Fwd: Truth is the First Casualty of War

[Dace]

>>
>>One of the judges in the Tokyo War Crimes Trial after World War II,
>>Radhabinod Pal, dissented from the general verdicts against Japanese
>>officials and argued that the United States had clearly provoked the war
>>with Japan and expected Japan to act.  Richard Minear (Victors' Justice)
>>sums up Pal's view of the embargoes on scrap iron and oil, that "these
>>measures were a clear and potent threat to Japan's very existence."
>
>For Roosevelt and Acheson to say "we won't keep selling you the oil >you
need to conquer China" is a "clear and potent threat to Japan's
>very existence"?
>
>No. To say "we won't keep selling you the oil you need to conquer
>China" is not to threaten Japan's very existence: it is to try to
>limit Japan's power to conquer China.
>
>
>Brad DeLong

You're speaking of the intention of the embargo rather than its effect.
Fine, let's talk about intentions.  Why was the US opposed to the Japanese
conquest of China?  Because we wanted self-determination for China?  Or
because we wanted to maintain Western domination?

Ted