Talk:Doolittle Raid: Difference between revisions

== Renaming ==

In accordance to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Article guidelines|Article Guidelines]] of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|Military History WikiProject]], I move that the title of this article be changed to "Doolittle Bombing Mission" or something similarly neutral.--[[User:Bennmorland|Benn M.]] 10:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

::Hello. The project guidelines say this: ''But other names can be used if they are the most common ways to refer to the battle. So Attack on Pearl Harbor and '''Doolittle Raid''' are acceptable.'' :) -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> ^{[[User:Miborovsky|U]]|[[User talk:Miborovsky|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Miborovsky|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Miborovsky|E]]|[[User:Miborovsky#Wiki-not-so-fun|Chugoku Banzai!]]} 10:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Dang. I missed that. Sorry for the time taken. But thanks!--[[User:Bennmorland|Benn M.]] 10:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

::::No problem at all. It takes some time to learn the ropes. -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> ^{[[User:Miborovsky|U]]|[[User talk:Miborovsky|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Miborovsky|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Miborovsky|E]]|[[User:Miborovsky#Wiki-not-so-fun|Chugoku Banzai!]]} 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

=== A cynical name ===

I suggest "Did little raid" because strategic bombing does not usually have any positive effect until around 50% of the target (usually a city) is destroyed. In a serious war, less than that causes war awareness in the enemy and return to apathy in the bombing country. Perhaps those who think that making it look like their country is winning "improves moral" are thinking more in terms of re-election. [[User:David R. Ingham|David R. Ingham]] 08:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:Hmmm... So you think that if 20% - 40% of a city is destroyed, this is a good thing for the country being attacked. To paraphrase a common saying, "with successes like that, who needs defeats?" In actually, in modern war, destruction of the correct 10% of a city/region (communications, power supplies, fuel depots, major transportation junctions) can completely wreck the city's economy and completely eliminate the capacity for residents of that city/region to wage war. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\^{[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]} 00:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

::The psychological effects were first and formost to appease Americans in the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Strategically it was a blip, but it bloodied the nose of Japan, and that's what the U.S. wanted at the time. To call it the "did-little-raid" [[User:David R. Ingham]] (1942 Japanese propaganda notwithstanding) is a slap in the face of 80 incredibly brave and selfless men. These guys launched medium bombers from an aircraft carrier!!! Nobody had ever done that before. These guys bombed mainland Japan!!! Nobody had ever done ''that'' before. Some of them were killed in crash landings be it land or sea. Some were executed by the Japanese. A lot of them made it back home. ''Nothing'' about this mission was easy, they all knew the risk when they ''volunteered.'' These men were/are truely an example of "[[the greatest generation]]". [[User:Akloki|Akloki]] 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:::The six Japanese aircraft carriers from the Pearl Harbor Attack 7 Dec 1941, the Fast Carrier Strike Force, were on the [[Indian Ocean Raid]] between 31 Mar--10 Apr 1942; one result of the Doolittle Raid 18 Apr 1942 was the Japanese high command recalled the Strike Force from the Indian Ocean, relieving the pressure on the Royal Navy and allowing the Brits to regain control of the Indian Ocean. Also, the Doolittle Raid sped up Japanese plans to attack Midway pushing the IJN to that disaster where their four best fleet carriers were sunk. By itself the Doolittle Raid ''did little'' damage, but in the context of the war, the consequences multiplied the effect exponentially: nothing happens in a vacuum, all events occur in a context of causes and effects. The boost to home front morale by those "thirty seconds over Tokyo" did not hurt either. [[User:Naaman Brown|Naaman Brown]] ([[User talk:Naaman Brown|talk]]) 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

