Talk:History of the Philippine Army

Untitled

The Philippine Commonwealth Army (PCA) was also known as the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines (CAP) (official name Hukbong Katihan ng Komonwelt ng Pilipinas in Filipino and Ejercito Mancomunidad Filipina or Ejercito Mancomunidad de Filipinas in Spanish) is the main branch and ground force of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) (1935-1946), United States Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) (1941-1946) and the United States Armed Forces in the Philippines - Northern Luzon (USAFIP-NL) (1942-1946)

WW-II battle articles and Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army

This edit added Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army to a WW-II battle article. It was quickly reverted here, and that was quickly unreverted here. Hopoefully that won't develop into an edit war. A number of edits similar to the first one mentioned here, adding this categorization to WW-II baattle articles, have been made; some of which are linked from here.

I haven't seen any discussion, but the question seems to be whether the Philippine Commonwealth Army as an entity was involved in these WW-II battles. I don't know the answer to that question, but the content of this article seems to clearly answer it "Yes". However, I happen to have a copy of Jose, Ricardo Trota (1992), The Philippine Army, 1935-1942, Ateneo University Press, ISBN 978-971-550-081-4 on my bookshelf, and thought to look in that. It doesn't have much to say about the WW-II era, but does say that the Philippine Army was "called to U.S. service" under provisions of the Tydings-McDuffie Act. It quotes a 27 July telegram from President Roosevelt to High Commissioner Francis B. Sayre:

The President on July 26th issued order calling Philippine Army into service of United States at time to be fixed by General MacArthur who has been called to active duty and designated as Commanding General Forces in the Far East, including the Philippine Department and the Philippine Army. Please advise president Quezon

The book goes on to say that MacArthur issued USAFFE General Order No. 1 on the same day. The book says that initial plans were not to absorb the Philippine Army at once but to merge units selectively. It also says "All Philippine Army units ... were to 'maintain their own national integrity,'"". Perhaps this article ought to mention some of this. Digging around a bit, I came across [1] and [2], which might be useful.

I will suggest that editors involved in the additions and deletions to WW-II battle articles mentioned above take a look at this comment and possibly come to a consensus here regarding which WW-II battle articles should link to Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

First a qualification. The articles about the Commonwealth period Philippine forces are pretty obviously written by editors struggling with standard English grammar and much of the wording is contorted. A quick read of some articles in the category, during my checking before reverting deletion of the category, left me wondering what the author was trying to say while getting some idea of what it must have been about. The subject is important, interesting and should be more adequately covered.

On the topic, and I have some doubts myself on the nomenclature of the category here, a good starting place is on line: The Fall of the Philippines in CHAPTER II, U.S. Army Forces, Far East with concentration on pages 8—13, 17, 25—30 for origins. Note on page 10 the "The first legislative measure of the Philippine National Assembly was the passage, on 21 December 1935, of the National Defense Act" acting on Mac Arthur's call for such a force. For operations it is hop and jump. From the printed version index:

Philippine Army. See also Divisions; Infantry units; Philippine Constabulary; and appropriate amr service. 16, 17, 18, 19,23,32,34,35,36,47, 48,49,58,62, 63,64, 65, 69, 70, 71, 102, 109, 113,115,119,120,131,132,136,142,143,157, 162n, 163, 165, 166, 189,212,238,258,262,294, 298,351,354,366,372,373,381,383,385,405,408,430,441,445,451,454,461,478,481,499,529, 583 mobilization and training: 25-30 organization and development: 8-13 Philipp;ne Army Air Force: 13, 25, 26, 62, 502, 529.

An extract gives basis for the "Commonwealth Army" term:

The major task of the hurriedly assembled staff of Headquarters, USAFFE, was to work out a plan for the mobilization, training, and supply of the Philippine Army. Within a few days of his appointment, General MacArthur had selected 1 September as the day when mobilization of the Philippine Army would start. This left thirty days in which to select camp sites, enlarge and improve existing camps for the first reservists, and build new camps.

The integration of the armed forces of the Philippine Commonwealth into the service of the United States was to be gradual. Elements of the ten reserve divisions were to be called into service at regular intervals until 15 December 1941, when the mobilization would be complete. The Philippine Army Air Corps would be inducted separately. Reserve units engaged in their normal yearly training were not to be inducted unless war came. It was hoped in this way to continue the development of the Commonwealth's defense program and at the same time mobilize and train the Philippine Army. Commonwealth forces coming under United States control would retain their national integrity; they would have their own uniforms, rations, military law, scale of pay, and promotion list; would requisition through their own supply channel until 1 December; but would be paid by the U. S. Army. The Regular Army of the Philippine Commonwealth and the Constabulary were not to be inducted immediately.

