Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the bankers, the industrialists and the military all decide to go to war the politicians have little choice. For recent examples see the history of the United States since the fall of Japan. Emperor Hirohito had no more choice then Harry Truman.
The gumbatsu (militarists) wanted war, the zaibatsu (industrialists) didn't. The Japanese people found out after the war that the zaibatsu's system worked a lot better and involved fewer atomic weapons.
As for Showa, he could have ordered all the rebels in the 26 Feb. incident to "apologize".
I don't know how much Hirohito could have done to prevent the war, but, really, looking back, what were the Japanese high command thinking? What was their plan to - what - defeat the US? Create enough pain in the US to cause lifting the embargo?
Without using much of the advantage of hindsight, not clear to me Japan had a success path available.
To drift a bit from the original question - I am not really able to understand why Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. Regardless of the niceties of treaties, it seems to me that Germany could have reasonably said, hey, you didn't talk with us before you started this fight, which, it's clear to us you are going to lose bigtime, so, you have fun with it, we are staying out of it...
The Japanese militarists convinced themselves that they could beat a country that had twice their population, twenty times their land, and Buddha knows how much more industrial potential. Why? Because the alternative was to accept that they couldn't beat the US. The men with the guns, called "gumbatsu" in Japan, didn't want to give up their war in China despite being in the fourth year of telling the Emperor that it would only take one more year of war to settle "the China Incident". This eventually got Japan nuked.
Hitler declared war on the US because "great nations declare war, they are not declared upon." Cool logic, right? It was inevitable the US would enter the European war, it was really the only one we wanted to fight.
And under the Tripartite Pact the Germans didn't have to go to war, the pertinent codicil said that the other two parties would come to the aid of the third only if that country was the victim of aggression by a party not currently engaged in either the Pacific or European wars. That meant the US of course. So Hitler wasn't bound by the Pact. He did think that he could have Russia beaten and Britain on the rope before the US could gear up enough to be helpful. That was the same thinking the Kaiser had used in 1917.
The Japanese militarists convinced themselves that they could beat a country that had twice their population, twenty times their land, and Buddha knows how much more industrial potential. Why? Because the alternative was to accept that they couldn't beat the US. The men with the guns, called "gumbatsu" in Japan, didn't want to give up their war in China despite being in the fourth year of telling the Emperor that it would only take one more year of war to settle "the China Incident". This eventually got Japan nuked.
Japan's leaders knew that they could never out-build the U.S., so they decided to go for quality over quantity. They built their battleships to be faster and more heavily-gunned than ours. Trouble was, whenever they would build a superior ship, we would then go and build two or three that were better still. And so they'd build a better ship, and we would top them with a few more that were better yet. And so on and so on and so on.
By far the most effective defense they had against American military superiority wasn't their own fleet, but rather the artificial ceiling on capital ship construction that was imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty. When they renounced the treaty, they bought themselves an arms race that they couldn't hope to win.
To drift a bit from the original question - I am not really able to understand why Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. Regardless of the niceties of treaties, it seems to me that Germany could have reasonably said, hey, you didn't talk with us before you started this fight, which, it's clear to us you are going to lose bigtime, so, you have fun with it, we are staying out of it...
If Hitler had been smart, he would have responded to Pearl Harbor with some blather about how he was shocked -- shocked! -- that his ally would launch such a dastardly, unprovoked attack, and that Germany condemns this barbaric action in the strongest possible terms. It would all be a lie, of course, but it would have kept the U.S. divided on whether or not to fully engage in the European war. At the same time, an enraged populace would have demanded retribution against Japan (which, of course, is what happened historically) and we would have funneled some of the military armament to the Pacific that historically went to Europe.
I doubt that the U.S. would have remained "neutral" forever, but Hitler could have bought himself some time, which could have been used to good effect by consolidating his gains and strengthening his position. It's a good thing for civilization as a whole that Hitler was not the sharpest tack in the drawer, tactically speaking.
Japan's leaders knew that they could never out-build the U.S., so they decided to go for quality over quantity. They built their battleships to be faster and more heavily-gunned than ours. Trouble was, whenever they would build a superior ship, we would then go and build two or three that were better still. And so they'd build a better ship, and we would top them with a few more that were better yet. And so on and so on and so on.
By far the most effective defense they had against American military superiority wasn't their own fleet, but rather the artificial ceiling on capital ship construction that was imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty. When they renounced the treaty, they bought themselves an arms race that they couldn't hope to win.
Except for the mutant BBs the IJN wasn't that superior to the USN. The Long Lance torpedo was, I think, the sole weapon that was a threat through most of the war. By contrast their warships were "short-legged", having much less endurance than the USN. This was because they expected the One Great All-out Battle to be fought close to Japan after the USN gracious followed the script the Nippon Kaigun had written for it.
