Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Kohima

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

WP:INDIA Banner/Nagaland Addition

[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Nagaland workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Nagaland or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion

[edit]

I believe that the article Battle of the Tennis Court should be merged into this article. The Battle of the Tennis Court was only a part of the larger battle of Kohima, and not notable enough by itself to warrant a separate article. The current article on the Battle of the Tennis Court duplicates much of the information (and images) in this article, and contains some POV claims about it being the turning point of the entire Burma campaign. HLGallon (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. While the Battle of the Tennis Court was an important part of the Battle of Kohima (it has been a while since I read Slim's interesting description which, I notice, is not even referenced), it does not warrant an article of its own. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about the turning point issue though. The Battle of Kohima was a turning point in the war, perhaps the turning point, and the battle of the tennis court was the line in the sand, so to speak. I'll see if I can get hold of Slim and reread this chapter and see what he says. Nevertheless, I don't see the need for a separate article because it is not possible to isolate the BOTC from other action. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 18:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the tennis court is important, and warrants a section in this article, but not an article of its own. IxK85 (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and as I wrote the original I think that someone should have asked my opinion on this, so I am putting it back. --PBS (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The casualties statistics need to be amended, the Japanese suffered considerably more loss than the British to at least 3 fold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.76.116 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohima Epitaph

[edit]

There is some confusion about the wording on the memorial. Specifically if it is "your" or "their".

  • "Burma 1944 - 1945". Worcestershire Regiment website. Retrieved February 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
  • "The Kohima 2nd Division Memorial". www.burmastar.org.uk. Retrieved 1 August 2009.

The Worcestershire Regiment website includes a photograph that says "their". The burmastar.org.uk site states that it is "their" but in the replies to the blog includes a photograph of a memorial stone "David Lock for this photograph showing the wording of the Kohima Epitaph in the Kohima War Cemetery" but that is not from the original monument and it seems to be (mis)quoting the original in that it says

"When You Go Home,

Tell Them Of Us And Say,
For your Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today
Kohima epitaph
In Memory of
The Commonwealth Forces
Who served in Burma

1941 - 1945

So it appears that there may be two versions of the Kohima epitaph. -- PBS (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up the last posting. This web page, is a travel log, and as such is not reliable. But it has a modern picture that purports to be of the Kohima memorial which shows the wording "For your Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today" so this needs further investigation, because if the wording changed when was it changed? -- PBS (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was changed see the pictures on these two websites:

-- PBS (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email from the CWGC:

With regard to your query concerning the 2nd Division Memorial was erected in Kohima War Cemetery, India.

There are three versions of the now famous and often quoted Epitaph:

The original version (No.1) was the epitaph actually inscribed on the temporary Memorial Tablet which General Slim unveiled at Kohima in 1944. It was to have been similarly inscribed on the permanent War Memorial. The author was Major John Etty-Leal, the G.S.O.II of the 2nd Division. He was a classical scholar, and had imperfectly remembered version No.3. The latter version was contained in a series of 12 Epitaphs written by J.M.Edmonds for World War I, about 1916, but, in 1944, it was thought that Etty-Leal's version was an ancient Spartan Epitaph. Field Marshal Lord Wavell, who was himself a distinguished classical scholar, had always held doubts about this derivation. As a former Commander of, and keenly interested in, the 2nd Division, he consequently undertook some research on his own account and received a letter from Professor Jesper, of Glasgow University, whom he regarded as one of the leading authorities on ancient Greek Epitaphs, and who attributes the source of the Kohima inscription to J.M.Edmonds. Version No.3 was really the true source of inspiration of John Etty-Leal's inscription. Nevertheless, version No.1 was the inscription originally intended, and which most people seem to prefer to Edmonds' version, because of its fine direct message. It was the version published in 'S.E.A.C.', the South-East Asia Command Newspaper, at the time of the original unveiling of the Memorial. It was not until the late 50s that the substitution of the word 'Their' for 'Your' in the third line of the engraved inscription came to light. With the full concurrence of General Sir Cameron Nicholson, who was in command of the 2nd Division in November 1944, and responsible for putting up the Divisional Memorial, the matter of restoring the correct wording was taken up with successive Commanders of the 2nd Division in B.A.O.R. and with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The upshot being that in 1963 a new bronze panel, bearing the original inscription (Version No.1), was sent out from England and erected, by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, over the engraved inscription on the Memorial at Kohima.

