WWII boming debate

[Ike99]

I believe I have seen many times that the ABCD nations and the US acted jointly in the embargo. If I'm correct in that, then there would have been nowhere else to get oil.

This is the way I read it. They had negotiations with the Dutch for oil from the East Indies, but when the USA came down with the oil embargo the Dutch followed and cancelled everything.

As noted, Japan was not cut off from oil.

Who is this exporter of oil mdiehl your referring too?

[bradfordkay]

Let's see if the logic used here makes sense...

Serivce station owners Brown and Smith have been selling gas to the Simpson family for years. They are the only sources in the local area for gasoline. The Simpson's eldest son Charles decides that he needs a new home and takes over one belonging to the Johnson's, forcing the Johnson family to live in the barn (and raping their daughter Joyce in the bargain). The Browns and Smiths decide that they are no longer going to sell gas to the Simpsons unless Charles leaves the Johnson's house, and yet you guys are saying that it's the Browns and Smiths who are committing the hostile act?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Let's see if the logic used here makes sense...

Serivce station owners Brown and Smith have been selling gas to the Simpson family for years. They are the only sources in the local area for gasoline. The Simpson's eldest son Charles decides that he needs a new home and takes over one belonging to the Johnson's, forcing the Johnson family to live in the barn (and raping their daughter Joyce in the bargain). The Browns and Smiths decide that they are no longer going to sell gas to the Simpsons unless Charles leaves the Johnson's house, and yet you guys are saying that it's the Browns and Smiths who are committing the hostile act?

Do you have Joyce's phone number?

[bradfordkay]

I presume, sir, that you are merely planning to offer counseling services to the young lady...[:-]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

I think what we've chanced upon here is the Japanese equivalent of a Western skinhead.
 
PoE (aka ivanmoe)
 
 

[sullafelix]

" Serivce station owners Brown and Smith have been selling gas to the Simpson family for years. They are the only sources in the local area for gasoline. The Simpson's eldest son Charles decides that he needs a new home and takes over one belonging to the Johnson's, forcing the Johnson family to live in the barn (and raping their daughter Joyce in the bargain). The Browns and Smiths decide that they are no longer going to sell gas to the Simpsons unless Charles leaves the Johnson's house, and yet you guys are saying that it's the Browns and Smiths who are committing the hostile act? "
 
 I hope I'm not in that " you guys ".
 
Now to summarize my printed ideas using your analogy. I agree totally that the Simpsons are completely at fault and should be held accountable. Everything is as you said except for a few changes. The Smiths got their house by stealing it from a neighbor that is now chained in the yard and farming for them. All the other neighbors ( except the Browns ) got their houses that way and act all the time just like the Simpsons and Smiths, some are a bit better some are about the same in their actions. Now what would give the Browns the idea that the Simpsons would all of a sudden decide to turn over a new leaf,  (especially seeing how the only neighbor that acts lawfully is the Browns ) by not selling them gas? One would assume that the Simpsons ( and most of their neighbors going by their track record ) would just attack the nearest gas station near them and take what they wanted?
 
I didn't like your analogy at first but it grew on me and it worked perfectly ( hopefully ) to make my ideas clear.
 
I think I'm finally getting the idea of posting on a forum. In my confusion in being brought up by other methods of communication I got it all wrong. A forum is not for an exchange of ideas ( as in a verbal forum ) but just a place to post your ideas and pretty much thats it. I also see that politicians over the last 40 years have really taught people things. If you don't want to discuss a persons ideas you just yell louder than them and assault their good names.

[mdiehl]

I believe I have seen many times that the ABCD nations and the US acted jointly in the embargo. If I'm correct in that, then there would have been nowhere else to get oil.

French Indochina and also the USSR (with whom Japan had a nonaggression treaty). Notably NOT enough to keep Combinedfleet running for the duration, but with that (and coal from Manchuria and Korea) plenty to keep basic industry and domestic food production going.

I just read that the Arikara were so decimated by smallpox in the 1830's that they had to join with the Mandans and Hidatsa. Also at this time there are only 20 leaving elders that can speak their language.

That sounds ballpark correct. But the thing is smallpox was largely out of the control of the US government. Even the scratch method of inoculation was unavailable through the period when smallpox ran wild. While agreeing that smallpox was devastating, the evidence of intent and moreover that smallpox was a part and parcel of US expansionist policy is lacking. Thus, comparisons with Japanese treatment of Manchurians, Chinese, and Filipinos don't really work.

