STUDY GUIDE OF HCC

Democratic Centralism
Model United Nations II
 DCMUN II

HCC

Mandate of the Committee

Introduction to the Historical Crisis Committee (HCC)

The Historical Crisis Committee (HCC) is a specialized simulation in Model United

Nations that revisits significant global events to analyze, alter, or prevent historical
outcomes. Unlike traditional UN bodies that work within the framework of diplomacy
and protocol, HCC embraces real-time decision-making, alternative histories, and the
unpredictability of unfolding events. Delegates assume the roles of actual historical
figures or government actors and must think not only diplomatically but strategically,
politically, and militarily. The committee is designed to test leadership, crisis
management, and adaptability.
The key characteristic of HCC is that it is rooted in a fixed historical timeline, meaning
events have already happened, but in this simulation, delegates are allowed to change
the course of history.

Powers of the Committee

The Historical Crisis Committee does not operate under a conventional UN mandate.
Instead, it is modeled as a cabinet-level crisis body, granting delegates the ability to:

Issue both public and private directives.

Engage in military, intelligence, economic, or diplomatic actions.

Utilize their character-specific powers (subject to realism and committee rules)

Respond to dynamic crisis updates triggered by events or their own actions.

Delegates are encouraged to take initiative. However, actions have consequences—

whether beneficial or catastrophic—and the Crisis Team will simulate realistic responses
from internal and external actors.
 DCMUN II

Crisis Dynamics: Public vs. Private Directives

Crisis committees allow for two main forms of action:

Public Directives: Passed with majority support by the committee and implemented
as formal policy or action. These reflect unified action or shared intentions.

Private Directives (Crisis Notes): Individual or small-group actions taken outside

committee consensus. These may involve secret orders, backdoor deals, or covert
operations. They are submitted privately to the Crisis Staff, who interpret and
respond accordingly.

Both forms are essential, and smart delegates know when to act independently and
when to build consensus.

Role of Delegates in a Crisis Simulation

In the HCC, each delegate represents a real-world historical figure or institution. Your
responsibilities include:
Advocating for your character’s agenda and your nation’s historical or political
interests

Strategizing to shape outcomes aligned with your objectives or ideology

Collaborating or competing with others based on the scenario

Reacting quickly to new developments while maintaining long-term plans

You are not just a policymaker—you’re a decision-maker. Expect moral dilemmas, high-
stakes decisions, and consequences that change the entire course of the committee.
 DCMUN II

Discretion and Real-Time Crisis Updates

The Chair and Crisis Staff control the pace, content, and outcome of the simulation. They:

Introduce crisis updates (e.g., breaking news, military shifts, assassination attempts, civil
unrest)

Evaluate private directives for feasibility.

Decide the success or failure of actions.

Mediate between competing directives or conflicting events.

Chairs may also introduce twists—floods of refugees, double agents, public backlash, or
military coups, they have the power to amend any of the procedures stated above.
Delegates must be alert and flexible at all times. Remember: inaction is also a choice—and it
has consequences.

Topic A: The Fall of Kabul – Rewriting the 2021 U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Topic Overview

Setting the Scene: Kabul, August 2021

In August 2021, the world watched in disbelief as the capital city of Afghanistan, Kabul, fell
into the hands of the Taliban almost two decades after the U.S.-led coalition ousted them
from power in 2001. The collapse happened at lightning speed—mere weeks after the U.S.
and NATO forces accelerated their withdrawal. While the Biden administration insisted
that Afghan forces were equipped and capable of defending the country, the reality on the
ground proved otherwise.

By August 15, 2021, the Taliban had entered Kabul with minimal resistance, President
Ashraf Ghani had fled the country, and chaos engulfed Hamid Karzai International Airport
as thousands of civilians desperately attempted to flee. The U.S. scrambled to complete an
emergency evacuation of its citizens, diplomats, and Afghan allies. Images of Afghans
clinging to departing aircraft became symbolic of what many viewed as a disastrous and
poorly planned exit.
 DCMUN II

The Fall of Kabul not only marked the end of the 20-year U.S. presence but also raised
urgent questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy missteps, the role of regional
powers, and the humanitarian consequences of sudden regime change.

