Talk:Pacific War/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Proposed merger of material from Greater East Asia War in the Pacific

I propose that the content from "Greater East Asia War in the Pacific" be merged here as the name is simply the Japanese name for the Pacific Theatres and a such it is an example of content forking. Grant | Talk 09:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - as the earliest version of the article ([1]) explains, 'Greater East Asia War in the Pacific' is/was a Japanese term for 'Pacific War'. As it is not a commonly used English-language term and does not contain any unique material it should be converted to a redirect to this article. --Nick Dowling 11:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Support, per the reasons stated above. Parsecboy 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Support. That page isn't much more than a stub. Including what's there on this page will make this one better. Trekphiler 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking a flyer

I rewrote this

"aggression, for without these resources, Japan's military machine would grind to a halt."

to this

"aggression, for without imported oil (which made up about 80% of domestic consumption), Japan's economy, let alone her military, would grind to a halt. Faced with a chose between disaster and abject surrender, on December 8, "

based on Toland's Rising Sun & Parillo; this

"By the time the Japanese had launched planes against the island, U.S. planes had scrambled and were heading for Nagumo's carriers. However"

to this

"Nagumo executed a first strike against Midway, while Fletcher launched his aircraft, bound for Nagumo's carriers. Ineffective initial attacks from Midway nevertheless persuaded Nagumo to strike again, while Fletcher's torpedo bombers were poorly coordinated and ineffectual;[1] they failed to score a single hit, and half of them were lost. At 09:20, the first U.S carrier aircraft arrived, TBD Devastators from Hornet';

in part because "scrambled" doesn't apply to carriers...; this

"The carrier aircraft had launched without coordinating their own dive bomber and fighter escort coverage so the torpedo bombers had arrived first, distracting Nagumo's Zeros. When the last of the U.S. Navy strike aircraft arrived, the Zeros could not protect their ships against a high-level dive bomber attack. "

to this

"Fletcher's attacks had been disorganized, yet succeeded in distracting Nagumo's defensive fighters. When U.S. Navy dive bombers arrived, the Zeros could not offer any protection."

because it had ignored the influence from Midway & seemed to imply there was none; this

"The number of U.S. submarines on patrol at any one time increased from 13 in 1942, to 18 in 1943, to 43 in late 1944. Half of their kills came in 1944, when over 200 subs were operating.[2]"

to this

"The number of U.S. submarines patrols (and sinkings) rose steeply: 350 patrols (180 ships sunk) in 1942, 350 (335) in 1943, and 520 (603) in late 1944.[3]

because the numbers 13 & 18 are ridiculous; there were more subs than that in the Asiatic Fleet alone in Dec 1941, & even assuming 3-4 patrols/yr each, there is no way in hell 13-18 boats made 350 war patrols. (If we assume 13-18 on station, that implies a force of about 60, which still makes it one hell of a big job). I also added this

"Moreover, Japan's fallback "barrier" strategy, relying on attrition to persuade the U.S. to come to terms, was one IJN was incompetent in training and doctrine to carry out successfully.[4] "

and this

"This divided command had unfortunate consequences for the commerce war,[5] and consequently, the war itself."

based on

  1. ^ Thanks in part to terrible aircraft torpedoes.
  2. ^ Larry Kimmett and Margaret Regis, U.S. Submarines in World War II
  3. ^ Blair, Silent Victory, pp.359-60, 551-2, & 816.
  4. ^ Peattie, Mark R., & Evans, David C. Kaigun (United States Naval Institute Press, 1997); Parillo, Mark P. Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II. (United States Naval Institute Press, 1993).
  5. ^ Blair, Silent Victory

Trekphiler 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Making it up?

I deleted

"In 1941, Japan had only a fraction of the manufacturing capacity of the United States and was therefore perceived as a lesser threat than Germany."

