The US enters WWII - no Pearl Harbor?

I agree, and will not debate the legalities of the situation, it was a "wording" which allowed America to pressure the USSR to stop their build up. The other outcomes could well have been worse. It was a "gamble", and guess who blinked?

 

The question is does Japan really need to conclude a treaty with them? As long as they are no longer advancing and appear to be negotiating in good faith then they have a very good chance of regaining access to western markets including oil and metals.

That's why I suggested the Japanese need to pay special attention to them. Here they will have to agree to the various foreign governments continuing to control the treaty ports. But they hadn't taken them over yet either had they? So I don't see this a s a serious problem.

I disagree. They have considerable incentive to. They gain access to oil and metals that they don't other wise. They also are likely to gain more access to European and American markets and end up on the winning side. Furthermore following the end of such a war the Western powers are unlikely to be willing to go to any great effort to force Japan back to the 1937 borders in China. Eastern Europe gives a good indicator of this although how predictable it would be is an open question.

This simply doesn't make sense to me. I would think it would work just the opposite. The Chiang governement would have some significant incentive especially if the negotiations put them in a better position with respect to the other factions. Now I'm not suggesting a lasting peace is easy or even possible but a ceasefire and negotiations should be. Note that if the Japanese offer such especially if they pull back some and the Chinese go over to the offensive then the view from the West may well be that the Japanese tried and the Chinese weren't willing to even try thus the various boycots and sanctions are no longer required.

 

Well there's the Monroe doctrine for one. "Freedom of the Seas" doesn't prevent navies of various nations from stopping vessels to search them either. It does require a good reason for taking the ship, cargo, or crew into custody. Then of course there's always the fact that "Might makes Right" is a very real principle when you are talking international relations.

But wasn't that because some trade was suppose to be allowed? In particular food and such? Also just because the US protested it doesn't mean that Britain didn't have the right to do it.

Nope. Although it's generally considered polite to request permission by the nation that "flags" the vessel.

Not really. Now if they cease the ship or cargo without reason then there is a case for it. However I think you will find a number of cases where drug running vessels have been siezed in international waters and the various militaries are bording suspected pirate vessels in the Indian Ocean.

Correct.

 

The more important question is was their an agreement that precluded it? If not then it was allowed. In any case the term "International Law" is something of an oxymoron. For civic, state, and national laws their is an authority that enforces them. Nations operate more like buisness negotiating than citizens who have a "state" making sure they follow the laws.

 

Well if you compare the situation before and after the Soviets position was better after wards than it was before.

 

An itneresting situation develops if Japan merely siezes the Netherlands east Indies Oil fields in Borneo, esp. Tarakan, and offers to pay for the oil in manufactored goods. Does the United States go to war on behalf of the NEI?
With oil , the Japanese empire is pretty self sufficient.

 

I believe by that point the US, Britain, and Dutch were operating as a combined fleet in South East Asia. Do the Japanese try to pick out which vessels opposing them are Dutch and only fire on them?

 

ABDA was stood up in January 1942, that's when the fleets you mentioned started operating as a combined fleet. The locations of the US Asiatic Fleet on 07 December are shown here:
United States Asiatic Fleet Locations December 7 1941.

CL Marbleheads task force:
"About on 24 November 1941," her war diary reported, "the Commander–in–Chief, U.S. Asiatic Fleet sensed that the relations between the United States and Japan had reached such a critical state that movement of men–of–war...was indicated." The next day, Marblehead, with Task Force 5 (TF 5), departed Manila Bay for seemingly "routine weekly operations." She anchored at Tarakan, Borneo on 29 November and waited for further instructions. On 8 December (7 December in the United States) she received the message "Japan started hostilities; govern yourselves accordingly."

It is doubtful if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, or initiated hostilities against the US, that she would have received even these ambiguous orders. The Captain of a light cruiser is unlikely to take it upon himself to initiate war with another country unless he is directly attacked. I doubt CinC Pac or the commander of the Asiatic Fleet itself were willing to issue such orders either. That type of decision would need to come from higher up the chain.