A construction program was to be started immediately since there was only enough housing for about one third of the 75,000 men scheduled for induction. Camp sites would have to be selected and facilities for training built. The first units called would use existing or temporary quarters and, as camps were completed, additional units would be inducted. By 15 December, when the last units would be mobilized, the entire construction program would be completed.

So, there is ample evidence in official histories of that army, its overall organization and its role in the battles—except Corregidor. That is why I did not revert addition of that category on that article. I can find no mention of any significant involvement in that last U.S. forces bastion and do find indications elements formed a basis for resistance groups. Instead of being trapped on Corregidor they melted into the countryside if possible and not catapulted or killed. Finally, I am not sure and of the battles and campaigns should have categories for units involved. Where does it end? Every battle and particularly campaign could be clogged with such categories. But, if we have U.S. Marine or Army or Navy in these then the Philippine unit categories should not be excluded. The idea of a coastal force was pretty much killed by the Japanese hitting before one could be built, but there were Philippine "PT" boats. Last sign I found of them was in association with Tugboat Trabajador (1931) where one of the references described the Philippine boats near the remnants of the U.S. PTs using the old tug as quarters. Palmeira (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently there has been an effort to include this category in battles and campaigns which this organization was involved in. Generally, for other organizations, these fall within a subcategory like Organization X in Conflict Y. Perhaps a subcategory needs to be created for this category that allows for such categorization, without those articles being categorized here which should be primarily for articles about this organization. There is already a sub-category for personnel, why not a subcategory for conflicts/battles/campaigns--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A subcat could work. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just remember, for these forces it was "all in" and there was no other place they were engaged. The force was indigenous, it did not have units in Austalia or Singapore or the U.S., it had nowhere else to go. Yeah, U.S. Marines or Army had "subcats" and these guys had none. When the Japanese tide hit they were just there, fought, then took to the hills as resistance unless KIA, captured or just hiding in the occupation. So, what "sub category"? Consider. An article dealing with the United States before we had one unit, one company or one soldier, stationed "overseas" and invaded by a superior force—our Colonial militia with its British "protectors" smashed by the French? Palmeira (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:Philippines Campaign (1941–42) "The Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army issue"

Nobody seems to question Category:United States Marine Corps in World War II and a very small part of the USMC was engaged in the Philippines. The entirety of what official sources tend to term "armed forces of the Philippine Commonwealth" and such was engaged—even the embryonic coastal defense force and air force that really had no effective planes. I'm certainly willing to help find a better way, but to be blunt, if I were a veteran or descendent of a veteran of that Philippine Commonwealth force I'd be trying to get a category any way possible. While it is not in my "ship" interest my general military history interest bothers me about how neglected the articles about those forces are. They try, have some basic facts, but the writing needs a good editor with solid English language skills—and whoever has been writing that is doing a hell of a lot better than I would in any language other than English! Palmeira (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

1, we need to centralize this discussion

2, the reason for the Category "United States Marines Corps in World War II" is that it is a subcategory for World War II battles and topics regarding that organization. As I stated before, having a section like Organization X in Conflict Y is something I would support, but directly in the category of the organization I think doesn't follow precedents set forth in usage of other organizations category usage. I maybe wrong.

