Would the Pacific war have happened without the European war

[Karl Heidenreich]

Yamamoto didn´t want, in concept, a war with the US. But when the embargo problem aroused he and his faction, Combined Fleet faction, were the ones that pushed operations in the Central Pacific which meant Pearl.
It seems that western historians had given, as settled, the claims of Fuchida about everything Yamamoto and who were the bad guys and who the ones that did their duty... Just as Guderian or Manstein, both of them blameless of Germany´s actions whilst not so, at the end....
For the European Theatre is good to read Anthony Beevor and John Keegan, both of them destroyed a lot of mythos about the German holy cows... And it´s good to read Parshall and Tully for the same at Pacific Front.

[lwd]

I was under the impression Yamamoto didn't want war with the US. Is that not true? I was also under the impression he wasn't high enough in the heirarchy to make a difference anyway.

He didn't because he had a pretty good idea of the US industrial capability.

If the Japanese invaded French Indochina, they would be at war with France, right?

Well they occupied French Indochna but Vichy France could hardly declare war on Germany's ally. Also I think the claim was a sort of protective custody claim rather than outright annexation. I suspected the Free French were considerably more upset and more vocal although they had little choice but to let the US and British try the economic club first (somehow diplomacy just didn't seam to be the right word).

[Bgile]

I was under the impression Yamamoto didn't want war with the US. Is that not true? I was also under the impression he wasn't high enough in the heirarchy to make a difference anyway.

He didn't because he had a pretty good idea of the US industrial capability.

If the Japanese invaded French Indochina, they would be at war with France, right?

Well they occupied French Indochna but Vichy France could hardly declare war on Germany's ally. Also I think the claim was a sort of protective custody claim rather than outright annexation. I suspected the Free French were considerably more upset and more vocal although they had little choice but to let the US and British try the economic club first (somehow diplomacy just didn't seam to be the right word).

My point is we aren't talking about Free France or Vichy France in this AH. We are talking about France France.

[lwd]

...
My point is we aren't talking about Free France or Vichy France in this AH. We are talking about France France.

Sorry missed that. Indeed I didn't even think of them trying it in this time line. While the French fleet would not hold up well to the Japanese fleet especially in the Pacfic the additional force is more than the Japanese can take if they are fighting the US as well. Especially as it might lead to a French Japanese war that the US joined in on. If the Japanese can't get a powerful first strike they are really in trouble.

[RF]

Let's step back a bit. Why wasn't there a European war? One possibility is that something happened and the Nazi's never came to power. From what I'm reading in The Wages of Destruction they were actually on a down swing as far as strength goes when Hitler became chanceler.

Your last sentence is absolutely correct, in the last genuine free election in Weimar Germany the NSDAP (the Nazi Party) lost votes and seats. But the German KPD (Communist Party) continued to gain in votes and seats, which contributed to President Hindenburg accepting Franz von Papen's proposal to make Hitler Chancellor with von Papen as vice-Chancellor so that the Nazis could be ''controlled.'' History records the subsequent control to be the other way round from that intended.

Without Hitler there would have been no Third Reich. And in the early 1930's anything could have happened to Hitler - such as death by aircrash, murder by political rivals, both within and without the NSDAP, or simply his career terminated by the fallout from the suicide of his neice becoming public instead of hushed up. Or of course not being offered the Chancellorship at all.

[RF]

Let´s remember that the Japanese Army was not that interested, by 1941, to wage war against the US. Their main interest was to control their situation in China and, of course, the seizing of important mineral and raw material assets. The Navy, in this case Yamamoto, was the branch pushing for a war against the US and, more important, doing so giving the US Pacific Fleet a decisive blow at the onset of the war. After all, the Navy was the branch more affected by any embargo.
Conventionally the western view is that of an Army pressing the inmaculate Navy (and Yamamoto) to an undesired war which they did their best to win. No one says the IJA was not guilty of putting the Empire in the path of war, but the Navy did their share, too, specially Yamamoto. At least, even with nazis in power in Europe the Japanese Empire could not have gone to war with the US. But, again, their perception was of an unavoidable conflict due to the grievances inflicted against their nation.

Besty regards...

What evidence is there that Yamamoto was pushing for war against the US? My understanding was that Yamamoto, who had been to and lived in the US, was opposed to war with the US because he understood what a substantial enemy it would be, that to defeat the US would mean, in Yamamoto's own words, '' not stopping at San Francisco or San Diego or even Chicago, they (the Japanese) would have to take the White House and dictate terms in the Oval Office.'' And he was right.

Only with the Army completely in control of government and the Emporer in favour of war did Yamamoto follow his duty in executing the attack on Pearl Harbor.

If anyone has contradicting evidence I would like to see it.

[RF]

The raw material crisis was starting to effect just about every aspect of Japan.

Yes, if we take July 1941 as a standpoint.

My proposition considers Japan not reaching this position, by going back much earlier, where the ''China incident'' is either contained or doesn't happen at all.

[RF]

If the Japanese invaded French Indochina, they would be at war with France, right?

Wrong.

''Officially'' according to the French/Japanese communiques, the Vichy authorities ''invited'' the Japanese in, rather like Czech President Emil Hacha appealing to Hitler to send in German troops to the rump Czechoslovakia in March 1939 to protect the Czechs from ''disorder'' that was obvious from its non-existence.
In 1940/41 there had been conflict between the Thai Army and French troops over the borders of what is now Laos and Cambodia and the Japanese took full advantage of this.

[RF]

Yamamoto didn´t want, in concept, a war with the US. But when the embargo problem aroused he and his faction, Combined Fleet faction, were the ones that pushed operations in the Central Pacific which meant Pearl.

