Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War/Archive 1

This page was vandalized
"Japan saw Manchuria as a limitless supply of raw materials and also as a buffer state against the Canada."

"In Chinese, the war is most commonly known as the Beat Those God Damn" Possibly more.

Ok i reverted to the last non vandalised version which was as i saw it was 12:22 31st Dec by Cydebot. -- Shadowmuse 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing indivdual battles
There are many articles about battles and operations that take place after China joined the Allies that are only listed as being only part of the Second Sino-Japanese War (ex: Operation Ichigo). Shouldn't these articles be labeled as apart of WW2 as well? After all, some battles like the one I mentioned involve Allied forces. Repdetect

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. --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 Ryūkyū islands have had historical involvement alternatively between Japan and China, the status of the Ryūkyū 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 05:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

"Three Alls Policy" is not a propaganda. Don't say "I can't read Chinese". This is your problem. If you have problem in reading Chinese materials, please read those written in English.

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)
 * 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 03:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * That's what I get from this article too. Should probably be changed. -- Миборовский U 07:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

The number of casualties should be noted and compared to other well know genocide as to provide the scope of the atrocity. Hd8888 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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.  Blue  Shirts  22:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is utterly wrong to blame Chiang for not afreeing to a peace deal, I wonder would the Japanes Emperor agreed to a peace deal when an enemy force landed in one of the cities near tokyo without putting up a fight. With the above presumption, if he did, it was wrong and he would be responsible for the loss of Janpaness lives during the contact(s). May I know why the Japanese soldiers landed in Chinese soild in the first place? According to your line of statement, the bombing of two Japanese cities by the Americans and the loss of tens of thousands of Japanese civilian and service personnel lives during the entire WWII is the fault of the Emperor.

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. Blue  Shirts  23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

Dear Sir, The reliability of "The Unknown Story" by Jung Chang is doubtful as the culture of Chinese Commuunist Party has to be considered. They claim credits for almost every success during the war with Japan. By telling that, they would gain popuality against the non contention policy of Chiang. That's what I humbly submit.

-- Миборовский U 23:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

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 02:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a bit late to write anything since that fool has disappeared, anyways Chiang would never agree with a peace deal, not when his mother was killed in a Japanese bombing, he even personally said "This bloodstain can only be washed with blood!". Just my few cent/yen/yuan/hkdollar for the thought. Hanchi 2December 2006

According to Senshi-sousho(Library of War History, edited by National Institute for Defense Studies(one of the organizations of The Defense Agency), published by Asagumo-shinbunsha)

Late July: Shanhai-kaigun-tokubestu-rikusentai(Special Marine Team of Shanghai) :: 2,500(vol.72, p318)

Sometime at 1 Aug - 17 Aug: Reinforcement of 2 battlions
 * Kure-chinshufu-daini-tokubetsu-rikusentai(Kure 2nd Special Marine team)
 * Sasebo-chinshufu-daiichi-tokubetsu-rikusentai(Sasebo 1st Special Marine team)
 * Number not written (probably 1,400, joined together)

18 Aug : Reinforcement of 2 battlions
 * Yokosuka-chinshufu-daiichi-tokubetsu-rikusentai(Yokosuka 1st Marine team)
 * Kure-chinshufu-daiichi-tokubetsu-rikusentai(Kure 1st Marine team)
 * 1,400, joined together

19 Aug : Reinfoecemant of 2 battlions newly build at Sasebo, each of which consisited of 500 men
 * 1,000, joined together

At 20 Aug, reinforced Marine became 6 battlions, and Japanese force at Shanghai became 6,300 joined with original one. (p.331)

23 Aug : #3Devision & #11Division arrived :: about 30,000

Presumably, saying "Japanese force fighting under 10,000 people before the arrival of first two devisions at 23 Aug" is true. 211.129.111.87 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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)   Fra  nkB  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)
 * Expanded.--Skyfiler 21:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Personally, I am a bit disturbed by the question, the millions of chinese soldiers did the fighting, and put it on one party or another does not make any sense. After all, it is a war between China and Japan. I do believe the GCD did little fighting, but just put things in perspective, GCD did not have a stable source of ammunition nor weaponry, it is impossible for them to go into a long sustained war against the Japanese.

