Talk:Pacific War/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

MILHIST reassessment

I have reassessed this as a start as it fails for both referencing and coverage and accuracy. Indeed there are large numbers of paragraphs with no citation at all, as well as an expansion needed tag. ChoraPete (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

recent removal of sourced text by Yonaka

You are removing material that is sourced and documented, and your "Some people decided the war was to be split in two" rationale is unclear and weak. Please discuss your proposed changes here. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I have removed is a casualty total that I calculated myself (and as such probably should not be included anyway), I do not want sourced material to be abused and I believe that finding a total from 1941 to 1945 might be impossible. Whenever the war started in 1937 or '41 has been discussed quite a lot, though I have not changed my oppinion. If "the consensus" changed their oppinion about the date the war began, I would be quite happy to undo whatever removals I have done. Yonaka (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Place of USSR

Why USSR is on the last place, if he contributed much more than Netherlands? Manchurian offensive inflicted heavy losses for Japan (about 700 000 men). Did Netherlands, Australia and UK take out more Japanese soldiers? --El gato verde (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The USSR was neutral until Stalin had his sneak attack ready. Stalin only got involved so he had a say in the peace settlement. Why wouldn't Stalin be last?

Varlaam (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This argument sounds no more logically than the notion that atomic bomb always hits a epicenter. The Surrender of Japan talk page [1] contains a number of reliable sources testifying that Soviet invasion was the last and decisive argument that forced Japan to surrender (at least as decisive as atomic bombing were). --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree the Soviet Union should actually be higher because it was neutral during the middle of the war but you have to account the battles earily with Japan in Mongolia and China followed by the invasion of modern Korea later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Campaign flag order

That section marks the aggressor(s) with national flags.
There is clearly an intention to avoid squabbling about precedence, or size of contribution, by placing the flags in alphabetical order, with the US graciously being last most of the time.
However, there are exceptions. These, presumably, are unintentional errors requiring modification to conform to the standard?
Varlaam (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Map Illustration

Eltrace (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC) This is my first entry in a discussion, my apologies if I'm committing any offenses. It seems to me that this article needs a better map than the one posted at the beginning of the article with the caption "A map showing the main areas of the conflict and Allied landings in the Pacific, 1942–45." The map doesn't show important areas like the Aleutian Islands or Hawaii, it hides Midway under explanatory labels for Allied landings, and it inadequately conveys the distances involved in the Pacific theater or the activities of any forces other than those under General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Jr. I believe this is an excellent map for illustrating MacArthur's involvement in the Pacific theater of war, just not for leading off as the map for the Pacific theater. Unfortunately, I do not have a map to offer as a better alternative.

I'd agree on distances; the scale of the theatre is enormous. On Hawaii, Midway, & the Aleutians, their importance as battlegrounds are smaller than the others. (Was the destruction of 4 CVs at Midway trivial? No. Was it more important than Guad, the first counterattack...? And "Hawaii Campaign" is somebody's fantasy, IMO; 2 battles & some trivial bombing & shelling do not make a campaign.) Midway & Hawaii were far & away more significant as bases than as battles. The Aleutians were a sideshow, more important for the U.S. subs diverted there than for anything of military significance to happen there. As for any "errors" on your part, only one: putting your signature first, instead of last. ;p Welcome. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Viet Minh

Would the Viet Minh constitute as being a belligerent notable enough to be entered in the info box? In terms of successive Southeast Asian politics, the Viet Minh's participation in the conflct served as highly beneficial to Vietnamese nationalism, particularly when considering that the Japanese (even if only to avoid doing so before the firmly-rooted Allied bloc) surrendered to the Viet Minh, who assumedly could. at least until N. Vietnam's reoccupation by France, declare that they had liberated themselves. I know Mongolia played somewhat of a role in the Pacific Theatre, but would its involvement in the conflict be far too isolated for it to be included? Both of these are not as much opinions as they are projected thoughts; I just wanted to bring the two to the Talk page's attention as to see the consensus. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd say no. The numbers of VM engaged would be mightily small. Even French regulars in Vietnam numberd only 15000, plus 35000 colonials; I seriously doubt VM counted even 10% that. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Thanks for responding! VoodooIsland (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Declared war

When did Japan declare war against the US? And against the UK? 86.143.70.57 (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Territorial Changes

There were vast amounts of territorial change as result of the Pacific War so trying to include only some of it in the campaignbox is misleading and not really necessary. Because there was so much territorial change I think there should be an entire article about it and then you could simply replace the large paragraph that is there now with a link to the new page.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

International Date line and effect on dates

The Pacific War straddled the International Date Line which had a peculiar effect on dates: the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7 was the same day (in the sense of between one sunrise and one sunset) as the attacks on Malaya, the Philipines and Hong Kong dated although they are dated Dec 8. Likewise the Japanese surrender happened on August 15 in Tokyo, but the news broke in the USA on August 14.

Here is the timeline for the start of the Pacific war based on UTC:

16:45 UTC Dec 7 (local 00:45 Dec 8) Japanese fleet bombards defences at Kota Bahru.

17:35 UTC Dec 7 (local 01:35 Dec 8) Japanese land at Kota Bahru.

17:35 UTC Dec 7 (local 07:35 Dec 7) Japanese planes sight Oahu.

17:55 UTC Dec 7 (local 07:55 Dec 7) Bombing of Pearl Harbor.

20:00 UTC Dec 7 (local 04:00 Dec 8) 38th Division ordered across border to Hong Kong.

20:45 UTC Dec 7 (local 04:45 Dec 8) Japanese broadcast announces that forces are attacking.

22:00 UTC Dec 7 (local 06:00 Dec 8) Japanese ground forces reported inside Hong Kong border.

23:00 UTC Dec 7 (local 07:00 Dec 8) Bombing of Manila

00:00 UTC Dec 8 (local 08:00 Dec 8) Bombing of Kai Tak, Hong Kong.

96.54.32.44 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed badly

While the article is fairly comprehensive and well written (in most areas), it is drastically short of citations. There are whole sections, bot summaries of sub-pages, and standalone sections that have no citations, or only 1 or two to serve many paragraphs. Many of these citations only seem to back up a single sentence or quote.

There is a lot of material here, but this has to be one of the most written about military events in history, I can't believe no one has any source material to add. Please, help improve this great article with some sources. Especially for those elements that are not just date/place regurigtations (i.e. in one line, ability to build a naval base in a short time frame is stated to be indicative of superior Allied logistical abilities....according to whom? I don't doubt it, but that's an opinion and should be backed up by a reference). Thanks! Jbower47 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's a great shame that most editing of this article in recent months has been focused on its infobox. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This really needs weeding if we don't have citations. I don't know enough of the history to find citations myself, though I know we have alto of active WWII historians, amateur or otherwise here. Please help upgrade this article. I'd hate to cut things that are interesting tidbits, but it can't be a good article if we keep loads of uncited material. At some point, the cutting needs to begin. Please, WWII buffs, help us avoid that! Jbower47 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See Survivors Page London Gazette 1948. Unfortunately, it does not cite London Gazette dates, so I have no idea how to find the pages depicted in the Wikipedia:London Gazette Index. I made a mistake by changing the lede to say hostilities began in Thailand, based on a Churchill broadcast. See the above timeline, and

Duncan Stearn (28 March – 3 April 2003). "The Japanese invasion of Thailand, 8 December 1941 (part one)". A Slice of Thai History. Pattaya Mail. Retrieved April 22, 2011. According to a report published in the London Gazette in 1948, possibly the first offensive action of the war in the Pacific took place on 7 December when the Japanese invasion fleet, led by Admiral Kondo, shot down a British Catalina flying-boat which was attempting a reconnaissance in the Gulf of Thailand. Without any doubt, the first major offensive action was a landing by Japanese troops at Kota Bharu on the north-east coast of British Malaya at 12:25 a.m. (local time) while the second act was the invasion of southern Thailand at 1:05 a.m. on Monday 8 December....{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

--Pawyilee (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Found this with LG search Keyword; Catalina 1948

• ...[A] Catalina Flying-boat was despatched to shadow the convoy during the night. The Air Officer Commanding also ordered a reconnaissance by Hudsons starting early on the 7th December, fanning out from Kota Bharu on to the last known bearings of the convoy. No signal was received from the Catalina, and, from information received later, it is almost certain it was shot down. A second Catalina failed to make contact....

