Skip to main content
History

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 1
    This would benefit from sources. As stated it appears to be opinion. I suspect such an action would have been illegal. Commented May 8, 2017 at 13:46
  • 3
    @MarkC.Wallace: Yes, it would benefit from sources, and yes it appears to be opinion. But... illegal? Like in, more "illegal" than the attack on Pearl Harbor? Commented May 8, 2017 at 13:55
  • 1
    Attack on Pearl was military ships on a military target. Attacks out of uniform are generally illegal. IANAL; my point was to highlight the difference between a researched answer and a simple opinion. Commented May 8, 2017 at 14:08
  • 3
    @MarkC.Wallace If Imperial Japan demonstrated anything quite clearly, it's that they didn't care about legality. Naval tradition (not sure about international law) is full of false flag operations; so long as they hoist their true flag before opening hostilities. Commented Aug 18, 2017 at 0:19
  • 3
    Though I don't have specifics on their search procedures, the canal zone was already on high alert for sabotage. Something as obvious as an exploding Japanese merchant ship would be unlikely to succeed, if they were allowed to use the Canal at all. It would also be suicide for the crew. While later Japan would employ suicide as part of their plans, they were not doing so in 1941. Commented Aug 18, 2017 at 0:27