Talk:Battle of Changde/Archive 1

Problem with dates
This article has the battle occuring in November-December, but the linked page Changde chemical weapon attack has the chemical attack happening in springtime. Can somebody provide a clarification? Verne Equinox 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalingrad of the East???
What an understatement! The Battle of Shanghai surpasses Battle of Changde in everyway! TheAsianGURU 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA JAPANESE WERE OWNED162.83.165.246 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies
This article is a serious distortion of the battle's history, and I'm surprised nobody has caught this until now. The battle is considered a Japanese victory by Western historians, and Nationalist soldiers only retook the city in January 1944, a month after the battle had ended and when Japanese soldiers chose to withdraw from the city. I will be fixing this article with the appropriate sources.--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The battle is considered a Chinese victory by Western sources such as contemporary news reports ONE MONTH after the battle, such as this life magazine issue.Дунгане (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

western source on the battle of changde The Japanese had sufficient power to move ahead but they were looking for a cheap victory and this was not the placeДунгане (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

list of western sources saying that the chinese won the battle of changde
http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=+employed+five+divisions+along+the+Hupeh-Hunan+border%2C+aiming+at+Ichang+and+Changteh.+Compelled+to+retreat+from+their+drive+in+the+direction+of+Chungking%2C+they+yielded+the+Chinese+a+major+victory%3B+the+joint+Chinese-American+

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=Chinese+forces+recapture+Changteh+as+the+climax+of+a+fierce+six-+week+battle%2C+and+follow+up+their+victory+by+taking+a+number+of+towns+northeast+and+northwest%2C+and+pushing+the+Japanese+back+from+the+vital+%22rice+bowl&btnG=Search+Books

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=The+Chinese+victory+at+Changteh%2C+the+three+battles+of+Changsha%2C+and+most+recently+the+six-week+grim+defense+of+Hengyang+are+facts+that+speak+for+themselves.+China+has+been+holding+the+line%2C+waiting+for+the+day+when+effective+aid+will+

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=Nurse+Tu+came+from+Changteh%2C+where+the+battle+was+fierce+and+the+Chinese+victory+was+hard+won+last+winter.+Her+family+lost+all+its+household+belongings+while+the+Japs+were+in+the+city.+f%5C+REFUGEE+merchant+recently+arrived+

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=The+battle+of+Changteh%2C+waged+from+November+2+to+December+25%2C+1943%2C+was+another+Chinese+victory

These are all snippet views of newspapers from the 1940s. The Western media at that time was notorious for inaccuracies because of heavy Nationalist censorship that prevented Western journalists from writing anything unfavorable about the Nationalist regime. You can read about it in Barbara Tuchman's "Stilwell and the American Experience in China," but that is beside the point. The source that is presented, "China's Bitter Victory," is a recent scholarly book compiled by notable American historians in the field of modern Chinese studies. The article in question which supports that the Japanese Army won the battle is written by Hsi-sheng Ch'i, professor of Chinese history of the University of Carolina at Chapel Hill. Can you present any reliable Western sources that support your view that the Battle of Changde is a Chinese victory? Because from what Ch'i wrote, the Nationalists re-occupied an empty town. Please don't start an edit war, and provide reliable sources so that we can compare the two.

Also understand that many battles that the Nationalist government considered a victory are listed as defeats in US history books. You need to accept the fact that much of Nationalist historiography is heavily distorted in order to cater to wartime Chinese public opinion.--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool story bro, but you're going to need much more than that in order to change "Chinese victory" into "Japanese victory". How about a few solid sources that paraphrase your claims? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * User:ScorchingPheonix has used a western source on the Second Sino-Japanese War which quoted nationalist military authorities ridiculing communist claims. its strange that he suddenly changes his tune in this article when he doesn't agree with the content, and says nationalist based sources are unreliable.Дунгане (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hsiung and Levine are credible historians, and their conclusion that the battle was a Japanese victory belongs in the article. Leaving it out violates WP:DUE. I have reverted the citation of their work.
 * This does not mean that the reverted material is unproblematic. It could use some polishing. But its wholesale removal is unjustified. Yaush (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Video evidence of Chinese vicotry
this video shows victorious chinese troops with captured japanes prisoners and military equipment from archival US governmetn footage the US government clearly stated this was a chinese victory.Дунгане (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be difficult to come up with a better example an unreliable source than a 1943 government film -- by any government of the period. The fact remains that respectable historians have questioned which side really won the battle. If you want the article to state that the Chinese are widely regarded as the victors, I'm fine with that -- as long as it is also noted that there is a credible minority opinion that the Japanese accomplished what they intended, and withdrew voluntarily afterwards. 00:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaush (talk • contribs)

