* Login   * Register
It is currently Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:13 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: Re: Gore Vidal on why Pearl Harbor was attacked (explicit)
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 3:11 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:21 pm
Posts: 90
Location: Honolulu, HI
When people discuss the embargo, it always seems like most of the focus is on Japan and their rights. Did this infringe on their sovereignty? Did this provoke them? Were we telling them what they could and couldn't do?

How about our rights? What sign is posted in most stores in the country?

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone."

Japan was committing acts we felt objectionable. We chose not to do business with a country behaving in such a manner. We then told them that if we would not do business with them until they stopped that behavior. That is not the same as telling them that they can't continue their objectionable behavior. They could continue fighting in China if they wished - but we refused to provide them the materials to do so. To call that provocation suggests that we had some obligation to sell them oil, rubber, and metal - and reduces us to a vassal state. People talk at length about whether the embargo infringed on Japan's sovereignty. If we weren't free to refuse to do business with a country performing objectionable acts, doesn't that suggest that our sovereignty is affected? We exerted our right to refuse to do business with someone engaged in activities we found distasteful.

Part of this centers around the word provocation. This typically means that there was some intent to provoke. It is also used as a defense (for example, it can be used to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter under the argument that it caused a temporary loss of control). COnsequently, most people would interpret a statement that "Person X provoked Person Y" as meaning that Person X bears some responsibility for Person Y's actions, and therefore that Person Y is less culpable that they would be had Person X not taken the provoking actions. If a store refuses to serve me, am I justified in attacking that store? Would most reasonable people accept that I was provoked and therefore bear less responsibility for the act than if I had not been refused service?

Did the fact that we refused to do business with an aggressor lead to that aggressor attacking us? Almost certainly (although there were other military concerns as well). If I refuse to pay protection to the Mob, they may attack me. Did I provoke them?

_________________
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gore Vidal on why Pearl Harbor was attacked (explicit)
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 3:21 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:21 pm
Posts: 90
Location: Honolulu, HI
Eustace wrote:
Quote:
On October 8, 1940, Admiral Richardson, commander of the U.S. fleet, had a confrontation with President Roosevelt. Richardson repeated what he had said in his letter to Admiral Stark and his memo to Secretary Knox—that Pearl Harbor was the wrong place for his ships. Roosevelt said he thought that having the fleet in Hawaii was a "restraining influence" on Japan. When Richardson asked the president whether the United States was going to war . "He replied," in Richardson's account, "that if the Japanese attacked Thailand, or the Kra Peninsula, or the Dutch East Indies we would not enter the war, that if they even attacked the Philippines he doubted whether we would enter the war."[citation needed] But the Japanese couldn't always avoid making mistakes, the president said. "Sooner or later they would make a mistake and we would enter the war." [2]


That's a pretty telling quote against Roosevelt trying to provoke a Pacific war. He's saying that Japan attacking the Philippines (which was at the time a commonwealth under US control!) would not be considered a casus belli. In a way, that suggests that Roosevelt is going too far out of his way to avoid a war - we were responsible for the safety of the Philippines, and if avoiding war with Japan was more important that protecting people for whom we were directly and legally responsible...

_________________
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gore Vidal on why Pearl Harbor was attacked (explicit)
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 4:03 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:21 am
Posts: 966
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
I think it is a seperate issue whether they were justified in attacking Pearl Harbor, and whether they did it because of the oil embargo. They did attack because of the oil embargo. But there were many previous provocations.
1937 Commercial relations cut off over Nanking
1939 President Roosevelt places embargo on most essential raw materials to Japan.
1940 July: Japan seizes bases in South Indochina in collaboration which Vichy government.
1940 September Tripartite Pact signed.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n6p19_Chamberlin.html
Quote:
1940 September The exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland in September, 1940. This was a clear departure from the requirements of neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws. Indeed, a conference of top government lawyers at the time decided that the destroyer deal put this country into the war, legally and morally.

