Talk:Pacific War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article, Pacific War, is currently the subject of formal mediation from the Mediation Committee. The mediator assigned is Daniel.Bryant. Please read relevant talk page discussions below before making substantial changes, and respect Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Links: Case page • Case talk page • Mediator's talk page • Mediation information • Mediation guide This message should only be placed on talk pages.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force British military history task force Japanese military history task force United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

	WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Community: Discussion - Notice board Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions Navigation: Key topics - Browse - Portal
Korea-related tasks: edit refresh Collaboration of the month Create articles Cleanup articles Assess articles Add Korean text Maintain unstable articles Discuss articles for deletion Improve A-class articles Improve B-class articles Improve Start-class articles Improve D-class articles Improve Stub-class articles Improve top priority articles Improve high priority articles Improve medium priority articles Improve low priority articles Improve very low priority articles Articles to work on: Goguryeo, achieve consensus and neutral point of view. 2007-03-16 Tteok, expand. 2007-03-16 Jeongol (전골), create. 2007-03-16 Science and technology in Korea, create. 2007-03-17 Comfort women, achieve stability. 2007-3-29 Revised Romanization of Korean, include reasonably complete rule set. 2007-03-29

An event mentioned in this article is a September 9 selected anniversary.

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

Contents 1 Japanese/USSR border fighting 2 US bias 3 Old talk 4 communists in shaanxi, not shanxi 5 Each Allied nation? 6 Doubt 7 Attacks on the Continental United States 8 strategic bombers 9 japanese attack on pearl harbor 10 pacific war U.S. strategy 11 guadalcanal 12 lines of communication 13 late stages 14 pacific war 15 Germany first 16 For the duration 17 help 18 add more naval history 19 Referring the Americans as 'Yankees' 20 Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg 21 Discuss military history in Wikipedia at Society for Military History meeting 2007 22 Article omits one campaign of the Pacific War 23 Silly little thing. 24 New subsidiary/theatre articles 25 Reality 26 "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" not fair use in the context of this article 27 oil islands' importance to the Japanese 28 China/Republic of China & Taiwan/Formosa 29 WP:RFC: Republic of China/Kuomintang (ROC/KMT) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 29.1 Opinions 30 Breaking barriers 31 Call Perry White 32 Can someone fix that please..? 33 Mediation 34 Should the individual countries making up the Axis Powers and Allies of World War II be listed in the Combatants section of the infobox, or should only links to the relevant articles be provided? 35 List order 35.1 Comments 35.2 Vote 35.3 Cutoff point 36 What's going on? 37 Disagree "Japan and not China was the true heir of classical Chinese civilization"

[edit] Japanese/USSR border fighting

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

[edit] US bias

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

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

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

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

[edit] Old talk

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

[edit] communists in shaanxi, not shanxi

commonly confused

[edit] Each Allied nation?

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

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

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

[edit] Doubt

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

Re: "Conflict Between China and Japan"

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

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

[edit] Attacks on the Continental United States

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

[edit] strategic bombers

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

[edit] japanese attack on pearl harbor

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

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

[edit] pacific war U.S. strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^{Superscript text}

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

[edit] guadalcanal

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

[edit] lines of communication

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

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

[edit] late stages

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

[edit] pacific war

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

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

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

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

[edit] Germany first

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

[edit] For the duration

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

[edit] help

when did ww2 end and begin?

[edit] add more naval history

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

[edit] Referring the Americans as 'Yankees'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg

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

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

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

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

[edit] Article omits one campaign of the Pacific War

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

[edit] Silly little thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] New subsidiary/theatre articles

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

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

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

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

[edit] Reality

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

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

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

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

However in this article:

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

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

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

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

[edit] oil islands' importance to the Japanese

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

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

[edit] China/Republic of China & Taiwan/Formosa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Breaking barriers

I rewrote this

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

to this

"aircraft carriers, aircraft, and aircrew to defend it, and the freighters, tankers, and destroyers necessary to sustain it.^[1] Moreover, Fleet doctrine was incompetent to execute the proposed "barrier" defense.^[2] Instead, they decided"

based on

1. ^ Parillo, Japanese Merchant Marine.
2. ^ Peattie & Evans, Kaigun.

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

[edit] Call Perry White

I deleted

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

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

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

to this

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

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

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

to this

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

I'm unaware Nagumo was in the dark, & it was Yamamoto's responsibility to provide for a response, not Nagumo's. I added "(as a result of an abortive identical operation in March)". See Battle of Midway. I changed "his most critical error" to "most-criticized" & added "Yamamoto's dispositions, which left Nagumo with inadequate reconaissance to detect Fletcher before he launched, are often ignored.^[3]" The truth is, unless Nagumo hit Fletcher before Fletcher launched, all that loose ordnance was irrelevant; Fletcher could recover to Midway. I rewrote this

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

to this

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

Trekphiler 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While I was at it, I deleted

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

as too topical. I deleted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The IJN could have forced the U.S. to adopt a convoy system in the Pacific, which would have reduced the flow of supplies by half.^{[citation needed]}"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Can someone fix that please..?

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

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

[edit] Mediation

At Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/World War II
Well, this has been fruitful so far. --NEMT 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

I have taken this case. The issues as presented are here. Because the mediation is on multiple articles, we will discuss things here and transclude this page into the relevant articles. -Stevertigo 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What does itbm mean? Xaxafrad 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

ITBM

• Should the individual countries making up the Axis Powers and Allies of World War II be listed in the Combatants section of the infobox, or should only links to the relevant articles be provided?
• If countries are to be listed, which countries are appropriate to list for each side?
• If countries are to be listed, should commanders for those countries also be listed?
• If commanders are to be listed, which commanders are appropriate for each country?

