Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor

Template:Vital article

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)

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)