Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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.

How does one reach the archives? user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Image caption

I personally have no idea whether the battleship being torpedoed in the image is the Oklahoma or the West Virginia but the image's page at Wikicommons looked more reliable since it at least had the correct number of Japanese planes in view. If that attribution is in error, though, kindly remember to change both pages (here and there) so people don't keep changing them back and forth. — LlywelynII 03:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Should this be expanded?

"Second, it was hoped to buy time for Japan to consolidate its position and increase its naval strength before shipbuilding authorized by the 1940 Vinson-Walsh Act erased any chance of victory"

I'm not sure this gives the reader any insight to the thinking behind this statement. Several sources put it (roughly) thus:

1. a fleet's operation effectiveness decreases with distance from its last major port of call, roughly 50% reduction for every 1500 miles (IIRC, but I'll be sure to find the correct number)
2. this meant that if every ship in the Japanese fleet attacked Pearl it would be 1/4 as effective as when it left
3. which gave them slight superiority in numbers
4. but would not if the ships of the Vinson-Walsh Act started arriving

Is this something that should be added, or would it cloud matters? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

My impulse is not to discuss range versus effectiveness. I don't see any reliable sources talking about that aspect as a factor in the Pearl Harbor planning.

In any case, the tempo of war was determined most directly by the Japanese Navy calculating that its oil supply would run dry in 1942–43. Certainly they were concerned with new American warships starting to be ready by late 1943 at the very soonest—1944 for the bulk—at which point Japan would no longer be able to force its wishes in the Western Pacific. Japan wanted to expand its empire into the so-called Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, but this could have been accomplished without attacking Pearl Harbor. What they really needed to do was grab oil fields and refineries, then protect them from counterattack. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That pretty much covers it. The battle Japan expected to fight wasn't going to be around Hawaii in any case: it would be off the Philippines or Okinawa, where range fell out of the calculation (& why Japan's ships were designed for short range to begin with). The issue of the Vinson Act was the sheer number of USN CVs & such IJN would have to cope with: sheer numerical inferiority in the "decisive battle zone". (The incapacity of Japan to defend the "barrier", which depended on IJN's ability to defend the convoys supplying the bases, & which IJN was incompetent to do, is another page. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"active" alliance ?

Shouldn't the word "active" best be represented by "an open alliance" as a "secret" or "clandestine" alliance is "active" but not in the open. Up to that time the US actions were not open or forthright so as to not alarm the opposition to US entry into any aspect of war.66.74.176.59 (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly clandestine assistance could be called "active" but the change in activity level was hundredfold after Pearl Harbor, so the difference is what is being emphasized, the quick shift to a massive level of active assistance. Binksternet (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Theater

The recent inclusion "Part of the American Theater and the Pacific Theater" with the comment "Since Hawaii was an incorporated territory of the U.S., it was considered part of American theater too." is worth a bit of discussion. While the later theaters were not yet defined on 7 December 1941 Hawaii was most definitely Pacific Theater once those definitions started to jell. One might almost say that in 1941 everything involving the U.S. entry into the war was "American theater" until the Combined Chiefs began dividing up responsibilities for command and logistics purposes. As for Hawaii's status, something similar might be said of the Philippines and Guam. If you look at contemporary sources you will quickly find Hawaii was "out there," an exotic place in the vast Pacific.

As for the technical definition of the to be defined theaters perhaps the most succinct is in the geographical limits stated in eligibility and application of the American Campaign Medal and Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal.

• American Campaign Medal: " The eastern boundary of the American Theater is from the North Pole, south along the 75th meridian west longitude to the 77th parallel north latitude, then southeast through Davis Strait to the intersection of the 40th parallel north latitude and the 35th meridian west longitude, then south along the meridian to the 10th parallel north latitude, then southeast to the intersection of the Equator and the 20th meridian west longitude, then south along the 20th meridian west longitude to the South Pole. The western boundary is from the North Pole, south along the 141st meridian west longitude to the east boundary of Alaska, then south and southeast along the Alaska boundary to the Pacific Ocean, then south along the 130th meridian to its intersection with the 30th parallel north latitude, then southeast to the intersection of the Equator and the 100th meridian west longitude to the South Pole. The American Theater included North America (excluding Alaska) and South America."

• Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal: "b. The eastern boundary of the Asiatic-Pacific Theater is from the North Pole, south along the 141st meridian west longitude to the east boundary of Alaska, then south and southeast along the Alaska boundary to the Pacific Ocean, then south along the 130th meridian to its intersection with the 30th parallel north latitude, then southeast to the intersection of the Equator and the 100th meridian west longitude, then to the South Pole. The western boundary of the Asiatic-Pacific Theater is from the North Pole south along the 60th meridian east longitude to its intersection with the east boundary of Iran, then south along the Iran boundary to the Gulf of Oman and the intersection of the 60th meridian east longitude, then south along the 60th meridian east longitude to the South Pole. The Asiatic-Pacific Theater included Alaska, Hawaii, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and all of Asia."

