How could Japan have avoided a war with the US while still capturing

>>2921859

It couldn't have. The US would have declared war.

>>2922029
they didn't attack germany when they bombed London so why would they now?

>>2922214

Don't fuck with the US oil supply. That's how you end up dead.

>>2921859
It couldn't have. Japan was doomed from the start. The only way to fix the predicament would've been to rewind decades and completely change their military structure and resulting foreign policy

>>2921859
When the US threatened an embargo they should have cut their losses and fortified what they already had.

>>2922221
Eh, I don't know about that. They could have forced China into a really punitive peace, thus reducing their oil needs and keeping up economic relations with America.

That wouldn't fit their ideology of "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", but they would have been miles ahead.

>>2922227
Exactly, that's what I'm getting at in >>2922234

>>2922029
At least in this scenario the US would have to sell to its population fighting a war thousands of miles away to protect a colonial state, instead of having war fervor skyrocket effortlessly after Pearl Harbor.

>>2921859
Let's say the US doesn't attack, they still would've gotten involved in the european war at one point or another even if Hitler doesn't declare war first and this is a fact.

>>2922234
My point is, they wouldn't have done that even if they could, because their entire foreign policy centered around imperial ambition and glorious victory. The militaristic faction was too powerful. They knew that if they didn't quell unrest at home by kickstarting industry at home and boosting the economy through conquest, they might face increased demands for popular representation or other problems. Add this to the cancerous interplay between the army and IJN, and a growing culture of fascination with violence at home, plus the growing influence of commercial interest in China and Manchuria, and Japan was never going to negotiate a lesser peace, especially not with China.

Also, you're assuming Japan could in fact enforce a "really punitive" peace on China. If they really could have, they probably would have - although they'd still come back a few years later for more, as they did after taking Manchuria - and yet they didn't. They didn't have the capacity to defeat China, as history showed, so how could China be forced into a "really punitive" peace? Whatever peace deal they came up with would either be seen as settling for too little/cowardice from the Japanese side, or as simply giving up from the Chinese side.

>>2922249

The general American public was much more enthusiastic about fighting Japan in a war than Germany. The Neutrality Act only applied to the situation in Europe.

>>2922275
I'm imagining something along the lines of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, where China had to give Japan over 8,000 tons of silver.

realistically: not attacking pearl harbor

by going for a first strike, they created massive paranoia on the west coast which DC easily exploited for the war effort. For comparison, during Vietnam most people were apathetic about the war

File: 400px-Anaconda_Loreto_Peru.jpg (52KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 400x300px

>>2922285
The isolationist anti-war sentiment in the US was very, very strong all the way until Pearl Harbor. I seriously doubt that FDR would have been able to get enough popular support to declare war in the event of Japan declaring war on Netherlands for its colonies. Now, the interesting question is whether he'd be more successful in getting popular support for the war if he transformed into an anaconda. What do you think would have happened in that event?

File: US attitudes.png (530KB, 1120x484px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 1120x484px

>>2922414

> I seriously doubt that FDR would have been able to get enough popular support to declare war in the event of Japan declaring war on Netherlands for its colonies

That's not correct thou, the degree to which the US was isolationist had collapsed by 1941, especially after the Fall of France. The fact that 70% of the population supported instituting the draft should say a lot about how willing the US would be to go to war.

>>2922674
Pretty biased survey in how it's worded. "Compulsory military training" isn't the same as being drafted to fight overseas. It can also just mean for the defense of United States territory.

>>2922285
>The general American public was much more enthusiastic about fighting Japan in a war than Germany.

Are you talking about before or after Pearl Harbor?

Before Pearl Harbor, American public opinion was edging ever closer toward favoring intervention in Europe, but they couldn't have given a fuck less about the Japs. After Pearl Harbor though, the American public wanted to tear Japs' heads off like crazy.

>>2921859
Well they could start by not bombing the Panay when it was clearly flying an American flag, might have delayed it all by a few days

>>2922835
It literally meant a peacetime military draft though.

>>2923079
Or it could be thought of as a military service requirement, a not uncommon or unpopular idea.

>>2923187
It was an actual policy the US government was implementing though.

The US started up the draft in 1940.