Talk:South-East Asian theatre of World War II

Untitled
I wrote the Australian 8th Division page purely about that unit. It does not give anything like a full account of the Malaya campaign, which is why I removed the link. Grant65 (Talk) 09:20, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, it does not give a full account of the Malaya campaign but it is the most detailed I have seen in Wikipedia and until someone writes an specific article on the fall of Malaya and Singapore, I think that it is a useful link to have. Just as the 14th Army is not called the forgotten army by chance, it does not surprise me that there is no article on the largest surrender of men in British military history. It is typical of this whole theatre. I knocked up this article as a skeleton so that more can be written because without it there was no real tie into the Pacific (Asian) War or something to put in as a theatre category.


 * One of the complexities of course is the CBI, because of dual command chain which Stilwell created, it very difficult to summarise which command chain made what decision, particularly with the campaign in North East Burma in the summer of 1944. Not that Stilwell and Wingate were the only eccentrics. The theatre's obscurity seems to have encouraged unconventional behaviour. In his autobiography "Make for the Hills" Sir Robert Thompson describes how they (British chindits officers) used to play a trick, involving smashing emeralds, on Texan USAAF pilots who flew under the command of the RAF, because although they were transferred to the USAAF when the USA entered the war, they wanted to remain in the RAF. The implication being that they thought of themselves as the CSAAF!


 * BTW I think your contribution is to the introduction with the is interesting. However I am curious about something. What was the relationship between the designated names "(ABDA)" and "Far Eastern Theatre" (FET)? Was that the name given to "Wavell became commander of the Allied forces based to the south of China and west of Java"? Or is FET just a short hand used by historians for the organisation before SEAC? Philip Baird Shearer 12:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "Far Eastern Theatre", which is not a term I've heard used much, seems to be mostly British usage, meaning the Pacific War as a whole. (Obviously Asia is not "east" if one is in the US or Australia.) By comparison, the "ABDA area" did not include northern Asia. Wavell was supreme commander of the short-lived ABDA, which as the article says, was effectively dissolved by the speedy Japanese advance. From March 1942, the Australian forces, along with the few remaining US and Dutch forces in Asia and Australia, were commanded by MacArthur, in the new position of "Supreme Allied Commander South West Pacific". At the same time Chester Nimitz was given the separate command of "C-in-C Pacific Ocean Areas". Macarthur was not subordinate to Wavell/Mountbatten from that time onwards, and neither were the Australians, Dutch, New Zealanders, British forces based in Australia, etc. So there seem to have been five main theatres in the Pacific War: China (1937-45), SE Asia, SW Pacific (including the Dutch East Indies), the rest of the Pacific, and the Soviet-Japanese front (1939 and 1945). Grant65 (Talk) 09:55, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

After the Japanese success of 1941, it seems to me that for most of the rest of the Japanese war there were 2 land theatres and 4 campaigns. Pacific Theatre of Operations: Nimitz Navy Marines Island hopping in the Pacific; Macarthur US Army and Austrialian Army South West Pacific. The South-East Asian Theatre, Burma and China; which was administratively complicated by Stilwell wearing several hats all at once until he was moved on. As the Soviets did not declare war on Japan until after V-E day the Soviet-Japanese front only existed for three months 1945.

The British used "Far Eastern Theatre" to differenciate it from "Middle Eastern Theatre". I am not sure that "From March 1942, the ABDA command was dissolved and Wavell became Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia is correct because I don't think that that term was used until October 1943 when Winston Churchill replaced Wavell with Lord louis Mountbatten. I suspect that the remanets of the ABDA command (Burma) reverted to Indian GHQ command which Wavell was commander in chief. As the command by now involved more than "British Army of India" forces, that as a short hand the British refer to this as "Far Eastern Theatre", But I have not seen this in black and white and may be (probably am) wrong . Philip Baird Shearer 15:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think four five theatres is correct. China was always a separate campaign under Chiang Kai Shek. Macarthur and Nimitz were totally independent from each other. As far I can gather Roosevelt and the bureacracy in Washington did not interfere, or attempt to co-ordinate the two, other than defining their respective areas of operations.Grant65 (Talk) 01:31, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just as there was the Italian and Western Front, campaigns/commands in the Europe theatre in 1944. I would argue that there were two campaigns/commands (not theatres) in the Pacific Theatre of Operations.


 * It is debatable if China was a separate campaign/command. But assuming it was, it was meant to be under SEAC, because most of the fighting that the Chiang Kai Shek's forces did against the Japanese was directed and controlled by Americans who reported through SEAC. One of the reasons that Stilwell was replaced was because Chiang Kai Shek blamed him for the failure of Chinese troops to defend the area allocated for USAAF Bomber bases.


