Search Results
7/25/2025, 10:30:22 PM
>>17870687
>How? US military pilots shooting down Japanese military aircraft (under the orders of FDR) was a clear act of war
Soviet pilots doing the exact same thing was considered water under the bridge when they signed a neutrality pact with them. Justified or not, there were cases of Japan's own leadership unwilling to use that as justification for war.
>That’s irrelevant. JB355 proves the US wasn’t neutral, they were pushing for war against Japan
>Again, irrelevant. The fact the US had an official plan to bomb Japan months before Pearl Harbor shows that the US was the aggressor nation
War Plan Red showed that the US was an aggressor against the UK. Do you think that this plan (which Japanese leadership knew nothing about) holds more weight than a plan like Pearl Harbor? You know, the one which was actually carried out?
>It essentially was a declaration of war. FDR knew the Japanese couldn’t accept it and the only other option for them was war
FDR was aiming for a modus vivendi with the Japanese since Europe was his priority. Hence why American troops were being sent to occupy Iceland as opposed to reinforcing its Asian colonies. Begging you people to actually read a fucking book for a change.
>How? US military pilots shooting down Japanese military aircraft (under the orders of FDR) was a clear act of war
Soviet pilots doing the exact same thing was considered water under the bridge when they signed a neutrality pact with them. Justified or not, there were cases of Japan's own leadership unwilling to use that as justification for war.
>That’s irrelevant. JB355 proves the US wasn’t neutral, they were pushing for war against Japan
>Again, irrelevant. The fact the US had an official plan to bomb Japan months before Pearl Harbor shows that the US was the aggressor nation
War Plan Red showed that the US was an aggressor against the UK. Do you think that this plan (which Japanese leadership knew nothing about) holds more weight than a plan like Pearl Harbor? You know, the one which was actually carried out?
>It essentially was a declaration of war. FDR knew the Japanese couldn’t accept it and the only other option for them was war
FDR was aiming for a modus vivendi with the Japanese since Europe was his priority. Hence why American troops were being sent to occupy Iceland as opposed to reinforcing its Asian colonies. Begging you people to actually read a fucking book for a change.
7/22/2025, 5:04:34 AM
>>17860281
>>17860318
>>17860362
Would recommend you all read pic related. FDR did intend to join the war in Europe. But by 1941, he was trying to avoid a confrontation in the Pacific. His suggestion after Indochina was occupied by the Japanese was to see if he could come to an agreement with Japan to regard it as a "neutral country like Switzerland."
In the summer leading up Pearl Harbor, the Japanese refused to come to any diplomatic agreement with the US that ruled out hostilities. They chose to remain in the Tripartite Pact. Even after Barbarossa beginning two months after they signed a neutrality pact with the USSR gave them the easiest out imaginable. Nonetheless, US diplomats tried to come to an agreement that that would prevent war with Japan.
Japan's leadership didn't want war either at this time. Yet they were willing to sacrifice absolutely nothing to actually achieve it. Yamamoto thought war was a bad idea, but still went ahead drafting war plans anyway.
It was in this environment that the Hull Note was written. Despite the terms being highly conciliatory, it's remembered as a declaration of war by Japanese nationalists on account of it calling for a withdrawal from China and recognition of the ROC's government. (Herbert Bix suggests that the biggest sticking point was that Hull didn't distinguish between Manchukuo and China.)
After the Hull Note was sent on November 26, there was radio silence from Japan. In the time between then and December 7, the US knew war with Japan would arrive at some point.
It wasn't a righteous struggle against colonialism, withholding of oil, or a Chinese charm offensive that provoked the Pacific War. The blame lays at the feet of the incompetent Imperial leadership. Those who knew a total war with the Allies would be unwinnable, but chose to gamble anyway.
>>17860318
>>17860362
Would recommend you all read pic related. FDR did intend to join the war in Europe. But by 1941, he was trying to avoid a confrontation in the Pacific. His suggestion after Indochina was occupied by the Japanese was to see if he could come to an agreement with Japan to regard it as a "neutral country like Switzerland."
In the summer leading up Pearl Harbor, the Japanese refused to come to any diplomatic agreement with the US that ruled out hostilities. They chose to remain in the Tripartite Pact. Even after Barbarossa beginning two months after they signed a neutrality pact with the USSR gave them the easiest out imaginable. Nonetheless, US diplomats tried to come to an agreement that that would prevent war with Japan.
Japan's leadership didn't want war either at this time. Yet they were willing to sacrifice absolutely nothing to actually achieve it. Yamamoto thought war was a bad idea, but still went ahead drafting war plans anyway.
It was in this environment that the Hull Note was written. Despite the terms being highly conciliatory, it's remembered as a declaration of war by Japanese nationalists on account of it calling for a withdrawal from China and recognition of the ROC's government. (Herbert Bix suggests that the biggest sticking point was that Hull didn't distinguish between Manchukuo and China.)
After the Hull Note was sent on November 26, there was radio silence from Japan. In the time between then and December 7, the US knew war with Japan would arrive at some point.
It wasn't a righteous struggle against colonialism, withholding of oil, or a Chinese charm offensive that provoked the Pacific War. The blame lays at the feet of the incompetent Imperial leadership. Those who knew a total war with the Allies would be unwinnable, but chose to gamble anyway.
Page 1