Objectives of Crisis Rewriting

The primary purpose of this Historical Crisis Committee simulation is to rewrite the fall
of Kabul, beginning from a key moment in mid-2021. Delegates will assume the roles of
U.S. officials, Afghan leadership, NATO commanders, Taliban leaders, intelligence
officers, journalists, and non-governmental actors.
Their mission is to:
Respond to the Taliban’s offensive

Improve evacuation or withdrawal operations

Attempt to stabilize the Afghan government

Consider renegotiating or nullifying the Doha Agreement

Address internal political, military, and public backlash

Reimagine U.S., regional, and global responses

Delegates must weigh military, diplomatic, and humanitarian decisions within the
constraints of the time. While the aim is to explore alternate historical outcomes, the
simulation must remain plausible, rooted in facts, and reflective of each character’s
influence and role.

The "What Ifs" of U.S. Withdrawal

This simulation hinges on “What If” scenarios:

What if the withdrawal had been delayed or phased differently?

What if the U.S. re-engaged militarily to push back against Taliban advances?

What if an inclusive government had been rapidly negotiated under international

mediation?
 DCMUN II

What if the Taliban had faced greater international isolation or armed resistance?

What if civil society groups, including women-led movements, had been better
protected or empowered?

These questions will form the basis of directives, both personal and committee-
wide, and the crisis staff will adapt real-time events depending on the decisions
delegates make. Historical accuracy is important—but so is bold thinking within
reason.

Past International and UN Actions

UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan)

UNAMA was the UN’s political-mission presence in Afghanistan. After the Taliban’s
takeover on August 15, 2021, UNAMA remained active—coordinating political dialogue,
human rights monitoring, and humanitarian operations. Its Special Representative,
Roza Otunbayeva, addressed the Security Council urging sustained engagement and
warning against global abandonment of the Afghan people—which she said would
negate two decades of progress.
Between August 2021 and June 2022, UNAMA reported over 2,100 civilian casualties
(700 killed, 1,406 wounded), highlighted the dismantling of women’s rights (such as
bans on secondary school), and witnessed extrajudicial killings and arbitrary
detentions—some committed by Taliban forces.

NATO and ISAF/RSM Operations

From 2001 until late 2014, NATO-led ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)
deployed over 130,000 troops at its peak (2010–11) to combat insurgency and stabilize
Afghanistan. From 2015, NATO transitioned to the Resolute Support Mission (RSM)—
non-combat assistance focused on training Afghan forces. RSM maintained roughly
15,000–17,000 troops through 2019 and formally ended in early September 2021
following the US withdrawal. NATO also launched Operation Allied Solace to assist in
resettlement of Afghan evacuees in Europe.
 DCMUN II

U.S. and Allied Resolutions and Aid

On August 30, 2021, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution

2593, calling on Afghanistan not to be used as a base for terrorism. While most
members supported the text, China and Russia abstained, noting sensitivity on
terminology. The resolution reaffirmed the need to prevent the territory from
being used to plan or shelter terrorist acts.

Later, in December 2021, the Security Council passed Resolution 2615, enabling
humanitarian exemptions within sanctions. The Council emphasized neutrality
and independence of aid, urged unfreezing of assets, and stressed safe access
for NGOs despite Taliban control.

Sanctions on the Taliban

The Taliban remain listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist group in U.S.
and UN frameworks, subject to asset freezes and sanctions. These restrictions
complicated humanitarian financing as most Afghan banking infrastructure
collapsed. Western governments insisted humanitarian aid be delivered
independently of Taliban channels—a difficult balance amid dire economic crisis.
As of early 2022, the Taliban still faced deep international isolation due to human
rights abuses, especially against women and journalists.

Evacuation and Refugee Programs

The U.S.-led Operation Pitting evacuated approximately 120,000 people in August

2021, including U.S. personnel, diplomats, and Afghan allies. NATO partners
supported over 100,000 additional evacuees by coordinating temporary relocation
zones in Germany, Poland, and Kosovo.
The international community also launched refugee resettlement programs.
However, approximately 150,000–170,000 at-risk Afghans remained in country,
their lives imperiled.
 DCMUN II

Action Area Key Details

Active post-August 2021, reported civilian casualties and rights abuses;

UNAMA
advocated engagement.

ISAF ended 2014; RSM non-combat advisory role until Sept 2021;
NATO / ISAF & RSM evacuation support via Allied Solace.

.
UNSC Res. 2593 (Aug 30, 2021) and Res. 2615 (Dec 2021) focused on
UN Resolutions
preventing terrorism and enabling aid.

