Talk:Consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kitaferd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peterwells99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lede

• 1. This is, in fact, a sub-article, and as such does not require a lede.
• 2. The suggested lede is POV.
• 3. In fact, the results of Pearl Harbor are factual, and do not depend on your POV, at least not so much that it needs to be emphasized at the top of the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-arrangement

I moved the tactical and strategic analysis to the bottom, as the initial part of the article deals with the direct reactions to the attack, whether it be declaration of war or investigation.

The major re-arrangement is necessarily, notice Cassin and Downes being mentioned in two separate instances for the same information. Also, notice how the Japanese strategy and "waking the sleeping giant" is mixed in with the material damage inflicted. GoldDragon (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes until a consensus is reached here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even look at the changes. GoldDragon (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer GoldDragon's version though it needs some removal of redundant information about targets not hit, such as carriers and base facilities. Actually, both versions need this treatment... I like how GoldDragon's tactical and strategic analyses are presented separately under subheadings but under the major heading "Analysis". The old heading "Impact" transmitted no clear idea about the mish-mash the section contained--it was trying to be a catch-all quick-study section akin to a lede section in a regular article.

The GoldDragon version introduces two reference errors following the out-of-place spelling of "favour" in describing Surigao Strait. The Morison and Howard refs need to have the complete books cited. Binksternet (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I support changes made by GoldDragon and echo Binksternet's comments concerning redundant information. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the tactical & strategic effects of a battle must precede the political & historical. Rearranging IMO gives undue weight to now, & not enough to the period response & its effects on the PacWar at large. I realize it's a fine balance tween people wanting to know the mod fx & those wanting what happened then; IMO, if you don't know, first, what fx were at the time, you lose some of why it's important now. (If you already do, scroll down, no prob.)
• I do like the tac/strategic breakout. Could it be done as 3 sections; Impact, subheaded tac, strategic, & political, then head "modern"? (Not necessarily that exact word...)
• Some redunancy could EZ be trimmed, & should be; it's a product of too many people working on individual pieces, rather than a whole page (& I count myself guilty there...). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's reaction to the attacks

I can find no serious source for the whole non-Aryan allies thing. All the sources I find say quote him as saying "It is now impossible for us to lose the war… We now have an ally who has never been vanquished in three thousand years.” The article cited in the footnotes seem to have made the other reaction up, all other references to it cite that site. 212.159.71.116 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

QE-class speed

By WWII none of the Queens, neither the rebuilts nor the others, could top 23 knots- not a significant difference from the US prewar fleet, and far too slow for carrier escorts. None of the WWI-era BBs had the speed save the Nagatos, and the battlecruisers. Solicitr (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Trusting Thomas

The "dubious" tag is wrong. The 40mm didn't have the explosive weight to stop kamikaze, & the 5"/38cal was too slow-firing. It took the 3"/70cal & its hi ROF. The trouble is, IDK where I saw it... Blue Skies & Blood? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

New Section

Most of the section Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor#perception of the attack today is actually on the reaction to the attack by the Japanese military commanders. Either that should be a new section, or it could possibly go in the section on Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor#Japanese views. J28 174.34.41.239 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading the Japanese views section as the immediate post-attack reasponse, so, no. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yamamoto's Quote

All - I am of the opinion that these lines:

He is rumored to have said, "I fear all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with terrible resolve". Even though this quote is unsubstantiated, the phrase seems to describe his feelings about the situation.

aren't scholarly. They're Hollywood hearsay. The section stands without them. I propose to delete. JMOprof (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt he thought something like it, but without sourcing he said it? Delete. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done JMOprof (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange Quote

I recently edited this page to "fix" a quote from a source that read, "One reporter later reported that 'Seven of the two ships sunk at Pearl Harbor have now rejoined the fleet'"; I changed it to read "Two of the seven," as I assumed that this was the actual quote and that a typo had been made. It has since been removed, but is visible here, at the end of the section. Since then, I managed to find the book that this quote cites, and the book does indeed state "Seven of the two." However, the author quoted that text from a master's thesis entitled, "From Blackout at Pearl Harbor to Spotlight on Tokyo Bay." So far I haven't figured out a way to get a hold of that thesis; WorldCat says it's held at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and a few others, so maybe somebody else can get access to it. Until then, I'm not sure whether that quote was mistyped in the book or the thesis; either way, best not to use it until we're sure, I suppose. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 01:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That quote is not important despite whether it is correct. Good to remove it. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor Attacked Without Warning?

