Jump to content

Talk:Kokoda Track campaign/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Headings

G'day I've made a few changes to some headings just now [1]; however, if this isn't considered helpful I'll gladly self-revert. Essentially my main change was the 2nd level heading "Battle" which I changed to "Campaign" (as in reality this was a campaign made up of a number of battles so it seemed more logical to use this term to me). Equally I have "promoted" the phases of the campaign (i.e. "First Phase", "Interlude", "Second Phase" and "Advance on Buna-Gona") to be 2nd level headings in their own right. My primary reason to do this was to separate them previous section which was quite long and covered a broad range of topics. To me this might help delineate where the article changes from a mostly thematic focus to a chronological one. Happy to discuss other viewpoints on this of cse though.Anotherclown (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Campaign is certainly better and on the other, I have no objection if. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Geography #2

Some problems in this section.

  1. "The administrative centre of Port Moresby had an airfield and basic port facilities". Actually there were two airfields. Aside: Note that in BrEnglish, the term "aerodrome" is used. The American forces continued to use "aerodrome" for the existing dromes, but when they built one themselves, they use USEnglisg, and called it an "airfield".
  2. Footnote 30 doesn't cover this; you need another reference. I'd be particularly grateful if you could find one for the second two sentences. I have started assembling the article on logistics in User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox7

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

On your first point, I have made an amendment. On your second point, this has caused no end of confusion as to what you are referring to. I think you mean citation 30 as opposed to note 30? Plse see Talk:Kokoda Track campaign/Archive 2#Geography and revision [2] You will see that this paragraph was a collaboration with AR, with AR fleshing it out a bit more and adding the citations - so I am sorry but I wasn't the one that "sourced" this specific material. I'm sorry that I don't have a lot of material atm - I had to send it back before I left the big smoke of Ipswich and I am waiting for inter-library loans to come to my tiny libraray in the sticks. By the second two sentences do you mean: "The pre-war economy was based primarily upon copra and rubber – with plantations established intermittently in coastal regions – and mining.[28] The administrative centre of Port Moresby had basic airfield and port facilities"? If you can confirm, I will see what I can dig up. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The section reads: "The administrative centre of Port Moresby had basic airfield and port facilities. There were no roads beyond the vicinity of Port Moresby and, by modern standards, these were little more than tracks. As a result, travel north of Port Moresby was largely undertaken by air, or sea." The first sentence is true, but the source doesn't cover it. I'm not certain about the second an third sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
See Dod p 174. Also p 182, there was no road to Kapa Kapa. Still working on it. In some respects it is a little wp:blue. If you wanted to get to the north coast you had three choices: an airplane, a slow boat or a long walk - there was no fast car (or even a slow one for that matter). I might suggest Kienzle, The Architect of Kokoda. My recollection is that it likely had material of that nature in it. I tried to get it today without success. I also noticed that Powell, The Third Force, has some interesting comments about p 36 - 54. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
"There were no roads or railways, and supply lines were often native tracks," Drea p 3, New Guinea. The US Army Campaigns of World War II. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7, Brune (A B of a P, bottom of p 84 - as cited): "could either sail around it or fly". Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they're wrong, but we have to be careful not to misrepresent them through paraphrasing. There were some roads. I'm looking at Allied Geographical Section Terrain Study No. 27. It's one of the first studies they prepared, dating back to October 1942. It covers the Buna area. What it says is:

The Government Station. sub-stations and main villages of the Northern Division are linked up by a network of good native tracks. With the exception of (1), the route Sanananda via Popondetta and Amboga to Andemba and, possibly (2) the routes leading from Buna to Dobodura, these cannot be called roads. They are merely paths. In addition. there are innumerable minor tracks from village to village or leading to gardens and hunting grounds These range from bad to unspeakable. Of the better tracks none are sealed or surfaced with metal. Where kept in good order under Government supervision they may be heaped up in the center and. to some extent, drained along the sides. The better tracks are as much as 12 ft. wide.

So roads did exist outside Port Moresby. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kokoda Track campaign. 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) 06:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Jmg38

Hi Jmg38, will be initiating discussion regarding my revert shortly. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jmg38, I am pinging Hawkeye7 and AustralianRupert (if he is in a position to contribute). These are both significant reviewers/contributors to this article. I respect your input to improving the article but think that a third opinion would be appropriate, as I don't agree with them fully.

