Jump to content

Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skyfiler (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 26 April 2006 (found some useful maps). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiProjectWars

Beginning?

--219.88.187.67 10:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)Most historians place the beginning of the second Sino-Japanese War on the Battle of Lugou Bridge (Marco Polo Bridge Incident) on July 7, 1937. However, Chinese historians place the starting point at the Mukden Incident of September 18, 1931.well, i am not sure, but i remember i was told the sino-japanese war began on july 7, 1937 when i was in school, so i think most Chinese historians hold that view. here are some text adopted from the internet, which is from the POV of CCP, as reference (i will check out what Chinese historians think later):

  • l937年，日本帝国主义发动“七七”事变，大举侵华，以国共合作为基础的全民族抗日战争开始。全日制普通高级中学历史教学大纲
  • 一九三七年七月七日深夜，在北平的南大门卢沟桥附近，日本侵略军突然向驻守在这里 的中国军队发动进攻，中国军队被迫奋起还击。卢沟桥反抗日本侵略军的枪声，标志着中国人民期待已久的全民族抗战终于开始。[1] --Yacht 17:40, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)


I deleleted the part of "Three Alls Policy" (kill all, loot all, burn all) 三光政策 Japanese Sankō Seisaku, because this is a famous Chinese propaganda. The word 三光 is totally Chinese, Japanese grammer does not allow such usage. And such policy did not exist, as U.S. did not have it in Vietnam. The grammatical inaccuracy was not perceived by the Chinese side when this propaganda was created.

  • I edited the final sentence of the first section to remove possible bias (although bias may not have been intended by the original writer). To my knowledge, although the Ryukyu islands have had historical involvement alternatively between Japan and China, the status of the Ryukyu Islands as Japanese (with a Japanese-speaking population) is not in dispute (and was not at the end of WWII). RyanAXP

While true that the Imperialists did aggresively take Manchuria from China in 1931, Jiang Jieshi ordered all KMT troops to NOT engage the Japanese invaders. So technically from 1931 to late 1936 China and Japanese were never truly at "war" with each other unless you consider the experiments of Unit 731 as an act of war. --Secret Agent Man 22:53, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Actually, there were NO KMT troops in Manchuria at the time. The troops there were the local armies under the warlord Chang, and the orders of no resistance was given by him as well, probably since they wouldn't have stood a chance against the Japanese. This is confirmed by himself in several interviews. Besides, Chiang wasn't even in office at the time; I believe Sun Yat Sen's son was the premier and in charge of the Government. 事实上，在当时的满洲里根本就没有国民党的不对。哪里的抗日部队是张作霖的军队，他们奉行的不抵抗政策是张作霖的命令，因为他知道他们与日军作战取胜的可能性很小。这个政策由以后对他的几次采访中也得到证实，此外，蒋当时并没有执政，我认为当时是孙中山之子当人总理主管政府事务。

Please discuss in English, people.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article's first part must be revised. Baseless and obsolete propagandism like "The Japanese invasion was a strategic plan made by the Imperial Japanese Army as part of their large-scale plans to control the Asian mainland.", or "according to Japanese propaganda of the time were referred to as "incidents" supposedly provoked by China, in order to downplay Japan's illegality in these invasions.", have been posted repeatedly. They are already denied by historians today as propaganda. And see Nomenclature.


Chinese communist scholars in spring 2006 acknowledged Chinese propagandism to Japanese historians, which was widely broadcasted by media in Japan. If the "Tanaka Memorandum" did not exist as he said, "Japanese large-scale invasion plans", is totally baseless, because it was the sole document that backed up the conspiracy theory. See below.

Director Jiang Li-feng, Institute of Japanese Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, speaking to Japanese historians visiting China in early 2006. "...I felt scolars in Japan must learn much more about Chinese history. For example, someone talked about Tanaka Memorandum earlier. But actually, it has increasingly become a mainstream opinion among Chinese historians to think that Tanaka Memorandum in fact did not exist. Do you have knowledge in Japan, about such achievement of ours in history research?" 

- Japanese magazine "Seiron" April 2006.

What was the matter with Japan's military in China?

If you cover up Manchuria with your hand. You can see that in 8 years of war Japan did not conquer much of China's land at all. They had land equal to about the size of California and Oregon. So what was the deal with the ineffectiveness of Japan in China? It can't be terrain. Japan navigated Vietnam's jungles easily, I'm sure they could've handled Chinese terrain. The Germans got near Moscow in 7 months yet Japan can't even get half of China in 8 years. That is mind boggling.--Secret Agent Man 01:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article to find out. :) I think it does a pretty good job of explaining. If not, well then we've got to work on this article!
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think it's because China was just too stubborn and refused to give up. This should be made more clear in the article, which at present kinda hints that China just sits around with loads of foreign cash instead of fighting. Look at France's 6 weeks against the Germans, pffft :) BlueShirts 06:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I get from this article too. Should probably be changed. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WWII concurency

