Talk:Pacific War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pacific War article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Italy?

I see that someone has added Italy to the Axis powers involved in the Pacific War. I don't think that this is warranted - AFAIK, Italy's only involvement in this theatre was a handful of submarines which made cargo voyages between Europe and Asia prior to Italy leaving the war in mid-1943. Thoughts? --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove them. They're far less of an Axis power or affiliate then other factions not mentioned. Oberiko (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

Germany unlike italy was involved in actual combat in the pacific via several surface raiders and submarines. A flotilla of three raiders attacked Nauru in 1940 and sunk four vessels while also shelling the mining facilities there. Im putting them back on the list for that reason. I beleive though that italy should be left off the list as they did not see actual combat in the pacific to my knowladge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.101.156 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hierarchy proposition 2

After doing a bit more thinking and research, I propose the following hierarchy:

  • Asia-Pacific Theatre of World War II (1937 - 1945)
    • China (Second Sino-Japanese War)
    • Pacific Islands Campaigns (covers all activity in the Pacific Ocean, primarily the American-led island hopping)
      • Japanese expansion into the Pacific, Australia, Coral Sea, Midway, New Guinea campaign, Solomon Islands campaign, Cartwheel, Philippines campaign (1944–45), Borneo Campaign (1945), Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign etc.
    • South-East Asian Theatre (primarily Commonwealth, with some Chinese intervention in Burma)
      • Burma, Malaysia / Singapore, French Indochina etc.

Other articles (period specific) would be:

  • Pacific War - Overview of everything from Dec 1941 onwards, basically a sub-set of the Asia-Pacific Theatre article.

Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico flag

Mexico fought in the Pacific War with 36 pilots and over 300 groundcrew, using United States aircraft in a squadron formed within the United States Army organization, supplied by the United States supply chain and under the direction of United States Army leadership. Coronel Antonio Cárdenas Rodríguez took orders from Douglas MacArthur. See Escuadrón 201. A Mexican squadron serving in the Phillipines does not mean that Mexico's flag should be included in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A few hundred compared to several million men each for the Commonwealth, Americans and Chinese is negligible. The only place this merits warrant would be in the military history of Mexico and Mexico's entry for participants of World War II. Oberiko (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
On the same basis, a couple of raiders & a handful of U-boats that achieved nothing of significance shouldn't earn Germany a mention, either. Trekphiler (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No problems here. Oberiko (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No objections here either. Parsecboy (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Count Germany gone. Trekphiler (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results

There are a lot of results of the Pacific War, not just two, ex: Occupation of Japan, Indonesian Declaration of Independence, Vietnamese Proclamation of Independence, ... 96.229.126.4 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the infobox is only intended to give an exceedingly brief take on the war as a whole; various independence movements are far too detailed for the scope of the infobox, and are best left in the text of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's uncertain that the result is Allied victory, because the war only ends with the Japanese unconditional surrender. JacquesNguyen (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that precludes an "Allied victory" from having taken place. Clearly, the Allies forced Japan into submission; how is that not a victory for the Allies? Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You've achieved the war aim, which was unconditional surrender; how is that not "Allied victory", exactly? Trekphiler (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Empire