Sanctions Regime Taliban blacklisted, assets frozen; sanctions hamper economic recovery
and aid delivery.

Evacuation Programs U.S. evacuated ~120k, NATO partners supported resettlement; many
vulnerable left behind.

Key Parties Involved

United States (White House, Pentagon, State Department)

White House / Biden Administration: Advocated full withdrawal under strategic

timelines set in April 2021, later facing criticism for underestimating Taliban advances
and failing to maintain stability.

Pentagon / U.S. Military: Conducted Operation Pitting, evacuating approximately

120,000 people; also responsible for securing Kabul airport and managing crowd
control.

State Department: Coordinated diplomatic ties and evacuation priorities, issuing

advisories such as “shelter in place” for U.S. citizens and liaising with allied nations to
accommodate evacuees.
 DCMUN II

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

President Ashraf Ghani: Fled Kabul on August 15, triggering collapse of the
Afghan government.

Afghan National Defense & Security Forces (ANDSF): Despite extensive

training and billions in aid, units disintegrated rapidly without U.S. air and
logistical support.

The Taliban

Taliban Political Leadership: Leveraged the Doha Agreement to launch a

political-military strategy and granted early amnesty in the fall; also vowed
not to harm civilians when entering Kabul.

Taliban Combat Units: Captured over 200 districts between May and August
2021; responsible for widespread extrajudicial killings and property seizures in
the weeks leading to Kabul’s fall.

NATO and Allied Forces

ISAF (2001–2014): Led combat and civil reconstruction efforts, handing over to
the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) in 2015.

RSM (2015–2021): Maintained ~15,000–17,000 troops focused on training

ANDSF—and supported evacuation logistics through sub-operations like
Operation Allied Solace.

Non-State Actors: Warlords, Al‑Qaida, ISIS‑K

Regional Warlords / Militias: Held de facto power in some provinces;

occasionally switched allegiances, further fracturing national defense
cohesion.
 DCMUN II

Al‑Qaida & ISIS‑K: While Al‑Qaida remained covert, ISIS‑K carried out deadly IED
and suicide attacks targeting civilians—constituting ~75% of civilian casualties
post-August 2021, per UNAMA.

Civil Society: Journalists, Women’s Rights Activists

Women and Educators: Experienced loss of fundamental rights—secondary

education banned, NGO employment restricted—prompting westward asylum
efforts and internal resistance.

Journalists & Human Rights Defenders: Subjected to censorship, arbitrary

detentions, torture, and occasional extrajudicial killings by Taliban security
forces.

Intersection & Interplay

Power Vacuum & Collapse: The flight of Ghani (6.2) and the rapid ANDSF collapse
(6.2) created openings that the Taliban (6.3) exploited, swiftly overrunning
provincial capitals.

International Response Dynamics: U.S. decisions (6.1) and NATO withdrawal (6.4)
enabled the vacuum, while evacuation efforts were chaotic and insufficient for
displaced Afghan civilians (6.1).

Security vs. Humanitarian Crisis: Non-state groups (6.5) intensified civilian

threats, while civil society (6.6) bore the brunt of renewed restriction and
violence, prompting humanitarian action yet complicating sanction frameworks.

Humanitarian & Strategic Implications

Women’s Rights and Education

Post‑2021 restrictions: The Taliban swiftly disallowed girls from attending

secondary school and prohibited women from working with NGOs and
international aid agencies.
 DCMUN II

Aid access: According to UNHCR, 71 of 392 humanitarian program directives from

2021–2024 specifically targeted women’s roles in aid provision, suppressing women's
participation in aid and governance.

Brain drain: Talented professionals—especially female educators and healthcare

workers—exited the country, weakening institutional capacity

Refugee Flows and Asylum Crisis

Mass displacement: As of early 2024, approximately 23.7 million Afghans—over half

the population—were in need of humanitarian assistance due to economic collapse,
conflict, and climate shocks.

Evacuees abroad: The U.S., EU, Canada, UK, and regional states evacuated ~300,000
Afghans. However, many are held in temporary camps with limited legal status.

Continued risks: A UK data leak in 2022 compromised 19,000 Afghan identities,

exposing them to Taliban reprisal and delaying resettlement of high-risk individuals.

Regional Power Balance (Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia)

China–Pakistan influence: China is spearheading reconstruction via CPEC and

coordinating with Pakistan. In May 2025, China facilitated full diplomatic relations
between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan channels integration
through Afghan trade corridors.

