Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Minor revert war between Riventree and Beyond My Ken

First, Beyond my ken, I want to start by saying I completely respect your knowledge of this battle. Indeed, I see your name over and over again in the history of this article, including frequent reversions. That said, I know almost nothing about it. I was making grammatical/prose changes.

You reverted my revert of your revert of my change, but then put most of my changes back. What is the point in reverting someone's change if you're going to make (essentially) the same changes? Spite? I want to AGF, but I feel that you may be pushing etiquette here. If you don't like the "flavor" of someone else's changes, just make your own. Reverts cause hard feelings almost universally amongst editors. Also, there was no explanation on any of the talk pages for your first or second revert.

My difficulties with the original section were three:

  1. Imbued is NOT an appropriate term. Perhaps you are thinking of "suffused"? Rocks, wood, soups can be 'imbued' with another chemical substance. People are committed, enamored, attached, etc. To beat this point completely to death, if IJN had actually been "imbued" with someone's writings, they'd die from paper pulp in their bloodstream and internal organs. I'm only making this point because in your revert you said it was the right term. It wasn't a ridiculous metaphor, but it was a bad metaphor, and i fixed it.
  2. The conjunction "that" was inappropriate. It was, and after you reverted my change, you put it back.
  3. The entire deviation into IJN Command's opinion is a red herring - a path that goes nowhere and is not referred to in the rest of the article. It COULD arguably be deleted altogether.

I fixed each of these things in my first edit, then you reverted it. I fixed them again. Then you reverted it, and fixed them differently, except you re-added the bit on IJN.

Lastly, What IS your case for including the (eventually completely ignored) writings of some unrelated third party? Is it just wiki-SPAM to bolster his status? The big ships weren't there; Yamamoto attacked anyway. Paring the whole lot of it seems reasonable to me.

Perhaps I have taken these reverts too personally. Did you, too?

Riventree (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You may both have noticed I came in late. IMO, you may both be wrong. I can appreciate the desire for a particular sense in the reader; I don't see "enamored" as wrong in tone (tho I can appreciate how it might be seen to be), & I agree, "imbued" isn't right. "Suffused" comes close, but given IJN's conscious adoption of Mahan's theory, & a wholesale, almost blind adherence to it, to the exclusion of good sense & evidence (as appears to be the case), I'm not sure "suffused" is quite right, either... Is it a dead end? IMO, no: it helps explain why battleships were the prime target. That may need clarification or elucidation elsewhere on the page...but that risks getting into OT areas; maybe a link to an IJN doctrine page? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for putting your oar in, Trekphiler... it is my experience that the "uninvolved third party" usually has the clearest head. Please continue, if you like!
Riventree (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Rest assured, you'll have my two cents. Just don't ask me to hold you apart. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
"Enamored" means to like or love something (hence the root "amor" = "love"), and is generally used in a personal, or even sexual, sense, hence not in any way appropriate for this circumstance. The idea is that the IJN was so under the spell of Mahan's theories that they basically couldn't think outside of that limited box. "Suffused" ("gradually spread through or over, (as in) 'her cheeks were suffused with color'") isn't right either.
So, if I give up on "imbued", what's wrong with my latest suggestion "attached to"? Or the sentence could be re-written to say that they were "blinkered" or "blinded" by Mahan's theories.
I agree with Trekphiler that it's fundamental to understanding many of the errors made by the IJN during the war, and needs to stay in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I think trying to wordsmith a specific word in an awkward sentence is the wrong approach. Try re-arranging the sentence; something like Mahan's doctrine had become critical to IJN's strategy... or The strategies advocated by Mahan had become entrenched in the IJN's planning, ,... Tarl N. (discuss) 04:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Riventree (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Certainly we must tell the reader that the Japanese were firmly attached to Mahan's doctrine of decisive battle. Specifically, the Japanese were entrenched in their own version of the doctrine. They called it kantai kessen, and it was a critical factor in how they approached every aspect of the Pacific War. A modern historian, Rotem Kowner, talks about it on pages 122–23 of his book Historical Dictionary of the Russo-Japanese War. Writer John A. Adams also talks about it in his book If Mahan Ran the Great Pacific War: An Analysis of World War II Naval Strategy, which describes how the Japanese adopted the Mahan strategy but then made critically bad decisions which Mahan himself would not have endorsed, such as the paltry "concentration" of force that Japan sent to attack Pearl Harbor. Professor Sadao Asada writes in Culture Shock and Japanese-American Relations that the Japanese navy mirrored the Mahan strategy of the US as soon as its translation was published in Japan in 1896. The Mahan strategy served as a textbook in the IJN Academy through the 1940s, studied by every IJN officer who served in WWII. Asada describes how political arguments in the 1890s about which larger country would annex the old Kingdom of Hawaii was the first sparring between Japan and the US in what would much later become the Pacific War. Asada concludes on 81, "It is possible to argue that precisely because the Japanese and American navies shared the same Mahanian strategic doctrine—fixation with the battleship and obsession with the main fleet engagement—they pursued a collision course leading to Pearl Harbor."
We have already cited Wilmott in the article. I think we can cite others, and expand the text to summarize their thoughts. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

