Jump to content

Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor/Archive02. Thank you. —wwoods 06:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I'm new here so forgive me if I'm stumbling into the process wrong-footed. I have copy of the map that shows the routes of the Japanese ships AND shows where the Lexington and Enterprise were during that time period. This information was taken from the logs of the ships as shown in the Congressional Hearings. If it would be helpful please note so and tell me where to send the image.

Also, according the orders, the Japanese were to attack carriers first, and then battleships and so on. If there had been carriers AND battleships in the harbor the force was to have split their time between the two types.

Sounds quite useful. Use the sidebar option Upload file and upload it into Wikipedia (giving it an appropriate name of course). Then you can put it in the article with [[Image:myPicture]] command (where myPicture is the name of the picture you uploaded.
Welcome to the Wikipedia. Oberiko 16:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The Japanese target wasn't really the American navy at all, but rather the aircraft carriers. That would have neutralized the ability of the air force to make attacks in the Pacific, and so could have had a significant imapact. Of course it means Pearl Harbor was a complete failure, since the aircraft carriers were not in port at the time. The above should probably be changed to mention all this, though I'm not quite sure how.

- This relates to the 'half the fleet in Atlantic' problem. There were six carriers in the fleet, three were stationed in the Atlantic. If the three Pacific carriers had been sunk, the US Navy still could have operated in the Pacific with the other three carriers. Not as effectively as it did with all 6 carriers, but effectively enough to make their presence felt.

See also : World War II

Hello, previous writer. You seem to know a lot about this, which is why I haven't changed the article, but I have a couple of comments.

Your first sentence above is not mistaken, but it is in error nonetheless. US air forces (lowercase) may have been the target, but the US Air Force (capitals) was not created until after the war. At this time, both the army and the navy had "air forces" and it was the army's air force that became the USAF. The Navy still has its air force. To say "the navy was not the target, the air force was" would be quite misleading. Carrier strategy is as much or more a naval strategy as it is an air strategy.

Why not just add something like this? "The main Japanese target was the three aircraft carriers stationed in the Pacific, but they were not in Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack."

The ultimate fate of the 22 Japanese ships is a non sequitur. I'd lose it.

There should be a much bigger article than this. ortolan88

I've been de-sub-paging some of the WW2 articles. Does anyone know if there is a way to refer to Japanese ships that parallels the use of "USS" for American ships? Eclecticology, Tuesday, July 2, 2002

Is "maru" just for civilian ships? -- isis 09:02 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

The appropriate term is "HIJMS", for "His Imperial Japanese Majeesty's Ship" -- Noel

Proper name for the article

I don't think "Battle" is an appropriate name. There was basically only one party fighting, and even that was a hit-and-run. It's similar to calling the 9/11 attacks "Battle of the WTC" or something like that. I'd say "Attack on Pearl Harbor" is a much more accurate description (and much more frequently used, check Google). Jeronimo

Just because one side was ill prepared and surprised does not stop it being a battle. Two armed forces clashed, that one hardly got a shot off would be described as a tactical victory for the other. 9/11 was not an engagement between armed forces.

So that would make any bombing of cities a battle, as well then? Jeronimo

Err, no. The previous writer says "two armed forces"

Yeah, cities often have some air defense. Still, I wouldn't call it a battle. Jeronimo

