thesis statement pearl harbor

How the attack on Pearl Harbor shaped America’s role in the world

Assistant Professor of Political Science, Colorado State University

Disclosure statement

Peter Harris does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Colorado State University provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

The bombing of Pearl Harbor was a pivotal moment in U.S. and world history. The attack thrust the U.S. into World War II and set in motion a series of events that would transform the country into a global superpower and guardian of international order. Seventy-six years later, this legacy of Pearl Harbor now faces perhaps its biggest challenge.

Japan killed 2,403 Americans on Dec. 7, 1941. More than 400,000 U.S. soldiers would die in the four years that followed. Their blood helped purchase the defeat of fascism in Europe and Asia and laid the foundation for a post-war international order made in America’s image.

Whether the U.S. would have entered World War II absent Pearl Harbor is a matter of some debate. Scholars such as John Schuessler of Texas A&M argue that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had long been angling for U.S. intervention. From this view, FDR was very much aware that Japanese expansionism in Asia and German aggrandizement in Europe meant trouble for America.

Yet anti-war sentiment at home meant that FDR had to tread carefully. A succession of Neutrality Acts restricted the kinds of assistance that could be rendered to the Chinese, French and British governments, while anti-war groups such as America First boasted hundreds of thousands of members.

We will never know if FDR would have succeeded in maneuvering the U.S. into open hostilities with the fascist powers. Pearl Harbor gave him more than enough cause to declare war on Japan and its allies in Europe. But viewed in historical perspective, it is clear that Pearl Harbor was more than just the gateway to America’s entry into World War II.

Rather, the attack constituted a critical juncture in the history of U.S. foreign relations, sidelining isolationism as a powerful force in domestic politics and making overseas engagement the accepted norm.

Expanding overseas commitments

The war effort required a massive mobilization of the U.S. economy and society. By the time of its conclusion in 1945, the U.S. had built for itself the largest fighting force in its history, with a military basing structure that spanned the globe. Japan and large parts of Germany were under U.S. occupation.

After victory, President Truman showed an initial inclination to share responsibility for global order with the country’s wartime allies: Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the nationalist government of China. But extricating the U.S. from world affairs proved difficult, and Truman’s presidency would instead see a marked expansion of America’s overseas commitments.

In Eastern Europe , the Soviets began to establish political control over the countries that they occupied, like Poland and Czechoslovakia . These actions fueled consternation in the U.S. that Moscow was not a responsible partner but rather was bent on further expansion, perhaps across Western Europe or into the Middle East . Fear of communism appeared to be vindicated when, in 1950, North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel intent on forcibly unifying the Korean Peninsula under communist rule. This act of aggression catalyzed a massive military buildup by the Truman administration.

Containment of communism became the organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy for the next four decades, benefiting from broad bipartisanship consensus on the question. What began after Pearl Harbor as an attempt to defeat fascism had morphed by 1950 into an all-out global struggle to resist communism and maintain the independence of nations in the so-called “Free World.”

Ignoring Thomas Jefferson’s advice on the perils of “entangling alliances,” the U.S. offered security guarantees – formal and informal – to a host of nations in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. U.S. forces were involved in toppling governments from Guatemala to Iran to Chile . And of course, a costly war of choice was waged in Vietnam.

In concert with its allies, the U.S. set about building a liberal international order that would embed international cooperation and create safe spaces for capitalist economies to flourish. The Bretton Woods financial institutions , the United Nations and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the World Trade Organization) all can be considered part of this ambitious order-building project.

The U.S. used its power to shape and reshape the world during the decades that followed 1945. But it is now 25 years since the Soviet Union voted itself out of existence, and America’s global footprint remains substantial.

Why has America maintained its deep engagement overseas? Why have its leaders still not seen fit to return U.S. foreign policy to a pre-Pearl Harbor footing?

Trade and security concerns

One reason is that the U.S. economy – or, at least, a large segment of it – has benefited enormously from a liberal international architecture that might collapse without the application of U.S. power to keep trade routes open, energy sources flowing and anti-capitalist forces at bay.

Another explanation is that successive presidents have concurred with FDR that national security cannot be divorced from international security. From defeating the Axis powers to containing the Soviet Union to tackling “rogue states” and terrorist organizations, it has appeared more attractive to fight America’s enemies overseas rather than risk another Pearl Harbor.

For 76 years, such arguments for U.S. internationalism have more or less held sway in Washington. Today, however, they are increasingly falling upon deaf ears.

President-elect Donald Trump puts little stock in the open international economy, accusing foreign entities of cheating American workers. He has promised to renegotiate trade deals and punish businesses for investing overseas. Trump purports to represent not those who have become rich from global capitalism, but those whose livelihoods have been lost to the vicissitudes of foreign competition.

Nor does Trump see the international environment as posing many bona fide security threats. Trump has promised to forge friendly relations with Russia, for example, and hopes to encourage Moscow to shoulder the burden of defeating the Islamic State. He does not seem to lose sleep over the possibility of conflict with China, baiting the Beijing government over Twitter . Trump has questioned cornerstones of U.S. defense policy such as NATO , and has suggested that U.S. allies can look after themselves, perhaps with the aid of their own nuclear arsenals .

