Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War

Help Please

Someone help with the flags on the military info thingy --69.157.65.49 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Unknown

Someone please do some research on: 
" On 31 September 1931, two weeks after Imperial Japanese Army invaded Manchuria, CCP Central Commitee issued a manifesto, one of the sentence:" 
On which year did September have 31 days??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.232.17 (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 

...with Chinese and Allied victory in World War II

What "Chinese" victory is SSJW can we talk about? Japan surrendered due to the US's naval dominance and to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. To dispell any doubts about Chinese victory, let me remind you that before Soviet entry into the war some Japanese official planned to move government to continental Japanese possessions in the case of the American invasion of Home Islands. The words in info box should be changed to ...with Allied victory...
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User Paul Siebert, in mainland China where most of the major engagement between the NRA and the IJA, sadly speeking, a lot of time the NRA were like 17th century soldiers equipped with only swords and spears, whereas IJA soldiers were assisted by armor tanks, and all the modern weapons. The NRA did not, and could not win the war alone. Arilang ^talk 02:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Despite the inferiority of its equipment, the NRA had fought the Japanese to a stalemate on the mainland and contributed much to the Allied victory. Had the hundred-odd divisions tied down in China been used to invade the USSR, or to conquer British India, the history of the world would have been changed.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for disagreement. Without any doubts, the role of China in WWII was immense: had ROC surrendered in 1939-40 (what Japan expected) Japan would attack the USSR in 1941 and the subsequent world history would be quite different. However that adds nothing to the subject we discuss: China didn't win SSJW. From 1940 until the very end of the war it was a stalemate (the stalemate that allowed the Allies to win, but, nevertheless, it was a stalemate), and the info box must reflect that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that we even have a discussion/debate on something so obvious. I agree that Chinese "victory" is definitely a product of political propaganda. The US led alliance was what really defeated the Japanese and nothing China had done in the entire war with Japan could have been more effective in ending the war than the two atomic bombs the Americans dropped on Japanese soil. We evaluate victory base on who won the war at the end. It would be entirely China's victory if the Japanese were fighting the Chinese and Chinese alone. But history tells us that China had a lot of help, that was what Cairo Declaration was all about, joint declaration of big powers to give China some support! World war 2 Pacific theatre ended with Alliance victory, and Chna was lucky to be on the right side.

When there is more than one winning party, then we evaluate the contribution of each victor base on 2 things: track record of battles and objective achievement of the war. Chinese prior to foreign involvement won quite some battles with Japan, but were they significant? If we look at the Japanese objective of the war, they were after China's resourceful north east and the quality deep water ports on the coastline. 90% of what China has won between 1936 to 1942 had been inland, where Japanese could care less! The only one that is near the coast line would be Taierzhuang, but Japanese have maintained influence over ALL key strategic areas they wanted in China until the end of war. China's objective in the war was to drive Japan out of China, they did not do that until Japanese unconditionally surrendered to the allied forces. Chinese victory? A bit too cheeky if you ask me.151.151.21.104 (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

China didn't win SSJW. From 1940 until the very end of the war it was a stalemate (the stalemate that allowed the Allies to win, but, nevertheless, it was a stalemate), and the info box must reflect that fact.

Do you understand the criterion of "winning"? Winning is achieving your objective, which in China's case was to drive Japan out of China. And they did do so. Obviously the Chinese did win, cause if they lost, they would be a Japanese colony!! Are you trying to say that the Chinese lost the second Sino-Japanese war? Cause taking Chinese out of the "Victory" is a completely POV addition. If you are on the winning side of a war, you won it. Period. This is the most ridiculus and POV addition I've ever seen. And I'm not even going to respond to the IP, who is an anti-Chinese Taiwan Independance advocate who made numerous POV additions to the article, which I deleted.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor, you mentioned about seeking admin support. I implore you to please get them to involve IMMEDIATELY. Your personal attacks, relentless vandalism on qualified contribution within wiki edit guidelines, and lack of respect to the consensus of other editors deserve to be moderated. If you have nothing to say but to continue to revert the section back to a position that is endorsed by few and not even well referenced, then I will seek admin support to stop your abuse of privilege for the benefit of this article and future readers. The contribution I have made can be validated by various existing wiki pages, see history of Taiwan, and San Francisco Peace Treaty. Whereas the section you endorse is not even supported by any credible evidence. It is a Chinese position that Cairo Declaration has legal binding power to justify their claim on Taiwan, that alone is a biased POV, because the rest of the world honors the final decision made by San Francisco Peace Treaty that serves as THE legal instrument finalized the desposition of Taiwan and Penghu Islands. Even foremer Chinese premier Zhou Enlai and former president Nixon endorsed or acknowledged such position. If you want to argue against it, be my guest and you will be MORE than satisfied. If you are up to the challenge, you better bring it with some solid evidence along with lucid logic and none of that personall attack flavor. Calling another person an "anti-China Taiwanese independence advocate" is not going to give you any ounce of credibility. 151.151.7.56 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Winning is achieving your objective, which in China's case was to drive Japan out of China. And they did do so." No, they didn't. By the end of the war Japanese forces still were on Chinese territory. In addition, even in 1944, when the Axis was retreating in all other theatres, the Japanese were victorious in China (Ichi Go). Had Formosa became Chinese by the end of the war? Was Peking liberated by Chinese troops? Who drove Kwantung army from Manchuria? Did the Chinese seize lower Yellow River's basin by mid August? The events after Aug 15 (when major Japanese military activity had ceased) cannot be seriously considered victories because they were victories over the opponent that essentially stopped to fight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "If you are on the winning side of a war, you won it." Not correct. This article tries to separate SSJW from other threatres of WWII. Even Manchurian campaign was recently removed from the article. Let's be consistent: if the story the article tells is a story of fightings between Imperial Japanese Army and the army of ROC, then the result of these hostilities should be described accordingly, namely, that IJA won majority of decisive battles and Japan eventually surrendered due to defeats in other theatres. Period.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. Several editors disagree with your POV. Don't change info box until consensus is achieved on the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd to the extreme. ROC didn't win the war. Are you saying that the ROC lost the war? Cause that is what you're saying. If you won, you won. Saying the ROC was victorious in the war is not POV because they did win the war. Unless you mean by "winning the war" that they won by themselves, that is definitely not true. However, if you say they were victorious, yes they were. By the end of the SSJW, the Japanese surrendered and were driven out of China. Period.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am saying what I am saying, namely, that the result of SSJW, as a separate WWII treatre, was stalemate. In global scale, ROC, as a member of the victorious alliance, won WWII. None of these two statement can be interpreted as ROC lost SSJW. (In that sense, your statement is a straw man fallacy). However, two above statements, combined together, do not mean automatically that ROC won SSJW.

Re: "By the end of the SSJW, the Japanese surrendered and were driven out of China." So what? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Again. ROC was among the WWII victors, but it didn't win SSJW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Like China, Poland never surrendered officially and made considerable military contribution into the war against Germany. Does it mean that Poland won the war with Germany in 1939?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul, do you think we should include Treaty of Taipei in the box? Most war pages have the final peace treaty of the belligerents included in the box. Whether or not we know who won the SSJW, the fact is ROC and Japan did mutually agreed on termination of war and move onto settlement. What are your thoughts? 151.151.7.56 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Get a user name on wiki English if you are serious about making further significant edit changes DCTT (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that a wikipedia policy to require a user name before making serious changes to an article in accordance to the wikipedia policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.165 (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But Paul, Poland was completely overran by the Nazis and were unable to fight. But China was fighting all the way until they chased those Japs out.And as for your statement on Ichigo, Ichigo didn't rlly prove anything for the Japs but made them lose more men, more tanks, and materials. And after Ichigo, the Chinese launched several counter-offensives and took back the alot of the land that the Japs took from Ichigo and gonna drive up North to liberate Nanking (the capital of China back then) and Shanghai but didn't have the chance cause of the atom bomb. But if you really think about it, China would actually have some credit in the war.--Taiwandude   | —Talk contribs

A war which was a trap designed by USSR for poor China to fall into

1. Japan originally did not have a full plan to invade and occupy the whole China.
2. Japan's ultimate target was the USSR.
3. Stalin knew it all along, so he instructed his little brother Mao Tse-dong to make sure IJA would invade China and stayed there.
4. Both the CCP and the KMT were supported by the USSR at the beginning, the only differences is, Chiang Kai-shek was a more tradition Chinese, and Mao Tse-dong aimed for World domination through communist revolution
5. @Teen, if without The Hump, and Burma Road and Flying Tigers, Chiang Kai-shek would have been defeated by the Japs long time ago. Just look at the annual steel production of China in 1940s, you would know how backward China was then. Without steel, there would be no guns, no bullets, no ships, no airplanes, no nothing. And oil, in the 1940s, nearly 100% of oil was imported into China. When the eastern seaboard was under Japs blockade, and Burma Road was shut down, China could not last many months. Arilang ^talk 22:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

1 and 2: you sure? Sources? or just speculation? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

@benlisquare, right now I cannot verify my claim, but I shall be able to search for the sources for that claim. Arilang ^talk 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How did Stalin set up SSJW

How did Stalin set up SSJW

红色代理人引发中日全面战争

1937～1938 年 43～44 岁

一九三七年七月七日，卢沟桥事变爆发。月底，日本侵占了华北的两大主要城市：北平和天津。蒋介石没有对日宣战，他还不想打一场全面战争。实行蚕食政策的日本在这时也没有计划把战火引向华北以外的中国内地。

可是，几个星期的工夫，中日全面战争就在一千公里以南的上海打响了。这既不是蒋介石的意思，也不是日本人的意思。这时在上海的驻兵情况是：根据“一.二八” 停战协定，中方只驻有“保安队”，日本约有三千海军陆战队。日本在八月中的计划仍是“陆军仅派至华北”，“勿须陆军出兵上海”。

《纽约时报》 (New York times)驻华记者阿本德(Hallett Abend)事后写道：“当时记者报导时都说是日本人進攻上海，事实完全相反。日本人不想、也没有估计到，在长江下游会有敌对行动。……对在上海打仗，他们几乎完全没有准备，迟至八月十三日，他们在这里的部队还如此之小，十八、九日的时候差点被扫進江里去了。”阿本德看出来，“有那么一个精明的计划要打乱日本把战火局限在华北的企图”。他说对了，是有这么一个“精明的计划”，但他没猜到这是谁的计划，他以为是蒋介石的，其实是斯大林的。

对斯大林来说，日本迅速占领全华北是对他的空前威胁。日本大军现在完全可能北進，沿著几千公里的边境线進攻苏联。斯大林已经宣布日本是苏联的头号敌人。现在，他起用了一个长期潜伏在国民党高层的红色代理人，在上海引发中日全面战争，把日本拖進广大的中国腹地，离苏联远远的。

这个代理人就是张治中将军。他成为红色代理人要追溯到一九二五年，他在苏联援建的黄埔军校当教官时。黄埔军校一建立，莫斯科就致力于在那里安插自己人。张治中在回忆录里说，那时他“完全同情共产党这一边”，被目为“红色教官”、“红色团长””。他向周恩来提出参加共产党，周在“请示组织后”告诉他，要他留在国民党内，“稍待适当时机”，说“中共保证今后一定暗中支持你，使你的工作好做。”三十年代中，张治中跟苏联使馆，特别是武官雷邦，保持著密切的秘密联系。

卢沟桥事变后，正在青岛养病的京沪国防区负责长官张治中，马上返回南京，就任京沪警备司令官要职。这时他开始竭力劝蒋介石在远离华北的上海主动发起大战： “先发制敌”，“先下手为强”。蒋介石没有答应。上海是中国的工业和金融中心，蒋不想“破坏上海”。而且上海旁边就是首都南京，蒋介石不想轻易放弃。当时蒋已经把军队从上海周围调走，以便不给日本人藉口在这里开战。七月底，日本占领平津后，张治中又打电报要求“首先发动”，列举了四种日本调兵来上海的征候，作为首先发动”的前提。蒋介石的答覆是：在有这些征候的情况下，可以先发制人，但什么时候发动，“时机应待命令。”

八月九日，经张治中一手挑选的派驻上海虹桥机场的部队，打死日本海军陆战队官兵各一人，然后给一个中国死囚犯穿上中方制服，把他打死在机场大门口，以造成日本人先开火的假象。日本人的表现是希望大事化小，小事化了，但张治中以“上海的形势突然告急”为理由，率大批军队在十二日清晨占领上海，定于十三日拂晓向上海日军发起攻击。蒋介石两次去电叫他“不得進攻”，要张“再研讨”攻击计划，“不可徒凭一时之愤兴”。张十四日电蒋：“本军决于本日午后五时，对敌开始攻击。” 但张午后三时就提前下达了总攻击命令。四时，炮兵、步兵一齐進攻。*

• 同一天，中国飞机轰炸了日本军舰。据现有材料，蒋介石没有下轰炸的命令。蒋五时后来电说：“今晚不可進攻。另候后命。”张治中只得服从。他选择了另一条路把蒋逼上梁山。

十五日，他越过蒋直接向报界发表声明。他先称日本“侵沪舰队突以重炮轰击闸北，继以步兵越界袭我”，再说他决心反击，“洗雪国耻收复失地”。在高涨的抗日情绪下，一直不愿在上海跟日本人大打的蒋介石不得不于第二天下令：“预定明拂晓全线总攻击。”

但蒋介石实在是不愿意打，十八日，他又传令停攻。张治中不予理睬，十九日继续進攻。二十二日，大批日本增援部队到来，全面战争终于不可避免。

蒋介石被拉進来后，下定决心大打。全国一百八十个师中最精锐的七十三个被投進战场，四十多万人几乎打光。这场战役重创了蒋最看重的年轻的空军，摧毁了大部分的主力舰只。蒋介石从三十年代初辛辛苦苦建立起来的现代武装被大大削弱。日本方面的伤亡也有大约四万人。

一旦中日全面开战，斯大林立刻大规模援蒋，以保证蒋能打下去。苏联跟南京政府签订了互不侵犯条约，开始向中国提供武器。中国当时只能制造步枪一类的轻武器。莫斯科给蒋两亿五千万美金的贷款买苏联军火，包括坦克、大炮和一千来架飞机。还派了一支飞行队，* 数百名军事顾问，领队的是后来在斯大林格勒战役中出了名的崔可夫将军(Vasili Chuikov)。在往后的四年里，苏联是中国的主要军火来源。

• 从一九三七年十二月到一九三九年底，两千多名苏联飞行员在中国执行战斗任务，击毁一千来架日本飞机，甚至轰炸了日本占领的台湾。

中日全面战争使莫斯科欣喜若狂。外交部长李维诺夫(Maksim Litvinov)当即对法国副总理布拉姆(Leon Blum)说，他和苏联“都对日本向中国开战感到开心极了，苏联希望中日战争打得越久越好。”

为了保护这位贡献巨大的红色代理人，斯大林把和张治中直接联系的苏联大使鲍格莫洛夫与武官雷邦随即召回国，处死灭口。愤怒、无奈的蒋介石当然怀疑张的真实身分，开战后不久就逼他辞了职。但蒋介石为了自身的利益像对待邵力子一样继续使用他。一九四九年蒋逃往台湾时，这两位都留在大陆。

中日全面战争的爆发立即给毛泽东带来了好处：蒋介石答应了他迄今为止在谈判中始终坚决拒绝的条件，即让红军成立独立的指挥部。虽然名义上红军受蒋介石统一指挥，但蒋不能发号施令，只能提“要求”。中共现在合法化了，可以在国民党地区开设办事处，出版报纸，政治犯也被释放。

持续八年、夺去两千万中国人生命的日本侵华战争，带给毛征服中国的机会：蒋介石的政权被极大削弱，毛占领了大片土地，建立起一支一百三十万人的大军。抗战开始时，国共军队的比例是六十此一，结束时是三比一。

全面战争打响之后，斯大林命令中共积极参战，严厉告诉中共不跟国民党认真合作不行，不能给蒋介石任何藉口不抗日。

在西北的四万六千红军编成“八路军”三个师，朱德任总司令，彭德怀是副总司令。在华中的一万余长征时留下的人，编成“新四军”由项英领导。八月下旬，八路军开始东渡黄河，向几百公里外的山西前线挺進。将士们满怀热情要打日本，大多数中共领导人也想积极抗日。

但毛泽东不这样想。他不把中日战争看作是中国抗击日本，而是三国逐鹿，如他多年后在政治局常委会上所说：“蒋、日、我，三国志。”日本侵略是借日本的力量打垮蒋介石的大好机会。他多次感谢日本人“帮了我们一把”。

毛并没有幻想反共的日本在打垮蒋介石后会放过他，也没有办法独自对付强大的日本，他寄希望的是第四者：苏联。一九三六年毛曾对斯诺说，苏联“不能对远东的事态漠不关心，采取消极的态度”，“它会坐视日本征服全中国，把中国变成進攻苏联的战略基地呢，还是会帮助中国人民反对日本侵略者，赢得独立，与苏联人民建立友好的关系呢？我们认为苏联是会选择后一条道路的。”