Here's the info on Desron 29: On 25 November 1941 - two days in advance of the "war warning" which predicted that hostile Japanese action in the Pacific was imminent - Admiral Hart dispatched Whipple's Destroyer Division (DesDiv) 58, along with the tender Black Hawk (AD-9), to Balikpapan, Borneo, to disperse the surface ships of his fleet from their vulnerable position within the confines of Manila Bay. There, Whipple awaited the outbreak of war which came on 8 December 1941 (7 December east of the date line) with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

It is pretty obvious that Hart's primary concern was the destruction of his ships from a Japanese 1st strike. Again, if Japan avoided conflict with the US, it is unlikely US ships would have initiated the hostilities.

 

But coordination began somewhat earlier did it not?
Indeed this article (unfortunately I can only see the first page) indicates January of '38
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Given that both the British and US were talking in terms of economic action against Japan at that point I would think that if Japan acts against the Dutch the British will help them and the US won't be far behind.
Here's a link to US British converstions in 1941
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/SP1941-42/chapter3.htm
This page also has some relevant info:
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/japan.htm

 

If the Japanese battle fleet shows up at Tarakan, I would be surprised if the Marblehead & her old four stacker escort opts to become instant diving wrecks. It's not American territory.

Sort of like the Hells Angels showing up at your BMX barbeque in the park, LWD...

 

It may not be up to them. If they are there or in the company of Dutch or even British ships or perhaps even in the vacinity are the Japanese likely to pay all that much attention to the flags even if they can see them? They certainly didn't to the Panay.

 

the Japanese are likely to declare an exclusion zone & promise to pay for the oil in Japanese goods. Basically their 1940 proposal. All done in the name of ' preserving the peace of the Pacific.'

 

Pay with what goods? If it's after August 1941 their overseas assets have been pretty well fronzen. What goods do they have that the Dutch want and can use? Especially considering that Holland is occupied and the Dutch government resides in Britain which is likely also to have frozen Japanese assets.

I'm also not at all sure of your timing on things. Since it's projecting no PH attack are you still suggesting the Japanese attack the Dutch in Dec of 1941? Or are you suggesting more negotiations with the above as their proposal to the Dutch? If so why would the Dutch accept it now when they didn't a year before?

 

The Netherlands, Indies and Japan: Their Relations 1940-1941 - H. j. Van Mook, Hubertus J Van (Hubertus Johannes) Mook - Google Books
This explains, Lwd
Thanks
Reg

 

Payment ,LWD, woudl be in ' whatever Japan decided it could spare & the Netherlands East Indies should accept'.
The NEI had neglected its defences in 1919 when it could have bought the German fleet at scapa flow for cheese, turnips,cows, sugar, coffee & tobacco, etc....
Twenty years later the price was blood...

 

The main difficulty FDR would have in declaring war is that they had nothing to fight with. A second problem would it be worth the risk of losing the Phillipines which needed time to prepare. I dont think congress would have approved and if FDR did it himself he would have risked political defeat in the next election due to the likely military defeats.

 

Does it? It won't let me read it. Care to explain a bit?

 

Or they could simply not accept the Japanese terms as they did histrically. Counting on the US and Britain.

 

The Galllup polls don't really reflect this. The US might not indeed probably wouldn't have declared war in Dec of 41, however by some time in mid 42 it would be almost guaranteed. As for finding something to fight it with the US fleet on 6 Dec was distinctly supperior to that of Japan. By mid 42 it would be even more so and all that 43 production is going to be available soon.

 

THe US was not capable of stopping the Japanese at first. Even with the battleships available they would be of limited use due to their speed and the lack of tankers. How would Roosevelt have fared if he convinced the US to go to war and then suffered the same defeats as it did. The main difficulty for the US was the lack of bases west of Pearl.