I've always wondered why historians do not consider the Winter War, Continuation War and this war as part of WWII. China was part of the allied side in WWII, the Burma Road is part of the history of WWII, the plan to land Doolittle's raiders in China is part of WWII... why is this not part of WWII? It would move the start of WWII back to 1931, or thereabouts, when Japan clashed with the Soviets in Soviet Manchuria / Outer Manchuria, and invaded China. (Ofcourse I don't see why historians don't consider the invasion of the Rhineland as part of WWII either.) 132.205.15.43 01:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When this war started, it was mostly localized and mostly contained to Japan and China. So far as I know, there were no formal agreements or significant alliances held by either of the two nations, making it pretty isolated.
When Germany invaded Poland though, suddenly France, Britain, Poland, Germany and the Soviet Union were all very rapidly caught up in the same conflict, which is why it is likely considered the start of the World War.
The other reason is that, since this is the English encyclopedia, we generally go with the sharp rise in hostilities in Europe to denote it's starting time. Likely the Chinese or Japanese Wikipedia's put the Sino-Japanese War as the their starting date. Oberiko 13:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That is not so in Chinese textbook.--Skyfiler 21:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There was no inevitability about the Sino-Japanese War, the Spanish Civil War, or the Italian aggression in Ethiopia: they could have remained isolated conflicts (and the latter two did so remain). It was only with the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, and the resulting declaration of war upon Germany by Britain and France, that these various brush-fires around the world joined as World War Two. Even then, however, the "world war" could have progressed in Europe and North Africa without spilling over and incorporating the Sino-Japanese War. Absent the Japanese breakout of December 7/8 1941, the conflict in and around China would have remained localized and independent of the larger war.

I certainly regard the Finnish-Russian conflict of 1939-1940 (the Winter War) as part of WWII, since it was a logical outgrowth of the combined Russo-Germany occupation of Poland, and since it led to Finland's participation in Operation Barbarossa (the Continuation War, as the Finns know it). And WWII and the Sino-Japanese War merged after December 1941, though even then it is useful to distinguish the Sino-Japanese conflict from the combat elsewhere. This is the convention followed by the Library of Congress, for example.

The name

I guess the most widely used phrase should be "抗日戰爭" (not just plain "抗戰") in mainland China. I don't know exactly what that is in English, but I think "Anti-Japanese War of Resistance" will do. --Yacht (talk) 04:05, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I believe a good translation, at any rate my own when speaking of this conflict, might be the "War of National Resistance (against Japan)" - not a literal translation, but closer to the spirit, I think - 'kang' conveys with it the idea of resisting and defying, not 'anti' per se, and indeed calling it 'anti-Japanese' might convey a not altogether accurate meaning.

yeah, I think anti means "fan3 rih4" while resistance means "kang4 rih4". BlueShirts 16:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we rename this article to Second Sino-Japanese War? Oberiko 13:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why? We would also need to rename the first for consistency --Jiang 19:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I edited the naming history on the Japanese side, because it was wide of the mark. Difference between "Incident" until 1941 and "War" thereafter is so important.

Casualties assessment

Fixed a minor typo; the article originally read "The Japanese recorded around 11.1 million military casualties, wounded and missing", which should be 1.1 million.

Japanese Error

From the side of the Japanese, the total break out of the war in 1937 was absolutely a mistake. As is mentioned, Japan and China ware not at a truly state of war during the year 1931 through 1937. KMT had always wanted to maintain peace with Japan, for the fear of the overwhelming military ability of the Japanese. If japan maintained peace with KMT, when the Euro war breaks out in 1939 , Japan could have a frontline which is comparatively free for its invasion. Its navy can choose to attack Southeast Asia with the full support of its Army, which was actually caught in the mud of the Chinese battlefield. Many Japanese naval officers like Yamamoto actually opposed the war broke out on 1937 7.7, but their voice was ignored because of the "imperial enthusiast".

If you have something to contribute feel free to add it to the article itself. BTW, Japanese imperialism in itself is a mistake. -Hmib 06:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suppose the comment above is broadly mistaken. 1. It is already known that the war broke out in Shanghai, not around Beijing, because around 700,000 Chinese military surrounded 4,000 Japanese marines and civilians in Shanghai. 2. It was Japanese Naval Minister (Mitsumasa Yonai) that forced war on Japanese Army General Staff, which never wanted to offshoot its force in Manchuria, by threatening to resign. 3. Japanese biggest mistake was that, after the fall of Nanking, it failed to make peace with the Chinese, who were almost ready to do so.
1. No more than 600,000 Chinese soldiers were involved in the Shanghai until campaign. And the Chinese were not able to send all of them in at once, and instead drove a couple divisions into the battle one by one to relieve divisions already stationed there. 700,000 surrounding 4,000? I don't think so. The Japanese had six or so divisions, with more brigades arriving from Taiwan late in the campaign. 2. Yes it was the jap navy that wanted to confront the Chinese in Shanghai. The army opted to preserve strength in North China to face the Soviets. 3. Chinese ready to make peace? Chiang Kai-shek refused any peace proposals unless they returned to pre-7/7/1937 situations. After the Battle of Nanking, the Japanese government proposed the total demilitarization of North China and also continual warfare during possible negotiations. Do you think Chiang would have agreed to these terms? He could have agreed and a lot less Chinese would have died, but he didn't. The Chinese nationalist government was never ready to make peace under Japanese terms. The biggest mistake was that the Japanaese should have easily won the war but didn't. BlueShirts 22:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dear sir, I have a few points for you. 1. First 2 Japanese Divisions (about 40,000-50,000) were sent on 23 August to help 4,000 marines and 30,000 civilians being surrounded by 700,000 Chinese military, after the war broke out on 13 August. If the Chinese did not threaten them, the war would never have propagated from Beijing to Shanghai. 2. I think we should refrain from using contemptuous and emotional words here. 3. You should have knowledge about diplomatic negotiations between Japan and China around December 1937. There was a peace negotiation through a German ambassador in China. He is Oskar Trautmann. Both Japan and Chiang Kai-shek were ready to make peace, but finally failed for a few reasons. The original documents can be seen here (http://www.jacar.go.jp/), if you read Japanese. Finally, the fact was that Japan did not have any intention to invade Nanjing until November 1937, as its aim was to smash Chinese forces around Shanghai as "punishment". It was achieved as a whole, and the fall of Nanjing was another story for the Japanese side.