在整个抗日战争中，毛泽东的战略就是把苏联军队拉進中国，为他打江山。在这一天到来前，他保存扩大中共军队的地盘。开战后，毛坚持红军不参加正面战场的战斗，只在侧面做游击队协助，蒋介石同意了。其实毛连侧面袭击也不想做，他命令指挥官们等日本军队击溃国民党军继续往前推進时，在日军后方占领土地。日军无法守卫他们攻取的，远远超过日本本土面积的地域，他们只能控制铁道线和大城市，小城镇和广大乡村就任毛抢夺了。不仅占地，毛还命令他的部队大力收编溃散的国民党军队，“及时抓一把”。总之，毛的主意是乘日本人前進的东风扩军占地，“让日本多占地，才爱国，否则变成爱蒋介石的国了。”

毛不断给指挥官们发电报说，要“以创造根据地为主”，“而不是以集中打仗为主”。日军席卷过山西时，毛下令：“在山西全省创立我们的根据地。”

毛的政策引起中共将领的抵制，他们想打日本。九月二十五日，八路军打响了它抗战的第一枪。林彪指挥的部队在山西东北部平型关，打了一场埋伏战，伏击日本一支运输队的尾巴。虽然这是场小仗，打的也不是战斗部队，而且据林彪说大部分敌人在睡觉，这毕竟是共产党军队首次(在东北以外)击毙日本人。要是依了毛，平型关之战根本打不起来。林彪一九四一年在苏联治疗枪伤时向共产国际报告说：“在日本军队跟国民党军队开战时，我不止一次请求中央同意出击日军。但没有接到任何答覆，我只好自作主张打了平型关那一仗。

毛反对打这一仗。打是“帮了蒋介石的忙”，无助于扩张共产党的地盘。但公开地，为了宣传，毛把平型关之战夸张成一场巨大的胜利，证明共产党比国民党更热中抗日。“平型关”成了家喻户晓的名字。虽然平型关打死的日本人最多不过一两百，但这是中共在抗战前期几年中打的唯一一次稍具规模的仗。林彪三年后报告共产国际说：中共“直到今天还在用这场战斗做宣传，我们所有的文章里都只有这场战斗好提”。

八路军还打了几场小胜仗，都是做国民党部队的帮手。这过程中，毛不断掣肘，要八路军集中精力占领地盘。十一月中旬，第一块日军后方的根据地成立了，叫晋察冀，有一千二百万人口，远多于陕甘宁。后来日本人就侵略中国向毛道歉时，毛说：日本的侵略使中共“建立了许多抗日根据地，为解放战争的胜利创造了条件。所以日本军阀、垄断资本干了件好事，如果要感谢的话，我宁愿感谢日本军阀。”

斯大林为了贯彻要中共打日本的政策，一九三七年十一月，用飞机把中共驻共产国际的代表王明送回延安。临走前，斯大林召见他说：“现在的中心是抗日，抗战结束后我们再来打内战。”

大多数中共领导人跟斯大林意见一致。在十二月政治局会议上，王明成了“先打日本”这一政策的代表。会议决定八路军一定要跟蒋介石合作，接受有中共参加的国民政府最高军事当局的统一领导。毛要八路军不接受蒋介石指挥，但他知道王明代表的是斯大林的意见，不敢一味坚持。

中共领导们知道毛的真实想法，不愿继续由他做领袖。莫斯科这时要中共开第七次党代表大会，因为距“六大”已有十年。政治局会议推选在未来“七大”上作政治报告的人，不是毛，而是王明。共产国际的规矩是党的第一号人物作政治报告，这等于说众人心目中的领袖是王明，不是毛。

虽然毛这时是中共实质上的领袖，莫斯科也认可他，但他的身分还没有正式固定下来，还没有个第一把手的名称。在中共高层人物中，毛也不具备无可争议的权威。毛的盟友刘少奇当时说：“我们还没有中国的斯大林，任何人想作斯大林，结果是画虎不成。”

毛还失去了对中共核心“书记处”的控制。王明回国，项英出山，书记处如今九个成员都到齐了，其中五个站在毛的对立面。为首的是王明，其他人中，项英讨厌毛，张国焘仇恨毛，博古跟周恩来也因为希望打日本而支持王明代表的政策。另外三人是张闻天、陈云、康生。

说一口流利俄文的王明见过斯大林，与各国共产党领袖都是朋友，在克里姆林宫的场面上混得很熟--更不用说他野心勃勃，也是一个无毒不丈夫的人物。在苏联的大清洗中，他曾把许多在苏联的中共党员送進监狱，甚至送上刑场。虽然他长了张娃娃脸，矮矮胖胖，但这个三十三岁的年轻人气宇轩昂，充满自信，自知他的话具有莫斯科的权威。他对毛构成了极大的威胁。

此后几十年，毛念念不忘一九三七年十二月，不时念叨王明如何回国夺了他的权。与此成鲜明对照的是，他一次也没提过当时发生的另一件事：“南京大屠杀”。据有人估计被杀的中国平民和被俘的军人高达三十万。毛泽东从来没有对他的同胞在日军手里惨遭杀害表示过任何愤怒。

南京是十二月十三日失陷的。蒋介石把长江重镇武汉作为临时首都。十八日，王明赶去那里做中共代表，周恩来和博古做他的副手。他们跟蒋介石建立了良好的工作关系。中共军队指挥员也到那里去跟国民党联络会商，一时间武汉取代延安成了中共的中心。毛后来耿耿于怀地把他当时在延安的地位叫做“留守处”。其实，毛并没有坐在那里发呆，他乘机做了件大事，把延安建成他的一统天下。

毛一个劲儿地给中共将领发电报，阻止他们遵从以蒋介石为首的军事委员会的指挥，哪怕中共将领们也在军事委员会内，也参加决策。一九三八年二月，朱德来电说八路军总部将根据决策东移至山西东南。毛要他把部队带回来，声称日本人要進攻延安。事实上，日本从来没有考虑过打延安，只偶尔轰炸过几次。日本人要的是有经济价值、能够养战的地方。朱德婉言拒绝返回，说毛情报里的日军动作 “是佯动，用来引诱八路军西渡黄河，回师陕北”，言外之意是毛上了日本人的当。毛坚持要朱德和彭德怀回延安，三月三日的一封电报特别说：“尤其你们二人必须回来”。朱、彭回电婉转而坚定地说“不”，带军东去。

为了制止毛的这类命令，政治局在二月底再次碰头。开会还有个原因。一月，根据毛的指示，晋察冀根据地政府未经蒋介石许可，公开宣告成立。这在国民党地区引起轩然大波，人们问：抗战有什么意思？“抗战胜利后还不是共产党的天下？” 王明和在武汉的中共领导人都对毛十分气愤，认为毛这样做太咄咄逼人，太刺激国民党。

政治局会议上，大多数人支持王明，再次确认他在即将召开的“七大”上作政治报告。政治局决议说要抗日就必须要“统一纪律”、“统一作战计划”、“统一作战行动”，中共军队必须“受最高统帅及军事委员会的统一指挥”。决议还说：“今天，只有日本法西斯军阀及其走狗汉奸托派等才企图打倒国民党。”

这些话是莫斯科的口径，也是致命的罪名。毛很清楚他是不可能指望斯大林对他开恩的，于是他聪明地表示接受“先打日本”的政策，发电报给八路军指挥宫，说他对他们的行动将“不加干涉”。同时，毛采取措施防止莫斯科发现他的真实立场。十二月政治局会议结束时，他曾派人以安全为名，收去了所有与会者的笔记，使万一有人要向莫斯科告状也没有白纸黑字作证。当中共要派人去苏联时，毛的人任弼时得到这份差事。任弼时告诉共产国际，毛的抗战政策跟他们没有区别。

苏军总参谋部安德利亚诺夫(V.V.Andrianov)这时秘密前来延安，带给毛一大笔钱：三百万美金，相当于今天的差不多美金四千万。* 钱是用来发展红军打日本的，斯大林说红军应当“不是三个师而是三十个师”。毛宣称他的打算正是集中大部队“打运动战”。说他努力要跟国民党合作，只是国民党不愿意。为了表示抗日的热情，毛甚至声称日本人不经打，比国民党还容易打。

• 王明还在莫斯科时，对共产国际说毛“不断给我打电报说他们急需钱，要你们继续每月寄钱”。

毛不得不向斯大林积极表态。他不会看不出，一年来莫斯科明显地降低了对他的赞颂，在庆祝“十月革命”的重要讲话里公开批评了他领导下的中共。

自西安事变以来，斯大林就怀疑毛是“日本奸细”。共产国际内跟毛打过交道的人大都被抓了起来。在毛的黑材料里，有一份说曾在中国活动的苏联高级间谍马尼科夫 (Boris Melnikov)是他的发展人。斯大林在克里姆林宫亲自审问马尼科夫。被捕的共产国际情报负责人皮亚尔涅斯基(Osip Piatnitsky)，在供词中称毛是“布哈林集团”成员。布哈林是共产国际前总书记，罪名之一是为日本人搞情报。毛还被指控为“中共核心”内“托派” 领袖”。中国“托派”对斯大林来说都是日本特务。马尼科夫和皮亚尔涅斯基，以及一大群在中国工作过的苏联情报人员，后来都被枪毙。

毛的前途危机四伏。

http://www.open.com.hk/Mao_CNotes19-21.htm#19

P.171 蔣沒有宣戰： 《總統蔣公大事長編初稿》，第 1144 頁 。 日本計劃： 馬振犢，〈「八一三」淞滬戰役起因辯正〉，見《近代史研究》， 1986 ， 6 ，第 214-216 , 220-221 頁； ▲ 日本防衛廳戰史室編撰，天津市政協摘譯，《日本軍國主義侵華資料長編》， 1 ，第 334-336 , 360-361 頁。 阿本德： Abend, p. 245 . 對斯大林的空前威脅： 見日本防衛廳戰史室編撰，天津市政協摘譯，《日本軍國主義侵華資料長編》， 1 ，第 334-336 , 360-361 頁； ▲Mirovitskaya 1999 ,pp. 41 ff ； ▲Haslam, pp. 88 ff.

P.172 在黃埔軍校： 《張治中回憶錄》，第 664-665 頁。 與蘇聯使館秘密聯係 ， 是紅色代理人： 訪問兩位知情人， 1997-9-13 ， 1998-9-7 . 「先發制人」等： 張治中致南京電， 1937-7-30 ，見《張治中回憶錄》，第 117 頁。 蔣介石態度： 南京回電，同上，第 116 頁； ▲ 史說，〈八一三淞滬抗戰記略〉，見中國人民政治協商會議全國委員會文史資料研究委員會編，《八一三淞滬抗戰 ── 原國民黨將領抗日戰爭親歷記》，第 90 頁。 虹橋機場事件： 《張治中回憶錄》，第 117 頁； ▲ 劉勁持，〈淞滬警備司令部見聞〉，見中國人民政治協商會議全國委員會文史資料研究委員會編，《八一三淞滬抗戰 ── 原國民黨將領抗日戰爭親歷記》，第 41-42 頁； ▲ 史說，〈八一三淞滬抗戰記略〉，見同上，第 91 頁； ▲ 董昆吾，〈虹橋事件的經過〉，見《文史資料選輯》， 2 ，第 131-132 頁。 張要在十三日進攻： 《張治中回憶錄》，第 120-121 頁； ▲ 中國第二歷史檔案館編，《抗日戰爭正面戰場》，第 265 頁。 蔣兩次去電制止： 《張治中回憶錄》，第 121 頁； ▲ 秦孝儀主編，《中華民國重要史料初編 ── 對日抗戰時期》， 2 ， 2 ，第 169 頁。 張十四日電蔣： 中國第二歷史檔案館編，《抗日戰爭正面戰場》，第 287 頁。

P.173 蔣五時後來電： 見《張治中回憶錄》，第 123 頁。 張十五日通電： 見《張治中回憶錄》，第 123-124 頁。 蔣十六日下令： 見秦孝儀主編，《中華民國重要史料初編 ── 對日抗戰時期》， 2 ， 2 ，第 170 頁。 蔣十八日傳令停攻： 《張治中回憶錄》，第 125 頁。 張十九日繼續進攻： 同上，第 125-126 頁。 日本增援二十二日到： 同上，第 126 頁； ▲ 《總統蔣公大事長編初稿》，第 1150 頁。 斯大林大規模援蔣： Garver, pp. 40-41 ； ▲ DVP vol. 22 ( 1939 ), book 2 ,pp. 507-508, n. 27 ； ▲Mirovitskaya 1999 ,pp. 41 ff ； ▲Vartanov. 李維諾夫說： 見 FRUS 1937 , vol. 3 ,p. 636 (Bullitt to Washington, 23 Oct. 1937 ) ； ▲ 參見 Haslam, pp. 92 , 94 . 大使 、 武官被處死： Slavinsky 1999 ,pp. 123-126 ； ▲ 參見 Dimitrov （季米特洛夫日記） , 1937-11-7 (Stalin to Dimitrov) ； ▲Tikhvinsky 2000 ,pp. 136 , 154-155 (Stalin to Yang Jie). 蔣逼張辭職 ：《張治中回憶錄》，第 133-136 頁。

P.174 立即帶給毛的好處： 參見黃修榮編著，《抗日戰爭時期國共關係紀實》。 斯大林令中共積極參戰： Avreyski, pp. 282-284 ； ▲Grigoriev 1982 ,p. 42 . 「三國志」： 見李銳，《廬山會議實錄》，第 223 頁。 毛對斯諾說： 1936-7-16 , 見 MRTP vol. 5 ,p. 262 ； ▲ 《毛澤東自述》，第 112-113 頁。

P.175 蔣同意紅軍獨立遊擊戰： 黃修榮編著，《抗日戰爭時期國共關係紀實》，第 264 頁； ▲ 《周恩來年譜：一八九八～一九四九》，第 377 頁。 毛給紅軍指揮員的電報： 見《毛澤東軍事文集》， 2 ，第 44 , 53 , 59-61 ， 65-66 ， 116-117 頁等。 「讓日本多佔地」： 李銳，《廬山會議實錄》，第 223 頁； ▲ 參見毛 1965-1-9 對斯諾的談話， Snow 1974 ,p. 169. 大部分敵人在睡覺： 林彪對 Hanson 說，見 Hanson 1939 ,p. 104. 林向共產國際報告： 1941-2-5 ，季米特洛夫上報斯大林，見 RGASPI 495 / 74 / 97 ,pp. 1304-1305. 毛對平型關態度： 同上； ▲ 見李銳，《廬山會議實錄》，第 223 頁； ▲ 章學新主編，《任弼時傳》，第 408-410 頁。

P.176 「感謝日本軍閥」： 1961-1-24 , 見《毛澤東外交文選》，第 460-461 頁 ； ▲ 毛對日本共產黨代表團談話， 1966-3-28 ，見 Kojima, p. 207 . 斯大林的政策： Dimitrov （季米特洛夫日記）， 1937-11-11 ； ▲Tikhvinsky 2000 ,p. 151 ( 斯大林提到他於 1937-11-18 再次約見王明 ). 準備開七大： 政治局決議， 1937-12-13 ，見中央檔案館編，《中共中央文件選集》， 11 ，第 405-407 頁。 王明將作政治報告： 《胡喬木回憶毛澤東》， 第 367 頁。 劉少奇當時說： 1937-3-4 ，見中共研究雜誌社編，《劉少奇問題資料專輯》，第 1 頁。

P.177 「留守處」： 見李銳，《廬山會議實錄》，第 329 頁； ▲ 《蕭勁光回憶錄》，第 200-208 頁。 毛 - 朱電報： 見金沖及主編，《朱德傳》，第 437-442 頁； ▲ 《毛澤東軍事文集》， 2 ，第 177 頁。

P.178 「統一紀律」等： 「三月政治局會議的總結」， 1938-3-11 ，見中央檔案館編，《中共中央文件選集》， 11 ，第 430-465 頁。 「不加干涉」： 1938-3-8 ，見《毛澤東軍事文集》， 2 ，第 190 頁。 收去筆記： 王明給毛的信， 1950-8-17 ，見曹仲彬 、 戴茂林，《王明傳》，第 381 頁。 任弼時告訴共產國際： 任的報告， 1938-4-14 ，見 Titov, vol. 3 ,pp. 234 ff, 249-250 ； ▲ 參見 Avreyski 1987 ,pp. 322 , 333-334 ； ▲ 中國人民解放軍政治學院黨史教研室編，《中共黨史教學參考資料》， 16 ，第 45-55 頁。 安德利亞諾夫 - 毛： Titov, vol. 3 ,pp. 124 , 197-200 , 229-233 ； ▲ 參見 Lurye & Kochik, p. 334 (Andrianov 's career). 「 …… 三十個師」： 斯大林對王明的談話， 1937-11-11 ，見 Dimitrov （季米特洛夫日記）， 1937-11-11 . 莫斯科批評中共： Mif, p. 100 ； ▲Nikiforov, pp. 115 , 116 . 腳註： 王明致「 Moskvin 」 (Trilisser), 1937 年 9 月，見 Ovchinnikov, p. 10 . 毛的黑材料： Vaksberg, pp. 220-221 , 235 ,cf. 212 ff ； ▲cf. Piatnitsky, pp. 133-134 . P.179 共產國際清洗： Piatnitsky, esp. pp. 78-79 , 92 , 108 , 117 , 120-124 ； ▲ Vaksberg, pp. 218 ff.