Central Asia engagement: The Taliban’s outreach to Uzbekistan (February 2025

meeting), plus investment overtures into railway infrastructure, highlights regional
economic realignment.

Western isolation: The U.S. and EU maintain a humanitarian-only engagement

stance, with no formal recognition of the Taliban regime.
 DCMUN II

Threat of Terrorism Resurgence

ISKP attacks: The Islamic State Khorasan Province conducted frequent IED and
suicide bombings, accounting for the majority of civilian casualties post-2021.

UNDISPLACED moderate resistance: The National Resistance Front (Panjshir-

based) remains active and aims to overthrow the Taliban via guerilla tactics.

Regional unrest: Border tensions persist—particularly with Pakistan, Iran, and

Turkmenistan—as Taliban authorities crack down on the TTP and other militant
crossings.

Possible Alternate Scenarios

Delayed or Phased Withdrawal

Gradual Drawdown: Instead of full exit by August, maintaining a force of 5,000–

10,000 U.S./NATO troops through late 2021 could have sustained air support and
logistics, dissuaded rapid Taliban offensives, and afforded Afghan forces time to
organize.

President-for-President Approach: Afghanistan leaders (e.g., Ghani) and U.S.

negotiators could have structured staggered pullbacks in exchange for Taliban
guarantees—not via blanket timelines but region-by-region security, with
performance-based milestones.

9.2 Coalition Retaliation & Support for Afghan Forces

Joint Airstrikes: In response to Taliban advances, U.S./NATO air assets could have
executed limited strikes against Taliban supply lines, support helipads, or convoys
—under strict rules of engagement to minimize civilian harm.

Foreign Instructor Deployment: Stationing instructors and special forces with

NATO or allied partners (UK, Germany) inside Afghan bases for force multiplication
and surveillance support.
 DCMUN II

9.3 New Power-Sharing Negotiations

Interim Unity Government: Pressure on Ghani to form a unity cabinet, including

Taliban figures, empowered women’s rights delegates, and ethnic minorities—under
the supervision of the UN or regional guarantors like Qatar.

Enforceable Peace Plan: Deploy UN observers and regional peace monitors (from
Kazakhstan, Turkey, Indonesia) to ensure compliance with ceasefires and
governance agreements.

9.4 Targeted Evacuation Prioritization

Early Alert Protocols: Activate evacuation phases as Taliban advance reached

provincial capitals—or when civilian transfers topped thresholds (e.g., 5,000
displaced/week).

“Safe Corridors” System: Deploy peacekeeping teams to secure escape routes

around Kabul, alongside U.S./NATO oversight of airport access points—prioritizing
critical personnel and at-risk civilians.
 DCMUN II

Topic B — The Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941)

Topic Overview

Setting the Scene: December 7, 1941

On a quiet Sunday morning at 7:55 a.m., 353 aircraft launched from six Imperial Japanese
Navy carriers descended on Pearl Harbor, Oahu. In less than two hours, the U.S. Pacific
Fleet suffered heavy losses—eight battleships were damaged or sunk, nearly 200 aircraft
were destroyed, and 2,403 U.S. personnel (including civilians) were killed.
The attack shocked Americans and precipitated swift political and military responses.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt described it as “a date which will live in infamy” during his
December 8 speech to Congress.

Purpose of the Committee Rewind

This Historical Crisis Committee allows delegates to step into the last moments before
the attack and choose whether and how to respond to intelligence and diplomatic signals.
As commanders in Washington, Hawaii, or Tokyo, delegates aim to:

Anticipate or disrupt the Japanese strike

Strengthen Pacific Fleet readiness status

Reconsider diplomatic pressure or negotiations

Reorganize command priorities

Participants must balance defensive and diplomatic strategy, consider domestic and
Allied constraints, and prepare for the emergence of global conflict.

Opportunity to Change the Course of WWII

Delegates have the opportunity to avert—but not exaggerate—the catastrophe. Potential

interventions include:

Raising Pearl Harbor’s alert as intelligence hinted at aggression (“Magic” intercepts).

Repositioning naval assets (e.g. carriers or battleships at sea)

Issuing confidential warnings or adjusting military exercises

Requesting Allied support or intelligence-sharing with Britain or the Philippines

 DCMUN II

Each action must align with 1941-era logistics, political will, and inter-departmental
communication, offering a realistic turn towards or away from disaster.

