Pearl Harbor Homework.. Revisited

[N1QUE24]

As you might've remembered, I posted a topic on my Pearl Harbor research not too long ago for feedback and suggestions.. now I'm actually going ahead to write it.. but before I do, I need to know whether my thesis is effective enough and if it holds some weight.. my teacher told me my previous thesis was unclear :confused:

Old Thesis:
On the morning of Dec. 7th 1941, the Japanese Navy initiated a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan should be condemned for their unprovoked actions on the United States, a country that remained neutral and wanted no part of WW2.

New Thesis:
Japan's actions in WW2 were blasphemous. They seeked world dominance and masked their true intentions. They bombed Pearl Harbor and ultimately dragged America into WW2. Their actions were unjust and showed the whole world that the country of Japan was only interested in expanding their colony, not for the interest of peace.

I know my argument is weak as hell.. I ran out of ideas.. my head is hurting :|

ANY HELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED >:(

[atforum]

Did not US sell arms to the allied forces even before they officially entered the war :confused:

Edit: You say america wanted to be neutral. I am sure that was not the case. Even though they did not formally announce a war, the ppl and govt was more towards helping the allied forces.

[atforum]

"Their actions were unjust and showed the whole world that the country of Japan was only interested in expanding their colony, not for the interest of peace."

This is a weak statement. Almost all European countries including US were interested in explanding their imperialistic influence. They were exchanging countries within themselves as if they were exchanged a hoard of sheeps. They Allied forces wanted to keep their colonies intact, while the axis wanted to get control of more colonies and also conquer the european and american countries. The later part caused the problem. I am sure if Hitler and japanese were attacking african colonies WII would have been averted. Both were not intersted in the welfare of the rest of the world. The allied were a little bad compared to the inhuman nazis

[N1QUE24]

thanks for the help!

Right now.. I just need a good thesis so I can start my f'n essay that's due on Tuesday.. I just want to start it and I dont know how without a good thesis :mad:

If anyone has msn and wants to talk Pearl Harbor (yay!).. pm me

[atforum]

thanks for the help!

Right now.. I just need a good thesis so I can start my f'n essay that's due on Tuesday.. I just want to start it and I dont know how without a good thesis :mad:

what is the title of the thesis??

[N1QUE24]

It could be anything really.. I just need to show Japan in a dark light

[N1QUE24]

I just need a thesis that preferrably centralizes around these points:

1. Japan believed that it was their destiny to rule the Pacific so in turn, they annexed it.
2. The Japanese thought of themselves, the people as the master race and that one day they would dominate the world.

[atforum]

1. Japan believed that it was their destiny to rule the Pacific so in turn, they annexed it.


You are wrong. I quote from WIKI the real reason why japan attacked them



The intent of the attack was to protect Japan's move into Singapore and the Dutch East Indies, executed to secure her access to natural resources (mainly oil), by preventing intervention by the U.S. Pacific Fleet (in the fashion predicted by war plans on both sides);[2] the Japanese Navy high command was certain any attack on British colonies would inevitably bring the U.S. into the war.


Japanese thought of themselves, the people as the master race and that one day they would dominate the world.
Yes this is a reason for their blind nationalism

[N1QUE24]

Umm.. werent the Japanese and America involved in conflict pre-WW2? Japan attacked China and massacred hundreds of thousands of Chinese in an attempt to further expand their colony and as a result, America stepped in and slapped embargoes on Japan thus weakening their economy..

Japan was stuck between a rock and a hard place.. and this was forced to bomb Pearl Harbor as a sign of retaliation..

I mean.. that's what I heard

[atforum]

Umm.. werent the Japanese and America involved in conflict pre-WW2? Japan attacked China and massacred hundreds of thousands of Chinese in an attempt to further expand their colony and as a result, America stepped in and slapped embargoes on Japan thus weakening their economy..


I donno much about that.

[N1QUE24]

nvm, i just checked my research notes.. u are right in a way

Japan thought by attacking America, they would be down and out paving the way for an uninterrupted attack on Great Britain (or wherever).. America had other plans though and declared for war.. completely blindsiding the Japanese..