I don't think the Crows, who would also fit as they were always US allies are any better off on their reservation than the Dakota.

We were talking about genocide and murder of prisoners. Not injustice. No one has made the claim that NA were well-treated universally. I think there are some legitimate issues in re reservations. Ironically, the period in which the reservation concept most lived up to its Idealized State was when the US Army administered the reservations and, later, starting in the 1970s. But the biggest injustices have less to do with reservations than they do with sheer corruption and stupidity (the Dawes Act in particular). Fortunately now, at least, NA have much better control over their own economic desttiny. Casinos are no place I'd want to be, but the 1st nations are using them to good effect, although it is clear that many social problems persist.

Well I think your now dealing with semantics. I don't think it matters to a race that genocide and wholesale slaughter was government sponsored or not.

I'm not dealing with semantics. I'm dealing with intention and with foreseeable consequences. Smallpox was not understood very well until after its worst effects had swept through North America (most of which occurred before the United States existed as a political entity). In contrast, the effects of a beheading contest between Japanese infantry officers were rather predictable.

I've never seen anything written from the Japanese that said they intended to wipe the Chinese off the face of the earth,

Not in so many words. And yet as Iris Chang has noted IJA policy in Nanking (and other cities, Nanking was not the only one) was directed from the top down and that policy has been documented to the degree that one can (considering that the Japanese artfully burned documents and generally sanitized all records in re the Emperor, the cabinet, the generals, and orders to troops in the field). But there are literally dozens of documents and decrypted transmissions of Japanese orders to execute prisoners. So, it's not like there was any sense of Samurai morality at play there.

Most of the nations of the world felt the chinese ( no offence ) were lower than dirt and not even humans. Russians considered them " monkeys " and the colonial powers couldn't have cared if the coolie who drove them around yesterday died from starvation as long as a new coolie was here today

.

I do not think that claim is substantially supported by the data. Nor do I think it is universally true for the whole period of western colonialism in China (especially not after the 1st WW) and it is not specificallt true of US efforts in China (where the US never had a colony and in which US goals seem to have differed somewhat from others' goals).

I understand completely that your point is that all the Japanese had to do was just cave in to all the Allies demands, leave China ( while some of the Allies still owned some of it ).

Qua your claim that the west should have just "caved in" to Japanese demands to be allowed to continue the genocide. I don't really see how the US can come off OK in any analysis you would make. On the one hand the US was wrong to embargo oil. On the other hand, had the US not embargoed the oil, it would have been tantamount acquiescence to (if not actually abetting) Japanese injustices in China. The US took a moral position when it made the embargo. It was known by both the US and Japan to be the most moral position, but Japan did not like that position because it was inconvenient for their imperialistic agenda. We know that Japan knew that their conduct in China was immoral because their conduct was specifically in contradiction with their stated goals in the "Co-prosperity sphere" documents, their conduct was specifically contrary to Samurai traditions in regards to the treatment of noncombatants, and because they made a substantial effort to hide their conduct in the terminal days of the war by burning all evidence of same.

Do you think that if the US were to make such demands on other countries they would just follow along? Lets say in a slightly different history shift the US determines that what England is doing in India is not right. Do you think England would just walked away?

I do not think the UK would have attacked the US under such circumstances, because the UK did not do so during the American civil war. Isolation from southern cotton was a problem for the UK, but they turned to other sources by developing same, most notably India and Egypt.

They could only conceive of their way of thinking and could not grasp the Japanese mind.

The Japanese mindset was pretty well understood in summer 1941. Nonetheless, a time comes when responsible people don't abet genocide. I think there is more compelling evidence to indicate that the Japanese did not understand the Japanese mindset, since their behaviors were consistently in contradiction to the values they claimed to embrace.

Any idea that they could discuss the situation with the Japanese was idiotic on their part.

Ah. So since the Japanese were unwilling to negotiate in good faith or embrace their own stated values the west should have simply provided them with the desired resources to carry on as usual?

So in a sense Pearl harbor can be laid right at their feet.

Only in a very warped and immoral sense. It's a bit like blaming the rape of an attractive woman on the woman rather than the rapist. It was her fault for looking so tempting etc.

Anyone who had sent demands as we did to a nation like Japan in 1940 and did not put it's armed forces on full alert or even wartime status was just plain wishing all would be well.

