A simple question for Opana Point and Takeo

Huh?

When, prior to December, 1941, were the Japanese kicking Commonwealth butt?

Further, given that the US was militarily unprepared for war against either Germany or Japan, let alone both...Not to mention supplying the Commonwealth, Soviets, and China with Lend-Lease war material-which greatly hindered the US build up of it's own forces...What would be accomplished with opening a multiple-front war for the US?

 

Okay, if Japan hadn

 

I prefer someone who is thinking outside of the box and creating a little mental challenge. Feel free to jump in, it's all in fun, nothing personal.

 

Thank god that was at least succinct...

 

To play devil's advocate here, if FDR didn't want the Japanese to attack our fleet in Pearl Harbor, why were they based there? Huh? Huh? For example, if the Pacific Fleet were based in say, Savannah, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have been an embarrassing failure. The Japanese navy would have then had no choice but to all commit Seppuku, right then, blood all over the decks. Possibly, the Hawaiian tuna fleet would have taken some losses and America would have had to move forward with a significant tuna shortage, but we were a tougher nation back then and could have substituted Spam for the missing tuna in our lunch boxes.

.

 

Perhaps, but not Savannah! Case closed.

.

 

And

It's been tried...Atlanta is not that far from Savannah.
1942; Japanese Bombers in the Gulf of Mexico - Axis History Forum

I pissed on their parade too.

 

You overlook the gaping chasm in your logic! The Japanese plan was to attack Pearl Harbor. It said so right on the top of the attack plan, in the very title, in bold font. There's no way they'd retype all those orders so late in the game. This left our tuna fleet exposed, but screw those guys!

.

 

In other words, you know everything and there are no other possibilities because, well, you know all.

 

Saving the world, comes to mind

 

T

The US does not have an army or air force worthy of the name, and their navy is stretched thin between two oceans...

They wound up losing much of the Pacific and did nothing worth of note in the Med or Europe until late 42-early 43.

 

So, thinking out of the box is inventing history?

 

Sorry, it has been pointed out that this thread should be moved to the Alternative History forum and I agree, that they should be. I will not be making any new comments on these Dracula threads on the Prelude to War forum. If anybody, has any pull with the MODs of WW2, please ask them to move the Dracula Prelude to War threads to Alternative History. Thanks.

 

Are you sure about that? FDR wasn't yet willing to ask Congress for a declaration of war. That doesn't mean that they weren't willing to make one if asked.

 

Yes, because he thought it necessary. Based upon the pogrom's Hitler and his minion's carried out, he was correct in his judgement. He has the moral high ground, but loses a little of it by overlooking, excusing and covering up the equally bloody Stalin regime. It can be intellectually justified by the need to have them, the Soviets, as allies against Germany, but doesn't change the fact they were as bad as any of the axis powers we fought.

And this was simply because he (FDR) knew that neither the public, nor Congress would support war at that time. The American public was extremely isolationist after the experience of the Great War. Some will bring up that Gallup polling was showing a shift in public sentiment, however FDR was aware that the polling was being manipulated by William Stevenson's operatives from The British Security Coordination in New York.
As for the USS Greer incident (4Sep41), an encounter FDR used, and mischaracterized, in his fireside chat on September 11th, and used as the pretext to issue his "shoot on sight" policy, which was a further escalation of the tensions in the Atlantic. A US Senator David I Walsh (D-Mass), Chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee looked into the incident and a report by Admiral Harold Stark, CNO, revealed that the incident was more complicated than the President claimed and we were NOT just innocent victims of German aggression.
The information unearthed in Senator Walsh's inquiry led to Arthur Krock, a Pulitzer Prize winning, New York Times reporter, to look into the "incidents" in the Atlantic involving US destroyers and German submarines, and he determined that in the case of the Greer, Kearney and Reuben James, the US had acted as the aggressor and that it showed the importance of the legislature in checking the power of the executive branch.

I think that is an accurate assessment. I also think that an unbiased view of Roosevelt's actions would add that "and he did everything in his power to insure we entered as soon as it was politically possible."

Why so aggressive? "The question is sophomoric"..."How about "You don't know enough about the topic to ask an intelligent question."?"...He actually gave a decent reply to Belasar in post#8. This is a discussion forum is isn't it?

I whole heartedly agree. That conspiracy theory rates right up there with the Apollo 11 moon landing being faked and filmed in a studio here on earth with Stanley Kubrick directing.

I am and have been for 36 years. My wife knows better than to complain, if she does she knows she might go for a ride in the wood chipper.

...I'll finish this reply later.