I understand the want for usage of this category, but from what I am seeing it is being misapplied. For instance some articles are being tagged with it regarding guerrilla fighters and organizations, some whom have no direct connection to the organization. An appropriate category would be like Philippines during World War II or a subcategory specific about guerrillas in the Philippines during World War II.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Damn if we aren't approaching real time! Ok, where do we consolidate this because it does cover almost every "battle" in the Philippines during the period? On the "subcategory" thing there is one key difference. Whatever we call those forces, and they were real regardless of ambiguous nomenclature (partly because they got hit by a Japanese typhoon/tsunami/earthquake at birth—note the timeline!), they were totaly engaged because it was their ground, their home, they were not "escaping" to Australia or anywhere else as some U.S. personnel and their government did of necessity. Those that were not destroyed or captured did form the core of the organized resistance. They were the ones, some with fugitive U.S. personnel (remember that guy that promoted himself to "General"?) were what our subs were supplying. When ole "Dougout Doug" returned they often joined right back up. So, "a subcategory specific about guerrillas" would sort of be also about this bunch. As a temporary fix for the real neglect I propose we let the category stand where it applies—note I did not put it back in that first round of reverts to Corregidor because as far as I can determine no organized unit of that force went into that trap. Meanwhile let's look at those categories and subcategories and (sigh) I may start trying to edit and cite that main force article. By the way, for a pitiful bit, that little "Navy" was last seen in my reading alongside some of the "Expendibles" along with the poor little Tugboat Trabajador (1931). They had a couple of "lesser" PTs down there still going out fighting. Palmeira (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, articles within the category Philippines during World War II need serious expert work, given the richness of the period. There are surely reliable sources out there, but that is tangential to the primary discussion of this subject. I think if we can gain consensus as to how to organize categories about this period in Philippine military history, it'll help to reduce the edit, reversion, re-reversions that have occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your "richness of the period" is an understatement. That collapse of the "Malay Barrier" and the Philippines is "storytime" plus—and rather forgotten today. Ever read the accounts, both historical and fictional, of those fleeing in small ships and boats only to find the "refuge" or the straits had already been captured or controlled? Sometimes like The Great Escape with SS at the tunnel exit! Guess I'm in. How do we do this? And, you will see, I've chimed in at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines with a request to also help with the histories of some pretty notable—and forgotten—ships' histories before their encounter with history. Palmeira (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Question and observation: Is this the right place to develop ideas on this issue? Should it move to military history or elsewhere?

I have checked similar categories and results are mixed. Category:United States Marine Corps in World War II is what the category at issue would look like if we agree to place it on Philippine "battle" pages. As I noted before, and this is I think a critical point, the Commonwealth forces were totally engaged on home territory—not just some of them as with USMC but all of them. Their position is really analogous to the U.S. ground forces in 1812. So, if the USMC gets to list its Philippine battles on its category page then certainly the "Philippine Commonwealth Army" should get equal billing. On the other hand the USMC seems unique in the U.S. force categories. A survey of "battle pages" with USA, USAAF, USN do not seem to behave in the same way with battles tending to fall in Category:Battles of World War II involving the United States which would be nonsense redundancy for essentially "Battles of the Philippines in World War II involving the Philippines"!

At the moment I am leaning toward Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army becoming a subcategory of something like Category:Armed forces of the Philippine Commonwealth (though articles here are sparse indeed on the other branches that essentially died at birth) and a subcategory of each of those along the lines of Battles (Engagements?) of xxxxx to put on pages such as this one. The USMC would still be then be an outlier—or a model for this category. Palmeira (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me. Be WP:BOLD, also seek consensus, like what is being done above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Being done above? Don't see it. I will put a little more thought into it and also copy this discussion onto the rarely seen talk page for the Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army. I have no real interest in some long "consensus" discussion. Stuff I put here is just sort of by product of main interests, but will give it a shot. Palmeira (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Citation

The data here seems too specific to be just made up, yet there is no source citation. Where does this all come from? (Though I have a hard time believing the Filipino military and resistance groups suffered nearly 1.3 million casualties during the war...) The Pittsburgher (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert: asserted evolution from the Philippine Revolutionary Army

This unsupported WP:BOLD change, consisting of two edits, asserts: "The Philippine Army as it is now evolved from the Philippine Revolutionary Army (Filipino: Panghimagsikang Hukbo ng Pilipinas / Hukbong Pilipinong Mapaghimagsik; Spanish: Ejército Revolucionario Filipino), later renamed Philippine Republican Army (Filipino: Hukbong Katihan ng Republika ng Pilipinas; Spanish: Ejército en la República de la Filipina) which was established on March 22, 1897 in Cavite". This unsupported change flouted WP:BURDEN and, as far as I can tell, is simply not factual. I have reverted it.

Please consider this talk page section to be the Discussion phase of a WP:BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and discuss this matter here as needed in order to reach a consensus about this. Please cite applicable supporting sources here to support assertions. Also, please refer to other relevant WP articles (Philippine Revolutionary Army Philippine Army, Philippine Scouts, Philippine Constabulary, probably others) and discuss the relationship with them as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits must follow WP:RELIABLE sources and obey WP:BURDEN. Reliable sources must support any link between any pre-1935 organisations and today's Philippine Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Current "History of the Philippine Army" Title is Confusing

Good day. If this article is meant only intended to cover 1935 to 1946, then the title is confusing. It seems this used to be called "Philippine Commonwealth Army" but this was changed due to lack of documentary support. Further description in parenthesis may allay confusion. I suggest Philippine Army (1935-1946). Thanks. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2024 (UTCT

There already is a Philippine Army article. That article has a Philippine Army § History section. This article is a detail article giving more detail on that topic -- IAW WP:SS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)