[edit] Should the individual countries making up the Axis Powers and Allies of World War II be listed in the Combatants section of the infobox, or should only links to the relevant articles be provided?

The easiest compromise is just to list links to the relevant Axis and Allies articles. Some may argue that other war articles don't do it that way, but WWII is unique in the number of countries that were involved. One issue is that not all countries were directly involved in the all the theaters of WWII. For example, Japan didn't have much of a presence in the western Europe theater of the war. To avoid the hassle of trying to decide which countries should be listed in the infoboxes for the major theaters (for example, should Brazil be listed in the infobox for the Battle of the Atlantic?), the same Axis and Allies links should be used. Cla68 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be the easiest compromise, but it is the worst. World War 1 involved a similar number of countries too. We are listing the MAJOR countries. By the way, are you getting Brazil confused with Uruguay. The Graf Spee went there, not to Rio. As far a theaters are concerned, this artcile encompasses all theaters.

If I remember right, a Brazilian cargo ship carrying the crews and equipment to constitute a Brazilian fighter aircraft squadron in Europe was sunk by a U-boat off the coast of South America as it began its journey with heavy loss of life. This illustrates my point, that numerous countries have some degree of participation in various theaters of the war. Brazilians would probably argue that their sacrifice in this instance is not minor and their country should be listed in the infobox. How to resolve this other than listing every country in the infobox? By linking to the Axis and Allies articles instead. Cla68 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If that's all Brazil did during the war (as I recall reading, the then-Brazilian president was an excellent fence sitter who stayed neutral until he could side with what he perceived to be the eventual victor, but whose government most closely matched that of fascist Italy, putting him in the orbit of the Axis), that sounds like a "minor" contribution. Xaxafrad 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, World War 1 did not involve a similar number of countries. --NEMT 07:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people here know exactly who the major participants were. It is only a few nit-pickers who want their own little country included, who are causing the problem. I have no doubt that common sense will eventually prevail. It always does. Wallie 07:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. --NEMT 07:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if it were that simple, we'd be done. The problem is what is a minor country. Take the following: China, France (3R), Canada, Finland and Italy. Which of them are major or minor? I could potentially say that I think China is minor because it had no real air force, navy or armored presence, and no contributions outside of its theatre; I could also say it's major due to the sheer size of their forces, the amount of Japanese troops they kept tied down and the length of time China was in combat. We can make similar arguments for and against the others I mentioned as well. France (3R) was one of the two principle Allies at the start of the European Theatre, with a modern and sizable military roughly comparable (on paper) to Germany's; it was however, knocked out of the war quite quickly.

For this reason, I think it'd be best to keep it as Allies and Axis for the main article, and then list major nations for each campaign and battle. At this time, I can't think of any where we'll have more then four nations involved, especially considering that we are encouraged to use the actual forces involved (ie. "U.S. Third Army") instead of the nations where feasible. Oberiko 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Which four nations? Maybe we could call those 4 nations the major ones. But for a twist, instead of labeling every other nation minor (and it has become apparent that nobody wants that label), let's call them non-major and avoid nit-picking? Xaxafrad 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. If we include those four, then why not Poland (major player at the start, first Allied combatant) as well? Why not Norway? Why not Romania and Hungary? It becomes a slippery slope as there is always someone who has done more then at least one of our listed nations (depending on which metrics we use) and therefore requires entry. Each entry then opens the door for two others until we have all 50+ nations listed, making the infobox worthless. Oberiko 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief. I am in favor of the infobox with individual countries because:

1. The encyclopedia is more useful if a reader walks away knowing the major players.
2. The distinction between major and minor is possible to make using objective criteria.
3. Historians prioritize this information all the time.
4. Previous versions of this article mentioned the major countries in both the lead and the infobox.
5. Links to subpages will rarely be followed.
6. Avoidance of edit warring and disruption is no excuse for a poor article.

I'm sure I will think of more reasons but I hope this will get the ball rolling. Haber 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I can honestly say I wholeheartedly agree with Haber. Has anyone scanned through the article's history to see if there were any significant periods of time when the list of combatants remained stable? I think I'll do that next, while I ask if I should butt out of this discussion since I'm not on the list of mediation adherents (not that that's hard to fix). Xaxafrad 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just added you and Wallie. If anyone objects they'll say so. Haber 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to grab at least 4-5 samples from every month; this list far from exhaustive. For instance, the addition and removal of Poland was many times not noted in the sampling, but noticed in scanned-over edit summaries. I also did not look into the actual articles linked to from any given list of combatants, so some ambiguity probably exists regarding specific names of polities (UK/GB/CW, USSR/SU, China/ROC, France/FFF/F3R, etc).

As I compiled it, I couldn't help but wonder why the wordy "and others" was chosen over "et al". Also, some edit summaries made reference to using the UN Security Council as a standard for defining "major", which sounds kinda lame, to me (it's a solution in the same vein as not listing any powers, but in the direction of including individual nations, rather than away from). It would be a better objective standard to use the number of troops sent to battle, or died, to determine majority contribution.

Further, I noticed a change in the labeling of the combatant list that occurred at the end of January, when heated discussions on the talk page became referenced to in edit summaries. Specifically, it seems that when the list of combatants was first replaced with links to the main Allies/Axis articles, the label "Major .... powers" was taken off. More arguments against this label include the article to which they were linking was not an article about the major players, but ALL the players, thus requiring copyediting. Add to that the fact that the Allies/Axis articles were linked by the "Major powers" text, as well as the "and others" text at the bottom of the list. That said, I think passing judgement on major/minor is unneccessary, but a link to "and others" is sufficient to appease the nationalists from the smaller nations. (note: "major" was not in the list label as of 1 Dec)

At one point, the "and others" links were included in the list of powers, but neglected in the list of commanders (the disparity looks funny when you notice it).