Here we're off the topic of intention and onto the topic of preparedness. The US armed forces were in fact on alert. The alertness arrived about 24 hours too late though. PacFleet ordered on Dec 6 a full alert status to begin on Monday 8 Dec. because the decision to make the alert (late on Dec 6) would have been impossible to implement on Dec 7 with so many crews on leave. The US was rather lulled into a state of uncertainty by the fact that the Japanese made a pretense of negotiation until well after Mobile Force had sortied for it's attack on Pearl Harbor. Naive perhaps. That said, it remains true that:

1. The US made no form of aggression against Japan prior to Japan's attack.
2. Japan had no causus belli against the US.
3. Japan was in violation of all standards of morality (including their own) vis their policies in China beginning in 1936.

[sullafelix]

"1. The US made no form of aggression against Japan prior to Japan's attack.
2. Japan had no causus belli against the US.
3. Japan was in violation of all standards of morality (including their own) vis their policies in China beginning in 1936. "

I NEVER said I believed the US made an aggressive move toward Japan. I said the Japanese believed it. You have again confused everything I said and also picked it apart so that it fits your arguments.
I NEVER said that the Western allies should have just caved in. I SAID it was foolish and damn near criminal to expect that they would. I NEVER said that because the we did not understand the Japanese mindset we should have not done what we did.

When I said we should have been prepared for war I did not mean at the last moment, I meant that the moment that we decided to use and " force " economic or whatever against Japan we ahould have expected them to attack us. Her whole history in warfare up to that point blares out " sneak attack ". had we not worried about Europe for 6 months and just beefed up all our forces and become semibelligerent it is very possible in my mind that they would have backed down. Contrary to after school specials you do not talk to a bully and straighten out your differences you smack him or at least make him understand that his actions will have consequences ( not economic ).

We are really in perfect agreement about what was right and wrong during 1940.

We differ in two areas, One, that the other nations of the world had grown up at all since 1918 and that it was okay for them to have colonies but not Japan or that some of them were not guilty of just as horrific acts. Whether state sponsored or just society. Two, that doing anything less than letting Japan know exactly what they were in store for if they attacked us or the ABCD nations. The Japanese mindset at the time was that we were weak and would not fight back. Which is probably why they NEVER really negotiated with us because they weren't ever going to, and assumed we would just drop our demands after awhile.

One thing I did say was that our cutting off of all oil from us and our allies was going to leave them defenseless in 6 months to a year. Those are Japanese estimates written up at that time. Even if they are wrong they are the #'s THEY believed.The Japanese could have stopped everything had they listened to reason in 1940. But, in my eyes only St. Francis could have expected such a scenario with his eyes open. I never said we should not have done it. If you are going to stick a stick into a wasps nest with one hand you had better have a can of raid in the other. I still believe that any nation that considers itself to be or is actually becoming defenseless will do anything in the end to avert this. I never said they would be blameless but they will still do it.

You seem to have always missed where I said the Japanese believed this  or they believed or thought that and took it as my thinking.

" Most of the nations of the world felt the chinese ( no offence ) were lower than dirt and not even humans. Russians considered them " monkeys " and the colonial powers couldn't have cared if the coolie who drove them around yesterday died from starvation as long as a new coolie was here today "

I never mentioned the US as having anything like an attitude like this with China, we have always had a soft spot for her. But I don't know what " data " you can gather about one civilizations hatred and revulsion of another. These are attitudes and thoughts taken right out of diplomats and others writings and spoken words let alone other colonials.

As far as the NAI's being from New England probably skews my thinking having only the history of this area right in my face. The Europeans here did have a policy of extermination toward the NAI's and it was state sponsored. The written orders and a mass of other evidence shows this is true.

The Samurai traditions that you speak about are all correct.But, the twisted late 19th early 20th century form of bushido had nothing but a slight resemblane to the older tradition. The warped tradition that they were being taught were as you said completely contrary to what some of the older tradition was formed of. The only problem is that the warped one is the one we had to deal with.

I still say you are looking at this time period with rose colored glasses. You are under the impression that just because some people in other countries held the same view as the US government that their governments did. I believe this is totally wrong and to prove it I showed the example of Algeria almost 20 years after WW2, that is one example there are plenty more.

[mdiehl]

I NEVER said I believed the US made an aggressive move toward Japan. I said the Japanese believed it. You have again confused everything I said and also picked it apart so that it fits your arguments.

