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: 03:41, June 29, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (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.
 


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)

Just for the record, Canada and New Zealand should be included (as per current article) as both supplied substantial forces to the PTO and Burma Campaign, for more info see Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–45 The Pacific and The Dominion of Canada in World War IIDamwiki1 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2015 (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)

Dubious source[edit]

The source cited in for the 17 million civilian Chinese killed by the Japanese (Citation 4, http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/celebrations/128172.htm) looks rather dubious and furthermore doesn't show that number anywhere (instead claiming 35 million dead). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.6.190 (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Thailand be considered a belligerent?[edit]

Based on Thailand's means of being incorporated into the war, through force and the institution of a Japanese-assisted government, it seems that Thailand fits better under the description of an Imperial Japanese client/puppet state as opposed to a distinct belligerent. Also, from what I've read in the article, there are no sources that substantiate Thailand's status as a belligerent.

Additionally, Thailand's occupation by Japanese forces seems comparable to the status of the Empire of Manchukuo, which was indisputably a client state of the Japanese Empire.

If anyone has any reasons as to why Thailand should be considered a belligerent as opposed to a client state, please comment below. BUjjsp (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

you become a belligerent by declaring war & on January 25, 1942, Thailand, under the rule of Plaek Phibunsongkhram declared war on Britain and the United States. In turn Britain declared war on Thailand, but the United States did not. Japan gave Thailand authority over several conquered areas, but the Thai army did not see combat. see Dear, ed, The Oxford companion to World War ii p 1107 Rjensen (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Your point is valid, but it seems as though Thailand's role in the conflict does also fit the role of a client state. Wikipedia states that a client state is "a state that is economically, politically or militarily subordinate to another more powerful state in international affairs". Could Thailand be considered BOTH a belligerent and a client state in this conflict? BUjjsp (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

in my opinion, Thailand was not a "client" state. Its political and economic system was largely independent of Japan. It cooperated of course because otherwise it would be totally crushed and ruined. Canada and Mexico, for example, were not considered client states of the much larger and more powerful United States during World War II. Rjensen (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I would definitely say that the relationship between Mexico and the U.S. differed greatly from the relationship between Japan and Thailand, since the Japanese were given full access to Thai military equipment and other resources, which the U.S. government agrees was forced cooperation. However, I respect your opinion. Unless I find a source that explicitly states otherwise, I'll leave the page as is. Thanks again for your contributions to this discussion BUjjsp (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaders in the infobox[edit]

I've just WP:BOLDly re-worked the leaders section of the infobox to include only the main national leaders [1]. The previous version of the infobox was a mix of national political leaders, very senior military officers and a very random collection of army, fleet and corps-level commanders, so I think that this is an improvement. There may be scope for adding some additional names, but I'd suggest that this be done in accordance with some kind of consistent inclusion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, this is one of those "damed if you do, damed if you don't" situations where there is no right answer. Some people, such as yourself will only wish to include the national leaders, while others would want to include the main theater commanders, and some others might want to include the major battle commanders. Not sure how long your edit will last, but I'm neutral in this regard. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any guideline that helps in these situations and the final determination is usually left up to local consensus.--JOJ Hutton 04:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
My position isn't that strong: I just think that the leaders in the infobox should be determined by some kind of criteria so that we don't have a random list of names. What I've done here is cleared out the leaders whose inclusion is debatable. Nick-D (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pacific War[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pacific War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hayashi":

  • From Soviet–Japanese War (1945): Hayashi, S. (1955). Study of Strategic and Tactical peculiarities of Far Eastern Russia and Soviet Far East Forces. Japanese Special Studies on Manchuria (Report) XIII (Tokyo: Military History Section, Headquarters, Army Forces Far East, US Army). 
  • From Soviet invasion of Manchuria: Hayashi, S. (1955). Vol. XIII - Study of Strategic and Tactical peculiarities of Far Eastern Russia and Soviet Far East Forces. Japanese Special Studies on Manchuria. Tokyo, Military History Section, Headquarters, Army Forces Far East, US Army.

Reference named "Battlefield Series":

Reference named "Glantz":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)