Talk:Burma Railway

Standard gauge?
Whence the assertion about the line being regauged? Last I checked SRT operates only narrow-gauge lines. Jpatokal 16:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Gauge 1000 mm
The line was built to standard Siamese and Burmese gauge 1000 mm ( metre ) connecting these two Railway networks. The seremonial opening day is also given as 15.10.1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.174.220 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guilty of war crimes
"The construction of the Death Railway was only one of many major war crimes committed by Japan during the course of its wars in Asia" Was anyone tried for crimes they committed during the building of this railway? If so who and what was the war cime they had committed? Please also add details to the Axis war crimes page --Philip Baird Shearer 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Move?
Should this page be moved to "Burma Railway"? it seems a more encyclopedic title --Astrokey 44 02:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The railway is known under this name.

Wereldburger758 12:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. My father - A Burma railway veteran - never once referred to it as the "Death Railway". The current title is more dramatic than encyclopedic.Johnmc 07:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was well aware of the Burma Railway, but had never heard the name Death Railway until I first saw this article. Grant65 | Talk 08:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A more correct name for the railway is the Thai-Burma Railway (or conversely, Burma-Thai Railway). These are the most commonly used names. Fraser Tweedale 09:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Taimen - Rensetsu Tetsudo
This is the official Japanese name for the Thailand ( Siam ) - Burma Railway. It was planned by professional Japanese railway engineers who worked on behalf of Imperial Japanese Army´s Southern Army ( headquarter then in Sai-gon ) Railway Troops and supervised the construction of the railway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.174.220 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the railway
The railway was used by the Japanese but by the end of the war the Americans bombed the lines with the first guided bombs so that the railway in the end didn't benefit the Japanese wareffort. Does anyone know more about this?

Sections of railway damaged by aerial bombardment were swiftly repaired by Japanese engineers with the help of forced labour. After the surrender of the Japanese the railway saw limited use by the Allies (it main use was as a means of transport for war graves search parties and evacuation of bodies). After the war the railway was torn up as there was no practical use for it. The section from Ban Pong to Nam Tok was later relaid (I can probably find out exactly when) so essentially none of the original railway exists today. Fraser Tweedale 09:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wereldburger758 12:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese planned to transport in both directions 3.000 tons of goods and soldiers daily in 10 pairs of good trains and one daily pair of passenger trains. In addition there run one pair of military train carrying about 4.000 Japanese soldiers monthly to and from Burma on the " Running when required bases ". The line saw thus daily 11 pair of trains up to end of September 1944. In October 1944 the traffic declined and through workings stopped totally between Siam and Burma along the Taimen - Rensetsu Tetsudo on November 29.1944 when the Allied bombing caused minor damage to the Tha Makan bridge. On February 13.1945 when RAF Liberator bombers managed to destroy section five destroying spans number four and six. The complete list of all Japanese locomotives which were transferred by Southern Army Railway Department to work on Taimen - Rensetsu Tetsudo is available. In addition there were allocated also some confiscated locomotives from Malaya, Siam and Burma. And during the Great War in 1915-1916 more than 25.000 Austrian, German, and Hungarian POW´s died when constructed the Murmansk Railway between Petrozavodsk ( Petroskoi ) and Kandalaksha ( Kantalahti ) 767 km.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.174.220 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

12.000 Japanese
The sentence:"About 200,000 conscripted Asian labourers and 12,000 Japanese army and 60,000 Allied POW's were forced to work on the railway.", is not correct. The Japanese were not forced nor did they work. Maybe 12.000 Japanese had the supervision over the prisoners. But I don't know myself. Erasing the mentioning of the Japanese in the above sentence.