The article states that Pearl Harbor was attacked without warning on Dec 7, 1941. What needs to be shown here instead is all the evidence that not only the Pacific Fleet, but Washington also had plenty of warning weeks in advance, but refused to act on these warnings plural. One widely held theory is that FDR allowed Pearl to be attacked to bring the United States into the World War with the American People's support behind it. 3000 US lives lost not too high a price to pay. This can be compared to George W. Bush allowing the Twin Towers to be attacked 9/11/2001 (similar nbr lives lost) to gain American People's support for waging a war in Iraq 2003. Erichansen1836 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but no. The Japanese attack was a complete surprise, perfectly successful. The few American leaders who guessed that the Japanese were preparing to strike thought that they would attack in the Philippines, which is why American bases were being beefed up at the time. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Similar to Bush allowing the attack, yes. They're both total fantasies of conspiracy loons. There's an entire page for the nutjobs to vent their views. Don't do it here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It was not a surprise attack. Japan had already declared war on the US. Declarations of war are obsolete anyway. (LoweRobinson (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

But the decoding and typing up of the declaration had to be done by high-level personnel with security clearance, and therefore took much longer then anticipated - so the declaration of war did not get to the US until after the attack. The clock starts ticking when the declaration is presented not when the decision is decided upon in Tokyo, so your point is invalid -- and it's also not one which is appropriate for this page, which is for discussing how to improve the article. No historical article is "improved" by falsifying history, or, for that matter, by the addition of lunatic fringe theories. For this reason any further discussion of this "issue" will be immediately hatted or archived. BMK (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's also completely untrue. The 14-Part Message, despite its repeatedly being described as such, wasn't a declaration of war. It was a declaration of an end to negotiations. The actual declaration wasn't presented until the next day. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. BMK (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

We now know there was a warning of the attack: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8932197/Pearl-Harbour-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html (DanDaileyFan (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC))

Hitler was right to declare war

Closing discussion by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I removed the sentence about Hitler making a "blunder" by declaring war - he had no choice as the US had dropped its neutral stance in March 1941 with Lend Lease and he needed to start sinking American ships that were bringing the supplies that had kept Britain in the war. (CharltonChiltern (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)) ♠It was a stupid thing to do, since it allowed the U.S. to actively & openly enter the war against Germany. Yes, the U.S. was (somewhat) covertly aiding Britain. Had Hitler simply ignored it, the U.S. would have been compelled to curtail shipments, in the name of supplying her own forces in the Pacific; FDR would never have been able to sell Congress on aid to Britain on the same scale with a war against Japan. Hitler knew that. ♠In the longer term, this was as good a chance as Hitler was going to get, & he planned to attack the U.S. eventually anyhow. However, that's getting into speculation on the effect of something that might have happened, & didn't... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Hitler should have declared war on the US in 1940 after the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. As the British Empire had declared war on Japan the US had already agreed to massively increase its supplies to the UK before the German declaration of war. Obviously Hitler needed to sink those ships. (CharltonChiltern (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)) Your personal views are not going to support any change to the article, which represents the literature on the topic. Historians generally think it was idiotic for Hitler to declare war on the USA. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

thousands of non-combatants

"...Japanese writers repeatedly contrast the thousands of U.S. non-combatants killed there with..."

