Talk:Hukbalahap

Article merged: See old talk-page here

Organization and Scope

Most of the content here, particularly the "History" sections, should probably be moved to the Hukbalahap Rebellion page. This page should give only a brief outline of the organization's history, and talk more usefully about it structure, organization, command, etc. Thus, vague discussions (probably lifted from Agoncillo) peasant grumblings and unnamed "organizations" are off-topic here. Likewise, extended discussion on the political/economic/diplomatic situation at any given point during the rebellion are off-topic here (but on-topic, of course, on an entry on the history of the rebellion itself). Ouij1511 (talk)Ouij1511

Pro-Communist and non-Pro Communist

The USAEFF should be included although they were less significant in the struggle to deter a pro-communist leaning. However, to alleviate a pro-American viewpoint, one should mention that the USAEFF fought for the Americans while the Huks for China. However, it was the Huks who decided like Ho Chi Minh and the Viet-Minh that independence from the JAPANESE AND AMERICANS WAS DESIRABLE. This back and forth of guessing who the Filipinos wanted in the Philippines is an OLD argument birthed from the Cold War. It does NOTHING to place continuity in its history which provides the truth. There were Filipinos that fought against the Spanish. There were Filipinos that fought against the Americans. AND there were Filipinos that fought against the Japanese. Could it be that Filipinos wanted and maybe still want the same thing Americans did during the American Revolution? NO, not peasant Asian farmers, right!? Wow! This is getting old and a shovel and truck couldn't get rid of the smell that both sides of the conflict have dumped on the history of the Philippines. Try asking a native of the Philippines rather than see it through your own lens, then you are writing history.

Also, mention the BELL ACT passed by Truman. For God's sake, if you are going to mention a bill passed by one of our great presidents, then state the name of the bill! WOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.109.114 (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I call this posting's neutral political standings into question. It is written in a very PRO-communist matter . . . and as a redirect from Philippine Resistance during World War II, it leaves out contributions of other groups, as if it were the only group within the Philippine Islands to resist the Imperial Japanese Army's occupation of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

I concur with the previous posting. The PRO-Communist position is evident throughout; "In fact, The Hukhbalahap's goals were far more understandable..." is an example of such.

Low-level terrorism? Ferdinand Marcos was the real terrorist. As an example: The Mendiola Massacre. The NPA is not a terrorist organization. The government is the true terrorist. Learn your history.

wonderful sources are: "Born of the People" written by the man himself, Luis Taruc. Another would be "History of the Filipino People, by the late Prof. Teodoro Agoncillo, others who know of other sources please let us create a decent article about the HUKBALAHAP. I call on the History Department of the University of the Philippines Diliman to please do something about this. Narodniki 10:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)narodniki

I deleted this whole paragraph(I think the reason should be evident..):

A lot of things go on during wars that no body wants to talk about and people would be happier if they didn't every surface. This is similar to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that hurt the U.S. But It didn't hurt the U.S. that much because the U.S. has the greatest military power in the world, and it will over come the pictures that were taken there, because a lot of good things are going on too, like roads and schools are being built and no one ever reports the good news and it was probably the same back during the Philippines and there were most likely good things going on, but only the bad things got reported so it is hard to make any real conclusion about what went on during the revolution and who was really to blame, who were the good guys and who were the bad guys, its all relative sometimes.

I deleted the remainder of the poorly worded rape allegations with no supporting evidence that appeared in the last few days. Does rape occur during military occupations? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Does complaining about whether someone would be half-Japanese help? No. Further, I have to concur with the extremely pro-communist slant to the entire article mentioned above. Both the insurgency itself and its communist ties are heavily glorified. Whether you call them insurgents, freedom-fighters, or terrorists is immaterial; they all seek political action through para-military tactics and most would stop once they achieved their primary goal. Pointing out that one group had their 'demands' met does not make them morally right, it just makes them the winner of the conflict. Mystyk 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Mystyk

Still POV

I see that debate about the article's apparent pro-Communist stance has gone on for a while. I don't know anything about this subject, but some of you do; please, could someone try to rewrite it in something approaching a neutral, encyclopedic voice? atakdoug (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Years ago I read a good deal about the guerrilla in the Phils during the Japanese occupation. What is written here seems to infer that only the HUK were significant in fighting the Japanese. The Americans supported more loyal groups through resupply from submarines, in the form of arms, medical supplies etc. I got the impression that from the perspective of actual threats to the Japanese, the loyal group was much more lethal. One of my very good friends, now dead, retired as a general, lead one such group. He says they had to fight both. The Japs and the Huks, who attacked them to steal their supplies. It was the official group that helped evacuate Americans trapped by the war to prevent their being taken prisoner and mistreated by the Japanese. But the time MacArthur had re-entered the Philippines, some of these units had grown to Battalion sized. One in particular, attacked and captured a larger Japanese force controlling a reservoir supplying Manila. Many of these men broke off and became attached to the American Army, known a Filipino Scouts. Sort of advisers and interpreters. My best source, MG Benjamin Galang, may not have been totally objective, but he was there, did that and actually showed me the sights where his experiences happened. Mostly Leyte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.30.219 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

