Talk:Pacific War/Archive 1

Daughter Article

Notice: This is a daughter article of World War II - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article. WhisperToMe 07:23, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Japanese/USSR border fighting

Is there a reason the border clashes between Japan and the Soviet Union (occuring prior to the outbreak of the Soviet/German conflict on one hand and the Japanese/American war on the other) are not mentioned here?

US bias

"with eventual victory going to the United States." This is US bias, more apporpiate would be "With eventual victory going to the allies." I'd simply change it, but I'm guessing there's probably a lot of statements like this throughout the articile.

in discussion of land battles on Guadalcanal it seems appropriate. No UN troops there (there were some very helpful Aussie coast watchers involved, and of course the small Australian navy joined in the naval battles). Rjensen 06:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. This was almost entirely an American show, especially for sea and air. The presence of other allied forces, as Rjensen mentioned is practically token. Wallie 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Guadalcanal campaign, it should say Allied, not U.S, victory. U.S. general Vandegrift stated that the US Marines largely owed their victories on Guadalcanal to the Australian coastwatchers who provided almost daily early warnings on the approach of Japanese aircraft and ships. Also, Australian personnel directed the efforts of the Solomon Islander scouts and police forces that provided much of the crucial intelligence that U.S. forces used in preparing for Japanese attacks during the campaign. Furthermore, Australian and New Zealand warships were in the middle of several large naval engagements during the campaign, with one Australian cruiser being sunk. You can say that the campaign was primarily conducted by the the U.S., but it was an Allied (team) victory. Perhaps some of the other campaigns in the Pacific were 99-100% U.S.-run such as the Gilberts, Marshalls, Marianas, and Iwo Jima, but the Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands, and Southwest Pacific campaigns, as well as the Battle of Okinawa, were definitely team efforts. Thus, the overall victory in the Pacific War was an Allied victory, not only a U.S. victory. Cla68 03:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Old talk

Question: did any French nationals fight in the pacific theater after the liberation of Paris?

Yes, they did. A French battleship actually fought with the other Allies in the Indian Ocean but was probably not the only instance of French participation in east Asia. Please feel welcome to research the subject and add details about French participation in the Pacific campaign to the appropriate articles and entries. 152.119.104.71 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I moved this from Asian Theatre of World War II as that was a poor title: (a) because hardly anyone uses that phrase, and (b) because "Pacific" more accurately describes the location of the war than "Asian". Initially I moved it to Pacific Theatre of World War II, although reluctantly, as that is just as much of a mouthful and almost equally rarely used. Just the same, I decided not to be over-bold and move it to the place where it really ought to be, which is, of course, Pacific War. I did create a redirect at Pacific War though - and then discovered that Wikipedia editors are not stupid: Pacific War, which up until then had been a pointles redirect, gets more links than any other posible name for this page. QED. Tannin

---

The Japanese need for aviation fuel in May 1940 and the related dynamics of their campaign for Indonesian trade, should be critial elements of this article. I must also admit that until I read this article, that I had not thought of it as a economic policy by Japan; a view point which Henry Ford, his family & Foundation no doubt also studied from. In that light it is much easier to understand where they got their ideas for Indonesia and modern 'globalisation' from.

A look at Ford's history from WW-I to 1947 and one must wonder why the RAND & CIA organisations ever listen to his wacky Foundation, but he was the Bill Gates of his day and they assumed he must have been a genius with only good ideals for post-war OSS or US covert foreign policies.Daeron

---

The Pacific War more specifically describes the battles on or near the Pacific Ocean. Since this theatre contains Burma and fighting within China, I think the original title of Asian theatre is more appropriate. Oberiko 10:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The standard naming policy, Oberiko, is to place articles at the most obvious place - i.e., under the title that will cause the reader the least surprise. It is clear from the "what links here" list that this place is indeed Pacific War. Naturally, I agree with you that not all of the action of that war took place in or near the Pacific. However, that is no real problem: after all, we talk about the European portion of WW2 quite happily and a good deal of that action took place in Africa, in the Middle East, in mid-Atlantic, and even off the coast of the USA. Tannin 14:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

As is we've got three large sections: The overall war with Japan, the American battle with the Japanese at sea and on the islands, and the British campaign in Burma. Clumping them all together is equivelant to lumping the Eastern Front, the Western Front and the Italian Campaign together as just the European Theatre of World War II. I assume since you merged them, you have an idea as to how they can be distinguished? Oberiko 23:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

"Pacific War" is an imperfect name, but it is widely used and does reflect the two major adversaries, and the main geographical feature of a unified struggle which stretched from Mongolia to Australia, and from Ceylon to Alaska. By comparison, "Asian War" is not a name that is widely used in relation to WW2. "Asian Theater" is too ambiguous. Also, the word theater/theatre, in relation to war, is basically an American usage; other English speakers tend to refer to "the Asian campaigns". Grant65 (Talk) 03:01, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

As the article grows, it probably should in turn be broken up into something like Pacific Theater, Asian Theater and Southwest-Pacific Theater (possibly Burma Theater too) --kudz75 03:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

See South-East Asian Theatre of World War II it covers two interlinked campaigns: Burma Campaign and the American support campaign called the China Burma India Theater of World War II. I am not supprised that it has been ignored so far as the major army, the British Fourteenth Army is known as the Forgotten Army! BTW earlier in the war the British designated the command as the Far Eastern Theatre, the name was changed when Winston Churchill replaced Wavell with Lord louis Mountbatten as supreme allied commander of the South East Asia Command (SEAC) Philip Baird Shearer 20:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

There's an excellent article about the Japanese bombing of the US mainland at about.com. It was originally published in Aviation History magazine.

---

Isn't the neutrality of this article a little too much on the Allied side?

I've got to second this, there are countless places in this article where glaring biases and decidedly anti-Japanese interpretations interrupted the flow of my reading and made me want to close the page.

---

I think "resist-Jap. war" is not a very good translation of "kang-Ri zhanzheng". It is true that /ri/ is the first character 日 (meaning "sun" or "day") in 日本 (meaning "Japan", Chinese /ri-ben/, Japanese /ni-hon/), and that both languages commonly abbreviate by using only part of a compound of characters (for example, 日中 "for Sino-Japanese"); however, in English "Jap" is highly derogatory and I suspect that the above translation is adding a spurious meaning to the original term.

communists in shaanxi, not shanxi

commonly confused

Each Allied nation?

From the ending para: "The surrender was accepted by General Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Allied Commander, with representatives of each Allied nation" - were there really all representatives? Polish, for example? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. It should probably read "representatives of the Allied nations with forces in Asia and the Pacific". So the Polish govt in exile did officially declare war on Japan? Grant65 (Talk) 05:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

There were representatives from Japan from the US, China, UK, USSR, Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, and New Zealand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.106.214 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Doubt

I'm not sure if "kang-Ri zhanzheng" is the name in China for all the Pacific War or only for the Sino-Japanese War. Toya 16:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC) I can't leave this in wikipedia. Toya 06:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Conflict Between China and Japan"

The following paragraph is NOT a matter-of-fact description but rather a one-sided personal/governmental opinion/viewpoint. Thus, it is definitely POV and should be removed or, at least, replaced with arguments from both sides.