Again, Chinese forces did not reach that number until middle into the campaign. It takes the Chinese divisions more time to maneuver inside China than for the enemy divisions to take the boat from Japan. The Trautmann negotiations failed precisely because of the Japanese demands that was even worse than the 1932 Shanghai and the Ho-Umezu agreements. Chiang Kai-shek never expected to reach peace with the japanese, but had somoe hope that the international community such as the league of nations and the nine-power treaty organization, which was in session during the shanghai campaign. Neither did squat. BlueShirts 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the orbat for the Battle of Shanghai, please? As of late August, there were 5 Chinese divisions in the Shanghai warzone, 2 of which were understrength, to a total of about 45-50,000 men. The japanese had 3 overstrength SNLFs and 4 divisions plus garrison units. The SNLFs were about 7,500 men, about 10,000 garrison troops, and 4 triangular divisions (so about 12000 full-strength) is how many men??? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I have to say you are whiffling by switching among times and places. And your knowledge about troops deployment is incorrect, even by current Chinese and Taiwanes standards. Seemingly, you have no access to Japanese divisions' official records. At the early stage of war Japanese ground force in Shanghai (marines, no army) never exceeded 10,000, and first Imperial Army troops landed as late as 23 August. For 10 days the marines fought alone, with the help of air superiority, against hundreds of thousand of Chinese Army and those disguised as civilians. However, it is true that there is incorrectness about the precise total number of Chinese soldiers, as they were almost vanished around Shanghai, and therefore the Chinese side do not have good records. Some Taiwanese researchers say the total number exceeded one million. Also, because of inferior intelligence, Taiwanese and Chinese estimation of Japanese troops had been wrong even until late 1970's - until the publication of Senshi-Sosho, Japanese Semi-Official War History. They corrected their war histories thereafter, but baseless figures are commonly believed among the Chinese. Anyhow, the point is it startd with Chinese overwhelming military encircling of far smaller number Japanese military and civilians. Also, I would recommend you to read "Mao: The Unknown Story" by Jung Chang. In the book revealed is the fact that "attack" was commenced by the Chinese - Zhang Zhizhong, a communist mole and a Chinese general opened fire. Senshi-Sosho is also translated by Taiwan and China independently, for your reference. Finally, Chiang Kai-shek's will for peace after the fall of Nanking is a common knowledge in Japan for so long, with negotiation and eavesdropping record documents held by Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See http://www.jacar.go.jp/ Taiwanese apotheosis of Chiang is the reason of your misunderstanding.

  1. Dear Sir, I have to say you are whiffling by switching among times and places. - Start by specifying what times and places I switched.
  2. And your knowledge about troops deployment is incorrect, even by current Chinese and Taiwanes standards. - What exactly are "current Chinese and Taiwanese standards"?
  3. Seemingly, you have no access to Japanese divisions' official records. - Madej, W. Victor Japanese Armed Forces Order of Battle 1937-1945, Allentown, PA, 1981 and Hsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai, History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) 2nd Ed. ,1971. If you have official Japanese records, present them.
  4. At the early stage of war Japanese ground force in Shanghai (marines, no army) never exceeded 10,000, and first Imperial Army troops landed as late as 23 August. - Which is what the orbat says.
  5. For 10 days the marines fought alone, with the help of air superiority, against hundreds of thousand of Chinese Army and those disguised as civilians. - From 13-23 Aug, there were 5 Chinese divisions, 2 of which were understrength. Present sources for above claims.
  6. Some Taiwanese researchers say the total number exceeded one million. - Present sources.
  7. Also, because of inferior intelligence, Taiwanese and Chinese estimation of Japanese troops had been wrong even until late 1970's - until the publication of Senshi-Sosho, Japanese Semi-Official War History. They corrected their war histories thereafter, but baseless figures are commonly believed among the Chinese. - Again, present sources.
  8. Anyhow, the point is it startd with Chinese overwhelming military encircling of far smaller number Japanese military and civilians. Also, I would recommend you to read "Mao: The Unknown Story" by Jung Chang. In the book revealed is the fact that "attack" was commenced by the Chinese - Zhang Zhizhong, a communist mole and a Chinese general opened fire. - Yes, a book which doesn't seem to notice that the Battle of Shanghai began some time in August, while the Marco Polo Bridge Incident occurred on 7 July? Since when was a book about Mao an accurate source for 2SJW orbats?
  9. Finally, Chiang Kai-shek's will for peace after the fall of Nanking is a common knowledge in Japan for so long, with negotiation and eavesdropping record documents held by Ministry of Foreign Affairs. - Present sources for Chiang.
  10. See http://www.jacar.go.jp/ Taiwanese apotheosis of Chiang is the reason of your misunderstanding. - I don't read Japanese. Present English sources.

-- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I regret to tell you that, if you do not read Japanese, you are not eligible to join academic level debate. The war was fought by Japan with its initiative, so most of the primary source do exist in Japan. Senshi-Sosho is already a bible even for scholars of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, having been in publication for a quarter century, been quoted so many times to show Japanese movement in Shanghai. Always see http://www.jacar.go.jp/

Dear Sir, I regret to tell you that you can shove that up yours. If you have something vaguely intelligent to contribute, please do so. Otherwise, there is no need for you to further make a fool out of yourself. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Error

There's some poorly written, non-native English here. Anyone care to clean it up?