Note that Alaska is in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater; shattering our modern views of the mental view of those "far off places" in the minds of people focused on the 48 states—until that world war and movement of vast numbers of that population into the "far Pacific" began to change views. I would not get upset if "Part of the American Theater and the Pacific Theater" stayed, but it is both technically and, in view of the mental world view of 1941, not accurate. One might accurately say it was the events of December 1941 through 1945 that began to make Hawaii and Alaska parts of the United States in a way someone in January 1941 might not have imagined. Palmeira (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor

I'm observing a significant editing debate regarding US provocation of conflict leading up to war. Details added by Clarityfiend are being deleted by CJK. I have no opinion regarding validity of viewpoint as of yet but am observing for NPOV. LoveJapanChika (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got the wrong editor. I haven't added anything of significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• See Attack on Pearl Harbor: Difference between revisions LoveJapanChika (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The US wanted Japan to stop making war on China, pure and simple. Japan refused to stop. That's the meat of it. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Binksternet, Clarityfiend and I agreed that he'd been wrongly tagged and so the error was removed. Please be civil. You are entitled to your opinion and welcome to express it but you're clogging up the debate by reverting the corrections. LoveJapanChika (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see the agreement between you and Clarityfiend. The error was yours and it should remain on the talk page, per WP:REFACTOR, which says, "Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; an editor should take great care to preserve all such discussion and all relevant details to its context." I see your request that I "be civil" but I am left wondering what incivility of mine made you think that comment was necessary. The "clogging" of discussion is being done by yourself; there was no "significant editing debate" underway, and the editors you named were doing nothing that you said they were. Your post here is like Eris of Greek myth announcing her presence. In the United States, the idiom for a post like this is "shit stirrer" because the purpose is to cause trouble. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Third Wave

This section concerning the third wave should either be deleted in it's entirety, or reduced to a minor mention for what it is much as the "Advanced Knowledge Conspiracy" was earlier in the article. There never was a third wave, planned, aborted, suggested, or otherwise.

There were no "several Officers to include Fuchida and Genda". Genda has flat out denied it. Even though the section has multiple sources, those are not the true sources, the source's sources all stem from one SINGLE POINT OF REFERENCE. Mitsuo Fuchida himself, and it has been proven that Fuchida lied about the 3rd wave, Lied about a great deal of his military record in fact.

References

Cg23sailor (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Support, based on Parshall's analysis of the question. --Yaush (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Fuchida's honesty has been called into question on several critical points including this one. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

pearl harbor bombing

A U.S. Army private who noticed the large flight of planes on his radar screen was told to ignore them because a flight of B-17s from the continental U.S. was expected at the time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.172.178 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's already covered at some length in the article. --Yaush (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction: Japanese pre-war options

This sounds illogical:

"On 17 August, Roosevelt warned Japan that the U.S. was prepared to take steps against Japan if it 'attacked "neighboring countries".[35] The Japanese were faced with the option of either withdrawing from China and losing face or seizing and securing new sources of raw materials in the resource-rich, European-controlled colonies of Southeast Asia."

If we take the first sentence literally, then it means Japan would have had the third option of keeping its conquests without expanding further. The second sentence however contradicts by stating that Japan could only attack or withdraw.

This is the most crucial passage in the article and should be clarified. (The Japanese decision heralds the outcome of World War II. With the USA being dragged in, the Allies could hardly lose. Thanks, Yanks.).

Perhaps the author means:

"On 17 August, Roosevelt warned Japan that the U.S. was prepared to take steps against Japan if it attacked or continued occupying "neighboring countries".[35] The Japanese were faced with the option of either withdrawing from China and losing face or seizing and securing new sources of raw materials in the resource-rich, European-controlled colonies of Southeast Asia."

Happy New Year 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.61 (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That does need fixing, but the state of play was, the U.S. had essentially accepted Japan's occupation of Manchuria (if not the rest of China). It was Indochina, DEI, & elsewhere that was of concern. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Can this sentence be removed?

Not only is it weaselly, but it's too strong a stance to be in the lede: "However, this advance-knowledge conspiracy theory is rejected by mainstream historians." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Weaslly"? It's nothing of the kind; in fact, mainstream historiography should be mocking it as a fantasy. "Too strong"? IMO, not nearly strong enough for this garbage. So, no, it should stay just where & how it is. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The statement is well-sourced and therefore cannot be regarded as "weaselly." It is an accurate statement of the mainstream view, except that it may actually be too weak; the mainstream does not merely reject the theory, but rejects it contemptuously. --Yaush (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor is trolling... his last ten comments on talk pages are worthless nonsense. He should be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you warned him about an earlier edit and he has not desisted. Block away. --Yaush (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Serves me right falling for a troll. :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there any chance of links to the contemptuous, or emphatic/sound/scholarly refutation of the advance-knowledge theory? Oops, sorry, I see that there are such links, and even a wikipedia page on the theory! Thank you!--Timtak (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2015

Hawaii was not a state at the time of the bombing. 50.205.134.10 (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Even though your request was somewhat mis-written (according to the requested format of "Change x to y"), I thought it made sense to delineate that Hawaii was not a state at the time but rather a Territory of the United States. Shearonink (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Common time for events

G. Hermon Gill in Royal Australian Navy 1939-1942, volume 1, chapter 14, begins by reducing the times for the Japanese attacks to Eastern Australian Time, 8 December. It is one of the better examples I've seen resolving the issue of time zones, including the International Date line and its 7/8 December problem. On 8 December Eastern Australian Time events begin with actual Japanese landings at Kota Bharu (See Disaster in the Far East 1940-1942 page 196 for timed events there). Gill's table showing hours reduced to that common time of the morning of 8 December in Melbourne is helpful:

• Kota Bharu—3.5
• Pearl Harbour—4.25
• Philippines—8
• Guam—8.27
• Hong Kong—10
• Wake Island—10

Included in that work is a chart showing submarine probes as far south as Fiji and Samoa. Palmeira (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Tactical victory not enough

i think that the sentence "japanese tactical victory" is not enough. after all, the blow to the u.s. pacific navy, although substantial, was far from devastating. "japanese strategic failure" should be added. note this data of what percentage of the fleet was lost: http://www.ourcuriousworld.com/PearlHarbor.htm

Spear666 (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Danelek's website is interesting but he's not known as an expert on the topic. We have plenty of respected experts to cite, so Danelek is not needed. Binksternet (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

He's not wrong. I don't have Morrison in front of me, but if you want a cite for it, that's where I'd go. (I'd cite him just for calling it "strategic imbecility", myself. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2015

Military historians have suggested the destruction of these would have hampered the U.S. Pacific Fleet far more seriously than loss of its battleships.[100]

Military historians have suggested the destruction of these would have hampered the U.S. Pacific Fleet far more seriously than [the] loss of its battleships.[100] Tubnotub1 (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Surprise

Should the attack be called a "surprise military strike" given that the USA had actual prior warning of the attack?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, this issue has been discussed multiple times. The USA thought that Japan might go to war in the South Pacific, which did happen, but not in Hawaii. It was a completely successful surprise attack. Binksternet (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The only people who really believe there was "actual prior warning" are conspiracy nuts & people who don't know what they're talking about, so "surprise" is accurate. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Germany and Italy Declare War

If you spend some time perusing the Yale Legal library's collection of State Department papers, one of the interesting things you'll find is that, contrary to what is commonly stated---and contrary to what is stated here---Germany did not declare war on the United States.

You should really get the source materials from Yale---I believe they are online---but the gist of it is that the German Government passed the American Government a note which stated that the United States of America was waging what amounted to open war against German Armed forces, particularly German naval forces, despite its legal status as a Neutral. Having made this cogent point, the German government gave notice that unless the United States ceased this conduct, the German government would consider that a state of war existed between the two countries. The American diplomat was a hard-line Interventionist, and when he went out to brief the press on his meeting with the German diplomats, he simply stated that Germany had declared war on the United States, which it had not.

I've done a rather bad job summing up; please get the Yale documents and read them.

I believe this is an important point, because while the moral imperatives of destroying Nazism are inarguable, they were at that time unknown; the United States was opposed to German hegemony on the European mainland because it was contrary to the United States' economic and security interests. The United States decision to aid Great Britain was political, not moral. And characterising the German note as a Declaration of War is to perpetrate a falsehood.

The closer we hew our history to the events themselves, the better we serve those who use history. While ultimately the Germans were (foolishly) happy to go to war with the United States, it remains true that an American statesman deliberately mis-characterised an important diplomatic document, in order to facilitate a political decision that would otherwise have been very difficult.

I believe that the United States participation in the destruction of Nazism was right and just. But that, of itself, is separate from the question of the means by which that participation was obtained.

Ranya (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The Yale site does include the text of Ribbentrop's note, and the last paragraph states:

"The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America."

That's fairly unambiguous.

The term "these circumstances" is the rationale for the declaration of war, including complaints that the US had violated it's neutral status repeatedly (which it arguably had in support of Britain). The note also states Germany honored its obligations to international law and had not attacked US property (which is demonstrably false; the merchant marine ships were being attacked by Germany long before 1941).

The declaration of open war came from Germany. 71.160.33.132 (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

WP really isn't in the business of deciding who declared war on whom; the sources all say Germany declared war. Whether the U.S. violated her neutrality before Germany started shooting USN-escorted merchantmen is a valid point, & IDK the answer; it doesn't change what the sources say (tho it would merit mention), along with the above point. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Battle Ships still sunk in the harbor

I would like to suggest that the statement "All but the Arizona were raised" to be in accurate. I know for a fact that the Utah is still on the bottom. I believe that the Utah was at the end of her life and being readied to be used as a target vessel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.9.134 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove Original Work about Influence of Mahan on Target Selection

The article argues that Mahan's influence led to the Japanese decision to focus on battleships. This argument is unsupported by a source and thus is an original interpretation. It should be removed. 100.2.134.30 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath: why nothing about effect on commanding officers?

The article's aftermath section says nothing about the Army & Navy commanding officers (Kimmel and Short), both of whom were reduced in rank after the attack. Both of them have articles on Wikipedia, which it seems ought to be linked to from here. T-bonham (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2015

Closing discussion. Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The German attack on France should be changed to the Fall of France, since France and Germany were bombing each other prior to the invasion in May 1940. Fghf12 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC) The Braumoeller paper in question (available here if the Wiley link doesn't work for anyone) states that "The events of May and June 1940, especially the surrender of France on June 22, produced a drastic change in American perceptions of the European balance". As such, I'm inclined to accept this request. Any other thoughts? /wia /tlk 19:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Support. The fall of France, not the mere fact of war between France and Germany, was the shock for the U.S. that drove it towards a more internationalist policy. --Yaush (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Support AIUI, before that it was a sense of, "just the usual European in-fighting". TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Done Stickee (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a war crime

