Talk:Pacific War

Title discussion

"Pacific War"? Isn't that an oxymoron? K7L (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe from the origin of the word Pacific... (which is sometimes anachronistically called the "silent" ocean...) but not in the understanding of most people today... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking this page should be named World War II in the Pacific, to remain consistent in naming with World War II in Europe. This isn't a standalone conflict but part of a larger, global war. K7L (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless someone objects very quickly, we should rename it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Do what you have to, but in a sense the Pacific war already started with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, whereas world war II in the Pacific only "really" started with Pearl Harbor... Unlike the European theater both the beginning and the end of the war are way more fuzzy... what with all the one man armies holding out somewhere in the jungle fighting on, long after Japan had surrendered... Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Many historians consider the invasion of Manchuria the actual start of World War II. Do you really think "Pacific War" is clearer? Also, I really can't agree that World War II in the Pacific didn't begin until the US was attacked. There are billions of people in China who would disagree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well before that it was a war in East Asia. After the US became involved (and Somoza declared war without firing a shot in anger) it became a world war in the true sense of the term. So you could argue it both ways. But the billion (scnr) Chinese would probably still insist that most fighting happened in their country and started way before anybody in the US even cared about Japan. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• ... Somoza??! WTF does Nicaragua have to do with this subject matter? You guys got me confused. BTW I support the name change to "WWII in the Pacific" even agreeing that this label might not be flawlessly, milimetrically, historically correct. Ibaman (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I too agree. And well even though he was not involved in the war at all, Nicaragua would have to technically be part of the Pacific theater, wouldn't it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, now I see your point, Hobbit... I was thinking of Anastasio Somoza, unaware that you meant his father... confusion over! :) Ibaman (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

He and his family were in power a long time... And are just referred to as "Somoza" without further specification in Nicaragua... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

English Wikipedia uses the term Pacific War, with the Asia-Pacific War as an alternative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War /Yvwv (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems ambiguous, though. There have been other wars in the Pacific. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Markers

First off, the marker for Pearl Harbor is still not visible (Windows, Firefox) and second off if you click on it in the text it marks the golf course, not Pearl Harbor... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Now Pearl Harbor is visible, but in the middle of the ocean... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying to fix this but... how weird... Ibaman (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Now it appears to be pointing to the right place, but is still not visible on the overview map. I think it has something to do with the 180th meridian as well as the size of the map. And stuff. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed the longitudes of the map are not reset at the 180th meridian, but instead continue growing to the east and shrinking to the west. As you can see from my last edit I added such an oversized coordinate (202 something east). Now it showed up at the correct place, but a big red ugly "coordinate error" warning appeared in the listing so I reverted the edit. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Already tried that, already got (and reported in my edit summary) exactly the same result: that made the map display properly but displayed the textual listing with a preceding "{{#coordinates:}}: invalid longitude" :(

If I look at module:coordinates (is this the right piece of code?) it looks like the limit in that code is 360⁰, not 180⁰, so isn't the source of the error message. Is there any chance that this module is passing the co-ordinates to something else which doesn't like +200⁰E? Could the module Lua code (at any point in the chain, up to and including {{listing}}) be changed to wrap +200⁰ as -160⁰ to make the error message go away, without affecting the map (which accepts 200⁰, looking annoyingly promising)? K7L (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Map layer flaw at 180th meridian

Swept in from the pub

Tried to create map items for the Pacific War article. There are issues with displaying items on both sides of the 180th meridian. Seems like they are only displayed on the same hemisphere as the map center. Can this be fixed? /Yvwv (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The map marker thing has still not been fixed

What shall we do?Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried to click at the map and add Pearl Harbor as 200 something degrees east. It did put the marker on the right place of the map but added a big red "invalid coordinates" remark to the listing. :( Perhaps User:Mey2008 would have a solution?ϒpsilon (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, for now, at least we have all the markers showing properly. Ibaman (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Links by Country for Further Additions

Philippines

Most of the countries probably have a ton more sites of interests and memorials all over the place, but in looking to see if there was anything related to the Bataan Death March, I discovered there are many places scattered around that at the moment I don't have time to make listings for and figure out where exactly they are, so I'll leave a link here: http://www.visitmyphilippines.com/index.php?title=BataanMemorialTour&func=all&pid=3275

Also many other sites in the Philippines are discussed here: http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/ShowTopic-g294245-i3256-k6643112-WWII_sites-Philippines.html

ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Palau

Sites in Palau (predominantly for divers): http://www.dive-the-world.com/reefs-and-parks-palau-peleliu-ww2-history.php

Guam

Sites in Guam: http://www.visitguam.com/things-to-do/world-war-2/

China

Sites and memorials declared to be of national significance by China's State Council (in Chinese): https://baike.baidu.com/item/国家级抗战纪念设施遗址名录

Classify or order the entries?

