Talk:Pacific War

Racial dimensions and propaganda

I have added analysis on the racial dimensions of the Pacific War, drawing on John W. Dower’s argument about differential portrayals of German and Japanese atrocities; expanded on the role of propaganda and racial hatred in shaping total war tactics and combat intensity. This is due to the heavy emphasis on the military aspects of the war and I feel as though this important part of the war should be mentioned on the page. What do others think?

Here is the edit:

"The Pacific War was also shaped by racial dimensions. American propaganda depicted the Japanese as barbarous and subhuman, reinforcing a racialized justification for total war tactics. The detestation was partly due to the attack on Pearl Harbour and also reports of Japanese atrocities during the Pacific War. There was also a disparity in how allied critics viewed German versus Japanese violence. Historian Dower argues that German violence was attributed to “Nazi crimes”, whereas enemy brutality in Asia was presented as simply “Japanese”. Therefore, although other factors such as strategic objectives and national interests played a role, racial hatred contributed to the intensity of combat and has been central to scholarly debate surrounding the morality of U.S. bombing campaigns" ISang19 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Addition of some nations to the ‘combatant’ boxes

Hello, I’d like to propose adding the Soviet Union to the list of combatants, as they helped greatly in forcing the surrender of Japan via their Manchurian invasion. I also believe that Thailand should be included in the list of axis combatants, due to their joint invasion of French Indochina, among other reasons. TJ Kreen (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The participant listing is very short and the section expanding on participants does a poor job of showing the various nations. I know some may say "well, they were part of the British Empire", however, I would say that if a country is able to declare war unilaterally and decide on its own commitment to said war, then lumping them together under "British Empire" makes no sense.

Friends, please indicate if you agree or disagree, and also why.

I do not know how long things should be debated for, but the original suggestion is from July 2025, and I am posting this in June 2026. If there is no further discussion by end of September 2026, then I think we should move forward and update the combatant box. BigThok (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed TJ Kreen (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

sentence in opening paragraph - weasel wording and imprecise language

See below with my bolded styling added - it needs revision and correction. This sentence conveys an inaccurate impression that the pacific theater of WWII *began* when the US and UK entered the war against Japan, and not when Japan initiated the war, first against Manchuria and then later against other territories in Asia, and of the US and UK. @Remsense has reverted this attempt towards clarity and consensus with simply the dismissive comment of "As it was" - I seek consensus on this, but it's pretty clear that this sentence is inaccurate and does not match the details in the rest of this article.

"War between Japan and the Republic of China had begun in 1937, with hostilities dating back to Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931, but the Pacific War is more widely accepted to have started in 1941, when the United States and United Kingdom entered the war against Japan." Napes69 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I realize I made this edit without comment, but this is my latest attempt at refinement and clarity: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_War&oldid=1303096897 Napes69 (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Allied battleship losses

I have a question about the amount of allied battleships counted as lost in the casualties section. By my count, only three allied battleships were total losses in the Pacific. Those being Arizona, Oklahoma, and Prince of Wales. But in the relevant section, it counts five battleships as being lost in the Pacific. Is the casualties section counting Repulse and Utah as battleships for some reason? Or is it counting California and West Virginia as being lost? I would greatly appreciate if someone can clarify for me. Thanks. 2600:1008:B180:C6C5:8962:1EE0:A54:5861 (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Japanese losses

Are you absolutely sure that Japanese losses in battles against the United States are less than 1.3 million killed? Judge for yourself. General George Marshall claims that the Japanese army lost 965,000 killed. As for the navy, Japan lost a total of 414,000 killed, mostly against the United States. That works out to roughly 1,300,000.Moreover, Japan's total losses in WWII amount to 2.1 million killed in action. Against the US, 1.3 million, against China, 500,000, against the USSR, 140,000 (if you count those captured according to Soviet data), and about 200,000 in battles with the US's European allies. It all seems to add up. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC) (Copied to here. Originally posted here

Lone Ranger1999, the figure attributed to Marshall of 965,000 failed verification (see here p 202). Marshall did not state which casualties were due to American action. The figure is based on an incorrect assumption that there was only American action in the Aleutian Islands and, the south and central Pacific. Marshall's figures are total dead and are inclusive of Japanese naval dead. The figure of over 1 million (that you would edit to 1.3 million) also fails verification against the cited source , which does not give a figure for deaths resulting from American action. The figure appears to be arrived at on the basis of the table: that deaths in unspecified regions listed in the table were largely or totally the result of American action. That would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Consequently, both passages should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lone Ranger1999 @Cinderella157

Hi all,

I found a passage in Hanson that addresses it, saying the Japanese lost over a million troops against the Americans including 400,000 members of the Imperial Navy. I've replaced the original failed verification for that. Wahreit (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Got it thanks Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Length

At over 16k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. See WP:TOOBIG. Detailed content should be condensed or moved to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)