Anyone object if I replace UK, India and Burma with "British Empire"? It's still accurate and it would also include additional colonies such as Hong Kong, Singapore, the Solomon Islands etc.. Oberiko (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections here, so long as you don't forget the Canadians in SSF, RCAF in Alaska, RCN 'vettes on convoy from Vancouver, the Royal Rifles & Winnipeg Grenadiers captured in Hong Kong, the bomber crews in India... Trekphiler (talk) Flag of Canada 15:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It's probably OK, but the distinction between self-governing dominions like Australia and Canada and the British-ruled colonies such as India and Malaya is important. I think that British Commonwealth is the correct term for this era, by the way. However, if you're going to do this then the Philippines should also be removed as this was a United States colony and not an independent actor. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't include Australia or New Zealand in the Empire. As was pointed out during our discussion on the WWII page, we should avoid lumping all the dominions together as Commonwealth (in the Pacific theatre) where possible; Australia by this time was shifting its foreign policy more behind the Americans then the British. Personally, I would have the following for the Allies section:
  • China
  • United States
  • British Empire
  • Australia
  • Soviet Union
The other Allies, IMO, were not of great significance to the Pacific War, much as Germany and Italy weren't very notable on the side of the Axis. Oberiko (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
New Zealand made a significant contribution - a NZ Division served in the Solomon Islands and about 7 RNZAF squadrons and several ships saw action. Canada's contribution was also significant. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Didn't a significant portion of the Free French Navy participate in the Indian Ocean in the last year of the Pacific War? Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Richelieu served as part of the British sqaudron in the Pacific, but I don't know of any other ships having done so. Parsecboy (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a Canadian BB or CA, too, the name I can't recall; don't think she accomplished anything much. :( Trekphiler (talk) Flag of Canada 11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You may be thinking of HMCS Ontario (C53) and HMCS Quebec (C66), two light cruisers, both of which served in the RCN in the Pacific in 1945. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Could be; I only know there was a vote taken abd to change theaters. (Bit too democratic for a navy, I'd say.) Trekphiler (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think these kind of make my point. One division and a few air force squadrons really is almost nothing in the grand scheme of a whole theatre of war. The same can be said for a few ships which took part during the final year of the war; considering this would be after Midway, Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf, there was virtually no Japanese navy left by that point.

Taking a quick analysis:

  • Canada
    • ~ 2,000 soldiers who were captured in the Battle of Hong Kong, and hence fought for less then a month.
    • ~ 5,000 soldiers who were sent to the Aleutian Islands but arrived after the Japanese evacuated and hence saw no combat
    • Some miscellaneous augmentation of other forces in the war
  • New Zealand
    • Misc. naval actions, no major battles. Small enough that actions of individual ships are recorded on our wiki page about them. In terms of major warships (destroyers and above), it looks like under ten (I count 3; cruisers donated by the British) were commissioned.
    • Air Force: "Six 'New Zealand' squadrons [which is ~200 planes] of the RAF were created... The RNZAF's greatest strength was 45,000, a third serving in the Pacific." (The British Empire and the Second World War, pg. 487)
    • "The New Zealand government decided that, despite the outbreak of the Pacific War, it would continue its main military effort in Europe." (The Pacific War Companion: From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima, pg. 140)
  • Allied France
    • Virtually nothing. Basically, the FFF controlled the tiny Wallis Islands. "[the Free French] influence upon allied policy in the Far East remained marginal... In fact, in stressing the the importance of these tiny island outposts, the Free French only emphasized their own impotence." (South East Asia: Colonial History pg. 231) It does read like they did some intelligence contributions from agents in Indochina though. Beyond that, I can't even find any combat activities.

So, does any of this sound like significant actions? Things that really helped decide or contribute to the outcome Pacific War? By contrast, the Americans supplied (to the Pacific) ~ 2 million personnel, 16.5 Army / Marine divisions, 7,900 planes, and 713 warships. (Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, pg. 720). Take note that this means the American's contributed more soldiers to the Pacific then the entire population of New Zealand of 1.6 million (The Pacific War Companion: From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima, pg. 140).

No, the war was fought almost entirely by the U.S., China and the British Empire; though the Australians did contribute a fair amount in New Guinea and Borneo; in contrast to Canada and NZ, Australia provided 735,000 personnel (The Pacific War Companion: From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima, pg. 148).

