ExtraCredits patreon

First Strike - The Path to Pearl Harbor #3 - Extra History

🕑 Added 2022-12-09 18:41:24 +0000 UTC

Comments

Benjamin Fouty

My fault for not being clearer: the point was the timing. The Second London Conference was the latest in a decade and a half of naval deescalation, see the previous video about the Washington Naval Conference. For example gun size, but also displacement caps and proposed additional limits to cruisers and expansion of limits smaller ships. Japan walked out of that, which i think is far more provoking. I would say, and would love to hear the counter argument, 2ONA was a reaction to Japan abandoning all limits. I dont find the speculative “well maybe they would have accepted something else” convincing- they cheated on the Washington treaty for displacement limits the entire time! All the Axis powers had a huge culture of victimhood and used it to justify some of the most inhuman acts perpetuated in modern history.

John Cox

I got the impression that the Two Oceans Navy Act was seen more as a growing threat of quantity, not so much individual ship capability. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Ocean_Navy_Act, "Harold Stark requested four billion dollars from Congress to increase the size of the American combat fleet by 70%, adding 257 ships amounting to 1,325,000 tons. On June 18, after less than an hour of debate, the House of Representatives by a 316–0 vote authorized $8.55 billion for a naval expansion program..." Plus 15,000 aircraft. That's a lot of tonnage, and the political sphere threw unanimous support behind it. Japan was increasing its war game, and after breaking Japan's codes, the US increased its own capability to match and exceed. I could see Japan interpreting this unanimous support by the House as the entire US government (or close enough to it from their perspective across the ocean) being willing to do what they needed to stop Japan's military expansions in the Pacific, which was a problem for the military expansionists and was enough to at least worry them, even to the point of taking pre-emptive action. So yeah, "provocation" from the perspective of militarists who saw the US as intentionally trying to get in the way of their goals. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the point you're making? The examples given in your post were only about gun size to support an argument against the Act as being a provocation.

John Cox

Props to the artists for drawing those ships and planes. I'm going to guess that they don't want to draw any more :).

Benjamin Fouty

Now hang on here. The Two Oceans Navy Act was signed on July, 14 1940. Japan withdrew from the First London Naval Conference January 15, 1936. The North Carolinas were FY37, but had turrets designed for both 14” per Second London conference and 16” per First London escalator clause which was invoked because of the Japanese withdrawl. And the larger South Dakota class was a FY39 appropriation from development in FY37, well after the Japanese withdrawal. So sorry, it is difficult to swallow the Two Oceans Navy Act as a provocation when Japan couldn’t be bothered to even continue discussion on the Second London Navy Conference. Krishisma might have survived Guadalcanal if USS Washington had 14” guns when Japan had joined the conference. Dont call it provocation after the fact.