Let me see if I have this straight: That was the "Battle of the Pentagon" on 9/11, then? -- isis 05:41 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
The Pentagon did not have air defense. I have never understood why there were not anti-aircraft guns on the building. The planes responsible for defending the Pentagon were Massachusetts Air National Guard fighters stationed on Cape Cod! On the other hand, people did fight back at Pearl Harbor and even got planes into the air to fight the Japanese. Since there were direct strategic outcomes from Pearl Harbor, it seems not unreasonable to call it a battle, but calling it an attack wouldn't be inaccurate either. And, Isis, good to have you around. Ortolan88
For the record I've never understood why this article was called a battle. This was a surprise attack that was won with an overwhelmingly single-sided victory. Attack on Pearl Harbor may have some minor POV issues but at least it is an accurate title. --mav
Could we have a little consistency here, even if it's damned little? You said a "battle" was between two armed forces, which seemed to me to make 9/11 the "Battle of the Pentagon," but then you said it wasn't, because one side didn't have "air defense." If it's not a "battle" without "air defense," then the "Battle of Bull Run" was no battle, either. I assure you that every time I've been to the Pentagon, there have been armed military folks there. If you flat out refuse to call Pearl Harbor an "attack," would you please change the title of the article to "Assault on Pearl Harbor," because it was not a battle in any reasonable sense of that word, and to pretend that it was undercuts our credibility as a reliable source of information. (Do you want to rethink your position on whether you're glad to have me here now?) -- isis 08:47 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
Isis there is no reason at all to be mean to other contributors just because they happen to disagree with you. Your last parenthetically bounded statement is not really appropriate, let alone productive or conducive in trying persuade people to your line of thinking. --mav
"Foo to the censors. . . . This is a free content website . . . We do have a stong NPOV . . . polic[y] . . . but that doesn't extend to user pages." -- isis 11:06 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
I also seem to remember you talking about other contributors not soiling Jimbo's carpet. --mav

Please try to be civil, all of you -- debate on naming conventions should not be a personal affront to anybody. A quick google search shows that the phrasing "Battle of Pearl Harbor" is used at least very occasionally, though I agree that it strikes this American layman as unusual. "Attack on Pearl Harbor" is what comes to mind for me. Can a historian / war history buff tell us what would be considered a standard name for the event? --Brion 11:22 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

What do the Japanese call it? -- isis 12:03 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be attack on pearl habour. Just because it soudns write. Isis is right that it was not a battle as such. But eithe name is NPOV really, bust attack of pearl habour just soudns more accurate. -fonzy

In the 1950s and 1960s it was called the "Bombing of Pearl Harbor," but I grew up on or near military bases (one of them on Oahu), and civilians might have had another term for it. -- isis 12:13 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

Moved. --mav

I find this debate interesting. It has a little bearing on an issue I raised on Talk:Battle of Ardennes (1944) but which elicited no response. Popularly known as The Battle of the Bulge, as far as I'm aware it is usually referred to as The Ardennes Offensive in military history books. I believe it should be moved there. Battle of Ardennes is usually associated with a First World War battle. Mintguy

The premise of this discussion is wrong. Actually, there were losses on both sides. It was a battle. However, if you don't like the word 'battle' maybe you would call it a "Strike at Pearl Harbor". (Compare the articles Attack and Military strike) – Hokanomono 06:53, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the external links that [[1]] just added are fairly, errr, exotic; e.g. pages that claim that the attack on Pearl Harbor was the result of a Communst plot to bring the US into the war, or pages that refer to the work of Stinnett, who, like Rusbridger, dug up a lot of interesting original material from the archives, but then went fairly off the beam in interpreting them.

If you're listening, 67.31.18.253, please explain why we shouldn't weed out the more controversial ones.

I'm not 67, but while I agree with you that we should weed out some of the weird theories, it's not necessarily because of the level of controversy, it's because we're writing an encyclopedia article. Our goal should be to list the basics of the topic, not provide an exhaustive list of external resources, random theories (conspiracy or otherwise), or interpretations. We should focus the article better than it currently is focused. Daniel Quinlan 00:52, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
Okay, I went ahead and fixed the article. I think it's probably necessary to list the Stinnet book, but it's really silly to include a zillion book reviews and editorials about his book, so I just added it to the book list and removed all the reviews/editorials. (I looked at all of the external links before deciding which ones to keep.) I don't think an encyclopedia article should focus on the latest crop of books, even via external references. I also deleted external references to random websites or user pages. I see no reason they should be references as they contain unverifiable information, etc. That leaves the external articles with the most useful information, in my estimation, at least. Note that two of the external references still include zillions of links to book reviews and the like, although most of those references are now reviews at sites with some verifiability and greater credentials (such as newspapers). Anyway, let me know what you think. Daniel Quinlan 01:22, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
I'm frankly uneasy about listing Stinnett (which is, quite literally, a conspiracy theory) in the same category as books like Prange. How about we have a sub-category, called something diplomatic like "Further Reading - Alternative Theories", and we can put Rusbridger in there too. (There's a certain fine irony in that, too - if Rusbridger's right, Stinnett can't be, and vice versa! :-) Jnc 02:38, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That sounds fine with me if you want to make that change. I would like to stick with the books that are the most well-known. Listing every book every written about Pearl Harbor is not my desired outcome. Daniel Quinlan 04:35, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I wouldn't want to try and list them all! In my library alone, I think I must have about four dozen books which are either about Pearl, or touch on it substantially - particularly in the area of code-breaking. I listed just the handful I thought were the basic ones. Jnc 05:13, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, this 67.31.13.125 person sems to be intent on adding a whole ton of conspiracy theory stuff, and will not keep it segregated. I don't like conspiracy theories/theorists, but in an effort to be reasonable, I don't mind a references toa few books which have *something* to recommend them (e.g. Rusbridger and Stinnett, who at least uncovered some new material in the archives), but this person shows no signs of being willing to be reasonable - they deleted the "Alternative Views" category, and added a whole bunch of conspiracy theory books and links. (That they all conflict with each other seems to have escaped their notice.) What do people want to do? Jnc 20:00, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

