Talk:Asiatic-Pacific theater/Archive 1

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://ask.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~yasutomi/private2/home/glossary.html
 * In Pacific Theater of Operations on Mon Jul 17 14:53:15 2006, 404 Not Found
 * In Pacific Theater of Operations on Thu Jul 27 00:37:15 2006, 404 Not Found

maru  (talk)  contribs 04:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we simply call Pacific War
Why don't we simply call Pacific War? is that rare term? -- Taku 04:04 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Besides, the article seems heavily baised to American side. Doesn't it? -- Taku 04:07 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

The war was World War II. The Pacific theater refers to a specific area of fighting, as opposed to the European Theater of Operations. Danny

In American military, that clarification is correct. But it is not univeral one. To Japan side, there is not European Theater. Such a synmetory is American-centralized view. -- Taku 04:08 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. In the first place, that is the standard American terminology, and therefore it's where most American searchers would expect to see it.  In the second place, there were also Dutch and British fighters in the theater.  -- Zoe

Oh, I see. Actually I found an article about Japanese termiology about Pacific War. How can I adapt it? The article says the war is officially called &#22823;&#26481;&#20124;&#25126;&#20105; (Large east-asian war, if one translates) and after the war, the term was prohibited, thus &#22826;&#24179;&#27915;&#25126;&#20105; (a Japanese for Pacific war) Pacific war has been used. Is it too Japanese-centerized? -- Taku 04:16 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think it would be good to include a Japanese POV in the article. The information you gave above would be good to include. -- Zoe

I'd also like to see a comparison of English and Japanese terminologies in reference to the war. They would make a very interesting comparison. Danny 04:21 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, the artcile is quite interesting. Anyway, should we put text about termiology here or somewhere else? -- Taku 04:24 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think here is good. You could start of with ... "Pacific Theater of Operations, or PTO (called "---" in Japanese), or words like that.  -- Zoe

We can start here and see how big it gets. Maybe we could do it as a table. It might need its own article. By the way, I'd really like to see more about the Japanese authors, especially now, since I've started doing the year in literature pages. Danny 04:30 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will just put some adapted from Japense wikipedia.


 * Actually I suspented making stubs for Japanese authors first because my use of bots has been prohibited -:) second because there is still some dispute about formatting. Third because I couldn't find much more information other than death and birth date. I was hoping someone else will do better job than me. -- Taku 04:40 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think "Pacific Theater of Operations" is by its nature going to be US-centric, since it is a technical term referring only to military activity conducted by US forces in wartime. So for instance the Japanese offensive in Hong Kong, and even the Pearl Harbor attack itself are not part of the PTO, because in the first case no US forces were involved, and in the second the US was not actually at war.

My ideal (which I've been distracted from by other articles :-) ) was to have a hierarchy of articles - a toplevel one about the Pacific War as a whole, then sub-articles about particular sides' conduct. So for instance there was a whole decision/action/reaction process on the US side, and a distinct complementary decision/action/reaction process on the Japanese side, decisions being secret while the actions and reactions were mostly visible.  This article is really just about the US command structure, and is, so to speak, a cog in the middle of the complex of articles. (Yes, a direct link from the WWII page is therefore misleading...) Stan Shebs 06:20 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

-

Yes. It's US-centric.


 * Pacific theater of operations -- US military usage. Even in works by American historians, "Pacific War" seems much more common.
 * Pacific War -- Australia and (almost certainly) New Zealand and (probably) United Kingdom.
 * Great East-Asian War -- Japan. (Taku translates this as "Large East-Asian War". I suspect that "great" is more accurate (pure gusswork from an Australian who speaks barely enough Japanese to ask directions on the street, but given that the common translation for the conquered areas in SE Asia is the "Greater East-Asian Co-prosperity Sphere")
 * ???????? China, Phillipines, Vietnam, Burma, New Guinea and dozens of others. (Hell - there are 900 different languages in New Guinea alone!)

Note the particular usage of PTO - it doesn't mean quite the same thing as "Pacific War", even in the US. PW is more general, PTO suggests that the article is going to either be (a) a dictionary definition of what the PTO was (an area bounded by XYZ) in US military usage, or (b) an article about American participation in the Pacific War.


 * (a) is not suitable material for Wikipedia - we are an enclycopedia, not a dictionary
 * (b) clearly is an appropriate topic, though it might be better under another title. US participation in the Pacific War or something like that. Either way, it's no big deal.

I see that the entry has been called US-centric. There is nothing in the slightest wrong with being US-centric, provided only that the article is intended to be about America's involvement, and is titled and linked to that way. Articles about particular countries, or particular sub-topics about particular countries, such as "The Emu farming industry in Iceland" or "US participation in the Pacific War" are supposed to be centred on that particular country. If it is indeed to be mainly about the US command structure (as Stan suggests) then PTO is the best title for it.

* * *

Stan: I think that you are working along a very useful line here - or at least you were before you got side-tracked.


 * Top-level summary, linking to sub-articles about (e.g.):
 * American conduct of the war.
 * Chinese conduct of the war.
 * Japanese conduct of the war.
 * New Zealand conduct of the war.
 * etc.

I was working on something rather similar but different - or at least I was before I got side-tracked!


 * Top-level summary, linking to particular battles in rough cronological order (e.g.):
 * Coral Sea
 * Midway
 * Milne Bay
 * Guadalcanal
 * Kokoda
 * etc.

Ideally, we would have each one linking to the next one the same way that the Prime Ministers or Presidents articles do. Something like: Next battle -- Previous battle format.

