On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote:
in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM:
Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions
that are taken by agressors, not neutrals.
That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by
another nation was at war with them prior to the attack?
Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade
with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the
US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet
to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to
secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about
protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the
embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl
Harbour and Clarke.
Someone in one of these threads recently suggested that in the future, America
would be justified in engaging in war in the Middle East to defend their sources
of oil. Sounds like they support the idea that lead to the Japanese attacking
the US in WWII. Wrong then but right today. Interesting how attitudes depend
on which side of the fence you're on.
Mike