WWII historians: how long could the US have delayed war with Japan, if it wanted?

[Questerr]

To avoid a terrible war. I'm not saying it was a good idea, but it was an option. And remember, we didn't go to war over that, we went to war over Pearl Harbor.

Would letting the Japan slaughter tens of millions of Chinese be more or less terrible?

It’s true we didn’t declare war over Japan’s empire building. We cut off Japan’s access to oil over it. They then chose to declare war.

 

[Questerr]

Not so much. They pledged to stay out of the war. It was FDR who added the qualifier 'unless we are attacked' that kicked in with Pearl Harbor.

Yes so much. The Republicans voted for the Two Ocean Navy Act (which was targeted at a potential war with Japan), they supported the forward deployment of the US Navy to Pearl Harbor, they supported condemning the Japanese for Nanking and the attack on the USS Panay.

 

[NatMorton]

Is there nothing our progressive left will not blame America for? Do leftwing Poles idly muse whether the Sept 1 1939 invasion by the Nazis was their fault? Do British Labor Party officials wring their hands over England’s culpability for The Blizt? Do Native American tribe elders wonder “Maybe if we had been more welcoming …”

Seriously, who else does this?

 

[Antiwar]

I don't have this well understood, so I probably won't present it well. Colonialism and imperialism both play parts in nearly all military conflicts. At least one of the progressive analysts that I hear has said that the Japanese government learned about being imperialistic from other governments, and that Japan had legitimate complaints about colonialism, so those played a role in the Japanese government becoming aggressive. To blame very complex things such as war entirely on one government being 'evil' is to willfully ignore very complex sociopolitical conditions.

 

[Craig234]

Yes so much. The Republicans voted for the Two Ocean Navy Act (which was targeted at a potential war with Japan), they supported the forward deployment of the US Navy to Pearl Harbor, they supported condemning the Japanese for Nanking and the attack on the USS Panay.

Not so much. Here's the Republican platform of 1940. In it,, they support strong military not for war, but to deter invasion of the US. They insist the US should not enter the war. In their usual disgusting way, they try to link the issue of WWII to opposing government regulation of business:

"Our national defense must be so strong that no unfriendly power shall ever set foot on American soil. To assure this strength our national economy, the true basis of America's defense, must be free of unwarranted government interference."

Of course, the didn't want to ignore the war; they supported giving some materials and "words of reassurance and hope".

"Only a strong and sufficiently prepared America can speak words of reassurance and hope to the liberty-loving peoples of the world."

But stay out of that war:

National Defense​

The Republican Party is firmly opposed to involving this Nation in foreign war.

We are still suffering from the ill effects of the last World War: a war which cost us a twenty-four billion dollar increase in our national debt, billions of uncollectible foreign debts, and the complete upset of our economic system, in addition to the loss of human life and irreparable damage to the health of thousands of our boys.

But if FDR dared criticize Nazis or Japan, or took actions that might upset them, Republicans would condemn that risk of war:

"...we deplore explosive utterances by the President directed at other governments which serve to imperil our peace; and we condemn all executive acts and proceedings which might lead to war without the authorization of the Congress of the United States."

They addressed the crisis of fellow democracies under attack... with sympathy and some material, while pledging to stay out of the war.

"Our sympathies have been profoundly stirred by invasion of unoffending countries and by disaster to nations whole ideals most closely resemble our own. We favor the extension to all peoples fighting for liberty, or whose liberty is threatened, of such aid as shall not be in violation of international law or inconsistent with the requirements of our own national defense."

As Wikipedia describes the 1940 election: "The three leading candidates for the 1940 Republican nomination were all isolationists to varying degrees:"

While the Republican nominee did support the material aid of Lend-lease - not involvement in the war - even that was too much for Republicans.

"While on vacation, Willkie decided his next cause should be military aid to embattled Britain, and announced support of the president's Lend-Lease program on January 13, 1941. Lend-Lease was highly unpopular in the Republican Party, and Willkie's announcement created a firestorm, with Landon and Taft decrying his actions. Former RNC chairman Hamilton wrote that of the almost 200 Republican members of the House and Senate, "Willkie couldn't dig up ten friends if his life depended on it.""

 

[Questerr]

Not so much. Here's the Republican platform of 1940. In it,, they support strong military not for war, but to deter invasion of the US. They insist the US should not enter the war. In their usual disgusting way, they try to link the issue of WWII to opposing government regulation of business:

"Our national defense must be so strong that no unfriendly power shall ever set foot on American soil. To assure this strength our national economy, the true basis of America's defense, must be free of unwarranted government interference."

Of course, the didn't want to ignore the war; they supported giving some materials and "words of reassurance and hope".

"Only a strong and sufficiently prepared America can speak words of reassurance and hope to the liberty-loving peoples of the world."

