Humanities desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 17

Children of Progressive Conservatives from the Mulroney times

Besides Peter McKay and Maxime Bernier, whose fathers were Progressive Conservative politicians during Brian Mulroney's premiership, who else was part of Stephen Harper's government whose parent was a member of Mulroney's government or was a Progressive Conservative politician? Donmust90 (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Reaction to the Battle of Midway

Do we know how Hideki Tojo and the rest of the Japanese leadership responded to their loss at Midway? How about the general Japanese populace? -- 202.172.113.133 (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the general populace, from the article that you have yourself linked to: "On 10 June, the Imperial Japanese Navy conveyed to the military liaison conference an incomplete picture of the results of the battle. Chūichi Nagumo's detailed battle report was submitted to the high command on 15 June. It was intended only for the highest echelons in the Japanese Navy and government, and was guarded closely throughout the war. In it, one of the more striking revelations is the comment on the Mobile Force Commander's (Nagumo's) estimates: "The enemy is not aware of our plans (we were not discovered until early in the morning of the 5th at the earliest)."[145] In reality, the whole operation had been compromised from the beginning by American code-breaking efforts.[146]

The Japanese public and much of the military command structure were kept in the dark about the extent of the defeat: Japanese news announced a great victory. Only Emperor Hirohito and the highest Navy command personnel were accurately informed of the carrier and pilot losses. Consequently, even the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) continued to believe, for at least a short time, that the fleet was in good condition.[147]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriot (talk • contribs) 10:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A referenced Reddit post, Japanese Public's reaction to Midway. Alansplodge (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I doubt if the Japanese public was fooled for long. Those who lost relatives in the battle would tend to notice a lack of letters and visits. And soldiers setting up defense lines closer to Japan would have to wonder why those were needed, if Midway was such a success. And many Japanese ships did make it back from the Battle of Midway, so keeping those soldiers and sailors and airmen all quiet wouldn't be easy (although they took extreme measures to try to keep them quiet). Then there were air strikes from what they recognized as land-based US aircraft, which wouldn't be possible, unless the US had control of Midway. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The question was not about the general public and its understanding of the general progress of the war~~, and in any case your doubts are not a reliable source. As an example of how well a military secret can be kept, consider that before Midway the Japanese believed they had already destroyed the USS Yorktown at the Battle of the Coral Sea. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"How about the general Japanese populace?" means this Q is very much about how the general (Japanese) public understood the general progress of the war. And keeping the fate of 1 carrier secret from the enemy for a month is far easier than keeping the fate of 4 of your carriers, many other ships, and many aircraft and personnel secret from your own people, indefinitely. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I did not read to the end of the question. But you are talking about "indefinitely" and that was not part of it. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the length of time, that's a reply not to the original Q, but to your statement about the ability to keep the progress of the war secret from the people. Short term it can work, but long time, not so much. Eventually reality has a way of making itself obvious. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you overestimate the ability of people to obtain information in a nation where freedom is not a thing, and neither is twitter. The only form of communication the government could not control was word of mouth. I'm sure there would be rumors, but hard to imagine people "knowing" much else. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. See RMS Lancastria, a British troopship whose loss in 1940 with 3,000+ deaths was fairly effectively hushed-up for weeks until the US press broke the story. Many British people still don't know about it. The government can say that your son is missing without admitting that his ship (or indeed the most of the fleet) has been lost. Alansplodge (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly would have been aware that there must be something other than an unbroken string of victories by the time bombs started falling all over Japan. Hard to not notice that. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that was not until November 1944, a long time after Midway. However, the Emperor's admission in August 1945 that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage" can't have been much of a surprise to anyone. Alansplodge (talk)

