Talk:Battle of Manila (1945)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Missing image

The image for the infobox, Image:Manila City Destruction May 1945.jpg seems to have disappeared. It still exists on Commons, here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of "decimated"

In the section titled "Destruction of the City," the author has incorrectly used the word decimated, which refers to the destruction or killing of just one tenth of something. That was not the case here. I believe two more appropriate substitutions would be "destroyed" or "ruined." 76.120.202.88 (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Done. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com gives three definitions, one being, "to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague." That source also says, "Origin: 1590–1600; < L decimātus, ptp. of decimāre to punish every tenth man chosen by lot, v. deriv. of decimus tenth, deriv. of decem ten; see ate). That said, the changes do probably reduce the chances of confusing readers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I've just moved this article back to

WP:NAME. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

records

Is there any known lists of the people who were held in the camps. I am trying to find any information on my family some of which were killed during this fighting in Manila. So many records, even in the church, were destroyed. I hold some speck of hope that there were records kept on the people freed from the camps and with heavy heart the ones that didn't survive. Thank you Teresa Harborth Jan. 18, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharborth (talk • contribs) 15:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese figures

The box near the top needs to be updated to reflect the correct approximate number of Japanese dead (the body count was 16,665). Also, the number of Japanese troops was approximately 17,000 (all of them naval personnel), not the figure cited.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTHuber.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.242.171 (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen various numbers cited regarding the overall Japanese strength in Manila, most tend to be in the area of 21,000 to upwards of 25,000. Also, they weren't all naval personnel, either. Mostly they were, yes, but there were Army personnel in Manila.--172.191.152.127 (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allied or US/Filipino victory?

At least four times in 2012, the "result" section of the infobox has been changed from some version of "US/Filipino Victory", to "Allied victory" and back again. Clearly this is a dispute. Which should it be? A random selection of other battles show that most, but not all, use the term "allied victory". Since two sides of the war are often called "Allied" and "Axis", I would have a slight preference for "allied" over U.S./Filipino. There is the additional problem that Filipino forces were American forces -- trained, equipped, and under the command of American governments, including the Commonwealth of the Philippines, an American colony of the time. They were Filipino troops as part of an American force. --Bruce Hall (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... See Alliance growing in the Allies of World War II article and the Declaration by United Nations article. From this, it looks to me as if the Commonwealth of the Philippines should be distinguished here from the U.S. Perhaps a clarifying footnote is in order. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Allied' is the appropriate term. There are a few Filipino IP editors who zoom around these articles stressing (and, at times, exaggerating) the role of the Filipino forces in the liberation of the country in 1944-45. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just echo and reiterate what Bruce Hall already said: At the time of the war, the Commonwealth of the Philippines was an American colony. Filipinos were residents of the United States and considered Americans. Drewda (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POV balance and due weight

This ClueBot reversion caught my eye. The reverted content was added by an editor with a short history of contributions and does have problems. However, it seems to me that the reverted material in general would have balanced some source-supported quoted material still in the article (e.g., "... there was no animosity amongst the liberated Filipinos ..."). This contrasts strongly with quoted material (e.g., "“I spat on the very first American soldier I saw that unspeakable day ...") removed by the revert. The reverted material did support its quotes, though not in customary WP style, and is supportable using other sources (e.g., by [1], [2] and other sources). Considering

WP:DUE
, this needs another look.

I'm not familiar enough with the material myself nor a good enough wordsmith to do a decent job of rewriting it. I'm hoping that regular editors of the article seeing this will address this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Criticism of MacArthur's decision to attack

I've read that there are numerous historical criticisms of MacArthur's decision to take the city by force instead of starving out the defendants (essentially he wanted a feather in his cap)...perhaps the article should include something along these lines.Historian932 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Manila (1945). 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:

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

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worst street fighting, or only street fighting?

Was the Battle of Manila the worst street fighting of the Pacific Theater, or was it the only Pacific battle with street fighting? I can't think of another city in the Pacific Theater that had street fighting. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think harder. Singapore is just one other example. Nanking. Etc. 50.111.19.34 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newsreels

United Kingdom

  • British Movietone. "Manila Falls." 2 April 1945.
  • British Movietone. "Manila—Final Scenes." 12 April 1945.
  • British Pathé. "Manila Retaken." 2 April 1945.
  • British Pathé. "Manila's V Day." 12 April 1945.

United States

  • Universal Newsreel. "First Pictures of Manila Conquest!" 26 February 1945.
  • Universal Newsreel. "Santo Tomas Prisoners Liberated." 1 March 1945.
  • Universal Newsreel. "Manila Free of Japanese Domination." 22 March 1945.

Best Battle of Mnl pic

This photo (see The 1st Cavalry fighting in the streets of Manila) was taken at Heiwa Boulevard, at the Greater Manila district of Bagumbayan. The First Squadron of the American Twelfth Cavalry Regiment was the US unit known to be operating in this area, from 16 February through 20 February 1945. The building closest to the viewer is the Bay View Hotel, which in the mid-1930s was considered to be one of the best hotels in Manila together with the Manila Hotel and the Great Eastern Hotel.

Is that photo copyrighted to the publisher of that news article, or perhaps to some wire service, or, perhaps, is it a US Govt photo and clear of copyright? I don't have time to research this right now, but this might be the hotel currently known as the Bayview Park, which is located on Roxas Boulevard directly across from the U.S. embassy. It might be the hotel spoken of in this news article (search for bayview there). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A" Company of the of the US 640th Tank Destroyer Battalion, attached to the US Cavalry and equipped with the M10 tank destroyer, was understood to have been operating in the vicinity of the US High Commissioner's Residence from 19 through 20 February 1945. (According to the unit's journal, on 20 February a destroyer was damaged by a mine, which could explain the abandoned tank track near the TD.) Another TD unit operating in Manila, but attached to the 37th Infantry Division, was the 637th Tank Destroyer Battalion, which was said to have been the only TD outfit that fought in the Pacific that was equipped with the M18 Hellcat.[3]

At various times during the Battle of Manila, both TD battalions assigned individual destroyers to all three US divisions that fought during the battle.

Both photos which are linked to this section were first published by the BACEPOW (Bay Area Civilian Ex-POW) website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.193.100 (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Manila_(1945)&oldid=1206174181"