You must log in or register to comment.

kdogg2077 t1_iy10n13 wrote

I think another Japanese minister tried to broker peace talks with the USA, but none of them had the backing of Tojo and the Japanese cabinet, so it was meaningless.


RiddlingTea t1_iy14oc4 wrote

Tojo only became PM in Oct 41 though. I think the existing civilian administration at this time would have been amenable to peace talks, but the question is how much power the civilian administration had as opposed to the will of the army.


Scerus t1_iy17ck2 wrote

The previous government was hardly led by civilians, Prince Konoe preceded Tojo and transformed Japan further into a totalitarian state. Kanoe had also overseen the invasion of China in 1937 during his previous spell in office. Tojo deposed him because Kanoe's government had failed to reach an agreement with the Americans.


RiddlingTea t1_iy18xfi wrote

I mean civilian as in not actively part of the military—Churchill made plenty of decisions regarding war without being a military man.

And my point was more that peace with the US was genuinely desired on good terms. That Tojo deposed Konoe for failure in peace talks implies success was desirable.


ATNinja t1_iy19hio wrote

>Churchill made plenty of decisions regarding war without being a military man.

Churchill did serve in the british military. Pretty sure he was in south Africa for the boer wars.

But maybe you meant active duty military?


panchampion t1_iy1gory wrote

He was also war secretary or something similar during WW1 but he resigned after Gallipoli


TheMadT t1_iy2e9de wrote

And went on to serve for the remainder of WWI if I recall correctly.


RiddlingTea t1_iy1ao1e wrote

Yeah. What I mean is holding the position of a general concurrently, as in involved in the military at that present moment. Sorry for the imprecision.


-heathcliffe- t1_iy25l2i wrote

Regardless Churchill was not at the helm of a totalitarian state, so his decisions were by no means absolute, military or civilian.


prentiz t1_iy2l2pt wrote

And fought in the trenches in WW1


ATNinja t1_iy2lv2n wrote

Damn I did not know that. Left a safe leadership position too.

It's crazy to me how many leaders in ww2 fought in ww1 and were still willing to commit their young people to another war like that.


IBAZERKERI t1_iy70b6z wrote

churchill was a military man


RiddlingTea t1_iy7dze4 wrote

He wasn’t a general at the same time as being a politician though, in contrast to the Japanese, that was more my point.


ComradeGibbon t1_iy1omeq wrote

Matsuoka like I think most Japanese politicians and military leaders that spent time in the US all thought war with the United States would be a disaster. And also really really stupid because mostly the American interest in the far east was in selling stuff. But none of them had the power to stop the Army and Navy from starting a war.


Initial_E t1_iy1b859 wrote

If the only way the imperialists could be tamed is through abject failure then things don’t bode well for the future of humanity. Can you imagine raising an army to fight an internal war to overcome your own countrymen to prevent the army going to war?


Dreshna t1_iy2cm5q wrote

I could have the time frame off, but the Japanese military definitely was the tail that wagged the dog during at least part of the war, including launching attacks the civilian administration told them not to.


dutchwonder t1_iy6g2kl wrote

Japan was already very committed to extreme expansionist policies by this point with the invasions of China and French Indochina. More than that, Japan had already allied itself with the Axis, though somewhat loosely.

If the US wanted peace, they would have to essentially entirely abandoned Asia.


danteheehaw t1_iy2m7jx wrote

Also, the Allies would only settle for a non conditional surrender. WWI ended in a conditional surrender. Everyone believed that Japan and Germany both had to surrender unconditionally to stop WWIII from happening in a decade or two.

As for Japan, they would had likely happily accepted an armistice (they've done so many times, making sacrifices on their end as well). But they would most certainly demand they keep what they conquered in mainland Asia.


monsantobreath t1_iy3qyhk wrote

>But they would most certainly demand they keep what they conquered in mainland Asia.

By the end actually they were basically down to "don't kill the emperor" and the US still pressed.


Seienchin88 t1_iyc4upq wrote

And then the US spared the Emperor and even kept him...