Should we try to put the battle sites into chronological order? Doing that exactly is impossible, but we could get close enough to be useful.

Are there other ways we should organise the links? Battle sites vs. memorials? Separate section for wreck diving sites? For memorials in the US, thousands of miles from the fighting? ...? Pashley (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a mix of what you suggest would work best. Memorials and museums dedicated to the war but where nothing related actually took place should be separated. The American internment sites should be together, but they're still very much a part of the war. Not sure about the dive sites. On one hand, they will still fit into the historic chronology so it seems odd to leave them out, but on the other hand, they may not be accessible for those who are not divers and those who are divers may appreciate having their interests conveniently grouped. I think eventually we will have articles like WWII Sites in the Philippines and other countries where there are too many memorials and places of interest to list them all here. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Duplication?

There is currently rather similar text about Unit 731 & Japanese nerve gas etc. both in the last paragraph of the Understand section and in the Sites section, in a listing for the museum. I think it should be consolidated in the listing & the text in Understand deleted. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved the information. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Memorials

The memorials section seems odd in what it includes. Only the first two sites/museums (US Marine Corps Memorial and National Museum for the Pacific War) are sites not directly related to the war. The internment camps were sites of "wartime activity" and the Singaporean Museum area contained actual combat. How is that different from any of the other sites? To me, it seems those should be moved to their respective country subheadings and make the two remaining sites (and any others that may be added in the future) grey listings to differentiate them as unrelated to the war itself but are likely to be of high interest to those interested in WWII-related travel. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

New article: United States during World War II

It is great to see all contributions to this article. However, there are still some issues. The geographic scope is too broad, especially when sites in the United States are included. Due to technical reasons, locations on different sides of the 180 degree meridian cannot be displayed together. We could solve this by creating a United States during World War II, including Pearl Harbor, the internment camps, as well as other sites relevant to the war. It would fit into the series on American history, between Industrialization of the United States and Post-war United States. /Yvwv (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Hawaii is also there on the same side as the continental US and it would be very strange to omit Pearl Harbor from a Pacific War travel topic. Eventually, though, I do think this article will be split not just for the United States, but also for the Philippines and other countries where lots of things happened and lots of memorials and museums exist. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there no way to simply fix the 180 degrees issue? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a workaround; we can add 360 to all longitudes in the western hemisphere. This will put them correctly on the map, but display error messages. /Yvwv (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese War (World War II in China) could be considered as a sub-article. /Yvwv (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would support that. It's very likely that we'll be crossing the 99-listings barrier in the near future. STW932 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the article is getting large & there are many listings, but I am not at all sure splitting it up as suggested is a good idea. The US was certainly important in this war & things like Pearl Harbor, Midway, Iwo Jima etc. belong in this article. We might move the internment camps & the monuments in the continental US out, but that's all.

I don't think separate articles for the Second Sino-Japanese War or the "Great Patriotic War", as I'm told Russians call the Eastern Front, are a good idea either. Redirects, fine. Pashley (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• McArthur Park.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Many files were in the Commons VfD request & only one was kept. I've now put that one into the WV article. Pashley (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A-bombs not needed?

An article arguing that Nagasaki was certainly unnecessary & Hiroshima possibly so as well. Interesting, though I'm not sure how credible. ATOMIC BOMBINGS AT 75: The Mystery of the Nagasaki Bomb Pashley (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Iwo Jima Memorial 5.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The decision was to keep it. Pashley (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Excessive detail?

I just removed this paragraph:

One may have heard the Tanaka Memorial, a document widely circulated before and during the Pacific War, claimed that to establish world dominance, Japan must first conquer China. However, the validity of the memorial is doubted, and is largely regarded by historians as a wartime hoax.

