Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

For the defense

I've been going back through At Dawn We Slept, & I'm wondering if there's room (or desire) here for more extensive coverage of both the Japanese disagreement over even attacking Pearl as well as the strength of the defenses. In particular, I'm thinking mention of how many aircraft Nagumo launched, & how many he & Martin lost, but no mention of how many Martin or Bellinger had, is a bit off-kilter, as well as leaving a question just how strong Pearl's defenses might've been, or how effective air search, if alert. (It's a library copy, so I can renew if no answer immediately...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think those bits would be valuable here. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Concur. ww (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me make a stab at it, then. It'll be a few days... :( TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Third Wave

H.P. Willmott in his 2001 edition of Pearl Harbor (pp. 156-157) quotes Genda's memoirs:


The memoirs in question are "Shinjuwan sakusen kaikoroku" (Recollections of the Pearl Harbor Operation) Tokyo, Yomiuri Shimbunsha, 1967, reprinted, Tokyo, Bungei Shunjushu, 1998, pp. 300-301.

This seems somewhat at odds with the start of the relevant paragraph of the article: "Several Japanese junior officers, including Mitsuo Fuchida and Minoru Genda, the chief architect of the attack, urged Nagumo to carry out a third strike in order to destroy as much of Pearl Harbor's fuel and torpedo[64] storage, maintenance, and dry dock facilities as possible." Comments? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Prange interviewed Genda fairly extensively for his early books (not having it in front of me, I couldn't say for that one). Also, Japanese had a tradition of not criticising SOs' mistakes... May also be Genda's recall is a bit faulty. What's the predominance in sourcing? And where are they getting their info from? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're referring to above? If you have referenced materiel from Prange of Genda admitting to demanding a third wave, then put it in. It should be noted that Fuchida wasn't above lying and he and Prange spent alot of time together discussing matters after the war. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


The statement in the article that: "At that time, no navy had developed night carrier techniques, so that this was a substantial risk" is not true. Please see Wikipedia's article on the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm night attack on the Italian Navy at Taranto in November 1940: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto 60.229.10.145 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Taranto attack was a one off, with special training, and used obsolete biplanes which flew quite slowly. Carrier landing difficulty increases with aircraft speed, and with lack of visibility. The Japanese had no biplanes left in their Naval Aviation. The statement objected to here is essentially correct, certainly for higher speed aircraft such as the Japanese were using. In short, Taranto was an exception, and night carrier operations did not become routinely available in any Navy for some years after the attack at Pearl. Perhaps some rewording to reflect this complexity and contingency? ww (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Add note on Pearl Harbor as 'just' a U.S. territory

The Hawaii page can be linked - Hawaii only became a state in 1959, so the attack on Pearl Harbor was not an attack on official U.S. land - that was left to the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. government had overthrown the ruling government of Hawaii to establish the land as U.S. territory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmooth (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks about the annexation of Hawaii to the US, this position is wrong as regards US law. Land administered as a 'territory' is part of hte US, just as is land which has been organized as a state and admitted as such. Territories do not have mandated representation in Congress, but inhabitants of US territories can generally vote in US national elections, and the US military is charged with protection of territories just as for states. The distinction is limited to the type and style o administration, not to any non-USness of territories as distinct from states. Territory the US administers, but does not claim is often referred to as a 'trust territory', which notes the distinction. ww (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The Japanese page does make this distinction, shouldn't the English version as well? The Japanese page also does not mention any "grand strategic" failure that is in the English page. Although, both pages definitely have bias, the English version is far less neutral in my opinion. We need to put our preferred version of history aside and stick to the facts, certainly the results of Pearl Harbor did not cause the Imperial Empire of Japan to lose the entire war.96.241.121.25 (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
A territory can be very closely held and can be considered of high sentimental value, and I think Hawaii could be described that way. The Philippines less so. Certainly Australia's Northern Territory is closely held by those folks from Oz. What if the Japanese had attacked a notional Australian fleet at Darwin, Northern Territory? Would the Aussies shrug it off? I think not. More to the point, the Japanese didn't attack Hawaiian dirt, trees and sand, they attacked US military assets. The Americans would get mad at that no matter where the assets were positioned.
As far as trying to make this article conform more closely with the Japanese one, I see no reason to try and do that. This one has been hammered on by quite a few editors and is necessarily influenced by a great deal of well-documented American anger. Those are the references that are available, and the ones that appeal to most of this article's editors. This page suits its purpose well enough. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro claim re declaration of war

The intro currently claims that the attack happened (by accident sue to delay at the Washington embassy of Japan) before a declaration of war was delivered to the US> This is in error. The delayed communication from Tokyo, which was indeed so delayed (the famous 14-part message) was NOT a declaration of war, but a statement of rejection of the US position and negotiatig stalemate. In fact, the Japanese e declaration of war against the US was delivered in Tokyo to Amb Grew some hours after the Pearl attack. I have seen statements (though I can't now recall from just whom) that no declaration was even composed until after word had been received regarding the success (or failure had this happened) of the attack on Pearl. On this point, Calvocoressi (other ample virtues aside such as his early and excellent account of Enigma work at Bletchley Park -- much better than Winterbotham's) has goofed; the reference given in the article is to his history of WWII.

This statement should be enlarged to note the difference between a declaration and the 14-part message, or a statement made about the actual Japanese declaration timing and location. ww (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki continues to astound. To casually suggest in the opening paragraph that the surprise Pearl Harbour attacks were intended to occur after a declaration of war, is the funniest thing I've read since, well, the last Wiki article. Tjamesjones (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

you have no idea what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.72.83 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Tjamesjones. The 14-part message can be read online and is simply NOT the decalration of war (which can be read online as well). I don't understand why Wikipedia insists on keeping up this pretense. It should AT LEAST link to the 14-part text and let readers who understand diplomatic nuances decide for themselves. - Rykehaven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.230.176 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I got news for you. Yamamoto intended the attack to follow a declaration. So did Tojo, IIRC. Whether the 14-Part message was one is irrelevant to this intention. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 11:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is covered well enough by the third paragraph of the intro and the Background to conflict section, which points to both Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate and Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Those two articles are a better place for discussion of how much of a surprise the attack was and to whom. This article is about the attack itself. Rees11 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have long heard this story of the belated appearance of the Japanese ambassador at the office of the Secretary of State with a message that was either the break-off of negotiations or the outright declaration of war, approximately 50 minutes after the attack had begun. I doubt the ambassador was deliberately late -- he risked being arrested on the spot by showing up after the commencement of the attack. I have long believed that someone in Japan muffed up the calculation of the time zones and so miscalculated the Eastern Standard Time that the ambassador should present the message to the Sec. of State. 173.79.234.183 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

alternate history?

Why in the world does this section exist? These stories serve no useful purpose for anyone actually seeking information on the topic and record nothing notable of the incident. for Pete's sake, there's even an account from a video game! Why doesn't someone just add another section spelling out the story line from from the Michael Bay movie? Or how about the story from the movie Final Countdown? After all, what possible criteria could be suggested as to what merits inclusion in this section and what doesn't? I suggest that this section should be removed in its entirety.Vespid (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that the subject is sufficiently fascinating that alternatives to what actually happened are still interesting. Clearly not evey such should be included here (perhaps a full article on alternative Pearl Harbor history might be on order?), and no extensive discussion is necessary. But some notation of the existence of such material seems relevant to me. ww (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with Ww. Both the fact that this topic is quite fascinating and the sheer volume of alternate history works associated with Pearl Harbor makes it seem relevant to me. As stated, this section shouldn't be a long one, nor should it necessarily be a comprehensive one but, in its current form (as of this date) and length, it seems about right. In fact, I think two more references should be added:

-Pearl Harbor and Days of Infamy by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen are the first two books of a planned trilogy that also revolve around the Japanese completing the planned third wave, which along with destroying American fuel reserves and dry dock facilities also leaves the Japanese fleet open to possible counterattack by the yet undamaged American carrier forces.

-1942 by Robert Conroy also makes the assumption that the Japanese completed the third assault wave, with this third attack being so devestating that the Japanese were convinced to change their plans and occupy Hawaii.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think a separate article might be in order. Tallkennj (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

rollback of change in strategic significance

I rolled this back (undo didn't work for some reason, so no edit summary box was available) because there was no discussion here about changing the fundamental evaluation of this event in this article. Please discuss it here before changing again. ww (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected?