Closing discussion. Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lede should mention the attack would not be considered a war crime today, as the United Nations Charter made declarations of war obsolete after 1945. (Fghf12 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)) I'm unaware of the UN Charter authorizing unannounced attacks by one nation against another. At a minimum, an actual cite would be necessary. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Declarations of war were not considered obsolete during WWII, when the United States declared war on Japan and the UN authorized war crimes trials. War crimes trials are still held for undeclared wars. TFD (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC) The attack on Pearl Harbor was not considered a war crime. It was Japan waging an "aggressive" war that was considered a war crime. The attack on Pearl Harbor was just part of that. In any case, countries are no longer required to declare war. The United States did not declare war before invading Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact we haven't declared war on anyone since 1942. The attack on Pearl Harbor would not be a problem today as Japan would not be expected to declare war first - or at all. (Fghf12 (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

Time Pearl Harbor was attacked

Why does wikipedia say Pearl Harbor was attacked at 7:48 AM Hawaii time when everyone else says 7:55? Also do you know where I could find info on when Hawaii changed from a half hour time zone to full hour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EB00:4C00:C554:F9D0:62C1:6FEA (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say "Pearl Harbor" was attacked at 07.48. It says, correctly, Kaneohe was. The first bombs fell on the harbor proper at 07.55. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was the sixth most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 627,670 views for the week December 6 to 12, 2015. The article made the Top 25 last year with 362,669 views on the corresponding week. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Results section

Closing discussion. Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It should be mentioned that the US declared war on Germany and Italy. (Fghf12 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)) Except that Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. first. Though the attack on Pearl Harbor certainly had somethign to do with it. --Yaush (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Agreed. Saying the U.S. declared is a trifle misleading, if technically true. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC) We could have just ignored the German and Italian declarations, just as we could have ignored the Zimmermann Telegram in 1917. (Fghf12 (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)) Really? What country ignores a declaration of war? Ever? The Zimmermann Telegram wasn't a declaration of war. If you don't know the difference... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC) We could have said we had no interest in helping Britain and France maintain their empires and ignored the German and Italian declarations. Hitler and Mussolini declared war because we were not neutral - in fact we had been helping the UK since the very beginning. (Fghf12 (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)) And I repeat, what country ignores a declaration of war? Ever? It would have been political suicide, even had FDR not being doing his damnedest to give all the aid to Britain he could short of war. Why would Congress ignore it? You haven't explained how, or why, it's remotely rational for the U.S. to treat countries who consider themselves at war with her to ignore that. AFAICT, it isn't. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC) People needed to ask why Germany and Italy had declared war. (LoweRobinson (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)) Germany declared war either because Hitler was a master of strategic vision, having declared war on the Soviet Union June 1941 and saying "We can’t lose the war at all. We now have an ally which has never been conquered in 3,000 years"; or because with Italy, Germany declared war because the three were signatories to the Tripartite Pact user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 14:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Stalin was preparing to attack German forces in Eastern Europe by the beginning of 1943. Hitler had to launch Barbarossa as a pre-emptive strike before the USSR had rearmed sufficiently, otherwise it would have been too late. Hitler and Mussolini had to declare war on the United States because the US was keeping Britain in the war. Germany and Italy should have declared war on the US in March 1941 over Lend Lease. In any case war was inevitable - all limits on aid to Britain had already been removed when Churchill declared war on Japan, and it would have only been a short while until German U-Boats began sinking American ships carrying supplies to the UK - thus giving Roosevelt a casus belli to declare war on Germany. (LoweRobinson (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)) Actually, Hitler and Stalin had an extant non-aggression pact called the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, a side effect of which was Stalin's army purge. Stalin had no such plans, and killed his generals, but this being Wikipedia, you are free to edit Operation Barbarosa to reflect your views. There was nothing in the Tripartite Pact that required Italy and Germany to declare war on the US. Hitler, in June 41, attacking the USSR, and in Dec 41 declaring war on the US, doomed Germany. You can spark debate by asking which was the bigger blunder. Of note, Germany sank the Reuben James in Oct 41 with out any such nicety as a declaration of war. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 16:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC) The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was only a temporary measure designed to give both sides time to prepare for war. Documents released at the end of the Cold War show Stalin was planning for war against Germany. The United States was not neutral which is why Hitler and Mussolini correctly declared war. Germany never had any chance of winning World War II from the very beginning. Invading the Soviet Union and declaring war on the US were both pre-emptive strikes. Anyway the US would have declared war as soon as the German U-Boats began sinking hundreds of American ships. (LoweRobinson (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)) Russia and Germany were always planning for war. A common view was that splitting Poland made the capitals 200 miles closer together. All Hitler had to do was be happy with half of Poland, half of France, and half of Austria. If he'd of stopped there, he'd have won. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 17:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC) No he wouldn't because the British RAF began bombing Germany on 3rd September 1939 and the Royal Navy had imposed an economic blockade. And Stalin was going to invade German-controlled western Poland and the rest of eastern Europe in 1943. (LoweRobinson (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)) Stalin was going to attack Germany by 1944. (79.67.106.249 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)) That would need a citation. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 18:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC) That Stalin was preparing to attack German forces at some point is broadly accepted by all historians. Most however dismiss the theory that he was going to attack Germany in the summer of 1941 as Stalin would not have rearmed enough by that time. Hitler did not want to open a second front, he had no choice. See this article: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy (79.67.106.249 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)) The date 1944 does not appear anywhere in that article, and second, even if it did, WP:Circular prohibits using a wiki article as a reference. Looking for a reference that supports a 1944 attack. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 20:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Shock

