Jump to content

Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darth Anzeruthi (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 14 December 2007 (→Result?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Result?

At the moment, the result is listed as being "Chinese Victory". Shouldn't this read "allied victory", or something similar.

American starved Japan of resources forcing a general retreat that allowed Chinese forces to advance in central and eastern China, and Russia cleared northern China itself and handed the land over to the communist forces after the fact.

perfectblue 12:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, but dont forget that the Chinese was fighting mainly "alone" during the Sino-Japanese war, although the Chinese received a few help, like the "Flying Tigers" but they are considered as "volunter" or "Merchernary not from "Assistance of U.S". The Brits didnt care much about the Chinese theater, Stalin only did the mop up action on an already demoralised Japan after the atomic bombing. The starving of Japan from the U.S didnt do any tactical advantage since the Japanese can gain their resource from already captured Chinese cities. So does this explain to you that the Chinese mainly fought with their backs on their wall?

hanchi 18 August 2007

Let's also not forget that the Chinese didn't drive the Japanese out at the end of the war, they left because they surrendered to the Allies. "Chinese Victory" is at very least incredibly misleading. Parsecboy 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole China front was fought almost all by China, China fought alone with some aid by the allies but little assistance from the number of troops. You can't win something if you don't take part in it. 70.254.215.72 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese surrender in Aug. '45 was forced by America and the Soviet Union. The Chinese had almost nothing to do with it. You can't claim sole victory if you didn't actively contribute offensively towards it's end. Parsecboy 16:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then why don't you put USSR and USA Victory? If you put the USSR and the USA in the combatants box then it might make sense. But then when you look at all the battles, it's all fought by the Chinese. The article is ONLY the China front where China's objective the withdraw of all Japanese forces. China didn't contribute offensively towards the Pacific War as a whole. 70.254.215.72 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was a combined effort, along with the UK, Australia, India, etc. And the vast majority of those battles were defensive battles. I ask you a question: if Japan had not been defeated by the Allies (i.e., it only fought China), how much of the mainland would still be a Japanese puppet state today? Parsecboy 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
China did take the offensive late in the war after Operation Ichigo. Do you seriously think Japan can withstand a 70 year long war of attrition against the largest country in the world in terms of population? How long did it take the USSR to pull out of its war against Afghanistan? 70.254.215.72 16:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So at what point did China drive the Japanese out? Parsecboy 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
China's objective was the withdraw of Japan. Japan withdrew so China accomplished its objective thus it could claim victory. Your "Allied Victory" would fit if you were talking about the Pacific War as a whole because it had large contributions from several countries but it would be irrelevant on the Sino-Japanese War because China basically fought alone. This article is only on the "China Front" where it was just China vs Japan for the most part with some aid by the other Allies. 70.254.215.72 16:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, to state that it was a Chinese victory is at very best incredibly misleading. You're pretending like it was a war within a vacuum, which is obviously not correct. To state that it was a "Chinese victory" implies that China defeated Japan and drove them out of the mainland, which we both know is not the case. Parsecboy 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Japan withdrew so China achieved its objective and was the victor simple as that. Again this article is specifically talking about the CHINA FRONT where it was China vs Japan. The China front itself was a part of the Pacific War which had the result of an Allied Victory. If it was an "Allied victory" it might make sense if you add the USSR, USA, Britain, etc. in the combatant box but all the battles were China vs Japan. 70.254.215.72 16:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about it as if it occurred in a vacuum. Yes, Japan did withdraw, but for what reason? Surely nothing China did. Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest (and dare I say nationalist POV) to pretend it was a Chinese victory by itself. Parsecboy 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just on the China Front. The whole front was just China vs Japan, it's not talking about the Pacific War. So if Japan pulls out and China achieved the objective then China is the victor. And the Chinese were winning after Ichigo, You act like China didn't do anything and Japan was winning this front decisively and swiftly. 70.254.215.72 17:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that Japan was winning "decisively and swiftly". Let's not pretend that the last few years of the war was anything other than a stalemate. Parsecboy 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was mostly a stalemate but after Ichigo, the NRA was on the offensive in 1945 and took back territories in the southeast (although not a lot but an offensive nonetheless). 70.254.215.72 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it was about as important as the French invasion of Germany at the start of the European Theater. Let's not make mountains of molehills. Parsecboy 17:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Japan suffered 30,000 in one battle of the campaign alone and China took back 2 provinces. So I'd say it's not a big offensive but larger than the French invasion of Germany. Obviously it wasn't very significant but it was an offensive. 70.254.215.72 17:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it's no Bagration. Like I just said, let's not make mountains out of molehills. Parsecboy 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