I don't think the evidence supports your denial. I haven't cherry picked your argument. You said:

With cutting off Japans entire supply of oil, that was definately a hostile act. How can you cut off the entire supply of oil to any nation and not consider it hostile?

So what's the difference from an "aggressive move" and a "hostile act" when in your rationale either seems to justify a military attack by Japan? You have equated embargo with attack.

I NEVER said that the Western allies should have just caved in. I SAID it was foolish and damn near criminal to expect that they would.

Well, you have repeatedly indicated that the West forced Japan to attack and laid the responsibility for the Japanese attack on the US for the US use of an embargo. I don't think I've misunderstood your claim. It seems pretty clear that you believe that one could (now or then) reasonably construe a non-military action (the oil embargo) as the equivalent of an attack (or a "hostile act" or a non-"aggressive move") that warranted (in your mind) or could be perceived to warrant (in Japan's mind in your clarified argument) an attack on the United States. The thing is, NO ONE in 1941 would have treated that as a causus belli other than an expansionist totalitarian power discomfited by limitations on global ambition.

When I said we should have been prepared for war I did not mean at the last moment, I meant that the moment that we decided to use and " force " economic or whatever against Japan we ahould have expected them to attack us.

This is a legitimate complaint I think, but you have to bear in mind that the US was in fact preparing for war. It's not the sort of thing that can happen overnight, however. For example, in 1939 the USAAF was smaller than the Rumanian Air Force. In 1939, the United States had fewer mobilized trained infantry divisions than Czechoslovakia, and fewer armored corps than Poland. In 1939 the US was a third rate military power with an underdeveloped 1st rate navy.

If your claim is that the US should have foresworn any economic sanctions until 1943 then that is one point of view, but not necessarily an action that would in the long run have benefitted the US and it would certainly have harmed China. For my part I do think the US took reasonable precautions, given the amount of intel available on what Japan was actually doing at the time.

That's the thing about "the initiative" -- if you KNOW that you are GOING to imminently attack and your opponent does not have substantial reason to believe same (esp. if you're doing a good job at sham negotiations) then you've got the clear upper hand.

Contrary to after school specials you do not talk to a bully and straighten out your differences you smack him or at least make him understand that his actions will have consequences ( not economic ).

That model has not played-out so well on the international stage for the US since 2003.

One thing I did say was that our cutting off of all oil from us and our allies was going to leave them defenseless in 6 months to a year. Those are Japanese estimates written up at that time. Even if they are wrong they are the #'s THEY believed. The Japanese could have stopped everything had they listened to reason in 1940. But, in my eyes only St. Francis could have expected such a scenario with his eyes open. I never said we should not have done it. If you are going to stick a stick into a wasps nest with one hand you had better have a can of raid in the other.

Hmm. Well, sure, the Japanese believed it, and they got petulent when denied resources (by Russia in 1903, China in the 1920s, the USSR in 1939, and later by the US) that they felt the were owed by right. And yeah, it would have been nice if the US could have started the war with Japan at its convenience. But that's never something that the US or any other one power could control, and given US demobilized state in 1939 the US strategic position was not incorrectly perceived by the Roosevelt admin. Put another way, playing for time by declaring an embargo was more likely to be useful to the US than an immediate attack on Japan. It was the best move at the time.

As far as the NAI's being from New England probably skews my thinking having only the history of this area right in my face. The Europeans here did have a policy of extermination toward the NAI's and it was state sponsored. The written orders and a mass of other evidence shows this is true.

I really do not agree with your claim. Both Britain and France during the American colonial period had genocide of each other rather more foregrounded than genocide of the Native Americans. Certainly smallpox was way beyond the control of 16th-mid19thC. Britain. Moreover, inasmuch as neither France, Netherlands, Britain or Spain had diddly to do with United States "Indian policy" I can't see how British, Spanish, Dutch, or French intentions bear on US intentions. I know a few New England NAs myself, being from New England and all. The Passamaquoddy and Penobscot are still there and own a good chunk of the state of Maine. Had the United States intended otherwise, they'd not be there now.

The Samurai traditions that you speak about are all correct.But, the twisted late 19th early 20th century form of bushido had nothing but a slight resemblane to the older tradition. The warped tradition that they were being taught were as you said completely contrary to what some of the older tradition was formed of. The only problem is that the warped one is the one we had to deal with.

