Talk:Second happy time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second happy time article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force German military history task force United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

No sources, little wikification, and definate opinionated claims, especially towards the end with things like "Popular alarm at the sinkings was dealt with by a combination of secrecy and misleading propaganda." (And no source). 68.39.174.238 04:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The source for "Popular alarm etc " is probablly Gannon's Operation Drumbeat - which goes into the detailed discussion of articles in the US Press at the time, particularly from the Miami Herald, which was demanding a blackout while the US government and Navy failed to implement it!

The article is generally accurate, though there are a number of areas where the emphasis one may question. The essential point as this catastrophe on the US East coast (which came close to the Allies being defeated) has been surpressed in popular US History. The idea of the UK sending ships and aircraft to defend the East Coast of the US conflicts with the idea coming to the rescue of Europe.

Andrew

[edit] Vaguely Correct, Definitely Innacurate

I would most emphatically disagree that this article is "generally accurate," as there are major mistatements of fact, such as "through the summer and the first half of autumn 1942, there were no U-boat sinkings at all."

Gannon's book records the first sinkings of u-boats by American forces in March of 1942. Subsequent sinkings by USN personnel continued into July (pages 380-383 of the trade paperback version). I am changing that paragraph to reflect the Gannon source.

Further, the assertion that convoys were not implemented during the specified time period is also incorrect, as coastal convoys, by Gannon's book, were implemented in May, 1942. The historical record is damning enough of King and his lopsided thinking without the inaccuracies.

I would also contest the notion that the catastrophe that befell the East Coast of the US in January - August 1942 has been "surpressed" (sic). Gannon is an American historian, and the book was a national bestseller.

--Wulfe 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, US forces did sink u-boats in early 1942. Two off Newfoundland in March, 1942 (not strictly part of the scope of this article as Second Happy Time refers to the U-boat campaign in US waters) and one off Cape Hatteras on 14 April (the first off the US East Coast in this campaign). I'm checking other details. The thrust of the article, however, is that the US was largely unprepared, ill-equipped, resisted British advice and there were huge avoidable losses in Allied merchant tonnage. This is widely supported. Folks at 137 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where that is contested. However, the article did state that the Kriegsmarine sustained no losses at the hands of US forces during the Second Happy Time, which is incorrect. The article as written also noted implementation of convoys far later than it actually occurred. The data on both German u-boat losses and implementation of convoys comes directly from the Gannon book. --Wulfe 17:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, no offence intended. I took your statement: "I would most emphatically disagree that this article is "generally accurate,"..." to query an important thread of the article, so I re-stated it. On the other hand, the point about no sinkings needed correction, as you pointed out (I used uboat.net as a source: I don't know the Gannon book): thanks for the prompt to dig for info. "Second Happy Time" (SHT) refers to the u-boat campaign in US waters, I believe. The 2 sinkings in March off Newfoundland, therefore, are not really part of the SHT scope, although they were by US aircraft. Folks at 137 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

None taken, my friend. The Newfoundland sinkings should probably be removed. I'll take them out. I used the Gannon book as a source, and then verified through uboat.net. I would be very curious to know what the interaction was between King and Andrews during the height of Paukenschlag. King, distracted by his tunnel vision and anglophobia, did not heed British warnings and advice. I have run across a document on uboatarchive.net that attests to Andrews requesting convoys as early as February 1942 but deciding against it as the available escort vessels were too slow. That may have been a flawed decision, but it runs against the notion that USN strategists disregarded British warnings and advice out of hand. I'd need a little stronger substantiation before dropping it into the article though. --Wulfe 17:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I make no judgements as to the accuracy of the article - I have neither the resources, nor really the inclination, to take the time to check. But the article at the very least needs cited references in order to move above Start-class. LordAmeth 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)