Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Im not American. Try again



And I attacked that answer for it's flaws. Maybe you should have read your own link and considered what it said before linking it here.

I don't care.

 

[Watchmen]

I suggest everyone here watch the anime movie in Netflix (I think) called In this Corner of the World.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ironically, that thinking was a big part of why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

Japan is dependent on foreign oil. The US was threatening to blockade Japan. If that had happened, the Japanese would have lost access to foreign oil, and with that, the ability to fight off China.

They were looking down the barrel of the very real possibility that China, with the US's help, would have killed Japan and its young men, made slaves of its children, and raped its wives and daughters... so just as you suggest one should do in that situation, they fought back rather than face annihilation.

What a bunch of baloney.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, that's how we should look at other countries and their motives? Just as nothing more than mindless barbarians and brutes?

Not always. Just when it's true. It was true in WW2, but not WW1. It is true of ISIS, but not of the IRA.

 

[Tambourine]

Use logic. If you cut off a people from accessing something important to their welfare or economy, they may well view it as a right to attack you. Consider the sanctions we put on Iraq and Iran, or the sanctions Israelis put on the Palestinians. If you can't get food or medical supplies because of a sanction, what retaliations do you think the people will view as allowable?

This is really irrelevant, however, as the OP just asked "why" they did it and I provided a possible reason why. You're talking about if they had the "right" to do it, which has nothing to do with the OP.

It's worth putting US sanctions into context here. The first US economic sanctions were a response to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. What drove the Japanese Empire to attack was a second round of sanctions enacted by the US government in response to the Japanese war with the Republic of China, which included highly publicized such as the Nanjing Massacre aka the "Rape of Nanjing".

And while they were definitely a major factor in the Japanese decision to go to war with the US, I would argue that they were more of a contributing factor, as there were already figures in the Japanese military who had long advocated that Japan secure its own "co-prosperity sphere" of colonial holdings, rather than remain dependent on American trade - and these would-be colonies would have to be taken from the European colonial powers, with whom the US retained a friendly relationship, particularly the UK.

So even if the US hadn't enacted sanctions against Japan, it is likely that they would have remained a target for the Japanese navy, simply because any US military presence would remain a threat and a counterweight to the colonial ambitions of the Japanese military regime.

 

[Stevicus]

Not always. Just when it's true. It was true in WW2, but not WW1. It is true of ISIS, but not of the IRA.

So, you've set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter as to which races/nationalities are "barbarians" and which ones aren't?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yes, I would say that you're correct about how the US viewed the Japanese during WW2. I mentioned in a previous post a sign that quoted Admiral Halsey and was pretty disdainful of the Japanese. I would point out that I had an uncle who was a decorated Marine who fought against the Japanese in the Pacific, but after the war, he developed a very keen interest in Japanese art and culture. He made several trips to Japan and often frequented the Japanese-American Friendship Center when he lived in California. So, even if he ever dehumanized them (and I'm not sure he did), he most certainly "re-humanized" them after the war.

Not sure if Americans saw Germans the same way. My dad told me that some German POWs worked on our aunt's farm in Indiana. I guess they were okay. My dad said that she was told not to give them anything to eat, but she did anyway.

We never went to war with South Africa, and it wasn't until the 1980s that we even made a peep about Apartheid.

As for the North and South in the War Between the States, I think there was some mutual antipathy and hatred, but not with everyone. A lot of Union and Confederate generals served with each other and fought side by side before the war, and it was considered a war of brother against brother. It was a bit too complicated to use the term "dehumanize" when talking about the relationship between North and South in American history. Although it could be said that it's related to contemporary politics and how both sides try to dehumanize the other.

And yes, I think the Russians were probably also dehumanized during the Cold War, as were the Chinese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Cubans, etc. I guess they saw all Americans as "Yankees," even those from the South.

Though we were not at war with 'apartheid' , Americans and others will still demonize them as evil. Same with the Southern people of the Confederacy and even those today, such as I, who am pro-Confederate and very proud of our people and their stand in that war. Immediately I am a person of hate, and evil, and intolerance.

My point is man always does it. He demonizes that which he believes or is his enemy. This will be done and has been done at times with Bible believing Christians. Those hateful evangelicals. Those blood lust fundamentals. We are that evil radical sect of intolerant Christianity.

Never changes.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

Though we were not at war with 'apartheid' , Americans and others will still demonize them as evil. Same with the Southern people of the Confederacy and even those today, such as I, who am pro-Confederate and very proud of our people and their stand in that war. Immediately I am a person of hate, and evil, and intolerance.

