Jump to content

Talk:American theater (World War II)/Archive 1

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

ship sinking limits

The ship sinkings that this article covers I feel should be limited to ships that were sunk within sight of the mainland.

Most of the millions of tons of US coastal shipping sunk by U-Boats during "the second happy time" were within sight of the US mainland. Many of them were visible to the German submarines at night because they were backlit by the lights of US cities. Read the linked article. :) Cheers, Madmagic 00:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The 'U-Boat operations' section is wrong

The 'U-Boat operations' section of this article [1] badly needs fixing. It implies there were only a few ships sunk off the eastern seaboard of the US during WWII by German U-boats. This is false.

In reality, the German U-boat crews quite rightly referred to the carnage they inflicted on US east coast shipping as "the second happy time." Over 500 ships were sunk, multiple millions of tons lost. Only US government wartime censorship prevented this news from reaching the US public during the war. See: Operation Drumbeat (second happy time). Cheers, Madmagic 02:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I spotted this independently and boldly went and changed it. Hope it's ok. Tried to limit the detail as it's only part of an article. Folks at 137 17:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be no discussion here, or elsewhere in Wikipedia, of U-boat operations in the Gulf of Mexico. AusJeb 19:45, 2 Nov. 2008 (UTC)

Operations and plans

The article is confusing to read at the moment because actions and plans are not clearly delineated. Any military worth its salts has contingency plans for almost everything. It is just that they become more detailed the closer they come to operations. I suggest rearranging it under:

  • Operations
    • Japanese
    • German
  • Plans
    • Japanese
    • German
    • Italian

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Should attacks on Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands be in this article?

The title of the article is "Attacks on the United States mainland during World War II" From the Wikiepdia articles on Mainland and Continental United States it seems Hawaii doesn't belong in any description of the US mainland; and while Alaska might be considered a part of the continental US, the islands off Alaska are not -- as defined in Continental United States.

Perhaps Pearl Harbour and the Battle of the Aleutian Islands should be moved to the "See also" section? Or is there any other solution which will work? Cheers, Madmagic 08:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Madmagic. If not move Pearl Harbor and the Aleutians to another page, would renaming the article "Attacks on United States soil during World War II" or the like suffice? Then again, I'm now seeing images of jackbooted people wielding spray-bottles... Best wishes, David Kernow 13:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Afterthought: Thinking of shipping, make that something like "Attacks on United States territory during World War II"...? (Also dismisses the fiendish bottle-wielders.)

