Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. Many article issues have been discussed, and some settled as 'article policy'; all older discussion is archived. Editors are encouraged to review those archives before undertaking major article changes, as extensive discussion on consensus policies have been developed on many points.

"no drill" vs. "not drill"

This edit caught my eye. My first thought was "what the heck is a Beloite and Beloite?". I was unable to answer that question by looking in the article, Wor (surprisingly) by a bit of quick googling. Some more googling turned up

• [1] - "No Drill", but not quoting a message asserted to have been sent from the headquarters of Patrol Wing Two.
• [2], ""'This is no drill' were agreed-upon code words ..."; [3], "The navy messenger was carrying a penciled note ...".
• [4] - "NO DRILL is replaced by NOT DRILL" "at 7:58 ...", "at 8 AM ...".
• [5] "AIR RAID PEARL HARBoR THIS IS NO DRILL".
• [6] - "Enemy air raid, Pearl Harbor. This is not a drill."
• [7] (Full text of "Pearl Harbor attack : hearings before the Joint Committee on the investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress of the United States, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session, pursuant to S. Con. Res. 27, 79th Congress, a concurrent resolution authorizing an investigation of the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and events and circumstances relating thereto ..."), under PROCEEDINGS OF ROBERTS COMMISSION 1569, "Enemy Air Raid — Not Drill."

It appears that there were a number of messages sent and received variously, with some variations in wording; or perhaps I'm just confused. In any case, the article could probably deconfuse this better. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't name the book, but the duo are well-known historians who put years of study into the issue (yes, historians do this sometimes) & concluded "not", rather than "no", was the word actually sent. I came across this, IIRC, in Roscoe's history of USN sub ops. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• [8] - "AIRRAID ON PEARLHARBOR X THIS IS NO DRILL" - Photograph of the telegram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.88.131 (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Except, that's what was copied by the receiving operator, not (necessarily) what was sent by the originator, Bellinger.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Attack on the Phillipines

The section on the attack on the phillipines is improperly marked up. But I also don't think it even belongs in this article; the information should be moved to the article on the attack on the phillipines and the section in this article changed to a link there. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.68.15 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. It's too POV for his own page, never mind this one. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Japanese attacks on barracks killed additional personnel."

Uhh, whilst recognizing how sensitive this issue is to the American audience, is it not now accepted that most of these casualties were from American shells that in the haste of the battle were not properly fused, thus exploding on impact when they hit the ground? Old_Wombat (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nested parentheses

The lead currently starts with the text:

The attack on Pearl Harbor (called Hawaii Operation or Operation AI by the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters (Operation Z in planning) and the Battle of Pearl Harbor) was a...

Is it really necessary to have nested parentheses? This is confusing. —danhash (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the ref is to IGHQ's ID of it in planning, as opposed to an entirely separate case, it should stay. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian Time

...at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time[64] (3:18 a.m. December 8 Japanese Standard Time...

huh? 2:48? 3:48? certainly not 3:18! 66.105.218.10 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep. 07.55 Hawaii =03.25 Tokyo. (I've seen 03.23...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

07:55 Hawaii would be 14:55 Toyko plus 1 day check out timeanddate.com 205.172.16.87 (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Was that true in 1941...? Because I've seen the 03.23 time quoted in several places. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring possible summer times, Hawaii is GMT -10 hours (2 hours from dateline). Tokyo is GMT +9 hours (3 hours from dateline) so they are 5 hours apart. 07:55 in Hawaii is 02:55 in Tokyo. But there may well have been a half hour local time added, giving you your 03:25. Rumiton (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As said, is that now, or 1941? Because IIRC, the Hawaii local time then differed from now... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura}

That's now, but it couldn't have been more than 1 hour different. The shape of the world doesn't change that much. Rumiton (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I understood it was 30min diff, which would account for it. (IIRC, this was raised here some while ago.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

TREKphiler is correct. See these. [9], en translation (original page), en translation (original page), and the bottom of the page. See also. Hawaii-Aleutian Time Zone and UTC−10:30 Oda Mari (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

hi, i'm the poster who started this section, and all i can say is...WOW. i'm from oahu, but this is the FIRST i've ever heard of this 30 min offset! not a single one of my elder relatives has ever said "remember when we were 1/2 hr out of sync w the mainland...". nor do i recall any of my WWII/PH books pointing this out.

i think this should be clarified in the article. i'm willing to venture that precious few readers have ever heard of this earlier definition for HAST, and are dismissing one or the other of those attack times as a typo, same as i did.

many thanks to those who set me straight, esp Oda Mari!

btw, i took the liberty of changing section header, since the issue is not really on the Japan end. i hope this doesn't add to the confusion.... 66.105.218.16 (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Here are some references I've found online that support Hawaii being in a half-hour time zone in 1941:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

There are more, but I think that it's pretty obvious now that Hawaii WAS in a half-hour time zone in 1941. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah, i was already convinced above. i just think there should be a quickie explanation/parenthetical somewhere in the sentences in question, same as those articles felt it necessary. i'll defer to the masses, however, before changing anything.

also, isn't there any sort of official TERM to refer to these 2 diff definitions? seems clunky to keep saying "pre-47 HAST" and "modern HAST". not so much in the discussion here, but even on the Hawaii-Aleutian Time Zone page cited above. 66.105.218.11 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to confirm, this is from Prange At Dawn We Slept, p. 372: "Tokyo time was nineteen and a half hours ahead of the special U.S. military time zone for Hawaii, and fourteen hours ahead of Washington, D.C. Eastern Standard Time." Cla68 (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks like the solution to the clunks, too. It's not pre/post-'47, it's Hawaii Military Time, or something. Was there a term for that...? (Also, just for curiosity's sake, was Midway on it, too?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

New "additional reading" available.

