Talk:Burma Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burma Campaign article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Burma Campaign is part of WikiProject Myanmar (Burma), a project to improve all Burma related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Burmese-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Myanmar (Burma) To-do:

Contents

[edit] Request: Situation before the campaign

I'd like to see a section about the situation before the campaign. I didn't know (though of course I suspected) that Burma was part of the British Empire at the time, so it took me a little while to understand the heavy Brittish involvement. So if someone with knowledge on the subject could write a couple of paragraphs or so about who controlled what and who wanted to change what, and the like, I'd be grateful. 90.231.213.142 (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] balance

This article is somewhat unbalanced I think, being mostly centered upon the Allied side. More information is needed on the Japanese side. Who were their commanders, which forces took part, what were the Japanese objectives, ect. Fornadan (t) 19:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese advance through Burma to the Indian frontier

We should add some date information in this section. Philip Baird Shearer

Maps and pictures also. This article has lots of text and no visual references. Wiki-Ed 16:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 50K is to big for an article

I think that this article is now a good overview of the campaign. But it is now 50K in length so how do go about cutting it down to a maximum of 32K? I would not want to loose information, so I guess it involves moving information into other articles. We could for example take the major subsections and move them into new articles. eg:

  • Burma Campaign command structure
  • Burma Campaign initial Japanese successes
  • Burma Campaign the turning point

Has anyone any other ideas? -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


Some:

  • The section on the Central Front 1943-1944 duplicates much information already available in separate articles on the battles of Imphal and Kohima.
  • Much of the information on events on the Northern Front 1943-1944 are also available in an article on Northern Combat Area Command (which could be extended to cover the period 1944-1945).
  • Another section which coulld be spun off into a separate article are the joint battles of Meiktila and Mandalay (Central Front 1944-1945).

This ought to save you 10Kb or so. HLGallon 12:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure about putting campaign details into NCAC as I think it should be about the command, more of an article like SEAC. Perhapse information from both articles could be moved into China Burma India Theater of World War II. Philip Baird Shearer 17:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would break the article up with separate linked pages on each campaign or battle with its own summary orbat maps pics etc. with only a summary mention of the campaign or battle with a link in this page. Look at the Second Sino-Japanese War page. Maybe use its Campaignbox Second Sino-Japanese War as a model listing the various battles and campaigns. That could colapse this page size pretty well but allow more info overall.Asiaticus 03:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Allied retreat

During the period of British rule over Burma, Indians had emigrated to Burma in large numbers, where most ran small businesses or industries, or gained land through moneylending, antagonising the majority Burman population. As they fled, many of these destitute refugees were preyed upon by dacoits (armed bandits) or Burmese nationalist bands. Some Chinese communities in Burma also fled. This flight permanently changed the racial mix of Burma.

Has anyone got a source for this? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Any history of Burma that covers the early 20th century.

[edit] References

This article's bibliography has been done terribly, I must say. Perhaps the original editors who included the references could rewrite them as per WP:CITE? --Loopy e 00:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word Count

IT's about 7500 words. Far, far, far too long. How about trimming it down to a year-by-year summary, with a list of major battles? Guapovia 11:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page is a disgrace

The page should be retitled: Burma Campaign - A tribute to the god-like greatness of General Slim. The page is unbalanced, depends far too heavily on certain "easy" sources (i.e. slim), is (or was) was too POV in taking the British/American side with regard to disputes with the Chinese. Its also way too long. It should be reduced to a summary of the campaign. Half of the page should be thrown away or moved to other pages. You can start with the lengthy (and worthless) dissertation on the command structure.

The hero-worship of Slim, if nothing else has to go. You do not put into a section "Defeat Into Victory by Field Marshal William Slim is the definitive account of the Burma campaign." Thats a distorted and biased opinion. It has no place on the page. Neither does the page's tendancy to take whatever Slim says as utter untouchable truth no matter how biased (or even wrong) what he says is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.127.0.51 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page entries with 4 ~~~~ it will automagically add your userid and a datestamp