Yamamoto's view, as expressed to Konoye, was to strike a single blow to wipe out the US Pacific Fleet, which would be Japan's only hope of victory against the US. Any other action against the US would be disastrous for the Japanese, and his view was that Japan had to finish the war within 12 months, afterwhich nothing could be guaranteed on the part of the IJN.

[RF]

Another aspect to the fuel embargo situation - what if the Japanese had proceeded as they did on 7th December 1941 with hostilities against the British and Dutch but without attacking the US?
Would the US declare war if the Japanese invaded Malaya and the East Indies only, bearing in mind Congress has to make that decision?
In the meantime the oil supplies could be secured, without risk of attack from the US.

My own view, given the hole the Japanese were in, is that would have been their best course of action - but relying on the US Fleet threat being eliminated by US neutrality would be an immense gamble.

[lwd]

The raw material crisis was starting to effect just about every aspect of Japan.

Yes, if we take July 1941 as a standpoint.
My proposition considers Japan not reaching this position, by going back much earlier, where the ''China incident'' is either contained or doesn't happen at all.

The train is in motion by 38. Pretty hard to stop after that. However if the "China incident" as you say is contained or doesn't happen I see relations between the US and Japan improving. They are natural trading partners for one thing and share a lot of interest in common. In this case there may still be a Pacific war but likely it's between Japan and either the Soviet Union or one of the European powers (France or Holand perhaps).

If the Japanese invaded French Indochina, they would be at war with France, right?

Wrong.
''Officially'' according to the French/Japanese communiques, the Vichy authorities ''invited'' the Japanese in, ....

Bgile reminded us earlier that in this scenario there is no Vichy France.

Another aspect to the fuel embargo situation - what if the Japanese had proceeded as they did on 7th December 1941 with hostilities against the British and Dutch but without attacking the US?
Would the US declare war if the Japanese invaded Malaya and the East Indies only, bearing in mind Congress has to make that decision?....

Almost assuredly. It might take a little while but that makes things even worse for the Japanese because it pretty much precludes a surprise attack and the US position in the Philippines may be much stronger.

[RF]

Bgile reminded us earlier that in this scenario there is no Vichy France.

In that case clearly a war situation,

[RF]

The train is in motion by 38. Pretty hard to stop after that. However if the "China incident" as you say is contained or doesn't happen I see relations between the US and Japan improving. They are natural trading partners for one thing and share a lot of interest in common. In this case there may still be a Pacific war but likely it's between Japan and either the Soviet Union or one of the European powers (France or Holand perhaps).

I would agree with this. In fact it would almost be a straight jump from mid 1930's to the 1960's with Japan retaining its bits of China. As a trader the Japanese zaibatsu interests would prevail over the military and as an economic powerhouse Japan would have no need to resort to aggressive war.
Japan would also be a key military player in the Cold War - which would keep the military occuppied, and almost certainly there would be no communist China or Vietnam war.

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

What evidence is there that Yamamoto was pushing for war against the US? My understanding was that Yamamoto, who had been to and lived in the US, was opposed to war with the US because he understood what a substantial enemy it would be, that to defeat the US would mean, in Yamamoto's own words, '' not stopping at San Francisco or San Diego or even Chicago, they (the Japanese) would have to take the White House and dictate terms in the Oval Office.'' And he was right.

Only with the Army completely in control of government and the Emporer in favour of war did Yamamoto follow his duty in executing the attack on Pearl Harbor.

If anyone has contradicting evidence I would like to see it.

I don´t have my copy of Shattered Sword with me right now. I´ll try to retrieve it this weekend and quote directly from it and the original sources. And that´s the good thing about this book because the references are primary, not secondary so it eludes unecessary interference from previous and biased interpretations.
I look in the Shattered Sword webpage but those pasages are not there. Anyhow there are other quite interesting and worth reading, which I invite to do:

For the main page:

http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/

For the PDF introduction, which says a bit about Yamamoto mishandling of things...

http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/Shatt ... uction.pdf

Best regards

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

The train is in motion by 38. Pretty hard to stop after that. However if the "China incident" as you say is contained or doesn't happen I see relations between the US and Japan improving. They are natural trading partners for one thing and share a lot of interest in common. In this case there may still be a Pacific war but likely it's between Japan and either the Soviet Union or one of the European powers (France or Holand perhaps).

RF:

I would agree with this. In fact it would almost be a straight jump from mid 1930's to the 1960's with Japan retaining its bits of China. As a trader the Japanese zaibatsu interests would prevail over the military and as an economic powerhouse Japan would have no need to resort to aggressive war.
Japan would also be a key military player in the Cold War - which would keep the military occuppied, and almost certainly there would be no communist China or Vietnam war.

I´m not that overly optimistic about this notion of Japanese objective thinking. Let´s remember that these people disliked (and many still do) westerners. Both, the US and GB, did a great deal exploiting asiatics and the only way Japan forbade this from happening to them was to arm themselves to their teeth. And after WWI the western powers put it hard to them with the Naval Treaties which gave the Japanese an inferior status to the US and GB. Yamamoto was a witness to this opposition from the japanese "fleet faction" that more than once threatened to kill him because his support to the treaties.
Anyway the political and military japanese view of western powers, specially the US, was not a good one and, with the treaties and the US position over China and, later, Indochina, would have triggered the war anyway. Again, no need of facist rulers in Europe. When the IJN fought Russia they didn´t seek, and didn´t need, the support of any other foreign regime. As a matter of fact in their war in the Pacific they were reluctant to colaborate in any way with Germany.

Best regards...