 * I don't think that you should have removed China from the "US forces in the China Burma India Theatre" heading because all US forces in China reported via Northern Combat Area Command to SEAC. Stilwell's argument was only if NCAC reported via 11th Army Group or directly to SEAC, not that it was under SEAC. Once CBI was split into C and BI they both reported to SEAC BI via Allied Land Forces South East Asia (the redesignated 11th). This is similar to British and 2 American Army Groups (21, 12 and 6) Assigned to SHAEF. The only argument Stilwell had was if NCAC was an Army group or an Army in the 11th Army Group. Philip Baird Shearer 03:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that we must distinguish between formal arrangements and the realities on the ground. The fact is that there was no single Allied commander, comparable to Eisenhower, in the Pacific War. This is partly explained by the huge areas compared to the war against Germany. I mean there was action from Mongolia and Burma to Australia, Hawaii and Alaska.


 * Zhukov defeated Japan twice: once in 1939 and once in 1945, and the numbers involved on both occasions were significant.


 * By the same token, don't forget that Chiang and Mao's forces were huge and they had been involved in all-out war with Japan since 1937. And I don't buy the idea that Chiang was controlled by the US, any more than I would accept that Churchill or Stalin were. Accepting offers of free equipment in exchange for day-to-day operational co-operation is not control. China was obviously geographically distinct from the Burma campaign and the Chinese campaigns were overwhelmingly fought by Chinese. Grant65 (Talk) 18:07, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

The Soviet shindig with the Japanese in 1939 is not a conflict I am familar with. I would assume that it is not part of World War II. There were three Western Allied Supreme Allied Commanders of three campaigns Pacific Theater of Operations: Nemitz (Commander in Chief Pacific Ocean Areas) and MacArthur (Supreme Allied Commander South-West Pacific); South-East Asian Theatre: Mountbatten (Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia). We not talking about political control here, we are talking about chains of command. The Chinese forces not under SEAC control can be ignored in this article, (persumably they are covered in the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)), but some Chinese divisions were under SEAC eg 22nd and 38th Chinese divisions. This is no diffrent than Australian troops under the control of British or American Army groups or British forces under the control of SHAEF.

But leaving the last paragraph aside, the US forces in China, from Stilwell down, did come under SEAC. The CBI heading you changed in this article refered to US forces and I would like to see it to be changed back. Philip Baird Shearer 19:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point, reverted that part. Since the short, sharp campaign in the Dutch East Indies was technically under Wavell's command, it could be mentioned as well, but maybe the ABDA page is the place for that.Grant65 (Talk) 02:41, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

New category
User:Joshbaumgartner has created a new category Category:World War II Southeast Asia Theatre and moved category links to it from Category:World War II South-East Asian theatre. The links he has put at the top of the category article suggest that he wants to rename this article as well. I for one am not in this because of the name SEAC suggests that we should keep South East in the theatre name and not use Southeast. I also think that we should keep the old category name as it matches the theatre name. What do others interested parties think? See also Category:World War II operations and battles of the Southeast Asian Campaign => Category:World War II operations and battles of the Southeast Asia Theatre => which I think is an improvement but should the name should be included in any standardisation Philip Baird Shearer 10:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a preference, personally, but it does seem that more people that don't already know are going to search for Southeast vs. South-East. This may be an incorrect assumption on my part.  I don't know that the article about the Southeast/South-East Asian Theatre has to be renamed to match the category (although this is always nice) so long as it is linked up.  One mistake I did make was to call it Southeast Asia vs. Asian.  I think I should go and change it to Asian, but I'll hold and see if we want to go back to South-East vs. Southeast.
 * Mainly, I wanted it to be easier to find for researchers that may not be fully knowledgeagle about the subject (thus why they are probably researching it).Joshbaumgartner 20:02, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * My vote is for neither of the above; "South East Asia" is the normal usage in my neck of the woods :-) Grant65 (Talk) 00:17, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have noted difficulty in appropriately referring to the theatres of the war with names derived from the command structures. First, commands weren't constant through the war, with changing names and boundaries as the war progressed.  But more importantly, I think that naming something as general as a theatre based on Allied command structures leads to some amount of inherent POV, in that it defines the war based on the Allied view.  A theatre is, more than anything, a geographic area over which a series of campaigns is waged for control of.  As for the name of the article, redirects will take care of the various spellings of Southeast/South-East/South East for those doing searches or links. Joshbaumgartner 02:34, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)


 * Links work both ways why did you not create links from "Southeast" to the existing "South East"?
 * As for names carrying POV it is inevitable in an English encyclopaedia which cites common usage for naming articles and in which all English speaking countries were on one side in a World War. Common usage in Japanese will give a Japanese Wikipedia a similar bias in favour of the Japanese view of the war and there is nothing wrong with that.
 * Yes commands did change throughout the war, but the SE Asia commands were grouped together in one common category. After I indicated to you that I and probably others would like to discuss categories in SE Asia during World War II, you have proceeded to recategorise SEA commands into a general category called "World War II Allied commands" without waiting to discuss it. Why not suggest what you intend to do here as it has been flagged as a concern? Why not discuss it before making the changes?

