Talk:Pearl Harbor (World War II): Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce (Maybe the article should be called "Attack on Pearl Harbor" rather than "Battle of"?) |
imported>Sandy Harris (question) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== 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.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:16, 23 June 2008 (CDT) | 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.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:16, 23 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
: I also prefer "attack". [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 15:45, 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? [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:45, 23 June 2010
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)
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)