did japan had to attack america?

Edit: Double Post.

 

Ricky wrote:

Okay. Let me rephrase the question; what does the wai in Iraq and the current President have to do witn the point he is trying to make about FDR and WW II?

A vast generalization and over simplification based on a myth (see Simon's post before this one...he explains it better than I could.

No. but he lumped the two together; that the Midway battle outcome was purely the result of luck and that the US had superior intelligence. Intelligence is a part of battle just as executing the battle plan, maneuvering units and firing weapons. The fact that the US had superior intelligence was due to the foresight and hard work put in by their cryptographers so to use it as an "excuse" as to why the superior IJN lost to the inferior US forces (which seems to be the thrust of his comments) is silly and fails to take into account the realities of modern combat.

What makes you believe that? In my reading I have found intelligence estimates dating back years before 1941 where the threat from the IJN was recognized and their capabilities were realistically assessed. I don't have the sources at hand at the moment however if you provide sources to back up your claim that the prevailing attitude in the US military intelligence community was as you say, I will attempt to find them.

Yet your characterization of the attitudes of US citizens of the time is nought but an opinion, is it not? There is no doubt that Americans favored staying out of wars that occurred in far off lands and did not concern them however it is just as apparent that when it was made plain that the threat did concern them isolationism vanished and the US threw themselves wholeheartedly into the war effort. If there were conscription riots such as occured in Canada and elsewhere I have not heard of it.

Not necessarily so. Just because it wasn't worth going to war over doesn't mean it was dismissed as unimportant. Britain and France weren't willing to go to war with Germany over the invasion of Czechoslovakia were they? Does that mean that Britain and France were isolationists who wouldn't commit themselves to a war that they tried to avoid? Clearly that wasn't the case. Nor was it true of the US.

 

I did try to reply yesterday, but the system crashed here

Nothing - nobody mentioned Bush, as far as I can tell.
It looks like Bluenote simplty got his tenses mixed up and is pointing out that, if his scenario is followed, "The fact that the US is [in 1941] fighting a war few other than the President and his closets allies really want changes the equation quite a bit. "

Fair enough...
Though I do reckon that the Japanese were a little more open to using planes as a more major part of their battle...

I cannot comment on the American intelligence community, I am simply parroting what I have seen in every History book etc I have ever read on the subject. Please please prove me wrong!

Well, again it is what I have read in every book / heard in every discussion etc on this topic. Only on here, and possibly only from you, is the other voice. Again, I am happy to be proved wrong. Every debate is a chance to fill the gaps in my knowledge.

'when it was made plain that the treat did concern them' is a rather understated way of saying 'when Japan attacked them'.
FDR himself did gradually ease into the war - embargoes on Japan, favourable deals for the Brits, even getting the USN to do a spot of convoy escorting, but I have seen nothing to suggest that the public were pro-war until they themselves were attacked. The point of this discussion is to debate whether the American public would have been as keen on the war if FDR had declared war on Japan when US interests were not really attacked, rather than when Japan had attacked the US. Bluenote's theory is that the war would be unpopular if FDR declared war and the US went on the offensive and suffered a defeat.

Different cases.
Britain & France were attempting to uphold the sovereignty of foreign nations, and backed out of Czechoslovakia because they believed the propaganda on how powerful Germany’s armed forces were. Nethertheless, they took a stand on Poland and did honour that. There is a difference between Isolationist (not getting involved) and Pacifist (trying to resolve issues by peaceful means – which sadly did not work).
And yes, before you say anything, America’s government was becoming less Isolationist (note the embargoes etc).

 

The pacifist Americans is vastly overplayed, especially in European writings. There were a large number of Americans (~1/3) in favor of joining the British in the war, and at least an equal number of people trying to make up their minds. Many felt the British weren't going to win and that the Brits weren't really trying that hard, so why should the US get involved, and in a losing cause at that.
The biggest problem FDR had was more political in nature, the Congress was actually more anti-war than the American people, although the large Irish and German descendant communities were strongly anti-war.
I think that if FDR had gottent the US into the European war, with a couple of more ship sinkings for example, the US people would have done what they always do, rally round the flag and the president. I think the democrats had enough strength in the Congress to pass a declaration of war (anyone know the composition of the 1942 congress?). I think US involvement in the war by the end of 1942 would almost certainly have happened, as long as Britain was still fighting.