1.Inscription as originally intended:

WHEN YOU GO HOME TELL THEM OF US AND SAY FOR YOUR TOMORROW WE GAVE OUR TODAY

2. Is the inscription as actually carved in 1945 and subsequently inscribed on the 2nd Division Memorial in the Garrison Church at Aldershot:

WHEN YOU GO HOME TELL THEM OF US AND SAY FOR THEIR TOMORROW WE GAVE OUR TODAY

3. Epitaph by J.M.Edmonds: for a British graveyard in France, circa 1916.

WHEN YOU GO HOME TELL THEM OF US, AND SAY 'FOR YOUR TO-MORROW THESE GAVE THEIR TO-DAY'

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

[name snipped]

Enquiries Administrator

-- PBS (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sought and obtained permission to publishes the above. If anyone wishes verify this email then please contact me. -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Army

[edit]

They fought in this battle with Japanese against British, why they are not mention in belligerents order?Ovsek (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because the battle was already decided before any INA troops reached the area? --Yaush (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont talk about the thing about which you dont know.Ovsek (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please keep this civil. INA have been included as combatants on several occasions but subsequently removed, as their inclusion lacked any reliable source to support it. This still applies. To go further, even the sources cited in the article which include the most information from the Japanese perspective (Allen, Burma: the longest War and Keane, The Road of Bones) make no mention whatever of the INA in the Kohima fighting. To summarise therefore, find a reliable source if the INA are to be included. HLGallon (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=b9bQyfKq_EMC&pg=PA339&lpg=PA339&dq=Azad+Hind+Fauj+in+battle+of+Kohima&source=bl&ots=Oi0j09uhjv&sig=17crBy9xT4U5vNY_M4NC4yDc3_8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tislU-XSG4jmrAeq54DYDA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Azad%20Hind%20Fauj%20in%20battle%20of%20Kohima&f=false well I found this, in April month section.Ovsek (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"[April] 6 The Japanese Army along with the Azad Hind Fauj captured Kohima, according to a Japanese Radio announcement." Sorry, but a tengential report of the content of propaganda broadcast is not nearly good enough. The other two references to Kohima in the book (Netaji remembered) do not mention the INA in connection with the place. HLGallon (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=BhgRuCapxGEC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=Indian+national+army+in+Kohima&source=bl&ots=UZhG0Q2Bbd&sig=Us5dHIICY8umDiFlsgWWeNZXyZU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P8AlU9LGC4TtrAf-zICgBg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=Indian%20national%20army%20in%20Kohima&f=falseOvsek (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That extract refers to the INA moving up to the battle and crossing the Indo-Burma border, but not doing any fighting. --IxK85 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority(!) of the INA had been captured by the Japanese early in the fighting and thus before the British and Indian armies had instigated proper jungle training. They are likely therefore to have been less than useful to the Japanese and possibly even a liability as they would have needed to have been fed from already limited Japanese supplies of food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.56 (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Jail Hill

[edit]

Currently the article states:

"Jail Hill, together with Kuki Picquet, FSD and DIS, was finally captured by 33rd Indian Infantry Brigade on 11 May,"

Yet this sources "Chapter 3 The 1st Queen's In The Battles For Kohima" goes into considerable detail and contradicts Wikiepdia.

"11th May. GPT Ridge was first to be taken by another brigade, and then 1 Queen's was to capture Jail Hill at first light. The 1/1st punjabis were to capture 'Pimple' in the dark and dig in before it was light. The 4/15th punjabis, with a battalion of Royal Berkshires from the 2nd Division, were simultaneously to attack FSD and DIS."

"The Battalion moved out at 2200 hours on 10th May ... The forming up was complete at 0315 hours with two companies forward" -- which was 0315 on the 11th.

Here are some details of the following battle on the 11th from another source:

Major Michael Lowry of B Company Fighting Through to Kohima: A Memoir of War in India and Burma pages 226–227

Company Sargent Major Buchanan of C Company, was just on my right, not a yard away, hugging the ground as we all were. I had seen a Jap aim his rifle and fire. Half a second later I fired and killed him with my rifle, which I preferred to carry rather than a Tommy gun; then I turned my head to the right and saw that the Sargent Major's head had rolled over. He had been shot through the head, as I saw the blood pouring out from his temple. What a chap he was, always full of good humour and fun, and I am sure he should not have been were he was, but as in B Company, C Company were using any ranks to make up the numbers.

After this there followed a sniping duel, and then things happened the like of which I have never seen before. It was the nearest approach to a snowball fight that could be imagined. The air became thick with grenades, both theirs and ours and we were all scurrying around trying to avoid them as they burst. This duel appeared to go on non-stop for an unreckonable time. We did a fair amount of damage to these little blighters. The Japanese up here seemed to be smaller than those in the Arkan. We saw two creep out of a bunker and make a run for it. The both had their head and arms in bandages. Pen Ingram misjudged a grenade and did not crawl away in time, with the result that he caught a number of pieces under the heart... he died about half an hour later. ...