Gazette Issue 38183 published on the 20 January 1948. Page 21 of 42

SEE ALSO Japanese battleship Kongō 1942: Early war service. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Significance of Doolittle raid

While it's often asserted that the Doolittle Raid prompted the Midway operation, the claim may be overstated. I can't remember for sure if it was Lundstrom or Prange who pointed this out -- probably Lundstrom in Black Shoe Admiral -- but the Midway operational plan had in fact been approved and presented to the Emperor two days before the Doolittle Raid. No doubt the raid helped remove lingering doubts, but by the time an operational plan had been presented to the Emperor, there was little chance it would be canceled; the loss of face would be too great. So probably the most that can really be said is that the Dolittle Raid helped remove lingering opposition to the Midway plan. Yaush (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

commander

To Trekphiler: My opinion is Sun Liren is just a major general but in that article he is the major commander and leader. Xue Yue and Peng dehuai which I added are the captain general and joined many battle so I think they are more important than Sun. Xue and Peng are response for some amy group. If the major commander must be in Burma theater, I think the captain general Wei Lihuang is more important. Wei is response for whole theater and Sun is just the commander of one division. By 210.53.1.98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.53.1.98 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_13#File:Los_Angeles_Times_front_page_6_August_1945.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I OBJECTED to deletion on its talk page -- it's a historical document. --Pawyilee (talk)

India

On mouseover, the flag for Azad... (Free India) in the list of axis belligerents gives text "India". That seem inappropriate to me. --P64 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias in the lead

Who says "East Asia, then called the Far East" It depends where you are as to whether it is still called the far east the Orient or some other name. The British called it the Far East during World War II and they still use the term. See for example the British Foreign Office web site Tropical cyclones "June – November in the Northern Hemisphere Tropics (Caribbean, Atlantic, South East Asia, Pacific, Far East)"

Likewise the British did not fight in the Pacific war they fought in the Near East/Middle East and the Far East hence the name British Far East Command that was replaced by the short lived American-British-Dutch-Australian Command and later the South East Asia Command.

For convince it is useful to group the Asian and Pacific theatres into one article but the the following words in the lead:

The term Pacific War is used to encompass the Pacific Ocean theatre, the South West Pacific theatre, the South-East Asian theatre and the Second Sino-Japanese War, also including the 1945 Soviet-Japanese conflict.

are misleading or show an American bias -- I am not sure which.

It would be better to say that this article covers more than just the two Pacific theatres and also includes theatres which were on the Asian mainland rather than saying the Pacific war includes regions hundreds of miles from the Pacific Ocean. -- PBS (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:I400 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:I400 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Iwo Jima?

It's like the most important battle in Pacific Ocean. It didn't even get mention in the article despite the fact its name is mentioned. I suggest someone should add few sentences or a section into this article about battle of Iwo Jima. I can't do it myself due to limited English skills.Trongphu (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point--I added a section based in part on my 17 June 2008 article in Citizendium. Rjensen (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Canada

I would like to make a bid to include Canada under the Major Allied Combatants listed under belligerents. Canada made a large contribution to the Aleutians Campaign that not only included the troops that landed at Kiska, but significant numbers of RCAF and RCN units as well. Besides the Aleutians, Canadian units were present at Hong Kong, Ceylon, Burma and Okinawa. RCAF units were also part of the anti-submarine campaign along the Pacific Coast of N. America, and Army and Navy units were present in large numbers as part of North American defences. Individual Canadians were attached to and fought with British units, the most famous being Lt. RH Gray VC, who was a member of the RCNVR. Canada is also listed as a member of the Far Eastern Council in the work used in the first and second citations. McMuff (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

in my reading of the RS none make special note of the Canadian role. Canadian historians likewise focus their attention on the Atlantic and Europe. Kiska was not a battle at all--the Japanese had all left and there was no fighting. In all, Canada was NOT a "major" player in the Pacific theatre. Rjensen (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's true, there was a Canadian presence, but, much as I hate to admit it, "major" isn't the word I'd use. Japanese attacks on convoys were nil AFAIK, attacks on trade at all trivial, so A/S isn't of huge importance; the Aleutians were a walkover; Hong Kong was, what, one regiment?; & the number of troops in CBI was comparatively small AFAIK. Do we include Italy & Germany too? Or Cuba in the Atlantic? No. None of them rise to the level of "major". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Canadian contribution was pretty limited. One small brigade at Hong Kong, limited involvement in the Aleutians Campaign, a limited domestic ASW effort, the dispatch of smallish numbers of personnel to Burma and Australia and contributing a single cruiser to the British Pacific Fleet is actually significantly less than New Zealand's efforts, and NZ was a smaller country which also concentrated its main efforts in Europe. Canada was poised to make a large contribution to the invasion of Japan at the end of the war, but fortunately this didn't take place. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How large a combatant role does a country have to have before it becomes a 'major' combatant in this context? And does it just have to be ground troops? McMuff (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It becomes "major" when reliable sources say so. In this case, they say that Canada's participation in the Pacific war was insignificant. See, for instance, C. P. Stacey's Arms, Men and Governments: The War Policies of Canada, 1939-1945 (1970), the official Canadian governmental history of the war. Ylee (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Canada was not a major contributor to the Allied war efforts in the Pacific war, but based on the same standard I want to question the inclusion of British Malaya. Was its contribution greater than Canada's significantly? 2 British Malay regiments and a few auxiliary units at the beginning of the pacific war don't sound like sth "major". British Burma had a whole division of indigenous troops, and there were British African divisions as well, yet they were still excluded from the infobox.Whohasbrightness (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Midway or Guadalcanal the turning point?

Rather than get into a revert war, I thought we should try to reach a consensus on this first. Willmott regards Midway as restoring the balance of power and Guadalcanal as marking the turning point; it's not just Leckie. I think the case is actually pretty strong. --Yaush (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen both claims made in various works, though Midway seems to be more commonly identified (as from that point onwards Japan was essentially on the defensive; its advances in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in the months after the battle aimed to shore up the defences of Rabaul). The concept of a 'turning point' in the Pacific War is somewhat artificial though: there's a general consensus that Japan never had a chance of winning, and the term is much abused - as an extreme example, I've seen a book on the Battle of Iwo Jima which claimed that it was the turning point of the war! Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for easing off on the notion of there being a decisive turning point for the reasons Nick-D states. There never was a chance for Japan after the U.S. got mad and vowed revenge. The 10:1 ratio of industrial might was too large; Japan could not sustain a war of attrition.

