Question

Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (C-E-R)
Student Graphic Organizer
Question: WAS JAPAN JUSTIFIED TO ATTACK PEARL HARBOR FOR OIL?

(Claim)
Write a statement that
answers the question.

(Evidence)
List the evidence from the
article and the images
provided that support your

claim. You may use bullet
points for this section.
(Reasoning)
Use your definition of
JUSTIFY why your claim
(answer to the question).
Summarize your thoughts in a complete paragraph in the space provided:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Answer 1

Claim
No — Japan was not justified in attacking Pearl Harbor for oil.

Evidence
- The United States and other countries imposed oil and trade embargoes on Japan in 1940–1941 in response to Japan’s military expansion in China and later its move into French Indochina. These embargoes reduced Japan’s access to foreign oil.
- Japan relied heavily on imported oil (the U.S. was a major supplier), so the embargo created a serious resource shortage and strong pressure on Japanese leaders to secure fuel supplies.
- Diplomatic negotiations between Japan and the United States were still ongoing in late 1941; there were options short of war, including further diplomacy or securing oil by moving into nearby colonies rather than striking the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
- The attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) was a surprise military strike against a naval base in U.S. territory; it sank or damaged many ships and killed over 2,400 military personnel and civilians.
- The attack violated U.S. sovereignty and norms of declaring war; it immediately brought the United States fully into World War II and escalated the conflict.
- Images and reports from the attack show heavy destruction of ships and aircraft on the base, emphasizing the attack’s scale and its direct targeting of military and nearby civilian areas.

Reasoning
To “justify” an action means to show that it was reasonable, morally or legally acceptable, or necessary given the circumstances. While Japan faced serious economic and resource pressures from the oil embargo and had strategic motives to secure fuel, those pressures do not make a surprise attack on another nation’s naval base morally or legally acceptable. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of aggressive war that violated U.S. sovereignty, caused large loss of life, and bypassed diplomatic avenues that were still available. Because alternatives existed (continued negotiation, seeking resources in nearby colonies, or other non-surprise military options) and because the attack intentionally targeted a neutral territory without warning, Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor cannot be justified simply on the basis of needing oil.