Did the US ever considered peace with the Japanese?

[OpanaPointer]

Very few peoples were free of racism in the years before WWII. The Japanese thought everyone was inferior to the people of Yamato. The Chinese thought there was two kinds of humans, Chinese and qui loh. Etc. Don't need to bring up the Herrenvolk, do we?

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both brother Opana Pointer and the community as a whole. Howdy O.P.! Well sir, in respect to your recent posting of Saturday - July 14, 2019 - 1:20pm, as far as I know anyway, no one within the Roosevelt Administration ever considered any accommodation with the Imperial Japanese Empire. Remember, there was only ONE dissenting vote against going to war with Japan on December 08, 1941. That ONE dissenting vote belonged to Republican Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin of the State of Montana. Her vote was based on the fact that she was a Pacifist. Now, I do NOT pretend to know what the attitude of American resolve might have been "IF" the United States Navy had been defeated during the Battle of Midway OR "IF" the United States Marine Corps had been overrun during the Battle of Guadalcanal. Incidentally, on the sordid matter of racism, we were NO SAINTS ourselves during that period of our history. It's just some sobering food for thought. Well, that's my initial two Yankee worth on this geopolitical topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day from sea to shining sea.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[OpanaPointer]

Remember that the Roosevelt Administration did not vote on the declaration of war. Sort your apples and oranges, please.

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both brother Opana Pointer and the community as a whole. Howdy O.P.! In respect to your latest contribution of Saturday - July 13, 2019 - 5:13pm, I will duly concede that it was the United States Congress that officially took us into the conflict with the Imperial Japanese Empire with President Roosevelt signing THEIR legislation into law. Unlike today, it was back in the day when there was a clear separation of power among the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government. I will perpetually remind myself of that when I watch the future impeachment proceedings against El Supremo. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this geopolitical topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day from sea to shining sea. Now, I'm off to procure a few apples and oranges from some of those folks with brown complexions who are such a security threat to the integrity of the United States of America.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[Rob Stuart]

Greetings to both brother Opana Pointer and the community as a whole. Howdy O.P.! In respect to your latest contribution of Saturday - July 13, 2019 - 5:13pm, I will duly concede that it was the United States Congress that officially took us into the conflict with the Imperial Japanese Empire with President Roosevelt signing THEIR legislation into law. Unlike today, it was back in the day when there was a clear separation of power among the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government. I will perpetually remind myself of that when I watch the future impeachment proceedings against El Supremo. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this geopolitical topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day from sea to shining sea. Now, I'm off to procure a few apples and oranges from some of those folks with brown complexions who are such a security threat to the integrity of the United States of America.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

Umm, I do not believe that a declaration of war requires the president's signature. Like resolutions, declarations of war are the prerogative of Congress.

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Historically, there were precedents. The Congress declared war on Britain in 1812, on Spain in 1898, on the Central Powers in 1916, and on Japan and the Axis in 1941. In each case, it was by an Act of Congress, which, according to the constitution, must then be ratified,

An Act adopted by simple majorities in both houses of Congress is promulgated, or given the force of law, in one of the following ways:

1. Signature by the President of the United States,
2. Inaction by the President after ten days from reception (excluding Sundays) while the Congress is in session, or
3. Reconsideration by the Congress after a presidential veto during its session. (A bill must receive a ​2⁄3 majority vote in both houses to override a president's veto.)

The President promulgates Acts of Congress made by the first two methods. If an Act is made by the third method, the presiding officer of the house that last reconsidered the act promulgates it

In all of the above cases, the President signed the Act, and it became Law, and thus the United States was at War. In the case of the
War with Mexico, the President did NOT sign the Act, and it became law through inaction.

So, yes, if the Congress declares war, the President may either sign it into law, allow it to go into law by inaction, or Veto it, and thus send it back to Congress.

If the Declaration of War is passed initially by a 2/3 majority of the Congress, or, after being vetoed, it re-passes by a 2/3 majority, it also becomes law. After Passing, it is Promulgated by the leader of the last House to consider it, either the Speaker of the House, or the President of the Senate ( or President Pro-Tem ).