More random comments: while the list of Allied combatants seemed especially unstable, the list of Axis powers changed very rarely. If it is decided to include an expanded combatants list, Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary will likely be added as signatories to the Pact of the Axis, or whichever treaties they were.

Date	Allies	Axis
21 March	Allies	Axis
14 March	Allies	Axis
7 March	Allies	Axis
28 Feb	UK, SU, US, China, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
23 Feb	UK, SU, US, China, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
15 Feb	Allies	Axis
7 Feb	UK, Free French Forces, SU, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
1 Feb	Allies	Axis
29 Jan	UK, SU, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
22 Jan	UK, SU, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
15 Jan	UK, Free French Forces, SU, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
6 Jan	UK, SU, US, France, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
29 Dec	UK, Free French Forces, USSR, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
22 Dec	UK, Free French Forces, USSR, US, ROC, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
15 Dec	UK, USSR, US, China, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
8 Dec	UK, USSR, US, China, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
1 Dec	SU, UK, US, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
23 Nov	SU, UK, US, and others	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others
15 Nov	UK, SU, US, ROC	Germany, Italy, Japan, and others

It took me a while to scan through 17 previous revisions spanning about 4 months, and I'm not sure how to add in the changes to the list of commanders. The first revision where I noticed a significant difference was on 23 Nov, when it seems supreme field commanders were included with political leaders (6 total powers, with 14 commanders). Xaxafrad 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just had the thought: I'll bet Hitler thought France was major. Probably a more major opponent than Poland. And even after conquest, France was probably a major territory, in his mind. The occupied French were probably a major source of intelligence regarding German positions, resources, etc. China, Thailand, India, Poland, Finland, and Libya should be included as major players for similar reasons. I believe the UK/Commonwealth distinction is sufficient for the sake of some brevity, but just for fun, let's see what the list looks like with Canada/Australia/India/etc. (after some clicking around, I found Dominion#Foreign_relations which seems to describe the evolution of the status of the Dominions in the first half of the 20th century; from what I read, I would urge the inclusion of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa in the list of combatants, then ask if the troops from said nations mostly served together, and if so, then recommend the Commonwealth of Nations be listed as something like: "UK and CN") Xaxafrad 03:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediator comments

I dont find the argument to include all countries compelling. WWII involved too many countries to include in such a small box. A much better idea would be to list the major ones, and indicate others with an others link, that leads to a section or footnote in which all countries are listed. -Stevertigo 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the debate on Talk:World War II? Badgerpatrol 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have come to the view that the major participants in World War II were decided both during, and shortly after, World War II. Have we gained some additional hindsight in the intervening 60 years to overturn the decisions of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin? Contrast the commonly seen picture of those three leaders of the Allies with an image of Hitler (vs Churchill), Mussolini (vs Roosevelt), and Hirohito (or Tojo?) (vs Stalin). I can give some easy reasoning for those particular associations. I could argue that, although the US didn't officially enter the war until 2 years after Canada, the lend-lease agreements at least equal Canada's status as a sub-major country under the leadership of Churchill (I'm not implying Canada was under the direct leadership of Churchill, but only in the sense that Canada, Australia, etc can be considered "sub-units" of the disintegrating British Empire (was the term British Empire still in use in 1945?)). Xaxafrad 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Parts of it. And just because 3-5 people might be frustrated enough to wipe out all the coutries from a list because they can't agree with 3-5 other people, doesn't mean I'm frustrated enough. I don't find the argument that the infobox is small to be very compelling. How about this: we start with an list of combatants that is incredibly long, and when random, new people (like I used to be) complain about how long it is, or when random people boldly delete countries from the list, then the list can be pruned. With such a long list, alphabetical or date entering war strikes me as the best ordering.

I've heard a few people say the infobox is too small for such a long list, but I've never seen an example of an overloaded infobox. How can including some/most countries be POV? ...Especially if there's a big discussion on a talk page over the efforts some people went through to avoid POVness. Xaxafrad 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I meant that question for Stevertigo- apologies for any confusion. It is not a question of 3-5 people not agreeing on who goes in the infobox- I personally have never (to the best of my recollection) suggested who should go in the infobox at all. The question is- is it actually possible to come up with a stable, NPOV list of "major" combatants? I suggest not- implicit to the very word "major" is an entirely subjective inference. The only lists that are actually acceptable in the infobox are- a) everyone (that's what, 60-80 combatants for the Allies and a smaller but still large number for the Axis) or b) Nobody. The other day, someone wanted to exclude the USSR as a major combatant from the infobox. Some others have wanted to exclude France and China, or include Canada, or Australia, or exclude Italy. On other language Wikis, countries like Brazil are listed or not listed as major combatants, or Romania, Or Hungary, or Poland. There does not seem to me to be a way to arrive at a stable list and by assigning countries as major or non-major we are inescapably imposing our own, subjective point of view. You ask "How can including some/most countries be POV?"- that's why. I don't see any discussion on the talk page about anybody coming up with objective criteria. Saying "let's only include countries who contributed more than 2 million troops" or whatever is obviously not defining an objective criterion. If you can point towards the big discussion where people figure out a way to avoid POV then I'd be grateful. Badgerpatrol 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the succinct response. Respectfully, how is some arbitrary number of troops subjective? I would pick an arbitrary number that created a cutoff point of 5-15 countries (you wouldn't say 15 is too many, would you?). That sounds objective to me. It doesn't really favor any country over another, except perhaps the populous ones. Israel wasn't populous, and I'm sure there're plently of Israel supports editing this wiki, so Israel's troop contribution will probably be a good arbitrary number to pick (that's not a serious suggestion, just as my suggestion of leave the Soviet Union off the list of combatants, while accompanied by some reasoning, wasn't serious; call it playing the devil's advocate).

