Wikipedia

Talk:Pacific War/Archive 2

< Talk:Pacific War
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Paul Siebert in topic Soviet-Japanese Border Wars?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Proposed merger of material from Greater East Asia War in the Pacific

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

I propose that the content from "Greater East Asia War in the Pacific" be merged here as the name is simply the Japanese name for the Pacific Theatres and a such it is an example of content forking. Grant | Talk 09:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - as the earliest version of the article ([1]) explains, 'Greater East Asia War in the Pacific' is/was a Japanese term for 'Pacific War'. As it is not a commonly used English-language term and does not contain any unique material it should be converted to a redirect to this article. --Nick Dowling 11:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Support, per the reasons stated above. Parsecboy 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Support. That page isn't much more than a stub. Including what's there on this page will make this one better. Trekphiler 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking a flyer

I rewrote this

"aggression, for without these resources, Japan's military machine would grind to a halt."

to this

"aggression, for without imported oil (which made up about 80% of domestic consumption), Japan's economy, let alone her military, would grind to a halt. Faced with a chose between disaster and abject surrender, on December 8, "

based on Toland's Rising Sun & Parillo; this

"By the time the Japanese had launched planes against the island, U.S. planes had scrambled and were heading for Nagumo's carriers. However"

to this

"Nagumo executed a first strike against Midway, while Fletcher launched his aircraft, bound for Nagumo's carriers. Ineffective initial attacks from Midway nevertheless persuaded Nagumo to strike again, while Fletcher's torpedo bombers were poorly coordinated and ineffectual;[1] they failed to score a single hit, and half of them were lost. At 09:20, the first U.S carrier aircraft arrived, TBD Devastators from Hornet';

in part because "scrambled" doesn't apply to carriers...; this

"The carrier aircraft had launched without coordinating their own dive bomber and fighter escort coverage so the torpedo bombers had arrived first, distracting Nagumo's Zeros. When the last of the U.S. Navy strike aircraft arrived, the Zeros could not protect their ships against a high-level dive bomber attack. "

to this

"Fletcher's attacks had been disorganized, yet succeeded in distracting Nagumo's defensive fighters. When U.S. Navy dive bombers arrived, the Zeros could not offer any protection."

because it had ignored the influence from Midway & seemed to imply there was none; this

"The number of U.S. submarines on patrol at any one time increased from 13 in 1942, to 18 in 1943, to 43 in late 1944. Half of their kills came in 1944, when over 200 subs were operating.[2]"

to this

"The number of U.S. submarines patrols (and sinkings) rose steeply: 350 patrols (180 ships sunk) in 1942, 350 (335) in 1943, and 520 (603) in late 1944.[3]

because the numbers 13 & 18 are ridiculous; there were more subs than that in the Asiatic Fleet alone in Dec 1941, & even assuming 3-4 patrols/yr each, there is no way in hell 13-18 boats made 350 war patrols. (If we assume 13-18 on station, that implies a force of about 60, which still makes it one hell of a big job). I also added this

"Moreover, Japan's fallback "barrier" strategy, relying on attrition to persuade the U.S. to come to terms, was one IJN was incompetent in training and doctrine to carry out successfully.[4] "

and this

"This divided command had unfortunate consequences for the commerce war,[5] and consequently, the war itself."

based on

  1. ^ Thanks in part to terrible aircraft torpedoes.
  2. ^ Larry Kimmett and Margaret Regis, U.S. Submarines in World War II
  3. ^ Blair, Silent Victory, pp.359-60, 551-2, & 816.
  4. ^ Peattie, Mark R., & Evans, David C. Kaigun (United States Naval Institute Press, 1997); Parillo, Mark P. Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II. (United States Naval Institute Press, 1993).
  5. ^ Blair, Silent Victory

Trekphiler 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Making it up?

I deleted

"In 1941, Japan had only a fraction of the manufacturing capacity of the United States and was therefore perceived as a lesser threat than Germany."

While true, it has nothing to do with the subject of the paragraph. I also deleted "the United States refused to negotiate." because this is self-evident from the previous statement, "The gamble did not pay off." I also changed "Sub Fleet" to "Sub Force" (which was the correct name) & OP20G to HYPO, because OP20G was the senior command in DC, not the station in Hawaii. Trekphiler 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. Hypo was far from the be-all-and-end-all of Allied signals intelligence in the Pacific, in 1941 or at any other stage of the war.
  2. Military orgs love names in upper case, but they are against Wikipedia policy unless they are acronyms and LOOK ODD when everything else is in lower case. Also, the proper name at the time seems to have been Pacific Submarine Force.[2] It isn't necessary to use the proper name/font in every case; we as civilian enthusiasts are not obliged to, and many of us don't (e.g. "The Pacific submarine forces were often split up..."[3]). Even the USN doesn't use them on every occasion ("This is the vision for the future capabilities the submarine force needs..."[4]
  3. I don't have a problem with the other edits mentioned above. Grant | Talk 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting Hypo was "be-all-and-end-all", just that it isn't OP20G. It wasn't even the sole USN org in Hawaii (never mind Shafter).
  • It was, to be accurate, the Pacific Fleet Submarine Force (in the way the battleships were the Battle Force); my point was, it's not a "fleet". Your ref to "sub forces" is a general ref to all of them; the attack ref is to Pearl, which is the PacFlt Sub Force (whence I'd change it).
  • I have no particular beef with "no all small caps" (it's just my preference...) Hope I'm clear now. Trekphiler 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So you agree that Hypo wasn't so important that it should be the only intelligence organisation mentioned in that passage?
Since the Atlantic and Asiatic Fleet subs were never based at Pearl, I don't see the problem in saying "submarine force".
Which brings me to another point: as a general observation, I would have to say that WW2 USN and other Allied ops/units from bases in the Philippines/Australia seem to get short shrift from naval historians, compared to operations based out of Pearl. I wonder how many Americans now know about CAST and FRUMEL, or the Cavite and Fremantle sub bases. Grant | Talk 15:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I assume that you don't object to me reverting you last edits then? Grant | Talk 04:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, most probably don't know about Cast or Frumel or Red Doyle, but it's Pearl that's in Q, here, not the PTO, & at Pearl, it's Hypo. It's not even all Hypo, if I read the TO&E right, either, just the cryppies in the Admin Bldg basement, since the DF rig was up the coast someplace (cf Stinnett). Either way, it isn't OP20G, which is DC. Unless you can argue DC is under attack, it should be changed. As I read the rest, no beef. (I wouldn't do it that way, but...I can live with it.) Trekphiler 04:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, OP20G was not just a station (like the later NEGAT), OP20G was the 20th Division of the Office of Naval Communications, of which Hypo, Cast and FRUMEL were branches. It's not like I'm saying "Washington DC" when I mean "Pearl Harbor"; it's like I'm saying "US Navy" instead of "Pacific Fleet". Grant | Talk 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it (& maybe this is semantics), OP20G is the senior command, so saying OP20G was attacked is like saying Cast was: OP20G includes Cast, which was not attacked (even located) at Pearl, nor was Negat (which I think of when you say "OP20G", & which, AFAIK, was contemporary: it was the ID of OP20G HQ, DC). What I'm getting at (if I'm not clear) is, it was an attack on resources and facilities at Pearl, nowhere else, so a ref to Hypo (located only at Pearl, or only in Hawaii) is apt, where a ref to OP20G, Cast, even sigint more broadly, might not be. Also, Hypo was the sigint org of the PacWar (cf Midway or Pacific War, for instance), so highlighting its importance here (& the importance of Nagumo missing it) is even more apt. Maybe I'm getting in trouble how I say it. I think of Hypo mostly as the crypto outfit; factually (unless I misread Stinnett & Holmes) Hypo subsumes the DF guys, so saying Hypo indicates their importance, where OP20G minimizes it, implying (to my mind) DC was more important. Clear? Trekphiler 07:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OP-20-G, if you read the article, was the whole branch, not just the HQ, so saying that OP-20-G was not damaged is completely correct and avoids undue emphasis on Hypo at a time when Cast was also making significant contributions. Clear? Grant | Talk 08:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"OP-20-G, if you read the article, was the whole branch" I didn't need to read the OP20G article (I knew that), I needed to read the passage you changed more carefully. We've been arguing across each other, I see. You're after avoiding making Hypo more important. What I'm getting at is its importance at Pearl, which is what the passage is dealing with. What do you say to deleting everything I said above about Hypo & leaving the article alone? Something about the wording troubles me, but I can't pin down what it is, & until I can, I'm not going to change it. What about taking out OP20G & making it sigint? Or cryptanalysis? I think my problem is, I've never seen OP20G refer to anything but the DC organization. As is, it's a bit like saying "ComPac" won the Battle of Midway; technically correct, but a bit peculiar, since Fletcher (TF12?) was SOPA. See? Trekphiler 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't actually say "OP-20-G" in the text; it says "signals intelligence", with a pipe to OP-20-G. As if we were to say "the US Navy won the Battle of Midway". Grant | Talk 10:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

