Changes

On July 7, 1937 Japanese troops stationed in North China, under terms of the [[Boxer Protocol of 1900]], clashed with elements of the [[Kuomintang]] army near the Marco Polo Bridge, ten miles west of Beijing.  An all-out Japanese invasion of China followed.  By the end of the month, Beijing was occupied and the following month Shanghai was attacked.  The Neutrality Act required the president to implement its provisions when a state of war existed, but Roosevelt did not invoke the act.  Twenty-five members of the House signed a statement demanding the immediate application of the arms embargo in order to “stop the feeding of the war which means destruction of thousands of lives in the Orient and of war to all the world.”  FDR permitted American munitions to reach China via British ships destined for Hong Kong.  ''[[Time magazine]]'' speculated, "though in the long run Japan might need U. S. supplies more than China, the immediate effect of an embargo would be to the advantage of Japan, whose ships could still presumably conduct a "cash and carry" trade with the U. S."<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,930929-1,00.html Manslaughter in Shanghai], ''Time'' magazine, Aug. 30, 1937.</ref>

On July 7, 1937 Japanese troops stationed in North China, under terms of the [[Boxer Protocol of 1900]], clashed with elements of the [[Kuomintang]] army near the Marco Polo Bridge, ten miles west of Beijing.  An all-out Japanese invasion of China followed.  By the end of the month, Beijing was occupied and the following month Shanghai was attacked.  The Neutrality Act required the president to implement its provisions when a state of war existed, but Roosevelt did not invoke the act.  Twenty-five members of the House signed a statement demanding the immediate application of the arms embargo in order to “stop the feeding of the war which means destruction of thousands of lives in the Orient and of war to all the world.”  FDR permitted American munitions to reach China via British ships destined for Hong Kong.  ''[[Time magazine]]'' speculated, "though in the long run Japan might need U. S. supplies more than China, the immediate effect of an embargo would be to the advantage of Japan, whose ships could still presumably conduct a "cash and carry" trade with the U. S."<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,930929-1,00.html Manslaughter in Shanghai], ''Time'' magazine, Aug. 30, 1937.</ref>

In 1939 the U. S. supplied Japan with 59% of all war materials. The havoc wrought upon the China by Japan using American made bombs dropped from American made airplanes was publicized as Japanese atrocities. (cf Porter Sargent, Bulletin #1 ''War Propaganda'', May 30, 1939).<ref>''Prodding Japan Into War'', Porter Sargent, Bulletin #95, December 30, 1940, [http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Getting_Us_Into_War-Porter_Sargent-1941-640pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=218&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 pgs. 525 - 544 pdf], pdf</ref><ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,930929-1,00.html Manslaughter in Shanghai], ''Time'' magazine, Aug. 30, 1937.</ref>

In 1939 the U. S. supplied Japan with 59% of all war materials. The havoc wrought upon China by Japan using American made bombs dropped from American made airplanes was publicized as Japanese atrocities. (cf Porter Sargent, Bulletin #1 ''War Propaganda'', May 30, 1939).<ref>''Prodding Japan Into War'', Porter Sargent, Bulletin #95, December 30, 1940, [http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Getting_Us_Into_War-Porter_Sargent-1941-640pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=218&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 pgs. 525 - 544 pdf], pdf</ref><ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,930929-1,00.html Manslaughter in Shanghai], ''Time'' magazine, Aug. 30, 1937.</ref>

''Time'' magazine referred to Thomas Lamont in its November 25, 1940 issue as a specialist on Japan. Years earlier Lamont visited Japan with [[Walter Lippmann]]. At the Academy of Political Science, Lamont responded to the question, "Should the U.S. tighten trade embargoes against Japan?" ''Time'' said "he pointed out inconsistencies and omissions in U.S. embargoes  that still permitted Japan to get war supplies."  The outcry against supplying Japan with the essentials for her aggressive war against China was met by an announcement from the [[Roosevelt Administration]] of 'embargoes' on the export of scrap and oil. "Watertight as a fish-net" is how [[Owen Lattimore]], editor of ''Pacific Affairs'', characterized the embargo on November 9, 1940.  "The Royal Dutch-Shell group and a subsidiary of the Standard-Vacuum Oil Company will supply 7,000,000 barrels of oil to Japan over six months," a ''New York Times'' dispatch of October 17 reported. "Arrangements have been virtually concluded for Japan to get 40 per cent of her oil requirements for the next six months in the Dutch Indies." [[I. F. Stone]] reported on the State Department's handling of the embargo in the October 5, 1940 issue of ''[[The Nation]]'',

''Time'' magazine referred to Thomas Lamont in its November 25, 1940 issue as a specialist on Japan. Years earlier Lamont visited Japan with [[Walter Lippmann]]. At the Academy of Political Science, Lamont responded to the question, "Should the U.S. tighten trade embargoes against Japan?" ''Time'' said "he pointed out inconsistencies and omissions in U.S. embargoes  that still permitted Japan to get war supplies."  The outcry against supplying Japan with the essentials for her aggressive war against China was met by an announcement from the [[Roosevelt Administration]] of 'embargoes' on the export of scrap and oil. "Watertight as a fish-net" is how [[Owen Lattimore]], editor of ''Pacific Affairs'', characterized the embargo on November 9, 1940.  "The Royal Dutch-Shell group and a subsidiary of the Standard-Vacuum Oil Company will supply 7,000,000 barrels of oil to Japan over six months," a ''New York Times'' dispatch of October 17 reported. "Arrangements have been virtually concluded for Japan to get 40 per cent of her oil requirements for the next six months in the Dutch Indies." [[I. F. Stone]] reported on the State Department's handling of the embargo in the October 5, 1940 issue of ''[[The Nation]]'',