Though the Soviets, IMO, did not affect the outcome of the war, Operation August Storm saw Soviet forces of ~ 1.5 million troops, ~3,800 tanks and ~5,300 aircraft invade Japanese territory. Much to big to ignore. Oberiko (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further points / objections? If not, I'd like to go ahead and change the Allies to China, U.S., B.E., Aus and S.U. Oberiko (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
None here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"Soviets, IMO, did not affect the outcome of the war"? If Racing the Enemy is remotely right (& it understates the case, IMO), the Sovs decided the outcome for Japan. Beyond that, no beefs here. Trekphiler (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The Soviets surely "affected" the end of the war, but I don't see how their piling-on can be considered 'decisive'. The timing and details might have been quite different, but not the ultimate outcome of the war: Japan loses.
I haven't read Hasegawa yet, but the reviews I have read aren't encouraging: [1], [2].
—WWoods (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

<--I won't say there are no mistakes, & there's a strong bias to the claim HST did it out of malice, but the case is pretty strong, AFAI can tell. As for "decisive", only in the sense it was the last straw; Japan was still determined to fight on, otherwise. Trekphiler (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the role of

"Portrayed" as? Not really. The point of the change is, in Japan it was viewed as aggression; whether that's credible is irrelevant. Whether the rest of the world saw it that way is irrelevant. "Portrayed" makes it out as if Japan expected it to be believed; from what I read, it was mainly for domestic consumption. "Viewed" gets the internal view, without suggesting any external effect. I hope. As for the rest...? Geez. How embarrassed can I be? Sorry. Trekphiler (talk) 23:48 & 23:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the use of the word "viewed" based on what I've read, but alas, I can't remember offhand where I saw that so that I can quote a supporting source. I suspect that "Eagle against the Sun" probably goes into it. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
TP, what is missing here is the element of choice/will/agency. That is, it was a patently false world-view and they chose to see it that way. Unless you are saying that even the emperor, cabinet and high command were in denial about what they were up to China? Grant | Talk 05:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not about denial, it's about what the local view is. Dishonest, self-deluded, self-interested, outright fiction, call it what you want, but that was the local view, & that is what the line is talking about, not what the rest of the world thought, nor us. I changed it on that basis, & I stand by that, because it accurately describes the local view. Better still, "In Japan, the government and nationalists viewed these embargos as acts of aggression": K? Trekphiler (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree with Trekphiler on this. There's still a significant number of Americans who are convinced Saddam was connected to Al Qaida, even though this has been repeatedly demonstrated to be totally false. Regardless of whether they are in denial, dishonest, or just plain un-educated about the matter, they still hold that view. The same goes in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping the compromise language satisfies everybody. (Not that I dislike being agreed with. ;D ) Trekphiler (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the proposed wording is "K" with me :-) Grant | Talk 07:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combatants in the infobox

Is there any reason why we can't have a full list in the infobox? Is it just that some of us are squeamish about including the likes of Mexico and Thailand? I don't think many readers would assume that inclusion in an infobox for Country X implied equality of historical significance with Country Y.

With specific regard to "British Empire", it is now being used in a technically incorrect way, because (1) the name "British Empire" became obsolete in 1926 and (2) it always meant the whole thing now known as the "Commonwealth", not just the non-Dominion parts.

As Nick has said above, the whole thing was the "British Commonwealth" in 1926-49. The contradistinction to "Dominion" at the time was Crown Colony, although this did not cover the Indian Empire, which was so big it was under British control by a separate set of arrangements.