-"There is no evidence that Japan ever intended to directly administer China or that Japan's actions in China were part of a program of world domination. Rather, Japan's goals in China (strongly influenced by 19th century European colonialism) were to maintain a secure supply of natural resources and to have friendly and pliable governments in China that would not act against Japanese interests. Although Japanese actions would not have seemed out of place among European colonial powers in the 19th century, by 1930, notions of Wilsonian self-determination meant that raw military force in support of colonialism was no longer seen as appropriate behavior by the international community."-

Attacks on the Continental United States

I tried to clean up the section that someone put in regarding attacks on the Continental U.S.. Considering how little of an impact these attacks had I'm wondering if we shouldn't just stick the individual incidents into the relevant chronological sections. In fact, most of the incidents in the new section, such as the fire ballons were already covered in other sections of the article. In the meantime, I have temporaily commented out the section. -Loren 05:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

strategic bombers

JCS controlled the B-29s, by way of (ultimately) Curt LeMay; Kenney's Fifth Army Air Force and Thirteenth Army Air Force (commander of which I cannot recall) also owned strategic bombers, maninly B-24s. I deleted this: "US strategic bomber forces in the Pacific reported directly to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff." control by JCS through LeMay I saw (I think) in Alperowitz's 'Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb'. Trekphiler 12:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

japanese attack on pearl harbor

It was a massive strategic blunder. Quite aside arousing a dormant U.S. in a rage against Japan, the plan (by Fuchida, as I recall) omitted crucial targets, not least the power station (without which the base could not function) and the tank farms, which contained (in all) 530 million liters of fuel oil. Beside the stupidity was Nagumo, who disobeyed orders to achieve victory if it risked half his carrier force, and (as a battleship admiral) lacked the wit to attack shore targets with his heavies, which they were far better suited to than aircraft. (He, or the planners, repeated the mistake at Midway.) Trekphiler 12:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have repeatedly read that they might have achieved far more, if they had fully appreciated their desperate situation of fighting so much larger a country, and their great tactical advantage at the time. It seems to me, also, that the battle ships could have been used, either by first attacking the defensive guns by air or by risking their effect. The battle ships no longer needed to be ready to fight surface ships. They did not even sink all of the American battle ships. It seems inconsistent with such desperate fighting later on. David R. Ingham 03:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

pacific war U.S. strategy

The Doolittle Raid was a stupid stunt that put two precious carriers thousands of miles out of position when Japan struck for Port Moresby; the Coral Sea should have been a crushing victory that made Midway impossible.

The contribution of intelligence from intercepted and decrypted Japanese naval radio traffic was crucial at both battles. The crypto intelligence unit, codenamed Hypo (for the phonetic "H", Hawaii) was commanded by the brilliant Commander Joseph J. Rochefort.

The influence of crypto, and especially radar, at Midway is often overstated. Nagumo had inadequate reconnaissance aircraft, because they were aboard cruisers escorting battleships, which were some one thousand kilometers away, thanks to Yamamoto's (frankly) stupid dispositions.

There, as for most of the war, submarines get too little credit. It was Nautilus firing at a Japanese carrier, and being counterattacked, that put a destroyer out of position, forcing her to run back to the task force, to be detected and followed by McClusky. And Pacific Fleet Submarine Force was counterattacking off the coast of Japan less than ten days after Pearl Harbor (when Joe Enright's Gudgeon arrived). (At least, I'm PRETTY sure it was Enright and 'Gudgeon...) Trekphiler 12:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read that strategic bombing was not effective until there was about 50% destruction. The Dolittle Raid's greatest effect must have been to make the Japanese at home more aware of the war, and work harder. The B25s might have been useful in China, if things had gone better, but not as much use as DC3s would have been.

I have read that submarines were critical in the Pacific, as well as in the Atlantic. (Remember that there is now an attack submarine named Dreadnought, so they are now the capital ships.) It was the submarines that kept the Japanese from getting enough oil to the home islands to train more good air crews. David R. Ingham 03:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree on all your points. I also want to add that America was guilty of the most flagrant hypocrisy imaginable in regards to the submarine war. The official American position before the war was that submarine warfare was a violation of the laws of war unless conducted under a strict code that entailed stopping merchant ships, allowing their crews to get off, then sinking the abandoned vessels. Unrestricted sub warfare by the Germans was considered a terrible crime against humanity in WWI, and was given as one of the main reasons that America went to war. After Pearl Harbor, once it became in America's interest to sink Japanese ships on sight, suddenly the U.S. government shut up about sub warfare being a crime. If American naval officers had a shred of moral consistancy, they would have refused to obey orders to engage in what until Pearl Harbor had been called a war crime by their own government. Drogo Underburrow 03:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Hypocrisy? no--sailors don't make the rules. International conferences do and in 1920s it was decided NOT to make subs illegal. Japan especially wanted subs. The main issue in ww1 was neutral rights--US policy was same in both wars: try to not sink neutral ships. Rjensen 08:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not illegal? Nice fantasy you have there. In fact, the rules where even more stringent than I said. The 1930 First London Naval Treaty, specified that "...except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety....".

Now, if I may quote from the the Nuremburg Principles:

Principal 1: Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

and

Principal 4: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

It is clear that the only reason U.S. submariners were not convicted of war crimes is that the U.S. won the war. The Germans lost, so their man in charge, Admiral Doenitz, was convicted. Quoting from the Wikipedia article:

Article 22 of the 1930 Treaty of London relating to submarine warfare declared that international law applied to them as to surface vessels. Also merchant vessels which did not demonstrate "persistent refusal to stop" or "active resistance" could not be sunk without the ship's crew and passengers being first delivered to a "place of safety". The 1936 treaty confirmed that Article 22 of the 1930 treaty remained in force, and "all others Powers [were invited] to express their assent to the rules embodied in this Article" [1] [2] It was this provision which was used at the post war Nuremberg Trial of Karl Dönitz for ordering unrestricted submarine warfare. Drogo Underburrow 09:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

