User talk:The Land/Attack on Pearl Harbour

Rewrite?

You said, "The Navy was certain any attempt to seize this region would bring the U.S. into the war". IJN was mistaken believing U.S. & Britain were inseperable, in part based on Winston's overstatements of FDR's promises of aid.

You said, "and that Britain might side with the Japanese." This is a persistent fantasy. There was no chance of it. It's more likely Britain abrogated the Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty in the hope the U.S. would forgive crushing WW1 debts.

You said, "All three nations planned major building programs of battleships and battlecruisers. Afraid of the crippling cost of a naval arms race, the powers concluded the Washington Naval Treaty which limited warship building. As a consequence of the Treaty, the Anglo-Japanese alliance was broken." The Washington Conference had damn all to do with it, AFAIK. Nor do you say anything to intelligence allowing U.S. negotiators to accept the 60% limit, nor why Japan wanted 70% & the faulty doctrine IJN continued to cleave to til the end of the Pacific War.

I added, "(repeating the humiliation after the Sino-Japanese War)"; I had in mind the Dreibund (or Three Emperor's League). Trekphiler 03:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)