[IronMac]

Japan thought by attacking America, they would be down and out paving the way for an uninterrupted attack on Great Britain (or wherever).. America had other plans though and declared for war.. completely blindsiding the Japanese..

The Japanese knew that there was no way that the US could be down and out for more than a few months. Yamamoto (author of the Japanese strategy especially with regards to Pearl Harbor) knew that because he did attend school and travel through the US. What they wanted to do was to drive the US to sue for peace or show the US that they could not prevail in the Pacific without significant loss of men and materiel.

This is due tomorrow?!

[bionicbadger]

New Thesis:
Japan's actions in WW2 were blasphemous. They seeked world dominance and masked their true intentions. They bombed Pearl Harbor and ultimately dragged America into WW2. Their actions were unjust and showed the whole world that the country of Japan was only interested in expanding their colony, not for the interest of peace.


its not "seeked", its "sought"

[danfromwaterloo]

New Thesis:
Japan's actions in WW2 were blasphemous. They seeked world dominance and masked their true intentions. They bombed Pearl Harbor and ultimately dragged America into WW2. Their actions were unjust and showed the whole world that the country of Japan was only interested in expanding their colony, not for the interest of peace.


1. Do not use blasphemous. Its dead wrong. To blaspheme means to do something to insult God. Use something less religious in context - like "outrageous" or "overagressive" or even "arrogant".

2. Find a new phrasing of the third sentence. Duplicating how a sentence starts twice in a row ("They") shows poor vocabulary and grammar.

3. Don't say they were interested in expanding their colony, but rather, expanding their empire. Japan was an empire, and it sounds more "evil" if you say empire than colony.

4. "not for the interest of peace" sounds awkward. Revisit.

[Valek]

The best advice I can give you would be to sit down (again if necessary) with your teacher/professor and ask exactly what he or she wants in the essay. Was there a grading ruberik as well? Usually re-reading your requirements and then going over your work helps *a lot*. If you've already sat down with your teacher and still have problems (as with most essays), try working out a good Essay Outline/Plan first and see if your thesis can be supported by your points (briefly). If not, you have a weak thesis. Keep on doing this until you can fully support your thesis with points. I've written enough history essays (History major) to tell you that this method really helps out a lot. If you really want to wow your teacher, provide background information for pretty much everything and assume the reader knows absolutely nothing, aka "why".

Example:
Thesis: Japan took advantage of the fledgling Leage of Nations (Invasion into China).

Point 1: Provide context: What was happening during this time? Appeasement for Germany, the League couldn't do what it was made to do.

Point 2: Why Japan made the decision to invade.

Yada yada etc. Mind you its a really bad example as I don't know exactly what your assignment is. But if you provide *context* for EVERYTHING and make a good outline first, you're bound to do good. Remember to source everything: citationmachine.net and also, keep the outline handy to hand in with your essay, to show the teacher that you actually planned everything out. It might help improve your mark as the teacher wants you to gain and apply the skills to the paper. I hope this helps.

Edit: Though wikipedia is a hotbed for information, remember ANYONE can put information on there so do not rely on the details. It's good to use if you just want the whole gist of it, but that's about it.

[UrbanPoet]

Did not US sell arms to the allied forces even before they officially entered the war :confused:

Edit: You say america wanted to be neutral. I am sure that was not the case. Even though they did not formally announce a war, the ppl and govt was more towards helping the allied forces.

I think the ppl wanted to avoid a war b/c of how bad WWI was...
but the govt. for some reason was itching to get in on this.

[king_george]

A more correct explanation to selling arms is that the US and Canada did a thing called "lend-lease". It was a way to get around being accused of selling arms to the Axis foes. The Canadian Merchant Marines were superb at transporting materiel across the Atlantic to Europe and Russia.

As for Japan, the short explanation is that the US tried to keep them out of a conflict by embargoing them. Didn't work obviously. They were even in negotiations when Pearl was attacked. After that Yamamoto saw the writing on the wall and commented that the Japanese nation had awoken a sleeping giant. He knew they were doomed.

