Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor
|
|
Template:Spoken Wikipedia request Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Attack on Pearl Harbor is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
| Contents |
Surprise attack by Japanese?
There appears to be some controversey with regard to this being a surprise attack by the Japanese. This attack did not come out of nowhere. Almost certainly the Japanese were goaded into it. But even more compelling is the plausibility that the government and military of the USA knew this attack was coming and did nothing about it so as to propel the USA into WWII.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=127
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/06-04-2001/vo17no12_facts.htm
http://whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
erich / 12 march 2005
I agree to erich, this is not the cause but only the trigger. (But, some people say "excuse", I don't think so...)
Takatoriyama 17:09, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
Apology?
"In 1991, it was rumored that Japan was going to make an official apology to the United States for the attack. The apology did not come in the form many expected, however. The Japanese Foreign Ministry released a statement that said Japan had intended to make a formal declaration of war to the US at 1 PM, twenty-five minutes before the attacks at Pearl Harbor were scheduled to begin (it appears that the Japanese government was referring to the "14-part message", which did not even formally break off negotiations..."
What? American soldier are still in Japan now, and ride my train every day and walk around like they own my place! How should there be apology? The apology made was for not following the order of battle, not for the battle itself.
This was a time of war already started, it was defensive! United States was arming enemies of Japan, American pilot were joining Chinese air force while still under orders from American Army Air Force. FDR was looking for excuse already. Some people say he knew about the attack before it happen, but I don't think it was that kind of conspiracy at all; if the Japan Navy didn't make this attack, FDR would have joined the war against them anyway. Maybe not as immediately but within a few years at least. There was no mistaking the American preparations. This attack maybe only served to step on the coiled snake tail.
So my point is, this paragraph in its entirety seem to be very not neutral point of view. Should it be counterbalanced somewhere? Maybe should be an explanation of why American think there is need for apology of the attack? The Japanese government apology was because of course, nobody wants to make a complete sneak attack, it was planned from the very first to be a declaration first. This is what the Japanese goverment said in 1991. That is, apologize for not playing by the rules of war by delcaring war before starting attack. But apologize for the attack?? if this attack was not made, America probably would find other no reason to enter the war soon, so what to apologize?
I know this is the English Wikipedia but does that also mean Anglo-American point of view?
I would write myself now, a complementary section showing other POV but I maybe can't be NPOV right now, sorry!
Please take this comment in consideration. Takatoriyama 17:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
- Forget Apologies to the Americans — How About the Chinese, Indo-Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and Indonesians and Allied prisoners of war?
- Around 1991 was a period of rampant apology and apology demands. The issue of "apology" was not restricted to Japan for Pearl Harbor, but also covered America and slavery, America and the Indians, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, all colonial powers and their subjects, etc. And then there was Japan and the above-cited peoples. The issue of "apology" was not a major part of this article. Anyway, it does not matter what the Japanese government intended, with respect to a war declaration before the attack. What matters is that there was not one.
- With respect:
- Since opinionating is permitted here, this is my opinion: Apology for Pearl Harbor is no big deal; apology for the barbarous treatment of conquered peoples and of prisoners of war at the hands of the Japanese is a big deal.
- While you may be correct in your opinions, they remain opinions until you provide facts. The aim of Wikipedia is not balance. Sometimes the truth is not fair or balanced. For example, you say "United States was arming enemies of Japan". If you mean China, then, while this may be technically correct, was it not Japan who invaded China and not the other way around? If America was arming Japan's enemies, it was doing so to aid a victim of Japanese aggression — hardly the conduct of a "snake". If Japan had continued to expand its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, you are right, perhaps eventually FDR or Truman would have declared war to stop Japan from invading other countries, like England did with Germany.
- It's true that Japan had valid grievances against the United States and other Western powers. In particular was the bullying of Japan by these powers after the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, which denied Japan colonial rights and military parity corresponding to those of the Great Powers. This can be seen as a grievance as valid as that of Germany over the Versailles Treaty. However, this article is concerned with the Pearl Harbor attack, not with the origins of the Pacific War, which may be a more appropriate place to address the issues you raise
- About the American soldiers you see on the train, walking around "like they own my place": that is your impression. It is the same impression locals have about Japanese tourists in foreign countries. Perhaps you don't like Americans anyway, so when you see them, you attribute the worst to them. Perhaps what you see are not soldiers walking around "like they own my place" but people having been in Japan long enough to be as familiar and comfortable as you are. Also consider, that it is in the nature of a soldier to act confident; perhaps you are confusing this with arrogance. If you were well-disposed to Americans perhaps you would see the soldiers in this way rather than the hostile way you see them. Anyway, if you compare the way American soldiers behave in Japan with the way Japanese soldiers behaved in Nanking (http://www.tribo.org/nanking/) in 1937-38, I think you would have a healthier perspective.