Prince Konoe (who was briefly a major part in the discussions between the government and the occupational force) said he was shocked when he heard from MacArthur that he intended to keep the Tenno... The Japanese had the plan to offer the abdication of the Tenno but pleading for his life, instead they were casually told - yeah he can stay.


AgoraiosBum t1_iyepp64 wrote

Japan was very interested in a peace deal - even Tojo, once he became PM - but with a whole lot of conditions that involved Japan keeping a lot of China.

Meanwhile, Japan also was preparing for conflict with the US in case a deal couldn't be worked out and had set an internal 'final diplomacy date.' The US saw the preparations for conflict and it led to a loss of trust in the process, and it also assumed it had more time to work something out.

There were a number of miscommunications and missed opportunities for a deal in 1941.


marketrent OP t1_ixyhsod wrote


A Japanese foreign minister met Pope Pius XII and his secretary of state during World War II to seek mediation in a desperate bid to avert war with the United States, eight months before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Vatican documents recently seen by Kyodo News show.

Yosuke Matsuoka wanted the Holy See to speak to President Franklin Roosevelt to try to prevent "a war of mutual destruction," telling Cardinal Luigi Maglione that Tokyo also wanted a cease-fire with China after more than three years of war, according to a summary by the cardinal's office of a meeting on April 2, 1941, between the two.

[Matsuoka] said that the U.S. leader would be able to bring peace to the Far East by mediating on Japan's behalf with Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek, according to the documents.

Matsuoka held talks with the pope before he met with the cardinal but what the pope said during the discussions remains unknown to the public.


Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, leading the United States to declare war against the country the next day and formally enter the conflict.

After his country's surrender in 1945, Matsuoka was arrested and indicted as a Class-A war criminal by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East but died of illness in 1946 before the trial's completion.

According to historian and author Satoshi Hattori, Matsuoka began exploring ways to save Tokyo's relationship with the United States around December 1940 after realizing that the Japanese southward military advance would fail.

The document is a demonstration of Matsuoka's last-minute attempts to prevent war with the United States by using every possible channel, he said.

Kyodo News, 27 November 2022.


Gemmabeta t1_iy1b477 wrote

> Yosuke Matsuoka

He was the guy that announced that Japan is leaving the League of Nations (after being condemned for conquering Chinese Manchuria) in an incendiary speech.


> Following his return to Japan, Matsuoka announced his resignation from the Rikken Seiyūkai and his intent to form his own political party modeled after the National Fascist Party in Italy.


marketrent OP t1_iy1e2l3 wrote

From a profile by the Oregon Historical Society:

>Matsuoka was a Japanese diplomat who played a key role in Japan’s foreign relations from the 1900s through the early 1940s. He also happened to have a strong connection to the state of Oregon.

>Matsuoka would go on to have a long, controversial diplomatic career during one of the most tumultuous periods in the history of Japanese foreign relations. He believed that Japan, like the other island empire, Great Britain, was destined to expand outward. “Both must be colonial empires,” he told one reporter, “both must be maritime and naval powers.”

>In 1930, Matsuoka was elected to the Japanese parliament. Three years later he pulled Japan out of the League of Nations while serving as his nation’s chief delegate after the League condemned Japan’s invasion of Manchuria. He went on to serve as foreign minister from 1940-1941, during which time he signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy.

Yosuke Matsuoka,


EmperorsCourt t1_iy2k1an wrote

that was war wasnt inevitable, it was completely preventable by the Japanese, and it had a real simple solution:

dont attack the United States.


k20350 t1_iy1771r wrote

All the while butchering and slaughtering millions of Chinese.. 3.9 million is the estimate pre and during WWII. That's not even counting the countless war crimes committed against civilians and opposing soldiers on their march across the Pacific


[deleted] t1_iy25z97 wrote



tagyhag t1_iy26jtf wrote

What the Japanese did was horrid but that doesn't mean they have plans to invade China all over again.

Between the two countries, only one is planning to openly invade another country.