While true, it has nothing to do with the subject of the paragraph. I also deleted "the United States refused to negotiate." because this is self-evident from the previous statement, "The gamble did not pay off." I also changed "Sub Fleet" to "Sub Force" (which was the correct name) & OP20G to HYPO, because OP20G was the senior command in DC, not the station in Hawaii. Trekphiler 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. Hypo was far from the be-all-and-end-all of Allied signals intelligence in the Pacific, in 1941 or at any other stage of the war.
  2. Military orgs love names in upper case, but they are against Wikipedia policy unless they are acronyms and LOOK ODD when everything else is in lower case. Also, the proper name at the time seems to have been Pacific Submarine Force.[2] It isn't necessary to use the proper name/font in every case; we as civilian enthusiasts are not obliged to, and many of us don't (e.g. "The Pacific submarine forces were often split up..."[3]). Even the USN doesn't use them on every occasion ("This is the vision for the future capabilities the submarine force needs..."[4]
  3. I don't have a problem with the other edits mentioned above. Grant | Talk 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting Hypo was "be-all-and-end-all", just that it isn't OP20G. It wasn't even the sole USN org in Hawaii (never mind Shafter).
  • It was, to be accurate, the Pacific Fleet Submarine Force (in the way the battleships were the Battle Force); my point was, it's not a "fleet". Your ref to "sub forces" is a general ref to all of them; the attack ref is to Pearl, which is the PacFlt Sub Force (whence I'd change it).
  • I have no particular beef with "no all small caps" (it's just my preference...) Hope I'm clear now. Trekphiler 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So you agree that Hypo wasn't so important that it should be the only intelligence organisation mentioned in that passage?
Since the Atlantic and Asiatic Fleet subs were never based at Pearl, I don't see the problem in saying "submarine force".
Which brings me to another point: as a general observation, I would have to say that WW2 USN and other Allied ops/units from bases in the Philippines/Australia seem to get short shrift from naval historians, compared to operations based out of Pearl. I wonder how many Americans now know about CAST and FRUMEL, or the Cavite and Fremantle sub bases. Grant | Talk 15:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I assume that you don't object to me reverting you last edits then? Grant | Talk 04:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, most probably don't know about Cast or Frumel or Red Doyle, but it's Pearl that's in Q, here, not the PTO, & at Pearl, it's Hypo. It's not even all Hypo, if I read the TO&E right, either, just the cryppies in the Admin Bldg basement, since the DF rig was up the coast someplace (cf Stinnett). Either way, it isn't OP20G, which is DC. Unless you can argue DC is under attack, it should be changed. As I read the rest, no beef. (I wouldn't do it that way, but...I can live with it.) Trekphiler 04:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, OP20G was not just a station (like the later NEGAT), OP20G was the 20th Division of the Office of Naval Communications, of which Hypo, Cast and FRUMEL were branches. It's not like I'm saying "Washington DC" when I mean "Pearl Harbor"; it's like I'm saying "US Navy" instead of "Pacific Fleet". Grant | Talk 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it (& maybe this is semantics), OP20G is the senior command, so saying OP20G was attacked is like saying Cast was: OP20G includes Cast, which was not attacked (even located) at Pearl, nor was Negat (which I think of when you say "OP20G", & which, AFAIK, was contemporary: it was the ID of OP20G HQ, DC). What I'm getting at (if I'm not clear) is, it was an attack on resources and facilities at Pearl, nowhere else, so a ref to Hypo (located only at Pearl, or only in Hawaii) is apt, where a ref to OP20G, Cast, even sigint more broadly, might not be. Also, Hypo was the sigint org of the PacWar (cf Midway or Pacific War, for instance), so highlighting its importance here (& the importance of Nagumo missing it) is even more apt. Maybe I'm getting in trouble how I say it. I think of Hypo mostly as the crypto outfit; factually (unless I misread Stinnett & Holmes) Hypo subsumes the DF guys, so saying Hypo indicates their importance, where OP20G minimizes it, implying (to my mind) DC was more important. Clear? Trekphiler 07:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OP-20-G, if you read the article, was the whole branch, not just the HQ, so saying that OP-20-G was not damaged is completely correct and avoids undue emphasis on Hypo at a time when Cast was also making significant contributions. Clear? Grant | Talk 08:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"OP-20-G, if you read the article, was the whole branch" I didn't need to read the OP20G article (I knew that), I needed to read the passage you changed more carefully. We've been arguing across each other, I see. You're after avoiding making Hypo more important. What I'm getting at is its importance at Pearl, which is what the passage is dealing with. What do you say to deleting everything I said above about Hypo & leaving the article alone? Something about the wording troubles me, but I can't pin down what it is, & until I can, I'm not going to change it. What about taking out OP20G & making it sigint? Or cryptanalysis? I think my problem is, I've never seen OP20G refer to anything but the DC organization. As is, it's a bit like saying "ComPac" won the Battle of Midway; technically correct, but a bit peculiar, since Fletcher (TF12?) was SOPA. See? Trekphiler 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't actually say "OP-20-G" in the text; it says "signals intelligence", with a pipe to OP-20-G. As if we were to say "the US Navy won the Battle of Midway". Grant | Talk 10:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli

The casus belli was changed recently to "Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Oil and trade embargo on Japan by the United States, Attack on Pearl Harbor". All of which are linked by and have, as their root cause...the previous casus belli: Japanese expansionism. The latter also covers some things missed by the shopping list. Reverted. Grant | Talk 12:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, you do know that Casus Belli is justification of war not real cause of it? Japanese expansionism (which btw does not cover most of those events currently) may be cause of war but it definitely does not qualify as casus belli. Same way Shelling of Mainila was casus belli for Winter war although as staged event it obviously was not real cause. So its rather simple, Marco Polo Bridge Incident was casus for sino-japanese war and US oil embargo was casus for main japanese expansion in 1941. Pearl harbour could be even left out as casus generally applies to nation which initiates hostilities but i added it to prevent all possible edit wars over it.--Staberinde 12:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
But whose "justification"? And if Marco Polo had been the casus belli, then World War II would have begun in 1937. Pearl Harbor is often seen as a surprise attack, but only the location was a surprise. The western powers had been expecting trouble for months; they simply underestimated Japan's boldness and military reach. From an international point of view, Japan's aggression is the casus belli. Grant | Talk 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The casus belli of the Pacific War is really complicated. The Japanese were anxious to prevent the European powers from doing to them what they did to China in the Opium wars, they wanted the resources of China and the Dutch East Indies so that they wouldn't be dependent on western resources and to prevent the economic downturn that crippled their economy in the 1920s and 30s, and wanted to be more equal with the other "superpowers" of the world. The U.S., Commonwealth nations, France, and the Dutch wanted to protect their interest in the eastern hemisphere and, especially with regard to the U.S., chose to completely misunderstand Japan's intentions in the area. So what's the cassus belli? Cultural clash? Mis-communication? Contrary agendas? Opposing plans? It's hard to put into a succint, one line statement. But, if someone can do it, I'll support it. Cla68 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think "preventing the European powers from doing to them what they did to China in the Opium wars" is drawing a very long bow. By 1941, Japan had been a colonial power itself for 45 years. Moreover, as the US and UK were starting to scale back their colonial involvement in Asia -- something which was accelerated by WW2, not started by it -- Japan launched a war of aggression to take more territory in China. Hence Japanese expansionism. Grant | Talk 08:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Grant. At the end of the day, the Pacific War started because Japan's leadership adopted an expansionist policy. If they'd stayed out of China the western powers wouldn't have placed trade sanctions on them and a general war wouldn't have occured. Japan didn't need to expand into mainland Asia in the 30s - doing so was a deliberate choice made by the Japanese government, which turned out to be an incredibly bad decision. --Nick Dowling 10:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree, but it's more than that (as I think I said). It's a desire for autarky, based (AFAIK) on a faulty grasp of modern trade & a terrible understanding of modern war. Trekphiler 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli is not cause of war. Casus belli is justification for war of the invading side(obviously side which is invaded does not need any extra justifications). So casus belli for pacific war is that what japanese used for justifying their agression, not that why they started their agression. Very oftenly casus belli and real cause of war are totally unrelated.