Pearl was their one shot at establishing a peace treaty with the US and if the carriers were present, they may have gotten away with it.


nvm, i just checked my research notes.. u are right in a way

Japan thought by attacking America, they would be down and out paving the way for an uninterrupted attack on Great Britain (or wherever).. America had other plans though and declared for war.. completely blindsiding the Japanese..

Utterly and completely wrong. The US had no intention of running a two-front war. The Japanese blindsided them and the war was on. Of course if you mean the the US was preparing for war then you are correct. The Japanese got them long before they were ready.

[HeldDown]

Without talking the history, you've used a lot of very strong and emotional statements in your thesis. If you can't back them up without a shadow of a doubt, you're going to look stupid. Scale back the melodrama and you'll find your essay a lot easier to write properly.

[IronMac]

A more correct explanation to selling arms is that the US and Canada did a thing called "lend-lease".

More correctly, it was the US; Canada was already in the war.

[Riffer]

On the embargo issue. There was strong public opinion in favour of the embargo due to Japanese aggression in China. The US government resisted this until it became obvious that Japan had it's sights set on Indochina. The US Government felt that it wasn't ready for war and wanted to delay as long as possible. Once war was inevitable, the US Government hoped that the embargo would slow the Japanese down.

Why was Indochina so important? Almost all the US supply of rubber and tin came from there (then extremely important strategic materials). Even if Japan hadn't attacked the US, there would have been war as soon as they invaded Indochina. Japan knew this, so they did a pre-emptive strike. This was nothing new to the Japanese. They had done the same thing in the Russo-Japanese war. They realized that their actions would inevitability lead to war, so they struck when the conditions were most favorable. If they had waited any longer, their oil reserves would just have gotten lower and the US may have had time to improve their military situation.

[king_george]

More correctly, it was the US; Canada was already in the war.
Oops what I meant was that Canada did a lot of the actual transportation of the US materiel as part of a pact with the US. Of course it was the civilian merchant marine and not the regular navy.

Still though they faced a lot of hardships and peril that all the regular navy folks did too without the glory.

[N1QUE24]

Thanks for all the help/comments/suggestions guys.. really appreciate it :razz:

I developed a new thesis.. hopefully this one holds some weight..

The decision to attack Pearl Harbor was unjustified for many reasons, mainly because the attack was that of sneak and stealth, it was an attack that was illegal for Japan never truly announcing war to America and the attack itself was the product of Japanese selfishness in wanting to expand their colonies throughout the Pacific for their valuable resources.

Peer Edit is tomorrow, so the rough copy is due tomorrow.. I've got my arguments down and everything else.. it's just a matter of execution.. somethign I've never been able to do when writing an essay....

[Cafe_333]

Seriously, ease off the melodrama and the emotion put into the essay. essays need to be netural toned and factual. The tone of your essay so far just sounds biased and (unintentionally?) racist.

EDIT: Nevermind, just saw your latest thesis, better job taking the emotion out of it - hope the flow stays the same.

Anyways, the United States always wanted to go to war - Japan simply made the first move. Now the surprise attack is what you can argue here. Many argued that the United States asked for it (to be attacked). They argued that Japan at the time was being very nationalistic and the United States used this to their advantage to provoke them into war with the embargo. There was also evidence that Roosevelt knew about the impeding attack but allowed it to happen so that he would have public support to enter the war. (To a similar effect, the government used the same tactic for an excuse to enter WWI - the sinking of Lusitania) An investigation proved there was a military coverup on this issue but could not prove it conclusively. To argue this point would make a great essay.

The other side of the story is that you can believe the American propaganda that the US was completely innocent and neutral. They were attacked without warning by the Japanese and forced to enter the war. You can write an essay about this, but I don't know what you would be trying to prove here... So far your thesis says the surprise attack was unjustified because Japan never announced their intention of war. Well what's there to be fair about? It's like the saying goes, all's fair in love and war. ;)

[N1QUE24]

I'm arguing/questioning the Japanese's tactics.. for example, the Japanese were taught always to fight with honour.. attacking Pearl Harbor was dishonourable.

The sneak attack on Pearl Harbour.. wheres the honour in that? At least declare war on America.. the gov't also informed the military that they had already DECLARED war on America.. but obviously, it was a lie and a manipulative move.