http://peacehall.com/forum/200908/boxun2009a/86163.shtml

To be translated:

斯大林为了贯彻要中共打日本的政策，一九三七年十一月，用飞机把中共驻共产国际的代表王明送回延安。临走前，斯大林召见他说：“现在的中心是抗日，抗战结束后我们再来打内战。”

大多数中共领导人跟斯大林意见一致。在十二月政治局会议上，王明成了“先打日本”这一政策的代表。会议决定八路军一定要跟蒋介石合作，接受有中共参加的国民政府最高军事当局的统一领导。毛要八路军不接受蒋介石指挥，但他知道王明代表的是斯大林的意见，不敢一味坚持。 Arilang ^talk 22:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's a forum. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Arilang1234, please don't believe everything you read.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

More evidence

Template:Zh icon特別是目前帝國主義國民黨已經開始反蘇聯的戰爭，軍國主義實是攻打蘇聯最有力的工具，因此，我們必須把反軍國主義與反帝國主義進攻蘇聯的鬥爭放在自己活動的前列，準備一切力量，動員廣大的青年群眾一致起來準備武裝保護蘇聯。

維基文庫 青年反帝國主義鬥爭決議案

Weapons, Weapons, Weapons

Must read internet forum

二战中中国的贡献就是做了战略大泥淖，但是却没有能力把泥淖中日寇消灭。从军事看，中国确实比不上苏联，苏联即使德国陷进来，也最终将其消灭；也比不上美国，西欧战场、太平战场美国是绝对主力。但除此二家，中国对二战的贡献绝对在其它国家之上，就是英国也不能比。英国得到的美援是中国的几十倍，而它奋战的基本是西欧一隅；而中国却是奋战在广阔的东亚大陆。

至于中国最后没有能力与强敌决战决胜，这确实是历史的遗憾，但却怪不得任何人。以中国这样的一个落后的农业国，没有大规模的工业制造能力，如何能与机械化的强敌在大平原、海洋决战？所以中国的业绩在反攻阶段看上去逊色其实是历史的必然，非人力所能挽回。

但即使如此，中国的抗战业绩也是相当出色的，因为中国的抗战时间最长，而付出的人命代价和经济代价都要远小于只抗战了四年的苏联。如果再考虑到中国抗战的实际领导人所面临的各国所无的特殊困难，我认为中国已经是创造奇迹了。 http://club.cat898.com/newbbs/dispbbs.asp?boardid=1&star=4&replyid=2603507&id=2451847&skin=0&page=1

Arilang ^talk 06:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

：中国的贡献对比一下法国就很明了。一个发达的工业国家仅仅几个月在大半国土尚存的情况下就投降了。中国穷，落后，军力不行，还被日军杀得那样惨，但却坚持到了最后。 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.164.133 (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Must read internet forum 2

事实上，日本将卢沟桥事件扩大为华北事变之时，是绝对没有想到，这会是中日之间历史大决战的开始。当时日本的参谋本部坚决认为，日本的世仇大敌绝对是苏联，而日苏之间的历史决战随时可能展开；其次是日、美之间的矛盾，也开始升高到有爆发军事冲突的可能，因此日本应该尽量减少在华的军事行动，但是为了扩大与苏联决战的战略纵深，日军最多可以考虑攻占中国的内蒙与华北。就可立刻设法结束中国事变，而全力为与美、苏的决战准备。但是来自陆军省的看法是，日军在华北，最多只要经过一场或是几场主力决战，它就可以迫使中国放弃抵抗意志，而任日本予取予求。当时日本政府的如意算盘如下：最好的情况是在日军攻占平津之后，中国就被迫接受日本的和平条件，让冀、察特殊化，日本就顺势攻占内蒙，控制华北。不然日军可在黄河以北，捕捉并歼灭华军的主力兵团，顺带攻占内蒙古，中国也必然屈服。最坏的打算是，主力仍在华北决战，但是另外派兵直接攻击长江三角洲，拿下中国的工业、金融与政治中心（上海、南京），那么中国绝对会投降的。但是日本绝对没有想到，它就是封锁了中国所有的海岸线，又深入攻占通往四川的外围，中国仍然不放弃作战的意志。

www.tianya.cn/publicforum/content/worldlook/1/225091.shtml Arilang ^talk 18:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Must read article from CCP official website

在远东，日本帝国主义加紧侵华，同时对苏联造成了威胁。英、美帝国主义期望把日本侵华的祸水引向苏联，苏联则力图在中国筑起阻挡这股祸水溢向苏联的大坝。苏联在中国的战略目标是希望中国进行抗日战争，长期拖住日本，从而使日本无力进攻苏联，以便使苏联能够集中精力对付德国法西斯的侵略。从这一战略目标出发，苏联希望建立以蒋介石为中心的抗日民族统一战线，以阻滞日本的侵苏野心。苏联认为，在中国只有国民党有力量，只有他们能得到英美的同情和支持；而中国共产党正好相反，既没有力量，又得不到英美的同情和支持。因此，苏联政府虽然不赞助蒋介石反共，但更惧怕蒋介石联日。经过权衡利弊，苏联谴责西安事变及其发动者张学良和杨虎城，力促西安事变的和平解决，避免中国再爆发内战，以实现自己的战略意图。

http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64162/64172/64915/5120619.html

Arilang ^talk 01:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Roosevelt and Stilwill tried to take over Chiang Army?

With the rapid deterioration of the China front after Japnese launched Operation Ichi-Go in 1944, Stilwell saw this as an opportunity to gain full command of all Chinese armed forces, and convinced Marshall to have Roosevelt send an utimatum to Chiang threatening to end all American aid unless Chiang "at once" place Stilwell "in unrestricted command of all your forces."[3]

See Operation Ichi-Go#Aftermath Arilang ^talk 16:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Power struggle between Wang Ming and Mao Zedong

• Please read 《為抗日救國告全體同胞書》（『八一宣言』）王明 1935年8月1日
• Please read Wang Ming#From Moscow to Yan'an

• Also please read wikiquote:Wang Ming

• Also read zh:八一宣言 and zh:一二九運動, December 9th Movement, Ba Yi Xuan Yan.

To understand this part of history, it is essential to read the history of Comintern#Comintern and Communist Party of China and Wang Ming, who was reputedly poisoned by Mao Zedong and died in Moscow. Even if Stalin and Comintern had their differences, nontheless, the Chinese Communist Party, hence Chinese Soviet Republic, was really a puppet, or a robot, of Moscow. Since there are many historical documents been declassified, there should not be any problem for readers to find the relevent sources. Arilang ^talk 22:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

territorial changes

Please don't add some fringe interpretation of the San Francisco treaty here. That belongs in political status of Taiwan. The fact of the matter is all three areas listed reverted to Chinese control as a result of the war. Blueshirts (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the undesputable fact is that ROC troops took over control of Manchuria and Taiwan on order form general MacArthur, the Supreme Allied Commander Pacific, SFT was signed much later and relates to the controversy surrounding the status of Taiwan due to the Chinese Civil War. If anyone disagree please start RFC (with account name so that we know who you are!), and refrain from edit warring due to your personal POV.DCTT (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to editing wikipedia, we need to focus on facts and contribute only facts you fully understand and know. After reading both of your statements I can see both of you probably do not know about the relevant information on the subject matter. Blueshirts, it was not very hard to "interpret" San Francisco Peace Treaty for in Chapter II TERRITORIES Article 2 and section b CLEARLY states "b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." There is nothing in the language of the peace treaty that states transfer of Taiwanese sovereignty, let alone "reverting" to Chinese control or transferring Taiwanese sovereignty to China, PRC or ROC. There are also no other official statements from Japan or international bodies that recognize this arrangement of reverting back to Chinese control other than Chinese. There is no UN resolution on disposition of Taiwan islands, either. So, in essence both of you are basically violating NPOV policy by solely acknowledging Chinese position only. I personally would much rather go with the peace treaty signed and ratified by all nations with legal capacity to discuss territorial matters in world war 2. ROC and PRC did not even have such capacity, and you two are taking their words for it?

If you two don't already know, peace treaty serves as the ultimate and final legally binding settlement for all issues among the warring parties. The loser signs an instrument of surrender to promise they will give up under a set of condition or no condition, and peace treaty is when the victors and tehe loser gather together and acknowledge the effort made by the loser to fulfill the demands of the victors. When everyone signs the peace treaty, the minute it comes into force, warring condition is over and all parties are at peace. Whatever unfulfilled portion of the instrument of surrender thus become nullified by the peace treaty. Treaties are almost always legally binding and has the highest legal priority, especially when it is something like San Francisco Peace Treaty. Declaration can ONLY be legally effective if and only if they are referenced by a legally binding treaty (see Cairo Declaration referred by Potsdam and then referred by Japanese instrument of surrender) or becomes a legally binding treaty by parties with proper capacity(see Joint Declaration between the United Kingdom and China on the Question of Hong Kong of 1984). See http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp#declarations Most of the time, declarations are just a forward looking statement and always set a "goal" that is not already done. In the case of Cairo Declaration and Potsdam, their legal effectiveness comes in when Japanese signed the instrument of surrender agreeing to fulfill what was said on Potsdam and Cairo regarding Taiwan. However, Chinese civil war broke out, and that split China to two "governments" lacking legal capacity to be the sole representative of China. Since both of them lack the legal qualification to be China, none of them were invited to the treaty signing and Japan had no China to return Taiwan to. It was the decision of the nations after days of debate to let Japan simply fulfill half of the requirement and leave Taiwan issue to be decided by principle of self determination per the charter of UN. Which all signing parties of the SFPT vowed to abide by.

If you are familiar with international laws and the principles regarding valid international treaties(such as SF Peace Treaty), you would know that every single valid treaty signed and ratified by member states of the UN must be registered with the secretariat and the obligations set forth in the treaties must not violate the obligations of member states in the UN charter, "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail"(Article 143). Under SF Peace Treaty, the treaty its self and every signing country including Japan(expressed intent to be a member of UN) will need to adhere to the UN charter. Cairo Dec and Potsdam Dec are not even in the same league with SFPT, heck, they are not even the same sport!

If you are wondering if SFPT is simply just vague on its language an China can still claim what Japan has abandoned. Think again. Previous drafts of SFPT did include language of returning Taiwan back to China between 1945 to 1949, but with the fall of ROC, that portion was scratched from the treaty. According to a sworn testimony as recorded on the court docs of Lin, et al Vs. United States (Civil Action No. 06-1825(RMC) filed on 3/18/2008 page 3), prior drafts of Article 2(b) of the SFPT originally intended to give China sovereignty over Taiwan but later affirmatively changed their intention. Draft dated August 5th 1947 and January 8th 1948 provided: "Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the island of Taiwan and adjacent minor islands." In the final draft, this was not the case, Japanese only give up the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and NOT transferred it back to China, that is an undisputable fact.

And DCTT, first...the general order No. 1(a) issued by MacArthur states "a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16° north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek." It is obvious that you did not even read the order its self, otherwise you would not have missed that part about excluding Manchuria, and guess what? The section b of the same order tells us who was supposed to accept the surrender of Japan in Manchuria. "b. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within Manchuria, Korea north of 38° north latitude and Karafuto shall surrender to the Commander in Chief of Soviet Forces in the Far East." Not the ROC troops, stop making things up, this is wikipedia!! You need to contribute things that are VERIFIABLE.

Second, as we know from Hague IV of 1899 Laws of War, well you two probably do not know, military occupation does not equate to sovereignty transfer. Just because you accepted surrender from enemy troops on enemy territory does not mean that territory now belongs to you. Sovereignty disposition must be done in a legally binding treaty that is signed and ratified by both sides of the war. From 1945 to 1952, Taiwan was still a part of Japan and that ceased after Japan renounced the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan with SFPT. Manchuria has always been a part of China per League of Nations decision after the Lytton Report in 1931, so even Soviets accepted surrender of the Japanees there, the lands still undisputedly belong to China. Which is why there was no point for Japan to renounce anything in SFPT on Manchuria. Even PR China got Tibet to sign and ratify the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet to annex Tibet! If what you said about surrendering equals sovereignty transfer, then you must agree that Manchuria belongs to Russians now. They were the ones who accepted the surrender from Japanese in Manchuria under General Order No. 1 issued by General MacArthur, the Supreme Allied Commander Pacific!

Finally, whether or not the war is over is determined by who has successfully come out victorious in the realm of the territory defined before the start of the civil war. In this case, Taiwan was not within the territorial sovereignty before the start of civil war(it was a part of Japan until 1952 and civil war started in 1927), so it is not within the conflict of Chinese civil war. Taiwan was a part of Japan and Japan took part in world war 2 which INCLUDES the Second Sino-Japanese War. SFPT was signed and ratified to settle World War 2 which INCLUDES the Second Sino-Japanese War. Plus the treaty deals with territorial changes, in fact, it is the only valid treaty that deals with Taiwan's territorial disposition after the world war. Treaty of Taipei did not deal with that at all. SFPT has to be signed much later because of the controversy you stated on Chinese civil war, but in 1951, the world pretty much knew that they could not come to a conclusion and so they went ahead and consent the Japanese to simply give up Taiwan and let the UN charter deals with the rest. You cannot use Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration to supercede Treaty of San Francisco, gentlemen, this is just ludicrous because SFPT clearly replaced their legality as final. Treaty of Taipei was created because SFPT empowered its validity since SFPT granted allies to settle with Japan independently on matters that SFPT did not address, if you guys take a look at TOT you will see that SFPT is properly mentioned and referenced. What you do NOT see is arrangement regarding Taiwan's territory disposition. Why not? Because TOT comes into force in August 1952, it's after SFPT already come into force, Taiwanese sovereignty was no longer Japan's to transfer.

I sincerely hope you guys can heed my advice and work on fact finding and verifiability. The arguments you guys made are backed by evidence that can only be verified by sources wikipedia defines as not reliable. Blueshirts, note your various warnings on the article, I dont want to have to report you. DCTT, read more on the history can better your argument. your grandfather may have been the colonel for ROC, my grandfather was an adviser for both President Chiangs and he was involved in the SFPT translation project as well. If you guys want to contribute more, better brush up on your relevant knowledges. good day and stop reverting.Mafia godfather (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What you've written is just more lawyer talk from pro-independence groups. What we wrote here is that Taiwan, Penghu, and Manchuria all were reverted to Chinese (Nationalist) control following the war. The fact is as simple as that. For compromise we can remove all the peace treaties from "territorial changes" since what they dealt with became complicated with the Chinese Civil War and the Nationalist' loss of mainland. Blueshirts (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blueshirts, unfortunately, international laws are what dictate how the world should be after the world war, this is the way the world want to do to strive for greater peace. And international laws are made of valid treaties the sovereign states come to accept. It is very important for us to understand the letters of law when it comes to solemn matters like this. Political propaganda from ROC textbooks may fool some people into believing it as gospel, but they do not stand a chance just like the old Japanese textbooks on world war 2 atrocities.

What I have stated above can be validated in many places other than pro-independence groups, and I do not appreciate your personal attack against me on this matter. If you have any credible evidence to refute me, please provide them, I have researched on the subject for over a decade and I am very sure there is nothing you can provide I have not already seen or reviwed. The original wording was retrocession of Manchuria, Taiwan, and Penghu. Apart from the word retrocession explicitly express the action was an act of sovereignty transfer, which it is not true for Taiwan, it is also stating that Taiwan and Penghu come under Chinese control the same way as Manchuria, which was not true either. ROC has never controlled Manchuria after Soviets leased it from Qing Empire and Japanese took it over from Russians after Russo-Japanese War. Again, like I told DCTT, MacArthur asked SOVIETS to accept Japanese surrender, NOT the ROC or Nationalists if you will.

