Perhaps,
the 18th is the true day that lives in infamy, not an attack on a military target of a nation that was doing war-like things to them economically though Japan in bad form was secret about planning it. On that, and other issues (e.g., raising taxes),
Last Word's segments last night with George Takei are timely. LD has his moments.
6 comments:
Well, in fairness, the attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't just bad because it was a sneak attack; it also killed a lot of people and began a conflagration that was truly horrendous. Economic beefs didn't justify that.
Fred Korematsu deserves his due but don't forget Hirobiyashi thqt set the stage. The two decisions have to be the low point (although certainly challenged by the slavery decisions: Dred Scott; Plessy v.Ferguson) in Supreme Court history.
Many a military attack killed a lot of people. The question is likely complicated, but to my understanding, US embargo actions against Japan were in effect acts of war. I'm not sure how "infamous" the attack was. Germany's attack on Poland was more fitting of such a name.
The earlier ruling did start things going and Quirin was no prize either but Korematsu did take things up a notch.
I wasn't thinking of legalities with regard to the boycott and WWII. Boycott as a technical act of war is one thing. Physical military attack and the massive injuries and deaths that followed, not just at Pearl Harbor but in the enormous war that followed, are quite another.
In Korematsu, as I recall, the court claimed it had already decided the main issue in Hirabayashi whereas, in fact, it hadn't but had kicked the can down the road. Sometimes the court's obfuscation can be disgusting.
With respect to the German invasion of Poland, I suppose there can be degrees of infamy.
The boycott deprived Japan of essential items and the U.S. was clearly supporting one side while claiming neutrality. Japan attacked a military base in response to at least the first thing.
To not be "infamous," what should they have done? Did they have something to boycott?
The Japanese need for scrap metal and oil was to further its invasion and occupation of China, Korea and other South Asian countries where its behavior was sadistic and brutal. I doubt that at the time you would have been sympathetic to the Japanese cause and am curious as to why you are now.
I am not defending their "cause." The "infamy" was not their cause.
It was the attack itself, particularly it being secret and before a formal declaration of war. The details there are actually a bit cloudy & the U.S. wasn't really surprised the Japanese attacked. It was where. The Phillipines was seen by many as a more likely spot.
The Japanese's cause was obviously infamous but once the U.S. blocked key war materiel and supported the Brits, which they very well should have done, the U.S. was under international law to my understanding really committing acts of war. The ability to carry out war is essential and deprivation of key supplies can lead to suffering and even deaths (such as if you are ill equipped for fighting a battle or cannot properly defend yourself).
In reprisal, which was not infamous even if the cause was wrong, the Japanese attacked a military target. The U.S. hit them where it hurt and they felt a need to respond. If the situaton was switched, I can very well see the U.S. doing it akin to the South (horrible cause) attacking the North at Gettysburg in part to get essential supplies and protect their supply line.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!