Talk:Southern Expeditionary Army Group

Untitled

This text:

Following the elimination of American airsupport, the main force of the 14th Army was to land along Lingayen Gulf, while another force landed at Lamon Bay. These forces were then to attack Manila in a pincer attack. After this, the islands of Manila Bay were to be taken.

is almost identical to the text at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-PI/USA-P-PI-4.html and complete phrases are lifted from it. The same is true of other material in this article and in the article on Military History of Japan, whch both seem to be a rehashing of the material ibiblio site. Can someone else give a look to see if this is a copyright violation. Danny

Certainly sounds like both articles are discussing the same thing.

When the major part of American air strength had been eliminated, the main force of the 14th Army was to land along Lingayen Gulf, north of Manila, while another force would land at Lamon Bay, southeast of the capital. These forces, with close air support, were to advance on Manila from the north and south. It was expected that the decisive engagement of the campaign would be fought around Manila. Once the capital was taken, the islands defending the entrance to Manila Bay were to be captured and Luzon occupied.

Vera Cruz

And with the same terminology, changed somewhat occasionally, thereby losing the more precise description of the original. Danny

Yep, 14th Army, Lamon Bay, Manila, Luzon, eliminate the air strength, land at Lingayen and Lamon, advance on Manila in a pincer attack, take the bay. Not sure how else one could write that... Vera Cruz

Where is there an inaccuracy? Vera Cruz

Keep changing. From what I see, it's all the military history articles you have recently . As for an inaccuracy, advance on does not equal attack, etc. Danny

How does advance on not equal attack? Vera Cruz

Look at the Israeli troops, whenever they advance on Ramallah. Danny

Right...they advance on and thus attack Ramallah. What's your point? Vera Cruz

Hey, Lir, this needs major rewrite to avoid copyright problems. -- Zoe

Word word word word, "advance on" is a bad term at the core, if you're going at something with guns and the intention of killing everybody defending it, you're attacking. MarcusAurelius

No, a siege is not an attack. A slight distinction, but a distinction nonetheless. Advancing on is posturing. Shooting at is attacking. Perhaps the Japanese intended to attack, but that's assuming motive for the action and should be proven. In Ramallah, in Intifada II, the Israeli tanks stopped immediately outside the city. Danny

Danny, thats your POV about how Israel is not attacking the Palestinians. If i drove tanks up to your city and laid seige to it, that's an attack. I think its beyond absurd to say that the Japanese weren't attacking Manila. And more importantly, how is it plagarism to state something that, from your viewpoint, doesn't even agree with your source? Vera Cruz

Danny man, a siege is most definitely an attack. A very effeminate and slower attack for sure, but attack nonethe less MarcusAurelius

Effeminate? -- Zoe

Plz display the text of this article which is identical to that at the source listed. Vera Cruz

Effeminate... not to sound (overly) mysoginistic, I just mean it's a method of attack severely lacking in testosterone (balls). Alas, the days of castles are gone. MarcusAurelius

For MA, no, they are related and similar but they are not identical. For instance, a few miles further south, the Israelis surrounded and held the Church of the Nativity under siege but did not attack. A siege of a castle is not a frontal assault. As I said before, a siege can often be even more cruel, but that is another story. For VC, I have shown that already, and I can do more but frankly I am too tired for your bullshit. Don't make assumptions about my opinions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You know nothing about them. As for plagiarizing, you took material and changed some of the wording, unknowingly changing some of the shades of meaning too. A good writer selects words carefully. Danny

If you believe the Japanese intended to not attack Manila, will you please show me where I missed this as I was plagarizing? Vera Cruz

That's not what I said. I said an advance is not an attack. Simple. The Germans advanced toward Moscow. They did not attack Moscow--they advanced toward Moscow. Would they have attacked Moscow? Sure. Did they?. No. And let' not try to avoid the main issue, which is that your articles are military history are dangerously close to plagiarism, even if they aren't. Danny

Danny, out of curiosity, how is Israel not "attacking" Palestine? Regardless of where they wish their borders were, they're leaving their established territory to kill Palestinians; sounds like attacking to me. And the relationship between siege and attack, it's a simple syllogism (sp?). All sieges are attacks but not all attacks are sieges. MarcusAurelius

Never did I say that Israel is not attacking Palestine. I said that in a particular instance, they did not attack Ramallah. And siege and attack is not just a simple syllogism. If America were to totally surround Iraq, poise its weapons at Iraq, and not let a single item of food or medicine in or let a single person out, causing the Iraqi government to surrender, they still did not attack Iraq. Danny

sounds like an attack to me. Vera Cruz

Except that it isn't, Lir. -- Zoe

french indochina

you missed it. the japanese attacked the vichy french colony in 1941, occupied it as a puppet state thehn overthrow the vichy french administration during the 1945 coup and established a colony named empire of vietnam. Paris By Night 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct article-name should be "Southern Army"

Hi there, The correct translation of 南方軍 (Nanpo gun) is Southern Army and not Southern Expeditionary Army Group. This is also confirmed in the book Japanese Army in World War II, Conquest of the Pacific 1941–42, Osprey Publishing on page 13. If that's okay with everyone I'd like to move this article to its correct name. Thank you, --Chris.w.braun (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)