Talk:Manila massacre

Copy vio?

Created hopefully non-copyvio version of page in Manila_Massacre/Temp. --Pikhq

You show me where I supposedly stole those two paragraphs. Give some evidence or you have no argument.--Secret Agent Man 02:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Not saying you stole anything. The page had the entire "All Rights Reserved" text of one of the references in it, which I took out. --Pikhq 03:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Holocost definition

With the definition of Holocaust, it seems not suitble for this event. Poo-T 05:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is it not suitable? If Users can link "Chinese Holocaust" to the "Nanking Massacre" how can this event not be part of the "Asian Holocaust" (a term coined by the people of Asia)? The Manila Massacre is just one event of many, many events. The Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, Unit 100, Bataan Death March and others were all part of the Holocaust in Asia, just like Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau and the massacres of POWs were part of the Holocaust in Europe. You can see for yourself that this holocaust can be found on the Wikipedia "Holocaust(disambiguation)" page.

NPOV link

Delete a link. Comparing other two references, it is not a kind of reference, as many photographes are disputed in Japan about it's explanation. Additionally, the website seems far from NPOV. For ex. http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/go-chosun.htm 'Chinese dynasty has its root in 9000 years old Korean Dynasty' --Poo-T 05:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Death toll attribution

It is true that Rear Admiral Iwabuchi's troops entered into street fighting with the U.S. in defiance of Gen. Yamashita's order, and their desperate act are known. But it is also known that the U.S. shore bombardment destroyed large portion of the city of Manila. Unless someone proves the attribution of the death toll is fair, I keep the {{disputed}} tag. --Nanshu 00:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't peruse any of the links and sources that's provided. Those reliable Western and Eastern Sources, such as Hammond and Rummel, specifically stated the death toll of 100,000 civilians referred to ones killed by the Imperialists ONLY. All other deaths caused by disease, friendly fire, starvation, and exposure are deliberately excluded in those sources. Unless new sources are provided that directly contradict their investigations, there is no argument in this article. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm

My sources suggest that the 100,000 figure is a combined death toll, including deaths that could be attributed to artillery attacks by American forces, accidental killings by American occupying forces, etc. The one I can think of that gives the number as a combines total off hand is Ronald Spector's "Eagle against the Sun." The book (which seems hard to come by), "Warsaw in Asia: The Rape of Manila" by Jose Ma. Bonifacio M Escoda would seem to be a valuable one to consult on this subject. Unfortunately, I don't have any possibility of getting ahold of it. --Lendorien 06:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources I have read--such as Robert Leckie and Max Hastings--say that the 100,000 figure includes those killed by both sides. Max Hastings says that possibly 60 percent were killed by the Japanese.

Cleanup and possible merge/redirect?

I did a basic cleanup of the entry. I tried to remove some of the more emotionally weighted stuff to make it more encyclopaedic. It still needs proper sourcing and more detail. I don't have my books in front of me, but I'll try to add more details to the entry and sourcing this evening when I have them available. --Lendorien 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The article Battle for the Liberation of Manila seems to cover everything here with more detail. Perhaps a merge or redirect is in order? --Lendorien 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Am the author of Warsaw of Asia:The Rape of Manila. It is based mostly on the accounts of seventy-nine survivors, including American soldiers. It is the only book about the Battle of Manila with the most number of photographs, most of which have never been published before and the close up photos of those Spaniards and Filipinos who were killed. Some of the photos that have been published before now contains the names of those in the pictures.

you can contact me through boni_escoda2005@yahoo Jose Maria Bonifacio Escoda I will share some of the gruesome details. The 100,000 death toll of unarmed civilians was just an estimated number made by the American Forces. It might ran between 50,000 to 75,000 The population of Manila then was just around 800,000.Many of them left for their provinces before the Battle of Manila. All the remaining survivors lost aquaintances and relatives to the uncessant shelling of the Americans and Japanese bullets, fires and bayonets. The southern part of Manila suffered. Intramuros, the anciant Walled City, was ninty-five percent destroyed.Almost all the males, including Catholic priest were murdered by the Japanese.Around five thousand of the civilians who were held as captives in Fort Santiago and hostages held in San Agustin and another churches and hospitals were killed.

