Could Japan simply have gotten their oil from another supplier? Did they really need to bomb us?
There was a world war going on, there were no other suppliers. Everyone was either on the side of the allies or using all the oil they could get for their own war machines. There were other reasons for the whole fiasco but FDR was intentionally antagonizing Japan with the intent for them to strike the first blow in order to drag the United States into the War.
No one country needs to attack another if the agressor is only not selling to the victim. I would say that all or nearly all of these cases, simply paying off the aggressive(Embargoing) country and working to find other supplies is unimaginably cheaper in lost opportunity (You do not have to build weapons and get productive people killed) and significantly cheaper in accounting terms. Mary Ruwart discusses this in her book "Healing Our World".
Obvioulsy if the agressor is maintaining an active blockade through violence and theft then that is a different issue. But even still I can not see bribes as being more expensive than conducting an aggressive war. War is so stupidly wasteful and pointless that only governments are stupid enough to engage in it.
So I would say NO, Japan was not justified in attacking the USA over the USA refusing to sell Japan oil or steel or other stuff.
It is sad that the Rosevelt Administration refused to speak to the son of the Emperor of Japan who was carrying a deal with the USA that Japan would withdraw from China if the USA would continue the previous trade relationship. The worst part is in the opportunity cost: Mankind would have been saved 2 cities destroyed by atom bombs. Hundreds of cities destroyed by bombing and fire, 1700 Americans on the Arizona, countless innocents in the Pacific Islands and China being killed by bullets, bombs and disease, China going commie, etc.
North Korea would likely look very different as well.
From what I understand Japan did not attack the US because we cut off thier oil supply. After all would we sell it to them after they just bombed us. After we cut off oil, Japan had to secure a new supply. This meant advancing into malaysia. Japan knew that expanding the war would draw the US into the conflict one way or another. So they attacked pearl harbor in the hopes it would cripple our navy, which would give them the time to secure the resources they needed, and consolidate their control over occupied territory. But they missed the aircraft carriers and underestimated our ability to mobilize.
FDR wanted war but couldnt justiy war to the american people, so he used politics to create a situation where he knew Japan would give him an excuse for war. But either way everything Japan did leading up to and after pearl harbor was unjustified aggression.
So if Japan didn't attack the US because we cut their oil supply off, how did FDR create a situation where Japan would give him an excuse for war?
They attacked first because they realized that war was inevitable. If they didnt strike first, they would be first struck. I dont think it was specifically about oil.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson8.html
Did they really need to bomb us?
Japan did not attack the U.S. simply over oil. The reason was much broader than that.
"Could Japan simply have gotten their oil from another supplier? Did they really need to bomb us?"
At the time their oil came mostly from the Philippines, which was a US colony.
After the Spanish-American war Teddy Roosevelt's detractors predicted that the continued US possession of the Philippines would eventually cause a war with Japan.
It would be well not to mistake the US and Japan for individuals. When it comes to individuals it is right to say “A has no right to attack B simply because he wont trade something with A”. That is the very definition of robbery and, indeed, of the State.
But the US and Japan are not individuals. So when the US cut Japan’s oil supply, what this meant is that the US would throw one in jail its citizens for selling their property to someone else. This is criminal, and indeed Japan was right when attacking the US. Japanese killed no American civilian at Pearl Harbor, and civilian casualties where limited to the crew of US merchant ships (If any where sunk) during the whole war.
So the attack is not just a tactically brilliant (although strategically stupid) move, but also a good example of a good old “soldiers alone” war. Of course, Japan taxed its citizens and conscripted them, so I’m certainly not saying that the war was just, but attacking the US as they did at PH for the reasons they allegedly had, was, in itself, not wrong. Taxation and conscription made it wrong. Btu of course, nothing compared to what the yanks did.
As to whether Japan really attacked the US due to the oil issue is doubtful. On one hand, if oil had not been cut, the japs would have done very well to proceed in China rather than in Indochina, and would have probably loved to avoid a confrontation with the US.
Chinawas just too rich to overlook, and aone would have allowed Japan to live in autarchy as they wished. But losing 90% of the oil supply probably ensured that the army and navy would run out of fuel within months, and having an army in continental, civil war-torn China with no supply lines, well, that was just not an option. And of course, Japanese influence in the region would have plummeted for good.
At least, if I had to make that decision, that’s what I would have done. The US would have hardly attacked unprovoked, due to the general neutral mood. Cutting oil was a brilliant move and, indeed, the only option to provoke Japan.
limitgov: Could Japan simply have gotten their oil from another supplier? Did they really need to bomb us?
It is easy to get bogged down in "who, what, why,if" type speculations about these and other historical events.
But in my opinion the reason{s} for the Japanese attack are irrelevant.
The plain fact is, if you have governments, you must have war between governments.
So speculating as to whether the Japanese attack was justified, or inevitable, seems pretty much a waste of time, to myself, at least .
It, [war] was/is as inevitable as night following day.
War is in fact the only "business" of all governments.
It's pretty much all they do- the whole "ball of wax", as it were. [I often say:" war is the state"]
Regards, onebornfree
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].