Could an editor please add this into the article? The more references, the better. The last paragraph of "Background to conflict" should be changed to:


There has been ongoing controversy due to allegations made by conspiracy theorists and military historians that some members of the Roosevelt administration had advance knowledge of the attack, and that this was purposefully ignored in order to gain public and Congressional support for America entering the war on the side of the British Empire and her allies. Historian and novelist, Thomas Flemming, argues that President Roosevelt, himself, had wished for Germany or Japan to strike the first blow, but did not expect the United States to be hit as severely as she was in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Otto Richardson, who was fired by Roosevelt for refusing to dock his fleet in Pearl Harbor, blamed the President for the "initial defeats in the Pacific" as "direct, real and personal."[1] [2] [3]

This paragraph was lacking some references, but the article is semi-protected, so I cannot add them in, myself. Click "Edit" to view the source of my post. 70.121.22.163 (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

70.121...,
You can add it yourself, if you like. Accounts are free on WP, nearly trivially easy, and fast, to set up. The semi-protection is due to the impulse to vandalize which afflict this and some other other articles. It's almost a religious sort of question for some, or just evokes the urge to deface. I can't make any more sense out of it myself. The semi-protection bit is something of a speedbump in the path of such.
As for the content of your suggested edit, I think much of it belongs in the Alternative History article. If you review the talk archives of this article, you will see that editors wrestled (for a long time and at considerable length) about how to handle the conspiracy question and resolved it by leaving the "orthodox" account here and putting the assorted alternative accounts in the other article. Your citation is welcome and might be added as a footnote to the paragraph noting that there are many alternative accounts, and therefore some controversy, and/or in the Alternative article. ww (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked over the "Alternative history" section, but it is about fictional stories and video games about "what would happen if Hitler was assassinated" or "the Japanese land in Hawaii." It does not seem to be about the disputed history or events that led up to the actual historical attack. 70.121.22.163 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Ww meant to say Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate, not alternate history. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How many battleships sunk?

In the second paragraph of the article we have:

The attack sank four U.S. Navy battleships...

while in the 'Casualties and losses' section on the right we have 5 battleships sunk.

It may look like a kind of discrepancy...

--Andrzej Gandecki (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm..... The Myth That “Eight Battleships Were Sunk” At Pearl Harbor By Richard K. Neumann Jr. (not currently cited in the article) says,

Eight battleships were there. Two were “lost in action,” the Navy’s term for damage that permanently destroys a ship’s usefulness. None were “sunk,” which means disappearing below the sea surface (the most obvious but not the only way to become lost in action). Pearl Harbor is shallow, with only a few feet of water separating the battleship’s bottoms from the harbor bottom. No capital ship could disappear below the waves in a shallow harbor.

Here is what happened ...

Looking at the info in that article and in Pearl Harbor Attack Action Report, CINCPAC (Admiral Chester Nimitz) to CINCUS (Admiral Ernest J. King), I glean the following:
  • Arizona sank at her berth. Lost in action.
  • Oklahoma capsized. Lost in action.
  • California sank in shallow water Refloated and repaired with improvements.
  • West Virginia sank in shallow water. Refloated and repaired with improvements.
  • Nevada was run aground to prevent sinking. Refloated, repaired, returned to action.
  • Pennsylvania was in dry dock when the attack began and suffered only superficial damage. Seaworthy within a month.
  • Maryland lightly damaged. Seaworthy within a month.
  • Tennessee damaged by bombs. Seaworthy early in 1942 -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, this is a very good info - how do we correct the article then? Maybe we change the article in both points to say 'two lost in action and six damaged'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrzej Gandecki (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

None were actually "sunk" in the sense of "disappearing below the surface of the water," but either four or five were sunk in the sense of "no longer floating" depending on whether you count Nevada or not. I think the latter definition is more common so I'm going to be bold and edit. I'm going to not count Nevada and make it four, and add a bit of explanatory text in the paragraph that talks about how many battleships were sunk. Please take a look at what I wrote and see if it makes sense and seems accurate. Rees11 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMHO "grounding" = "no longer floating" in the case of Nevada. Also, as to the above info—Nevada was also 'repaired with improvements', just not as extensive improvements as California and West Virginia. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The info box already listed several other ships as "run aground" and that seemed to fit Nevada. So I think we have four sunk, one run aground, and three more damaged. Rees11 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you count grounded as separate from damaged... Nevada was hit pretty hard, IIRC, even before her CO beached her, which isn't going to leave her without a scratch, either. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed—six–ten bombs and one torpedo hit will cause quite a lot of damage. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but among the categories already available in the infobox, "run aground" seemed most appropriate. And it seemed best to have the number "sunk" in the infobox match the number "sunk" in the text. Rees11 (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma "turned turtle" after being torpedoed and Arizona, West Virginia and California sank to the bottom of the harbor; not floating due to enemy action counts as "sunk" in layman's terms. So that's 4 sunk and 4 damaged (Tennessee, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Nevada). One of the 4 damaged was the "1 battleship run aground" so that's confusing. 4 sunk, 4 damaged, 1 aground sounds like a total of nine at Pearl Harbor. There were eight Pacific Fleet battleships at Pearl Harbor (one at the West Coast Colorado). Nevada was deliberately beached "run aground" to avoid sinking, so it is arguable whether she should be counted as sunk or damaged. In the end, only Arizona and Oklahoma failed to return to service. The six survivors were still in service on VJ Day. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Destroyers

Infobox says 2 destroyers sunk, 1 damaged. The Second wave composition section says "Two destroyers in dry dock were destroyed," "The destroyer USS Cassin capsized, and destroyer USS Downes was heavily damaged," and "destroyer USS Shaw was badly damaged." I suspect there is some overlap here. Rees11 (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably. It also depends on your definition of "sunk", 'cause while Cassin & Downes were junk after the attack, their machinery was salvaged, & IIRC USN didn't strike them or list them "sunk", just fitted the machinery into new hulls. Of course, some of that may have been to conceal wartime losses, too.... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 12:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Probable error in gallery caption

One of the captions in the photo gallery reads "Battleship USS West Virginia took two aerial bombs (one dud)..." but this conflicts with the USS West Virginia (BB-48) article, which says that both of these bombs were duds. One article or the other needs to be corrected. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The most authoritative source I can find is Captain William White's Salvage Report which says, "it was determined, on inspection, that the ship sustained six torpedo hits and two bomb hits. Both bombs failed to explode and were later removed." Rees11 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the caption but now there's another problem. The Salvage Report says six torpedoes, and the caption says seven including one from a midget sub. The USS West Virginia (BB-48) just says "several" and that one "may" have come from a midget. Rees11 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The midget-sub theory is much more recent than the Salvage Report, so the inconsistency isn't a serious conflict. I suggest this simpler caption: "The battleship USS West Virginia took two aerial bombs, both duds, and seven torpedo hits, one of which may have come from a midget submarine". 67.164.125.7 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed invasion of Hawaii

I am deleting a paragraph that describes how the Japanese considered taking Hawaii with troops. The reference supports the paragraph, and at first glance, the reference appears authoritative (A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II, by Gerhard Weinberg, published by Cambridge University) but there are more experts devoted to the Pacific War who have written that there was never a serious consideration of invasion. Also, the paragraph characterizes Nagano as saying that attacking Hawaii was too risky, but Nagano said that taking Southeast Asia could be accomplished without bringing the Americans to war—an attack on them was not necessary. Yamamoto disagreed, but he did not ever consider taking Hawaii with troops. His two options were a) to hit the battleships and strike a blow at America's will to fight, or b) to buy time while Japan runs free in Southeast Asia. Taking Hawaii's land was never a Japanese aim. British author H. P. Willmott goes into this on page 14 of The Barrier and the Javelin, and U.S. Admiral Mark R. Peattie concurs in Kaigun: strategy, tactics, and technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941, page 488 and elsewhere. In Yamamoto: the man who planned Pearl Harbor‎, author Edwin Palmer Hoyt wrote that Yamamoto's underlings were "clamoring" for an invasion of Hawaii, but Hoyt does not say that Yamamoto ever wanted this. Staff officers pushing for a course of action aren't notable unless the action is taken. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on my understanding, the Japanese military did consider trying to seize Hawaii but instead decided to focus on Southeast Asia. However, Gerhard Weinberg writes that after Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto tried to secure support for an invasion of Hawaii (but ran into opposition). Weinberg also argues that the Japanese offensive again the Midway Islands (which led to the Battle of Midway) was intended not only to destroy the US Pacific fleet's aircraft carriers but was also intended to seize the Midway Islands so that they could be used as a springboard for a subsequent invasion of Hawaii. Weinberg also notes that some of Japan's military leaders had envisioned a massive empire under Japanese control that would have included, among other areas, Hawaii, Alaska, Western Canada and the US west Coast (thus an invasion of Hawaii was an aim, albeit not an immediate one). With regard to Nagano, Weinberg writes that Nagano opposed an invasion of Hawaii because he felt it was too risky, and not because he hoped to keep the US out of the war (although it could certainly be both). Now that I think about it, regardless of whether or not we agree on the facts, the objectives section of this article may not be the appropriate place for this material. I'll do some more research on my own before deciding what course of action to take.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC))
If Stefan (Hawaii Under the Rising Sun) is right, Yamamoto considered it, but knew he'd never get IJA to agree. If Bink is right, & it's nothing but staffer agitation (& considering the example of Midway, that sounds credible), it's notional, not real. We may never know for certain... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, this seems to have been greatly discussed in secondary sources? If so, why not create Proposed Japanese invasion of Hawaii and include the different sources' information, using a longer version of "Author Gerhard Weinberg states ... but Author Edwin Hoyt and Stefan say ...". Just a thought. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Rather than having its own article, I would rather see this information included in an article about Japan's goals for the late 1930s through December 1941. Japan's war goals. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to include a paragraph in the Background to conflict section regarding this topic. I'll keep it limited. The reason I feel this is an important topic is that one of the questions routinely asked is why Japan didn't try to seize Hawaii. I welcome any comments or concerns.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC))
IMO, both wouldn't be out of line. Stefan alone offers enough to support a separate page, & if there was JO agitation (shades of the Kwantung Army!), that would be of interest, too. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

declaration of war

I've just removed the following sentence:

While sometimes described as a declaration of war, "this dispatch neither declared war nor severed diplomatic relations".[4]

It is confusing to me because everything else in the paragraph reads as if Japan did declare war, and in fact the linked "Declaration of War" article includes an English translation that says "The Empire of Japan hereby declares war on the United States," or words to that effect.

I am not a scholar or historian, and I can't read Japanese. I just think this sentence as it reads is confusing (even with the footnote, which doesn't clarify). If someone wants to revisit this with a better explanation, feel free. MaterTerribilis (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, the 14h Part doesn't declare war, tho it's commonly believed it did. The declaration came after the attack. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Bottom of the page has this tacked on. Can only assume its vandalism and I can't change it

"FDR planned the attack so United States would go to war with Germany. FDR was told by various countries of the upcoming attack. It was a true American conspiracy."

118.127.69.34 (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It was tacked onto Pearl Harbor attack, which is transcluded into this article. Thanks for your help! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Date/time of attack

As the various countries involved straddle the international date line, should it be mentioned in the introduction that the attack was on 7 Dec for the US, and 8 Dec for Japan? I know it says it way down in the text, but it would be clearer if it went in the lead for those looking at Japanese/SE Asian sources and getting confused! Also, the article says The air portion of the attack on Pearl Harbor began at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time (3:18 a.m. December 8 Japanese Standard Time, as kept by ships of the Kido Butai) - the Japanese Standard Time wiki article says it is 9hrs+ UTC, not 9.5 as in the text here. Jasper33 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What we need to keep in mind is how the Kido Butai (the IJN aircraft carrier Mobile Force) kept time according to contemporary (Dec 1941) sources. Current practice does not always equal historical practice. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't say what's usual now, but the sources I've seen agree, Kido Butai recorded the (Hawaii local) 07.55 attack as 03.23 Tokyo time, & Kido Butai routinely kept Tokyo time; & Prange, whom I'd trust, times the first strike, at Kaneohe, at 07.48 Hawaii local. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rosevelt allows attack on Pearl Harbor

The attack was known well in advance and Roosevelt allowed it.

For more info read http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=179 or google "the truth about pearl habor" and read any articles from the first page(exept this wikipedia page that doesnt even mention it)

Mustanggt5000 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Mustanggt5000

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. Though Perloff's derivative 2001 piece isn't represented, your concerns are fully addressed at this article: Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


But i dont like how it says surprise attack in the very beginning. Mustanggt5000 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Mustanggt5000

We've been over this already. It certainly wasn't a surprise to the attacking force, was it? The nature of the attack was that it took the defenders by surprise. Surely you agree with that statement. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, Roosevelt knew it was coming. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=179 Mustanggt5000 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Mustnaggt5000


Mustang, you are a fool if you think Roosevelt knew of the attack. Sure high ranking U.S. Navy officers at Pearl had suspicions of an attack but had no idea when or where it would take place. Obviously they realized Hawaii would be major target if war was to break out with Japan. IF Roosevelt knew it was coming why did he continue sending portions of the Pacific Fleet to the British to fight the Nazi's? Why turn this into a conspiracy, The U.S. Navy is not stupid, there was suspicions of war between the U.S. and Japan long before 1941, Pearl Harbor is the main U.S. Naval base for Pacific operations. Therefore the Navy knew well that some sort of attack on Pearl Harbor would happen in the event of war with Japan. They also knew Guam and the Philipines would most likely be attacked, as they were. Your half-baked conspiracy theories have no place in an encyclopedia. --Aj4444 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Aj, In debunking Roosevelt's foreknowledge, you have suggested that many in the Navy had suspicions the Pearl attack was coming. It would be helpful to cite a credible source for this. In addition, personal attacks on other editors, even or especially when you disagree tith them, is not a WP sort of thing. And all UC or all bold are each generally taken to be shouting, another non WP sort of thing. See the advance knowledge debate article, and add material to it if you would like to do so. ww (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
A not-very-credible source. Try looking through the archives to see what was said about this. Have you even been over to Talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate? There, too, your concern has been hammered on and flattened out. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bink on this point. The question of prior knowledge (what, how acquired, when, and by whom)) has been contentious from the day after the attack. A Congressman, Guy Gillette, is recorded as having said that it was known beforehand, the very next morning. Unfortunately, there really is a considerable amount of contention about all of the prior knowledge allegations, including the one cited here.
This article's editors have been wrestling with these issues for a very long time. The archives of this talk page reflect some of the long dispute. They should be consulted before making a decision ot change the editorial consensus, arrived at after prolonged struggle. The Prior Knowledge article does indeed cover the non-standard allegations about as well as can be managed. It too has been the subject of considerable wrangle; see the talk page and its archives. ww (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

To the conspiracy theorists: Roosevelt certainly did NOT know that an attack on Pearl Harbor was coming. Now, to be sure, the U.S. was well aware that the Japanese were preparing to take the offensive throughout the Pacific, and, further, they were quite aware that possible targets included a number of American territories such as Guam, Wake Island and the Philipines. The late November 1941 "war warning" order which covered the entire Pacific theater and directed all commanders (including General Short and Admiral Kimmel in charge of the army and navy, respectively, at Pearl) that the communication should be considered a "warning of war" and ordered them to complete all necessary defensive preparations. Certainly, nobody... not in Washington and not in Hawaii... thought it was even possible for the Japanese to attack at Pearl Harbor. Not only do all known and available records reflect this fact, but there is also no logic to the argument. Quite simply, if Roosevelt "knew" the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl and wanted to "let them" complete the attack, why would he have issued the "war warning"? If Kimmel and Short had been remotely competent, they would have taken necessary defensive precautions required by the war warning order even if they did not think an attack was possible, and, thus, potentially ruin the alleged Roosevelt conspiracy. If Roosevelt had wanted to ensure that the Japanese could complete a "surprise" attack, he certainly would not have allowed his commanders at Pearl to be given a very explicit and very direct order to prepare for an attack. As we all know, in the event, Kimmel and Short essentially ignored the order, and took no particular precautions (except against potential saboteurs). However, it is silly to assume that Roosevelt would issue that order and leave his entire "plan" to the chance that Kimmel and Short would both completely ignore it. It is simply illogical.Tallkennj (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the things fueling this controversy had been various newspapers reporting, say on Friday Dec. 5th, that an attack was expected, perhaps as soon as within a week. Some of these newspaper headlines have been reprinted in books alleging a conspiracy. The simple fact is that Hawaii was ALWAYS expected to be attacked, and, while some newspapers had panic headlines within a few days before Dec. 7th, other papers had similar headlines weeks and months earlier. The US and Japan were involved in extensive peace negotiations and, during that time, the US forces were careful not to provoke the Japanese by conspicuously beefing up the Hawaiian defenses (MacArthur had gotten orders to toughen up the Philippine defenses but disobeyed because he thought it would provoke the Japanese). 15:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.234.183 (talk)