- Drogo Underburrow 09:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

better read up on international law of sub warfare--I recommend Naval Weapons Systems and the Contemporary Law of War. by James J. Busuttil - Oxford UP -(1998)- with about 100+ pages of analysis of the sub policy of every major country. The question was whether there was any 100% civilian shipping in the Pacific war zone by Japanese merrchant ships. The Japanese policy was to use all available shipping to support its military operations, and therefore its merchant ships were NOT covered by the London agreement. (see p 129) Europe was different (there were neutrals in Europe). Rjensen 09:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to further fill this talk page debating the subject with you, as you retreat into technicality-based arguments trying to prove the sun isn't hot, with re-definition games like that Japanese merchant ships were not merchant ships and submarines could sink them without warning. You want to be an apologist for American hypocisy, be my guest. The fact remains that the United States was a sanctimonious critic of unrestricted submarine warfare, right up to the minute that it became in America's interest to engage in it, then it shut up about it, and then became the biggest sub warfare criminal on the planet. But hey...America's never in the wrong, right? Drogo Underburrow 20:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy, Drogo. I think you're basically correct here, but please (everyone) note that it was unrestricted submarine warfare by the Allies, i.e. British and Dutch submarines also operated in the Pacific throughout the war, mostly from bases in Australia. One consequence of the Allied policy was the death of many Allied POWs in transit, see e.g. Montevideo Maru. Grant65 | Talk 00:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Good example. Rjensen will argue that the Montevideo Maru was a legitimate military target - after all, there were armed Japanese on board guarding the prisoners, no doubt. Drogo Underburrow 04:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a Japanese army transport. The WW1 debates were about scheduled civilian passenger liners like the Lusitania, which did not exist in the South Pacific. -- not many tourists headed to Guadalcanal. Rjensen 04:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See, I told you so. Drogo Underburrow 04:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Might try getting your facts straight. Armed merchantmen weren't covered by "cruiser rules" protection; they were legitimate military targets. So were merchantmen that signalled the presence of submarines. The hypocrisy of the U.S. was in prosecuting Dönitz. As for unrestricted sub warfare being "one of the main reasons that America went to war", that was a convenient fiction to conceal the fact U.S. had access to the Zimmermann telegram (which British Navy cryptanalysts had recovered...). Trekphiler 03:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

guadalcanal

"Both sides poured forces in"? Japan never poured anything into Guadalcanal, and the U.S. was scarcely able to, because of higher priorities in Europe. Japan never believed the U.S. had the number of men ashore Vandegrift in fact had, so she landed batches and driblets, scores and hundreds, when an entire division or two, which was available (43d or 51t, or both), would have pushed the U.S. off the island entire. Trekphiler 12:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

lines of communication

Nimitz would have been better advised to leave Rabaul to wither on the vine by cutting Japan's sea lines of communication at the Luzon Strait, by concentrating on interdicting fuel (tankers), and by judicious use of mines and direction finding.

He could not do the first, because the dividing line with MacArthur's SWPA ran right through the middle of the Strait; there was too much risk of fratricide to Pacific Fleet and Seventh Fleet submarines. He did not do the second until late, apparently not seeing ships and aircraft are expensive junk without fuel. He did not do the third at all, for a hostility to mining; instead, he used precious submarines on close blockade at heavily defended harbors, watching for fast, strongly protected warships--a recipe for futility, and for complete waste of submarine effort. Trekphiler 12:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

late stages

Tarawa was rather early to be calles "late stages", and Iwo and Oki were very much less important than the Gilberts and Marianas. Notably, the fall of Saipan was such a shock in Japan, it brought down the government. Trekphiler 12:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

pacific war

Yamamoto's dispositions at Midway and fall of Saipan bringing down Tojo's government are in 'Barrier and the Javelin'. Submarine effects are in Blair's 'Silent Victory'. Nimitz's hostility to mining is in 'Weapons that Wait'. The DD at Midway is in Lord's 'Miracle at Midway' (I think).

B-29s are in Alperowitz's 'Decision to use the Atomic Bomb'. Comment on Downfall is based on Skates' 'Invasion of Japan'. Rochefort is from Blair, Wilmott [sp?] ('Barrier'), & Jasper Holmes' 'Double-Edged Secrets'.

Nagumo's orders (and battleship background) are in 'Barrier' (& also Prange's 'Pearl Harbor: Verdict of History', I think}.

Anything not strictly factual is my own conclusion. Trekphiler 12:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Germany first

I deleted "The United States, recognising that Germany had a significant industrial output, quickly decided on a 'Germany first' strategy." This had been decided before Pearl Harbor jointly between US & Britain (at Arcadia?). Trekphiler 12:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

For the duration

Not mentioned, but maybe it should be: the war lasted 1346 days, 5 hours, 44 minutes. Trekphiler 13:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

help

when did ww2 end and begin?

Well, it didn't end on August 14 if you were living in Tokyo! Erik 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

add more naval history

the naval war needs more detail. I added a section on Midway. Rjensen 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Referring the Americans as 'Yankees'

there are numerous instances where the article refers to Americans as Yankees - I counted five. One instance:

"To trick the Yankees Yamamoto split his fleet, with a large force sent north to attack the Aleutian Islands off Alaska"

I'm not sure if that's something that should be in this article and may be seen as 'biased' or derogatory towards Americans depending on which way you look at it.

the colloquial version was "Yanks" but "Yankee" seems the right degree of formality. It is not in any way pejorative or ambiguous. It was used on all sides as a synonym for Americans. Rjensen 04:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, I was just checking. I've never actually encountered an encyclopedic article using the word Yankee to describe Americans and it seemed a bit amateurish to use it instead of referring to them as simply Americans.

the goal was to get inside the mind of the japanese senior command. Rjensen 22:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Americans are non phased by the term "Yankee", after all, the New York Yankees are one of the country's most predominant baseball teams. Sgt Simpson 07:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, international usage aside,... I think some folks from south of the Mason-Dixion Line might have some issues with the term. -Loren 08:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The equivalent of calling Americans "Yankees" is to call Japanese "Japs", and how far do you think the PC police would allow us to go with that? Erik 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg

I think this image needs to go for copyright reasons: please consult the image information page and the talk page Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg for more detailed information. No fair use rationale has been specified for the image's use on this article and AP specifically denies that fair use is available for this image. Hence, we need to be very, very careful when making fair use claims for it. As per Wikipedia copyright policy, "by permission" usage of an unfree image (even one only unfree for commercial purposes) is unacceptable unless it is merely in addition to a good fair use claim. TheGrappler 06:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The publisher (AP) is not allowed to control fair use--that right belongs to Wiki. The rationale is that the photo itself established the importance of the Iwo Jima campaign. Rjensen 10:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discuss military history in Wikipedia at Society for Military History meeting 2007

The Society for Military History is considering a session on Wikipedia at its annual meeting (Frederick Maryland, April 19-22, 2007). Any active editor who would like to be a panelist please contact rjensen@uic.edu Thanks Rjensen 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article omits one campaign of the Pacific War

Since Pacific War seems to be the name that Wikipedia is going with for the World War II theater that includes East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Ocean, then this article should probably also provide an overview of the entire Second Sino-Japanese War which it doesn't currently do to any great extent. Cla68 07:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly little thing.

I can see why Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the Union of South Africa are listed seperately from the colonies of the Empire because they were dominions and self governing, and India is seperate because because of her size, but what of the other non-colonies that were part of the Empire (in theatre operating under the British flag but participating in their own right) Southern Rhodesia*, Betcuwanaland (now Botswana), Nigeria and Swaziland for example.