Worse than Just English Grammer

--Needs cleaning

  • I concurr with whoever above. I broke apart the intro some, but certain parenthetical explainations appear to belong to another term in the list of battle names, and I can't translate.
  • I also added first and last terms to the 'incidents' discussion, and believe that to be true, but this should be checked, and if there were any more, another or two in that paragraph might be advisable.

-Needs proofreading

  • In the main, the whole needs dumbed down from rampant 'historianese' to 'casual reader' grade, as the buzz words aren't put together with enough glue for the non-specialist in Far East Studies, or a lot more time than I have in the immediate future. Sorry! (I will add it to my todo list, but it will likely be a month) FrankB 8 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)
I concur; in cleaning it up however, I hope attention is paid to the generic reference of "China". It can mean (1) Kuomintang (2) CCP, or (3) a geographic reference. If attention is paid to this it will be very valuable in the long run. Thank you. Nobs01 9 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

problems

"hastened the formal announcement" of the second Kuomintang-Communist Party...; Does this refer to a publicity announcement (which may or may not have substance behind it), or to the actual formation of the second Kuomintang-Communist Party of China (CPC)?

Please do not put templates on this talk page.

Please refrain from putting copyedit templates on this talk page, even when justifying the use of them in the main article. I have corrupted the templates used slightly so that you may still convey your point while not actually using the templates (this distrupts the behaviour of the copyedit category.)

Hsu Yung-Ch'ang

Does anyone know anything about General Hsu Yung-Ch'ang, who was the representative of the Republic of China on September 2, 1945 at signing of Instrument of Surrender of Japan that ended World War II? Or is that the only thing history has on him? I am very interested. I place this here since someone who has an interest in the Second Sino-Japanese War may have some information about this Nationalist General. --Tony Hecht 01:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded.--Skyfiler 21:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who really fought the Sino-Japanese war?

I have rewritten this section. This is likely to be regarded as a red rag to a bull by certain segments of the contributing public. This is not the intent. The problem is that certain questions have been raised about the CCP's self-made claim of having played the central role in fighting against the Japanese.

Some people who do not agree with this have inserted little counterarguments or excuses wherever what they regard as an objectionable statement is made. The first paragraph outlining the CCP's position has niggling counterarguments. The second paragraph outlining the notion that the Nationalists, not the Communists, bore the brunt of the fighting is filled with niggling counterarguments. Even the third paragraph claiming that the warlords were the most committed to fighting the Japanese has been tampered with. The end result is to obscure exactly what the section is driving at.

I have therefore tried to disentangle this messy editing. I have not tried to slant the article towards one side or the other. If you feel that there are errors or misrepresentations, please go ahead and modify the text. Feel free to add evidence for all sides. Go ahead and add a paragraph outlining objections to controversial views, if you wish. But please don't insert carping little additions to the text under the impression that you are editing for 'POV'!

Bathrobe 03:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The answer to who really fought against Japan in the Sino-Japanese war is simple. The Japanese invasion was fought against by the people of China. Pseudoanonymous 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in the warbox

Right now the Chinese side is represented by the ROC flag. I wonder if that's accurate or not. The communists, though they were nominally under the NRA, were part of the Shaanxi Soviet, which is not part of the ROC. So, it might be inaccurate to use the ROC flag to represent all of the Chinese sides.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is totally inaccurate, although I agree it is strange that communists are represented by the ROC flag. According to the National Revolutionary Army article, during the Second Sino-Japanese War, Communist forces fought as a nominal part of the National Revolutionary Army, forming the Eighth Route Army and the New Fourth Army units, but this co-operation later fell apart even before the war ends, see New Fourth Army Incident.--Skyfiler 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NRA =/= ROC, just like Wehrmacht =/= Deutsches Reich. Croatians, for example, fought as part of the Wehrmacht, but were by no means German citizens. It would be best if we use the NRA battleflag... if they had any.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The flag of the Chinese Soviet Republic (star + hammer/sickle) stopped being used when the United Front was established. Once the war restarted again, the PLA used a different flag (current national flag w/o the four stars). The current PRC government surely considers the ROC legitimate during that period. The truth is murky. I am not sure whether we should post national flags (as is done here), battle flags (now under battle strength section) or both. If the NRA flag is put up (I am assuming the current ROC army flag is the same as the NRA flag, based on some historical battle footage ive seen) and it must be matched with the Imperial Japanese Army flag. --Jiang 03:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we should use the NRA and IJA flags, then?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think we should use the ROC flag. It's really weird to have an army flag in an international war. The war was country vs country, and the ROC was the internationally recognized government of the unified china at that time. BlueShirts 20:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the communists fought as nominal units under the NRA, but independent of the ROC. Also, the IJA was quite independent of the Japanese (civil) government, as shown by the unwillingness of the government to launch Operation Ichigo but the army went ahead anyway. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "independent of the ROC"? Is the Nationalist Government (either one existing at the time) synonymous with the ROC? The ROC is the state, which encompasses more than the government. --Jiang 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The ROC had the central government and the warlords. The central government (ie. KMT) was the nominal legitimate ruler of all China, and most of the warlords accepted that (with the notable exception of Xinjiang, I believe). The communists had their own Shaanxi Soviet and did not consider themselves part of the ROC. However, at the formation of the Second Unified Front, the communist army was nominally incorporated into the NRA (as the Eighth Route Army and New Fourth Army), while the communist government itself remained separate from both the central government and the ROC. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are equating state with government. There were several governments flying the same flag and with the same institutions under the same names. The Japanese established first a rival government in Beiping under Wang Kemin and then another one in Nanjing under Wang Jingwei. These "puppet" governments claimed to be the real ROC government (and Wang also claimed to be head of the KMT). What flags did the communists fly during this period? Did they even fly the NRA flag?--Jiang 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not equating the state with the government. There was only 1 (legitimate) state in China, and that was the ROC. The actual control of the different provinces of the ROC were shared between the central government and the warlords. Most of the warlords acknowledged the ROC and considered themselves part of it, on paper at least, so there is no conflict. The warlords' armies were part of the NRA, as were the communists' armies (who probably flew no flag at all, but that doesn't mean they're not part of the NRA). So yes, they were part of the NRA, no they weren't part of the ROC. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The communists also flew the NRA flag and the KMT white sun blue sky flag. You'd be amazed at the pictures of battle of nianzhiguan. Also, the communists wore NRA uniforms and all of their officers had the white sun blue sky emblem on their caps. BlueShirts 01:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think it's best to use country flags. It was a war between the ROC and Japan, between states. The army units might have acted independent of their respective governments, but it was the government that signed the treaties and stuff, not individual commanders or such BlueShirts 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly mind either way, so change it back if you want, though if you do, put the army flags somewhere else. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
uh, question, how about the japanese flag? Was that the flag during the war, or a naval flag or something. BlueShirts 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That flag is the historical and current flag of both the IJA and IJN, but Japan's national flag is the plain red sun one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who fought the war, the army or the nation?