resolved

I just want to say that the current wording: 

IJN top command was attached to Admiral Mahan's "decisive battle" doctrine, especially that of destroying the maximum number of battleships. Despite these concerns, Yamamoto decided to press ahead.

suits me fine from a language perspective. Given the broad (informed, polite, and studied) support for keeping the Mahan reference in, I (as someone who knows little about the actual battle) definitely yield the point. Talk-pages discussions like this yield better articles. Unexplained reversions, quite the opposite.

I propose that this matter is now resolved. BMK: If you agree, please remove the question mark in the header. Riventree (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have done so. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Can I propose a minor change: from "attached" to "overly attached", or "fixated on"? There is a sense of being blindered at play here, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:30 & 22:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I like "fixated on" better, but "overly attached" works for me as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Characterization of the unannounced attack

   My father was in midshipman school in Chicago that morning, and his preceding confidence that he was already on his way to war further belies any notion that (regardless of anyone's expectation of the niceties of formal declarations) eventual belligerant status for US was at all in doubt. And i've reworded another of the former expressions that suggested naivety abt the future was widespread. (By the way, the number of battleships at "Pearl" should be a reminder that "non-belligerent" is a legal status rather than a state of mind.) And i think i replaced a one-word profession of US innocence with that in mind; see the edit history, which is easier for most of you to do than for me.
--Jerzy•t 10:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox edits

I changed the result parameter in the infobox. What do you guys think? I'm still questioning whether Nazi Germany should be listed as an Empire.. makes it more clean that way, though. KevinNinja (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

   Will it help you at all if someone translates "Deutsches Reich"?
--Jerzy•t 10:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2018

In the fourth paragraph of the "Diplomatic background" subsection, I recommend changing "a elite force" to "an elite force". Z3a1 (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 Dec. 2018

In the last paragraph of the First Wave Composition section it states that:

"(none of the Navy's 5"/38s, only a quarter of its machine guns, and only four of 31 Army batteries got in action).[90]"

However, according to the deck log of the USS Helm (DD-388), they expended 90 rounds of 5"/38 cal during the attack.

Source (in the "12-16" entry)

Roadkill6 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

McCollum memo

Why is there no mention of the McCollum memo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.26.82 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably because it had no role in the attack?
Generally, attempts to play up the memo are essentially conspiracy-theory mongering. For those of you wonder what's being talked about, see McCollum memo. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

American plans for preventive strikes

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Should there be mention of the American plans for preventive strikes against Japan in 1940-41? Claire Lee Chennault wanted to bomb military targets in Japan using bases in China. (DickDurbane (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC))

There was no serious consideration of such ideas among the American leadership. A very strong anti-interventionist streak ran through the US at the time. So I would say "no" per WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
well yes there was a major fully financed plan approved by FDR and put in operation for US planes under Chennault but with Chinese colors to bomb Japan. That was the purpose of the Flying Tigers -- see that article for details. There were many delays and the Tigers finally got in place shortly after Pearl Harbor. The standard scholarly history is Michael Schaller, "American Air Strategy in China, 1939-1941: The Origins of Clandestine Air Warfare." American Quarterly 28.1 (1976): 3-19. online which focuses on planning in Washington. Rjensen (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT still applies. Chennault's group was never in any position to deliver "preventive" strikes, whatever those would be. Instead, the Flying Tigers focused on smaller, tactical actions to help the Chinese resist Japanese invasion. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
the issue is prewar planning, and the US planned to heavily bomb Japanese cites. The B-29 heavy bombers designed (in 1943) to be based in China. See Operation Matterhorn. They did arrive but thse bases were captured by the J army, so the B-29s were moved to the Pacific in 1944. Delays yes, but they bombed Japan VERY heavily as per the 1940 plan. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC).