I favour having "United Kingdom" with "Indian Empire" and "Crown Colonies" indented underneath it. IMO that would also be a good treatment for the Philippines. Grant | Talk 06:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain that British Empire included the dominions? I was under the impression that the term was not obsolete at this point, and that it only included parts directly governed by the U.K. such as Crown Colonies. Oberiko (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is sometimes used it that way, but that is not supported by the official usage or intention. (Neither is the similar usage of "British Empire" in some sources in relation to the Dominions in WW2.) "British Commonwealth of Nations" was first used in the constitution of the Irish Free State in 1921 and the term officially superseded "British Empire" in toto five years later. For instance, there are official references to the Indian Empire in the 1930s as a member of the "British Commonwealth". The "British" was dropped in 1947. See Commonwealth_of_Nations#Origins. Grant | Talk 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. While I see BE being used pretty often in the manner I utilize it as (The British Empire and the Second World War defines BE to be the entirety of the Commonwealth sans the four Dominions), there was considerable ambiguity about the term and it was historically used differently between the U.K. and the Dominions.
I would prefer to use "British India", as casual readers aren't likely to know the British ruled India at the time and our own article on the subject is titled British Raj. I'm also not certain that we need to include "Crown Colonies"; while I promoted the BE as our catch-all, listing the CCs independantly doesn't really make much sense to me as I can't think of any significant military contributions by even the combined CCs.
With that said, any objection to the following list of Allies?
  • United States
  • China
  • United Kingdom
    • British India
  • Australia
  • Soviet Union
Oberiko (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the New Zealand ? (I read what you wrote above about it) Should not the Philippines be included under United States too? --Flying tiger (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My stance on New Zealand hasn't changed, their contribution was essentially negligable in comparison to the other large powers. Same for the Philippines, just because they were there doesn't make them notable, otherwise we'd need to include Guam and Wake Island, along with the numerous colonies of other European powers.
The infobox itself says When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. We're already over that line with the inclusion of Australia, and the gap between Aus and the next nearest Ally (which I believe would be NZ) is massive. Oberiko (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay; I support. --Flying tiger (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd quibble with the SU; despite (fairly) substantial numbers, it was only the last week or so of the war, not a major combatant. I'd put NZ over SU for duration, anyhow. Maybe not influence, tho, since SU entry effectively ended it. Which raises the question of how "major" is defined: numbers, duration, or influence? Or some calculus of all 3, which is what we seem to have now (& which might reasonably include the Dutch, too)? Trekphiler (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No hard and fast way to measure, if there were, we wouldn't have the problems that we did with the general WWII info box. Generally, most times we don't have such conflicting metrics, but when we do, we can usually just rationalize it out.
Regarding the Soviets. Even though it was just two weeks, it was a hell of a fortnight; the Soviets inflicted ~80,000 casualties during the battle, and ended up capturing over half a million prisoners (~580,000, close to the size of the entire Australian force serving in Pacific Theatre). Further more, the official instrument of surrender states: "We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.", (emphasis mine) showing the heightened Soviet status. There's no way N.Z. or the Netherlands can come close to that level of impact. Oberiko (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think that there are so few combatants that we can include all of them, but I'm probably alone on that.

The Netherlands' role was important, both in the lead up and in the ABDA alliance of 1941-42.

Filipinos comprised the majority of the "US" land forces in 1941, (just as Australians comprised the majority of Allied forces in the SW Pacific during 1942). In fact, MacArthur entered the war not in the US Army, but as head of the Philippines Army.