I know that Southern Rhodesia is a bit iffy because it was never clearly defined as colony or dominion, but it declared war on Germany before the UK (I've seen the clip in the national archives in Harare). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.83.30.7 (talk • contribs) .

I'm guessing that you meant to make this comment at Talk:World War II(?) Declarations of war on Germany are neither here nor there in relation to the Pacific War. And I must admit I find it hard to believe that S. Rhodesia declared war on Germany before the U.K.... Grant65 | Talk 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Were Fiji and Tonga independent countries at the beginning of World War II? They supported the Allied side during the conflict and provided personnel, including some combat personnel, to at least one of the campaigns (Solomon Islands). If so, they might should be included in the infobox as two of the combatants. Cla68 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tonga was officially independent. Although Fiji contributed an infantry brigade which served in NZ and Australian formations, it was controlled politically by the UK. I have tried to include a fuller list of independent countries in the infobox and other editors have rejected this because their contributions were minimal. I guess I can see the logic. Grant65 | Talk 04:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand Tonga lost some personnel due to combat in the conflict. I don't think they would call that "trivial." I can understand where those other editors are probably coming from, but why not list the smaller contributors down at the bottom of the list, kind of a "mostest to leastest" list. I do that with the battle articles I work on. I might remove Fiji from some of the WWII battle articles since they were under UK control at that time. Cla68 06:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops --- I just checked Tonga, which says: "Tonga became a British protected state under a Treaty of Friendship on May 18, 1900, when European settlers and rival Tongan chiefs tried to oust the second king. Within the British Empire, which posted no higher permanent representative on Tonga than a British Consul (1901-1970), it was part of the British Western Pacific Territories (under a colonial High Commissioner, then residing on Fiji) from 1901 until 1952."

I don't agree that we should remove colonial states like Fiji or Tonga from WW2 battleboxes. I mean we include (e.g.) India/the Indian Army in many WW2 battleboxes, and India was no more independent than Fiji or Tonga. Grant65 | Talk 09:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

New subsidiary/theatre articles

Just to let everyone know, because of the way this article is growing, I have started articles entitled South West Pacific theatre of World War II and Pacific Ocean theater of World War II to match the two main Allied commands. These complement the South-East Asian Theatre of World War II article which has existed for some time, and Second Sino-Japanese War, which covers China.

If this seems "Allied-centric", consider that Japan had only one command in S.E. Asia and the S.W. Pacific, the Southern Expeditionary Army and it makes no sense to combine events in Burma with those in New Guinea, for example.

In part, my reasoning is that I don't think we are going to be able to sustain the level of detail we have, at present, on individual battles like Midway, Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf and people will not want to jump from one article to another to get the full narrative.

I am also currently splitting up old categories into new cats based on the above theatres. Grant65 | Talk 02:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Don't forget the large numbers moved from DEI to Guad & Rabaual (too late) & the divided shipping commands (split with IJN). Trekphiler 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Reality

The US was by far and away the biggest player. Most of the significant events which took place were betwwen the US and Japan. India should rate a mention too, having fought many large land battles aagainst the Japanese. Wallie 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I also believe Australia's part was slightly more than its made out to be. In fact Australia should probably rank above the UK in the pacific theatre and could almost be considered to be more important than that of the USSR as they really only started to come into it towards the end, in in the Pacific War Australia if it were credited properly which it wasen't would be the equivelent of the UK in europe, a nation that came under serious threat but the invasion was averted with help from the US as in europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.106.214 (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

The Australians r definitaly mor important than th USSR sincthe Australians were in the campaign from the begining. The also had some of the most feircly won victories. A single company fought a reargaurd action against a Japanese division in New Guinea.

"Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" not fair use in the context of this article

I was in the process of cleaning up the usage of this image when I removed the image from the page because by my understanding of WP:FUC the image was merely being used "decoratively" we are already using this image in 9 other articles on a fair use basis which is pushing the criteria "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.". And I actually added the fair use rationale for 7 of those uses, because I believe that the image IS fair use in those articles.

However in this article:

• We do not discuss the image in the text (except for in the caption).
• We do not discuss any of the people in the image.
• We do not discuss the impact of the image.
• There are only three mentions of Iwo Jima. One in the sentence "Hard-fought battles on the Japanese home islands of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and others resulted in horrific casualties on both sides, but finally produced a Japanese retreat." and the other two are in notes or links.

This IMHO does not constitute enough for us to be able to use the image in the article per WP:FUC

"The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

Please let me know your thoughts. Megapixie 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

oil islands' importance to the Japanese

next to nothing is writen about the oil islands, capture, geography, etc, I can find nothing on the internet CorvetteZ51 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean the Netherlands East Indies, which was the major oil producing country in the region. Grant | Talk 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

China/Republic of China & Taiwan/Formosa

User:TAIWAN and User:Oniows are changing "China" and "Taiwan|Formosa" (my preferences) to "Republic of China|China" and "Taiwan" in the article. I have several objections to this. First, Taiwan is a modern name and anachronism, not the name of the Japanese colony of Formosa, as it was known during the war. The name Taiwan was not widely used among English-speakers until the 1970s. Second, China was split by the Chinese Civil War (1927-50) when war with Japan began; the name "Republic of China" was one side in that civil war, and is associated with one political party (Kuomintang; KMT). In fact, the whole of China, except for the areas occupied by Japan, was at war with Japan. Grant | Talk 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I suggest including the basic elements of your comments above in the article. One problem with using only Formosa and not including Taiwan in the text is that a search for Taiwan will not include this page in the search results. Also, the wiki article on China is on Chinese civilization, whereas this article should make clear what political entities and military forces were involved. Oniows 13:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for replying. "China" is both a civilisation and a geographical concept, whereas "ROC" is a purely political concept. If it was the case that KMT and Communists were on different sides in WW2, then we would need to use names like "ROC". We can use "Formosa (Taiwan)" if you insist. But I'm not sure that a search for "Taiwan" should find the Japanese colony of Formosa anyway; it's clearly a very different thing to modern Taiwan/Chinese Taipei/.etc. Gung hei faat choi :-) Grant | Talk 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Most people would associate "China" with "People's Republic of China" so I think it's best to use "Republic of China" as it was the government of all of China at the time. As for Formosa, maybe writing Taiwan (Formosa) would suffice. Most people would not know where's formosa, but they'd know where taiwan is. BlueShirts 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Empire of Japan was the only "Japan" fighting China, but the ROC wasn't the only Chinese state fighting Japan. "China" removes all ambiguity. Grant | Talk 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean the ROC wasn't the only Chinese state? It was the only Chinese state. The PRC was not in existence yet, the Chinese Soviet had been dissolved three years ago. The communists in their july joint-proclamation agreed to abolish violent communism and embrace sanmin zhuyi, and then integrate themselves under the ROC military, which they did in 1938. Regardless how nominal their cooperation became there was only one state and that was the ROC. You put "China" and people will think it's the PRC. BlueShirts 18:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To be technical, there was also the Japanese-installed Nanjing regime. Citing "Republic of China" is therefore technically more correct as China was a politically and militarily divided entity. While the People's Republic of China (PRC) was not founded until after the war, the Red Army of China, which had been founded in 1927 was definitely a separate significant entity. While it fought nominally as part of the ROC command structure (as the Eighth Route Army and New Fourth Army), it also pursued its own agenda, including attacks on the Kuomintang (see New Fourth Army Incident), which led to the split of true cooperation in the middle of the war. Other wars covered by Wikipedia show both de jure and de facto factions, which is typical in any war where there is a civil war, rebellion or insurgent movement. The Communists in China were one faction in the war, mostly but not entirely aligned with the ROC in opposing Japan. The Nanjing regime was collaborationist. There are these three separate factions, and while we can generally put two of them on the same side in the war, we cannot pretend that only one existed. --Petercorless 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it is the RoC was the only legitimately recognized state; the CCP was just a faction within the country, and the various puppet states set up by Japan had no international recognition outside of the Anti-comintern pact members, and were illigitimate states. Therefore, RoC would be the best option, as it was the only legitimate government, and was what was recognized as the government of China by the Allies. Those other factions should be mentioned as well, but when we're talking about the "Chinese" forces during the war, we're talking about the RoC primarily. As for Formosa/Taiwan, I agree with Grant and Formosa should be used, as it was what the island was called at the time. Parsecboy 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't generally include political/regime names in infoboxes, except where they are significantly different geographically and/or demographically to the alternative (e.g. the Ottoman Empire encompasssed as much larger area and population than the present state of Turkey).