OK if you look in the battlebox, right now it says (for the Chinese side) "National Revolutionary Army, Republic of China". This might sound trivial, but I think we need to represent it... better. Right now, the battlebox in this format suggests that the NRA fought the war. Not inaccurate. However, would it be better to say that the ROC fought the war? The NRA did the fighting, but the ROC directed all the industries and such. Besides, the NRA is a subordinate organisation to the ROC. And there's also the people, who really did the fighting, as compared to some organisations... So, should it (in your opinion) be "NRA, ROC" or "ROC, NRA"?

Well, NRA is the official army of the ROC, so I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe we can put Republic of China first, then NRA. Yeah, that'd make a bit more sense, since it was the state that made war, then the army that fought it BlueShirts 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Invasion of China" paragraph, a word is missing in the sentence "...but also hastened the formal announcement of the second Kuomintang-Communist Party of China (CPC).". Maybe it should be "...the second Kuomintang-Communist Party of China (CPC) collaboration"? I don't know by what word exactly it is known, please help me.

UnHoly 11:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battle names in Wade-Giles

OK guys some help needed here. I'm not literate in Wade-Giles so I would appreciate it if anyone could take all the battle articles I wrote and check if they all got their respective WG article names as redirects... thanks.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are my guesses.

not included: Battle of the Great Wall (zh:长城战役)--Skyfiler 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, that's pretty much all I need. I will try to find out the names for those that are still somewhat ambiguous.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GDP comparison definitely wrong

383,000 is 500 times of 770. Shouldn't it be 7,700, which is at least plausible?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda picture

An imaginary painting of Japanese surrender to KMT general has been posted by Chinese communist in the "Aftermath" part. But communist had close to nothing to do with the historic place, and it is so much like North Korea's "great father" cultism paintings. I see propaganda is still going on here. Credibility of Wikipedia is at risk.

LOL. How is a painting imaginary? It exists, doesn't it? Why would Chinese communist propaganda have flags of the KMT everywhere? You do know that they're MORTAL ENEMIES don't you? LOL. Just LOL. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 17:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The picture with the baby was a set up, propaganda picture, and if used, should be labeled as such. It is certainly not NPOV. ( source http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=94)

The photographer is H.S. Wong, a Chinese-American, and the picture appeared in the December 21, 1937 issue of Look magazine. Wong was an employee of William Randolph Hearst (the subject of the movie, Citizen Kane), and who was famously quoted as saying “You provide the photographs, I’ll provide the war”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakuhachi (talk • contribs)

Quoting your own blog/research - please see WP:NOR.
Almost all photgraphs in war can be used for propagandistic effects. Take a look at the photo to the right. Propaganda? You betcha. Staged? Yep. Should it be instantly labeled a set-up propaganda picture and/or not supposed to be used in either World War II or Pacific War or Battle of Iwo Jima?
Besides, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the photo was indeed staged, since the accepted wisdom is that it's not. Use some reliable sources in English please, instead of your own research and/or decidely POV websites.
As of right now, the caption reads: "Shanghai 1937: One of the earlier images of the war to come out from China, this photo appeared in LIFE magazine". I don't see anything wrong with this, even if the photograph was staged.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the kid was seriously hurt by the Japanese bombardment, and then the cameraman moved him a bit closer to the tracks and took a picture. It's not like the Chinese shot the kid and blamed on the Japanese, jeez. BlueShirts 23:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a caption. It would be better to tell the readers that the picture was a propaganda.--Mochi 18:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't propaganda but a photographer doing his job. As I recall the incident, Photo Wong came across a bombed-out railroad station and wanted to photograph it. He needed a human in the foreground. A woman was standing by with a baby in her arms. Photo Wong grabbed the baby and planted it in the center of his photograph; naturally the baby cried for its mother. So what? That was Photo Wong's job, to make interesting photographs. I suppose it was staged, in a sense, but not staged to the degree that that Iwo Jima photo was, or MacArthur's Return to the Philippines. It was a real event. --Cubdriver 11:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Later: oops, mind slipped! His nickname was Newsreel Wong. --Cubdriver 11:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wierd paragraph

The Japanese had neither the intention nor the capability of directly administering China. Their goal was to set up friendly puppet governments favorable to Japanese interests. However, the atrocities of the Japanese army made the governments that were set up very unpopular, and the Japanese refused to negotiate with either the Kuomintang or the Communist Party of China, which could have brought them popularity.