Closing discussion. Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should the introduction mention the attack only came as a shock to the American public because people had not been told the truth about the likelihood of war with Japan? War was clearly imminent following the oil embargo. (Fghf12 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)) "War was clearly imminent following the oil embargo." Not at the time, or the U.S. would never have imposed it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Quite the assumption there, sir.128.193.252.169 (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC) It was quite obvious what the oil embargo was going to lead to. (Fghf12 (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)) "It was quite obvious what the oil embargo was going to lead to." Not at the time, or the U.S. would never have imposed it. It's obvious you don't know the goal was to deter Japan, not provoke a war. It's also obvious you think I'm as ignorant of it as you. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Many historians have argued the aim of the oil embargo was to provoke Japan into attacking. (LoweRobinson (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)) "Many historians have argued the aim of the oil embargo was to provoke Japan into attacking." Name one who doesn't also think FDR arranged the attack on Pearl Harbor. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a surprise attack

Closing discussion. Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Japan had already declared war on the United States. There was a delay in translating the declaration. (LoweRobinson (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)) Garbage. The 14-Point Message wasn't a declaration of war, despite it frequently being described as such, it was a declaration of an end to negotiations. Moreover, it wasn't delivered until about an hour after the attack began. Furthermore, the actual declaration of war wasn't delivered until the next day. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC) LoweRobinson was a sock of HarveyCarter. Now blocked. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Declarations of war were already obsolete by 1941

Block evasion by HarveryCarter. BMK (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hitler did not bother to declare war on the Soviet Union before invading, so Japan had no need to declare war on the United States before attacking its naval base in Hawaii. (79.67.111.162 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC))

The USS Arizona still leaks fuel.

The day before the attack, the USS Arizona took on a full load of fuel — nearly 1.5 million gallons. Much of that fuel helped ignite the explosion and subsequent fires that destroyed the ship, but -- amazingly -- some of that fuel continues to seep out of the wreckage. According to the History Channel, the Arizona "continues to spill up to 9 quarts of oil into the harbor each day" and visitors often say it is as if the ship were still bleeding.Iviaud1941 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)iviaud1941

Not really pertinent to this article. BMK (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Bombing of Pearl Harbor

The United States aircraft carriers, the primary target of the attack, were not at the base at the time Iviaud1941 (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)iviaud1941

Yes, that's well known, and is included in the article. BMK (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Crew Members

"Of the 1,177 crew members who died on the USS Arizona, there were 37 sets of brothers." Iviaud1941 (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)iviaud1941

Not a reliable source. --Yaush (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please use the 4 tildes to add your signature directly after the text of your comment, not two lines down, and do not write your name after it. BMK (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Oil embargo

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter

The introduction should mention the oil embargo, as that was what caused the attack. (GuntherTP (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)) Oh, really? It "caused" the attack? The Japanese desire to cripple it's only real competition in the Pacific had nothing to do with it? Or Japan's lack of natural resources? I'm curious, if the oil embargo "caused" the attack, what "caused" the oil embargo? BMK (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Request to change date from "Date December 7, 1941" to "Date Sunday, December 7, 1941"

I read that the attack happened on a Sunday in Flygirl, and I looked on my calendar app to verify that.2601:2C1:C003:EF7A:A1CB:CF40:7068:3225 (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't generally put days of the week on dates, but because of FDR's speech, and the fame of his phrasing, I could live with it. Let's see what others say. BMK (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think "Sunday" should appear in the article at least once, especially if we explain that the American military vigilance in Hawaii would be at its weakest on Sunday morning, a fact that was known to the Japanese. See this book which confirms. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A very good point. BMK (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Guns unmanned - mostly true

The article states that the defenders were very unprepared, "...guns unmanned (none of the Navy's 5"/38s, only a quarter of its machine guns, and only four of 31 Army batteries got in action)".

The log of USS Helm (DD-388) under '8 to 12' states "0805 Opened fire on airplanes with machine guns and 5" battery." Later that day there is an entry under '12 to 16' stating "1432 Secured from General Quarters. Set Condition II watch I. Ammunition expended during attack: 90 rounds 5"/38 cal; 350 rounds .50 cal."

So the article is mostly true, but technically incorrect as written and should be corrected. Who can suggest a good way to re-word it? This slight inaccuracy doesn't change the fundamental truth that the defenders were very unprepared, so it doesn't make sense to insert an entire paragraph, or even a sentence, discussing the fact that Helm got into action. How would "out of all of the Navy's anti-aircraft guns, only a quarter of its machine guns and only Helm's 5"/38s got in action, and only four of 31 Army batteries"

(For those who are interested, Helm was moving when the attack started, so had a full crew on board and a full watch on duty. They still had to chop down canvas awnings over the 5" guns and throw them over the side before the 5" guns could be used. Helm was also one of (probably several) ships to broadcast an attack warning; that isn't recorded in the log because the radioman had no orders to send it. I have both verbal and written confirmation of this from the radioman who sent it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudentoftheFuture (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the modification, but note that if Helm is specifically mentioned, you'll need a published source. If the log has been published, that's probably good (though we are normally cautious about primary sources.) "The radioman told me" is not a verifiable source. --Yaush (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

A mention can be made (if sourced) of the ship's action, but it does not change the fact that Pearl Harbor was almost entirely unprepared for an attack, the response of one ship notwithstanding. BMK (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attack on Pearl Harbor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles99/Nhrodgaard.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attack on Pearl Harbor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.destroyerhistory.org/goldplater/danfs373.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

New "Alternative History" reference

Someone with permission might add Pearl Harbor by Newt Gingrich, William R. Forstchen and Albert S. Hannser. Published by Martin's Press, Copyright 2007. ISBN 978-1-4299-2177-0

137.200.32.22 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Was it a surprise?