The people of British Crown Colonies did play a major part, notably those of Malaya, Singapore, Burma, Ceylon and Fiji. The African colonies collectively contributed at least two divisions to the Burma campaign. Grant | Talk 04:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ABDA had virtually no impact on the Pacific War, it was disbanded after a few weeks of the wars start. Regarding the rest, could I get some numbers on the the Filipino numbers vs. U.S.? Are they close to comparable with the Australians?
Re: Philippines, I have 67.5 thousand during the Battle of Bataan (World War II: A Student Encyclopedia, pg. 180), the primary combat phase of the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. Although 7,000 Filipino-American's served in U.S. Army Filipino infantry regiments, I don't count that, just as I don't count Japanese-Americans in U.S. service to tally towards Japan. Unless Filipino forces served elsewhere, that gives us only 10% the force contribution of Aus, and only serving for five months. IMO, a very large gap. Oberiko (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'd have any strong opinion adverse to adding the Crown Colonies as an additional indent for the U.K., could you provide some sourced numbers for them though? Oberiko (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You cant leave off NZ just because its a smaller power, we signed the instrument of surrender as an independant power, Britain didnt sign for us just as we fought japan as New Zealand, not Britain and its only by happenstance that NZ didnt see more action than any other power. Taifarious1 06:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Very true; so did the Netherlands and France, even though it did very little in the theatre. As I say, I don't see what the problem is in including these, as there are not that many countries that played an active part (compared to WW2 more generally).
I don't know how, but forgot about the Gurkhas, from Nepal: 55 battalions/250,000 personnel serving with British and Indian Army formations in India, Singapore and Burma (not to mention Syria, North Africa, Italy and Greece). There are details of the African involvement at Fourteenth Army (United Kingdom): three divisions and at least one independent brigade. See also: Burma Rifles (14 battalions in 1942), Fiji Infantry Regiment (a battalion in the Solomons and Bougainville), Royal Malay Regiment (two battalions in the Malalyan and Singapore campaigns) and the Straits Settlements Volunteer Force (four battalions in the Battle of Singapore). The Ceylon Defence Force, although large, was mostly made up of garrison/home defence and support units.
The Filipino contribution in 1942, especially at the Battle of Bataan, was vital to the Allied war effort, as it significantly delayed Japanese advances elsewhere for six months. (It was even memorialised in an Australian warship, HMAS Bataan).
ABDA lasted more than "a few weeks", until March 30, 1942 in fact, and oversaw the Dutch East Indies Campaign. In particular, significant Dutch naval forces took part in actions like Battle of the Java Sea. Grant | Talk 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
NZ signing a document doesn't make them a major belligerent, the Declaration by United Nations was signed by 26 Allied governments, does that make all of them, including such like Haiti and Cuba, major, notable, belligerents? The document you quote even specifically lists only the United States, China, Britain and Soviet Union as the four Allies. What major battles did New Zealand fight? What was their major contribution? Where were they decisive? Using ~20K personnel (unless other sources can be found) as their contribution, it's about 1% of that contributed by the United States and only about 5% of Australia. Is that considered a peer? The gap is gigantic. Heck, the article itself doesn't contain any real detail on NZ's role, and doing so would only be undue weight.
The problem with including them is, asides from additional clutter in the infobox (see Eastern Front for an article where the infobox has become meaningless), that it sends a false impression to the user.
During the war, ABDA was active from December - February 25, roughly three months during a 4 year war. The Java Sea battle contained 5 cruisers and 12 destroyers; of these, only 2 light cruisers and 2 destroyers weren't either American, British or Australian. So, unless other warships are known, right now it's comparing 4 Netherlands warships (none of which were capital ships) against the American 713. That makes the Netherlands an important (but far from the most prominent) combatant in the Battle of the Java Sea, but certainly not in the Pacific War as a whole.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Ghurka's, as with several of the other forces listed, predominantly considered Indian? Do you have numbers for non-Indians? Oberiko (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
While I generally agree with the combatants listed currently, isn't all this straying into the same WP:OR territory as when we were trying to decide which countries were the major players of WWII as a whole? Surely there are some sources that agree with the list we currently have, as this doesn't seem to be as much of a gray area (but then, that's probably just my perspective clouding things, right? :) ) Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain if it can be considered OR. I'd liken it more to how we choose to structure the article itself (i.e., "Should we have two paragraphs on Guadalcanal, or three?"). That and, as we saw in the World War II combatant debates, sources can vary pretty wildly.
That said, sources are always a valid request:
“ The bulk of the Dutch colonial forces, like their British and Australian counterparts, ended up in Japanese prisoner of war camps. A sizeable number of Dutch merchant vessels and some naval ships and airforce planes had managed to reach Ceylon and Australia, but only very few army units were able to escape. Unlike their allies, the Dutch had no territory left to rebuild their armed strength as the Netherlands, the main source of manpower, was under Nazi occupation, and the remaining part of the Dutch empire in the West Indies was too economically underdeveloped to provide the required human and material resources. Moreover, attempts by the Netherlands government in exile to find recruits for its armed forces among Dutch citizens residing in North America and South Africa produced only meagre results. This meant that the few remnants of the Netherlands Indies armed forces that had managed to escape to Australia and Ceylon could not be substantially augmented and the role they could play depended solely on the decisions of the Allied High Command and the goodwill of the host nations. Hence, after March 1942 the Dutch military role in the Pacific war had been reduced to that of a minor player. ”