I do not think this is relevant in a travel guide. There is other stuff that could go as well. Pashley (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a hoax that is not specifically connected to anything travel-related is good to remove. What else are you thinking of? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing specific yet, just a vague feeling that we might have too much detail in places. On the other hand, I've been adding detail that others might think excessive, e.g. at Pacific_War#Xi'an. Pashley (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to reread this article when I have time (probably not tonight). Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

I just removed this recently-added text:

Alfred Thayer Mahan, an American naval officer and historian also wrote a hugely influential book about naval power, which induced all major powers into a naval arms race with the power of a nation's military now commonly measured by number of Dreadnoughts. In line with the social darwinistic opinions of the day which posited that only the strong would prosper while the weak would vanish, it was seen in all major powers as imperative to expand and dot the world's oceans with naval bases even if there seemed to be little practical use or benefit for them. This, of course, would eventually have to lead to conflict and it did in Europe with World War I

It struck me as irrelevant to a travel guide, more suited to an encyclopedia or history text. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As for some other historical travel articles, the historical background is oversized compared to the description of the war itself. We already have Japanese Colonial Empire for that description. /Yvwv (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

World War II in China

I extracted the material on China to an article named World War II in China, following the discussion above. Some rationale for extracting the article:

• The war in China went on for four years, before it became a theatre of the World War
• The war in China had 15 million casualties and has great historical importance in its own right
• Travellers are unlikely to visit destinations in both Oceania/Southeast Asia and China in the same journey

If the article is to stand, we can consider whether to shorten or keep the material on China in this article. /Yvwv (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, and would accordingly summarize the material here and include a link to the new article for more information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Support. Some other articles would need changes as well; e.g. Burma Road currently links to Pacific War#China for context. Pashley (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Support per SC and Pashley SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal makes sense. However, I don't know whether events on the Chinese Front should be summarized here. I think as relevant to the larger Pacific. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I’m willing to go along with that. What about POI’s? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: There is the potential to greatly expand the number of listings. China officially recognizes 260 World War II sites as being of national significance (see the Baidu Baike article mentioned above) and obviously there must be many other sites that are considered to be of local or regional significance. STW932 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I think it makes sense given the large number of World War II sites in China. Definitely the war in China should be summarised in this article since it was part of the wider Pacific theatre, in much the same way that World War II in Africa was very much part of the European theatre. While we're at it though, should we name the article "Second Sino-Japanese War" instead? While the traditional view that World War II started with Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939, and not Japan's invasion of the Chinese heartland in 1937 is of course a result of Eurocentrism, or Western centrism, the widely-accepted convention in the West is that the war in China only became part of World War II after Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. The dog2 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like World War II started in 1927 with the Japanese invasion of Northeast China (Manchuria). Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That was in 1931, not 1927. But yes, you could reasonably date it back to the invasion of Manchuria too. The dog2 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"Second Sino-Japanese War" would be fine as a redirect, but in my view definitely not as the article title. Too many people would have no clue what that meant but would recognise the current title. Pashley (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Duplication

Pacific_War#China_2 and World_War_II_in_China#Destinations currently both have the same quite long list of sites. One of the two should be deleted & replaced with a link to the other. I'd prefer deleting the one in Pacific War.

Then we might discuss whether there are any Chinese sites so important they should be listed here as well. Perhaps Burma Road and the Nanjing Massacre Memorial? I'd object strenuously to any attempt to list more than about four, though. Pashley (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable idea to me. On the subject of which Chinese sites are so important they should be listed in both articles, besides the two that you have mentioned, I would also nominate the Marco Polo Bridge, the Museum of the War of Chinese People's Resistance Against Japanese Aggression in Beijing, the Shanghai Songhu Memorial Hall for the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, Chiang Kai-Shek's Mount Huang residence and military headquarters in Chongqing, the 9.18 Memorial Museum in Shenyang, and the Puppet Imperial Palace of Manchukuo in Changchun. That would bring the total number of duplicate listings to eight and perhaps there's room for one more (I believe the maximum number of duplicate listings should be nine). STW932 (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur. The article World War II in China was created to allow expansion on that article, and to be more brief on the corresponding section of this article. /Yvwv (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the list should be trimmed substantially. I wonder if we should also list the Unit 731 Memorial here too. The human experimentation may not be well-known in the West, but numerous Chinese, Korean and Southeast Asian prisoners were subject to experimentation, including vivisection without anaesthetic (which we wouldn't even do to lab mice these days). The dog2 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Similar situation to Holocaust remembrance. Those were crimes against humanity, not actually war, but that memorial should absolutely be covered. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I edited to what I thought was needed. No doubt others can improve it. Pashley (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Both articles have links to Burma Road but neither currently has a listing for it. Should one be added in either article? I'd say no since the road is not important as a tourist destination. Pashley (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "important"? It's probably dangerous now, but when there is less violence in Myanmar, an adventurous traveler could go there, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Much of it was in China & you can go there today. Some of the old road is visible along the Yunnan tourist trail, and some towns along the road like Ruili are interesting. What I meant by "not important as a tourist destination" was that, as far as I know, there are no road-related museums or monuments. Pashley (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Search reveals there is a monument in Kunming. Pashley (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's the road itself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, in Yunnan Province, there are several road-related monuments and museums, though the majority of them are not yet listed on this site. The following are just some of the ones that I'm aware of (I guess there may be a few more):

