Talk:Pacific War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Philippines is sovereign

See source. International law reports By Elihu Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood, London School of Economics and Political Science. Dept. of International Studies page 36. page 36. Cambridge University Press. 1989 . I'm right.--23prootie (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own page on the Philippines says independence was obtained on July 4, 1946.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Prootie, what does this law report from 1989 on page 36 actually state?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PS, even though the place may have been a sovereign nation does its leader (president?) deserve to be in the commanders list? the place reserved for significant commaders; its not like the Philippines is comparable to the China, the British Empire, USA or Soviet Union. A point which also begs the question should the Aussie PM be there and why are political leaders on the list anyway, shouldnt it be mostly military commanders who directed the war i.e. MacArthur etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all there was a discussion a long while back explaining why it's political leaders not military ones. As for Australia, does Guadalcanal ring a bell? They contributed to the halting of the Japanese expansion. At least that's my guess. As for the Philippines, the islands did one of the best resistances on that side of the war with Bataan. And Quezon remained politically active even on exile, which may be a reason why the Philippines got to be in the original UN.--23prootie (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"As for Australia, does Guadalcanal ring a bell?" - Yes a campaign ran by abunch of American military leaders and not the Aussie PM - no offense intended.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that Australia did enough to keep Japan at bay, since they were pretty much the only ones left to oppose the empire.--23prootie (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevent. Am not questioning should Austraila be shown in the combatants section am questioning why their PM is there as from what i can tell, other than ordering the troops there, played no role in the conduct of that campaign. Likewise i would question what role Churchill played in the Pacific War, wouldnt Mountbatten, Alexander, Wavell or the Auk be much better representives for the UK?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only leader that has a questionable spot there is the Soviet Union, apart from invading Sakhalin and the Kurils, they pretty much did nothing. They even had a peace treaty with Japan all throughout the war.--23prootie (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, familiarise yourself with the post below. I would say the opposite: the role of the USSR is understated in this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The full quote is in the Philippine Commonwealth page.--23prootie (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While the Soviet Union did struck the final blow they still did less than both the Philippines and Australia, the Philippine stalled the Japanese while Australia was the one that kept it becoming a one-sided war.--23prootie (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, could you please explain me what million Kwantung Army was doing in Manchuria during WWII? Manchuria was extremely important for Japan both economically and strategically, so by very fact of its existence (and by keeping substantial amount of troops along Amur river) the USSR played very important role in Pacific war even before 9 August. Please, note that the Soviet troops from Far East would be extremely helpful, for instance, under Stalingrad.
And, don't forget that the fate of Pacific war was decided in Europe: according to Hitler's opinion, the only goal Japan had to accomplish in 1942-43 is to withstand against the US while Hitler is sorting out the USSR. One way or the another, Japan alone had no chances to withstand against the US and UK for a long time. By contrast, if Hitler defeated the USSR, established land connection with Japan and moved German industry towards Ural (to protect it from Allied bombers), the Allies would be doomed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Interesting thoughts, so the Soviet Union so important for just existing.--23prootie (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it just a coincidence that a bomb always hits an epicentre? No, the epicentre is the place where the bomb exploded. Was it a coincidence that the USSR entered the war just before the Japanese surrender? No, the decision to surrender was made because the USSR declared the war (of course, some other factors, including the strategic bombing campaign were equally important).
And, please, keep in mind that the USSR didn't "just exist" during 1941-45. During that time it was fighting against the Japan's allies, who were much more powerful that Japan herself. And all Pacific battles, including Guadalcanal or Iwo-Jima were just minor skirmishes as compared with titanic battles in Eastern front (that involved more than a half of all WWII troops, both Allied a Axis, and caused more than a half of all WWII military losses). And the troops from Far East would be extremely helpful on the Eastern front, so by tying down Kwantung Army the USSR payed with the blood of its soldiers dying in Europe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Then that must mean that the U.S. is the biggest contributor since it is present in pretty much all fronts of the war. I don't think the center of the war should be pushed from Japan to Manchuria lest we end up with another Euro-centric article. The fact is, there are more people affected outside the Soviet Union than inside and in a longer timescale. Besides, Manchuria is a side dish compared to the Western Pacific. --23prootie (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I never stated that the US contribution into the Pacific war was lesser or even comparable with the Soviet one. With regards to the US presence at all fronts of WWII, let me remind you that the first major defeat of European Axis powers, I mean the battle of Moscow, took place before the US entered the war. Before 1943, even Lend-Lease program was minimal (for many technical reasons). And, once again, the US were absent in Eastern front, the theatre of war where more than a half of all WWII troops (both Axis and Allied) were fighting and where more than a half of all losses (both Axis and Allied) were sustained. However, we stray out of the article's subject.
With regards to Manchuria as a side dish, let me remind you that Manchuria and Korea were the most valuable and vital continental posessions of Japan. Without Philippines of Indonesia Japan could survive for a relatively long time, without Manchuria and Korea Japan was doomed.
And, BTW, can you exlain me why did NATO general studied the Manchurian campaigh ("a side dish", according to you) in details?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The first major defeat of a European Axis power was Operation Compass in 1940.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

...and after that major defeat Axis appeared to be able to push British forces back at the same segment of front and put them on the brink of catastrophe. Are you serious? Under "major defeat" I mean the event that forced Axis to re-consider the whole grand strategy. Failure of Typhoon and Barbarossa as whole marked the end of blitzkrieg strategy (A. S. Milward. The End of the Blitzkrieg. The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1964), pp. 499-518.). But what did Compass cause? Just deploying few Rommel's divisions to Africa.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation Compass wiped out the entire Italian 10th Army -something like 100,000 men -, the counterattack launched by the German-Italian force was made agaisnt a much reduced Allied force due to the Greek campaign; additionally the 7th Armoured Division was being refitted, 2nd Armour was reduced in strength and the Aussie formation was green and lacking transport. Brink of catastrophe? Not quite, the counterattack failed to inflict a major defeat on the Western Desert Force and the fact Tobruk was held has been cited as being the moment the initative moved back into the Allied hands; Rommels force was overstretched, near enough surrounded and didnt have the manpower to take on Tobruk or overcome the forces on the Egyptian border. So Compass and its aftermath are not exactly a laughable matter.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PS "I mean the event that forced Axis to re-consider the whole grand strategy" Surely than the BOB, following their inability to defeat the RAF they had to abandon their plan to invade the UK and commit themselves to a 2-front war. :p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that BOB was the first major Axis defeat that had a profound effect on the whole course of WWII (sorry, I missed this fact). However, it just supports my initial point: the US weren't "in pretty much all fronts of the war": the first major (although mostly aerial) defeat was inflicted on the Axis by the UK when she fought alone, the second land defeat - by the USSR when it fought de facto alone, and both these events took place before the US entered the war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If the failure to capture Moscow marked the end of Blitzkreig, why did the Germans launch another offensive in the summer of 1942 (Fall Blau)? Operation Compass led to North Africa becoming a major theater of the war which diverted Axis resources from the Russian front.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"End of Blitzkrieg" didn't mean "end of war", just a change of grand strategy form a lightning war to a total war. And Stalingrad was definitely not a Blitzkrieg. And, taking into account that Axis troops in Africa never exceeded few hundreds thousand (vs about three million in East), you cannot speak seriously about diversion of anything significant from Eastern Front. Of course, I mean land forces, not air forces.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tanks and men that could have been used better elsewhere, not to mention due to the fighting in Africa becoming a secondary theater also helped draw huge numbers of German divisions to defend the "soft underbelly of Europe"; additionally the partisan actions also draw troops away. Large numbers of German troops were kept in defense of Western Europe and Norway due to two front war and the threat, however minimual, of Allied invasion. Iirc something like a third of German troops were doing nothing better than standing around waiting for things that were not coming when they could have been employed better elsewhere. :p --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And if you replace "German" with "Japanese" and "Norway" or "West Europe" with "Manchuria" you get roughly symmetrical situation. Even in numbers: the amount of the European Axis troops outside the Eastern front varied from 900,000 (20%) in 1941 to 1,500,000 (37%) in 1943 (Glantz), whereas the size of Kwantung army was 1,1 million in 1942 and 787,600 in 1945(Garthoff) BTW, taking into account that Imperial Army was much smaller than the combined European Axis troops, more than one third of Japanese land troops were kept in reserve in Manchuria, thanks to the USSR, and the USSR payed a huge price for it: during the whole WWII the USSR kept about 750,000 infantry men, 1000 tanks and 1000 aircrafts north of Amur river(Garthoff). I agree, the USSR was neutral until the very end. However, it is obvious that these three-quarter million men were vital in the Eastern front, and it is equally obvious what could happen in Burma, for instance, had a half of Kwantung army be deployed there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This reference appears to be fraudulent. The 1989 edition of 'International Law Reports' edited by Elihu Lauterpacht and C. J. Greenwood is available online through Google Books. Page 36 is about Zambia. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Philippines is sovereign

Please don't doubt the source. it is copyrighted by Cambridge University after all and has may volumes but that doesn't mean it is fraudulent. Here's Volume 79, Volume 42, and an un-numbered volume [1].--23prootie (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Which volume are you using to cite your claim, then? Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I tried looking for it at the top but the version on google books gets cut off at the table of contents so it really sucks.--23prootie (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait. It's ISBN 0521463548. Hope that helps--23prootie (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pages 35–37 are not part of the online preview of that document. Are you referring to the line "Thus the status of the Philippine Commonwealth as a sovereign is established without recourse to the suggestion of the Secretary of War... at the top of page 38?" If so, an undated court document isn't much to go on as far as proving whether the Philippines was sovereign or not during the war. How about finding some reliable secondary sources? Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In 1941, did the Philippines make any decisions about foreign policy, send and receive ambassadors, have diplomatic relations with foreign countries, or have the ability to conduct military operations independent of the USA? If not, it was not fully sovereign and the fact that it has some sovereignty in internal matters is irrelevant because this article is about an international war. You may find this offensive, but reality is not determined by what is and is not offensive and we can't re-write history so as not to offend people.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Philippine-Japan relations By Setsuho Ikehata, Lydia N. Yu-Jose. Japan and the Philippines had bilateral relations even before 1935. And Japan had consulates across the country during that time.--23prootie (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that it had UN membership so in some capacity, it did partake in diplomatic activities.--23prootie (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations did not exist in 1941. Also you haven't shown that the Philippines was fully sovereign until after 1946. I don't think anyone is disputing that they had partial sovereignty in internal matters. Also, your source with regards to the UN states that the Philippines was not admitted to the UN until after the Pacific war was over, so that is irrelevant to the article about the Pacific War.