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 00:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * I suppose we should use the NRA and IJA flags, then? -- Миборовский U 07:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 23:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 00:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 03:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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.

If I may, in Chinese it reads 國共合作, I think cooperation is the literal meaning.

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 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * These are my guesses.


 * Battle of Sinkow somewhere in Hubei?
 * Battle of Hsuchow see Battle of Xuzhou
 * Battle of Wuchang and Hankow see Battle of Wuhan
 * Battle of Southern Kwangsi Guangxi
 * Battle of Tsaoyang-Ichang see Battle of Zaoyang-Yichang
 * Battle of South Honan should be Henan
 * Battle of Shangkao see Battle of Shanggao
 * Battle of Southern Shansi Shansi->Shanxi
 * Battle of Chekiang-Kiangsisee Battle of Zhejiang-Jiangxi
 * Battle of Western Hupeh Hupeh->Hubei
 * Battle of Changteh see Battle of Changde
 * Battle of Central HonanHenan
 * Battle of Central Hunanambiguous
 * Battle of Kwangsi-Kewichow Guangxi-Guizhou
 * Battle of West Hupei Hubei
 * Battle of Chungyuang North China Plain?
 * Battle of Changteh Changde again??
 * Battle of Hunan ambiguous
 * Battle of Beijing-Hankow Rails ?
 * Battle of West Hopei Hebei
 * Battle of Changsa-Hengyang Changsha
 * Battle of Kweilin-Liuchow Guilin and Liuzhou?
 * Battle of Lungling Longling Yunnan
 * Battle of Tengchung Tengchong,Yunnan
 * Battle of Wanting Yunnan
 * Battle of North Hupei Hubei
 * Battle of West Honan Henan
 * Battle of West Hunan
 * Battle of Ninhsiang Ningxiang, Changsha?
 * Battle of Yiyang Yiyang,Hunan
 * Battle of Wuyang Wuyang,Hunan
 * Battle of Nanning
 * Battle of Liuchow Guilin and Liuzhou?
 * Battle of KweilingGuilin and Liuzhou?
 * Battle of Tengchung again?
 * Battle of Lungling again?
 * Battle of Beijing-Tientsin see Battle of Beiping-Tianjin
 * Battle of Linchi ?
 * Battle of North Ahnwei Anhui
 * Battle of West Shangtung Shandong
 * Battle of Lutsun?
 * Battle of Lienshui?
 * Battle of Laohoko Lankao?
 * Battle of Hsueh-Feng Shan Xuefeng Mountain
 * Battle of Hsihsiakao?
 * Battle of Xiushui River
 * Battle of Jehol Rehe?
 * First Battle of Hopei Hebei
 * Szechwan Invasion Sichuan
 * Battle of Pingxingguan

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


 * 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 23:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

GDP comparison definitely wrong
383,000 is 500 times of 770. Shouldn't it be 7,700, which is at least plausible? -- Миборовский U 00:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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 17:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg
 * Almost all photgraphs in war can be used for propagandistic effects. Take a look at the photo to the right. [ed. photo is now linked above.] 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 00:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

Actually, the Iwo Jima picture was not staged. True, it was the second flag raised on Suribachi, but the first was the battalion colors of the unit that first reached the summit. After a short time, the flag was taken down, so the battalion in question could retain it, and the much larger flag from the picture was put up, with cameramen ready. Hardly "staged for propaganda". Parsecboy 18:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

weird 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)

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.


