Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 3

message: I added a citation (#5) to a "Japanese views" paragraph.  The referenced Internet article by Arima provides a good view from the Japanese perspective and may be worth reviewing to see if more material should be referenced from it in the main article. Cla68 13:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Justifications for the Attack 

message: The fifth bullet point under this heading states that "The timing of a third strike would have been such that aircraft would probably have returned to their carriers after dark." Earlier in the article, the beginning of the attack is quoted as being 7.53am Hawaiian Time, and just after that the duration of the attack is put at "Ninety minutes". It seems to me that the timing of the conclusion of the battle is incompatible with the notion that a third strike would have ended after dark, which even conservatively would have been at least another 6 or 7 hours away. Does anyone have more reliable information than what I have quoted?
: 6 a.m.: planes take off from carriers. 7:55 a.m.: first wave attacks (i.e., nearly two hours en route). 8:25 a.m.: second wave. 9:30 last planes withdraw. Presumably the last planes would have landed about 11:30 a.m. A CAP would of course be up and might have to be refueled before taking off again. Then the attack planes would have to be brought back on deck, refueled, and rearmed. Two hours in total? Just a guess. We're now up to 1:30 p.m. Two hours to Pearl Harbor, an hour over target, and two hours back. They would have had daylight, almost certainly, and high losses were acceptable, so if some or many didn't get back to the carriers, that was all right. So it doesn't seem to me that daylight was a huge problem. --Cubdriver 21:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:David Newton added the material long ago. I've placed a request on his talk page to address this issue. FYI, high losses were not acceptable, according to what I've read. -Will Beback 21:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Another perspective:  Tameichi Hara states that from the very beginning, Japanese naval commanders were constantly being harangued by headquarters staff admirals to conserve fuel, ammunition, personnel, and equipment as much as possible with the implication that their careers and honor were being judged by this criteria.  Hara believes that the reason why so many Japanese commanders withdrew just when it appeared they had a decisive victory in hand (Battle of Savo Island, Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, Battle off Samar) was for this reason.  This may have contributed to Nagumo's decision also.
Source:   Cla68 17:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Consider a hypothetical third wave, which planes would be used, returning first wave or returning second wave? Was every plane capable of independent navigation? First two waves, was any effort made to 'bunch up"? Is recovery slower than launch? Do planes from different ships fly in the same formation? were there plans for a third wave? I just don't see how anything beyond a piecemeal effort would be possible. CorvetteZ51 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't forget another factor, often overlooked. Nagumo's destroyers were burning fuel oil by the ton, & he had no AOs to replenish it. Just getting to Pearl threatened to force him to leave them behind on his return. The longer he stayed, the worse it would be. See Goldstein & Dillon (using Prange research), The Pearl Harbor Papers.  Trekphiler 06:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nagumo's decision to withdraw 

message: I have heard that the US carriers (having the largest radar and patrol radii) were out of harbour searching for the Japanese fleet when the attack hit. Can anybody please comment on this?
Rednaxela 15:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears incorrect. We cover the absence of the carriers briefly in the Attack on Pearl Harbor#Longer-term effects. -Will Beback 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's wrong. E & Lex were returning from ferry missions to Wake & Midway ; Sara was in Puget Sound under refit.  Trekphiler 06:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Aircraft Carriers 

message: Is there a Wikipedia article 'List of Ships at Pearl Harbor' someplace?  If not, would someone like to create one?
147.240.236.9 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also :Category:Attack on Pearl Harbor, which should have all of our attack-related articles. -Will Beback 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Ships 

message: Regarding how fast the oil is leaking, I only reworded the picture caption, and do not know the source of this info, i.e. 2 cubic inches per 30 seconds.  However, I did google find this USGS article that states a quart of oil escapes per day .  4 cu. inches per min. is a much faster leak than a quart a day, for sure.  Anyone have more info on the rate of the leak? Leon7 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was there many years ago and as I recall it was a whole lot less than either of those, a few drops a day. There wasn't much of an oil slick, just a hint of rainbow here & there on the water. A quart a day for 65 years would amount to about 6000 gallons leaked by now, seems excessive. Doovinator 01:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further research shows that the Arizona had a total fuel capacity of 4,630 tons of oil.  I assume the ship was near capacity while docked in Pearl Harbor.  Viewed in that light, the leakage seems completely reasonable (but, as the article cited below state, disastrous for Pearl Harbor should the fuel tanks corrode and rupture further).  --ElKevbo 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: About a quart a day (see http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2003/01/ and http://www.pastfoundation.org/Arizona/Legacy_2.htm ).  I'm new to WP and have never added a citation before.  If someone would format these into the article, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks. Leon7 07:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References added.  Thanks so much for finding them!  --ElKevbo 17:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil Leak 