A Japanese attack was anticipated in the Phillipines, Guam, Wake, maybe Midway; carriers Langely, Enterprise and Lexington were delivering aircraft to land bases in those theaters to build up their defenses. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a secret to everyone except a closed circle of the Japanese high command: it was a surprise to everyone else. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt knew it. See this telegram from Grew to the Secretary of States on Jan. 27 1941. It is mentioned in the Joseph Grew article too. I think this information should be included in the related articles. Oda Mari (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
That was nothing but cocktail party gossip. Grew's source, IIRC, was a Portugese laundryman, not somebody likely to have access to IJN's top secrets. Besides, this debate (if it can be dignified as such) belongs here. Meanwhile, do us all a favor: know what you're talking about, first? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interested in and do not know much about the conspiracy theory. Whatever the Grew's source was, it's a fact he sent a telegram concerning an attack on Pearl Harbor before the attack and eventually it turned out to be true. I have no idea how Roosevelt and the Secretary of States took the content. But a fact is a fact and I believe it's relevant here. Do you deny the fact? Oda Mari (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If Grew's message was based on something beyond gossip, I'd agree with you. It not. It's not the "fact" Grew sent a telegram, which just happened to turn out to be correct, that's the problem; we only know it's correct based on 20/20 hindsight, & unless you can show Grew, FDR, Stark, Marshall, or somebody took it as anything but gossip at the time, it doesn't rise to the importance deserving of inclusion. This page isn't a compendium of every flimsy rumor. The conspiracy page is. If Grew's telegram is included, before long, every other ridiculous theory will be demanding inclusion, & the conspiracy page was created precisely to prevent that. BTW, unless I'm mistaken, the Grew "warning" is already mentioned there. Feel free to add it, if not. Just leave off here, 'kay? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to bust a cap on WP:Civility here. Let's keep it clean. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Bink, Grew's telegram was based on a flmsy rumor. No issue with WP:civil at all. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
There were pre-war plans including an attack on the Panama Canal, as well as the Phillipines, Wake, Guam, Hawaii. There were so many possible first attack targets (the most logical being the Phillipines) that pre-war warnings constituted "noise"; give the Japanese military credit: they planned and executed an attack where it was least expected, even though it was suspected an attack was imminent somewhere. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

<--There were actually 3 main threads to U.S. thinking.

  1. Japan would attack somebody else. SU & Britain were the top candidates.
  2. Japan would attack someplace else. Naaman's right, P.I. were the #1 expected target (& geography makes clear why); it's why B-17s were shuttling through HI, rather than being based there, & why Doyle had more fleet boats than Withers.
  3. War would begin a different way. There was a lot of interwar fiction, all presuming extensive "fifth column" action, first.

Add to that the belief Japan was incapable of executing more than one major naval operation at once, when a TF was spotted headed south, the U.S. felt safe; P.I. had been bypassed, & HI was thus considered at low risk (especially in DC, which was even farther from the threat), even without adding in the possibilities of Panama or Guam (which were pretty slim by comparison, IMO). Did they boob? Oh, yeah. Did Yamamoto make a daring choice? You want to believe. In hindsight, tho, it was a colossally stupid one, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Was Josef Stalin Behind Pearl Harbor?

I am new here, so I don't really know the in's and out's of Wikipedia, but I thought this concept must be told: Wasn't Josef Stalin of the U.S.S.R. the man behind Pearl Harbor? Think about it. He had Germany out to get him--he knew it was inevitable. And he also had the militaristic Japan on his right. He was the man in the middle. With the fall of France, whom else was Hitler going to crush? Also, Stalin had a Great spy network. With People like Klaus Fuchs and Julius Rosenberg, Stalin wasn't surprised when Harry S. Truman said to him that he had created the Atomic Bomb because those spies had told him well ahead of time [1]. He would have been able to crack both the U.S. and the Japanese codes and would be able to manipulate them into war. I don't have a source yet but am searching. . . --ItisYouLord (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good effin' luck finding a source! Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether you find a source or not, please do not turn the talk page into some speculative discussion page. This is exclusively for improving the article. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Speculation along these lines is fascinating, though not very useful for WP purposes. As Eaglestorm points out above, it doens't even fit very well on Talk pages as they are meant for discussion of the related article and improvements/changes/objections therein. Nevertheless, you are correct as to the Soviet situation, strategically. Which makes even more odd, Stalin's hostility and sustained aggressive espionage against the biggest single source of aid around, the US. But by the time of the attack at Pearl, the situation had gotten about as bad as it was going to get. Guderian was just outside Moscow at about the same time. This sugests tht ideology (Communism -- at least the Stalinist version of Lennist Communism) or simply an imperial interest in controlling rivals and potential conquests, was more important to him than potential resources to be used in defense during an existing (or prospective for the preceding period). A possible third alternative is that the man was simply paranoid and that accounted for much of what he did. The Doctor's plot and the purge of the generals and the sho trials generally in the period leading up to WWII and his generally suspicious attitude toward just about everything (Conversations with Stalin by the Jugoslavian dissident Dijlas (sp?) is illuminating on this, from someone outside the Soviet hierarchy). He didn't even trust his spies much (see the Richard Sorge episode about the date of the German invasion in the summer, which Sorge had right, or his reported suspicion about English attempts to warn him about Hitler's invasion intentions, which they also had right).
Last, Soviet behavior with regard to Germany before and after Hitler took power in 33 in respect of providing supplies, a discreet place outside the knowledge of the signatories to the Versailles treaty where the Germans could reconstitute their Air Force and train, doesn't seem very sensible either, and Stalin was in charge for most of that period. The Versailles treaty forbid Germany from having air forces, and had severe limitations on armed forces generally since there was considerable concern about a second war caused by German ambition or resentment or jealousy. Somehow, the Soviet leadership (ie, essentially Stalin during much of the period) didn't see the same sort of danger, though post WWII Soviet leadership seems to have don. At least they claimed that they needed a buffer from the danger of a revived Germany, hence all those buffer states they had to control in Eastern Europe. Probably this last should be seen as public disinformation and so dismissed as merely so much bushwa, but...
The alternative history folks, like Harry Turtledove and others have been exploring such things in fiction for some time.
But overall, for WP purposes, Bink was right. ww (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Think about it." I suggest you take your own advice.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.171.64 (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There were nine battleships at pearl Harbor during the attack.

There were nine battleships at pearl Harbor during the attack on Pearl Harbor, while one (the USS Utah) had had its superfacing (bridge, guns, masts and so forth) removed. The list is USS (1)California, (2)West Virginia, (3)Oklahoma, (4)Nevada, (5)Pennsylvania, (6)Tennessee, (7)Maryland, (8)Arizona, and (9)Utah. The Utah was on the other side of Ford Island from Battleship Row. The grammar teacher (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the auxillary ship AG-16 USS Utah was serving as a target ship having been reclassified in the '30s. Prior to '31 she had been the battleship BB-31 USS Utah, but the Washington Naval Treaty of '22 limited the total tonnage of capital ships and because of this in '31 it was decided to reclassify Utah as an auxilary which meant she was decommissioned and underwent a conversion from a battleship to an auxilary ship. She was then recommisioned in '32 for her role as a target ship. She pulled targets as well as serving as a target herself. This is why her decks were covered in logs, so areial bombs did less damage to her during training of areial bombing by carrier based bombers. She also served as an AA training ship. Check out NavSource's page on the ship [2], the DANFS page on the ships [3], and most importantly the Navy Historical Center's page on what ships were present at Pearl as it lists by classification [4]. - annonymous 6:08 PM August 22, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.13.172 (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Good answer anonymous; I would also add that her conversion and main battery's removal was to comply with the provisions of the London Naval Treaty, not Washington. Grammar, if you have access to it, Friedman's U.S. Battleships: A Design History also discusses the role Utah had. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The ninth battleship of the Pacific Fleet was USS Colorado which was at Bremerton Washington for scheduled overhaul. For a time after 7 Dec 1941, Colorado was the only operational battleship in the Pacific fleet. Oklahoma and Arizona were total losses and the other six required extensive repairs. The aircraft carriers Lexington, Saratoga and Enterprise were the only other capital ships left with battleship Colorado in the Pacific Fleet, facing eleven Japanese battleships and ten Japanese aircraft carriers. I don't think folks today appreciate what a dark day 8 Dec 1941 was. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Decisive Japanese Victory"

is what it currently says in the infobox. Several notable World War II historians, such as H.P. Wilmott argue that the attack was actually a Japanese defeat because:

  • It united the people of the United States behind a total war against Japan, ruining Japan's original strategy of initiating a limited war against a demoralized US.
  • Forced the US to abandon its stategy of using battleships against the Imperial Japanese Navy's (IJN) battle line, thereby making moot the IJN's "Decisive Battle" strategy around which the IJN had built most of the heavy units in their navy, and forced the US into a naval strategy based around aircraft carriers, which placed Japan at a disadvantage because their concept of a perimeter defense of their island territories was not able to defend adequately against carrier raids and attacks.
  • At a cost of 60 or so irreplaceable naval aviators, Japan missed damaging or destroying anything of real strategic value at Pearl Harbor, namely the submarines, aircraft carriers, supply and repair depots, and fuel farms of the US Pacific Fleet.