--Staberinde 11:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Whether or not the European powers really wanted to do to Japan what they had done to China the previous century (which it appears they had no intention of doing), Japan used this as one of the reasons for the actions that it took in eventually initiating the Pacific War. Cla68 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how using the shabby justification invented by the Japanese government is encylopedic or sensible. If you want to use that justification then the cause of the war in Europe needs to be 'Polish border violations' as this is what the Nazis claimed as the reason they were entitled to invade Poland. --Nick Dowling 07:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
When I was researching for the background section in the Attack on Pearl Harbor article that's the three main reasons that I found that Japan initiated a war with the west: 1) perceived threats from the western powers to Japan's interests in Asia and the Pacific, 2) a need to control more natural resources to bulwark their economy, and 3) a desire to establish themselves as a world power. Cla68 09:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Is my English really so hard to understand or what? Casus belli is not cause of war! Take your time to read that sentence until you understand the point. Casus Belli is justification of war. In infobox we have "casus belli", not "cause".--Staberinde 10:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Your English is great. The instructions for this field at Template:Infobox Military Conflict states that the content of this field should be "the formal casus belli of a war. This field should not be used for battles, for the underlying causes of a war, or in cases where the casus belli is disputed and requires a lengthy explanation". However, I don't agree with this guidance as it has a very real potential to let casual readers of articles get the impression that the excuses of the agressor were in fact the actual cause of the war. This probably isn't the place to raise it though. --Nick Dowling 10:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If you think that casus belli should be removed from military conflict infoboxes as it confuses people, then feel free to raise that question in appropriate places. Until that we should stick to real meaning of casus belli then deciding what should be in infobox.--Staberinde 11:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Dowling in that I don't find it useful or encyclopedic to list the aggessor's (often stupid) excuse in the infobox. Gee, there's 31 inches of railroad track a little bent (yet still usable) from explosives in Manchuria. Let's mobilize nearly the entire Imperial Army. O_o ...This stuff certainly goes in the body text but it's much more revealing to display a short list of underlying causes right up top. Off to infobox world to change it there... Binksternet 11:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I can solve this problem. Here's the full instructions for the casus field in the infobox:
"casus – optional – the formal casus belli of a war. This field should not be used for battles, for the underlying causes of a war, or in cases where the casus belli is disputed and requires a lengthy explanation. "
Let's simply not use it. This is clearly a case where the causes for the war requires a lengthy explanation. It can be explained in detail in the text of the article. Parsecboy 11:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Still, I'm writing to infobox to see if they're up to changing the template. Binksternet 12:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Scope and hierarchy