Article suggestion: News coverage of the attack on Pearl Harbor

I think there would be great benefit to an article on News coverage of the attack on Pearl Harbor. In the United States in particular, this was probably the biggest single news story in the history of the country, and almost all Americans who were then alive (and not small children) can remember when they heard the news. An article in the Wall Street Journal some years ago on the initial radio coverage might be a useful starting point, if someone is interested in writing the article; I could track down the WSJ story for any interested editors. John M Baker (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Exact time of attack, 8:18 a.m.; HI time zone = GMT -10

The article states: "The attack commenced at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time (18:18 GMT)"

AFAIK, HI does not have an offset of half an hour from 'exact integral' hours, and never has.

A major aspect of the timing of the entire event is that it was carried out 'just before' the Japanese ambassador delivered his country's ultimatum to the US government in Washington. (I believe the time delay is claimed as being 55 minutes late.)

Given the significance of the precise timing, shouldn't the commenced time be changed to 8:18 a.m. Hawaiian Time? 72.211.213.23 (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Bear in mind, Hawaii time has changed since 1941...& the time on the clocks at the time wasn't 8.18, it was 7.48, whatever it was GMT. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"Official" entry into WWII

An editor has been inserting "led to the United States' official entry into World War II." (my emphasis). While it is no secret that a lot of war-like activity had happened prior to December 7 in the Atlantic, the "official" emphasis reads oddly in what should be a straightforward declarative statement, loading the sentence with too much baggage for the lede. It kind of reads as if we were talking about Major League Baseball, and that there was some sort of "official" review board, rather than Congress's declaration of war. Acroterion (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Trekphiler's "formal" is much better. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
TYVM. IMO, the goal was the right one; the U.S. was informally (or unofficially) involved against U-boats for about a year, so this was a change de jure but not de facto. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that lots of things had been happening prior to December 7, almost all of them were in the Atlantic against Germany or via Lend-Lease - there was nothing in particular going on in the Pacific between Japan and the US apart from increasing tension, so I wouldn't want to add more emphasis to this particular article, which mostly concerns Japan and the Pacific, than "formal." Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
"Formal" is my preference. The main thing that the U.S. did prior was an , 1941–1945 Oil embargo, which was not an 'unofficial' or de facto act of war. As the aforementioned wikipedia article notes: "The loss of oil imports made it impossible for Japan to continue operations in China on a long term basis. It set the stage for Japan to launch a series of military attacks against the Allies, including the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with 7&6=thirteen Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor Attack preceded the Japanese Declaration of War

See Japanese declaration of war on the United States and the British Empire [1] The time zone/date differences are discussed there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't need lessons from you on the timezone & International Date Line issues. You need to get your facts straight if you think the Japanese declaration was on 7 December U.S. time, especially if you think it was only 2h after the attack. That was the 14-Part Message, which was decrypted by the U.S. & in Hull's hands before the Japanese had even finished decrypting it themselves. It was not a declaration of war, tho it's commonly treated as one. The actual declaration wasn't made public until it appeared in a Japanese newspaper the day after the attack, which, as I've (correctly) said is 9 December in Tokyo. Google it for yourself, but don't think I'm going to bother looking it up for you. (BTW, you know why it couldn't have been a declaration of war? Because IJN didn't tell the Foreign Office the attack was coming!) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:02 & 01:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Japan declares war, 1941
For what it's worth, a copy of the communique delivered to the secretary of state on the 7th, after the attack: [1]. It's notably different than the Imperial Rescript which declared war. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, the Wikipedia article on the declaration states it was published in Japan in the evening editions on the 8th (JST), which would be the morning of the 8th DC time, not the 9th. I have no idea whether the Wiki article on the declaration is correct, simply that said declaration was not delivered in DC at two hours after the attack. What did arrive in that timeframe is well-documented. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Prewar US plans to bomb Japan

