US Internal lpolitics and Public reaction

[Rafael Warsaw]

Hi Fellow geeks!

I was studying political science and international relations but I’m not an expert in ww2 US/OZ internal politics and or public relations and Government/public interactions.

I wonder If there was any way to press US into peace talks with Japan?

In our games (If we are lucky) we can press US really hard like:
BBs gone
Hawaii gone
PH under blocade
OZ treatened
Phillipines lost
Lots of other fleet assets lost
Carriers Lost so West Coast is threatened
New Guinea Lost/OZ threatened
India Invaded/jewel in an imperial crown seriously threatened
Etc.

And all in about first 3-5 months of the war. A hit after a Hit after a blow.

I would like to know Your opinion about this:
Was it ever possible to press US into peace talks ie IF US carriers were lost at Midway, Midway taken, Hawaii threatened?

How about OZ? Was it ever possible/considered by OZ Gov. to sign a peace with Japs If OZ was cut? Well we know that it was not possible to really cut OZ for a long time but some events, sometimes even minor, can influence public opinion waaaaay too strong.

How US and OZ Goverments of those times have acted/reacted to public?

Im looking for some serious thought from You.

Ah, we players know that 43 WILL come, US Gov knew it too but sometimes its just imposible to convince a group of people even to something more obvious. This is a weakness of Democracy (which I Love and Cherish). Peace.

[KDonovan]

can't speak for the Aussies, but i can't imagine the US ever bargining a peace deal after Pearl Harbor. That and the invasion of China probably killed any chance of a peace deal being made.

[Terminus]

Pearl Harbor cinched it. The US isn't capable of forgiving sneak attacks...

[Rafael Warsaw]

Well,
This is a common opinion made by Victorious country.

A good Examples are:

Proud confederate states during ACW. Territory taken.

Russia in 1905 after Cushima - remember - not a democratic country but an authoritarian EMPIRE. Russians are very proud You know. Really proud but they asked for peace. Territory not taken, Army not destroyed.
Im rather looking for a possible "break even" point. Theres always one. Always.

Every Democratic government have to take into an account public opinion. Just have to especially in countries with developed political system like US (only 2 powers that counts - You mess with public a little to long and you can be gone for a decade).

[spence]

For the 1940s, I feel that a measure of what it would have taken to force a peace upon the US can be found in US History approxiamately 80 years prior: the American Civil War. The South had both to be razed to the ground and occupied, its armies destroyed and its leaders captured before the war was over. From talking to my father, who served in WWII and hailed from Massachussetts, the war was still something of a bitter "memory" for some of his contemporaries who came from the southern states.

IIRC Yamamoto told his contemporaries that he felt that nothing short of capturing Washington and dictating the peace in the White House would suffice and that "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass (or something similar)" along the way.

As to 2007, I believe that today the Congress finalized particulars of a bill to force the withdrawal of all US troops from Virginia.

[Rafael Warsaw]

Was a Confederate states a developed democracy with vote rights given to basicly everybody? Sure not. North was closer.

You know, theres always an establishment of some kind (we can call it a political system if we like). An internal threat to those ppl (political system of the country) positions - 1905 movement/so called 1905 revolution - forced Russia to seek for a peace with Japan to ease an internal situation. Trust me - They are at least that proud as americans are. INMHO - much more.

36 years later comunist establishment was threatened only by germans but by no means by internal affairs - so they fought to the death even with whole country burned to the ground and with uncounted millions of deaths.

There were an establishment in Czar/Comunist Russia there was one in Washington in 1940. ACW? Pres. Lincoln was always worried about elections. Whole pennsylvannia campaigne was all about incoming election. He was lucky, They have won at Gettyssburg (thanks to incoming elections? Union commanders have seen a wall behind them built by Washington ie: a line in the sand?)

[KDonovan]

maybe if a staunch pacifist like Charles Limbaugh ran for president and won in 1940 instead of FDR....

if Japan had only attacked the Phillipinnes......

if the British had to come to peace terms with Germany.....

if isolationist sentiment had remained high....

then possibly some sort of agreement could've been found

[Rafael Warsaw]

Well, its possible but I think that it got nothing to do with pride.
I think that there were no way to try to impeach a president in 42. Next elections was in 1944 so it looks like Japs have had to beat US way into 1943.

What about OZ?