Sock of banned editor HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
War was expected between Japan and the United States by late 1941, especially after the economic embargo. (81.132.48.40 (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attack on Pearl Harbor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804231059/http://www.history.navy.mil/books/comint/ to http://www.history.navy.mil/books/comint/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed an obvious statement that is missing citation.

"The attack led to the United States' entry into World War II." I know this is obvious to everybody but can we add a few citations? I don't want this to be in dispute due to lack of citation. Thanks --ReidThePlumber (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It won't get disputed, and WP:OR says that material doesn't actually need to cited. If you want to add something, be my guest, but I don't think it needs to be done. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"Empire of Japan" vs. "Japan"

An editor seems intent on changing "Empire of Japan" to "Japan" in the infobox. What is the consensus here? BMK (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The article previously used the full name for both countries. I suggest we do that, or use the general name for both, which is also similar to how "Nazi Germany" the "Kingdom of Italy" are also simply called "Germany" and "Italy". EtherealGate (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

By "previously", you mean back in March? BMK (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not long ago, the article was also using the full name of the U.S. and the general name for Japan. EtherealGate (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Although more than one country is official called "United States of...", "United States" is universally understood to mean the United States of America, and does not need to be spelled out. It has also had the same form of government since 1786, and that continuity means that different names do not need to be used at different times.. Japan, on the other hand, has gone through many different types of rule, and at the time of WWII, it was the "Empire of Japan", hence using that is to be preferred over plain "Japan" which means different things at different times. BMK (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Both countries have gone through different periods (hence very light modification of flags for both countries). The name "Empire of Japan" was used from 1868–1947 (during which periods it was also allied with the U.S. during World War I, Russian Civil War, etc. and the name even lasted until after World War II). What I'm trying to say is that we should either use the full name for both, or the general name. We could easily say "Imperial Japan" which is also what it is commonly called during this period (along with simply Japan). "Nazi Germany" and the "Kingdom of Italy" are also simply called "Germany" and "Italy". They all the same country, not different ones like Prussia or Rome, hence we can use all the Axis powers' short / general names. EtherealGate (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I totally disagree, per my reasoning above, but now that we've both had our say, why don't we let other editors give their opinions and see if a consensus can come about? BMK (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Repeating "Empire of" throughout is redundant. But the first instance should probably include it, as it provides a useful bit of context, and fulfills WP:EGG for the link in such uses (it should link to Empire of Japan, not Japan). Myself, I think this applies to both the first use in the lede and the first use in the infobox, since which is technically "first" between these varies depending on the readers' displays. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. BMK (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to BMK's original post, EtherealGate's efforts appear to be tying modern-day Japan to what happened during the war, rather than pawning off the violence on the Empire of Japan. To that end, I would say Imperial Japan is both a correct and easy term instead of the clunky "Empire of" prefix. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"Empire of Japan" or "Imperial Japan", either works for me. BMK (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, 'Imperial Japan' is okay, and the current version is also okay. EtherealGate (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is unnecessarily splitting hairs. Changing to the full name (United States → United States of America) supposedly for the sake of 'balance' isn't really a solid reason. The US today is the same entity that it was during the war unlike the modern day State of Japan. So "Empire of Japan" is historically informative and consistent with other war articles covering empires. These recent edits are the only time I've ever seen the full US name used in the infobox, not just for WWII articles but any wars involving the US. Spellcast (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And yet "Nazi Germany" or (the 'German Reich') is called just "Germany" and the "Kingdom of Italy" called "Italy" despite those two being also being totally different states. Same goes for most of the states on the "Axis powers" article. EtherealGate (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above about splitting hairs. Why is the comment below being censored when it is well known that there were intercepted messages that pre-warn a Japanese attack on the USA. Then there was the lack of preparedness on the following day in the Philippines where the attack was more expected. After all these things are not unheard of. The US embargo raw materials and oil to Japan is a fact which in itself was a hostile act. Can these questions not be asked in Wikipedia talk section.

"A surprise attack by submarines, planes, possibly both, was a 'definite possibility,' they were told on 18 February. However, like most other people, neither Kimmel nor Walter Short expected the Japanese to attack at Pearl Harbor. They assumed that the enemy's first target would be far to the west. The crucial information that the Japanese consulate was sending Tokyo - details of the Pacific Fleet's moorings in Pearl Harbor in preparation for an attack - was denied to them".

"Since their deaths their families and friends have tried to clear their names on the grounds that Washington had not provided them with all the intelligence indicating an impending attack. On those grounds the US Congress exonerated the two men in 2001. They have subsequently been returned to the ranks they held before Pearl Harbor."