I think there were attempts by the Japanese to negotiate with Chiang and make him surrender. However, Chiang refused any propositions unless the Japanese return to pre-1937 conditions, which the Japanese promtply refused. Also, does anyone have any info on Japan's intention on conquering all of China. From what I've read, it seems that the pro-war factions in Japan's army actually wanted to totally annihilate China, while some other factions only wanted to keep Manchuria and regarded the invasion as a grave mistake. And the last sentence of the above paragraph doesn't really make any sense either. These need to be fixed. BlueShirts 22:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's negotiating strategy, and indeed any sort of policy-setting, was much hampered by the utter lack of stability in that period of time - case in point, after Wang negotiated a armistice with the Konoe cabinet, said prime minister promptly resigned. This was not such a bad way to go considering the also-extensive use of government by assassination, but the consequence was that negotiating with Japan was all but impossible - one can hardly find the right person to talk to, and if one does, said person may die or resign with no warning. Furthermore, the factionalism in the Japanese government means that somebody else in said government is likely to be doing its utmost to undermine the negotiating faction - consider Japan's inept fumbling of recognising different puppet regimes at the same time in China, thus destroying any hope for legitimacy for the puppets. As for Japanese intentions, oddly enough the Kodo clique, the most militant of the lot, was the one least inclined towards the conquest of China, not out of any benevolent feelings, but rather a calculation that a prostrate China and an assimilated Manchuria would be more conducive to future war with the West. That said, Japan's strategy had been since the Revolution to prevent the emergence in China of a unified government, to which end it was usually content to simply have numerous warlord clients.

