevelt Voters in 1940
Keep out........................... 38%
Help England.......................62

Interviewing Date 2/16-21/41
Survey #230-T Question #7a
Should the US should risk war with Japan, if necessary, to keep Japan from taking the Dutch East Indies and Singapore? (of those who expressed opinion)
Yes................................ 46%
No................................ 54

MARCH 14
Should the US should risk war with Japan, if necessary, to keep Japan from taking the Dutch East Indies and Singapore? (of those who expressed opinion)

Yes................................51%
No................................ 49


Interviewing Date 3/9-14/41
Survey #232-K Question #10
Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?
Keep out........................... 33%
Help England.......................67


Interviewing Date 5/8-13/41
Survey #236-T Question #1
Which of these two things do you think is more important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of war ourselves, or to help England even at the risk of getting into the war?
Keep out........................... 39%
Help England....................... 61

Interviewing Date 6/9-14/41
Survey #239-K Question #4a
If you were asked to vote today on the question of the United States entering the war now against Germany and Italy, how would you vote — to go into the war now or to stay out of the war?
Go in.............................. 24%
Stay out............................76


Interviewing Date 8/21-26/41
Survey #245-K Question #13
Should the US take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if it means risking a war with Japan? (of those who expressed opinion)
Yes................................ 79%
No................................ 21

Interviewing Date 10/9-14/41
Survey #250-K Question #3
Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war, or that Germany be defeated?
Keep out of war..................... 32%
Defeat Germany..................... 68

Interviewing Date 10/24-29/41
Survey #251-K Question #9
Should the US take steps now to prevent Japan from becoming more powerful, even if it risking a war with Japan? (of those who expressed opinion)

Yes................................ 72%
No................................ 28


Interviewing Date 11/15-20/41
Survey #253-K Question #13
Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war, or that Germany be defeated?
Keep out of war..................... 32%
Defeat Germany..................... 68




I've put it on a graph to show it more clearly.
From Dec 1940 - Nov 1941, the % of people who would risk war with Germany to support Britain in Europe didn't change that much, between 61% to 68% would risk war to help Britain.

During the same time period, support for action in the Pacific to counter Japanese expansion jumped from 46% to 72% between Feb and Oct 1941



View attachment 15738

 

No treaty, but FDR pledged US support for Britain & Netherlands in event of war with Japan.
He did this to get agreement for their support of the embargo against Japan.
Had he not done so, the UK would almost certainly continued their 1940 policy of selling oil & steel to Japan, and shutting down the Burma road to avoid antagonizing Japan.
This would have had the effect of making the embargo rather meaningless for Japan

I see. Who do you think controlled Congress in 1941, Democrats or Republicans?

I didn't mention that a declaration of war was imminant.
What I was saying that public support was there for action against Japan, and if that led to war, so be it.

Why would FDR want to bring that to a vote? He would be more likely to make strong moves in the Pacific to try to get Japan to back down, like an oil embargo and sending forces to Hawaii & the Philippines.
If Japan tried to attack British & Dutch interests, he might decide to block movement of Japanese transports in the South China Sea.

 

Why would FDR want to bring that to a vote?

Because that's how we declare war in the United States. It's in the Constitution. That's why he went to Congress on Dec. 8th.

Speaking of which, he could certainly try explaining to Congress that "No treaty, but FDR pledged US support for Britain & Netherlands in event of war with Japan" so they had to do what the President asked regardless of any silly ideas about having a role in the decision. They might even have gone along with it.

he might decide to block movement of Japanese transports in the South China Sea.

That is to say, he might decide to commit an act of war, and again hope that Congress would go along with it. Not impossible; Congress and the American people had accepted the "neutrality zone" which involved us in a low-intensity shooting war with Germany and the Axis on behalf of Britain and the Allies. Of course that acceptance included not demanding war over incidents like the sinking of the Reuben James. It might be a bit harder to explain how the Western Hemisphere defensive zone included the South China Sea......

Any serious effort to "block movement of Japanese transports in the South China Sea" would mean the destruction of our Asiatic Fleet with minimal interference to Japanese operations; again, I suppose it's possible that that would rally the American people behind the policy.......

 

freebird's photo, my apologies.