Red_dragon_052 t1_iy1atdd wrote

The Japanese were sending out diplomats for the US constantly prior to Pearl Harbor, partly it was in earnest, but it soon became a cover for the coming attack. The US only really had 1 demand too end the oil embargo, Japan needed to leave China and stop murdering millions, which Japan was not willing to do. Instead they decided to expand their wars of aggression.


_softlite t1_iy1q9ss wrote

The US was more concerned with protecting their interests in the pacific (namely the Philippines) than any humanitarian concern for China—though certainly they opposed this.


oCools t1_iy39hn7 wrote

The Japanese were looked down upon by the US for quite some time, same with Southeast Asia in general. The Immigration Act of 1924, and the others before it which excluded Asian immigrants. The internal pressure the Executive put on the Judicial regarding Executive Order 9066 in Hirabayashi v US, and further Korematsu v US, including the falsification of evidence by the Executive. Hell, the US levelled virtually every urban region in Japan. I doubt America, especially under Roosevelt, cared deeply for the atrocities taking place in China. They just didn't want Japan to threaten nearby Allied territories.


thedivinemonkey298 t1_iy164qv wrote

So diplomacy didn’t work, better bomb Pearl Harbor. This is terrible rationale.


TotallyInOverMyHead t1_iy1dahe wrote

It would have worked if any of the following would have happened:

  1. kill/sink all U.S. Carriers (4x) in their berths, or
  2. have the carrier strike group include an invasion force and take Hawaii, or
  3. destroy the Fuel Depots on Hawaii, or
  4. Stick around for more than 3 attack runs and kill the remaining 4 carriers while at sea.


As such history has been written and one only speaks Japanese in the U.S. for fun.


TheMormonJosipTito t1_iy1fn1a wrote

Even if they had sunk all the carriers it only would have bought them a few months. U.S. naval industrial capacity was leagues ahead of what Japan could produce and they would have been outgunned sooner or later. Really the only path for a win in the pacific was for the U.S. to decide it wasn’t worth it, though even still Japan would have collapsed from resource shortages and the later Soviet invasion eventually.


ppitm t1_iy1g1f3 wrote

Yeah, sinking carriers in their berths means that the flight crews probably survive. The U.S. would have just lost a few additional islands before building more carriers with a lot of pissed-off aviators on board.


SolomonBlack t1_iy1lpb7 wrote

I mean if they really took Hawaii I could see that stretching out to years because the Pacific is the biggest thing on Earth and ships only carried so much coal.

Yet for much the same reason I doubt Japan could have seriously taken and held Hawaii while doing all the other smashing and grabbing they needed to do. If they had the resources for that they wouldn’t have needed the war in the first place.


chronoboy1985 t1_iy1zzbi wrote

They would’ve had to constantly bomb every naval construction yard, dry dock and plane factory in the country to keep them from spitting out planes and ships, which would’ve been suicidal given the insane speed the US was pumping out war planes alone.


-heathcliffe- t1_iy26ivz wrote

Shit we were even building ships in the great lakes, unless Canada joins the axis, there is zero chance in shutting down America’s ww2 shipyards.


SolomonBlack t1_iy2cgjo wrote

A navy sails upon its stomach.

Every day underway appreciably depletes your stores. Once upon a time I could probably tell you how many weeks since we did UNREP by what sauces the galley had left. A1 was gone first and by like week three even the ketchup started disappearing. Somehow never the 57 sauce though.

Anyways point being no matter how much you build its got to sail across the Pacific to actually do any good. And the farther you have to go without a friendly harbor to drop into for resupply and repair the more problems you will have. It may not stop you completely but your logistical situation is always paramount.

Not for nothing did the US adopt the strategy of island hopping, instead of just building up a big force to sail into Tokyo Bay like our name was Perry.


-heathcliffe- t1_iy265xu wrote

They had no intention to take Hawaii, the attack on pearl harbor was an extreme strain on their resources, an invasion was literally impossible.


raziel1012 t1_iy25nr2 wrote

Their initial strategy was exactly to buy those months and then heavily fortify the islands and have a strong defensive area set up by the time US had built up its navy again. (Aka what you said: make it less worth it for US) They surely would be outgunned in the longer term, but they were hoping to make the mid term gain strong and force US to the negotiating table. Would it have worked? Who knows.


slicerprime t1_iy2c93k wrote

>Would it have worked?