simply, it was a war fought primarily between China and Japan, and who won? China did. Now how this victory was brought about is already explained in the article. Blueshirts 18:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this wasnt a "Chinese Victory" How come many of the cities that the Japanese took is back to China? I mean look at World War 1, the Japanese kept the cities after the war even though Japan didnt really had any major battles in there (just only because they are in the "Allies" front) while China happens to support Germany. Its a shame that many Western history book always gives a false portrayal China as a "glory jumper" by not doing anything against the Japanese... if you know how to read Chinese Parsecboy, I may suggest you to find books written in Chinese about the Sino-Japanese war, and I mean books written from Hong Kong Chinese historians (in which they give a more accurate and non propoganda) view towards the war. Also you claim that this wasnt a Chinese victory, its similar as you saying the Soviet didnt win in her defence war against the Nazi! Why this is Chinese victory? Here are some points:

1st. Japan was driven out, during 1945, they suffered alot of causalties towards the american armed Chinese. Even without the Pacific war, sooner or later the Japanese will be driven out by numerous particiants or guerilla warfare. Joseph Stillwell even said that "Chinese are quite good natural soldiers if they got good equipment and training".

2nd. China gained back many of her cities in which some of them was former colonies... Only hong kong was being kept british because they are sly foxes in which they straight away moved their army there after the Japanese surrender.

3rd. Even thought Japan signed the surrender paper, many rag-tag Japanese division was too stubborn to surrender that the Chinese was more than gladly to destroy them without prisoners.

4th. Who said that the Japanese only signed the surrender paper to the Americans? There is even a picture of how the Japanese wrote, signed and hand out the surrender paper to Chiang Kai-Shek himself!

5th. Its just a Communist propoganda that portray Chiang Kai-Shek didn't fought against Japanese instead on Communist in which it portray Chiang as "Chinese against Chinese".

hanchi8 Sept 2007

The point is, China did not defeat Japan in a vacuum. China only defeated Japan with the aid of the Allies, so stating "Chinese victory" is highly misleading as to what actually happened, and how it happened. Parsecboy 12:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for your reference to the Soviet Union, stating "Chinese victory" here, would be like going to World War II, and changing it to "Soviet Victory". Parsecboy 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the American War of Independence was an American, French, Spanish (and various assorted French-allied forces) victory, for neither did America defeat Britain on her own. Yes, it is true China did not defeat Japan alone (in a vacuum as you say). But is that a relevant point here? Let us take a look at the title of the article: Second Sino-Japanese War. That implies a war between two sides: China and Japan. For the purposes of this article, (the scope of which is the military conflict between China and Japan from 1937 to 1945), all the help China got from its allies (or The Allies) are accessory to the Chinese war effort. In a war between China and Japan, it stands to reason that the victor would either be China, or Japan. Since Japan signed an unconditional surrender to China on 9 September 1945, the victor of the Second Sino-Japanese War is naturally and unquestionably: China. -- Миборовский 23:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article for the American War of Independence does not state that the result was an "American Victory". It merely states "Treaty of Paris; establishment of the United States of America". Perhaps a compromise would be something along the lines of "Liberation of China, and Japanese surrender". What do you think of that? Parsecboy 16:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the best thing IMHO to put in the result box would be: Unconditional Japanese surrender; retrocession of Taiwan, Pescadores, Liaodong, Manchuria and other territories (which I think was what WAS in that box.) -- Миборовский 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. I'll replace what's there currently with what you've said here. If you want to mess around with wording, that's cool too. Parsecboy 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To address the confusion it causes by saying plain "unconditional surrender" as a result of this conflict, I had added "to the Allies." Miborovsky seems to have an issue with this saying, ""The allies" are not a participant of this war," and implying Japan surrendered directly and exclusively to China. This reflects a misunderstanding of the time period in general (as well as contradicting what even the article itself says in the introduction). I agree with the result box overall, but believe an additional clause (with a wikilink for people to read up on the allied powers) would be instrumental in helping a novice learn additional information, rather than sticking to a summary that kind of implies the second Sino-Japanese war happened in a vacuum, as Parsecboy notes. As Kurt Leyman reverted to my version, and Miborovsky reverted again, I figured it might be a good idea to come here to try to hash it out (if it needs hashing). —LactoseTIT 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do. The Pacific War was fought by the Allied Powers, defined in the instrument of surrender as "US, China, GB and USSR". Can't argue with that. However, the Second Sino-Japanese War was a war between China and Japan. Two sides: China and Japan. "Allies" can't just pop out anywhere. It's not called the Allied-Japanese War. Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers which includes China. However, in China (which is the country in which all of the fighting in the Second Sino-Japanese War took place) Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and his appointed generals, representing the Republic of China, had the sole authority to demand and receive the surrender of Japanese forces (as defined by a separate act of surrender signed on 9 September). Therefore, the Second Sino-Japanese War resulted in a Chinese victory brought forth by the Japanese unconditional surrender. Миборовский 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the compromise that Miborovsky and I worked out earlier is the best option we have. Whether it implies that China defeated Japan by itself or not is in the eye of the beholder. I think we should leave it as it is, and let the article explain the situation in detail. Now please stop reverting eachother; it'll get you nowhere in the long run. Parsecboy 01:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi parsecboy (u should really change it to parsecdude, boy is kinda like, well, a little gay, no offense) but before i edited the intro it was "the lasts (note the 's', plural) of these incidents, and i was thinking was it the last incident or the one among most incidents happening at roughly the same time that marked the beginning of the war? thanks- stephen) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.130.87 (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just ignore your comments on my username. Otherwise, it appears fine. Parsecboy 20:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China was armed by hitler.