For better or worse, the post-Pearl Harbor world has been one in which the U.S. always has faced compelling incentives to remain preponderant in international affairs. But there was never anything inevitable or immovable about this internationalist consensus. As the conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer noted at the end of the Cold War, isolationist tendencies on both the right and left of U.S. politics were bound to resurface eventually.

With Trump’s election, Krauthammer’s prophecy is perhaps finally coming to pass. With an avowedly “America First” president occupying the White House, what the attack on Pearl Harbor had banished from American public life will, at last, be mainstream once more.

• United Nations
• World War II
• Bretton Woods
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt
• World Trade Organization
• Isolationism
• Pearl Harbor
• America First

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Regional Engagement Officer - Shepparton

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Aaron Capece's RCL Blog

Just another weblog.

Analysis of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech on Dec. 8th, 1941

“December 7 th 1941- A date that will live in infamy.” This sentence is one that is forever ingrained in the minds of every well-educated American. The bombing of Pearl Harbor is an event that no one can forget and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s speech in response to this horrific attack is just as significant.  FDR’s speech after Pearl Harbor is one of the most recognizable and significant speeches in American history. It was this that brought America into World War Two and solidified America’s status as the premier world superpower for the next half-century.

• Given the day after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor
• Country was still in shock after hearing the news (similar to 9/11)
• Objective of speech was to urge Congress to declare war on Japan
• Specifically targeted members of Congress, but written to be also televised to entire country
• Thesis: FDR’s use of both pathetical and logical proofs was extremely effective in spurring America to declare war on the Japanese Empire.
• Being the President, FDR was obviously seen as a credible source
• Was in the middle of his 4 th term in office so he was obviously well loved
• Offers details of events and news of other Japanese attacks
• Somber tone
• Clearly an emotional appeal after entire country was shocked and angry
• Environment similar to that after 9/11. Similar to GW. Bush’s speech.
• Same “we won’t stand for being attacked like this” type of appeal
• Makes a point to say that the attack was premeditated
• Talks about the severe damage that has been done and the lives that were lost
• “Righteous might”
• “unprovoked and dastardly act”
• Lists other islands Japan attacked as a reason why they need to take action immediately
• Says how US was in contact with Japan in the hours after the attack began and no hint of aggression was given
• “There is no blinking at the fact that our, people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.” Creates an obvious need to attack Japan in order to protect our country.
• “It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.”

2 thoughts on “ Analysis of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech on Dec. 8th, 1941 ”

Opening with a profound quotation to frame your argument is always a great way to start an essay; it is ironic, however, in this case that your profound quote comes from the artifact itself! Not to say this is unacceptable, just simply curious to note. I found the level of detail in your outline for the body of the essay extraordinary, and it will serve you well for when you complete your essay.

This is speech is perhaps one of my favorites ever, not necessarily due to content, but because of the way in which FDR develops his ideas. It is specifically a great speech to analyse for our class due to this.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The blog of the Herbert Hoover Library and Museum

Hoover Heads

Chance and Circumstance: Pearl Harbor in History

History is strange.  It has a perverse way of folding back on itself like a Mobius strip.  I once listened to an entire lecture by a seasoned historian who, after years of research and thought, ascribed the cause of the 1967 Detroit riots to chance and circumstance.  Really?  Can we resolve complex events to such simple elements?

History is an argument, presenting relevant facts, stripped of detritus, into a coherent case.  I was making this point to a group of National History Day students recently.  They were young, innocents unaware of subtleties like thesis statements.  I used the Pearl Harbor attack as a means to show how different perspectives can lead to different thesis statements, different research approaches, and different arguments.

You could argue that Pearl Harbor was a triumph for Franklin Roosevelt’s foreign policy as it gave the United States reason to enter World War II.  You could argue that it was a triumph for Roosevelt because the war greatly increased his power as President.  You could argue that Pearl was a tragedy because thousands of lives were lost that day and the Pacific fleet was shattered.  You could argue that is was a triumph for Japan because they hamstrung American military power, secured control of the Pacific, and ran rampant in South East Asia.  You could argue that Pearl Harbor was a tragedy for Japan because they misread the United States will to fight, using any means necessary, a war that culminated in dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities.

One of my colleagues offered that you could read Pearl Harbor as a triumph for Great Britain foreign policy as it forced the United States to enter World War II as a British ally.  This had never occurred to me.  Having just opened my mind to this possibility, I was thunderstruck to discover a memoranda to the files in the Lewis Strauss Atomic Energy Commission Series which validated the point.

The December 6, 1953 memo reads: ‘At lunch today with the President, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Secretary of State Dulles, and Foreign Minister Anthony Eden, the conversation turned to the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Mr. Churchill made the following statement.  The Japanese attack was naturally greeted with great satisfaction in England since it brought the United States into the war….  When the news reached him in the country, Averill Harriman and Ambassador Winant could not conceal their joy.  They did an Indian dance several times.’

Chance, or circumstance, led me to examine Strauss’ memoranda.  Serendipity brought these two events together in the week before December 7 th .  Life is strange.  It has a perverse way of folding back on itself like ourobos eating its own tail.

Share this:

One thought on “ chance and circumstance: pearl harbor in history ”.