As I said earlier, international laws on war dictates that military occupation(control) does not mean sovereignty transfer. So you cannot use the word "retrocession" on Taiwan and Penghu. I appreciate your concession, but I am going to take one step further and simply remove Taiwan and Penghu out of the territorial change part. For no treaties dictates that Taiwan was returned to China by Japan as result of Sino-Japanese War. Taiwan as of now is a limbo cession and its status is undetermined as it is not owned by the ROC government on Taiwan.Mafia godfather (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would add to that that even "Retrocession to China of Manchuria" is not correct. The article considers the hostilities in Manchuria as a conflict separate from SSJW: the USSR was excluded from a belligerent list, Manchurian offensive is not in the list of the battles, so it is not clear for me how could SSJW lead to "Retrocession to China of Manchuria". Japanese forces in Manchuria were defeated by the Soviets, they surrendered to the Soviets and the Soviets passed the control over Manchuria to Chinese authorities - what relation does it have to SSJW?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I personally think that we should not even have territorial changes. Manchuria belonged to China all along. There isnt a territorial change, technically. I am only fixing the Taiwan part. Manchurian part, you guys can reach a consensus on that.Mafia godfather (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What you've insisted belongs to the legal realm and a fringe viewpoint espoused by only a fraction of pro-independent groups. This is related to the recent lawsuit against the US government (控美案), with former President Chen tagged along, that both the US Supreme Court and the US Military Court of Appeals refused to hear because it was deemed a political issue. What I've suggested is very simple, that the ROC government gained de facto control of Taiwan, Penghu, and Manchuria as a result of the war, and this had been the political goal of the the ROC government since the war began. I removed treaties from the infobox because they can be interpreted multiple ways. But your removal of Taiwan from the box completely misses the hard reality that the ROC gained control of Taiwan because of the war, and this doesn't make sense. The legal issues you brought up belongs in political status of Taiwan, whereas here I'm just putting in very clear de facto changes on the ground. Blueshirts (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you mix the terms "gaining a control" and "territorial change". However, one way or the another, China didn't get a control over Manchuria as a result of SSJW. That was a result of Soviet invasion of Manchuria (not a part of this article). Therefore, Manchuria should be excluded.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul, maybe we should just do away with territorial change. Much easier that way, most war pages dont have it anyway. It is optional. Because it is bound to get controversial, look at this lengthy discussion we are having right now! Mafia godfather (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Template:Infobox military conflict only states "any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict". Blueshirts (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, by excluding the USSR from the list of belligerents and the Manchurian offensive from the list of the SSJW battles the article implies that regaining of control over Manchuria by China was not a result of SSJW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blueshirts, if you are talking about the Lin-Hartzell group, I am not a supporter of them nor I support having United States taking over Taiwan. Personally, I think they are nuts and I am glad the United States supereme court shut them down. Former president Chen understands the lunacy pretty well as his most recent editorial contribution clearly states that the sovereignty rests with Taiwanese people. The whole suing the US thing is just a farce, he is probably bored. And if you look at what I am saying, I made no mention or reference to what the Lin-Hartzells are advocating, in fact, i am preparing an article now to debunk one of their argument. Just because the Nationalists gained control of Taiwan does not mean they own the territory, and you cannot even provide any legal or official documents from international bodies that can validate your argument of retrocesion. Can you say United States controlled Iraq is an annexation or acquisition? No. if you want to, you can put Japanese renunciation of Taiwanese sovereignty and ROC government is the current administer of Taiwanee sovereignty. Retrocession implies ownership, definition of retrocession is "To cede or give back (a territory, for example); return." and that is something ROC government does NOT have since Japan has never ceded or returned Taiwan to the ROC! Mafia godfather (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument serves as the basis for Lin-Hartzell's interpretation. Personally I think the situation is complicated due to differing interpretations and can be written off from the infobox altogether, per WP:MILHIST guidelines. I figure the entire thing is best relegated to the bottom of the article and expanded upon in the political status of Taiwan page. If you can read Chinese, try finding the article "中日和平條約的簽訂與中華民國主權的確定" from the journal of modern history 12/06 published by Academia Sinica. Blueshirts (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Lin-Hartzell's advocacy of Taiwan is still under military occupation of the USMG is ludicrous under the disguise of the political reality that Taiwan's legal status is not yet determined. This is even echoed by the US administration and observed by the PRC. Although the US promised never to repeat it, it has been a position the world and the US has never formally renounced. See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e13/72417.htm You might recall recent remark made by Japanese representative to Taipei -- Masaki Saito, that Taiwan's status is undetermined. I have read the article you suggested, it is written by HUang, a research associate at Academica Sinica and it is merely his own research opinion. I am well-versed in Treaty of Taipei article 10, the fact that Japanese did not have territorial sovereignty of Taiwan at the time when Treaty of Taipei came into force, that does not mean they had no right to determine the nationality of the citizens on Taiwan. Naturalizing Taiwanese people to be ROC nationals were well within Japanese power to do so, any country can formally relinquish the nationality or citizenship of its own citizens/nationals. However, that does not mean Taiwan is then a part of ROC or even mean Taiwan is returned to China. Treaty of Taipei is Japanese acknowledgment of ROC's capacity to ADMINISTER Taiwanese sovereignty as it was already the case prior to the treaty signing. When the US conquered Iraq, they set up Coalition Provisional Authority government over Iraq, the CPA also had all the power to administer Iraqi sovereignty. But did that mean CPA was the owner of Iraqi sovereignty? No. Just like the ROC government on Taiwan now, ROC can administer Taiwan, but not legally own it. The difference of Taiwan and Iraq is, the CPA transferred the sovereignty back to Iraq a year after establishment, but ROC hogged onto Taiwan and never bothered to transfer? Why? Because unlike the United States, the ROC has no country to go back to, they are MAROONED on Taiwan after 1949. That is why to prevent ROC from being legally supplanted, they outlawed national referendum for the people and remained in martial laws while influencing the people via obscurantism. The article you suggested is one of those very weak attempt to try to convince people that TOT was it. Well, most 3 years olds know that you cannot give away something you no longer own. Japan has given up Taiwan in SF Peace Treaty and it came into effect months before TOT came into effect, SFPT would supercede TOT by general principle if territorial disposition was mentioned in TOT. However, TOT mentioned nothing about territorial sovereignty as research associate Huang has admitted. Then there is no cigar. ROC government can continue its administration as long as people do not supplant them, but they do not have ownership over the islands. This is a globally recognized fact. In that sense, I cannot agree to "retrocession". While "return to Chinese control" sounds better, but I would prefer "Taiwan and Penghu remain in ROC government administration" Mafia godfather (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

All these legal arguments presented by Mafia godfather reminded me of a class I took on international law at Yale Law School a long time ago, but shouldn't the military infobox state what happened at the end of the war (in this case 1945)? Using WWII article's infobox as reference (where no treaties were mentioned), a likely result statement could be "Unconditional surrender of all Japanese forces in China to ROC with Allied victory in World War II, ROC took control of Taiwan and Penghu, Soviet occupation and withdrawal from Manchuria, resumption of the Chinese Civil War, Communists victory in mainland China, ROC retreat to Taiwan (more...)" If the result section is very comprehensive, then perhaps territorial change section is not needed. DCTT (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would vote for that. Just have the territorial change section removed, most wars dont have it anyway.Mafia godfather (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Manchuria is not more relevant for the article (in its present state) than American occupation of Okinawa. What events, described in the article, lead to that? Geography of SSJW (according to the article) excluded Manchuria. According to the article the USSR didn't participate in SSJW. According to the article no SSJW battles lead to occupation of Manchuria. Therefore, the connection between SSJW and Soviet occupation of Manchuria is unclear from the article. Taking into account that Soviet offensive was one of two major reason for Japanese surrender (the second one was not alleged Chinese successes in mainland China, but American bombing campaign and occupation of Japanese home islands), such a statement would be ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. To demonstrate my point, let me remind you that no one claims that Allied occupation of Western Europe was a result of Eastern Front (World War II), although, obviously, only German defeat there made Allied landing in Normandy possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueshirts and DCTT. Arguments revolving around the SFPT and such, while certainly not fringe, are curently being given way too much weight because rightly or wrongly, the ROC took control and assumed sovereignty of Taiwan in 1945. It has treated Taiwan as its sovereign territory ever since, "legal" or not. Furthermore, no state has ever raised any objection/protest to said assumption, at least not in a direct way. As such, I propose changing the box back to retrocession of Taiwan, etc. etc. with perhaps a footnote pointing to Legal status of Taiwan to inform the reader that disputes exist surrounding the precise legalities. The text likewise should emphasize the de facto resumption of sovereignty rather than argue that the resumption was illegal. (FWIW, there are also the notions that (1) since "China" never signed the SFPT, "China" has absolutely no obligation to do anything based upon it, (2) ambiguities should be interpreted in a manner consistent with prior statements - and to do otherwise would be treacherous, and (3) the lack of protest by any state has existed up to today, making the issue settled under the doctrine of prescription. Those details don't belong here IMHO, as they are already nicely covered in the legal status article. I plan to make the changes in a few days, pending comment from other editors. Ngchen (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ngchen, I suggested you research a bit on international laws. You are suggesting it is legal and proper for ROC to annex Taiwan via military occupation, which is against the prevailing international laws and the UN charter signed by the ROC. If your rhetoric was true, then Manchuria would be rightfully a part of Japan and Manchuko should have been legitimate. Please back your statement up with relevant international legal precedents or treaties and not your own assumption, this is wikipedia and we need to contribute only verifiable facts. Thank you. As for your suggestion of bringing back "retrocession", that has already been discussed and decided that it is innappropriate for that is a Chinese position and thus violating NPOV principle.

Just for the sake of argument and to respond with your reasoning. Please refer back to the discussion above how "assuming" sovereignty is absolutely illegal and the ROC could not have acquired Taiwan in 1945 for Japanese formally renounced the rights of Taiwan in 1951. Japanese could not have done that if Taiwan was not still in their possession. Military occupation and annexation cannot constitute sovereignty transfer. The ROC government is exercising rights over Taiwan not much different than US exercising rights over sovereign states such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay(see Boumediene vs. Bush of 2008). Taiwan can be administered by the ROC under any shape or form, but the ROC has no rights to make changes to Taiwan's territorial status without the consent and power of the people of Taiwan. Your focus on "de facto" over "de jure" is an understandable point, but ultimately invalid for it is against fundamental international legal principles. China has not signed SFPT because they were not in capacity, but that does not mean the SFPT that is agreed by the world and deposited into UN as valid treaty is not in effect. Not to mention, Republic of China has already endorsed the validity of SFPT in Treaty of Taipei and being a member of the UNPSC should definitely abide by the SFPT. Lack of protests from other countries on ROC's position does not mean it is OK. when Japan renounced the rights of Taiwan, Taiwan became a limbo cession with no clear ownership of Taiwan by any other countries, then the only ones who can and with capacity to protest against the ROC government position would be the people of Taiwan. And they did protest. 228 Incident in 1947, the consequent independence movements under ROC government repression, and now it is an accepted political ideology to be advocated on Taiwan. So, I would not say nobody protested against the ROC government's position.Mafia godfather (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First, you're arguing something based upon legal principles, which is fine. As I pointed out, arguments revolving around the SFPT and such are certainly not fringe. However, as I pointed out, legally or illegally, Taiwan was retroceded to the ROC. That is an undisputable historical fact. And it is the fact that has the greatest bearing on the current controversial political status of Taiwan. Therefore, the emphasis should be upon what happened de facto. Since the talk page is not a forum, I won't get into further arguments about various legal principles here (the gory details are at legal status of Taiwan for all interested.) Ngchen (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing, I am stating fact. Taiwan as a retrocession to ROC is a POSITION taken by the ROC, it is NOT a historic fact. Please go back on top and see our reasoning, and the other users have agreed to not revive it. I would hate to repeat something you can just read for yourself. Can you show me one credible NPOV source that verifies the retrocession of Taiwan to ROC? You can probably only find it on ROC government web site, which would violate NPOV guideline. Retrocesion deals with returning of a property via transfer of rights, at one point did Japan return Taiwan to ROC? Certainly was not mentioned in SFPT, the final legal binding settlement between the Allied Powers and Japan. Many facts happened base on legal principles. I am not stating something argurably true, I am stating something actually true. Mafia godfather (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the retrocession was illegal. That is one of several mainstream positions, and I respect that. I am saying that, for all practical purposes, Taiwan was retroceded, legal or not. After all, doesn't the ROC run Taiwan as its own territory (fairly or not) these days, and hasn't it been so since 1945? Can you please point to the section that supposedly showed some consensus against describing the territorial changes? I read through the stuff, and I don't see any consensus that developed, and anyway, consensus can change. And BTW, the NPOV rule requires that all significant points of view be fairly presented, including views which one disagrees upon. Ngchen (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing that retrocession was illegal, I am stating the fact that retrocession never happened. The definition of "retrocession" is "To cede or give back (a territory, for example)". Taiwan was never given back to ROC by Japan, the only reason why ROC was in Taiwan in the first place was to establish military occupation on Taiwan and accept surrender on behalf of the Supreme Allied Commander Pacific per General Order Number One. See discussion above on the details. No treaties or any directives from either side indicated there was any actions of retroceding Taiwan. "Retrocession of Taiwan" is a unilateral claim by the ROC and nobody endorsed that position except maybe China, and China does not even recognize the ROC. It is not just illegal, it is also not factual.

The concensus was reached between two disputing parties when DCTT offered to have it be rephrased to "ROC took control of Taiwan..." and I concurred. None of the 4 parties that engaged in the dispute objected to it. The ROC has run Taiwan as its own territory since 1945, and it is within its rights to do so per Laws of War and being the only government on Taiwan after it has become a limbo cession, the ROC has rights or even obligation to continue administer Taiwan until a native government is established to supplant it. It is also OK to govern the people of Taiwan as its nationals per the Treaty of Taipei. However, nothing was ever decided on territorial sovereignty of Taiwan, whether the Japanese gave Taiwan and Penghu islands back to China or to someone else, so no retrocession has ever occured. By the guidelines of NPOV, "retrocession" being a position claimed only by the Chinese would certainly not pass; however, ROC "took control" of Taiwan is something everyone can agree on and does not fringe NPOV guideline. It encompasses the POV of all, verifiable, and undisputedly true.Mafia godfather (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've started an RFC below to obtain additional opinions. In your view then, what exactly would be an illegal retrocession? I am afraid that attempts to fudge this issue are producing weaselish sentences. Also, let's face it. The ROC considers itself a fully legitimate government, not something that's to be supplanted by a "native" government after a while. And the ROC does not consider itself an occupying power. FWIW, I know countries such as Russia and Kampuchea fully consider Taiwan to have been retroceded, so it would be wrong to ignore that (also non-fringe) view. Finally, let us not forget that Wikipedia is to describe what's verifiable, which is sometime not the "truth." Ngchen (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)]

An illegal retrocession? There is no such thing. Because retrocession by definition means to give back a territory, if it has been "given back", then that means it is legal and valid. You cannot rob someone and say he gave you back. In my view regarding Taiwan, there is no retrocession. The ROC got to Taiwan under General Order Number One and established military occupation on Taiwan, I do not consider that illegal for it is perfectly within ROC's rights to do so. However, as we know from Hague Convention Laws of War, military occupation does not constitute sovereignty transfer, sovereignty transfer can only happen legitimately after a peace treaty that concludes the end of war. ROC is among the original signatories of the UN and they ought to know better, and they do. Whatever ROC considers its self as is not important because that is entirely ROC's own claim, just like the PRC claims bunch of things including Taiwan. If we take ROC's position and making it a fact in the fact box, then that is a direct violation of NPOV guideline for it is only supported by the ROC. It is also not "verifiable" from a neutral and credible site for none but ROC or political sites out there support such view. The most you will get is ROC taken control of Taiwan. You will not see "retrocession" for it is the mainstream view of the world that status of Taiwan is still undetermined while they fully support there is but one China. I understand Russia's position on Taiwan, but Kampuchea? Mind you that when Taiwan's territorial sovereignty was renounced by Japan in 1951, Kampuchea was not even around. They are in no position at all to make valid determination on Taiwanese sovereignty. Mafia godfather (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree then on whether there can be a putative "illegal" retrocession. I am afraid you don't fully understand the neutral point of view rule. Basically, if there are contradictory yet mainstream schools of thought X, Y, and Z on any controversial issue, then the rule is that we should accurately and fairly present all sides X, Y, and Z. We should not imply that X is correct, and that Y is wrong because of whatever reasons. We also should not, in my opinion, try to obscure the fact that the dispute exists through the use of ambiguous language, per the weasel words guideline. Now, whether we like it or not, the facts are as follows: (1) "China," be it ROC or PRC, considers Taiwan part of its territory per the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, etc. etc. (2) The ROC has de facto treated Taiwan as its own national territory ever since 1945, and runs the place as its own. (3) Taiwan Independence supporters dispute the validity of any sort of incorporation of Taiwan into China based on the SFPT's ambiguity, as well as the claimed lack of consent of the locals. (4) Foreign powers have often tried to remain silent with regard to whom they consider Taiwan's "rightful" sovereign, although examples like Russia and Kampuchea exist who recognize "Chinese" sovereignty over Taiwan. My point is that there are, at least two schools of thought (there was a retrocession/there was not or was only an illegal retrocession) on this issue, and that both need to be presented to maintain neutrality. As I noted previously, readers interested in the gory legal details can find them at legal status of Taiwan. It's too bad the RFC hasn't yet provided outside views so far. Ngchen (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ngchen, you do realize that when it comes to fact box, the NPOV rule is more like No POV instead of all POV, right? We only put what is undisputed correct in fact box due to its limited space and the purpose of it, if you want to bring out your little dissent views that is contrary to the mainstream, you can explain that in the main article with the notation of whose position it is. In this case, "retrocession" never happened in fact, but claimd by the ROC, so if you have any beef about it... put it in the main article. I have responded all your points that you just repeated here below. Kindly review and retort down there. Mafia godfather (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so how about phrasing it as "de facto retrocession of Taiwan?" with a asterisk and footnote noting that the legality of the action is disputed - details at legal status of Taiwan? You seem to believe that the "mainstream" view is that there was no retrocession. I disagree, mainly due to the existence of the de facto exercise of sovereignty all these years, and the lack of protest "Country XXX condemns and denounces the attempt of territorial aggrandizement by the ROC" type statements. The "no retrocession" view, as pointed out by other editors, is held only by a substantial fraction of Taiwan independence supporters. My proposed scheme would add but one to two lines of text to the box, so it would not be unwieldy. Ngchen (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ngchen, the thing is, there is NO retrocession, de facto or not. I just do not know why can't you see beyond that? Let me break it down for you again... Don't worry, there will be NO legal mumbo jumbo below, just basic logical reasoning and English language:

A. Retrocession by DEFINITION of any dictionary is "To CEDE or GIVE BACK (a territory, for example);". Retro- is Latin prefix for "backwards", and "cession" is "A ceding or surrendering, as of territory to another country by treaty." So, in order for a "retrocession" by definition to occur, country A must GIVE territories belonged to Country B before BACK in form of a formal agreement or TREATY. We clear on this so far?