I would propose removing that wording from the infobox, and simply letting it state that the result was war between the US and the Axis. It might could state that it was a Japanese tactical victory, but even that is debatable. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the result was war, so that would be an appropriate replacement. The tactical victory bit you mention doesn't seem debatable to me—the ratio of battle losses was overwhelmingly in the Japanese favor. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I will change the infobox to "Japanese tactical victory" and add a citation to support it from Wilmott's book. Otherwise, someone might revert it. Cla68 (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
How about a category for Pyrrhic Victory? Naaman Brown (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

in the controversy section any body who has a diffrent opinion is disregarded as a conspiracy theorist i think the is very bias of the article to be choosing a side in the argument —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.115.165 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And the reasons have been exhaustively covered here. For a change, I won't reopen the debate. (Herculean restraint, believe me. ;p) Take a look for my username in the page history & you'll see. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
but all such arguments are based on opinion so i dont see why opinion should be inflicted on the article--99.234.115.165 (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. They're based on evidence, which the conspiracy theorists prefer to ignore in favor of suspicion, accusation, & opinion. The evidence is included. Opinion, as far as possible, isn't. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Im not even arguing what the truth is or anything of that nature i am just simply asking that you refer to them as persons with alternate theories or dissonants of the main theory. I just dont think there is anything that can prove someone is a conspiracy theorist i think thats something that lies in the opinion who believes someone else is wrong--99.234.115.165 (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? "dissonants of the main theory"? This isn't a debate over dark matter. It's history. And the "dissonants" depend on there being a conspiracy by senior members of the U.S. government, hence "conspiracy theorist". The need for proof lies in them, not in us; as the saying goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", & the conspiracy theorists fail even in dealing with the ordinary evidence. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:36 & 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hidden tiger, flying dragon

I'd add if I was more certain, but wasn't ULTRA still secret when "Tora! Tora! Tora!" was released? If so, how'd they get away with showing a PURPLE machine? (Presumably not a gennie one!) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ultra was secret until 1974, several years after Tora! Tora! Tora!! (1970) was made, but the fact that Japanese codes had been broken was made public pretty soon after the end of the war. 'How we won the Battle of Midway', and all that.
"The decrypted Purple traffic, and Japanese messages generally, was the subject of acrimonious hearings in Congress post-WW-II in connection with an attempt to decide who, if anyone, had allowed the attack at Pearl Harbor to happen and who therefore should be blamed."
—WWoods (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
•sigh• I have such stupid blind spots, some days. :/ I knew there were a bunch of Congressional investigations... Thanks for being patient with me. Forest Gump people call me Forest Gump 09:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

German-Japanese Agreements Prior to 7 Dec 41

There is a slight error here. Open http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor, go to paragraph 3 where it is stated that NO treaty existed between Japan and Germany yet the latter still declared war on the US thus giving FDR the opening to counter the US isolationists, etc. While the use of the term treaty, especially with today’s perception of that word, may well be fact, the truth is at least two agreements existed between Japan and Germany in which support to the other was articulated, see Wiki’s references below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Comintern_Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact

If you are attempting to reveal circumstances that would tend to prove FDR was not as surprised by the Pearl Harbor attack as his day of infamy speech may imply, and was in fact manipulating and posturing the US to become engaged in the evolving conflict, I would direct your research efforts initially to: FDR’s 12 Apostles, Hal Vaughan, The Lyons Press, Guilford, CN, 2006 History of United States Naval Operations In World War II, Vol. II, Operations in North African Waters, Samuel E. Morison, Castle Books, 1947, 1950, pg 6, footnote 5. Struggle For The Middle Sea, The Great Navies at War in the Mediterranean Theater, 1940-1945, Vincent P. O’Hara, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 2009. The Path To Victory, The Mediterranean Theater In World War II, Douglas Porch, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2004.

These references deal with circumstances as the European conflict began to spread. FDR’s realizations of failure regarding getting the US and world out from under the impacts of the Great Depression, and thus his motivations for industrial surge to win the economic war, must be researched from 1930 onward. Especially AFTER Japan’s military looked to Manchuria-China to begin their corrective economic actions in 1931.Jozve (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I confess I don't see your point, here. Yes, there was a "treaty" between Germany & Japan; you appear to misunderstand the German declaration of war was not a product of the treaty, as sometimes suggested, but an independent (stupid) decision by Hitler. How that bears on the Depression, I don't see, nor how FDR failed to get the "world out from under the impacts of the Great Depression" (I was unaware this was ever his responsibility), nor do I see evidence FDR thought war was necessary to do so in the U.S. It wasn't in any case; had there not been an additional tax imposed, the '37 recession would never have happened, & the U.S. economy would've been recovering nicely in '38-9.... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:25, 8 December 2009 & 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Infamy?

what were the words in the speech after pearl harbor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.61.160 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the Infamy Speech? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

USS NEVADA

Ensign Joe Taussig, Jr. got his ship, USS Nevada, underway from dead cold during the attack. This doesn't make sense to me. If an ensign was the only Executive Branch officer on board this battleship, and he successfully took command and got her away to sea from cold boilers, this deserves elaboration. But I don't see a source. Is this really what happened? Rumiton (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I did some googling, and found this and this, which seem to speak directly to your point of concern. Along the way, I found some other related sources: [5], [6], [7], [8][9], etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your efforts. Two of those references are to a Rear Admiral by the same name (possibility Ensign Taussig's father?) so can be discounted. If the other sources are equally valid, it appears that Ensign Taussig was indeed the most senior Executive Officer on board, and was acting Officer of the Deck. He had earlier ordered (for whatever reason) a second boiler put on line so the ship had just enough steam to get off the wharf. But Taussig was hit at the beginning of the action, losing a leg while the ship was still alongside. The story is even more remarkable in that the ship successfully left the wharf conned only by a Quartermaster, and was run aground within the harbour. If no one objects, I will change the statement in the article to reflect this. Rumiton (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't change it too much. If Taussig was senior command grade officer aboard, he still gets credit by tradition, regardless who actually conned her. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Is/was an ensign a command grade officer in the USN? Rumiton (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, no...but he was the only commissioned officer aboard, so the rest applies. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess I am feeling the quartermaster deserves a mention -- most people will serve all their lives at sea without being in a comparable situation. I'll make some changes to reflect the above sources. Hopefully they will meet with approval. Rumiton (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiment; my only objection to mentioning him is the same one as mentioning Dorie Miller: there were a lot of individually unusual & heroic actions that day, & we really don't have space, or need, to mention every single one of them. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I take your point, but his action still seems exceptional enough to me for inclusion. Have a look at the edit I made. If it seems overly pernickety it can be changed. Rumiton (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC) The other point I would make is that we are not mentioning the quartermaster by name, only by rating, and only as an example of the difficulties faced by many naval units that day, and how personnel responded to them. Rumiton (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I posted that before reading the page. :( No objection. I'd have said it much the same way. You've captured the intent & the severity of the situation nicely. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Rumiton (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead

We have The attack, and especially its surprise nature, were both factors which swayed U.S. public opinion from isolationism... I would say that after Pearl Harbor, support for isolationism disappeared completely, and in a moment. The statement as it stands seems too bland and even a bit weasely. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. IIRC, even dedicated isolationists like Lindy became patriots in a matter of hours. The trouble is how to capture the sentiment, without going POV or undue emphasis on one element (which is all isolationism is, & not deeply relevant to the attack as such), & there's been some past wrangling over it. If it's going to be changed, IMO, it needs real care. How about this?
"The attack, and especially its surprise nature, was a profound shock. Previous strong support for isolationism disappeared overnight. Germany's prompt declaration of war, unforced by any treaty commitment, made the United States a belligerent in the European Theater as well. Despite numerous historical precedents of unannounced military action, the lack of any formal statement by Japan, with negotiations still apparently ongoing, led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to proclaim it a date of infamy; this has also lead to it being characterized as a "sneak attack".
Points: too many "quicks" & "prompts" now, & I dislike long links. Also, I'm finding "U.S. belligerent" weaselly, since the U.S. was already an undeclared belligerent, but "bringing into active participation" is weak, & equally untrue, for the same reason. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that's pretty good, though agree about the "prompts". It certainly isn't easy to capture a multi-layered situation in a few words, but the change in domestic mood needs to be acknowledged. How about: "The surprise attack while negotiations were still apparently ongoing came as a profound shock to the American people, and Germany's declaration of war against the U.S. (which was not required by its treaty commitments) brought the country into active participation in the European Theater as well. Domestic support for isolationism, which had been strong, disappeared immediately. Despite numerous historical precedents for unannounced military action, the lack of any formal warning by Japan led to it being characterized as a "sneak attack", and to President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaiming it a date of infamy.
Very close. I'd only change to "unnanounced attack while...", "declaration of war (unforced by...)" (OK, maybe I'm being too literary; I like it ;D), "which had been strong, disappeared overnight" (It literally was that fast, IIRC; without a cite, maybe not), "Despite numerous historical precedents, lack of..." (Yeah, that leaves it a bit vague; Japan had a history of it, & she was far from alone. So, just what precedents, & by whom, & when...?). And the "active participation" is still hanging me up. I can't get a grip on it. "Brought the U.S. firmly (fully?) in support of Britain"? I know, still not ideal. And it implies more aid was going to Britain after the attack (which the conspiracy theorists have been arguing all along), when the truth is, less would be. •sigh• I may be trying to trim too much; it might need another phrase or two, & I just can't see it.
Without going OT, can we say (somewhere), "Germany's declaration enabled the U.S. to move from clandestine [short of war?] assistance to open and active support for Britain"? I'm thinking of the Neutrality Patrol & the "shoot on sight" order, neither exactly neutral. Or say "from a Britain-friendly neutrality"? That strikes me a bit POV. Both are liable to draw fire from people who don't know the subject, too, I'm afraid, & even that much risks getting OT for the attack itself. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:05, 17:11, & 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the attack was a shock, but it was by surprise while negotiating that led to "sneak" & "infamy"; that connection shouldn't be broken, IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wooh, it ain't easy, is it? I don't think it would have happened overnight, from my readings it happened while people were huddled around the radio. That is, immediately. How about: "The unannounced attack while negotiations were still apparently ongoing came as a profound shock to the American people, and Germany's declaration of war against the U.S. (which was not required by its treaty commitments) brought the country from clandestine support of Britain into active participation in the European Theater. Domestic support for isolationism, which had been strong, disappeared immediately. Despite numerous historical precedents for unannounced military action, the lack of any formal warning by Japan led to it being characterized as a "sneak attack", and to President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaiming it a date of infamy.
What did you mean by "sneak" & "infamy"; that connection shouldn't be broken? Rumiton (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • When I say "overnight", I'm thinking it wasn't only public opinion, it was Congress, too. And "overnight", in the context of a change of policy, is immediate, to my thinking. (Quibbling? Maybe.) I'd be happy with it, with one proviso (below), & just drop "immediately"; that seems to "hang", somehow: it's a bit abrupt, to my ear, where "overnight" is less...curt, & just saying "support for isolationism disappeared" is OK. (Mention Congress voted, what, 430-1 for war? At risk of going OT, again, tho.) I like "clandestine support"; "active participation" is still a bit weak, IMO (the U.S. was now a full ally, & actually able to keep promises FDR had privately made; I won't even try to say that in a few words, 'cause the more I think of it the more OT it seems to get), but I could live with it. Could be I'm trying to jam too much in the lead, here.
  • Proviso, & to answer: the rage aroused over unnanounced action is a product, IMO, of it coming with negotiations seemingly still in progress, & it's the seeming duplicity that's led to claims of "sneak attack". Breaking the connection between them, as we've done, is undermining the understanding of (in part) explaining why FDR called it infamous (not only unannounced, that is), & why it's considered sneaky 60 some years later, which IMO is a bad idea. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm feeling we are venturing into unsourced waters a little, though most of this is uncontroversial and self-evident. But if we had a source we could use their wording. Overnight sounds a little colloquial. I question whether a scholarly source would use that word. I have a slight problem with clandestine also, for its overtones (though only in one sense) of illegality or subterfuge. I need to think a little more about this. Rumiton (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I won't argue strongly for "overnight"; as noted, just drop "immediately", I'd be OK. Since it is "uncontroversial and self-evident" (well said), I don't think borrowing wording, or even citation, is strictly needed (tho I can just see it getting fact-tagged... :/ ). I don't see "clandestine" as an issue, myself (& my other choice, "covert", is a non-starter, for your reasons), but to be clear, FDR's actions were on the shady side for a neutral; both Neutrality Patrol & "shoot on sight" effectively made the U.S. an undeclared ally of Britain, with immunity from German attack as an ostensible neutral. I suspect this was because FDR hoped to provoke Hitler into doing something stupid, or hoped an incident like Reuben James or Kearny would get Congress of the dime & declare on Germany. It didn't work...but it wasn't exactly above-board & honest, either. It may also be it exceeded his powers as President; I'm much less clear just what the limits are, there, when it comes to what he can have AFUS do off his own bat, without any reference to Congress. And AFAI can tell, we're not anywhere we couldn't source if it got tagged; did you have a specific concern? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty happy with what we have arrived at. If you are too, I'll make the changes tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
One more pass:
"The attack came as a profound shock to the American people, and domestic support for isolationism, which had been strong, disappeared. Germany's ill-advised declaration of war (not required by any treaty commitment) moved the U.S. from clandestine support of Britain, such as the Neutrality Patrol, into active alliance and full participation in the European Theater. Despite numerous historical precedents for unannounced military action, the lack of any formal warning by Japan, coupled with it coming while negotiations were still apparently ongoing, led to it being characterized as a "sneak attack", and to President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaiming it a date of infamy.
Suit you? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:12 & 19:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a small problem with "coupled with it coming...ongoing" but the rest is fine. I'll try to do a minor rephrase and stick it in. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Well, I ended up doing a bit more than a minor rephrase. Please have a look. I tried to get it to flow a bit better with the surrounding prose. If you aren't happy with it, I will self-revert or we can discuss it point by point. Thanks for your patience and interest in the topic. Rumiton (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It only needs a bit of punctuation fixed. And I dislike long links... (Sorry, Bink ;p) Pleasure doing business with you, sir. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The pleasure is at least 50 per cent mine! Rumiton (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Why, thank you. As nitpicky as I was, however, I doubt it was 50%. ;p (With that, may I suggest we suspend the mutual admiration society? ;D) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Naah, naah, let's keep it going a while longer. It's seems to be such a bloody rare thing for Wikipedians to put the welfare of an article first and happily adjust their suggestions to suit. Mostly you see people trying to keep their immortal words in print at all cost. Let's keep the claps and bows coming for the rest of today, at least. Rumiton (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I just meant here. Seeing how this page is supposed to be for improving the article, not stroking egos. (Not that that's a bad thing. ;p) Don't think I wasn't trying to keep my immortal words in. (Ego, ego. I am a writer, after all. ;D) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical Fiction

This line is included at the end of the section (verbatim and italics are mine):

Medal of Honor Risig Sun is a first person shooter wich begins at Peral Harbor. Interetingly, it is posible for a player to single handedly shoot down more then twice the number of Japanese planes then were shot down in real life.

I do not know the procedure for editing the page and do not wish to walk all over protocol, so I am posting the correction here:

Medal of Honor Rising Sun is a first-person shooter which begins at Pearl Harbor. Interestingly, it is possible for a player to single-handedly shoot down more than twice the number of Japanese planes than were shot down in real life.

Although I am not sure the second sentence has any context to the general discussion here and perhaps should be confined to the page dedicated to the game.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.196.188.18 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Change made. Re the second sentence...the people will speak. (There is no page dedicated to the game.) Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Since calling Hitler's declaration of war what it was, a colossally stupid idea, would never pass NPOV muster, I prefer "ill-advised". This is, I think, a virtually universal viewpoint of historiographers today; since we aren't writing in 1941, IMO today's POV is the one to adopt. (This is something raised before on other points.) Moreover, since it is today so widely accepted, & since I daresay finding an opposing view would be akin to finding a serious historiographer who thinks Josef Mengele was only slightly less saintly than Albert Schweitzer, I don't think saying it was ill-advised is POV. I will, however, listen to reasoned argument. :) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Colleague. I have a small problem with "ill-advised". I'm not suggesting it wasn't a profoundly dumb act, but it wasn't really "advised" at all. It was a Fuhrerbefehl (leader command) like everything else in Germany at the time. Maybe there is another term that doesn't suggest debate or careful consideration. Rumiton (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, stranger. ;D I intended "advised" in the sense of "considered"; "ill-considered" would suit as well, seeing you're entirely right, it was one of Hitler's famous brainwaves. (The NASCAR guys call that "brain fade".) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Ill-considered is the phrase I was searching for and not finding. Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Naturally. ;D Absent protests, I'll change it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for Admiral name and causality statistic

I think that it might be a god idea to look into making these two corrections:

1. Admiral Hara Tadaichi name is actually spelled Admiral Hara Chuichi. I realize that Tadaichi may be an alternate spelling but when you click on the link of his name it says that he does not exist. In order to find him on Wikipedia you much type his name as Chuichi. Changing his name to this spelling would make it easier for readers to find more information about him if they so desire.

