More 20th Century History Answers
Question Library
Ask a question about 20th Century History
Volunteer
Experts of the Month
Expert Login
Awards
About Us
Tell friends
Link to Us
Disclaimer
|
| |
|
|
| |
| | | |
About Tom
Expertise
While it is a huge topic, I am well-versed in World War II generally. There is a huge wealth of information available on the internet, HOWEVER, one has to know the trash from the gems. Many sites which are not obviously credible (govt, university, and museum sites, for ex.), provide erroneous information (intentionally or otherwise).
Experience
BA in history, and been reading and studying WW2 as my 'hobby' for 30 years. Regular contributor to several online forums in military history, WW2, and related areas and topics.
Organizations
None relevant to this topic.
Education/Credentials
BA, History (Secondary Education), with minor in Geography
US Army Engineer Officer (Officer Basic and Advanced Courses)
| | |
| |
You are here: Experts > Homework Help > 20th Century History > 20th Century History > Pearl Harbor
Expert: Tom
Date: 1/12/2008
Subject: Pearl Harbor
Question
I am doing a research paper on Pearl Harbor. My thesis is that without Pearl Harbor the United States would have maintained neutrality. I need Four topics to explain my thesis. I have 2 so far which are
1. U.S. embargo on Japan
2. Japan needing to wipe out the U.S. pacific fleet
I need help on other suggestions i could use to explain my thesis, so if you could please help me i would appreciate it sooo much!
Answer
Oddly enough, my father was at Pearl Harbor that day...
Now you might need to help ME out here, as I am a bit puzzled. Your thesis is that without PH, the US would remain neutral (or more precisely, non-belligerent). But then you cite two topics that were key elements of why the attack happened.
See, what I would expect for topics to explore to develop your thesis would be more like:
1) American public opinion (US population doesn't like Japan or Axis, but isn't interested in going to war)
2) Related to that (or perhaps part of #1), the "America First" movement (stay out of war)
3) FDR and US population's dislike of european colonial empires, and esp. the utter lack of interest in defending them (e.g., US refused to base ships at Singapore before Pearl Harbor).
4) and then your #2, Japanese military planning, which saw the only immediate threat to Japanese expansion being the US Pacific Fleet. That planning PRESUMED that the US would enter the war if Japan expanded the war (to European colonies, esp. British and Dutch colonies that held the resources Japan sought).
(and your #1 is a topic to consider as well, since it was what pushed Japan to decide on war as the only 'honorable' choice).
So you may need to send a followup, which is fine, if my above ideas aren't clear, or if I misunderstood.
okidutmsvaco @ yahoo.com
tom
p.s., a long-standing historical "what-if" centers on "What if Japan attacked the European colonies, and did not attack the US?" Most folks I have talked to are of view that FDR would try to instigate a Japanese attack, or try to setup an incident with an eye toward getting us in the war. Most also agree that unless we were attacked (PH), there was no chance that the US congress would declare war over European colonies, even though they would not support Japanese actions.
Add to this Answer
Ask a Question
|
|