Historical Background — The Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941)

U.S.–Japan Relations (1920s–1941)

The relationship was initially cooperative—evidenced by the 1905 Taft–Katsura

Agreement affirming U.S. oversight in the Philippines and Japanese dominance in Korea,
and shared support for China’s open-door policy.

Tensions grew in the 1930s as Japan invaded Manchuria (1931) then launched full-scale
war in China (1937), triggering U.S. condemnation without material action.

The U.S. imposed economic sanctions—banning steel, oil, and freezing assets—framed by
Japan as encirclement by the “ABCD line”. Japan saw the embargoes as existential
threats, prompting planning for southward expansion and war.

Imperial Japan’s Expansion in Asia

Economic depression drove Japanese militarists to seize resource-rich lands—Manchuria

in 1931 and further aggression into China by 1937. Their strategy aimed at securing oil,
rubber, and minerals while building a defensive perimeter across the Pacific.

U.S. Embargoes and Oil Politics

Between 1940 and 1941, America expanded sanctions to quell Japanese expansion—
sanctioning iron, steel, oil, and freezing assets . These punitive steps crushed Japan’s
resource access and shocked military planners into plotting preemptive action before
supplies depleted .

Intelligence Failures and Warnings Ignored

Despite "Magic" intercepts and diplomacy hinting at imminent attack, U.S. command
remained reactive. Radar sightings of incoming aircraft on December 7 were dismissed as
routine air traffic, resulting in an unprepared Pearl Harbor .
 DCMUN II

Execution of the Pearl Harbor Attack

On December 7, 1941, Japan launched a surprise strike with 353 aircraft from six carriers,
crippling eight U.S. battleships and destroying nearly 200 aircraft. U.S. casualties
numbered 2,403 killed, igniting national outrage .
The operation achieved tactical success—destroying ships and planes—but crucially
missed aircraft carriers and fuel reserves, limiting strategic gains .
The following day, President Roosevelt delivered his “Day of Infamy” speech, and Congress
voted almost unanimously for war—as Cabinet split only by one pacifist member .

Past International and League Reactions to the Attack on Pearl Harbor

League of Nations and Pre-WWII Diplomacy

Japan had already withdrawn from the League of Nations in March 1933 following
condemnation of its invasion of Manchuria.

Subsequent Japanese escalation in China, including the Rape of Nanjing (1937), drew
formal League denunciations but no effective enforcement. Japan simply ignored
diplomatic pressure, highlighting the impotence of the League’s collective security
model.

U.S. Declaration of War

In response to the surprise attack on December 7, 1941, President Roosevelt addressed

Congress on December 8, calling it “a date which will live in infamy,” after which
Congress voted 388–1 in the House and 82–0 in the Senate to declare war on Japan.

This rapidly marked the official end of American isolationism and began the United
States' full engagement in WWII.

Allied Strategic Coordination

The United Kingdom, led by Churchill, responded swiftly—declaring war on Japan on

December 8, 1941, just nine hours after the U.S.—and quickly coordinated militarily in
Southeast Asia and the Pacific theatre.

Churchill, despite his relief at U.S. entry, cautioned that American focus might shift
entirely to the Pacific, leaving Britain exposed in Europe. Nonetheless, shared
intelligence and joint operations soon commenced.
 DCMUN II

Axis Counter-Declarations & International Alignment

Under the Tripartite Pact, Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. on December
11, 1941—an escalation rooted in their treaty obligations despite Germany not being
directly attacked.

Japan officially declared war on the U.S. and British Empires on December 8 (Japan
time), stating that diplomatic efforts had failed and treaties of aggression forced
their hand.

Public Response & Global Impact

United States: Gallup polls recorded a staggering 97% approval for Congress’s
declaration of war immediately after Pearl Harbor.

Japan: Civilian sentiment was overwhelmingly supportive, viewing the attack as

justified retaliation for Western embargoes.

Other Allies: Chinese Nationalists experienced immediate strategic relief as U.S.

involvement enhanced material support against Japan.

Key Parties Involved in the Attack on Pearl Harbor and Global Reactions

Understanding the major players in this historical crisis is crucial for any Historical Crisis
Committee (HCC) delegate. The attack on Pearl Harbor was not just a Japanese military
operation; it was the culmination of years of rising tensions, strategic calculations, and
international developments involving multiple state and non-state actors.