Casualties

The info box and numbers stated in the article are not in agreement. According to the Casualties Assessment, China had about 3.22 million military casualties, however, the info box states China lost 3.8 million men. The info box lists 1.1 Japanese casualties while the info box lists 1.9 million casualties with 480,000 KIA. Can someone clear up this discrepancy? (68.93.2.132 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Different publications and authors quote different numbers. The best that can be done here is to source each quote. -- Миборовский 23:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motives

I've long had problems with the Motives section of the article. First, it's always been a breeding ground for POV violations. Also, it's completely unsourced. I'm of the mind to scrap it altogether, but thought I would post my thoughts here before doing so, if anyone disagrees/is willing to search for reliable sources/etc. If no one has done so in a couple days, I'm going to deep-six the it. Parsecboy 18:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. -- Миборовский 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The France (Vichy/Free) portions seem to be rather non-notable; French involvement was minimal to be honest, and Nazi Germany is missing. I can probably dig up a few "official KMT publications" to support the KMT motives section, but I don't think I can improve the others. -- Миборовский 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Yeah, both of the France sections aren't really related to the war at all, or only tangentially. I think the best option would be to take some of the important bits of this section and incorporate it into the body of the "Background" section proper. What do you think of that? Parsecboy 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current motives-by-nation format has merits and could be kept; but they require a lot more work and fleshing out. -- Миборовский 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten about this, I've just been really busy lately. I think one of the big problems, and this is for the article in general as well, is that it's generally written from the Chinese Nationalist perspective. At some point I'll try to overhaul the article, but I won't be able to anytime soon. I still think the best option for the motives section is to merge it into the relevant text, and cut the rest. Parsecboy 11:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
British section needs to fill in the change of attitude of the British to the Japanese in the late 1930s due to their activities in Manchura and China to the point were in the early 40s they were allowing the use of the Burma Road to prop up the Chinese vs Japan. Soviet section should note the Soviet proding to get the Anti Japanese alliance between the CCP and KMT. Also the Soviet aid to China in 1938-39 and their volunteer pilots that flew for the Chinese from 1938-1940 long before the Flying Tigers came on the scene. These events had something to do with the open hostilites with the Japanese in the north in 1938-39. Given the Second Sino Japanese War article is so large perhaps this whole Motive section should be made a separate article on the motives and activities of the outside powers who were not officially involved. The main article could referance the article.Asiaticus 00:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the idea. A separate article on Motives with reference on top of the "Background" Section will make the article flow better, are you going to execute? DCTT 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a question about Invasion of China section

