Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Revolt of the Admirals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Revolt of the Admirals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class more for completeness than anything else. I came to it from the War Plans article, which in turn I came to from the Strategic Air Command in the UK article. It was almost unreferenced at the time, necessitating a complete overhaul. There is little chance of it reaching FAC. The Admiral's Revolt is a case study of a dysfunctional political-military system, and raises issues of civilian control of the military and inter-service rivalry. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

No issues, images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 11:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]
  • The cancellation of the aircraft carrier USS United States and accusations of impropriety led to an investigation Impropriety in what?
    checkY Added "by Johnson in regard to the purchase of theConvair B-36 Peacemaker bomber" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the wartime presidential authority to reorganize the armed forces was due to expire six months after the end of the war Is there an article that we could wikilink to explaining this wartime prerogative of the president?
    checkY The War Powers Act of 1941. Linked. Article isn't very good though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richardson dissented, favoring the status quo over a new department, but accepted the proposal to perpetuate the wartime Joint Chiefs of Staff and its various advisory committees by statute. So essentially he compromised; favoring a law permanently authorizing the continuance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in spite of his reservations about a new defence department? Some clarification that the joint chiefs was initially an ad hoc body created during the war would be nice.
    checkY Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was no match for Soviet jet fighters "No match for" is somewhat euphemistic, perhaps "highly vulnerable to" or similar?
    checkY Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The B-29 was therefore the mainstay of the bomber fleet in 1948 "Therefore" would suggest the B-29's status as the mainstay is a logical conclusion of the previously presented facts. In the fact the whole previous paragraph described how this was highly deficient. Perhaps delete that word?
    checkY Sure. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The aircraft pushed the state of the art at the time Euphemistic.
    Suggestions?
    How about, "The aircraft promised to be a major technological achievement"?
    checkY Linked state of the art. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not canceled however, and when it looked like bases in China — the only ones in Allied hands at the time within B-29 range of Japan — might be overrun, an order was placed for 100 B-36s. As we're not doing this entirely chronologically, it might be helpful to clarify about when during WWII the Americans were worried about losing their bases in China.
    checkY Added "in 1943". The Japanese offensive that was feared came to pass in 1944, and the bases were overrun. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While naval aviators, like submariners, increasingly became a breed apart, and some became zealous advocates of naval air power, they expressed no desire to separate from the Navy. I think "breed apart" means to suggest naval aviators were culturally distinct, but this is a euphemism employing a biological classification. Quotemarks (if this is the word the source used) or revision would be preferable.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In December 1947, Gallery wrote a top-secret memorandum on the subject that was leaked Was the leaking deliberate?
    All leaks are deliberate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. I mean was Gallery responsible for the leak?
    The source of the leak was not determined. It seems that a large number of people received the memo. Added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forrestal did not support Truman's 1948 Presidential campaign; instead, he met with Truman's opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, with whom he discussed the possibility of remaining in cabinet in a Republican administration. Truman won the election, and on 2 March 1949, he announced that Forrestal was being replaced Was Truman aware of Forrestal's entreaties to Dewey?
    checkY Yes. Added. Truman believed that all officials owed personal loyalty to him, and not to the people, the country, and certainly not to Congress. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the part of B-36 contractors regarding: costs, capabilities and test results. Improper use of colon.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Congressional Hearings section, the text jumps right into the investigation. Some background on who called for an investigation and why would be nice.
    checkY Some people clearly love this stuff about Congress. Added a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which would have included the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and he expressed support for Crommelin's views. Just to be certain, does Barlow's book actually make the explicit clarification that Bogan's emphatic letter would have implied that the Navy's morale was worse than in the attack on Pearl Harbor?
    checkY No, that was Crommelin that said it explicitly. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole episode became known as the "Revolt of the Admirals". This is sourced to a 1949 Time article with the quote as the title. Can you affirm that the article explains people were calling it the "Revolt of the Admirals", and that this is not just a primary source use of Time's headline? If it is, a more up-to-date scholarly source explaining the coining of the phrase would be preferred.
    checkY Added a secondary source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from public condemnation, did Secretary Matthews ever face any consequences for his retribution against the naval officers in apparent violation of the law?