There was no serious consideration of such ideas among the American leadership. A very strong anti-interventionist streak ran through the US at the time. So I would say "no" per WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

well yes there was a major fully financed plan approved by FDR and put in operation for US planes under Chennault but with Chinese colors to bomb Japan. That was the purpose of the Flying Tigers -- see that article for details. There were many delays and the Tigers finally got in place shortly after Pearl Harbor. The standard scholarly history is Michael Schaller, "American Air Strategy in China, 1939-1941: The Origins of Clandestine Air Warfare." American Quarterly 28.1 (1976): 3-19. online which focuses on planning in Washington. Rjensen (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT still applies. Chennault's group was never in any position to deliver "preventive" strikes, whatever those would be. Instead, the Flying Tigers focused on smaller, tactical actions to help the Chinese resist Japanese invasion. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
the issue is prewar planning, and the US before Pearl Harbor was setting up to heavily bomb Japanese cites. Light bombers did not work so the Air Force switched to the B-29 heavy bombers designed (in 1943) to be based in China. See Operation Matterhorn. They did arrive in China but those bases were captured by the J army, so the B-29s were moved to the Pacific in 1944. Delays yes, but they bombed Japan VERY heavily as per the 1940 plan.Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
There were proposals to bomb Japan with B-17s from the P.I., too. Does this bear on the attack? No. AFAIK, all the mooted cases depended on a state of war existing. (The irrationality of doing any of it is another page...) Any ROC-based attacks, like the AVG, would have (at least notionally) been under ROC command, so not strictly "American", either. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
bombing from Philippines was a potential threat. It was not ordered before Dec 7. Bombing from China was real and was ordered in early 1941 but shipping delays meant the first mission happened shortly after Dec 7. The ROC had no command authority over the mission--that was the agreement worked out in Washington with ROC. The US made all the decisions including painting the planes ROC colors. Please read the Michael Schalle article--it's a powerful eye opener by a leading specialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Are we setting WP:UNDUE emphasis on military plans? The military makes plans all the time for things that never happen. Among other things, I've seen plans for the U.S. to invade Canada and Mexico. The plans exist to live in file cabinets, until a command authority pulls them out to look at costs and consequences. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
♠ROC control or not, Undue or not, IMO it's irrelevant to this page, so fails for being so far off-point. Here, maybe.
♠On the issue of ops from ROC, I'll confess ignorance, so thanks to Rjensen for the link to that article (which I'll get around to reading sometime... ;p ) If it did go off, I have to ask if it would've been any more successful than the debacle of Matterhorn, which was about a US$1 billion ($2 billion?) waste of effort & money. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Reading the article was a big surprise to me when came out, so I'm happy to pass it around. If you need to copy, send me an email to rjensen@uic.edu Would it work?? No, it was too hard to defend the airbases on Chinese soil from the Japanese infantry, And it was astonishingly expensive to fly planes, crews, aviation fuel, spare parts, bombs etc. etc. all the way around the world, and then over the Himalayas. It was vastly easier to bomb Japan with the same b-29s from Saipan and Tinian area. Even that was very expensive, so the main goal of capturing Okinawa was to have a base for the huge number of B-17s now available after victory in Europe. The main lesson however is that the United States was deeply committed to whatever it took to defend China. There were plenty of isolationists back in the states who strongly opposed going to war in Europe, but they were either quiet or supportive of going to war against Japan on behalf of China. Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2019

The attack on Pearl Harbor was not unexpected. Roosevelt knew about, had done his best to cause it, so we would get into world war 2 because Japan was an ally of Germany, which he had been trying to provoke with attacks on ships, but Germany was ignoring it. Roosevelt refused any trade with Japan when they were struggling to keep up in the modern market of the time. Refusing to sell them metal and other needed materials. He froze all their assets in July 1941. Refused to sell them oil, made sure the Dutch would not sell them oil. He knew he was putting the Japanese in an untenable position and was forcing them to go to war. He knew they were coming, American Cryptographers had broken the code with Japan, and Roosevelt never let the commanders in Hawaii know. He didn't want them to prevent it. He risked and caused the death of American lives to manipulate this country into war.

This is important for people to be aware of because it makes 911 and the real facts more plausible, knowing that lives were expended callously and unnecessarily to make it possible to get the backing needed to get into war, and or increase military spending by the trillions.