The casus belli was changed recently to "Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Oil and trade embargo on Japan by the United States, Attack on Pearl Harbor". All of which are linked by and have, as their root cause...the previous casus belli: Japanese expansionism. The latter also covers some things missed by the shopping list. Reverted. Grant | Talk 12:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, you do know that Casus Belli is justification of war not real cause of it? Japanese expansionism (which btw does not cover most of those events currently) may be cause of war but it definitely does not qualify as casus belli. Same way Shelling of Mainila was casus belli for Winter war although as staged event it obviously was not real cause. So its rather simple, Marco Polo Bridge Incident was casus for sino-japanese war and US oil embargo was casus for main japanese expansion in 1941. Pearl harbour could be even left out as casus generally applies to nation which initiates hostilities but i added it to prevent all possible edit wars over it.--Staberinde 12:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
But whose "justification"? And if Marco Polo had been the casus belli, then World War II would have begun in 1937. Pearl Harbor is often seen as a surprise attack, but only the location was a surprise. The western powers had been expecting trouble for months; they simply underestimated Japan's boldness and military reach. From an international point of view, Japan's aggression is the casus belli. Grant | Talk 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The casus belli of the Pacific War is really complicated. The Japanese were anxious to prevent the European powers from doing to them what they did to China in the Opium wars, they wanted the resources of China and the Dutch East Indies so that they wouldn't be dependent on western resources and to prevent the economic downturn that crippled their economy in the 1920s and 30s, and wanted to be more equal with the other "superpowers" of the world. The U.S., Commonwealth nations, France, and the Dutch wanted to protect their interest in the eastern hemisphere and, especially with regard to the U.S., chose to completely misunderstand Japan's intentions in the area. So what's the cassus belli? Cultural clash? Mis-communication? Contrary agendas? Opposing plans? It's hard to put into a succint, one line statement. But, if someone can do it, I'll support it. Cla68 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think "preventing the European powers from doing to them what they did to China in the Opium wars" is drawing a very long bow. By 1941, Japan had been a colonial power itself for 45 years. Moreover, as the US and UK were starting to scale back their colonial involvement in Asia -- something which was accelerated by WW2, not started by it -- Japan launched a war of aggression to take more territory in China. Hence Japanese expansionism. Grant | Talk 08:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Grant. At the end of the day, the Pacific War started because Japan's leadership adopted an expansionist policy. If they'd stayed out of China the western powers wouldn't have placed trade sanctions on them and a general war wouldn't have occured. Japan didn't need to expand into mainland Asia in the 30s - doing so was a deliberate choice made by the Japanese government, which turned out to be an incredibly bad decision. --Nick Dowling 10:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree, but it's more than that (as I think I said). It's a desire for autarky, based (AFAIK) on a faulty grasp of modern trade & a terrible understanding of modern war. Trekphiler 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli is not cause of war. Casus belli is justification for war of the invading side(obviously side which is invaded does not need any extra justifications). So casus belli for pacific war is that what japanese used for justifying their agression, not that why they started their agression. Very oftenly casus belli and real cause of war are totally unrelated.--Staberinde 11:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Whether or not the European powers really wanted to do to Japan what they had done to China the previous century (which it appears they had no intention of doing), Japan used this as one of the reasons for the actions that it took in eventually initiating the Pacific War. Cla68 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how using the shabby justification invented by the Japanese government is encylopedic or sensible. If you want to use that justification then the cause of the war in Europe needs to be 'Polish border violations' as this is what the Nazis claimed as the reason they were entitled to invade Poland. --Nick Dowling 07:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
When I was researching for the background section in the Attack on Pearl Harbor article that's the three main reasons that I found that Japan initiated a war with the west: 1) perceived threats from the western powers to Japan's interests in Asia and the Pacific, 2) a need to control more natural resources to bulwark their economy, and 3) a desire to establish themselves as a world power. Cla68 09:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Is my English really so hard to understand or what? Casus belli is not cause of war! Take your time to read that sentence until you understand the point. Casus Belli is justification of war. In infobox we have "casus belli", not "cause".--Staberinde 10:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Your English is great. The instructions for this field at Template:Infobox Military Conflict states that the content of this field should be "the formal casus belli of a war. This field should not be used for battles, for the underlying causes of a war, or in cases where the casus belli is disputed and requires a lengthy explanation". However, I don't agree with this guidance as it has a very real potential to let casual readers of articles get the impression that the excuses of the agressor were in fact the actual cause of the war. This probably isn't the place to raise it though. --Nick Dowling 10:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If you think that casus belli should be removed from military conflict infoboxes as it confuses people, then feel free to raise that question in appropriate places. Until that we should stick to real meaning of casus belli then deciding what should be in infobox.--Staberinde 11:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Dowling in that I don't find it useful or encyclopedic to list the aggessor's (often stupid) excuse in the infobox. Gee, there's 31 inches of railroad track a little bent (yet still usable) from explosives in Manchuria. Let's mobilize nearly the entire Imperial Army. O_o ...This stuff certainly goes in the body text but it's much more revealing to display a short list of underlying causes right up top. Off to infobox world to change it there... Binksternet 11:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I can solve this problem. Here's the full instructions for the casus field in the infobox:
"casus – optional – the formal casus belli of a war. This field should not be used for battles, for the underlying causes of a war, or in cases where the casus belli is disputed and requires a lengthy explanation. "
Let's simply not use it. This is clearly a case where the causes for the war requires a lengthy explanation. It can be explained in detail in the text of the article. Parsecboy 11:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Still, I'm writing to infobox to see if they're up to changing the template. Binksternet 12:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Scope and hierarchy

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I recently posted the following on the WWII task force, but I'll probably get better exposure here.

 

I'd like to propose the following structure for our dealings with Asia in World War II:

  • Asian Theatre of World War II should contain everything from July 1937 - August 1945
  • Pacific War should be a subset of the ATWW2 and contain everything from December 7/8 - August 1945
  • Second Sino-Japanese War should be considered a sub-theatre of the Asian Theatre of World War II, only focusing on operations involving both China and Japan in China.

Thoughts? Oberiko 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this issue too.
My present thinking is that this article should be re-defined as 1941-45. It only became a "Pacific" conflict when Japan attacked the western Allies. The Second Sino-Japanese War should still be covered as both background, and in the sense of a distinct theatre in 1941-45.
IMO we don't need an "Asian Theatre of World War II" article. The early part of the Second Sino-Japanese War is background to WW2 but is not thought usually of as part of it. Also, if we follow the Allied supreme commands, there were two theatres in Asia: China and South East Asia.
I look forward to seeing what others think about this. Grant | Talk 02:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you get into trouble going back to 1937. You're right, the war with China goes back that far (or 1931, if you want to get deep), but calling it "Asian Theatre of WW2" jams up at the common wisdom of when WW2 starts (1/9/39). (I'll leave aside the typical U.S. chauvinism.) Address that, you're good to go. Trekphiler 04:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Start dates are arbitrary. The official Japanese histories of World War II actually put the start date at 1931 (H.P. Willmott. The Second World War in the Far East, pg. 36) and I can find several sources which put the start date at 1937. Oberiko 00:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oberiko, I appreciate your creativity and efforts but I'm not sure to understand what kind of problem you want to solve with this new "Asian Theatre" structure. It reminds me of the Greater East Asia War, the official shōwa name for the sensō. The article about it has just recently been deleted by Grant65. In fact, as you wrote above, the war could also be called the "Fifteen years war". Is there really a problem with the actual articles ? I clearly see the two different fronts of the Dai Tō'A Sensō in the Second sino-japanese war (Holy war) and Pacific war articles. If there would be need for a new structure, I would prefer to bring back the historical concept...--Flying tiger 03:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pacific War should only refer to the post December 1941 part of the war, as most authors put it starting then. Now, with only that and the Second-Sino Japanese War, this leaves the readers without a full overview article about the Asian Theatre, including everything involving Japan outside of China pre-December 1941. Oberiko 12:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can easily have references to invasion of Manchuria and east China in the background section of SSJW (Holy war) and to invasion of China, Hainan and Indochina in the Pacific war. If a new article would be necessary, I would see a simple chronology of the main events of the two fronts called Greater East Asia War. --Flying tiger 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Greater East Asian War seems more like a propaganda name, akin to labeling the Soviet-German war as the "Great Patriotic War". Asian Theatre of World War II has the advantages of being quite neutral and, to a lesser extent, matching up with the European Theatre of World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm... good point; but the lead of the article should made clear reference to Greater East Asia War. --Flying tiger 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. A section on the various names (and the meaning of those names) is well within scope I'd think. Oberiko 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Framework