Allow me to quote Wikipedia's article on the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

The Commonwealth had its own constitution, which remained effective until 1973,[7] and was self-governing[8] although foreign policy and military affairs would be under the responsibility of the United States, and certain legislation required the approval of the American President.

And now, Wikipedia's article on the Tydings-McDuffie Act which created the Commonwealth of the Philippines:

The Tydings-McDuffie Act provided for the drafting and guidelines of a Constitution for a 10-year "transitional period" which became the government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines before the granting of Philippine independence, during which the US would maintain military forces in the Philippines. Furthermore, during this period the American President was granted the power to call into military service all military forces of the Philippine government. The act permitted the maintenance of US naval bases, within this region, for two years after independence.

So, in 1941 the Philippines was on its path to full sovereignty. However, it did not attain full sovereignty until the date you gave below: July 4, 1946.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring must stop

The constant back and forth needs to stop. If I see even one more revert in the next 24 hours, I'm going to apply full-protection for at least a week. This has gone on long enough. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you cannot seem to stop edit-warring, I have full-protected the page for one week. If all parties can come to a consensus before that time elapses, I will un-protect the article. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stop it if everyone stops re-adding the Philippines below the U.S. Let me clarify on July 4, 1946, the U.S. recognized Philippine independence as seen in this document [2], it doesn't however specify itself as the date when the Philippines became independent. So the islands could have been independent before that. But it was definitely it not just a dependency.--23prootie (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude i think thats case closed then, they were not recognised as soverign from the USA - their political master - until 1946...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

July 4, 1946 was celebrated in the Philippines as Filipino Independence Day until 1964.

Wikipedia's page on the Philippines lists the following:

Independence from Spain, from United States

-  	Established 	April 27, 1565 
-  	Declared 	June 12, 1898 
-  	Self-government 	March 24, 1934 
-  	Recognized 	July 4, 1946 
-  	Current constitution 	February 2, 1987 WDW Megaraptor (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Commanders List

To start a section dedicated to this one question instead of hogging another; why are political leaders in the commanders box instead of the most relevent military leaders. After all the political leaders played polatics it was the military men who decided overall straetgy and fought the war - should they not be shown instead?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I kinda said it at the top. A month ago, while I was arguing about the value of the Philippines, I added MacArthur on the list and everyone pretty much nagged me saying the list is for political not military leaders so there. P.S. Quezon was present on the front lines so he stays either way.--23prootie (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont think being present on the frontline qualfiies as such, was he a significant person to a good chunk of the war or just the fighting in one area i.e. the Phillipines?

From Template:Infobox Military Conflict it states the following:

commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include army commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted.

I don't believe Churchill, Roosevelt etc really fit the category of "prominent or notable leaders", as i believe the terminology can be taken either way as political or military; I feel that, in line with the articles on the other fronts of the Second World War, it should be military leaders as they are the most notable ones as they conducted the campaigns etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the British system works in this regard, but in the United States the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But to be fair he didnt run the show did he, Marshal did. But to answer your question Churchill was something like Defense Minister i.e. the head honco - politically. The Imperial Chiefs of Staff were the military top brass.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well not on http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pnga local level, but Roosevelt and Truman definitely made many major strategic military decisions.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the reasoning for Truman to be there - the A-Bomb and all that but what strategic decisions did Roosevelt make other than the Europe first policy?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think MacArthur and Nimitz would make better choices for the US, considering they were the supreme commanders of the two-pronged drive across the Pacific. Parsecboy (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Roosevelt made the strategic decision of the Europe first policy, also lend-lease aid to China, economic embargo against Japan, etc. Regardless, he was at the top.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Being at the top does not automactically make said leader "prominent or notable" in regards to the whole war. I would suggest Mountbatten and his predassors as the British representatives on the list in place of Churchill due to their direct role in the war, which makes them more notable. I think you have made an ok case for FDR and Truman, regardless of them "being at the top", what do others thing though?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What do others think of this proposed commanders list?

Allies: Chiang Kai-Shek, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Chester Nimitz, Douglas MacArthur, Joe Stillwell, Winston Churchill, Louis Mountbatten, John Curtin, Manuel Quezon, Joseph Stalin

Axis: Hirohito, Hideki Tojo, Kuniaki Koiso, Kantaro Suzuki, Isoroku Yamamoto, Hajime Sugiyama, Plaek Pibulsonggram, WDW Megaraptor (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be left with the major political leaders, those that were substantially in control throughout the bulk of the war. On the allies side that would be Kai-Shek, Roosevelt, Churchill, Curtin, and Stalin. Truman (and indeed Atlee and Chiffley) came to power in the dying days, after the direction of the war was well and truely set, and effectively won except for the fighting. Military commanders should be mentioned in the theatres they were significant in. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kwantung army and surrender of Japan.

Going back to Manchuria, I got an impression that the effect of the Soviet invasion is still understated in the article. My rationale is as follows.
1. Even in 1945, Kwantung army remained the best part of Japanese Imperial Army and Japan's premier fighting force. Immediately after the information about rapid Soviet advance came to Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki (whose positions was rather hawkish before that) he replied:"Is the Kwanting Army that weak? Then the game is up". Japanese leadership concluded that, as the resistance of Kwantung army had been broken so easily, the much weaker Japanese troops protecting Home Islands would be defeated even easier. That had a devastating effect on Japanese calculations of the prospect for home island defence. Note, the major factor affecting the decision to surrender was vulnerability of home islands towards military invasion (not vulnerability of civilians).
2. Kwantung army's leadership posessed a considerable political weight, and it was wholly beyond central control. The military effectively vetoed any attempt of a dove party to start negotiations about surrender. Soviet attack significantly weakened the hawks and thus made a quick surrender possible.
3. The argument that Manchuria and Korea were the most valuable Japanese continental posession, importand industrial region and resource base already discussed before. Even in the case if the US invaded Home islands, the possibility existed that Japanese government mighi withdraw on the Asiatic mainland, yet not agree to unconditional surrender.
My source is: Why Japan Surrendered. Author(s): Robert A. Pape. International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 154-201
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. By August 1945, the Kwantung army was a shadow of its former self. Most of its armor, heavy weapons and experienced soldiers had been withdrawn to Japan in preparation for the defense of the Home Islands and they were replaced with raw, barely trained conscripts who sometimes lacked weapons.

2. I agree that the Soviet attacks weakened the hawks because if there was one thing Japan feared more than an American occupation of Japan, it was a Russian occupation.

3. Interesting point, quite possible.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I am aware of the fact that by August 1945, the Kwantung army was a shadow of its former self. (you almost literally reproduced that Garthoff's phrase). However, despite that it still was the Japan's premier fighting force. I took the latter statement from Pipes, and reproduced it word-by-word. BTW, by June 1944 Wehrmacht was also just a shadow of its former self.

2. You didn't fully understand my point. The Soviet invasion weakened the hawks politically. The military was the most influential political group in Japan, and the devastating blow in Manchuria dramatically weakened their political position, because it became clear that they were unable to resist to invasion of home island as they claimed before. As a result, other two political groups (civilian ministers and emperor) got additional points, so the capitulation became inevitable.

In connection to that, I propose to move the Manchurian campaign to a separate section.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In August 1945, Japan's best divisions were preparing for the defense of Kyushu from the expected American invasion. However, expanding the discussion of August Storm and its effects in this article is something that I support.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Theaters section overly US-centric?

Between 1942 and 1945, there were four main areas of conflict in the Pacific War: China, the Central Pacific, South East Asia and the South West Pacific.

Shouldnt the section start off in 1937?

U.S. sources refer to two theaters within the Pacific War: the Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO) and the China Burma India Theater (CBI). However these were not operational commands. In the PTO, the Allies divided operational control of their forces between two supreme commands, known as Pacific Ocean Areas and Southwest Pacific Area.[9]

operational control was split between two supreme commands, both of which appear to deal excuslively with the island hopping campaing - applogies if i am wrong there; well what about the Allied Command based in Burma and the various Chinese commands, shouldnt they be mentioned as well?