The full text of the Congressional Investigation into the Attack on Pearl Harbor is now online at: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/

The "Magic" Background to Pearl Harbor is also available, in HTML and PDF: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/magic/

If you have any problem, please email me. (Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, it's my first day here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpanaPointer (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are great links, thx! And you're not wrong putting them here, tho, correctly formatted, they might also go on the article page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. By all means add them to the article page. You may find it helpful to click on the "Templates" menu that appears just above the edit window, and select "cite web". It's an exercise well worth going through yourself. --Yaush (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful Yaush. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Landfill!

I have a photo of them burying one of the midget subs in some seawall a few years later. Was this common practice? I find it odd to say the least!

And would it have been Sakamaki's? That is the only one the US had on its hands more-or-less intact, right?

Any online sources? The pic I have was in an old Vets' mag or the like, I forget. 66.105.218.11 (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not Sakamaki's. That one, "Ha-19" was taken back to the US and shown around the country to sell war bonds, and ended up in Key West, FL, after the war. It's currently on display at the Nimitz museum.

Spventi (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

turns out it was Day of Infamy where I saw it: http://books.google.com/books?id=4-1oRluqPtsC&pg=PA154-IA15&lpg=PA154-IA15&dq=%22midget+sub%22+filling+seawall&source=bl&ots=T7y3kPbbXy&sig=vrJyYbWaxsNOBCmXzUQ78FZL8BI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_38BT4iEE8aZgwfn57WRAg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22midget%20sub%22%20filling%20seawall&f=false

same sub diff pic: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h54000/h54302.jpg

i'm confused tho. they call this one Midget B -- distinguished from Midget A recently found by UHawaii. and Sakamaki's was Midget C, right?

in any case, Midget B went into a seawall...WITH CREW INSIDE! i'm still skeptical. 66.105.218.32 (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2012

...' Subsequent operations by the U.S. prompted Germany and Italy to declare war on the U.S. on December 11'... Roosevelt never asked Congress to declare war on Germany, but to recognise that a State of War existed between the US and Germany/Italy. This is a minor edit, but it would be inaccurate to leave it. 129.11.77.197 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A valid point. Since Germany & Italy have already declared war, tho, as I understand it, for Congress to recognize would be pro forma & not really needed for WP to mention. The important point is covered. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Present day memorials - additional

The Utah is the only other ship (other than the Arizona) that had loss of life and that still remains (partially submerged) at Pearl. There were several attempts to salvage her, but were unsuccessful. It remains as a tomb for those that died there. There are two memorials, one is on land, and the other is on the ship itself. There are several excellent websites that describe this "forgotten" ship and the present day memorials.76.235.181.211 (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2012

Under the section, "Niihau Inicident," the downed Zero pilot is incorrectly cited as Petty Officer Saikaijo. The pilot was Shigenori Nishikaichi. And the residents who helped him were Nisei--Japanese-Americans. The article also incorrectly states that one of the residents disappeared. She was sent to prison and moved to Kauai after she was released.

CURRENT TEXT The Zero flown by Petty Officer Saikaijo of Hiryu was damaged in the attack on Wheeler, and he flew to the rescue point on Niihau. The aircraft was further damaged on landing, and Saikaijo was helped from the wreckage by one of the native Hawaiian inhabitants. The island’s residents had no telephones or radio and were completely unaware of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The pilot’s maps and other documents had been retained by his local rescuers, and when Saikaijo realized this he enlisted the support of the only two Japanese residents of the island in an attempt to recover them. During the ensuing struggles, Saikaijo was killed, one of the Japanese residents committed suicide and the other disappeared. The ease with which the local Japanese residents apparently went to the assistance of Saikaijo was a source of concern for many, and tended to support those who believed that local Japanese could not be trusted.

REVISED TEXT The Zero flown by Petty Officer Shigenori Nishikaichi of Hiryu was damaged in the attack on Wheeler, and he flew to the rescue point on Niihau. The aircraft was further damaged on landing, and Saikaijo was helped from the wreckage by one of the native Hawaiian inhabitants. The island’s residents had no telephones or radio and were completely unaware of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The pilot’s maps and other documents had been retained by his local rescuers, and when Nishikaichi realized this he enlisted the support of two Japanese-American residents of the island in an attempt to recover them. During the ensuing struggles, Nishikaichi was killed, the resident committed suicide, and his wife was sent to prison. The ease with which the local ethnic Japanese residents apparently went to the assistance of Nishikaichi was a source of concern for many, and tended to support those who believed that local Japanese could not be trusted.

Douglas Shinsato, Translator/Publsiher of For That One Day: The Memoirs of Mitsuo Fuchida, Commander of the Attack on Pearl Harbor,"2011, pages 293-294.

Dshinsato (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Done, and thanks for an extremely good edit. Refs and everything! --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Refs and everything" I was of the understanding that self-published sources weren't reliable... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The book is listed at Amazon as being published by eXperience, inc. I can dredge up two such companies on Google; neither is an established publishing house. That said, the new version is consistent with Wikipedia's own article on the Niihau Incident and the sources there may be more reliable. --Yaush (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

USS Ward

The crew of the USS Ward claimed to have put a shot through the conning tower of a midget submarine at the entrance to Pearl Harbour. On the "History Channel" the submarine was located and proved to have a shell hole through the conning tower exactly as claimed.

It now appears that the USS Ward can claim to have fired the first US shot of WW2.AT Kunene (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the Ward fired these shots has never really been in dispute. Are you saying that the article disputes this somehow, because this isn't new information.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)