Posted on 03/31/2014 11:04:32 AM PDT by gwgn02
At the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin this weekend highlighted a video of Rand Paul speaking in 2012 about sanctions on Iran. In it, Paul disparages the notion of use of force, and for some reason claims the United States was partly to blame for World War II!
“There are times when sanctions have made it worse. I mean, there are times .. leading up to World War II we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily. We also had a blockade on Germany after World War I, which may have encouraged them … some of their anger.”
Rubin spoke with David David Adesnik of the American Enterprise Institute about Paul’s remarks:
After viewing the video, he tells Right Turn, “Blaming the U.S. for Pearl Harbor is a long-standing isolationist habit that reflects tremendous historical illiteracy. Sen. Paul is very poorly informed if he thinks U.S. sanctions ‘probably caused Japan to react angrily.’” He explains, “The U.S. cut off oil supplies to Japan in August 1941, long after Japan had launched its atrocity-laden war against China in 1937. The evidence is conclusive that Japan was determined to dominate all of East Asia. Believing that the U.S. would not stand by passively if it overran Thailand, Singapore, Malaya and the East Indies, Japan launched its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.”
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
Well, I think you’ve swallowed wholesale 19th century apologetics for European imperialism.
Military and naval officers for all the European powers were constantly looking for pretexts to expand their country’s colonies and make a name for themselves. When they didn’t happen naturally, they weren’t above manufacturing them.
The murder of a few priests, while deplorable and appropriate to punish, is not exactly a valid reason for conquering and ruling an entire country for a century.
While I'm not an expert, I know quite a bit more about the history of the period than you ever will, and I'm informing you that you are wrong.
You should know that Japan was warned in advance that if they invaded the territory of America's ally, France, that we would end exports of oil to them.
When they attacked Pearl Harbor, no US oil had flowed to Japan for 18 months.
Let's think rationally, shall we?
If Japan's goal was to punish the US for doing what we promised to do, why did they wait 18 months?
They attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted to replace US oil imports with Indonesian oil imports, but they also knew that the US would be able to provide critical support to British and Dutch forces in the Java Sea.
The goal of the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines was to prevent the US from being able to provide decisive assistance to the Allies as Japan took Indonesia.
Less than three months after Pearl harbor, Japan had Indonesia.
The Japanese did not fool themselves: they deliberately undertook actions for three years that they knew would inevitably sever their economic relationship with the United States.
No one in Japan expected that the US would continue to supply Japan with oil as it did whatever it wanted in Asia.
Pearl Harbor was part of a larger strategy by Japan to change its sources of supply as seamlessly as it could.
The concept that Japan was shocked and angry to find that the US had stopped supplying them with the oil they needed to conquer British, French, Dutch and US overseas possessions is laughable.
Exactly...the Japanese knew the US would not abandon Britain and France when the chips were down. Japan was a threat to the British Empire in the East. Their motto was “Asia for the Asians”, and that meant booting the British and French out of there.
What's with the "… …"?
If she can't even give a full quote, why even bother responding to her?
So Rubin has been hired to write Rand Paul hit pieces. What a tool.
As if the Japanese were thinking: "The Americans stopped selling us oil. We'll launch a sneak attack on them - then they'll sell us oil again!"
No, I've actually studied the historical circumstances of colonial activity.
French Indochina was not the Belgian Congo, nor was it Jamaica.
The default assumption is that all colonies began with mass murder and wholesale enslavement.
That's how Japan's Co-Prosperity Sphere began, but not how every empire began.
But, he's right?
Why are you calling him an idiot?
Japan did attack us partly because FDR had refused to sell them oil? Why is this the least bit controversial?
Japan’s goal was to obtain oil supplies to replace that which we had cut off. Punishment had nothing to do with it.
Congratulations. Maybe you can answer my question now.
Congratulations. Maybe you can answer my question now.
I did.
Here’s the thing. I agree with your assertions but for those that don’t I
think it would be prudent to disclose if you are a geo-political stratergist who has had peer reviewed journals, articles, etc. Or some history buff giving his informed opinion.
I’m a confirmed amateur.
The goal was to replace European colonial hegemony in the Pacific with the direct, absolute rule of Japan.
The view expressed by Rand Paul, Llewellyn Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, and the rest of the revisionist idiots is: the US was mean to poor Japan by not letting them have a little oil, we made them really mad, and they couldn't help but attack us. We were asking for it.
To non-morons, it is clear that Japan had long-term plans in the Pacific, that the Roosevelt administration was oblivious to those plans for too long, and that the Japanese were able to use the US as a source of materiel for far longer than a more alert country would have allowed.
Far from the US "provoking" Japan, America put up with Japanese provocations so long that they were able to use our own resources against us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.