Great article! Fascinating memo.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Why Did Japan Attack Pearl Harbor?

By: Sarah Pruitt

Updated: May 13, 2020 | Original: April 10, 2018

When Japanese bombers appeared in the skies over Pearl Harbor  on the morning of December 7, 1941, the U.S. military was completely unprepared for the devastating surprise attack, which dramatically altered the course of World War II , especially in the Pacific theater. But there were several key reasons for the bombing that, in hindsight, make it seem almost inevitable.

Tensions Began During the Great Depression

Before the Pearl Harbor attack, tensions between Japan and the United States had been mounting for the better part of a decade.

The island nation of Japan, isolated from the rest of the world for much of its history, embarked on a period of aggressive expansion near the turn of the 20th century. Two successful wars, against China in 1894-95 and the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05, fueled these ambitions, as did Japan’s successful participation in World War I  (1914-18) alongside the Allies.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Japan sought to solve its economic and demographic woes by forcing its way into China, starting in 1931 with an invasion of Manchuria. When a commission appointed by the League of Nations condemned the invasion, Japan withdrew from the international organization; it would occupy Manchuria until 1945.

In July 1937, a clash at Beijing’s Marco Polo Bridge began another Sino-Japanese war. That December, after Japanese forces captured Nanjing (Nanking), the capital of the Chinese Nationalist Party, or Guomindang (Kuomintang), they proceeded to carry out six weeks of mass killings and rapes now infamous as the Nanjing Massacre .

The U.S. Was Trying to Stop Japan’s Global Expansion

In light of such atrocities, the United States began passing economic sanctions against Japan, including trade embargoes on aircraft exports, oil and scrap metal, among other key goods, and gave economic support to Guomindang forces. In September 1940, Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, the two fascist regimes then at war with the Allies.

Tokyo and Washington negotiated for months leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack, without success. While the United States hoped embargoes on oil and other key goods would lead Japan to halt its expansionism, the sanctions and other penalties actually convinced Japan to stand its ground, and stirred up the anger of its people against continued Western interference in Asian affairs.

To Japan, war with the United States had become to seem inevitable, in order to defend its status as a major world power. Because the odds were stacked against them, their only chance was the element of surprise.

Destroying the Base at Pearl Harbor Would Mean Japan Controlled the Pacific

In May 1940, the United States had made Pearl Harbor the main base for its Pacific Fleet. As Americans didn’t expect the Japanese to attack first in Hawaii, some 4,000 miles away from the Japanese mainland, the base at Pearl Harbor was left relatively undefended, making it an easy target.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto spent months planning an attack that aimed to destroy the Pacific Fleet and destroy morale in the U.S. Navy, so that it would not be able to fight back as Japanese forces began to advance on targets across the South Pacific.

Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would drive the United States out of isolation and into World War II, a conflict that would end with Japan’s surrender after the devastating atomic  bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

At first, however, the Pearl Harbor attack looked like a success for Japan. Its bombers hit all eight U.S. battleships, sinking four and damaging four others, destroyed or damaged more than 300 aircraft and killed some 2,400 Americans at Pearl Harbor.

Japanese forces went on to capture a string of current and former Western colonial possessions by early 1942—including Burma (now Myanmar), British Malaya (Malaysia and Singapore), the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and the Philippines—giving them access to these islands’ plentiful natural resources, including oil and rubber.

But the Pearl Harbor attack had failed in its objective to completely destroy the Pacific Fleet. The Japanese bombers missed oil tanks, ammunition sites and repair facilities, and not a single U.S. aircraft carrier was present during the attack. In June 1942, this failure came to haunt the Japanese, as U.S. forces scored a major victory in the Battle of Midway , decisively turning the tide of war in the Pacific.

HISTORY Vault: Pearl Harbor - 75 Years Later

Journey through the "day that will live in infamy" by exploring the details that still surprise us 75 years later, including accounts from experts, military minds, and even those who lived through it.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Attack on Pearl Harbor: Effects of Foreign Policy Proposal

Introduction, literature review, methodology, reference list, research background.

On the seventh day of December, 1941, the Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese in what appeared as a surprised assault. The Japanese managed to attack the U.S. Naval Base through airstrike and created unimaginable destruction. Within two hours after the first bombing, the U.S. had lost more than 2,000 solders, 188 fighter jets, and more than 20 ships.

The following day, there was a unanimous vote by the congress to declare war on Japan 1 . Two years after the attack, the U.S. was deeply involved in the Second World War. Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the then Asian giant and the U.S. had reached a deadlock on who to cede ground in their expansionism international policy. In fact, both sides knew that combat confrontation was just a matter of when and not how.

However, the U.S. neither prepared nor predicted that Japan would be the first to attack. Thus, this research proposal attempts to explicitly review the information processing errors in the U.S. foreign policy that led to the flawed decision making which led to the infamous Pearl Harbor attack.

Research problem statement

This research will review the inconsistencies in the U.S. foreign policy that made it vulnerable to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. The research will review information processing flaws that put the U.S. on the receiving end of the attack and eventual participation in the Second World War.

Research question

What were the information processing errors in the U.S. foreign policy that led to the flawed decision making that could have prevented the infamous Pearl Harbor attack?