And another point: neither Alaska nor Hawaii were states at the time! Neither were the Philipines, Wake, Guam nor Midway, but they were US territory; where to draw the line? What the heck - leave it as it is - shoot all pedants! Folks at 137 17:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help to expand the opening paragraph, which currently is only a single line: "Attacks on the United States mainland during World War II by the Axis Powers were rare, mainly due to North America's geographical separation from the central theatres of conflict in Europe and Asia."
I can add to this to state the scope of the article, including links to the Mainland and Continental United States articles. This would help people reading and editing the article to understand the article's focus. Cheers, Madmagic 15:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Good luck! I suspect that the scope of this is largely subjective, since most Americans probably regard the "mainland" or the "contiguous states" as insulated from foreign attack, therefore they (and others) are interested in the exceptions. In terms of WW2, attacks on Hawaii, or Guam, are probably of less curiosity than those on Alaska. I talk as a non-American not living in North America, so unreliable. Probably best to just restate the existing scope and back off quickly. Folks at 137 16:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Heh. Thanks Folks at 137, good to have the perspective. And nice work on the U-boat section, btw. Cheers, Madmagic 17:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
How about including Hawaii and the Aleutians under the title "Attacks on the United States homeland during World War II" – or might that upset another group of people?  David Kernow 21:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I must be blind or daft! Just realised that the new-ish article name (after all the wrangling) refers to the United States. But in the U-boat section there are refs to attacks in the St Lawrence and Newfoundland .... not US territory. Don't want to lose the info as it is related, but the title could become longer than the article (slight exaggeration for emphasis). Folks at 137 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a separate, smaller article covering attacks on Canada during World War II would be just as well; the present article is already quite long. David Kernow 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Better to re-title it "Attacks on North America during WWII" --Cubdriver 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves, someone or three objected to or pointed out a problem with that solution, although I can't now recall what... David Kernow 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Cubdriver's suggestion sounds good to me; I doubt if there were sufficient attacks on non-US North America to be worth a separate article and there is a common thread. Better be careful, though: apart from US and Canada, Newfoundland was a separate British Crown Colony, St Pierre et Miquelon was Vichy French (subsequently Free French) and Greenland was Danish. I assume that the Aleutians will still be included in Alaska ;-). There was Axis activity in each of these territories. I don't think there's anything else .... Sorry to have re-opened this can of worms. Good news is: I'm on holiday from Sunday so can't cause more bother for a while. Folks at 137 22:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Greenland is usually considered part of North America, although under current U.S. military doctrine only the west coast is under the North American command; the east coast (where German WWII activity was limited) falls under the European command. I reckon the title would therefore have to be "Attacks on the North American continent" which would handily rule out Greenland and the French islands. What a deliciously convoluted subject! --Cubdriver 00:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Using "mainland" was ruled out thanks to shipping; see above. Would people understand "North American territory" (as in "Attacks on North American territory during World War II") to include, incorrectly, territories such as the Philippines, Guam, etc? I think that line of thinking is what led to the current title, although it overlooks the Canadian references. Would it bear stretching to "Attacks on Canada and United States territory in North America during World War II"... or, if I may mix similies more or less deliciously, are the worms from the can about to crawl over another pitfall in this minefield of a title?  Burp, David Kernow 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, not just "Canadian", please. If Cubdriver's strict use of "continent" is used then Newfoundland and the Aleutians are also excluded (and Long Island?). I think that we should use the commonly accepted usage of North America, or the Wiki equivalent, and include adjacent islands. Most readers won't use the US military doctrine so don't be bound by that - inclusion of Greenland is debatable but I'd include it for completeness. How about "Attacks on North America during WWII" as previously suggested by Cubdriver? It's concise, easily understood and can be clarified in the intro. Nothing will be perfect. My head hurts, my fault for putting my foot in this minefield. Nice one Mr Kernow! Folks at 137 08:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all! The continent includes the Continental Shelf, so the shipping lanes are included. And the islands under the jurisdiction of mainland capitals would be included as well. Not to worry about the Aleutians, Long Island, or Nova Scotia. I think that Greenland is another matter altogether. It was supposedly governed from Copenhagen, hence more European than North American. Heck, even the Tuborg bottles are today returned to Denmark for recycling. (I wasn't advancing the U.S. "commands" structure as an argument for including half of Greenland in the continent.) --Cubdriver 10:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to attend to the title sooner rather than later, I'd agree that "Attacks on North America during World War II" seems the best fit. I'm intending to revisit a few areas of the article, but probably later rather than sooner. Thanks for your thoughts, David Kernow 23:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the change, and revised the two opening paragraphs to suit the new title. There may of course be other sections that need to be conformed. --Cubdriver 00:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

execution date?

The text now reads: <<However, the Dasch confession led to the arrest of all of the men by July 10. Six of the eight men were executed on August 8; the others, Dasch and Burger, were given thirty-year prison sentences.>> That was awfully fast, arrested on July 10, executed on August 8! Were the events really in the same year? --Cubdriver 16:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, very quick! Especially considering how long condemned people reside on Death Row, these days. Checked a few places and found this:
STATEMENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE SENTENCES OF EIGHT NAZI SABOTEURS LANDED BY SUBMARINE ON THE LONG ISLAND AND FLORIDA SHORES ON JUNE 13 AND 17, 1942
August 8, 1942.
White House news release.
The President completed his review of the findings and sentences of the Military Commission appointed by him on July 2, 942 which tried the eight Nazi saboteurs. The President approved the judgment of the Military Commission that all of the prisoners were guilty and that they be given the death sentence by electrocution. However, there was a unanimous recommendation by the Commission, concurred in by the Attorney General and the Judge Advocate General of the Army, that the sentence of two of the prisoners be commuted to life imprisonment because of their assistance to the Government of the United States in the apprehension and conviction of the others. The commutation directed by the President in the case of Burger was to confinement at hard labor for life. In the case of Dasch, the sentence was commuted by the President to confinement at hard labor for thirty years. The electrocutions began at noon today. Six of the prisoners were electrocuted. The other two were confined to prison. The records in all eight cases will be sealed until the end of the war.
Looks kosher, the site is [2]. [3] adds colour and explains speed. There was little doubt about guilt and the President set the penalties on the day of the verdict: executions happened the same day. Folks at 137 10:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Second happy time

