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

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]

Revolt of the Admirals

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

The cancellation of the aircraft carrier USS United States and accusations of impropriety led to an investigation Impropriety in what?
Y 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?
Y 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.
Y 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?
Y 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?
Y 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"?
Y 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.
Y 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.
Y 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?
Y 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.
Y 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.
Y 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?
Y 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.
Y 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?
Y 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.
YThe 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]

I'm satisfied with above responses, this article is ready for A class by my book. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

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
Y 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
Y 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
Y 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.
Y 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?
Y 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?
Y 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?
Y 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.
Y 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

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

Ref 15 (NHHC Denfield bio) has a published date at the bottom that should be used for the date on the reference
Y I don't usually use the dates on web pages, but added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher for the Hansen book only seems to have published only that one book, but Hansen seems to be a subject-matter expert and the book appears to be widely cited in RS, so it meets WP:SPS
He was the expert. He was working on an updated version of his US Nuclear Weapons when he died, and his widow sent me an electronic copy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Need a location for Hayword & Borklund
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent with "U. S. Naval Institute Press" vs "Naval Institute Press"
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear what the number 1679163694 in the Rosenberg, Kennedy & Floyd ref is suppose to indicate. Is that source a chapter within "History of the Strategic Arms Competition 1945-1972"? If so, that book seems to have been published in 1981 by a government-affiliated publisher. I'm not finding much about Lelujan & Associates
Y It's a ProQuest ID. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat says Whynot has an OCLC
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto with Steele
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wolk 1988 you give a page number, but the version you link to doesn't have page numbers, so I'm not sure how helpful the page number is. I guess you used a copy in the original journal format, and the link is just the article as a web page?
Yes, that's correct. Page numbers would be useful if you have the paper copy or the journal format pdf. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 11 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

intend to get through this within the week. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why William F. Tompkins is not red/blue-linked?
Because there is already an article about a William F. Tompkins who is a different person. After a bit of a search, I found enough material to create an article on him, and his existing red link. So now red linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Created the article on Tompkins, so the link is now blue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In response, the Joint Chiefs of Staff decided that it would need to prepare a submission" maybe briefly gloss what the JCS is so the reader can know why they would 'need' to submit something

Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph beginning "During World War II, the United States Army Air Forces" is a bit confusing at least to me: suggest perhaps splitting the sentence at " but the wartime presidential authority " (and removing 'but'). Why would the expiration lead to congress considering legislation? I don't see the connection.
Reorganized a bit. The structure of government departments was set in legislation. Under the wartime powers, many organizations for which statutory authority existed were abolished, and many others were created to meet the needs of a global war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" with three equal services through the creation of an independent air force" Are you trying to say that the proposed air force would be equal to the Navy and Army here? I'm a but unsure
Yes. Made this explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe put a sentence explicitly explaining the status quo of the Army and Air Force at the time?
There is one: During the war United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) had achieved a degree of de facto independence from the United States Army
standardize between US and U.S.
Sigh. Standardised on "US". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"regarded the majority's recommendations as radical." I'm not sure it's clear who the majority is at this point in time...
Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
why doesn't "Lauris Norstad" get a job title?
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"considered a hard liner in his opposition to unification even within the Navy," I think this is just me, but what does 'unification' refer to, specifically?
Tried to make this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we generally capitalize Gross Domestic Product, compare our article on the topic.
De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Defense budgets declined from $81billion to $9billion" from when to when?
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It was not considered at all likely " how about "it was considered unlikely"
Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and took unacceptably high losses" unacceptable to who? I'd imagine the opposing forces considered them very acceptable.
Deleted "unacceptably" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"But up to 20 percent of the target cities " what does target cities refer to?
The source refers to discussions in 1947-48, so it refers to Halfmoon, but the source isn't explicit. Linked to the article on United States war plans (1945–1950). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is so much background on the development of the B-36 useful? Couldn't you just say "The B-36 had been developed during World War II."
We could, but the value of the B-36 was an important part of the controversy, and stop-start nature of development meant that it took longer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The 80th Congress adjourned " suggest adding what year it adjourned
In August 1948. See Turnip Day Session Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
some more to come. As always, suggestions not orders. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget about this, Eddie891.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest expanding "USO" to "United Service Organizations" on first mention, given the article title.
Done. Ib thought it was another one of those organization where the abbreviation is better known than what it stands for, like NASA or BP. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The included the publication by a United Press reporter," missing letter(s)?
Changed to "This" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"With the influential chairman unwilling to act, " which chairman?
Tydings. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The House adopted the resolution" which one?
Vinson's. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" The administration did not decide between guns and butter; it found that it could afford both" I think this could be rephrased that because you have to be familiar with the guns and butter model to get what is being said here, which I don't think the general public necessarily is. Could you rephrase it to be generally understandable without the need for such background knowledge?
Rephrased to "military and civilian spending".
" grew from 48 wings to 87." I don't think it's necessarily clear what 'wings' refers to here.
Added a link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me, nicely done as always Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.