Talk:Battle of Hong Kong

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: various

message: 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 Ne Chong. — Instantnood 10:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  place name spelling 

message: It's a bit surprising that the dockyard is not mentioned. :-) — Instantnood 17:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Taikoo Dockyard

message: "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."
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: " .. 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Is this statement correct 

message: 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)
thread_title: Which RAF station?

message: 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)
thread_title: Japanese air units?

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Japanese surrendered less than a week after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 

message: Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: Tidied and moved OOB closer to footer. Keith-264 (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added  tag to http://www.cnac.org/scott01.htme
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824135011/http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~ghayes/Copp.pdf to http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~ghayes/Copp.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824135011/http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~ghayes/Copp.pdf to http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~ghayes/Copp.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824135009/http://www.forces.gc.ca/dhh/downloads/cmhq/cmhq163.pdf to http://www.forces.gc.ca/dhh/downloads/cmhq/cmhq163.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015214226/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/december2.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/december2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111042226/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/december5.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/december5.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103091003/http://www.memoriesuninvited.hkvca.ca/ to http://www.memoriesuninvited.hkvca.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CE 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistent data on fighting strength 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Triads? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Casualty Data 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disjointed mess 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: French Resistance is not a correct definition as that applies to French fighting in occupied territories. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: ... 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)
replies: text: 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:  and  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)
thread_title:  'Other Forces' - Involvement of Free French