As has been said elsewhere, the scale and pace of US military production at the time was just too strong. That "long term" you mention would probably have been very short. Far too short for a "mid term gain" of drawing the US to the negotiating table. The US reaction would have been the same as it was, only probably even more pissed off.


TotallyInOverMyHead t1_iy3yty6 wrote

The long term would have included a collapsed Britain and a German Soviet Union, maybe even a Japanse Australia, at least in the minds of the Japanese.


Drs83 t1_iy1n9ik wrote

None of those would have resulted in Japanese victory. They would have prolonged the conflict a bit but Japan never had any chance of defeating the USA unless the USA just gave up.


TotallyInOverMyHead t1_iy3xu4m wrote

> but Japan never had any chance of defeating the USA


It was all about delaying and holding the Americans in the pacific. If any of my bullet points above would have been achieved it would have made America shift focus from the Atlantic to the pacific in order to secure the homeland.

That would have spelled doom for Britain (), that only held on by a thread due to American Lend lease - and the Soviets (that were supplied 400k jeeps/Trucks, 8k tractors, 13k tanks, 14k planes, 350 locomotives, 1.5mil blakets, 30 mil boots, 4.5mil tons of food via Iran [likely unaffected], Vladivostok [likely affected] and Archangel/Murmansk [likely affected]),

Not being able to control the pacific for a couple of months also would have spelled doom for the chinese that where supplied via the pacific (about 1/10th of what Russia received). And have delayed/scrapped operations in SE Asia, dependant on how far along the Japanase would have made it.

It is quite easy to look at this with hindsight, taking industrial figures into account and forgetting about the phsycological effect of having the enemy in your backyard, claiming your dog as their own.


Drs83 t1_iy5zk1u wrote

The Japanese strategy at the time was built on the idea that they would win a decisive navel battle which would cause the United States to just decide it wasn't worth it and they'd quit. Even after Pearl Harbor they were trying to accomplish this through 1942 - 1943 when it finally dawned on the few reasonable individuals in leadership that they were going to lose.

The Japanese really had no intention of working with the Germans to accomplish much of anything and didn't really concern themselves with what was happening in Europe. The United States didn't use military force in Europe until Germany declared war on them. Some would even wonder if Germany hadn't declared war if the USA would have ever sent troops over. Even before Stalingrad, the Japanese were under the correct assumption that the Germans were not going to find success against the Russians. They were very resistant to offering any military support that might bring the Soviets into the conflict.

The Japanese simply made a wrong assumption about the military dedication of the United States once sovereign territory had been attacked. There were more than a few reasonable individuals in the Japanese government who tried desperately to dissuade Hideki Tōjō's hawkish desire to neutralize American holdings. The reality of the situation is that if the Japanese had not attacked any US holdings in the Pacific, the United States probably wouldn't have been drawn into al-out war and things would have gone better for the Japanese.


EletricDice t1_iy1sj1g wrote

How are the Japanese going to supply an invasion force in Hawaii? Admiral Nagumo was worried that if he didn't start back after the 2nd wave he would have to scuttle some destroyers due to lack of fuel.
If Nagumo does a third wave his pilots have to land at night, of which they are not trained to do so. If he loses a quarter of his pilots he can't replace then with equal quality. He basically loses a carrier or two due to not having pilots. If its a disaster he might not have enough power to project meaningful air power at sea. Several planned invasions would have to be scrapped. Destroying the fuel depots or sinking the carriers buys time, but neither are going to be long term game changers. The US can replace the fuel, and the US built (many) more ships from Pear Harbor to 1945 then Japan built plus its pre war navy.


chronoboy1985 t1_iy1zjq1 wrote

It wouldn’t have worked no matter what they did unless they could cripple American industrial capacity, which would’ve required a very misguided invasion attempt. Their entire rationale was gambling that Americans wouldn’t have the stomach for a long war and would sue for peace once they lost the upper hand. Even had they decimated Hawaii, it would’ve just been a setback. Japan simply spread itself far too thin.


vidivicivini t1_iy1f2va wrote

It would have worked in the short term but it would have set up a reckoning had the US been forced to accept a temporary defeat.