Yes yes. My point is that Japanese propaganda and literature from the 1930s and 1940s speak of the old Samurai traditions including benevolence towards noncombatants and justice etc such that we may now reasonably surmise that Imperial Japan in the 1930s knew damn well what was "moral conduct" but simply refused to try to behave morally. You keep wanting to bring it back to how the Japanese viewed the situation. Fine. Their own documents demonstrate that by their own standards their own conduct in China (and later in the PI, Indonesia, and Malaya) was immoral.

[ezzler]

NO ONE IN 1941 WOULD HAVE TREATED THAT AS A CAUSUS BELLI...

 It was a terrific fight but mdiehl has won on points.

[sullafelix]

Sorry EZZ your a very bad judge. He beat me bloody.
 
I think his thoughts could be used in any political or history course.
 
I think my thoughts are whispered in government rooms around the globe when the cameras are off and the lights are low.  
 
The only really bad thing   ( at least for me ) was the long rebuttal I was working on for the last two hours before it timed out and I lost everything.
 
The only thing I will post is that I forgot about the other New England states [:D]. In Ct. Rhode island and Mass. the government sponsored genocide is very well documented.

[Ike99]

In contrast, the effects of a beheading contest between Japanese infantry officers were rather predictable. Thus, comparisons with Japanese treatment of Manchurians, Chinese, and Filipinos don't really work. (in reference to native americans)

Really.

I would think the results of beating a childs head in with a rifle butt would be pretty predictable too and it wasn´t Japanese doing it to Chinese either.

(An interpreter living in the village testified, "They were scalped, Their brains knocked out; The men used their knives, Ripped open women, Clubbed little children, Knocked them in the head with their rifle butts, Beat their brains out, Mutilated their bodies in every sence of the word.")

Where was the justice for this, compensation?

¨...justice was never served on those responsible for the massacre. A Civil War memorial installed at the Colorado Capitol in 1909 listed the Sand Creek massacre as one of the Union's great victories.¨

Uh huh, I see.

You spotlight Japanese atrocities and whitewash others with talk of Indian casinos. The Indian Wars were wars of genocide by any loose definition of the word.

As noted, Japan was not cut off from oil

French Indochina and also the USSR oil sources open for Japan. How?

Maybe, if the Soviets and Japanese could have stopped shooting at each other long enough across the Manchurian border to make the deal.[:D]

The Soviets were not about to sell Japan oil. They were enemies. If there was any chance whatsoever of an oil deal between Japan and the USSR a mission would have been sent. The political situation in 1941 would have made such a proposal laughable. Wasn´t going to happen. Stalin certainly would have rolled on the floor with laughter at such a proposal.

French Indo China couldn´t have supplied simple economic and domestic need to Japan. If it could have when they occupied French Indo China the oil crisis would have been over. The Japanese actually offered to leave French Indo China in exchange for the US dropping its oil embargo. That´s how much oil could be supplied by French Indo China.

Ambassador (Nomura) To the Secretary of State on August 6, 1941

The Japanese Government undertakes:-

...the Japanese troops now stationed in French Indo-China will be withdrawn forthwith...Japan and the Japanese subjects will not be placed in any discriminatory positions as compared with other countries...

The Government of the United States undertakes:-

...the Government of the United States will take steps necessary for restoring the normal relations of trade and commerce which have hitherto existed between Japan and the United States..¨

But this didn´t happen. The ABCD powers had every intent to either strangle Japan economicaly or, and much to Roosevelts hopes, allow him to get into a war in which he was eager to get in.

So what's the difference from an "aggressive move" and a "hostile act" when in your rationale either seems to justify a military attack by Japan? You have equated embargo with attack.

There is no difference. The effects of the embargo was to cripple Japan both economicaly and militarily. Now if that is not an aggressive and a hostile act against a nation I don´t know what is. Besides, If cutting off oil supplies through embargos or otherwise is as passive as you say, then explain why warships have patrolled the Persian Gulf for the last 70 years to make sure the oil supplies stay open, eh?

Cutting off oil supplies to any nation is a hostile act. It was treated as such then. It would be treated as such tomorrow.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: sulla05


The only really bad thing   ( at least for me ) was the long rebuttal I was working on for the last two hours before it timed out and I lost everything.

A quick word of advice from some one who has experienced that frustration.