Good points, although the section does start off in 1937. How you you propose to remedy this? Expand the list of battles under the Sino-Japanese war? It seems to me that many battles are missing from the list.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not to sure as my knowledge on the sino-Japanese war is rather limited; i would imagine something like "starting in 1937 there was x number of theaters called ABC, by 1942 this had increased/decreased to 4 main combat areas, which would remain throughout the rest of the war: CDEF" etc

You get my drift. As for the latter part of the section, i would assume info implanted on the commands used elsewhere than the Pacific Island hopping campaign would expand and balance it out.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Early on, Japan saw China as two theaters: the north where Army air power assisted ground forces, and the central and south where Navy planes were doing the same work, but better, per Peattie. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pacific War Council

The council as photographed on 12 October 1942. Pictured are Franklin D. Roosevelt (seated), and standing, from left to right, Owen Dixon, Leighton McCarthy, Walter Nash, Viscount Halifax, T. V. Soong, Alexander Loudon and Manuel L. Quezon. K.S. Digvijaysinhji of India was not included in the photo.

I insist on expanding the participants a bit more by including New Zealand, Canada, and the Netherlands since the were considered as relevant partners in the War effort. Also the Philippines should be listed as a separate entity from the U.S. due to membership to the council as seen here. [3] (The BBC lists the Philippines as a "country" with equal status with the countries listed above apart from the U.S., the U.K., and Australia)--23prootie (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.- Thanks for adding Osmeña.--23prootie (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow you just dont give in do you, considering the amount of discussion you have generated above dont you think you should wait for consensus before making changes based on "new evidence" like you did above, which turned out frudulent, and have now?

All the BBC article states is that the "Philippine governments in exile" was on the war council, it doesnt state anything about the Philippines being a completly sovereign enity to the USA - the main point made above by various editors.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving in. Anyhow, I don't really think that sovereignty was important at that time with regards to membership to the Allies. And even if it was, they still made exceptions for both India and the Philippines so I don't get the point in excluding them. There are historical evidence that they did more than just sit around diplomatically so they should be listed a separate entities.--23prootie (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

India and the Philippines are not being "excluded", they are still being listed in the infobox. They are listed under their controlling powers because they were not independent nations until after the war.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Philippine Commonwealth continually being re-listed as an independent nation????

OK. This is getting ridiculous. There is clear consensus that the Philippine Commonwealth belongs under the USA in the infobox. It has been clearly demonstrated on these boards over and over again that the Philippines did not gain independence from the USA until 1946. But one user insists on editing against consensus and constructing a weird and warped view of the political status of the Philippines in the early 1940s to justify this. The page was even write-protected and the use threatened with being banned, and yet this user persists in editing against almost-unanimous consensus and against all evidence. This has got to stop.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not insist that the Philippines had "full independence" at the time. That's why I use the term "Philippine Commonwealth" instead of "Philippines" in reference to its status. I do however insist that the Commonwealth government, in exile or otherwise, had separate representation for the [{Filipino people]] that is independent of that from the United States so the nation may not have full sovereign status at the time, it's government still spoke for itself.--23prootie (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Presence of France under Allies

I don't think France belongs under Allies.

1) French Indochina was a pro-Vichy territory until the end of the war. 2) French Indochina was invaded by Japan in October 1940 (while a Vichy territory), however they then allowed Japanese troops free access through the territory. 3) Vichy France was a co-belligerent with the Axis throughout World War 2. 4) Vichy France was a co-belligerent with Japan in Madagascar. 5) When Thailand invaded French Indochina, Thailand was not allied with Japan. Thailand invaded in the fall of 1940. Japan invaded Thailand in December 1941, causing Thailand to join the Axis. 6) The only Pacific territory controlled by the Free French were the Wallis and Futuna Islands, which saw no combat and the forces based there played no role in the Pacific war.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with the statement above, in that France should not be listed with the Allies. The invasion of French Indochina by Japan was conducted before the outbreak of the larger war. I will point out that after 1944, the Free French operated the battleship Richelieu in the Pacific and she did see some combat. I don't, however, think that a single battleship warrants inclusion in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The list has France as a co-belligerent, and while the French authorities in Indochina certainly collaborated with the Japansese, they did resist the Japanese invasion and fought a war against Japanese-supported Thailand. I suppose many of the organisations listed as "fighting for the allies" actually only resisted the Japanese. Therefore I believe France should be included, though as a co-belligerent. Yonaka (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See my above post. Thailand was not supported by the Japanese until December 1941, after the Franco-Thai War.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Vichy French played almost no role in the war - they stood aside and let the Japanese do more or less what they wanted with their territory. In 1945 the Japanese attached the Vichy French in Indochina, inflicting heavy casualties on the small garrison. The Free French also played almost no role in the war - New Caledonia and Tahiti were offered to the Allies as bases (New Caledonia was a vital American based from 1942-44) and contributed small numbers of ships. As such, France should be left out of the infobox altogether. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're talking about the infobox but about the footnote to the infobox. But I agree.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Vichy French forces briefly resisted the Japanese in Indochina in 1940 and 1945" Did Vichy French exist in 1945?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Although Vichy was occupied in November 1942, the Vichy French government continued to exist under German occupation although its power was greatly diminished and most of its colonies joined the Free French at this time. Indochina, however, remained loyal to Vichy. After the liberation of France in 1944 the Vichy regime moved to Sigmaringen, Germany and set up a government-in-exile which lasted until April 22, 1945. Indochina remained loyal to Vichy during this time.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On Madagascar, generally considered a small part in this war, was held by the Vichy French and withstood an Allied invasion for several months before surrendering. Further proof they should be listed, at least in a footnote, as an axis combatant.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong theater, check a map. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The conflict on Madagascar was conducted because of the Japanese presance in the Indian Ocean (for that matter Burma is not linked to the Pacific Ocean nor is most of China, the Soviet Unions actions where on mainland Asia and no where near the Pacific), and fear that they would take the island as a staging post and submarine base. The fighting that took place there has nothing to do with the Med and Middle East theatre, nothing to do with the European theatre nor the Atlantic. So to sum up instead of making snide comments i suggest you check a map and learn some history.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As it has been already said, French bases in Polynesia and New Caledonia, unlike Indochina, had joined Free France, and let the Allies use their bases. I have to check if the French forces there did anything more significant, but I think this still qualifies Free France as a (minor) belligerent, much like Canada (not that I write this as a flag-waving frenchman : IMHO, there was some contribution by Free France, and that's it). Regarding Vichy, I think considering the regime as still existing in march 1945 is a matter of debate. As stated before, the "French State" had de facto ceased to exist in Europe, and while it did maintain some kind of government-in-exile until april 1945 (the legitimacy of which is a matter of debate, as neither Pétain nor Laval took part in it), it did not have any control whatsoever on French Indochina. The pro-Vichy government may have remained in place until the Japanese coup in march 1945, but considering that the "Vichy regime" still existed in Indochina is debatable : IMHO, Decoux's administration was in some kind of political limbo from august 1944 to april 1945. Decoux was, btw, later found not guilty of collaboration. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Instrument of Surrender signed by Général d'Armée Philippe Leclerc de Hautecloque for France at precisely 9:20 a.m. on September 2, 1945.

I would have thought that any questions about what I construe as a non-issue were resolved long ago by the not-unimportant fact of French signatory participation in the Japanese surrender ceremonies aboard the U.S.S. Missouri?

I would have thought that such speculative arguments would necessarily fall by the wayside in the well-settled context established by the primary source document at the right and by other credible sources, e.g.,

• Broom, Jack. "Memories on Board Battleship," Seattle Times. May 21, 1998 -- WP:Reliable source; secondary source news article
• Australian War Memorial, archives: photo, Leclerc signing document

As I see it, the requisite burden of proof for this fringe argument remains unmet by WDW Megaraptor, the initiator of this thread; and those participants in this thread who support "consensus reality" in this context are mistaken. The unintended consequences of this "crowdsourcing" do diminish the credibility and quality of this article and of our Wikipedia project. --Tenmei (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Some good points, but the fact that France bandwagon jumped onto the ceremony on the USS Missouri at the end of the conflict does not change what happened during the war.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, several ships in the Free French Naval Forces did contribute to allied war effort in the Pacific before 1944, including French destroyer Triomphant. They were used mostly to protect allied lines of supplies and communication. Granted, they were a minor belligerent in this part of the conflit (pretty much like Mongolia or Canada), but still a belligerent nevertheless. (there were also 40 guys of the Free French local committee who took part in the Battle of Hong Kong, although I don't think this alone would qualify France as a major belligerent in the Pacific war) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Grand Strategic blunder?

I've removed the part of a sentence in the section on Pearl Harbor that refers to the Axis powers declaring war on the US as a "massive grand strategic blunder". My main problem is that this is without clarification; why was the action deemed a blunder? Looking at the linked page the same action is described as "sensible" and a "classic example" of such strategic thinking, making it even more unclear.

If there is an explanation for this or a reference that clarifies it, then can this be added to the article, as without it the section is slightly contradictory?