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).}}

I have tried to remove this:

  • It is not longstanding content (if that matters). It has only been there for less than a year.
  • It is POV.
  • It is original research. The statement that "it would not have constituted either a formal break of diplomatic relations or a declaration of war" has no citation. It is an editor's interpretation of a primary source document.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

References

It's an opinion I've seen by historians writing about the events. The 14-part document did not constitute the declaration of war. The declaration of war was issued a day later (on 8 Dec), from Tokyo. I don't have any specific references available to cite at this time, I just wanted to mention that while it doesn't currently cite a reference, it's not a specific POV, it's the common interpretation of that document. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, give me a day or so and I'll have cites for this - it was definitely not a declaration of war, it just called off negotiations, not the same thing at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's start with Prange (1981) At Dawn We Slept, p.485: "This fourteenth part was not a formal declaration of war. It did not even rupture diplomatic relations. It merely broke off the discussions." It can't be more clearly stated than that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Which I've added to the article as a ref, which wasn't actually necessary, because it's not required to have a reference to support the plain and clear meaning of words such as "The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations," which is not the same thing as "...it is breaking off diplomatic relations," or "...a state of war exists between the American Government and the Empire of Japan." That's not "interpretation", that's simply reading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That's simply nonsense.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Salvage dispute

Whether or not this Wikipedia article is the place to detail salvage and enumerate salvaged ships or not the existing text in the dispute could perhaps use some polishing and better citing. I'm not that interested in editing the much churned waters of Pearl Harbor of that day and following months (been there, done that elsewhere) but here are some references useful in any salvage discussion.

Useful background:

Anyone wanting to enumerate the ships has the material in these. Palmeira (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I Think There is Another Reason

I think there might be another reason. The Flying Tigers/ AVG. They injured and killed around 200 of Japan's pilots, which i'm pretty sure would make Japan mad. It was most likely them being in a depression and not having many resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.205.153.87 (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to understand what you are saying. Do you mean that the reason that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor was not -- as all mainstream historians claim -- because it needed to put the US out of action as the only power that was capable of stopping the expansion of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, that it knew it had a limited amount of time to achieve its goals and needed the US out of the way, and instead the reason they attacked Pearl Harbor was because they were pissed-off that the Flying Tigers killed 200 Japanese pilots? Is that what you're trying to say? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Salvage Video Link

the video with the link is no longer available as the account with it was apparently deleted, I am not sure whether to delete or find a replacement or other source for the video. TheEditor1974 (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Major Japanese tactical victory

@Beyond My Ken:, you say This has been discussed to death, then you all were wrong. Check out the infobox:

Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".

@FDW777:, let's see what do you have to say. Beshogur (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What's a "major" victory? What's a "significant" victory"? What's a "decisive" victory? How is any of those quantifiably different from just a "victory"? There are no obvious answers to those questions, which is why Template:Infobox military conflict says the result field that this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" . . . Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". I'm currently ~10% (it was almost 1,500 when I started) into the cleanup of the incorrect uses of "decisive". While I'm not suggesting it applies to this article as much, the use of "decisive" or a similar word is a nationalist POV pushing minefield, everyone sees a battle they lost called a "decisive" victory for the opposition and so they go round adding "decisive" to any battles they won whether or not it was even a "decisive" victory to begin with. I believe "major" and "tactical" should be removed from this article, and if there are other articles using the terms they should be removed from those too. FDW777 (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, you are not willing to participate here. Beshogur (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • There's really nothing to discuss. Pearl Harbor was in every way, shape and form a major tactical victory for the Japanese, and a thousand and one citations can be brought up to support that contention. It was also a complete strategic disaster for them, since they didn't get the carriers that they needed to, and they overlooked the oil tanks. In terms of grand strategy, Yamamoto had it exactly correctly when he foretold that the attack would "wake up a sleeping giant." He know -- and we now know in hindsight -- that the Japanese needed a knock-out blow against the U.S., which they didn't get. Still, on a tactical level, not a strategic one, the attack was a victory.
    I believe, perhaps, that some people here don't really understand the difference between tactics, strategy and grand strategy. In any case, there is no consensus here for making the suggested change to the article, so it should remain as it is until there is one.
    Incidentally, I would have no objection to "strategic failure" being added to "Major Japanese tactical victory". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You don't understand, that's not what infobox template says. It says avoid such names. Beshogur (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
And you don't understand the difference between "avoid" and "don't". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
No I do. Read the infobox template again. Beshogur (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
What part of "do not" is difficult to understand? Two short easy to understand words, both of one syllable. FDW777 (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