Perhaps we should give the notion a fair hearing, representing in proper weight all mainstream theories. Perhaps we can remove from the Midway section the absolute wording that is found there, then take the arguments to a new "Turning point" section near the end, analyzing the various viewpoints, but the whole thing tempered with the fact that Japan was never going to beat the U.S. directly. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bink on this, removing the absolute wording from the Midway section and adding a new "Turning Point" section would be a great approach.173.35.109.203 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

the problem is that "turning point" has two very different meanings. a) the point where the situation favored X to win before, and Y to win after. (perhaps Stalingrad; Battle of Britain fit this). this case does not apply to Pacific--there never was a time when Japan was likely to win. b) the point where X stopped advancing and began falling back. This applies to the Pacific War--and Midway seems to be a better time because it happened well before Guadalcanal was decided. Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

♠Let's be honest, Bink. It was never about "vowing revenge". Japan committed grand strategic suicide on 7 Dec by attacking the U.S. Had the attack not been perceived as a "sneak", it would still have been grand strategic lunacy. Nothing far short of an alliance with the Romulans was going to save Japan.

♠There's another view of "turning point": the one where the U.S. begins attacking, instead of only defending. In that, Shoestring qualifies.

♠I tend to prefer Midway, like many others, because it's clear, unequivocal, &, yes, dramatic. Winning on Guadalcanal was no less important, but it doesn't capture the imagination the same way. Midway, like Stalingrad or 2d Alamein, was a clear signpost, even if arguably not as important as often made out.

♠That being true, what about saying not "decisive" but "clear & unequivocal evidence"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:12 & 10:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Midway seems that it is the Turning point of the Pacific war. Recently i was talking to a local war historian who said in these words "It wasn't the Ground forces that 'won' the Pacific war. It was the American Navel Fleet in Midway. Gaudalcanal was to stop the Japanese invading Australia, so when Gaudalcanal was taken the Japanese did not retreat" --203.171.196.232 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Midway vs. Guadalcanal is not a Sea Forces vs. Ground Forces argument. For one thing, the Guadalcanal campaign was an all-arms affair, and the related naval battles were hugely important. Do not think that an argument for Guadalcanal being the turning point is in any way an attempt to imply a lesser role for the Sea Forces in winning the Pacific War.173.35.109.203 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A turning point in a war must, by definition, be a strategic inflection to events, not merely a decisive tactical victory. The victory at Midway allowed the Americans to regain parity in carrier power in the Pacific, but it did not change the overall strategic picture: before Midway, Japan was on the offensive and the US was on the defensive, and after Midway Japan remained on the offensive and the US remained on the defensive. While Midway was certainly significant, and provided a significant check to the Japanese (as did Coral Sea - not in a tactical sense, but in a strategic sense), it was only after the Guadalcanal campaign that the Japanese switched to the defensive and the Americans switched to the offense. Having said all this, clearly in popular imagination Midway is typically viewed as the turning point of the war, and I don't think it is necessary to make a radical change in tone to the article: but the idea that Guadalcanal may really have been the turning point should at least be included, and any statements that Midway was the turning point should be caveated. IMHO. 173.35.109.203 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

♠It's not really about who won the war, either. If it was, credit would go to the Sub Force, without whom IJA would still have been able to supply its garrisons, IJN mobility would not have been crippled, & Japanese industry would not have collapsed.

♠I do agree, either option should be with a "health warning". In light of the disagreement, it might be better not to say "turned tide" but "high tide". Anybody disagree Midway was Japan's high point? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"High point" is probably accurate. Willmott's argument is that the American victory at Midway, by restoring carrier parity in the Pacific, created a situation where the initiative in the war was up for grabs. King, by advocating a limited Solomons offensive, saw to it that the U.S. seized the initiative. Guadalcanal was a close-run thing; had the Japanese forced the Americans to withdraw or surrender, the strategic initiative would have been back in their hands. This is basically Willmott's and Leckie's case for Guadalcanal being the turning point.

But, I agree, if "turning point" means the battle or campaign that determines who is going to win the war, then Pearl Harbor was arguably the turning point.

Perhaps it would be best to go with one thing that can be agreed on -- Midway stopped the Japanese Second Operation Phase cold. It ended Japanese expansion to the east (though there continued to be small gains in New Guinea, Southeast Asia, and China for a time.)--Yaush (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Reflecting on it a moment longer: We're not really here to do original research or synthesis on whether Midway was actually the turning point of the war. We're here to figure out what views have significant followings among reputable historians, and find the best way of presenting these. That argues for having the article say that many historians have characterized the battle as the turning point of the war, but there is an alternative view held by some respected historians that makes a more modest claim for the battle: It restored carrier parity in the Pacific and made it possible for Guadalcanal (and the Solmons campaign generally) to become the graveyard of Japanese naval aviation. --Yaush (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think many of you guys are missing the point here. The biggest impact of Midway as some of you point out, was restoring the carrier parity. No longer did Japan have the advantage in carrier strength. However, restoring the carrier balance did not necessarily mean that the war was turned against Japan because carriers are only a portion, although a important, of Japan's ability to wage war in the Pacific. Due to that carrier parity, Japan could not launch long range attacks across the Pacific relying exclusively on carrier support for invasions. While that helped stunt Japanese expansion, that alone did not mean the tide was turn. As shown in the battle of Guadalcanal, Japan could transport large formations of infantry to exposed islands to launch attacks against Allied positions without carrier superiority. Even though they ultimately were unsuccessful, the Guadalcanal campaign was largely characterized by Japanese attacks as they were still effectively on the offensive. At this point, the Allies still lacked the ability to go on the offensive except against the all but most unprepared defenders (the initial attack on Guadalcanal being an example) so to say that Midway turned the tide of the war is false. Instead, it is more accurate to say that Midway forced Japan from a reliance carrier based modes of attack to alternative modes of attack. So while Midway was decisive, it was not the turning point. On the other hand, Guadalcanal was the last campaign where Allied troops were on the operational defensive in the Pacific; after that the initiative was entirely in the Allied hands. So Guadalcanal was the turning point. But Guadalcanal was not a decisive victory. Sure the Allies won, but in terms of naval and aircraft losses it was about equal. But the Allies could much more easily replace those losses. So the irony is that while Guadalcanal was the turning point of the Pacific, it was not decisive while Midway was decisive but not the turning point.--Sangeli (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.20.201.188 (talk)

War box: Territorial changes

The war box currently contains the sentence under Territorial changes:

Removal of all Japanese troops from the Australian-governed Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, the Admiralty Islands, and the Bismarck Archipelago.

Unless the Japanese forces held for example the "Australian-governed Solomon Islands" before the start of the war then its capture and recapture during the war is not a territorial change to be included in the box.

Also "Liberation of Korea and Manchuria from Japanese rule" contains a POV problem. While the Japanese conquest of Manchuria was not widely recognised. The colonisation of Korea was (when Syngman Rhee visited the League of Nations in 1932 he was ignored). To talk about the Liberation of Korea contains similar POV connotations as saying the "liberation of Burma" by the Japanese or the "liberation of South Vietnam" by North Vietnam. A less POV term would be "the end of Japanese occupation of Korea and Manchuria". Or split it into two "the end of Japanese colonisation of Korea and the end of the occupation of Manchuria".