Every-Citron1998 t1_iy1li8h wrote

A more successful Pearl Harbor only delays the inevitable. Japan was wrong that attacking the British and Dutch would lead to war with America as there was no American appetite to declare war to protect European colonies.


raziel1012 t1_iy25uti wrote

On the other hand, US had already told Japan to leave Manchuria.


SuperSocrates t1_iy1ltin wrote

They were never planning to invade and take over the country…


Doberman7290 t1_iy21nu3 wrote

It would have never worked. You know it , I Know it , the world knows it.

Your four bullet points are funny - none could have been accomplished.

When the Japanese Navy stood toe to toe with the USA they went to the bottom.

That is history.


raziel1012 t1_iy26cvp wrote

Nagumo's decision to only stick to two waves wasn't unfounded. His losses, comparing the second wave to first wave, mounted significantly as US' air defenses were coming on line.


SuppliceVI t1_iy2ibmz wrote

It would have slowed the war by at best a few months.

Japanese industry was basically non-existent, and US industry generated a Naval force that multitudes stronger than Japan's in very short time.

Japan was entirely in over their heads and even if the entirety of the US Navy was lost, the end result would have been the same.


Drs83 t1_iy64qks wrote

Some people don't realize just how much larger the US navy was in 1945 than the Japanese navy ever was. It was around a 4 to 1 ratio of major combat surface ships (carriers, destroyers, cruisers, etc) in favor of the United States. That's not accounting for the merchant fleet which was closer to a 10 to 1 ratio.


asdf9988776655 t1_iy3p259 wrote

No. The attack, even if successful beyond the Japanese wildest dreams, would have only delayed America's offensive across the Pacific.

The only way to win a total war against a major power is to destroy their ability to wage war. Japan did not have the capability to damage America's ability to wage war (since America's resource and industrial base were in the continental US, out of reach of Japan's striking power), so at best the could fight a delaying action.


>kill/sink all U.S. Carriers (4x) in their berths,

This would have delayed the US by about a year. It would have given Japan a great opportunity to consolidate their holdings in the Pacific and SE Asia and made it a harder slog for America, but it would not have stopped them.

>have the carrier strike group include an invasion force and take Hawaii

The US had 30,000 troops on Hawaii; this means it would take roughly 120,000 troops for the Japanese to launch a successful invasion. This is about the size of the D-day landing in Normandy in 1944; Japan simply did not have the ability to land and supply that size of an invasion across thousands of miles of sea.

>destroy the Fuel Depots on Hawaii

This would have delayed the US by several months as they rebuilt their logistic network, but it wouldn't have damaged America's ability to actually wage war, since their fuel production facilities were all on the mainland, safe from attack.


Seienchin88 t1_iy1deds wrote

You are missing a critical piece of information here - the US embargoed Japan‘s access to oil meaning the Japanese Empire was mere month away from collapsing (and while this might have been desirable the outcome would have been monstrous on everyone involved, mass starvation and likely mass looting across China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam (which the Japanese snatched from the French) or having to accept the American demands and withdrawing from Vietnam and China completely (which obviously would have been the right moral choice but no politician in Japan could order such a thing without serious risk of assassination). The US also stationed long range bombers in the Philippines further endangering the Japanese transports and colonies.

So, Japan saw no option but to strike at the European colonies which had oil but expected the US to then strike Japan (as the US guaranteed the colonial possessions of the Europeans). This is why they attacked Pearl Harbor- to strengthen their chances for this desperate plan.

And of course Japan should have never attacked China and start the war in Asia but they really didnt have much options. Roosevelt (who btw. never even engaged into any talks with Japan after the embargo) masterfully forced Japan to attack (although he likely anticipated Japan just attacking the European colonies) and bring the US into war where hus priority was Europe though (he always pushed for Europe over the pacific despite the Japanese attacking the US first).


