Jump to content

Talk:Pacific War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 119.95.7.96 (talk) at 09:28, 20 October 2009 (Undid revision 320971931 by Nick-D (talk) Request for comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Understood.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wrong theater, check a map. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.,
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. [1] (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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Combatants in the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

White-centric

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

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

Why don't we just list them all?

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

Like this:

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

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

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

I guess it depends on what you see as the purpose of an infobox. If you just see it as a venue for another list, ok. But if you see it as being a place to go for a quick overview of the most important facts, then no. Most of the countries you want to add had minimal if any influence on the war in the Pacific, nor were they able to operate independently of their "controlling" powers. It is simply misleading to add them.
Most military conflict infoboxes list all participants in a conflict, unless they were so numerous as to take up too much space.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wiki, we aren't required to do anything just because someone else is doing it (with the exception of following established policies and guidelines, of course). This is a purely content issue, and consensus on the individual talk page is how things like this are determined.
To address the issue directly, most of the additions you want to make to the infobox made minimal contributions to the war effort on either side, and adding them would only confuse the average reader who doesn't know much about this war. The infobox is supposed to give readers the gist of the information at a glance; for combatants, they need to take away that the war was primarily between China, the US, UK, and Australia versus Japan. Parsecboy (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Strength field of the infobox could be used to differentiate the size of the contribution. Right now you are drawing an arbitrary line between important and unimportant contributors.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the role of an editor, to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did this discussion became consensus?--119.95.7.96 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pacific_War&oldid=320973006"