Japan went on to propose a final proposal in which they agreed not to make anymore advancedments in Indo -China if the US restored free trade with them and eliminate the embargoes, but at the same time... the Japanese gov't had strictly informed Yamamoto to prepare for the Pearl Harbor attack.. regardless of the result of this proposal.

Also, America wanted to resolve the China dispute with Japan.. yet the letter was held back for 10 hours from government ppl in Japan who wanted to wage war and even then.. it was too late.

[Cafe_333]

With honor? You're thinking about the samurai lol.... The modernization of Japan has changed things since - it's all about strategic advantages towards victory. All's fair in war. Well I suppose the point of view you're going at it from is easier to write an essay about. Sounds like it was Japan's plan all along to me - they made a fool out of the Americans and backstabbed them when they least expected it. That is your essay. Unfortunately your thesis doesn't quite reflect that. I think your thesis should go more along the lines of how their intention was to backstab the US. Make that point clear in your thesis statement and you should be good to go.

[IronMac]

The decision to attack Pearl Harbor was unjustified for many reasons, mainly because the attack was that of sneak and stealth, it was an attack that was illegal for Japan never truly announcing war to America and the attack itself was the product of Japanese selfishness in wanting to expand their colonies throughout the Pacific for their valuable resources.

Cafe_333 is absolutely right. Your thesis is much too melodramatic. What level history course is this?

First off, justification is in the mind of the beholder. Sneak and stealth has nothing to do with it. In fact, militarily, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a masterful military strike conducted in a bold and imaginative manner. The Japanese military worked under the constraints of the naval agreements of the time in order to refine a naval innovation (the carrier which was developed by the Americans and Brits) to become a war-winning instrument.

Second, the Japanese embassy in Washington already had their instructions to declare war/break off negotiations. This was sort of a break in Japan's modus operandi because ever since the First Sino-Japanese War it has always attacked first and been very successful.

Third, warring for resources has been used as justification for going to war for millenia. Big deal. What do you think American expansion beyond the Appalachian and Allegheny mountain ranges were all about?

[danfromwaterloo]

The decision to attack Pearl Harbor was unjustified for many reasons, mainly because the attack was that of sneak and stealth, it was an attack that was illegal for Japan never truly announcing war to America and the attack itself was the product of Japanese selfishness in wanting to expand their colonies throughout the Pacific for their valuable resources.

Try this, as a less dramatic spin on what you're saying:

The decision to attack Pearl Harbor was unjustified for many reasons: the attack was deliberately deceptive and unprovoked in nature, it broke international law by never declaring war, and it was based on a desire to expand the Japanese Pacific empire.

I still think that's a weak thesis - mainly because in the first line, we're saying that the decision to attack Pearl Harbor was unjustified, then down below, we're providing reasons why the Japanese justified entering the war: their desire to expand their empire. You may want to revisit that.

[Riffer]

Keep in mind that the Netherlands was occupied by the Germans, yet they still let Japan, an ally of the Germans, have half of their oil production from the Netherlands East Indies. The US had oil shortages, yet they still let the Japanese have a significant amount of their production. This doesn't sound like nations spoiling for war. What more did Japan want? They wanted it all, so they could build their war machine and extend their dominance over the Pacific.

[IronMac]

Keep in mind that the Netherlands was occupied by the Germans, yet they still let Japan, an ally of the Germans, have half of their oil production from the Netherlands East Indies. The US had oil shortages, yet they still let the Japanese have a significant amount of their production.

What? The US didn't suffer from oil shortages before the Second World War! In fact, it was a net exporter until sometimes in the 1950s.

[Riffer]

What? The US didn't suffer from oil shortages before the Second World War! In fact, it was a net exporter until sometimes in the 1950s.


Yes they did. Do your research.

[IronMac]

Yes they did. Do your research.

A quick search:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/halbouty02/index.htm


As World War II approached, oil's importance was enhanced in international affairs. Germany, realizing it would probably be cut off from oil in the war it was planning, started the development of liquid fuel from coal. To a lesser extent, similar experiments were underway in England, France, and Belgium.