 * It's got too many objects... break it into two sentences. Fra nkB 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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 02:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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 06:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * maybe a separate article on Chinese equipment. Go peruse that book :) BlueShirts 19:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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! Chūgoku Banzai! -- Миборовский U 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Will finish Lanfeng, well, some time. Maybe later tonight. Homework's suffering. -- Миборовский U 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * 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. Blue  Shirts  23:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 02:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. Tan KK (arguably one of my favouritest commies, probably because he built my school?) was also active within the Nationalist government. ;) -- Миборовский U 04:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 22:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mao once described the Communist as protecting the rear of a cow. Sure, the horns do the fighting, but if the enemy can attack the rear, then the horns are useless.  Basically, I think its fair to say that the Communist guerrila activities were not meant to be a major offensive strategy against the Japanese.  It would seem that they were more used to gain strength amongst the people in Japanese occupied people for the future Nationalist vs Communist war.  As noted, the Hundred Regiments campaign (which ended disastrously) was the last real effort by the CCP to seriously fight the Japanese.  Certainly the Japanese felt they had to remain a certain number of troops in guerrila affected territory, but they never really pursued any major campaigns against the guerillas.  Their focus was on the Nationalist and the other allied forces.
 * As for charity aid, Madame Sun Yat-sen put her support behind a pamphlet that requested help for those living in Communist held territories. The main reason for the aid? The Japanese? Not really.  The Nationalist, who had cordoned off the territory with troops and cut off aid and supplies.  I scanned in the pages of the booklet while at the National Archives at College Park, MD, if anyone would like to see the cover or what not. RebelAt 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * You're right. -- Миборовский U 23:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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))


 * There's a difference? -- Миборовский U 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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))


 * Uh, sure. But explain to me the difference, please. -- Миборовский U 06:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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))


 * Uh, if you're not associated with the military, then you're a civilian. But whatever. :D -- Миборовский U 22:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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))
 * not to mention Operation CARBONADO, which was the US-Chinese offensive that was going to start in late summer to liberate from the south. Blue  Shirts  19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about, look go here read this and you will see that Operation August storm played a much more bigger part then anything else From the 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))


 * CARBONADO and BETA were operations that were planned but were not carried through. -- Миборовский U 22:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * PS We should have articles for these. -- Миборовский U 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Skyfiler 21:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. -- Миборовский U 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians
This section seems kinda thrown in. Is there a way we could integrate what is needed from this list into the actual article, instead of just inserting it at the end? It looks tacked on and unnecessary as it is right now, which it shouldn't. 24.8.179.174 Max J

three-sided conflict template
We have an interesting new template &mdash; Template:Infobox Military Conflict (3 sided). Shall we use it here for the fact there were really three factions? Of course the overview in terms of casualties and strength would have to be segregated for the Second Sino-Japanese War alone though, hence harder to extract than simply using the Chinese Civil War overview. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Might be useful... --  Миборовский  02:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL it's five-sided: KMT, CCP, regional powers, Japan, collaborationist. But I don't think we need to make it more complicated, two sides is fine. BlueShirts  19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, I thought Wang Jingwei was on the sameside as the Japanese. There might be rival factions between Chiang and the warlords but IIRC there wasn't any significant fighting between them. Similarly in World War II the USSR and the United States were competing powers on the Allied side but they never really fought against each other until at least the conclusion of the war. The CPC however had its incidents and skirmishes with Nationalist forces. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wang had a lot of conflicts with the Japanese. His continuous efforts to consolidate his administration as Japan had promised were continuously dashed. He wasn't able to restore much sense of "normalcy" to the occupied areas because of these issues with Japan. He was obviously an opportunist, but not the evil chinese traitor which is the common perceptin of him. The regional forces had their conflicts with the central forces too. In fact, one glaring example is the failure of the chinese 1939 winter counteroffensive, caused by the regional warlords' reluctance to launch coordinated operations. It really showed how little command Chiang has over the regional forces. They didn't fight openly but very rarely did they cooperate with each other. BlueShirts  21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Two sides is fine enough. Although internally divided, the Chinese was formally fighting as a united front. The Communists force were (nominally) incorporated into the National Revolutionary Army. --AQu01rius 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, is there an article that goes into detail about the tenuous situation of Chiang's command, concerning regional warlords? I haven't uncovered anything yet that appears to be more than just a broad explaination.  And if not, could the National Revolutionary Army article be expanded to cover it or should a new article be created? ~ The Rebel At ~  12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

map?
does anyone have a map showing how much of China was controlled by nationalists and communists after the Japanese surrender in September 1945? I havent found a map which depicts this, the only ones I found start in 1946 like, or was the situation in sep 45 the same as in 46? --Astrokey 44 14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. Situation at the end of WWII in China 

Resistance and Revolution in China has some detailed maps showing the names of the communist areas and a detailed article. 