Wereldburger758 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Many Japanese engineers worked on the railway. PoWs did the grunt work. Not sure of exact numbers but 12,000 seems quite reasonable (can and will find out). Some critical or dangerous sections of the railway were built exclusively by the Japanese engineering corps with now PoW or other external involvement. Fraser Tweedale 09:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Some figures are available. The Japanese recruited about 200.000 local inhabitants for the railway building. The number of Japanese working on the line never exceeded 5.000 men. Others were POW´s: British 30.000, Australians 13.000, Dutch 18.000, Americans 700, and local Malayans who served in Colonial Service 14.000. The Japanese official figures show 68.888 POW´s in Taimen - Rensetsu Tetsudo construction work. Of British POW´s 12.493 was reported to be buried in the War Cemeteries in Burma or in banks of the beautiful Kwai River in Siam ( Thailand ). As one British POW ( Major Basil Peacock ) has written: " Even the most prejudiced ex-prisoner must anknowledge that the Japanese engineers were very skilled and determined men, experts of improvisation. The task would have daunted many engineers of other races, even working with help of mechanical aids. It is doubtful if even the Japanese could have done it had the Kwai River not made possible to use sampans as transport. The tools used were shovels, picks, saws, crowbars, hammers, and rope. No ex-prisoner from the Kwai now wonders how the mighty works of antiquity were built - a vast expendable labour force can accomplish anything. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.174.220 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Death Railway?
I can understand why it's called the Death Railway (because of all the people who died building it) but at the same time it seems kind of like loaded language. In addition, this made a vacation to Burma or Thailand less appealing for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.176.195 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe me, it was less appealing for those who worked on the railway both those who died and the few survivors. --Bejnar (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Real Death Railway
If someone wants to compare the death toll among the POW´s and the Prisoners of Gulag lagers in Soviet Union after World War Two in 1947 - 1953 when building the Salehard - Urengoi " Death Railway " the less than 13.000 deaths in Burma and Siam ( Thailand ) is small when compared to this Stalin´s railway project where more than 40.000 prisoners died during the construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.174.220 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that there have been forced labour projects with greater loss of life. But the loss of 13,000 lives is *never* "small", no matter what it's being compared to.  That brings to mind a quote - interestingly enough, attributed to Stalin - namely, "If one dies, it's a tragedy.  If ten million die, it's a statistic." By all means, create the article about Stalin's railway, and link it to here.  But please don't talk the Burma Railway down.  My father - ex POW, and Burma Railway survivor - would be rolling in his grave.Johnmc (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Johnmc for your comment. I create an article of Berija´s Constuction Project No 502 in the Wikipedia. Why I have given the comparable firures out is simply to show that some countries in the " Allied Side " used same methods what did the Japanese in World War Two. You have to remember that the old Samurai tradition could not except the word " unconditional surrendering ", this was agaist their believe of the soldiers fate, ( a great shame where people lost their respects ) which was against their soldier fate. I really regret the death of nearly 13.000 British POW´s and all others who gave their life when constructed this 415 km railway. But the facts are clear: The Japanese had their railway and it run smoothly with 11 pairs of trains for one year. This is the fact you cannot take out from history. The Japanese railway engineers were clever to build even such a railway. This is the main fact. When taking the Korean guards in POW labours ( as the Japanese said: Dog eating bastards ) we cannot take the treatment for Western POW´s as the main fact of the railway. The railway operated and this is the main fact. It is funny to see that the treatment of the POW´s had taken the major rule when describing the fate of this " Taimen Rensetsu Tetsudo. " 99 per cent of the western " experts " do not even known the Japanese name of this Siam - Burma Railway. Railway history must be taken as it appears from the official statistics, still available in Tokio, Japan, Bangkok, Thailand, Singapore, and Rangoon Burma ( Yangoon, Myanmar. )

==Good grief!! Is this the work of a right-wing Nihonjin nutter or what?! What a load of racist hog wash, next they'll be saying that the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews.

Sickening rubbish purporting to justify the unjustifiable - particularly the contempt reserved for Koreans (dog-eating bastards)
 * Yeah. I probably should have been less restrained with my initial reply. However, this particular contributor hasn't made any edits since this one, and no edits where made to the actual article, so the advice regarding "sleeping dogs", etc. etc. might apply.  Interestingly enough, his IP address resolves to Helsinki, but - not being versed in internet skulduggery - this might just mean it was done via proxy or something.  As for "smooth" operation of the railway for 12 months, I would seriously doubt that, considering that the Allies considered - as they would - the railway a prime bombing target even before it was completed.Johnmc (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As many books as exist on this subject, there's no reason why this article can't make featured someday. It just needs someone to crack a few of those books and get to writin'. My "to do" list is fairly full, but if someone starts building this and needs some copyediting or formatting help, I'm willing and able. Cla68 (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Details of units used on the line
I can understand why Grant65 removed the details of US units involved on the line (it doesn't flow in well with the opening paragraph), but i think there is room for a "units involved in construction of the line" section, with details of Australian, British, Dutch and US military units that were used. (I realise this doesn't address civilian labour).Johnmc (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Hellfire Pass
The opening paragraph of the Hellfire Pass deals with the subject, but the remainder of it deals with the Burma Railway in general, duplicating a lot of the Burma_Railway article. I think the Hellfire Pass paragraph could be incorporated into this article as a subsection, and the other information absorbed into the article. Johnmc (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has a better name, "Death Railroad", bibliography and summary paragraph. The "Hellfire Pass" article has grippingly interesting content and stunningly graphic pictures of the POW's plight. It gives better evidence and information.

