The US enters WWII - no Pearl Harbor?

I'm not at all sure that was the case nor did they seem to think so at the time. Deploying several battleships to Australia and perhaps even Singapore if it lasted long enough could have had some significant impact on the campaigns there. This is especially the case if the US can deploy them during peace time.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LWD, there is a lot of alturnative sourcing on H J Van Mook however,I am arther puzzled that you will not accept him as the source, seeing how he was the actual negotiator with the Japanese Government!
Methinks you are lookng for an 'Axis History Forum style' debate, where baiting out a response is considered part of the mad fun

 

Then since your arguement seems to be based on him how about giving a source?

Where have I refused to accept him as a source? I simply don't know if he says what you seem to think he says. Given your track record todate there's considerable grounds for that. It would help if you also told what parts of it support your position. Otherwise what you are doing is referred to as "shotgun sourceing" and is not particularly helpful.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are referring to my track record of reminding respondents that reasoned argument is infinitely preferable to blank contradiction,I assume...

 

Obviously not. I'm talking about your track record of listing sources that don't agree with your statements and then trying to ignore it.

 

What happened to the British BB's with out adequate air cover. Remember the BB's were in harbor because they were too slow to keep up with the carriers.

 

Points: FDR had NO understanding, either secret or otherwise, to commit the US to a Pacific war if British or Dutch interests were threatened or attacked, as Churchill was urging. He wasn't dumb enough to think that a two ocean war would make any sense, and he thought for too long that it could be avoided. He far overestimated the effects of his personal charm.
2) One of Ugaki's strongest arguments against Operation Hawaii was that it would be unlikely that the US would go to war to save some of British and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia. He was quite correct - FDR did not want a Pacific war, period. It made zero political or strategic sense and would make it far more difficult to defeat the number one threat - Germany. And counting on Germany to honor her commitment to Japan would be a risky proposition and no policy would be based on such an assumption. The one certainty about all of FDR's decisions was that they were based, first and foremost (unfortunately) on being politically acceptable. Whether the Congress would go along with a Presidential plea to go to war did not enter into FDR's calculus.

 

FDR did not "want" a Pacific war, but he believed we needed to stand up to Japanese aggression as well as German. The embargoes were our initiatives. There was no "China lobby" in London; Churchill had even temporized to the extent of closing the Burma Road for a time. Whether we liked it or not, most of the American people had come to accept that we would probably be dragged into both European and Asian wars at some point, and that that would be better than letting aggression go unchecked.

That said, there was very little support for taking the plunge ourselves. No one demanded war when the Germans torpedoed the Reuben James, Robin Moor, Kearney, or Salinas. Would Congress or the American people support war if the Japanese attacked only British and Dutch colonies?

 

OP..... I missed this earlier. That is one impressive set of documents ! Shows the USA accepting the inevitable and planning for war. 1940-1941 had to be difficult times preparing for the unknown.

 

Notice how Ambassador Joe Kennedy was returned to the U.S. after stating publically to the press that Britain was "Finished".

Whatever his private thoughts on the matter, FDR could not have public sentiment in the U.S. and elsewhere severely affected by the personal ideas of the representative of the Roosevelt government in Britain.

I have always laughed at Spike Milligan's 'take' on the recall of Kennedy. He stated that "If he meant AFTER the war, he was certainly correct..."

 

Check back in this thread and I think you will find documents that make it pretty clear that you are incorrect in this regard.