After copmpleting the typing of a very long post and before hitting the "post" button, copy and paste it into a text editor like Word or Notepad as a backup in case it times out.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99


There is no difference. The effects of the embargo was to cripple Japan both economicaly and militarily. Now if that is not an aggressive and a hostile act against a nation I don´t know what is.

With the operative phrase of course being "I don't know what is"! [8|]

[HansBolter]

Ike, no one cut off the oil to the Japanese, but the Japanese themselves.

All they had to do to get the oil trade back was simply stop slaughtering their neighbors, the Chinese.

Exactly what part of such a simple and fundamental equation do you so persistently fail to grasp?

[mdiehl]

(An interpreter living in the village testified, "They were scalped, Their brains knocked out; The men used their knives, Ripped open women, Clubbed little children, Knocked them in the head with their rifle butts, Beat their brains out, Mutilated their bodies in every sence of the word.")

Where was the justice for this, compensation?

¨...justice was never served on those responsible for the massacre. A Civil War memorial installed at the Colorado Capitol in 1909 listed the Sand Creek massacre as one of the Union's great victories.¨

Yep. And if you really want to learn about it, on reading, you will discover that: 1. Chivington was not acting under Federal orders nor was he implementing Federal policy. One of the differences between the US in the 19thC and the Axis in the 20th C (apart from the small scale of massacres) is that there is overwhelming documentary evidence linking Axis atrocities to Axsi governmental intentions as indicated in orders, communiques, and other evidence germane to policy. In contrast, after the Sand Creek massacre, Chivington was called before the US Congress, forced to account for his assault on Black Kettle's band, and censured. The official statement of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War included the following:

As to Colonel Chivington, your committee can hardly find fitting terms to describe his conduct. Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity; holding the important position of commander of a military district, and therefore having the honor of the government to that extent in his keeping, he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the verist savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty. Having full knowledge of their friendly character, having himself been instrumental to some extent in placing them in their position of fancied security, he took advantage of their in-apprehension and defenceless condition to gratify the worst passions that ever cursed the heart of man.

Whatever influence this may have had upon Colonel Chivington, the truth is that he surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities, and then returned to Denver and boasted of the brave deed he and the men under his command had performed.

In conclusion, your committee are of the opinion that for the purpose of vindicating the cause of justice and upholding the honor of the nation, prompt and energetic measures should be at once taken to remove from office those who have thus disgraced the government by whom they are employed, and to punish, as their crimes deserve, those who have been guilty of these brutal and cowardly acts.

In short, no one had to drag the US government into condemning atrocities. Chivington, IMO, never got what he deserved in the matter. But unlike his peers, he was busted from the US Army (which was unusual by ANY nation's standards at the time), socially ostracized, driven out of Colorado, went to Ohio and ran for Congress, was again socially ostracized and forced to withdraw when his Sand Creek record came up, and was nationally disgraced in newspaper headlines across the United States. He died a bankrupt penniless ostracized unsuccessful freight hauler.

In contrast, the beheading contest I mentioned, was celebrated in the Osaka Mainichi Shimbun and the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun.

The Indian Wars were wars of genocide by any loose definition of the word.

Actually, they were not, by any standard of the word. Can you name all the US Army engagements, or any of the massacres of European American settlers conducted by Native Americans? There's no question that these wars were at times brutally waged, and there's no question that if you want to find GENUINE specimens of low-life humanity in American conduct, Chivington would be your best example. But neither Chivington (nor Custer in his Black Hills Expedition) were acting in consort with United States Federal Policy and BOTH were soundly knocked down because of their acts. Custer of course paid the ultimate price for his MacArthur-esque ambitions later on.

French Indochina and also the USSR oil sources open for Japan. How?

French Indochina could have supplied resources for synthetic fuels. The USSR was not a participant in the embargo and could have provided oil. More to the point, extant coal reserves in Korea and Manchuria were developed enough to keep the civilian economy in operational shape although, as I noted before, military operations would have to have been curtailed. (Which after all was the goal of the embargo).

Maybe, if the Soviets and Japanese could have stopped shooting at each other long enough across the Manchurian border to make the deal.

Oh, you mean if Japan could have stopped attacking the USSR? Uh, yeah. Again, we're talking about Imperial Japan. If they were unable to get oil from the USSR because their aggression led them to try to steal that for which they might have traded, it's Japan's fault.

French Indo China couldn´t have supplied simple economic and domestic need to Japan.

Which explains so succinctly why they occupied Indochina in the first place. Not.