^^ vv -->> The discussion all around here. Actually, I had the idea to cut-and-paste the bulk of the infobox discussion to the template talk page, and leave a note (and a link) on the WW2 talk page about the move.

Finally, I fully agree that any kind of major/minor division is contentious. Therefore, I would like to assert that by placing 1, or 5, or 10 countries above 70-80 other countries, we are not passing judgement as to who contributed a major or a minor part to the war effort (for goodness's sake, an infobox isn't serious like that). By including a handful of countries in the infobox, we are saying that many countries were involved in the conflict, but the list is too long to be complete, as testified by the final link to the other combatants. Xaxafrad 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. "How is some arbitrary number of troops subjective?". That says everything I think needs to be said at this point, really. Sorry if I offended you by mentioning the USSR- I honestly didn't register that it was you who originally made this suggestion when I mentioned it (egg on my face...) Your edit at the time appeared serious [2] and I didn't realise you were only joking (egg on my face II....). Apologies. ;-) Badgerpatrol 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I should clarify: I was half serious. It was one of those desperate suggestions to save some small bit of information from getting erased, or a reaction against the extreme of omitting everything (I knew it would be extreme to omit the USSR, but I was unsure of how people would react to it, thus the (harmless?) suggestion), or something like that, y'know what I mean? I'm not offended at all, but I would like to apologize for the ambiguous statements.

Second, I think you need to educate me on subjectivity. I always thought of something as subjective when it comes down to a personal opinion, taste, point of view, etc. Something would be objective if it depended on some external, impersonal thing. All of us can apply a number-of-troops-filter to the 90 countries involved in the war, and, provided we use the same filter, we would get the same list, an objective list, no? Xaxafrad 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think that arbitrarily deciding an abstract number (e.g. of troops) as a cut-off is subjective? Why is that reliant on some "external, impersonal thing"? I might think that 1 million people is a large number- you might think that 5 million is a suitably large number. Bob Smith might think that 100,000 is a large number. Which of us is "right"? And why is that system "objective"? Badgerpatrol 10:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with that Vertigo is deciding which countries are major and what metrics (and metric weighting) we are to use to determine them. Sounds simple, but there's dozens of ways to measure a nations significance. Oberiko 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the Invasion of Poland (1939). It's a featured article, and has an infobox that looks worse than the one under discussion, due to it's wordiness in commanders, and strength lists. Below the infobox, in the place of WW2's {{Campaignbox}} listing the 7 theaters of the global conflict, is a box for the whole invasion of Poland, listing every city that was taken over by Germans or Soviets, including 10 redlinks. Redlinks in a featured article? Why didn't any editors before, and along the FA process, pick on that nit? On second thought, I should use that as a reason to start the former-FA process, but I like to try to think on the positive side of things. Xaxafrad 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now seen the infobox for the Battle of Britain, very parallel to this case, IMO. If you don't want to view it yourself, I'll describe it: UK vs. Germany, followed by "Including combatants from:<:ref>This list is in descending order of number of people from that nation. For a detailed breakdown of the various countries contribution see Battle of Britain Foreign Contribution.</ref>".

For ideas of suggestions, please keep this footnote reference in mind, as well as the slightly different footnote in the Eastern Front (World War II) infobox.

I've noticed breakdowns of the strength of each side in these two battles, and wonder if a summary of Allied and Axis strengths would be possible, while I already see the difficultly in compiling such a summary. Maybe I should go over all the articles in Category:Military operations of World War II.... Xaxafrad 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm sorry! I edited the list of combatants against the warnings posted all about. I'll revert it, if it really pisses somebody off, but I don't think the list is too long (21 vs. 10), unless we try to add commanders for every power, and I don't see why that would be necessary. But I'll still revert it anyway. In case you missed it, it looked like this. Xaxafrad 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't note it on this page, but I grabbed those 31 combantants (not truly 31 as some countries are listed twice, Thailand and Free Thailand, for example) from the {{World War II}} infobox at the bottom of WW2 (and a lot of other articles). Their list of combatants is equally contentious, but isn't in as visible a location as "our" list, and so hasn't gotten the kind of traffic that lob POV accusations when somebody disagrees with them. See Template_talk:World_War_II#Belligerents.3F, Template_talk:World_War_II#List of Participants, and Template_talk:World_War_II#Compression for discussions of a different kind regarding who gets listed and who gets slighted ("Compression" is a longish discussion about which events to call major or minor; this list won't get the same kind of nationalistic objections from descendants unless somebody's ancestors died in a supposedly "minor" event).

On the topic of POV, I decided to look at WP:NPOV. In a nutshell, it says "articles and other encyclopedic content" must be written from a NPOV. Are infoboxes "other content"? Or are infoboxes a part of "other content" that is not encyclopedic, and therefore exempt from NPOV? Xaxafrad 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediator comment

Oberiko said: "The main problem with that Vertigo is deciding which countries are major and what metrics (and metric weighting) we are to use to determine them. Sounds simple, but there's dozens of ways to measure a nations significance." - I find this argument to be utterly lacking. The 'either or' argument is not found in NPOV at all. We represent "significance" by a simple method: largest involved nations are in, the smallest are out (in this case, out of the template, but in a separate section).