message: In the intro paragraph, "The U.S. public was greatly offended by the treachery of the attack" seems an inappropriate (and somewhat loaded) phrase, and in any case needs more explanation. 'Treachery' implies that the attack was a breach of pre-existing trust (such as a treaty or alliance), but this was not really the case. The Americans were not officially at war with the Japanese, but nor did they trust the Japanese. I assume what is intended here is to say that the U.S. public were offended because the attack was made before any official declaration of war. This should be made explicit. Ben Finn 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The word should be changed. MickeyK 19:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Treachery'

message: The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State Warning of an Attack on Pearl Harbor, 27 January 1941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Telegram: Paraphrase]
TOKYO, January 27, 1941-6 p.m.
[Received January 27-6: 38 a.m.]
125. A member of the Embassy was told by my ------- colleague that from many quarters, including a Japanese one, he had heard that a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor was planned by the Japanese military forces, in case of "trouble" between Japan and the United States; that the attack would involve the use of all the Japanese military facilities. My colleague said that he was prompted to pass this on because it had come to him from many sources, although the plan seemed fantastic.
GREW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S., Department of State, Publication 1983, Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941 (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Government Printing Office, 1943), pp. 617-618
:Because that would imply that the USA government let Americans dies so they could kill even more Americane in order to make some cash on the weapons industry, and since that is imposible, the note simply did not hapen and anyone beliving it is factual should start taking their medication. --Striver 14:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article focuses on the attack itself. We have an entire article on the topic of the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate.  -Will Beback 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a better reason to exclude it: it's been described, accurately, as little more than cocktail party gossip.  Trekphiler 06:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no mention of this well-documented note? 

message: The wholesale changes of Harbor to Harbour in these edits violates a WP policy in re UK v US spelling diffs. The policy is to accept both, avoid mixing, and use the 'natural' one if possible. All without changing existing articles wholesale. In this case the term is a US English one, is used officially with the US spelling,nad the entire article was consistently so already, and liekwise the title. Should be changed back. Would the editor who made the changes undertake to revet them? ww 04:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: edits of 6 July changing Harbor to Harbour wrong in this instance

message: As it currently exists, this section makes some undistinguished points about the context of the Pearl Harbor attack, Hawaiian history, and the long tension even conflict between Japan and other nations (empires, ...) in the Pacific. Much of this seems superfluous in an already long article. At the very least, the writing is floppy and we should do better if these points are to be made here. Recall that this is a WP Featured Article.  Comments from observers? Agree? Disagree? Suggestions?  ww 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with User:Ww's assessment. There are no facts here, only setting up dubious strawmen and then tilting at them.  I think the entire section should be deleted. --Paul 17:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: myth vs history = low quality

message: We are accumulating lots of links to here to things that are relevant to the Alternative theories article. Let's be clear for our reader. Whatever our opinion about pre warning and such, this is an article about the attack, not about conspiracy to permit or encourage it. Those things have their own article and should be there. We mention this controversy here and provide references to an extensive article on the various aspects of the subject. Accordingly, I'll try to remember to come back in a day or two and do the gardening, transplanting the necessary links to the other article. Already did it with a link to the text of the Statute in which Congress endorsed some of the alternative theories. Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions? Especially if different than the plan described here? ww 22:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links inappropriate; time to prune and replant 

message: The claim in an edit this date, that the attack began after news of the operation in Thailand had started is new to me. Have I just forgotten, or has this recently turned up? ww 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not new, you missed it. The Thai invasion force was well underway before the attack began. It had been sighted, no less, which was one reason the U.S. believed Pearl was safe, since everybody thought the IJN was incapable of mounting more than one major operation at a time. Ooops...  Trekphiler 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new claim, needs source 

message: I'm reading over this entry for the first time, and was thrown for a loop by this sentence: "The U.S. upped the presssure on Japan to force withdraw by renouncing the 1911 U.S.-Japanese treaty of commerce an act which later permitted imposing embargoes." First, "pressure on Japan to force withdraw"? I imagine it's a typo. (If "force withdraw" was the intended phrase, and it actually means something coherent, than it must be some esoteric construction and so maybe the wording should be changed anyway.) Secondly, "the 1911 U.S.-Japanese treaty of commerce an act which later permitted imposing embargoes." Aside from the apparent need for a comma between "commerce" and "an," and perhaps need caps for Treaty of Commerce, the sentence is still mildly unclear. The renouncing of the treaty allowed who to impose embargoes on whom? why? gni 23:05, 7 August 2006
:I've rewritten the paragraph to try to make it more clear.  Take a look. --Paul 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  poorly constructed sentence? 

