Talk:Pearl Harbor (World War II): Difference between revisions
imported>Sandy Harris (question) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Name: shall we Move it?) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
: I also prefer "attack". [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC) | : I also prefer "attack". [[User:Sandy Harris|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? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Background == | == 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) | 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 10:42, 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)
- 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)
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)