Here is what I want: Make a list here, and take two votes: First vote will be on the order of countries from largest (or most significant) to the least. The second vote will be on where the cutoff should be. Those below the cutoff will be included in a separate section, but not in the topicbox. End of story.

Somewhere in the middle is a compromise - I don't care if its five or fifteen, as long as its not excessively short or large. Note, that by "largest" there may be some disagreement about large nations versus large numbers of participants. It doesn't matter though, as these criteria are for the most part related. This compromise is called "consensus." Consensus is a social guideline which handles what little NPOV does not cover. It assumes that reasonable people can be reasonable and not just quibble about little details which are subjective in any case. Just because there is some subjectivity involved, doesnt make it POV, and likewise it doesnt validate the 'either or' argument.

The other argument about NPOV appears to be fraught with misconception. NPOV is not about representing views equally, in the sense that they can cancel each other out, but rather in order of acceptance. For example the most accepted view on Intelligent Design is that its a religious-political argument, not a "scientific theory," as its proponents claim.

Please note that my blunt tone here is due to two factors: 1) I dont have time to read all the back and forth discussion on what for all intents and purposes is a trivial matter, requiring simply that people compromise. 2) That there are a number of people who are unfamiliar with our policies and conventions, such that they completely misstate and misrepresent them. By stating a simple ruling, I hope that those unfamiliar with our conventions might better learn their value, saving their energies for work, as well as for discussions of more importance. -Stevertigo 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting perspective, Steve. Can I just ask- why is this "vote" any more valid than the well-formed and appropriately carried out one that we have already recently had on the WWII talk page which resulted in a 69% majority for excluding judgements about "major" nations. I would say that it appears that we will be continuously voting until we reach a conclusion favourable to the (forgive the term) "inclusionists", but since you appear to have rejected one side of the argument a priori one can't even say that. You also admit that you haven't actually read the arguments on the talk page, which I admit are long and at times tortuous but are surely an essential prerequisite to any mediation exercise. Your solution is not a "compromise" in any way shape or form. What you have in fact done is ignore one side of the argument completely. Is this how mediation works? I'm a bit confused by this: Mediators are not Advocates. Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person. It's fairly obvious that you have immediately sided with the "inclusionists" and ignored from the outset the (super?) majority view that individual countries should be excluded from the infobox. Badgerpatrol 10:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume it is I and Haber who are the inclusionists. Let me try to make a reasoned appeal to you: I don't think you're truly opposed to the idea of including individual countries in the list of combatants. I think you're opposed to an overly long list, and I think that you think that if we put a few "major" countries (you know, they called them major and minor in Axis powers of World War II, so what's the big stink about the Allies? Wait, I've got: it's because nobody wants to pipe up and say "My country was a major member of the Axis during WW2!") it will become inevitable that extra countries will creep in over time. After two RFCs and a mediation case, I think that if anybody tries to add to the list, they can be told a resounding "NO" and to read all the pages of discussion. In fact, I recall a notice near the list of combatants about "do not edit this section while mediation is in progress", which can be easily changed to "do not add to this section without consensus on the talk page". With that comment in place, one can simply revert an addition, leaving the one who added it the option of starting a talk page section titled "Add <my country> to list of Allies". Think about what the situation would be like if such a comment had been in the infobox since 8/06 (the starting date of the first archive of combatant discussions). Xaxafrad 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to label anyone as "inclusionists" or "exclusionists", it sounds adversarial- I use both as a form of shorthand for easy reference. You're not correct- I am truly opposed to the idea of including any list of combatants in the infobox that is not complete- i.e. any that doesn't include either every combatant, or none at all. I am opposed to any partial list, and I am opposed to using the terms "major" and "minor". (I think I've made my position pretty clear on this in the past - it's becoming increasingly clear that many people have not read, or not paid attention to, the previous discussion, which is in fairness fairly dull, very long, and frustratingly torturous at times). If it is possible to include all 60 or so Allies for example, and all the Axis nations (and perhaps it is) then this may be a suitable compromise to end this mess. Then we can get started on discussing the order they should be placed in (mama mia....). Reaching consensus on the talk page does not solve the issue because that consensus would be based on the subjective point of view of the editors concerned, as described and exemplified ad nauseum. Badgerpatrol 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fair, and in turn I should state that I find a list ended with the statement "and others" to be quite acceptable, but that's what I might be mistakingly be referring to as my subjective preference. What does subjective really mean, anyway (Subjective, Subjectivity, Objectivity (philosophy))?

However, I agree with you in opposition to the terms "major" and "minor", but I don't feel a major/minor distinction must be made in order to truncate a list. Granted, the truncation creates a distinction, but this distinction should not, in anyway, be viewed as creating or conferring major or minor status.

In spite of that, I managed to skip over the following exerpt in all my scanning for lists of countries and descriptions of those countries' war efforts (from the lead section of Allies of World War II, emphasis mine). Xaxafrad 02:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Within the ranks of the Allied powers, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom 
and the United States were known as "The Big Three." U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt referred 
to the Big Three and China as the "Four Policemen".[1] France, in 1939-40 and after its liberation 
in 1944, was also once again considered a major Allied power. At the Potsdam Conference of 
July-August 1945, Roosevelt's successor, Harry S. Truman proposed that the foreign ministers of 
China, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and United States "should draft the peace treaties and 
boundary settlements of Europe," which led to the creation of the Council of Foreign 
Ministers.[2]