The remaining districts like Malate and Ermita whihc was the seat of the social and intellectual elite were ninety-percent leveled to the ground by the American shelling and JApanese arson squads.

The civilians who were trapped in the city were either killed by American shells or Japanese grenades,fire, bayonets or bullets. The gardens became shallow grave yards.

Around four hundred women who were living in Isac Peral and Padre Faura were gang rape by the Japanese marines for three days iside the Bayview Hotel and Alhambra Apartments. The males were all killed.

IJA special research units

Article has the IJA special research units category list at the bottom - article needs to explain why. Tempshill 06:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any relation; template has been removed. -- Kguirnela 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought death toll was 200,000

Many Filipinos told me the death toll was 200,000. I know the Japanese literally destroyed the city to the ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.245.58.40 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Questions/suggestions for improvements

This article would be clearer if some more was said about the context. Can someone please fill in some background information: Why did General Tomoyuki Yamashita have to withdraw from Manila, was it because the Americans were coming? Did Vice Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi make the decision to disobey Yamashita's orders, or was it a failure of the marines to follow the chain of command? Were the marines part of the army, or a separate branch? And when there were lulls in the battle for control of the city, exactly who was fighting for control of the city, was it the IJA and the Americans, or the marines against the Americans? Which started first, the Battle of Manila or the Manila Massacre? How did the massacre come to an end? I suppose I could read the whole article on the Battle of Manila to learn more, but if this article just had a bit more explication, I wouldn't have to. Thanks in advance!--Brambleshire (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya this has bothered me for awhile. This article need more information. 100000+ Filipinos died here I think there is more to tell about the massacre. Anyone here up to the task of adding more data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.178.205 (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also the allies killed many civilians on manilla... but in the article is not mentioned, it looks like a friendly U.S side of the story to me. The version of this article on the spanish wikipedia is a lot better, i could translate some things and with its proper references add it to this article.--Starlingmaximilian (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That is because this article is specifically about massacres in Manila and only the Japanese deliberately murdered, raped, and tortured tens of thousands of Filipinos. The article about the Battle of Manila makes mention of the fact that many civilians were indeed killed inadvertently by American forces.172.190.146.145 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer your questions, Brambleshire: 1. General Yamashita believed he could tie up a larger number of American forces for a longer period of time if he conceeded Manila to the Americans and moved the Japanese forces into the mountains (as he did) rather than expending them in an futile battle-to-the-death in Manila. Yamashita and the IJA (Imperial Japanese Army) units did in fact tie down American forces in the Philippines until the end of the war. 2. Admiral Iwabuchi chose to disobey Yamashita's orders even though Yamashita was the senior commander of Japanese forces in the Philippines. Once the American forces surrounded Manila it became impossible for individual Japanese to leave even if they wanted to obey Yamashita's orders. 3. The marines referred to were part of the Japanese navy. 4. The Japanese forces trapped in Manila were under the command of Admiral Iawbuchi so technically it was the IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) fighting the Americans. 5. The Battle of Manila started first. The mass killing of civilians took place after it started. 6. The massacre come to an end when the Japanese forces in Manila had been exterminated and the Battle of Manila was over.

Although I can't give you page-by-page cites this is not "original research." I hope one and all will agree that the information in written in an objective and neutral tone. However, since I don't have the cites and don't want to flamed for committing "original research" I will not add any of this information to the entry. {06:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.47.232 (talk)

Allied war crimes

The massacre was in response to the firebombing of Japanese cities by the US air force. (5.81.222.174 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC))

Nonsense. The massacre ended in February 1945; the first fire bomb raid took place on 9-10 March. A more plausible explanation is that Iwabuchi was pissed that he had been humiliated by the U.S. Navy off Guadalcanal, and was burning for revenge. An even more plausible explanation is that this is simply what fanatical Japanese commanders did in that era. --Yaush (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The US air force was bombing Japanese cities in 1944. (5.81.222.174 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC))