nowhere on the page of the source did it say the word "won"
i checked the book on google books, China's Bitter Victory: The War with Japan 1937-1945, pp.161, the words "won" and "victory" were nowhere on the page. such synthesis is original research and therefore it is removed, look up WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Drawing a conclusion from a source is not allowed, you may only write what the source says.Дунгане (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is indeed there if you would just make a minute of research. The exact wording is "They captured the city, but choosed to withdraw in january 1944" StoneProphet (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you think we are illiterate or cannot read- it says, as you quoted - "They captured the city, but choosed to withdraw in january 1944". Show me where it shows the word won, or victory.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think does "they capture the city" mean? The Japanese won the battle, and so they captured the town. Later they decided to withdraw. Thats exactly what needs to be in the result section. Contemporary news reels or magazine articles are not a source anyway. StoneProphet (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Chemical weapon?
Does anybody has source which chemical weapon had used in the battle? Pic looks like smoke screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synphen (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

10,000 casualties and 1,700 deaths
This article has lots of problems with sources, but I'll just focus on one. "10,000 Japanese soldiers were also infected with the plague, and 1,700 died". I couldn't find this info in the cited book, but that's not too surprising since I don't have this book in front of me. I thought the numbers seemed a bit suspicious, and if it is true I want to expand it with some detail of some sort. I searched google books for "10,000 japanese soldiers infected with plague" here's what I got:

"...release of cholera bacteria into a river resulted in the infection of Japanese troops, causing 10,000 casualties and 1700 deaths."

"... Japanese troops suffered approximately 10,000 biological casualties and 1700 deaths, mostly from cholera, in 1941.."

"Some attempts by the Japanese to spread diseases among the Chinese back-fired. In 1941, a biological attack on Changteh reportedly sickened the assaulting Japanese troops, causing apporximately 10,000 casualties and 1,700 deaths among them, mostly due to cholera. Field trials were terminated in 1942.."

And a ton more. They don't do much in the way of citing their sources. Only one of the sourses says it happened in Changde and most of them say it was Cholera, although one just lists a bunch of diseases. The numbers are always the same. Something isn't right.

Iris Chang, who you can believe or not, puts the number at... you guessed it 10,000, but instead of Japanese casualties in Changde, this is the total number of Japanese troops infected by cholera, plague, etc. throughout China. If that's the case then the the statement needs to be removed because it isn't relevant and/or edited to more closely reflect the facts. Other sources also imply that the numbers are for all of China through out the war, but this is not consistent, the above example names Changde.

Unless someone can show that there was in fact biological weapons used in the Battle of Changde (ie evidence, which is to say a reliable source) then I propose we delete the mention of biological weapons altogether. It is confusing for the reader and it is not properly verifiable as it stands. Is it at all relevent if biological weapons were used in 1941-42? This seems like a kind of coat-racking at best. What do you think? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No response, so I deleted the bits about biological weapons. If it gets added back, I sincerely hope there's some details showing its relevant to the topic of the article and some decent citations. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In Jon Agar's (not "John", please) book the only mention is "In the spring of 1943, a desperate Japanese command approved the use of chemical weapons in the Battle of Changde, in Hunan province." That's all. No reference. No bibliography. No explanation (which chemicals ? how many casualties from chemicals ?). The other reference is which is a video, requires installation of specific software, and is unavailable and anyway it looks not to be in english language. So we are here: where are the sources ? --Robertiki (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Death count
The source in the article, Army Operations in China, claims 675 Japanese deaths, but anonymous editors have been changing the number to 40,000. That's a big difference. Does anyone have a reliable source to back another number? Please keep in mind some sources may include injured in their "casualties" count. Blackguard 17:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Chinese source for casualties
To adhere to NPOV, can someone find a source stating Chinese estimates for Japanese losses? I believe there were estimates and sources vefore, but they were lost due to vandalism.FormosaKMT (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring / Reliable sources
Hi,

looking at the article, there's an edit war going regarding the sources cited in the article. Some sources here are problematic (for example a YouTube video that is no longer available). Please discuss the rationale for including/removing these references and improving the article before editing again. -- Luk  talk 11:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)