Really? I admit I don't know many Americans, but people here where I live tend to view it accurately as a racist system to oppress the majority population in South Africa, and the Confederate regime as a conglomerate of slavers who wanted to preserve slavery with organized violence.

If you have trouble with people accepting you as a tolerant free-thinker, then maybe don't support racism?
It's not a good look, even in the best of circumstances.

My point is man always does it. He demonizes that which he believes or is his enemy. This will be done and has been done at times with Bible believing Christians. Those hateful evangelicals. Those blood lust fundamentals. We are that evil radical sect of intolerant Christianity.

Never changes.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Wait.... aren't you the guy who told everyone they had no right to tell you to distance because they weren't Christian (or Christian enough in your eyes to qualify as a proper Christian)?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Really? I admit I don't know many Americans, but people here where I live tend to view it accurately as a racist system to oppress the majority population in South Africa, and the Confederate regime as a conglomerate of slavers who wanted to preserve slavery with organized violence.

If you have trouble with people accepting you as a tolerant free-thinker, then maybe don't support racism?
It's not a good look, even in the best of circumstances.


Wait.... aren't you the guy who told everyone they had no right to tell you to distance because they weren't Christian (or Christian enough in your eyes to qualify as a proper Christian)?

Don't misunderstand. I have no 'trouble with people accepting' me. My point was it is common for man to demonize his enemies.

You're going to have to come up with a quote I said for me to answer that question. Or at least a post number. I did and do support Christians meeting together for worship despite the 'shelter in place' laws.

Concerning your statement of the Confederacy, I would say you should do some of your own study about that war. I don't know where you are from, but I know even most Americans don't know the history of that war. I would be glad to discuss, or argue with you concerning it, but not in this topic thread as it would be derailing it. Start a new thread about it and I assure you I will participate.

Pleasure meeting you.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Stevicus]

Though we were not at war with 'apartheid' , Americans and others will still demonize them as evil. Same with the Southern people of the Confederacy and even those today, such as I, who am pro-Confederate and very proud of our people and their stand in that war. Immediately I am a person of hate, and evil, and intolerance.

Yes, there's some of that, although it depends on the context. There are those who might demonize you for your beliefs, with the assumption that you're a free individual who chooses to believe as you do. In that case, you would be demonized only for your own personal choice which is at odds with others' beliefs.

People who deliberately choose to commit wrongful acts against other human beings are demonized for good reason. The ones who are demonized are those who support and implement programs related to Apartheid, slavery, racism, or other such atrocities which contemporary society now abhors and considers contemptible.

However, I will note that when such contempt extends beyond individual perpetrators and is applied to entire families, societies, countries, and races, then it's crossing the line.

I will say that those who see the South as a separate country and a separate society are at least consistent with a pro-Confederate belief, although those who express a pro-Union belief, yet still "otherize" the South, are being hypocritical.

My point is man always does it. He demonizes that which he believes or is his enemy. This will be done and has been done at times with Bible believing Christians. Those hateful evangelicals. Those blood lust fundamentals. We are that evil radical sect of intolerant Christianity.

Never changes.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Yes, it's true that humans might tend to demonize their enemies. However, I think humans have also reached a certain realization that, we can demonize individuals for individual wrongs they've committed, but it's wrong when people demonize entire families, societies, cultures, or other such groups due to the actions of individuals. That we did it in the past is already spilled milk, but we can stop doing it now.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yes, it's true that humans might tend to demonize their enemies. However, I think humans have also reached a certain realization that, we can demonize individuals for individual wrongs they've committed, but it's wrong when people demonize entire families, societies, cultures, or other such groups due to the actions of individuals. That we did it in the past is already spilled milk, but we can stop doing it now.

That's why they (NAACP, SPLC) keep tearing down our flags, monuments, and anything Southern and Confederate? No. They want to destroy the whole culture and Southern white people. You say 'in the past is already spilled milk'. Tell them that. Everyone wants to tell us that, yet everyone keeps tearing down our flags, monuments, and culture. Everyone wants us to get over it, yet they always bring it up. When will the blacks quite blaming 'slavery' as the reason for their present day condition? Answer: Never. It makes hay. At the Southern white peoples expense.

No, human nature has not changed. It will continue.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

Don't misunderstand. I have no 'trouble with people accepting' me. My point was it is common for man to demonize his enemies.

It maintain that is not "demonization" to condemn the oppressive racist regime of Apartheid, or the Nazi regime of Germany during WW2, or Japanese war crimes during the same period.