“Major” and “tactical” are not comparable in their subjectivity, at all, and do not belong in a category together. Tactical has a clear standard definition in this context and adds meaningful information. The rule is misguided in its inclusion of ‘tactical’ along with problematically subjective terms like ‘major’ and ‘decisive’, and it should simply be changed. “Tactical victory and strategic failure” is NOT a contradiction at all, and to argue this makes it very clear the speaker does not know what those terms mean. Awiemken (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This came up on my watchlist this morning. I probably should not complicate the discussion/argument here, but another approach occurs to me. The docs at {{Infobox military conflict}} do contain the do not introduce [...] instruction quoted above. That is elaborated further there. It says in that elaboration: In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail. How how about introducing an article section named something like Overall results (the actual section name can be decided by further discussion/argument here) with subsections like Tactical results and Strategic results, and saying in the infobox to see that section? Googling around, I find some secondary source discussion at Carpenter, Ronald H. (2004). Rhetoric in Martial Deliberations and Decision Making: Cases and Consequences. Univ of South Carolina Press. pp. 139–144. ISBN 978-1-57003-555-5. There's no doubt lots more citeable materials elsewhere with differing viewpoints.
Feel free to ignore this suggestion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Wtmitchell While I can see how a "see article for more details" approach would be suitable for the battles of Corunna or Dunkirk, I don't think it's applicable to this case where the results are far more clear-cut. From the moment the attack on Pearl Harbor began, the Japanese navy dominated the battle and nearly all casualties during the battle were suffered by the Americans. Conversely, as has been noted, the Japanese failed in their overarching mission objective by missing the U.S. carriers and oil tanks. Thus, the overall results of the campaign can concisely and accurately be summed up as a "tactical victory; strategic failure". If the viewers need further detail why it should be categorized as such, footnotes can be added within the infobox to provide more context.Emiya1980 (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

To give my input, I believe the use of "Major Japanese tactical victory" to be warranted here. I would argue it was "major" as the operation was for the most part a success, achieving total operational surprise and the destruction or incapacitation of much of the intended military hardware. The operation was also unique in it's combination of size, operational area, secrecy, and use of naval aviation, which the Japanese managed successfully execute (in sync with simultaneous operations all over the Pacific and Asia). The use of "tactical" here is also warranted, as I would not call it a "defeat" for the Japanese, but likewise though wildly successful the operation ultimately failed to achieve it's complete strategic aims, a point which is emphasized by the inclusion of a qualifier such as "tactical victory". BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


Why use the term "major" when its the start of the war and in context it didnt give them territory. Indonesia was a major tactical victory.. it gave them so much. Its all relative, its just an overwhelming tactical victory, USA lost battleships ,etc Japan lost a few planes and midget subs.

It was a significant strategic victory to Japan. American's strategy was to remain neutral and to keep the fleet near to home for safety. They failed,right ? Japans strategy was to gain a short term advantage in capital ships. they did that right ? The loss of the battleships was a very important loss to the USA. What do you do with 8 battleships against 6 fleet carriers ? well you can send them out groups, eg pairs for eg 4 separate feints. When they determine where the japanese carriers are, some of them are sure to be in the clear for a real raid. The ones that attract carriers can continue to feint and lead them into a trap involving american fleet carriers. Or, for example, have them help out at other battles... The USA's kido butai could have been fleet carriers + battleships. That would have been meta. So it was strategic win for japan to ensure that the USA's capital ships was only carriers for that long...

The Guadacanal campaign featuring a dire lack of properly prepared USN capital ship taskforces, was a slaughter of american sailors. A tactical loss for USN overall, they scrape through and win strategically because of home ground advantage. Now imagine if the Pearl Harbour battleships were available, and there was even just a pair at Guadacanal stationed behind nets in some harbour at Guadacanal ? They could zoom out to chase down the ships used to attack Henderson field or to perform the Tokyo express supply route.

The Pearl Harbour attack was a strategic victory for the japanese, it delayed the presence of the battleships for years, and delayed their admirals and captains getting battleship experience from that time.... and it meant that the USN could not have a reasonable chance to hold an isolated position at night, which suited the IJN strategy of being night battle experts.

