Talk:Pacific War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:21, August 19, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Midway = turning point[edit]

In my view, if there WAS a turning point in the war on Japan, Midway has to be it. While the Japanese had been stopped at Coral Sea, they still had the initiative; they could still choose where and when to attack, and the allies had to react. But not after Midway! It was, after all, THEY that launched the Midway/Aleutians operation, and THEY that were then rocked back on their heels, and THEY that fled afterward. It was THEY that had lost 2/3 of their big, fast carriers (and the carrier was to the War in the Pacific what the ballistic missile was to the Cold War. Somewhere above someone argues that the remainder of the Japanese fleet was still a formidable force, but that is nonsense; all that force could do would be to sail out and get sunk by a carrier-equipped US NAvy)). Far from being "merely" a tactical victory, it changed the whole complexion of the war.

Now, while they DID attempt some more offensive action (notably by trying to take Port Moresby, again, this time over land via the Kokoda Trail in the 2nd half of 1942), this was all relatively minor, designed to strengthen their DEFENSIVE positions not to conquer, and was ultimately almost all unsuccessful. They never again tried the kind of massive, seaborne, combined arms operation that had swept them across most of the Pacific in a just a few months. Then just 2 months after Midway the US landed on Guadalcanal, and clearly the initiative was ours, and Japan was in defensive mode. Thus the Guadalcanal campaign can't be considered the actual turning point either - by then the US was clearly on the attack.

I don't think the argument that there is no turning point because Japan could never have ultimately 'won' the Pacific war works out either. Japanese planners DID know that they could not win a long war MILITARILY but that was not their plan. Strategically their plans went something like:

1. Start the war from as superior a position as possible (hence Pearl Harbor) 2. Race across the Pacific, seizing resources and territory BEFORE the US could gear up for war. 3. Attain as defensible a position as possible (Hence the Kokoda Trail offensive and takeover of the Solomons) and DIG IN. 4. Let the US grind itself down against near impregnable fortresses. 5.Win a favorable peace settlement when the US tires itself out throwing itself against their defenses.

But they failed at (1) when they didn't sink the US carriers at Pearl Harbor, and only 6 months later Midway signalled the early end of (2). By the failure to take Port Moresby, they also failed at part of (3). They had some hope to succeed at (5); when the bloody costs of both Tarawa and Buna-Gona became known, US public opinion was shaken. Even as late as 1945, many americans found the though of the casualties invading Japan would cost to be appalling.

So, MY conclusion is that Midway WAS *the* turning point in the Pacific. I realize this whole idea of a turning point is rather subjective, but I really think if there was one in the South Pacific, it has to be Midway.

Ferrocephalus (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrocephalus (talkcontribs)

While I disagree Japan had any hope of achieving (5) (after attacking Pearl Harbor without warning, & because they had no hope in hell of enforcing (4), since they never controlled their own sea lines of communication, given IJN ASW was a joke), this page really isn't a place for debate on it... (I'm happy to discuss it on my talk, if you want, tho.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Listing of combatants, yet again[edit]

I have just made an edit where I listed all the combatants in the infobox, not just the major ones. This has been discussed numerous times in the history of this talk page. (To see what I am talking about, see here). After reading everything, I found that in one of those discussions, the conclusion was reached that it was okay to list all the combatants, since it wouldn't take up too much space anyway. So I went ahead and, since I think it better to just list them all, did that. If anyone has any objections to this, please discuss it here before making any changes to the infobox. Thanks, King Philip V of Spain (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A few minor notes on the edit: Territories of the British Empire that were originally listed in the reference to 'and others' like the Fiji Islands, the Straits Settlements, and Tonga, I did not list them; instead I replaced 'United Kingdom' with 'British Empire' to accomadate them, since although they contributed troops, they were not independent nations.

As you note, that has been discussed here previously. The consensus of such discussions has actually been to not include minor combatants (as was included as a note in the infobox), so I've just reverted you. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, one of the conclusions reached, namely this one, was that there was really no problem in listing them all. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That discussion is five years old, and I don't think it reached the conclusion you claimed at all. Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It did at the end, and besides, it would be cleaner and wouldn't take up that much space if we listed them all, right? King Philip V of Spain (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

the deep question is whether the article is for the benefit of the editors or the readers. If you write for beginners you keep in mind they get very confused very fast when you hit say 7 different countries (and for the hyperactive editors they will include several different Chinas and Indias). More than that and it's a blur and most don't learn much at all. Rjensen (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The underlying issue in all the previous discussions is that not many countries actually contributed substancial forces to this war, and so listing the minor combatants in the infobox along side the other countries grossly inflates their role in the conflict. For instance, Mexico contributed only a single fighter squadron and only one German submarine operated in the Pacific (the operations in the Indian Ocean were essentially an extension of the North African campaign). I note that Germany and Italy have slipped back into the infobox under a dubious claim that they provided note-worthy levels of support to Japan; they didn't (most histories which discuss this topic stress the near total absence of any meaningful support or coordination between the European Axis countries and Japan; all this consisted of was a handful of submarine voyages and some occasional intelligence sharing). Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Mexico & Germany deserve inclusion about as much as Cuba. Even Canada doesn't belong in the infobox. And there are times I think NZ is borderline, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If Mexico and Germany shouldn't be listed with the main combatants, then neither should Manchukuo, Wang Jingwei regime, Second Philippine Republic, Azad Hind, State of Burma, or Commonwealth of the Philippines. I have gone ahead and removed them. Besides, these are still listed in the and others part, after the main combatants. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with this action. Mexico and Germany simply aren't in the same class as the other combatants you list. --Yaush (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just reverted this - the reason given for the removal of these countries is arbitrary, and ill-informed. The Commonwealth of the Philippines fielded a large army during the fighting in 1941-42, and Filipino guerrillas loyal to this government were active throughout the war, and eventually rose to substantial numbers. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I see your point for the Commonwealth of the Philippines, but what about for the others? Azad Hind, for example should definatively not be in the infobox according to the previous discussions, and neither should the Second Philippine Republic. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the silence, and seeing only an objection with a detailed explanation concerning the Commonwealth of the Philippines, I have removed the other countries before mentioned for the reasons before mentioned. Before reverting me, please explain, with detail, concerning each one you decide to return. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the previous discussions in detail, and it is clear that New Zealand should not be in the infobox; therefore I removed it. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

British India[edit]

Though India at that time was part of the British Empire however it wasn't part of the United Kingom like England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland(Northern Ireland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilmn2002 (talkcontribs) 04:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Indian forces were under British command. Australia, Canada, New Zealand had control over foreign policy etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.84.141 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation wrong[edit]

   I praise the Army for cutting down like weeds large numbers of the enemy...     ”
        

— Hirohito[39]

Taken from H. Bix, 'The Showa Emperor's "Monologue" and the Problem of War Responsibility'. This citation is from 1932 and regards the Kwantung Army's actions during the Manchuria incident, not the offensives of 1941-1945 where this quote is placed. It is misleading and frankly, the paraphrasing is done with much liberties. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/132824?uid=3738736&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102420364481 94.211.59.112 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I will go to Korea[edit]

Attributing the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, may be oversimplifying, but there's a good case to be made the circumstances at the end of the Pacific War were contributory causes for each. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

oh everything gets related distantly to previous events but the Cold War was not expected in 1941-45. Rjensen (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
No, but the occupation of Korea, & the division, were agreed as terms; Vietnamese resistance was sparked & supported; & the Sov materiel left behind was a factor in Mao's victory. So it's not quite as simple as "yes" or "no". I'm not absolutely persuaded these should be added, but IMO it merits a look. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The infobox is not the place. Of course WWII in general and the Pacific part of it specifically were huge factors in what happened afterward. But as a direct connection, the one making the other a certainty? That's overstatement. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Guadalcanal and air power projection[edit]

"Because control of the airfield would allow the Allies to project strong air power, including long-range bombers, toward the home islands, the Japanese were compelled to contest the landing." This is an accurate description of the Marianas campaign. It is not an accurate description of the Guadalcanal campaign, which took place far from the Japanese home islands and was directed at Rabaul, not the inner Empire. --Yaush (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If it was Saipan, I'd agree with this; not in SWPA. (Moreover, it's "Home Islands"...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)