With the above in mind, I think we should clean up the article a bit. I'd like to recommend the following framework:

  • Background (X - 6 Dec 41)
  • Japan attacks Western powers (7 Dec 41 - 1 May 42)
  • Allies retake the initiative (4 May 42 - 29 Jun 43) (Operation Mo/Battle of the Coral Sea - Just before Cartwheel)
  • Japan pressed back (30 Jun 43 - 20 Mar 44) (Operation Cartwheel)
  • The Allies close in (21 Mar 44 - 21 Jun 45) (Post Cartwheel - After Okinawa)
  • Japan defeated (22 Jun 45 - 2 Sep 45)

Thoughts? Oberiko 01:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography list

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The references list for this article is a mess and I'm partly to blame for that for willy-nilly adding of book references as I come across them during my own research. I propose the creation of a separate Pacific War bibliography or List of Pacific War references like the Holocaust (resources) or American Civil War bibliography lists. It wouldn't take too much effort since most of the books that cover the different facets and theaters of the war are already listed at their appropriate articles and would only require copying and pasting. I'd appreciate any other thoughts on this idea. Cla68 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd endorse this, but with a caveat. It'd probably make more sense for us to do this for World War II on a whole and then separate books by theatre (especially since there are those which will cover multiple theatres). Perhaps a sortable table? Something like the following:
Name Type Subject Author Date ISBN
Crucible of War: Western Desert 1941 Book Theatre - Europe - Mediterranean & Middle East Pitt, Barrie 1989-12December 1989 ISBN 978-1557782328
Tedder: Quietly in Command Book Biography - United Kingdom - Arthur Tedder Orange, Vincent 2004-04April 2004 ISBN 978-0714648170
The Campaign in Norway Book Theatre - Europe - Norway Derry, T.K. 1952-001952 ISBN 0-898392-20-9
Thoughts? Oberiko 14:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your idea. This would take more work, but if we also added book cover images, if available, to each entry along with a cited description of each book, that would help qualify the article for featured status if nominated for such. Should the article be called "List of World War II references" or something like that? Cla68 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we'd be to pressed for space by including a description. Can you post an example so I can see what you have in mind? We can probably also conserve space through headings instead of a subject field:
  • Theatres
    • Western Allies and European Axis
      • Mediterranean, Middle East and Africa
      • Atlantic
    • Soviet-German War
  • Biographies
    • Empire of Japan
    • Kingdom of Italy
etc. Oberiko 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Italy?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I see that someone has added Italy to the Axis powers involved in the Pacific War. I don't think that this is warranted - AFAIK, Italy's only involvement in this theatre was a handful of submarines which made cargo voyages between Europe and Asia prior to Italy leaving the war in mid-1943. Thoughts? --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove them. They're far less of an Axis power or affiliate then other factions not mentioned. Oberiko (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Germany unlike italy was involved in actual combat in the pacific via several surface raiders and submarines. A flotilla of three raiders attacked Nauru in 1940 and sunk four vessels while also shelling the mining facilities there. Im putting them back on the list for that reason. I beleive though that italy should be left off the list as they did not see actual combat in the pacific to my knowladge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.101.156 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hierarchy proposition 2

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After doing a bit more thinking and research, I propose the following hierarchy:

  • Asia-Pacific Theatre of World War II (1937 - 1945)
    • China (Second Sino-Japanese War)
    • Pacific Islands Campaigns (covers all activity in the Pacific Ocean, primarily the American-led island hopping)
      • Japanese expansion into the Pacific, Australia, Coral Sea, Midway, New Guinea campaign, Solomon Islands campaign, Cartwheel, Philippines campaign (1944–45), Borneo Campaign (1945), Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign etc.
    • South-East Asian Theatre (primarily Commonwealth, with some Chinese intervention in Burma)
      • Burma, Malaysia / Singapore, French Indochina etc.

Other articles (period specific) would be:

  • Pacific War - Overview of everything from Dec 1941 onwards, basically a sub-set of the Asia-Pacific Theatre article.

Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mexico flag

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Mexico fought in the Pacific War with 36 pilots and over 300 groundcrew, using United States aircraft in a squadron formed within the United States Army organization, supplied by the United States supply chain and under the direction of United States Army leadership. Coronel Antonio Cárdenas Rodríguez took orders from Douglas MacArthur. See Escuadrón 201. A Mexican squadron serving in the Phillipines does not mean that Mexico's flag should be included in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A few hundred compared to several million men each for the Commonwealth, Americans and Chinese is negligible. The only place this merits warrant would be in the military history of Mexico and Mexico's entry for participants of World War II. Oberiko (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
On the same basis, a couple of raiders & a handful of U-boats that achieved nothing of significance shouldn't earn Germany a mention, either. Trekphiler (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No problems here. Oberiko (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No objections here either. Parsecboy (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Count Germany gone. Trekphiler (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Results

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

There are a lot of results of the Pacific War, not just two, ex: Occupation of Japan, Indonesian Declaration of Independence, Vietnamese Proclamation of Independence, ... 96.229.126.4 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the infobox is only intended to give an exceedingly brief take on the war as a whole; various independence movements are far too detailed for the scope of the infobox, and are best left in the text of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's uncertain that the result is Allied victory, because the war only ends with the Japanese unconditional surrender. JacquesNguyen (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that precludes an "Allied victory" from having taken place. Clearly, the Allies forced Japan into submission; how is that not a victory for the Allies? Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You've achieved the war aim, which was unconditional surrender; how is that not "Allied victory", exactly? Trekphiler (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Anyone object if I replace UK, India and Burma with "British Empire"? It's still accurate and it would also include additional colonies such as Hong Kong, Singapore, the Solomon Islands etc.. Oberiko (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections here, so long as you don't forget the Canadians in SSF, RCAF in Alaska, RCN 'vettes on convoy from Vancouver, the Royal Rifles & Winnipeg Grenadiers captured in Hong Kong, the bomber crews in India... Trekphiler (talk)   15:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It's probably OK, but the distinction between self-governing dominions like Australia and Canada and the British-ruled colonies such as India and Malaya is important. I think that British Commonwealth is the correct term for this era, by the way. However, if you're going to do this then the Philippines should also be removed as this was a United States colony and not an independent actor. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't include Australia or New Zealand in the Empire. As was pointed out during our discussion on the WWII page, we should avoid lumping all the dominions together as Commonwealth (in the Pacific theatre) where possible; Australia by this time was shifting its foreign policy more behind the Americans then the British. Personally, I would have the following for the Allies section:
  • China
  • United States
  • British Empire
  • Australia
  • Soviet Union
The other Allies, IMO, were not of great significance to the Pacific War, much as Germany and Italy weren't very notable on the side of the Axis. Oberiko (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
New Zealand made a significant contribution - a NZ Division served in the Solomon Islands and about 7 RNZAF squadrons and several ships saw action. Canada's contribution was also significant. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Didn't a significant portion of the Free French Navy participate in the Indian Ocean in the last year of the Pacific War? Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Richelieu served as part of the British sqaudron in the Pacific, but I don't know of any other ships having done so. Parsecboy (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a Canadian BB or CA, too, the name I can't recall; don't think she accomplished anything much. :( Trekphiler (talk)   11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You may be thinking of HMCS Ontario (C53) and HMCS Quebec (C66), two light cruisers, both of which served in the RCN in the Pacific in 1945. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Could be; I only know there was a vote taken abd to change theaters. (Bit too democratic for a navy, I'd say.) Trekphiler (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think these kind of make my point. One division and a few air force squadrons really is almost nothing in the grand scheme of a whole theatre of war. The same can be said for a few ships which took part during the final year of the war; considering this would be after Midway, Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf, there was virtually no Japanese navy left by that point.