The Japanese actually offered to leave French Indo China in exchange for the US dropping its oil embargo. That´s how much oil could be supplied by French Indo China.

Have you ever bothered to actually read what Japan offered to do in Indochina? You have a very generous notion of the verb "to leave."

The effects of the embargo was to cripple Japan both economicaly and militarily. Now if that is not an aggressive and a hostile act against a nation I don´t know what is.

Good, it's settled. We agree that you do not know what constitutes an "aggressive and hostile act."

The Persian Gulf is patrolled because oil exporting states in the Persian Gulf have the right to transit the Persian gulf without being attacked by Iran. Anti-piracy patrols have been part and parcel of many maritime powers policies for a long, long time.

[sullafelix]

I do have one qustion though Mdiehl you have done very well on the on item, the Japanese in 1940. You have also time and again listed the Japanese as the only nation that would do such a thing in response to an embargo or do such things in their colonies. Might I ask why you have never made a response to the numerous other instances  ( Algeria , Ireland etc ) I brought up. You have answered my comparisions to the NAIs but nothing else. Is it because they do not fit nicely into your ideas that all nations ( other than the Axis and I presume the USSR ) play nicely with one another.
 
 Also your argument on the NAIs and other small tidbits you've dropped seem to say that as long as the amount of carnage and brutalization does not go past some limit in your head that it doesn't count. That sounds to me like a backwards stalin quote " a single death is a tragedy a million a statistic " . That this instance represents only a small amount of death and destruction so it doesn't matter compared to this one.

[mdiehl]

These are valid questions. I tend to rave a bit, so here I'll try to be brief.

I think there is a big difference between intent and outcome. Thus, while I do not deny the scale of the effects of for example smallpox on North and South America, I see a fundamental difference in intent between the ravages of smallpox and the ravages of the Imperial Japanese Army. I also see differences in US Federal intent in the various "Plains wars" and the intent of the Imperial government because we can review written policy statements from both eras and find Japanese orders stipulating the slaughter of innocents that go to the top. Such massacres as occurred in the American west were of local origin and intent. You can see the differences in how such events were treated in respective nations newspapers at the time, and by official reaction. Chivington got the axe. The C/O of the IJA 26th Division got promoted.

I also think that scale does matter. No matter how hard you push it, Sand Creek does not remotely compare with Nanking. I also think that scale matters as evidence for intent. The fact that Nanking could happen on such a large scale (and was, by most accounts, repeated in other cities), where massive genocides of Native Americans were NOT attempted, says alot. I don't say this to minimize the effects or debt owed to Native Americans by the way. They got screwed despite widespread general good intentions. Was it up to me, the head of the BIA and maybe the Dept of the Interior would be NAs.

I have not commented on "The Irish Situation" because I know so little about them. Perhaps "No Nation Would Have Done What The Japanese Did" was an overreach, but if Imperial Britain's intentions in Ireland were similar to Imperial Japan's intentions in China, or if the massacres were of equivalent scale and flowing from the top down, I'd like to see someone make a good case for it. I'd also like to know which period we're talking about. I don't see British conduct anywhere in the 20thC looking alot like Japanese or German conduct in anything. But if a really compelling analogy can be made, I'm game to hear it.

I would add that I know even less of Colonial Dutch policy outside the colony of New Amsterdam, but if the Dutch were in Indonesia as they were in New Amsterdam, it is reasonable to suggest that the colonial Dutch shared more in common with Imperial Japan than either the US or UK.

[Doggie]

Wow, we got educated, coherent essays from mdiehl and Iron Duke countered by "lo, the poor indian"[8|]
 
Truly something for everybody here.
 
It's a pity the plight of the Amerinds in south America seems to have been forgotten in the rush to condemn the Yankee imperialists.  There was no "genocide" in the United States and Canada.  Although the Indian territories have been incorporated into their respective federal governments, the indians themselves have survived.  Compare to the now extinct Aztecs and Incas, who were systematically exterminated under the more benign supervision of the Spanish colonialists.  I hear the Phillipinos loved them just as much.
 
As for Sulla05, you're doing a fine job of empathizing with the Japanese, but there are behavioral scientists who have an equal insight into the minds of serial murderers.  Understanding their motivation does not rationalize their behavior.

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Compare to the now extinct Aztecs and Incas, who were systematically exterminated under the more benign supervision of the Spanish colonialists.

The descendants of the Inca's and Aztecs live on today.