2. As the amount of causalities is so varied throughout sources, I recommend saying that "about 2,402 personnel were killed" as opposed to "2404 personnel were killed." It is better to make it an estimate for accuracy purposes.

Those are my two suggestions.

AOELLING (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In re Hara, as I recall, there were at least two different Admirals by that name. On the casualties, I believe 2404 is the official & accepted figure, which is why it's quoted. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Can I have the full name of two Haras? Oda Mari (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Should have done this sooner.... From Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biograpy (Castle, 1992, p.314): Hara Chuichi (1889-1964) & Hara Tameichi (b 1900). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Chuichi Hara and Tameichi Hara. But Tameichi was not an admiral, but a captain. Chuichi was a vice admiral, a rear admiral at the time of the attack. Hmm...which is correct? Oda Mari (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Objectives subsection

Disclaimer: I previously offered (some of) these edits, which were soon taken down; this time I feel obliged to explain my reasoning.

1) "Eastern Pacific": There is no commonly used place-name known as the "Eastern Pacific", although there is of course the eastern Pacific; note well, neither is correct for stating the venue of the US/Japanese Pacific War-->>wrong side of the ocean! I own to starting the confusion by trying to diminutize* the adjective in 'Far Eastern Pacific' to 'far-eastern Pacific'--not, perhaps, a good idea, and now abandoned, as edited. ((*Resolved: must-stop-'verbizing'-nouns!)).((Rvs: 'Objectives' and 'place-name', by--Jbeans (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC) ))

2) Conditional mood: >>leading the subsection, three parallel sentences report plans of the IJN high command for initiating war; IMO, all 3 sentences are best stated in the conditional mood, or at least intentional, as now edited. ((As a former career navy officer, I 'hope' never to see a military planner state his/her aim, or objective, as a "hoped to" or a "meant to".)) Even in the retrospective, the mood for reporting a military plan is best the 'conditional'; ie, on condition of success 'this objective' would be achieved.

3) "fleet": >>used generically, as here, doesn't imply or require a minimum number; it simply encompasses whatever-number-there-is of the like-objects named. Even if it names a specific object--((the sail club's J24 fleet))--its number of elements is whatever-it-is--no minimum required. ((here, the number might be 1, 2 or 22)).

Note: employing irony, the speaker/writer may even use 'one'--or even 'none' for the number of a fleet. ((Eg, I 'mal' remember a old naval aviator's ditty--he apparently composed it after his experience in the Pacific war. It (very) roughly aped the poem 'Ten Little Indians' and Agatha Christie's novel title, and commemorated the battles of the Coral Sea, Midway and Leyte Gulf. Here, except for the last line, I paraphrase:

>>On 7 December of '41, the 'Jap' (carrier) fleet counted ten

>>Comes 7 June of '42, after the Coral 'see' and 'Midway', it counted five

>>Then comes October '44; it was 'Leyte's day'

>>"Now the fleet was one; and then there were none".))

4) "...since carriers were still mainly regarded as scouting elements, much less important than battleships."; >>this phrase--as representing the attitude at high military levels--had lost its currency by the late '30s; certainly by 1940, when: 1) the U.S. Navy sought, and the Congress agreed to, the largest Navy procurement appropriation to date, authorizing 18 new aircraft carriers; these were intended for projecting naval air power, not for scouting. 2) More than a year before PH (November 1940) the British RAF achieved devastating effect by carrier-borne air attack at the Battle of Taranto (qv); 3) The Japanese were already there--in spirit--as was then well known; in strategic thinking, they were the first to commit to carriers to deliver decisive military attack. Yamamoto's vision of the attacking-power of aircraft carriers was a direct impetus to the attack on PH.

Finally, when a section is subdivided, it's a good thing that both (or all) subsections be titled.--Jbeans (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't claim any substantial expertise here, but I have a couple of observations.
  1. It seems to me that "eastern pacific" as a descriptive term is not disused. See this.
  2. Your quote from the article, "...since carriers were still mainly regarded as scouting elements, much less important than battleships.", caused me to look at that in context. The para from which it comes is unsupported, and seems to me that it may have WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS problems. Also, it seems to speak of the mindset of IJN commanders, not of USN or RN commanders. That para seems to argue that the IJN commanders held this view in the context of a situation in which those same commanders were using their own carrier force for strike operations rather than for scouting operations. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. The E/WPac may've been introduced error (& may've been mine, since I have a hell of a time telling E from W on a map; I always have to think twice... :( :( ).
  2. Conditional mood: if we were writing for mission planners, I might agree. We're not, & the general reader will see intention as "hoped for". I've come across this myself, where the writer says, "LOCs will be cut" & had to remind myself it's different for the specialist than the general reader (& I'm better informed here than the general reader). Using "would" is begging for rv IMO.
  3. Fleet: I have trouble with casual use of "fleet", so common among uninformed media weenies. Yes, it has a casual usage. It also has a formal meaning. The casual, in this context, is inappropriate IMO.
  4. Scouting. I'm damned if I can source it (tho Willmott suggests it IIRC), but the CVs were just scouting units at the time. It was the BBs that were the prizes. As for Japanese use of CVs, I'm not sure that proves anything. Notice, no BBs were in front; rather, they were being preserved for the expected (Mahanian) "decisive battle", just as doctrine, on both sides, had been expecting for going on 50yrs. Moreover, USN was still bound by treaty in some regard, so building more BBs was problematic; also, unless I'm mistaken, there was expected to be a substantial increase in BBs, too. (How many CVs would accompany a BatDiv?) Was the practise changing? Maybe; offhand, I can't say. Had it changed by 7 Dec 41? Not AFAIK. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is Jbeans, 10Apr; in reply to Wtmitchell:

>>1) (Re East vs West): Please, let's clarify, re the 'Pacific War': >>the 'eastern Pacific' is the wrong side of the world; this war was fought in the western Pacific, ie, on the 'Asia' side of the Pacific, not the 'Americas', or 'eastern', side of the ocean---see Pacific Ocean, paras 1 and 9. Our Wikipedia must not (continue to) report the war on the wrong side of the ocean!

(This area, including China, Japan, Indonesia, is popularly known---in western cultures---as the "Far East" (qv), (adjective= "Far Eastern"); hence "Far Eastern" Pacific is correct here; "eastern Pacific" is not.

>>2) (Re carriers for scouting): Apologies, but I'm a little confused about your point. Pls be aware I favor removing (actually, not accepting*) the phrase >>carriers used... only for scouting<<, because: 1)) it is not sourced; 2)) it cannot be sourced to the late pre-war period, 1939-'41, among the IJN, USN, or RN---'cause all 3 felt the opposite by that time; 3)) indeed, the phrase does report the mind set(s) of the IJN, the USN, or the RN, or all three;

Wtmitchell here, responding to Jbeans
>>1) I was reacting to the earlier comment snippet which said: There is no commonly used-place name known as the "Eastern Pacific". Thinking, "I'm sure I've heard that term used", I looked for and found a few examples. I may not have even looked at how the term was used in the article. Looking in the present article version, I see the term used, apparently correctly, in Attack on Pearl Harbor#Strategic implications. Also see Miller, Edward S.. War Plan Orange: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897-1945. Naval Institute Press; 2007. ISBN 9781591145004. p. 277], re naval strategic thinking in 1940-41 being that the Pacific fleet must not venture far to the west, where it could be mauled by Japan. Also see Marder, Arthur Jacob; Jacobsen, Mark; Horsfield, John. Old friends, new enemies: the Royal Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy. Oxford University Press; 1990. (148-9). ISBN 9780198226048., which makes the point that the British had accepted this American strategic posture for the Pacific and determined not to ask the Americans to help protect Singapore, Australia and India.
>>2) See e.g., Op. cit. Miller 2007, p. 348, saying that most U.S. strategic planners envisioned carriers staying near battleships for scouting, artillery direction, and air defense. My comments re the use of the term scouting re carriers in the article grew out of my reading that the article seems to be saying that Yamamoto decided to press on with the attack despite the absence of the U.S. carriers because he (Yamamoto) mainly regarded carriers as scouting elements, much less important than battleships. I find this difficult to swallow in the context of Yamamoto himself at the time being immersed in a carrier strike (vs. scouting) operation. Yamamoto clearly appreciated the strike potential of carriers, even if U.S. strategic planners did not at the time.
Again, I disclaim that I am no expert in this area. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Jbeans reply 12Apr: Thank you Wtmitchell; your commentary is very helpful. The links provided make relevant reading/supporting data---and great browsing; I agree with your point reductions of them---noting the narrative after Adm Taidaichi's quote reports, >the 'eastern' Pacific; >as opposed to the 'Eastern Pacific'.--Jbeans (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

4)) regardless of mind sets, the phrase is contrary to 'facts on the ground/ocean' (pls pardon!) at the time: indeed, as quoth thee: "IJN... commanders were using their own carrier force for strike operations rather than for scouting operations". So were the Brits; they had done so already by 1940---pls see Battle of Taranto, which apparently greatly impressed the Japanese high command; "The effect of the British carrier-launched aircraft on the Italian warships foreshadowed the end of the "big gun" ship and the rise of naval air-power".