I reinstated the description "defeat" for the U-boat campaign off the US east coast. It seems valid to me, given the avoidable losses that were suffered. Is there a consensus? Alternative words like "setback", "losses", "damage" just don't seem to indicate the severity of the impact and the fact that it stemmed from a policy decision (or indecision?). Folks at 137 21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cubdriver removed the words and said: "United States - I'm not aware that the "U.S. Navy" surrendered to Adm Donitz!" True enough. But a defeat doesn't imply surrender (eg, Dunkirk (Allied defeat), El Alamein (Axis defeat), Kasserine pass (Allied defeat), etc): just a military setback at the hands of an opponent. And the U-boat campaign was certainly that.
Churchill wrote to Roosevelt in March 1942: "...I am most deeply concerned at the immense sinkings of tankers west of the fortieth meridian and in the Caribbean Sea..." and "...The situation is so serious that drastic action of some kind is necessary... ." In June 1942, the American Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshal wrote to Admiral King, "...The losses by submarines off our Atlantic seaboard and in the Caribbean now threatens our entire war effort...". Quotes taken from [4] Folks at 137 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So you believe that Britain was defeated by the V-2 attacks of 1944-1945? --Cubdriver 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, very long day and I'm mentally knackered. You'll have to explain your line of thought. Folks at 137 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Estevan Point?

There is no record of the (brief) Japanese submarine attack on Vancouver Island at Estevan Point...? No one was injured, but it does mark the only attack on Canadian soil, to my understanding. edit: OK, I've added it in. J21 14:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Newfoundland

Take care! What is now Newfoundland and Labrador was, until after WWII, a separate Dominion with the same legal status as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and (surprise) the then Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland): definitely not a Crown Colony. For practical reasons, its home defence was absorbed by Canada althogh Newfoundland raised its own regiments for foreign service. It was absorbed politically into Canada on March 31 1949 after a closely fought referendum and some pressure from the British Government. Just as Canadians emphasise their separation from the US, Newfoundlanders do the same re Canada. Be warned! Folks at 137 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

German plans for invasion?

Can anyone point to evidence for German invasion plans of the US? I thought (supported by evidence) that Felix was to be the capture of Gibraltar and German access to bases in north-west Africa, with the objectives of denying the Mediterranean and north-west Africa to the Allies. It sounds more like a propaganda story, but I'm open to persuasion. Folks at 137 23:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a page Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII already. There is much overlap with this page. Linking the two pages and editing them both to improve their focus would seem to be a good idea. Shimbo 11:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have added a merge tag. The two articles are going over the same ground to a large extent and all the information about invasion in the other article seems speculative to me. However, I can see that this article only covers actual attacks wheras the other one covers planned attacks that never actually happened, such as the Italian plans for midget submarine attacks on the USA. Shimbo 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was disapointed to see the merge tag was removed without any discussion of the merits of the idea, or any reasoning. I've put it back until a consensus emerges. If the majority of people think it is a bad idea then fine I'll withdraw it. Shimbo 08:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again the merge tag was removed without discussion. The comment said "There is a difference between plans and actual attacks", something I already mentioned just above. The solution to this is, as stated just above to have two sections to the article, one for attacks that happened and one for attacks which were planned but did not take place. Shimbo 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that an anon, User:132.241.246.111, is deleting the tag. I would support a merger. PBP 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No Merge

There is a major difference between things that were planned and things that were done. grazon 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese attacks on shipping

An obvious avenue for the expansion of this article would be to include a section on the Japanese submarine attacks on shipping sailing off the US west coast. --Nick Dowling 07:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Battle of Los Angeles

I see the following text was removed: "but some believe this to have been an unidentified flying object incident." I have read this before and there are references we could add, e.g. [5] [6]. And in fact West coast air raid describes it as a UFO incident, in the technical sense that, it was a flying object and was never identified. I will put this back with better references unless there are objections Shimbo 08:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has forgotten the battle for Throggs Neck when a coordinated effort by NAZI Uboats in Eastchester Bay and NAZI 5th columnests working through local beach clubs attempted to capture and/or destroy Throggs Neck. They were quite nearly sucessful but for two brave souls working independently who lived in Throggs Neck all their lives. One was named Jerry Panzella and the other was named Frank Bevilaqwilliack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mexico

