"also there were massive oil refineries or SOMETHING at/near Pearl Harbor that the Japanese messed up on and didn't eliminate, that they meant to. It was also pretty crucial"

The "or SOMETHING" was the fuel storage tanks. Japan could've bombed them, it would've caused a 2- or 3- month supply delay as they were replaced, but that would've been it.

@Tolstoy

Ah thanks that was it. But the 2-3 month delay is kind of a big deal when you're... you know. at war :\

"I'm pinning the war on Japan being a war monger, not the US for sanctioning Japan, Tolstoy."

Japan was no more or less war monger-y than any European (or American) colonial power. The United States, after all, had only forty years' previously seized Spain's overseas empire, brutally crushed a native uprising in the Philipines, and annexed the independent kingdom of Hawaii - all territories which the Japanese would later fight for control of. The Pacific War was as purely and simply a war over control of colonies and resources as ever there was in human history.

The military mindset of Japan at the time was heavily influenced by the good ol' days when the Shogun and the military class (samurai) ruled. Still, a poor excuse to kill millions of Chinese.

And lets not forget that Japan and the US had more or less understood that war between them was inevitable since the Russo Japanese War. The fact that they were de fact allies in WWI was more of an accident, and the US partly expected to ultimately be fighting Japan by the end of that war as well.

"Ah thanks that was it. But the 2-3 month delay is kind of a big deal when you're... you know. at war :\ "

Actually, not really in this case. The first small long-range US offensive strike (the Doolittle Raid) didn't occur for another five months with the fuel supplies untouched. And the US didn't have the plans, organization, ground forces, or ships for large offensive operations in the Pacific until 1943-44 anyways.

The US has certainly shared the war monger mindset, even to this day. In both WWI and WWII the mindset, at least held by the public, was isolationism. The US used the Lusitania as an excuse in WWI to pry the door open to Europe, and Pearl Harbor/Germany's war declaration to enter both fronts in WWII. After WWII, we once again became nosy in world affairs.

"The military mindset of Japan at the time was heavily influenced by the good ol' days when the Shogun and the military class (samurai) ruled. Still, a poor excuse to kill millions of Chinese."

They were also strongly influenced by watching China and every other non-European nation on earth get carved up and exploited by European powers. Unlike China, Japan learned very quickly that if they didn't want to wind up being someone else's bitch, they needed to become a strong colonial power themselves - and that's exactly what they did.

FDR was actively trying to fight against colonialism at the time. He could not stand the fact that Britain kept its colonies in the stone age to keep them under control.

@"SantaClausowitz (221 D)
04:36 AM
+1
Ora has always believed that the united states had the obligation to provide Japan with the fuel it needed to kill innocent Chinese. Not supplying Japan the needed resources for Genocide and not going against the US clear interests means that FDR was attempting to "provoke" Japan. This view does, of course, reek of a racist belief that the Japanese essentially lack any agency whatsoever, but ora is just that kind of racist."

So glad you didn't bother to read the sources i quoted (stuff coming from a US congressional investigation, and never made public) and instead decided to call ke a rascist and put words in my mouth.

Just to say, your words aren't worth replying to any further.

@"Rather, my point to ora is that this isn't a one-sided ordeal wherein the United States forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Japan made their own choices. Being annoyed is justifiable."

Fair point, my reading shows me that the US president knew that economic sanctions would likely lead to war with Japan, several of his general/admirals warned him. And he did it anyway.

It was also the case that popular opinion was against getting involved 'directly' in another european war. And so Pearl harbour was a great excuse when it came.

I am not saying the Japanese invasion and annexation of areas of China (Manchuria and later more) didn't annoy the US and trigger the sanctions. Just that the US left Japan with very little choice, once the sanctions cut off their oil supply, they couldn't continue their war - they had limited strategic reserves, and needed to use them wisely.

As for the US being anti-colonial? They had established Hawaii as a colony, and were annoyed about increasing Japanese influence in China because it reduced US colonial influence in south east asia. The phillipines is a great example of the US not being particularily 'anti-colonial' - they just didn't like other colonial powers because they wanted everything for themselves (like every other world power in history...)

The entire history of the US since its founding has been one of expansion.

The war to claim canada in 1812 (defeated/tied)
The war to claim florida from the spainnish (victory)
The Indian wars to claim the continental US (victory)
The Louisianna purchase (not a war, just more expansion)
...

It continues to Hawaii, the Phillipines, and on to Korea (draw - resulting in the current north/south divide), Vietnam (defeat), and on to the middle east...