27.96.199.11 (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: @Beshogur: @FDW777: @Wtmitchell: @BUZZLIGHTYEAR99: @Emiya1980: @Awiemken: I see that this went on without every being resolved. It's been almost a year. Would anyone object, to removing the "discuss" tag, describing the outcome as a "Japanese Victory", followed by either or both "(See Aftermath) and/or bullet point(s) :
- "The United States enters World War II on the side of the Allies"
I would not take issue if a second bullet was added along the lines of
- "U.S. Pacific Fleet forced onto the defensive until mid 1942"
I am open to other suggestions.
It doesn't seem there's going to be much agreement as to the exact vocabulary of how to describe Japan's victory. Though I'm sure it's been used, I haven't found the description "Major Victory" in any other wiki battle articles I can think of, especially those related to the war in the pacific. I think just by expanding or improving the outcome and aftermath sections an editor can most accurately convey the battle's outcome, tactically and strategically.

OgamD218 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Creating the USN Seabee's

This article fails to mention the creation of the Seabee's! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4500:3C82:E57A:7A43:6826:C431 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

In what way is that relevant to an article about the attack on Pearl Harbor? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No real connection. The Seabee's rapid growth is due to the entry of USA into the world war 2 , and not due to why the USA entered the word war 2... well it slightly suggests that USN would be rather important that the attack on was USN capital ships, but given North America was a rather safe place to be ,hence USA was able to sit aside until them, it was always going to be that the USN would be rather important if and when the USA did get involved in WW2. 27.96.199.11 (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There is simply no need for this article to mention the Seabee's. OgamD218 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Number of Japanese Casualties

Under the Japanese Losses Section it currently says 55 Japanese airmen and 9 submariners (64 total) died in the attack. ANd it uses http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/PTO-Campaigns/USSBS-PTO-2.html#appendix3 as it's source.

I was curious about having found a few sources - one from the government - that list the Japanese casualties at 129. (https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/pearl-harbor-fact-sheet-1.pdf) and I was wondering if anyone had insight into the discrepancy. Thanks! Bkmays (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Errors in the figure caption of Pearlmap1

I think there are wrong information in the caption of Pearlmap1. G is Kahuku and H is Haleiwa. Can someone fix the errors? 203.247.175.23 (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!--TZubiri (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

US Causalties

The info box gives US casualties of 2,335 killed and 1,143 wounded, but the text of the article immediately below the info box states "2,403 Americans were killed and 1,178 others were wounded." Why the discrepancy? Are different sources being used? Someone should reconcile the contradiction. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

The first sentence is very long:

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise military strike by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service upon the United States against the naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, just before 08:00 a.m., on Sunday, December 7, 1941.

Could you split it and move the Japanese aviation a little bit?

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise military strike by the Imperial Japanese Navy upon the United States. Japanese aircraft attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, just before 08:00 a.m., on Sunday, December 7, 1941.

Thank you. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This change does not provide much benefit the sentence is not overly long. For me it makes the overall statement less clear. Terasail[✉️] 13:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

H. Hoover

Should Herbert Hoover's critical Freedom Betrayed be referenced? Kdammers (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Result

TAre far as I understand, there is widespread agreement among historians that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a tactical Japanense victory, as they caught the US comletely unaware and wrought significant destruction, but, at the same time, it was a strategic failure in the the carriers were not sunk, and the tank farm was not destroyed.

