The US enters WWII - no Pearl Harbor?

This was a question raised on the other thread, but to avoid dragging it off-topic I'll start a new one.


There are several different views on FDR's intent prior to PH. One is that he was using the Pacific war as a pretext to get into the war with Germany.Th
e other is that it's just a cooincedence, he really wanted to block Japanese expansion.
It seems that FDR also had an understanding with Churchill that the US would back Britiain, if the British (& Dutch) supported the US embargo.

As it turned out, the PH attack & Germany declaring war on the US took the matter out of FDR's hands.

The question is, if Japan didn't attack Pearl, but only British & Dutch interests, would the US intervene?
Or would the Allies be left "twisting in the wind" so to speak?

Well the Democrats did control both houses, and FDR's allies did hold leadership positions.
I would also imagine that he had a good idea of the prevailing opinions in Congress before starting the ball rolling on the embargo

Would the US exactly consider that an act of war? this would be similar to the no-fly zones or the partial blocade of Cuba, where the USN prevented military supplies from getting in.

They would just declare that the US wasn't going to let Japan dominate Asia, and threaten US interests there.

I was actually thinking more of an operation by US (& British & Dutch) subs, to sink Japanese military transports heading for IndoChina, DEI or Malaya.

Because the US president had enlisted Britain & the Netherlands to support his embargo.
FDR wouldn't have to declare war on Germany & Italy in 1941 anyways, if they were fighting Japan the US might enter hostilities against the other Axis sometime later in 1942 or 1943.

I believe that he was aware through Ultra that Germany would declare war, so there was no need for him to do so?

 

It was known that Germany would declare war, but it was known through our own breaking of the Japanese Purple Code their diplomats used. There was an exchange between Berlin and Tokyo where the direction of Germany was going was discussed. FDR didn't need to included Germany or Italy in the request for a war declaration, he was aware that Hitler would do the deed for him before he went to Congress.

Long before FDR placed the final embargo on Japan, and got British and Dutch support, Secretary Hull had already publicly assured both the British and the Dutch in 1940, when Japan joined the Axis, that if they were attacked, and thrown out of their base areas in the Indo-China areas, America would make all of its own ports and airfields available for them to "sortie" from. This complicates the situation for Japan, and like it or not our intel was so leaky it can be assumed that Japan was well aware that we (America) were expecting an attack, but not toward Pearl, toward the Philippines and other areas into Indo-China.

I don't believe the NEI, or the UK had all that many subs in the area at the time, it might have been more surface fleet action than submarine to interdict the Japanese on their way to Indo-China. It was a VERY complicated situation in the Pacific, and moving the fleet to Peal was the least "antagonistic" move the US could make, and cut the distance between America proper and the Philippines literally in half so the fleet could respond when the expected attack in that area came. Yamamoto saw that even a slight delay of the Pacific Fleet in responding would give he and his navy time to "run wild" for a time. He predicted he would have six months, and he was spot on. What he and the upper levels hoped was that America would remain isolationist, and sue for a peace or at least truce so the Japanese could consolidate their hold in their "Co-prosperity Sphere" and put the subject peoples to work for the Japanese overlords.

Just my take on this of course, but attacking Pearl was really the best choice for the Japanese when viewed from their own position. Remember they (Japan) had a history of attack before declaring war, look back to the first Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars for confirmation.

 

On the other hand, what actual measures could be taken in the first 6 months?
the US will need at least 8 - 12 months build up before sending troops or air forces to the ETO, so do they really need a DoW right away against Germany?

I can't see how this is of much use to the Allies if they have nothing left to sortie with...

The NEI actually had a large fleet of subs, at least a dozen in the far East
O-16, O-19, O-20, K-VII, K-IX, K-X, K-XI, K-XII, K-XIII, K-XIV, K-XV, K-XVI, K-XVII, K-XVIII all operated in the Far East, and made a number of attacks against Japanese transports en route to Malaya or the DEI.

Dutch Submarines : The Submarines of the Royal Netherlands Navy

 

Probably a good idea to make this its own thread, not that we haven't discussed it before.....since we're here, let me reiterate that I do find it difficult to imagine the US sitting out the war. What I, and I think some others, find puzzling is the dogged insistence that the alternative is utterly impossible despite all the evidence to the contrary, or indeed, all the evidence.