And, by 1940 and '41, the USN was 'hustling like hades' to catch up---see the the 1940 Vinson-Walsh appropriations act; see Admiral Halsey and Admiral Nimitz---the arcs of their careers towards naval air power (not naval air scouting); see Admiral Ernest King, subsection 'Aviation'---ditto as to Halsey and Nimitz, only more so.

>>Don't miss the quote of King's thesis re the ignorance of the public in a democracy about preparing for---and understanding how to prevent---war; because, certainly there is nuance about this question; that is, I agree the American public before WWII had no real concept of naval aviation---carriers?, with 'planes landing on 'em?---and indeed thought of naval power largely as big battleships. Yamamoto (qv), (thought he) understood well this 'isolationist' American attitude, and relied upon it in his vision of demolishing Americans' morale and their 'stomach' for war. He thought a quick, devastating attack would squelch American resolve for war---away across the Pacific and in Japan's back yard---before it could be started.

It was this vision, apparently, that led him to gamble on not waiting for the American carrier fleet to return to PH before attacking; but there's no evidence (= source) that he believed the USN top-command intended carriers for scouting purposes rather than (as did he) for naval air-power. (*= the phrase was inserted only recently)(to be cont'd.)--Jbeans(talk) 10:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)(rev'd by Jbeans on 11 April).--Jbeans (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Our Wikipedia must not (continue to) report the war on the wrong side of the ocean" Disputative old cuss that I am, I am finding it extremely difficult to refute this part of your argument. Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
In light of your evidence, Jbeans, I'll not squabble over removing the CV scouting ref. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

>>This is Jbeans, 11Apr; in reply to TREKphiler:

>>First: Thank you, TREKphiler, and Rumiton: you both are generous. ((I may/may not be as disputative---certainly not wiser---but I concede to very likely being older; to explain, one of the most impressionable times of my life, was---workin'-my-way-'thru-collij' (early '60's), at a huge U.S. defense plant---I had the great honor and good-fortune, and educational experience, of working with and 'talking' with (= prompting) many veterans who "fought the 'big one'"; several---especially the 'army pilots' and 'navy aviators' (they kept that distinction between themselves)---were very articulate and willing to educate me about their experiences and theories--->esp. vs. the 'top brass'; >and esp. the 'army way' vs the 'navy way'---of fighting the war. Certainly now I wish I'd brought a tape-recorder---'cept in those days they came on wheels!))

>but, back to work ('tis a pleasure to be communicatin'---don't call it arguing---with you):

>>1 Re your 2. (conditional mood): You and I agree that we are not writing for mission planners; and we agree we are writing for the general reader ((..and I'm known as a 'bear' about 'readability'---achieving it, that is---in technical and report writing)). We don't agree that: "the general reader will see intention as "hoped for""; >>ie, I am confident that most readers will interpret 'intention'---in context here---as the primary meaning the dictionary offers: >>1. A course of action that one intends to follow. 2. a. An aim that guides action; an objective. see> Thefreedictionary.com; or, –noun 1.an act or instance of 'determining mentally upon' some action or 'result' (my emphasis). 2.the end or object intended; purpose. see> Dictionary.com.

But---when you think about it---our lack of agreement here doesn't actually matter. I mean, let the general reader interpret 'intention' as he/she will---we can't know what that is anyway. But, it's our responsibility to report it in the terminology of good English grammar---including 'good' choosing of: 1) verb tense, 2) verb mood, and a few other dozen opportunities to screw-up in writing the English. In our reporting---whether the planners are military or civilian, a scrum of ruggers, or Tom Sawyer---we should concede that (their) plans are/were seriously made for executing, and should not be re-interpreted as---or reported as---'hopes' or 'meaning to's.

Pls remember: we are writing here (for the most part) without sourcing; we must be careful not to re-interpret what some historical figure meant, should our report differ with the 'plain English' reporting of their word(s) or talk. (Eg, if someone can source that the Japanese war planners were 'hoping to' or 'meaning to', that would make a [big] difference).

It's actually a different matter, but it so happens that the appropriate 'verb mood' for the retrospective of planning/plans---ie, writing them or reporting them---is the 'conditional' mood; >>which is not an issue about interpreting the word 'intention'. Let's go with the 'good' English; ie, 'would' is 'good'!

>>2) Re your 3. (fleet; noun) Please explain what you mean by "casual", and by "formal", ie, (when you imply them) as a word-use categories for "fleet"; where do you source these word-use categories? (I looked in several dictionaries, and found none.)--Jbeans (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. I take there to be a difference between "would" & "hoped to". Maybe it's subtle, but I find "would" is stronger, with a sense of actual achievement not present in "hoped for". Since we are describing an objective, I find "would" too strong. Slightly, but too strong.
  2. "Casual" may not have been the right word. There's a technical usage in play which conflicts with the broad common usage. "A fleet of trucks" is not the same as fleet in defining ships; even the common "a fleet of ships" is not the same. "Fleet", in this context, has a narrow technical meaning not applicable to 3 CVs. The 3 were, IIRC, the Pacific Fleet (notice the usage) Scouting Force, or the core of same. (In the same vein is "naval aviator": it wasn't just USN/AAF insisting on a difference "between themselves", it's that in navies, "pilot" is a completely different, non-flying, job. Much the same as the pitter in an F-4 isn't a "pilot", regardless what news weenies say.)
  3. That said, maybe I'm being fussy. I do think it's important. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
♠In looking again at the comment re scouting CVs, I'm reminded there's much ink on how Yamamoto was such a CV booster & not in the grip of "gun line" doctrine. This IMO flies in the face of his extremely conventional deployments at Midway: BBs far in the rear, (expendable) CV scouts in front. Moreover, I'm far from sure a handful of senior sailors (even be they King & Nimitz, or Yamamoto) make for a change in doctrine. Was doctrine in the process of being changed? Perhaps; if anybody can source it, I'd be extremely interested, esp in the IJN case. (It might explain the contradiction over Yamamoto, for a start.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Jbeans reply 19Apr to TREKphiler: ("I do think it's important": TREKphiler);
I do too. Moreover, I suspect: it---ie, the sentiment "..it's important"---is probably the only quality held in common by all wiki-editors everywhere---even those thrill-seeking vandals! (but here's not to talk of them). Otherwise, diversity---of knowledge and opinion---is our community's main character; and the strength of its (community-mutual) method.
So, 'vat's my point?
'tis these: _1) Like thee & me, each one of our contributing editors---meaning those folk like you and me, and not the vandal---rightly believes, re the edit he/she is doin', >.."its important". (Even when not sourced---which is often---"it's important"!) "It's important" is what motivates each and every one of us to be here. So-o-o, that sentiment is extremely valuable to attract editors to assemble at Wikipedia and work for free! _2) But, because it's a common quality of all the editors present---good, not-so-good, well-meaning-apprentice, and vandal---it is of very little value for me, ie, to judge/defend the correctness of wording or content of any particular edit---including me, of 'mine'; 'specially if, it's not sourced. End of soapbox---and, lest you think otherwise of me---it is my privilege to work with you, yet another fine day!--Jbeans (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edits : From the above discussion/analyses of 4 items---and if I hear no further objections soon---I propose to edit 'Ojectives' subsection as follows:

1 Re (East v West): from current..>Finally, it was meant deliver a severe blow to American morale, one which would discourage Americans from committing to a war that would extending into the Western Pacific.

................................to revised...>Finally, it was meant deliver a severe blow to American morale, one which would discourage Americans from committing to a war that would extend to and across the Far Eastern Pacific, that is, the western Pacific

2 Re ("..carriers .. as scouting elements"):..from current phrase ...............to revised....> Delete entire phrase.

3 Re (conditional mood) and 4 Re (fleet): still under discussion/analysis.--Jbeans (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits per above, plus one typo; done--Jbeans (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Stinnett, Robert. Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (Free Press, 1999); Toland, John. Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (Berkley, 1986).
  2. ^ Flemming, Thomas (2001-06-10). "Pearl Harbor Hype". History News Network. Retrieved 2009-02-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ Stolley, Roger. "Pearl Harbor Attack No Surprise". Institute for Historical Review. Retrieved 2009-02-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ Prange, Goldstein & Dillon 1988, p. 58
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor/Archive_12&oldid=1136294545"