I agree with Badgerpatrol. Have we already decide that there SHOULD be a country listing with major countries ? It looks that the decision is only which country should be in the Infobox. However, if we agreed to go to mediation, it is precisely because the question was much more difficult than that and precisely because, in long term, there will always be someone who'll want to include HIS country in the Infobox. I suggest we get one step back. --Flying tiger 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will be catching up on reading them. One thing does strike me as odd in the earlier voting is that several of the nation-based votes were falsified. It would be a simple matter to run a checkuser on these to see if they have the same IP, and whom it matches. In any case, such abuse of good will is good enough for me to go with supporting just the Axis/Allies version. Those opposed to this can try to convice me otherwise. Discrete concrete proposals would be nice. -Stevertigo 06:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Does "earlier voting" refer to events prior to this mediation case? Xaxafrad 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont seem to have noticed mention here (apologies if i missed it) of what to me is the most difficult aspects of establishing what is a major/minor power. And that is the interaction of chronology and size. Certain states are by nature capable of fielding disproportionate power in the field of war. So there is a tendency to give them "major power" status. Yet when one looks at the chronology of the war it is notable that several of these states either switched sides during the course of the war (France and the USSR) or did not join the conflict until it was several years under way (USA). Other states however, say Australia or Canada, who contributed for the full duration of the war and contributed heavily (when analysed in a contextual fashion) are by their nature unable to field comparable armies. In such a situation raw numerical judgements seem to me to be misleading.

Australia and Canada were probably considered subordinate to the United Kingdom, or Great Britain, or whatever, by the international community of the mid 1940's. Xaxafrad 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that using such a simple metric as number of men-at-arms it is easy to construct a scenario where the results would be clearly absurd. For instance two small nations fight for years, then a large nation gets involved, rattles its sabres, sends some troops to the field and soon after the war is finished. Who is a major power in such a scenario? The nations that fought for years or the nation whose very presence on the field brings the conflict to an end? Anyway, its because of this kind of reasoning that I object to the 5v3 breakdown, and why I think that if we must have a bunch of flags in the infobox why I think that the list should be biased towards including as many participants as possible, especially if they were involved in the conflict from the beginning and why I think that the flags should be ordered by date of entry and not size of army.

I think the solution has to be nuanced to take into account the capability of the country to wage war, when it entered the conflict and its impact on the course of the war. For instance if Canada joined a war on Monday and the USA joined on Tuesday then I have no problem in considering the USA to be a major power and Canada not, but when Canada joins the war on day 2 and USA joins on day 500 then i have a serious problem with the USA bumping Canada off the list. In regard to WWII specifically, I think its quite reasonable to argue that had the former colonies decided to abstain from entering the war (like the USA did) that the UK would have been unable to continue to fight the war and there very likely wouldnt have been a war for the USA to join.

Canada is on the list in the spirit of the British Empire. Did the former colonies significantly contribute to staving off a land invasion of the British Isles? Had they not gone to war (even though the fact is, they did), maybe Germany would've had a slightly freer hand in conquering Europe, but the failed Russian invasion still would've occurred, and the Pacific War still would've been waged, no? Xaxafrad 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Id also like to make a last point: earlier in this section Haber posts a list of what he considers important for the infobox and wikipedia as a whole. A list that I have to say I dont entirely agree with. Especially the entry "The encyclopedia is more useful if a reader walks away knowing the major players." I think it is potentially counterproductive to reduce a conflict of such impact and such a global nature down to what is to me a mere caricature of the actual history involved. If people view the article, see the infobox and decide thats all they need to know then we are actually doing people a disservice. They wont know for instance that some of the "major powers" actually didn't join until part way through, or changed sides during the conflict, they might even be persuaded to think that a country which made major contributions was not even involved! And to me that isnt a desirable outcome at all. If reductionism results in notable omission then the reduction isnt appropriate in my book. Anyway, thanks for listening. Demerphq 12:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If people are viewing the article, they would read the sentences that say Canada and everybody else joined the war on such and such a date. The fact is, the whole article doesn't hang on this infobox. If random readers don't feel like educating themselves enough to notice which nations changed sides (detailed in the long chronology section of WW2), that's their problem, it's not up to the infobox to correct that. Xaxafrad 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the vein of shortening WW2 from 160+ KB, the chronology section could be compressed to quickly and simply describe all the countries involved in the various theaters and the dates and reasons for joining whichever side, with lots of links to the plethora of {{main}} articles. (I'll cross post this comment on the appropriate talk page.) Xaxafrad 23:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List order

List A1

1. Allies of World War II

List A2

Allies (largest to smallest): (thanks Cla68) (38 countries)

1. Soviet Union: 1941, 22 June
2. United States of America: 1941, 8 December (including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other unincorporated territories)
3. United Kingdom: 1939, 3 September (included Indian Empire & Crown Colonies)
4. Republic of China: 1941, 9 December (in war with Empire of Japan since 1937)
5. France: 1939, 3 September
6. Poland: 1939, 1 September
7. Australia: 1939, 3 September
8. New Zealand: 1939, 3 September
9. Canada: 1939, 10 September
10. Norway: 1940, 9 April
11. Belgium: 1940, 10 May
12. Luxembourg: 1940, 10 May
13. Netherlands: 1940, 10 May
14. Greece: 1940, 28 October
15. Kingdom of Yugoslavia: 1941, 6 April (formerly a member of the Axis)
16. Tannu Tuva: 1941, 25 June (annexed by Soviet Union in 1944)
17. Panama: 1941, 7 December
18. Costa Rica: 1941, 8 December
19. Dominican Republic: 1941, 8 December
20. El Salvador: 1941, 8 December
21. Haiti: 1941, 8 December
22. Honduras: 1941, 8 December
23. Nicaragua: 1941, 8 December
24. Guatemala: 1941, 9 December
25. Cuba: 1941, 9 December
26. Czechoslovakia (Government-in-Exile) : 1941, 16 December
27. Peru: 1942, 12 February
28. Mexico: 1942, 22 May
29. Brazil: 1942, 22 August
30. Ethiopia: 1942, 14 December
31. Iraq: 1943, 17 January (occupied by Allies in 1941)
32. Bolivia: 1943, 7 April
33. Iran: 1943, 9 September (occupied by Allies in 1941)
34. Italy: 1943, 13 October (formerly a member of the Axis)
35. Colombia: 1943, 26 November
36. Liberia: 1944, 27 January
37. Nepal: 1939, 4 September
38. South Africa: 1939, 6 September