Taking a quick analysis:

  • Canada
    • ~ 2,000 soldiers who were captured in the Battle of Hong Kong, and hence fought for less then a month.
    • ~ 5,000 soldiers who were sent to the Aleutian Islands but arrived after the Japanese evacuated and hence saw no combat
    • Some miscellaneous augmentation of other forces in the war
  • New Zealand
    • Misc. naval actions, no major battles. Small enough that actions of individual ships are recorded on our wiki page about them. In terms of major warships (destroyers and above), it looks like under ten (I count 3; cruisers donated by the British) were commissioned.
    • Air Force: "Six 'New Zealand' squadrons [which is ~200 planes] of the RAF were created... The RNZAF's greatest strength was 45,000, a third serving in the Pacific." (The British Empire and the Second World War, pg. 487)
    • "The New Zealand government decided that, despite the outbreak of the Pacific War, it would continue its main military effort in Europe." (The Pacific War Companion: From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima, pg. 140)
  • Allied France
    • Virtually nothing. Basically, the FFF controlled the tiny Wallis Islands. "[the Free French] influence upon allied policy in the Far East remained marginal... In fact, in stressing the the importance of these tiny island outposts, the Free French only emphasized their own impotence." (South East Asia: Colonial History pg. 231) It does read like they did some intelligence contributions from agents in Indochina though. Beyond that, I can't even find any combat activities.

So, does any of this sound like significant actions? Things that really helped decide or contribute to the outcome Pacific War? By contrast, the Americans supplied (to the Pacific) ~ 2 million personnel, 16.5 Army / Marine divisions, 7,900 planes, and 713 warships. (Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, pg. 720). Take note that this means the American's contributed more soldiers to the Pacific then the entire population of New Zealand of 1.6 million (The Pacific War Companion: From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima, pg. 140).

No, the war was fought almost entirely by the U.S., China and the British Empire; though the Australians did contribute a fair amount in New Guinea and Borneo; in contrast to Canada and NZ, Australia provided 735,000 personnel (The Pacific War Companion: From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima, pg. 148).

Though the Soviets, IMO, did not affect the outcome of the war, Operation August Storm saw Soviet forces of ~ 1.5 million troops, ~3,800 tanks and ~5,300 aircraft invade Japanese territory. Much to big to ignore. Oberiko (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further points / objections? If not, I'd like to go ahead and change the Allies to China, U.S., B.E., Aus and S.U. Oberiko (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
None here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"Soviets, IMO, did not affect the outcome of the war"? If Racing the Enemy is remotely right (& it understates the case, IMO), the Sovs decided the outcome for Japan. Beyond that, no beefs here. Trekphiler (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The Soviets surely "affected" the end of the war, but I don't see how their piling-on can be considered 'decisive'. The timing and details might have been quite different, but not the ultimate outcome of the war: Japan loses.
I haven't read Hasegawa yet, but the reviews I have read aren't encouraging: [5], [6].
—WWoods (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

<--I won't say there are no mistakes, & there's a strong bias to the claim HST did it out of malice, but the case is pretty strong, AFAI can tell. As for "decisive", only in the sense it was the last straw; Japan was still determined to fight on, otherwise. Trekphiler (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In the role of

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

"Portrayed" as? Not really. The point of the change is, in Japan it was viewed as aggression; whether that's credible is irrelevant. Whether the rest of the world saw it that way is irrelevant. "Portrayed" makes it out as if Japan expected it to be believed; from what I read, it was mainly for domestic consumption. "Viewed" gets the internal view, without suggesting any external effect. I hope. As for the rest...? Geez. How embarrassed can I be? Sorry. Trekphiler (talk) 23:48 & 23:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the use of the word "viewed" based on what I've read, but alas, I can't remember offhand where I saw that so that I can quote a supporting source. I suspect that "Eagle against the Sun" probably goes into it. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
TP, what is missing here is the element of choice/will/agency. That is, it was a patently false world-view and they chose to see it that way. Unless you are saying that even the emperor, cabinet and high command were in denial about what they were up to China? Grant | Talk 05:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not about denial, it's about what the local view is. Dishonest, self-deluded, self-interested, outright fiction, call it what you want, but that was the local view, & that is what the line is talking about, not what the rest of the world thought, nor us. I changed it on that basis, & I stand by that, because it accurately describes the local view. Better still, "In Japan, the government and nationalists viewed these embargos as acts of aggression": K? Trekphiler (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree with Trekphiler on this. There's still a significant number of Americans who are convinced Saddam was connected to Al Qaida, even though this has been repeatedly demonstrated to be totally false. Regardless of whether they are in denial, dishonest, or just plain un-educated about the matter, they still hold that view. The same goes in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping the compromise language satisfies everybody. (Not that I dislike being agreed with. ;D ) Trekphiler (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the proposed wording is "K" with me :-) Grant | Talk 07:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Need for subdivision

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I doubt that 108K characters is excessive for this topic, but it is vastly excessive for a single article, where 5K is the target and 32K is likely to cause technical problems for some users. This article should be a series of short sections, each with a lk to an article treating the corresponding sub-topic in more detail. In fact, many of the subtopic articles will surely need to have similar structures, with lks to sub-subtopic articles. If it takes 3 or 4 lower levels instead of just one or two, it'll take even more planning, but it needs to be done.
--Jerzy•t 06:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:SS and WP:SIZE address this matter.
--Jerzy•t 16:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I posted a while back a proposition for a new framework. I'd think that with a good framework, it'll be much easier to keep the size and integrity in check. Oberiko (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Netherlands

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Why aren't the Netherlands inculded among the allies? They fought in the war for 3 months(officially) and held out in gurellia(sp) wars across many islands during the next few years. Also, I'm not an expert on Thailand, but, shouldn't it be included with Japan? Red4tribe (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing discussion on this page, just a little ways above. Basically, the idea is to list only the major countries in the infobox; the Netherlands, New Zealand, and others just don't fit the bill. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, if that is the case, why is the Soviet Union listed? It was only in the battle for a few days. Red4tribe (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
They destroyed the Kwangtung Army, and are often credited with ending the war, by forcing Japan to surrender (much to the chagrin of those who use the same to justify nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Without the Soviet intervention, the invasion of Japan might well have been necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention a Soviet invasion of the northern Home Islands. They took the Kuriles without much trouble, although that was after the surrender was announced. I believe planning was also underway for an invasion of Hokkaido.

FWIW, proponents of the view that the A-bombs were a "shot across the bows" of the Soviets (which I'm sure they partly were), often forget that they saved Soviet lives, in addition to the Western Allied and Japanese casualties that would have resulted from an invasion Grant | Talk 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to battlebox

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Need source for reversion of Thai flag from tricolour to elephant flag during Japanese alliance (1941–). Kelvinc (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is plainly incorrect, as the caption for that image says it was used "1855 to 1916". Furthermore the name Siam was only used officially until 1939 and briefly after the war (1945-49; see Thailand#Etymology).
I am also removing Manchuko (as it was merely a Japanese puppet) and Nazi Germany (which played no significant role in the Pacific) from the list of combatants.
I have also removed Japanese leaders who were purely military officers, as we do not list military leaders from Allied countries and have added the wartime prime ministers in addition to Tojo, being Kuniaki Koiso and Kantarō Suzuki, as well as the Thai dictator, Plaek Pibulsonggram. Grant | Talk 03:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pacific War?

