Jump to content

Talk:Prelude to the attack on Pearl Harbor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The following statement in the introduction (unsourced) is contradicted by sourced statements in the Wikipedia article on embargo: "Instituting a foreign embargo on a sovereign nation is an Act Of War." A blockade is an act of war, but an embargo by a single nation against another nation falls short of an act of war. If there is no objection, I will remove this statement. I would also note that the entire introduction is unsourced and has many similar problems. --Westwind273 (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zinn's version

[edit]

User:Filipjel has been repeatedly adding the following text:

It has widely been stated by many historians that the actions the United States took prior to the war were seen to be carrying a great risk for war. By using multiple embargoes on scrap iron and more importantly oil, the US was in a way provoking the Japanese empire and expected them to act. There is evidence that would suggest the US had prior knowledge to the fact that Japan would launch an attack, however where or when exactly the attack would take place is a piece that the government did not know. Records from a White House conference that took place two weeks before the attack show that there was discussion about an anticipated and how it should be justified. Knowledge of some type of attack was evident for the US government, but not the people. To the people of the United States the attack on Pearl Harbor was a huge surprise and alarmed many. In Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous, “Day of Infamy” speech, he further spoke to the emotions of the attack by making it out to be a sudden, shocking, and immoral act. Historian Howard Zinn insists that the attack was definitely immoral, but to the government was not sudden or shocking as it was made out to be.

This text is cited to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, a popular history book that has been criticized for its errors. I think Zinn should not be used as a reference here. As well, this emphasis on the US provoking Japan into war ignores the fact that Japan was free to choose a non-war alternative, or even a warlike alternative that did not engage US forces, for instance an invasion of oil-rich countries. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Export Control Act of 1940

[edit]

This article should include a discussion of the Export Control Act of 1940 and the separate but related oil embargo. Pearl Harbor: Roosevelt knew says 'Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s diary for November 25, 1941 notes a meeting of FDR’s top advisors: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into … firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."' Elsewhere, I read that Japan was dependent on the US for over 90 percent of its oil, and that the Roosevelt administration embargoed oil expecting that Japan would respond as it did. Also, the US had allegedly broken the Japanese code and knew in advance of the attack but decided NOT to notify US naval forces in Pearl Harbor, because they needed a clear attack of that nature to justify an official declaration of war. There is an opportunity to improve this article, adding more detail about the Export Control Act of 1940, the oil embargo, and the official and real rationale behind these actions. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background to conflict

[edit]

On 2014-02-18, this section read in part, "Japan's 1937 attack on China was condemned by the U.S. and several members of the League of Nations including Britain, France, Australia, and the Netherlands. ... These states had economic and territorial interests, or formal colonies, in East and Southeast Asia". This is inaccurate: First, Britain, France and the Netherlands had colonies (NOT "former colonies") there. Second, did Australia ever have colonies? Australia was itself a colony or a collection of colonies of Great Britain. When I looked for information on colonies OF Australia, I was unable to find anything.

I will reword this accordingly. If you believe this is in error, please provide appropriate documentation. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, prior to 2014-02-18, no citation was given for "terminating the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan". Partly to correct this, I'm adding a link to the article on the Export Control Act of 1940. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the background needs to start a little earlier (like the lack of rewards given to Japan for helping the Allies in World War One); otherwise it makes it sound like Japan took a turn to militant hypernationalism out of blue, without any precipitating reasons (whether you think it justifies it or not). Historian932 (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor&oldid=1202815313"