I don't see how plain "China" can be considered inaccurate; the only parts of it which were at war with the KMT-communist alliance in 1937-45 were Japanese-occupied areas. Grant | Talk 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about political/regime names is generally true. The China situation is a bit complicated given that KMT (Republic of China)lost the civil war right after victory against Japanese, which prompted the CCP (later People's Republic of China) to claim through propaganda that in fact it was the major contributor to the war of resistance against the Japanese, while the KMT was conserving strength to fight the CCP. In fact the opposite is true, so to counter such false claims I think sticking with RoC in this article is neccessary.DCTT 08:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found that many other wars on Wikipedia also mark other significant factions, such as the War in Somalia (2006–present). "Legitimacy" in a war, while important on a political level, also needs to take a backseat if it is getting in the way of recording de facto truth. For instance, the Taliban in Afghanistan is not a "legitimate" or recognized government but it is most assuredly involved in a war against the United States. From what I have read, the Communist forces in China were sufficiently large -- over 1,000,000 troops -- and sufficiently involved in major combat operations to warrant mention. --Petercorless 08:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely Peter, the truth as to whether the KMT or communists fought harder is irrelevant in terms of the naming policy, as "China" covers both factions. Grant | Talk 12:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not precisely my point. For instance, in Somalia, we mentioned the Transitional Federal Government, as well as the other factional armies, such as the unrecognized states of Puntland, Jubaland, and Galmudug. In other words, for here we can list both the Republic of China and the Communist Red Army (or the name of the political movement related thereto) are listed as factions for the Allied side of the war, and the Nanjing government is listed for the Axis. The Communists are not the KMT, and it would be misleading to pretend they did not exist. Nor is it entirely appropriate to say "they are just part of the KMT" especially when hostilities broke out between the Communists and KMT even during the war. Arguments of their contributions to the war effort as "major" or "minor" or other qualitative judgments is entirely different than skipping over the point that they existed at all. There is no need to limit the infobox to a lowest-common denominator "China" when we may be accurate, precise and specific. --Petercorless 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think it's somewhat unnecessary, but I would be agreeable to adding Chinese Communist Party as a participant, as well as "Republic of China". Grant | Talk 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unncessary. State comes first, and the CCP was a faction under that state. The warlords had their own command structure and provision systems, and Chiang had little control over them, but I don't think adding "various warlords" to the infobox is a good idea either. The major reason to use Republic of China instead of China is to differentiate it from the PRC, which most people would associate with the blanket term China. BlueShirts 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression this discussion was in reference to the actual prose of the article, but if we're talking about the infobox, then yes, the RoC should be listed first, but the CCP and Mao should also be listed. Parsecboy 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a general consensus to add Chinese Communist Party. I'll do so --Petercorless 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a bad idea, I've removed CCP from the infobox. Notwithstanding its minuscule role in the war, the CCP was a faction under the ROC, not a separate entity from it. CCP had delegates in the wartime ROC people's council, just like every other political party at the time. We're not yet talking about the Chinese Civil War where the distinction must be made. If CCP is listed, then one must also add the KMT, the warlords, southwest coalitions or whatnot, as they're equivalents. I alo have some reservation on having the Nanjing regime on the Axis side. It was a culmination of various puppet regimes that had existed in north china, not the only puppet government. It had little role in the war, as it was not trusted by the Japanese themselves. As for "Formosa," I don't know what the rule here is on which term to use, but Taiwan was known as Formosa in English only. The name of Taiwan has existed since the Qing Dynasty and it's known as such in both Chinese and Japanese. Nowadays it's most common to refer the island as Taiwan, perhaps we should reflect that in the article? BlueShirts 00:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that since this is the English language wiki, we should use the name used by English speakers at the time. Regardless of whether the Japanese trusted the Nanjing regime, the collaborationists contributed 1-2 million men during the course of the war, which cannot be ignored. The forces generally weren't used for combat, but they performed important garrison duties that freed Japanese troops to fight on the front lines. Parsecboy 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The supreme fact is that "China" is how the state/country during WW2 is referred to in English-language historiography. Also, China was in a state of unresolved civil war when the Japanese attacked, and in cases of civil war, the NPOV solution is to acknowledge both sides. The KMT and Chinese Communist Party subsequently both fielded forces against the Japanese. IMO to oppose the use of both (1) "China", and (2) the names of both name of both regimes/parties is to show bias towards the ROC/KMT. When proponents of this view attack the communist contribution to the war effort it only reinforces this perception. Grant | Talk 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grant, and I also question people who somehow construe the contribution of the Communist Chinese forces be "miniscule." To quote Edwin P. Hoyt's Japan's War regarding the war as of March 1942: "Of the 1,200,000 troops under Chiang's control, only 650,000 were directly controlled by his generals, and another 550,000 controlled by warlords who claimed loyalty to his government; the strongest force was the Szechuan army of 320,000 men. The defeat of this army would do much to end Chiang's power." (pg. 262-263) "In the north the Chinese Communist armies slipped in and around the Japanese installations, burning, shooting, killing by night. By day the Japanese controlled the countryside, by night it was Chinese territory. And in the south the same was true. Guerillas (sic) operated in every province. Every truck, every train had to be escorted by troops; if not, they were prime targets for the guerillas (sic). The Japanese claimed they had China in their grip; the reverse was true; they were still bogged down in a war that demanded more men and more guns and more equipment every month." (pg. 263) One can read the U.S. Army's own history wherein they show the exasperation at Chiang Kai-Shek, and how they began to deal with the Communists in their own right mid-way through the war. According to another U.S. military source, the Red Army was a "three-million-man Communist military force" by the end of 1944. The article repeats the assertion that Chiang was reticent to commit his force, waiting and blockading the Communists instead. Mao Zedong, for his part, "sent his Red army troops scrambling for open control of northern and central China, areas where Red army guerrilla units had already established a solid presence." This is history I've long since been familiar with. While "officially" at first, the KMT was seen as the only game in town, by the end of the war both the KMT and the Communists were being dealt with directly by the U.S., and, the Communists especially, by the Soviet Union. While Mao Zedong was not beholden to the Soviets, per se, they were not entirely isolated politically, nor could one construe that they were utterly idle through the length of the war. I'm not saying that the KMT were idle either. While many of their troops did blockade and even actively fight the Communists, they had incredibly savage fighting on their fronts. It simply behooves us as military historians to not deny the existence of the Red Army/Chinese Communist Party as a faction of the war. Unless someone can refute such history, I'll be adding back the Chinese Communist Party and the mention of Mao Zedong, thank you. --Petercorless 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe not miniscule, but definitely not pivotal or anything. The major threat to the Japanese were the ROC regular army, which they sought to destroy repeatedly and suceeded in crippling a major part in operation ichigo of 1944. The communists were mainly interested in expanding base areas which the Japanese had little time to deal with. From Lloyd Eastman's Nationalist Era in China, "destroying a bridge or a locomotive was a major accomplishment...[however] both the Communists and the Japanese knew that these tactics had little influence on the strategic balance" (p.241). But these attacks were effective politically for making "patriotic claims". In fact, the communists never did fight on the same scale as the ROC regular army whose divisions upon divisions were destroyed holding onto cities. See also [1] Because of this, the ROC propaganda machine accused the communists of not fighting, of only doing "yo" and not "ji" (yo means "move swiftly" and ji means "strike," yoji means guerrilla warefare in chinese). Fearing that they might lose legitimacy, the communists launched the first and last major military operation, the Hundred Regiments Offensive, which ended badly. Mao personally criticized Peng Dehuai for instrumenting the battle that exposed communist numerical strength to the KMT and during the cultural revolution this was one of the reasons employed to persecute him. I still believe that only the ROC should be listed since every faction was fighting under its banner, and Chiang, however weak his central control was, was the head of this coalition and the internationally recognized leader of China, not Mao or any other figure. Blueshirts 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As you say, Chiang was "the internationally recognized leader of China". There is no need to specify the ROC. Grant | Talk 16:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1. While we can make arguments of the Communist Chinese army's effectiveness, that is entirely different than denying their existence, considering that they contributed far, far more to the war effort than Free France. I am not going to say that the Free French did not participate in the Pacific Theatre, but I shall certainly point out that, if the Free French are listed, the Communist Chinese contributed orders of magnitude more. 2. It was already cited that China was divided political entity, and that the ROC/KMT already had split dramatically from the CCP/Red Army as early as 1941. 3. Non-state and sub-state factions cited in infoboxes are a regular practice in Wikipedia. Thus, again restoring the Communist Chinese as a significant faction that did fight for the allies. After this, I would suggest going to dispute resolution this is erased again. --Petercorless 11:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Free French wasn't a subnational faction, it was recognized government in exile, which the CCP wasn't. Every faction/party was at least nominally under the ROC and its leader Chiang Kai-shek and that's the way it should be in the infobox. If you're talking about individual battles like having non-kmt 19th route, 8th route, new 4th armies in their individual pages then okay, but for a huge topic like this one I believe the one internationally recognized state should suffice. Blueshirts 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a personal POV-based argument, and again steps around the historical issues that a) the Communists in China had orders of magnitude more troops than the FFF, b) it ignores the contention and rivalry between the KMT and CCP, and c) it has already been proven that factions which are not significant but not nationally-recognized governments are cited in many military infoboxes. q.v.: Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many liberation movements in civil wars. This "huge topic" is having "huge" logical gaps based on your assertions and excisions. --Petercorless 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pacific War was not a civil war, that's why we have Chinese Civil War where the appropriate combatants are listed. Blueshirts 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That there is a separate article entirely devoted to the Chinese Civil War does not obviate the fact that during the Second World War the Communist Chinese were a significant contributor to the war effort, controlled their own territory separate from the ROC, and were often not aligned within the ROC military structure, especially more and more as the war went on. In fact, your citation of that article emphasizes all the more why they should be listed as separate forces. --18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