Is there solid evidence that the intensions of the Japanese invasion is "friendly", or are they just saying that? Because one can hardly say that an invasion is friendly.Diqiuren 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was "friendly" just like the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 was to "protect them from the Germans". Parsecboy 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should say "the Japanese government used the excuse of having neither the intention...". Can I change it? I don't know much about the edit thing of Wikipedia.Diqiuren 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. The only way to learn is to do it. If you need help copyediting it, I'll give you a hand. Parsecboy 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksDiqiuren 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combatant

There has recently been a revert war over the combatants. Perhaps we can hash it out here rather than just reverting everything. I for one find it a bit troubling that sourced mentions of combatants are being removed under the guise of undo weight, especially when the article itself mentions that this conflict merged with the greater war at the time. —LactoseTIT 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Chennault the commander of an important component of the Chinese fighting force, and shouldn't he be mentioned in the header? Alexwoods 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was the commander of the Flying Tigers, and later, the 14th Airforce in China. Joseph Stilwell was Chiang's chief of staff, and the commander of the CBI theater. Albert Coady Wedemeyer replaced Stilwell in 1944 in both positions. Parsecboy 15:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so shouldn't all three be mentioned in the box? Alexwoods 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I'll add them now. Parsecboy 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The US is a pretty clear case--I would also suggest an addition of the America as a combatant. I'm interested in thoughts regarding the other combatants that have received recently edit-warring. I think we might get further by discussing each of them. —LactoseTIT 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If You think so you must add Soviet (Vasily Chuikov and other) and German (Alexander von Falkenhausen) combatants and all Chineese and Japan commanders of arms. But it will be unnecessary as well as adding American leaders in this conflict in my opinion. --Arbiter of Elegance 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could follow the lead of such articles as World War II. There are not so many countries as to be unwieldly, and I find it far too simplistic (ie flat out wrong) to suggest that Japan and China were the only two combatants of this conflict. —LactoseTIT 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USA didn't take a part of conflict directly. If you think we should add America as combatant we can add the USSR too. American "military advisors" replaced Soviet ones in early 1940s only. --Arbiter of Elegance 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct - they should be listed in their capacity as commanders of Chinese forces. They weren't advisors, but actual leaders. Alexwoods 17:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off topic, but are we trying to write the article from the (novel) tack that it was a parallel conflict mostly unrelated to World War II, or that it merged into it (as the article currently states with things like, "...the Second Sino-Japanese War merged into the greater conflict of World War II," which should be removed if we are writing according to the former theory). For the theory put forth by the people supporting the former, should China then be removed from the combatants, then? This former idea to me seems very counterintuitive. Regardless of either theory, I would still imagine the US would be listed due to the intellectual (commanders) and physical contributions. (Incidentally, I don't think the US is the only other combatant I would list, and even in the meantime we should perhaps add an "et al." while discussing who merits listing.) —LactoseTIT 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a section "Entrance of Western Allies" that talks about these things. The problem here is whether to include the US (or Germany/USSR) in the infobox and I say no. The war was fought overwhelmingly between the Republic of China and Japan, which separates it from the wider "Pacific War". The US did not command over Chinese troops except for a small force retrained in India that fought primarily in northern Burma. The US did not commit ground troops to fight the Japanese in the Chinese mainland. What China got from the lend-lease was a drop in the bucket compared to what the USSR and the UK received. That's why putting the US there gives it undue weight in this specific war. Blueshirts 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. See my comments below. US forces were involved in the Sino-Japanese War in two distinct ways: under a US flag, which consisted mainly of engineering activity on the Burma Road and flying supplies to Chongqing / Kunming etc. over the Hump, and under a Chinese flag, in actual combat with the Japanese Imperial air force and leading troops on the ground. The former may or may not justify inclusion of the American flag in the box. The most prominent commanders of the latter effort surely qualify as Chinese military leaders important enough to be included in the box. Chennault was the de facto head of the Chinese air force, and Stilwell was among the most important leaders in Chongqing (not that Chiang ever took his advice). Alexwoods 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting to leave anyone but China out of the participants of this conflict, and also remove China as a participant of the Pacific War and World War II articles? —LactoseTIT 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're confused. In this specific war fought primarily between China and Japan, the US does not warrant mention in the infobox. This war was part of WW2 and a huge theater at that, thus China is in the WW2 infobox. I don't see how you can make the logic jump that they both have to be mutually inclusive. Are you saying that because the US is not listed under the Eastern Front, it shouldn't be in the main WW2 article too? Blueshirts 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand your position--now that you've clarified what you said earlier, it seems you might be supportive of the suggestion that this war contributed to the eventual surrender of Japan to the Allies (some specifically), rather than as happening by itself. It's fine if you want to represent it as part of a whole, but I think its important to avoid the implication that it happened in a vacuum.