 

Good points, Ricky, and thanks for explaining my mixed tenses - the hazard of not talking/writing in ones first language! I probably make loads of similar mistakes and I hope you'll all bear with me!

And quite right btw, I never tried to get Bush into this debate - virtual suicide on any board nowadays!

Right, let's try to recap.

While the Americans were willing too a degree to help the British (60% angainst btw before the Blitz according to Michael Tamelander's Battle for Western Europe), they were not in any way keen on fighting the Japanese in the pacific.

And while FDR most likely could provoke a war with the Germans over the Atlantic convoys, I fail to see how he could do any similar thing with the Japanese. Without a valid reason for figthing the Japanese - say an attack on Pearl -, I cannot for the life of me see the US and Empire of Japans go to war with each others.

But IF the US did go to war, it would be a war that not really stirred the American spirit as Pearl did. I hope we can agree on that at least.

Another point: had the US Pacific Fleet not been reduced to Carriers after Pearl or the attack om Pearl never happened, the commander tasked with fighting the Japanese would likely be Kimmel. Kimmel was a battleship proponent and would have used his battleships as his primary tool of war - Carries would only play second fiddle if not third.
The Japanese fond of big battleships as they were nonetheless gave Carriers and their use a lot of thought. The Kido Butai is the best example.

Regarding training and such, I find it hard to believe that any would seriously claim the American naval airmen of late 41/early 1942 equal to their Japanese counterparts in skill - determination and courage no doubt, but not skill!
And please bear in mind that I wrote they were well armed for the task at hand. And that they were - it worked and was rather sophisticated compared to fx. British Swordfish. The Japanese started the war with good gear, but as is true with most of the Axis countries never really evolved it further.

Generally speaking the USN pre-Pearl and the USN post-Pearl are two very diffent creatures. The pre-Pearl Navy was commanded by old school admirals and to a very large degree evolved around battelships. The post-Pearl Navy see younger, more open minded leaders come to the fore and they basically only have carriers to fight their war with...

I don't think the US really had caught on to just how dangerous airpower truly was. The ships at Pearl had only just begun to update their AAA as war broke out.

Pitch the IJN against the pre-Pearl US Navy and the US Navy will loose. Perhaps not overwhelmingly, but loose they will!

Regarding the raw materials Japan needed, as Zhukov, rightly states, was not on Pearl; Wake, the Philippines or Midway, but to be found in the European colonies and Siam (present day Thailand). So there was really no need for the Japanese to attack the United States (as the original question asked, I believe).

Best regards!

- B.

 

Wow, I almost totaly agree Mr. Bluenote, except on the question of the support of the US population for Britain. I believe the 60% number includes the middle 1/3 group of more or less undecided. Any poll has to take into account the timing and wording of the question. That most Americans were lukewarm at best on support for Britian in 1940/41, I don't doubt, it's just how firm that opposition was that I question.

 

Hi Grieg,

maybe another 'oopsie' from me - I found this while browsing another forum... ( www.wargamesdirectory.com )

So were we (in this case us Brits) prepared or not? The same forum also has:

And more 'yes we knew' and 'but we ignored it anyway' evidence...

:???:

 

RE. Did Japan had to attack America

I thnk they had. America basically spoiled the plans for Japan to attck in South-east asia as the Americans had control over the Pacific and this proved a great threat for the Japs. They needed to weaken the Americans so that they could easily attack the other parts of SE.

 

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they felt that, unless the USN was taken out, the US would attack their homeland from Hawaii if they didn't attack Hawaii.

:bang: :bang:

 

I have to disagree. There is no evidence to support the idea that the Japanese attacked because they believed that the US was going to attack them. The US, especially the Pacific fleet, was in the way of their expansionist plans in Asia.