Thanks, onebravemonkey 11:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Combatants again

This comes up again and again. It has been discussed extensively here, here, here, and above on this page. The consensus has been that the contributions of Canada, France and New Zealand were not enough to justify listing them as major combatants in this theatre. In fact each of these countries made deliberate decisions to commit the vast bulk of their resources to the European theatre. It has further been consensus that neither the Philippines or India were fully independent during the course of the war, both were attacked because of their dependant status, and the forces of both were controlled by their "colonial" masters, so their position in the infobox should reflect that. If you wish to change this consensus please feel free to present an argument, but please do not constantly edit war. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

By viewing the references for Allies of World War II, both India and the Philippines satisfy the requirements to be listed separately form their perceived "colonial masters". It says there that membership in an international organization (such as the League of Nations or the United Nations) warrants a separately listing in related articles.--121.28.34.69 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this list: List of United Nations member states, India didnt join the UN till after the war. League of Nations members doesnt mention the Philippines and the previous mentioned UN article states they also didnt join the UN until post WW2.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Far Eastern Commission should be the relevant reference in determining the respective combatants. France, Canada, and New Zealand are listed there among others.--121.28.34.69 (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One would note that this was a commission set up post war, not really evidence to support who should be displayed in the combatants box for actions that took place during the war.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Members of the commission were determined by theirs actions in the war. Membership was a "pat on the back" for their effort and losses due to the war. Otherwise, Portugal would also be invited.--119.95.11.202 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That still is not evidence of them being Major combatants. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Mr Johnson here, this commission in no way provides evidence for these states being major combatants in the war. However do not get the wrong impression and feel that we are denying that they took part in the fighting etc. One will note that the article states that the infobox states who the major combatants were and also provides a list of the complete list of Allied nations in a footnote.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, don't remove the sourced 1 million casualties listed for the Philippines in the footnote. There have been discussions about that in Casualties of World War II and there is already consensus. Second, I think Canada, India, the Philippines, and New Zealand were all major contributors to this war. Both India and Canada had over a million troops while the Philippines had about 100,000 far more than what Australia contributed, [4]. And third, I disagree that there is a quota required and that only "major combatants" should be included. All the other articles relating to WWII (Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II, Eastern Front (World War II), Western Front (World War II)) do not have that quota, so I certainly believe that this article shouldn't have one too. I believe that having a quota prevents this article from becoming neutral since it intentionally excludes major combatants.--121.28.34.69 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly a correction - Australia fielded 993,000 personnel in the Second World War. Secondly both India and the Phillippines are mentioned but as subsets of the United Kingdom and the United States. This is because their forces were under the control of these powers during the war. Thirdly Canada did not contribute a million personnel to the Pacific conflict, you know that. Fourthly British India is not the same thing as the current Republic of India. British India contained three, or depending on how you define it, five modern states, less several French and Portuguese colonies, and, once again depending on how you define it, a multitude of princely states. Fifthly it is not required of a Wikipedia article, and still less of an info box, that every minor fact about a subject be presented to make it neutral, only those most relevent. Lastly you have not addressed my question below, so I can only assume you are, and therefore will delete your future edits on sight until your block expires. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No matter small or large Canada and New Zealand's contributions were, they still managed to get in the the other infoboxes in other theatres of the war so that should say a lot. With the Philippines, Americans had no control over the political decisions of it's leaders nor do they have any say in the activity of the resistance. I also find your comment regarding the Partition of India (into 4 , not 5, states) as irrelevant since the political continuity of British India, such as the memberships to both the League of Nations and the United Nations were inherited by the now modern Republic of India. As for some edits, again, I don't get why the reverting of uncontroversial statements such as those regarding certain casualty statistics and the Allied leader's, Quezon and Osmeña, names, with both names in the template for over a month with consensus then suddenly removed a few weeks ago. Anyway, I think it is funny that you have recruited Staberinde to do your work, but I'm going to settle a compromise for now, and if you (or anyone else you recruited) do not revert my edits, I'm not gonna push my view on the combatants, but only due to no consensus. As for your last comment, I don't get it?--119.95.7.96 (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Would anon user 121.28.34.69 please advise if they are a sock for blocked user 23prootie? --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that they are, as well as 119.95.7.96. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw an unprotection request at RPP by 119.95.7.96, so just dropping by to leave a note on this. 23prootie has evaded his block before as 122.53.101.148, 194.213.52.82 and User:8frÜitz (checkuser confirmed). All of them have been blocked, but judging by the edits of these two IP addresses, I'm beginning to think he's at it again. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, this is getting silly, couldn't something be done about this disruptive behaviour? If 23prootie is indeed evading block, then I would assume that his main account's block should be lenghtened.--Staberinde (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunk

"while Yorktown sailed after three days' work" Did Yamamoto believe her sunk at Coral Sea? (IIRC, he did.) If not, why did he believe Nimitz had max 2 CVs? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

I'm seekin a secong opinion regarding the combatants listed in the infobox. I feel that there is a general exclusion of some countries. I believe that it should follow suit with the Allies of World War II article, which specifically lists important contributors such as Canada, France, and New Zealand, apart from those listed in the one in the present with India and the Philippines unbulleted. I also think that there is a general pattern in those infoboxes seen in Western Front (World War II), which also includes minor allies such as Luxembourg.--119.95.7.96 (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to other articles being cited as evidence, this same discussion took part for the Med+ME theatre article; although iirc not on that talk page. The consensus was the best appraoch was to limit the list to the major combatants and essentially do what this article has already done. We just never got around to it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an issue on limiting the combatants, and I do agree that it may be a good idea. My only issues are regarding the bulleting of both India and the Philippines; the sources in Allies of World War II (including the footnote that states "membership in international organizations such as the League of Nations" and the United Nations "grants [them] international persona".) have proven that they had more "sovereignty" over their territories than a "normal" colony/protectorate had making the bulleting inappropriate; and also, other issues include the deletion of sourced information like the 1 million casualties listed in the State department website and the removal of the names of both Quezon and Osmeña, both of who have remained with consensus in the template for over a month.--119.95.11.202 (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asked for a help, but I don't undestand what is the core problem you are discussing about. Generally speaking, I can say that major combatants of the Pacific Theatre of WW2 were surely USA, China and Japan. UK had a lot of problems around the British Isles, and basically it could fight in this theatre only with the troops of the Raj (even if Roosvelt urged many times Churchill for a bigger engagement), waiting the efforts of Australia and New Zealand. USSR, I think you know, entered in this theatre only after Hiroshima, when the war was pratically already ended. We can't describe the Netherlands as a major combatant: Indonesia surrendered soon, and Dutch government, exiled in London and with sole Suriname and Aruba under its effective control, could not give a major help in the Pacific. We can't describe at all France as a combatant: Indochina was a Vichy colony, and no De Gaulle's troops were seen in these zones. This is so true, that in 1945 China could occupy Norther Indochina as an enemy territory, even under Paris protests. Chinese troops were still there in 1949, when Mao substituted Chang Kai-Shek in Beijing, so Northern Indochina became a communist zone: I think all of us know as this story then ended...
I don't know if I could help your discussion: if not, please ask me more questions.--Cusio (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that this RfC has been started by blocked editor User:23prootie under IP socks as part of their endless edit warring in this article, I think that it can and should be ignored. This topic has been discussed at very great length, and the current infobox reflects the result of these discussions. 23prootie is the only editor with a problem with it, and he's now blocked indefinetly for using IP sock puppets to attempt to evade their block. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Block evading IPs have also now been blocked. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think New Zealand and Canada could be added to the infobox list. New Zealand's armed forces may have been small, but the country did host thousands of American troops during the war. Canadian forces participated in the Aleutian Islands campaign. If this has already been discussed and rejected by consensus, then disregard. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it has been discussed and rejected, so we will take up your kind offer to disregard, except to say that the infobox lists major, not all, combatants, and therefore obviously requires a judgement call. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Commanders in infobox