The "interesting note" in the casualties assessment
I think it should be left there. However, it is indeed quite interesting. This number of more than 8 million were killed for non military reasons. That is higher than the 6 million who were killed as a result of the Nazi Holocaust. Yet, the Holocaust is frequently taught in schools whereas the Sino-Japanese War as a whole (much less the slaughter of 8 million civilians) is barely mentioned.

As a Chinese person myself, I have the right to say the following: our people SUCK at marketing.

Goddamn Confucian legacies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik-the-red (talk • contribs)


 * I had meant to remove that, but somehow ended up bolding that line instead... subconsciously, I must be agreeing with it. But whatever. That is not the place to speculate on insinuate similarities between Nazis and Japan. -- Миборо в ский 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we can maybe add that Chinese casualties was the highest or the second highest during WWII. BlueShirts  04:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe. But death tolls for both China and USSR vary greatly in different estimates. It's best to just quote the death tolls followed by the sources, and let the reader draw his own conclusion. -- Миборо в ский 04:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist troops flooded 500,000-900,000 people?
The article for the Yellow River mentions the following: "In 1938, during the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Nationalist troops under the orders of Chiang Kai-Shek broke the dike holding back the Yellow River in order to stop the advancing Japanese troops. This resulted in the flooding of an area covering 54,000 km² and the death of 500,000-900,000 people."--Gkklein 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See 1938 Yellow River flood. The sentence is seemingly POV though, I will adjust it later. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 23:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

flags
I don't think it's appropriate to add us, uk, and ussr flags to the infobox. If we do that then we also have to add germany (1937-1938) and then it's gonna be really cluttered. These countries provided military aid and training (especially the US) at most, but did not commit combat forces on the chinese mainland. I think their role would be best described in the "foreign aid" section rather than listing them in the infobox. BlueShirts 04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See South-East Asian theatre of World War II. US and British forces co-operated extensively with the RoC in southern China and Burma. Soviet forces ditto in Operation August Storm. After 1941, this war was indistinguishable from the Pacific War. Grant65 | Talk 03:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Casualties
I removed the statement about the CCP because it didn't actually state any figures or estimates for CCP casualties. The point that was trying to be made, I think, that participation by the CCP was limited, but that they used their involvement to advance their political activities in their battle with the Nationalists and later proclaimed themselves as in the vanguard of the battle is made in a linked article on the Chinese Civil War. I see that there is a continuing debate on this discussion page about the role of the CCP which I don't propose to enter. This particular statement didn't add say anything about the topic. Meb53 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

“Loss of Outer Mongolia”
I have removed that line from the summary of territorial changes for the follwoing reasons: If you put it back in, please explain who lost Outer Mongolia in what way to whom. Wikipeditor 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have found no information to suggest that the Republic of China or any Chinese warlord wielded any power over Outer Mongolia at some point during the 1930s.
 * If it refers to the ROC's claim, then it is misleading insofar as actual control of the territory had already been lost before the war, and ROC claims to it have never changed, as can be seen from the ROC denying the Mongolian People's Republic membership in the United Nations in 1955.
 * If it refers to the renunciation of territorial claims by the People's Republic of China, it would be likewise misleading, as the PRC was not established until years after the war ended.


 * I asked the same thing before, and BlueShirts had something to say about it. I think he convinced me, so he'll probably convince you. Something about a deal brokered at Cairo (or somewhere) with the Soviets or something. -- 我♥中國 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance (August 1945, not the 1950 PRC one), the Soviet Union was to recognize the KMT central government as the legitimate government of China and respect Chinese sovereignity in Xinjiang and Manchuria. China on the other hand was to grant railway/port rights in manchuria to the soviets and also recognize independence of outer mongolia BlueShirts  07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Popular fiction
Is it true that popular fiction depiction of Sino-Japanese war is a bit "censored" in Mainland China and Japan? I mean, in Europe and U.S there has been alot of Hollywood type of computer games, movies and comic books that "glorify" the Second World War while the Second Sino-Japanese war is a bit "forgotten" somehow, even if Japanese are mentioned, its always about U.S vs Japan type of storyline. Is this war really considered sensitive or is it just a politic goodwill of an already strained Sino-Japanese relation?

hanchi 11 Januari 2007


 * To date I know of 3 game series that feature the 2SJW.