! Did anyone here actually read R. Stinnett's book? All the way through? I'm dissapointed that some people would call evidence from the US Navy 'conspiracy theories'. To do so is petty slander and simple name-calling. I mean really, denying evidence from the US Navy?! Admit it, we were lied to for 50 years. -- 65.176.192.146 23:07, 16 Sep 2003

I don't have Stinnett's book, although I do have Rusbridger's, and I have read quite a few of Stinnett's online papers (at The Independent Institute).
Stinnett alleges that a group of people secretly acted in concert i) to take certain improper actions calculated to cause a war ("a carefully orchestrated design, initiated at the highest levels of our government", in a positive description of the book at [2]), and ii) to conceal that they did so. This is a classic, dictionary description of a "conspiracy". In fact, if you look at this transcript of Stinnett speaking, you'll see him answering a question from an audience member who explicitly calls it a "conspiracy", and asks for its size - which Stinnett provides.
This is why I have no hesitation in calling it "quite literally, a conspiracy theory" - it flat-out alleges a conspiracy.
Since I last edited the article, I have reviewed a large amount of material, particularly that from retired US Navy Commander Phil Jacobsen (available on the Intelligence boards here), and my opinion of Stinnett's theory is now even more negative than it was before. I don't have the time to review the problems in detail - Jacobsen and others (e.g. Larry Schweikart) have done an excellent job, look them up online.
It's ironic that you would speak approvingly of "evidence from the US Navy", since most people from that service unhesitatingly describe Stinnet's work as (to use the topic-appropriate term) bilge water. I refrain from deleting all references to it only to keep the peace. Noel 18:00, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hey, everyone, now that I think about it, would an article on "Pearl Harbour - Alternative Theories" be of any use? We could have a section for each major theory, along with a brief precis of the evidence against it; that way we could also include links to many longer and more detailed critical articles (e.g. the Schweikart review of the Stinnett book) that I don't feel really ought to be cluttering up the main Pearl Harbour page. Noel 18:18, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion, Noel. Go right ahead and do it. For the title, I suggest Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories. Tannin
Hah! In my copious free time, no doubt! (And as soon as I'm done cleaning up from Hurricane Isabel! :-) But seriously, I'm not sure I'm going to have time to do a really thorough page, but I can certainly make a start and e.g. include a bunch of links to useful criticisms of Stinnett's book. And I think I'll go with my original title suggestion - I agree with you (see my reply in the section above) that these theories are no good, but I don't see any profit in being antagonistic... Noel 22:42, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I disagree that having an additional page for alternative theories. I think it would be much better to handle it on this page. That being said, the theories could be better handled. Something like:

Since the attack, a number of conspiracy theories have evolved about the attack on Pearl Harbor. These theories typically revolve around include elements of foreknowledge of the attack (by various Allied powers: the US, England, the Soviets, etc.) and why such foreknowledge was kept secret (to draw the US into the war and so on). A representative sample of the promiment conspiracy theories is listed below.

Daniel Quinlan 22:46, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)

I've only just looked at this Talk page and so some of my comments will in response to comments of some time ago. My apologies for not having been current.

