It has always struck me as ironic that the U.S. was criticized for continuing oil supplies to Hitler, via Franco in Spain, and also criticized and, in
fact, blamed for causing the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor for cutting oil supplies, as well as scrap metal shipments(?) to Japan.
Off the top, it strikes as damned if you do and damned if you don't. Yes, yes, simplistic. That's me.
Digressing for a moment, I don't buy the 'blame the U.S.' argument in the slightest. Simply put, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a decision. A
choice. The Diet could have chosen to end their 'All East-Asian Co-prosperity Sphere' efforts then and there. Bad choice on their part.
Where I would like help on this is the fact that trade was a corporate activity and war a gov't sport. I can think of no example where such a
situation was broadly spoken about in WWI. Did trade or embargos become a political tool during WWII? There must be a point where international trade
and the dependence thereof became large enough that it became a factor for Gov't intervention in times of war.
Fast forward, resources and the access to them seem the modern issue for war, or at least, the blaming, thereof.
Oil being the prime example with water postulated as future influence.
At what point did gov't-if it did- intervene in corporate trade? Was it 'ordered'? Suggested? Perhaps even a choice at corporate level, when
looking at the Japanese issue?
On the German side of it IBM was, apparently, heavily involved in data correlation for the Germans and Hitler. Old Henry Ford was buddies with Hitler
and these examples are used to claim that war was financed by corporate America. More realistically, nothing more than the continued exercise of
making money with nations already committed to prior to that war.
When did gov't intervention, both as a positive and negative stimulus/leverage start being the norm?
It's not a subject that I am privy to, yet the U.S. blame game has always irk....
Any insights to this area?