FDR and the oil embargo.

Of course,US had the right not to sell oil to Japan,but it was a political decision:FDR did forbid the oil companies to sell oil to Japan;US used its economic power to oblige Japan to change its policy .
The result would be that Japan would be defenceless in a war against the US.
And to be sure that Japan would not buy oil elsewhere,all Japanese assets in the US were frozen (=stolen ).
This was an act of economic warfare and FDR was hoping that Japan would admit to the US demands .

 

Again, they were not demands, but a counter-proposal to a Japanese proposal submitted to the United States. Treaties of non aggression were common before WW2, as were Treaties of Commerce. All but one point encompassed both countries. The one that didn't, the withdrawal of troops from China and French Indo-China (not Manchuria), had a precedent set when the British Empire and France demanded that Russia withdraw troops from the Danubian principalities prior to the Crimean War. In this case Russia complied. Of course war began due to "other" factors.

If what you had meant was all ten points at a single time, then I digress you are correct, no nation has ever requested those ten exact items in a single proposal, before or since.

 

I've seen NY Times articles from 1941 about calls for further embargoes (before a full oil embargo was in place) by Congress over concern that Japan would re-sell everything to Germany.

 

The Japanese were killing Chinese in 1941,but also in 194O,in 1939,etc.
Why was there no embargo in 194O,1939,etc ..?
When the Japanese were murdering at Nanking (in 1937 !),their money did not smell blood,it was good enough for the oil companies and for the US treasury.Thus,why did the US refuse their money in 1941 ?
The morality argument is very dubious.
One could argue that without US oil,there would have been no Japanese agression war in China .
Of course,there was a depression in these years,and Japanese money was usefull,but there was still a depression in 1941.
Thus the question remains:why an embargo in 1941 ?
Btw:there was not much help from the US to China prior to Pearl Harbour.
The help mostly came from the SU and Germany (!).
Or was there an ouycry from the public opinion,demanding arms for China ,no trade with Japan ?

 

Because Barbarossa was launched in June of 1941, not June of 1940?

Against, obviously. And the US had every right to draw the line that it did. But after the war the United States didn’t seen to much care as a regime perhaps even more horrific than the Japanese took over China and brutally murdered tens of millions of people. What does one make of that fact other than that the Chinese issue lost its lustre once it ceased being something to use against the Japanese?

.p

 

An interesting point. And what if your neighbour in “friendly” but tense talks proposed that you should sign over the deed to your house to him?

Great Powers fully understood hundreds of years before 1941 that telling another Great Power to do what Hull told the Japanese in November 1941 meant war. Like you giving your house away, Great Powers do not bow to such talk even if brought forth as ‘points’ in a ‘discussion’. The American aim was to cause Japan to sever relations. Hull was not intending his note to lead to real negotiations, any more so than if Japan had told the US they must withdraw from Hawaii.

Washington certainly had the right to make such demands because Japan was the aggressor, but I cannot fathom the intention being to find a peaceful resolution.

In the instance you mention the British and French were fully prepared to attack Russia in the event of a negative reply, were they not?

p.

 

Is there any proof that Barbarossa influenced the US government on proclaiming the embargo ?
And if yes,why ?
In practice,there was no cooperation between Japan and Germany .
One could argue that without the embargo,no Pearl Harbour (and I DO NOT believe that the US government proclaimed the embargo to provoke a war with Japan,they were thinking that Japan would comply with the US demands ),but that a war between US and Germany wou
ld happen,inevitably;meanwhile Japan would be bogged in the Chinese bog:there was no way for Japan to win the war in China.
About the US attitude on China after the war :there was nothing they could do,unless invade China

 

Well, I guess it would depend on what I am receiving in return. If I get a new sports car, a small peice of lakefront front property that needs a good deal of work, and a fair allotment of cash totaling a fair value when compared to my home, it is a possibility I would say yes. If not, I certainly would not begin shooting. Though a more fair analogy would be the same neighbor requesting I leave the house that belongs to the person across the street I entered without cause. In return he will stop parking his car in front of my driveway, preventing me from getting to work on time.

And neither were the Japanese when they offered to halt operations, followed by troop ships transporting additional troops to places they claimed they would remove troops from.

You simply asked

I provided a precedent you asked for. I left out the other points as they were simply we shall un-freeze each others assets and resume trade. We even offered them preferred trade status

On this, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

 

Not proof but some evidence. Prior to Barbarossa the US Communist party and many associated socialists were often in the fore front of the peace movement. Afterwards .....
In one fell swoop Hitler not only removed a large block of the peace movement but converted them to the other side. Not sure how much impact this would have had on the embargo but any strengthening of the popular support couldn't have hurt.

 

Not much evidence would be my assumption.

Barbarossa clarified the long term strategic global environment, eliminating much of the flexibility remaining in the system.

 

Hull says you are getting nothing definite in return. You are to sign over the deed to your house, and he agrees to ‘talks’ about getting you a job. He doesn’t even commit himself to success in these talks, nor that his bargaining position on this job will be satisfactory.

Your precedent says that Hull’s note was an ultimatum because the Anglo-French followed their demand by attacking Russia. I was thinking more along the lines of a precedent that showed Hull’s note wasn’t functionally equivalent to an ultimatum.

It is unlikely that a Great Power makes Hull’s demands with the intention of reaching a peaceful solution. This is underscored by the failure to cite even one Great Power precedent where this occurred as part of a diplomatic discussion with no intention of the use of force. (The Crimean War would count if the Anglo-French hadn’t then attacked Russia, making their Hull-like request a de-facto ultimatum). Therefore, it is possible that the American intention was not so much to forward negotiations, but rather to cause Japan to sever relations.
In either case, I could care less because Japanese aggression caused the US policy, so it was Japan’s fault. But to go beyond that and find it unthinkable that Washington could aim for Japan to sever relations even when the Hull note looks that way, that strikes me as a little naive to be entertained as "the only" explanation for this historical event.

 

To be honest I must say we might not be in the position, in my view, to say, what was really considered what some 70 years ago. For instance drafting all your troops in arms back then was considered declaration of war. Politics were different from today and we should remember that.So moving the US Navy ships to Pearl Harbour might not be considered just a "chess move" but a declaration of war. A note whether it was done knowing what the Japanese were doing would be equal to that, but why would the US not act differently, especially if they knew things were GOING to happen. That is, act faster with their armed forces.

I can understand and actually am happy about what FDR did. Then again his 1940 promises of not sending boys to war anywhere sound weird as he knew he would have to do that or let the "criminals" take the world. Was there a possibility though that if Hitler had done Seelöwe and succeeded that FDR would not have been sending boys to war anywhere? Or only the Chinese matter would be solved?