The Malta 1943 photo, the ship in the foreground is Warspite, superstructure similar to a KGV, but retains the embrasures for the 6" secondary armament. These were faired out in Queen Elizabeth and Valiant which had a whole new secondary armament.

addition: note the two County class cruisers, they spent little time in the Med in wartime, Kent and Berwick are the only two I can think of, and that was 1940-41.

Getting back to the original photo, none of the ships seem to have the block superstructure or aircraft hangars, so it appears to predate the 1930s modernization programs. Does that ship at extreme left look like anything except Hood?

 

"Imminent" War??

[Freebird] >I didn't mention that a declaration of war was imminant.
What I was saying that public support was there for action against Japan, and if that led to war, so be it.<

I am in full agreement here, so maybe we are not THAT far apart in thinking, however, "action" and true WAR are still a ways apart on the American side. We were "in negotiations", admittedly less and less fruitful, but by Thanksgiving of 1941 the wheels of inevitable war were in motion only on the Japanese side. Remember, too, the Kido Butai still had a "recall" option that Tokyo could implement should "negotiations" warm up again before the Pearl Harbor strike.

[O.P.] >CT, I have stated that I thought FDR could have gotten a declaration of war by the second quarter of '42 with little or no problem. This is based on 20+ years of digging through the Congressional Record and the news outlets of the day. If you want all that dumped on this thread you'll have to wait a bit. <

Don't dump all that here on my account. *MY* "digging" would come up with a similar conclusion. If I were a betting man, and if you, while we were digesting Thanksgiving (1941) dinner, bet me that Japan and the United States would be at war by June of 1942, I would laugh and say, "Why would I bother betting against THAT?". Not that I BELIEVE wholeheartedly in "inevitablity" or irreversible "slippery slopes" in matters of history, but with the SWELL of feelings and failed negotiations that went on in late 1941, it would SEEM that Japan and the US were headed for a full confrontation. But...if you had bet me that Japan and the US would be at war in TWO WEEKS, I would have thought it a "sucker" bet, fronted a whole lot of money, and have expected to cash in. (I would have LOST, of course!)

I liken the situation in early December to surfing a wave (this SoCal guy having done that all his life). The surfer (say Congress) waits until the wave (public sentiment) is at its height, then stands up and rides it (appropriate Congressional legislation). My take on "early December" for a US declaration of war against Axis powers is that you can see a big wave forming "outside"--it's coming, and the swell is rising. If you stay where you are you will be thrashed by the breaking wave (an angry public saying "why didn't you do something?"), so you swim out a ways to meet it (advance legislation through committee to "grease the wheels" of its success) so you are ready WHEN IT GETS HERE. Pearl Harbor was like a "sleeper wave" that cropped up unexpectedly while you had your eyes set on the outside wave.

[Freebird]>I see. Who do you think controlled Congress in 1941, Democrats or Republicans?<

Congress was "controlled" by Congress and had their own way of thinking, and that was LESS war-like than the President. Again, if you took a "straw vote" for declaring war on Axis powers on Dec. 6th 1941, WHAT DO YOU THINK the outcome of such a straw vote on that date would be? I really doubt (my own opinion) that you could get a majority--Consider that even on Dec. 8th after BEING ATTACKED, Congress did not declare war on the Tripartite Powers, *JUST JAPAN*. With "war fever" rampant, here was a golden opportunity to declare war on Germany/Italy, but it was NOT done.

 

Part of the answer to this may be that FDR tended to listen to his military advisors. He didn't always follow their advice but he listened and took it into consideration. They were recomending he do what he could to hold off war until at least early spring but preferably until around June of 42. The US wasn't really ready in Dec of 41 and Drumbeat demonstrated that pretty clearly. If we weren't at war with Germany and Italy for a few more months then we had more time to prepair.

 

re: delayed DoW..

[lwd] >Part of the answer to this may be that FDR tended to listen to his military advisors. He didn't always follow their advice but he listened and took it into consideration. They were recomending he do what he could to hold off war until at least early spring but preferably until around June of 42. The US wasn't really ready in Dec of 41 and Drumbeat demonstrated that pretty clearly. If we weren't at war with Germany and Italy for a few more months then we had more time to prepair.<

Yes, but the President does not declare war; Congress does. FDR *ASKED* Congress to declare war on Japan (and of course did NOT ask them to declare war on Germany/Italy), but if Congress was as warlike as Takao believes, here was a golden opportunity to tack on Germany/Italy while they were at it.