On this date Sec. of State Hull sent a memorandum to the Japanese outlining the conditions necessaryfor normalization of relationships between US and Japan including lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of assets.  One of these demands was the withdrawal of all Japanese forces from China.  There remainssome ambiguity about this note as Manchuria is never mentioned.  Some believe that the Japanese madea terrible error as they concluded that Hull included Manchuria in his demand while others opine thatHull meant only China as Manchuria was already occupied and governed by the Japanese.I am of the opinion that Hull did mean Manchuria as we never recognized the puppet state of Manchukuoand therefore that territory was, in our minds, still part of China.The Japanese could not envision a withdrawal from Manchuria as it was to be their "living space" withland and resources for a new and powerful Japan.  To accede to the American demands would be to placean American foot on their neck and become a second class power.  Not to accede meant war.  Is mycontention reasonable?

I think so, and this was brought up in my World War II class as an undergrad.  Also, you have to remember there was an even more confusing political situation in China with Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Tse Tung.  Hull had to work very hard to keep these two rival factions together as allies in a joint effort against Japan.  I guess in a way I'm defending Hull, but I'm not, because Japan did more to unify the Chinese resistance than anything Hull did.  Still his job was very complicated in this theater of the war.