Help!

I have a real problem here. My AP US history class has assigned a scored discussion requiring us to find articles on wether or not FDR provoked the Japanese into war. The problem is, the only articles I have found for 2 days is only ones saying FDR provoked the Japanese into war! Can some one give me some advice on how to find the articles on the other side of the argument?

Much apreciated

One thing when doing historical research and being stumped is to not let the lack of information throw you. You're almost certainly not searching broadly enough if you're just getting one side of the argument. But unless we actually know how you have been searching it's difficult to help. I don't want to tell you how to suck eggs, but always remember to read bibliographies and footnotes as closely as possible. I can't believe you won't find contrasting ideas by doing that.

What I will say is do comment on the lack of opposing ideas if you can't come up with them and consider whether that means there is a strong element to whether FDR "provoked" Japan or your own research methods were inadequate. There's no shame in saying "I should have done X differently".

Also consider if FDR was provoking Japan, in what respect he was provoking it and why. Sometimes people will say they were provoked, when in reality they decided to take one course of action and did not consider another. That isn't really provocation.

you dont nessecerely need to an article to tell you whether FDR did or did not provoke Japan. You can find informations, may be even primary sources such as government document or policy papers from that time, and make your own judgement. What i would do is look up the rhetoric at that time and see if there were any speeches made to antagonize Japan, or may be look more into the embargo and see if you can find something that tells the mentality of the US politician when they enacted that embargo. Also you can look at the neogotiation going on at that time and see what are the attitude of the US diplomat.

What i am saying is that you dont need an article to spell out for you "FDR provoked/ didnt provoke ...."

renmin said:

I have a real problem here. My AP US history class has assigned a scored discussion requiring us to find articles on wether or not FDR provoked the Japanese into war. The problem is, the only articles I have found for 2 days is only ones saying FDR provoked the Japanese into war! Can some one give me some advice on how to find the articles on the other side of the argument?

Much apreciated

Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious... the starving Japan with resources is a sure win argument. But the real situation is Multi-polar.. with many interesr parties to get USA involved with the war in Europe.

Here are some articles to go thru.. and sum them up on your own.

FDR PLANNED Pearl Harbor: His Day of Infamy



8 Point Memo


winstonchurchill Knew of Pearl Harbour Attack


Pearl Harbor: Antecedents, Background and Consequences


Pearl Harbor: facing facts

Provoked when? Are you talking Pearl Harbor because Japan was at war long before then? History books and "articles" are still written by people with their own opinions. Let's get into territory you'll never see admitted today. FDR may have been in power when the Japanese "attacked," but Imperial Japan has it's roots in gunboat diplomacy of the West. We have images of warlike samurai but they never really had expansionist ideology beyond their own region of the Far East. It was only when the West came in and pointed their cannons onto the Japanese and said "Yield to us or we'll start bombing you." The Japanese saw what they had already done to its neighbors, so they surrendered. Instead of resisting like others had done, the Japanese chose to adopt everything they can that was Western, from clothes to ideology. They did virtually eveything the West wanted in order to feel they were a part of the "civilized" world. But when the West was carving up Asia for themselves, Japan saw they were being left out and asked, "Where's our piece of the pie?" Of course the West resisted.

Long story short... war and an aggressive expansionist Japan along with a Japanese victory over the Russians fueled fear and suspicion among the Western colonial powers. The West tried to stifle growing Japanese might like demanding a limit on how many warships Japan can build while the Western powers had no such restriction. World War I and II had broke out in Europe weakening their hold in the Far East opening a door for Japanese expansion and control. But the only Western power in play that wasn't occupied with war in Europe was the US. So the Japanese had to attack Pearl Harbor to weaken its force in the Pacific opening the door wide open for Japanese control in that part of the world.

Did FDR provoke Japan? It's a matter of perspective. He was just continuing a policy and legacy of the colonial West that unfortunately for him had Imperial Japan directly attack the US during his administration.

But then you might have account there might have been something personal in it for FDR since his family's riches did come off the immoral opium trade in China.

mace, that doesn't really help him. He needs academic texts - anyone can have a general rant about imperialism in Asia. It will get you zero marks, of course.

moby, online sources like that are a bit questionable. They're very unreliable and not really suitable for relying on when you're writing an essay. The first one seemed a bit....extreme, for example. The "I want you to save Communism" poster should be a bit of an alarm bell, IMHO, as should the fact the main site seems to be about spam and con-products.

