Re: Japan - US pre war relations.



"Marlock" <marlockenator@xxxxxxxxx> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:PM00047A655568E3D6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Again, a continuation of the previous threads.

Some people here are arguing that the US sanctions came as a
result of the Japanese attrocities in China. What are the
sources for this belief?

If I look for a general belief for sanctions, I usually come
across something like this:

In 1940, Japan occupied French Indochina (Vietnam) upon agreement with the
French Vichy government, and joined the Axis powers Germany and Italy.
These
actions intensified Japan's conflict with the United States and Great
Britain
which reacted with an oil boycott. The resulting oil shortage and failures
to
solve the conflict diplomatically made Japan decide to capture the oil
rich
Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and to start a war with the US and Great
Britain.

This shows you don't understand the progression of increasingly harsher
trade and economic measures against Japan. Sanctions are one thing, an
embargo something quite different, and quite harsher and all-encompassing.

As to the source you quoted above, it contains a glaring mistake linked with
this terminological problem. A "boycott" is the reverse of an embargo. If
Japan had told the USA "we won't buy any oil from you!", _that_ would have
been a boycott. It's a measure implemented by potential buyers, not by
potential sellers.

.