    checkY No, but I have added a bit about his ultimate fate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Navy named entire classes of ship after Leahy, Forrestal, Nimitz, Sherman and Burke, and even Truman and Crommelin had ships named after them, but no Navy vessel was ever named after Denfeld. This is sourced to a directory of ship names. Drawing attention to this fact is essentially an OR violation without a secondary source pointing out the curious absence of Denfeld's name on a ship relative to the commemoration of the other figures.
    checkYThe secondary source was Dittmer, but they wouldn't let me use it. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll take a look over the next couple days. Hog Farm Bacon 02:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • " which were ad hoc wartime creations . Senior US Navy" - Remove the extra space before the period
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although none of the services was completely happy with it" - Should this be were, not was?
    "was" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at one blow , so that recuperation" - Extra space before the comma isn't in the source
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 1947, Gallery wrote a top-secret memorandum on the subject [50] The idea was that instead" - Missing a period
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The memo was leaked to a syndicated newspaper columnist, Drew Pearson, who published it in The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Bulletin. Denfeld gave Gallery a private reprimand for making "an extensive and somewhat uncontrolled distribution of a classified document."" - This implies that Gallery linked the memo, but it should be stated directly if true
    No, the criticism was that he indirectly aided the leak by distributing too many copies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 7 March 1949, Hayward flew a simulated atomic bombing mission against California in a P2V launched from the carrier USS Coral Sea off the East Coast" - Assuming he landed on land and was not "expended" here? If so, not really necessary to state, I don't think, but worth checking up on.
    checkY Yes, he landed at NAS Patuxent River in Maryland. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and some officers also held a moral objection to relying upon the widespread use of nuclear weapons to destroy the major population centers.[41] Most felt that atomic bombs were best used against targets like submarine pens and logistical hubs rather than cities and industrial facilities" - This just Navy officers, or officers from other branches, as well?
    checkY Navy officers. clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cancellation of the USS United States
  • "The plan was that the Navy's aircraft carriers would operate in four carrier strike groups, each with a 6A, a Midway-class and two Essex-class aircraft carriers (since there were only three Midways, one group would have a third Essex in lieu)" - Previously, you stated that only eight Essex-class carriers were kept up, but now you've got nine Essexes. I feel like something should be thrown in to clarify this.
    Only eight were kept in commission, but the Essex-class carriers were mothballed, not scrapped. Except for the badly war-damaged Franklin and Bunker Hill, all would see further service. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A $189 million line item" - Is this per ship, or for all four?
    checkY As if. Just the one. Clarified. $189 million is equivalent to $1.64 billion today. Whereas the latest Gerald Ford class carrier costs around $13 billion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Joint Chiefs on the advisability of continuing the construction of the United States; Bradley and Vandenberg urged its cancellation" - Why did Bradley change his mind about the carrier?
    checkY Don't know. Added a note to the effect that he had reversed his position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the naval brass protest Matthews' appointment?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson sought the opinions of General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, the three service secretaries and the Joint Chiefs on the advisability of continuing the construction of the United States; Bradley and Vandenberg urged its cancellation" - What did Eisenhower think about cancelling the project? Later, you say that he provided a key vote in cancelling it, so it seems like it should be mentioned up here.
    checkY Eisenhower’s views are subject to debate among the historians. Rearden (p. 412) says "Eisenhower, too, recommended canceling the project" but Barlow (pp 341–342, n134) says that Eisenhower's note to Johnson does not support this. Removed phrase saying Eisenhower supported cancelation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Into the outcome section, pausing here. Will continue later. Hog Farm Bacon 14:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually fine with the rest of the article, so that's it. Hog Farm Bacon 15:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Claiming, hope to get to tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 06:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks to come later. Hog Farm Bacon 02:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Hog Farm/spot checks. There's a handful of smaller issues, particularly in the wording of that Smith block quote. I'd recommend going through this with a fine-toothed comb before a potential FAC nom (if this is going there after all). There also appears to be an instance of a math error in adding figures from a source. Hog Farm Bacon 03:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.