Jump to content

Talk:John C. Waldron

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

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and Debatable Content

[edit]

I removed the following section:


"Commander Waldron's decision to split off his squadron from the main flight group -- in the middle of the flight -- required great personal courage and is usually described as "an independent action." The military normally reserves the term "independent action" to describe decisions made spontaneously during battle, under circumstances not explicitly covered by standing orders. Within the context of the orders given to the attacking flight group at Midway, Commander Waldron's action is more correctly described as "muntinous." His decision to break radio silence jeopardized the safety of the entire formation and, and his decision to take VT-8 on a different course heading was a direct violation of orders. These actions would have almost certainly resulted in his being relieved of command of VT-8, save for the fact that his instincts were correct and he found the main body of the Japanese strike fleet. Had he not given his life for his country, the U.S. Navy would have hauled him in front of a courts martial. The courage of his convictions can not be doubted, but the essence of his actions should not be minimized."

It is an opinion, not verifiable encyclopedic content. Presuming that the Navy would court-martial Waldron is speculation at best. I'm not sure of the intent or justification for this commentary, but I think it is innappropriate. Moreover, its use of the term "mutinous" is incorrect or at least misleading. Compare it with the Uniform Code of Military Justice's definition: "any person who... with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse[s]... to obey orders... or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny...."[1] Posthoc777 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#894.%20ART.%2094.%20MUTINY%20OR%20SEDITION
I want to thank the above Editor for all of this, as this aspect of Waldron's narrative has always bothered me, in that the story of his actions are "spun" as heroic, and yet, if the narrative is to be believed, he blatantly disobeyed orders and committed a crime under the UCMJ. I am a new student of WWII in the Pacific theater, and have some military experience, and frankly I don't believe the narrative; that a Navy pilot would ever behave in this manner, and suspect that this is a post-mortem story manufactured for immediate and strategic reasons, either for the war, or for the political period afterwards. In short, while this might be what the Navy says happened, I don't believe this is actually what happened, and that this action by Waldron, outside the context of WWII, is far more interesting than the narrative's deception. I don't believe there was an in-flight "fight" between Waldron and his Commander, I do not believe he violated his orders, and I believe that, for whatever reason, the Navy has manufactured this narrative. Simply put, from the military perspective, this makes no sense whatsoever, particularly in light of the fact that Waldron found the Enemy carriers, seemingly by "accident" and Waldron's "gut instinct". There is much very interesting truth here, that the standard and accepted narrative from the Navy seems to continue to be hidden, for whatever reason. For this, and other reasons, I think the Article would be improved if the heart of the above comments were built into the Article itself. Surely there must be some credible historian(s) that have the same misgivings about the idea that a US Navy pilot in the middle of a flight to hunt down and destroy Japanese carriers, is going to take it upon itself to disobey orders, "do what he wants" and then find the Enemy. In short, I not only call "bullshit", but expect that a true historian of this event would agree with me. Trick is finding a "reliable source" to open the doors of inquiry into the situation, within the body of the Article itself. I may not know what the truth is, but I'm certain the "accepted narrative" is not the truth. Perhaps it was all part of the plan, and for whatever reason the Navy wanted to hide the fact that the information they had was more accurate and reliable than what historians say it was today. Hiding the source and quality of your intelligence about the Enemy is standard practice, in order to prevent the Enemy from adapting to your ability to gain information from them. During WWII, there was a politician that blabbed about classified information to the US Public, which then caused the Japanese to adapt. Can't remember the exact details, but it was something about the inadequacies of the Japanese depth charges, and how US submarines were able to escape. This politicians failure to keep classified information classified resulted in US causalities. The military protects it's information, and the sources of it, so manufacturing this narrative may have served a purpose at the time, but it's 75 years later, and the truth should come out.
In any case, the fact that Waldron apparently intentionally and openly disobeyed orders should at minimum be mentioned in the Article, along with the supporting opinions similar to those expressed by the previous Editor. He's right, IMO, and the Article should reflect these truths. Another parallel to this is how the Navy dealt with US cryptographer "Rochefort", which also has some odd and suspicious-sounding details in the narrative that ring false.66.25.69.185 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John C. Waldron. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_C._Waldron&oldid=1254931329"