Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "BlueJay" channel.

In point of fact a declaration of war was issued in Moscow almost simultaneously with the attack, so it could not be claimed without warning; just not enough time to notify the Far Eastern Fleet. It was actually what was supposed to happen in 1941, a declaration of war without sufficient time to warn the US Pacific Fleet, who like the Russians in 1904 sat dumb and happy in port. The difference was that the Japanese delivered the message too late.
3
@HeyNonyNonymous You are right and wrong. The Japanese made the final decision to go to war about two days before. They then began sending a seven part message to the Japanese embassy in Washington to be delivered immediately before the attack on December 7th. Decoding and preparation of the declaration was slow and delayed its presentation; and according to some sources, they were even kept waiting until after the message was ava8lable to be delivered by the US Secretary of State. Either way, the message delayed past the time that the attack began.
3
@CharizardMaster69 Yes, that was exactly the case, it was supposed to occur up to an hour prior to the attack. During the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905; Japan did exactly the same. Japanese diplomats in Moscow dropped the dec,aeration there shortly before the Japanese initial assault of the Russian Far Eastern fleet in Port Arthur. By the way, what is your opinion on the Soviet-Chinese War in 1928 (if my memory serves me correctly). It was against the Tuan in Manchuria, and he lost. Personally, I wonder how much that might have led to the Japanese takeover there later. Russian moves south had been a sensitive issue for Japan for several centuries. In other words was the takeover viewed as a block to a traditional enemy as much as territory grab on what was viewed as a weak neighbor.
2
@Brehat29 First, let's deal with March 1945 in Indochina. The French Vichy Government appointees and armed French troops still operated there much as the Vichy Governments in North Africa did before the Torch Landings. Yes, there was Japanese interference, but unlike the Dutch Eadt Indies, the French nationals weren't interned. In March 1945, the French Governor planned an uprising against the Japanese. Someone informed on them, and the Japanese struck first, attacking and disarming the troops and siezing the government openly. The question of was there a declaration of war is moot. As an ally of Germany, Japan can said to have acted like the Germans when they siezed the Vichy portion of France earlier. This not to say that the action was right, but that argument can be made. I should point out that some troops fought their way out of Indochina to China; where the Chinese disarmed and interned them. Despite the fact they were now fighting the Japanese. Additionally the US Army Corp in China had been ordered not to support them as they fought out. Despite the order General Chenault (sp) did have aircraft fly support for them. This action probably led to his relief of command shortly thereafter. Now to 1940, first you are aware that the French and Thais fought a border war and that the Japanese acted to end the conflict. As earlier mentioned the French Indochinese government was Vichy. The government there had requested arms and supplies from the US, but had been refused (openly because it was Vichy and additionally, probably because FDR strongly disliked colonial powers). When the Japanese requested passage through Indochina (actually occupation similar to Germans in French North Africa) there was no opposition. Why not a full occupation? Probably unlike the Dutch East Indies, the Vichy government hadn't participated in the US secondary embargo against Japan. A secondary embargo was considered an act of war under international law at the time; so, from around July 1941 the Dutch East Indies had been at war with Japan, as had the US. (Something usually not mentioned). Of course the Japanese were German allies, but until December 1941 managed to ignore thar fact. If you aren't aware the Japanese were quisi-allies with Thailand who let use bases and travel through the nation (Actually the Thai royal family played its usual game of having one of its princes supporting each side, the old game "I win tails you lose", meaning in this case no matter which side one the monarchy won't lose.) Back to Indochina a minute, the first US forces there arrived in early 1944 (an OSS Mission), sent to train Ho Chi Minh's people to fight the Japanese; however, the only battle ever mentioned that I have found was an attack by them on a French military outpost (shades of things to come). By the way the first US troop killed in Indochina was in 1946, when one of this team was killed by the Viet Minh while trying to setup a truce between the French forces who had returned z (by the way, the Brits brought them there the US recused). After this the US pulled out and supported neither side until the Nationalists lost the mainland. You can see why I didn't want to get into the weeds here; there is too much the popular media and press didn't know, ignored, or failed to report. Try finding the full set of the PENTAGON PAPERS (I have, and it is ashelf of books in its own right). Additionally get into the official documents, they will, make you think.
2
@snakes3425 They were just as angry, but they initially felt that they could easily handle the Japanese. As I said elsewhere, the major part of the armed forces was the army; the problem with that was that the Transiberian Railline was insufficient to carry large numbers of troops rapidly and hand a major incomplete portion of the line (around Lake Baikal if I remember correctly. So while reinforcements could be sent faster than that 2nd Fleet, supplies and troops faced a very difficult trip. This meant a smaller, well led army with shorter supply lines faced a potentially much larger enemy that couldn't bring its strength to bear. Add Imperial Russia's political issues, and a high probability of failure was created.