-- The West New Guinea Debacle: Dutch Decolonisation and Indonesia, 1945-1962, pg. 13

“ Following the fall of Singapore, New Zealand's war effort in Southeast Asia was very limited. A few New Zealanders, resident in Malaya before the war, remained in the country with stay-behind parties that organized a guerilla effort against the occupiers. Others served in the RAF in Burma. A few score army engineers would also be involved in this theatre. In the later stages of the war New Zealand Fleet Air Arm pilots and seamen serving in the Royal Navy took part in operations against Japanese targets in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) and Singapore. There was also some minor New Zealand involvement in covert operations in Borneo at the end of the war. ”

-- Southeast Asia and New Zealand: A History of Regional and Bilateral Relations, pg. 10

Oberiko (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would say that it's OR in that we as editors are using our judgement to interpret various statistics and metrics to determine whether a specific country fits in the infobox. But maybe I'm just being too much of a wikilawyer. Parsecboy (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a tough call. In the end, it all comes down to opinion and judgement, even by professionals. I suppose the best we can do is try and gauge the general trend of the source materials we use and then try and reach more-or-less consensus on the discussion pages. Oberiko (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Previously you asked for the battles NZ fought in, well heres a list of the ones I could find including articles containing substantial information on NZ contribution to the Pacific Theatre:

And P.S. for the size of New Zealand, by the war's end a total of 194,000 men and 10,000 women had served in the armed forces at home and overseas. The costs for the country were high - 11,625 killed, a ratio of 6,684 dead per million in the population which was the highest rate in the Commonwealth (Britain suffered 5,123, Canada suffered 3,750 and Australia 3,232 per million population). I think thats thats a pretty large sacrifice for such a small nation and merits some kind of mention in the infobox. Taifarious1 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some problems. First, your list has many repeats in it (Battles within campaigns etc.), that's basically stacking. Second, the numbers you're using are for the entire war, including Europe; by that logic, China is a major player in the war against Germany. Third, by using "sacrifice" you have to basically argue that one NZ casualty is worth more then one American casualty (if going by totals) or that NZ's contribution was less then that of Portuguese Timor and Singapore (if going by ratio). I'm far from convinced, especially since, unlike what's shown above, you also provide no sources. Oberiko (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine, if you refuse to take it at face value then I'm done trying to convince you, and of course im not saying the a NZ casualty is worth more than an American, that would be just reprehensible but in contrast you are saying that the contribution made by NZ as a nation isn't worth at least a basic mention in the infobox. Taifarious1 04:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. Adding nations that were militarily insignificant does a disservice to the reader. If NZ, why not the Philippines (which had 3 times the number of soldiers contributed)? If the Philippines, why not the Dutch? If the Dutch, why not the Free French? If the Free French, why not Portugal? Etc. Our own infobox template says to try and limit it to about three or four for a reason; so the readers gets a good idea quickly of who were the major players. We don't lump in everyone who contributed any soldiers/intelligence/supplies etc., as that's misleading and grows to massive proportions very quickly. The difference between Australia and the next nearest Ally is staggeringly large (order of magnitude), it's not an unreasonable cut-off. Oberiko (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
So what you're basically saying is that the New Zealanders who went to fight in the Pacific, don't actually matter, not as much as the Australians or the Chinese, the Soviets or any American?? Or another soldier is more significant than any NZ soldier? Taifarious1 06:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue is, the infobox should be limited to the major powers of the war, and New Zealand simply doesn't fit with those already listed. No one is saying they didn't matter or that other countries' soldiers were more important. The issue is that they were a pretty minor part of the war effort. As Oberiko says, the purpose of the infobox is to give a quick, at a glance description of the war, and the belligerents should be only the major ones. Look at it this way: someone who doesn't know a thing about the Pacific war might assume that New Zealand was as important as China if they're all listed in the box. We're trying to avoid any kind of misrepresentations by listing only the major powers. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 1