Well, it has probably been discussed earlier already but I personally think that we should remove political leaders from infobox. Most of other WW II campaign templates stick to military commanders, and also currently we have 18 people in Allies side although Template:Infobox military conflict suggests "upper limit of about seven per combatant column", and theoretically we probably would need to add Wilhelmina of the Netherlands too if we have another political leaders. So I would suggest removing John Curtin, Lin Sen, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry Truman from allied side, and Hirohito, Kuniaki Koiso, Kantarō Suzuki from Japanese side. Although I would add to Japanese commanders Umezu(chief of the Army General Staff like Sugiyama and Tojo), Terauchi(Southern Expeditionary Army Group), Hata(China Expeditionary Army), Koga and Toyoda(both commanders of combined fleet like Yamamoto).--Staberinde (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know much about other leaders, but I can say that Lin Sen was just a figurehead with no military nor political power. Blueshirts (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal but I would keep Hirohito as he was "supreme commander of the army and the navy" and commander of the Daihonei. I do not think Hata is relevant here as he was commander on the Chinese front but I would add Navy chiefs of staff Osami Nagano and Koshirō Oikawa and maybe some important army commanders under Terauchi like Masaharu Homma, Tomoyuki Yamashita, Masakazu Kawabe or Heitarō Kimura.--Flying Tiger (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. I think this is a case of "pile on", once one political leader is mentioned (it was Roosevelt) others were quickly added. So let's restrict it to military commanders. And I would keep Hirohito out. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also keep Hirohito out, otherwise its very hard to argument why lets say Stalin shouldn't fit in too, also isn't US president technically commander in chief too? As article's scope seems to include Chinese front Hata would be relevant in my opinion. Individual army commanders(Yamashita etc.) are a bit too low level for this infobox which covers whole pacific. About Japanese naval leaders, I think that we need to make some selection, like either Commanders of Combined Fleet (Yamamoto etc., my preference) or Chief's of Navy Staff (Nagano etc.) but not both. Similarly like we have Nimitz but not Ernest King for USA.--Staberinde (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it is absurd to have China covered in an article about the "Pacific War". Even battlefields like Burma and India, which were part of the CBI command, are very borderline... The chiefs of staff were the operational leaders who were responsible to the emperor. If we do not select Navy chiefs of staff, the same should be done with the Army. So Sugiyama, Tōjō and Umezu should be kept out... --Flying Tiger (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Given second thought, I think the easiest way would be to keep only the members of the Daihonei. A larger infobox would include also Terauchi and the Commanders of Combined Fleet. --Flying Tiger (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think scope of article is actually good, as there should be one article that sums up all fighting related to Japan in Asia, including Pacific, Burma and China. Although article's current title may be not most ideal for such scope. Anyway, would you list all Japanese commanders who you would propose to include?--Staberinde (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The french version is called «War in Asia and Pacific»... [[5]]. I think a perfect infobox would include the emperor, the chiefs of staff members of the Daihonei between 1941 and 1945, - for the Army :Hajime Sugiyama, Hideki Tojo, Yoshijiro Umezu, for the Navy : Osami Nagano, Shigetaro Shimada, Koshirō Oikawa, Soemu Toyoda - and, if there is enough place Hisaichi Terauchi as commander of the Nanpōgun, and the four commanders of the Rengō Kantai between 1941 and 1945 : Isoroku Yamamoto, Mineichi Koga, Soemu Toyoda and Jisaburo Ozawa. If you want the Chinese front and include the commanders of the Shina hakengun such as Hata, then we would have to consider all those in office since 1937 such as Prince Kotohito Kan'in ... --Flying Tiger (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is point adding Toyoda for being chief of naval staff in 1945, because then he got that position Yamato was already sunk and IJN did not do anything notable anymore. Other than that, I guess that your proposal is quite reasonable while not getting too long.--Staberinde (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as the Chinese front is still included, I think we must add Kan'in, who had an important role for three years (1937-1945). However, I do not think Hiroyasu Fushimi is equally important as the Navy was not really involved until 1941. I still think Hirohito should be there as he is surely as relevant as Plaek Pibulsonggram or Chiang... --Flying Tiger (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

One notes that the infobox for the Allied side is still 4 over (the axis side 1 over); looking at the command structure for ABDA, Hein Ter Poorten was under the command of Wavell so one would suggest he could be removed. It also appears that Joe Stirwell was subordinate to Mountbatten so the former could also be removed. Thoughts?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree with removing Stilwell; he was effectively Chiang's chief military advisor from the Allies. Also, I'd disagree with omitting IJN; there were quite a few IJNAF fliers involved in China. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume the IJNAF comment is about a previous post and not mine. However from what i have read about Stirwell he was always subordinate to other commanders - to use an analogy, it seems like we are listing "Patton" in a list that contains Bradley, Devers, and Monty i.e. someone that is not of the same equivalent position. What does his position of being a military advisor have to do with it, was he effectively running the Chinese war and Chiang being a puppet for him - if not i think its an irrelevant position tbh.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Stilwell officially reported to Chiang and Mountbatten, but on the field he took actions on his own, calling directly to Roosevelt when he was unhappy about Chiang's refusal to follow his "counsels". The two men hated each other and Chiang, therefore, had him removed for insubordination. --Flying Tiger (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Essentially the same system was used by the Eighth Army; the Aussies, Kiwis and South Africans could all refer home to their government if they were unhappy with orders given etc. Likewise 21st Army Group and the Canadians had the same agreement.

Are we completly positive, while under Allied command, Stirwell fought his own "private war" as suggested above?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

One would like to go back to the analogy i made earlier; if we have Army Group commanders listed i.e. Wavell, Mountbatten and McArthur - why should a meer army commander be listed with them?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Japan and the war in Europe

Did Japan consider the "Greater East Asia War" to be related to the war in Europe? Or did they consider the two to be separate conflicts? Repdetect117 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Japan paid scarce attention to it, except in judging how to take advantage of British, French, or Dutch weakness. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Total military and civilian casualties

I would strongly suggest using the source "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm" for the total civilian and military casualties in the infobox area. This source provides a range on the Pacific War death toll based on multiple sources. Therefore it probably provides the best scholarly estimate for both civilian and military casualties in the Pacific War. The link is http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm. I would please like your feedback on this. 22:55, 25 February 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.50.234 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

China in the first place in the infobox ?

I'm not entirely sure that China should stay in the first place in the combatants section of the infobox. It was indeed a major belligerent, but it fought mainly in its own soil - and was obviously the main allied belligerent in the Chinese theater - but its only involvement outside China proper was the Burma theater. On the other hand, the US was involved in the Pacific itself (Philippines, Pacific ocean and islands, China, Burma) and the UK also fought in several theaters (Pacific, Burma). I personally would put China third behind the US and UK, or perhaps second after the US. I don't want to sound too western-centered, but I think listing China as the first belligerent is a bit misleading, even though it was chronologically the first one. After all, if by "Pacific War", one means "War in the Pacific", as some do, then China's involvement becomes minimal. I don't want to diminish the Chinese theatre's importance, but I don't think China should stay in the first place either as far as the whole Asian theatre is concerned. What do you think ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • China was the first nation to be involved, contributed the most forces and suffered the most casualties, so I say it belongs in first in the Allied list (and I'm an American)WDW Megaraptor (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a point, but was it the most decisive as far as the whole Asian theatre was concerned ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Iirc there is a sort of MOS article floating around dedicated to military infoboxes and am sure (although i would have to find it to be sure) that states the powers should be placed in order of the numbers of men they deployed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If some MOS exists for military infoboxes, I would appreciate if you gave me a link to it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Found what i was on about: Template:Infobox military conflict

"combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. 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. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article."

Emphasis is mine.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's the problem, there are several criteria : and military contribution does not necessarily means sheer number of men deployed, it can also mean firepower, technology, etc. As far as political clout and recognized chain of command go, I wouldn't put China in the first place, with all due respect. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the conflict in Asia lasted since 1937, and during first four years the US were neutral, and they provided Japan with about 80% of oil, aviation kerosene, etc. That was a very important contribution into the war against China who (along with the USSR) was tying down major part of Japanese land forces during 1937-45. Therefore, I don't understand how the US can be placed on the first position, and I see no other candidate for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Woops, I hadn't seen that the conflict was dated since 1937 : the problem is, is that generally accepted ? Asia is generally seen as officially entenring WWII after Pearl Harbor, with the Second Sino-japanese war starting before and then becoming part of it. That includes the vast majority of sources (not to mention every single source) that I have seen about the subject, though I can't pretend of course that I have read everything. Is there any kind of consensus about starting this part of the War in 1937 ? World War II hadn't even started yet officially. I did a quick search on google books with the words "Pacific war started in" and most of the books have the sentence end with "1941" (though some make it start in 1942). One can arguably consider that the "war in Asia" (at least in China) started in 1937, or 1931 if we are to consider the invasion of Manchuria, but the "Pacific war" is another matter. To my humble knowledge, the Sino-japanese war didn't involve that much naval warfare. Here is a reference specifying that the beginning of the war is variously dated. Shouldn't the infobox include that ? Here we have Japanese scholars who state that the Pacific war per se started in 1941. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a wrangle over start date. The conventional wisdom has been the war started in Europe & only included Asia after 7 Dec 41, but there are good arguments (& they were made here) for the '37 date. I'll leave off if WP should be resetting the conventional wisdom, because "conventional" doesn't always mean "correct". In this case, I think the '37 date, & hence ROC 1st, makes sense. I'll bet, tho, you're going to see rv by people who a) don't know about the SJW & b) don't read the page, just for starters. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take this discussion to the MILHIST talkpage to discuss further and establish project wide consensus?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Could be a good idea, but "conventional" could be easily replaced by "conventionally accepted and used by scholars and authors". If numerous and significant scholars and authors consider that what is known broadly as "the pacific war" started in 1941, then the date should be 1941, with the introduction detailing what went on before. Anyway, the term "pacific war", while conventionally accepted, is too broad per se, as it obviously meant originally "US, UK and Australia vs Japan" (i.e., what went on in the Pacific ocean), also encompassing broadly "what went on in Asia besides the Pacific campaigns". In that sense, starting it in 1937 is kind of misleading, since the China theatre was - I'm being Captain Obvious here - not situated in the Pacific ocean. IMHO, the conventional wisdom is simply correct here : the Sino-japanese war was originally a "regional" conflict starting in 1937 (or 1931 if you include Manchuria), the Pacific war was the regional conflict's extension and inclusion into a world war, starting in 1941. I see no harm in changing the dates if the introduction is clear enough about the context. Keep in mind that 1941 also meant a major change in the sino-japanese war, as China became part of the Allies, openly received aid from the US, etc. Also, it was only after Pearl Harbour that China and Japan had a formal declaration of war, which obviously means that the context had changed. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source explicitly stating "the Pacific war started in december 1941 when Japan declared war against Britain, the US, the Netherlands and other allied countries". And it comes apparently from a Japanese, or Japanese-related, source. I really think we should stick to "conventional wisdom" : Sino-japanese war starts in 1937, Pacific war starts in 1941 and Sino-japanese war becomes part of it. (though the intro obviously has to mention the previous China conflict, as said before). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a very explicit quote from a book I recently purchased : "For fifty-three long months, beginning in July 1937, China stood alone, single-handedly fighting an undeclared war against Japan. On December 9, 1941, after Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, China finally declared war against Japan. What had been for so long a war between two countries now became part of a much wider Pacific conflict." (by Hsi-sheng Ch'i, taiwanese scholar, in James C. Hsiung and Steven I. Levine, China's bitter victory : the war with Japan 1937-1945, M.E. Sharpe, 1992, p. 157). So we have chinese and japanese sources considering that the Pacific war proper started in late 1941 and is therefore distinct from the Sino-japanese war : I'd say that this is more than "conventional wisdom", so I'd suggest we change the start date to 1941, although the dates of 1937 and 1931 have to be mentioned in the intro. Also, if we start the war in 1941, I'd say that the US has to be first in the infobox (and possibly the UK second) for, with all due respect to China, they commanded superior firepower and technology, and had a much larger political clout. Also, the US were undoubtedly first as far as line of command was concerned among the Allies. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