I put Private Easton in charge of those men in this area as this bunker was no longer causing us too much trouble. Easton had a Bren gun and remained in this position coming under mortar and light machine-gun sniping fire for the rest of the day, he himself continually sniping and harassing the enemy. By this section holding this ground it gave us depth. Private Easton was awarded an immediate Military Medal for his determined personal vigil, with complete disregard for his own safety which lasted for some six hours of daylight.

The 1st Queen's source goes on to say:

By late afternoon on 11th May the whole of the north west part of Jail Hill was in our hands. The troops had dug in as best they could, and were ordered to hold on at all costs, but casualties were mounting. The Battalion was reinforced by two companies of 4/1st Gurkha Rifles, but one company commander was killed almost immediately.

The next day, 12th May, some tanks got through to support the attackers. Some of the positions they pounded were only 15 yards in front of our forward troops, and they succeeded in destroying two bunkers. One large bunker was holding out very obstinately, and a company of Gurkhas put in a brilliant attack and managed. to surround it. Fighting continued all day, and Major M L Mansel, A Company Commander, was mortally wounded. Towards evening things became a little easier.

"At dawn on 13th May, patrols found the enemy had gone. Twenty bunkers, all recently occupied, were found on the hill."

So it seems that Jail hill was not captured until the 13th. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar?

[edit]

In the section Japanese retreat is the sentence: Once these supplies were exhausted, they had had to make do with meagre captured stocks and what they could forage in increasingly hostile local villages.
Is the had had correct?
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to correct grammatical errors. Hamish59 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no native speaker and I'm not sure if this is incorrect. --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even native English speakers get confused sometimes! Thanks for asking! Yes, it was incorrect. Here. Not everywhere, unfortunately!  :)Student7 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sato's mental state.

[edit]

"At Kawabe's prompting, doctors declared that Sato had suffered a mental breakdown and was unfit to stand trial", referencing Allen, which I don't have. Strange, as Keane (p407) quotes from the examining doctors' report at length and it is clear that they found him completely sane. Immediately after the quote Keane writes "Mutaguchi and Kawabe were beaten. After recuperating Sato was sent to Java as a military advisor..."

Can anyone with access to Allen shed any light on this contradiction? There is a more detailed account, also referencing Allen in the Wikipedia entry on Sato. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen, pp.308-309. After discussing Mutaguchi's desire to have Sato court-martialled for disobedience, and Sato welcoming the move as he wanted to turn it into a public airing of his complaints against Mutaguchi and his staff, Allen writes:

He was to be denied his platform. Kawabe had already decided, on 3 July, to end the Imphal operation. His headquarters was preoccupied with the crisis on its northernmost front ... And it would have to plan 15th Army's retreat. The last thing Kawabe wanted was the court-martial of one of his own generals on his hands. There would be no profit in it, and it would expose to all the world the shame of his Army command. It was decided to treat the affair medically. Sato was judged to be 'mentally disturbed under the stress of the acute war situation' (karetsu na senkyoku-ka ni okeru seishin sakuran.) The heads of the Adjutant-General's departments at Southern Army and Burma Area Army conferred with an emissary from the War Ministry, and it was decided not to proceed with a prosecution. On 23 November 1944, Sato was placed on the waiting list, and the next day transferred to the reserve.

Keane, in The Road of Bones, source not readily to hand, discusses the event in more detail. Doctors declared Sato to be exhausted and stressed but sound, but their report was spun or slanted to avoid a damaging public wrangle. HLGallon (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Fair enough. Having read Keane's translation of the doctor's report it must have been quite some spin. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Kohima. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INA again

[edit]

Once again, the INA and one of its commanders ([Shah Nahwaz Khan]) have been reintroduced as combatants and commanders, this time with what purports to be reliable sources. (Peter W. Fay, The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942–1945, pp. pp. 283–292, and Hugh Toye, The Springing Tiger: A Study of the Indian National Army and of Netaji , pp. 138, 162, 189–191, 203, 210). Unfortunately, these sources do not support the assertion. The Fay work, which I have read carefully, discusses only the Japanese in combat at Kohima. It discusses the INA contribution in the Arakan, and at Palel, indeed everywhere during the Battle of Imphal except at Kohima. Other sources are specific; no INA units got closer to Kohima than Ukhrul, over 20 miles away, and then only after the Japanese had begun to retreat. The references in the Toye work suggest that the Google books preview is not the same edition as that quoted. I have enquired at the local library for it and will read it carefully, but I doubt whether any assertion it makes will challenge the concensus of other historical works. HLGallon (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

[edit]

Is there any reason this article has never gone to GAN? On a skim it doesn't seem that far off FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Kohima&oldid=1255355212"