2
Talking about the Baltic Fleet, this bad history. First, Japan had taken Port Arthur after the First Sino-Japanese War; but were forced to give it back and immediately the Rusdians took over, taken as an insult. Add this to around 200 years of low level hostility between Imperial Russia and Japan. In 1700 the Japanese owned the entire Kyril Islands, Sakhalin and various coastal areas of Siberia. Despite repeated agreements with the Russian, including one involving an official delegation in Moscow, by 1870's Japan only retained half of Sakhalin and a few islands off Hokkaido due to Russia's constant expansion. In order to protect those islands and Hokkaido, Japan then ceded the rest of Sakhlain to Russia (it didn't hurt that Japan had British support on the issue). The Russo-Japanese was as much over fears of further Russian advances as anything else. The Japanese used a favorite tactic, delivering a declaration of war just before the attack began (done in Moscow, ensuring it being too late to alert the Russian fleet. Once it was sunk or contained, the Japanese had freedom of movement to the continent. Russian only rail line to East Asia was incomplete and unable to handle heavy traffic. The only hope to the government was to regain control of the sea route to the continent, hence the political decision to send the Baltic Fleet. The fleet itself include obsolescent vessels and as described poorly trained crew (remember the Navy wasn't important to Tsarist Russia, mainly a land force centered in Europe and the Turkish areas). Most of the events as described (rather childishly by the narrator) were about as described, except that Great Britain was actually unfriendly to the voyage even without the Dogger Bank Incident. It was a disasterious voyage, using ships not designed for the voyage, and no real support or maintenance enroute. The Navy wasn't the real problem however; it was the political decisions that caused Japanese concerns, lack of concern in Russian East Asian Forces, conceit about their supremacy over the Japanese (alot like before WW2), and of course the political decision that caused the mission to be sent. The failure of this war actually resulted in a revolt in 1905.
1
@Brehat29 The Japanese occupied Indochina before the Pacific War actually began. 1945 was a side issue that needs to be discussed separately. Just like the French Indochinese requests for arms before the original occupation.
1
@alexanderthegreat6682 No, the message was sent in parts. The US intercepted them and translated them. The 7th (and last) part (received December 6th in Washington) was also intercepted, translated (we actually could decode faster than the Japanese embassy) and efforts made to get attention for the contents. It was to have been delivered shortly before the attack, allowing no reaction time. Many debates over who actually saw the intercept and when they saw it; however, none of that matters since none of the officials believed an attack was likely at Pearl Harbor.
1
@Brehat29 From your comment and name, you appear to be of Dutch ancestry and probably a citizen of that nation. So I will assume that the Dutch definitely worked with Great Britain and listened to the US (look at the arms procurement from here). The US had t a ken several actions that were acts of war by mid-1941, and strong armed governments to support those acts including the embargo of oil to Japan. So my point is that matters weren't so c l eN and pure as good verses bad. No matter how wrong Japan was in China other wrongs don't make a right. What you call spinning is also called factual details. I can guarantee you that there are legitimate sources in both English and French about the French government in Indochina planning to go after the a Japanese in 1945. They viewed the Japanese as being weakened, and I suspect that they expected Allied aid which wasn't forth coming. The betrayal of their attempt wasn't false; since they were unpopular with many Vietnamese (read about their treatment after a plot in th 1930's). Why I was trying to avoid getting into t he whole Indochinese situation in detail. It was a mess of conflicting political and social issues beyond just the fighting. As I said, try starting with the around four self feet of the complete Pentagon Papers. By the way comparing Japan's initial occupation of Indochina to German occupation of North Africa and the position of the Allies to the Vichy governments response isn't spinning.
1
@Brehat29 Your wonderful data has to be suspect. The Japanese took over on 9 March 1945; not 9 May. French forces were still fully engaged in Europe against the NAZIs. They may have hoped for Allied Landings or support to help them. Sources show that there were some support missions flown by Chenault controlled air units but not many, and he could have complained about the support restrictions but they were violated. There is a good book on the OSS in WW2, the section on the Far East might be. Of use to you.
1
@Brehat29 As to the behavior of the Japanese, nothing surprises me. I have no reason to defend their atrocities any more than the 1930's behavior of the French that helped prevent real support for them. By the way, pointing out little hostile acts by the French earlier is in keeping with their behavior until the Japanese appeared to be on the ropes. As to my location in reference to your body, you must be suffering the same delusion that makes 9 March look like 9 May.
1
@Brehat29 A "stalker" perhaps you should consider reporting yourself for providing false or materially false information; like your last post where you either made an uninformed or intentionally false statement of dates. Perhaps you might report yourself for the name calling and bullying try to silence corrects of misinformation. You won't do that. If I do hear from you tube expect a counter complaint; and we will see who has been abusive.
1