well i disagree with the whole concept of national rights (unsurprisingly given my politics). with japan its lack of resources was not a question of defence (under any reasonable definition of the term) but a question of being able to prosecute aggressive wars in china and south east-asia. and that's exactly the problem, the concept of defence is a very elastic one, which can be, and often is, used to mean actions that are anything but defensive.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Tunisia
Collapse
X
-
Yes.
Note I wasn't suggesting that in this case Japan could succeed in taking the US to court. I am saying that form a pragmatic perspective it was reasonable (assuming that you agreed with the Japanese wars in Asia which is what caused the embargo).
It was a legitament Casus Bell. (which is mostly what I mean by 'national right')
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostThe Japanese may have been justified in going to war, given the oil embargo.
If you assume that the oil embargo threatened Japanese sovereignty (which may have been true), Pearl Harbor had two other issues with it. First it was a surprise attack which has a significant diplomatic cost. Second it was a war Japan seemed likely to lose (There might have been better ways to acquire oil).
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostThe Japanese may have been justified in going to war, given the oil embargo.
If you assume that the oil embargo threatened Japanese sovereignty (which may have been true), Pearl Harbor had two other issues with it. First it was a surprise attack which has a significant diplomatic cost. Second it was a war Japan seemed likely to lose (There might have been better ways to acquire oil).
JMIndifference is Bliss
Comment
Comment