Talk:Battle of Tarakan (1945)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Tarakan (1945) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Grant, thanks for the changes. I've made the following minor modifications:
- Seperated the OOB out of Section 3 (I agree that moving it to the end is an improvement)
- Replaced 'Bde Grp' with Brigade Group for clarity's sake.
I have reservations over including the statement that "The invasion of Tarakan also liberated the civilian population from a brutal occupying army". While it is true that the invasion freed the Tarakanese from the Japanese, this came at the cost of high civilian casualties, including heavy damage to the Island's only large town. Given that the war was almost over at the time of the invasion, it's hard to see how the Tarakanese were made better off. --Nick Dowling 11:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Brutal" will probably be considered non-NPoV, even though it was true. And the locals possibly did not want the Dutch to come back. But, I think it's OK to say the area was liberated from Japanese occupation. French civilians suffered terrible casualties on D-Day, but most were glad to see the back of the Germans. And there is no evidence to say that the Japanese imperial forces were regarded with affection in any country that they captured. Grant65 | Talk 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Grant. I'm blushing! --Nick Dowling 10:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Any info on local/native casualties? i see only allied/ japaniz stats. kawaputra 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a very good point. I'll try to dig something up. Given the scale of the pre-invasion bombardment these would have been very considerable. --Nick Dowling 07:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a "Pyrrhic" victory
A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor, leading eventually to the victor's downfall. Allied casualties were relatively light, and the Australians won not only the battle, but the war. There may have been errors of strategy or tactics in the battle (the possibility of which are discussed later in the article), but the results are in no way Pyrrhic. MayerG (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how 800 casualties were light, especially given that they were mainly suffered by the roughly 4000 Australian infantrymen, but I take your point. I've strengthened the wording as it is the consensus view that taking Tarakan wasn't worth the cost - see the final para of the article, which cites two excellent sources (including the editor of the Official History of Australia in WW2). --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oil restart contradiction
In the construction problems section it says that oil production did not restart until after the war, but in Aftermath it says substantial production was underway by October.--Charles (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The war ended in August 1945, so there's no contradiction. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Did the Americans bomb the air strip after it was captured by the Australians? My father was there and he says they did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)