There has been no actions from Japan to GIVE Taiwan back to China or ROC. Technically, ROC never owned Taiwan prior to the Japanese era, but since ROC was a successor state of Chin Empire, it is OK to say ROC = China at the point of Cairo Declaration and signing of Japanese Instrument of Surrender and ROC did have the capacity to accept territrial sovereignty transfer of Taiwan if the allies ended victoriously. If Japan actually did give Taiwan back to ROC per Cairo Declaration, then it could be considered "retrocession".

B. the existing fact box contains revision made by DCTT stating that ROC has CONTROL of Taiwan and Penghu islands. This is de facto and de jure true, the ROC does in fact have control of Taiwan as the administrator of Taiwanese sovereignty. I have no problems with that being a FACT. Whether or not the ROC OWNS the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan belongs in the discussion in legal status of Taiwan, where they can have all the time in the world to debate on whether it is Taiwan trying to get independence from ROC or it is trying to establish an independent state to supplant the ROC government. It has NOTHING to do with the FACT that Japan NEVER gave back Taiwan to China or ROC in ANY TREATIES. (Note that legality of Potsdam and cairo declaration being referenced by JIS have been replaced by the SF Peace Treaty). Therefore, by definition mentioned in section A, retrocession NEVER happened.

C. Legal status of Taiwan mainly deals with the controversy around ROC's relationship with Taiwan, not whether or not retrocession really occured. The article is about if China owns Taiwan or not. Even though the ROC's retrocession claim is used by the ROC government as a REASONING for arguing in favor of their position, but it is not a FACT. Here on this article of Second Sino-Japanese War, we are trying to put the FACTS in the FACT BOX. Not ROC's claims, Ngchen's claims or anybody's claims. As what the Legal Status of Taiwan page clearly written: "In practice, sovereignty over Taiwan is exercised by the Republic of China." Such fact is clearly expressed in our factbox now.

I honestly hope I do not need to go even simpler than what I have said above. Because I do not know how to go simpler than that.Mafia godfather (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I dispute your assertion given in part A. It is by no means clear that a treaty is needed to de facto give/get something. So, the other line of reasoning using Potsdam->JIS can be interpreted as Japan giving Taiwan back. Maybe you're not that familiar with the term de facto which implies that something that is "in fact" true, although it may well not be within the letter of any set of laws (hence the disputed legality). I am pointing out that as a factual issue, the ROC has taken over Taiwan in 1945 and has run it as its own territory ever since. It has treated Taiwan as "retroceded" ever since. Sure, opponents complain about the ROC having acted illegally, but de facto Taiwan is controlled by the ROC, and de facto is owned by it since it acts as the owner without any substantial continued protest by other states. Ngchen (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sighs. I guess I also need to inform you a bit on history as well... Since retrocssion by definition means what I have already said in A. We all know that it was an intention of the Allies to give Taiwan to China should Japanese lose the war as we can see from the JIS, an expression of intention is by no means an ACT of the intended action. From 1945 to 1951, Japan had sovereignty of Taiwan as the world sees it and the Japanese made no "de facto" or "de jure" attempt of giving Taiwan back to China. I know very well what "de facto" is and I think you need to look up dictionary on the DIFFERENCE of "give" and "get. Retrocession has to do with GIVE, not GET.

An important matter such as settlement of territorial disposition normally requires a signed and ratified treaty, especially for the biggest war of the history of mankind. In fact, the original draft of SF Peace Treaty indeed clearly stated Japan's action of returning Taiwan, the draft stated "Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the islands of Taiwan and adjacent minor islands[.]" Intention of retrocession of Taiwan is VERY CLEAR. The record of this draft may be obtained from memorandum from Hugh Borton to Charles E Bohlen: Draft Treaty of Peace of Japan, State Department Decimal File No. 740.0011 PW(PEACE)/8-647 CS/W, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (August 6, 1947) Memorandum, Background of Draft of Japanese Peace Treaty, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (Jan 30, 1948). The language was removed from the treaty due to the fact there was no one single legitimate China at the time of SFPT signing, and it was the decision of the world to leave Taiwan status unsettled. No retrocession happened and that is an undisputed fact. You can argue that ROC has taken over Taiwan in 1945 and has run it as its own territory ever since. You can even argue that It[ROC] has treated Taiwan as "retroceded" ever since....But the position of ROC is simply a claim and not a representation of a fact, and that should never be in the infobox. Does the ROC have control of Taiwan? Yes. Does the ROC exercise de facto sovereignty over Taiwan? Yes. Was Taiwan "retroceded" to ROC? No. Why? Because Japanese never GAVE BACK(please PLEASE look up the dictionary definition of GIVE and GET) Taiwan, the ROC government has occupied Taiwan as its own territories since 1945. Sure, ROC got to control Taiwan, and that is what we have in the infobox, but did Japan give Taiwan back as a retrocession? NO.

A "de facto retrocession" would be the Japanese give Taiwan back to ROC with a clear unilateral statement, and the ROC accepts it without entering into a signed and ratified treaty to formalize this. Kind of like I tell everyone that I gave you $100, you took it and never acknowledged that you have received it. So, if the SFPT kept the language "Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the islands of Taiwan and adjacent minor islands[.]" , then ROC would be having de facto retrocession today with de jure retrocession belonging to PRC since PRC is the successor state of ROC. Thank the Lord, the Japanese never endorsed or even agreed to this when they sever their ties to Taiwanese sovereignty. The retrocession language was removed from the peace treaty so retrocession never actually occured. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to declare a unilateral truce here for other editors to comment, per the RFC. Let's see what the rest of the community thinks. Ngchen (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Some arithmetic

The footnote to the infobox states:

"An academic study published in the United States estimates total war deaths of 15-20 million from all causes: military casualties: 1.5 million killed in battle, 750,000 missing in action, 1.5 million deaths due to disease and 3 million wounded; civilian casualties: due to military activity, killed 1,073,496 and 237,319 wounded; 335,934 killed and 426,249 wounded in Japanese air attacks."

1,500,000+750,000+1,500,000+1,073,496+335,934=5,159,430 (obviously, I didn't count those who was just wounded). This number is slightly smaller then "total war deaths of 15-20 million from all causes". The footnote should be either deleted as obvious nonsense, or deeply modified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with communist killed/wounded too. The infobox states that there are 3.2 million Nationalist and 0.5 million communist casualties. If my memory is correct, the communists expanded to around one million troops by the end of the war. That's a 50% casualty rate for an army that was still growing, and was mainly involved in harassing guerrilla attacks, not frontal set-piece battles like the Nationalists. Does this number make sense? I know the Nationalists conscripted or recruited around 14 million in total (not the standing army strength at any one time, but the number of all who served during the entire war). 3.2 million out of 14 million seems reasonable. But the communist statistics needs to be better referenced. Blueshirts (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User Blueshirts, this 0.5 million communist casualties is definitly wrong. The communist hardly did any fighting (against the Japanese), where this 0.5 million communist casualties come from? Arilang ^talk 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese text and photo with little relevancy

User DCTT, I disagree with your statement. Who did fight in the war, CCP Red Army, or KMT NRA? People who had been brainwashed by the CCP propaganda machine do not know that it was NRA who did the bulk fighting, and CCP was doing only the lip service, as can be verify by s:zh:為日本帝國主義強暴佔領東三省事件宣言 and s:zh:中国共产党为日帝国主义强占东三省第二次宣言, provided readers can read Chinese. And I believe that it is fairly easy for readers to use online machine translator, so it is of no harm to add a few lines of Chinese text, afterall, this article is about a major war between China and Japan. Arilang ^talk 05:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Brainwashed by commies? Not really... that is the exact interpretation of history recognised in secondary school and tertiary school history studies in Australia, as well as the International Baccalaureate. I could show you some of my old IB textbooks if you like. (I was in an IB history class during 初中) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What is generally recognised by the IB history curricula is that Chiang "saved space for time" when fighting with the Japanese, relying on the Allies to defeat Japan, so that he could deal with the commies afterwards. The reds however were constantly engaged in guerilla warfare and mobile warfare, and although they were not very successful 100% of the time (especially during the time period after the implementation of the Three Alls), they were successful in mobilising the peasantry into forming militias and stirring nationalism. The KMT failed to gain the support of the peasants, due to heavy land and crop taxes, conscription, poor military training, supplies and treatment (Corporal punishment was prevalent within the NRA for the most simplest of things, which led to many NRA deserting and/or defecting to the CCP), and the US Truman administration believed that Chiang was corrupt as hell. In Maoist terms, the CCP was able to "move mountains" while the KMT could not, because the CCP promised land reform and so appealled to the people, to which the majority were peasants. Not high-income gentry the KMT supported, the peasants. Almost 90% of Chinese were peasants, while the gentry the KMT supported only represented a minority that lived along the coast; the gentry brought riches to the KMT during peacetime, but then became occupied by the Japanese along the eastern coastline. The CCP appeared to, as Edgar Snow puts it, be "more nationalist than the Nationalists themselves", as they were actively in pursuit of the Japanese; despite their horrific failures on the battlefield, CCP guerillas destroyed railways and bombed outposts, CCP militia created security for the peasants in some areas, and were seen as much more active than the KMT, which were retreating. Corruption was endemic within the KMT, with high ranking officials stealing funds and hoarding weapons given by the US meant to send the Japanese to hell; US general Joseph Stilwell wrote a poem, referring to Chiang as a "peanut" and accuses him of being a useless force in the war against Japan. There are even various quotes from Truman regarding his dislike of Chiang. You can't really argue with an international education organisation's interpretation of history without some really good and strong arguments, convincing sources and a lot of confidence. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

List of quotes for Ariliang

• Truman (written in response to a report that the KMT had pocketed $750 million in US aid): "the Chiangs, the Kungs, and the Soongs (were) all thieves" - Bagby, Wesley Marvin, The Eagle-Dragon Alliance: America's Relations with China in World War II, University of Delaware Press, 1992, pp.65. (ISBN 0874134188)
• Joseph Stilwell (a poem about Chiang): “I have waited long for vengeance—/At last I’ve had my chance./ I’ve looked the Peanut in the eye/And kicked him in the pants.” - Taylor, Jay, "The Generalissimo: Chiang Kai-shek and the Struggle for Modern China", Harvard University Press, 2009, pp.290. (ISBN 0674033388)

full length of Stilwell's poem

I've waited long for vengeance -
At last I've had my chance..
I Ve looked the Peanut in the eye
And kicked him in the pants.

The old harpoon was ready
With aim and timing true,
I sank it to the handle,
And stung him through and through.

The little bastard shivered,
And lost the power of speech.
His face turned green and quivered
As he struggled not to screech.

For all weary battles,
For all my hours of woe,
At last I've had my innings
And laid the Peanut low.

I know I've still to suffer,
And run a weary race,
But oh! the blessed pleasure!
I've wrecked the Peanut's face.

• Brooks Atkinson (New York Times correspondent): "The decision to relieve General Stilwell represents the political triumph of a moribund, anti-democratic regime that is more concerned with maintaining its political supremacy than in driving the Japanese out of China. The Chinese Communists... have good armies that they are claiming to be fighting guerrilla warfare against the Japanese in North China—actually they are covertly or even overtly building themselves up to fight Generalissimo's government forces... The Generalissimo naturally regards these armies as the chief threat to the country and his supremacy... has seen no need to make sincere attempt to arrange at least a truce with them for the duration of the war... No diplomatic genius could have overcome the Generalissimo's basic unwillingness to risk his armies in battle with the Japanese." - Crisis - Time Magazine, 1944-11-13.

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your reference to your IB curricula books, I don't think they should be used as a source, especially in a complicated situation like this. Most textbooks still say Columbus "discovered" America. Here is the exact quote from wikipedia's policy on the use of reliable sources for history topics: Textbooks at the K-12 level do not try to be authoritative and should be avoided by Wikipedia editors.[1] The quotes you cited above are from people who personally have a vendetta against the Nationalists, and I can also cite a bunch by the Nationalists on the said individuals. On the other hand, Ariliang's quotes are the Communists' own directives. Perhaps he can cut down the number of quotes and limit those to after the war had started. Blueshirts (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't regard the IB curricula as simply "K-12 textbooking" - it's internationally scrutinized and judged. Sure, there's no oranges, but it's like comparing apples grown in Ghana and apples grown in New Zealand, two things that are at a markedly different level. Also, just to make sure there's no confusion, the said quotes above are from printed books, not the IB, just in case you may have thought otherwise. I also believe that we shouldn't be relying on media obtained from internet forums, as done a few sections above, as they are very speculative and dubious. It doesn't take much to start a website, especially in the PRC, but it costs thousands of dollars to publish a book. Oh, and I wasn't intending on using IB textbooks as a source for the article; I was noting to Ariliang that POVs from all sides are much more complex as percieved. And your Columbus remark is a bit of a generalisation, is it not? I mean, we would have pretty fucked up and retarded kids if that's all they learn in school. Keep generalisations at a low, and find what you can easily back up. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I also took both IB and AP classes in high school, and looking back, I would not regard them anything other than K-12 education, or at most a couple college credit hours, which isn't saying a lot either. That's why you take them in high schools. I believe Ariliang's quotes can be found in Mao's own quotations. I suggest some specialist books like "War and Nationalism in China" by Hans van de Ven or the new biography of Chiang Kai-shek by Jay Taylor. Blueshirts (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this section with Mao's quotes are already sufficient to explain the situation, there is no need to provide Chinese texts and links in the body of an English wiki article. 左權 was such a insignificant person in SSJW that showing his picture in the article is also unnecessary. DCTT (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We can mention in the text how Zuo Xuan was the only communist division commander to be killed in action, whereas the Nationalists had many more. Blueshirts (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

War of resistence or SSJW

Traditionary, especially in Mainland China, it is 抗日戰爭, which is the name used in zh:wiki. To fully understand this Chinese 抗戰, is very diffcult for your everyday reader, and if user Benlisquare is easily satisfied by info provided on high school text books, then fair enough; but then he would have a hard time trying to explain SSJW to Japanese students who only read Japanese high school text books.

Like I had stated before, I am fortunate enough to have the ability to read Chinese text, and I like to dig deep into history, especially Chinese Communist Party History, 中共党史, especially s:zh:作者:中國共產黨中央委員會, and after reading all these Chinese Communist Party Official Papers, my conclusion still is, CCP did not do much fightng against the Japanese; not only that, CCP did spend majority of it's time and effort fighting the KMT; not only that, CCP treated KMT as enemy NUMBER ONE , all the time trying to sabotage, to incite riot, industrial action(general workers strike), students demonstration, street rally, etc, etc. All these accusations can be backed up by s:zh:作者:中國共產黨中央委員會, if reader care to read them.

Were these CCP actions be taken in the World War II European Theatre, CCP, hence Mao Zedong, would have been subjected to military court, and charged with treason. I welcome user Benlisquare to read s:zh:作者:中國共產黨中央委員會, then we shall continue the discussion.