Significance of the research

It is important to understand the impact of conflict on the state of relationship between countries. The type and nature of relationship may determine the scope of trade, military alliances, and other social benefits. The world has become a global village, and no country can survive on its own. Basically, countries depend on the local and international community friends to push for their interests in trade, politics, and security.

Thus, establishing the reasons behind the information processing errors in the U.S. foreign policy that led to the flawed decision making and the infamous Pearl Harbor surprise attack may provide a clear picture of the significance of a responsive and comprehensive foreign policy approach in handling situations with conflict of interest 2 .

Specifically, the surprise attack on the Pearl Harbor will be related to the actions of the U.S. before, after the attack, and eventual participation in the Second World War.

• Null hypothesis: Inconsistency in decision making resulted in the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
• Alternative hypothesis: Inconsistency in decision making did not result in the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

In order to comprehend the scope of this research paper, literature review will dwell on past reports, journals, and books discussing biases and their relationship to policy making process. Specifically, the literature review will review the intelligence processes, the U.S. government’s political structure, and foreign policy execution. The review will focus on the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941.

Theoretical framework

Several past reports and journals discuss biases beside their effects on the process of decision making. These reports review the policymakers’ psychology, conduct, and intelligence analysis. To begin with, Boin and Hart are critical in reviewing the position of cognition in global relations. The authors note that interests and power are often cognitive.

Therefore, “individuals may be influenced by personal beliefs, cognition, and experiences which are significant in directing the interstate relations flow” 3 .

Reflectively, it is probable to review any illogicality in the deeds of a global leader through applying models such as cognitive mapping, “consistency theory, operational code scrutiny, and automatic content examination” 4 . The authors present a well-researched article that provides an insight into the influence that an individual’s cognition has on state affairs.

According to George and Stern, under the groupthink theory, international affairs are equally influenced by organizational processes and bureaucratic politics of independent administrations.

Through a critical analysis of Alison’s model 2 (organizational process), Model 1 (rational actor), and Model 3 (government politics model), the authors note that there exists a “strong prima facie grounds to belief that some paradigm concentrating the analyst’s attention on organizational characteristics or processes, other than those on which Models II and III focus, might yield significant analytical gains” 5 .

Therefore, it is in order to state that organizational processes, governmental politics, and rational actor concepts have an impact on the process of making decisions at governmental policy level 6 .

Summary of theory to be used

The above sources are necessary in understanding the overall perception and public opinion on the Pearl Harbor attack. The findings of many authors provide the necessary information that identifies, validates, and corroborates the cognitive errors that policymakers make 7 .

Besides, the intelligence reports before this attack confirm that the U.S. government was aware of a possible attack. The policy makers should have used this information to avert the Pearl Harbor attack before it occurred. This research paper will be based on the organizational processes, rational actor, and governmental politics models.

Research gap

The above literature does not cover the element of intelligence usage as a policy in international relations. Therefore, it is important to establish the link between policy inconsistencies in international relations in order to ensure that decisions made are consistent.

This research paper will attempt to fill the above research gap by studying the significant of intelligence as a policy framework in making decisions covering international relations.

Research design

The research will be carried out through quantitative research using secondary data. The research will concentrate on the current reports, journal articles, and other secondary sources that are relevant to the research topic 8 . The researcher will examine the previous relationship between the U.S. and Japan, and how the Pearl Harbor attack affected their economic, political, and military relationships.

Research identification and operationalization

Dependability will be assured by providing clear, detailed, and sequential descriptions of data collection and analysis procedures. It is a quality that is reliant on the study design being congruent with clear research question, having an explicit explanation of the status and roles of the researcher.

Besides, quality involves providing findings with meaningful parallelism across data sources, specification of basic theoretical constructs and analytical frameworks, and data collection across a range of settings. This study seeks to fulfill these criteria as much as possible.

Data collection

A full effort will be made to accurately and faithfully transcribe data from the secondary sources. The findings will be supported by credible secondary information sources. The collected quantitative data will be coded and passed through Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version seventeen.

In the process, cross tabulation will be used to review the information processing errors in the U.S. foreign policy that led to the flawed decision making which led to the infamous Pearl Harbor attack. In order to quantify the relationship between the independent and dependent variable, ANOVA will be essential.

During the data collection phase of this study, the researcher will strive to uphold ethics appertaining to scientific research. The data collected will not be used for any other purpose rather than for which it was primarily intended for. Dependability will be assured by providing clear, detailed and sequential descriptions of data collection and analysis procedures.

Research justification and summary of analysis procedure

The quantitative approach was informed by the fact that the secondary research requires a dynamic and subjective approach to establish the facts of the research. Quantitative approach is significant in gaining the accurate insight in to the facts of the case study results.

Besides, this method of data analysis is flexible and consists of tools for reviewing the degree of confidence from the primary assumptions 9 . Therefore, making use of the method of data analysis will ensure that the results are evidence based and scientific within the scope of the case study framework.

Limitations of the research design and bias discussion

One major weakness of this quantitative analysis, especially for secondary data, is that it tends to transform the data into semi-quantitative data by giving it labels and tags. In this case, the qualitative data from secondary sources will be tagged and labeled according to the research question and research objective they address, thus limiting scope of analysis.