Both articles would benefit from consolidation, as long as NONE of the Hellfire content is cut. It's the better article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.34.226 (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Merge - Hellfire Pass can be safely moved into Burma Railway. « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support merger A simple redirect from Hellfire Pass to an appropriate section here should suffice. --Bejnar (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we move this article to Thailand-Burma Railway. The current name could easily be confused with the railways of Burma (as in Burmese Railways, Rail transport in Burma, or History of rail transport in Burma etc.). We could move the article and then create a disamb page for Burma Railway so that there is no confusion down the road. Comments?--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (I filed a WP:RM before it occurred to me that I should bring it up here first. Apologies! Obviously this discussion takes precedence.)--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose At present, I believe that the literature on this topic primarily uses "Burma Railway". I will spend some time digging, but I find the expression "Thailand-Burma Railway", even more ambiguous than "Burma Railway". --Bejnar (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to disambiguate Burma Railway appropriately - so if someone looks for Burma Railway they'll get to the disamb page which will direct them appropriately. There is, for example, The Burma Railway Company which has nothing to do with the World War II railway (also the Burma State Railway, Burmese railways, etc.). An alternative is to move the current page to Burma Railway (some suitable moniker) but that will be even more confusing. I do realize that the usage 'Burma Railway' refers mostly to the Thai-Burma railway (mainly, I think, because Burma anything is quite forgotten) so any alternative solutions are welcome. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the necessity for a move at this point in time. If you want to create a disambiguation page for the various articles about railways in Burma, it doesn't meet the criteria, since there are only two, this one and History of rail transport in Burma. If another one comes along and a disambiguation page is appropriate, then I still feel that the current title here is not only appropriate, but clearly meets the Wikipedia naming standards.  You can always put a dab header to History of rail transport in Burma or to a future disambiguation page. And no, Burma is not forgotten.  --Bejnar (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have accumulated a small collection of Burma Railway accounts - mostly autobiographical - and there seems to be a variety of names, some of which substitute "Siam" for "Thailand". eg: "Burma-Siam Railroad", "Burma Railway", "Thailand-Burma Railway", "Thai/Burma Railway", "Burma-Thailand Railway", "Burma-Siam Railway", etc.  There are also the expected usages of "death" in the title,  "Burma-Siam 'death' Railway", "Death Railway", "Railway of Death".  (I would also add that I would oppose any move to a "Death Railway" style title for this article.  I know that such a title would be accurate - my late father was a Burma Railway survivor, and his treatment there cost him his health in his later life, and quite likely contributed to his death - but I would not think it appropriate for an encyclopedia article.)
 * I would prefer to preserve the status quo with "Burma Railway", but if change becomes necessary, I would suggest "Burma-Thailand Railway", for two reasons:
 * 1. This is how the railway is referred to in "The War Diaries of Weary Dunlop", which is arguably the best known account of the line, and:
 * 2. This is how the railway is referred to in chap. 24 of "The Japanese Thrust", which is the AWM's offical account of the event. This would probably be the closest we have to an "offical" name for the line. Johnmc (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, its up to you guys for the time being. I've created a disamb page Railways of Burma and popped a note on the top of Burma Railway so you can see what I mean. I think it is the appropriate solution but, que sera sera ....!--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Are you aware that Burma Railway Company redirects to History of rail transport in Burma? I guess that it deserves a separate article, but if it had one, it would eat up most all of History of rail transport in Burma. But then, the History of rail transport in Burma could be expanded to include the last 60 years. --Bejnar (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For the time being Burma Railway Company redirects to History of rail transport in Burma. But, it deserves an article in its own right and I'll get to it (or someone else will!) sooner or later. More to come on History of rail transport in Burma but it is very hard to find information on the railways after Burmese independence. Not that much was done till the 1990s - the tracks were not maintained, the rolling stock was mostly old English stuff, and there were no new lines added. Since the 1990s, there have been significant upgrades (thanks to help from China and India). (Sorry, I'm getting carried away!) BTW, do you mean that you're ok with moving this page to something else or you're ok with leaving it as it is with the pointer to the dab page on the top? If the latter, I'll close this as 'no consensus' and we can revisit the issue, if necessary, later. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 14:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rail gauge
The rail gauge, which is not mentioned, is presumably ? Peter Horn User talk 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Same gauge as the rest of the Thai/Malaysian/Cambodian system.Johnmc (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not this again
I like how the proportion of deaths among "Asian laborers", their working conditions, and the breakdown of their nationalities is less significant than that of the POWs, even as they outnumbered them 3 to 1. Seriously, does this page have to overemphasize the importance of captured Allied combatants rather than defenseless civilians? - 60.49.108.118 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. Wikipedia limits itself to published sources, and defenseless civilians didn't publish many, even though there simply wouldn't be any combatants if there weren't defenseless civilians to support them, cradle to the grave. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(I'm new here): I am looking at this because I was told by a museum visitor that many Vietnamese and Chinese died but not one Thai. I find this impossible to believe and cannot imagine the Siamese army which collaborated with the Japs not sending Thai prisoners to face the horrors along with the enemy troops. Sorry I was offended to see the detail given to the tragedy of the allied soldiers and surely some research has been done into the suffering of the Asian others which needs inclusion to balance this article. Ricky CNX (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Prominent people who helped build the line
This section contains several redlinks and unreferenced persons.