additions

No mentioning of Edward Lansdale's role. Little more is needed to be added. His role in the Magsaysay government is pertinent given the fact that he tried the same with Ngo Dinh Diem in Viet-Nam. Also, there is no inclusion of Luis Taruc's works which is exigent for an unbiased dissemination of the facts leading toward a more truthful interpretation. Especially when Taruc gives his own reasons for the Huk downfall which at least needs to be refuted in order to sustain American claims of successful counterinsurgency. If the U.S. WAS successful because of successful counterinsurgency by Lansdale and Magsaysay, what happened in Viet-Nam, Nicaragua, and now in Iraq. As Acknowledged by the military now including Patraeus in Iraq, the success of Iraq is that we are actually taking counterinsurgency seriously, which we didnt do before. This gives more credit to claims by Taruc for the determinants of the downfall of the Huk. The Philippines example under the rubric of successful U.S. counterinsurgency sounds more like "we won because we are the best" and we will "never admit defeat" just like the "honorable retreat" in the media when the Chinese forced us from the Yalu back across the parallel in Korea during the Korean War. What is an honorable retreat? What was so successful about U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in the Philippines which failed in Viet-Nam?

07:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)~~Collective Conscious

Some info is available in Edward G. Lansdale, "INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS ON THE HUK CAMPAIGN", Counter-Guerrilla Seminar Fort Bragg, 15 June 1961. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

more additions

I wouldn't mind helping you. I have many declassified U.S. documents and other secondary sources. There are problems with this article given that there is no mention of the fact that the Philippines military under Magsaysay and previous administrations committed atrocities outnumbering those of the Huks. Luis Taruc was elected in office, refused to be seated, his friend was assassinated, then he took to the hills to fight. Moreover, no mention of the fact that the U.S. put in power pro-Japanese collaborators after the war which upset many of the people. These are serious issues neglected in this article that need investigating to uphold the quality of Wikipedia.

[Was the name of Taruc's assasssinated friend Ricardo DeBlois? The man killed on the steps of the capital building by the police?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.144.38 (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to see the sources about the agreements about the Huks getting benefits because this is interesting :)

07:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)~~Collective Conscious

Some info about WW-II Japanese collaborators being returned to office is available in Shalom, Stephan Rosskamm (1986), "Chapter one: The Restoration,1944-1946", The United States and the Philippines: A Study of Neocolonialism, New Day Publishers, ISBN 971-10-0079-2. The book sometimes shows POV and selective omission of information, though. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-communist

I don't see anything pro-communist in this article. I am not an amateur historian, but a professional one within academia. I haven't seen anything scarcely relating to Marx, Engels, or Lenin in this article. Be careful of the Pro-Communist word, it carries the same inherit discriminatory meaning as racial slurs. It is meant at times to disregard the argument all together without examination because it has been labeled "pro-communist" as racial slurs were used to disregard the humanity of an individual rather than observe the content of the former and latter. As long as INTERPRETATION is supported by facts and logic, then all other complaints dally around the realm of biased pre-disposition. Like a mirror topoi, writing history is a reflection of who you are, if people think you are ugly, do they expect you to kill yourself or hide from everyone? Moreover, how about popularizing the charge the article is pro-capitalist :)

Nationalism has taught discrimination and falsehoods. Moreover it has altered reality into a realm of fantasy which others are willing to die for :( How absurd we have become as human beings capable of THINKING!! 07:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)collective conscious

Merge proposal

I think the Hukbalahap and Hukbalahap Rebellion articles talks about one subject and should be merged. -- Kleomarlo (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur. 205.155.65.226 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon

Someone recently added "(Filipino: Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon)" to the article. Could someone please add an English translation of that? Google translates it to "Troops Against Town of Japan", but I'm guessing that a better translation is possible. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Nation's Army Against the Japanese" is a closer translation. --Quess QR (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Hukbong" and "Hukbo ng" are the same thing. The "ng" in both cases is the grammatical connector between the two words, "hukbo" and "bayan". It translates to the same group mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukbalahap 205.155.65.226 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I see that several time already other editors have commented that this article should merge with Hukbalahap Rebellion but as far as I know nobody has formally proposed it. So I'm proposing that as this seems generally more tightly written, with a better reference structure, material from Hukbalahap Rebellion should be merged into this article. I'd welcome other views.Mccapra (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm against it. The Huk Rebellion is in itself a broad topic that covers 6 to 7 years, and three presidential administrations. There is still a lot to be discussed about the Huks outside their post-war rebellion, such as organization, affiliations with the left, their activities during the Second World War, etc. etc. It would be better if the rebellion was touched briefly here, but the main bulk of the topic be in a different article. NyanThousand (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)