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 (from commonly cited historical facts)
- The United States imposed increasingly harsh economic measures on Japan in 1940–1941 (freezing Japanese assets, and by July–November 1941 effectively cutting off most oil exports), aiming to pressure Japan to withdraw from China and Indochina.
- Japan lacked domestic oil and other strategic resources and had been expanding into Manchuria and China throughout the 1930s to secure resources.
- Diplomacy between the U.S. and Japan continued into late 1941 (including the Hull Note on November 26, 1941), but negotiations had not broken down such that immediate military action was the only option.
- Japan chose a plan of offensive expansion into Southeast Asia (to seize oil in the Dutch East Indies) and decided to try to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet by a surprise strike at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
- The Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise military strike without a prior formal declaration of war; it killed military personnel and civilians and sank or damaged many ships and aircraft.
- The attack brought the United States fully into World War II and was followed by a prolonged and destructive conflict in the Pacific.

Reasoning (using a definition of "justify")
Define "justify": to show an action is morally and legally acceptable because it was necessary, proportionate, and a last resort after peaceful options were exhausted. Applying that definition: while U.S. embargoes and sanctions put severe pressure on Japan and threatened its access to oil, Japan had alternatives to a surprise attack—continuing negotiations, seeking diplomatic compromise, or changing its aggressive expansion policy that caused the sanctions. Instead Japan chose a preemptive, undeclared strike intended to cripple the U.S. Navy; that was an act of aggression that violated norms of war and international law and caused large loss of life. Because the attack was not a proportionate or necessary last resort and was an act of deliberate aggression rather than a forced defensive measure, it cannot be considered justified under the usual moral and legal standards.

If you want, I can also write a version arguing the opposite claim (that Japan was justified) so you can compare both sides for your assignment, or tailor the language for a specific grade level.