-- PBS (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture

How come the Pacific War doesn't have a picture in the infobox? I suggest a colab be made showing the most important events (example:Pearl Harbor, Midway, Singapore, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Iwo Jima, Surrender of Japan). I'm willing to make the colab but I wanted to see what everyone else would think? (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC))

Start Class?

Seems like a thorough, well sourced article to me. (KingHiggins (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

Midway = turning point

In my view, if there WAS a turning point in the war on Japan, Midway has to be it. While the Japanese had been stopped at Coral Sea, they still had the initiative; they could still choose where and when to attack, and the allies had to react. But not after Midway! It was, after all, THEY that launched the Midway/Aleutians operation, and THEY that were then rocked back on their heels, and THEY that fled afterward. It was THEY that had lost 2/3 of their big, fast carriers (and the carrier was to the War in the Pacific what the ballistic missile was to the Cold War. Somewhere above someone argues that the remainder of the Japanese fleet was still a formidable force, but that is nonsense; all that force could do would be to sail out and get sunk by a carrier-equipped US NAvy)). Far from being "merely" a tactical victory, it changed the whole complexion of the war.

Now, while they DID attempt some more offensive action (notably by trying to take Port Moresby, again, this time over land via the Kokoda Trail in the 2nd half of 1942), this was all relatively minor, designed to strengthen their DEFENSIVE positions not to conquer, and was ultimately almost all unsuccessful. They never again tried the kind of massive, seaborne, combined arms operation that had swept them across most of the Pacific in a just a few months. Then just 2 months after Midway the US landed on Guadalcanal, and clearly the initiative was ours, and Japan was in defensive mode. Thus the Guadalcanal campaign can't be considered the actual turning point either - by then the US was clearly on the attack.

I don't think the argument that there is no turning point because Japan could never have ultimately 'won' the Pacific war works out either. Japanese planners DID know that they could not win a long war MILITARILY but that was not their plan. Strategically their plans went something like:

1. Start the war from as superior a position as possible (hence Pearl Harbor) 2. Race across the Pacific, seizing resources and territory BEFORE the US could gear up for war. 3. Attain as defensible a position as possible (Hence the Kokoda Trail offensive and takeover of the Solomons) and DIG IN. 4. Let the US grind itself down against near impregnable fortresses. 5.Win a favorable peace settlement when the US tires itself out throwing itself against their defenses.

But they failed at (1) when they didn't sink the US carriers at Pearl Harbor, and only 6 months later Midway signalled the early end of (2). By the failure to take Port Moresby, they also failed at part of (3). They had some hope to succeed at (5); when the bloody costs of both Tarawa and Buna-Gona became known, US public opinion was shaken. Even as late as 1945, many americans found the though of the casualties invading Japan would cost to be appalling.

So, MY conclusion is that Midway WAS *the* turning point in the Pacific. I realize this whole idea of a turning point is rather subjective, but I really think if there was one in the South Pacific, it has to be Midway.

Ferrocephalus (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrocephalus (talk • contribs)

While I disagree Japan had any hope of achieving (5) (after attacking Pearl Harbor without warning, & because they had no hope in hell of enforcing (4), since they never controlled their own sea lines of communication, given IJN ASW was a joke), this page really isn't a place for debate on it... (I'm happy to discuss it on my talk, if you want, tho.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation wrong

	I praise the Army for cutting down like weeds large numbers of the enemy... 	”
 	

— Hirohito[39]

Taken from H. Bix, 'The Showa Emperor's "Monologue" and the Problem of War Responsibility'. This citation is from 1932 and regards the Kwantung Army's actions during the Manchuria incident, not the offensives of 1941-1945 where this quote is placed. It is misleading and frankly, the paraphrasing is done with much liberties. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/132824?uid=3738736&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102420364481 94.211.59.112 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

British India

Though India at that time was part of the British Empire however it wasn't part of the United Kingom like England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland(Northern Ireland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilmn2002 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Indian forces were under British command. Australia, Canada, New Zealand had control over foreign policy etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.84.141 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I will go to Korea

Attributing the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, may be oversimplifying, but there's a good case to be made the circumstances at the end of the Pacific War were contributory causes for each. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

oh everything gets related distantly to previous events but the Cold War was not expected in 1941-45. Rjensen (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No, but the occupation of Korea, & the division, were agreed as terms; Vietnamese resistance was sparked & supported; & the Sov materiel left behind was a factor in Mao's victory. So it's not quite as simple as "yes" or "no". I'm not absolutely persuaded these should be added, but IMO it merits a look. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is not the place. Of course WWII in general and the Pacific part of it specifically were huge factors in what happened afterward. But as a direct connection, the one making the other a certainty? That's overstatement. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Guadalcanal and air power projection

"Because control of the airfield would allow the Allies to project strong air power, including long-range bombers, toward the home islands, the Japanese were compelled to contest the landing." This is an accurate description of the Marianas campaign. It is not an accurate description of the Guadalcanal campaign, which took place far from the Japanese home islands and was directed at Rabaul, not the inner Empire. --Yaush (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If it was Saipan, I'd agree with this; not in SWPA. (Moreover, it's "Home Islands"...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source

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

Should Thailand be considered a belligerent?

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

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

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

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

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

in my opinion, Thailand was not a "client" state. Its political and economic system was largely independent of Japan. It cooperated of course because otherwise it would be totally crushed and ruined. Canada and Mexico, for example, were not considered client states of the much larger and more powerful United States during World War II. Rjensen (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely say that the relationship between Mexico and the U.S. differed greatly from the relationship between Japan and Thailand, since the Japanese were given full access to Thai military equipment and other resources, which the U.S. government agrees was forced cooperation. However, I respect your opinion. Unless I find a source that explicitly states otherwise, I'll leave the page as is. Thanks again for your contributions to this discussion BUjjsp (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaders in the infobox

I've just WP:BOLDly re-worked the leaders section of the infobox to include only the main national leaders [2]. The previous version of the infobox was a mix of national political leaders, very senior military officers and a very random collection of army, fleet and corps-level commanders, so I think that this is an improvement. There may be scope for adding some additional names, but I'd suggest that this be done in accordance with some kind of consistent inclusion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, this is one of those "damed if you do, damed if you don't" situations where there is no right answer. Some people, such as yourself will only wish to include the national leaders, while others would want to include the main theater commanders, and some others might want to include the major battle commanders. Not sure how long your edit will last, but I'm neutral in this regard. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any guideline that helps in these situations and the final determination is usually left up to local consensus.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

My position isn't that strong: I just think that the leaders in the infobox should be determined by some kind of criteria so that we don't have a random list of names. What I've done here is cleared out the leaders whose inclusion is debatable. Nick-D (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pacific War

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

Reference named "Hayashi":

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

Reference named "Battlefield Series":

• From Soviet–Japanese War (1945): "Battlefield - Manchuria - The Forgotten Victory", Battlefield (documentary series), 2001, 98 minutes.
• From Soviet invasion of Manchuria: "Battlefield Manchuria – The Forgotten Victory", Battlefield (documentary series), 2001, 98 minutes.

