What if japan never attacked us?how would of/if,we entered ww2?

the Germans were sinking ships inside the 3 mile limit. That's what got us into the First one and probably would have eventually gotten enough folks mad enough to quit being isolationists. I think the big bear still would have eventually taken Germany out even without us

If war had not come on December 7, 1941, it would have come eventually. The Japanese aggression in the East would have created some other incident to allow Roosevelt to declare war.

We were in the war already. We were doing lend/lease with the Brits and Russians and had supplied the French as well. Americans were flying in the RAF. The AVG, Flying Tigers, were, for all intents and purposes, an American unit fighting the Japanese. Neutrality existed only on paper. We were already very heavily involved in the war by the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Hi all

Slightly off subject, but I once mentioned the Eagle Squadron pilots to my mother, who was 20 years old when WW2 began. You should have seen her face light up! As far as she was concerned, those guys were THE BEST OF THE BEST!!

We won't forget how they risked their lives when we were at our lowest point...

Thankyou from everyone this side of "The Pond..."

Rowan

A war with Japan was inevitable. We would have done something to preclude them taking more of China, or oil from Borneo or the riches of Burma while Europe was at war. It would have been the result of a series of shoving matches that just erupted into a full scale fight. Would the American public have backed a non-Peral Harbor war?

yeah now that I think of it all your answers are right.
I don't think they would,it might have turned out to be just like vietnam with most people stiffly oposing the war

Maybe, I wonder if the parallel is the current action in Iraq. Are we seeing the erosion of support because (1.) Big Bad Guy has not been caught and (2) WMDs have not been discovered and may never be found. Interesting point to explore in view of your question. Without a provocative action can you create and sustain a popular support of the war effort? It is difficult as we saw in Korea and Vietnam. It is essential if you want to gain your objectives....which would have been what if there was no Pearl Harbor?
DJ

I think Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour America would still have been drawn into WW2. The US had been trying to impose economic sanctions on Japan before the war and it seems that unless Japan had stopped their expansion in the far east the US would have taken millitary steps. As has been mentioned the US was already giving important aid to Britain so were already involved in the European war. It was inevitable that the US would be drawn into WW2. Once that happened there could only be one outcome, no one could match the industrial might of the American nation.
Martin

Martin--I support your logic trail, but once again I am focusing on the absence of the traumatic initiator event. No shock to the system (ala Pearl Harbor) how do you sale your need to battle Japan? What are your war objectives? Parallels to Iraq situation?
DJ

I see your point DJ about how the public in America could need persuading of the NEED for the US to go to war without there having been a direct attack on the US. I have read that there were large bodies of opinion both for and against US involvment in the war before Pearl Harbour. I'm sure the government could have done a good propaganda job to get support though if they felt the need. For instance they could have used the atrocities comitted by both the Germans (against the Jews) and Japanese (against the Chinese) to drum up public opinion. I think back then people were less likely to question their political leaders than today, when up to the minute coverage of war brings to people's living rooms the true horror of armed conflict. American involvment in WW2 without the Pearl Harbour attack would have stood up to scrutiny after the war, even to those with strong reservations.
Martin

Martin--I am tracking with you, but need to ask once again....what would the US war objectives be in the circumstances we are examining? Do you go for unconditional surrender?
DJ

IMHO, unlikely, Martin. As it was, the holocaust got scant coverage in the states, even late into the war. Anti-semitism was much more prevelant aqnd acceptable here in the 40's than it is today. The Japanese attrocities against the Chinese had even less impact. It wasn't until after PH and Bataan that the Hollywood/Washington propoganda machine started portraying the Japanese as using inhumane tactics, and then against Americans. The plight of the Jews was never used in the war flms of the period. The worst you might see is the massacre or partisans by the SS types.

DJ, I just think there was an inevitability that the US would be drawn in. Once in they would have gone 100% for outright victory. Churchill knew this as he said in his famous speach about the free world falling into a Dark Abyss that the "new world" would come to the aid of those already fighting. He was a wily old devil, stroies came up that the British knew of Japanes plans to attack the US and they witheld the info from the US. Another thing I thought about, would the US stand back and watch as the Russians defeated the Germans and became the supreme millitary power in the world?
AJ maybe I didn't pick the correct subjects but I'm sure the US govt could have convinced the people of their need to become involved. From a purely economic point of view it was in the US interests to join the allies, they had just come out of the depression and their massive industrial growth meant that they were the only country to come out of the war richer than they started. I'm not saying that would have been their driving force behind becoming involved but I do think they could have carried public opinion with them.
Martin

Okay, this is where I am not connecting with either Martin or Al. Today, we see the American military in Iraq. Their presence there is questioned and I anticipate more of the same in the near future. War with Iraq was just as inevitable as with Japan in the '40s. Did we lay out clear objectives for Iraq for people to understand? Apparently not, for the Congress is now asking "what are we doing there?" A good question because we are at the same point as was the case in August 1945. It's unconditional surrender by default in Iraq. Now, we have this former Nation what are we going to do with it? Same question would have been asked after Tarawa in 1943, "what are we doing?"
If you do not maintain popular support by clearly and unambiguously detailing what we are going to do, your support diminishes....I realize you have to keep your cards close to your chest at times, but we are an open society.
What do you think?
DJ

DJ, I think that today's situation in Iraq was only inevitable when Bush jr was elected and 911 happened. Take away either event and I doubt the invasion would have happened. I think the big diference is that in 1941 the war had already been going on for 2 years and the opposing forces had clearly defined motives, it was easy to show the war as fighting aggression and invading forces. Similarly with the Falklands war, the whole basis of the government winning massive public support was to show that they were fighting an invading force. Keeping public support in a democracy when you invade another country has shown to be almost impossible

