It's 1941 & you're POTUS. Would you support a false flag attack on the US to ensure entry into WWII?

[Mr. Ukucasha]

EDIT: In case you are feeling too lazy to read the entire OP, please at least read the tl;dr version in the post immediately following this one. However, I strongly recommend reading the OP instead.


Don't get me wrong: FDR did not do Pearl Harbor nor did he have prior knowledge of the attack. I am merely presenting a hypothetical scenario in this thought experiment.

Anyway, imagine it is 1941 and you are POTUS. It is rumored among many members of the American public that Jews are being murdered en masse in German-occupied territories, but these are just rumors and many don't believe them. However, as POTUS, you have been provided with undeniable evidence that Jews of all backgrounds, including babies, are being killed in at least the tens to hundreds of thousands* in German-occupied territories just for being ethnically Jewish, possibly with the ultimate goal of annihilating the Jewish race completely from Europe. This seems especially believable to you considering that Hitler publicly and on camera alluded to the "annihilation of the Jewish race from Europe!" if a second world war broke out in a speech to the Reichstag in 1939. Watching this speech in 1939, you thought he was speaking metaphorically, but the recent reports you have received reveal that he likely meant it literally. Additionally, you have also been provided with undeniable evidence proving Japan's atrocities and crimes against humanity.

However, US entry into the war is generally unpopular among the American public. The overwhelming public sentiment is "Japan/Germany haven't attacked us, so we have no right to attack them!" The US is already sending the Allies billions and billions of dollars of aid through the Lend-Lease Act. While I am unsure whether Congress would have approved US entry into WWII without Pearl Harbor, for the sake of this thought experiment, let's assume that they would not.  

In real life, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and then declared war on the US, followed by the US declaring war on Japan. In spite of the fact that the US did not declare war on Germany nor was Germany obliged to join the Japanese in their fight, for some bizarre reason Germany declared war on the US shortly after the US declared war on Japan. Let's assume in this scenario things turn out a bit differently:

In this scenario, neither Japan nor Germany have plans to attack the US. One of your advisors develops an extensive plan to stage a mass attack on Pearl Harbor and blame it on Japan and Germany. This plan has been so well thought out, elaborated, and detailed that there is virtually a 100% chance of success in framing Japan and Germany for the attack. Initially, you suggest staging an incident where the US successfully thwarts a planned (fake) attack by the Japanese and Germans and using that as a pretext to enter the war instead, but your advisors inform you that unless the attack causes tangible harm, it is unlikely to generate the emotional response necessary to convince the staunchly isolationist American public and Congressmen to support US entry. Moreover, if the US blames Germany and Japan for an attack they did not commit, they would probably still accept credit for the attack, since they are all too eager for the US to officially join the war so they can do things like attack US fleets that are sending essential lend-lease assistance to the Allies.

Without an attack, there is no way Congress approves a declaration of war. Although Japan and Germany want the US in the war for the reasons mentioned above, they have no plans to attack the US any time soon. By killing thousands, you could save millions and millions of lives. It is likely that the Allies would have won the war without the US, but it would have taken many, many, many more years and resulted in the death of tens of millions of more people, not to mention Soviet domination of Europe that would follow!

Wouldn't staging a fake attack be the moral thing to do in this scenario? Wouldn't it be more immoral not to attack Pearl Harbor and then blame it on Japan and Germany? It seems pretty evil to just let millions and millions of people die.

At the same time, as POTUS, you have an obligation to protect your constituents above all else. It would also be immoral to kill thousands of your own people and lie to the public to enter the war. Additionally, it may not have been so clear at the time how much US entry would help end the atrocities.

Without hindsight, would you agree to this proposal?

*It is 1941, so the number of killings is in the tens to hundreds of thousands (mostly through Einsatzgruppen). It did not reach the millions until 1942, the height of the Holocaust.

[Mr. Ukucasha]

tl;dr version of the OP:

It's 1941 and you are POTUS. There are rumors among the American public that Jews are being killed en masse in German occupied territories, but many don't believe them. However, as POTUS, you are provided with undeniable evidence that Jews are being killed in the hundreds of thousands just for being Jewish, with the extinction of the Jewish race likely being the ultimate objective. Additionally, you are also provided with undeniable evidence of Japan's atrocities.

However, in this scenario, neither Japan nor Germany have plans to attack the US, and Congress would certainly not approve US entry into the war without an attack, especially since the US is already giving billions and billions of dollars of aid to the Allies through the Lend-Lease Act. An advisor comes up with an extensive plan to attack Pearl Harbor and blame Germany and Japan for it as a pretext to enter the war. The attack must cause tangible harm and many civilian casualties in order to generate the emotional response necessary to convince the staunchly isolationist American public and Congressmen to support US entry. Would you support this plan?

[Liminal Trans Girl]

no(sane)

[Oppo]

I think you significantly overestimate the degree of isolationist sentiment in the period before Pearl Harbor.

[buritobr]

Not necessary. The president was re-re-elected in 1940. His term would end on January 1945. In 1941, he could take unpopular decisions, like entering in the war.

[AtorBoltox]

Not necessary. The president was re-re-elected in 1940. His term would end on January 1945. In 1941, he could take unpopular decisions, like entering in the war.

Exactly. Public opinion polling in 1940 and 1941 showed the majority of the American public considered arming Britain more important than avoiding war with Germany

[buritobr]

Not necessary. The president was re-re-elected in 1940. His term would end on January 1945. In 1941, he could take unpopular decisions, like entering in the war.

Exactly. Public opinion polling in 1940 and 1941 showed the majority of the American public considered arming Britain more important than avoiding war with Germany

And the US before 1941 was not so against military intervention: Japan 1854, war against Spain 1898, Philippines 1899, lots of military intervention in Central America in the early 20th century.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yes(Sane, apparently abnormal). This is about stopping the people who are committing the holocaust and things like the rape of Nanjing. The deaths of a few thousand Americans is worth that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes

[jaichind]

No.  Atrocities or lack of atrocities should play no role in foreign policy.  The only issue should be "what is in it for our country."

[MarkD]

No, and I'm astonished anyone here is saying yes. It's pretty damn cynical to say yes to this question.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, of course not. Conspiring to harm your own citizens as a way to change public opinion is a fundamental violation of the trust between a public official and their constituents, and thus of democracy itself.

What I would probably have done in such a situation (ie assuming that I couldn't get Congressional support to declare war) is use the President's broad discretion as Commander in Chief of the armed forces to engineer as many provocations as possible until Japan and Germany would have no choice to retaliate, making war inevitable. The experience of the past century proves that presidents can do a lot to drive these kinds of outcomes even when Congress isn't on board, and while this has a lot of problematic implications, in this case the power could be used for good.

[KaiserDave]

No of course not, especially when it would not be remotely necessary as war was very likely to be sparked by that point (1941) regardless. Germany was not far from openly attacking American shipping in the Atlantic. Once such a provocation occurred, either from Germany or Japan, I would prosecute the war appropriately and relentlessly.

[lfromnj]

No.  Atrocities or lack of atrocities should play no role in foreign policy.  The only issue should be "what is in it for our country."

Or my bank account of course right ?