Keeping the US out would almost certainly have won the Japanese their war, and it's one of the few ways that Hitler might have won his. Neither of them achieved any significant advantage by initiating hostilities themselves; neither of their prospects would have been harmed if the US had entered the war on its own initiative, in Dec 1941 or anytime thereafter. If there was even a 10% or 20% chance of this one policy winning the war, isn'tit worth exploring?

lwd brought up a couple of good points on the other thread:

1) I think there was a general if not contempt at least disregard for the military competency of the Japanese by the population as a whole. Based on WWI the same cannot be said of the Germans.
2) The US had been in a number of military actions in the previous 50 years that weren't elevated to the level of "war". I suspect that much of the population expected actions against the Japanese to fit this pattern.

The American people - and Congress - were willing to accept unilateral actions like interventions in Central American countries, and you're right about the racism of the era; no doubt some Americans would have expected putting the "Japs" in their place to be little more trouble than sending a gunboat and some Marines to Haiti. Others including most informed military or political leaders would have appreciated that war with a great power was a bit more complicated, especially on their home field. I'll agree that most Americans didn't expect it to be as serious as sending "our boys" to fight another European war.

Indeed the AVG was a step in that direction.....aid to China, Lend-Lease, the "neutrality zone" etc. did bring us closer to war than strict neutrality would have; on the other hand they were fundamentally alternatives to having to directly engage ourselves.

The general consensus as revealed by the polls was that Britain would prevale over Germany so there was no reason for the US to get involved.

The polls are all about US involvement in the war as an alternative to German victory. There would have been no motivation at all for our involvement for people who thought Britain or the Allies could win without us. The most forward thinking people in 1941 may have thought that the Allies would prevail - especially after the Russian counteroffensive in Dec 1941 - but it was hardly a general consensus. I don't see the "who will win" question in any of the polls presented here.


Originally Posted by Carronade

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.



Would the US exactly consider that an act of war? this would be similar to the no-fly zones or the partial blocade of Cuba, where the USN prevented military supplies from getting in.

Timing, geography, and the military situation were all different. In Cuba we were able to declare the blockade and put forces in place which the Soviets could not challenge - they were sailing cargo ships up to a cordon of destroyers. When we declared the 1941 "neutrality zone" there were only occasional U-boats or support ships operating therein; we basically put the Germans in the position of challenging it. We could at least say that it was "our side" of the Atlantic - what rationale would we have for drawing a line across the South China Sea and saying "don't cross this"?

Not to mention that the scenario we are discussing is that war is already underway, and our "neutral" Asiatic fleet would approach a convoy of one of the belligerents and demand that they turn back? Most likely the Japanese would helpfully blow Houston and her WWI-era companions out of the water, but if they just steamed on, would we fire the first shot?

I was actually thinking more of an operation by US (& British & Dutch) subs, to sink Japanese military transports heading for IndoChina, DEI or Malaya.

That is, that Roosevelt would order American submarines to sink foreign ships while we are not legally at war? Like the Italians did in the Spanish Civil War? "Submarine? What submarine?" - unless of course Japanese depth charges bring one to the surface; then we're in a position little better than piracy.

 

Those questions haven't been presented here but if you find the polls on line there are usually two questions to the effect of.
Is it in the US interest for Britain to or Germany to win?
The answer through out pretty much all of 41 and I think 42 was a rather resounding Britian.
And
Who do you think will win?
Again the answer was Britain by a considerable margin. I think Opana has more if not all the polls on his site now.

 

Given their cultural perspective and the political factors perhaps. Although they had an alternative that would have left them in a far stronger position had they seen it and taken it (and the leaders that had such a vision survied the assassination attempts to see it through).

That is:
1) Call a cease fire with China.
2) Start negotiation with China and even at least appear to be willing to give back some of the conquered territory (especially the treaty ports.
3) Offer to enter the war on the side of the allies!

 

I suggest you read the 1971 release; Stillwell by Barbara W. Tuchman, that will disabuse you of those opinions concerning China, the conquered outlying territories and treaty ports, and entering the war other than happened historically.

It is "only" about 700 pages worth of narrative condenced from Stillwell's life experience gleaned from personal records, diary entries, and correspondence with Washington of his life time. It exposes both the China lobby here in America, the Generalissimo, his family of corrupt scoundrels and thieves, and the odd battle he was having internally from the time the Communist faction split off from his Nationalist faction.

We (America) were fooled/mislead by the China lobby and pro-china press into viewing Chiang kai-Shek as a "Christian", and a pro-democracy leader when in truth he was more of a leader in the fascist style, with single party rule, private armies, secret police, press censorship, nepotism, and favors to preferred cohorts.

 

??? I'm not sure how that is particuarly relevant or indeed how my post even states any opinions concerning China.

