User talk:Flying tiger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Flying tiger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Green caterpillar 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] National Institute for Defense Studies
Hi, regarding the interesting and useful material you recently added to Japanese war crimes, the only National Institute for Defense Studies I can find is the Japanese one, so I have removed the reference to the United States. I hope this is correct and you approved of my other edits to the section. Regards, Grant65 | Talk 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comfort Women Article
Sorry, I accidently messed up one of your changes on this article--you already fixed it, but I figured I should stop by anyway! :D Thanks for the watchful eye. Komdori 21:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
Hi. First, I think you should warn him/her on his/her talk page about NPOV using a "Not adhering to neutral point of view" template from Template:TestTemplates. That will support your case for action if he/she persists. Then you can take it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The rules say that before reporting there:
- 1. The vandal has been warned with the appropriate warning templates. If you can't justify leaving these messages on a user's talk page, it likely isn't vandalism.
- 2. Users must be appropriately warned using a "final warning" template...
- 3. The vandal vandalized within the last few hours and after a recent "final warning". (Note: a recent "final warning" here is any recent warning which claims to be a final warning, even if someone adds a later warning.)
Good luck. Grant65 | Talk 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hirohito
Hi. I noticed that on the article on Hirohito, you placed the following message after the POV template;
"It is argued that this article presents an apologist view of Hirohito"
I removed this comment; the comment itself it POV! On the article itself, all people want to know is that the page may be POV. Please post "your" opinion on the article on the talk page of the article, as you can sort out your issue with the page there. Cheers--M W Johnson 11:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I can understand your comments. However, the apologist message at the top of the article is also obscure; this is the second main reason I removed. Also, I did not mean for readers to go to the talk page and see how the page is POV for themselves; I meant for the editors to go to the talk page and debate the issue.--M W Johnson 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] China in WW2
We've had this discussion over and over again on the WWII talk pages. The short list on the page is meant to list only the major Allies, and China simply does not fit in that category. I'm not trying to downplay Chinese contributions to the Pacific War, but it only fought in one theater. Australia had arguably a much larger impact on the total war, but it's not included. The same could be argued in India's favor, but it's not on the list. China's contributions simply do not stack up to those of the USSR, US, and UK. I won't violate 3RR and revert your changes, but if someone else does, please do not put China back. Read the talk pages and archives for the previous discussions. Parsecboy 20:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, China is in the major allies since the beginning of the article. I read the discussions and do not see where there was consensus about removing China from the major allies. I simply do not understand your argument that Australia or India (?!) had a bigger impact and your concern about "one theater". According to two Japanese authors. Abe and Akira Yamada, as late as september 43, the shôwa army had only 5 of its 70 divisions in the Pacific. 80% of the japanese army was fighting against China. What can it take in your eyes to be a major ally ? --Flying tiger 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, By the way, I watched your talk page, so I saw your comment there. When I said China only fought in one theatre, that's what I meant. Chinese troops never fought in Europe against Germany and Italy, like Indian and Australian troops did. And when I asserted that both of those countries had a larger effect on the war, I'm referring to their successful defence of Erwin Rommel in North Africa, which allowed supplies destined for China to pass through the Suez Canal. China would have collapsed without these supplies. Indian troops also held open the Burma Road, through which these same supplies passed into China. Without India and Australia, China would have succumbed to the Japanese. Regardless, they are not major allies either. Your main argument to include China on the list seems to be that China tied down 65 Japanese Army divisions. The rest of the Pacific Theater was largely a naval war, fought mainly by the USA, along with the UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, so the Japanese Army's presence was marginal. Most of the island fortresses that had sizeable IJA garrisons were isolated bypassed, such as Rabaul. Therefore, China only fought in one campaign in a single theatre, which is not enough to merit its inclusion as a major ally. Parsecboy 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, to cite, Sugiyama as he justified himself to Hirohito, "China is huge, with many ways in and many ways out." It is not "a single theater" but a continent in itself. Even if the Chinese armies did not fought in Europe, they were the main