I recently posted the following on the WWII task force, but I'll probably get better exposure here.

I'd like to propose the following structure for our dealings with Asia in World War II:

  • Asian Theatre of World War II should contain everything from July 1937 - August 1945
  • Pacific War should be a subset of the ATWW2 and contain everything from December 7/8 - August 1945
  • Second Sino-Japanese War should be considered a sub-theatre of the Asian Theatre of World War II, only focusing on operations involving both China and Japan in China.

Thoughts? Oberiko 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this issue too.
My present thinking is that this article should be re-defined as 1941-45. It only became a "Pacific" conflict when Japan attacked the western Allies. The Second Sino-Japanese War should still be covered as both background, and in the sense of a distinct theatre in 1941-45.
IMO we don't need an "Asian Theatre of World War II" article. The early part of the Second Sino-Japanese War is background to WW2 but is not thought usually of as part of it. Also, if we follow the Allied supreme commands, there were two theatres in Asia: China and South East Asia.
I look forward to seeing what others think about this. Grant | Talk 02:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you get into trouble going back to 1937. You're right, the war with China goes back that far (or 1931, if you want to get deep), but calling it "Asian Theatre of WW2" jams up at the common wisdom of when WW2 starts (1/9/39). (I'll leave aside the typical U.S. chauvinism.) Address that, you're good to go. Trekphiler 04:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Start dates are arbitrary. The official Japanese histories of World War II actually put the start date at 1931 (H.P. Willmott. The Second World War in the Far East, pg. 36) and I can find several sources which put the start date at 1937. Oberiko 00:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oberiko, I appreciate your creativity and efforts but I'm not sure to understand what kind of problem you want to solve with this new "Asian Theatre" structure. It reminds me of the Greater East Asia War, the official shōwa name for the sensō. The article about it has just recently been deleted by Grant65. In fact, as you wrote above, the war could also be called the "Fifteen years war". Is there really a problem with the actual articles ? I clearly see the two different fronts of the Dai Tō'A Sensō in the Second sino-japanese war (Holy war) and Pacific war articles. If there would be need for a new structure, I would prefer to bring back the historical concept...--Flying tiger 03:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pacific War should only refer to the post December 1941 part of the war, as most authors put it starting then. Now, with only that and the Second-Sino Japanese War, this leaves the readers without a full overview article about the Asian Theatre, including everything involving Japan outside of China pre-December 1941. Oberiko 12:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can easily have references to invasion of Manchuria and east China in the background section of SSJW (Holy war) and to invasion of China, Hainan and Indochina in the Pacific war. If a new article would be necessary, I would see a simple chronology of the main events of the two fronts called Greater East Asia War. --Flying tiger 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Greater East Asian War seems more like a propaganda name, akin to labeling the Soviet-German war as the "Great Patriotic War". Asian Theatre of World War II has the advantages of being quite neutral and, to a lesser extent, matching up with the European Theatre of World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm... good point; but the lead of the article should made clear reference to Greater East Asia War. --Flying tiger 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. A section on the various names (and the meaning of those names) is well within scope I'd think. Oberiko 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Framework

With the above in mind, I think we should clean up the article a bit. I'd like to recommend the following framework:

  • Background (X - 6 Dec 41)
  • Japan attacks Western powers (7 Dec 41 - 1 May 42)
  • Allies retake the initiative (4 May 42 - 29 Jun 43) (Operation Mo/Battle of the Coral Sea - Just before Cartwheel)
  • Japan pressed back (30 Jun 43 - 20 Mar 44) (Operation Cartwheel)
  • The Allies close in (21 Mar 44 - 21 Jun 45) (Post Cartwheel - After Okinawa)
  • Japan defeated (22 Jun 45 - 2 Sep 45)

Thoughts? Oberiko 01:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography list

The references list for this article is a mess and I'm partly to blame for that for willy-nilly adding of book references as I come across them during my own research. I propose the creation of a separate Pacific War bibliography or List of Pacific War references like the Holocaust (resources) or American Civil War bibliography lists. It wouldn't take too much effort since most of the books that cover the different facets and theaters of the war are already listed at their appropriate articles and would only require copying and pasting. I'd appreciate any other thoughts on this idea. Cla68 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd endorse this, but with a caveat. It'd probably make more sense for us to do this for World War II on a whole and then separate books by theatre (especially since there are those which will cover multiple theatres). Perhaps a sortable table? Something like the following:
Name Type Subject Author Date ISBN
Crucible of War: Western Desert 1941 Book Theatre - Europe - Mediterranean & Middle East Pitt, Barrie 1989-12December 1989 ISBN 978-1557782328
Tedder: Quietly in Command Book Biography - United Kingdom - Arthur Tedder Orange, Vincent 2004-04April 2004 ISBN 978-0714648170
The Campaign in Norway Book Theatre - Europe - Norway Derry, T.K. 1952-001952 ISBN 0-898392-20-9
Thoughts? Oberiko 14:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your idea. This would take more work, but if we also added book cover images, if available, to each entry along with a cited description of each book, that would help qualify the article for featured status if nominated for such. Should the article be called "List of World War II references" or something like that? Cla68 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we'd be to pressed for space by including a description. Can you post an example so I can see what you have in mind? We can probably also conserve space through headings instead of a subject field:
  • Theatres
    • Western Allies and European Axis
      • Mediterranean, Middle East and Africa
      • Atlantic
    • Soviet-German War
  • Biographies
    • Empire of Japan
    • Kingdom of Italy
etc. Oberiko 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)