Quote:
Originally Posted by TorpX
I was watching a PBS channel the other week, and I caught part of a program which featured a lecture by Craig Symonds. It was about the battle of Midway and covered many of the details talked about in this thread. One thing in particular that I didn't know before, was that Yamamoto was personally involved in Japan's decision to declare war on the U.S. He said Japan's original plan was to conquer the DEI and leave the US alone, but Yamamoto insisted that if they wanted to attack the DEI, they had to also attack the Philippines and US. Otherwise, the Americans would be interfering in everything and this would not work. He threatened to resign if his plan was not adopted, and won the argument. This, of course, meant there had to be an attack on Pearl Harbor.
Am I the only one who never heard this before?
|
It is a fascinating speculation, how events might have unfolded if the U.S. and it's Philippines dependency had been excluded from Japanese war plans in December 1941. Had Tokyo confined itself to occupying British Malaya and Burma, along with the Dutch East Indies.(where all the oil and rubber was) Roosevelt would certainly have wanted to enter the war and confront Japanese aggression. The question is whether Congress and public sentiment would have allowed the president to declare war in the absence of a direct assault on American national interests. Certainly, without a surprise attack on a sleeping fleet there would not have been the sense of national outrage that unified the country overnight. Going to war to defend European colonies and possessions in the far east wouldn't have had the rallying effect of "Remember Pearl Harbor."
However, since the Japanese couldn't see any way of keeping the US from getting involved if they descended on British and Dutch colonies they went ahead and including knocking out the U.S. Pacific Fleet on their war plans. A poor move if Yamamoto endorsed doing it. But then I always thought he was overrated anyway.
04-01-12, 11:27 AM
Threaded Mode