八路軍新四軍

中國共產黨中央委員會聲明：我們約束自己領導的抗日武裝隊伍，將其行動限制在戰區與敵人後方及陝甘寧邊區二十三縣境內，而不向其他地方作任何足以引起友軍 衝突的行動，而在戰區及敵人後方則與一切抗日友軍協同作戰。但要求各抗日友軍對其部下亦應加以約束，勿向八路軍新四軍採取足以引起衝突的任何行動，以保證 抗日戰線上的團結一致。同時要求國民政府極力援助八路軍新四軍及一切抗日游擊隊，因為八路軍新四軍及一切抗日游擊隊乃是位於國防最前線的軍隊，而在三年以 來八路軍新四軍進行了大小一萬餘次的英勇戰鬥，堅持了廣大敵後地區的抗戰，鉗制了全國百分之四十至五十的敵人，而其處境則是最險惡的，具生活則是最困苦 的，其彈藥則是最缺乏的。

The above quote is from:s:zh:中國共產黨中央委員會為抗戰三周年紀念對時局宣言 1940年7月5日.

Of paticular interest is this sentence:而在三年以 來八路軍新四軍進行了大小一萬餘次的英勇戰鬥 Translation:In the last three years, The Eighth Route Army New Fourth Army were engaged in 10,000 plus times of heroic battles. End of translation. Well, my opinion is this is a outright lie, as until today, the Communist(hence the Red Army) did not, and could not provide any solid facts/nor evidence towards these so called heroic battles.

User Blueshirts, what you think? Arilang ^talk 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ten thousand heroic battles. Maybe they thought a couple of cadres shooting a Japanese post was a battle. Blueshirts (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that 千 and 萬 are often used metaphorically and as an expression? An example would be the phrase 萬歲 wansui; do you honestly think that the Kangxi Emperor would literally live for 10,000 years? Do you honestly believe that the People's Republic of China would last for 10,000 years? (Hell, the United Kingdom hasn't even surpassed 1,500 years...) Do you honestly believe that Mao Zedong lived for 10,000 years? Don't get all cocky with getting things as they are literally. Emotive language is a part of the Chinese psyche; you should know that. 萬 can be an expression for a very big number, as in 千山萬水 (how on earth would someone be bothered to accurately measure out exactly 1,000 mountains and 10,000 nautical miles of ocean?), similar to gazillion in English. Japanese Adult entertainment magazines often refer that Sora Aoi has 狂姦三千次; do you honestly believe that her cervix is that strong? You now see how pointless this is? Arguing about how many battles the CCP has been in against the devils is pointless in argumentative reasoning. What difference does it make, if (insert famous guy here) said something about there being (insert positive integer here) battles? I can't recall who, but there is a line from a well-known psychologist: As long as you are against something, you will search for the most minute detail as long as it is useful towards your argument. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't have to explain how to read Chinese to any of us　(me or Arilang), especially what you think doesn't apply to this case. Here the CCP is claiming exactly "one ten thousand" incidences, specifically (一萬), not just "tens of thousands" or "hundreds of thousands" (萬, 千萬, or 成千上萬). It is very clear they were claiming an exact number, because they didn't use a vague quantifier, and also given the nature of the announcement, it doesn't seem that they were talking metamorphically at all. Blueshirts (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The song 一万个理由 by 郑源 does not literally contain, depict, or talk about exactly 10,000 excuses. The song 一千年以后 by JJ Lin does not represent exactly 1,000 years, but again rather a representation of a very long period of time. Don't you play advocate with me. Adding a 一 in front represents nothing. QUOTE: "especially what you think doesn't apply to this case" - are you trying to begin playing a game of Argument from authority here? What makes it that what you think is correct, while I am incorrect, your authority? You really want to know how absurd your claim of "adding numbers in front of something makes it exact"? The AV film "美脚美女の挑発FUCK4時間！" by Maria Ozawa does not last exactly four hours, it goes for 3:55, including closing credits. See how non-logical it is now? Since your argument fails Inductive reasoning, you must find another argument; it is clear that your current one is absurd as hell. And I interpret your attitude as that of a mother scolding a child; I will by no means attempt to avoid humiliating you if you talk like that. I don't care how upset you get when your argument is shut down by a vulgar, obscene example, a loss is a loss, deal with it, no excuses please. As we Beijingers say, "咱们是爷们，不是娘们". Suck it up like a 爷 should, and find a better argument when you stand back up from defeat, or don't argue at all. This argument has gone the way of the dodo. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not listen to some kid who obviously knows little, either on arguments or the context and circumstances surrounding the CCP's announcements. Face it, why are you so angry? Your Chinese is not as good as you think it is, no matter how many Chinese pop or Japanese porn names you throw at us. Blueshirts (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Lo, 'tis another example of poor sportsmanship. Ad hominem... you must be a very great person. I greatly admire you. Really. When you go apply for adminship, I'll be voting for you! :D </sarcasm> QUOTE: "Face it, why are you so angry?" - Let's just say you were Jewish, for the sake of it. I could be a right-wing son-of-a-bitch and find a billion (lo! 'tis a metaphor, methinks!) references to prove that the holocaust never happened, and that it was something invented by evil zionists. How would you feel? Now, you are using blackhanded tactics to browbeat the CCP in the most distasteful way. As a patriot of the PRC and as a free-minded free citizen living in the Commonwealth of Australia with CoA citizenship whom has made the decision with his free mind to be who he is, don't you think this son-of-a-bitch editor would be angry? Angry, you say?!? What the hell do you think? You use illogical arguments to fuel a viewpoint that is disputable as fuck, and I am ANGRY?!? As an editor, you FAIL to meet your obligations in fulfilling WP:ATTACK and WP:BURDEN, and so I am quite surprised that you are breathing down my neck here, of all places. Have a good think of what you have said, comrade. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Angry kid, this is from your Chinese user page[2]: 對不起，我的中文不是很好 (Sorry, my Chinese is not very good). You seem pretty honest there. Blueshirts (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

End this WP:ATTACK nonsense, this is your final warning. WP:ANI will be notified if words are not eaten. And how on earth is this relavant to the fact that you have misinterpreted "一萬"? Doesn't that even make you even more humiliated, that a fucktard with a lesser Chinese-language skill than you just kicked your ass in sentence analysis? QUOTE: "I would rather not listen to some kid who obviously knows little" - you a truly a great person, you'll get married for sure, and have plenty of kids just like you. You've been shoving Ad hominem and argument from ignorance down my throat for days now, and I have no idea when I'm going to burst. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, are you kidding me? You have misinterpreted the word, backed up your claims with Chinese song names and porn titles, fell flat on your face on showing off your Chinese skills while admitting your Chinese actually sucks, used a bunch of F words, so on and so forth. When are you going to stop acting uncivilly and focus on the CCP's announcement in 1940? And you are a kid, judging from the way you've behaved and that mugshot of yours. Blueshirts (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Shit, I think I'd feel much better going for tit for tat. I've been sucking up to you for quite a while since those ROC-Taiwan rename discussions, but if you fail to show respect, then why the fuck should I? You want Ad hominem? I've give you Ad hominem; with all the blocks you've got, you may as well change your name to Brownshirts. You now feel like shit don't you? So why go on with this "kid" nonsense if you don't feel like you're 妈的爽 afterwards? Ever feel that you're not the angel you see yourself in your own mind? Oh, wait, you've wrote FAs and that makes you superior. Lovely. I hope this son-of-a-bitch angry kid that is myself just made you feel that coming. Like I said, Tit for tat. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil? Tu quoque? That mugshot of mine? Well, are you 爷 enough to show your face, or are you afraid of showing a 12-year-old face scarred with glasses (oh, the horror of shortsightedness), or the unshaven face of an unemployed University of Taipei student studying Commerce? 你有脸说这句话吗？ Your talk is clearly irrelevant if you don't meet the line at the same instance. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'll ever feel like "shit" because of some angry kid who cusses a lot. Nice try though. Honestly, are you going to start talk about the CCP and their ten thousand and more battles or what? Blueshirts (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not answering the question. Don't run from it like a 娘们. And we were talking about those ten thousand battles before all this nonsense. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and come on, try not to be so ageist - by the time you develop cardiovascular disease and arthiritis, today's youth would be paying your taxes. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Answering what question? I don't see you asking anything except trying to make me feel like "shit" and failing miserably. You have not answered any questions on the Chinese Commies, except for throwing out F words and porn titles. Blueshirts (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: "no matter how many Chinese pop or Japanese porn names you throw at us." - as a matter of fact, these porn titles have just made your argument crash and burn. I don't see how this is "kid" material. You're just playing down something to make sure you don't lose face. You can't hide anything, it's not like I'm not Chinese. QUOTE: "Your Chinese is not as good as you think it is" - neither is your reasoning, especially going through the 5,000 bytes above. Also, what I meant on ZH Wiki was that I ain't got shit for reading and writing Traditional Chinese, and I read and write simplified at slow speed, because I natively speak, read and write English, and natively speak Standard Beijing Chinese (and none of that regional shit. Hell, I may as well change my ZH page to 對不起，我的中文比Blueshirts那个二屄牛多了, since Beijing Chinese is the most correct Mandarin Chinese). I don't want people to talk to me on ZH Wiki because it gives me the shits to read Traditional, and then slowly respond. I don't see how you can demonstrate your English skill to exceed mine, so your argument regarding the Chinese of me and you is null and void. Also, how is this of any relevance? Any Chinese speaker can tell that 萬 can clearly be used as a metaphor. You don't need to be able to read and write Chinese with great skill and speed to know that. You don't have to be literate to a high degree to know Chinese. Irrelevant as hell. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody gives a crap about why your Chinese is not that good, can we move past that? I have said 一萬餘 used by the CCP means ten thousand plus some more, in agreement with Arilang. Commonly we do not see both words used figuratively. In this context, it's not a simple metaphor, but a begging plea by the CCP to get more arms and support because they have fought exactly ten thousand and some more battles of "all sizes" in the three years from 1937 to 1940. There doesn't seem to be any metamorphic exaggerations as customary in communist propaganda. Blueshirts (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who brought it up. You should give a damn, because I have provided an explanation for something you have stated incorrectly. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Use common sense. Have there been any armies that have been involved in more than five hundred battles? Do you think Mao was really that stupid? Stupid enough to win the Civil War? It is clearly an exaggeration based on metaphoric expression. 一萬餘. Just like me saying "I've eaten over a thousand bananas" or "I've done this more than a million times". There is nothing there that says it is not a metaphor. "I've put my shoes on over a thousand times already." Obviously I haven't, but I use such a sentence to express that I am tired of something, or I am of great awe of something, or whatever. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how many sentences you come up with, porn titles or not, becauese none of them take the CCP's circumstances into context. Your syntax is different from the CCP's exact wording too, so just quit giving more useless examples. 大小一萬餘次, which means ten thousand plus engagements of all sizes. The announcement obviously counted any small skirmishes, maybe as small as some CCP cadres throwing rocks at a couple Japanese sentries. And now you seem to agree with Arilang that the communists obviously lied and exaggerated. Blueshirts (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just back down, and end this now. Like men. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the 大小一萬餘次, how do you interpret it? How about this; let's go downtown Shanghai and ask twenty people what they think. Justify your claim with solid facts. And no, I haven't been "giving more useless examples". If you take the time to actually have a look at them, rather than being hot under the collar... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, let's end this stupidity once and for all. No more what you "think" is right and porn titles. Here are the top results from Google Chinese using the exact term 一萬餘 (one ten thousand)[3], as used by the CCP quote posted by Arilang: 愛河一萬餘尾魚, 一萬餘戶停電, 一萬餘支注射液, 一萬餘件西沙出水文物, 一萬餘戶受害, 偷稅一萬餘元. They all mean specifically one ten thousand incidences or things. None of them are the figurative "tens of thousands" because 一萬餘 is not commonly used. I suggest you read over them slowly and swallow and digest how the exact word 一萬餘 is used. Blueshirts (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're always taking it into the context of an exact figure. You can't take a sentence regarding something quantative and compare it with a sentence with something that is relatively immesurable. You can measure 大小一万公斤的米, 大小一万个红枫, becuase they can be counted. There is no one to record with pencil and paper each time a battle occurs. One can only guess, but guessing can always lead to expressions being used. This can be used in propaganda, yes, but nobody is stupid enough to take it for a factual quantity. It isn't the only way the phrase can be used. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And end all this porn rubbish. That was ten minutes ago. Stick to the topic. I thought you said you ended it. You're spraying kerosene here, and I have a naked flame. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have laid out my reasoning, Chinese syntax and common word usage, AND proved it with a search of the exact term using Google, with a bunch of links posted above, and they ALL back what I have been saying all along. You've got nothing except for more twisting of the word's true meaning, and you have NOT in one instance used the exact term that the CCP quoted to make your point. I have to say I have way more persuasive proof than you have. Are we finished here? Blueshirts (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

However, you have not proven that this is what is being expressed in the CCP quote. Your reasoning does not cover the sentence being figurative, because you have only selected lines that are not. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I can express an equivalent, such as "The Persian Army was 30,000 strong, and were faced by a Greek force of about 300." (Texts regarding the Battle of Thermopylae) You can never get an exact number, especially when history and length of time poses a problem. One can speculate, but it is often that someone recording history will have little twists. But large numbers generally represent "many"; in such cases, the numbers are never taken seriously. The 30,000 is figurative. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How many times should I repeat this? I have explained how the syntax and word usage work, I have done a Google search using the exact word the CCP used, and from the results I have many links posted above that all prove my reasoning, that the CCP meant exactly one ten thousand plus. However, you keep on yapping. Since you insist that the CCP used the word non-literally, which would be syntactically incorrect anyways, it is up to YOU to prove that they used the word figuratively AND that the word is commonly used figuratively. I have done all my reasoning and searches using the exact word 一萬餘, and I have not made any vague examples and try to pass them off to convince anybody. You, on the other hand, have not used the exact word 一萬餘 even once in your arguments. You claim you're a man (爷), and a man knows when to call it quits. Blueshirts (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: "However, you keep on yapping." 我已经感觉和你争争吵吵是没啥意思。从现在开始，不说人话，我不会理你的。 Anyways, I'mma'gun go have some WP:TEA, be back in a few days, there's no point in staying here if all there will be is angry talk. I suggest you should do the same too. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. You've been the only angry one here. I have not once lost my temper and used curse words like you did numerous times. It's the third time I've repeated this, but I've laid out my reasoning and proof very clearly, and anyone viewing this talk page can read all of our conversations and see that. However, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. I expected you to read the arguments and gave you some "face" in my last message by suggesting you to back down like a "man" as you claimed to be. But no, you still have to pretend to be on a high horse and DODGE MY QUESTIONS and finally accuse me of "angry talk." I didn't want to emphasize this, but YOU GOT PROVERBIALLY OWNED IN THIS ARGUMENT. I'll see you around. Blueshirts (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Knock off the caps. It's considered shouting. See internet etiquette. Refer to my comment above if you wish to engage in further, meaningful talk. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and referring to your edit summary a few days ago, who's the angry one now? And don't get too giddy or excited here. I don't see how you've "won" anything, or that any of this is a competition. Try to keep your anger level down, I suggest going somewhere else to calm down and relax, before coming back. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring to my edit summary "a few days ago"? I thought you've decided to settle this down like this man a long time ago, yet you still try to continue this "I did he did" kid stuff. I have no interest to doing that, so PROVIDE PROOF FOR YOUR REASONING USING THE EXACT CCP TERM LIKE I DID. I wouldn't regard an internet debate as a victory, but YOU'VE LOST THE ARGUMENT TERRIBLY BY DODGING MY QUESTIONS AND RESORTING TO MORE PERSONAL COMMENTS. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. I make my letters uppercase for emphasis because you really like to dodge the questions. Are they easier for you to read? Blueshirts (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I want you to 1). PROVIDE PROOF THAT 一萬餘 IS USED FIGURATIVELY and 2). PROVIDE PROOF THAT THE CCP USED THE TERM 一萬餘 FIGURATIVELY CONTRARY TO NORMAL CHINESE SYNTAX. No more playing and dodging around, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. Blueshirts (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, GTFO.

Oh, come on, just GTFO and go have some WP:TEA. It doesn't hurt to do so. I mean, who's the one flaming on this talk page? I've never hit the Caps lock, and I've only used bold for dramatical emphasis (Oh, Romeo, where art thou?), and not shouting. Plus, why are we arguing about something that isn't even in the article yet? Do we really need to take it that seriously? It's a little talk page post for christ sakes, why are we getting emotional? Is it worth it, getting uproared over such a tiny little thing? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, learn about civility a bit, will ya? You telling me to get some wp:tea? This coming from a kid who gets angry easily, shouts out porn titles, makes multiple ad hominem attacks, uses F words multiples times, including the word "fucktard", asks me to "GTFO", so on and so forth. Come on, who's getting "uproared"? Who are you fooling here? Blueshirts (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, Tu quoque?!? What have you done? WP:ATTACK? Are you really WP:COOL as you claim? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Blueshirts, by reading the comments you and Benlinsquare put forward, I have figured out you two are much younger than me, so I shall add something here as a Old Man.