The Imperial Japanese Navy only reluctantly went along with Yamamoto's idea about attacking Pearl Harbor. JIN policy for generations had been the 'Big Battle' in home waters after luring the US fleet across the Pacific. They seem to have been thinking both Dewey in the Phillipines in the US (US Fleet goes way off), and the Japanese triumph against the traveling Russian fleet in 1905. A Pearl attack had been discussed by various authorial types now and again between the wars, and had been 'gamed' and exercised (notably by the US Navy), but Yamamoto's troops were, it appears, the first to seriously try to plan it out. That planning didn't even begin until well after Yamamoto's first mention sometime early in 41 (ie, about January). The JIN high command (of which Yamamoto was not a fully "on board" member, being widely thought to be too supportive of if not an actual member of, the 'Treaty faction') wasn't very enthusiastic about it, and approval to even try to develop a plan for such an attack only came because of Yamamoto's personal pressure. At the time of Amb Grew's report (vice the Peruvian Ambassador) in early 41 there existed no plan, Yamamoto was just kicking the tires, apparently.

As for the claim (from Stinnet and others) that the US had 'broken the Japanese codes' both diplomatic and military, this is complex. Assorted Japanese cyphers and codes (eg, the highest security diplomatic one -- called by the US Purple) had been broken, either because they were (more or less) easy, because the Navy stole them (cf, Budiansky's Battle of Wits and his reporting of the slush fund held by the Office of Naval Intelligence and the black bag jobs it financed), or because of considerable inspired work (as by the Friedmann/Rowlett team that broke Purple). We didn't even begin to (illegally, for Congress had passed a law enacting Stimson's "gentlemen don't read other people's mail" attitude) collect cable traffic in the Pacific until Sarnoff agreed to help break that law immediately before 12.7.41. Very few military codes or cyphers had been broken, because

1) there wasn't much traffic (you don't need -- nor do you, unless you've some gears loose, use -- a wireless transmission (in code or cypher) if a ship is attached to a telephone or telegraph line at quayside or if you can deliver paper copies of orders, studies, queries, ... by courier or dispatch boat. There is no credible reason to believe that, even if JN-25 had been completely read from say early 41, there would have been warning about the Pearl raid to read in that traffic., and

2) they changed pretty regularly as is only sensible for any sane crypto system. Such success as was achieved against the Japanese military by US crypto folk was largely in China (as for instance during the Panay incident) and was largely irrelevant by mid-late 41. In particular, Stinnet says in his book (and in the Independent Institute talk whose transcript is referenced above) that the US was able to read the '5-num' JIN superencrypted code (ie, JN-25) well before 12.7.41. There is no credible evidence that this was actually so. His citation of instruction manuals from OP-20-G in Washington on how to do so is unconvincing. I can write any number of manuals outlining crytpanalysis techniques, but those manuals do not show that anyone has been able to succeed. Ted Williams' books on how to hit the curve ball didn't help me much, nor most of their readers either, I suspect. The US, British, and Dutch agreed to cooperate on attacking such things as JN-25 (the name most use for this system) and seem to have jointly made a certain amount of progress (perhaps 10-15% of the traffic somewhat readable) by the time a new edition of the system sent them back to start over at the beginning of 12.41. There was little traffic to intercept since the JIN didn't need to use it in wireless transmissions much, and for such a system lots of 'depth' (ie, lots of intercepted traffic) was needed to have a reasonable chance to make any serious progress in breaking it. Notice that sufficient traffic _was_ available after 12.7.41 that by the end of 5.42 there was a sufficient break (and sufficient discussion over wireless) to stage a ambush at Midway (more than a small gamble, even so -- it wasn't a 100% break. Wouldn't have wanted to play poker against Nimitz -- he had nerve). Thereafter, the JIN had severe problems distributing new edition codebooks and superencypherment tables to all those who needed them, which slowed down the edition changes too much, and the Allies were able to find enough copies laying around (eg, in I-1 the submarine beached on Guadalcanal) that they were more or less able to keep up with JN-25 changes. Captured crypto material helped with Imperial Army traffic too, as for instance the trunk found buried in New Guinea.


