Talk:China-Burma-India theater

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition (CBI), fought in China, Burma and India, created by the U.S., Britain and China and operated 1942 to 1944 with Chiang Kai-shek as nominal Supreme Commander; in practice with an overall British military commander and a U.S. subcommander in China [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Military and History [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  Pacific War
 Talk Archive none  English language variant Not specified

Could you please rename this in accordance with CZ rules? Thanks Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:48, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

It is commonly called CBI. What rules apply? Richard Jensen 14:05, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

The Naming Conventions do not permit you to use acronyms, unless they are very commonly used (like FBI). CBI in British English means Confederation of British Industry, for example. Please try to avoid putting article titles which require prior knoweldge: this is not the way to make an encyclopedia. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:25, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

Martin's memory is faulty for the CZ Naming Convention does not mention acronyms at all, but does call for the most common term, even if it is less formal (like Bill Clinton). . Her's a case where the Editorial Council needs to get down to serious work on naming conventions.Richard Jensen 15:36, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
The Naming Conventions are not complete, but they do not encourage you to use acronyms.(If you insist on the acronym, which is elitist and unnecessary, then we will have to have a disambiguation page.) We have to try to make our articles accessible to non-specialists, as well as being respected for their quality. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:48, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
the Naming convention needs lots of work and I hope Martin will be inspired to get to work on it. It recommends using the common name (in this case CBI) rather than the less-used formal name. Richard Jensen 16:51, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
CBI is not a name, Richard. I would hope that you could tell the difference between an acronym and a name. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:31, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
CBI is the commonly used name for the China-Burma part of WW2 and is ALSO an acronym for an organization (the CBI organization as such was a technicality that attempted very little, so the first use is dominant). People who are interested in the topic will use CBI. Trust me, I've just browsed through a couple dozen books and articles on CBI, and I've taught the topic for 25 years at the university level, including West Point. I also consulted with CZ's other active military editor ahead of time. But it just goes to show the CZ rules are not adequate. Richard Jensen 17:47, 25 June 2008 (CDT)

'CBI' also refers to the Confederation of British Industry, and many other things. It's time to disambiguate! --Tom Morris 05:04, 17 September 2008 (CDT)

former Blitzkrieg section

The Japanese indeed advanced rapidly, but not by means of blitzkrieg, which is a specific doctrine involving close air support to armored and mechanized formation that break through and disrupt enemy rear areas, with infantry holding open the penetrations.

Since the U.S. didn't have any battleships in the CBI theater, the Japanese hardly could have sunk them -- they did that in Pearl Harbor, which was in a different theater. They didn't sink the entire British fleet, but only those parts of the Royal Navy that were in the theater. They did sink some U.S. cruisers, along with most Dutch ships in the area, in the Battle of the Java Strait.

Japanese tactics emphasized light infantry, infiltration, and, as at Singapore, nonconventional approaches to strongpoints. They had air superiority in places but certainly not air supremacy; it did become obvious that warships of the time could not defend themselves against determined air attack unless they had their own air cover. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)