 * 1) Hearts of Iron series "鐵膽雄心" (available, but not openly in mainland China), English (and German, French etc, no Chinese)
 * 2) "Chinese Dragon" (抗日:血戰某某地) series, with installments in Shanghai, Burma etc, Time Crisis style shooter, in Simplified Chinese and available in mainland China
 * 3) "War of Resistance Against Japan"... "八年抗戰" a hex-based TBT with rather dated graphics... traditional Chinese, not sure about availability in mainland China.
 * -- 我♥中國 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also another point that should be taken into consideration: While the CPC (Chinese Capitalist Party) would like to exploit the 2SJW for its own purposes, they can't delve into the "how" too much. A person who grew up under the impression that "Chinese people destroyed the invaders, long live the Party!" will notice something amiss when their video games make them wonder "Hey, how come 'the Party' appears in only 1 out of the 30 missions???" As for Japan, it's simple. They lost the war. Why remember it? -- 我♥中國 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But the Germans seems to be "Okey" with the idea about the war, as it looks like they dont mind cooperating with other European nations in making a war movie (see Stalingrad a Russo-German movie). Also it looks like the Japanese doesnt mind to portray themself losing the war against U.S marines, while they tend to avoid any media portrayal about battles that fought in China. No wonder why the history books in the West tend to write that that the Chinese wasnt fighting at all and that it was "thanks all to the Americans" who won the war. Anyways I think someone mentioned that the reason why Mainland China didnt make any historical media portrayal about the war was because they actually do know that the war was mainly fought by the Nationalist Revolution Army, while Mao's army only fought two major battles. Shame, because I still think it would be a damn fine Call of Duty style game to play set in Sino-Japanese war, if only I was a owner of a software company.... By the war, although Heart of Iron focus mainly on the Allied side (pre Pearl Harbour), but I still think this game gives a fair and accurate view towards the Sino-Japanese war. China a political and military weak nation but got amazing resource and manpower, while Japan lack of resource and manpower but military strong. hanchi 12 Januari 2007


 * Germany has gone through thorough denazification, so there aren't much "glorification" of war in their movies. The Japanese on the other hand mostly focus on the pacific war against america, portraying themselves as fighting a losing but glorious war. And the sad thing is americans buy it because they know very little about the war in the far east. Filmmakers can talk about exotic things about "bushido" and "samurai spirit" and suddenly people will feel sympathy for these goddamn invaders. Plus you can also throw in the claim that the japanese were fighting western imperialism for asia or that they were forced to fight because of american embargo, and the western media eats it up. It's a pathetic phenomenon really, just shows how ignorant and easily swayed most people are. Most general history books in the west tend to portray the KMT as a reactionary force that lost to the communists, and because the KMT lost to the communists, the KMT must have done little in the war against Japan. This is really really sad. Although there are lots of western books that portray the KMT in the right light, these books are mostly specialist and you won't find them in regular bookstores. BlueShirts  05:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea if we can create a list of good books and films on the war and post it somewhere so people will have a better idea of resources out there that they can take advantage of. -- 我♥中國 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * chinese military task force looks like a good place to keep sources. BlueShirts  07:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * General sources yes, but for this specific war I think we can start here. Anyhow, I've already a small list of pretty good websites at the milhist task force page if anyone wants to take a look. -- 我♥中國 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything that comes out of China about any modern war is considered as "Propoganda", kinda piss me off somehow as Western army probably got the most biased coverage. Anyways while I was in Hong Kong, books about the Chinese army in Sino-Japanese war is hard to find as well... even though Hong Kong is somewhat "independent" with censorships in there, however I did find alot of books about the atrocities the Japanese caused, but I am kinda tired of reading about Chinese being a "victim" all the time, I want to see Chinese kick ass for once! However I did find some good books called "Resistance war the iron hearted German division" it got a long detail list of German advisor that came to China after Max Bauer (whom most of them are useless until Hans von Seckt and Falkenhausen appeared). Shame that my Chinese knowledge isnt that good as I would have bought that book and do a good read on it. hanchi 12 Januari 2007