I think it would have to be in a serious journal at the least.

Of course if renmin is just collecting articles, regardless of their quality, that doesn't matter so much.

Also the McCollum memo, as an historical artifact, is much more relevant and interesting.

FuManChu said:

mace, that doesn't really help him. He needs academic texts - anyone can have a general rant about imperialism in Asia. It will get you zero marks, of course.

moby, online sources like that are a bit questionable. They're very unreliable and not really suitable for relying on when you're writing an essay. The first one seemed a bit....extreme, for example. I think it would have to be in a serious journal at the least.

Of course if renmin is just collecting articles, regardless of their quality, that doesn't matter so much.

Click to expand...

Didn't I say he's probably not going to find accurate information since history is written by people with opinions? So your conclusions are zeroes, of course!

AssassinsMace said:

Provoked when? Are you talking Pearl Harbor because Japan was at war long before then? History books and "articles" are still written by people with their own opinions. Let's get into territory you'll never see admitted today. FDR may have been in power when the Japanese "attacked," but Imperial Japan has it's roots in gunboat diplomacy of the West. We have images of warlike samurai but they never really had expansionist ideology beyond their own region of the Far East. It was only when the West came in and pointed their cannons onto the Japanese and said "Yield to us or we'll start bombing you." The Japanese saw what they had already done to its neighbors, so they surrendered. Instead of resisting like others had done, the Japanese chose to adopt everything they can that was Western, from clothes to ideology. They did virtually eveything the West wanted in order to feel they were a part of the "civilized" world. But when the West was carving up Asia for themselves, Japan saw they were being left out and asked, "Where's our piece of the pie?" Of course the West resisted.

Long story short... war and an aggressive expansionist Japan along with a Japanese victory over the Russians fueled fear and suspicion among the Western colonial powers. The West tried to stifle growing Japanese might like demanding a limit on how many warships Japan can build while the Western powers had no such restriction. World War I and II had broke out in Europe weakening their hold in the Far East opening a door for Japanese expansion and control. But the only Western power in play that wasn't occupied with war in Europe was the US. So the Japanese had to attack Pearl Harbor to weaken its force in the Pacific opening the door wide open for Japanese control in that part of the world.

Did FDR provoke Japan? It's a matter of perspective. He was just continuing a policy and legacy of the colonial West that unfortunately for him had Imperial Japan directly attack the US during his administration.

Click to expand...

Actually, from what i learned in school, Japan's attack on Pearl harbor was a tactical nessecity. It wanted to take control of Malaysia, burma and the Dutch East Indies. If the Pacific Fleet is not destroyed, Americans will easily intervene and prevent Japan from having a easy victories. So to pave way for its invasion of South East Asia, Japan really had no choice to to prempt America. Japan figured that WWII was just another colonial war, and that once it had taken control of those colonies, neither Britain or America would be willing to go all out for those colonies. I guess the Japanese high command was stuck in the 19th mentality. They made the same mistake with China, they figured that the Chinese governemnt will act like the Qing government of the 19th century.

So basically, Japanese werent that stupid to be 'goated' into attacking America, They obviously had a very good tatical reason for bombing pearl harbor, albeit their strategic thinking was a little behind the times.

kunmingren said:

Actually, from what i learned in school, Japan's attack on Pearl harbor was a tactical nessecity. It wanted to take control of Malaysia, burma and the Dutch East Indies. If the Pacific Fleet is not destroyed, Americans will easily intervene and prevent Japan from having a easy victories. So to pave way for its invasion of South East Asia, Japan really had no choice to to prempt America. Japan figured that WWII was just another colonial war, and that once it had taken control of those colonies, neither Britain or America would be willing to go all out for those colonies. I guess the Japanese high command was stuck in the 19th mentality. They made the same mistake with China, they figured that the Chinese governemnt will act like the Qing government of the 19th century.

So basically, Japanese werent that stupid to be 'goated' into attacking America, They obviously had a very good tatical reason for bombing pearl harbor, albeit their strategic thinking was a little behind the times.

Click to expand...

I agree. That's no different from what I said. I just didn't go into details. You might have Westerners argue with you on the point about Japanese not being stupid and it was done for tactical reasons.