[spence]

Was a Confederate states a developed democracy with vote rights given to basicly everybody

Yes and no. The Confederate States had the same sort of "universal suffrage" as the US at that time: that is, all white males that owned property. There were IIRC some states that allowed free Blacks to vote and non-property holders to vote but I don't think that that was encouraged at all.

The South was not waging a war of aggression against the North (in spite of tactical invasions) and I think that that is important. There was political opposition in the North to the prosecution of the North's "aggressive war" but I think that it would have become insignificant if the South had tried to impose slavery on the North. In the end, the CSA formed and the war was mostly about the North's signal (by electing Lincoln)that it would not continue to prop up "the peculiar institution" forever (even though Lincoln's election hardly made that threat imminent).

[Rafael Warsaw]

Well, a kind discussion has emerged.

I know what was a political system in ACW states and I know that South was not an intended aggressor – for sure not what simple people wanted (heavy desertions while crossing Potomac, “melting army” in worlds of gen Lee etc). I just make a suggestion that a public opinion was one of the reasons HOW this war was conducted already during ACW and XIX century is when a modern society has emerged. How whole WAR was conducted not how single operations were executed.

It’s obvious that a significance of public opinion rose from ACW with its observed peak about Somalia/Mogadishu venture. Now we can observe a public impact even to a planning stage of an military operation not to mention whole war. Im still courious about public mood in states in early 40ies truth is that its hard to find a good source. Propaganda You know (I call it M1A1 propaganda [:D])

Modern times gives us lots of what if possibilities/observations too.
Bottom line is that It looks to me that 1943 was a key and that national proud got less to do with it than one might expect.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw

Well,
This is a common opinion made by Victorious country.

A good Examples are:

Anyone that suggests that the US would ever negotiate a peace with Japan during WWII just doesnt understand the American psyche. After PH no solution short of unconditional Japanese surrender ever would have been considered and it would have been political suicide for any politician to suggest it.

Americans don't like to lose. As evidence I offer up Vietnam as an example. The US beat its head against the wall for 12 years before pulling out and this was for a conflict that had moderate support at home at best.

Perhaps if a country could deal the sort of defeats against the US that Japan did those first 6 months for 12 years and they had not directly attcked the US, then maybe negotiation is possible.

[Rafael Warsaw]

ORIGINAL: KDonovan


if isolationist sentiment had remained high....

then possibly some sort of agreement could've been found

Isolationist sentiment WAS high. Splendid Isolation - it was not a sentiment but a political doctrine. trust me, a doctrine is more important to country political affairs than sentiment. [;)]
Thats why some out of this planet lads thinks that PH was a decoy [:D]

[niceguy2005]

PH a decoy? do you mean a fake? or that they were sacrificed intentionally?

Nope. The Japanese simply made the critical mistake of not understanding ones enemy.

In my personal opinion they waited at least a year too late to attack if they were going to. The US war machine was already beginning to rev up.

By 1941 the best thing to do would have been to let the US and UK try to blocade them and then attack the blockade. This lower level of conflict wouldn't have been as likely to induce a strong reaction from the US population.

[Rafael Warsaw]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw

Well,
This is a common opinion made by Victorious country.

A good Examples are:

Anyone that suggests that the US would ever negotiate a peace with Japan during WWII just doesnt understand the American psyche. After PH no solution short of unconditional Japanese surrender ever would have been considered and it would have been political suicide for any politician to suggest it.

Americans don't like to lose. As evidence I offer up Vietnam as an example. The US beat its head against the wall for 12 years before pulling out and this was for a conflict that had moderate support at home at best.

Perhaps if a country could deal the sort of defeats against the US that Japan did those first 6 months for 12 years and they had not directly attcked the US, then maybe negotiation is possible.

When pride kicks in things start to get messy...

You can be pride beyond imagination but one thing about US is for sure - they are commercial. What means that they are the most racionale/comon sense nation on this planet. I have no doubt about US pride. Glorious nation. Got reasons to be proud (Im polish so we know smth about pride here too [;)])

Point is that I wanted to start a thread about political aspects of our actions in the game what leads us straight to macro political issues related to US internal affairs in early 40ties.

Im not that SURE that another elections (44) might have been won even with PH in mind like Im not sure If Reps are able to win now EVEN with 911 in mind. You can play national pride but not for ever. As I wrote earlier - modern political party is like a business corporation. You just have to step back today to be back in business sooner than later.