However, a major strength of the methodology is that it helps in analyzing all themes, which have implications on the research questions; hence the bias will be minimal. In spite of its inability to highlight themes that are external to the research questions conclusively, the methodology is appropriate for this study.

In other words, the researcher will study the texts from the data collected trying to identify the concepts that relate to the research questions and objectives to minimize any bias. Besides, content analysis and thematic analysis are closely related, especially in the context of the current study. Fortunately, both of them are hinged on the research question for this research case study.

Baron, Robert. “So Right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 37, no. 1 (July 2005): 219- 252.

Boin, Arjen, and Paul Hart. “Public Leadership in Times of Crisis: Mission Impossible?” Public Administration Review 63, no. 5, (May 2003): 544-554.

Brandstrom, Annika, Fredrik Bynander, and Paul Hart. “Governing by Looking Back: Historical Analogies and Crisis Management,” Public Administration 82, no. 1, (Jan 2004): 191-210.

George, Alexander, and Andrew Bennet. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences: How to Do Case Studies . Massachusetts, Ma: MIT Press, 2005.

George, Alexander, and Erick Stern. “Harnessing Conflict in Foreign Policy Making: From Devil’s to Multiple Advocacy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 32, no. 3 (May 2002): 484-508.

Jordan, Jennifer, Niro Sivanathan, and Adam Galinsky. “Something to Lose and Nothing to Gain: The Role of Stress in Interactive Effect of Power and Stability on Risk Taking.” Administrative Science Quarterly 56, no. 4, (June 2003): 530-558.

Maitlis, Sally, and Hakan Ozcelik. “Toxic Decision Processes: A Study of Emotion and Organizational Decision Making.” Organization Science 15, no. 4, (Dec 2004): 275-393.

Taylor, Andrew, and John Rourke. “Historical Analogies in the Congressional Foreign Policy Process.” The Journal of Politics 57, no. 2, (May 1995): 460-468.

1 Robert Baron, “So Right it’s Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 37, no. 1 (July 2005): 236.

2 Annika Brandstrom, Fredrik Bynander and Paul Hart, “Governing by Looking Back: Historical Analogies and Crisis Management,” Public Administration 82, no. 1, (Jan 2004): 203.

3 Arjen Boin and Paul Hart, “Public Leadership in Times of Crisis: Mission Impossible?” Public Administration Review 63, no. 5, (May 2003): 549.

4 Jennifer Jordan, Niro Sivanathan, and Adam Galinsky, “Something to Lose and Nothing to Gain: The Role of Stress in Interactive Effect of Power and Stability on Risk Taking,” Administrative Science Quarterly 56, no. 4, (June 2003): 540.

5 Alexander George and Erick Stern, “Harnessing Conflict in Foreign Policy Making: From Devil’s to Multiple Advocacy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 32, no. 3 (May 2002): 491.

6 Sally Maitlis and Hakan Ozcelik, “Toxic Decision Processes: A Study of Emotion and Organizational Decision Making,” Organization Science 15, no. 4, (Dec 2004): 281.

7 Andrew Taylor and John Rourke, “Historical Analogies in the Congressional Foreign Policy Process,” The Journal of Politics 57, no. 2, (May 1995): 466.

8 Alexander George and Andrew Bennet, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences: How to Do Case Studies (Massachusetts, Ma: MIT Press, 2005), 79.

9 Alexander George and Andrew Bennet, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences: How to Do Case Studies (Massachusetts, Ma: MIT Press, 2005), 79.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 15). Attack on Pearl Harbor: Effects of Foreign Policy. https://ivypanda.com/essays/attack-on-pearl-harbor-effects-of-foreign-policy/

"Attack on Pearl Harbor: Effects of Foreign Policy." IvyPanda , 15 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/attack-on-pearl-harbor-effects-of-foreign-policy/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Attack on Pearl Harbor: Effects of Foreign Policy'. 15 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Attack on Pearl Harbor: Effects of Foreign Policy." December 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/attack-on-pearl-harbor-effects-of-foreign-policy/.

1. IvyPanda . "Attack on Pearl Harbor: Effects of Foreign Policy." December 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/attack-on-pearl-harbor-effects-of-foreign-policy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Attack on Pearl Harbor: Effects of Foreign Policy." December 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/attack-on-pearl-harbor-effects-of-foreign-policy/.

• The History of the Attack on Pearl Harbor
• Intelligence Failure Leading Up to Pearl Harbor
• Why Did the Japanese Attack Pearl Harbor?
• Pearl Harbor: A Look at the Historical Accuracy
• Attack on Pearl Harbor: Foreign Policy Biases' Effects
• Pearl Harbor Attack: Paranoia and Conspiracy
• The Attack on Pearl Harbor
• The Impact of the Attack on Pearl Harbor
• Pearl Harbor: The Causes and the Aftermath
• Pearl Harbor Attack: U.S. and Japan
• Has President Obama’s Presidency Changed the US?
• The New Deal and the Role of the Supreme Court
• "The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War" by Alan Brinkley
• “Freedom from Fear” by David M. Kennedy
• Dawn over Suez: The Rise of American Power in the Middle East, 1953-1957 by Steven Z. Freiberger

2021 2022 History Fair - Debate and Diplomacy in History: Writing a Thesis Statement

• What is History Fair?
• History Fair Theme
• Potential Topics
• Logging in, Creating a Project, and Sharing in Noodletools
• Building Context and Understanding Your Topic
• Writing a Thesis Statement
• Primary and Secondary Sources: What's the difference?
• Finding Secondary Sources
• Cite Secondary Sources
• Finding Primary Sources
• Cite Primary Sources
• Creating Your Website

Goals and Guiding Questions

• Understand the purpose of a thesis statement.
• Understand the parts of a thesis statement and how to write one.
• Create a thesis statement for your History Fair project.

