What if the U.S., in response to Pearl Harbor, had only gone to war with Japan? (biggest, state)

[M3 Mitch]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

TonyT has it EXACTLY right.

It may surprise folks that Roosevelt did NOT declare war on Germany in his famous "Day of Imfamy" speech - only on Japan. We only declared war on Germany after Hitler declared war on the US.

Ken

And that's what I wonder about - why did Germany declare war on the US? A friend said if one reads "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" it would be clear, but I have not managed to round up the time to tackle that thick tome. Eventually I will.

If Hitler had only avoided 2 major mistakes - declaring war on the USSR, and then on the US - both of which were apparently his own "unforced errors" - it would have been a different war.

Of course all these counter-factual speculations are, well, not grounded in any facts since they have no facts available to ground to.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

And that's what I wonder about - why did Germany declare war on the US? A friend said if one reads "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" it would be clear, but I have not managed to round up the time to tackle that thick tome. Eventually I will.

I think Adolf hoped Japan would attack in the far East and draw off some Soviet troops. As the Soviets knew thanks to good espionage, of course, Japan had no intention of doing that. Also, if my memory is correct, just before Pearl, the Japanese had pressed Hitler for assurance that he would come in. Not knowing what the course of the war would be like in December 1941--when overall things looked promising for Germany, or at least far from hopeless--Hitler had to consider not alienating Japan, which he probably hoped could keep the US busy. So he stuck by that commitment.

[arrgy]

The Japs and the Germans had an alliance and a plan to conquer most of the world's oil fields via Germany taking over the middle east and the southern Soviet Union and Japan taking over most of southern asia and both Germany and Japan meeting in India. If that goal was accomplished, the Axis would have a stranglehold over the world's oil supply, which the US could do nothing about. Problem was...1. Japan never conquered China, they never pushed far enough west to get through into India. 2. Germany never took the middle east or southern Soviet Union, as the Africa campaign fell apart on Hitler as did his invasion of the Soviet Union. We know that the two nations exchanged technology via secret meetings arranged through submarines in the Indian Ocean. Japan waited as long as it could from the start of the war in 1939 to its attack at the very end of 1941 before making its horrible decision. With only a 15-20 month supply of oil left, and seeing that Hitler had not conquered the oil fields in the middle east or the Soviet Union I guess it felt no choice but to attack.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by arrgy

The Japs and the Germans had an alliance and a plan to conquer most of the world's oil fields via Germany taking over the middle east and the southern Soviet Union and Japan taking over most of southern asia and both Germany and Japan meeting in India. If that goal was accomplished, the Axis would have a stranglehold over the world's oil supply, which the US could do nothing about. Problem was...1. Japan never conquered China, they never pushed far enough west to get through into India. 2. Germany never took the middle east or southern Soviet Union, as the Africa campaign fell apart on Hitler as did his invasion of the Soviet Union. We know that the two nations exchanged technology via secret meetings arranged through submarines in the Indian Ocean. Japan waited as long as it could from the start of the war in 1939 to its attack at the very end of 1941 before making its horrible decision. With only a 15-20 month supply of oil left, and seeing that Hitler had not conquered the oil fields in the middle east or the Soviet Union I guess it felt no choice but to attack.

Nah, the Japanese & Germans didn't really have any such firm plans. They were allies but it was a pretty loose association with each of the partners really only watching out for themselves (hence the Japanese nor declaring war on the USSR even though Hitler could really have used the help).

Likewise the theory about dominating the worlds oil is not really true either. True enough oil was (as it is today) a critical commodity, but at the time the mideast was NOT a major oil producer and not really critical to Germany at all (nor anyone else at the time). Germany had a steady supply of oil from Rumania - which met their needs sufficiently. The Japanese had no reliable source of oil under their control - hence the need to conquer the Dutch East Indies. That oil WAS critical to Japan but not to the US since we were a net oil exporter back in those days and had all the oil we needed.

Ken

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

It wasn't "their part of the world". Their "part of the world" was JAPAN - period. China was a sovereign nation. It was NOT "Japan's part of the world". Japan had NO rights to it and NO legitimate claim to it.

Ken

The Pacific Ocean was pretty much up for grabs, by any power with the might and the penchant to grab it. The US grabbed first, following the shameful overthrow of a peaceful democratic kingdom in Hawaii by American interests, after which the US government endorsed the revolutionaries. But aside from Hawaii, the Japanese had as much right to exploit the Pacific as the Americans did, and a US offensive fleet was stationed as close to Japan as we had an entitlement to be---the doorstep. The Pacific islands were just as legitimately their part of the world as they were our part of the world.

In 1893, the US has no rights and no legitimate claim to the Kingdom of Hawaii. Where you then to say they were not part of America's world? There were more Japanese than American civilians in Hawaii at the time.

If we were on the brink of war with France today, would we quietly tolerate France putting their entire fleet of missiles in Martinique and St. Pierre?

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

Nah, the Japanese & Germans didn't really have any such firm plans. They were allies but it was a pretty loose association with each of the partners really only watching out for themselves (hence the Japanese nor declaring war on the USSR even though Hitler could really have used the help).

Likewise the theory about dominating the worlds oil is not really true either. True enough oil was (as it is today) a critical commodity, but at the time the mideast was NOT a major oil producer and not really critical to Germany at all (nor anyone else at the time). Germany had a steady supply of oil from Rumania - which met their needs sufficiently. The Japanese had no reliable source of oil under their control - hence the need to conquer the Dutch East Indies. That oil WAS critical to Japan but not to the US since we were a net oil exporter back in those days and had all the oil we needed.