Reference named "Glantz":

• From Soviet–Japanese War (1945): LTC David M. Glantz, "August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria". Leavenworth Papers No. 7, Combat Studies Institute, February 1983, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
• From Soviet invasion of Manchuria: LTC David M. Glantz, "August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria". Leavenworth Papers No. 7, Combat Studies Institute, February 1983, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.

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

Listing of combatants, yet again

I have just made an edit where I listed all the combatants in the infobox, not just the major ones. This has been discussed numerous times in the history of this talk page. (To see what I am talking about, see here). After reading everything, I found that in one of those discussions, the conclusion was reached that it was okay to list all the combatants, since it wouldn't take up too much space anyway. So I went ahead and, since I think it better to just list them all, did that. If anyone has any objections to this, please discuss it here before making any changes to the infobox. Thanks, King Philip V of Spain (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A few minor notes on the edit: Territories of the British Empire that were originally listed in the reference to 'and others' like the Fiji Islands, the Straits Settlements, and Tonga, I did not list them; instead I replaced 'United Kingdom' with 'British Empire' to accomadate them, since although they contributed troops, they were not independent nations.

As you note, that has been discussed here previously. The consensus of such discussions has actually been to not include minor combatants (as was included as a note in the infobox), so I've just reverted you. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, one of the conclusions reached, namely this one, was that there was really no problem in listing them all. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That discussion is five years old, and I don't think it reached the conclusion you claimed at all. Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It did at the end, and besides, it would be cleaner and wouldn't take up that much space if we listed them all, right? King Philip V of Spain (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

the deep question is whether the article is for the benefit of the editors or the readers. If you write for beginners you keep in mind they get very confused very fast when you hit say 7 different countries (and for the hyperactive editors they will include several different Chinas and Indias). More than that and it's a blur and most don't learn much at all. Rjensen (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The underlying issue in all the previous discussions is that not many countries actually contributed substancial forces to this war, and so listing the minor combatants in the infobox along side the other countries grossly inflates their role in the conflict. For instance, Mexico contributed only a single fighter squadron and only one German submarine operated in the Pacific (the operations in the Indian Ocean were essentially an extension of the North African campaign). I note that Germany and Italy have slipped back into the infobox under a dubious claim that they provided note-worthy levels of support to Japan; they didn't (most histories which discuss this topic stress the near total absence of any meaningful support or coordination between the European Axis countries and Japan; all this consisted of was a handful of submarine voyages and some occasional intelligence sharing). Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Mexico & Germany deserve inclusion about as much as Cuba. Even Canada doesn't belong in the infobox. And there are times I think NZ is borderline, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If Mexico and Germany shouldn't be listed with the main combatants, then neither should Manchukuo, Wang Jingwei regime, Second Philippine Republic, Azad Hind, State of Burma, or Commonwealth of the Philippines. I have gone ahead and removed them. Besides, these are still listed in the and others part, after the main combatants. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with this action. Mexico and Germany simply aren't in the same class as the other combatants you list. --Yaush (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted this - the reason given for the removal of these countries is arbitrary, and ill-informed. The Commonwealth of the Philippines fielded a large army during the fighting in 1941-42, and Filipino guerrillas loyal to this government were active throughout the war, and eventually rose to substantial numbers. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I see your point for the Commonwealth of the Philippines, but what about for the others? Azad Hind, for example should definatively not be in the infobox according to the previous discussions, and neither should the Second Philippine Republic. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the silence, and seeing only an objection with a detailed explanation concerning the Commonwealth of the Philippines, I have removed the other countries before mentioned for the reasons before mentioned. Before reverting me, please explain, with detail, concerning each one you decide to return. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the previous discussions in detail, and it is clear that New Zealand should not be in the infobox; therefore I removed it. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Burnin' midnight oil?

User:Doncram's edit placing oil first raises a question: should the embargoes be listed in order of impact or of imposition? As it was, I took them to be in the order they were placed on Japan; now, they aren't. Is that a risk of confusion? Or am I somebody who knows too much, where the average reader won't see the problem? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It is my experience that if you think you know too much...you are fooling yourself. Juan Riley (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Might we not call this a debate one over a figure of speech? the histeron proteron? (am looking for some midnight oil..oops there's a beer) Juan Riley (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You might actually address the issue... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter that much whether a list is presented in the logically prioritized or chronological order? In literature it might. In an historical article? Does this address the issue? Juan Riley (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand I might just be an average reader who doesn't see the (your) problem. No matter. Juan Riley (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Does it matter that much" That is precisely the question, isn't it? You might have started with that. If it's less an issue for an average reader, it need not be changed. I am, however, far from convinced you represent the average. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

HI, thanks for the ping, Trekphiler. I am glad there's some attention here! The culprit who changed the order is mea. What matters is... there is no good link target for any of them! You editors seem to know stuff that isn't in Wikipedia. How is any reader supposed to learn that the iron ore and steel embargo was separate, and learn that there wasn't an explicit oil embargo (rather it was a financial asset freeze that had the effect of shutting down oil trade), and that there is lots of disagreement about whether Roosevelt and others got what they deserved and/or wanted, or not. I looked.

Economic sanctions against Japan before World War II (currently a redlink) could be the name for the needed article (draft here?). It is really an important topic and even seems like a hot topic (see hits in Google "Roosevelt oil embargo 1941" or similar searches).

What i did temporarily was link/redirect from Pacific War, Japanese declaration of war on the United States and the British Empire, and Shōwa period to an anchor I put into Second Sino-Japanese War. Specifically at Second Sino-Japanese War#Oil embargo (Sino-Japanese War). But that doesn't suffice at all; a separate article really is needed! This is terribly important, it is about what caused everything else.

However, I don't see where to start, and am not sure I am the person to start it. I browsed the internet articles a lot...and see various embargo steps and dates and so on... but I didn't find any on-line source that is comprehensive and reliable. --doncram 04:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

♠On the oil embargo, you're wrong. It was explicit & separate, after the steel ban & the asset freeze, which came first. (At least, as I've read it.) Yes, the asset freeze made it hard to buy product, but there was a later escalation, AIUI, which specifically prohibited oil imports. Now, FDR didn't mean for it to be so sweeping, but somebody at State "bumped it up"--& it bit them.

♠The rest is OT for the page, so answered elsewhere. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we shoot them?

The recent edit, putting the number of POWs at 70000, not counting those who died in captivity, is rather odd to me. If they died as POWs, how aren't they POWs for the purposes of counting? Yes, they need to be mentioned twice, but surely they belong under the POW figure. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Troop strengths

I have just separated in the info box the estimated numbers for "British" and "Indian". In addition I wonder why Aussie troop strengths (at the very least) are not included. Or are these included in Hastings rather glib journalistic aside as British? Juan Riley (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pacific War

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

Reference named "Michael Clodfelter 2000. p. 556":

• From Japanese occupation of Burma: Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500–2000. 2nd Ed. 2002 ISBN 0-7864-1204-6. p. 556
• From World War II casualties: Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500–2000. 2nd ed. 2002 ISBN 0-7864-1204-6. p. 556

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Geocities Source

On this and other pages, a Mr. Binksternet has been removing all uses of a page, http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/2687/siryo/siryo16.html, listing combined Japanese casualties as well as final strengths during the Second World War, citing the 'self-published' geocities URL. I understand the concern, but in this case it seems hardly necessary. In most, if not all cases, can the figures be found elsewhere (usually individually), and Japan's own Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery, located near the (in)famous Yasukuni Shrine, published a pamphlet (http://www.zephyr.dti.ne.jp/~kj8899/chidorigafuchi.jpg) using numbers that are virtually identical. The difference is that they are scattered around a Japanese-language map and not neatly arranged in table format. Given this supporting evidence it appears the geocities link checks out.

Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No. It does not concur with RS standards of WP. Indirection is not acceptable I believe. Insert the info with the RS sources you contend exists as underpinnings of the your geosites citation and then will all be fine. Juan Riley (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Juan Riley that the geocities self-published website cannot be used. Instead, the numbers must come from some reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This obviously isn't a reliable source, and should not be used. There are reliable sources on this topic, and they should be used instead. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I will go about replacing the geocities link. To do so will be a bit tedious, though.

Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: the Australian Government's own war memorial website, the "Australia-Japan Research Project" uses the exact same figures as the geocities link. To avoid any further arguments over source reliability, we can simply reference this site instead: (http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/AJRP2.nsf/530e35f7e2ae7707ca2571e3001a112d/e7daa03b9084ad56ca257209000a85f7?OpenDocument)

Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Good work Pittsburgher, as Columbo would say "one more thing". What is the time span of these 1964 figures, 1937-45 or Dec 1941 to 1945?-Woogie10w (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

'37 to '45 I would think. The original document describes the table as representing all losses including Koreans, Taiwanese, and civilian employees, over the course of the whole war, including 188,700 China casualties prior to December 1941. Other (less detailed) breakdowns I have seen give a similar figure for this period.

Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I wish we had a Japanese Wikipedian who could dig up the original 1964 source. According to the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare Japanese war dead totaled 3.1 million persons including 2.3 million soldiers and Army/Navy civilian employees, see Ishikida, Miki (2005). Toward Peace: War Responsibility, Postwar Compensation, and Peace Movements and Education in Japan. iUniverse, Inc. (July 13, 2005). p. 30. and the Yasukuni Shrine figure of 2.3 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

My hunch is the difference of 200,000 is due to conscripted civilians dead or missing on China mainland and Manchuria--Woogie10w (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The "disposition date" for each of the regional sets of figures is late August 1945, but the start date isn't listed. It's worth noting that a significant number of Japanese military personnel in the South West Pacific died in the months after the war as a result of the malnutrition and diseases they suffered prior to the surrender, so the total casualties will have been higher than the August 1945 levels. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would also venture that the discrepancy mainly comes from estimates of postwar deaths being factored into the total, in a similar manner to how many Holocaust victims and Prisoners of War succumbed to their condition even after their liberation and thus were counted in the overall death toll. I wish we had another, more recent breakdown with this level of detail on hand so as to compare and contrast the figures, but based on what I've seen the 1964 numbers are probably the best we've got at the moment.

Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the mass-destruction of Japanese military records in August 1945 and the destruction of many front line units during the war, there don't seem to be any comprehensive figures on Japanese military or civilian casualties. Estimates of the numbers killed in the air raids on the country in 1944-45 vary considerably, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

British Raj/Canada flag

In the side panel, the Canadian prime minister W.L Mackenzie King's name is beside the flag of the British Raj. When you click on the flag, it's a link to Canada. This seems to be an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.17.250 (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It's sick

This was removed:

"*Malaria was the most important health hazard encountered by U.S. troops in the South Pacific during World War II, where about 500,000 men were infected."

IMO, it warrants inclusion in the text, with casualties for IJA (which were debilitating to effectiveness). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It could certainly go somewhere in the article, but I removed it from the infobox as its too detailed. It's also rather one-eyed to only provide figures for the US: all the combatants suffered heavy casualties from Malaria. Lots of other diseases were also very significant. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it back where it came from, agreed, nor is the sole mention of malaria appropriate, but the impact of disease on both sides, but especially Japan (perhaps also ROC, I'm ignorant of that) warrants a mention, IMO; it's far less-well known to most. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Article is displayed erroneously in mobile app

The top section of article Pacific War is displayed erroneously in the Android Wikipedia app. After article title and subtitle the infobox tag is shown:
{{Infobox military conflict |conflict etc.
I bring this to your attention since I lack the necessary know-how to correct this. Emiel (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

War crimes nuclear attack

Using nuclear weappns against civilians is a war crime, should be added. Dominicanbluewater (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It is now, but it wasn't in 1945. I've added a link to the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article which covers the various issues around the attacks (some of which could be added here, very briefly, to improve the relevant section). Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't now, either. The Convention says "undefended civilians"... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For the time, it was not a war crime and like firebombing, was considered legitimate at the time and would have been used by either side if it were available to them, just as firebombing was used by both sided against civilian targets.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Mexico in WWII - Philippines action

It was wrong to remove Mexico from the listing as they declared war on the Axis in 1942 and were helpful air power in the liberation of the Philippine island of Luzon.[3] Please research before deleting, thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

First, do not follow my edits, Second, the edit I reverted says Mexican involvement began in 1934 which is obviously wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It was a mistake to put in 1934 instead of 1942 and that should be corrected, but your deletion was in error. Please research before editing, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A single air squadron is hardly worthy of being in the info box, and according to War Has Brought Peace to Mexico p185 that is all they sent, it is undue so I'm going to revert it. And do not follow me around looking for reasons to revert me, it will not go well for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The use of the Mexican navy in the Pacific and Golf of Mexico for patrols freed up the US Navy from much of that duty as well as the Mexican contributions to the USA war effort freeing up manpower for the war; Mexico's contribution was far more than a few aircraft and research into the field would tell you as much.[4] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be best to research a subject before you continue this edit war.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Pacific theatre in WWII, not who patrolled the gulf, like I said, it's undue and is going. I'm not arguing this with you, I made it quite clear I want nothing to do with you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Then leave my edit alone and read up on the subject starting with (Howard F. Cline, The United States and Mexico. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1961). Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: if you truly are trying to avoid me, then stay out of my backyard and the areas of history where I've been researching. Be it, Scottish history including the current independence push, or that of North America, just avoid them like you are do India/Pakistan. Stay in Africa, Europe, the UK (except Scotland) and the rest and you will never see me again. Thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to tell me were I can or can't edit? You followed me here for no reason other than to revert and harass me, I have given a policy based reason for my revert, that's the end of it. Do not ping me, or follow me to any other articles Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Darkness - I'm only telling you where my research and interests lay and if you wish to avoid me, then you truly can; but if you stay on subjects in Scotland or North America, then you will run into me again. Cheers! C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The Mexican participation was equal to that of the Dutch government in exile in London in regards to the Pacific theatre and should therefore be mentioned for their help, cooperation and military actions in Southeast Asia during the war. Mexico aligned with the USA soon after Pearl Harbor Attack and by May 22, 1942 declared war on the Axis Powers. It was with the help of Mexican naval patrols on the US Golf Coast and Pacific that helped free up naval shipping for the Pacific Theatre and it was with Mexican labor filling the factories of the USA, that more manpower was available for the island hopping. Thus if the Dutch government in exile is listed, so too should that of Mexico. Note: In November 22, 2004, the squadron was awarded the Philippine Legion of Honor, with a rank of Legionnaire, by then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Even though most countries of the Americas declared war on the side of the Allies, only Mexico and Brazil sent troops to fight along side of the USA and British Commonwealth; for this they should be recognised.[5]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