Thus, since, in 1941, only one mushwit voted against it, Roosevelt actually did NOT need to sign it. However, it made a good photo op, and FDR NEVER missed an opportunity for some free publicity.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[OpanaPointer]

The signature event showed that the Administration and the Congress were on the same page. After the divisive fighting between interventionists and isolationists before the war such was important.

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Paul Ward and the community as a whole. Howdy Paul! Well sir, in respect to your timely posting of Saturday - July 13, 2019 - 9:08pm, old yours truly would like to convey my appreciation for your point-by-point explanation of the not so complicated ratification process that exists (or once existed) between the Legislative and the Executive arms of the Federal Government of the United States of America. Again, thank you for your layman's approach to explain and clarify the mechanics of intramural bureaucracy. Well, it's time for old yours truly to head back to my local FRUIT STAND before Immigration and Customs Enforcement shuts it down. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this vintage geopolitical topic from yesteryear - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day no matter where you just might happen to find yourself on Terra Firma.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[mikegriffith1]

There were some in FDR's administration who wanted peace with Japan, but too many key players in the White House did not, including FDR. Japan made some reasonable peace offers, but FDR rejected them all. The most comprehensive and balanced treatment I've seen of Japan's peace efforts is John Toland's treatment in The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire.

The best "offer" Japan made was "give us everything we want, everything we need, and stop helping China!"

That is simply incorrect. You might want to read Toland's treatment of the Japanese peace offers. You might also want to read Herbert Hoover's treatment of them in Freedom Betrayed.

The Japanese had entirely valid military and economic interests in Manchuria and in the rest of northern China, as well as in French Indochina. Manchuria, for example, was a warlords-divided mess before Japan took control, and one could make a decent case that most of the people in Manchuria were better off once Japan took over.

As for another poster's list of cases of Japanese aggression, one might want to study how we acquired the Mexican Cession and how we came to control the Philippines, not to mention how the British, the French, and the Dutch came to control their holdings in the Pacific and in Asia. Why was it okay for Western nations to use force and threats to acquire holdings but not okay for Japan to do so?

[OpanaPointer]

There were some in FDR's administration who wanted peace with Japan, but too many key players in the White House did not, including FDR. Japan made some reasonable peace offers, but FDR rejected them all. The most comprehensive and balanced treatment I've seen of Japan's peace efforts is John Toland's treatment in The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire.

The best "offer" Japan made was "give us everything we want, everything we need, and stop helping China!"

That is simply incorrect. You might want to read Toland's treatment of the Japanese peace offers. You might also want to read Herbert Hoover's treatment of them in Freedom Betrayed.

The Japanese had entirely valid military and economic interests in Manchuria and in the rest of northern China, as well as in French Indochina. Manchuria, for example, was a warlords-divided mess before Japan took control, and one could make a decent case that most of the people in Manchuria were better off once Japan took over.

As for another poster's list of cases of Japanese aggression, one might want to study how we acquired the Mexican Cession and how we came to control the Philippines, not to mention how the British, the French, and the Dutch came to control their holdings in the Pacific and in Asia. Why was it okay for Western nations to use force and threats to acquire holdings but not okay for Japan to do so?

You might want to read the Gaimudaijin's messages to the President.

[OpanaPointer]

And the Nine Power Treaty.

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both brother mikegriffith1 and the community as a whole. Howdy Mike! Well sir, in reference to your posting of Monday - July 15,2019 -12:36pm, it's not terribly often when I observe anyone pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the United States of America, the British Empire/Commonwealth, the Republic of France and the Kingdom of the Netherlands as they rationalize their respective geopolitical aims and goals ostensibly under the guise and justification of the WHITE MAN'S BURDEN. It is more than a bit ironic that the Imperial Japanese Empire justified their own oafish imperialistic behavior as a counterweight to expansive Occidentalism in both greater Oceania and the Continent of Asia. Just saying! Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this now quite vintage geopolitical topic from yesteryear - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of the Old Dominion that is the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[OpanaPointer]

Japan's last "peace offer" called for the US to provide Japan with all the materials they needed and for the US to stop supporting Japan. They offered nothing substantive in return. Flerken arrogant.

[OpanaPointer]

Oh, and Japan expected Germany to be grateful in exchange for "keeping the US busy in the Pacific."

[OpanaPointer]

I put the Magic documents online for convenience.

http://www.ibiblio.org/phha/pha/magic/