 * Well, the unhealthy obsession with instances of national victimization is a result of the victim mentality of Chinese people worldwide. Until that changes, the prevailing trend will continue, and China during WW2 will continue to be known (to both Chinese and foreigners) as a country whose sob story is more important than tales of heroics and bravery. Sad, but true. -- 我♥中國 21:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see China kick Japanese ass read the article Hideoyoshi's invasions of Korea.CHSGHSF 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The truth is, when reading the articles in Wikipedia... it look like the Chinese did caused great causalties on the Japanese army in important and major battles... the japanese usually only win in small skirmish in which they won alot... However because of this it gives the impression of those Western Centric History books make it look like the Chinese didnt won a single fight instead they chickened out! This is really a big shame as only those in the west who either know how to read Chinese or got access to "special" books knows about the effectivness of the NRA... There is a book published similar to John Turnbull style of book that describe the Chinese army throughout 1936-1949... however the book is sadly a bit too "brief" on the army (Only one volume! While U.S army and Germans got almost like 10 volumes! Japan almost got like 3 volumes. Western Centric? Go figure), they didnt mentioned much about the Flying Tigers or the just too short on the German trained division and all the Germans who came to China, the only foreigners they talked about is Joseph Stillwell (as he is American and the book was written by an American, favoritism? No shit, Sherlock)... I wonder are people in the West afraid of admitting that Chinese also fought bravely in Second World War?

hanchi 25 January 18:11 Swedish time

Role of Religion during the War
Josh Baran's review of Brian Victoria's book Zen at War pointed out the significant role of Zen in Japan during that time. It seems that some soldiers relied on religion to deal with having to kill people. Baran mentions "Zen bushido in action" is "Killing as high art." I think Japanese religion were twisted to cope with the pollitical situation, and it had profound influence on soldiers, more than just mere propaganda. Therefore I question the necessity to include these information on this article or perhaps on another article will be more appropriate. -- 法網 ian 13:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember that in Japan throughout their samurai upbringing (dont forget that Meiji happened just 100 years ago in Japan and that Samurai society was still fresh amongs the people in japan), believed that those who lost in battle deserved to die and that they dont take prisoners (Nanking as an example)... also historically Samurai are known to burn and kill civilians on the opposing side (similar to the "Three all")... all the talk about Samurai Honor is just empty talk just like the European knight chivalry. So I dont think it is only about "religion" that caused the Japanese to commit atrocities... I think it also due to their long history of "Kill the weak" attitude amongs the Samurai class. User:hanchi 25 January