<--I wouldn't give the instrument of surrender too much weight. It was a political document, recognizing the geopolitical realities in Europe & the world as much as a recognition of participation in PW. As for Ghurkas (please, no apostrophe!), you're right, they were from India, but as I understand it, they aren't considered "Indian" (in India, anyhow); a bit like Walloons in Belgium, I think. And if you're going to denigrate the Dutch for small numbers & short duration, you should be downgrading Britain, too (unless you include Burma & India, & I'd put that in a separate theatre or article, if it was up to me); recall, "Pacific Theatre" & "CBI Theatre" were quite distinct. Trekphiler (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pacific War encompasses the entirety of Asia-Pacific Theatre of World War II past December 7th, 1941; thus it includes both the CBI and American Pacific Theater of Operations among other actions. I also don't think we should start nitpicking between who, in India, is an Indian or not; that'd be like starting to pick-apart the Soviet Union, which I believe was considerably more ethnically diverse. Oberiko (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The relatively small part played by the Dutch and NZ had more to do with internal and international politics, than any innate abilities or lack thereof.

The quote from Southeast Asia and New Zealand is simply wrong. Virtually all of the RNZN was involved in the Pacific from 1942, including (from memory) at least three cruisers. Only one RNZAF squadron saw action in Malaya and only individual personnel saw action in Burma, whereas several squadrons were part of AirSols. The 3rd Division (New Zealand) was formed for service in the Pacific, and most of its components saw action. It was sidelined from 1944 as a result of inter-Allied politics (like Australian land and air units) and disbanded to address domestic labour shortages and reinforce the 1st Division (in Italy).

While the role of the Dutch after March 1942 was small, they were seen as major Ally up until that point, by everyone concerned, including the Japanese. That the Dutch forces in the NEI turned out to be a paper tiger in 41-42, and few escaped to fight another day, was related mostly to poor preparation and leadership.

As for the fact that "...the Declaration by United Nations was signed by 26 Allied governments...", that is true, but only a handful contributed combat forces in the Pacific. Grant | Talk 00:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No ones ascribing reason or motive; it's primarily just a matter of numbers. Continuing with sources for NZ:
“ New Zealand mariners served across the world during the war, 7000 alone serving aboard Royal Navy vessels. New Zealand's two cruisers, HMNZS Achilles and Leander, formed the Royal New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy, though in October 1941 the Royal New Zealand Navy was officially established. ... The RNZN was strengthened by two corvettes, sixteen minesweepers, twelve anti-submarine patrol boats and over a hundred harbour defence launches and other minor craft. ... The end of the Pacific war saw both HMNZS Leander and Achilles operating in the vicinity of Okinawa and the Japanese home islands with the British Pacific Fleet

In the air New Zealand's policy was to supplement the RAF in every possible way, rather then maintain a significant independent force. Thus New Zealanders served extensively in the RAF in Europe and the Middle East, whilst in the Pacific the Dominion contributed fourteen squadrons as well as extensive supply and support facilities for American forces. ... The RNZAF's greatest strength was 45,000, a third serving in the Pacific.