You are of course entitled to you POV but please read Wikipedia:Verifiability before you make large chages to this page. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Shearer. I am quite familiar with Wikipedia. The content and material as presented on this page is in serious need of correction. Large changes were required because large amounts of material on the page are either wrong, biased or have been written in pursuit of goals that have nothing to do with the subject of the page. If you wish to help in the effort to rewrite the page, please do so in a productive way rather than displaying your own ignorance as to the subject matter. As time allows, I hope to improve the page by adding a reasonable list of books and other sources. I will tell you however that the previous insulting and unfair material on the page as concerns the Chinese army will not be coming back. If you are unfamiliar with Stilwell and his attitude toward both the British and the Chinese, there are any number of books or even the words of the man himself that should more than clarify. If you are unfamilar with pre-war military planning in Burma, I can suggest you start with either the British official history of the war or the history of the indian army in the second world war that deals with the fall of Burma.168.127.0.52 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not supply sources here please supply sources for the points below in the article. BTW I am familiar with vinegar Joe's attitudes. But "respect" has to be earned had the British or the Chinese done anything to earn Stillwell's respect? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

With the chages you have made to date:

  • It was never expected that the Japanese would invade Burma. What is the source for this statment?
  • The British authorities gave no consideration to adding to the defense of Burma based on these policies. What is the source for this statment?
  • (Stilwell) was ill-tempered and lacked respect for either the British or the Chinese. Source for "lacked respect"?
  • From the Chinese perspective, the Americans and the British were trying to take over command of the Chinese armies to use them for their own purposes. In retrospect, much of the criticism directed at Chaing and the performance of the Chinese Army in 1942 seems unfair considering the series of disasterous command decisions on the British side such as the whole incident at the Sittang Bridge. The ability of many of the other Chinese commanders was called into question though the enormous sarifices the Chinese troops made allowed the British to retreat to India. What is the source for this statment?

--Philip Baird Shearer 01:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also felt that this article have been imbalanced, perhaps not so much bias but in focus. I've just never found the time and will to do something with it. Regarding Chiang, this article used to plainly call him a bad strategist, now it's been moved too far in the other direction. Can't give any quotes just now, but the accounts I've read agree that Chiang considered the war with Japan secondary to the upcoming struggle with the Communists. He therefore felt no particular need to attrit his forces to help reconquer Burma. Fornadan (t) 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
His main war may or may not have been against the Japanese, but who ever he was fighting, having the Burma road open for resupply was clearly to his stratigic advantage. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page is still a disgrace

Obviously there's been a debate and some alterations but this page clearly now been edited too far. Slim seems to get just one mention whereas Stiwell and Wingate now are credited with all the glory - the most important commander in the theatre was Slim, Slim was the one who turned an army in retreat into a cohesive whole that dealt the Japanese the fatal blows - to argue otherwise is to distort history.

Merrill's Maruaders (despite their catchy name) were a relatively small force and their impact on the campaign was minor - from the article as it's written they appear to have won the camapign on their own. The RAF contribution again seems to be down-played in favour of another catchy name force.

Burma was a victory for 14th Army with support from the Chinese and a few Americans. This was mainly down to Slim's remarkable effort and impact.

Please revise this page and give credit where it is due


Thanks

(PS Slim - The Standardbearer, Ronald Lewin, Leo Cooper, London 1976 may help in redressing the current imbalance) -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.126.86 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Allied Combatants

Bearing in mind the fact that 340,00 Indians, 100,000 British, 90,000 Africans, 65,000 Chinese, and only 10,00 Americans took part in this campaign, why has the author of this ridiculous piece of disinformation chosen to highlight the fourth and fifth highest contributors to this camapaign whilst ignoring that of the second and third highest? (transferred here from the main article by Folks at 137 18:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)) original by 81.146.37.169

[edit] Moved comments from Main page

The following comment has been removed from the lead paragraph of the main page:

Bearing in mind the fact that 340,00 Indians, 100,000 British, 90,000 Africans, 65,000 Chinese, and only 10,00 Americans took part in this campaign, why has the author of this ridiculous piece of disinformation chosen to highlight the fourth and fifth highest contributors to this camapaign whilst ignoring that of the second and third highest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.146.37.169 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 20 May 2007.