  1. Edit 2: my recollection of material from the AWM is that the "Battle Honour" was the principle but not the only consideration in the AWMs decision. I agree that the sentence might be better written and have made this edit.
  2. Edit 3: I think it appropriate to mention the year of the newsreel production but I do not believe the balance of the edit is an improvement. Consequently, I have made this edit. Your edit also split the paragraph. I believe that the original paragraph was essentially one "idea" and does not warrant splitting.
  3. Edit 1: The justification for adding Allied leaders (per edit summary) is the mention of Tomitarō Horii. Horii exercised direct command in the field. The commanders you have added, did not. NGF was the superior command for those units engaged in the campaign. Command in the field was exercised by several commanders, starting with Owen (or Templeton) and ending with Vassey. IMO, this is too intricate to explain in the lead. I would point to the infobox, where leaders are listed and this is a more appropriate place for this info. The "fluidity" you refer to is already is already touched upon in the last para of the lead, where the significant issue is the replacement of Rowell by Herring. Overall (IMO), the edit detracts more than it adds.
  4. Edit 4: The edit represents a "concept" of significance that is already represented in the last part of the final para of the lead. Your edit adds to the lead, taking it further from the guideline regarding size and without (IMO) sufficient justification to warrant this, given it is already touched upon. "Reeling" is probably not appropriate, given it might be considered editorialising. Unfortunately, one has to be very parsimonious in writing a lead for WP.

I hope you recognise that I am not dismissing your edits out-of-hand in that, I am asking for additional opinions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, Cinderella157. Happy for the feedback.
On the lede already ending with the reference to the Greek analogy, I felt that was muted compared to the more important issue - at the time - that the country feared that the fall of the nearby island would lead to invasion of Australia (a little bigger news than the Greeks, which is nicely covered in the body of the article). I may have expanded too much with the numerous examples of recent routs of Australian (and other) forces and the outcome for other areas in the region that fell quickly to the Japanese invading forces over the previous few months. Still, the underlying concern of invasion of Australia being the next step should probably take precedence over the ANZAC story (rightly) being reinforced in the body of the article "after" the successful outcome.
See post below. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
You are right that the mention of Tomitarō Horii spurred my (faulty) addition of the Australian generals. I'd like to suggest that the specific mention of the New Guinea Force should stay in the lede, something like "and (various?) units (brigades?) of the Australian and Papuan soldiers of the New Guinea Force."
 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I adjusted the "Oscar-winning" sentence only because it was a little stilted, with its ", director,". Looking into the linked articles, I then saw that the issue is some confusion regarding whether the cinematographer or the director was the actual recipient of the Oscar. I would suggest that this extra background is covered at the linked article for the documentary itself, so that the line in the Kokoda Track article could be more focused by saying "Filmed by Damien Parer and directed by Ken G. Hall, the Australian News & Information Bureau was awarded one of four Academy Awards for Best Documentary presented at the 15th Academy Awards – the first time an Australian production was awarded an Oscar."
See post below. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I look forward to your (or Hawkeye7's or AustralianRupert's) thoughts. Jmg38 (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

For the moment, I would like to just comment on the commanders in the infobox. No criteria was agreed upon AFAIK, so it reflects the consensus of edits over time.

  • Count Terauchi commanded Southern Army, and is presumably there to keep MacArthur company, but his command did not include New Guinea, which was directly under IGHQ. That's why he is not mentioned in the article. His name should be removed.
 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hitoshi Imamura commanded the Eighth Area Army, which was based in Rabaul. But his command was not created - and he was not appointed until 16 November, which is outside the scope of this article. That's why he is not mentioned in the article either. His name should be removed.
 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Douglas MacArthur was Supreme Allied Commander in SWPA. (Note that in US English it was Southwest Pacific Area, whereas in Australian English it was the South West Pacific Area. The article should use the latter.)
 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • MacArthur set the whole campaign in motion from the Allied side with his decision to secure the Dobodura area, which was the Allied objective. I'm not sure that this comes across clearly in the article.
See paras 4,5 and quote in "Allied forces" section. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • MacArthur had spent years fighting in the mountains and jungles in the Philippines and had the most experience in that regard of any soldier in the theatre. He had no "unreasonable and unrealistic perceptions of the terrain and conditions under which the campaign was fought". I would recommend rewriting that part of the lead.
See post below. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (And the assertion in the lead that "Australian command considered that the Vickers machine gun and medium mortars were too heavy to carry and would be ineffective in the jungle terrain" is not supported in the article. It is therefore unreferenced and should be removed.)
See Ref 179 - Threlfall 2008, pp. 209, cited in Heavy weapons section.
  • MacArthur should be at the top of the list.
 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thomas Blamey commanded New Guinea Force, the main Allied command in the area. As did Morris, Rowell and Herring. Rowell and Herring also concurrently commanded I Corps. So opposite to Hyakutake.
  • Allen and Vasey were the division commanders on the track opposing Horii.
See post below on which Allied commanders should be in infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Hawkeye7. Using information from the article Order of battle for the Kokoda Track campaign, perhaps something like this would be an appropriate balance/continuation to the "Japanese South Seas Detachment under Major General Tomitarō Horii" leading statement:
"... the Australian and Papuan soldiers of the 7th Division and attached units, under Major General Arthur Allen (until 14 November 1942) then Major General Alan Vasey"
Alan Vasey assumed command on 27 October. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It appears that he flew up to Myola and took change on 28 October (see McCarthy, p. 307) but was not appointed temporary commander until 14 November. Simplify. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
As before, I look forward to your (or Cinderella157's or AustralianRupert's) thoughts.Jmg38 (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Further comments/responses for discussion per above:

  • Jmg38, I suggest the threat to Australia was not perceived by the public until after Kokoda Front Line!, well into the campaign. The government and military had (not directly) intelligence that the Japanese threat was not to invade Australia. I think that Hawkeye7 would concur. Consequently, your assertion that this should be raised earlier is not supported?
    Hawkeye7 concurs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Having visited the Oscar site, it gives the Australian News & Information Bureau as producer(?). The specifics of the association with Cinesound Review would need a bit more research. Hall certainly received the award but it was made to the film, not an individual. I think it is best to be silent on that which is muddy. Please see my edit accordingly.
  • Command in the field of Maroubra Force fell successively to: Templeton, Owen, Watson, Cameron, Honer, Porter, Potts, Porter, Eather, Allen and Vasey. The question is, where do we draw the line for the infobox. I suggest a subsection on the Orbat for commanders and a link from the infobox here "See XXXX for full details".

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, still trying to get my head around everything. The recent changes look like a good compromise to me. Is there anything left to work through? Overall, I would stress that we need to be careful about not going into too much detail as the article is already quite long. It might be the case that child articles could be expanded, if such details are not appropriate here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jmg38, I thank you for your input. I hope you are satisfied that your issues have been thoroughly considered and reasonably addressed. There is one matter raised by Hawkeye7 re MacArthur that I am still to address and I am reviewing Williams WRT this. Ping AustralianRupert. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, thanks for the ping, Cinderella. Unfortunately, I don't have access to Williams at the moment. Re MacArthur, I think there are competing opinions in both directions, so it may be complicated. I wonder if it could be resolved by not singling him out by name in the lead. Maybe something like this might work: "Assessments of Allied generalship have varied, with some criticism from historians about unreasonable and unrealistic perceptions of the terrain and conditions impacting upon how the campaign was fought – to the detriment of the troops committed to the fighting." Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
AustralianRupert, thankyou for your thoughts. I am fortunate to have Williams on hand and will respond in consideration of him shortly. I would agree that it is somewhat complicated. Your suggestion may be appropriate. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

On MacArthur in the lead section

A response to Hawkeye7's comment regarding: "The generalship of MacArthur and Blamey has been criticised for unreasonable and unrealistic perceptions of the terrain and conditions under which the campaign was fought – to the detriment of the troops committed to the fighting." and their statement: "MacArthur had spent years fighting in the mountains and jungles in the Philippines and had the most experience in that regard of any soldier in the theatre. He had no "unreasonable and unrealistic perceptions of the terrain and conditions under which the campaign was fought."

The statement in the lead is directed at both MacArthur and Blamey and is inherently true (W p. 7-8) but the question is whether it is justified (in the case of MacArthur specifically).

Williams' specific assessment of this particular criticism is that it is not as "straightfoward as it appears" (W p. 202)

In saying this, Williams refers to MacArthur's four months (a bit less?) of fighting in the Phillipines mostly in the mountainous Battan Provence. I observe that the defence of Battan was a deliberate defence and largely static, with better infrastructure over a relatively small area. Williams does not appear to make a case that the criticism is unjustified.

I might also make the same observation as Williams wrt Sutherland and then note his suggestion that the Gap be blown up! Ping AustralianRupert too. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The line in question is not supported by the article. It is therefore unsourced. It's not Peter Williams' assessment, it's not Peter Dean's assessment, and it's not mine. It is not the consensus of military historians. I don't believe it belongs in the lead. I have no object to including discussion in the "analysis" section of the article, with appropriate references. There are certainly issues that the article never comes to grips with. But as a general rule, when it comes to military history, you should be sceptical of claims that victory was the result of human factors and defeat of factors beyond anyone's control. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It is supported in "Significance of the campaign" (Keogh (1965), pp. 226–227) added by AR with this edit. That such criticism of MacArthur is made is supported by Williams per above). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, I have checked Keogh again as it was many years ago I added that ref. I seem to recall that was just trying to reference content that was already there, which can sometimes be a bit fraught with danger if one isn't careful, so I probably bished it. From what I can see, Keogh directs his criticism towards the generic "GHQ", not any one specifically...so I feel that the statement potentially at least should be reworded to fix my mistake here. Keogh's analysis might also be dated, so potentially there are more up to date opinions, which could balance this out. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kokoda_Track_campaign/Archive_3&oldid=1154473209"