It would be a demonization to declare other people as "evil" or "barbarians" with no discernable human motivations, but I disagree that moral judgement of other people's actions entails such a thing in principle. And I absolutely believe that it is not just possible, but even a moral imperative, to see people doing terrible things and decry these things as terrible, without taking away their humanity in the process.

Concerning your statement of the Confederacy, I would say you should do some of your own study about that war. I don't know where you are from, but I know even most Americans don't know the history of that war. I would be glad to discuss, or argue with you concerning it, but not in this topic thread as it would be derailing it. Start a new thread about it and I assure you I will participate.

Pleasure meeting you.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I just created a new thread. I am looking forward to your replies.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

It maintain that is not "demonization" to condemn the oppressive racist regime of Apartheid, or the Nazi regime of Germany during WW2, or Japanese war crimes during the same period.

It would be a demonization to declare other people as "evil" or "barbarians" with no discernable human motivations, but I disagree that moral judgement of other people's actions entails such a thing in principle. And I absolutely believe that it is not just possible, but even a moral imperative, to see people doing terrible things and decry these things as terrible, without taking away their humanity in the process.


I just created a new thread. I am looking forward to your replies.

Sounds good. I will reply later on today as I am wore out right now. Look forward to our discussion also.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

Sounds good. I will reply later on today as I am wore out right now. Look forward to our discussion also.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Take your time. I'm supposed to be doing work right now, anyway.

 

[Stevicus]

Really? I admit I don't know many Americans, but people here where I live tend to view it accurately as a racist system to oppress the majority population in South Africa, and the Confederate regime as a conglomerate of slavers who wanted to preserve slavery with organized violence.

It might be easier to view it that way from the outside looking in. Although I'll admit that a lot of Americans look at it the same way. They think that they can put all of our "deplorables" in a single basket called "the Confederacy," and somehow, a short-lived, four-year coalition of 11 states becomes solely responsible for 400 years of national atrocities, while everyone else is let off the hook.

That doesn't deny what the Confederacy was or what they stood for, but it seems that some people need to "sanitize" US history. I don't really believe it was ever about "demonizing" the South as much as it was a disingenuous and hypocritical attempt to make the rest of the US and its government look like a bunch of choir boys and angels. It's all about "image," not reality.

 

[Stevicus]

That's why they (NAACP, SPLC) keep tearing down our flags, monuments, and anything Southern and Confederate? No. They want to destroy the whole culture and Southern white people. You say 'in the past is already spilled milk'. Tell them that. Everyone wants to tell us that, yet everyone keeps tearing down our flags, monuments, and culture. Everyone wants us to get over it, yet they always bring it up. When will the blacks quite blaming 'slavery' as the reason for their present day condition? Answer: Never. It makes hay. At the Southern white peoples expense.

No, human nature has not changed. It will continue.

Good-Ole-Rebel

The right of you or anyone else to display any flags or monuments you wish is still existent and protected under the US Constitution. If you display a flag on your own property, that's your right, and if anyone tears it down, you have the right to call the police, have them arrested, and press charges.

The only real dispute is on whose property you're going to display it. If it's on public property, then it's the choice of whichever government holds jurisdiction and the constituency which elects them. There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about that, since it's a decision made by government regarding property over which they hold stewardship.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, you've set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter as to which races/nationalities are "barbarians" and which ones aren't?

It should be obvious which are which. Like I said, WWII is a case of two powers trying to grab the world and and exploit people, WWI was not. Do you not see the difference?

 

[Stevicus]

It should be obvious which are which. Like I said, WWII is a case of two powers trying to grab the world and and exploit people, WWI was not. Do you not see the difference?

Yes, I do see the difference, but I don't think I'd use the same terms as you have in order to describe and characterize those differences.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, I do see the difference, but I don't think I'd use the same terms as you have in order to describe and characterize those differences.

Interesting. How would you describe the difference between the two wars?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

The right of you or anyone else to display any flags or monuments you wish is still existent and protected under the US Constitution. If you display a flag on your own property, that's your right, and if anyone tears it down, you have the right to call the police, have them arrested, and press charges.

The only real dispute is on whose property you're going to display it. If it's on public property, then it's the choice of whichever government holds jurisdiction and the constituency which elects them. There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about that, since it's a decision made by government regarding property over which they hold stewardship.

No it's not. These things are never voted on. They are removed at the request of some minorities and done so without asking the people of the state or city to vote on it.

Good-Ole-Rebel