focus of the shôwa army. India, Australia and Canada were never invaded and in the case of Australia, it is because the shôwa Army was totally engaged, even with its planes, in China and unable to win a real victory than the army could not occupy Solomon islands, New Guinea and Philippines effectively and thus support the Navy against USA. When Hirohito asked Sugiyama to support Nagano, he simply could not because he was fighting Chiang... So, half of the shôwa forces were engaged against China and could never won the war apart for isolated operations such as Ichigô. This was a major factor for the progression of other alies in the Pacific. --Flying tiger 21:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think putting China in the same category as India and Australia is sort of a stretch. These countries were threatened but were never directly invaded. They suffered no serious war loss. From wiki article it says Australia had some 50,000 KIA, while China lost like 20 million lives including 3 million soldiers. Also, I agree with Flying Tiger's take that China's a huge country, not just one theater. The North China Plain itself is about as big as France. I think other minor allies' war effort, however significant, were a drop in a bucket compared to what China did, and I think it's a huge disservice to put it in the same category. BlueShirts 22:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- China was not a major allie in World War II. They lost a lot of lives, but they were only involved in the war with Japan. Like it was stated above, Australia and India had a bigger involvement on a World scale than China. China just got invaded, they didn't do anything significant enough to classify them as major. --Borgarde 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting a poll on WWII talk page about it. --Flying tiger 14:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and start a discussion there, but the consensus reached is generally "leave it at the Big Three". I don't see how the size of China has anything to do with its contribution to the war effort. It isn't even a theatre, it was just a front. There was the European Theatre, and the Pacific Theatre. As for the army not being able to support the navy against the US, that wasn't the navy's problem. Their problem was Japan had no industrial base, so it couldn't hastily repair damaged ships, and replace battle losses. Their pilot training program was incredibly slow. The Japanese Navy simply couldn't compete with America. I don't see how India's and Australia's fighting to keep the supply lines open into India, and in the case of Australia, contibuting naval forces to the American and British fleets, are a "drop in the bucket". Were it not for the tough Indian and Australian forces in North Arica, Rommel would've destroyed Monty at Alamein, driven into the Middle East, and linked up with the German army in the Caucausus, and the entire war could've ended entirely different. Parsecboy 15:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Your arguments about Japan's industrial productivity and pilot training are without any doubt relevant and well-known but they do not exclude the fact that all military and political decisions of Hirohito, his government and chiefs of staff were made according to the course of the war in China. If Japan had succeed in conquering China, the Army, with the help of the Kôa-in could had help the Navy much more efficiently in the Pacific and Hirohito would had considered armistice well before the atomic bombings and the invasion of Manchukuo. As for the "drop in the bucket", I never used that expression nor diminished the actions of Australian and Indian soldiers. --Flying tiger 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said China wasn't the main Japanese focus, it was the reason Japan attacked the Western powers in Asia, but China by itself didn't have that great a contribution. China didn't defeat Japan, America did, with the help of the Brits and Aussies. The Pacific campaigns were almost entirely naval, the army really had no place there aside from garrisoning islands, and there's only so many infantrymen you can stick on the incredibly tiny islands and atolls in the Pacific. The only place the Japanese Army could've contributed significantly was in the Philipines, but by then, the war was already lost. And whether Japan would've offered armistice is questionable. As is whether the Allies would've accepted it. If I remember correctly, the policy was "unconditional surrender". Blueshirts made the "drop in a bucket" comment, and that's what I was addressing. Parsecboy 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, you've reverted China back into the list 3 times in the past 24 hours, I'd be careful doing it again, as you've already violated 3RR. Parsecboy 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do not agree that the anglo-saxons allies won the war alone in eat-Asia and Pacific. It will be interesting to look at all the comments on the poll page and how the debate will be solved. By the way also, the 3RR indicates no MORE than 3 reversions in 24 hours, I do not think 3 is more than 3, so I do not see how you can write that I violated the rules of Wikipedia ... --Flying tiger 20:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RFC/discussion of article World War II
Hello, Flying tiger. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] World War II Mediation Case
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Krellis (Talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