The point was that by entering negotiations and at least appearing to be willing to withdraw they would meet most if not all the criteria that the US and Britain wanted. Then by allying with Britain against Germany they relieve pressure on both Britain and the Soviets (and indirectly the US). Would this be enough that the west would turn their heads as to what the final resolution would be with China? If the treaty ports are left under European control and the US and Europe are allowed access to China's markets I would expect so as this was more than they got out of the Soviets in regards to Eastern Europe.

 

\
All three of these directly link to CHINA! That is how, I made that connection.

That is:
1) Call a cease fire with China.
2) Start negotiation with China and even at least appear to be willing to give back some of the conquered territory (especially the treaty ports.
3) Offer to enter the war on the side of the allies!

How is that not relevant to them?

 

The public was also accepting of interventions in Korea or Iraq (at least until things went sideways)

Partly to protect US interests in the area.

What would the UD destroyers have done if the ships sailing to Cuba didn't turn back? They would either have to shoot or board the frieghters.
This was also a violation of international law, the US didn't have any right to stop and search maritime commerce in international waters. (but they did)

I think the US public was much more accepting of "big stick" diplomacy in that era, especially considering the brutal Japanese occupation of China, and the zenophobic attitudes at the time.

 

How is it? China may be related to 2 of the three points but the coruptness of the Chinese governement is rather immaterial. If it is relevant it means that for a consideration they will go along with the plan. Certainly I don't see how it illustrates any opinions of mine that need to be "disabused".

 

Actually the US did have the right to do it. Now the Soviets also had the right to take action against the US for doing it. As for it being against international law, I think you will find that naval and coast guard vessels can indeed stop and search commercial vessels. Indeed it is happening with some frequency even today.

 

The political situation in China, at the time of the first Japanese aggression lays the groundwork which makes all the other propositions "non-starters", the Chiang government was not only battling the Communist split off from the Sun yet-sen Republic, it was also NOT in control of most of China's landmass when the Japanese first started the occupations. There were something like four or five separate governors/warlords not in the Communist sphere with private armies who would fight with or against the Japanese according to who paid them.

The treaty ports were objects which none of the treaty port holders were willing to negotiate around, especially since they insure massive income for some of those same corrupt Chinese in the Chiang government and his in-laws and relatives.

The Japanese had embarked on a belated "empire building scheme", emulating the west and had absolutely NO incentive to rejoin the allies of the Great War as the militarists gained control and threw in their lot with the Axis/anti-communist block.

The very corruptness of the Chiang government is the basis for them never, ever allowing the Japanese to have a "cease fire", or negotiations with them. China has/had for centuries simply retreated into the vastness of the mainland, and "absorbed" the invaders and turned them into "Chinese".

They (Chiang's China) have no reason to negotiate, or surrender, even though they made those threats toward the US many times to keep the Lend-Lease and interest free loans flowing.

But you are right, two out of thee isn't to be considered at all is it.

 

Under what basis?
Prior international treaties confirmed the right of "Freedom of the Seas" and allow free passage in international waters.

This was in fact one of the protests that the US government made against britiain when it enforced a continental blocade.

Only in their own territorial waters.
A US (or any other nation's) warships that board a foreign nation's ships in international waters can be considered an act of piracy.

(Though of course the old maxim applies - Might makes Right )

 

These are the reasons the operation was called a "quarantine" rather than a blockade. A quarantine on offensive missile importation is different than an outright blockade which is an act of war. A Quarantine seems to fall into another area of maritime law completely, a ship can submit voluntarily to inspection to pass a quarantine line, or choose not to.

Those ships which submitted to voluntary inspection were allowed to proceed, notice that the ships which stopped and turned around were ships which decided not to be inspected and allowed to proceed. In spite of USSR huffing and puffing, I believe the careful wording excluded the US from an "act of war", or an act of "piracy". If you have nothing to hide, proceed. If you do have something to hide, turn back and "we" won't do anything.

 

Regardless of the wording, a country doesn't have the right to stop foreign vessels in International waters unless the nations are at war.
And the inspection is not voluntary, as a vessel doesn't have the right to refuse, and continue unmolested.
Also note - the Marucla wasn't asked to submit to an inspection, she was simply boarded. by the USN

This was in fact one of Wilson's 14 points, the Freedom of Navigation, as pre-WWI it was the British who were accused of violating this.

In any event, there was no Maritime or International law that allowed a "quarantine" or to search or impede vessels in international waters.
The fact it that it was simply done as the US was a superpower and nobody could do anything about it at the time.
(Note: I'm simply stating what the actual law was, if it were me in charge I would have probably done exactly as Kennedy did)