That has to be the understatement of the century. But there were other earlier indications that all was not rosy. Evacuations of civilians in Japan during World War II, begun in 1943, made it obvious that something had gone wrong. And anyone with a globe or map of the Pacific could figure out that all those "victories" were inexplicably getting steadily closer to Japan. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at some stage a change of narrative would be required from "we are the champions" to "backs against the wall", but June 1942 was too soon for them. It was said that civilians in Nazi Germany didn't realise that the invasion of Russia was going wrong until women were asked to hand in their fur coats. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did they ever admit to the public that the war was going badly, or did the public just have to figure out for themselves that they had been lied to ? Based on Hirohito's statement, it seems as though he was barely even willing to admit they were losing then. In another case, "Baghdad Bob" was infamous for declaring victory right up until the end of the Second Gulf War. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, the evacuation of Japanese children from the cities to the countryside and the admission that the Battle of Saipan in July 1944 had been lost, together with the resignation of Tojo, was when everyone realised that the game was up. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An early opponent of the battle plan said, "I Tojo so." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Just occurred to me we don't know (yet) how top Brass in pentagon react to war events happening in Afghanistan, while the general populace only confusingly feel that things are awry ... The only difference being, some voice can be heard "we are losing, stop it" while Japanese telling that would had been silenced. Gem fr (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Day

Constitution Day (United States) says it was created on 2004 and before that was known as Citizenship Day. Yet the article's pic from 1974 already shows it under current name and already celebrated. Why is that? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article further down, you see that both names were in use. It says, and I quote, "Iowa schools first recognized Constitution Day in 1911.[5] In 1917, the Sons of the American Revolution formed a committee to promote Constitution Day. The committee would include members such as Calvin Coolidge, John D. Rockefeller, and General John Pershing." So, at least as early as 1911, some were calling it constitution day. Furthermore, other names were given to the day, including "I Am An American Day". The 2004 law did not invent a new name for the day, it formalized and standardized what was until then a haphazard set of celebrations (some formal and some informal) for September 17 in the US. --Jayron 32 14:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War ship?

Raid on Combahee Ferry mentions a US Navy ship called the Sentinel, which is not in USS Sentinel. This site of uncertain reliability claims it was a Civil War monitor that was lost in the Battle of Chareston (sic), but I can't find anything to corroborate its existence. Whazzup? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the steamer "Sentinel," a small craft that looked like a canal-boat with a one-story house built upon it

Emilio, L. F. (1894). History of the Fifty-Fourth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, 1863-1865. Boston. p. 39. [1]—eric 05:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not clear if Sentinel was a US Navy ship or just commandeered, so I'm going to adjust the phrasing in the raid article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only other mention I could find:

"NORTHERN DISTRICT, DEPT. or THE SOUTH, Folly Island, S. C. February 22, 1864. Brig. Gen. A. Ames, U. S. Volunteers : General : I am directed by the brigadier-general commanding to state that the steam-boats Sentinel and Delaware are now at Pawnee Landing and will be in readiness to receive to receive troops..."

The War of the Rebellion: Formal reports, both Union and Confederate, of the first seizures of United States property in the Southern States (p. 488) (sorry, snippet view only, the text is from the Google search result).

Alansplodge (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more: "This force was embarked on three Army steamer transports: Sentinel, John Adams and Harriet A. Weed, all escorted by the Navy gunboat Paul Jones". Early Days on the Georgia Tidewater: The Story of McIntosh County & Sapelo (p. 296)

"The three Army transports — the John Adams, a converted ferryboat of the East Boston Line; the Harriet A. Weed, a steam tug and troop transport; and the Sentinel — lay quietly at the wharf in Beaufort". The Combahee River Raid: Harriet Tubman & Lowcountry Liberation By Jeff W. Grigg (p. 78?)

So it seems that they were army and not navy.Alansplodge (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, a first-hand account: "It came alongside at noon and proved to be the Sentinel, but looked like a New York canal-boat built up a storey". The narrative goes on to say that six companies (maybe 800 men?) were embarked, so it was of a reasonable size. The Rebelion Record 1863 (p. 296)

I think a company would be anywhere between a maximum of 101 nominal strength, and as low as 40, depending on the number of missing, ill, injured or killed, on leave, etc. https://civilwarhome.com/armyorganization.htm So methink more like 500 men Gem fr (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I found this image of canal boats in 1890, so something along those lines. Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this thread be copied to the talk page for the article. It would help to explain to any future editors/readers the edits made today. I also find the work you have done interesting and others might as well. Only a suggestion though. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]