MY FAVORITE IDIOT CONSPIRACY THEORY

Only in your egotistical imaginings could cutting and pasting from Wikipedia be classed as hysterical. As soon as you're faced with facts that don't fit in with your narrative, you start throwing out insults. As always, entirely predictable behaviour.

You like to pontificate, and as such, whenever you come across anyone who doesn't treat you with the fawning sycophancy you believe you deserve, you act like a spoiled five year old.

Your condescending tone suggests that America had not done anything at all to provoke Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Without letting imperialist Japan off the hook, that is clearly not the case. The establishment of the "Special Air Unit," was provocative. It was approved by Roosevelt, and organised by a 'retired' American serviceman. Your analogy with the volunteers who fought in the Spanish Civil War is erroneous, there was no covert backing by the UK government. A far better anology would be the behaviour of the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis.

Your pathetic attempt to turn this into a UK/USA spat is also predictable. The use of British air bases in Burma to train pilots is irrelevant. This is about your ridiculous assumption that America did nothing to provoke Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, it's not about whether or not the UK was similarly provocative.

You're really incapable of debating anything without resorting to insults and name calling. I know you think your pronouncements carry the same weight as papal edicts, but that's not the case. You need to stop taking everything so personally, it's really quite pathetic, as is your choice of insults. Izzytheputz is something a five year old could come up with, although they wouldn't quite take as long as you, kids have quite good imaginations. Calling you Malvolio may be as childish, but it's also very accurate, and is beyond the reach of most five year olds.

...Foofie is not my favourite poster by any means, but his pertinent contribution was just dismissed with an insult.

Perhaps you are attempting to advance some bizarre kind of tu quoque argument.

No, you introduced the issue of Commodore Perry's behavior in 1853. It would be up to you to show the relevance to the period 1937-1941, and you have not done so.