Guiding Questions:

• How is a thesis statement different from a research question?
• What do I include in my thesis statement?
• What is my thesis statement for my HF project?

Your Thesis Statement MUST:  

Give specific details ​

Go beyond facts to discuss the importance of a topic on history (impact, significance) ​

Show the topic's connection to the theme – Debate and Diplomacy

Thesis Statement Worksheet and Example

Thesis statement tips, thesis statement tips: .

1.) Don't Use the First Person 

 2.) Don’t ask questions in your thesis. ​Answer them!

3.) Don't use present tense.

4.) Avoid using  “should”  in your thesis.​This is a historical argument, not philosophy.

5.) Avoid 'what if" history. Focus on what actually happened.

Writing Your Thesis Statement

Find the five ws:.

Who is involved in your topic?

What is happening?

Where is your topic taking place?

What time period is your topic in?

Why is this topic important? (significance, impa ct)

Look at these Thesis Statement Examples

• Thesis Statement Comparisons
• << Previous: Building Context and Understanding Your Topic
• Next: Primary and Secondary Sources: What's the difference? >>
• Last Updated: Feb 24, 2022 10:21 AM
• URL: https://mehs.morton201.libguides.com/c.php?g=1202807

Impact of Pearl Harbor

How it works

During the 1940s many lives were lost after an attack at Pearl Harbor, it had a large impact on the U.S. such as: it being the leading cause to the start of World War II, which also led to more drastic event, and the many people’s lives who were lost.

Pearl Harbor, U.S. naval base in Hawaii, was the setting of the attack that occurred by the Japanese forces. It occurred on December 7, 1941, a date according to President Roosevelt, will “live in infamy.

” The idea of the attack came from Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and was later approved by Japanese general staff. The attack that had been a surprise for the U.S. but the two countries have been edging towards war for decade when both nations were going against each other for political and economic influence but nothing was done to increase security at the naval base. When two U.S. radar operators  had seen something strange in the screen but was later thought to be american b-17s that happened to be  expected at the time  . As the first bomb appeared at 7:55 a.m followed by  183 aircrafts sent by Japanese forces as the first attack of the day. The attack went by in two waves and included dive bombers and torpedo  bombers. The attack had several aims but one being to destroy american fleet units to prevent interference with U.S. pacific fleet  in order to conquest of the dutch east indies and Malaya.Leading  them to a clear path to conquer south east Asia .On the same day the Japanese attacked  the philippines and later on invaded the dutch east indies and Malaya leaving them with almost all of southeast Asia by 1942.

The outcome of Pearl Harbor left the United States with a loss of over 2,000 Americans and about over 1,000 others wounded. There was damage near 20 U.S. naval vessels ,but luckily the three aircraft carriers located at Pearl Harbor were sent off the day before leaving the U.S. with The USS Lexington, the USS Enterprise, and the USS Saratoga but Japanese forces managed to damage four of the U.S. battleships lined up on battleship row and destroy 188 U.S aircrafts, but it did not cripple the U.S. naval base as anticipated by the Japanese and failed to destroy the oil facilities on the island. Although the Japanese did have fewer losses as they arrived with six aircraft carriers, nine destroyers ,two battleships, two heavy cruisers and three submarines but lost just 29 aircrafts and less than around 100 men  . Prior to Pearl Harbor, the united states was in complete struggle with Axis powers and had sent large amounts of financial aid and military equipment to the allied cause. Although the biggest long term affect of Pearl Harbor is that it brought the U.S. to war which is what America  has been avoiding for so long.

In addition to the events President Franklin D. Roosevelt ,who had led the united states during  the great depression, had declared war on Japan on December 8th, after many discussions and debates. They were determined to go into war just after the attack at Pearl Harbor that  first started  the american involvement in world war II.Several days later on December 11th, Germany and italy also declared war on the U.S. Japan thought the United States would be entering war with a broken navy after pearl harbor but most battleships that were damaged were recovered and repaired to join the war.In the final year of war  the United Stated dropped two nuclear bombs at  two cites in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing over a total of a million people. The  american involvement in world war II lasted three years, eight months and twenty two days after japan bombed pearl harbor and costed more than over  400,000 Americans.The Americans fought long and hard to avenge the attack at Pearl Harbor.

As Pearl Harbor being one of the drastic events to occur to the U.S. it is seen how the United States was able avenge from the attack and still go towards  world war II even thought it had many effects on the U.S. Today, pearl harbor remains an active military base and headquarters of the pacific fleet.

