"Collision Course — Washington Had a Diplomatic Solution" Topic

… to Prevent War With Japan. Why Was It Not Put Forth?

"ADOLF HITLER invaded Poland in September of 1939, precipitating a European war. Beginning in April of 1940, German forces captured Norway and Denmark. A month later Panzers rolled into the Netherlands, Belgium, France. Later that year, plans were hatched to invade Great Britain.

Amid the Blitzkrieg, the United States, although officially neutral, began to mobilize its army and navy. It would still take two years for these efforts to produce a meaningful force. The naval shipbuilding that started in 1940 would not put any ships in the fleet until the middle of 1942…"

Main page

link

Armand

Hi Armand!
Let me translate the carefully crafted "word salad" for you -

In 1940, Japan invaded northern Indochina. In July of 1941 it moved its army deeper into Southeast Asia,

>>>>> Japan did not "invade" French Indochina. It negotiated an agreement with the new Vichy French government to occupy and oversee French Indochina.

ultimately threatening Singapore.

>>>>> Technically speaking, this was a threat to British colonial interests and had nothing to do with US interests in the Pacific. The British asked the USA to take over defense of Singapore (and by inference Britain's Malayan colonial possessions). The US government declined the request.

Roosevelt hoped to force Tokyo to withdraw through a series of economic measures. The White House announced a qualified freeze on Japanese funds in U.S. financial institutions to prevent oil exports to Japan. Each request for funds transfer was to be evaluated.

>>>>> Allow me to explain how this "embargo" actually worked. The Japanese government had negotiated a huge oil purchase with a group of major US oil producers. The purchase represented two entire years worth of Japanese oil requirements. The contracts were signed. The US State Department issued the Export Licenses. The Japanese transferred payment IN FULL to US banks. The US State Department then unilaterally cancelled the Export Licenses and seized the Japanese funds.

A denial to release money would punish Japan for the Indo-China occupation. However, if Japan changed course, funding requests for oil exports would be approved. Roosevelt said he wanted to bring Tokyo to its senses, not to its knees and was optimistic the policy would not lead to war with Japan.

>>>>> And all this time we've been taught that it was all about the Rape of Nanking and Japanese aggression in China. Go figure.

Roosevelt's policy towards Japan was headed up by Assistant Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Acheson, exceeding his mandate, imposed a total freeze on oil shipments from the United States.

>>>>> Translation of "exceeded his mandate": Roosevelt instructed Acheson from the background in order to preserve personal "deniability". Clinton was far from the first politician to play dumb when it suited him.

He expected this would force Japan out of southern Indochina. Japan, after all, imported almost all its petroleum; the bulk of it came from the United States. Washington even pressured other potential exporters to Japan to cut off the flow of oil, as well.

>>>>> Yes, Britain and the Netherlands were in on the oil embargo arrangement as well.

The policy worked too well; Tokyo faced economic and military collapse.

>>>>> This was no "accidental outcome". The US knew exactly the effect an outright oil and steel embargo would produce upon Japan. The history of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pacific War makes this clear; in fact, the US negotiators had assured their British counterparts in previous discussions that the US could collapse the Japanese economy in very short order simply by implementing such an embargo.

Washington might have softened its stance, but after years of European powers placating Hitler's aggression having led to war, held fast. In effect, overruling Acheson smacked of appeasement.

>>>>> Always leave the best for last. Hitler's actions in Europe did not seem to move the US government toward any such economic sanctions against Germany – Ford and IBM, for example, seem to have continued doing business with large branch operations in Germany without any interference from the US government that I am aware of.

B

Why?

Two easy answers:

1: Hull had a horrible habit of over complicating things. If a machine needed three gears to run properly, he'd "fix" it by adding twelve more gears.

2: Roosevelt needed the war to jump start the economy. Had the US not gone to war, (even with the Neutral mobilization), economists had predicted that the country would not fully come out of the effects of The Great Depression until sometime between 1946-1948. War is good for the economy and his political goals.

