If the US wasn't in the Philippines in 1941, would it have made any difference in Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor?

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,573
Dispargum
I thought that the US recognized the legitimacy of the Vichy government until at least 1942?
You're right. Illegitimate was the wrong word for me to use. What I meant to say was that Vichy was in no position to refuse the Japanese demand for Indochina so the US saw the takeover of Indochina as a Japanese aggression. Depending on how Japan could takeover an independent or Spanish Philipines, the US might not be able to call it an aggressive act so Japan might avoid drawing economic sanctions for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,421
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
I thought that the US recognized the legitimacy of the Vichy government until at least 1942?
Tolerated would be more accurate, French ships in the Western hemisphere were more or less interned.

The "Barfleur incident" shows just how little trust the US had in Vichy neutrality.
Countries with normal diplomatic relations aren't threatened with having their ships sunk.

The U.S. Navy
Meanwhile, naval authorities felt considerable anxiety that French warships in the Caribbean and West Indies were prepared to make a breakout and attempt to get back to France. Accordingly, Wasp, USS Brooklyn (CL-40), and two destroyers, USS Sterett (DD-407) and USS Wilson, departed Grassy Bay and headed for Martinique. Faulty intelligence gave American authorities in Washington the impression that the Vichy French armed merchant cruiser Barfleur had gotten underway for sea. The French were accordingly warned that the auxiliary cruiser would be sunk or captured unless she returned to port and resumed her internment. As it turned out, Barfleur had not departed after all, but had remained in harbor. The tense situation at Martinique eventually dissipated, and the crisis abated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
May 2019
20
Utah
According to Filipinos, if the US wasn't in their country, then Japan wouldn't have invaded them and the Philippines would have been spared WW2 and they would be one of the richest countries today.
 
Apr 2019
80
U.S.A.
I thought that what made Japan eager to bring the US to war was to end the oil embargo that was strangling it. When Japan attacked China, the US started the embargo. The simultaneous attacks weren’t meant to destroy as much as it was to boost Japan’s bargaining chips and reach a treaty with better results
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Apr 2018
740
India
I thought that what made Japan eager to bring the US to war was to end the oil embargo that was strangling it. When Japan attacked China, the US started the embargo. The simultaneous attacks weren’t meant to destroy as much as it was to boost Japan’s bargaining chips and reach a treaty with better results
Swift victory followed by a peace proposal. That was Yamamoto's proposal. Not sure whether others agreed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mando and Futurist

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,156
Sydney
Nope ,
since the US were certain to come to war over it , the disabling of the US Pacific fleet was a military necessity
if the US could be kept off at peace while Japan took the Philippines , Malaysia , Indonesia and Burma
while moving to invade or neutralize Australia
then OK the attack on Pearl Harbor would not be necessary

Since Washington had been putting insufferable screws on Japan economy to force them to desist from the China campaign ,the chance of that were Zero
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mando and Futurist