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

As far as I was aware there was not a specific "Pacific War" but rather a "War in the Pacific" as part of Japanese general expansion strategy. Certainly that is what the Office of the Chief of Military History, the US Army Military History Institute, the War in the Pacific National Historical Park, and is also the seemingly grammatically correct way to express it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see 3 potential problems with that. One, the Japanese strategy was the "move south" (I wish I could recall the Japanese for it :( ), rather than "Pacific" anything. Two, It risks confusion with the "War of the Pacific" (?) between Chile & Arg (IIRC). Three, it's a very common name in U.S.-Jp war/U.S.-Jp history circles, & conveniently & accurately (enough) describes the situation. I very seriously doubt there's support for a change to the Japanese name, & a change to "War in the Pacific", IMO, is unduly confusing with a little-known SAm war, especially given how widely used PacWar already is. Unless I've completely misunderstood your meaning... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming to this talk page to note the same thing as Mrg. Since we have a European Theatre of World War II (which includes both Eastern and Western fronts), I suggeste we rename this article to Pacific Theatre of World War II and redirect both Pacific War (currently an article that should be deleted) and Pacific Theater of Operations there. Raul654 (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pacific War is a very common term for this. For instance, it's the term used in the Oxford Companion to the Second World War for its top-level entry on WW2 in Asia and the Pacific (see page 668 of the 2005 hardcover edition). AFAIK, the Pacific Theater of Operations] was the US-military's classification of this part of WW2, and it isn't widely used outside the US. The term also doesn't make much sense for countries like Japan which only had a single theatre of war. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I just meant that as it is, the name is somewhat grammatically incorrect. War in the Pacific, means combat that took place in and on the shores of the Pacific Ocean. A Pacific War simply sounds like a proper name of a war, but there never was a "Pacific War" given the USA and the Commonwealth declared war on Japan, so it was the Allied war with Japan...everywhere, and not just limited to the Pacific Ocean. By focusing on the Pacific Ocean, the article necessarily talks about the naval operations in the Pacific Ocean, and this was the majority of operations until 1945 for the Allies, but not the Japanese--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
All your concerns are addressed in the article. There's a paragraph discussing the various names that have been used for the conflict. The only thing I see that ought to be done about your concerns is that an exhaustive number of appropriate redirect pages can be made to point to this article. Grammatically incorrect? We're talking about a name of a conflict that is used in a great many works of history. It doesn't have to make sense grammatically to be the most-used and best name for this article. I say "Pacific War" stays where it is. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Germany

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am going to readd Germany to the battle box because before 1941 they were the only combatants fighting in the pacific besides the japanese in china. German raiders were quite preveleant in the pacific and even raided Nauru. German submarines were based out of malaysia and indonesia late in the war and raiders were even based out of yokahama until 1944. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't. The German contribution was tiny by any measure. You might as well add Cuba to the Atlantic. And wasn't the consensus "delete"? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 01:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Outer mongolia?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since inner Mongolia is on the Axis list of belligerents, shouldnt outer Mongolia be on the list of allied combatants? They did assist the Soviet Union in their invasion of Manchuria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.221.48 (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article yesterday and added some flags to the Campaign Box without looking at this ongoing discussion first. At least I got the Dutch flag added. Not sure why Thailand rates inclusion but the French do not. But it would appear that a "less is more" policy has been generally agreed upon. So I will not attempt to add anything for the East African forces that fought in Burma or the zealots who continued the fight for the Italian Social Republic.
Anyway, according to its Wikipedia article, Mengjiang (inner Mongolia) nominally became part of the Wang Jingwei Government. If flags for minor participants like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Vichy France, Free France, Canada, etc. do not rate a spot in the Campaign Box, I would suggest removing the Mengjiang flag rather than add a flag for Outer Mongolia. My two cents ... Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

End of war: September 9th???

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! Any reason for the war's end on "9 September" in infobox? AFAIK the war was over by Japanese Instrument of Surrender September 2, 1945. --Sceadugenga (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that it's because Japan didn't formally surrender to China until 9 Sept. Personally, I think I would prefer using V-J Day, as that is when the war actually stopped. That the formal documents weren't signed until slightly more than 2 weeks later is less important, I think. Whichever date is used, I think it would be helpful to include a footnote explaining the other dates the reader might have seen elsewhere (i.e., if 2 Sept. is used, the footnote would explain that the Japanese surrendered on 14/15 Aug, and that Japan formally surrendered to China on 9 Sept.) Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Soviet participation and casualties

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts are mentioned in the article, shouldn't we add the Soviet losses in those to the ones we have in the infobox (1945 only)? With Lake Khasan and Nomonhan, total Soviet losses amount to 22 694 killed and missing, 43 656 wounded and sick. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Choral Sea and Midway..."Turning Point"? Solomon Islands...Neglected

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Calling this phase of the war the "turning point" seems to me to be a bit rash. Midway only equalled the odds in the Pacific, especially in the case of the Naval strength of the Japanese Navy and US/Allied Navies. Calling the Battles of the Choral Sea and Midway the "turning point" has had some debate lately, even though most scholars and amateur World War 2 historians still cling to the traditional interpretation of these events. Also, this article seems to minimize the Guadalcanal and Solomon Islands Campaigns of 1942-1943. Much more information on this topic is needed in this article, considering it was the first major US/Allied offensive against the Japanese during the war. Furthermore, neglecting the naval battles around Guadalcanal is highly irresponsible, considering that the two opposing navies were roughly equal in strength for the first time in the war as well. The Japanese's eventual defeat in the Guadalcanal Campaign lead Japan to their "Advance by turning" strategy of retreat away from the Southwest Pacific back to the Philippines and to mainland Asia.

(Hydrofir (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Midway was definitely a turning point. Redirecting Japan from primarily offensive to Defensive from then on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.200.217 (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But you miss the point that even though it redirected them away from the central Pacific, they continued their offensive in the South Pacific, primarily in New Guinea, with a renewed offensive against the south eastern part of New Guinea. The offensive at Guadalcanal again redirected them towards the Solomon Islands where they eventually gave up all offensives in the Pacific area (not including their offensive against the British in South East Asia later on). Midway was clearly important, but not a "catch all" for ending Japanese offensives in the South Pacific. The successful American/Allied effort around Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands and the defeat of Japanese forces on New Guinea effectively ended Japanese offensives in the Pacific for good. (This does not take the Battles of the Philippine Sea or Leyte Gulf into consideration since they were in effect counter-attacks, not Japanese offensives.) The Japanese Navy did not engage in battle with the US fleet after the Guadalcanal/Solomon Island Campaign of 1942-1943 until 1944. Midway did not put the Japanese Navy out of action like Guadalcanal and the Solomon Island actions did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.19.39 (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some disagreement among historians as to which was the real turning point, Midway or Guadalcanal. In fact, I recently read a book, The U.S. Navy Against the Axis: Surface Combat, 1941-1945 by Vincent P. O'Hara in which he argues that the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal was more important than Midway, which is definitely a controversial opinion. The article should, in my opinion, simply state that some historians say that Midway was the turning point, giving their names and reasons, and that some say that Guadalcanal was, giving their names and reasons. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Combatants in the infobox

Latest comment: 15 years ago37 comments11 people in discussion

Is there any reason why we can't have a full list in the infobox? Is it just that some of us are squeamish about including the likes of Mexico and Thailand? I don't think many readers would assume that inclusion in an infobox for Country X implied equality of historical significance with Country Y.

With specific regard to "British Empire", it is now being used in a technically incorrect way, because (1) the name "British Empire" became obsolete in 1926 and (2) it always meant the whole thing now known as the "Commonwealth", not just the non-Dominion parts.

As Nick has said above, the whole thing was the "British Commonwealth" in 1926-49. The contradistinction to "Dominion" at the time was Crown Colony, although this did not cover the Indian Empire, which was so big it was under British control by a separate set of arrangements.