1. The important thing here is the complex international interaction between China, Japan, USSR, USA, and the inner fighting between CCP and KMT. We should keep our focus.
2. Benlinsquare could still be a teenager, as we all know, high school students sometimes behave like wild horse because of hormone surge, have to be patience. However, foul language should not be tolerated, especially words related to human anatomy can sometimes be distastefull.
3. Let's keep our focus on what IJA did in the war, and end these school classroom kind of talk. Arilang ^talk 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've never lost my cool here. The focus has been on the term 一萬餘, and I believe I have done a convincing job on explaining what the term means. Blueshirts (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Blueshirt, I am not saying you are wrong, what is important is, it is better to win him over, using historical facts, no matter how difficult it could be. Talking about historical facts, why is it that the role of New Fourth Army and Eighth Route Army hardly ever being mentioned in this article? Officially they were supposed to be under the command of Chiang Kaishek, shouldn't we talk about what they did/or did not do? Arilang ^talk 02:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can win him over. Nobody can. My aim has been on the term 一萬餘 and I've provided proofs and many searches on Google using the term. I had thought about discussing the CCP's situation, but decided against it as that would've been more complicated and required a lot more explaining. So, I decided in my arguments to focus on the term 一萬餘, and I've done an extra careful job to differentiate this term from the figurative use of 萬,成千上萬, and so forth. Thus, I don't think bringing in what the CCP did during the war was necessary, since that's been documented well elsewhere. I forgot to ask you, but do you agree with my approach and reasoning? In the end, I've proven my points logically, and now he only has to do two things: 1) prove that 一萬餘 is commonly used figuratively and 2) prove that 一萬餘 is used figuratively by the CCP. So far he has produced nothing except for more comments that have nothing to do with the discussion. And from the looks of it I don't think he'll ever contribute meaningfully to this discussion. He has too much "face" to save and that's why you can't win him over either. Blueshirts (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

中共中央為公布國共合作宣言

Blueshirts, like I have said, you are not wrong. But for a person/or persons, they have been told Apple can only be red for their whole life, suddenly, someone else said Apple can be green too, naturally there shall be some kind of shock reactions. Everything takes time, sometimes is fast, sometimes slow.

Apart from the 大小一萬餘次的英勇戰鬥 example, there are still many examples need to be discussed:

zh:s:中共中央為公布國共合作宣言...作者：周恩來

“ 中共中央再鄭重向全國宣言：

• 一、孫中山先生的三民主義為中國今日之必需，本黨願為其徹底的實現而奮鬥。

• 二、取消一切推翻國民黨政權的暴動政策及赤化運動，停止以暴力沒收地主土地的政策。

• 三、取消現在的蘇維埃政府，實行民權政治，以期全國政權之統一。

• 四、取消紅軍名義及番號，改編為國民革命軍，受國民政府軍事委員會之統轄，並待命出動，擔任抗日前線之職責。

”

This is another very important article written by none other then Zhou Enlai in 1937.7.4. This was the ultmost solemn pledge by the CCP towards Chiang Kaishek, and exactly how many points have the CCP carried out in real life? None. Because from the beginning of the CCP, 推翻國民黨政權的暴動政策及赤化運動 was their sole policy. Arilang ^talk 01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The CCP has failed to achieve 2, 3 and 4, however, number 1 has been partially completed. 民生主義: Since the establishment of the PRC in 1949, average life expectancy has increased from 56 years to 70 years, GDP has increased significantly, poverty reduced (although it is still a big issue today, but nevertheless reduced), and land distributed among the larger population. 民權主義: The CCP has failed to achieve full democracy, that I do agree with. 民族主義: Sun Yat-sen meant this as "freedom from imperailist domination". China is no longer dominated by colonial powers. Unlike the era of the Eight-Nation Alliance, China is now strong enough to defend itself from being taken over. Unlike the era of the ROC, the PRC now has full sovereignty over Tibet, Xinjiang, Heilongjiang and Inner Mongolia. During the SSJW, the CCP motivated militiamen to struggle against the foreign invader that is Japan, and sought to reunify the mainland (under communism, however) from those that separated it, namely the Japanese in the East, the KMT in Chongqing (later Nanking during the CCW), and those that attempted independence, such as the East Turkestan Republic. Thus, nationalism has been achieved under the CCP. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be serious about it

• User Benlinsquare, let's call spade a spade. The article I posted is a serious stuff:

1. 為抗戰三周年紀念對時局宣言. Everybody knows that 宣言 is a Manifesto, such as Communist Manifesto, every word, every sentence, down to every dot/slash, !, ? were to be checked again and again, to avoid any possible error. Terms like 萬歲, or 千山萬水, or 狂姦三千次, or 成千上萬, or song 一万个理由, are all 形容词, adjectives. Whereas in that article, 大小一萬餘次英勇戰斗 is a clear cut statement, no if or but, no more and no less. There is no imagination to be drawn from it, 10,000 plus heroic battles, this Plus can be plus/minus say a few hundreds. Definitely not more than a few thousands.
2. This Manifesto came from 中國共產黨中央委員, the Chinese Communist Central Committe, which is the highest political body in China, even today.

Like you said:

One can speculate, but it is often that someone recording history will have little twists. But large numbers generally represent "many"; in such cases, the numbers are never taken seriously.

User Benlingsquare, please do not advocate the idea that 中國共產黨中央委員 are never taken seriously. 中國共產黨 is the paramount ruling body of China, the home of 13(or is it 15?) billions human beings, many of them are either our friends, or our relatives, because our parents, or grandparents all came from China.

1. Please do not call other editors 娘们 or 爷们, because it implies sexual preferences, which is a big NO NO in these modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the plus can say +/- a few hundreds, but I just don't see how 萬 cannot be interpreted as wordplay, as emotive language, similar to the use of "a billion" or "two billion" or "ten billion" in English? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are invalid and so far you've provided nothing to back up your claims. Don't try to argue the same thing here, I thought we're done with the section above. Blueshirts (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, let's have a look at the examples you have given a few clicks up. 愛河一萬餘尾魚: are there literally "over 10,000 tailfish" in the Ai River? Who counts them? It is a guesstimate, there could be 200, or 4,000, or 20,000, you never know; how is this different to the CCP's "over 10,000 battles"? From the link, "高雄市愛河中游治平橋附近今天發生大批魚群暴斃" - clearly, we're not sure on the exact numbers, as there are 大批魚群暴斃 - a "large number of fish dying". 一萬餘戶停電: since this is conducted by something that is regulated, once can argue that there is "over 10,000", as this is actually counted (you can count households, by census, etc), but this is a special case. This one instance does not seal any fate. 一萬餘支注射液: this is also counted. 一萬餘件西沙出水文物: link currently broken, will try again later. 一萬餘戶受害: The "一萬餘" acts as the expression for the actual estimated number, which is 12,000 victims. It doesn't matter if the actual number is higher or lower. 偷稅一萬餘元: again, this is something that is counted, that's what accountants and financial brokers do for a living. No one counts CCP battles. You need to find examples which are on par with the original CCP statement. Your first example was a good one; we've established that "一萬餘" can be used as figurative language and as something literal, depending on the context it is in. Sometimes, as with the fish one, "一萬餘" is used figuratively; others, such as the tax evasion one, is fixed because there are solid figures. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh*, so that's 1, for now. As for 2, you have to prove that "normal Chinese syntax" is what you claim it to be first. And please reply like a gentleman this time, so I feel inclined and happy to co-operate with you. I'll stick a lovely tag up the top here, just it case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, you've just proven MY points. You've not established they are used figuratively, because None of them are used figuratively, because they all mean one ten thousand plus. Not twenty thousand, not thirty thousand, and certainty not tens of thousands. They don't mean the figurative tens or thousands glorious battles of the CCP. None of them counted maybe hundreds or thousands, and exaggerate for dramatic or propaganda effect and say "tens of thousands", which in Chinese is not 一萬餘 either. And for the fish example I posted, don't try to obfuscate even more and say funny things like 10,000+ is a "guess" and can come from a number as low as 200. And if it's not one ten thousand plus but 20,000, they would have said "two ten thousand plus" (兩萬餘, get it?). Are you saying the Taiwanese environmental agency is manned by a bunch of retards? That they'll just screw it up when it comes to important environmental assessments? And this is absolutely no different from the CCP, because the CCP doesn't just say retarded things, and believe it or not, they have plenty of historical archives that provide the number of how many "battles" they fought, and of all sizes. Just like the Kuomintang, which fought in exactly 22 set-piece battles, plus thousands more "small" engagements. Are you saying all these organizations are put together by a bunch of retards who can't count, don't have their own historians, and would just throw up random numbers for dramatic or comedic values?

Alright, screw it. To hell with WP:COOL, it doesn't work. You just don't get it, do you? Read between the lines. You shouldn't be getting excited, you've just proven how stubborn you are. I ain't compromising further. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Especially for something as important as the manifesto of the CCP that Arilang posted, do you think they would "lie" and "exaggerate" and provide further fodder for the Kuomintang to accuse that they weren't fighting? No! Of course not, the CCP said exactly one ten thousand plus engagements of all sizes to show that they were actively fighting and tied down 40 to 50% of the Japanese like they claimed, and that's why they needed weapon and ammo. Hopefully this fulfills Arilang's request to put the debate in historical context, not just Chinese syntax.

I have you given you FIVE DAYS since my question and this is the best you've come up with. First you dodged my questions for five days, and then when you've got no arguments left, you finally just went ahead and caused more misunderstanding of my questions and the links I posted and then confirming most of my examples except for the fish one which I explained above. Honestly, this is getting nowhere. Blueshirts (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"First you dodged my questions for five days" - not all of us have lives adhered to Wikipedia. I have to earn to eat. I have to study to earn more later on to eat more later on. Wikipedia doesn't put the food on the table. Wikipedia doesn't get you a diploma in anything. What are you trying to argue? I'm pretty busy dealing with the real world to be worried about coming here to meet up with you and have a chat about sentences and dead fish; that's the least interesting thing I find. Time means nothing, WP:There is no deadline. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure. You had been editing this non-stop, and when I tried to edit this page I got multiple "edit conflicts," and that was right before I posted the links and questions. Then you waited for five days, thinking long and hard I'm sure, and came back with this. And don't forget, you were the one suggesting for some WP:TEA, yet you kept coming back for more. I've said this before, but who are you trying to fool? Are you going to address my main questions or continue picking the irrelevant parts and answering those? Blueshirts (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 愛河一萬餘尾魚, just how do you know that it is not your own interpretation? You complain of WP:CIVIL, but "Yeah sure" seems a bit like a bite, doesn't it? You wonder why there was profanity a few sections up, but I wonder why you have this attitude, that doesn't really seem to be changing. Think long and hard? Who are you to me? And talk of "edit conflicts" is utterly irrelevant. Assume the good faith of mine in sharing my truthful explanation. How do you know what I've been doing those days? As for WP:TEA, I've made myself loud and clear that I will use it if I feel that it is absolutely certain and apparent that you will use it too; you have not proven to me that you will reciprocate. Anyway, back to the main point: you prove your number 2 with a linguistic or academic text of any form, that "一萬餘" can never, ever be used as an idiom, as you have stated. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing a man would be so sensitive as to be ticked off by a simple "yeah sure," so let's just skip talking about your feelings, because it's not relevant. Back to the topic regarding the dead fish in the river, and only reply to this please. First of all, don't even try to suggest that it's "my interpretation". Because it means exactly what it means, 一萬餘尾魚, one ten thousand plus/minus fish in the river, that's it. Again, it's NOT a figurative piece, because first of all, the syntax is incorrect for a figurative expression. Second, it's a serious environmental piece published by a newspaper. It's not a celebratory piece saying "hey, we got "tens of thousands" of fish in the river, must be a great season." One ten thousand fish plus/minus, simple as that. It's not MY interpretation, it's not YOUR interpretation, and it's NOT open to ANY interpretation. It is what it is, straight forward and to the point. Please DO NOT suggest that we all have different interpretations, because we don't, not for something as simple as this, and we can't afford to muddle this up. I've done all my arguments using clear and direct reasoning, but you on the other hand, have never produced ANY results using the exact term the CCP used for your "interpretation." But you've used the fish example (which I posted to prove my point no less), which hopefully I have dispelled any misunderstandings. Blueshirts (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Well, it seems meaningless quarrels are finished. Now let the reference speaks. CCP annouced that their troops had roughly more than 10,000 combats against the Japnese by July, 1940; and here is a source I found from The statistical forms of 8RA, ISBN 750652290

Year	Number of combats
1937.9 ~ 1938.5	638
1938.6 ~ 1939.5	2,051
1939.6 ~ 1940.5	6,936

It's part of a table in page 355. The combats were mainly guerrilla warfares, but a combat is a combat.--MtBell 22:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. This adds to 9625 incidents. See, the CCP engaged in exactly "one ten thousand" plus/minus battles, guess who has the last laugh, ha ha ha. Blueshirts (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC : Territorial Changes

Should Taiwan be described as being retroceded to China after the war, or should it simply be described as having control transferred? Reasons for describing it as retroceded are (1) the ROC (Republic of China) proclaimed such, without any protest by any other power, and (2) the ROC's actions were consistent with the Potsdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender, and (3) (disputed) in a practical (de facto) sense, the ROC has treated Taiwan as its own sovereign territory ever since. Reasons for opposing describing it as retroceded are (1) it never was retroceded since no treaty specifically notes it, and (2) many states never recognized the claimed retrocession. I also have concerns that attempts to "fudge it" are producing sentences full of weasel words. Ngchen (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not control transferred. No control was "transferred" to ROC, the ROC simply initiated control upon receiving General Order Number One section A to go to said territories(including Taiwan and other non-Chinese territories) and accept Japanese surrender. (1) ROC's own claim is protested by the native residents of Taiwan who have the legal rights of Taiwan per UN charter article 2 which the ROC sworn to abide by. The people supported such view was later suppressed and repressed by the ROC government for decades. Since Taiwan was a limbo cession and belonged to no other powers/countries, they naturally had no capacity to protest against ROC's claim.

(2) Potsdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender do not supercede the legality of San Francisco peace Treaty. Potsdam or Cairo Declaration were referred by the Japanese Instrument of Surrender as guidelines to spell out the demands of the allies. The Instrument of Surrender is merely a to-do list for Japan to follow in exchange for cease fire and temporary suspension of war. The peace treaty is the ultimate legal binding agreement between Japan and the Allied forces on the demands as described by the JIS. As soon as SFPT comes into force, the obligations Japanese had were hold fulfilled, and the settlement marks the end of hostilities and beginning of peace. Therefore the JIS and all declaration used as reference become obsolete and nullified. It is elementary legal concept. Why Ngchen thinks that is a valid reason is totally beyond me.

(3)ROC government asserts de facto control of Taiwan and it is recognized by the world, but the ROC's ownership of Taiwan is not recognized by anyone but the ROC its self. In fact, the ROC even acknowledged its lack of ownership of Taiwan when the ROC legislative yuan questioned YEH KUNG-CHAO for not having Japanese agreed to include Taiwanese territorial sovereignty transfer in the Treaty of Taipei. Yeh testified to the congress that it was simply not Japan's position to give away something it no longer owns. If retrocession has been done, then it would have been mentioned clearly on the final legally binding treaty and the ROC legislators would not have asked those question. Retrocssion by definition also means "To cede or give back (a territory, for example)", no such actions were done by Japan to return Taiwan to China or ROC. For an important matter such as settlement of territorial disposition normally requires a signed and ratified treaty, especially for the biggest war of the history of mankind. In fact, the original draft of SF Peace Treaty indeed clearly stated Japan's action of returning Taiwan, the draft stated "Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the islands of Taiwan and adjacent minor islands[.]" Intention of retrocession of Taiwan is VERY CLEAR. The record of this draft may be obtained from memorandum from Hugh Borton to Charles E Bohlen: Draft Treaty of Peace of Japan, State Department Decimal File No. 740.0011 PW(PEACE)/8-647 CS/W, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (August 6, 1947) Memorandum, Background of Draft of Japanese Peace Treaty, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (Jan 30, 1948). The language was removed from the treaty due to the fact there was no one single legitimate China at the time of SFPT signing, and it was the decision of the world to leave Taiwan status unsettled. No retrocession happened and that is an undisputed fact. If Ngchen sympathizes with ROC's obvious self-pity, then I say post that opinion on a political forum, but not on wikipedia.