• Burma Road History Museum (in Kunming) [this museum opened in September last year; see here for a news report in Chinese]
• Baoshan City Museum (in Baoshan)
• Yunnan Highways Museum (in Baoshan)
• Western Yunnan Memorial to War of Resistance Against Japan (in Tengchong)
• Stilwell Road Museum (in Tengchong)
• Huitong Bridge (in Longling County）
• Mount Song Battlefield (in Longling County)
• Wanding Bridge (in Ruili, on the China-Burma border)
• Chinese Expeditionary Force Memorial (in Ruili, not far from the Wanding Bridge)

The Mount Song Battlefield is possibly the most significant site (For some background info, see the Wikipedia article about the Battle of Mount Song). It's one of the best preserved WW2 battlefields in China and there's a major memorial park there featuring hundreds of lifesize sculptures of soldiers from the Chinese Expeditionary Force. STW932 (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Too long and too wrong

I just corrected a factual error. This article has many mistakes and is too long with unnecessary controversial topics for travelers. Hnishy63 (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Controversy is not something that must be avoided per se. The guideline on this site is Wikivoyage:Be fair. Factual errors, though, are obviously bad, and omitting excessive non-travel-related content and editing the remaining content for brevity ("the soul of wit," etc.) are good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

All that said, what conditions did the Allies allow Japan to set on its surrender? I always understood that the surrender was unconditional and that it was a decision by the Allies to allow the Emperor to stay in place, after all, rather than making Japan a republic and prosecuting Hirohito as a war criminal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ikan is correct. See w:Surrender_of_Japan. Pashley (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No, Japan surrendered accepting conditions set forth in the Potsdam Declaration, such as territories after the war and safe return of military personnel and civilians. And one of the conditions was to order its armed forces to surrender unconditionally. Can you see the difference?--Hnishy63 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No. Please elaborate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read the declaration on the wikisource. Clauses 8 to 12 are the conditions. Exactly speaking, Japan, as a state, surrendered accepting the conditions and ordered its armed forces to surrender unconditionally. "Japan surrendered unconditionally" is misleading at least. And there are many more mistakes. For example, the Battle of Kalkhin Gol was not so one-sided, kamikaze tactics started in the Philippines campaign, and the first declaration of independence was by Indonesians just days after Japan's surrender.--Hnishy63 (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

To surrender unconditionally simply means to fully accept the terms and conditions imposed by the winning side. It doesn't mean that the surrender agreement has no terms or conditions. In this case, Japan accepted the terms of surrender unconditionally. STW932 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Right. And it's historically important to mention that it was an unconditional surrender, because the A-bombings were due at least in part to the insistence of the U.S. on getting an unconditional surrender, to limit the number of guerrillas who would fight on on behalf of the Emperor when U.S. troops landed in the Japanese Main Islands. So I think we should reinstate the language. Does anyone other than Hnishy63 want to claim the Japanese side placed conditions on its surrender? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I had never claimed Japan placed some condtions; Japan accepted conditions offered by the Allies. It is important to distinguish from the case of Germany's surrender. For now, I set aside the ambiguous word, which is a minor point compared to other mistakes. Further examples: Liaodong peninsula was returned in the same year; battle for Marianas was before the Philippines campaign; Imphal was never taken. And there are at least two major ommissions: Battle of Tsushima and Fall of Singapore (which Churchill called the "worst disaster" in British military history) are much more significant than, say the battle of Fuzhou. The overall quality of this article is C or worse.--Hnishy63 (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be simple to state that Japan accepted the conditions dictated by the Allies, but the way this has always been stated in the U.S. is that the A-bombings were due to a refusal by Japan to accept an unconditional surrender, as I mentioned above. But please edit or remove every factual inaccuracy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a side note here. Singapore was part of Malaya during World War II, so the Battle of Singapore was part of the Malayan Campaign. Singapore was the headquarters of the British Malayan Command, which is why the Malay Regiment, which is today part of the Malaysian Army, fought in Singapore. The dog2 (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)