- This article is about history, not current events. The Japan of history is different from today's Japan, which I hope you agree is a better Japan because of Japanese-American coöperation after the war and later, by a democratic Japan, in building a strong, humane, wealthy nation which enjoys the status of Great Power it should have had in 1905. Today, Japanese-American relations are like Wikipedia — a collaborative effort. — J M Rice 18:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This article is limited in scope to the actual attack, and we should avoid the tempation to add long explanations of the factors leading to hostilities. Does anyone know of a website, preferably an official one, which covers the attack from a Japanese perspective? It would be interesting to add some material about how it is perceived in Japan. -Willmcw 04:56, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Automedon and the Japanese move to war
I don't believe that this has been referenced here, as the article appears to be more of a general review. However, the author may find it useful to research the sinking of MS Automedon by the German raider Atlantis; during this assault (9/10/40 - http://www.nesa.org.uk/html/automedon-ultra.htm) the Germans captured a secret British document indicating an inability of Britain to defend her Far East colonies.
This document was returned thru diplomatic channels from Japan to Germany; after reviewing it, Germany turned it over to its Japanese ally on 12/12/40. This document told Japan that it would only need to fight one major power in the Pacific; the British torpedo attack on the Italian naval fleet at Taranto (11/11/40) provided a clear example of how Japan could incapacitate a rival.
From the link above:
"There is no doubt that possession of these documents profoundly affected Japanese war planning in January 1941, this intimate view of Churchill’s War Cabinet decisions and opinions enabled the Japanese to dismiss any serious fears that the British could make a worthwhile military intervention in the Far East, it also provided the Japanese with a clear picture of British knowledge of their armed forces (for example. that we were unaware that the Japanese Air Force possessed torpedo-carrying aircraft).
It is fair to argue, therefore, that the capture of the Chiefs-of-Staff report from the Automedon was the catalyst that sent the Japanese on the path to Pearl Harbour and precipitated the ruinous attack on America’s Pacific fleet.
After the fall of Singapore in 1941, Captain Rogge of the Atlantis was presented with a Samurai sword by the Japanese Emperor in recognition of his achievement, only two other Germans received such an award, Hermann Goering and Erwin Rommel, later, Admiral Kondo was to tell Wenneker on several occasions how valuable this particular document had been in planning the attacks on Pearl Harbour, the Philippines, and Singapore, on the 8th December 1941, thus opening the war between Imperial Japan and the USA"
Thoughts?
- I'm not the author, so apolgies for butting in with these thoughts: First, intelligence about Churchill's ruling out intervention in the East was no more than confirmation of what the Japanese already knew — that because of the European war, the British, French and Dutch colonies were indefensible. Second, as Admiral Yamamoto was well aware, the strategic threat to Japanese expansion lay with the United States alone and that no matter how successful the attack on Pearl Harbor, he could at best promise a year for Japan to engage in its expansion unchallenged from the United States, not Great Britain. Third, the business with the Samurai sword sounds apocryphal. In short, the Japanese were never concerned about the British, so whatever was found on the Automedon (and Rusbridger's page reveals less than rigorous scholarship) could hardly be considered a "catalyst".