Cite this page

Impact Of Pearl Harbor. (2019, Aug 13). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/impact-of-pearl-harbor/

"Impact Of Pearl Harbor." PapersOwl.com , 13 Aug 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/impact-of-pearl-harbor/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Impact Of Pearl Harbor . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/impact-of-pearl-harbor/ [Accessed: 30 Apr. 2024]

"Impact Of Pearl Harbor." PapersOwl.com, Aug 13, 2019. Accessed April 30, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/impact-of-pearl-harbor/

"Impact Of Pearl Harbor," PapersOwl.com , 13-Aug-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/impact-of-pearl-harbor/. [Accessed: 30-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Impact Of Pearl Harbor . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/impact-of-pearl-harbor/ [Accessed: 30-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Free Essays
• Citation Generator

"Thesis statement on pearl harbor" Essays and Research Papers

Pearl Harbor Thesis

Essay Two Pearl Harbor Imagine waking up to the sound of bombs falling all around you. As you look out the window you see your future coming to an end. Hundreds of planes are flying toward you dropping bombs everywhere. This is what the troops woke up to on December 7‚ 1941‚ at Pearl Harbor . The attack on Pearl Harbor is the most difficult for me to understand. To try and understand the attack we must first look examine the reason that Japan attacked‚ the casualties that it caused the United States

Premium World War II Attack on Pearl Harbor United States

Pearl Harbor

Formal Outline General Purpose- My general purpose of this speech is to inform you on Pearl Harbor Specific Purpose- To explain what happened on Dec7‚ 1941. And to as well better explain why they did this to us in the first place. Thesis - Dec 7 1941 was the day that we were ever attacked on U.S soil. I Introduction: On December 7th 1941 the Japanese attacked us on our own soil‚ devastating our fleet of ships and submarines. Attention Getter- This was the first time ever we were attacked

Premium Attack on Pearl Harbor United States Franklin D. Roosevelt

Attack on Pearl Harbor Pearl Harbor was the first foreign attack on the United States territory and also the longest attack on the U.S. soil. The day after Pearl Harbor Theodor Roosevelt gave his famous speech while asking Congress to declare war. Within his speech Theodor Roosevelt said “No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion‚ the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory"11 Though Pearl Harbor was a surprise the United States

Premium Attack on Pearl Harbor World War II United States

Why Did Japan Attack Pearl Harbor ? December 7‚ 1941 is the date that America woke up in hell. Planes and submarines made a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor ‚ Hawaii by Japan on that day. President Franklin Roosevelt instantly declared war on Japan. Japan had their reasons why they attacked Pearl Harbor ‚ and the reasons was the way America reacted when Japan announced a new order in East Asia‚ the freezing of all Japanese assets and bank accounts‚ and that the U.S imposed an embargo on oil shipment

Premium Franklin D. Roosevelt Attack on Pearl Harbor World War II

terrible attack‚ which crippled the United States’ Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor ‚ Hawaii. In 1887‚ the United States government obtained exclusive use of the inlet called Pearl Harbor ‚ and the right to maintain a repair and coaling station for ships. The area was established as a naval base in 1908‚ and then in 1911 dredging of a channel from the sea was completed‚ across a sandbar and a coral reef at the mouth of the harbor . This made that channel accessible to the largest naval vessels‚

I (a sansei) thought I would pass along some brief thoughts on the movie " Pearl Harbor ‚" which I saw Friday. Mostly‚ it was innocuous in a thoroughly Hollywood way. Which is to say‚ it truly is (as Disney hyped) a love story‚ framed around the attack‚ which is really just a plot device and an excuse for typical Bruckheimer explosions and fireballs. The film is not about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor . In fact‚ with more than 45 minutes left after the attack‚ the rest of the film takes a long

Premium Attack on Pearl Harbor Hawaii

The U.S. Navy Role in World War II Edson Mazepos Professor: Dr. Ramesh R. Boodhoo AMH 2030 20th American History 01/03/2013 Everest University Abstract World War II was the mightiest struggle humankind has ever seen. It killed more people‚ cost more money‚ damaged more property‚ affected more people‚ and caused more far-reaching changes in nearly every country than any other war in history. The number of people killed‚ wounded‚ or missing between September 1939 and September 1945 can

Premium Attack on Pearl Harbor World War II

Japanese bombing at Pearl Harbor . Pearl Harbor was attacked on the morning of December 7‚ 1941 and would prove to be Japan’s greatest mistake‚ a mistake for which the consequences would extend throughout the war and well into Japan’s post-war future. More immediately‚ however‚ it would serve to drop the restraint which the U.S. had maintained as the war had raged on in Europe for over two years. The U.S. would have entered WWII even if the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor . The axis powers‚ Germany

Premium World War II United States Attack on Pearl Harbor

The Pearl Harbor address to the nation is probably one of the most famous speeches made throughout time. In this essay I will evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s famous speech and show that his speech is a successful argument for the United States of America. I will focus on the speaker’s credibility‚ all the different appeals made throughout the essay‚ as well as the purpose and the audience of the speech. Also‚ I will include whether or not there are any logical