"Historians generally recognize that American forces would have fared poorly even if Husband Kimmel had reacted differently. In a 1964 interview Admiral Chester Nimitz, who took over as commander of the Pacific Fleet three weeks after the attack, concluded that "it was God's mercy that our fleet was in Pearl Harbor on December 7".[10] If Kimmel had "had advance notice that the Japanese were coming, he most probably would have tried to intercept them. With the difference in speed between Kimmel's battleships and the faster Japanese carriers, the former could not have come within rifle range of the enemy's flattops. As a result, we would have lost many ships in deep water and also thousands more in lives."[10] Instead, at Pearl Harbor, the crews were easily rescued, and six battleships ultimately raised.[11] This was also the assessment of Joseph Rochefort, head of Station HYPO, who remarked the attack was cheap at the price.[12]"

Robert Stinnett, a World War II U.S. Navy veteran makes the case that President Roosevelt wanted the Pearl Harbor attack to happen so public opinion would be aroused to support America's entry into the war. Kimmel and Short, he argued, were deliberately kept ignorant. The President and others, he asserted, knew of Japan's intent to attack Pearl Harbor and even the date and time. Kimmel, he argues, was given deceptive orders and denied resources such as access to MAGIC for the purpose of keeping him in the dark.[14] Most historians reject Stinnett's thesis.[15]"

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Husband_E._Kimmel https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Walter_Short http://ospreypearlharbor.com/debate/where-does-blame-lie.php https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Robert_Stinnett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.151.143 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Attack on Pearl Harbor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5rlwWYGMQ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.navy.mil%2Ffaqs%2Ffaq66-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a15/aylwin-iii.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/bb37usa/postattacksalvageI.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812144512/https://www.hawaiiinternment.org/history-of-internment to http://www.hawaiiinternment.org/history-of-internment
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5rlwWYGMQ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.navy.mil%2Ffaqs%2Ffaq66-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100217050639/https://libweb.hawaii.edu:80/digicoll/hwrd/HWRD_html/HWRD_welcome.htm to http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/hwrd/HWRD_html/HWRD_welcome.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Results section

Sock of banned editor HarveyrCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Japanese declarations of war on the United States and the British Empire on 8 December 1941 should be added to the results section: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire (KyleBradley (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

In 1941, timepieces were not as accurate and not as synchronized as we have come to expect today. Inside Pearl Harbor, the clock all ships and stations synchronized their timepieces to was the clock in the Navy Yard Signal Tower. This was normally done every day at morning colors at 0800. (before the attack) For a variety of reasons, there were still some time variations between different ships and commands. Even though the times are drawn from the best reports available, some of those reports were written days later and the times were estimated or rounded off. Some of the times can be brought into line with reasonable adjustments; but without a well founded reason to make an adjustment, the times as written stand as the best evidence and so must be relied upon. Readers should keep in mind that times listed here may still be off by a few minutes or perhaps by many minutes. In some cases, the time variances may be enough that the events could have happened in a different order.

To add to the confusion, until 1947 Hawaii's time zone was one of the world's odd half-hour time zones. This page lists the attack time of 0748 while history.com; historyplace.com; education.com; ushistory.com; eyewitnesshistory.com; and national geographic lists the time as 0755 which would also be 1:25 PM EST and 3:35 PM Japan time Dec 8.

Pberthoty (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pberthoty:  Not done The time of the attack is cited in the article to Gordon Prange's book. The websites you list are not nearly as reliable and we don't allow original research. We take the word of reliable secondary sources. While I follow your logic about timekeeping not necessarily being so accurate, I don't think your suggestion to change the time by seven minutes is significant enough to even consider. If those seven minutes made a difference or were materially incorrect I'd consider it but not only would it make no difference there's no evidence the attack didn't take place at 7:48am. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

American strategic victory?

It was a crushing American defeat. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:B0F8:F6B3:7992:94EB (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC))

I'm hoping the original author simply meant to somehow point to the inevitability of a future Japanese defeat by 'awakening the sleeping giant' (as opposed to having written it from bias) but yeah, that point is adequately addressed elsewhere in the article (and in any event, doesn't have any application to whether or not this was a Strategic_victory). By this logic, the Invasion of Poland, obviously listed on its Wikipedia page as a decisive German (and Soviet) victory, should really be considered a strategic Allied Victory, given the long-term consequences to Germany. This should really, really be changed. 69.165.153.140 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed. Good call, IPs. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Japan declared war first

The introduction should mention that Japan declared war on 7 December 1941, before the US declared war on Japan: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire. Also the attack wasn't really a surprise, war between the US and Japan was widely expected in late 1941. (81.147.181.163 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

edit request

"War between Japan and the United States had been a possibility of which each nation had been aware..."? Perhaps we type English...such as: "War between Japan and the United States had been a possibility that each nation had been aware of..."? Being an IP editor I cannot fix this. But if you like the article sounding as if English is the editors' third language..then you have succeeded. 97.123.64.14 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC) ♠♣♥♦ :D

Wasnt it the blockading of oil one of the major factors in Pearl Harbor Attack?