But stay out of that war:



But if FDR dared criticize Nazis or Japan, or took actions that might upset them, Republicans would condemn that risk of war:

"...we deplore explosive utterances by the President directed at other governments which serve to imperil our peace; and we condemn all executive acts and proceedings which might lead to war without the authorization of the Congress of the United States."

They addressed the crisis of fellow democracies under attack... with sympathy and some material, while pledging to stay out of the war.

"Our sympathies have been profoundly stirred by invasion of unoffending countries and by disaster to nations whole ideals most closely resemble our own. We favor the extension to all peoples fighting for liberty, or whose liberty is threatened, of such aid as shall not be in violation of international law or inconsistent with the requirements of our own national defense."

As Wikipedia describes the 1940 election: "The three leading candidates for the 1940 Republican nomination were all isolationists to varying degrees:"

While the Republican nominee did support the material aid of Lend-lease - not involvement in the war - even that was too much for Republicans.

"While on vacation, Willkie decided his next cause should be military aid to embattled Britain, and announced support of the president's Lend-Lease program on January 13, 1941. Lend-Lease was highly unpopular in the Republican Party, and Willkie's announcement created a firestorm, with Landon and Taft decrying his actions. Former RNC chairman Hamilton wrote that of the almost 200 Republican members of the House and Senate, "Willkie couldn't dig up ten friends if his life depended on it.""

Once again, Lend Lease dealt with EUROPE. The Republicans supported all the moves done by the US in Asia against the Japanese. They saw East Asia as within the US Sphere of Influence because of our trade connections in China and our de facto colony in The Philippines.

 

[Craig234]

I don't have this well understood, so I probably won't present it well. Colonialism and imperialism both play parts in nearly all military conflicts. At least one of the progressive analysts that I hear has said that the Japanese government learned about being imperialistic from other governments, and that Japan had legitimate complaints about colonialism, so those played a role in the Japanese government becoming aggressive. To blame very complex things such as war entirely on one government being 'evil' is to willfully ignore very complex sociopolitical conditions.

I don't think anyone is blaming one thing, but Japan did have a radical move to militarism. There was a conflict between militarist and non-militarist leaders, and the militarists won.

I saw a good documentary on this but can't find it now. But there are many other sources you can google on the history.

 

[Craig234]

Once again, Lend Lease dealt with EUROPE. The Republicans supported all the moves done by the US in Asia against the Japanese. They saw East Asia as within the US Sphere of Influence because of our trade connections in China and our de facto colony in The Philippines.

While Republicans supported defending US territories, they opposed entering the war, and did not add the 'unless attacked' that FDR did. They did say they supported war if the US were invaded.

 

[Questerr]

While Republicans supported defending US territories, they opposed entering the war, and did not add the 'unless attacked' that FDR did. They did say they supported war if the US were invaded.

They opposed "entering the war". Cutting off Japan's access to oil was not "entering the war" and was something they supported.

 

[Antiwar]

I don't think anyone is blaming one thing, but Japan did have a radical move to militarism. There was a conflict between militarist and non-militarist leaders, and the militarists won.

I saw a good documentary on this but can't find it now. But there are many other sources you can google on the history.

My reply in the other current thread on this subject applies here, too:

Now you're engaging in arguing about history. If that's your intention, enjoy. It's like arguing about ~founding father propaganda when arguing about gun control: They have an endless amount of material to bring up so that they may avoid talking about current considerations, and especially so that they may avoid talking about the principles of guns/militarism. In other words, you've willingly entered a quagmire.

If any honest person would like to discuss the principles of militarism in the era of climate change and nuclear weapons, then we might actually get somewhere.

 

[Craig234]

My reply in the other current thread on this subject applies here, too:

Now you're engaging in arguing about history. If that's your intention, enjoy. It's like arguing about ~founding father propaganda when arguing about gun control: They have an endless amount of material to bring up so that they may avoid talking about current considerations, and especially so that they may avoid talking about the principles of guns/militarism. In other words, you've willingly entered a quagmire.

If any honest person would like to discuss the principles of militarism in the era of climate change and nuclear weapons, then we might actually get somewhere.

Of course this is discussing history; it's the history subforum. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but don't like the sound of you saying 'honest person' that sounds like an attack.

 

[Tigerace117]

I don't have this well understood, so I probably won't present it well. Colonialism and imperialism both play parts in nearly all military conflicts. At least one of the progressive analysts that I hear has said that the Japanese government learned about being imperialistic from other governments, and that Japan had legitimate complaints about colonialism, so those played a role in the Japanese government becoming aggressive. To blame very complex things such as war entirely on one government being 'evil' is to willfully ignore very complex sociopolitical conditions.

The Japanese “complaint about colonialism” was that they weren’t the ones getting the benefits from brutally oppressing the local people. I’m not shocked in the slightest that progressives have moved onto Imperial Japan apologism though.

 

[Craig234]

They opposed "entering the war". Cutting off Japan's access to oil was not "entering the war" and was something they supported.

