Talk:Battle of Hong Kong

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

various[edit]

Some information from http://www.economist.com/cities/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1825845 olivier 16:07, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any information on the local guerilla forces such as the 東江縱隊? This website seems to have some. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 13:14 (UTC)

See Japanese Occupation of Hong Kong ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 6 July 2005 13:34 (UTC)
See "Strikes and anti-Japanese activities" in Japanese Occupation of Hong Kong ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 6 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)
Great. Thanks Jerry. :-) — Instantnood July 6, 2005 17:50 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have a battlebox? -- Natalinasmpf 14:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it but I'd rather spend time doing the NRA battles instead... if I ever come around to other battles in the theatre and/or feel the whim, I'll do it. In the meanwhile, someone else should do it... if he/she feels so inclined.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 22:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done (partially). Still need leaders for the Brits. Should have done another NRA battle, though...
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

place name spelling[edit]

I've had changed Wong Ne Chung Gap to Wong Nai Chung Gap. Is it Wong Ne Chung Gap the old spelling? Similarly with Lye Moon Passage. Should the spelling be the new or old spelling? - User:SamGra 28 Nov 2005

Perhaps we'd better keep the names by then, e.g. [[Wong Nei Chung|Wong Ne Chong]]. — Instantnood 10:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (modified 17:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Taikoo Dockyard[edit]

It's a bit surprising that the dockyard is not mentioned. :-) — Instantnood 17:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV sentence[edit]

After the surrender, Japanese soldiers terrorised the local population by murdering many, raping an estimated 10,000 women, and looting.

This is a highly POV sentence here as this seems to be taken straight from Philip Snow's book and the number implies that it is taken straight from a Chinese propaganda. For those of you unfamiliar with Chinese language, the number "10,000" is a standard way of saying "many" when a large number is warranted. Great Wall of China when literally translated, is "10,000 Li(unit of distance) Long Fortification" but it simply means, as stated in that article, that it's "infinite". This sentence, therefore, is a blantant copy of propaganda that claims "Japanese were really (or infinitely) horrible." and not to be taken literally. Wikipedia is not a place for a propaganda or let alone a spreading of unverifiable claims. --Revth 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousand" in English serves the same purpose as "10,000" in Chinese. Therefore, all mentions of "thousand" must automatically be unreliable. The "thousands" of people killed by the atomic bombs are really just Japanese propaganda. Therefore, the whole article on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are just blatant copies of Japanese propaganda that claims "Americans/Chinese/Gaijin/Non-Japanese are really (or infinitely) horrible.". In a Math test, 1000 + 1 = infinity.
How you choose to intepret "10,000" is your own problem, not anyone else's. If you think that quoting a statistic is propaganda, feel free to live in your own world. Phillip Snow is a respected historian in his field, and if you wish to dispute his statistics, feel free, but just saying it is is not enough. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: POV on the number 10,000. In his memoirs, "Hong Kong Surgeon", (E.O. Dutton & Co. Inc., New York, 1964) Dr. Li Shu Fan a surgeon in Hong Kong during the Battle of Hong Kong stated that "The actual number of women raped will always remain a question; but it was large - 10,000 would be an underestimation - and the methods was appallingly brutal." (111) Here we see that the "10,000" figure is used not as an exact number, but as a conservative estimate. I do not think he was using it as Revth suggests (the memoirs were written in English, so this is not a English translation of the Chinese term "infinity".) The figure of 10,000 seems to have been estimated by Dr. Li through two main personal observations. With the understanding that "...only a small percentage of those who were raped appeared at hospitals to be treated for rape injuries" (111) - which is consistent with what history has shown us with the issue of rape - Dr. Li first observed a deluge of rape victims that he personally treated at his hospital immediately after the fall of Hong Kong (111). This can be verified with other witnesses at the time. He also notes that these women ranged from the ages of "early teens to the sixties" (111). The second observation Dr. Li had was around nine months later in October, when he noticed an unusual spike in babies being born. He dubbed this the "baby crop of 1942" (121), suggesting that since the usual time for deliveries was several months later, that the fact that this "baby crop" was almost 9 months after the fall of Hong Kong was further evidence of the result of mass rape that occurred in late December/early January 1941 (121). Furthermore according to Dr. Li, after this "Baby crop", births dropped drastically, so much so that it was "in inverse proportion [to the baby crop]" (121). While one could dismiss Dr. Li's memoirs as "Chinese propaganda", Dr. Li's was a well respected surgeon amongst Chinese, English and apparently Japanese alike, so I am not sure if there could be a better primary source to substantiate the claim of mass rape in Hong Kong. As we have seen in the cases of the past – Poland, Bosnia and Rwanda to name a few - rape cases are very difficult to analyze, especially in war. However, given the evidence of Dr. Li and may other witnesses it would be fool hardy to dismiss the number of "10,000" rape cases as "propaganda" – true it may not have been the exact figure, but it would seem from the evidence that a significant amount of women were raped, perhaps many more times than 10,000. JamesL85 08:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why the source is so unreliable and very doubly, and I truly believe is "Exaggerated Propaganda" this estimate comes from ONLY ONE CHINESE SURGEON, the estimation come from only one Chinese physician. The point is there isn't nobody else who could confirm this source apart from one Chinese physician which is why I doubt this source. If there are other non-chinese surgeons who could prove this estimate than I'll believe, but since it's all based from one chinese surgeon, it could have been easily manipulated. It doesn't matter if he was an respected surgeon or not, the point is it was very possible he exaggerated the numbers, since anti-japanese feeling was so strong by Chinese during this time, many Chinese propagandist did indeed exaggerated the crimes Japanese did, indeed Japanese committed lot's of crimes but Chinese also exaggerated an portion. So I'll say it's much more less than 10,000, maybe 5000 at best. You rarely hears Hong Kong chinese who ever talked about japanese crimes. WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 4:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