I propose that these are deleted in, say, six weeks unless authenticated prior to this.Tomintoul (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Numbers are inconsistent
"16,000 Allied POWs died as a direct result of the project. The dead POWs included 6,318 British personnel, 2,815 Australians, 2,490 Dutch, about 356 Americans and a smaller number of Canadians and New Zealanders."

This does not compute. 6318+2815+2490+356 = 11,979. If the number of Canadians and New Zealanders are individually less than 356, then the total by simple addition cannot be more than 12,689. Were there other nationalities of Allied POWs involved but not mentioned? Perhaps Indians? I realize there is a reference for the passage, but oughtn't there be a note added that the numbers don't compute? It's frustrating to find such glaring numerical problems in an encyclopedia article. Fnj2 (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Mistake
"In accordance with the traditions of the US military, the remains of its personnel were repatriated to the United States: ..." I think that this sentence is false because remains of many WWII soldiers are still in military cemetery in France. Skiff (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Dusty" Rhodes
On several occasions good faith links from the portrait of "Dusty" Rhodes have been made to an American fighter pilot. This is wrong. The portrait is of an English soldier, formerly of the Palestine Police, as shown in the inscription on the portrait.

"For reference only"
What's the deal with the "for reference only" links? This is a style I've not seen anywhere else in Wikipedia. Should they go? --Yaush (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Burma Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008133136/http://www.mansell.com:80/pow_resources/camplists/death_rr/movements_1.html to http://www.mansell.com/pow_resources/camplists/death_rr/movements_1.html;
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.davidpye.com/pow/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306191038/http://www.netcore.us/1/afm/azonbomb.html to http://www.netcore.us/1/afm/azonbomb.html
 * Added tag to http://www.cwgc.org/search-for-war-dead.aspx?cpage=1&sort=name&order=asc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716203149/http://home.vicnet.net.au:80/~a23mgb/f_hist/tbr_hist.htm to http://home.vicnet.net.au/~a23mgb/f_hist/tbr_hist.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815152759/http://www.tourismthailand.org/destinationguide/list.aspx?provinceid=56&typeid=7 to http://www.tourismthailand.org/destinationguide/list.aspx?provinceid=56&typeid=7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030721053930/http://www.ean.co.uk:80/Bygones/History/Article/WW2/Death_Railway/body_index.htm to http://www.ean.co.uk/Bygones/History/Article/WW2/Death_Railway/body_index.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/1/10/nation/16505034&sec=nation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Page's restructuration
This page have been restrutured. All imporper information in Lead section have replaced in sub section. Please read : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. This page have to be unruffled. Please help to increase it. Few references are required. --Philogik (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by page mover) Sky  Warrior  17:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Burma Railway → ? – Checking the sources cited in the article as well as Google Books and Google Scholar, "Burma Railway" does not appear to be the most common term used to refer to the subject. Most actually use "Thai–Burma railway"/"Thailand–Burma railway" (as a descriptive term) or "Death Railway" (as a proper noun). In the 2008 discussion, Johnmc identified two well-known historical sources that use "Burma–Thailand railway", so that's another option. Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Burma Railway has always been the commonest name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you give a few source examples, please? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging Necrothesp. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Daily Telegraph, Enyclopaedia Britannica, Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Daily Mirror, East Anglian Daily Times, Burma Railway Man, The Times, National Memorial Arboretum, BBC, BBC, BBC, BBC. In addition, as below anecdotal, but my father too served in Burma (although he wasn't captured) and never called it anything else. Certainly in his day that's what it was commonly called, and evidence suggests that it's still a very common name in Britain at least. Yes, it is also known by other names, but I don't think there is any overwhelming evidence that it is better-known by other names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My father was a Japanese PoW for 3 years during WWII, and survived this railway. His wartime experience was such a nightmare that he completely refused to talk about it, including his earlier service in North Africa. But the only term I have heard used for this railway is "[The] Burma Railway", or sometimes, "Death Railway". Anecdotal, I know, but to me it's inconceivable to call it anything else. --NSH001 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but unfortunately I'm quite sure that the Article titles policy doesn't give weight to anecdotal evidence. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking through the first fifty Google Books results for "Burma Railway" show that only eight of them are actually using the term; twenty are false positives from "Thailand–Burma railway" or similar terms and the rest are duplicates or irrelevant. (See box below.) This is hardly convincing that "Burma railway" is the most common term. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also pinging RegentsPark and Bejnar from the previous discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The railroad has been called by many names of which Burma Railway is one of the most common, perhaps the most common.  What would we call the article if not Burma railway?  Thailand-Burma railway? Thai-Burma railway?  Siam-Burma railway?  Death railway?
 * if one goes back to the most used names during and just after WWII, I suspect Burma railway was the most common, followed by Siam-Burma railway -- as Thailand was commonly called "Siam" by English speakers in those days. I suppose one could even make an argument to call the article the Myanmar-Thailand railway to bring it into line with current political realities. But, why?
 * Burma Railway seems a perfectly good title to me -- so I say stick with it. Smallchief  (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I supported the move the last time around because the article could be confused with the railways of modern day Burma. But, in the 9 years since that request, Burma has pretty much become Myanmar in the English language so that concern is no longer as severe. Apparently, articles use Siam-Burma, Thai-Burma, Burma-Thailand, or just Burma and, if that's the case, then the intersection - Burma railway - seems appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

music and entertainment
no offense to the guy who wrote the book about entertainment, but two paragraphs on it seems kind of excessive given the abridged nature of an article on this massive effort that took so many lives. I don't know which parts of the paragraphs were the most important to the guy who wrote it, but I think these should be trimmed down and condensed into one sentence. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Short description
I've reverted the short description "former railway in south east asia" because it is misleading. The name "Burma Railway" is associated with the use of POWs for its construction and wasn't ever the actual name of the railway, neither was it ever a railway in the conventional sense (timetables, tickets, etc.). Perhaps a description that characterizes it as a POW built railway built to further the Japanese war effort or something along those lines? (I'm not a short description writer so apologies for reverting without replacing). --regentspark (comment) 20:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wampo Viaduct?
Coming hear after watching TVO's Impossible Railways episode 2, I'm a bit surprised to not see any reference to Wampo's viaduct / Tham Krasae bridge. Should something be added in that regard ? https://www.tvo.org/video/documentaries/ep-2-into-the-wild http://thaigrouptours.com/tham-krasae-bridge/ 76.64.86.185 (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal some Japanese stories
I've removed the following:

Some Japanese viewers resented the movie's depiction of their engineers' capabilities as inferior and less advanced than they were in reality. Japanese engineers had been surveying and planning the route of the railway since 1937, and they had demonstrated considerable skill during their construction efforts across South-East Asia. Some Japanese viewers also disliked the film for portraying the Allied prisoners of war as more capable of constructing the bridge than the Japanese engineers themselves were, accusing the filmmakers of being unfairly biased and unfamiliar of realities of the bridge construction, a sentiment echoed by surviving prisoners of war who saw the film in cinemas. This has been removed because it is not very relevant for the page and deals with an inaccurate movie. This is a clear case of WP:UNDUE, especially given its lenghts and the Japanese revisionism. KittenKlub (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There's nothing undue about ensuring the truth in the article. Nearly everybody in the Western world knows nothing about the Bridge except what was in the book and movie -- and both express a colonialist point of view that the Japanese needed help from Brits to build a bridge. Really? It is most certainly undue for you to say that book and film were inaccurate is glossing over the poor treatment of prisoners by the Japanese while denying the mention of another inaccuracy: that the Japanese were so dumb that they needed the Brits to take charge of building the bridge for them.


 * Also, I believe that Reverting says a return to the status quo text is called for in these cases. In other words, put the long-standing and referenced text which you reverted back in the article. And then we'll discuss or refer this to the appropriate forum for decision.Smallchief (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This is NOT about a movie, this is about the real events. There is and has never been any suggestion that Japanese engineers were incapable, therefore the whole story does not belong in the page about the REAL event. That critism belong at the book and film. KittenKlub (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * So, you say this article is not about the book and film. But you approve of text about what you believe are inaccuracies in the book and film, i.e. the book and film gloss over the poor treatment of the POWs.  And then revert  long-standing and referenced text about another inaccuracy in the book and film, i.e. the portrayal of the Japanese as incompetent?  You edits and reverts don't seem neutral or fair-minded to me.Smallchief (talk)


 * That part can go as well. Are you happy now? KittenKlub (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied. Thank you.Smallchief (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We should acknowledge the 250,000 Asian labourers
I am absolutely no expertI am absolutely no expert in this field but having just visited the death Railway Museum in Chanthanaburi its is well documented that 60,000 POW and over 250,000 forced Asian labourers who have been relatively unacknowledged built the railway. I would not want to be the one to create an edit but the founder and curator of the museum has done some invaluable reseach and could clearly provide the facts. That's the opening sentence stating the POW's built the railway is clearly only a smaller proportion of the truth. There is an interesting NYTimes article on this fact. 2001:44C8:444E:C550:1:1:5E91:A91F (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point. In the summary para, I added civilian workers in addition to to POWs as constructing the RR.Smallchief (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity category removal
Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Rename Page to Siam-Burma Death Railway or Burma Death Railway
This page should be renamed the Siam-Burma Death Railway or Burma Death Railway. The railway is infamous across SE Asia as the Death railway, in history books, as remembered by the families of the thousands of civilian workers, as also reflected in ongoing campaigns regarding colonized SE Asian workers who died to build the railway.

Currently this page is not a historic record, it suffers from an over-reliance on a single individual's perspective and fictional accounts Jimmred (talk) Jimmred (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Britain's colonisation of Malaya
The recent edit by Mugsalot employs the term "owned" to describe Britain's relationship with Malaya, implying that "colonised" is linguistically incorrect. Given the historical context of post-slavery Britain, "colonised" is not only more accurate but also respects the experiences of those most affected by the multiple occupations of Malaya during which the Railway was built. The language used should either be amended to remove any mention of the post-war colonisation or reverted back to say colonisation. Jimmred (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Using "colonised" is plainly misleading here, as the colonisation happened hundreds of years before that. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * precisely my point. The fact of the matter is that Malaya was controlled by Britain. Mugsalot (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Failing to use the words occupation and colonisation reflects a knowledge deficit on the post-war occupation of the region.
 * The British returned to Malaya, beginning with a military occupation and transitioning to colonial rule. Under military occupation, greater powers were given to the sultanates to control local territories and govern communities.  The transition to colonial rule saw the consolidation of British control over local institutions and the imposition of British administrative structures and systems, which led to the Malayan Emergency. Jimmred (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that British Malaya of the 19th century was not colonised? Because my point is that if Malaya was already colonised before, it doesn't make sense to say it was colonised after the war. Maybe consider "re-colonised" if you want to emphasise the fact, if you consider it to have been un-colonised in between --Paul_012 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)