List A3

(from the original signatories of the Declaration by United Nations on 1 Jan 1942) (26 countries)

1. United States of America (including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other unincorporated territories)
2. United Kingdom (included Indian Empire & Crown Colonies)
3. Soviet Union
4. Republic of China
5. Australia
6. Belgium
7. Canada
8. Costa Rica
9. Cuba
10. Czechoslovakia (Government-in-Exile)
11. Dominican Republic
12. El Salvador
13. Greece
14. Guatemala
15. Haiti
16. Honduras
17. India
18. Luxembourg
19. Netherlands
20. New Zealand
21. Nicaragua
22. Norway
23. Panama
24. Poland
25. South Africa
26. Kingdom of Yugoslavia

List A4

(from Allies of World War II#United Nations, "leading nations" statement)

1. Republic of China
2. France
3. Soviet Union
4. United Kingdom (included Indian Empire & Crown Colonies)
5. United States of America (including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other unincorporated territories)

List A5

(Country names in alphabetical order, short form GB from Churchill's 2nd World War)

1. China
2. France
3. Great Britain
4. Soviet Union
5. United States

List B1

1. Axis powers of World War II

List B2

(from Axis powers of World War II) (28 countries)

Major powers:

1. Greater German Reich
2. Empire of Greater Japan
3. Kingdom of Italy

Minor powers:

1. Kingdom of Hungary
2. Kingdom of Romania
3. Slovak Republic
4. Kingdom of Bulgaria
5. Kingdom of Yugoslavia
6. Independent State of Croatia

Co-belligerents:

1. Kingdom of Thailand
2. Republic of Finland
3. Kingdom of Iraq

Japanese puppet states:

1. Manchukuo
2. Mengjiang
3. Reorganised Government of China
4. Burma
5. Second Philippine Republic
6. Provisional Government of Free India

Italian puppet states:

1. Albania
2. Ethiopia

German puppet states:

1. Italian Social Republic
2. Kingdom of Serbia
3. Independent State of Montenegro

Axis collaborator states:

1. French State

Controversial relations with the Axis:

1. Kingdom of Denmark
2. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
3. Spanish State
4. Estado Novo

List B3

(alternate)

List B4

1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan

[edit] Comments

Mediator note: We can agree on a list in general, or if necessary take a vote on each country, deciding whether it belongs in the top or bottom piles. One important way to define relevance is to adhere to the particular spheres of conflict. There are understandably caveats. Was France an allied combatant? Or was it for the most part taken over by Germany? We can sort all of this out methodically I think. Another way to define a cutoff point would be to let the smaller list, in this case the Axis list, define the number of Allied parties represented. Can we have an Axis list added, someone? Regards, -Stevertigo 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Axis list added, as well as two extras for the Allies. Xaxafrad 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. -Stevertigo 07:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

For

• A5 and B4. Note that I don't really see this vote as binding, nor do I like Wikipedia votes very much in principle, but I do think we should cooperate with the mediator and see where it takes us. Haber 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• A5, B4 - 5vs3. I wouldn't look at it like a vote; I think it's more like a poll to determine consensus, but it's easier to just say "vote". Xaxafrad 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment For the list of commanders, I would vote for 6v3 (2 US presidents) off the top of my head, since I haven't familiarized myself with the specific players. Xaxafrad 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• More comments These are probably my final statements on this matter, as I'm not sure I can say anything that I haven't said before. I have just read about the creation of the Allies in chronology section covering the war in the Pacific (1941-1943):

The Allies were officially formed in the Declaration by United Nations on 1 January 1942. Soon 
afterwards, the American-British-Dutch-Australian Command (ABDACOM) was formed to unite Allied 
forces in South East Asia. It was the first Allied supreme command of the war.

• In looking at the Declaration by United Nations, I followed the link to the online text of the original document. In the original document, the nations are listed in a curious order: the USA, the UK of GB and NI, the USSR, and China, followed by an alphabetical listing of the remaining countries. This signifies to me the delineation, in the mind of the writer of the declaration of 1941, between who was major and who wasn't. Notably, France is not on the list, as France was a conquered nation and a collaborator state in 1941. In 1939, at the war's beginning, I believe they considered France a major member of the British-Franco-Polish defense alliance. After the war, with a reinstated French government, the Council of Foreign Ministers probably thought they were the big boys in the winners' circle (sorry Canada, Australia, and all the rest, it's nothing personal). Xaxafrad 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Even more... Sorry, I thought of something else to say. If one wanted to accuse the writer of the UN declaration to have a biased POV, I'd like to point out the fact that representatives from each country agreed to the ordering by their signatures. They had a chance to disagree with the "ladder of importance" when the declaration was being drafted. Xaxafrad 04:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• A5 vs B4 Blueshirts 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Against