message: Forgive my impertinence, but am I the only one who sees no point to naming each of the attacking carriers in the introduction of the article? I understand mentioning who attacked, but the first four words of the article are "[t]he Imperial Japanese Navy." I think that does the trick -- and considering the article's featured status, we ought to think hard about adding a whole paragraph to the introduction, IMHO, w/ no consensus about a compelling reason to do that. --GGreeneVa 04:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Since its featured status, this article has declined in quality by the inclusion of a myriad of tangential facts that more properly belong in an article or book about factors leading to WWII. I've cut the Intro back to something more crisp.  The names of the Japanese Aircraft Carriers remains elsewhere in the article. --Paul 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro edit to name attacking carriers 

message: Willmott, in his second book entitled "Pearl Harbor" (I have two distinct ones) claims that the Japanese would not have attacked the dockyard facilities and oil storage areas in any case, that all references to such recommendations he found postdate WWII.  Specifically, he says that Genda urged a third attack on the ships, and that only after WWII did Genda realize that the facilities were a worthwhile target.  Unfortunately, this book was written after Willmott decided to stop sourcing most of what he said, and in any case he couldn't demonstrate an absence of references.  This is a potentially touchy area, and I thought I'd bring it up before  going ahead and editing. Dht 23:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's true Genda didn't realize this til postwar, I'm astonished. These targets of opportunity should have been irresistible to any officer worth his stripes, which is why I've always wondered why they weren't on the original target list.  Trekphiler 05:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  H.P. Willmott on third strike arguments 

message: The article seems to go a little against protocol by assuming prior knowledge of the event on the part of the reader - it does not explain the subject of the article and puts much more space into explaining when it happened. Everyone knows what a telephone is, but the article on it doesn't begin with something along the lines of The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell - that would be an abomination. elvenscout742 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way Wiki works is if you think you can improve it, give it a shot! Make sure to explain in the edit comments what you are about...--Paul 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence... 

message: The article under "Mythical status" says "Pearl Harbor is a major event in American history marking the first time since the War of 1812 America was attacked on its home soil by another country." This claim neglects the "attack on U.S. soil" by the Confederate forces in the Civil War, the attacks on the U.S. forces and citizens by Native Americans, and the attack on the U.S town of Columbus New Mexicos by Pancho Villa in 1916.Furthermore, when I click on "home soil" up comes "Homeland" which is defined as  "A homeland (rel. country of origin and native land) is the concept of the territory (cultural geography) to which an ethnic group holds a long history and a deep cultural association with —the country in which a particular national identity began. As a common noun, it simply connotes the country of one's origin." In 1941 Hawaii was not regarded by many U.S. citizens as our "homeland" or our "native soil" or our "home soil" and certainly not as the place "where our national identity began" any more than Guantanamo is today or Iraq be if we have military bases there 40 odd years from today. Hawaii in 1941 was just a military base and a tourism destination. The U.S. anger was over a sneak attack which killed thousands of our military and weakened our defense capability, not that our "home soil had been attacked." It was a territory 2300 miles from the U.S. that the U.S. navy and marines had seized in 1893 in support of American planters, and to obtain a naval based and fueling station in the Pacific, as noted in US Public Law 103-150 in Wikisource. It had only been a U.S. territory since 1898, or 43 years at the time of the attack. Becoming a U.S. territory was within living memory of many Hawaiians and U.S. citizens. For these reasons, I suggest that the "mythic status" section be removed.Edison 15:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawaii was a US territory as of 1900, so your analogy to Iraq isn't exactly valid.  Comparing it to Puerto Rico or Guam might be more realistic.  In any event, Americans at the time immediately felt that America had been attacked 'at home' (see newspaper headlines and articles on the day following the attack) as opposed to being attacked in a foreign country.  I believe however, that this part of the article is attempting to mention the status that the event obtained after the war.  It doesn't do a great job of calling that out and could be improved (perhaps split?) Scottsh 05:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a "home soil" sense, compared to the reaction to the attacks in the Philippines. It's been suggested, had Yamamoto not insisted on targeting the Pacific Fleet, Japan might have gotten away with attacking the Philippines without war with the U.S. at all.  Trekphiler 06:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pearl Harbor as "home soil?"