China didn't declare a war on Japan because its "allies", Britain and the US insisted on that. One way or the another, I agree that the question of the countries' position in the infobox is closely connected to the definition of the Pacific war's time frames. If only post-Pearl-Harbour events are considered the Pacific war, I see no problem to list the US first. On way or the another, I believe EnigmaMcmxc's idea is quite correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it makes small difference if China declared war; she'd been de facto at war with Japan since 1931. And the conventional wisdom on it, with Japan joining a wider war, is based on a very Euro-centric view: it can as well be said Germany opened a global war by bringing the U.S. & Britain into a conflict begun by Japan in 1931. While that's not a common view, it isn't any less correct for not being common. What do Japanese & Chinese sources say on it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The declaration of war made de facto little difference, but it definitely shows that the context had become entirely different. As for the sources, you can see above that I found one Japanese source and one Chinese one using the 1941 date. I'm trying to avoid euro-centric or western-centric positions too, but I'd say we use 1941 while specifying the 1931/1937 context in the intro. As for the order of participants, I'd say China, with all due respect, should come second or third. It may have sent more troops in sheer numbers but as far as chain of command (most important), sheer firepower, technology, presence in various theaters and decisive input are concerned, I'd say the US and the UK come first. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope i havent jumped the gun but due to the lack of intrest in this debate i have posted on the MILHIST talkpage to see if we can establish community consensus. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

•Probably a good move, IMO. This may have broader implications than the page alone, in settling WW2 start date (presuming a 1931/7 date here is accepted as valid to change the European phase...)

•In asking about "Chinese & Japanese sources", I meant the majority of native language sources, not works in English. I'm aware of only a handful by Japanese or Chinese authors in English, & FWI recall, the general attitude is war began in '31, but "Pacific War" only with the attack on Pearl; before that, it was a continental war. Also, since the Japanese & German war efforts were so distinct & separate, evidence of collaboration must needs be thin on the ground; outside Japanese attention on German success against France & Britain, I'm unaware of any before 7 Dec, & AFAIK, Hitler paid even less attention to Japanese operations in China. (He did have hopes of a Japanese attack on the U.S., tho, as a distraction from aid to Britain in the Atlantic, as revealled in one of his naval conferences, which makes nonsense of the conspiracy theory.)

•Downgrading ROC, IMO, is a variety of the same debate (one covered fairly extensively some while ago, on the WW2 talk page, IIRC) as whether the SU was the main contributor to victory in Europe, & for the same reasons: most of the sources are in English, by U.S. or Brit (or Canadian) writers; the SU contributions, by default, gets less attention, even if deserving of credit.

•For the record, I tend to default to a U.S.-centric POV, & if it was up to me alone, CBI would be hived off from the Pacific War entire. That wouldn't settle the "start of WW2" issue, but it might help here, 'cause then, it'd be clearly 7 Dec '41. I don't expect that view to be common, however... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue about the start date is more important than the allies'order in the infobox, although this has its importance (and if we are to start in 1941, China shouldn't be first, as said before)

I'd say common knowledge and scholarly treatment outweigh community consensus, but asking for opinions could be useful. IMHO, suggesting that world war II started in 1937 or 1931 is going to raise a few eyebrows : 1939 is widely accepted. That's why I think starting a portion of world war II before what is commonly conceived as its start date would be a mistake. So far, there seems to be a relative consensus about the 1941 date; 1937 is misleading, IMHO.

Regarding the start of the war in China, it is generally considered to have started in 1937 (open warfare between Japan and China) with the previous events since 1931 being a prologue, although there are some dissenting views.

As for the inclusion of the CBI theatre, I tend to agree with Trekphiler in the sense that term "Pacific war" , while well-known as a name referring broadly the whole Asian theatre, is kind of misleading. What the "Pacific war" name actually refers to is the Allied vs Japan operations in the Pacific Ocean. This is why, when I rewrote the French wikipedia article, I proposed to rename the article "Asia-Pacific war" (Guerre en Asie et dans le Pacifique). There was no opposition to this, especially since there was some confusion on the French wp with the lesser-known War of the Pacific. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: WWII start date [6].

Re: "What the "Pacific war" name actually refers to is the Allied vs Japan operations in the Pacific Ocean" Taking into account that the Second Sino-Japanese War article considers SSJW as a part of the Pacific War, we have to discuss simultaneous changes in both articles to avoid possible contradictions.

"Asia-Pacific War" is a good idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that the name "Pacific War" actually means "operations in the Pacific (Solomon islands, New Guinea, Philippines, naval battles, etc) but de facto is also used as a broad term encompassing all the Asian theatres of the conflict, including China, Burma, India and Malaya. Hence, the Second Sino-Japanese War is, up to 1941, part of the "Pacific War". That's also why I personally prefer "Asia-Pacific War", which I find more accurate. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In actuality, the Asia-Pacific War currently re-directs to here. It is quite possible that that reflects a local (Australo-American) rather than a global point of view. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. The name of the region where the events described in the present article took place is Asia-Pacific, not Pacific.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I said. However, it is true that Pacific war is a more commonly used name, although Asia-Pacific War would describe it more accurately. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

When I started my reply, the MILHIST talk page looked like the best place to put it - now I'm not so sure! Anyway, my thoughts are there. Essentially I don't think this is a theatre in the same sense as say the Western Front, and probably can't be treated in the same way. However, it is a parent article that covers a lot of specific theatres. If it is going to cover everything from Burma to China to Pearl Harbor though, I'd change the map in the infobox which is specific to a Pacific campaign! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge the 1931/7 start date isn't a common view. My thinking is the flipside of the prevailing: if "war became global" when Japan, Germany's ally, attacked the U.S., it's equally true, since Japan was already at war in '39, when Germany attacked Britain. Yeh, it would raise eyebrows (;p); perhaps it should. IMO, an encyclopedia that teaches is a better one, so an unconventional view isn't a wrong one.

I'll agree '37 is probably the better date; I'm not near competent to say if '31 should be used, & AFAIK, even Chinese/Japanese historiographers use '37.

I'll also agree "Asia-Pacific War" conceptually is better, but then we're into the "no coining" argument, aren't we? And seeing the discussion over the Sydney v Kormoran page, I foresee serious opposition to this page getting changed... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think its a much better name, its descriptive and as (I suspect) there may not be any certainty about the current name it might not be too hard to change. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the current order (China, US, UK, etc) works fine. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In the MILHIST talk page, one user point that "The Oxford Companion to World War II says in its 'Pacific War' article that the Pacific War started on 7 December 1941, so that's what I'd go with (the Companion usually reflects the common view of historians)." I'd say that is good enough a source, although others can be quoted.

As for the infobox order, I'd say we stick to the chain of command and contribution to the conflict, which would be US, UK, China or perharps even US, UK, Australia China (that should be checked, but it seems to me that China was behind the UK in the burmese chain of command) The US were undoubtedly first as far as chain of command was concerned, and were more decisive in the Pacific war's outcome was concerned.

The term "Asia-Pacific War" does exist and is used by authors, although it is admittedly less known and less used than Pacific War. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re"I don't think this is a theatre in the same sense as say the Western Front". Sure. It is a theatre in the same sense as the European theatre of WWII. In that sense, Pacific war is the theatre in the same sense as the Western front and Eastern front (both of them were a part of a bigger European theatre). In my opinion, Pacific war sensu stricto is a part of the Asia-Pacific war. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that. IMHO, the name Pacific War refers accurately to the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II. However, it has come to be used as a broad name for all things asian in WWII. John Costello's book, for example, includes the Chinese, Burmese, etc, situations. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Paul Siebert, that's exactly my point on the MILHIST page. So I'm not sure it is appropriate to treat this article in the same way as a specific theatre (ie Western Front) and basically shouldn't have an infobox with defined 'start and end dates' or commanders. A commander in one theatre had no relevence to another. Same with contributions. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It should IMHO be treated as a specific theatre encompassing all the asian theatres, quite simply because the general consensus is to treat the Pacific war as a specific part of WWII. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But it can't be a specific theatre when it covers 3 or 4 specific theatres, that's my point. Irrespective of the name, this article as it stands is a parent article for specific theatres. Anyway, can this discussion be centralised? There are posts all over the shop at the mo! Ranger Steve (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant, we misunderstood each other. As it is, and the term "Pacific war" is generally understood, this article is a parent article to all the Asian theatres. Anyway, we get back to the point that it can't be considered to start in 1937, quite simply because the widely-accepted start date is 1941. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

•The Oxford Companion falters on the language issue, as noted, IMO. And as I understand it, the 1937 date isn't the PacWar start date, but the WW2 start date, of which PW is a theatre, at issue. Since the 1937 date (I'll leave off if it should be 1931 for those better qualified) demands input from sources in Chinese & Japanese, any "consensus" in Eng-lang-only sources has inherent POV bias which must be taken account of, IMO. Put it another way: would we consider more/less ignoring the SU contribution in Europe? If anything, the scale of ROC contribution is greater. (Effectiveness is another issue, as noted below.)