After checking Philip Snow's book, I can confirm that Snow's source of the figure of approx. 10,000 rape cases is indeed Dr. Li's memoirs. JamesL85 08:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guerilla Resistance section is also highly PoV. It is indeed very sad that Chinese guerilla fighters have been forgotten, but saying so is PoV. - Cuivienen 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are ways of inserting factual information about them into the article. Feel free. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The diagram is great but I don't believe 60,000 troops invaded (About 5 Japanese divisions) - I can find reference to 9000 troops Nickhk

Is this statement correct[edit]

"Although Hong Kong surrendered to the Japanese, local Chinese waged a small guerilla war in New Territories. However, because of the resistance, some villages were razed as a punishment. The guerillas fought until the end of the Japanese occupation. Western historical books on the subject have not significantly covered their actions. The resistance groups were known as the Gangjiu and Dongjiang forces."

Dongjiang Guerillas fighting in trenches.

And then there is a picture of guerilla fighting in trenches labeled Dongjiang. I doubt very much they had enough ammo and manpower to fight in trenches the Japanese troops during the whole war. Especially the ability to stop armored vehicles and air bombing seems a bit limited. It would be really worth mentioning if they withstood Japanese forces in symmetrical warfare all the time. Could it be possible that they fought more in an urban guerilla way? Hidding weapons, ambushing, no uniforms or hidden combat signs, etc. more like other partisan units in their times. Perhaps their way of fighting should be made clear. Wandalstouring 12:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely were not fighting in WW1 trench warfare style. I'm not familiar with the HK resistance efforts, but I would *assume* these are hastily constructed (but possibly quite well hidden - though it's not apparent from the photo if this one is) ditches which serve no more purpose than providing temporary cover to guerilla fighters before they move on and disappear. -- Миборовский 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
" .. local Chinese ... " - if they were born in Hong Kong they weren't Chinese. They were British subjects, the same as the soldiers sailors and airmen who had been attempting to defend them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.106 (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being a British subject isn't the same as being of British nationality as the fate of the locals when Hong Kong went back to Chinese sovereignty demonstrates. Keith-264 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Being a British subject isn't the same as being of British nationality" - well it was then. It was exactly the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian involvement[edit]

There used to be much more about the Canadians. Someone cut this out!!!!! why?!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.213.218 (talk • contribs)

I moved most of it C Force but forgot to link it from here, which I have now done. My bad, sorry. Grant | Talk
Whoever keeps editing out the Canadian contribution your just going to cause someone to write a C force history in great detail so you should put back what you took away. This contribution USED to be much better before someone EDITED out the Canadian contirbution and also my earlier comment asking WHY THIS WAS EDITED OUT!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.150.106 (talk • contribs)

"As a result, many of Canadian soldiers have never fired a rifle before arriving in Hong Kong." Surely it should be "Many canadian soldiers had never fired a shot in anger before arriving in Hong Kong." ?

Which RAF station?[edit]

In the sentence "The Japanese achieved air superiority on the first day of battle as two of the three Vickers Vildebeest torpedo-reconnaissance aircraft and the two Supermarine Walrus amphibious planes of the RAF Station, which were the only military planes at Hong Kong's Kai Tak Airport, were destroyed by 12 Japanese bombers." I imagine that the RAF Station in question is RAF Kai Tak. Is this correct? Greenshed (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese air units?[edit]

Were the bombers from the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service or the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service or both? Greenshed (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese surrendered less than a week after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?[edit]

The bombings did not occur on the same day, this sentence doesn't make sense:

"British sovereignty was restored in 1945 following the surrender of the Japanese forces on 15 August, less than a week after the United States had dropped atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

It was nine days after the Hiroshima bombing, and six after Nagasaki. Given that it was a full six days after Nagasaki (one day short of a week), the phrasing seems strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CE[edit]

Tidied and moved OOB closer to footer. Keith-264 (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Hong Kong. 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. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Hong Kong. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Hong Kong. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CE[edit]

Rm dupe wikilinks, hyphenated isbn 13s added missing biblio details and began sfn-ing recent sources and moving long citations to biblio section. Pics don't need citations. Keith-264 (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent data on fighting strength[edit]

