Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Imphal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wwheaton (talk | contribs) at 02:23, 22 March 2018 (Appeal for maps, or even One Better Map.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

No. 152 Squadron RAF

I feel that the inclusion of this squadron is arbitrary, possibly a tribute reference. In my view the RAF Third Tactical Air Force article gives a much truer list of the squadrons involved, and a link to that (which I've made) ought to suffice. I would propose dropping the 152 squadron reference.

--David Woolley 00:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imphal Box

My understanding is that the Imphal seige is often called the Imphal box but that term doesn't appear in the article. It does appear in a handful of Google hits, mainly in contexts where the authors seems to assume it is already common currency. I also believe I've heard it in my oral family history. It may well be used in the ITV World at War TV series, but my rather, rather than I, have the tape of that.

--David Woolley 00:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imphal Box may be misleading. I don't recall seeing the term in any contemporary accounts. The defence of the plain was originally based on several "Boxes", each set up for all-round defence, and the Imphal Box may refer only to the single defensive area near Kanglatongbi airstrip, which during the siege was not directly attacked.

HLGallon 01:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese plan

I have modified some assertions in this paragraph:

"...Mutaguchi's poor timing with regard to weather." The Japanese timing depended on the arrival of necessary reinforcements; 31st Division from Malaya and 15th Division from Thailand. The late arrival of these divisions was an indirect result of the hesitation at various superior HQ over the operation.

Mutaguchi' dismissal of Indian troops as inferior. Mutaguchi had direct experience of defeating badly trained British and Indian troops in Malaya and Singapore. I doubt whether any Indian performance in the Eighth Army would be relevant to his views. HLGallon 11:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British and Indian Army troops sent out to the Far East in 1941 had no jungle training and had been trained earlier on the assumption that they would be fighting Germany and Italy, mostly in the Western Desert.
The Japanese knew in 1941 they would be fighting in the jungles, whereas the British and Indian armies, who were already busy fighting a war on the other side of the world, did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.56 (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation of Japanese "Operation U-Go" to British by Bose (dubious)

The article includes a claim that Subhas Chandra Bose unwittingly revealed -- to the British, via a double-agent, Bhagat Ram Talwar -- the impending 1944 Japanese offensive against northeast India ("Operation U-Go").

This claim appears in: Dr. Sat D. Sharma, India Marching: Reflections from a Nationalist perspective (Bloomington, Indiana: iUniverse, 2012), pages 120-121. I have found this claim nowhere else. (Note: "iUniverse" is a vanity press.)

The book's author substantiates his claim by quoting from a "recently released document" -- the source of which he does not identify. He even qualifies his quote from the document by writing that the document "read like this" -- implying that the quote was not exact.

Hence this claim -- that Bose unwittingly revealed Operation U-Go to the British -- should be suspect.

This claim also appears in Wikipedia's articles on the "Battle of Kohima" and the "Indian National Army".

Cwkmail (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are advocating here. Are you suggesting that the claim should be removed, or perhaps tagged with [dubious – discuss]? HLGallon (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suggest that the claim should be removed or at the very least tagged with "dubious". Cwkmail (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further findings: I've done further investigation of the claim that Subhas Chandra Bose revealed the Japanese operation U-Go to an enemy agent in Kabul. First, Bose was not in Kabul during either 1943 or 1944 -- the period during which the Japanese were planning and executing Operation U-go; hence, the period when Bose could have revealed the operation. Bose was in Europe until 1943, at which time he travelled via submarine to the Far East (see, for example, Wikipedia's article on Bose). However, Bose did meet Bhagat Ram Talwar (who worked as an agent for the Soviets, Germans, Japanese, and British in India) in Kabul in 1941: it was Talwar who organized and assisted in Bose's 1941 escape to Kabul from British custody in India. (See, for example: Bose Mihir, Raj, Secrets, Revolution: A life of Subhas Chandra Bose (Norich, England: Grice Chapman Publishing, 2004), Chapter 17: The man called Silver and the Bose conspiracy.) However, in 1941, Bose could not have betrayed Japan's Operation U-Go because the operation wasn't even conceived until 1943. Hence, the claim that Bose unwittingly revealed Operation U-Go to an enemy agent must be the result of some author's confusion about dates. Note that this claim still appears in Wikipedia's article "Battles and operations of the Indian National Army". Cwkmail (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

  • Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class.

WP:INDIA Banner/Manipur workgroup Addition

{{WP India}} with Manipur workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Manipur or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War Minister or Prime Minister

In those days, War Minister is only responsible for administration of the Army. Hideki Tojo held positions of Prime Minister and War Minister. He also became Chief of the Army General Staff at Feb 1944.

The critical order, the Army supreme HQ order 1776 which stated execution of Imphal offensive, was issued at Jan 7,1944. At that time, Chief of the Army General Staff was Hajime Sugiyama. You can see his name in the order.

Current article described War Minister Tojo approved the plan. But it is not precise. If he was neither prime minister nor chief of the army General staff but War Minister, why he was so influential?

So I think War minister description should be replaced with Prime Minister. --Kmk75s (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source I have used (Allen, Burma: the Longest Campaign, p.166) does not give Tojo's appointment, at least at that page. Presumably it does so in earlier pages. The reference however does make it absolutely clear that the Army General Staff required Tojo's approval either as head of Government or head of the war effort. By all means correct Tojo's appointment if you have sources. HLGallon (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what your point is. The imperial general headquarter needed Tojo's approve. It is correct. But Tojo was not chief of the Army General Staff on 7 Jan 1944. He enforced Sugiyama's resignation on Feb 22,1944 because of the disaster at Truk. Therefore his involvement of decision making was as Prime miniter(and War Minister) not chief of the Army general Staff. I think you would agree with a fact that Toji was prime minister and war minister when the decision was made.

"Prime minister Tojo approved the plan.' is better then 'War minister Tojo approved the plan'. Do you agree? --Kmk75s (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Imphal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Imphal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serious shortage of maps

The current article is terribly short of maps of the battle area: northeast India, and northern Burma. The one map is pitifully small, and covers the whole Burma, NE India, southern China area, with practically no place names, geographic features (rivers, mountainous terrain, etc), infrastructure (roads especially) needed to back up the text. It will likely be somewhat difficult to locate suitable maps with names and legends appropriate for that time, but almost anything would help greatly to start to fill the abyss we have now. I regret that I am unable to undertake this project now, but it seems an opportunity, even for a new Wikipedian, to make a substantial contribution without too much effort or expertise. Copyright issues may be the biggest problem. The Wikipedia Commons is surely the first place to start. Thanks!! Wwheaton (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Imphal&oldid=831759928"