Empire of Japan

Political Leadership:

Emperor Hirohito (nominal head of state) remained publicly distant from direct
military decisions but approved major war moves.
 DCMUN II

Prime Minister Hideki Tojo was both premier and war minister, playing a
central role in pushing Japan toward war against Western powers.

Military Leadership:

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, architect of the Pearl Harbor operation,

believed a swift, crippling strike was Japan’s best chance at disabling U.S.
response capabilities.

The attack was launched without a formal declaration of war, although a

delayed notification was meant to arrive shortly before the bombing.

Strategic Objectives:

Secure dominance in the Pacific by neutralizing the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Acquire vital natural resources (oil, rubber, tin) from Southeast Asia—
embargoed by the U.S., UK, and the Netherlands.

Expand the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, a vision of Japanese-

led Asian unity free from Western influence.

United States of America

Political Leadership:

President Franklin D. Roosevelt shifted U.S. policy from neutrality to full

engagement following the attack.

Secretary of State Cordell Hull was in last-minute negotiations with

Japanese diplomats when the attack occurred.
 DCMUN II

Military Presence at Pearl Harbor:

Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Army General Walter
Short were criticized for lack of preparedness.

2,403 Americans were killed, 188 aircraft destroyed, and eight battleships damaged
or sunk.

Strategic Impact:

Shock and unity: The U.S. went from divided opinions on involvement in WWII to a
unified war stance almost overnight.

Mobilization: Massive enlistment and production mobilization followed, kickstarting

the American war machine.

United Kingdom and the British Empire

Leadership:

Prime Minister Winston Churchill viewed U.S. entry into the war as pivotal, calling it
the event that “saved the British Empire.”

Britain declared war on Japan within hours of the attack.

Colonial Impacts:

Japan also attacked British-held Hong Kong and Malaya on the same day.

The attack spread WWII to a global scale and forced Britain to divide focus between
European and Asian theatres.

Germany and Italy (Axis Powers)

Germany (Hitler):

Declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941, despite Japan not informing them
about the attack beforehand.
 DCMUN II

This widened the conflict and ensured full-scale global warfare.

Italy (Mussolini):

Followed Germany’s lead and declared war on the U.S. on the same day.

This move is often debated by historians, as Hitler was not obligated under the
Tripartite Pact to declare war unless Japan was attacked first. It hastened the U.S.
involvement in both the European and Pacific fronts.

China

Leadership:

Led by Chiang Kai-shek, the Republic of China had been at war with Japan
since 1937 (Second Sino-Japanese War).

The U.S. declaration of war on Japan greatly benefited China, bringing in

American military and financial support.

Relevance to the Crisis:

China welcomed Pearl Harbor’s consequence: dragging Japan into a broader

war.

The U.S. would become China’s main external supporter in fighting the
Japanese occupation.

Soviet Union

Stance at the Time:

The USSR had signed a neutrality pact with Japan in April 1941.
 DCMUN II

Stalin was focused on repelling the German invasion of the Soviet Union, so
the USSR did not declare war on Japan until August 1945.

Strategic Importance:
Stalin’s non-aggression with Japan allowed the latter to divert full focus to
the Pacific, knowing the Soviets wouldn’t strike in the East.

Country Declaration Of War Key Figures Position/Reaction

Japan Attacker on Dec 7 Yamamoto, Led Surprise Strike, rapid

Tojo expansion

USA Declared on Dec 8 Roosevelt, Hull Mobilized immediately

UK Declared on Dec 8 Churchill Aligned instantly with U.S.

Germany/ Declared on Dec 11 Hitler, Mussolini Opened European theatre

Italy to U.S.

China Already at war with Chiang Kai-shek Received vital aid

Japan

USSR Neutral (until 1945) Stalin Remained focused on

 DCMUN II

Global and Strategic Implications

The attack on Pearl Harbor reshaped global military, political, and economic landscapes
overnight. Here's a comprehensive analysis for HCC delegates:

Entry of the U.S. into World War II

Total War Mobilization: Pearl Harbor ended U.S. isolationism. Within hours, the U.S.
declared war on Japan—and days later, Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.—
making it a fully engaged global conflict.

War Economy Shift: The American industrial complex pivoted to wartime production,
producing vast numbers of ships, aircraft, tanks, and supplies, dramatically altering
global supply chains and economic balances.

Shifts in Global Military Strategy

Naval Evolution: The attack revealed the vulnerability of battleships and accelerated
the shift to aircraft carrier dominance in naval warfare.