Martin--as you correctly point out in each case (Falklands, 911) there was a traumatizing event that cause the population to support aggressive actions to defend the homelands. That is the fusing action which propels unified coherent action to take place. Now, I want to return to the "what if" portion. Without Pearl Harbor, you would have had a very tough sell that Japan was a threat to the American people. They might have voiced an opinion in a poll that they did care for the Japanese people, but go to war, I doubt it. Let me give you another one that comes to mind. We wanted (and still do) a regime change in Cuba. If Fidel Castro was linked to the assaination of Kennedy, we would have crushed him like a bug. However, we could never link him to the murder. Probably because he had nothing to do with it. My point is that we do not like the way he runs the island, but there is no ground swell of public opinion to invade Cuba. In fact, if we did the American public would rightly call their government's action into question.
My two cents for the morning.
DJ

DJ, I see your point about the "what if?" element not giving a traumatizing event. I just feel that if the US govt had played the thing as America rushing to the defence of Britain and the far east to defend against foreign invaders then public opinion would hace been swayed to support American involvement. From the little I know of the American people there is a deep sense of decency and outrage against wrongdoers. As has been pointed out in previous posts there were already US citizens in combat against the axis before Pearl Harbour.

I'll play along here too. Without a revenge motive, aggression is indeed a tough sell. Economic reasons are rarely enough, especially when (like 40-41 America) the domestic condition was strong, and as in WW1 the population could truly reap great benefits from the hostilities. I'll back that last assertion up with the fact that US was selling war products to the combatants in WW1 and enjoying an economic boom as a result.

I believe that America would have eventually joined the fight on the side of the British, but probably only as a European combatant.

The assumption goes like this: The Japanese heed Yamamoto's warning about 6mos of victory, and decide that long term victory is what is needed. As a result, no Pearl Harbor, no attack on Singapore, etc. They decide to concentrate on what they're already involved in, China, without inviting Europeans to the party. Let's also assume that since the Holland has been occupied, Japan arranges for a beneficial economic deal with the provisional Dutch government left in the East Indies. At that point, they have the ability to wage war and continue the industrial build.

Now in Europe, if we don't have the motivation of revenge, the US will be in search of victory, but as further conflicts have shown, US motivation for settled peace is greater. If we don't deviate further from history, then US declares war on Germany in '42 after the equivalent of the U-Boat "Happy Days" has sent enough US sailors to the bottom. Germany will already be in a war with Russia, and the remainder of history, as they say, is history.

Except in Asia. Without American aid, and no CW forces supporting Chinese, their resistance movement is reduced to guerilla actions by communist partisans against the occupiers. There are simply not enough Japanese in the world to allow for the occupation of China, and they would have eventually been withdrawn as the communists take over the government. Maybe the only difference in the world today is the existence of Taiwan...

I can only offer my full support of your thoughts. The absence of that traumatic focal point leaves any population wondering "why?" The larger the seeds of doubt the less even an enslaved population is willing to suffer and sacrifice. Would we be in Afghanistan today absent a 911?
Good discussion, keep it rollin'
DJ

wow......heated topic...........


KEEP IT BURNING

MadMeex, you make some really good points there. I still think that the US and Japan would have come into conflict eventually. There had been long standing ill feeling in Japan against the US since the 1850s when the US sent warships to Japan to force open contact with the rest of the world. The washington naval treaty did not allow the Japanese to build a navy of the same size as the US which many looked upon as humiliating. After Japanese occupation of Indo China the US introduced a total ban on trade with Japan along with the seizure of all Japanese assets in the US. I think ,like the Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany after WW1, these economic and millitary pressures were unacceptable to the Japanese ruling classes. They were looked on as a national humiliation by a nation for whom the loss of face is a major insult.

My Friends---based on these last two posts do the vanquished seek revenge after a war? Germany certainly did after WW I. Japan after WW II did not. In fact, quite the opposite happened. Will Iraq seek vengence or become a Japan?
DJ

Hi DJ. I won't comment on the Iraq situation as it may come under "current affairs". I think you raise a good point though comparing the diference in Germany after WW1 with the situation in Japan after WW2. I wonder if the fact that the leaders of Germany were left intact after WW1 caused resentment to the majority of the people? The Versailles Treaty imposed many restrictions and the Allies demanding "compensation" caused economic problems for years. In Japan after WW2 from what I can gather the US organised a new administration which was aimed at making Japan economically strong and meant the people could move on from the war.
Martin

brandydoguk,

My assumptions on the Japan thing went off the thought that though Japanese resentment had been brewing for some 50 years, they might keep it brewing for another 10-20 after they see what's happening in the rest of the world. Occupation of indochina (French territories) would not occur under the wait-and-see ministers. Instead, commercial treaties would be the preferred method of access to resources, while all military might was being concentrated on the subjugation of China.

This may still have brought US into open conflict with Japan, since US sentiment was quite pro-Chinese, but the terms of such a conflict are open to speculation. In my opinion, after slugging it out with Germany for a few years, public support for a "punitive" expedition for another far-away country would have been low. That's one thought.

The other possibility is that as we roll into the late 1940's, early 50's, and the cold war getting under way, we may end up with Americans supporting Japanese troops in China, fighting a communist insurrection. It's certainly in the realm of possibility, since US supported the French occupation of Indochina. How's that for scary? Vietnam 15 years earlier, against the population of China.

In regards to the Washinton Treaty, it was ended by Japan in 1934, and it lapsed without renewal in 1936. I don't believe it's impact was significant beyond the "national honor" issue.

Mika Harviala