Peaurxnanski t1_iy1oher wrote

Why did the US embargo them, and what were the terms to lift the embargo?

Japan was engaged in a brutal, genocidal campaign invading China and slaughtering millions.

The USA said "stop doing that or we'll cut off your oil supply"

All Japan had to do is stop invading and murdering China, and the US would sell them oil.

The US wasn't the bad guy, and they did nothing to deserve Pearl Harbor except try to stop a genocide using diplomatic means


[deleted] t1_iy1uilk wrote



Peaurxnanski t1_iy1wntt wrote

The terms of lifting the embargo explicitly called for Japan to stop genociding China. That's what it said, and it's what I said.

Ascribing a motive to that is certainly your right, but I'd be interested to see how "stop genociding China" ties into US interest in the Philippines. Since you ascribed the motive, I'd be interested to see how you think it ties in.


Seienchin88 t1_iy28trd wrote

Am I going insane…? That is exactly what I wrote in my post…

Retreating would have obviously been the morally right choice (or rather not even starting at all) but nobody in the Japanese high command dared to even entertain that idea after so many losses and also politicians getting murdered for opposing the military… Of course its their fault but that doesnt change the fact that telling an imperialist country to just stop a war and give back most colonial possessions obviously isnt gonna work… And the US didnt try to stop a "genocide" using diplomatic means - thats simply dishonest. The US didnt care a whole lot in the 4 years prior (wouldn’t the Nanjing massacre be a much better reason for an embargo?). They embargoed Japan when the started seizing European colonies and because Roosevelt wanted to get the US active in Europe and Asia to stop the fascist threat to the world - and yes that is a really good motive to go to war for but its different from simply trying to help Chinese civilians… (which the US didnt have as a focus at all during WW2)


[deleted] t1_iy1nzob wrote



Coloradostoneman t1_iy1t0v1 wrote

Roosevelt was not the bad guy, but he definitely forced Japan's hand.


Roosevelt did not allow Japan to continue the genocide. That is the point. Stopping the war in China was not really an option for Japan. Technically, they could have, but everyone knew they would not. The actions of Roosevelt resulted in the Pearl harbor attack. That is exactly why it was done, and that is a good thing. Roosevelt wanted in to the war, but the US public was not interested. By forcing Japan to attack Roosevelt could make the US population interested.

The only way to get the US into the war with a motivated population was to make someone punch the US. The only one that would and could hit the US was Japan and their hand could be forced.


[deleted] t1_iy1umc1 wrote



Coloradostoneman t1_iy2cufs wrote

Roosevelt did not allow Japan to continue the genocide. That is the point. Stopping the war in China was not really an option for Japan. Technically, they could have, but everyone knew they would not. The actions of Roosevelt resulted in the Pearl harbor attack. That is exactly why it was done, and that is a good thing. Roosevelt wanted in to the war, but the US public was not interested. By forcing Japan to attack Roosevelt could make the US population interested.

The only way to get the US into the war with a motivated population was to make someone punch the US. The only one that would and could hit the US was Japan and their hand could be forced.


Doberman7290 t1_iy221pq wrote

It was Truman that really forced their hand. Buck stops here


Coloradostoneman t1_iy2c67o wrote

As a senator?


notoneforusernames t1_iy2ldvk wrote

You have to wonder if these people are bots from someplace that would benefit from this flavor of revisionist history. They're all using the "forced their hand" verbiage


sharksnut t1_iy1j146 wrote

>the US embargoed Japan‘s access to oil meaning the Japanese Empire was mere month away from collapsing

They had the entire rest of the world from whom to purchase oil.