Holy POV, batman!
Much of this article reeks of POV, not to mention it's rife with spelling and grammar mistakes, redundancy, and contradictions. The majority of the "The Pacific War" section is unsourced and blatant POV. The phrase about Allied leaders losing faith in the Chinese Army is false; read the Ledo Road article for a good quote from Field Marshal Slim: "...I believed that, properly equipped and efficiently led, Chinese troops could defeat Japanese if, as would be the case with his Ledo force, they had a considerable numerical superiority...". Also, without sources, how is it possible to speculate on the reasons America preferred the island hopping campaign or the outrageous statement that the Allies wanted Japan to still be in possession of China at the war's end, so they could regain their colonial possesssions. There were no Allied peace-keeping zones like in Germany, so that argument is void. The claim that the USSR looted Manchuria is false as well; if they intended to simply give the equipment taken to the CPC, they would have simply left it there, not take it back to the USSR. The argument "British insistence that China send in...the gate to India from falling to Japan" is completely POV. It could be argued that the British wanted to reopen the Burma Road, with Chinese help. Unless there are documented sources stating that the British in fact wanted to use China to expand it's colonial holdings, it's blatantly POV to state it. The last sentence of the Pacific War section makes it sound like the Japanese moved out of Manchuria to make it easier on the Soviet invasion. At some point, I'll rewrite the section, post it here on the talk page, and as long as there are no objections, put it into the article. Parsecboy 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Allied leaders did lose interest in properly using the Chinese army to repel the Japanese from the Asian mainland. The China theater had always been on the low priority list and that's one reason China received so little supplies until spring 1945. During the SEXTANT, the allied supreme command and the southeast asian command had agreed on forcing a landing in Burma to push out the Japanese and secure a supply route to China, but this promise was broken as all the equipment embarked for Burma were instead allocated for England to prepare for D-Day, as a result of the Tehran Conference. Just because some generals like Stilwell/Mountbatten/Wedemeyer were enthusiastic about relying on the Chinese doesn't mean this enthusiasm transferred into reality. (from Wedemeyer Reports!) I don't know who wrote that the Allies wanted to Japan to occupy China by the war's end, but yeah, it sounds really outrageous. As for the Soviet dismantling of Manchurian industry, it was real. The Soviets removed tons and tons heavy machinery built by the Japanese in Manchuria and transported them back to the the USSR. I've seen it documented in Nationalist Era in China 1937-1949 and in the memoir of James Lilley (American ambassador who grew up in China), who saw the Soviets blasting holes in factory walls to remove the equipment. The soviets didn't give a damn about giving the equipment to the CCP, as it was for their own use. Seriously, this article could be a lot better. I had some idea about rewriting it about a year ago but never got the time to do it, but I've put it right here, I think the basic idea looks good. BlueShirts 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that many Allied leaders lost interest in using China, especially after the US started beating back the Japanese in the Pacific, I'm sure it seemed at the time a faster and more cost efficient route to defeat Japan, as opposed to building up a vast reserve of supplies and building up the Chinese Army for a decisive offensive against Japan. Part of the reasons China recieved little supplies prior to 1945 was that the Burma Road was closed, and the Ledo road wasn't finished until '45. Right, the Soviets just wanted to steal as much as they could for themselves, the same thing they did to East Germany at the end of the war. The CPC just came in and took what was left, including most of the weapons retreating Japanese forces left behind. Your notes look pretty good, for a rough outline. It'll probably be better to just rework the article as it is, as opposed to create a new one in a sandbox, as there is a lot of good information already here. Parsecboy 15:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the title of "the Pacific War" to "Entrance of Western Allies" because it fits the information contained therein better, and did some substantial rewording. Take a look at it, and we'll go from there. Parsecboy 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article needs some restructing. The section on Chinese Strategy seems redundant, as it covers whole eight years. I think it's better to go by chronological order. BlueShirts 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Chonological order would make more sense. Another thing that seems to be very cluttered and cumbersome is the "Major Figures" section. I think it would be better to leave that section out. A lot of the names don't belong there anyways, like Nagumo, Yamamoto, and Yamashita, who never did anything in China. The names should be worked into the battle articles for which they are important. Also, I think Mao, as the leader of the CCP should be 2nd from the top, underneath Chiang. Parsecboy 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

