Talk:Battle of Tarakan (1945)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Tarakan (1945) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Battle of Tarakan (1945) is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template. How you can help: Discussion board
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force Japanese military history task force United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Portal	Battle of Tarakan (1945) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Changes 23/11/05

Grant, thanks for the changes. I've made the following minor modifications:

• Seperated the OOB out of Section 3 (I agree that moving it to the end is an improvement)
• Replaced 'Bde Grp' with Brigade Group for clarity's sake.

I have reservations over including the statement that "The invasion of Tarakan also liberated the civilian population from a brutal occupying army". While it is true that the invasion freed the Tarakanese from the Japanese, this came at the cost of high civilian casualties, including heavy damage to the Island's only large town. Given that the war was almost over at the time of the invasion, it's hard to see how the Tarakanese were made better off. --Nick Dowling 11:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"Brutal" will probably be considered non-NPoV, even though it was true. And the locals possibly did not want the Dutch to come back. But, I think it's OK to say the area was liberated from Japanese occupation. French civilians suffered terrible casualties on D-Day, but most were glad to see the back of the Germans. And there is no evidence to say that the Japanese imperial forces were regarded with affection in any country that they captured. Grant65 | Talk 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Nick, just wanted to say I love your work ;-) Grant65 | Talk 11:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Grant. I'm blushing! --Nick Dowling 10:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Local casualties

Any info on local/native casualties? i see only allied/ japaniz stats. kawaputra 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I'll try to dig something up. Given the scale of the pre-invasion bombardment these would have been very considerable. --Nick Dowling 07:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a "Pyrrhic" victory

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor, leading eventually to the victor's downfall. Allied casualties were relatively light, and the Australians won not only the battle, but the war. There may have been errors of strategy or tactics in the battle (the possibility of which are discussed later in the article), but the results are in no way Pyrrhic. MayerG (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how 800 casualties were light, especially given that they were mainly suffered by the roughly 4000 Australian infantrymen, but I take your point. I've strengthened the wording as it is the consensus view that taking Tarakan wasn't worth the cost - see the final para of the article, which cites two excellent sources (including the editor of the Official History of Australia in WW2). --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)