Nickrobl t1_iy1mr33 wrote

The list of possible exporters for Japan in 1940 is much smaller than you might expect, especially when the US/UK/Dutch cut you off and pressure their allies and companies to do likewise.


sharksnut t1_iy1son9 wrote

>UK/Dutch cut you off

Again, which have nothing to do with the US embargo

If you've alienated multiple trading partners with your genocidal ways, that's on you


SuperSocrates t1_iy1lq0l wrote

It’s kinda hard to just replace 80% of your oil supply


sharksnut t1_iy1t3cw wrote

Right, so maybe Step 1 is throttle down your push for expansionist empire rather than throttle up genocide and war crimes


TakeBeerBenchinHilux t1_iy1mrfv wrote

Plenty of oil in Manchukuo and Indonesia. But somehow the Kaigun decided it was a good idea to open another front on Hawaii where there's no oil.


Coloradostoneman t1_iy1rvr6 wrote

The attack on Hawaii makes perfect sense if you think a war with the US in the Pacific is inevitable. They did because of 3 factors: US declared that European Colonies in the area were off limits and those were the places that had oil. The US was essentially the sole supplier of oil to Japan before the war and had just declared an embargo. The US territory of the Philippines was between Japan and all of the critical resources in south east Asia and Australia.

Basically, the US put Japan in a corner with a short time line by cutting off the oil supply. Japan had to find more oil and to do so they had to invade the colonies which the US had said would mean war and shipping that oil would be impossibly vulnerable without attacking the Philippines which would mean war with the US.

If you are going to fight a war with the US you have to hit Hawaii first and with a huge and successfull strike. Projecting power across the Pacific without Hawaii is essentially impossible.


Doberman7290 t1_iy226m1 wrote

But a war was avoidable - the Reich was furious. They knew it was bad news


Coloradostoneman t1_iy2doj9 wrote

How could Japan avoid a war with the US. Their supply of oil was cut off and they had no way to get more without a war with the US. They couldn't just stop the war in China. They were committed and the political and cultural situation made stopping impossible. The Oil embargo was a masterpiece. There were no bad outcomes from Roosevelt's perspective. It allows the US to get into the war with a motivated population. In November 1941 the US population did not want to be a part of the war. Without the US, Britian falls. Without Britian, the are no distractions for a Germany invading russia (North Africa) without those distractions and US lend lease to the USSR and Germany probably wins there.

Every leader knew the US people had to be convinced to join. That meant a brutal but impotent attack on US soil. Thus pearl harbor with all the carriers elsewhere.


Doberman7290 t1_iy2j2d6 wrote

Man you got it all wrong. I’ll come back tomorrow


Coloradostoneman t1_iy5ou8u wrote

I notice you have down voted but not replied. Which of my statements were wrong and why?


Coloradostoneman t1_iy2o640 wrote

Which bits are wrong? Please be explicit and provide your explanations


TakeBeerBenchinHilux t1_iy5304i wrote

Perfect sense didn't end well over the next 4 years...


Coloradostoneman t1_iy5ojmt wrote

no, It did not end well and they pretty much knew they were screwed when the carriers were not there. It was a long shot, but they did not feel that they had a choice.


TakeBeerBenchinHilux t1_iy6u5lm wrote

Yes, no choice. No choice but to rape through China, Southeast Asia, blitz Pearl Harbor and occupy the Aluetians. Manchuria, Taiwan and Korea wasn't enough resources. Hail Mary through the Philippines, Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia, Malysia, northern Australia, Micronesia, Polynesia and even Papua New Guinea for some reason, right?


Coloradostoneman t1_iy76y79 wrote

Notice I said "they did not FEEL that they had a choice" not that they didn't.

All I said they had no real choice on was attacking pearl harbor. And given that the other option was packing it all in because they had no oil, which was culturally and politically untenable, no, they did not really have a choice in their mind.

Were there technically other options? Yes, there usually are. Was there any chance they would be taken? No. In the Japan of the time ending the war was literally death for the commanders.


Coloradostoneman t1_iy5pa95 wrote

Some group seems to really not like your completely correct analysis here.


Seienchin88 t1_iy5tll9 wrote

Dont know some people just are incapable when it comes to nuance when it comes to the pacific war… no idea why?