Huh? There were thousands of non-combatants killed at Pearl Harbor? I don't see the reasoning behind this statement. Mark Froelich (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral nationals are non-combatants, and since Japan attacked the U.S. which was at peace with that nation at the time, it's reasonable why that sentence is there. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The US was not even pretending to be neutral after Lend-Lease began in March 1941, and as early as April US warships were firing on sight at Axis U-Boats in the Battle of the Atlantic. (DanDaileyFan (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC))

Context to American public opinion

I am looking to add a section discussing the general public opinion of the United States regarding World War II prior to Pearl Harbor. This will help provide more context in terms of the ramifications of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Some of the source information I will be using is listed below:

• Berinsky, Adam J., et al. “Revisiting Public Opinion in the 1930s and 1940s.” PS: Political Science & Politics, vol. 44, no. 03, 2011, pp. 515–520., doi:10.1017/s104909651100059x.
• Gallup Polling Questions 1940-41 http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm
• Berinsky, Adam J. “In Time of War.” 2009, doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226043463.001.0001.
• “American Isolationism in the 1930s.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/american-isolationism.

Peterwells99 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Carriers

The subsection "Carriers" has a passage where the author speculates on possible reasons for Nagumo failing to search and destroy the three US carriers. The author concludes that "Nagumo's hesitation, and failure to find and destroy the American carriers, may have been a product of his lack of faith in the attack plan, and of the fact he was a gunnery officer, not an aviator."

It is my opinion that this sentence is of such low quality that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. What the author thinks "may have been" is simply conjecture, and does not belong. Moreover, this conjecture ignores simple factual inconsistencies with the conclusion such as the fact that the attack plan did not call for a search for carriers if none were found. Also pointless is the author's deliberations on Nagumo's background and its influence in his decision, if such was a decision for Nagumo to make.

Similarly of low, low quality is the following sentence: " In addition, Yamamoto's targeting priorities, placing battleships first in importance, reflected an out-of-date Mahanian doctrine, and an inability to extrapolate from history, given the damage German submarines did to British trade in World War I" First of all, it is contrary to fact, as battleships were not above carriers in priority. Second, the author's conclusion that the target priority reflects "Mahanian doctrine" is baseless and quite frankly perplexing. Lastly, the final bit about German submarines is....what the hell is he/she even trying to say? That the choice not to go after submarines was the result of Yamamoto's inability to extrapolate from history?

Even for a format like wikipedia, where pretty much anything can be published, it is absolutely embarrassing that these two sentences have been allowed to stand. They should be summarily deleted.

Pensiveneko (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I deleted it.Work permit (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Mistakenly. It's not unsourced at all, if you'd noticed. Yamamoto's emphasis on battleships was at odds with reality in two wars. Doesn't reflect "Mahanian doctrine"? It most certainly does: Mahan was certain wars would be decided by gunline, not commerce war, & that was IJN's doctrine, that was the basic aim of the plan. Nagumo was a poor-quality officer with no experience in aviation, whence the reference to his background. Can it be proven that was causal? Maybe not. And if Nagumo didn't have orders to search for carriers, why didn't he? Because of the fixation on battleships. (Not to mention any officer with half a brain should've searched in any case, if carriers were the alleged top priority.) All of which is discussed in Wilmott, & Peattie & Evans, & Blair, & half a dozen other sources I've seen & can't recall the names of. Just because you don't know it doesn't make it untrue. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

My bad Work permit (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Churchill

It seems to me that Churchill's reaction was deeply emotional and spot-on. He knew at once that Pearl Harbor was a fatal blunder for the all the enemies of the British Empire. The relief in the quote is palpable. This quote is NOT from a primary source, but rather from a respected historian, Michael Fullilove, in his book of analysis of the European diplomacy of President Roosevelt. Fullilove's comments on this quote say, "Churchill understood immediately Pearl Harbor's significance...", the Fullilove prints the quote. Thus it is validated by an independent historian. Nick Beeson (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sturtivant":

• From Continuation War: Sturtivant, Ray (1990). British Naval Aviation: The Fleet Air Arm 1917–1990. London: Arms & Armour Press Ltd. p. 86. ISBN 0-85368-938-5.
• From Battle of Taranto: Sturtivant, Ray (1990). British naval aviation: the Fleet Air Arm 1917–1990. London: Arms & Armour Press. pp. 48–50. ISBN 0-85368-938-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)