I added 'disputed' tag to Mexico section in present state - seems completely unreliable, unsourced and untrue, as mentioned tankers were, as far as I know, sunken by German submarine, following which, Mexico joined Allies, not Axis, and possibly the very best solution would be return of this section to last non vandalised state of text - but, as I have no detailed resources available, and I don't want get myself involved in some editing flame war, I choose only to warn users by tagging section as 'disputed'. If anyone may help, it would be kindly appreciated. --ja_62 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Solved by PBP. Thanks --ja_62 (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

....but excludes military action involving the Danish territory of Greenland and the Caribbean

The opening paragraph mentions that the article excludes the Caribbean, yet there is a section about that region. For whatever it is worth, I think it should be in there and the opening line corrected, but thought I'd mention before doing so. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected it. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 13:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The first and only aerial bombing of mainland America ... nor after a repeat attempt on September 29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.248.135 (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Planned Attacks?

Any thoughts on a short section on attack plans that were later canceled as the tide of war changed? Examples would be Japans plan to bomb the Panama Canal [7] and Italy's plan to strike New York harbor.[8] Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think those planned but later canceled attacks should be mentioned, perhaps in a section entitled "Canceled Axis Campaigns" or something like that, good question.--70.176.164.179 (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Yes, it looks like that section has been added. I think it could use a little expansion, but it is a good starting point. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Canceled Axis operations section

In this article's "Canceled Axis operations" section, four operations are enumerated and three of them seem to have been plans, some of them only on paper. I just rewrote one of them in this edit, but now I am doubting whether mere plans belong in this section at all. Is a plan on paper, never approved and put into motion, a "canceled operation"? I assume that one could come up with several hundred ideas that the Axis came up with about attacking North America, so I think that "ideas for attacks" should perhaps be its own section, researched better to not give undue weight to the 3 that happen to be in the current list. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple problems

Alaska:

Neither of the Aluetian Islands and Dutch Harbor attacks occurred on the mainland North America during the war and therefore should not be represented in this article about attacks on North America during WW2. The Aleutians are technically part of Alaska but this does not make them North American territories. The said attacks were campaigns against Pacific Islands and not North America, obviously. I removed them once but apparantly someone, who thinks the Pacific Ocean is part of the North American continent, added them again. I would remove the two sections now but I will wait for a reply.

Mexico:

I should also mention I removed Mexico's tiny section. Once again, the sinking of a Mexican merchant vessel in the Pacific is not an attack on the North American mainland.

Germany:

As for the German U-boat operations. I think that only the U-boat attacks that occurred literally right off the coast and within sight of land should be listed. I admit I did not read much of the section but if it does contain references to U-boat attacks that did not occur right off the coast, then they should be removed. It is a big portion of the article so I will not delete anything, I will wait for a response first.

The title should be changed to "Operations against North America during World War II", the German espionage operations were not attacks, most of which were simply infiltrations by unarmed German spies, off the top of my head, I don't remember reading that any of the infiltrations resulted in violence.

North America.

Caribbean:

The whole Caribbean section should be removed. The Caribbean sea and countries are not in any way part of North America. They are part of Central America and before that they are simply islands in the Atlantic. Whoever added this should have just created it's own seperate page and added it to the "Atlantic Campaign (1939-1945)" article. As this portion is a sub-section of the German U-boat Operations section, I will not delete in at this time.

It's all pretty simple.--70.176.164.179 (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC) This is my name for now. I haven't used wiki in a while and have forgotten my password so I cannot access my account at this time.

I disagree with your "Alaska" and "Caribbean" points above. As this map from our North America article shows, the Aleutians and the Caribbean islands are generally considered part of North America. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Time to archive?

I think it may be time to archive the talk page as we have discussions going back to 2006. Better yet would be adding an appropriate archiving bot. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and add the bot. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 03:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


Merge

  • Comment. They should be merged, but I think in the other direction. Do non-American Theaters have dates on them?
And another thing.... Wouldn't it be smarter to spell it "theatre"? I don't think that this is confined to UK English for this purpose. It might help distinguish it from Broadway history or whatever. Maybe. Student7 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh??

At about the same time as the Dasch operation (on April 25, 1944), a solitary Abwehr agent, Marius A. Langbein, was landed by a U-boat (possibly U-217) near St. Martins, New Brunswick, Canada.