I know that there's a long history of edit warring over this article's infobox, but it might be helpful to discuss the most recent changes, and why they're being made. For instance, there seems to me to be a good case to include Truman given that he had an important role in making key decisions during the final months of the war, most notably in regards to preparations for the invasion of Japan and the use of the atomic bombs. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, except somebody then says (with some reason), "Only one leader per nation.", a not unreasonable position. Unless we mean to add Attlee & any Oz PMs not included yet, as well as any Japanese PMs (& there's at least one besides Tojo before war's end; Suzuki?). Which does still leave the repeated recent adds of PotUS MacArthur... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It that was to be proposed, I'd rule Attlee and Chifley (for Australia) out as they did not make significant decisions concerning the Pacific War during their periods in office prior to the end of the war. Truman, on the other hand, did: the US strategy for invading Japan or accepting its surrender wasn't well formed when he entered office, and he was heavily engaged in this (for instance, he issued directions concerning the strategic bombing campaign which aimed to influence the surrender negotiations once they commenced). More usefully for WP purposes, lots has been written about Truman's role in the Pacific War, but not much on Attlee and Chifley's. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If add Truman (April 12, 1945), then Attlee, Japanese prime minister Kuniaki Koiso (1944 - 1945) and Kantarō Suzuki (April 7, 1945- end of the war) should also be added. Both Kuniaki Koiso and Kantarō Suzuki hold the leader position of Japan longer than Truman as president. Also, don't forget Thai prime minister Khuang Aphaiwong who was the prime minister of Thailand from August 1944 to 1945. If you don't add Attlee,Kuniaki Koiso, Kantarō Suzuki and Khuang Aphaiwong. Then delete Truman. Miracle dream (talk)

I would have no trouble with adding based on important decisions (except for the rv issues bound to arise from it...), so Truman & Suzuki; Khuang (it is surname first there, too, no?) I know too little about. There's an argument to be made the signers of the peace should be included, but I lean more to Nick-D's "important decisions" approach. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Which reliable sources state that those Japanese and Thai PMs were major figures in the war? From what I've read, Hirohito was the key decision maker in Japan after Tojo's resignation - especially in regards to the decision to surrender. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As head of gov't (however notionally); if we accept Hirohito is final arbiter in all things, no Japanese PM belongs. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

While Hirohito is now recognised as the key figure in the Japanese war effort (compared to post-war histories which presented him as a figurehead), Tojo's role is also considered to have been highly important. That said, in the interests of simplifying the infobox, I would agree to just reduce the Japanese leadership to Hirohito. WW2-era Japan is a difficult fit into the infobox though given that there were multiple and competing centres of power, and relatively weak central guidance for much of the war (which played a major part in the disastrous decisions to start the war and not accept defeat much earlier). Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"Important decisions" is really a subjective thing.There is no objective scale in this which can be defined in many ways. What is the standard? What is metric? Kuniaki Koiso hold the prime minister position of Japan more than 1 year. He was even the Class-A war criminal in International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Do you have any reliable source that a Class-A war criminal and prime minister is not a major leader in Japan? Kuniaki Koiso actually is close to the important of Tojo. He made the war plan for Japan from 1944 to middle of 1945. Attlee at least attended Potsdam conference which issue the Potsdam declaration to require Japan's surrender. If the prime minister of Japan with class-A crime was not consider major leader. Then we definitely need to delete all leader of Thailand. We can delete the leader of New Zealand, Netherlands and even Australia who were not invited to attend any summit conferences. Miracle dream (talk)

Per Wikipedia norms, we use the extent of coverage in reliable sources. Entire journal articles and significant parts of books have been written about Truman's role in the war, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Why on earth did you edit war Attlee and the short-lived Japanese PMs into the infobox despite two editors agreeing above that this would probably not be a good idea? That really is awful conduct, and I will report you for edit warring if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Kuniaki Koiso hold the prime minister position of Japan more than 1 year. He was the Class-A war criminal in International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Do you have any source to claim "a prime minister with class-A war criminal is not a major leader of Japan"? And why did you claim him a "short-lived Japanese PMs"? How long did Tojo hold the pm position? About 2 years.Hong long did Truman hold the president position of the United States before the end of war? About 4 months. Hong long did Kuniaki Koiso hold the pm position? More than 1 year. Why did you claim Tojo or Truman is not a short-lived but Kuniaki Koiso belongs to short-lived? Attlee in the Potsdam conference is part of the Potsdam declaration. Based on your theory, why did you keep the leader of New Zealand, Thailand and Netherlands? If Kuniaki Koiso was excluded from this leader list, we can safely delete all leader of New Zealand, Thailand, Netherlands and even the leader of Australia and Canada. I try to use this way to change the info. You can see this option. If it is not good, we can continue the discussion. Miracle dream (talk)

Infobox -Addition of Mongolia

I see user ImperatorPublius's edition [6] which added Mongolia and Mexico as Belligerents. Mongolia is a client state of the Soviet Union like the Philippines for the United States. It was part of 1945 Soviet-Japan war and part of Battles of Khalkhin Gol. I see no reason to add Mexico so I delete Mexico. However, Nick-D delete both Mongolia and Mexico. I think Mongolia should be added as the same way of Philippines. Miracle dream (talk)

Which reliable sources state that Mongolia played a significant role in the Pacific War in the way you describe? There's a very large literature on the Phillipines' role in the war (the conventional fighting in 1941-42 and 44-45 and the extensive guerrilla combat). Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Mexico played a far larger role than Mongolia or the Dutch government in exile for that matter, with over 300 volunteers that flew over 780 offensive sorties and lost many in the liberation of the Philippines.[7] This is why they should be included along with their support of the USA closer to home that allowed the USA to free up more manpower and naval assets to be used in the Pacific Theatre.[8] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

As Mexican forces where more than engaged in the recapture of Luzon from the Japanese, they have been included. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Dutch government in London, exile

It seem only proper that if Mexico is removed from the info box, so too should the Netherlands in exile in London as they did less than Mexico in the Pacific Threatre, only the Dutch East Indies sent troops and naval resources to the Pacific. The Dutch government in London was only really concerned with European matters and left the East Indies to do what they could without aid. At least Mexico sent troops to fight and die in the Pacific, which is something the Dutch government in London did not do.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Dutch East Indies was governed by the Dutch government, and was since the 1800's. As you have no consensus to remove it I shall put it back, be aware you are now on 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Dutch government in exile in London could not even govern, trash collection. They had no part in the Pacific war and far less than Mexico that sent troops that fought and die. The Dutch East Indies government were on their own and as such should be listed separately for their contribution in the Pacific Theater. If Mexico does not make the list, than a government existing on handouts in London, most assuredly does not. If you can name any major resources sent to the Pacific from the Dutch government in exile in London, it might be quite different, but at least Mexico sent some 300 airmen and support forces to fight in the Philippines. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• If the Dutch government in exile desires to be listed, then so do Mongolia and Mexico, for at least they were in Asia and fighting, while the Dutch government-in-exile under Prime Minister De Geer wanted to surrender the Dutch East Indies. If it had not been for the Queen, even the Dutch East Indies government would not have been a factor in the Pacific; but definitively, the Dutch government-in-exile was no help.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You have no consensus for the edit, there were 30,000 regular troops fighting Japan, alongside some 100,000 natives. Following the fall of the Nazi's Dutch air squadrons were sent to, and fought in the Pacific theatre. No consensus, no removal. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You and the others set the standard at above that of Mexico, and there is consensus for that. So at that level, only the Dutch East Indies government contributed to the war, at levels to be on the list. Or are you setting a double standard and pushing POV again? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