Given this, not allowing this into the infobox because of some WikiProject rule -- which by Wikipeddia policy cannot be binding, because WikiProjects do not own the articles under their purview -- is a disservice to the reader. It would be better to levae the field blank than to mislead the reader with an incomplete picture of the effect of the attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly this was only a pyrrhic victory for Japan, but I have trouble seeing how it could be called an American victory. The country experienced substantial losses, inflicted minimal destruction upon the enemy, and was drawn into a war that most people did not want. The mere fact that the United States did not experience as much of a disaster as it could have does not make it a victory. John M Baker (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I changed it to "Tactical Japanese victory but strategic Japanese failure". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, while i in fact agree with your policy of Wikiproject, hence my little participation since, i lamentably have to endure that policy before and it remains. Now going towards the important is who the attack itself was a total sucess based on what the japanese wanted, neutralization of the US battleline by 6 months approx. it cost the US dearly, and the Japanese indeed moves with relative freedom after the attack on Pearl Harbor. We must remember who Pearl Harbor was not the objective but a critical part in a broad operation aimed at taking Java, and other territories. The attack on Pearl Harbor was done while the IJN knew about the absence of carriers, and while the damage who they could have caused to the US by hitting a oilfields could in theory done more harm, the simply truth was who the Japanese never consider the fuel tanks, thus neither operational or strategic that can be considered a failure. "What it could have been?" is another question, they could have done better, as well as worse, but the victory still on the Japanese side. So much who Wake and Guam, as well as acording to MacArthur himself the Philipines were left to their fate as a direct consequence. It is important to remember who also both Husband Kimmel and Walter C Short were demoted from rank. (something who never happened in US history since) It is also noteworthy who amongst the historians the clasical narrative is a japanese victory, while some revisions can be made about if the Japanese could have done better, nobody (at least from the academic and military arena) made a serious claim who said otherwise. Also important to say who the USN remained at the defensive until the battle of Cape Esperance in octuber, and (if we follow the same criteria of it "could be better", vertainly "it wasn't a big deal", altought it was, unless we begun to add higher bars on the objectives who only are noted by many post-war (a bit tendecious) revisionism. The last point over the issue who i want to talk about is the fact of the US obtaining nothing positive from it, thus the "victory for the US" for not being mauled worst is another problem, because there are nothing who they achieve from this attack. Last this issue maybe is better to deal in the aftermath, analysis and evaluation section, rather than into the infobox. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
There's clearly not consensus to ignore MOS here - the status quo should remain until otherwise.Lostlegion (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I've protected the article to allow this discussion to continue without edit warring. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I should note that status quo was without Lostlegion's edits. I personally regard the edit as mistaken - the article is about the attack itself, which is unquestionably victory for Japan and defeat for the U.S. The analysis that it was a strategic mistake comes from post-facto knowledge of how the war came out. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
@User:Tarl_N but that is what I proposed, and indeed is the version that's be frozen - I was restoring the status quo version without the analysis. BMK's bold change was very recent, though not the last one before i reverted, the long term version has simply been Japanese victoryLostlegion (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Full protections always lead to articles being frozen at the wrong version. Lectonar (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Simultaneous attacks

Does anyone know the name of the Japanese plan for the coordinated attacks on Hawaii, Philippines, Guam, Wake, Singapore, Malaya, and Hong Kong? It seems like a topic worthy of its own article. I don't mind starting it, but I'm not sure what to call it, or how it should render in English. Google searches haven't helped me much, as most sources seem to be written from a U.S. point of view, mostly focused on Pearl Harbor (and occasionally Philippines). Canute (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism category

An editor is attempting to add Category:Anti-Americanism to this article.

There are many reasons that countries go to war with each other. While I'm sure there was a certain amount of anti-Americanism in Japan prior to WWII, it was not the essential reason for the attack on Peark Harbor. The United States stood in the way of Japan's planned expnsion in the Pacific, and the attack was therefore made for strategic and policy reasons, not because of anti-Americanism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

the article makes it sound like America caused the attack, not japans imperialists ambitions . i agree anti-americanism wasn’t tge prime cause, but now it has become the every thing is americas fault and other countries have no agency prejudice, often common on the left. almost as if a conservative made the first mistake and a leftist the second. what about the truth?! any history ww2 buffs? Shhsbavavaa (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
For you: T J J I A W A. Just a few spare capital letter I had lying around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Shhsbavavaa: Adding the article to the anti-Americanism category means that the subject of the article relates to anti-Americanism. As BMK says, there's no reason to think that anti-Americanism per se was the main reason for the attack.
If you think the article itself displays anti-Americanism, without getting into the merits of whether that's so, that's not a justification for the category. That's an NPOV dispute. See WP:DISPUTE for general guidance on how to handle those, WP:NPOV for the relevant policies. --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

i was referring to the tone and facts. making it appear as if japan was a victim of big bad america that pulled it into a war against its war. and the. we nuked them. not like they were part of the axis of evil with nazi Germany and were committing more war crimes than anyone on the planet at the time, torturing Chinese citizens etc. Shhsbavavaa (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Time frame

At three different points in the article we are told when the attack on Pearl Harbor began, but there's almost no other time information given in the entire article. When did the 2nd wave begin? When did the Japanese forces withdraw? When was Washington first informed of the attack? Nosferattus (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Surprise attack

It was indeed a surprise news for ordinary people but not the politicians of both countries (though one was a democracy other a dictatorship). Had Wendell Willkie won the 1940 US presidential elections which was tightly contested this escalation would have not occurred.

) 126.213.118.25 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor/Archive_17&oldid=1186578651"