What major wars/invasions am i forgetting? My US history isn't that comprehensive... When was Puerto Rico taken? How many times did they try for Cuba?

To say the US has ever been against colonialism is laughable at best.

Hawaiian annexation was in 1898. The Philippines war for indepenence was over in 1902, at the cost of more than 200k lives. I'm not ignoring that those things happened, or making excuses. I'm saying the mindset of the US was not currently engaged in colonialism during a short period of time. As I stated earlier, most of the history of the US has shared the war monger/expansionist mindset for most of its history. During WWI and WWII, the public wanted no part of the conflict until certain inflammatory events occurred. FDR was anti-colonialism. After WWII, we once again became meddlesome.

Ok, so i will admit there is some difference between Imperialism and Colonialism. FDR couldn't aggressively pursue a policy of colonial expansion at the time. He couldn't join the war (on either side) and was doing everything possible to support the allies without officially joining the war.

But when it comes to Japan and China specifically, the US wanted access to Chinese markets, (something the Chinese had fought wars to prevent, notably the Opium wars in the 19th century) and having made gains during the boxer rebellion (for the international force including the US, Europeans and Japanese) Japan was now threatening those gains - and US interests in south east asia.

FDR couldn't declare war on Japan, but would have if he could, instead provoked the Japanese by ecomonic embargo.

The attitude towards China is one of Imperialism, a lack of respect for Chinese socereignty (the middle kingdom had traditionally been self-sufficient and didn't need to trade with the rest of the world, and the Europeans, US and Japanese didn't respect this - they wanted to take advantage of the situation)

At the end of the war, Japan was disarmed, occupied by American troops, and completely open to US trade. They effectively became a US colony by any other name (you couldn't really call them an ally after you disarm them...)

FDR was anti-colonialism so far as it was in US interests to oppose Japanese and European Imperial ambitions.

^I agree with most of this. Well said.

What did FDR do about the Italian invasion of Eritrea?
Was he supporting independence in the Phillipines or Puerto Rico? (Or even Hawaii which i don't think becamse a state until after WW2) Was FDR so anti-colonial that he helped France, Germany or Britian dismantle their colonial empires? Or did he grant Native Americans the lands which had been confiscated from them? (Or any rights deprived from them)?

Now maybe i'm wrong, what actions were being taken by FDR?

He did not do much, other than complain often, and actions speak louder than words. Maybe his hands were tied out of circumstance for some things, but that's an excuse. Judging from policies he championed in the US, he likely meant what he was saying, but ultimately it changed nothing.

@orathaic

I do not disagree with the idea that in the 19th Century especially the United States was an aggressively expansionist country. Indeed you failed to mention the Mexican-American War which was the most openly imperialistic of our wars.

So, in general, yes. The USA has not had any better track record than many expansionist nations in the time period.

After looking back at my choice of words, "actively fighting against" was too strongly phrased. It made it sound as if he was confronting most countries engaged in colonialism, which is not true.

As to Native Americans rights, I can give some measure of an answer:

"Or did he grant Native Americans the lands which had been confiscated from them? (Or any rights deprived from them)?"

Item #1: What makes you think that any sitting U.S. President could do this? It would amount to the complete dissolution of the nation in its entirety. The same would be true of Australia, Mexico, Canada, and Russia if their heads of government attempted to do the same. So the answer is “No, but I cannot see holding FDR personally responsible for failing to do something he could not have done anyway.”

Item#2: Yes, he did. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 came across his desk and was signed into law. It did some pretty good things for the Native American Community. Native Americans gained citizenship and voting rights in 1924, but this act protected them from losing tribal lands and provided for the re-establishment of tribal lands with federal assistance. It provided federal assistance through revolving credit and encouraged tribal management of internal affairs, the establishment of charters and constitutions to that end, it also helped improve education and health after the deplorable conditions instituted by the Dawes Act of 1898 (also the year we failed to return Cuba to the Cubans). So, yeah, he did a pretty good job in that regard. He was certainly better than his cousin.

@Matticus

You're right to an extent. Actively fighting against colonialism was not a major concern nor should it have been. The major countries fighting against fascism were as much empires as the fascists were. As a matter of fact the fascists represented a new wave of empire building since neither Italy nor Germany were nation states before 1870.
The ruthlessness and brutality of the fascists and the apparent drive to conquer the entire world was of concern.

@ Orathaic

"What did FDR do about the Italian invasion of Eritrea?"

Bided his time, supported the Allies, came in when the situation allowed, and completely conquered and disbanded Italy's fascist government.