•Agree with Paul, it's a theatre, also commonly known as Pacific Theatre of Operations...which has its own specific sub-meaning. (Naturally; why should it be simple?) So, yes, it's a subdivision of the Asian as well as the global war.

•I'm afraid cites of including other theatres isn't persuasive; most of the CBI coverage in works on PTO is because it wouldn't get covered at all, otherwise, & no small part of it is because there's damn little translated from Japanese & less from Chinese (qv Oxford Companion...). Here, I'm far less persuaded using "PacWar" as an umbrella topic is sensible, let alone necessary; topics can get all the attention they need quite on their own. (I can only hope for & encourage bilingual editors!) There's also an issue there of including all Japanese action; without context, fighting in Burma or China can seem fruitless. Here, every link offers context at a whim, something impossible on paper.

•Sorry, J-J, your "chain of command" position is faulty: it's an alliance, so "command" doesn't come into it. ROC got lower priority, 'cause the objective was defeating Japan, & doing it on the continent was not the ideal way. If you doubt that, consider: in Jan '45, China had been fighting more than seven years; USN subs had brought Japan (no thanks to mention BuOrd) to the brink of defeat in about 2. Also, there was probably doubt about Chiang's motivation to fight Japanese, with good reason; he held back (IIRC) about half what the Allies sent him, intending to use it to fight Communists & warlords after Japan was defeated. (Don't ask for a source...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I've just been trying to find a logic, and didn't originally bring the "chain of command" argument. Anyway, I don't think it's faulty : Douglas MacArthur was the commander of the Southwest Pacific Command, and Louis Mountbatten was commander of the South East Asia Command, with Joseph Stilwell being his deputy. While the CBI Theater was, or so I read, never really unified, this is an argument in favor of not putting China in the first place. The Chinese theater was of course important, at least to keep the Japanese busy, but it was not decisive. I never put that in doubt (maybe you misunderstood me ?) Anyway, I think we can agree on the fact that there was no such thing as a "Pacific" war prior to 1941. I think that if we keep the "Pacific War" title (and I think we will, if only because of its notoriety) we should also specify in the intro that it is used as a broad term encompassing all Asian action (and generating some confusion, IMHO) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Could be we're talking past each other. I was thinking of nations, not national forces nor individual commanders of same; taking forces & commanders as the measure, it's still not simple...'cause there were U.S. forces "deputized" to Lord Louis, as there were Oz troops to MacArthur, but only by agreement of their national gov't. No, I don't think you ever said either CBI was unified nor China decisive; I merely meant to draw the parallel to the SU situation, with large forces occupied who'd otherwise have been elsewhere. Size doesn't =impact, but ignoring or minimizing the contribution (even by default) isn't wise, either, IMO. (Not to say you meant to; as I've said, I think the Sub Force did the most, & gets the least credit... Put Lockwood at the top. ;p) As for "Pacific", it appears the broader context has impinged. You're perfectly right, it didn't start until 7/12; however, its start also implicated the European & Chinese wars, which factors cannot be ignored. The project talk has a suggestion for breaking out the origins into a separate page I like, which might simplify the whole issue... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then it seems that we agree on the 7/12/41 date, with Malaya + Pearl Harbour starting the Pacific war. Of course, the Chinese and European context must be mentioned in the intro, but using 1937 as a start date in the infobox is misleading. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'd like to add that Pearl Harbor was an operation aimed at slowing down and weakening the U.S. reaction to the Japanese operations in Southeast Asia. Thus, both with regard to the time and with regard to the context, the invasion of Malaya is the starting point of the Pacific War. (The situation with regard to Thailand should also be mentioned briefly in the introduction, or in a section that deals with the start of the Pacific War.)  Cs32en Talk to me  15:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Beware undue weight on the Thai op. It may've been the first to go off, but it ultimately made no difference; the attack at Pearl completely changed Japan's strategic situation. Beyond a passing mention (& mention it served to distract American commanders who therefore believed no other IJN major op was possible), it shouldn't be emphasized. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall we change the date then ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If I should state my opinion, I would say that there can only be two alternatives, either the whole war in Asia and the Pacific from 1937 to 45, or the war in the Pacific and Asia but exculding China from 1941-45 (in which case the US might get the first spot in the infobox - which otherwise would be China), the current solution don't make any sense to me. Anyway, one would have to recalculate the causualty figures if you change the date. Yonaka (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just changed the date before I saw your message. Indeed, the casualty figures might have to be recalculated. However, China should not be excluded. I tried to point out in the intro that "Pacific War" is a broad term encompassing all things east asian in WWII. I saw it repeatedly used as encompassing the Sino-Japanese War. As I said above, I think Asia-Pacific War would be a much better title, but while it is in use, it is less familiar to the public than Pacific War. We might try to discuss a title change, though. Definitely, however, the term Pacific War is generally used to refer to the Asian and Oceanian parts of World War II, and the war in China between 1937 and 1941 is not considered to be really part of World War II, but a concurrent, although related, war. After 1941, though, it is definitely a part of World War II. Actually, the case of the Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War is the opposite of the case of the Thirty Years' War and the Franco-Spanish War. The latter presents the case of a broad conflict, with a limited part of it continuing after the main conflict has ended. On the contrary, the Second Sino-Japanese War is a regional conflict which starts before a broader conflict (1937-1939), continues concurrently to it (1939-1941) and ultimately becomes part of it and ends with it (1941-1945). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

<--CBI as a subset of PW is a fact on WP. Once you accept that, you cannot minimize the ROC contribution, regardless of start date. Sheer numbers of manpower entitle ROC to #1, since my previous proposition to judge by impact (& put Lockwood first) is unlikely to gain currency. ;p (Not to mention it is damn hard to do, unless you want to start adding OR (no, not OR) factors. That being true, it makes scant difference U.S. &/or Brit firepower & technology surpassed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to TREKphiler's comment, I agree that the Malaya operation in itself was certainly less important than Pearl Harbor. I wouldn't say that it made no difference. The Malaya operation was openly directed against Britain (while the Thai operation was not a war operation in the narrow sense of the term). The main reason for attacking Pearl Harbor, as far as I know, was simply to render as much of the U.S. naval capacity inoperative for as long as possible, with the hope of occupying large parts of Asia while the US was busy rebuilding its capacity. The Thai operation and the Malaya operation were the starting point for the occupation of South-east Asia, while Japan never intended to occupy U.S. territory. Also, Japan was facing a still powerful British military in Malaya, and I am quite sure the Japanese did not intend to distract American commanders with the Malaya operation. Rather, both operations were executed almost simultaneously, so that both the US and Britain would have no advance warning. In my view, there should be more than a passing mention of the Malaya operation, but Pearl Harbor, of course, was the most significant single operation in the Pacific War (well, maybe second to Hiroshima and Nagasaki).  Cs32en Talk to me  17:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably, a solution may be to rename the article from Pacific war to Pacific theatre of World War II (by analogy with European Theatre of World War II. In that case, the infofox can be split onto SSJW and PW subparts. That would be logical, because the present infobox is misleading: judging by it, a reader may conclude that majority of losses had been sustained (and inflicted) by the US, that Manchukuo fought against Britain and the US, etc. In my opinion, SSJW and PW were too different conflicts to amalgamate them in the same infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I do not think the Chinese front should be included in an article called "Pacific War". If you consider the Allied command structure, you have two main distinct theaters 1) the Pacific Theater of Operations [[7]], and the CBI [[8]] (the South-East_Asian_theatre_of_World_War_II is just geographical sub section)[[9]]. If Indochina, Burma and India are frequently included in "Pacific War" by english speaking journalists and authors, it is not the case with the Chinese front. To add China to an article with a misleading name is no use. I would support the same solution as in the french version : change the title to Asia-Pacific War. Otherwise, the article should have a narrower scope.--Flying Tiger (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I do not think the Chinese front should be included in an article called "Pacific War"" Do you think it can be included in the article Pacific theatre of World War II? BTW, Currently, the SSJW article states it is a pert of Pacific War. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pacific theatre of World War II? redirects to Pacific War... So, the answer should be the same as this give a clear indication that Pacific theatre and Pacific War were here considered equivalent. Meanwhile, SSJW should not refer to itself as a part of the Pacific War, but a part of China Burma India Theater. --Flying Tiger (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:"Pacific theatre of World War II? redirects to Pacific War..." That is why I propose to remove this redirect and start a separate article named "Pacific theatre of World War II" with the words like:

"The Pacific Theatre of World War II was a huge area of heavy fighting across Asia-Pacific from Japanese Invasion of China on July 7, 1937 until the end of the war with the Japanese unconditional surrender on September 2, 1945 (V-J Day). The Allied forces fought the Axis powers in four sub-theatres: the Chinese, South-East Asian, Manchurian, and the Pacific Theaters.