List of ROC generals

Why there are only Chinese generals name which were apparently less important, and there is none on the Japanese side?
Because I can't be bothered. Because japanese ones are apparently less important. If you want a list of japanese generals, add it yourself and stop bitching. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From our (at least, it's mine) favourite game Hearts of Iron 2. Only nationalist generals. List is waaaay too overwhelming to place in the article proper, so I suggest a new article or something. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bai Chongxi
Zhang Zhen
Zhang Zhenn
Zhang Chi
Zhang Zhizhong
Chang Enduo
Zhang Fakui
Zhang Fang
Zhang Xuxing
Zhang Xuzi
Zhang Xuezhong
Zhang Xueliang
Zhang Gan
Zhang Kexia
Zhang Lingfu
Zhang Shixi
Zhang Zizhong
Zhang Dulun
Zhang Yan
Zhang Yaoming
Zhang Yinwu
Zhao Chengshou
Zhao Jiaxiang
Zhao Xizhang
Zhao Hong Wenguo
Zhao Guoping
Zhao Shoushan
Zhao Dengyu
Chen Anbao
Chen Changjie
Chen Cheng
Chen Jitang
Chen Jihuan
Chen Gongxia
Chen Mingren
Chen Daqing
Chen Tie
Chen Wanren
Chen Wenqi
Zheng Tingzhen
Zheng Tingji
Cheng Qian
Zheng Zuomin
Zheng Dongguo
Ji Zhangjian
Ji Xingwen
Qi Xueqi
Jiang Zhiying
Chiang Kai-Shek
Jiang Guangnai
Jiang Dingwen
Jiang Yuzhen
Jie Fang
Chih Fengcheng
Qin Yizhi
Zhou Jiabin
Zhou Zhidao
Zhou Qingxiang
Zhou Fu
Zhou Fucheng
Zhou Lan
Zhou Yan
Zhu Zhiyi
Zhu Chi
Zhu Huaibing
Zhu Shaozhou
Zhu Shaoliang
Zhu Dingqing
Zhu Qi
Qiu Qingquan
Qiu Kaiji
Zhong Song
Zhong Yi
Daljaya
Fan Hanjie
Fang Jing
Fang Xianjue
Fang Shuhong
Fang Tian
Feng Anbang
Feng Zhian
Feng Shengfa
Feng Qinzai
Feng Yuxiang
Fu Bingxun
Fu Zuoyi
Han Jun
Han Fuqu
Han Liancheng
Hao Menglin
He Jifeng
He Zhuguo
He Guoguang
He Shaozhou
He Weizhen
He Wending
He Yaozu
He Yingqin
Hou Jingru
Xia Chuzhong
Xia Guozhang
Xia Wei
Xiang Fengwu
Xiao Jimian
Xiao Zhichu
Xiao Yisu
Xu Jizhang
Xu Jingtang
Xu Rucheng
Xu Guozhang
Xu Tingyao
Xu Zuyi
Xu Yuanquan
Xu Yongchang
Xuan Tiewu
Xue Yue
Hu Changqing
Hu Xianmei
Hu Yibin
Hu Ruoyu
Hu Lian
Hu Su
Hu Zongnan
Hu Ying
Huang Zhenwu
Huang Jie
Huang Qixiang
Huang Xiansheng
Huang Guoliang
Huang Meixing
Huang Bamei
Huang Botao
Huang Shaohong
Huang Tao
Huang Qiaosong
Huang Wei
Huang Yongan
Huo Kuizhang
Rao Guohua
Ji Chong Chon
Rong Xiang
Rong Youlüe
Gan Lichu
Kan Weiyong
Gao Zhisong
Gao Guizi
Gao Kuiyuan
Gao Shuxun
Gao Shuangcheng
Ge Xiancai
Kim Hak-Keu
Gu Zhenglun
Gu Zhutong
Gu Dinghua
Guan Linzheng
Gui Zezhun
Gui Yongqing
Kong Zongzhou
Guo Chan
Guo Jijiao
Guo Jingyun
Guo Xunqi
Guo Rudong
Guo Lüzhou
Guo Zongfen
Lai Chuanxiang
Lee Beom Seok
Lei Zhong
Leng Xin
Li Zhen
Li Zhenqiu
Li Jiayu
Li Jue
Li Chunnong
Li Fuying
Li Hanhun
Li Xianzhou
Li Yikuang
Li Mi
Li Minghao
Li Mo'an
Li Bifan
Li Pinxian
Li Tao
Li Tianxia
Li Zefen
Li Zongren
Li Wen
Li Wentian
Li Yannian
Li Yutang
Liang Jingzhai
Liang Xixian
Liao Lei
Liao Lingqi
Liao Yaoxiang
Liao Yunzhou
Liao Yunze
Lin Wei
Liu Anqi
Liu Zhaoli
Liu Zhendong
Liu Jiaqi
Liu Jiashu
Liu Jianxu
Liu Zhi
Liu Heding
Liu Xiang
Liu Xing
Liu Ruming
Liu Kan
Liu Guangji
Liu Guiwu
Liu Lianyi
Liu Mao'en
Liu Shiyi
Liu Duoquan
Liu Wei
Liu Wenhui
Luo Zhuoying
Luo Guangwen
Luo Lie
Luo Lirong
Luo Shuren
Lobsang Tsewang
Lü Zhanmeng
Lu Junquan
Lu Zhonglin
Lu Han
Lu Guangwei
Lu Daoyuan
Long Tianwu
Long Yun
Ma Zhanshan
Ma Chongliu
Ma Hongkui
Ma Hongbin
Ma Bufang
Ma Shigong
Ma Ying
Ma Yuren
Mao Bingwen
Miao Peinan
Mou Zhongheng
Ou Zhen
Ou Shounian
Ba Yunying
Pan Wenhua
Pang Hanzhen
Pang Bingxun
Pei Changhui
Peng Shiliang
Shang Zhen
Shangguan Yunxiang
Shao Baichang
Sheng Zhicai
Sheng Wen
Shi Jingting
Shi Zude
Shi Yousan
Su Bingwen
Su Zuxin
Sun Zhen
Sun Chu
Sun Liren
Sun Lianzhong
Sun Mingjin
Sun Du
Sun Tongxuan
Sun Weiru
Sun Yuanliang
Sung Zheyuan
Sung Xilian
Tai Anlan
Tai Zhi
Tai Li
Tang Juwu
Tang Enbo
Tang Huaiyuan
Tang Shengzhi
Tang Shizun
Tao Zhiyue
Tao Guang
Deng Xihou
Deng Baoshan
Deng Dingyuan
Tian Zhennan
Ding Zhipan
Cai Mengjian
Cai Tingkai
Zeng Zesheng
Qin Lin
Qin Dechun
Zou Shaomeng
Zou Zuohua
Xu Yongchang
Cun Xingqi
Du Yuming
Duan Yun
Dong Qiwu
Tong Linge
Dong Zongshan
Wu Jingbin
von Falkenhausen
Wan Fulin
Wan Shitong
Wan Yaohuang
Wang Zhaozhi
Wang Jiaben
Wang Jianyue
Wang Zhixi
Wang Jingjiu
Wang Jingzhi
Wang Jingguo
Wang Jingwei
Wang Jun
Wang Chunhui
Wang Fengshan
Wang Yizhe
Wang Lingji
Wang Lingyun
Wang Mingzhang
Wang Zuanxu
Wang Dongyuan
Wang Wanling
Wang Yaowu
Wang Yi
Wei Zhen
Wei Lihuang
Wen Qiang
Wu Jiguang
Wu Qiwei
Wu Chuikun
Wu Peifu
Wu Shaozhou
Wu Shimin
Yang Aiyuan
Yang Jie
Yang Hu
Yang Hucheng
Yang Botao
Yang Bufei
Yang Sen
Yang Wei
Yao Zhongying
Ye Cheng
Ye Peigao
Yan Xishan
Yi Anhua
Yol Bars
Yu Chengwan
Yu Jishi
Yuzhi Fenggang
Chen Ce
Chen Jiliang
Chen Shaokuan
Ji Zhangjian
Xu Zushan
Gao Xianshen
Gui Yongqing
Liu Yonggao
Ouyang Ge
Sa Shijun
Shen Honglie
Zeng Yiding
Wang Shouting
Zhang Tingmeng
Chen Qixia
Chen Qingyun
Chennault
Chen Ruitian
Zhou Zhirou
Xu Huansheng
Huang Guangrui
Huang Bingheng
Gao Zhihang
Khryukin
Li Guidan
Liang Tiancheng
Liu Guoyun
Liu Muqun
Liu Zhesheng
Liu Cuigang
Mao Pangchu
Qian Dajun
Wang Guangfu
Wang Tianxiang
Yue Yiqin
Li Shijia

Templates begging to be used

I ripped these from the German one, 2 (incomplete) list of NRA armoured and infantry weapons. Right now, I don't really know where to put these (besides my user page, which is so bloated with images now that I can only put one of these in), so these are literally begging to be placed somewhere... would anyone terribly mind them in the appropriate equipment section, or better still, does anyone have a better suggestion where they should go? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

maybe a separate article on Chinese equipment. Go peruse that book :) BlueShirts 19:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, will (might?) do.

w00t!

