Talk:Pearl Harbor (World War II)

Name

I'm not going to argue about it one way or another, but I wonder if the article shouldn't be called Attack on Pearl Harbor instead? I would suggest that most people think of it specifically in terms of an attack, rather than a battle, which definitely has other connotations, although I will readily admit that a "battle" can most certainly follow an "attack". Just a suggestion.... Hayford Peirce 12:16, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

I also prefer "attack". Sandy Harris 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, thanks for the support, Sandy! I see that only *two years* have gone by since I made my comment. Shall one of us Move it? That might elicit some other reaction? Hayford Peirce 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's do some Googling. "Battle of Pearl Harbor" gets 98,700 hits, including a high one for the CZ article. "Attack on Pearl Harbor" gets 900,000 hits, including the #1 citation from WP. My feeling, therefore, based on all the previous arguments we've had over similar subjects, on which Larry always came down on our side of the question, is that it definitely should be moved. Unless I see *strong* reasons to contrary in the next couple of days, I shall do so. Hayford Peirce 16:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As a Military Editor, I would object strongly to "Attack on Pearl Harbor". Was there no defense, even if ineffective? There was intelligence and contingency planning, albeit flawed.

Offhand, I can't think of many other examples of "Attacks". In some cases, there's a legitimate distinction between "campaign" and "battle". "Raid" is more common than "attack"; I can think of a number of "Raids". I suppose Pearl Harbor meets the definition of "Raid", but that is not commonly used. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Howard, you're not at all responding to what I said about the most common usage. I understand your point of view on this, and since you're a Military Editor you probably can't be argued with. A History Editor, however, could support my own (and Sandy's) point of view. To me this is like Professor Jensen's Gettysbury, Campaign of -- if Google shows a 9-1 predominance of "Attack" to "Battle", don't you think there's a strong case to be made for it? Hayford Peirce 18:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Google and Lady Gaga have the same first letter when it comes to authority. Now, I am also a History Editor. I'm willing to use "Attack" in situations where there was no significant response: "Attack on the Royal Oak". "Raid" is actually the more common military history usage than "attack", and if you argued the Battle on Taranto should have been called the "Taranto Raid" as a relevant precedent, you'd make a better case than saying Google supports it. If you want a redirect to "Attack on Pearl Harbor", feel free.

I don't consider this equivalent to the late comma format, which, with other History Editors such as Russell and Roger, we are trying to rename. A battle is not an attack. An attack may be a part of a battle. Pickett's Charge was an attack in (cough) Gettysburg, Battle of, as was the action of the 15th Alabama at Little Round Top.

"Attack", to me, tends to imply a specific tactical part of a larger operation. For example, in the Six Days War, Israel launched numerous preemptive attacks against Egyptian and Syrian airfields. In discussing Pearl Harbor, it's common enough to speak of the first and second attack waves. At the Battle of Surigao Strait, the PT boats and then the destroyers made separate attacks (actually, multiple PT and multiple destroyer attacks).

Indeed, in the Pearl Harbor operation, there were two distinct air attacks, and much controversy if Nagumo should have lanched a third. There were attacks by midget submarines. Halsey tried to find the Mobile Force and counterattack; it's well, given the Japanese superiority of the time, that he didn't.Howard C. Berkowitz 19:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Background

I've heard the claim that the original Japanese plan, after grabbing Korea and Manchuria, was to expand North-East into resource-rich Mongolia and Siberia. It was only after getting trounced at Khalkin Gol that they switched to a Southern strategy, targeting the Philipines and Indonesia. Is there anything to this theory? If so, should it be part of the background section here? Sandy Harris 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That belongs in a different article. Within (primarily) Army headquarters, there were Strike-North and Strike-South factions. You are describing the Strike-North argument, and it's more complex than battle success or failure -- there were issues of who backed it. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)