- cgilbert(talk|contribs) 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article breakdown

Can I suggest that we breakdown the article the similar to how the BBC did it? Namely, I propose the following:

  • Japanese capture of Burma (Jan 42 - May 42)
  • Stalemate and raids (June 42 - Oct 43)
  • Fighting recommences (Oct 24 43 (Start of Northern Burma Campaign) - Aug 3 44 (end of the siege of Myitkyina))
  • Allies retake Burma (Aug 5 44 - Aug 45)

Thoughts? Oberiko 19:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operations

Just keeping a few things I find here for later use:

  • Operation Bullfrog: Canceled plan for amphibious assault on Akyab
  • Operation Buccaneer: ??
  • Operation Pigstick: 2nd canceled plan for landings south of Mayu Peninsula on Arakan coast,
  • Operation Cudgel: Second Arakan offensive (Mid-Nov 43 - start of Ha-Go)
  • Operation Gripfist: Proposed offensive from Imphal to Kalemyo, set to start after Cudgel but canceled due to Ha-Go / U-Go
  • Operation Ha-Go: Distraction manuever for Operation U-Go (Feb 6 - Feb 23 44)
  • Operation U-Go: Main Japanese offensive against British positions in Assam (8 Mar - 4 Jul 44)

Oberiko (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Really confusing

It seems to me that the Burma Campaign begun in January 1942. It was followed by the Arakan campaign (1942-43). Kohima and Imphal were substantially a part of the invasion of India proper in 1944, since they took place in Manipur and Nagaland which are clearly not a part of Burma. It seems to me the article would benefit from being divided accordingly into three separate articles--mrg3105mrg3105 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Trouble is it's common usage and there is a logical continuity and linkage between all the events, regardless of their actual location. So changing the "Burma Campaign" to something else or splitting it up would be doubly confusing! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, so be it. I'm too busy with the Eastern Front to do the research now. However from memory the events of 1944 were not a part of the original Burma planning by the Japanese. In any case, for consistency sake the Japanese names for the operations should be used, and transliterated. Let Wikipedia not be accused of helping the victors write the history :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 09:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. I really do think that the article would benefit from being divided into several interlinked articles.--mrg3105mrg3105 09:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see be attractions of reducing this page to a short summary article with three daughter pages (rather like the North African Campaign sits on top of the Western Desert Campaign, Operation Torch and the Tunisian Campaign articles)......but I don't have any interest in doing this myself at present!! I agree that Japanese names should be reflected in Japanese operations. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
And what would make it even harder to work with is that this article seemingly relies on one source, Allen.--mrg3105mrg3105 09:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

All perfectly reasonable points. However, as Kirrages points out, the events were all contiguous. If the article were to be divided into events in Burma and events in India, the separate articles might need large amounts of explanation to put the articles into context. It might be more reasonable to divide the article into four separate articles each dealing with a single campaigning season, provided sufficient information is given in each sub-article to maintain continuity. As to the single-source accusation, I have been working on the article since January, when it consisted of 65kb of solid text with *one* citation. Allen is a reasonable source, as it works from a very large number of primary eyewitness and diary sources. I intend using Bayley and Harpur for events "behind the lines" in both India and Burma next. HLGallon (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, go for it, and more power to you! However its not campaigning seasons you are dealing with, but several years, which is why I think there needs to be a division into smaller articles. There is no need for extensive explanations in new articles. You should put up a template or something to tell people you are actively working on it.--mrg3105mrg3105 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
By "campaigning season", I refer to the part of each year, usually October / November to May / June, during which active military operations were effectively possible. From June to October, the monsoon rains would make tactical movement almost impossible and curtail flying. So, each campaigning season is effectively a year, although the fit is awkward because the New Year falls in the middle of it. (Fourteenth Army made much of its efforts during the monsoon of 1944, but almost the entire logistic effort of the army was devoted to maintaining only two divisions.) HLGallon (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand this.--mrg3105mrg3105 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, I might as well start. The main article will be divided into four main sections, each covering one campaign season, approximately, as per this discussion. HLGallon (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide the relative date-spans you plan on breaking it down into? Are they fair similar to the structure I posted above? Oberiko (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Broadly yes. Have just finished the first section, dealing with military events Jan '42 - May '42. That's enough for one evening's work. HLGallon (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
And now done all sections, in skeleton form at least. There are many more links and references to do, but I can now do these at rather more leisure. All help and contributions welcome. HLGallon (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the Canadians?

Why is there no mention of the contribution the Canadians made to the Burma Campaign? According to the Canadian veterans website there were 5,500 Burma stars issued to Canadians see here My father, who was a lifelong member of the Burma Star Association, fought in the British Artillery in Burma and was honoured to welcome a delegation of Canadian Air Force veterans in 1997 at Manchester Airport, who were en route to Burma to bury six airmen who had been found in a crashed plane in the Burma jungle.[1] He said that the British Army couldn't have survived without the supplies regularly flown in by the Canadians and wanted to thank them personally. There are some figures for Canadians in south-east Asia here Richerman (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)