March 1941 The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act. In complete contradiction of the wording and intent of the Neutrality Act, which remained on the statute books, this made the United States an unlimited partner in the economic war against the Axis Powers all over the world.
The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines, formally announced on September 11. The beginning of actual hostilities may be dated from this time rather than from the German declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor.
The freezing of Japanese assets in the United States on July 25, 1941. This step, which was followed by similar action on the part of Great Britain and the Netherlands East Indies, amounted to a commercial blockade of Japan. The warmaking potentialities of this decision had been recognized by Roosevelt himself shortly before it was taken. Addressing a delegation and explaining why oil exports to Japan had not been stopped previously, he said: "It was very essential, from our own selfish point of view of defense, to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out down there.... Now, if we cut the oil off, they [the Japanese] probably would have gone down to the Netherlands East Indies a year ago, and we would have had war."
Final step on the road to war in the Pacific was Secretary of State Hull's note to the Japanese government of November 26. Before sending this communication Hull had considered proposing a compromise formula which would have relaxed the blockade of Japan in return for Japanese withdrawal from southern Indochina and a limitation of Japanese forces in northern Indochina.
However, Hull dropped this idea under pressure from British and Chinese sources. He dispatched a veritable ultimatum on November 26, which demanded unconditional Japanese withdrawal from China and from Indochina and insisted that there should be "no support of any government in China other than the National government [Chiang Kai-shek]." Hull admitted that this note took Japanese-American relations out of the realm of diplomacy and placed them in the hands of the military authorities.



We were already at war before December 7, 1941. The reason why our forces were not on full alert is the question you really should ask yourself.
Apologize for the length of this post.

_________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." Attributed to Alexander Tytler
"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you." Nietzsche


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gore Vidal on why Pearl Harbor was attacked (explicit)
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 4:19 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:21 am
Posts: 966
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
mce73 wrote:
Eustace wrote:
Quote:
On October 8, 1940, Admiral Richardson, commander of the U.S. fleet, had a confrontation with President Roosevelt. Richardson repeated what he had said in his letter to Admiral Stark and his memo to Secretary Knox—that Pearl Harbor was the wrong place for his ships. Roosevelt said he thought that having the fleet in Hawaii was a "restraining influence" on Japan. When Richardson asked the president whether the United States was going to war . "He replied," in Richardson's account, "that if the Japanese attacked Thailand, or the Kra Peninsula, or the Dutch East Indies we would not enter the war, that if they even attacked the Philippines he doubted whether we would enter the war."[citation needed] But the Japanese couldn't always avoid making mistakes, the president said. "Sooner or later they would make a mistake and we would enter the war." [2]


That's a pretty telling quote against Roosevelt trying to provoke a Pacific war. He's saying that Japan attacking the Philippines (which was at the time a commonwealth under US control!) would not be considered a casus belli. In a way, that suggests that Roosevelt is going too far out of his way to avoid a war - we were responsible for the safety of the Philippines, and if avoiding war with Japan was more important that protecting people for whom we were directly and legally responsible...

http://www.pearlharbor.org/history-of-pearl-harbor.asp
Quote:
June 1941 through the end of July 1941. Japan occupied southern Indochina. Two days later, the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets. This prevented Japan from buying oil, which would, in time, cripple its army and make its navy and air force completely useless.

Quote:
"Sooner or later they would make a mistake and we would enter the war."

Roosevelt knew, in spite of his previous statements. I mean, he did say during the whole 1940 campaign that he would keep America out of the war, meanwhile:
Quote:
1940 September The exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland in September, 1940. This was a clear departure from the requirements of neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws. Indeed, a conference of top government lawyers at the time decided that the destroyer deal put this country into the war, legally and morally.

The same month as the Japanese pact with Germany and Italy. Where else would a war with Japan take place but in the Pacific?

_________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." Attributed to Alexander Tytler
"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you." Nietzsche


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Gore Vidal on why Pearl Harbor was attacked (explicit)
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:39 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:11 am
Posts: 179
Location: London, England
vive42 wrote:
Sure part of the reason is because as the victors we like to write our history in a way that puts us in an unambiguously righteous light. But the dimension of painting non-American actors as unreasonable, ineffable, or unhinged is there as an undercurrent.

Not unlike how kids are being taught to view North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and the Taliban today.



And vice-versa. We aren't exactly portrayed in the best of ways overseas.

_________________
"The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it."
Mark Twain


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us