No, that bombing was against industrial targets. The U.S. firebombing against Japanese civilian populations effort started in early 1945. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Manila Massacre 3 Feb-3 Mar 1945. My quick scan of Spector's "Eagle Against the Sun": the first firebomb raid against Nagoya [3 Jan 1945] was unimpressive to both sides. 4 Feb the port city of Kobe was firebombed: 5 of 12 factories were damaged; of the two shipyards one was reduced to half capacity. The third and first major firebomb air raid was 25 Feb against Tokyo. After that, General Curtis Lemay began planning incendiary "area attacks" on Japanese cities without specific targets based on the fact precision bombing was negated by the seasonal poor visibility and high winds over Japan. The fourth and most destructive incendiary air raid was 9 Mar; the false confidence the Japanese had that they could easily handle a Nagoya level firebombing was then shattered. Are there reliable sources claiming that Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi even knew about the early incendiary air raids, or even that General Curtis Lemay had heard about the Manila Massacre when he ordered incendiary attacks on Tokyo? (According to Spector many Americans felt that Tokyo "had it coming" due to Japanese bombings of Chinese cities in 1937 and the Pearl Harbor Raid.) Often events follow in history without a direct cause and effect connection.--Naaman Brown (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Max Von Schuler criticism

I have removed the section regarding Max Von Schuler. As far as I can tell, he does not appear to be a notable scholar on the subject. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, I don't see any reason that his opinion warrants inclusion in an encylopedia article. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mr.Gnome de plume.

I am not sure of your definition "notable scholar", however, as I've researched, I detected some further books of which contents are similar to that of Max Von Schuler.

• A Child in the Midst of Battle : One Family’s Struggle For Survival In War-Torn Manila Authors:Evelyn Berg Empie, Stephen H. Mette ISBN 978-0961726881

• Manila: A Memoir of Love & Loss Author:Purita Echevarria de Gonzalez ISBN 978-0868066981

• The Remedios Hospital, 1942-1945 : a saga of Malate / Pedro M. Picornell Author:Picornell, Pedro M ISBN 9715550681

• Manila: Memories of World War II, Author:Manalac, Fernando J. ISBN 9718967079

• Philippine Daily Inquirer presents Intramuros (Intramuros.

Philippine daily inquirer) Author: Nick Joaquin ISBN 9718635009 Eddal (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. To be honest, I'm not sure where to draw the line between unacceptable and acceptable sources either. But a quick review suggests to me that your sources are definitely better than the one I removed. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This article lacks neutrality and thus, should be more neutral, in my opinion. Eddal (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not "neutrality", it's a false balance. It's merely an attempt to promote Japanese war crime denialism by taking a crime committed by the Japanese and pinning it on their wartime opponent, which is one of the many tactics that is used to deny the Nanking massacre and other Japanese war crimes. Rather than outright deny the crimes, Japanese nationalists often promote soft core denialism of Japanese war crimes, such as casting doubt on the events (using language like "alleged" or "debatable"), perpetuating a false narrative of "both sides" when it was ONLY the Japanese side that was bad, and overall presenting denialist talking points as legitimate when they're NOT. Furthermore, they often try to cast doubt on the legitimate side that acknowledges the crimes and their true scale (aka: the side that's based on FACTS and TRUTH), claiming that this side is merely "exaggerating" and "lacking evidence" despite the massive tons of evidence proving it. Finally, when their nonsense is removed, they complain about "neutrality". Both sides of the debate are NOT equal, the side that acknowledges Japanese atrocities and their massive scale and extreme level of brutality is the legitimate side, while the side that denies these facts is NOT. To make this perfectly clear at the risk of repeating myself, Japanese war crime denialism is NOT a legitimate position and does NOT deserve to be treated with legitimacy.104.228.9.173 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of template message for more citations at General Yamashita's Role...

I revised text and cited the book by Allan Ryan, Yamashita's Ghost- War Crimes, MacArthur's Justice, and Command Accountability. The book deals in detail about Yamashita's actions and the trials leading to his execution. Additional Wikipedia articles about Yamashita's role is available at the pages for Tomoyuki Yamashita and Allan Ryan (attorney). Bryantbob (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)