- By the way, since this Rusbridge piece is based on eighties research, it's not much of a basis for any conclusion. Since then, the fifty-year rule has long expired, and if one thought the issue worth taking up, they would have checked the B.M. or P.R.O for the declassified docs. Frankly, I don't think it's that important. — J M Rice 20:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Taxman&action=edit§ion=new) when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 19:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Re-organization and copyedit
This is a great article, but there are some organizational problems. The material is out of sequence: for example, the first shots of the attack come after the main attack and the various diplomatic messages are covered in different locations. Also, the prose would benefit from some plain old copyediting. So I am working to correct both isues without changing any of the interpretations or facts in the article (I made a couple of minor additions and no significant deletions). My motivation, apart from the usual Wiki participation, is that I am preparing to record the article for the Spoken Wikipedia project. Reading an article aloud highlights problems with flow and grammar (try it sometime). This article has great information and I look forward to making it available to the blind and visually-impaired. I hope these edits, though seemingly major, are acceptable and seen as an improvement. If not, edit away! Cheers, -Willmcw 10:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Japanese view
The Japan Times, Japan's premier English-language daily newspaper, has run a number of columns in the early ] that assert various causal and extenuating factors leading up to the attack. Among the aggravating factors seen leading to the attack are the U.S.'s racist policies on Japanese immigrants [1] (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20040208x3.htm), the U.S.'s shared responsibility for pushing Japan into invading Asia and attacking Pearl Harbor [2] (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20050415gc.htm), the belligerant boycott that cornered Japan [3] (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?eo20010719a2.htm), and loose U.S. morals [4] (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20010625hs.htm). The thousands of U.S. military deaths are repeatedly contrasted with the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians killed by U.S. air attacks.[5] (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20010625hs.htm)[6] (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20040928kh.htm) The paper also runs articles expressing other views, including complaints about politicians who minimize Japanese culpability. [7] (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20050415gc.htm) Says one writer:
The Pearl Harbor attack was a brilliant tactic, but part of a strategy based on the belief that a spirit as firm as iron and as beautiful as cherry blossoms could overcome the materially wealthy United States. That strategy was flawed, and Japan's total defeat would follow.[8] (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20040208x3.htm)
I think that this article would benefit with by adding some discussion of [historical and current] Japanese perspectives on Pearl Harbor. I looked on the Foregn Ministry's website, but their history begins in 1945. The Japan Times is perhaps the most mainstream English language source according to the CIA Factbook. [9] (http://www.dailyearth.com/IntnNews/japan.html) So it is the closest to an official view that I've found yet. I hope to find more sources, but I think the views expressed in the Times are repesentative. Can any editors help boil this down in an accuracte, NPOV way? Cheers, -Willmcw 07:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- PS I don't know how to summarize this reference, a summary history of the Showa Period (1926-1989), but it is so, uh, charmingly roundabout that I had to share it here.
- The financial crisis of 1927, which occurred in the aftermath of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 that devastated the Tokyo area, eventually led to a long period of economic depression. In these circumstances, the power of the military increased, and it eventually gained control of the government. The Manchurian Incident of 1931 launched a series of events that culminated in Japan's entry into World War II. This war ended in Japan's defeat, with Emperor Showa accepting the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. Japan rose from the rubble of defeat, going on to achieve an almost miraculous economic recovery, which has allowed it to take its place among the world's leading democratic powers. [10] (http://web-japan.org/museum/historyofjp/histjp.html)
- "...a series of events that culminated in Japan's entry into World War II." Whew, that sure covers a lot of territory. -Willmcw 09:08, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
external vs wikipedia references
I like Willmcw's recent work on this article. It's better now. And I see that he uses external references a lot. This is of course good, and in line with Taxman's request a few posts up. But in many cases I feel the refs could have been made into wiki-links to our own articles, and have the refs put there instead. Take the "Japanese preparations" section. There are 2 references regarding the various coordinated attacks occurring at the same time as the one on Pearl Harbor. But we do have articles on those attacks, Battle of Prachuab Khirikhan, Battle of Hong Kong, Battle of the Philippines (1941-42) and maybe more. Shouldn't we be "building our web" and link to them instead?
Normally I would just be bolding in and wikify the hell out of that section. But I'm a bit reluctant to do that here, since Willmcw has improved upon an already Featured Article to this extent. And his 'writing with the article being read out loud in mind' is a new concern I haven't thought about before (although I probably should, sounds like excellent advice). Personally I would for instance trade the trivial links to Hong Kong and the Philippines with more specific links to the battles in question. But, well, I'm unsure about external-internal references here and also how it plays in on the reading out loud concern. So I'm asking here now instead of going nuts in the article. Shanes 10:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I left those external references in as they seemed to be sources for specific assertions about the timing of the attacks. However internal links are more important and should be developed. (regarding the reading aloud- I tend to ignore external links in the text, and just read the ones listed at the end). The other battles you mentioned mostly are included at the bottom of the "battle box", but I've revised the paragraph to link to all of those that occured in the following 24 hours - (actually there's no article for the Battle of Malaya). Cheers, -Willmcw 23:05, May 9, 2005 (UTC)