::::That is a fatuous argument. No one expected that the raid would do much material damage to Japan, that wasn't the intent. The intent was two-fold: 1) to increase morale at home, to let the American people know that ''something'' was being done to hit back at the Japanese; and 2) to send a message to the people of Japan that they could be attacked, and maybe they shouldn't believe their government's propaganda to the contrary. The British did the same thing at a crucial point in the Battle of Britain, when a few bombs that did almost no damage to Berlin embarrassed Hermann Goering so badly that he made a decision (massively attacking London in reprisal) that lost the battle. The Japanese changed their strategic plans and reallocated their forces in ways that benefitted the Allies, all as a result of the Doolittle Raid. One of the major objectives of any military operation referred to as a "raid" is to cause major disruption to the enemy's plans. You'd have to go back to Nathan Bedford Forrest in the Civil War to find a raid by an American commander that caused more disruption than this one. [[User:Jsc1973|Jsc1973]] ([[User talk:Jsc1973|talk]]) 22:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

: Regardless. Renaming the article "Did little raid" would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. --[[User:Yaush|Yaush]] ([[User talk:Yaush|talk]]) 15:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

=== Psychological Importance of the Doolittle Raid ===

Dr. Ingham, I believe it was the psychological effect on the

Japanese military elite and the average Japanese citizen

that was the true positive outcome of the Doolittle Raid.

The Japanese home islands had not been attacked during

wartime for hundreds of years. Japan's wars preceding

its attack on China and its entry into WWII largely

consisted of naval engagements fought elsewhere, or acts of aggression and occupation by its army of a foreign

people. The raid made the average Japanese citizen aware that

his or her homeland was not the impenetrable fortress once

imagined; sooner or later, a determined enemy could strike

back at Japan itself. I think the psychological context of

wartime must be taken into consideration here when examining

the Doolittle Raid.

:It made the average Japanese more willing to fight the U.S, actually. Seeing your countrymen blown up does not deter you from war, this was the case for Pearl Harbor too, no? [[User:ChicagoPiano115|ChicagoPiano115]] ([[User talk:ChicagoPiano115|talk]]) 07:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

:::Spouting off personal opinions that contradict scholarly sources is completely useless here ... <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.111.216.187|50.111.216.187]] ([[User talk:50.111.216.187#top|talk]]) 08:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::The Idea that Blowing up people in their home country weakens their will to fight is a old and sadly in many Military and Political minds still lively fallacy. History shows again and again that if you kill/attack people in their home country, they get more willing to defend their home against the "barbaric" invaders. In the few cases it worked it's was mostly because the People where already against the government. But even then it doesn't always work and sometimes unites the country against the enemy. Think of the Vietnam War (or the USSR Invasion of Afghanistan). The US lost because the People where not willing to shoulder the losses of an purely political motivated war. While the Vietcong had a strong resolve the defeat the Foreign invaders. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:810C:C0:3480:3CCD:5888:D750:F63F|2A02:810C:C0:3480:3CCD:5888:D750:F63F]] ([[User talk:2A02:810C:C0:3480:3CCD:5888:D750:F63F|talk]]) 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Your history needs adjustment. The U.S. military never lost a major engagement in Viet-Nam. They left eventually due to politics back in the USA, which means the South Vietnamese lost the war.

:::[[Special:Contributions/50.111.216.187|50.111.216.187]] ([[User talk:50.111.216.187|talk]]) 08:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

== Psychological impact on strategic decisions ==

While the tactical side of the attack did indeed accomplish little, the fact of its occurrence did have a major impact on Japanese military strategy, which thereafter planned the Midway attack in order to eventually draw out, engage and destroy American naval forces in the Central Pacific, seeking to insure that direct attack on the Japan itself could not reoccur for the foreseeable future. Viewed in this light, the Doolittle Raid was a rather important moment in the history of the Pacific War, and the article should eventually relate that. --[[User:Chr.K.|Chr.K.]] ([[User talk:Chr.K.|talk]]) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, you may be correct, but without a good cite of scholarly research or other recognized references, it can't be included. --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] ([[User talk:Rogerd|talk]]) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::And there are many such RS's supporting this. [[Special:Contributions/50.111.216.187|50.111.216.187]] ([[User talk:50.111.216.187|talk]]) 08:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