And Japs were no ALIENS out of space - its a product of a ww2 propaganda - they were allies few years earlier
so is it possible that mood would have changed:

maybe our gov screwed this relation, Japs just wanted to coexist as a modern nation!
they (gov) are not capable - we are loosing in fact we have lost everything we could.
who need philipines anyway? Where is it? Never been there and never would!

[hueglin]

Food for thought.

1814 - British forces march on Washington. At a brief battle on the road, known as the Battle of Bladensburg; the British forces defeat the American forces, who withdraw in disarray, thus opening the road to Washington. The British burn the White House and the Capitol, but the rest of Washington is saved by a strong rain storm. The British, under orders not to hold any territory, withdrew.
© 2000 MultiEducator, Inc. All rights reserved

One might expect that having the capital burned would result in a determination to fight to the end, but this war ended in a negotiated peace.

[Japanese_Spirit]

You all forget the term "Cease-Fire", that is prevalent between the two Koreas and even both Russia and Japan to this day.

Japan's ultimate success in the war depending upon Germany. If Germany remained ultimately victorious and there was no chance for an allied front, Japan would have had a better time of it should it come to peace negotiations, providing that it had severly mauled the US fleet and perhaps taken Pearl Harbour and the rest of Haiwaii.

The U.S and Japan would probably, if it became too long and overdue to fight, signed a cease-fire. Not a full peace treaty but simply one putting an end to the fighting for the time being.

It's an interesting concept but a hypothetical situation could have evolved with some kind of "Three Way Cold War" developing after the war, between Germany, the United States and Japan, should both Germany and Japan had been victorious.

But that's just should a cease-fire have been attained and a belief of mine should that have been the overall result.

[Rafael Warsaw]

Peace negotiations can lead to whatever treaty, I do agree that a cease fire was more likly than peace treaty.

WHAT event/chain of events on PACIFIC, could in Your opinion lead to such a public preassure over politicians to make even unwilling goverment seek for truce?

hueglin: appreciate but from political and sociological point of view its not relevant.

[Skyros]

As all ready pointed out, we had to dictate peace terms in the Confederate White House. I know appomattox. The Russians went to the Peace table because of internal issues, revolution was always brewing.

THe major impact would be the reversal of the Europe first policy. The isolationists had been discredited because of PH and would have had a hard time rebuilding there political muscle. They were responsible for the United States not being prepared. You also have to bring in the racial factor, the US would not deal with the Japs, they protrayed them as subhuman monkeys back then.

ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw

Well,
This is a common opinion made by Victorious country.

A good Examples are:

Proud confederate states during ACW. Territory taken.

Russia in 1905 after Cushima - remember - not a democratic country but an authoritarian EMPIRE. Russians are very proud You know. Really proud but they asked for peace. Territory not taken, Army not destroyed.
Im rather looking for a possible "break even" point. Theres always one. Always.

Every Democratic government have to take into an account public opinion. Just have to especially in countries with developed political system like US (only 2 powers that counts - You mess with public a little to long and you can be gone for a decade).

[pasternakski]

I'd like to see a computer wargame that depicts all the posters on this thread. Call it "War of the Uninformed Political Sh1theads" (WUPS for short).

[Feinder]

Be aware that most countries (very much including the United States) during the 1940s were very pre-occupied with their own national and/or racial superiority.  Thru the 20s and 30s, the US viewed the Asians, not exactly as "sub-human", but certainly racialy inferiror.  There were "scientific studies" that "proved" that caucasian was superiour to to negro and asian gene pools.  Naturally, we think it's load of horse shit now, but back then, many folks genuinely bought into it.  Whether it was excluding blacks from flying, or that, "the Japanese couldn't beat us in a fair fight, look how small they are! and near sighted! They HAD to sneak attack!".  We bought into our own racism, and turned it into some very motivating propoganda.
 
That being said, if you genuinely believe that the race that you are fighting against is truely racially INFERIOR to you, why WOULD you sue for peace?  You just need to wipe your bloody nose, and go kick some butt.
 
Naturally, there were many motivations thru-out the war, but our own sense of racism would have had some bearing on our un-willingness to give in.  Not the only thing, but it's an interesting point of discussion.
 
-F-