Sounds all very plausible but according to the U-217 article, the submarine was sunk in June 1943!! Half the time I just don't know what is true and what isn't reading on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.252.101 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Article name

It's confusing As it stands, it includes any attacks on the North American continent, but people are treating it as attacks on USA and Canada 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that because there were no attacks on Mexico or Central America? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's also confusing because are some of these attacks actually attacks... "German landings in Newfoundland" to setup a weather station. An attack? etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.14.57 (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mainly it's confusing because any reasonable person would think it's about acting, the theater, drama, histrionics, etc etc in America in the 1939-45 period. Nothing to do with war. I know "theater" has a military meaning in relation to armed conflicts, but that's within a given and specified context. There is simply nothing about the article title that tells readers it has anything to do with military matters, and for that reason it must be changed. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Saint Pierre and Miquelon

Information on operations in Saint Pierre and Miquelon should be added to this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon#Modern_history Gunshippolitico (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Name of article

The name is confusing, because on its face it seems to only refer to the United States. Where did this name come from? Unless I am missing something, there appears to only be one source in the article for the term, which is actually a short 1996 piece on US naval operations. Why are we not referencing the more accurate "North American Theater"? If "American Theater" is the term that is, and was, routinely used to refer to operations in North America, I would think that we need sources saying that it is preferred over "North American Theater". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS Speakers (writers) can name their own theatres as they expostulate. Most common are "European Theatre" and "Pacific Theatre." "American theatre" is less common because less happened. "North American theatre" is non-existent as far as I can find.
But even now, I could define a "Greenland theatre" or "Canadian theatre." Probably wouldn't find it on Wikipedia either. I vote to stick with "American theatre" unless someone can find a (preferably more than one) WP:RS that defines, once and for all, the theatre as "North American." Student7 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what "speakers (writers) can name their own theatres as they expostulate" means, but WP:RS is the problem. Before we get to alternate names, the problem is the current name. There are no RS cited in the article, as best as I can tell, suggesting that "American Theater" is the term that is, and was, routinely used to refer to military operations in North America (and by more than just U.S. sources, although we don't even have that at the moment). Given that American most commonly pertains to the United States, not North America, in the English language, this title is extremely problematic absent RS that show that this is the actual term used. Unless this is the actual usage, we don't need to have a title that is so confusing/misleading. Especially since the article was moved in 2011 from a North American name to the current American one, without discussion, and based it seems only on the current non-source which refers solely to U.S. naval operations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It is worth noting, by the way, that the corresponding WWI article name, American Theater (1914-1918), redirects to the "Attacks on the USA" section of United States home front during World War I (for that war, Wikipedia is clear that American Theater is the United States, not North America). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Part of the problem may be the fact that North America isn't really thought of as a theater of war during WWII, given the relatively minor scope of the scattered operations that occurred on this continent. It certainly doesn't seem to meet the description in the lead paragraph of of Theater (warfare), which describes a theater as "an area or place in which important military events occur or are progressing". Given the confusing and misleading name, does anyone object to moving it to Military conflicts in North America during World War II or Axis operations in North America during World War II? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree. While Canada was a loyal (though reluctant) partner of Britain from 1939 on, they were never physically threatened, except in convoys. See Battle of the Atlantic. American territories of Hawaii and Alaska were both attacked. Convoys sailing immediately outside New York harbor and in the Gulf of Mexico were sunk with beach spectators looking on, horrified. Mexico was never threatened, nor Nova Scotia, nor Newfoundland, etc. Unless a WP:RS can be found that says the "American theater" was not used and some other name was used, I would vote to keep this one.
While the renaming of the American World War I theater is clumsy, IMO, it didn't contain the elements that the one in WWII did.Student7 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor in the Pacific

Removed references to Pearl Harbor which is covered in the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II. Don't be dismayed! The latter article lacks detail which can be copied directly from an old copy here! Student7 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved. Student7 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
No. We can't redefine theaters to suit ourselves. We have to follow WP:RS. Nimitz located at Pearl to defend the Pacific theater (for example). See Military_history_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_II#Pacific_Theater and Pacific_Ocean_theater_of_World_War_II. Hawaii was no more a state than were the Philippines or Guam. Already decided by other editors. Student7 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Theater (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_theater_(World_War_II)/Archive_1&oldid=1209463334"