Can you say, "DONE"?!?!?! All 22 major battles are now BLUE, and for "minor" (but just as important, haiz) battles there's only 4 left, 3 of which are't in the "official" timeline. Go us! Chugoku Banzai! -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will finish Lanfeng, well, some time. Maybe later tonight. Homework's suffering. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

philanthropic aid, CCP involvement in battlebox

It seems that the CCP played a major part in the resistance even if it fought the KMT constantly, so shouldn't the Eighth Route Army and the CCP et al be included in the combatants list?

Secondly, philanthropists like Tan Kah Kee organised massive charity drives and philanthropy for the front. I don't know the numbers of how significant this was, but this was apparently enough to drive the military police mad to try kill those involved in the charity drive (in the infamous Sook Ching) when it occupied Singapore. Deserves mentioning?

Also, would it be correct to say that the CCP involvement assisted in the defense, if not actively defended the entity and state known as the "Republic of China"? I mean, after all, the CCP sought revolutionary means, but when fighting the Japanese, would defending the ROC be the appropriate context? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CCP wasn't a major part of the war of resistance. They had only two notable battles, one was Pixinguan when they ambushed a Japanese supply column and the other big one was the Hundred Regiments, which was unauthorized by Mao and became the last major communist operation. In the beginning of the second united front, many CCP members wanted to join the KMT army, but this was opposed by Mao who wanted to maintain a communist identity. Thus shortly after the united front, the main aim of the communists was to conserve strength and topple the nationalist government, while the KMT pretty much got wasted in the earliest campaigns. The communists also had war zones established behind enemy lines but their operations remained small and inconsequential, but attracted punitive actions from the Japanese. There were lots of armies (a couple military divisions combined) in the Chinese army, thus I don't think it's appropriate to add the 8th route army to the combatant list, especially when it didn't play such a big role in the war. BlueShirts 23:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But would they serve as deterrence? IIRC, the guerilla strategy is to use attrition and avoid decisive, large scale battles until absolutely necessary, so their contribution might have been less in a battle but still in a war. I was wondering because Tan Kah Kee was a CCP supporter and he donated large sums of money towards the resistance, which would have presumably gone towards the CCP forces, although a large amount of it went towards civilian relief. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you notice the CCP manpower is already added to the overall Chinese section. Supposedly they had a million people, but somehow I doubt that figure. We should probably only include those that were in the army, so it might cut the real number down somewhat. As for including the 8th Route Army and New 4th Army et al in the battlebox, well, before the New 4th Army Incident they were nominally part of the NRA. So there is little point. I can't say for sure how much the CPC contributed to the Chinese war effort, so I won't comment on that. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Tan KK (arguably one of my favouritest commies, probably because he built my school?) was also active within the Nationalist government. ;) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How significant was the philanthropy in contributing to the relief effort, though? Relatively speaking, would it be as helpful as the private charity to the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (per capita), or even half as such? Where exactly did the relief funds go, anyway? To which factions? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't got the slightest clue. But I do know that the "United China Relief" (an American organisation) held fundraisers that got up to USD$7mil in 1942. Pretty sure it all went to the Nationalists, though. Then into the hands of T.V. Soong and Chiang's buddies. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhukhov and the Battle of Khalkhin Gol

Not trying to be controversial here, but to say Zhukhov witnessed this battle must be one of the greatest understatements of all time. GdlR 11:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In the battle box it says non-military why does it not say civilians?

Why does the battle box say non-military and not civilians? (Deng 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There's a difference? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yupp a big one, words have a significant meaning in how you label them. If there is no difference then you wouldnt mind me changeing it? (Deng 06:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Uh, sure. But explain to me the difference, please. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civilian: A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
Nonmilitary: not associated with soldiers or the military; "unmilitary circles of government"; "fatigue duty involves nonmilitary labor" (Deng 19:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]


Operation August Storm

Operation August Storm played a huge part for China so I added it here. Operation August Storm meant alot for China because all Japanese forces in China and Korea got kicked out/killed/caputred it is present a some lines down but as it was written before one could believe that the droping of the bombs helped the chinese alone and that nothing except the bombs helped (Deng 19:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

not to mention Operation CARBONADO, which was the US-Chinese offensive that was going to start in late summer to liberate from the south. BlueShirts 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about look go here read this and you will see that Operation August storm played a much mroe bigger part then anything else Fromt he chinese perspective http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp
If you read the study made by the Us army you will see that the Soviet Invasion played a huge part and much bigger part for the chinese then the droping of the bombs. Also Operation August Storm explains it all (Deng 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

found some useful maps

I found some WWII maps on University of Texas at Austin website, and the page claims most of them are from US Army Center of Military History[2]. --Skyfiler 21:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Sino-Japanese_War&oldid=50317323"