Nickrobl t1_iy1ldj6 wrote

I agree. It wasn't about picking a good choice, Japan just picked what they thought was the "least bad" out of a number of even worse/unacceptable options.


huntimir151 t1_iy1r1yq wrote

Yeah, and their arithmetic included butchering civilians throughout southeast Asia as part of their delusions regarding their own superiority. Like nothing justified those choices it was Nazi level insanity, not pure realpolitik.


Nickrobl t1_iy3nxcq wrote

I'm not saying it is a moral or correct choice, just that leaving China was a non-starter for their government. As a result, the leadership felt they only had bad choices left and picked the least bad one from their point of view.


daveashaw t1_iy16ip4 wrote

Of course, it didn't turn out to be a war of "mutual destruction" at all.


Raspberries2 t1_iy1cgls wrote

Germany and the Soviet Union had a deal too, until they didn’t. Even if a treat or peace happened, Japan would have attacked.


Kirito619 t1_iy1dryz wrote

That's not true. Japan wanted to expand control in Asia. They needed oil. USA embargoed Japan so they don't get oiĺ anymore. Japan attacked USA because of oil.

If USA backed off and let them have oil, Japan would never attack them. They would focus on Asia.


awolbull t1_iy1qchg wrote

You forgot to include why the US embargoed oil.


Raspberries2 t1_iy1edxv wrote

No. Japan was creating an empire which means many attacks on many nations were to come.


Coloradostoneman t1_iy2bcub wrote

I think they would have gone to some pretty extreme efforts to not go to war with us.

When you look at most of the basic industries for war, the US had a HUGE lead over the rest of the world. And the US industrial heartland was essentially untouchable. Nobody wanted to go to war with the US.


Kirito619 t1_iy1ejus wrote

An empire in Asia, they were not strong enough to wage war across the world.


skoomski t1_iy1rfkl wrote

So in your logic they attack the US and then they lift the embargo? They captured the Dutch East Indies and their oil did them little good as they did not have the expertise to refine and never had enough ships to transport it. It was a historic blunder based on hubris no matter how you cut it.


tagyhag t1_iy274qk wrote

A LOT of Asia was owned by the West back then.


Augustus923 t1_iy26ejt wrote

The problem was Japan wanted the U.S. to keep supplying Japan with oil and other materials but the Japanese were not willing to change their conduct. In a negotiation both sides must be willing to give on certain points.


Fresh-Ad4987 t1_iy2wce6 wrote

Right, we need to remember that Pearl Harbor was a retaliation for the US asset freezing and oil cutoffs. It wasn’t unprovoked as is commonly portrayed. The imperial war machine was running on high back then.


dukedanchen8 t1_iy2fym1 wrote

There was Prince Tokugawa Iesato in the late-1930s to early-1940s who warned the US of radical ultra-militarism and fascism, sadly he died in 1940 due to cancer, a year before the 1941 attack. Also, after his death the ultra-militarists took over the government and gained total power at that point. I think he and several other Japanese nobles who were pro-moderates tried to maintain the Anglo-Japanese Alliance to foster greater relationships with the Western Powers to championed a form of moderate representative democracy.

In addition, Prince Fumimaro Konoe (who was wrongfully tried by the [American] Allies after the surrender of Imperial Japan for his failure to exonerate the Emperor for supposed war crimes) and some other Japanese nobles tried to stop the ultra-militarists from taking over Imperial Japan, but to no avail.

Thus, this war costed the Japanese Empire their Imperial government, downsizing of their Imperial family, abolition of their peerage nobility/hereditary aristocracy, and loss of territories.


gadlele t1_iy2lztf wrote

Too bad Pio XII was one of the worst popes of all time. He was pretty friendly with Mussolini and signed deals with him that we as a nation are still paying today.


superbit415 t1_iy2n0yv wrote

The Japanese civilian government before Tojo did try their best to avoid a war but people on both sides did not want to listen. War became inevitable. I am however surprised that the narrative in the west still exist that pearl harbor was totally unprovoked. The US and the British had been provoking the Japanese for months at that point.


shantipole t1_iy6awzj wrote

Provoked only in the "how dare you not sell me the supplies I need to commit more atrocities" meaning of the word.