China/Republic of China & Taiwan/Formosa
Any interested editors please comment on the naming/nomenclature discussion at: Talk:Pacific_War Grant | Talk 13:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Full of anti-CCCP
The CCP sought to avoid direct conflicts with the Japanese Army in order to emerge from the war stronger than the Nationalist forces, so in the inevitable struggle for dominance, the CCP would be the victor. Thanks for mentioning the Nationalists purged and massacred Chinese Communists following the First United Front, and then ambushing the New Forth Army after the Second United Front. Hanfresco 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, put new comments on the bottom of the page, not the top. Secondly, if you see NPOV, be bold and fix it. Part of the problem is users like TAIWAN who are apparently vehemently anti-CCP and have an axe to grind. Perhaps I'm thinking of an earlier version, but I'm pretty sure the New 4th Army incident was mentioned. Parsecboy 12:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not from Taiwan (more exactly european born chinese), neither am I pro Democratic or pro Kuomingtang, as in my opinion both Communist and Kuomingtang was the sole reason for putting alot of suffering to "my" people in the early 20th century just to gain the selfish power of an already unstable China. But then again maybe that is our trait, the Chinese people, we dont care if our nation is being conquered or eaten up by foreign invaders (Huns, Mongols, Manchurians, Europeans and lastly Japanese)... as long as we got personal luxury, we dont care if there is 100 more Nanking Massacre appearing. Because of this selfish trait of ours, maybe thats how foreign power saw this as an opportunity to conquer us? Anyways in my opinion the sino japanese war isn't really fought by any political party or ideas.. but by millions of brave individuals of China united as one who either want to protect their home or just for revenge on the invaders. Similar with the brave Russian soldiers in the Eastern front, many of them surely didnt like Joseph Stalin or his political party members but since Stalin is the official figure head and also give the opportunity for an individual a way to take revenge and drive out the Germans, many of them signed up under Stalins name. I am pretty sure that many individuals in the Communist Army during the 2nd Sino-Japanese war   wanted to fight one on one with the Imperial Japanese as much as any Chinese who had suffered from atrocities in the past. At the end it doesnt matter which political party flag fought in the war, the war was fought by brave individuals of China armed with rusty weapons. hanchi 7 April 2007
 * Hi Hanchi, I really don't think "personal luxury" is the point here. There were two sides in China, Communists and Nationalists. When you have homework to do, do you do the one that's due tomorrow first, or do the one that's due in a week first? The two sides assessed the dangers, and compared to the Japanese, they viewed each other as bigger threats. Wouldn't it be awesome if Chiang never purged the Communists? I could totally picture a potential 2 party political system of Nationalists and Communists! Hanfresco 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I won't say this article is full of anti-cpc, but rather downplays their participation in the war. There is actually space for expansion in various fields, as better emphasis on the Hundred Regiments campaign (and the aftermath).  If I get the chance in the future, I'll try and do this, but folks are welcome to do so sooner. ~ (The Rebel At) ~  21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't mean "the entire article", but rather just the "motives" part. If you take Nationalist China had several goals: to resist Japanese aggression, to unite China under one central government, to rid China of foreign influence, to defeat communism, and to re-emerge as a strong country. and switch "Nationalist" with "Communist, and simply eliminate "to defeat communism", everything said would be true for the Communist agenda, too. Hanfresco 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a written doctrine by Mao and his view on the "efficiency of Guerilla warfare" during the war. Whether he really put alot of effort or not, but the text really do sound "true" about how to make use of Guerilla Warfare against someone with superior army but limited manpower. hanchi 9 April 2007


 * Guerrilla warfare against the Japanese was of limited military value, and Chiang Kai-shek was defeated by the communists not by guerrilla warfare, but by classic set-piece battles where the PLA front armies had concentrated artillery and all that stuff. That's how armies upon armies of KMT forces were annihilated. Blueshirts 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

External link problem
The external link: The Charlston Gazette Friday Jan 1st,1932 does not lead anywhere. Has the piece moved or does it no longer exist?

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, A concerened researcher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.151.44 (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

errors
one error must be the casualties listed for the Japanese as over 2 million. Is this casaulty, as in WIA and KIA, or just KIA? It seems really high either way, as the SIno-Jap War was not a high intensity war like that one being waged in Europe in WWII where the Germans and Soviets had comparable losses (the most violent theatre in history) to what is listed here. What is the source for this high number? JohnHistory 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Language
Be careful not to insinuate that Incedent is used to downplay what happened, when used by japan. It can be, in some circumstancves, however it is also the correct term in many.

Also, can we get a japanese translation for the war's name? And Chinese? 203.29.106.59 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are several translations for both Japanese and Chinese in the first section after the table of contents. Parsecboy 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Vladimirov
I wonder who can believe Vladimirov - not a diplomat, but a secret agent? His book (Special Region of China) was published as a blatant anti-Mao propaganda piece, as were dozens of so-called diplomatic memoirs (for instance, Berezhkov - Stalin's interpreter managed to serve propaganda twice with the same basic set of memories - once as a true Commie, and then in 1990 or sth like that - as a true anti-Stalinist anti-Commie). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.118.144.226 (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC).