Talk:Bataan Death March

One of the wort articles on the subjet

This is not an article, but rather a subjective personal attack. Looks like historical revisionism at its best to me. Facts are facts, but editorialism is not article worthy. This one of the worst articles i have read yet. Poor structure, grammar, actual information and a terrible POV. I will begin neutralizing as soon as I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takashi Ueki (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It does seem rather one sided; there were instances of some Japanese soldiers showing small mercies to their captives - some American prisoners reported receiving water and even hard candies from Japanese troops - it all depended on where you were and in whose custody you were. Anyone with some good cites to add along those lines should probably do so - not to take away from the overall impact of this war crime, but to lend some balance.139.48.25.60 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with my research?

I would like to know if anyone has any information/links to info on the Japanese civilian's reaction to the BDM?

According to John Dower's very thorough history of Japan under the American Occupation __Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Defeat of World War II__ there was not always a lot of discussion in the press of atrocities during the war. While the war crimes trials certainly aroused public interest, these atrocities did not happen on the Japanese mainland and so I gather felt a little distant to them (Compare this to say the Jewish extermination in Germany where most German families would have personally known a Jew who had mysteriously been sent away to the camps in Eastern Europe). During the war you have militarist control of the press and after the war people are still reeling from the firebombing of major cities, the atomic bomb attacks, and abject poverty during the occupation. So to say it simply--perhaps too simply--there was something of a mood of victimization that largely overtook the people who did not have a lot of space to stomach stories of their defeated war heroes committing horrid atrocities in Manchuria, Nanking, and the BDM. Does that answer your question a little? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.136.64 (talk) 06:09, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

>>>I've been meaning to read 'Embracing Defeat' for a while now. But what I am more interested in is the current state of denial coverup and outright lies that the Japanese blanket themselves with when it comes to admitting to their habitual barbarity during their war of aggression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota march

I noticed that the Minnesota event was not listed. The 1/194 AR was part of this march, and commerate it with a march with 25 pound rucksacks and military attire. --Theultimo

• Go ahead and add the note about it back. Here is a link to an article about their march Brholden 19:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC) : http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:8MfQGY5r_rAJ:www.brainerddispatch.com/stories/041405/new_0414050019.shtml+%22Brainerd+Armory%22+bataan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

From History of the Philippines

I noticed that the featured article on the History of the Philippines says: Most of the 80,000 prisoners of war captured by the Japanese at Bataan were forced to undertake the infamous Bataan Death March to a prison camp 105 kilometers to the north. It is estimated that about 10,000 Filipinos and 1,200 Americans died before reaching their destination.[22]\\ But here in this article we have: 10,000 of the 75,000 POWs died.

Is the difference in the fact that they died later on the Hell Ships or POW camps? I should check into this and maybe clarify it in the article. It seems like it would be good to tell the number who died on the march and then later in this article, or at least how many died on the actual march.

I also just noticed the difference in the distance. Here its 160 kilometers and in the featured article its 105. That seems straight forward to discover but I don't know.
--Peatmanb 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The length of the journey is 90 miles (60 for those who couldn`t ride the trucks, 30 for those who could) as stated from John Toland`s Pulitzer Prize Winning `The Rising Sun.` He breaks down the entire march into segments and provides very detailed information about them (including length). The death toll, as stated in the article, varies because we have no idea how many actually died or escaped from their Korean guards. There is also the problem that many Americans and Filipinos also died after they reached the camp, so it is difficult to discriminate between those who died during the march and after it. The account I provided is the most recent and was also supported by a history book published by West Point and another military magazine.

POV check

This article is tremendously slanted, and essentially glosses over the many Japanese acts of brutality, beheading, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.46 (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think to ask for a POV check on this artile is ridiculous considering the circumstances. How can you explain what happened without displaying the one sided massacre that took place. This event is one of the worst acts of murder that man has ever seen.Romeoslion 07:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was war, not murder. Winners speak of ridiculous notions like "war crimes." And in a war that was fought, basically, world-wide, it is very subjective to call something "one of the worst acts of murder that man has ever seen." On their side, or ours? --Danaidh 22:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was war, Danaidh. But these were POWs who surrendered. The vast majority of world opinion is that some acts--during wartime or not--are simply beyond the pale. The rape of Nanjing. The Shoah in Europe during World War II. The ethnic cleansing of the Tutsis in Rwanda. What's going on in Somalia. The acts at Abu Ghraib. Forcing POWs to march for days with little water or food while hundreds drop dead along the way falls into that category. Saying that "it was war" is a spurious argument.

I agree that the POV needs some cleanup, but denying that this is a war crime is absurd.Dougom 17:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)\

Wha? How is it slanted? There isn't a single positive word about the Japanese, if that's what you mean. If you'd like to add more negative words, feel free. But to call it slanted is ridiculous. 72.147.217.126 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I did some minor copy-editing and clean-up. This article definitey needs some PoV revision. Just my two cents.
Boetron 16:06, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

---

I reverted the edit of Wareware on April 26 because of copyvio. Material taken from [1]. --seav 15:12, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

---

I can't imagine why this seems to have never been linked to Japan or Empire of Japan until now.

But in any case, the choice of wording is PoV in

The Bataan Death March is only one of many major war crimes committed by the Imperialist Japanese from the annexation of Manchuria in 1931 to the end of World War II in 1945. It is a major event in Asian Holocaust, where over 15 million Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Indonesian, Burmese, Indochinese civilians, Pacific Islanders and Allied POW were killed.

IMO even "committed" is PoV in place of "convicted" and "alleged" as applicable; also "Imperialist", "major", "Holocaust".

I've removed the entire sentence. It's not relevant and adds no value, the facts stand for themselves as is. Jpatokal 17:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whole article should be carefully examined in light of all of this.
--Jerzy(t) 22:08, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

• Hey if you don't have a problem with using such "terms" in the Nazi, Hitler, Auschwitz, Dachau etc. pages then don't bring your complaints here. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS. [Posted 19:45, 2005 Jan 29 by User:SecretAgentMan00 (tk cntrb) w/o sig, as noted by Jerzy]
  • I'm here; doesn't sound like you know where else i've been. No vague charges of double standards, and no shouting. --Jerzy(t) 06:24, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

• Jerzy, I don't think there's much doubt that BDM was a war crime, compared to some of those that are called war crimes in Wikipedia.[2] However the rest of the paragraph was over the top. Grant65 (Talk) 20:39, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • While i have some other concerns much more nuanced than that, i agree with you that the rest of the two sentences i quoted should be the current focus for improvement, rather than the BDM. (I did not question the first sentence of the 'graph, which was not part of what i quoted.)

  --Jerzy(t) 06:24, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

• OK, I have re-written the first two paragraphs, and have included the term "war crime" again. Also removed the overemphasis on the US, including the mention of MacArthur, who really had nothing to do with the BDM. Grant65 (Talk) 11:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

---

It says

The column of prisoners was shelled by their own guns on Corregidor

Who fired the guns: this is not obvious.
--Jerzy(t) 22:08, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Commons images

commons:Fall of the Philippines has some relevant images that should probably be integrated. The picture of the marchers carrying a person/body in an improvised litter has a far different description at the commons. Also, the image is higher contrast and resolution there. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

From the Horses' Mouth

My father-in-law, Dr. Mamerto Jimenez M.D., was a POW and was part of the BDM. His stories pale in comparison to what I have read on here thus far. When he was allowed to eat, it would be the most vulgar things, parts of animals, bugs, etc... He said the only thing he could not eat was a monkey's paw, because of the close resemblance to a humans. I guess he was lucky to have survived it at all. He passed away 2 weeks ago and I was just wondering how many survivors were left from that terrible ordeal? Bayonets were thrust through the tendons in his legs, and then he was forced to march through the pain. Fearlessat30 21:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)fearlessat30

If he gave any published interviews or notes about his experiences (local newspapers, etc.), they could be cited as references for the addition of details that are currently missing from the page. Brholden 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he has several notes left behind. I shall go through them soon. I'm sure they'll make a great addition to this discussion as well as other references. The only reason why he survived in the first place was because he was a doctor and they needed him.

The key is finding material that can be referenced. On-line is best, but books, old newspaper articles, etc. are all great too. For example, was he interviewed about his experiences at some point over the years? Brholden 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 comment

I feel the note about the Koreans being more cruel than the Japanese is suspiciously revisionist. For such a serious charge, I wish there was a more authoritative source or additional sources. BogWhomper 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for a more authoritative source on Korean atrocities during WW2, here's a quote from Justice B.V.A. Roling, the Dutch jurist who represented the Netherlands during the Tokyo War Trials:

"Many of the commanders and guards in POW camps were Koreans- the Japanese apparently did not trust them as soldiers-and it is said that they were sometimes far more cruel than the Japanese"

He then lists an example of such a case in Korea itself. The source is "The Tokyo Trial and Beyond," by BVA Roling and Antonio Cassese.

I'm not blaming the whole Bataan Death March on the Korean guards; Japanese guards certainly did play a significant role. It is a fact, though, that such duties as guarding POWs, which didn't carry much prestige, were largely delegated to the Koreans because of a shortage of manpower on the part of the Japanese. You can even read the wikipedia article on Hong Sa Ik, a Korean lieutenant general in the Japanese Army who was in charge of all POW camps on Luzon.

Also, a quick note to Kapricone. If you have concerns, please post them in a professional and well-mannered fashion (ex. no name calling). I won't hesitate to delete your "pseudo-intellectual" bitching if they prove to be irrelevant to the topic at hand. Why don't you just write a simple list of facts you find controversial, and I'll promise to respond to each one of them.

It appears from the article that the "atrocity" was more one of lack of facilities to take care of so many prisoners. We didn't have these problems - we rarely took prisoners. I remember reading that there was actually a very low death rate - most who died were already wounded from battle and were dying and those who were sick before the surrender. The propaganda stories - Bataan etc - were well entrenched long before any facts were gathered. ( Who remembers Mac Arthur abandoning the troops and leaving the sick and nurses behind - but of course all the officers girlfriends and prostitutes were flown out. A piece historical trivia that never got a poster.)159.105.80.141 11:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

taken from the article:

"Prisoners were beaten randomly, and were often denied the food and water they were promised. Those who fell behind were usually executed or left to die; the sides of the roads became littered with dead bodies and those begging for help."

That doesn't sound like an atrocity? A very low death rate? The article states that an estimated 5-10 thousand Filipinos and another 5-6 hundred Americans died on the march. That doesn't sound very low to me. Perhaps you should provide some sources for your claims. As for MacArthur, I would think the general in charge of the American army in the Pacific theatre has a little more strategic value than a regular grunt. And yes, his family escaped along with him, but I don't know about any girlfriends or prostitutes. Parsecboy 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

taken from the article: :" Prisoners.... for help." That's the propaganda. His family was with him in a war zone? Did this extend to all the officers? You don't know about the girlfriends etc - few do. 159.105.80.141 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Double checked - you were right ( I thought it was ridiculous, and probably against army rules, to have family at the front) - his wife and child were in a combat zone. He kept them with him until the very last day. Most of the US prisoners were already hungry ( ran out of food before surrendering ) and many were very sick long before surrender. 77 of 77 nurses survived the war. 159.105.80.141 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in 1941, it wasn't really a war zone or "the front". It was forward deployed, yes, but it was a garrison in peacetime. Military members in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe can take their families along with them. No different from what MacArthur did with his family. Also, considering the campaign up until when MacArthur left was only a few months long, there wasn't much time to send them out first, especially considering most naval vessels were busy fighting the Japanese invasion. Again, no sources provided for your revisionistic allegations. You might as well not be talking. Parsecboy 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PoV still needs a lot of work, July 2007

There still is a lack of neutrality in this article. Phrases such as ". . .where they were finally able to receive some level of proper and adequate medical care, food, and rest" shade the topic to make the Japanese captors sound like saviors rather than captors.

There are several more examples, making the article sound almost like justification for the reasons behind the death march, rather than a factual recollection of what had happened. Leading off with the number of march survivors "54,000 of the 72,000 prisoners reached their destination" and including the number of possible escapees rather than with the accepted death toll makes it sound like "hey--it wasn't that bad, look at how many survived." I couldn't imagine an article on Auschwitz that mentioned prominently the numbers of inmates that survived the camp, or the 700 escapees. I'm not suggesting that the information should be removed from the article, but it's position of prominence diminishes the horror of the march. The end of this paragraph actually, outrageously blames the prisoners for them getting dysentery, claiming that they either "couldn't understand, or ignored, their captors' orders. . ." Wouldn't this be similar to blaming concentration camp captives for being infested with lice and infected with biotoxins?

Also, there is weasel-word usage in the "Death March" paragraph. Phrases such as "it should be noted" should not be in the article.

Furthermore, this article almost completely excuses General Homma from his role overseeing the death march, indicating he was unaware of the death toll. The inclusion of this suggests that somehow would have acted differently if he had been aware. Homma's ignorance or incompetence was included without a citation.

Jamesfett 10:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are POV problems with this article, but probably not in the direction you mean them. What about the culpability of politicians in Washington, D.C. (read: FDR) that left these men sitting ducks? I think that omission alone is an irresponsible breach of the editors that leads people to a conclusion that is not wholly true.

It was Japan, not Germany that attacked us. The Philippines were an American possession with U.S. servicemen present. Yet, FDR is so concerned with Europe at the time that he fails to send the resources we need to fight the Japanese in the Pacific. Granted, FDR didn't commit murder here. But shouldn't the sonovabitch bear some responsibility for his sins of omission? --Danaidh 22:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at the issue in a far too simplistic manner. Ever heard of the Great Depression? There was a reason the forces in the Philipines were under-equipped and under-supplied. Also, are you aware that in peacetime, the American military generally shrinks to (especially after the First World War, when America was extremely isolationist) anemic proportions? As for the decision to concentrate in Europe first, one might also argue that FDR was farsighted enough to know that Japan posed no serious threat to the US, while Germany did (meaning not that Germany would invade the US, but might knock out the USSR, thus essentially winning the war). Parsecboy 23:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This article diverts history. It focuses on the reasons behind the Bataan Death March instead of focusing on the much documented horrors of the march itself. It spends much time discussing the logistics behind the march and discussing how the guards were irritated, confused, overworked, and often sympathetic and does not say too much about the sadistic behavior of some of the guards.

If I knew nothing about the Bataan Death March and read this article, I would be led to believe that most of the Allied deaths were circumstantial and unintentional and were due to improper logistical planning at the upper echelons of the Imperial Japanese Army.

It is interesting to note that this article lacks several words that are indicative of the Bataan Death March: torture, murder, and behead. Starvation is only mentioned as an issue prior to the march and not mentioned at all during the march. The word “bayonet” is only mentioned in conjunction with the Korean guards. Another well documented fact not mentioned is that the sick and wounded prisoners who fell behind were killed or left to die.

This article diverts history. It focuses on the reasons behind the Bataan Death March instead of focusing on the much documented horrors of the march itself. It spends much time discussing the logistics behind the march and discussing how the guards were irritated, confused, overworked, and often sympathetic and does not say too much about the sadistic behavior of some of the guards.

If I knew nothing about the Bataan Death March and read this article, I would be led to believe that most of the Allied deaths were circumstantial and unintentional and were due to improper logistical planning at the upper echelons of the Imperial Japanese Army.

It is interesting to note that this article lacks several words that are indicative of the Bataan Death March: torture, murder, and behead. Starvation is only mentioned as an issue prior to the march and not mentioned at all during the march. The word “bayonet” is only mentioned in conjunction with the Korean guards. Another well documented fact not mentioned is that the sick and wounded prisoners who fell behind were killed or left to die.

This article has attempted to sanitize history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilkers1974 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article comes up with so many excuses for the Japanese that whoever has been tinkering with it could easily make the Nazis look like choir boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.66.16 (talk • contribs)

From the caption: News of this atrocity sparked outrage in the US, as shown by this poster. The newspaper clipping shown refers to the Bataan Death March. The use of the word "atrocity" hints lack of neutrality, I think. Noxteryn (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This article really needs work - Sept.2007

The POV is still slanted towards an inaccurate, unsupported "benevolence" of the Japanese captors. It wasn't just a "supply chain" problem as the article implies - the captors were deliberately denying the POWs food and water. In the Ken Burns documentary - one American soldier describes the Japanese deliberately emptying his water canteen and those of other POWs before the start of the march. I am surprised the article has existed in this inaccurate state for so long - it needs to be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.69.39 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you see problems, I urge you to fix them. I don't have any books on the Bataan Death March here, nor do I really have time to go out and get them. If you have a good source, go ahead and rewrite the biased portions. If you need help with copyediting or anything else, I'd be glad to help. Parsecboy 12:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you check the Japanese version of wikipedia's Bataan death march, you will see its POV is landsliding towards the Japanese side.

"Bataan's death march marks the casualties of Japanese and American POW',

"Under the hostile weather in the 60-70km march, many Japanese, American and refugees were fallen",

"Most deaths were due to Malaria but American POW whom escaped stereotyping this as an atrocious act by the Japanese side, in order to rally up anti-japan emotions.'

"...from the understandings of the Japanese side(whom involved in the death march), it was not an atrocious act, but they were found guilty and executed after the war."

Seems to be an awful lot of self-victimizing going on Perhaps whoever was trying to edit the article might be influenced by the Japanese version of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.180.10 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag reinstated

What about the glaring discrepancy within the article of the total number of surrendered soldiers (72,000 vs. 75,000)? This hasn't been addressed at all, so far as I can tell. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

3,000 is a drop in the bucket, and hardly makes a difference in percentages cited relative to 72,000 or 75,000. The article discusses that the exact accounting is rough and unknowable. Hell, the Jap commander claimed he didn't know about the deaths for months, and now that most all who were there are dead you expect precision numbers when they couldn't get one in the post war investigations boggles the mind. I'll rephrase to show both, so kindly focus on some things that are less picyune and more substantial before applying any "IN YOUR FACE" tagging such as that. Such a minor point is best addressed using {{fact}} on the point in question, not calling into question the whole article.

As far as the 'tone of rationalization', I agree, the article needs more of the busuido ethic worked in, but instead of complaining, would be better to just edit it and move on. // FrankB 21:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

More

I have seen this one with a lot of significant images that could be added to the article. Thank you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding POV

I thoroughly enjoyed your article- but I feel that too many critics have ruined the original. More than willing to provide an independent 3rd party proof read- if wanted. Be patient with the revisionsits and pro0Japan camps- they have been denied learning aout their own history- which is tragic. Nice work thoughStarstylers (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)!

Sources/POV

It's almost impossible to tell if this article is POV or not, because it's poorly sourced. It makes extraordinary claims about atrocities, which should be very well sourced. But there's basically only a reference to some documentary, without even noting where or when this was broadcasted (and why does it say URL accessed at? There's no URL...)

This can't be so difficult after all. There is a list of literature on this article - I don't have those books, but if someone does it should be possible to check the article against those sources and to add appropriate inline citations. I added the tag for that. Averell (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

On the idea of POV, there are more details to what happened to the fewer American POWs than that of the many Filipino POWs. What happened to the Filipino survivors?--Dan2paul (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bataan Memorial Death March Page

I'm not very experience using Wiki, but would think a topical Bataan Memorial Death March page would be a great addition to the collective project. The outside link is Bataan Memorial Death March White Sands New Mexico. All the information about the event is on that page, but it may deserve more than an external link from the Bataan page on the reverse of this discussion page? I'm interested in what you think. I wish I had more time, but maybe someone can help me? Thanks so much! --Jefferybott (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

English naming syntax

At the beginning of the article it says "...also known as the Death March of Bataan...", yet Death March of Bataan and Bataan Death March mean the same thing in English, by Bataan being used as an adjective used to describe "Death March" Death March of Bataan is implied. Do we really need to specify it also being called what its name can be rearranged into?Scotty Zebulon (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America

In March, 1978 there was a High Adventure Bataan Death March with about 20 scouts from several American Troops from Clark Air Base participating. The 50-mile hike began on Corregidor and followed the original Death March including a train ride into Camp O'Donnell. Locals who lived through the occupation would gather around the camp fire at night and share stories of their experiences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.90.95 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Books

My Hitch in Hell by Les Tenney was omitted from the list of books. Les is a survivor of BDM and 3 years in a Japanese prison. The book is short but moving. It is still currently available.Magicat (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Robert C Brooks

Bataan Death March Memorial Park in Spokane, Washington

I can find no references to this park, other than repeats of this wiki article.

I've searched Google, I've checked http://spokaneparks.org/, http://www.spokanecounty.org/parks, http://www.spokanecity.org/, etc.

If this (or any other memorials) don't actually exist, they should be removed from the page. 216.239.45.4 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

page is lacking

This page is lacking a lot of information that is available. There is no mention of the long march from camp O'Donnel to Cabanatuan #1. were as many as 2,500 USA service men died. or that most of the Filipinos were freed to return to their homes after they reached camp O'Donnel, within the following 2 weeks another 2,000 died do to starvation and ill treatment.