The only thing I can say is that you people are viewing these events and statements by 2008 eyes.
That is not correct.
Sanctions the idea of "aggressor nations " was all totally new.
That is also not correct.
There were no laws that governed these things at the time.
That does not seem correct. The decision to impose trade restrictions was a matter (in this example) of US domestic law, therefore there were in fact laws that governed these sorts of things. Furthermore, trade restrictions as internatinal political leverage are as old as city-states. China had trade restrictions beginning in the 13thC. The UK had trade restrictions (and one could argue still do). Japan had trade restrictions throughout the 19thC and straight through the crisis period that preceded their attack on PH and the UK C'wealths. In none of these prior instances were trade restrictions deemed causus belli. These were only viewed as a 'cause for war' by expansionist aggressor states who would have eventually gone to war anyhow but under conditions more favorable to their economies (and thus with somewhat improved hopes of consolidating their illegally-gotten gains).
Moreover, since you have raised The Law as an issue, Japan's invasion of China was clearly a violation of international law. If one could argue that Japan "had to wage war against the UK and the US because of the embargo" then one is in essence arguing that Japan had to wage war because Japan started an illegal war in China.
Also economic sanctions are exactly that not sanctions that would cause another country to be defenseless.
Japan would not have been defenseless. Japan would, however, had to limit its aggressive expansion or, alternatively, back down on its demands that the entire circum-Pacific immediatelty surrender and subject their citizenry to the (brutally repressive and genocidal) governance of Imperial Japan. Very few in the Phillippines for example wanted Japan to take over, because they knew they were four years from independence anyhow, and because they knew from reports in China exactly what Japan meant by "co-prosperity."
If the US or the UK or any nation get into an international flap and all of OPEC decide that not one member sells oil to that country. Would there or would there not be firebrands that would be pushing said government to take what was needed if only for defense if not for economic reasons?
There would be such types indeed. But they would with virtual certainty not succeed. The US and UK are states that negotiate in good faith. The "21 Demands" were not made with the intention of negotiation. Cooler heads in Japan could easily have prevailed had anyone the moral or intellectual standing to note that Japan's security and economic strength would actually IMPROVE by letting go of China. But if one starts a war with the intent of genocide, then negotiations do not really matter because any negotiation results in the abandonment of the basic goal.
Now look at the situation from a earlier age where might meant right and there was no such thing as viewing the world as a whole but just separate nations that were friends or foes.
Non-sequitur. Even then, there was the idea of rational self interest, and morality in governance. Imperial Japan abandoned reason in the former and simply abandoned without concern the latter. There was probably a time in the 1920s where Japan *could have* succesffully played the "anti-colonialism" card. But to do so there would have had to be a real commitment to local semi-autonomy in China and there would have been a real commitment to humane treatment of civilian populations.
Remeber that all nations at all times have military plans against even their closest allies ( ie. the US rainbow plans etc. )
Non sequitur. The existence of a contingency plan does not imply the intention or desire to implement that plan.
But honor and Face in 1940 meant all any nation up until that time would have gone to war in a flash
Baloney. The US for example was a model of tolerance. When the Japanese deliberately sank the Panay, an American naval vessel that was clearly marked as such, the US provided Japan with a graceful opportunity to make recompense, rather than simply pulling the trigger and going after Japan straight away. The reasons for that are many. However, for this discussion the significant point is that "pulling the trigger to save face" was NOT common.
I am not making excuses for what happened or excusing any behavior from War crimes to Crimes against humanity.
Yes, you quite literally are making excuses for what happened, although you seem to agree that it should not have happened. I'm not going to suspend moral judgement. By any standards -- 2008 or 1938, Japan's aggression and attempted genocide in China (and later, in the Phillippines during the occupation) was immoral and every Japanese citizen knew it before the first shot was fired.
Which gets us back to the bombing campaigns. They were horrible things to happen in a war, but they were necessary to stop Imperial Japan's murderous regime from slaughtering millions more of civilians in occupied lands -- not just China but in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Burma as well, and to bring an end to the war to stop the slaughter of interned war powers civilians and prisoners of war. The bombing campaigns were morally proper, fair, justified, appropriate, and necessary. And they could have been suspended at any time, the instant the Empire would surrender. The fact that it took 10 months after it was quite clear that Japan had no hope of winning simply further underscores the immorality of the Japanese government. What else could you call a philosophy built on the notion of sacrificing tens of millions of their own citizens just so that a few high ranking military leaders could in essence "feel good about dying."
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