Wasn't it the blockade of oil to Japan a major factor in attacking Pearl Harbor? No mention of this "Oil Blockade" in article. 75 year has passed since this attack and wondering if more facts can finally be brought forth? Thank You! Eddson storms (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It was a factor. The article already mentions "The U.S. ceased oil exports to Japan in July 1941" in the section on diplomatic background. Calidum ¤ 05:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Japanese Embassy, Washington

Can someone please enlighten me. What happened to the Ambassador and staff of the Japanese Embassy in Washington and likewise the US Embassy in Japan. Were they allowed to leave via a neutral country, or were they interred? David J Johnson (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on the information at Joseph Grew, Kichisaburō Nomura and Saburō Kurusu, the American and Japanese ambassadors were each "interned" for several months after the outbreak of the war, though what is meant by interned isn't explained. In July 1942, they were swapped for each other along with about 1,000 others on both sides. Calidum ¤ 14:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2016

Ryansieber (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The Nomonhan incident as one of the causes of the attack on PH

I read this book by US historian Stuart D. Goldman, Nomonhan, 1939: Red Army's Victory That Changed the Course of World War Two. Goldman explains that this 1939 incident, in which the Soviet army defeated the Japanese in Mongolia, was an important factor in the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor. After the US and UK imposed an oil embargo on Japan in 1941, the Japanese had to choose between joining the Nazi attack on the USSR, as the Germans were urging them to do, or trying to seize the oil-rich Dutch East Indies. Many in the Japanese military wanted to attack the Soviets and avenge the defeat at Nomonhan, but the Japanese officer Masanobu Tsuji, who had helped to provoke the Nomonhan incident, was a strong proponent of an attack on the US. After the war he wrote that his experience with Soviet firepower at Nomonhan had persuaded them not to attack the USSR in 1941. According to Goldman, this makes the Nomonhan incident the most important battle of WW2 in the long run, because it helped the Soviets to avoid a two-front war, and made the Japanese pull the US into the war.

Shall we include this information to this page?

An article by Goldman that summarizes the book: http://thediplomat.com/2012/08/the-forgotten-soviet-japanese-war-of-1939/?allpages=yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavantiquity (talk • contribs) 13:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

On the top of this page is a statement about weight loss and how you will find help by reading this article. This is obviously something that should not be there. Joachim2464 (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing that out. An IP vandalized one of the campaign boxes meant for the side of the page. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

@ Beyond My Ken Er, might I ask under what circumstances you won't summarily revert edits? Do I have to append the WP to each one? Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict image – optional – an image for the warbox. The image must be given in the form [[File:Example.jpg|300px|alt=Example alt text]]; in particular, the thumb attribute must not be selected. The deprecated image criterion is a recent alteration, hence usage of image_size = 300px Keith-264 (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Look again, please, I did not "automatically revert" anything. I did revert those edits which did not improve the article. Many of your edits were untouched. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• [Edit conflict] "edits which did not improve the article" Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes? Apropos, there are two citations to Prange 1999 and a reference to Prange 1988; are they different or is 1999 [edit] a later edition? regardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Good question. I think those "1999"s should all be "1988"s, so I've changed them accordingly. If anyone knows that to be incorrect, feel free to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The citations still had red on so changed reference to cite book and used Prange's name as the anchor. I searched world cat and other resources for a 1999 publication and none showed up. could 1999 have been a typo for the 1989 edition? As above about a revert if anyone knows better.Keith-264 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find a 1999 edition either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For information, if you have a page like [[User:Keith-264/common.js]] and install importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); harv errors show up in red in the footnotes and gold in the references/bibliography. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Referencing and citation: criterion not met

Might I suggest that consensus be reached about the citation style? There is a mixture in the article which will need to change to meet the B class criterion. I can help if sfn is chosen but that's the only style I really know, harvnb, <> et al. are beyond me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't attempt it, because there are so damn many of them (references, I mean), but in smaller articles I do try to harmonize the citation style, although there are people who object to it and will revert such efforts (not me). In general, since many people use the citation templates, I use that as a model, even though it is not my own personal preference. Your statement about the harvard style goes for me as well, although I'm also not really familiar with sfn much either (I can copy the format when I need to, but I don't really know anything about it, and wouldn't choose it if I was startiung an article.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Try writing a narrative of a Great War battle that lasts for months....;o)) Considering the subject I'm surprised it's C class, was it always thus? A uniform citation style makes sense to me because it's always going to be prone to drive-by edits. Revising it to one style [1] and [2] helps keep track of interpolations. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the boxes at the top of this page, it was once a Featured Article. I have no idea why it was re-classified as C-Class, Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Criteria B1 and B4 probably....Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Or Vitamin B₁₂ :-) I dunno, I never do any classifying beyond "stub" and "start" so I'm unfamiliar with the process; or the FA and GA process, for that matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I only ask for a B Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests, apart from one article that I took to A class to find out what it was like. I'm not one for doing the assessing either, I retired from management in 1998. Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox result criterion

Template:Infobox military conflict result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

• I suggest that the entry be amended to Japanese victory. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• This was subject to a very long discussion. I suggest that you search the archives to find it and read it before you make any changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to, it always is the subject of a long discussion, which is why I put it here.Keith-264 (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no need for another long discussion. What's in the infobox is the result of the previous long discussion, and the issue does not need rehashing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That's opinion, not fact. The entry does not follow the result criterion, it is wrong.Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope. It's WP:CONSENSUS, which outranks template instructions every day and twice on Sundays. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm here the consensus is defunct, since I wasn't part of it.Keith-264 (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't think it works quite that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on a topic of wide interest doesn't usually go defunct when one more editor arrives. I suggest he file a new "Request for comment" if Keith-264 really wants to make that change. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)