As for the US carriers being the main target at Pearl, it is clear in retrospect that they should have been. However, no one (anywhere) at the time had much of an idea that carriers could be (and stil less that they would be) what the turned out to be. In particular, the JIN had its battlewagon admirals (of which Yamamoto had once been one, but uncharacteristically he had seen the light early on) and they more or less dominated JIN thinking, both in war gaming and actual planning. The JIN, and the USN, thought that the raid had been a complete (if not 100%) success at least up till Midway. Some may have begun to change their minds after Coral Sea, however, and probably should have after the British raid at Taranto somewhat earlier. Everybody should have been thinking after Billy Mitchell's demos just after WWI. Nagumo had done very very well, in just about everyone's eyes. The military is a conservative enterprise everywhere, and it takes some one like Billy Mitchell, or Yamamoto, or with all his other faults, Jackie Fisher, to make more than incremental progress. Remember that Mitchell was court-martialed and convicted. For example, note that the British Army was hugely resistant to the very idea of tanks, that JFC Fuller's ideas about how to finish off WWI (more or less, blitzkrieg and bombing) were essentially ignored almost everywhere (except in Germany, among some German officers), that the significance of metallurgically good cannon and shot and race built ships was appreciated only by a few Englishmen (and no Spanish) at the time of the Armada (Philip's machinations were it seems just frosting), and that almost all of WWI was essentially the Civil War Petersberg campaign write Continental. Even though there were European observers present on both sides throughout the Civil War, and the importance of rapid fire breech loading rifles, good artillery doctrine, what crude machine guns could do was available to all. They had plenty of warning and found ways to ignore them; for that matter, the US Army did too, though we got in so late whatever corporate memory of Petersberg we might have had didn't have much chance to make an effect.

It is not at all unreasonable that all on both sides would have thought that the Pearl attack was a roaring success (disaster), though all US carriers survived intact.

Hope this helps with some of the points brought up here.

ww

Hi, WW, I'm generally happy about your new content under "Advance Knowledge Debate", but I am wondering if the sheer bulk of it doesn't reinforce my earlier suggestion that this topic (whether there was advance knowledge) really needs to be on a separate page. I mean, most people who want to know about Pearl Harbour couldn't care less about the details of this dust-up - just a line or two to say that there is controversy, and a number of theories, but in general most histories find them unrealistic, is all they care about (and a pointer to the longer article).

On such a separate page, we could mention all sorts of evidence (e.g. the bearings to the Japanese carrier transmissions during the run-up weren't changing) that are really too detailed for an encylopedia article on Pearl. (After all, an encyclopedia isn't supposed to contain every last detail about a topic - that's what specialized works, and the "Further Reading" and "External Links" sections, are for.)

Noel 16:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Noel,
I agree that it's too long. And I seem to remember agreeing with someone earlier on this point (you?). BUT, since 8.12.41 there has been a very active group who maintain something more than mere blunder was involved. There are still books, articles, etc being published suggesting this or that shows there was conspiracy. I am now convinced that there will be no resolution on any of these points. Thus it's a primary issue for many of those first coming to the subject.
Something needs to be here on the conspiracy issue, but how much? What's here, currently, addresses only the high points. There's no coverage of Roosevelt's provocative yacht expedition from the Philipines which 'proves' he was trying to provoke the Japanese into attacking, or ... or ... or ... or ... .
How much should be here? In my view, nothing. But given the polemical importance of Pearl Harbor conpiracy theories, enough to make clear that conspiracy theories are not the only possibility. This further implies, I suspect, that more than a mere statement that no such conspiracy has been shown is required.
Finally, should there be a conspiracy theory article. I suspect it would be a good idea, but I also think that conspiracy theorists will seriously resent being relegated to such a 'secondary' article.
I don't think there's a good solution.
Thoughts?
ww

Well, as to how much detail to include (in Wikipedia in general, not speaking of this particular page), we really ought not to have every last detail - because that would be an "anti-conspiracy book" (one is sorely needed, but alas, I don't know of one), and Wikipedia's not supposed to be "the book" on any topic.

I agree with you that it's important that we cover this topic well because there are so many people who (still) think there was some chicanery, and there's no sign it will subside soon. We (again, Wikipedia generally) do need to list i) the main theories, ii) the main evidence cited by those theories, iii) where that evidence is wrong, iv) other important evidence showing the theories are incorrect, etc.

However, that just reinforces my point - that this is a significant enough topic (as well as one that is divergent from the main point of the page) that it needs a page of its own. The main Pearl Harbour page can then be linked to that one.