For the record Google returns:
 * ["Southeast Asian Theatre" War -vietnam -wikipedia] Results 1 - 10 of about 68
 * ["South East Asian Theatre" War -vietnam -wikipedia] Results 1 - 10 of about 105
 * ["South East Asian Theater" War -vietnam -wikipedia] Results 1 - 10 of about 43
 * ["Southeast Asian Theater" War -vietnam -wikipedia] Results 1 - 10 of about 54
 * ["Southeast Asia Theatre" War -vietnam -wikipedia]  Results 1 - 10 of about 18
 * ["South East Asia Theatre" War -vietnam -wikipedia] Results 1 - 10 of about 33
 * ["South East Asia Theater" War -vietnam -wikipedia] Results 1 - 7 of about 11
 * ["Southeast Asia Theater" War -vietnam -wikipedia] Results 1 - 10 of about 198

My spelling checker has a UK and a US setting. In UK mode it flags Southeast as a spelling error and suggests South-east while under US spelling it does not. It would explain the Google results. So it is possible that this comes under the the US British Spelling divide. If so then prior usage suggests we should stick with British/Commonwealth spelling (particularly as the topic is in the Commonwealth sphere of influence). What are your thoughts on this  Joshbaumgartner? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As stated above, I am not personally concerned whether Southeast, South-East, or South East is used. Per your point about spelling, it does make sense to use the South-East versus Southeast, as Southeast appears less acceptable in UK English than South-East is in US English. The search results back this up. Personally, I've no preference US vs. UK (I have no problem with theatre or armour) but I don't know that your sentiment is fully shared by others (see: POV).

Redirect links work fine for articles but not categories; as far as I know this is not yet fixed in the current version of Wiki.

The movement of commands was not geographically based. They belong in a geographic category, to be sure, and when it is decided which one, I will gladly put in the leg-work to put the articles there. Note, their inclusion under Allied commands does not preclude their inclusion under a geographical category. There may be some confusion because of the name of the article vs. the name of the theatre.

While I have no problem with classifying the theatre as the South-East Asian Theatre of World War II, I do disagree strongly with your contention that the English language basis of the encyclopedia should warrant a POV towards English speaking nations. This is specifically addressed in the article POV and in particular it notes that it is wrong to allow POV or bias in an article on based on "Accounts of conflicts and their outcomes providing the interpretation of the side most English-speaking nations supported." However, this is better dealt with as an issue aside from the choice of theatre name.

Conlusion: It sounds like South East is going to be a better compromise than Southeast. I'm not going to try and change it just yet, but it sounds like this is where we are leaning. (edit: oops forgot my tildas...) Joshbaumgartner 23:22, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Task forces
I have moved all of the above task forces form China Burma India Theater of World War II as "CBI" was purely a US technical term and is not a general article about campaigns and battles. This is the appropriate article as it is about the theatre as a whole. Grant65 | Talk 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Burma campaign
I think the different battles/operations under the Burma campaign (Chindits, Imphal, Kohima, Central Burma, and Dracula) should be placed in a separate "Burma campaign" box and removed from the South-East Asian campaign box. Cla68 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vichy France was not in Axis side in the Pacific War!
Vichy France cannot be put in Axis side in the Pacific War. They fought twice against the Japanese and against Thailand. It must be counted in Allies' side or as a third force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.93.165.249 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Japan invaded French Indo-China in 1940 and it had no alliance with France. So we should remove it's name from Axis to Allies. ShauryaOMG (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on South-East Asian theatre of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040803183148/http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk:80/pages/Second-war/far-east.html to http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/pages/Second-war/far-east.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040624212907/http://www.nimitz-museum.org:80/cbiprimer.htm to http://www.nimitz-museum.org/cbiprimer.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South-East Asian theatre of World War II. 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/20120310044343/http://usswashington.com/worldwar2plus55/dl05ap42.htm to http://usswashington.com/worldwar2plus55/dl05ap42.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)