All those troops were from the Dutch East Indies and what they had on had to fight, nothing of consequence came from the Dutch Government in exile in London, that lived on British handouts. This is why the Dutch East Indies government remains and the Dutch government exiled to backwaters of London was removed as it fell below the participation levels of Mexico, even Mongolia.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus set the standard above Mexico's participation, which the London based Dutch government in exile falls far below.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You have no consensus, you will be reverted, you are on 3RR. Conversation over Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So you have not evidence of the Dutch government in exile providing aid at levels greater than that of Mexico, then why does this change not stand? All the heavy lifting was done by the Dutch East Indies government, not the Dutch government in exile at Stratton House with as Churchill said, the Queen was "the only man in the Dutch government". They were useless to the war effort, and non-effectual in the Pacific.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• The Dutch government of East India deserves the credit as they took over the Royal assets in the Pacific and put those assets under British and American control to fight the Axis powers. Unlike the Dutch government-in-exlie that tried to capitulate and turn the Dutch East Indies over to the enemy; the Dutch East Indies government worked against Axis powers. The Dutch government in exile sent no help or aid to the Pacific and in that was involved less than Mongolia. If the Dutch government in exile is listed as a major participate, then so should Mongolia and Mexico as they contributed to the cause in men and machines.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A problem with not including the Dutch Government in the infobox is that it gives the impression that the Netherlands East Indies were self-governing, which they weren't. The Free Dutch contribution to the Pacific War following the loss of the NEI was modest, but non-trivial: three joint Australian-Dutch aircraft squadrons, several warships and submarines throughout the war, and about a battalion of infantry from 1944. The Dutch also attempted to conduct intelligence-gathering missions in the NEI, but they fared poorly as the locals typically quickly handed them over to the Japanese. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

But anyone researching this knows the Dutch East Indies were still Dutch, it's just that all the resources in the South Pacific were already there before the war and nothing of substance came from the government in exile in London. They couldn't even keep a resistance going, if not for the Queen, and all their naval assets were merged into the US/British force; so why do they deserve high status?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion, what about switching their positions, with Dutch East India on first and the government in exile below? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, as they were not self governing Darkness Shines (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not about governess but participation in the Pacific Theatre, at least that is what I was told when you deleted Mexico. So which is it? If it's about governess then add Mexico, but if it's about participation, then switch the position of the Dutch government in exile and the Dutch East Indies. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that you list the Governor-General of the Netherlands East Indies, as leader, not the Dutch government in exile in Piccadilly.[9] This is accurate as the Dutch government in exile could do nothing for the Pacific war effort as they were focused on the liberation of Holland with all their resources, so it is misleading to place 'the Dutch government in exile' above that of Mexico which did send troops to fight and die for the war effort. No one is trying to say the Dutch East Indies were independent in any way, just that they were the major contributor to the efforts and should not be subjugated below a disaffectual government living on British handouts.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Again: Is Second Sino-Japanese War considered as part of Pacific War?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pacific_War/Archive_1#Article_omits_one_campaign_of_the_Pacific_War
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pacific_War/Archive_2#Scope_and_hierarchy
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pacific_War/Archive_3#China_in_the_first_place_in_the_infobox_?

If yes, why date starts at 7 December 1941; If not why casualties includes Second Sino-Japanese War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellozeronet (talk • contribs) 06:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Undid revision 869169967 by Ras al Ghoul

Nick-D, why do you say that it's a conspiracy theory? ,Because I mentioned Roosevelt? I presented another viewpoint and did not delete anything, the reader can read and decide what is right instead of forcing him/her to only be informed about what the "official" history dictates. I did not create a new peace of information, I just stated that with well known events that the reason behind it "could" be different than that stated by US government. One more thing, Theories are not conspiracy. It's simply a different interruption. And I did not write this as something that i made it up, many Historians did discuss such an issue, Britannica does mention in up. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pearl-Harbor-and-the-back-door-to-war-theory-1688287 And I did write "another viewpoint". Ras al Ghoul (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Why? Because it is. Because it requires a vast conspiracy to make it work. And because another page covers the fantasy, to keep the fiction away from the genuine historiography. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a debate! this is you saying I am going to publish what i want because i have higher authority. You can't not either proof or disapprove both theories 100%. and there is no article that's neutral. there is always bias, thus the reader must be presented with both theories. Britannica is a reliable source, and there are more revisionist historians who have talked about this. If you insist then you can label it as "non-mainstream historians suggest ..." or label it as "conspiracy theory" if you like, but the reader should have both cases to decide. You want to call it "fantasy", sure it's your opinion, but forcing one narrative is far from "genuine historiography". since the "mainstream" view depends on rather "official" sources. and we all know that "official" does not mean true. I think the Gulf of Tonkin incident, The Iraqi WMD and dozens more are all proofs that official does not equal "true". Ras al Ghoul (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"This is not a debate" You're right, it's not. Debates have to have credible arguments on both sides. You don't have one. This page is the one for the actual history, & actual historiography. The conspiracy page is for arguing the merits of the nonsensical theories. That's why it exists: to keep that garbage off this page, where it has no place. And "fantasy" isn't my opinion: it's the opinion of any historiographer, or student, who actually knows the subject. The conspiracy isn't about "100% proof", it's about fringe nonsense with no basis in fact. And the existence of the conspiracy theory is mentioned. That's all it deserves--with due labelling as such, so the uninformed don't give it undue credence, which it doesn't deserve. Comparing this garbage to the Gulf of Tonkin, or the notional Iraqi WMDs, or, indeed, the Afghani connection to the 11 September attacks, is purest nonsense; in over 50yr, no actual evidence of conspiracy has been found. It's all made up, or purposely distorted, & the leading light is a perfect example: he got caught faking microfilm roll IDs & promised to hand over the real ones he claims he has; AFAIK, that's still not happened, 10yr later. And if you really want to debate the issue, it probably shouldn't be on this page, which is supposed to be for improving the article, not contending the existence of a notional conspiracy. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Go and read WP:FRINGE. We don't include conspiracy theories in articles. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ships?

You guys, if I recall correctly, about 1 year ago there was a list of ships sunk in the infobox, on both sides. What happened to that? Brown Water Admiral (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing US losses of 5 battleships, 11 carriers. That sounds wrong. Correct seems like 2 battleships (Arizona, Oklahoma) 10 carriers total 4 fleet carriers (Lexington CV-2, Yorktown CV-5, Wasp CV-7, Hornet CV-8 - strangely in that order!) 1 light carrier (Princeton) 5 Escort carriers (Liscome Bay, Gambier Bay, Saint Lo, Ommoney Bay, Bismarck Sea)

I would split escort carriers out as they are more like a transport with a flight deck. Block Island might be #11 but that was in the Atlantic. I was looking for a breakout of US casualties by battle eg a table or something but that would be a lot of work. Nice article. WerbyFord (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)WerbyFord 20:22 PST 15 Jan 2019