They couldn't win an arms race or a war that would last longer than it would take to make good their losses in that war. Their pilots were mission capable after a year more training than the US pilots needed. They replaced their war material more slowly than we did, and there was less of it every year.
I liken the Great Pacific War to Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein (Operation Watch On The Rhine), Hitler's plan for the Battle of the Bulge. Heavy with existing equipment and troops, but no way to reinforce after the initial shock attack.
If Hitler had been smart, he would have responded to Pearl Harbor with some blather about how he was shocked -- shocked! -- that his ally would launch such a dastardly, unprovoked attack, and that Germany condemns this barbaric action in the strongest possible terms. It would all be a lie, of course, but it would have kept the U.S. divided on whether or not to fully engage in the European war. At the same time, an enraged populace would have demanded retribution against Japan (which, of course, is what happened historically) and we would have funneled some of the military armament to the Pacific that historically went to Europe.
I doubt that the U.S. would have remained "neutral" forever, but Hitler could have bought himself some time, which could have been used to good effect by consolidating his gains and strengthening his position. It's a good thing for civilization as a whole that Hitler was not the sharpest tack in the drawer, tactically speaking.
In early November, 1941, 68% of the US public said they knew we'd have to fight the Nazis sooner or later. Nobody believed anything Hitler said by then.
If Hitler had been smart, he would have responded to Pearl Harbor with some blather about how he was shocked -- shocked! -- that his ally would launch such a dastardly, unprovoked attack, and that Germany condemns this barbaric action in the strongest possible terms. It would all be a lie, of course, but it would have kept the U.S. divided on whether or not to fully engage in the European war. At the same time, an enraged populace would have demanded retribution against Japan (which, of course, is what happened historically) and we would have funneled some of the military armament to the Pacific that historically went to Europe.
I doubt that the U.S. would have remained "neutral" forever, but Hitler could have bought himself some time, which could have been used to good effect by consolidating his gains and strengthening his position. It's a good thing for civilization as a whole that Hitler was not the sharpest tack in the drawer, tactically speaking.
No, Hitler could not have bought time.
As I've noted before, the idea that the United States in 1941 was isolationist at all costs regarding Europe is simply not true, nor even close to an accurate read on the public. Gallup polled the subject extensively, and large majorities of Americans routinely supported going to war if it appeared the the United Kingdom was poised to be defeated, that the United Kingdom should be rendered aid even at the risk of the United States being dragged into the European war, and for the United States to enter the war if it appeared that that was the only way for Germany and Italy to be defeated. http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm
Further, the public really didn't differentiate between the European War and the Pacific War. The attitude was that if the United States went to war, it was going to war in both theaters. And once Pearl Harbor was attacked, even before Hitler surprisingly declared war, the national sentiment was that a formal entry into the European conflict by the United States was imminent.
Detroit Free Press, 12/08/41 - 3 days before Germany declared war: "sunset today will probably see this country openly at war not only with Japan but with Germany and Italy as well."
[p.14, Hitler Attacks Pearl Harbor, by Richard Hill]
Note: the book does not advocate a conspiracy in which Germany was some sort of partner in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Rather, the title is meant to reflect the reaction in the United States to the attack on Pearl Harbor, in that it demolished not only virtually all resistance to entering the Pacific War but to entering the European War as well.]
On the same day, the longtime isolationist Washington Times-Herald also informed its readers that by the time they were holding the copy in their hands, the U.S. likely would have declared war in Germany, Italy, and the various eastern European Axis puppets.
They were wrong in the timing, but their statements reveal that the country was mentally prepared for, expecting , and accepting of the formal opening hostilities against Germany.
The Des Moines Register, 12/09/41 - 2 days before Germany declared war: "it is only a matter of time before the American declaration that a state of war exists with Japan will be extended to Germany and Italy"
[p.15]
Sacremento Union, 12/10/41 [referencing FDR's speech of the day before] - 1 day before Germany declared war: "President Roosevelt let the nation know last night, in not quite so many words, that the U.S. is as much at war with Germany and Italy as with Japan-and thus took a lot of the punch out of the big diplomatic question of whether we or the Axis partners would be the first to formalize our state of war."
[p.15]
The last clause in that sentence is most informative, for it illustrates that after Pearl Harbor it was understood in the United States that war with Germany was a foregone conclusion, and that either the U.S. or Germany was liable to lead with a declaration of war.
Indeed, if anything the public was surprised that the United States declaration of war was initially limited just to Japan.
FDR was always one to let public opinion lead him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