The sidebar present on the top of the page lists the Japanese fighting power to be at 29,700 troops, while the Battle section lists the Japanese fighting power to be at 52,000 troops. R4tt1esnake (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triads?[edit]

Why does the list of belligerents include "Triads" (on both sides) when there is no mention of their involvement anywhere in the article? Mediatech492 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Since no-one has been able to provide a basis for including the Triads among the belligerents I have removed them from the list. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent Casualty Data[edit]

The sidebar: Allies: 2,113 killed or missing 2,300 wounded 10,000 captured 1 destroyer captured 1 gunboat sunk

Japanese: 675 killed 2,079 wounded


Aftermath section: The Japanese had at least 1,895 men killed of an estimated 6,000 casualties. Allied casualties were 1,111 men killed, 1,167 missing and 1,362 wounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilizedboi (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disjointed mess[edit]

The entire page is completely disjointed. The Background section supposedly sets out the order of battle, but then goes into repetitive details of the battle itself, specially the Indian Army section. The battle section doesn't provide adequate details of the battle, particularly the loss of the Gin Drinker's Line and the battle of Wong Nei Chung Gap. I have made a start on cleaning these up, but more work is required.Mztourist (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Other Forces' - Involvement of Free French[edit]

My comments relate to the accuracy of the the statement:

"A squad of Free French under Captain Jacques Egal happened to be in Hong Kong when the battle broke out and fought alongside the HKVDC at the North Point power station"

While it's true that a number of Frenchmen fought in Hong Kong, they were not “a squad of Free French”, but part of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps (HKVDC), as were Scots, Portuguese, Eurasians and a host of other nationalities.

A number of Frenchmen were indeed involved in the fighting at the North Point power station. In the personal account by the Hon Major J J Paterson commanding officer Hughes Group he mentions there were 2 Free French Officers (Captain Jacosta and Captain Egal and 6 Other Ranks) at the Power Station as part of Hughes Group. Captain Jacosta was killed at the Hong on the night the Japanese landed (18th/19th Dec). Egal’s first name was not Jacques but Roderic (while he was not formally part of the HKVDF, he was in transit from Shanghai when the invasion began.

The Hughe Group (known as the ‘Hughesiliers') was group of ‘older’ expatriates, mostly socialites and businessmen from Allied or neutral countries, all of whom joined the HKVDC. They defended the power station ) along with a unit from the Middlesex.

SinbadAfrica (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lai and Rava state "as well as eight Free French and their commander Capt. Jacques Egal (a former representative of the Free French in Shanghai and a wealthy wine trader who happened to be in Hong Kong on 8 December)." Your quote from Paterson confirms that there were Free French defending the power station so what exactly is your objection to what is written on the page? Mztourist (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Local French civilians were recruited to defend Hong Kong by a transiting Free French commander. They could be categorised as French Resistance, however given that they had a Free French commander commanding them, technically they were their own fighting force and deserve mention in its current form. ElderZamzam (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
French Resistance is not a correct definition as that applies to French fighting in occupied territories. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is being missed. The so called "Free French" did not fight as part of a formal french force at all. As was the case with the Australian's and New Zealanders, Portuguese, Scots, Americans and others they attached themselves as part of other forces. In this case, it's incorrect in my view to continually refer to them unless all of the other nationalities are also referred to in the same way! If they are shown as a formal force, then their representative regiment's should also be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinbadAfrica (talk • contribs) 06:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reliable source that describes them as Free French, the fact that they fought with other forces doesn't change that. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is till being missed. The point is not that they were Free French, the point is that the page - in its current form - is referring to them as though they were fighting as a seperate unit within their own right, which they weren't! If you look at the JJ Patterson quote above, he clearly states they were part of the Hughes Group which was actually part of the HKVDF. Simply because they have been mentioned in a certain way by a published author doesn't make it correct. The issue is not whether they were French, or that they were fighting against the Axis, meaning they were 'Free French', the issue is they are being portrayed on the page. e.g To show the French Captain as one of the Commanders of the battle (in the list of commanders) on the bar on the right of the page, brings into question the objectiveness and accuracy of the page. Using the same logic, are we also to include the names of the senior officer or individual of other nationals who also fought in Hong Kong, and list them as commanders as well?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinbadAfrica (talk • contribs) 07:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reliable source that describes them as a separate unit, just like the Nationalist Chinese. Mztourist (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... but a second reliable source contradicts that statement. So shouldn't we care about accuracy? The fact that your "reliable source" appears to have mashed the names of two French participants - so that Capt's Jacosta and Egal become "Jaques Egal" would lead me to believe that your source is either confusing details or playing a bit fast and loose with them in the name of compelling narrative. That is the point you appear to be unwilling to address here. 131.137.245.206 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11 months after the last comment you come to argue this. What are your RS that states the Free French weren't a separate force? Sure Egals' first name was wrong see: [1] and [2] and I've fixed that but there is no dispute about a Free French force which we have from multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Hong_Kong&oldid=1212597410"