Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
There was no, none, zero blockade of Japan. There wasn't even a embargo. In July 1941, the U.S. threatened Japan with an oil embargo unless Japan withdrew from China. Rather than withdraw from China and abandon its imperialist aspirations, Japan chose to attack the U.S. while it still had the oil reserves needed to wage war.
“It was important to organize air operations against Japanese occupied territory and against Japan itself. It is probable that her collapse will occur as a result of economic blockade, naval pressure, and air bombardment”.
Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact, an instrument whose purpose was to “abolish aggressive war”.
- Among those present was the author of the Pact, Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg.
During the course of the recorded discussions, the following exchange took place:
“Q: Suppose a country is not attacked - suppose there is an economic blockade...?
A: There is no such thing as a blockade [unless] you are in war.
Q: It is an act of war?
A: An act of war absolutely... as I have stated before, nobody on earth, probably, could write an article defining “self defense” or “aggressor” that some country could not get around; and I made up my mind that the only safe thing for any country to do was to judge for itself within its sovereign rights whether it was unjustly attacked and had a right to defend itself and it must answer to the opinion of the world.” Japan’s War of the Pacific was a war of self-defense for the following reasons: - blockade is an act of war; (p. 43,051); - every nation is the judge of what constitutes self- defense (ibid); - no submission to any tribunal is required by the Pact (pp. 42,162; 42,240); - self-defense is not limited to defense of the national territory (p. 42,239); - the Pact does not contain any sanctions, express or implied (pp. 42,163); - breach of treaties does not constitute aggression (p. 42, 191); - American aid to the Chinese made America a belligerent in that war (see Note, below); - declarations of war are not required in self-defense (pp. 42,431-5); - no treaty requires any warning prior to attack (pp. 42,447-8); American aid to the Chinese made America a belligerent in that war
Note: almost no use was made of the argument that America was a belligerent in the China Incident. The Incident was a “conflict” rather than a “war” in the sense that belligerent and neutral rights were not invoked: diplomatic relations were undisturbed; enemy aliens in Japan were not interned, etc. Rather, it was maintained that if it was a war, then American aid to China made America a belligerent subject to attack without formality. The Americans claimed it was a war in which they could participate without becoming a belligerent