Blutarski and Murphy +1

When did Argentina join the war on the Allied side?

"However, Argentina eventually gave in to the Allies' pressure, broke relations with the Axis powers on 26 January 1944,[7] and declared war on 27 March 1945.[8]"

Salute to the handful of Argantine volunteers who did volunteer to serve with the Allies.

Armand you have been throwing a lot of rocks at the US lately. 😉 those who live in glass houses, should not be chucking so many rocks. 🙂

Weren't there a lot of ex Nazi's in Argentina after WW2?

No countries history is clean. 🙂

Not sure if you are asking a question, as your article answers it: because China asked the USA not to.

WRT the other comments, the American right wing guys seem to feel the need to demonize FDR, probably because their current political opponents propose legislation inspired by his New Deal (e.g. "The Green New Deal") …

MH

(e.g. "The Green New Deal")

Yes, something absolutely worthy of demonizing as time will prove.

Wolfhag

WRT the other comments, the American right wing guys seem to feel the need to demonize FDR,

There is no need to "demonize" FDR; all that is necessary is to examine the historical records. FDR wanted to get the US into the war and he found a way by provoking Japan to the point of no return. At the same time, he was also every bit as diplomatically aggressive/reckless (pick the term of your choice) in his US neutrality policy as it related to the war in Europe. This is all a straightforward matter of historical record.

The actual diplomatic histories differ considerably from the sanitized popular hagiographies.

B

Roosevelt was a quintessential political opportunist, and he could and did change his position very rapidly when events moved fast- and a lot was moving in 1940-41. The decision making around the oil embargo is an example of how slapdash his administration could be, but the decision to reverse thirty years of policy and make a determined effort to hold the Philippines at the last minute was even worse. It absorbed resources that were badly needed and diverted precious troops into a trap that guaranteed their death or capture.

I would add, though, in partial extenuation of some of the decision makers, they really didn't think Japan would attack us. Richmond Kelly Turner certainly believed, as he wrote a few weeks prior to Pearl Harbor, "I don't think the Japs will jump, now or ever!" I think the Administration knew it was a possibility, but in their hearts of hearts, their contempt for the Japanese was such that they couldn't bring themselves to believe it would actually happen- and that at worst, it would be the Philippines.

Yes, something absolutely worthy of demonizing

By demonizing I mean cherry picking data, treating guesses and assumptions as fact, deliberately using inflammatory and distorting terminology, and generally characterizing the idea in the most extreme manner. As if, once one has decided to oppose an idea, it is necessary to exaggerate its flaws and ignore its advantages, in order to convince others of the rightness of one's opinion.

When both sides in a dispute do this, not only is reality being distorted, but it makes compromise difficult to impossible. A bad thing, IMHO.

MH

I don't think the author is correctly stating what happened in the American foreign policy establishment in the month prior to Pearl Harbor.

Poor old Tango posts such stuff on to keep us entertained and promote discussion. He does not necessarily endorse the content however. Bit like those disclaimers on every serious TV programme or documentary film "Any opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the producers etc"

Let us remember that, in the end, Hitler and Mussolini brought the US into the European War, with a formal declaration. OK, we can argue about the North Atlantic as not far short of it, I accept.

Of the many miracles of Pearl Harbor, the final one was surely that the US still accepted the Europe-first policy.

The diplomatic negotiations between the US and Japan (to the degree that they have been released to the pbulic) can be found on the web. In brief, the US was demanding a complete withdrawal of Japanese from China, from Indo-China, and from the Tripartite Pact. To put it another way, the US government effectively demanded control over Japanese foreign policy.

B

Japanese foreign policy mandated invading sovereign foreign countries.

Japanese foreign policy mandated invading sovereign foreign countries.

I'm not sure how that distinguishes Japan from, say, the United States of America ….. or Great Britain. What's your point?

B