Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Perfection, Jan 22, 2011.
Other than possibly nuclear weapons embargoes, has there ever been an embargo that worked?
South Africa is generally seen as a success?
Helped destroy the traitor states.
That's embargo combined with war, which is very different.
That would be a blockade though. Its not like the south did not want to trade with anyone else.
Unless my history teacher lied to me, the US's oil embargo on Japan was successful in provoking the attack on Pearl Harbor.
So the embargo accomplished modern Japanese culture
I'd say that's pretty damned worthwhile
He did lie to you. We as a sovereign nation are not obligated to trade with anyone. If some other nation does not like that and attacks us over that, that's totally unprovoked. The provocation behind the attack was militant Japanese expansionism.
The US resource embargo of Japan in the 1940 cut off ~80% of Japan's oil and drastically changed their war strategy. Instead of securing all of south-east Asia first, they tried to knock the US out of the Pacific at Pearl Habor. Probably would have happened anyway, but months or years would have made a huge difference in the outcome. Britian might have even fell or at least signed a treaty with Germany before we entered, plus the Japanese atomic bomb program could have been successful.
Yes, it's war related, but embargo's aren't a friendly act to start with.
And let's not forget how UN sanctions sponsored by the US and UK directly led to half a million children dying in Iraq over a period of 10 years.
Link to video.
I would say that was Saddam's fault for spending all his money on things other than his people.
The biggest thing embargoes accomplish is smugness. "Liberal internationalists" as they are known in IR theory, get to prance around with smug looks on their faces gloating about how war would have been unnecessary and how peaceful means win yet again. That leader will surely be forced to stop thinking about themselves spread their nation's now even scarcer resources among the entire populous, lay down those arms and stop threatening the world in the face of desperation.
Then its the guy who's being embargoed's fault that the embargo which they didn't want to succeed didn't work as intended.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't assigning any blame to the US for precipitating an attack on its own soil (I think you know, better than anyone else, exactly why that argument would be ridiculous). I was just alleging that if you had to pick one action that could be said to have led to the attack on Pearl Harbor, then the US oil embargo was the one action that directly resulted in the Japanese choosing to reshuffle its strategy of fully conquering China in favor of a two-front war.
South Africa is the most famous case of economic embargo working in a peaceful fashion, so yeah, go Arwon. It's pretty rare, though. As a method for upping the ante, blockade tends to either make states even more desperate and willing to consider war, or doesn't do much of anything at all. Finding the balance is extremely difficult. Unsuccessful applications of blockade are almost as old as recorded history itself, and we all know of how poorly embargo is working against North Korea and Iran.
Actually, part of the reason the blockade was so effective early on was that the traitor states deliberately stopped trading with the European states in an effort to blackmail them into intervening in the war.
Of course, once they realized that that failed, they started using blockade runners. Few blockade runners were ever caught (so in a tactical sense the Federal blockade was a disaster), but their carrying capacity was so low as to be virtually negligible.
War? There was no such thing.
South Africa might be a very special case, how many countries participated, and what does south Africa have?
Diamonds are extremely over prices and were at the time totally controlled by one company who overstated diamonds scarcity. If South Africa had Oil would it have worked? Or would France (Or some other Nation) have traded under the table, like they did with Iraq?
Combined with a proper cleansing then
Obviously, it's not one cause alone, but it did cause the Japanese to go "Why you little!" and possibly push them over the edge (of war with the US) that they had been prodded towards by other problems/possibilities.
If we had a long history of respecting other countries sovereignty we would have a leg to stand on here. As we don't, we're just a bunch of useless hypocrites.
It was a provocation in a roundabout way of sorts. By 1939 - 1940 militant Japanese expansionism was already bogged down in the China quagmire, at which point the Americans and other Western powers began embargoing Japan and the Americans began an arms build up in the Pacific. Japan can't sustain its war in China without Western/Western colonial resources. If there was no embargo and no arms buildup, it was unlikely that the attack on Pearl Harbor would've happened (well, unlikely that it would happen then. Japan might well attack at a later date).
It was fortunate (for the Allies) that Japan attacked the United States when it did, anyway; it was pretty much the only way to bring the United States into the war, after which the defeat of the Axis was assured.
Separate names with a comma.