Ngchen believes the fact ROC has de facto control over Taiwan and has unilaterally claimed Taiwan has been retroceded to them is enough to make "Taiwan retrocession" a fact to be included in the fact box of the article. What Ngchen suggesting here is basically a justification of territorial annexation, an action considers to be illegal according to prevailing international laws and a direct violation of the Stimson Doctrine. That would also mean territories in de facto control of the rebels in countries all over the world would also be legal and justified. That would be ludicrous. As an opponent of the word choice of "retrocesion" in this article in reference to Taiwan, I strongly support the retention of the word "control" for it is something everyone can agree and would not raise too much controversy. Wikipedia is becoming a popular source for people to get good information and I would hate to see it being spoiled by arbitrary views but not verifiable facts from NPOV sources. Mafia godfather (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside (emphasis mine) input. It seems You have already given input on this matter previously. feydey (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It was just a minor clarification.Mafia godfather (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say on the matter? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the source, its date, and the political leanings of the source. Due to the highly charged political nature of the question, reliable sources give differing de jure interpretations of what happened. As to what they say, de facto, I will confess that it's a 'very' interesting question. Ngchen (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV would probably demand that all significant views found in reliable sources be included in the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But that kind of detail should be in the article on the political status of Taiwan, not here. Here I think a simple conclusion that the areas came under ROC control is more than enough. Blueshirts (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who believes that the Treaty of Taipei pretty much settled the issue legally, but one who also believes that consensus should govern (without undue use of weasel words), this is what I'd suggest (or something close, perhaps more elegantly-worded if someone can do it): "After the end of World War II, ROC troops took control of Taiwan and Penghu pursuant to the understanding with its other allies. Subsequently, Japan and the ROC signed the Treaty of Taipei in 1952, which, according to the parties, settled the issue of ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, although some Taiwan Independence advocates contest the legality of the Treaty of Taipei to this day." --Nlu (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your view toward what should go into the infobox? Thanks. Ngchen (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest, with regard to Taiwan only, a relatively simplistic (and accurate, no matter what view you take as to legality) "Taiwan and Penghu to ROC" be sufficient. However, that isn't completely it, since that's not the only territorial adjustment made. "Taiwan, Penghu, and Manchuria to ROC" may be sufficient (without involving Mengjiang — since the Mengjiang situation arguably occurred after the war had started, as was the case with various puppet regimes.) --Nlu (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I support using the wording of the Cairo Declaration, which states "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China". Blueshirts (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Stolen" is not NPOV. Plus, at the time that Japan took those territories, the ROC did not yet exist. Further, that was only a declaration, and there were many other points of the allies' declarations that were simply not implemented after the war. Finally, the words of a declaration cannot replace treaties -- and such words were not used in the Treaties of San Francisco and Taipei. (Not that I feel that it should be incorporated even if they were in the Treaties of San Francisco and Taipei -- the Treaty of Versailles included gratuitous blames on German war responsibility that would, clearly, by Wikipedia standards, not be NPOV.) --Nlu (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I don't see (at least a major part of) Korea as being "free and independent" as called for in the Cairo Declaration. And the Cairo Declaration called for the unconditional surrender of Japan, which did not occur. --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify that last clause; I realize that the Japanese proclaimed that the surrender was conditional, but in implementation, it was not, in my opinion, unconditional. I realize that that might not be a consensus or majority view. --Nlu (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the wording I'm interested in is "restore", not "stolen." Personally I think retrocession seems fine because that's what the ROC uses. But since there have been more and more lawyer talk suiting to one POV regarding the word, I think something along the lines that the areas "returned" to Chinese rule or Chinese rule was "restored" should suffice. Blueshirts (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that "restore" or "return" is problematic since that begs the question of whether the Republic of Formosa was a legal entity or not, unnecessarily. I still think that it is more NPOV to simply state that the ROC received Taiwan, Penghu, and Manchuria as a result of the war. --Nlu (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For comparison (and as another alternative), the articles Alsace-Lorraine uses "revert[.]" --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's none of Alsace-Lorraine's business here. I think it's a better way if you can prove your wording is widely used in WP:Reliable sources. Now I strongly support Blueshirt's proposal as the word restore is directly used in Cairo Declaration, which was issued by China, UK, US, USSR, and accepted by Japan.--MtBell 23:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Restoration is an approperiate expression as Cairo Declaration asserted. Plz also notice that neither Russia nor China signed Treaty of San Francisco.--MtBell 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But the ROC signed the Treaty of Taipei. Which incorporated the terms of the Treaty of San Francisco. Or are we going to ignore the Treaty of Taipei, too? If you do, you are more or less going to have to take the position that there is no document, as a matter of international law, that supports ROC sovereignty -- a position that I don't buy. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but I have yet to read any document that stated that Japan accepted the Cairo Declaration, as opposed to Potsdam, which was explicitly referenced. Further, in any case, a surrender document cannot trump a formal treaty signed by Japan -- rather, two formal treaties. Not to mention that, contrary to what you stated above, the USSR was not involved in the Cairo Declaration. --Nlu (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. For Treaty of Taipei, it was invalidated by Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China, and has no power over China. In this treaty, Japan reconfirms 8th term of Potsdam Proclamation and therefore accepts Cairo Declaration. --MtBell 04:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an organ of the PRC government. That the PRC does not accept the Treaty of Taipei does not mean that it was not a valid treaty. Indeed, by citing the PRC position in support of your proposed wording, you are effectively proving that the wording is not NPOV. Further, the PRC did not exist at the time that the ROC took control of Taiwan and Penghu, and therefore however the PRC views the status of the takeover is completely irrelevant. --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And I just looked at the text of the Japan-PRC treaty that you referenced. It does not refer to the Treaty of Taipei, either explicitly or implicitly, and certainly does not say that it was void. Nor does it reference either Potsdam or Cairo. In any case, NPOV has to be observed, and that means that it's not "this wording has to be used because the PRC government says so." --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Concerning the invalidity of Treaty of Taipei: On September 29, 1972, Japanese Foreign Minister Masayoshi Ōhira announced that the Treaty of Taipei was ended as it had lost its meaning of existance. （大平正芳：「日華平和条約は存続の意義を失い、終了した」）
• Concerning how Japanese government announced accepting Cairo Declaration:
  • In Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China, it is announced that the principles enunciated in the Joint Communique should be strictly observed.
  • And in the Joint Communique, it is declared that Japanese government firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.
  • Article 8 of the Postsdam Proclamation cited Cairo Declaration.
• The wording "restoration" should be used because it has WP:Reliable sources. It is clearly mentioned in the formal treaty between China and Japan. Could you show any stronger documents supporting your claim? --MtBell 05:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, NPOV? Your view effectively means that, by implication, that ROC is illegitimate and PRC is legitimate, which clearly violates NPOV and violates consensus on Wikipedia. (See, in addition to WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:History standards for China-related articles, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language). I note that you continue to refer to "China," "China," and "China," ignoring that at the time that the Treaty of Taipei was signed, Japan recognized the ROC government as a legitimate government. (Note, I am going to avoid stating "the legitimate government of China.") That Japan abandoned that position later is immaterial; a treaty was effective as soon as it was signed, and Japan's unilateral abrogation -- assuming arguendo that it was an abrogation -- could not itself make the Treaty of Taipei invalid. That Japan hasn't reasserted sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu is a clear indication that, in effect, the Treaty of Taipei was executed and valid.

And as I pointed out and as you failed to refute, NPOV has to prevail over the language of any treaty, communique, &c., itself. Otherwise, the World War I-related articles would clearly have to blame the Central Powers for the war -- because that was what was stated in the Treaty of Versaille and other peace treaties involving the Central Powers. You can yell as loud as you want to about what the PRC thinks; all you are showing, each time you yell, is that the view is not NPOV.

Show a little respect here. NPOV means that you can't expect your PRC-centered view to prevail over everybody else -- regardless of how much the Beijing authorities would like you to believe that Beijing's world view should prevail over everybody else. --Nlu (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I will add this: in light of the fact that you (MtBell, that is) clearly have no intent to even hear out what other people with different views have to say — and I am not asking you to agree, just to listen — I am finding that this discussion is unproductive with regard to you. You are clearly uninterested in consensus, which is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. This attitude may work in the PRC; it doesn't work here. The PRC also says that a highway from Fuzhou to Taipei will be built. That doesn't mean that it will be built. --Nlu (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, yelling. I'm sorry you really sad that. It seems you are losing control of yourself and diversing the topic. It will do no good to a productive discussion. Let's keep focused.

The NPOV policy requires all sides be equally expressed only if these expressions are supported by WP:Reliable Sources. Above I quoted the Sino-Japanese treaty in 1972 as a solid reference to the claim that Taiwan was restored to China, and it was also a response to your doubt whether Japan accepts Cairo Declaration. However, I didn't find if you have made any effort to respond my request that you need show your claim, that Taiwan was transfered but not restored to China, is clearly endorsed by any reliable source.

Furthermore, I never said a word on the status of RoC and PRC. And it does not matter on this issue which government is installed to China or Japan. Please stop diversing the topic and remove all your impolite personal comments, if a productive discussion is really your intention. --MtBell 14:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

When you claim that an international treaty is not only not a reliable source but is invalid on the say so of the PRC government, you're not discussing in good faith.

And I am not arguing on whether Taiwan and Penghu (and Manchuria) were "restored" to ROC I am taking the position that NPOV requires a more neutral wording. --Nlu (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean, in any sense, a single neutralized or weasal wording. Instead, all major views based on reliable sources should be equally expressed. The word restore should be used in the article since it's recognized by both countries. The section of this article can not achieve NPOV without such a major point of view. Again, please just present your ideas about the topic and stop imposing on me any arguements I've never talked about. Thank you. --MtBell 15:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And I did. I pointed out that the Treaty of Taipei supports a more neutral wording as it does not use the same kind of wording -- which I'd dare to say was motivated by the political realities of the time that Japan and the PRC signed their communique, not by historical realities -- that the Japan-PRC communique used. That you disregard the Treaty of Taipei as invalid (and, by implication, the ROC's authority to sign it as invalid) does not mean that it should be considered invalid -- any more than the Treaty of Shimonoseki (which the Treaty of Taipei declared null and void by implication as it declared all "unequal treaties" as null and void) is to be considered invalid for the purpose of historical discussions. You can't simply announce that you're simply going to disregard an international treaty and then say that you are, in fact, willing to listen to contrary views.

And your "recognized by both countries" (Japan and PRC) again ignores how the ROC sees things (and thereby, not being NPOV) or how any other country would view things. As you yourself pointed out, the USSR did not sign the Treaty of San Francisco. It was also not involved in the Cairo Declaration. Your implicit view that ROC is not a country (by ignoring its views, as well as the views of the parties therein) is not NPOV. But even more problematically, you are viewing PRC and Japan as monolithic entities, where the government's official view is the only acceptable view. That sounds a lot like the Beijing regime's world view to me (that whatever the Leading Comrades say has to be accepted). That's not how it works or should work in Wikipedia. The fact that the Obama Administration says that health care reform is good for the country (which, in my opinion, it is, but that is beside the point) does not mean that "the United States" (monolithically) views health care reform as good for the country, and certainly, even if that were to be the case, that does not mean that people in other countries cannot view it differently.

Disregarding the Treaty of Taipei also creates legal problems even from the PRC point of view. The Japan-PRC treaty was not signed until 1978 -- so what was Taiwan's legal status between 1945 (or 1952, when the Treaty of Taipei was signed) and 1978? Surely you are not planning to take the position that until the Japan-PRC treaty was signed, Japan continued to hold sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu?

You have to get off the "whatever the PRC says goes" position here. It is not logically or legally consistent. Either the ROC had the legal authority to sign the Treaty of Taipei (in which case it was a legal treaty whose wording has to be considered, albeit not conclusively) or it did not (in which case, legally, the transfer did not take place until 1978 -- which I'd consider an absolutely ridiculous position). The Japan-PRC treaty did not legally or actually effectuate the transfer of control to "China" (whether it be the ROC or PRC or both) in 1945, and therefore cannot be said to be an instrument that is relevant to the discussion of the results of the war, which ended in 1945, not in 1952 or 1978. --Nlu (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused why you are talking about Obama here. And it is the third time you force your ideas on me. Please get back on track. WP policies don't care about the what should be of the editors' thoughts of the world, neither yours nor mine. What really matters is what are recorded in reliable sources. The importance of the Sino-Japanese Treaty in Beijing and the Cairo Declaration is that they serve as reliable sources of using restore to describe the historical event in 1945. Whether Chinese or Japanese government rules in wikipedia has nothing to do with our discussion. You can cite Treaty of Taipei as a reliable source to point out that the status of Taiwan was not clearly mentioned in that document, but you cannot use this reference to reject using restore in this article. The historical fact that China and Japan recognize Taiwan as restored to China should be included in the text. And such complete expressions contribute to NPOV. --MtBell 19:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you are coming off the position that the Treaty of Taipei should be ignored. That is, basically, the crux of the matter. As you finally are acknowledging, "restore" is just one of the views. As long as it is clearly stated as just one of the views, I have no objection to mentioning it in the article.

As to the infobox (as was mentioned above), a neutral wording should be used, however, since the infobox should not be cluttered. Therefore, a "lowest common denominator" approach should be used there.

In any case, there are plenty of sources on any further contrary views -- contrary to yours and mine -- about the legal status of Taiwan, cited in that article, that this article should mention those views as well. I consider the Treaty of Taipei as valid when signed. That's apparently not your view, and that's apparently not the view of many Taiwanese Independence advocates, whose views should be acknowledged for the article to be NPOV. But the infobox itself should be factual. "ROC took control of Taiwan, Penghu, and Manchuria" is factual (as that is exactly what happened). Whether that was legally valid and whether it was a "retrocession" or not depends on the view of the viewer. I believe that it was, but that is not the only view. --Nlu (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresenting my words will not help you in disccssion.

I am ever opposing any attempts to use weasal words instead of fair expressions based on reliable sources. Such position is never changed. I find you still insist a weasal expression in the infobox. My suggestion is: ROC reclaimed Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Pescadores according to Potsdam Proclamation.

And, I have to remind you: you never show any regret of distorting my words and personal attacks on me. Such behavior greatly degrades yourself. --MtBell 20:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how I distorted your words; it is you who insisted on ignoring the Treaty of Taipei, and there is no way that I can accept it as a reasonable position. Are you going to ask me to write a self-criticism next? --Nlu (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

yelling is not a polite word, how do you think? And please remember, I never commented on if Treaty of Taipei was valid when it was signed. --MtBell 15:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The way it is now is perfectly fine, as it is proven that retropcession of Taiwan is merely Chinese position and has not actually happened. No treaties after San Francisco Peace Treaty has or can make modification to Taiwan's territorial sovereignty. ROC took control of Taiwan and Penghu, we should just leave it as that.Mafia godfather (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The WWII article also used "reclaimed" as in "KMT retreated to the reclaimed island of Taiwan...", so one possible modification is "ROC took control of the reclaimed islands of Taiwan and Penghu"DCTT (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mao Zedong quotations

The Mao quotation >> Our aim is to develop the military power of the CCP, in order to stage a coup d'état. Therefore this main directive is to be strictly followed: "70% of our efforts for expansion, 20% for dealing with the Kuomintang, and 10% for resisting Japan." All party members and groups are hereby ordered not to oppose this paramount directive.<< is a fiction.
I read the given reference (Joseph Yick, Making of Urban Revolution in China, p.185, M.E. Sharpe (1995)) and I only found: „As a result of Mao Zedong’s wartime policy of „70 percent expansion, 20 percent dealing with the GMD, and 10 percent resisting Japan”” refering to footnote 14 and this footnote 14 reads: “See Ke Siming, “Lun kangzahn shiqi Zhonggong de ‘Qieryi fanzhen,’” pp. 164-79”. So it’s clear that J. Yick doesn’t quote a Mao’s order but gives a summary of an essay dealing with the subject. The rest of the above citied “order” is true fantasy and can’t be found in Yick’s work.

Where you can find a quote like the given is in “Mao Tse-tung: A political portrait, 1976 by Oleg Evgenevich Vladimirov and Vladimir Ivanovich Riazantsev” [Russ.: Stranitsy politicheskoi biografii Mao Tsze-duna, Moscow 1969]. The German version of this booklet (sorry I haven’t access to the English version) „Aus der politischen Biographie Mao Tse-Tungs, Berlin (East) 1973“ reads on page 66: “Mao Tse-Tung erliess den Aufruf: „10 Prozent unserer Kraefte für den Kampf gegen die Japaner, 20 Prozent für den Kampf gegen die Guomindang und 70 Prozent für das Anwachsen unserer eigenen Kraefte“” (my translation: Mao Tse-Tung relaesed the proclamation “10 percent of our efforts for figthing the Japanese, 20% percent for fighting the Kuomintang and 70 percent for rising of our own power“). But for this quotation no reference is given, so no one can proof whether it’s true or not.

Please cite your references in an accurate and not a fictional way. --Horst Graebner (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Legacy Section

Citations to Chang, Flora and Ming links to an article which is in the editorial section of the Taipei Times. Most of the assertions in the article seem to be opinions of the authors and are not well cited. In addition, the section is written in a tone which cites this information in terms of facts rather than opinions. Given the lack of good sources, this section needs to be either cited with more scholarly works or rewritten to state that the information is more controversial. Portions of the section have been editted to reflect this change.