So I disagree that there's no solution! :-) Noel 14:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include the satellite image of pearl harbor? Perl 21:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. Althought it should include place names (battleship row, hickam field, ford's island) →Raul654 21:38, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

US or U.S. should at least be consistent

Hi. I know the US vs U.S. debate can get quite heated but I do think the article should at least be consistent. Leaving aside what one thinks is "right" it does look dreadful if it's inconsistent, which it currently is, badly. At the moment there are about 30x"US" versus 20x"U.S." and this is not counting incorporated uages such as "USS". You even get ludicrous things like "U.S." and "UK" in the same sentence. I'm tempted to at least make it consistent, without wishing to get into the flame war about which one is right. What do you think? Nevilley 08:47, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

PS Excellent article by the way! :) Nevilley 08:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I prefer neither with any fervor, but as far as I'm concerned, have at it, whichever side you come down on. Glad you like the article. ww
Who cares? Just make it consistent. Perl 15:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well clearly someone does care or there would not be a history of rows about this subject! :) I have made it consistent as you so helpfully suggest. I hope I have not broken anything - if so I have not found it yet. Nevilley 00:53, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FDR and Pearl Harbour

the book "Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black has an alternative view. It could be classified as 'conspiracy', that FDR knew he needed a Japanese attack on American forces in order to shape public opinion, which was at that time strongly isolationist, and so he hardballed the Japanese on the embargoes and the diplomacy. He didn't specifically 'know about pearl' beforehand. But he knew something was coming, eventually, and when it did it really helped his agenda.

Ah, I can easily believe something closely akin to this one, actually, although I would spin it slightly differently - not so much that FDR wanted a war just because he wanted a war, but rather that he may have felt that Japanese aggressiveness (especially after Japanese moves in China) really needed to be checked, and that there was probably no way to do that without a war - a war that the Japanese would have to start if he were to rally the US population to really fight it.
The embargos on oil and scrap steel were clearly something that was going to cause something to break - either it would cripple the Japanese military, and he'd get what he wanted without having to have a war (which I would expect is what he preferred), or they'd go to war.
The problem in writing it up here is that I'm not sure if there is any evidence (e.g. something FDR wrote, or something he said to someone else that they wrote down) about exactly what he was thinking when he confronted Japan. I haven't read the book you mention, so perhaps there is some. Noel 06:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And what were we doing in hawaii in the first place? Stealing the land for sugar companies.

No, protecting Hawaii from being stolen by the Germans and Japanese--after World War I. Read your history before braying like a jackass, jackass.

Photo caption tense

I changed "exploded" back to "explode" because photo captions like that are often in the present tense, describing the "current" action in the photo. Ww was right in that it read badly because there was a non-agreeing "was" in there but I have changed this to an "is" and I feel that the whole caption now reads better, and is consistent with other present-tense captions in the article. The other minor change was in the USS Utah caption where the u/c C in Capsizing had a very odd effect on how it read. hth Nevilley 16:38, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Among those who were killed, how many were civilians? Garrett Albright 11:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a few, but not very many, as the targets were all military and pretty much removed from all civilian areas. However, the declaration of war Japan had sent to its embassy in Washington had not been fully translated until well after the attack was underway so it was every bit as much of a surprise as the attack on the World Trade Center.Doovinator 12:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I believe that it was 14 (or 16) civilians killed, and they all deaths were attributed to US anti-aircraft fire. Stargoat 16:49, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
No - 48 people were killed, including a 3-month old. →Raul654 18:21, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Photo caption

The caption on the satallite photo is bad grammer? I don't know how to fix it but it is not right. This modern satellite image of Pearl Harbor shows Hickam AFB and Honolulu International Airport are in the lower right corner. are vs is? 2 sentences combined? Hobie 04:16, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Easily fixed :) →Raul654 04:23, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

List of ships lost?

Shouldn't there be a list of ships lost in the attack? It would only make sense. Wikipedia is usually consistent with these types of things.

lead-up and motives

this article needs to explain better and more thoroughly what events led up to this attack and what japan's motives were. to say it differently, what were the events that occurred that led japan to this decision? Kingturtle 05:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor/Archive_1&oldid=512686828"