 ”

-- The British Empire and the Second World War, pg. 487

“ Australia carried a much heavier burden in the Pacific War than New Zealand, mainly because, unlike New Zealand, it received direct attacks on its territory. ... In addition, Australia's population of 7 million was vastly larger than New Zealand's 1.6 million, and it had a stronger industrial base; its capacity for raising and sustaining forces was much greater. Finally, the New Zealand government decided that, despite the outbreak of the Pacific War, it would continue its main military effort in Europe. ... Australia's contribution - much larger and more diverse ...

By comparison with the Australia, New Zealand made only a modest contribution to the Pacific War, even though proportionally it made a greater contributions to the entire war than any part of the British Empire. ... New Zealand ... decided to leave its division in the Middle East, New Zealand was therefore unable to contribute land forces to the 1942 offensives. ... The two cruisers of the Royal New Zealand Navy served as part of the South Pacific command's naval forces in the Guadalcanal campaign. [New Zealand's decision to leave its division in the Middle East] strained relations between New Zealand and Australian governments, as Australia considered that it was carrying an unequal share of the fighting in the Pacific.

 ”

-- The Pacific War Companion, pg. 143-157


“ New Zealand's contribution to the Pacific War was one Division, the 3rd, of roughly 20,000 men, a few cruisers, destroyers and corvettes, and an air force which, numbering some ten antiquated machines in December 1941, grew to eleven squadrons by early 1944 and nearly reached its planned maximum of twenty squadrons by the time the war ended. Put in this way it is easy to anticipate some of the author's problems in describing what New Zealand did. Quite apart from the limitations imposed upon any historian by the nature of his material, in this case he is describing a small contribution to a great effort and the perspective is not easy. ”

-- Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War, 1939-45: The Pacific

Also, according to the 1966 NZ Encyclopaedia, the maximum number of New Zealanders overseas (in both theatres I'd imagine) was 75,000, still just a tenth of Australian's contribution to this one theatre. Oberiko (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the Netherlands inculded among the allies? They fought in the war for 3 months(officially) and held out in gurellia(sp) wars across many islands during the next few years. Also, I'm not an expert on Thailand, but, shouldn't it be included with Japan? And one other thing, why is the Soviet Union listed if they were in the war shorter than the Netherlands? Red4tribe (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need for subdivision

I doubt that 108K characters is excessive for this topic, but it is vastly excessive for a single article, where 5K is the target and 32K is likely to cause technical problems for some users. This article should be a series of short sections, each with a lk to an article treating the corresponding sub-topic in more detail. In fact, many of the subtopic articles will surely need to have similar structures, with lks to sub-subtopic articles. If it takes 3 or 4 lower levels instead of just one or two, it'll take even more planning, but it needs to be done.
--Jerzy•t 06:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:SS and WP:SIZE address this matter.
--Jerzy•t 16:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I posted a while back a proposition for a new framework. I'd think that with a good framework, it'll be much easier to keep the size and integrity in check. Oberiko (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Netherlands

Why aren't the Netherlands inculded among the allies? They fought in the war for 3 months(officially) and held out in gurellia(sp) wars across many islands during the next few years. Also, I'm not an expert on Thailand, but, shouldn't it be included with Japan? Red4tribe (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing discussion on this page, just a little ways above. Basically, the idea is to list only the major countries in the infobox; the Netherlands, New Zealand, and others just don't fit the bill. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, if that is the case, why is the Soviet Union listed? It was only in the battle for a few days. Red4tribe (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
They destroyed the Kwangtung Army, and are often credited with ending the war, by forcing Japan to surrender (much to the chagrin of those who use the same to justify nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Without the Soviet intervention, the invasion of Japan might well have been necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention a Soviet invasion of the northern Home Islands. They took the Kuriles without much trouble, although that was after the surrender was announced. I believe planning was also underway for an invasion of Hokkaido.

FWIW, proponents of the view that the A-bombs were a "shot across the bows" of the Soviets (which I'm sure they partly were), often forget that they saved Soviet lives, in addition to the Western Allied and Japanese casualties that would have resulted from an invasion Grant | Talk 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)