== Japanese presidential palace ==

Why was it so important not to bomb the presidential/emperors palace? Wouldnt that be the ultimate target to bomb? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.88.126.66|88.88.126.66]] ([[User talk:88.88.126.66|talk]]) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The imperial palace was not a military target, and bombing the Emperor would only have inflamed the Japanese public and military, in a way that even the later firebombings did not. [[User:Yaush|Yaush]] ([[User talk:Yaush|talk]]) 00:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:The American leaders did not want to kill the Emperor because 1) you need someone to turn off the war, and 2) he was part of Japanese religious beliefs - killing him would have stiffened Japanese resistance and made occupation that much more problematic. [[Special:Contributions/50.111.216.187|50.111.216.187]] ([[User talk:50.111.216.187|talk]]) 08:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

== War crime ==

It is interesting that the Japanese who were responsible for the execution of raiders were charged and executed for war crimes. Yet the original raid was a war crime ("strafing and murdering Japanese civilians") and the execution of the Americans would therefore have been a lawful execution. Has there been an academic examination of the status of the raid in international law?[[Special:Contributions/122.59.140.215|122.59.140.215]] ([[User talk:122.59.140.215|talk]]) 05:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

:::Rubbish, and your personal feelings are just a violation of WP:FORUM. [[Special:Contributions/50.111.216.187|50.111.216.187]] ([[User talk:50.111.216.187|talk]]) 07:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

:At the time Japan was not a signator of the [[Geneva Conventions|Geneva Convention]] therefore the legal aspects of the raid and the executions afterwards would not have bothered anyone from the legality POV much at the time.

:For the relevant WW II period neither Japan nor the USSR were signatories of the Geneva Convention and thus were under no legal obligation to abide by it, thus technically they were not ''legally'' liable under ''International Law'' for any 'war crimes' they may have been accused of committing. OTOH, the Western Allies, and both Nazi Germany and Italy, were signatories.

:IIRC, both Japan and Russia were former Geneva Convention signatories but Japan had abrogated their signator status when their government was taken over by the right-wing militarists in the 1930s, similarly the USSR withdrew from the Geneva Convention (or rather refused to acknowledge or honour it, as it had been signed by a preceding Czarist Government) when the USSR was founded after the [[October Revolution]]. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2.29.18.153|2.29.18.153]] ([[User talk:2.29.18.153|talk]]) 09:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The Japanese had been bombing Chinese cities and killing civilians in large numbers many years prior to this raid, not to mention the cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor and other attacks on SEA which also resulted in civilian casualties. By 122.59.140.215's standard, almost every Japanese operation in WW2 constituted a war crime. [[Special:Contributions/120.21.2.249|120.21.2.249]] ([[User talk:120.21.2.249|talk]]) 11:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

== Japanese report of the raid before it happened? ==

The Singapore based Syonan Times reported an alleged raid before the Doolittle raid? see [http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/syonantimes19420417-1.2.29 Reported Bombing Of Tokyo Laughable]. Given that the Doolittle raid occurred on 18th and the paper reported a Tokyo report dated 16th would anyone know what happened. The Tokyo report cites a Reuters report.

The paper reported the actual raid on 27 April under the heading FUTILE RAID ON NIPPON, Syonan Times, 27 April 1942, Page 4[[User:NealeFamily|NealeFamily]] ([[User talk:NealeFamily|talk]]) 07:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

:Personally I believe the Japanese had anticipated a retaliation after attacking Pearl Harbor, like how Isoroku Yamamoto said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve": that would mean at least he suspected America would try to get even, and it would explain why that patrol boat would be out and about.[[Special:Contributions/184.186.4.209|184.186.4.209]] ([[User talk:184.186.4.209|talk]]) 23:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

::Yamamoto never said that - that is only from the movie script for ''Tora! Tora! Tora!'' - HammerFilmFan <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.111.216.187|50.111.216.187]] ([[User talk:50.111.216.187#top|talk]]) 07:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::I found a newspaper article in the Gloucester Citizen (Gloucester, England), Tuesday, April 7, 1942, Vol. 67, Issue 300, p.1 by Reuters quoting the US Chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee headlined US Bombs will fall on Tokyo. Maybe the Japanese misread the report. [[User:NealeFamily|NealeFamily]] ([[User talk:NealeFamily|talk]]) 07:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)