I favour having "United Kingdom" with "Indian Empire" and "Crown Colonies" indented underneath it. IMO that would also be a good treatment for the Philippines. Grant | Talk 06:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain that British Empire included the dominions? I was under the impression that the term was not obsolete at this point, and that it only included parts directly governed by the U.K. such as Crown Colonies. Oberiko (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is sometimes used it that way, but that is not supported by the official usage or intention. (Neither is the similar usage of "British Empire" in some sources in relation to the Dominions in WW2.) "British Commonwealth of Nations" was first used in the constitution of the Irish Free State in 1921 and the term officially superseded "British Empire" in toto five years later. For instance, there are official references to the Indian Empire in the 1930s as a member of the "British Commonwealth". The "British" was dropped in 1947. See Commonwealth_of_Nations#Origins. Grant | Talk 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. While I see BE being used pretty often in the manner I utilize it as (The British Empire and the Second World War defines BE to be the entirety of the Commonwealth sans the four Dominions), there was considerable ambiguity about the term and it was historically used differently between the U.K. and the Dominions.
I would prefer to use "British India", as casual readers aren't likely to know the British ruled India at the time and our own article on the subject is titled British Raj. I'm also not certain that we need to include "Crown Colonies"; while I promoted the BE as our catch-all, listing the CCs independantly doesn't really make much sense to me as I can't think of any significant military contributions by even the combined CCs.
With that said, any objection to the following list of Allies?
  • United States
  • China
  • United Kingdom
    • British India
  • Australia
  • Soviet Union
Oberiko (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the New Zealand ? (I read what you wrote above about it) Should not the Philippines be included under United States too? --Flying tiger (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My stance on New Zealand hasn't changed, their contribution was essentially negligable in comparison to the other large powers. Same for the Philippines, just because they were there doesn't make them notable, otherwise we'd need to include Guam and Wake Island, along with the numerous colonies of other European powers.
The infobox itself says When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. We're already over that line with the inclusion of Australia, and the gap between Aus and the next nearest Ally (which I believe would be NZ) is massive. Oberiko (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay; I support. --Flying tiger (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd quibble with the SU; despite (fairly) substantial numbers, it was only the last week or so of the war, not a major combatant. I'd put NZ over SU for duration, anyhow. Maybe not influence, tho, since SU entry effectively ended it. Which raises the question of how "major" is defined: numbers, duration, or influence? Or some calculus of all 3, which is what we seem to have now (& which might reasonably include the Dutch, too)? Trekphiler (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No hard and fast way to measure, if there were, we wouldn't have the problems that we did with the general WWII info box. Generally, most times we don't have such conflicting metrics, but when we do, we can usually just rationalize it out.
Regarding the Soviets. Even though it was just two weeks, it was a hell of a fortnight; the Soviets inflicted ~80,000 casualties during the battle, and ended up capturing over half a million prisoners (~580,000, close to the size of the entire Australian force serving in Pacific Theatre). Further more, the official instrument of surrender states: "We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.", (emphasis mine) showing the heightened Soviet status. There's no way N.Z. or the Netherlands can come close to that level of impact. Oberiko (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think that there are so few combatants that we can include all of them, but I'm probably alone on that.

The Netherlands' role was important, both in the lead up and in the ABDA alliance of 1941-42.

Filipinos comprised the majority of the "US" land forces in 1941, (just as Australians comprised the majority of Allied forces in the SW Pacific during 1942). In fact, MacArthur entered the war not in the US Army, but as head of the Philippines Army.

The people of British Crown Colonies did play a major part, notably those of Malaya, Singapore, Burma, Ceylon and Fiji. The African colonies collectively contributed at least two divisions to the Burma campaign. Grant | Talk 04:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ABDA had virtually no impact on the Pacific War, it was disbanded after a few weeks of the wars start. Regarding the rest, could I get some numbers on the the Filipino numbers vs. U.S.? Are they close to comparable with the Australians?
Re: Philippines, I have 67.5 thousand during the Battle of Bataan (World War II: A Student Encyclopedia, pg. 180), the primary combat phase of the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. Although 7,000 Filipino-American's served in U.S. Army Filipino infantry regiments, I don't count that, just as I don't count Japanese-Americans in U.S. service to tally towards Japan. Unless Filipino forces served elsewhere, that gives us only 10% the force contribution of Aus, and only serving for five months. IMO, a very large gap. Oberiko (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'd have any strong opinion adverse to adding the Crown Colonies as an additional indent for the U.K., could you provide some sourced numbers for them though? Oberiko (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You cant leave off NZ just because its a smaller power, we signed the instrument of surrender as an independant power, Britain didnt sign for us just as we fought japan as New Zealand, not Britain and its only by happenstance that NZ didnt see more action than any other power. Taifarious1 06:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Very true; so did the Netherlands and France, even though it did very little in the theatre. As I say, I don't see what the problem is in including these, as there are not that many countries that played an active part (compared to WW2 more generally).
I don't know how, but forgot about the Gurkhas, from Nepal: 55 battalions/250,000 personnel serving with British and Indian Army formations in India, Singapore and Burma (not to mention Syria, North Africa, Italy and Greece). There are details of the African involvement at Fourteenth Army (United Kingdom): three divisions and at least one independent brigade. See also: Burma Rifles (14 battalions in 1942), Fiji Infantry Regiment (a battalion in the Solomons and Bougainville), Royal Malay Regiment (two battalions in the Malalyan and Singapore campaigns) and the Straits Settlements Volunteer Force (four battalions in the Battle of Singapore). The Ceylon Defence Force, although large, was mostly made up of garrison/home defence and support units.
The Filipino contribution in 1942, especially at the Battle of Bataan, was vital to the Allied war effort, as it significantly delayed Japanese advances elsewhere for six months. (It was even memorialised in an Australian warship, HMAS Bataan).
ABDA lasted more than "a few weeks", until March 30, 1942 in fact, and oversaw the Dutch East Indies Campaign. In particular, significant Dutch naval forces took part in actions like Battle of the Java Sea. Grant | Talk 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
NZ signing a document doesn't make them a major belligerent, the Declaration by United Nations was signed by 26 Allied governments, does that make all of them, including such like Haiti and Cuba, major, notable, belligerents? The document you quote even specifically lists only the United States, China, Britain and Soviet Union as the four Allies. What major battles did New Zealand fight? What was their major contribution? Where were they decisive? Using ~20K personnel (unless other sources can be found) as their contribution, it's about 1% of that contributed by the United States and only about 5% of Australia. Is that considered a peer? The gap is gigantic. Heck, the article itself doesn't contain any real detail on NZ's role, and doing so would only be undue weight.
The problem with including them is, asides from additional clutter in the infobox (see Eastern Front for an article where the infobox has become meaningless), that it sends a false impression to the user.
During the war, ABDA was active from December - February 25, roughly three months during a 4 year war. The Java Sea battle contained 5 cruisers and 12 destroyers; of these, only 2 light cruisers and 2 destroyers weren't either American, British or Australian. So, unless other warships are known, right now it's comparing 4 Netherlands warships (none of which were capital ships) against the American 713. That makes the Netherlands an important (but far from the most prominent) combatant in the Battle of the Java Sea, but certainly not in the Pacific War as a whole.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Ghurka's, as with several of the other forces listed, predominantly considered Indian? Do you have numbers for non-Indians? Oberiko (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
While I generally agree with the combatants listed currently, isn't all this straying into the same WP:OR territory as when we were trying to decide which countries were the major players of WWII as a whole? Surely there are some sources that agree with the list we currently have, as this doesn't seem to be as much of a gray area (but then, that's probably just my perspective clouding things, right? :) ) Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain if it can be considered OR. I'd liken it more to how we choose to structure the article itself (i.e., "Should we have two paragraphs on Guadalcanal, or three?"). That and, as we saw in the World War II combatant debates, sources can vary pretty wildly.
That said, sources are always a valid request:


-- The West New Guinea Debacle: Dutch Decolonisation and Indonesia, 1945-1962, pg. 13


-- Southeast Asia and New Zealand: A History of Regional and Bilateral Relations, pg. 10

Oberiko (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would say that it's OR in that we as editors are using our judgement to interpret various statistics and metrics to determine whether a specific country fits in the infobox. But maybe I'm just being too much of a wikilawyer. Parsecboy (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a tough call. In the end, it all comes down to opinion and judgement, even by professionals. I suppose the best we can do is try and gauge the general trend of the source materials we use and then try and reach more-or-less consensus on the discussion pages. Oberiko (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Previously you asked for the battles NZ fought in, well heres a list of the ones I could find including articles containing substantial information on NZ contribution to the Pacific Theatre:

And P.S. for the size of New Zealand, by the war's end a total of 194,000 men and 10,000 women had served in the armed forces at home and overseas. The costs for the country were high - 11,625 killed, a ratio of 6,684 dead per million in the population which was the highest rate in the Commonwealth (Britain suffered 5,123, Canada suffered 3,750 and Australia 3,232 per million population). I think thats thats a pretty large sacrifice for such a small nation and merits some kind of mention in the infobox. Taifarious1 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some problems. First, your list has many repeats in it (Battles within campaigns etc.), that's basically stacking. Second, the numbers you're using are for the entire war, including Europe; by that logic, China is a major player in the war against Germany. Third, by using "sacrifice" you have to basically argue that one NZ casualty is worth more then one American casualty (if going by totals) or that NZ's contribution was less then that of Portuguese Timor and Singapore (if going by ratio). I'm far from convinced, especially since, unlike what's shown above, you also provide no sources. Oberiko (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine, if you refuse to take it at face value then I'm done trying to convince you, and of course im not saying the a NZ casualty is worth more than an American, that would be just reprehensible but in contrast you are saying that the contribution made by NZ as a nation isn't worth at least a basic mention in the infobox. Taifarious1 04:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. Adding nations that were militarily insignificant does a disservice to the reader. If NZ, why not the Philippines (which had 3 times the number of soldiers contributed)? If the Philippines, why not the Dutch? If the Dutch, why not the Free French? If the Free French, why not Portugal? Etc. Our own infobox template says to try and limit it to about three or four for a reason; so the readers gets a good idea quickly of who were the major players. We don't lump in everyone who contributed any soldiers/intelligence/supplies etc., as that's misleading and grows to massive proportions very quickly. The difference between Australia and the next nearest Ally is staggeringly large (order of magnitude), it's not an unreasonable cut-off. Oberiko (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
So what you're basically saying is that the New Zealanders who went to fight in the Pacific, don't actually matter, not as much as the Australians or the Chinese, the Soviets or any American?? Or another soldier is more significant than any NZ soldier? Taifarious1 06:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue is, the infobox should be limited to the major powers of the war, and New Zealand simply doesn't fit with those already listed. No one is saying they didn't matter or that other countries' soldiers were more important. The issue is that they were a pretty minor part of the war effort. As Oberiko says, the purpose of the infobox is to give a quick, at a glance description of the war, and the belligerents should be only the major ones. Look at it this way: someone who doesn't know a thing about the Pacific war might assume that New Zealand was as important as China if they're all listed in the box. We're trying to avoid any kind of misrepresentations by listing only the major powers. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Break 1

<--I wouldn't give the instrument of surrender too much weight. It was a political document, recognizing the geopolitical realities in Europe & the world as much as a recognition of participation in PW. As for Ghurkas (please, no apostrophe!), you're right, they were from India, but as I understand it, they aren't considered "Indian" (in India, anyhow); a bit like Walloons in Belgium, I think. And if you're going to denigrate the Dutch for small numbers & short duration, you should be downgrading Britain, too (unless you include Burma & India, & I'd put that in a separate theatre or article, if it was up to me); recall, "Pacific Theatre" & "CBI Theatre" were quite distinct. Trekphiler (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pacific War encompasses the entirety of Asia-Pacific Theatre of World War II past December 7th, 1941; thus it includes both the CBI and American Pacific Theater of Operations among other actions. I also don't think we should start nitpicking between who, in India, is an Indian or not; that'd be like starting to pick-apart the Soviet Union, which I believe was considerably more ethnically diverse. Oberiko (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The relatively small part played by the Dutch and NZ had more to do with internal and international politics, than any innate abilities or lack thereof.

The quote from Southeast Asia and New Zealand is simply wrong. Virtually all of the RNZN was involved in the Pacific from 1942, including (from memory) at least three cruisers. Only one RNZAF squadron saw action in Malaya and only individual personnel saw action in Burma, whereas several squadrons were part of AirSols. The 3rd Division (New Zealand) was formed for service in the Pacific, and most of its components saw action. It was sidelined from 1944 as a result of inter-Allied politics (like Australian land and air units) and disbanded to address domestic labour shortages and reinforce the 1st Division (in Italy).

While the role of the Dutch after March 1942 was small, they were seen as major Ally up until that point, by everyone concerned, including the Japanese. That the Dutch forces in the NEI turned out to be a paper tiger in 41-42, and few escaped to fight another day, was related mostly to poor preparation and leadership.

As for the fact that "...the Declaration by United Nations was signed by 26 Allied governments...", that is true, but only a handful contributed combat forces in the Pacific. Grant | Talk 00:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No ones ascribing reason or motive; it's primarily just a matter of numbers. Continuing with sources for NZ:


-- The British Empire and the Second World War, pg. 487


-- The Pacific War Companion, pg. 143-157


-- Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War, 1939-45: The Pacific

Also, according to the 1966 NZ Encyclopaedia, the maximum number of New Zealanders overseas (in both theatres I'd imagine) was 75,000, still just a tenth of Australian's contribution to this one theatre. Oberiko (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the Netherlands inculded among the allies? They fought in the war for 3 months(officially) and held out in gurellia(sp) wars across many islands during the next few years. Also, I'm not an expert on Thailand, but, shouldn't it be included with Japan? And one other thing, why is the Soviet Union listed if they were in the war shorter than the Netherlands? Red4tribe (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

White-centric

The infobox is clearly for White people only and Asians are insignificant.23prootiecute (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why most of the countries in it are Asian and there's been a very long-running discussion of who to include. Please stop edit warring and discuss your proposed changes. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just list them all?

Guys, it really wouldn't be that hard or take up too much space.

Like this:

ALLIES: Republic of China, United States (inset: Philippine Commonwealth), United Kingdom (inset: British India), Australia, Netherlands (inset: Dutch East Indies), Soviet Union, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Fiji, Tonga, Mongolia

AXIS: Empire of Japan (inset: Manchukuo, Mengjiang, Wang Jingwei government, Ba Maw regime, Provisional Government of Free India), Thailand, Germany

This way, we count all governments which contributed combat forces at some point, while leaving out those that did not (such as Free France, Panama, Nicaragua, etc.). The Vichy French weren't really on anyone's side in the Pacific War, so leave them out. It also excludes Japanese puppet states such as the Empire of Vietnam, Kingdom of Cambodia, Laos, and the Second Philippine Republic which did not contribute military forces.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you see as the purpose of an infobox. If you just see it as a venue for another list, ok. But if you see it as being a place to go for a quick overview of the most important facts, then no. Most of the countries you want to add had minimal if any influence on the war in the Pacific, nor were they able to operate independently of their "controlling" powers. It is simply misleading to add them.
Most military conflict infoboxes list all participants in a conflict, unless they were so numerous as to take up too much space.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a wiki, we aren't required to do anything just because someone else is doing it (with the exception of following established policies and guidelines, of course). This is a purely content issue, and consensus on the individual talk page is how things like this are determined.
To address the issue directly, most of the additions you want to make to the infobox made minimal contributions to the war effort on either side, and adding them would only confuse the average reader who doesn't know much about this war. The infobox is supposed to give readers the gist of the information at a glance; for combatants, they need to take away that the war was primarily between China, the US, UK, and Australia versus Japan. Parsecboy (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The Strength field of the infobox could be used to differentiate the size of the contribution. Right now you are drawing an arbitrary line between important and unimportant contributors.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That is the role of an editor, to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Makinng casualties consistent with combatants and comanders/--23prootie (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Four Policemen and Australia

Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

I really smell discrimination when only the leaders of these nations are included in the template so to be fair, I decided to included all the leaders of the original members of the United Nations plus the Dutch East Indies.--23prootie (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of being fair. It is a matter of including those nations and their leaders who exercised both independent action and influence over the course of the war. China did. USA did. United Kingdom did. Australia did (and to indent it under the UK is both incorrect and insulting). The Dutch were involved as an independant player for only a few months at the beginnnig, and the Soviet Union at the end (although the Soviet commitment was massive, and possibly caused the Japanese surrender). Mexico has nothing to do with it besides contributing a handful of planes. Please read debates previously on this page before altering again. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
And you think it's not insulting that the Philippines keeps being added under the United States despite but being specified under the Jones Act that it is not part of that country. The Philippine leadership did a lot more than it is credited, and is probably on the same boat as Australia. Let's have a compromise, I'll stop editing as long as Manuel L. Quezon is added separate from the U.S. leadership and the Mexican casualties is fixed.--23prootie (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
All this has been discussed previously. Please stop edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
23prootie was edit warring about this back in February. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
And did the same at Talk:Allies of World War II as far back as 2006, where I explained to him/her at length how The Philippines, in 1941-45, had no independence from the US in military or foreign policy (a situation similar to that of the Indian Empire during WW2). Which, of course, does not alter the huge contribution to the Allied cause made by Filipinos. Grant | Talk 09:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, and while I get your point, I still believe that the Philippines' situation is more like that of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa before their independence were finalized in the latter half of the 20th century rather than that of India. Besides, the Americans themselves considered Manuel L. Quezon as politically important, otherwise they would have left him behind. I think it is important to list the Philippines separately from the U.S. since grouping them together would diminish the Philippines' role into a mere territory (like Puerto Rico) rather than a semi-independent political entity. Listing them together would also ignore political developments inside ad outside the islands regarding independence.--23prootie (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What the US did with Manuel Quezon doesn't change the fact that the Philippines was at the time a US commonwealth. Parsecboy (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It also doesn't change the fact the the Philippines was supposed to be already independent at the time of Quezon's exile.--23prootie (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
And correction. Self-governing commonwealth. There's a distinction.--23prootie (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Except for specifically military matters in which the USA could call up Filipinos to fight for the USA, and the USA could put a military base anywhere it wished in the Philippines. It was in time of war that the Philippines had less independence, and the wishes of the USA came to the top. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Please read the history books, it didn't go that way. Only on paper.--23prootie (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: I do get that the Philippines was not fully independent at that time, that's the reason why I keep using the term Philippine Commonwealth instead of just Philippines. But regardless, the islands had enough autonomy to decide political decisions on it own without the help of big brother United States, and there are instances when it did. Besides, listing them together would risk a complete disregard to the contributions of the nation like what previously happened to the top of the Allies of World War II page. So please stop re-listing it with the U.S., it's offensive. --23prootie (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the Statute of Westminster 1931, the UK still have some authority over Australia. Does that mean it is not independent? --23prootie (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
During this period Australia was classed as a Dominion, which iirc basically means it was considered an equal to the motherland. I dont think it is really a compatable example.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody here is trying to be offensive, and nobody is completely disregarding any country's contribution. We are all just trying to be accurate. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
But that's what happens when the Philippines gets listed under the U.S., I've noticed that. People don't usually consider it thinking it's just another territory. It's not offensive to you, maybe because your white, but here it is.--23prootie (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Reality is not determined by what is and is not offensive.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
About being accurate, the problem lies with what the Philippines actually was at that time. It is neither like a Commonwealth of today but is also not yet fully a republic. What is it? Maybe the clue lies with it having a President. Regardless, what it is is more than a mere dependent territory.--23prootie (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Did the Philippine Commonwealth maintain foreign relations with any nation, or receive ambassadors?WDW Megaraptor (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please also provide reliable sources that state that the Philippine was an independent country during the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Casualty information

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The above seems to be lacking in some areas:

  1. There is no information for the casualties suffered by the French army or the civillian losses suffered by the population of Indo-China.
  2. Military casualties have been given for the Philippines but there is no information on the civilian casualties inflicted there, likewise what about American civilian losses?
  3. What about the Koreans, are they counted under the Chinese?
  4. 200,000 casualties from the atomic bombings, casualties in the Tokyo fire bombing are estimated – according to the article on the subject – at the most 125,000 killed and possibly up to 1 million wounded. However the article states only 580,000 Japanese losses, it just seems a little small. Am not completely doubting the source but has information been omitted such as those wounded or missing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Korea was part of Japan from 1910 to 1945 and there was no resistance movement to speak of, so Korean casualties should be included as part of Japanese casualties - as tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Korean men fought with the Japanese military I doubt it would be possible to separate them, even if this was historically valid. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh i wasnt questioning if its valid or not to represent them on either side as a seperate entity, it just occured to me that i didnt see mention of them and i assumed something must have happened in that neck of the woods too. If they are counted as part of the Japanese military thats cool by me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet-Japanese Border Wars?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If found the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945) listed in the Soviet-Japanese Border Wars section. The sources available for me suggest that is not correct.
In his article "The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Far Eastern War, 1941-1945" (The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 24, No. 2 (May, 1955), pp. 153-174) Ernest R. May writes (p.172):

"On August 8, six days after the end of the conference and three months to the day since Germany's surrender, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. While this attack evidently hastened Japan's decision to appeal for terms, it was still a blow struck against a dying man. It shattered the last hopes of Japanese die-hards, who had acknowledged since 1941 that Japan could not fight Russia as well as the United States and Britain. Since Moscow had been the outlet for previous Japanese peace feelers, the Russian declaration of war also discouraged Japanese hopes of secretly negotiating terms of peace. The Emperor's appeal probably resulted, therefore, from the Russian action, but it could not, in any event, have been long in coming. As it was, the Grand Alliance embraced Asia and the Pacific for only six days."

Sadao Asada ("The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration", Source: The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 477-512) calls atomic bombing and Manchurian campaign "twin shocks" (p. 490: "The effects of the "twin shocks"-the atomic bombing and the Soviet entry-were profound.").
Donald E. Shepardson ("The Fall of Berlin and the Rise of a Myth", Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 135-153) describe a situation in Pacific by spring 1945 a follows:

"The situation in the Pacific was grim. The future looked even worse. The atomic bomb was a theory to be tested; fighting the Japanese was a reality to be dreaded. When the fighting ended on Iwo Jima on 16 March the U.S. Marine Corps had suffered 25,000 casualties with over 6,000 dead. The Philippines campaign had been costlier still, and was not yet completed.
Operation Iceberg, the invasion of Okinawa, began on 1 April and encountered fanatical resistance in the south. At sea, Japanese defend- ers employed Kamikaze attacks in force against American ships, adding to the carnage. When it finally ended in June, 75,000 American soldiers and sailors had been killed or wounded. Losses in material were staggering, with 38 ships sunk, another 368 damaged, and over 700 aircraft lost.
Following the Yalta conference, the War Department formulated plans for the final assault on Japan. Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was scheduled for December 1945. Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu, would follow in April 1946. Both operations, and especially Coronet, depended on transferring men and material from Europe. Approximately 400,000 Army Air Forces, Army Ground Forces, and Army Security Forces were scheduled for direct transfer from Europe to the Pacific from September 1945 to April 1946, with another 400,000 allowed a delay en route in the United States, with all projections subject to available shipping.
Conquest of the Home Islands might take until the end of the year, still leaving the Japanese in control of Burma, Formosa (Taiwan), Manchuria, and large parts of China. The Kwantung army in China and Manchuria had lost much of its strength, but still had a million men. For those Americans who survived Okinawa, as well as those who joined them later, "The Golden Gate in '48" might be the best they could hope for."

Describing the situation in Europe in spring 1945 he concludes: "The Americans and the British had good reason for avoiding conflict with the Soviet Union at a time when they were counting on a common effort against Japan."
All this authors agree that by its strategic implication the invasion of Manchuria was a global, not a local military operation.
According to David Glantz ("August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria"[7]. Combat Studies Institute, Leavenworth Papers, February 1983, Fort Leavenworth Kansas) 1,577,225 men, 26,137 artillery pieces, 5,556 tanks from the Soviet side were opposed by 1,217,000 men, 5,360 artillery pieces and 1,155 tanks from Japanese side. It goes far beyond a simple border war.
Raymond L. Garthoff("The Soviet Manchurian Campaign, August 1945" Source: Military Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Oct., 1969), pp. 312-336) characterised the campaign as a "new kind of offensive" when the average tempo of sustained Soviet advance was 82 km per day. The attack that leads to fast and deep penetration into the opponent's territory definitely doesn't fit a definition of a border conflict.
My conclusion is: by its scale, strategic implication, consequences and geography the Manchurian campaign doesn't fit border conflict criteria. I propose to move it somewhere else, probably into a separate subsection.
In addition, it would be more correct from chronological point of view.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pacific_War/Archive_2&oldid=1087971205"