Ken

If by some means the Germans and the Japanese had won, they would have ended up after each other. Neither had the slightest trust in the other. Japan wanted an empire as did Germany, and eventually there would be some place they both wanted. The oil in the Soviet Union was postioned in a place where both could see it in their grasp and this would have created a problem quite soon.

The Japanese considered the non Japanese "lesser" and I'm sure the Germans did not feel the Japanese were properly arian. Two empires whose interests to a degree matched but who personally both felt themselves to be superior were not bound to be allies for long.

[Visit a Library]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

You can't even get your basic facts straight.

Okay. How's that then?

Japan siezed Manchuria in 1931.

Okay.

We didn't freeze Japanese assets until 10 YEARS LATER (after years and years of negoiations and threats of retalitory action)

So that does not change what I originally stated. Japan's assets were frozen after Manchuria was seized. Understand?

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by jtur88

The Pacific Ocean was pretty much up for grabs, by any power with the might and the penchant to grab it. The US grabbed first, following the shameful overthrow of a peaceful democratic kingdom in Hawaii by American interests, after which the US government endorsed the revolutionaries. But aside from Hawaii, the Japanese had as much right to exploit the Pacific as the Americans did, and a US offensive fleet was stationed as close to Japan as we had an entitlement to be---the doorstep. The Pacific islands were just as legitimately their part of the world as they were our part of the world.

In 1893, the US has no rights and no legitimate claim to the Kingdom of Hawaii. Where you then to say they were not part of America's world? There were more Japanese than American civilians in Hawaii at the time.

If we were on the brink of war with France today, would we quietly tolerate France putting their entire fleet of missiles in Martinique and St. Pierre?

The Pacific Ocean was NOT "pretty much up for grabs" in 1941. It ALL belonged to somebody. It was NOT empty land, it was occupied. The Europeans had illegally siezed it true enough, but again that was a "done deal" (just as Korea was (and again, the US was NOT demanding Japan give up Korea)) - and in the long run they were bound to be booted out by the locals. However aside from that eventualily, in 1941 it "belonged" to the Europeans and it was no more "up for grabs" than China was - and "grabbing" it was WRONG. What part of taking something that doesn't belong to you do you not understand?


You're right in that in 1893 we had no rights and no legitimate claim to Hawaii (and siezing it was WRONG) - but by 1941 it had been a "done deal" for half a century - just as Japan's control of Korea was - and nowhere did I state that we put sanctions of Japan to force them out of Korea did I? Korea - like Hawaii was a DONE DEAL and there was no attempt by the US in years leading up to WWII to force Japan to give up Korea.

Manchuria (and China as a whole) was however NOT a "done deal" - it was conquest in action during those years and it was WRONG, and the US was RIGHT to oppose Japans' actions.

Regarding your "Martinique & St Pierre" scenario - if WE were actively seizing areas in Central & South America or in the Carribean (conquering those areas outright) then the French would be WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS to put missiles in Martinique & St. Pierre. If we choose to attack the French for that then we would be IN THE WRONG. Every nation has the right to protect itself by placing it's forces where they choose within their territory - and this is ESPECIALLY true when another nation is actively expanding through military conquest. Hawaii was OUR territory in 1941 (and had been for half a century - regardless of the circumstances of it's it's original seizure).

Ken

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by Visit a Library

Okay. So that does not change what I originally stated. Japan's assets were frozen after Manchuria was seized. Understand?

YOU made a SPECIFIC LINK between Japan's invasion of Manchuria & our embargo of Japan. Here is what you wrote:

"Furthermore, the U.S. froze all its Japanese assets after Japan took possession of Manchuria to protect themselves from Russia. At the time, of course, Western nations still had colonies throughout the world."

Our embargo of Japan was a DIRECT RESPONSE to the Japanese seizure of French Indochina. Your silly response makes as much sense as a defendant claiming that "He bit me on the ankle because I called him a name" when in truth that defendant first called the victim a name THEN punched him in the gut, then kicked his legs out from under him, then kicked him repeatedly as he lay on the ground. You "conveniently" left out ALL the stuff in between that Japan had done SINCE they invaded Manchuria (TEN YEARS worth of conquest) - you know, little stuff like "invading China, bombing Chinese cities, raping & slaughtering Chinese civilians, siezing French-Indochina". We didn't "freeze Japanese assets after Japan took possession of Manchuria". We froze Japanese assets after they sieze Manchuria, invaded China, raped and slaughtered Chinese civilians AND siezed French IndoChina.

Got it?

Ken

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by jtur88

If we were on the brink of war with France today, would we quietly tolerate France putting their entire fleet of missiles in Martinique and St. Pierre?

You seem to specialize in apple and oranges comparisons. Here, you equate the U.S. naval forces in Hawaii with hostile missiles in Martinique. Let's see if this stands up to rational scrutiny. The missiles in Martinique would be an immediate threat to the U.S., as they could reach our territory in minutes without advance warning, whereas our Pacific fleet in Hawaii would have to steam for days to get to Japan, and they could be discovered and tracked by Japanese submarines. At the time, the Japanese Imperial Navy was far more powerful and more proficient than the U.S. Navy. Its warships were much better at night fighting. It had better fighter planes and better trained pilots. Your seeing the U.S. Pacific fleet in Hawaii as a credible threat to Japan is pure fantasy. The Japanese attacked the fleet in order to remove any potential impediment to their having a totally free hand in the Pacific (as they harbored expansionist designs), not because they felt threatened. And you are too intelligent and too well-informed not to know this. I wonder what your hidden agenda is? Perhaps to make me, and others, take the bait? Well, I guess you've won the game and I'm the fool!