• I do not support any combatant or commander listings in the infobox beyond Axis and Allies. --NEMT 17:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• How did we come to Cla68's list? Number of troops fielded I assume? Why that metric and not, say, length of time officially at war or citizens killed? Also, could I see the figures used for Cla68's list? Oberiko 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I assumed the "largest to smallest" was referring to land area, but I can't say from which period of time (1945ish?). Xaxafrad 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only meant "largest to smallest" for the top part of the list. I didn't try to actually put the entire list in descending order by land size or population or anything like that. Cla68 09:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I also do not support any combatant or commander listings in the infobox beyond "Axis" and "Allies", and since that option does not appear to be available (thus mischaracterising and obfuscating the whole debate), it's difficult to see this vote as valid- especially since a less malformed iteration of this idea was recently tried and resulted in a clear result (which might be taken as a consensus by some anyway). However, I'd like to hear further comments from the mediator (and anyone else, of course). One avenue we might explore as a compromise is including all combatants in a redesigned infobox. I think we had all perhaps thought this as impractical on space grounds, but examples such as Invasion of Poland (1939) (I'm thinking of the city listing in the lower box, below the main infobox) offer a possibilty that even large lists can be included. Badgerpatrol 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the {{Campaign}} infobox from Invasion of Poland (1939) and copied a bunch of stuff to a subpage just to see how it would look (55vs28 countries). I used the list of participants from the respective Allies and Axis powers articles. More formatting is probably desirable (here's a link to the template in case anyone's interested: User:Xaxafrad/WW2combatants). Xaxafrad 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, Ive moved your boxes to a different format at the bottom of this page. My thinking is that the make fine full lists for the bottom of the WWII article, but the war box at the top should only include a short number, linking of course to the section you've composed. -Stevertigo 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Xaxafrad fr doing this. Buuuut.....Ooh...in fairness, it looks fairly horrendous. I'm not sure if it's possible to clean that up to a decent listing. I'm certainly inclined to stick with just "Allies" and "Axis". Badgerpatrol 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I also do not support listing combatants and commanders in the infobox. Listing only some countries and not others is inherently POV. Parsecboy 13:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect....Is it really? What part of listing the top 3 or 5 major countries (as decided by Churchill and other political leaders in 1945, for the Allies, and Wikipedia editors, for the Axis) is biased? How can a point of view be biased when there's a link to the remainder of the list at the bottom of the list? When the remainder of the article (briefly) describes the roles the US, Canada, Hungary, and others played? Is the problem here that some people are assuming readers are going to only read the infobox to learn everything they want? I don't know what information everybody is looking for when they come to WW2, but they probably read more than the infobox, or are at least aware that more than 8 countries were involved. If a reader doesn't care to follow the links, what are we really supposed to do about it? Xaxafrad 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's "inherently pov" to include some and exclude others. There are definitely some political and military criteria that one can use to rank the countries and some historical consensus on who the major players were. Blueshirts 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cutoff point

Mediator note: Vote here on the cutoff point, after agreeing on the nation order above. The cutoff point could be represented by a simple number, representing the first entry which does not belong in the topicbox. -SV

Allied powers during World War II 1939 Poland Australia New Zealand United Kingdom (included Indian Empire & Crown Colonies) France Nepal South Africa Canada 1940 Norway Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands Greece 1941 Kingdom of Yugoslavia (former Axis power) Soviet Union Tannu Tuva Panama Costa Rica Dominican Republic El Salvador Haiti Honduras Nicaragua United States of America (including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other unincorporated territories) Republic of China (in war with Empire of Japan since 1937) Guatemala Cuba Czechoslovakia (Government-in-Exile) 1942 Peru Mexico Brazil Ethiopia 1943 ' Iraq (occupied by Allies in 1941) Bolivia Iran (occupied by Allies in 1941) Italy (former Axis power) Colombia 1944 Liberia Romania (former Axis power) Bulgaria (former Axis power) San Marino Albania (formerly occupied by Fascist Italy) 1945 Hungary (former Axis power) Bahawalpur Ecuador Paraguay Uruguay Venezuela Turkey Lebanon Saudi Arabia Finland (formerly an Axis co-belligerent, de facto co-belligerent of UN in Lapland War) Argentina Chile People's Republic of Mongolia

Axis powers during World War II Major powers Greater German Reich Empire of Greater Japan Kingdom of Italy Minor powers Kingdom of Hungary Kingdom of Romania Slovak Republic Kingdom of Bulgaria Kingdom of Yugoslavia Independent State of Croatia Co-belligerents Kingdom of Thailand Republic of Finland Kingdom of Iraq Puppet states Manchukuo Mengjiang Reorganised Government of China Burma Second Philippine Republic Provisional Government of Free India Image:Flag of Albania 1939.gif Albania Ethiopia Italian Social Republic Kingdom of Serbia Independent State of Montenegro Collaborator states French State Controversial affiliation Kingdom of Denmark Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Spanish State Estado Novo

[edit] What's going on?

It's been some time now. Is everyone still interested in this mediation? Haber 03:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still here :) Parsecboy 12:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess now that American Idol is heating up, people have better things to do. Motion to exclude them from the infobox about this mediation. Haber 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Too bad, I tought for a moment this section was refering to Marvin Gaye. Maybe that would have been more interesting than a remake of the previous discussion on the WWII page... --Flying tiger 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Haber 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone anywhere. Obviously this mediation exercise has gotten us absolutely nowhere and went wrong almost from the very start. Since this issue is surely too insignificant for the ArbCom, since some are unwilling to accept the result of the previous poll, since we've surely discussed every permutation fairly exhaustively over the many weeks (months?) of debate both here and on the WWII talk page, and since people (not least the mediator) appear to be losing interest, I'm really not sure how to resolve this. Any ideas as to a possible compromise? Badgerpatrol 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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