Strategic Reorientation: U.S. strategy now focused on dual fronts—Europe (against

Germany) and the Pacific (against Japan)—necessitating massive coordination across
theaters.

Rise of the Pacific Theatre

Bipolar Pacific Campaign: Pearl Harbor suddenly made the Pacific Ocean a primary
theater of war, leading to major campaigns at Midway, Guadalcanal, and the
Philippines.
This stretched U.S. logistics across massive distances.

Allied Realignment: With the U.S. fully engaged, Britain, Australia, and China gained
stronger American military, intelligence, and economic support—including Lend-Lease
and joint operations.
 DCMUN II

Effects on the Axis–Allied Balance

Axis Unity and Overreach: Germany's and Italy’s declarations of war on the U.S.
strengthened the Allies—but also opened an additional front for America to engage
in Europe.

Diplomatic Ripple Effects: The attack solidified global support against Axis
aggression. Neutral countries—such as Brazil, Canada, and the USSR—fast-tracked
military alliances and diplomatic recognition of U.S. leadership in wartime coalition
building.

Possible Alternate Scenarios

Better U.S. Intelligence Coordination

Intercepted Communication: If U.S. intelligence (e.g., Magic intercepts) had been

fully correlated across Washington and Pearl Harbor, commanders could have
raised security status, mobilized planes, and disguised warships.

Pacific Warning System: Joint U.S.–British naval listening posts (in Midway,
Philippines, Guam) could have raised early alarm, allowing Pearl Harbor to
prepare defenses in advance.

Pre-emptive U.S. Naval Action in the Pacific

Fleet Deployment to Sea: Instead of mooring battleships in port, Roosevelt could

have ordered ships to sea or near the channel to avoid kamikaze-style surprise
attack damage.

Diplomatic Flexibility: Prior to attack, the U.S. could have used scaled-up
negotiations over oil embargoes, freezing accounts, and territorial disputes—
pushing back the timeline of Japanese aggression.
 DCMUN II

Strengthened U.S.–Japan Diplomatic Efforts

New Negotiating Framework: A summit involving U.S. diplomats, civilian

advocates, and neutral partners (e.g., Australia, Canada) could have attempted a
calm de-escalation of trade restrictions and mutual interest safeguards.

Pre-war Confidence-Building: Official communications even in mid-November

1941 could have included Japanese naval movement assurances as “routine
exercises,” to inform Pearl Harbor and reduce vulnerability.

Shift in Public Sentiment Before the Attack

Selective Disclosure Strategy: Roosevelt’s administration might have released

cautious updates on Japanese military movements—incrementally raising public
alert and changing the mood of isolationist sentiment.

Civil Preparedness Programs: Government communication through radio and

newspapers could have cited emerging tensions, encouraging small-scale drills for
media offices, shipyards, and coastal communities.
 DCMUN II

https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-
practices/afghanistan/ https://www.reuters.com/graphics/AFGHANISTAN-
CONFLICT/KABUL-AIRPORT/movannkgkpa
https://www.axios.com/2021/08/15/afghanistan-us-kabul-embassy-evacuations-
taliban https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/talibans-rapid-advance-
across-afghanistan-2021-08-10/ https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-taliban-
784681c4400b097cf73b93cec34c5c61 https://unama.unmissions.org/unama-
report-records-heavy-toll-afghan-civilians-ied-attacks
https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-
humanitarian-response-impact-analysis-2021-2024-october-2024
https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/09/afghanistans-two-years-
humanitarian-crisis-under-taliban
https://www.caspianpolicy.org/research/central-asia/china-russia-and-great-
power-politics-in-afghanistan-and-central-asia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Station_Pearl_Harbor
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/pearl-harbor
https://time.com/4593483/pearl-harbor-franklin-roosevelt-infamy-speech-
attack/ https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/japanese-relations
https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1900_power.htm
https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/japans-motives-for-
bombing-pearl-harbor-1941/
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/path-pearl-harbor
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/japans-territorial-expansion-1931-1942
https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/attack-pearl-harbor-1941/
https://pearlharbor.org/blog/churchills-reaction-pearl-harbor/
https://www.tamucc.edu/library/exhibits/s/hist4350/page/pearl-harbor-
japanese-vs-american-perspective
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/educational-services/staff-
rides/StaffRideHB_PearlHarbor.pdf