by your logic we also need to add various warlords, since they also controlled separate territories and many were independent from the central government. Chiang had little control, especially with his base in Zhejiang-Jiangsu lost in 1937. Even the nominal KMT 29th Army in north china brokered a separate deal with the japanese immediately following the marco polo bridge incident. Thus, even if they were individually significant all these factions (KMT, CCP, warlords) were under the ROC and that's what we should include in the main infobox. Blueshirts 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC: Republic of China/Kuomintang (ROC/KMT) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP)

• ROC (Only) - One position holds only the Republic of China (ROC) should be listed to represent all Allied forces in China during the Pacific War, as it was the de jure government of China, and thus only the ROC should be listed in the infobox. This position emphasizes the united front that both nationalists and communists fought against Japan under the nominal command of Chiang Kai-Shek. The Chinese Civil War deals with the issue of contention between nationalist and communist forces in China separately.

• ROC and CCP (Both) - The second position holds the de facto faction of the Chinese Communist Party's Red Army was significant during the war and maintained separate from the ROC, and at times, the ROC's ruling party (the Kuomintang) even deployed against and actively fought with the Communist forces, thus both the ROC and the CCP should also be listed in the infobox, showing both factions (ROC/KMT and CCP) as representing Allies in China, and Mao Zedong as leader of the Communists separate from Chiang Kai-Shek.