Free United States Franklin D. Roosevelt World War II

Pearl Harbor Research paper One of the most infamous days in history occurred on the morning of December 7th 1941 just shortly before 8 am. This was the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor . The Japanese had started the endless with china in mid-1937. The Japanese need oil and other raw materials so the war in the pacific was inevitable. However we did not expect them to attack the east as well. The Japanese sent an air force with the most aerial power that the worlds ocean had never saw before

Premium Attack on Pearl Harbor Franklin D. Roosevelt United States

• Attack on Pearl Harbor
• Empire of Japan
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
• United States
• World War II
• Thesis statement on personal desires
• Thesis statement on plastic bottles save the environment
• Thesis statement on police brutality
• Thesis statement on pomeranians
• Thesis statement on prescribing antidepressants
• Thesis statement on relationship mother and daughter
• Thesis statement on religion in our society
• Thesis statement on religious freedom
• Thesis statement on revenge in the hamlet story
• Thesis statement on social web

• Background info.
• Turning Point
• Economic Impact
• Social Impact
• Political Impact

Thesis Statement

Historical Context

By: andrew kim and vicente faret.

Tears in court as families sickened by fuel-tainted tap water go before a federal judge

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - There were tears in court on Monday as families sickened by fuel-tainted tap water went before a judge. They’re suing the government, which says it has already taken responsibility for the 2021 disaster that impacted more than 90,000 people.

Before opening statements, Red Hill families, attorneys and their supporters held a rally to demand government accountability. “The government admitted liability in this case so now it’s about the extent of the harm,” attorney Kristina Baehr told a crowd outside federal court.

Some Red Hill families say they’ve been battling long-term symptoms such as brain, gastrointestinal, breathing and skin illnesses for 2 1/2 years after being poisoned by fuel-contaminated tap water at Pearl Harbor following spills from the Navy’s Red Hill tanks.

‘Ready to tell our stories’: Red Hill tainted water trial kicks off with sickened families to testify

During opening statements, their attorneys showed photos of the oily tap water, sick children, medical procedures, and a dog that had seizures.

Nastasia Freeman says her seizures reignited after drinking contaminated water. Their boys were hospitalized in pain and Navy Ensign Koda Freeman feared his wife could die.

“I think we are going to tell people the experiences that we had. The death worries are not going to go away,” said Koda Freeman, who testified Monday.

“I think for a long time we didn’t have a voice so I’m really looking forward to going in there and using mine,” added plaintiff Nastasia Freeman, who testified Monday.

The case is named Feindt v. United States of America. Patrick Feindt says his gallbladder had to be removed while his wife, Army Major Amanda Feindt says their children suffered lung damage.

“I’m overcome with emotion, overwhelmed. I can’t stop crying,” said Amanda Feindt.

“There’s been a whole lot of fight over the past two and a half years, but this week is so important because it’s about my kids,” she added.

“It’s not just about myself in the hospital. It’s about 93,000 other folks that were impacted,” said Patrick Feindt.

Special Section: Navy Water Crisis

Nine days after the 2021 fuel spills, Navy leaders were still insisting the water was safe to drink despite a torrent of complaints about fuel smells, sheens and sickness.

But in opening statements, the Department of Justice says the government took responsibility by responding quickly to the crisis and shut down the Red Hill water well within 24 hours.

The government says symptoms could be from stress.

“Science matters even when it comes to emotional distress,” said Rosemary Yogiaveetil, Department of Justice attorney.

She says exposure to low levels of fuel was 24 to 72 hours. Toxicologists “could not cause the injuries that they claimed,” Yogiaveetil said.

The DOJ says it’s about causation and damage.

“Some of these bellwether plaintiffs were not exposed at all” because “they stopped drinking the water,” said Yogiaveetil.

Col. John Oh, the military doctor who’s in charge of the Red Hill medical response, has told providers that experts think the range of symptoms is like Gulf War illness, chronic unexplained illnesses after the war.

In a deposition, Oh says jet fuel exposure or trauma from the Red Hill disaster could have caused brain injury leading to childhood developmental delays.

He wants to monitor for cancer and cognitive decline.

“They could certainly have problems with developmental milestones,” said Oh, chief of the occupational and environmental health division at the Defense Health Agency Public Health.

“If Dr. Oh is concerned about cancer and cognitive decline, isn’t it reasonable for our clients also to be concerned about those things? The government says, ‘oh no. It’s no problem,’” said Baehr.

But government lawyers responded saying he’s not a toxicologist.

The trial is expected to last two weeks.

Copyright 2024 Hawaii News Now. All rights reserved.

4 law enforcement officers killed, 4 injured after shooting in Charlotte neighborhood

Inmate missing after court transport was chased off jail property by corrections officers: Sources

It’s being called Hawaii’s biggest tax break, but some will get more help than others

These 17 little furry friends are seeking a forever home. Here’s how you can help

Investigators determine cause of fiery explosion on fishing boat that left 5 injured

Latest news.

Bicyclist in his 70′s in serious condition after being struck by car in Mililani

As Seen on Sunrise

HPD: Mililani barricade suspect was arguing with girlfriend prior to standoff

MPD: Speed, drugs and alcohol may have been involved in critical Makawao crash

Cancelation of ‘NCIS: Hawaii’ deals big blow fans — and to Hawaii’s economy