message: Please metion General Billy Mitchell somewhere in the article on the attack on Pearl Harbor.  He did warn his superiors in 1924 with a 324 page report, (and according to the movie; "The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell (film)" with Gary Cooper), repeated the warnings at his trial.24.195.255.68 14:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Billy Mitchell

message: I want some input before I add a paragraph about Minoru Genda's part in the Pearl Harbor story. I have some issues with the 'Japanese preparations' section.
The reference to the British attack on Taranto is entirely appropriate but implies that the British 'shallow running torpedo secret' was merely copied, and not improved upon (which is the actual case).
Plus I don't see any connection to U.S. Admiral Harry Yarnell's 1932 Army-Navy exercises. Were the results of this exercise available to the public? Is there any evidence that the Japanese knew of these exercises? Is there any evidence that Onishi or Genda or Yamamoto specifically knew about these exercises?
The issue here is that this section of the article implies that the Japanese simply copied British and American ideas, which I believe is not accurate. Thoughts?
Markm62 17:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the mentions of Yarnell & Taranto bear more on whether the U.S. should've been surprised. It's not like Genda needed somebody to draw him a diagram (tho if it's true he didn't realize the significance of the tank farm, Navy Yard, sub base, power station, & torpedo store, maybe somebody should've!)  Trekphiler 06:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genda Not Mentioned in article? 

message: The infobox currently shows 2,403 military plus 68 civilian casualties.
Until an anonymous editor changed it a while ago, it said 2,335 military plus 68 civilian.
I can't seem to find a consistent number in a quick search.  The following sites show 2,338 total, including 48 civilian:
*http://www.nps.gov/archive/usar/home.htm
*http://www.nps.gov/archive/usar/ExtendWeb1.html
*http://www.nps.gov/archive/usar/fact_sheet.html
This site shows 2,390 total, including 49 civilian:
*http://www.nps.gov/usar/historyculture/people.htm
This site shows 3,435 total casualties:
*http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/house/chapter-23-joint-pearl-harbor-attack.html
Do we have a solid reference for those numbers? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "INVESTIGATION OF THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK, REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES"  reported "The Navy and Marine Corps suffered a total of 2,835 casualties, of which 2,086 officers and men were killed or fatally wounded. Seven hundred and forty-nine wounded survived....The Army suffered a total of 600 casualties, including 194 killed in action and 360 wounded." That would amount to 3,435 total military casualties. They don't list any civilian casualties. -Will Beback 06:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The commonly accepted, & most often quoted, number is 2403.  Trekphiler 07:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I deleted this:
:"Having already signed a pact with Germany and Italy, this meant Japan would be fighting against the Allied Powers.Showa Tenno no dokuhaku hachi-jikan (The Showa Emperor's eight-hour monologue) (Tokyo: Bungei-shunju, 1990)."
This is false, or mistaken. The pact demanded the signatories come to the aid if one already engaged in war was attacked by a third power (such as the U.S. attacking Germany). This was not the circumstance in play.  Trekphiler 07:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, later on in the article, it has the correct information....  Trekphiler 12:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I declare

message: I added this:
:"There was considerable division in the Japanese high command. The Army wanted to "go south", intending to capture oil and mineral reserves in the Dutch East Indies. The Navy was certain this would bring the U.S. into the war. To forestall American interference, an attack on the Pacific Fleet was considered essential. (The certainty of American aid to Britain in the Pacific is far from clear, and was even at the time.)"
See Willmott, H. P. Empires in the Balance. Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute Press, 1982; Hayashi, Saburo, & Coox, Alvin D. Kōgun. Quantico, WV: Marine Corps Association, 1959 (reprints Teiheiyo Senso Rikusen Gaishi, Tokyo, 1951); & Peattie, Mark R., & Evans, David C. Kaigun. Annapolis:  United States Naval Institute Press, 1997.  Trekphiler 07:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Division