France began the process of substituting alcohol for motor fuel by restricting petroleum imports and providing subsidies to grain producers. Romania, which at one time sold oil all over Europe, was confining its markets to German and Italian outlets. By 1938, Mexico had expropriated foreign oil properties, as Bolivia had done a year earlier, and other South American countries began to organize government-owned oil companies.

In the United States, domestic oil was flooding the market. In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, American oil companies were making sensational strikes.

Despite all of this, when the United States entered World War II on December 7, 1941, petroleum was one of the few American industries prepared for the emergency. The industry was called upon to supply the bulk of 100-octane gasoline, toluene, aviation lubricants, synthetic rubber materials, and other critical products.

[Riffer]

A quick search:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/halbouty02/index.htm


And another:

http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft4489n8wm&chunk.id=d0e2784&toc.depth=100&toc.id=d0e2616&brand=eschol

"The Decision to Embargo Japan

....The issue became hot again in June 1941, when a serious oil shortage began developing on the East Coast. The public could not understand why the United States continued to ship oil to Japan while Americans ran short"

[IronMac]

Ok, let's step back here a sec. If you're saying that the US, overall, suffered from an oil shortage that's completely wrong. If you're saying that the US suffered from a regional oil shortage then that is what happened which was due to tanker disruptions.

http://www.culturalresourcegroup.com/projects/biginch-littleinch.htm

[Riffer]

Ok, let's step back here a sec. If you're saying that the US, overall, suffered from an oil shortage that's completely wrong. If you're saying that the US suffered from a regional oil shortage then that is what happened which was due to tanker disruptions.

http://www.culturalresourcegroup.com/projects/biginch-littleinch.htm

A shortage is a shortage. and I wouldn't characterize the Eastern Seaboard of the United States as "regional".

The pipelines were built in response to German U-boat attacks in American Coastal waters after America entered the war. Before that, U-boats could not attack American ships in coastal waters (or, techinically any ship not carrying contraband to the Allies), because America and Germany were not at war. I think only one or two American tankers were sunk prior to America's entry into the war, and those were well out of American waters. In January-March '42 when the U-Boat offensive against the US got into full swing, around thirty tankers were sunk off the Eastcoast. America could ship all the oil that was available to the east coast until that time, but there still wasn't enough to keep the east coast supplied. There was, in fact, a shortage before Pearl Harbor. This was well known, and public opinion was dead-set against shipping oil to an unfriendly Japan while this shortage was happening,

[IronMac]

A shortage is a shortage. and I wouldn't characterize the Eastern Seaboard of the United States as "regional".

The pipelines were built in response to German U-boat attacks in American Coastal waters after America entered the war. Before that, U-boats could not attack American ships in coastal waters (or, techinically any ship not carrying contraband to the Allies), because America and Germany were not at war. I think only one or two American tankers were sunk prior to America's entry into the war, and those were well out of American waters. In January-March '42 when the U-Boat offensive against the US got into full swing, around thirty tankers were sunk off the Eastcoast. America could ship all the oil that was available to the east coast until that time, but there still wasn't enough to keep the east coast supplied. There was, in fact, a shortage before Pearl Harbor. This was well known, and public opinion was dead-set against shipping oil to an unfriendly Japan while this shortage was happening,

Yes, and it was a "regional" shortage according to the definition of the word regional, ie. East Coast, West Coast, Atlantic Seaboard, etc. Tell me something, how can a country be a net exporter when it suffers from a "shortage" as you say?

[N1QUE24]

Im gonna say this again.. thank you all to who contributed their insight to this thread, you dont know how appreciative I am.. THANK YOU!

Next time I have homework.. RFD is the way to go ;)

[afong56]

Im gonna say this again.. thank you all to who contributed their insight to this thread, you dont know how appreciative I am.. THANK YOU!

Next time I have homework.. RFD is the way to go ;)



all i can say is i wouldn't count on rfd for homework help. . .frankly, i'm truly surprised you got as much help as you did. . .most of the time, if a high school kid comes on here looking for help, they get flamed--badly.

someone must like you

[Valek]

That, or the topic just happened to interest a lot of people.