19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• China (Only). You forgot this one. The simplest solution, IMO. Grant | Talk 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• China (left aligned in the infobox), ROC and CCP indented underneath. A fourth option that compromises between all three options listed above. Cla68 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinions

• I opt for the last (Note: now "second") proposal, the communists did have a significant and trained army when the war ended, so they must have built it up during the war and as far as I know they controlled a considerable area in the north and had lots of sympathisizing guerillas in the south. Wandalstouring 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• ROC and CCP - I have waited for some time for comments by others before adding my own. a) the Chinese Communist Party existed and the Chinese Red Army had well over 1,000,000 troops, b) they fought independent of the ROC/KMT, c) they even fought with the ROC/KMT at times, d) they were approached and dealt with independently from the ROC/KMT by the U.S. in 1944-45, e) they maintained independent diplomatic relations with the USSR before and during the war. Therefore, saying "China" is insufficient, and it would be more precise to list them both as factions during the war. --Petercorless 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support listing both RoC and CCP, for the reasons Petercorless has stated above. The CCP is clearly a separate entity from the RoC forces. Parsecboy 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• The last option is my first preference. "China" is how the combatant is referred to in the literature. These desire to make it "Republic of China" seems to be a Kuomintang/Taiwanese peculiarity; the South Koreans aren't trying to claim the entire pre-1945 history of "Korea", and Germany is a valid term for the relevant linguistic/geographical areas in 1949-90. Grant | Talk 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a three-sided conflict infobox with Axis/Allies/CCP --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Errrm...the Allies were not at war with the CCP in 1937-45. In fact, they admired them. Grant | Talk 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 3 sided would be the best way to go, as it implies the CCP fought against both the Allies and Axis, when they really only fought China and the Axis. If you don't want to include the CCP with the Allies, list them as an unafilliated power, but I don't really agree with that either, as there were times when the CCP and KMT were allied together. Parsecboy 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support the fourth option that I just listed above. Cla68 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Breaking barriers

I rewrote this

"lacked the aircraft carriers, pilots, tankers and transport ships necessary to defend and sustain it."

to this

"aircraft carriers, aircraft, and aircrew to defend it, and the freighters, tankers, and destroyers necessary to sustain it. Moreover, Fleet doctrine was incompetent to execute the proposed "barrier" defense. Instead, they decided"

based on

For more on the Mahanian doctrine, see Imperial Japanese Navy & War Plan Orange. Trekphiler 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Call Perry White

I deleted

"Industrial strength was already beginning to tell: superior Allied support and repair facilities permitted Nimitz to recover faster and get maximum use out of his ships, and the supply of new warships, planes and pilots from the U.S. was increasing daily over that from Japan. "

Industrial production had nothing to do with Pearl's repair facilities; those survived because Genda's plan & Nagumo's execution 7/12 were incompetent. Also, "supply of new warships, planes and pilots" had not yet begun to make a difference. I rewrote this

"although Yorktown still needed three months' worth of repairs, it sailed after three days, with civilian work crews still aboard."

to this

"and Yorktown sailed after three days' work to repair her flight deck and make essential repairs, with civilian work "

The oft-quoted "three months' worth of repairs" were to restore her to brand-new condition, not to put her back in operational shape. I rewrote this

"Nagumo was again in tactical command, but he never fully understood Yamamoto's complex plan, was focused on the invasion of Midway, and did not have a plan to respond if U.S. carriers intervened. "

to this

"Nagumo was again in tactical command, but was focused on the invasion of Midway; Yamamoto's complex plan had no provision for intervention by Nimitz before the Japanese expected him."

I'm unaware Nagumo was in the dark, & it was Yamamoto's responsibility to provide for a response, not Nagumo's. I added "(as a result of an abortive identical operation in March)". See Battle of Midway. I changed "his most critical error" to "most-criticized" & added "Yamamoto's dispositions, which left Nagumo with inadequate reconaissance to detect Fletcher before he launched, are often ignored." The truth is, unless Nagumo hit Fletcher before Fletcher launched, all that loose ordnance was irrelevant; Fletcher could recover to Midway. I rewrote this

"and another strategic event that stopped the tide of success for the Japanese."

to this

"and the high point in Japanese strategic aspirations in the Pacific."

Trekphiler 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While I was at it, I deleted

"like Avenger bomber pilot George H. W. Bush, who was fished out of the waters near Iwo Jima in September, 1944, by the USS Finback"

as too topical. I deleted

"a policy which had caused it to enter World War I in 1917."

as false. This is a popular fiction. The truth is, the U.S. entered the war because Germany promised Texas to Mexico if she came in on the German side, in the famous (but obviously not well enough known) Zimmermann telegram; an encyclopedia is no place to be perpetuating this fiction. I rewrote

"they were acquitted when they proved the United States had done the same thing."

as very POV, & factually wrong. British merchantmen were armed and acting as auxiliaries, making them legitimate military targets unprotected by the "cruiser rules". I deleted

" However, Raeder and Doenitz were convicted on other counts."

as irrelevant & POV, implying guilt on counts on which they were, in fact, acquitted. I deleted

"One effect of this policy was that thousands of Allied prisoners of war were killed as they were being carried by Japanese-operated passenger ships."

as factually wrong; it was nothig like "thousands". I question

"The IJN could have forced the U.S. to adopt a convoy system in the Pacific, which would have reduced the flow of supplies by half."

U.S. did use convoys in Pacific; I'm unaware of the flow being halved by the system. I deleted

"In addition, sonar had been introduced to surface vessels and aircraft, allowing them to easily spot Japanese submarines."

This is true, but there's no evident connection to the subject of paragraph above it. I rewrote

"By 1944, the U.S. Navy had learned how to use its 150 submarines to maximum effect: faults in torpedoes had been fixed, commanders seen to be lacking in aggression had been replaced, new teams had trained in "wolf pack" attacks, and effective shipboard radar was installed. Most important, ULTRA intercepts of Japanese radio communications revealed the exact locations of convoys. These were poorly organized and poorly defended compared to Allied convoys."

I added tag to “over 200 subs were operating”. My sense is no more than 80 boats were on station at a time, & this figure leaves a false impression. In addition, the U.S. only built 218 boats for the duration. I deleted

"new teams had trained in "wolf pack" attacks"

3 boats hardly qualifies as "wolf pack" compared to German numbers, & Japanese convoys didn’t require “packs” in any case. The frequent emphasis on "wolfpacks" is overblown. In addition, the rewrite of the subwar is based heavily on Blair's Silent Victory. Trekphiler 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone fix that please..?

Somebody vandalized the article, moving sections about the US entry/etc under the sources section. I'd fix this myself, but the vandalism somehow survived for quite a while, and I can't find where it originally happened. I'm actually at school right now, and the period is running out, so I can't take the time to find the proper saved page and fix the edit myself. Could somebody fix that? 63.204.151.5 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

fixed, I think. Blueshirts 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

At Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/World War II

The mediation is now over. Removing transclusion. For the Mediation Committee, Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree "Japan and not China was the true heir of classical Chinese civilization"

The statement at the end of China Japan Conflict session states that "One popular idea was that Japan and not China was the true heir of classical Chinese civilization." There is no reliable references to back up such assertion. This is a very opinionated view. Certainly it was not "popular" among the Chinese numbering four hundered millions. To make such an idea "popular", one has to show more than four hundred million people held such idea. Please delete this statement.