note, I included Manchuria as a separate theatre because the SSJW article do not consider these events as a part of SSJW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is rather western centred. For Japan, China was the chief enemy. They attacked the Western colonial powers (US, Britain, Netherlands) in order to secure resources to continue their war in China. They hoped for a short war with the colonial powers, and a quick peace so that they could then continue to fight China. In that regard China was the aggressors main enemy, and should be at the top. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed.. The Pacific Theatre of World War II or Pacific War should in no way include the continental theaters... It is only one of the many theaters of the Asia-Pacific War or should I say the well named Greater East Asia War... Paul Siebert, I would support your proposal if this article was renamed to Asia-Pacific War instead of Pacific Theatre of World War II. --Flying Tiger (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pacific theatre of World War II shoudl redirect to Pacific Ocean theatre of World War II (an article that needs work, but that's another matter). As for the start date, I think that has already been argued before. The Pacific War refers to a part of World War II that came to include the Sino-Japanese War which was going on since 1937. One can not assume that a World War II theatre started in 1937 because it is widely accepted that World War II had not started yet. The current introduction makes it perfectly clear and mentions the Sino-Japanese War. China may have been, to start with, the main theatre from Japan's point of view but things evolved differently, as the US ultimately played a far more decisive role than China in defeating Japan, not to mention the fact that their political clout and command responsibilities exceeded China's. It is no insult to China to say that, and the current article still stresses its importance in the conflict. Please take note that one of the quotes I used to support the widely accepted perception of 1941 as a start date comes from a Taiwanese scholar : please explain me why this gentleman would want to "erase China out of History" as one diff claims. The 1937 date is just confusing. As said before, I prefer Asia-Pacific War to Pacific War myself, but that name is less well-known. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Indeed.. The Pacific Theatre of World War II or Pacific War should in no way include the continental theaters..." What should be the name, in your opinion, for the theatre of war that embraced East and South Asia and Pacific? Taking into account that these sub-theatres were deeply interconnected, some common name is definitely needed. I am personally in inclined to agree with the idea to call it Asia-Pacific War, or Asia-Pacific theatre of World War II. However, these names are less abundant in English literature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree with Jean-Jacques Georges. The two main theatres of WWII were (a) European/Atlantic (b) Asian/Pacific. To call the Asian/Pacific part "Pacific" is probably due to the political clout that the U.S. had at the time and still has, and "Asia-Pacific" would be more close to the geographic facts, with regard to the actual fighting. With regard to economic effort, a lot of the war effort took place on the U.S. mainland, and there was fighting in the Pacific, too, of course. So "Pacific war" is not a misnomer either. Anyway, "Pacific war" is the widely accepted name for the theater. The subdivision into an Asian theater and a Pacific Ocean theater may also be useful, though I am not an expert in the semantics of this question. (I'm not sure whether a Taiwanese scholar would necessarily tend to inflate rather than to diminish the Chinese contribution to the Pacific War, that probably depends very much on the polical background of the specific Taiwanese author.)  Cs32en Talk to me  14:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Take note that I also found Japanese and Hong Kong sources which also use the 1941 date. I really think we should leave it at that. I included links to the various theatres in the intro to stress the notion that it was subdivised into various parts of World War II. As for the title, Asia-Pacific theatre of World War II seems too heavy (and confusing since it also includes several other theatres). I'd say Asia-Pacific War is best, especially since it already exists. Problem is, as stated many times above, Pacific War is largely more famous and more in use as a name. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the choice, I'd spilt into Europe, Asia (CBI), & Pacific (with SWP). I wouldn't put SSJW under CBI except as a link out in the events leading to WW2; rather, I'd move CBI under SSJW in the "main article" subhead fashion. (Doing the reverse suggests CBI was the main event, i.e. only important after Britain came in, & it obviously wasn't.) I also think there's some mistaken narrowness of view over whether "Pacific War" ="Pacific Ocean Area", & it clearly doesn't; the trouble is, does the average visitor here know there is a difference? Even an uncommon name like Asia-Pac War, as Paul suggests, is better than a confusing one, but I'm not sure we aren't trying to keep a broken name when we might be better to just "call in an airstrike & start over" with redirects & subhead links to other pages: that is, leave POA under PW & split out SSJW/CBI on another page entire, & link to/from as needed. For that, I completely agree with Michael Johnson; everything Japan did was targetted at defeating China to keep the perceived gains achieved there; taking the Asian view, the U.S. & Britain were latecomers & a sideshow. And SU was a continuing threat (tho IJA dreamed of attacking SU as late as August 1945... 80 ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with the inclusion of China as the first allied combatant. Even taking the Asian view, the US & UK were certainly not sideshows, even though they might have been regarded as such in the very first stages. US effort was more crucial in defeating Japan than China's, and the US were above China as far as political clout and chain of command were concerned. China was certainly crucial in keeping the Japanese busy, but it certainly was essentially a follower when it comes to the actual military results that led to Japanese defeat. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're far apart, really, because I agree the U.S. impact was far & away more important. The trouble is measuring impact, & by default reducing the importance of ROC. If you want to put the country with the biggest impact on the outcome first, why isn't the SU? Before the Sov declaration of war, Japan was happily considering fighting on; after... No, I wouldn't change it, either, but that's where you end up. Does that strike you as a good outcome? Not me. And, as noted, in Japan, the U.S. was a far less significant opponent than China, no matter how well the U.S. did; it was all about keeping Chinese territory, right to the very end.

In re Cs32en & Malaya, you're right. I didn't mean to suggest it was designed as a deception, but it served as one. To be clear, the initial SEA convoy (bound for Kra Isthmus, IIRC) was detected by U.S. intel, & because the U.S. believed Japan was incapable of mounting more than one major op at a time, felt there could be no threat to Pearl or the P.I. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The US and Britain would have been sideshows if the US had not mobilized its full economic resources for the war, something that Japan most likely did not anticipate. While I agree that in the view of two main participants, i.e. Japan and China, the allied countries were a sideshow in the beginning, this was not the way it turned out to be. On the other hand, the Japanese economic capacity was limited due to the ongoing difficulties in securing the occupied territories in Asia, raising the overall production cost for the supplies of the Japan's military. While "Asia-Pacific" War is, in my view, the correct term when looking at where the war was fought and where people died, in economic terms, "Pacific War" is equally valid. I'd therefore recommend to keep the title "Pacific War" and to mention in the lead section that the war is sometimes/also/as well (depending on a survey of sources) called the "Asia-Pacific War". As for "Pacific Ocean theatre of World War II", we would need to look at the sources. It seems to be a plausible term, but we should be careful not to make aggregations that are not based on appropriate sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The major role of China was in tying down and wearing down Japanese land forces that made Japanese invasion of the USSR impossible. Without China, Japan was able to invade the USSR that could have a dramatic consequences for the Eastern front's fate. Hitler's victory over the USSR would automatically lead to the Axis victory independent on the developments of the events in Pacific (I can remind you the famous Churchill statement:""Russian declaration of war on Japan would be greatly to our advantage, provided, but only provided, that Russians are confident that will not impair their Western Front"."). By contrast, American war efforts in Pacific ocean in 1941-44 had only minor effect on the course of the war in other parts of the world. In addition, Japan devoid of her most precious continental possessions in East Asia was very vulnerable even if its dominance of Pacific were unchallenged. By contrast, seizure of remote islands in Pacific, and even complete loss of her battleships and carriers does not automatically mean Japanese defeat.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict; sorry 'bout that, Chief) I say "sideshow" from the Asia POV. For Japan, the Pacifc War was intended to "settle the China question" & gain the resources to become autonomous (technically, gain autarky). And even in August 1945, Japan was seriously considering attacking the SU... (I don't believe it, either, but it's true.)

Paul's absolutely right on the importance of the PW to WW2 at large (tho I don't think that was anybody's point...?). My emphasis on China was as much from Japan's POV (not to mention China's...) as anything. Could you minimize the importance of the SU in ETO & justify it, when the Red Army was tying down, what, 60% (was it as high as 75%?) of the Heer's troops? ROC was doing that in Asia. I think, Paul, you overstate the influence on SU, tho; IJA had their heads handed to them at Khalkin Gol, & IJA was simply not competent to cope with T-34s or motorized warfare generally, & I suspect Zhukov knew it. Would Stalin have feared Japan stirring up trouble in Siberia? Certainly. Would Japan have done any differently there than in Burma or Malaya? No, so any rising by Siberians was only in Stalin's mind, & he would soon have realized it. Beyond his unfounded fears, Japan was not a genuine threat.

I should also add, the low impact was as much a function of the lack of any real collaboration between Japan & Germany as anything; the "alliance" was in name only.

Japan's economic capability was as much limited by incompetent convoy defense as by inability to secure territory; she couldn't ship the materiel she gained safely. Neither could she adequately exploit what territory she conquered, for lack of machinery (building bases with manual labor) or technical ability (I think; unable to restore DEI oil rigs to full service for an extended period, frex). This is compounded by a deficient engineering base & inadequate shipping to begin with, and compounded again by inadequate replacement of losses, which she didn't have the industrial capacity for even before widening the conflict to take on the most powerful industrial economy in the world (even then, the U.S. alone outproduced all the Axis powers, or very shortly would).

Also, when I say "passing mention" in re Malaya, I mean it only in the lead; suitable coverage further down is definitely merited. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:36 & 18:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)