Well, if I had said they opposed cutting off Japan's access to oil, that would be relevant. On the other hand, the topic was, if the actual government had not taken that step, how long war with Japan could have been delayed.

 

[Questerr]

Well, if I had said they opposed cutting off Japan's access to oil, that would be relevant. On the other hand, the topic was, if the actual government had not taken that step, how long war with Japan could have been delayed.

Why would the government not take that step? The US didn't want Japan building an empire in East Asia. Our oil was directly fueling their empire building and war crimes. Therefore, it was in our interests to cut off their access to oil.

 

[Craig234]

Why would the government not take that step? The US didn't want Japan building an empire in East Asia. Our oil was directly fueling their empire building and war crimes. Therefore, it was in our interests to cut off their access to oil.

The reason not to would be to avoid war, as I said before. I'm not saying - I'm just repeating here, why do I have to - that it would be a good policy, but just discussing how long it would have delayed war if they had.

 

[swing_voter]

Japan was an expanding colonial empire like Britain or France only in Asia.

Once America got in the way, we have a Pacific Coast as well as an Atlantic Coast, so getting in the way was inevitable, the Japanese were going to go to war with us.

We don't have to sell our stuff to people we don't want to and an embargo is a very mild form of statecraft. They could buy goods from elsewhere.

They didn't have to attack us.

I can't see how the American hating left can make Pearl Harbor our fault.

So Bernie Sanders believes that Pearl Harbor was our fault?


.

 

[Questerr]

The reason not to would be to avoid war, as I said before. I'm not saying - I'm just repeating here, why do I have to - that it would be a good policy, but just discussing how long it would have delayed war if they had.

Cutting off access to oil isn't declaring war. So doing so isn't going to war.

Japan is the party that chose war, not the US.

The US wouldn't have done what you are asking. This is what alternate history buffs call "ASB": "Alien Space Bats", something that's functionally impossible because it either defies physics or requires known actors to act against their entire nature. It's the same bullshit you see with Wehraboos who say "The Nazis would have won if only they weren't Nazis".

 

[Antiwar]

Of course this is discussing history; it's the history subforum. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but don't like the sound of you saying 'honest person' that sounds like an attack.

I overlooked that this thread is in the history forum. I'm not questioning your honesty, I'm talking about the trolling that people do. Using history (to muddy the waters, to avoid talking about principles, etc) is one of their favorite tactics because it adds an air of legitimacy.

 

[Tigerace117]

I overlooked that this thread is in the history forum. I'm not questioning your honesty, I'm talking about the trolling that people do. Using history (to muddy the waters, to avoid talking about principles, etc) is one of their favorite tactics because it adds an air of legitimacy.

It takes a special kind of ignorance to claim talking about history in the HISTORY forum is “trolling”.

 

[Exquisitor]

Always remember to reverse the neutron flow as that solves everything.
Remember to punch Nelix if you can as well. It won't help but it can't hurt.

The neutron flow enables the subject to remedy the positive reaction to the negative energy your electron puts out.

 

[Craig234]

I overlooked that this thread is in the history forum. I'm not questioning your honesty, I'm talking about the trolling that people do. Using history (to muddy the waters, to avoid talking about principles, etc) is one of their favorite tactics because it adds an air of legitimacy.

I'm sure you can see how making that point in response to my post makes insinuations, so glad you clarified you are not.

 

[Craig234]

Cutting off access to oil isn't declaring war. So doing so isn't going to war.

Japan is the party that chose war, not the US.

The US wouldn't have done what you are asking. This is what alternate history buffs call "ASB": "Alien Space Bats", something that's functionally impossible because it either defies physics or requires known actors to act against their entire nature. It's the same bullshit you see with Wehraboos who say "The Nazis would have won if only they weren't Nazis".

Your argument is poor quality and false - its own version of "ASB". It doesn't track the issue, it's non-responsive, it uses a false analogy, and so on. Not deserving more of a reply, and not even that much.

 

[Questerr]

Your argument is poor quality and false - its own version of "ASB". It doesn't track the issue, it's non-responsive, it uses a false analogy, and so on. Not deserving more of a reply, and not even that much.

Dude, you are wanting a scenario in which the US, *for no reason*, totally abandons it’s interests in East Asia. It’s not realistic. It wouldn’t happen.

Even the isolationists of the day supported cutting oil trade with Japan when they began committing blatant war crimes and seizing the colonies of European powers. The idea that the US was turn its back and do nothing is ridiculous.

 

[BitterPill]

There is zero chance England would have fallen.

I think there was a chance if, for example, the Battle of Britain had gone differently.

 

[BitterPill]

The fantasy that the US “provoked” the Japanese is nonsense.

We did see that the Japanese Empire was starved of oil and other resources, and the British followed our lead. Even though Holland was already conquered by the Nazis, we leaned on the Dutch East Indies government to embargo oil for the Empire, and it did.

That provoked the Empire.