Please post new comments on the bottom of talk pages, not the top. As for the statement, as far as I can understand from the context, it was popular in Japan, which is sufficient to merit inclusion in the article. Of course the Chinese of the period wouldn't agree with Japan being the cultural heir of classical China. You might as well say that the Nazi view that Jews were subhuman isn't notable or important, because the Jews themselves didn't agree with it. A source should be supplied, however. I'll tag it as unsourced, but for the moment it will remain. Parsecboy 18:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've heard about it but I think it's not a major pretext used by Japan for its war in China. I think "pan-asianism" is a more popular justification. I'm almost done finishing a book on the background to the sino-japanese war and this notion hasn't even popped up once. I'm going to replace it soon. Blueshirts 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Parsecboy 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard the claim, & Japan's intent to "bring the 8 corners of the world under 1 roof" was far more important. Trekphiler 04:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the Communist party killed everyone that held chinese culture deer to his heart and scared a whole generation to shed the culture, the next generation had no references and so it the old chinese culture died. Mao's communism most probably was the worst to its people of all the communist regimes. No one was safe and they battled heaven and earth(erradicating the ancient culture and terraformed the land to catastropic point whereas it now suffers distasters after distasters). Poor people... Lord Metroid 00:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On a date

I added ref to flawed dispositions making a surface action impossible, based on Willmott (&, in part, Blair); I hope I got the date (4 June) right. Trekphiler 05:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Stuff & nonsense

I question the claim Japan had "no technological strategy", in part because I'm unclear just what was meant; is it in reference to weapons development, electronics, or what? I rewrote

"strategic air attacks and finally an invasion."

to

"strategic air attacks, improve the submarine blockade, and finally (if necessary) execute an invasion."

I added " (and as Japan did)" & "which oil shortages (induced by submarine attack) made impossible." (based on Blair & Parillo). Also, I think, if it's going to go so far as mention the number of USN sailors killed:ship sunk (which I think is excessive in a general article on the Pacific War), the number of Japanese submarines sunk needs to be mentioned; was it 64? See Ito on IJN's histoy, & Sunk (I think) on IJN subs. Trekphiler 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted

"For every 27 enemy ships that went down, one American sub and 67 sailors were lost.

per above. Trekphiler 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I added

"In the mistaken belief the U.S. would inevitably come to Britain's aid, "

based on Peattie & Evans' Kaigun, and deleted

"More than 2,400 people were killed. Three battleships and two destroyers were sunk, among many other losses. "

because the article isn't about the Pearl Harbor attack as such. Trekphiler 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wave the

I'm as proud to be as anybody, but does our flag really deserve to precede the U.S.'s in the Aleutian Campaign ref? AFAIK, Canada contributed at best a few 100 men. On a similar ish, I added the U.S. flag to Coral Sea, since it was a U.S. victory; was I wrong on a page "policy"? Trekphiler 08:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In perspective

I'm not sure it belongs, but I'm inclined to add a note on FDR's pushing Stalin to come into the war, which led to the Soviet occupation of Manchuria & North Korea, which led (more/less directly) to the Chinese Civil War (& a CCP victory, with left-behind Red Army weapons) & the Korean War. I think a perspective on the historical effects is appropriate. Comment? Trekphiler 08:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could debate the impact of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on the Chinese Civil War, but this isn't really the place for that. I do believe, however, that the American government pressuring Chiang Kai Shek into a truce with the CCP when the CCP was on the verge of collapse had a far greater impact. Besides, the Soviets didn't leave weapons behind; the only weapons/supplies the CCP got out of it was whatever the Japanese left behind in their retreat. Parsecboy 17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe the Sovs provided no aid to CCP? Give me a break. And I've seen at least a couple of sources (which I can't cite offhand) that expressly say Red Army gear was left, & aided CCP victory as a result. And I do think a perspective is important; the war didn't occur in isolation. Trekphiler 05:09 & 17:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the Soviets were exactly sending trainloads of T34s and Katyushas to the CCP. The assistance they provided was, in the grand scheme of things, negligible. The Kuomintang demobilized 1.5 million soldiers as part of the ceasefire being pushed by George Marshall. Most of these fighters went to the CCP. And the Soviets didn't send that much aid to the CCP. Lin Biao sent two letters to Stalin, urging military aid to the CCP, and Stalin ignored him, both times. Parsecboy 18:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't say if it's "trainloads of T34s and Katyushas", but there was Sov aid to CCP (tho evidently not well known, & the likes of Snow deny it). Even if it didn't amount to much, I think there was an influence on subsequent events, not least the Korean War, that deserves mention, which is what I really was concerned with... Trekphiler 00:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that a ?

I restored the tag on the claim Japan was prepared for long war, since, AFAIK (& I've been reading in this area a very long time), nobody but Yamamoto warned against it, & the "barrier" strategy Japan adopted expressly expected a long war. Trekphiler 09:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I rewrote, "which seriously disrupted the enemy's logistical operations", because "the enemy's logistical operations" were already "seriously disrupted" by submarine attack, & only small coasters were still operating in any case.

Furthermore, I question the Bomb was "a well-kept secret", since the Soviets knew all about it. Trekphiler 05:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The times, they are a'changin'

After an evident revert, I rewrote, "which seriously disrupted the enemy's logistical operations", because "the enemy's logistical operations" were already "seriously disrupted" by submarine attack, & only small coasters were still operating in any case. I deleted:

"Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing and nuclear bombing campaign against Japan between March and August 1945 may have killed more than one million Japanese civilians. Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey put the figures at 330,000 people killed, 476,000 injured, 8.5 million people made homeless and 2.5 million buildings destroyed."

because it has nothing to do with the atomic bombing. If somebody wants to include it in an "aftermath", feel free. I rewrote to:

"The necessity for the bombing has long been debated. The usual defense, it saved over a million lives, has no basis; the number was pulled out of thin air. Another, that it produced the Japanese surrender, is not proven, either, for the Soviet invasion of Manchuria followed close on the bombing of Nagasaki and Japan's surrender was subsequent to that; which was the more important influence remains unclear."

Trekphiler 17:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

totally overlooked/unknown

french SAS resistance operations against the japanese 1943-1945 and chinese campaign. >> have a look at this and LEARN! :) Paris By Night 08:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything in English? This is, afterall, the English Wikipedia. :) Parsecboy

Help: It was the largest theatre of war in history

Various articles in Wikipedia claim that the Eastern front in WWII was "the largest theatre of war in history" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Stalin). I would have thought the Pacific war would be larger? Anyone have details of the size of the Pacific war? --Jniech

They're probably talking about size in terms of number of forces involved, casualties, etc., not geographic size. Besides, the Pacific war was split into several different theaters as well. Parsecboy 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on theatre states "In warfare, a theater or theatre is normally used to define a specific geographic area" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theater_%28warfare%29). It further states the WWII had at least three separate theaters: European, Pacific, and African. If that is the case (rather than dividing these further) then would the pacific not have a larger geographic area? --Jniech

Fighting to the last man

I think it might be quite an important info to touch on That the Japanese fought until the last man because they had no choise as because of the depictation by USA of the Japanese lead to the Americans not taking prisoners of war but rather killing off everyone hence the Japanese soldiers had little choice, they could either die by surrendering or try to get out alive by winning. Lord Metroid 00:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)