I see no reason at all not to do both, and quite probably there are several other themes that could be very useful if followed through in similar fashion. A few examples off the top of my head:


 * Air power in WW2 (top level). Then (e.g.):
 * The rise of Japanese naval aviation. (How did they get so good? Training, plans, weapons, doctrine, aircraft, live-fire practice in China, etc.)
 * Running wild. (The six months from December '41 when Japanese naval aviation was untouchable: Pearl, Indian Ocean raid, Darwin, etc.) (The phrase, "running wild", by the way, was Yamamoto's. Not that it would use that title.)
 * The Allied response. (Rushing up still inferior but at least competitive equipment (e.g., Wildcat, SBD), tactics, building up the numbers, early radar and attempts at fighter direction at (e.g.) Battle of the Coral Sea.
 * Turning of the tide in the air. (Midway, Cactus Air Force, New Guinea.)
 * etc.

OK, that's just one more example, but I've gabbled on long enough (and that damn database lock for backup is off now - it hits me every day just when I get home from work) (no offense, Bryan, serves me right for living in a funny time zone).

Tannin 07:47 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I've no confidence that my edit captures the two contradictory views on "GEAW", but it does bring them into the open even if it moderates them too much. Hopefully that is a step forward. --Jerzy 08:17, 2003 Nov 10 (UTC)

Hey Tannin, good to see you back - addiction is a b*tch ain't it? :-) Do you have a source for the "domestic political reasons"? I don't doubt it - US participation was far more politicized than most people realize - but I can't find anything in my books that names specific Congresspeople and/or factions. Stan 16:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

CINCPAC CINCPOA
In the source http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Sp1941-42/ench7.htm
 * Msg 36: 20 Mar 42 refers to CINCPAC
 * Msg 83: In May, when Admiral Nimitz took command of the Pacific Ocean Area, Lt. Gen. Frank hi. Andrews, Commanding General, Caribbean Defense Command (CDC), asked what would be the effect of the new division of the Pacific theater, so far as his command was concerned. The War Department informed him: "Pacific Ocean Areas placed under CINCPAC do not include Southeast Pacific Area. Consequently there is no change in command status, Pacific Sector, Panama Sea Frontier."
 * Msg 94: 30 Mar 42 ...and incl directives for CINCPOA and Supreme Comdr, SWPA...


 * 1) Do the Acronyms stand for "Commander-in-Chief Pacific Area Command" and "Commander-in-Chief Pacific Ocean Area"?
 * 2) Did Nimitz's command change Acronym? or were two Acronym used for the same command or is CINCPOA not addressed to him? PBS 11:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"CINCPAC", I believe, is/was purely a US Navy position, i.e. "C in C Pacific". 2. Therefore Nimitz was CinCPac at first and later became the Allied CinCPOA (in about 1943). But I haven't checked ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 12:04, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. CINCPAC is the USN fleet commander, CINCPOA is the theater commander, in charge of both Army and Navy, and any Allied forces in the area. The former was answerable to Admiral King, as COMINCH, the latter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Of course, Admiral Nimitz was both CINCPAC and CINCPOA, but very occasionally you will see a document from one addressed to the other, for recording purposes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

PTO
The Japanese information should be removed from this article. PTO should be only about the US theatre of operations particuraly a description of both operational and administrative uses and US designated campaigns in the theare.

See: --PBS 11:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mediterranean Theater of Operations and Mediterranean Theatre of World War II
 * European Theater of Operations and European Theatre of World War II
 * Hi Phil, I agree. Grant65 | Talk 18:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Material relating to Japanese terminology moved to Greater East Asia War in the Pacific. General information relating to the definition of a theatre has been deleted. Grant65 | Talk 09:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Leyte Gulf
Is there any reason the Battle of Leyte Gulf isn't listed specifically in the major operations section? Considering it is one of the largest naval battles in history, it might be something to highlight. Sevey13 (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and I am going to remove it. -- PBS (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Inquiring minds might wonder how Leyte Gulf got to be listed as both a Central Pacific battle and a Southwest Pacific battle, with all the controversy that ensued. I believe that explanation is required, and I'm putting it back.  JMOprof (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it again. The Battle of Leyte Gulf was in the Southwest Pacific Area. Yes, Halsey's Third Fleet was answerable to Nimitz; but this was not in his capacity as CINPOA, but as CINCPAC. When the Combined Chiefs created the theatre system, they allowed for task forces from one theatre to operate in another. So, for example, bombers based in China could bomb targets in Japan, and bombers in North Africa could attack targets in occupied Europe. The reason for this was fairly obvious; drawing overly strict boundaries would hinder rather than further the common effort. When the Pacific fleet crossed into SWPA, as it did during the Hollandia and Leyte operations, it did so as a task force. While it did not come under MacArthur's command, it did not constitute an extension of CENTPAC either. I fear that the readers (if not the editors) will wind up confusing CINCPOA with CINCPAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Inter-service rivalry
"Because of the complementary roles of the United States Army and the United States Navy in conducting war in the Pacific theater"

This is not necessarily true. There is no imitable reason why there needs to have been two theatres or US Supreme commanders from different armed services. The reason for these choices could have been made "Because of the complementary roles", but they could just as easily have been made as a political compromise made to satisfy US inter-service rivalry. -- PBS (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Theater of Operations
This article needs much more on the administrative and operational commands. It should not be a rehash of the Pacific War. See for example: -- PBS (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * European Theater of Operations and European Theatre of World War II
 * Mediterranean Theater of Operations and Mediterranean Theatre of World War II