@ orathaic

I can see how you are attempting to show the USA as a nation that is not anti-colonial. I agree. No nation that takes over territory belonging to someone else is anti-colonial. However, it seems like you are over-reaching in a pretty big way. For example, The U.S. wasn't trying to take over Canada at the beginning of the War of 1812. 10,000 American citizens had been impressed into the British Navy between 1803-1812. The plain fact was that England was not recognizing the sovereignty of the U.S.A. and the second war was necessary to fully establish independence. The incursions into Canada were military campaigns into enemy territory. It was not an attempt to seize Canada.

Likewise, the U.S.A came into the Korean conflict with the approval of the U.N. when the North Koreans backed by Chinese communists had overrun the country. I am not sure how much you know of Korean history, but the very existence of Korea is a testament to the enduring identity of the Korean people. They have repulsed both Japanese and Chinese attempts to annex them over the centuries and having American troops guarding the DMZ does NOTHING to make them a U.S. colony. The South Koreans are going to act in the best interest of South Korea and if that means defying the U.S.A. I have little doubt it would happen. They have not been disarmed and are allies of ours.

@"
Bided his time, supported the Allies, came in when the situation allowed, and completely conquered and disbanded Italy's fascist government."

FYI: (most of thus i've only learned today) at the time Italy was one of the allies. The US banned arms exports to Italy (but still shipped other goods which Italy needed, and italy had a sufficient industrial base to make its own weapons if you supplied it with raw materials) - the british and french were concerned and league of nations rules prevented them from exporting arms to either Italy or Ethopia.

Germany sent weapons to Ethopia (cause Italy had opposed the Re-unification of Germany with Austria, and Italy was one of the allies, i said that right?) the Brits were fairly concerned because British territory in East Africa was right next door... But didn't do anything because they didn't want to risk their alliance with Italy - in case of war with Germany. (Same with the french)

The US had very little to do with liberating this Italian colony, as it was almost entirely done by British forces, and Ethopia regained its independence in 1947, meaning it was only a colony for ~11 years. And most the same Emperor came back from Exile in Britain.

(This may be more interesting for diplomacy players, looking at the shifting alliances... Than relevant to the conversation... But i feel like i could claim the British were 'anti-Imperialist at the time...)

@"The incursions into Canada were military campaigns into enemy territory. It was not an attempt to seize Canada. "

Fair point, especially that about impressment. The British didn't recognise seamen claiming to be US citizens, it was standard practice to impress any experienced english speaking sailors into the British Navy, and half of them were probably born in Britian. Or in the US before independence... So in theory they were impressing subjects of the crown and bot recognising their individual right to reject that.

From the US perspective they did have to protect the rights of anyone who was claiming to be a US citizen.

But specific to your claim, it was expected by some that Canadians would celebrate the US invaders as liberators, and even helped them throw off the British rule.

Now i'm not sure how widespread this belief was, or by whom. But a war aim was to kick the British off the continent (it failed). The British also had a war aim of establishing a neutral Indian nations between the US and what is now Canada (it also failed). The only real success was the ending of impressment, which ended due to Napoleon being defeated in Europe, and the British navy not needing so many sailors impressed.

@"Likewise, the U.S.A came into the Korean conflict with the approval of the U.N. when the North Koreans backed by Chinese communists had overrun the country"

First the 'UN' backing is kinda misleading. At the time the UN security council consisted of the Republic of China (not the Chinese communists) the US, UK, and French. The Soviet Union was abstaining from attending due to the failure to recognise Communist China.

So the UN-backed part is only that the US and her allies decided they wanted to go in. And there was no-one there to veto it.

South Korea became a capitalist economy under US protection and open to US markets/trade. The closest thing to a new 'colony' that could be.

Sure it was also anti-communist, expansion of the US frontier to prevent a soviet style iron curtain.

And i'm sure you would say this "The South Koreans are going to act in the best interest of South Korea and if that means defying the U.S.A. I have little doubt it would happen. They have not been disarmed and are allies of ours. " of North Korea, but for the Chinese.

Reading a bit more about Korea, i came across this: "‘Thus,’ said Denissov, ‘the documents existing in Russian archives prove that…it was Kim Il Sung who unleashed the war upon receiving before-hand blessings from Stalin and Mao Zedong [Mao Tse-tung].’

Could the Axis have won WWII?
YES. German lost the war in the East front, but they could have won.
Russian sacrifice and perseverance, enforced by Stalin, set the outcome of the war.
Hitler refused to bypass Stalingrad, that way missing the oilfields in Black Sea, which could have lead him to the victory.