While I don't feel strongly on the wording of the surrender line, in any case, my suggestion would still be to follow the WWII template--either saying "et al" for combatants, or perhaps listing the US (and others) as at least minor contributors. Again, it's very important for a novice to view this as happening in the broad context of the global war in the end because certainly the outcome could have been significantly different otherwise. —LactoseTIT 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the American air forces supplied to China (Flying Tigers, 14th Air Force, etc.) merit its inclusion on the infobox, similar to how the Soviet Union is listed on the Korean War infobox, based on its contributions to the Communist side (air forces, and some supplies). Parsecboy 22:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was concensus reached? Somebody has added more countries to the combatant list. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that consensus was reached. I suppose Russia's entry at the end of the war could justify its inclusion. I think the American flag probably belongs there because of the Flying Tigers. Chennault, Stilwell and Wedemeyer were actually leading troops on the Chinese side - effectively, they were Chinese generals - and belong in the box regardless of whether we include the American flag or not. As for the other flags, Manchukuo seems questionable (indeed its status as a country is highly questionable) and it's not clear from the article what the Mongolian PR's role might have been. Alexwoods 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I direct your attention to 14th_Air_Force#World_War_II. It was a completely American unit, based in China, commanded by Chennault. Totally separate from the Chinese-American Composite Wing. Also, there was the 23d Fighter Group, the successor to the AVG, and was later incorporated into the 14th AF. Active military participation is enough to justify including America on the infobox. Parsecboy 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Mongolian People's Republic's inclusion in the infobox as combatant on the Chinese side; are the any proves that the Mongolian People's Republic actually provided any military support to the Operation August Storm? Regards, --Kurt Leyman 12:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Communist Party of China must be included, in different of nationalist Republic of China --Arbiter of Elegance 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Why don't we add Nazi Germany as well? von Falkenhausen was also a military leader! Why don't we add the dozens of Chinese warlords? They weren't Nationalists either! Why don't we add the hundreds of puppet administrations? They were just as legitimate as Manchukuo! Миборовский 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the CCP was a little more significant than the individual warlords. You're oversimplifying a bit too much here. Parsecboy 12:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Miborovsky. CCP was under the ROC. And warlords composed a really significant force in republican dynamics that is often overlooked. Chiang spent about as much time and energy dealing with these people as he did with the communists. I don't know man, but I feel like some contributors got wind of vocabs like "manchukuo", "warlords", "wang jingwei government" and some insignificant "mengjiang" administration and began acting like a smart ass adding them in. I mean, wtf? Blueshirts 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I eliminated UK from the combatant box because there were no British troops, on the ground or in the air, that ever fought in China. I also changed all the puppet states to "Collaborationist Chinese Army" (偽軍) to highlight point #3 instead of "Manchukou" or "Mengjiang" just to have their pretty little flags shown. Anyone remotely familiar with this topic knows that all these puppet governments were insignificant. DCTT 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resource name

I've found what looks like a good timeline and summary of the Second Sino-Japanese war on ibiblio, but before I put it in the external links, I'd like to find the name of what book it comes from so I can make sure it hasn't been proven factually incorrect. Any one recognize it? Oberiko 12:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a series of monographs prepared post-war by Adm. Sadatoshi Tomioka for the US. Миборовский 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Are there any known accuracy issues with the author? It reads a bit pro-Japan to me and I wouldn't want to put any David Irving-esque material up. Oberiko 12:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phases of the war

If I wanted to break this war down into rough phases, would I be relatively accurate with the following?

Oberiko 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would group it into the following phases instead:
  1. Piecemeal landgrab (because 9.18 was not an isolated incident, eg. 1.28 in 1932, 5.3 in 1928)
  2. All-out offensive (Marco Polo Bridge to Changsha - I would end it at Changsha because it finally stopped the sequence of major Japanese victories)
  3. Stalemate (although I don't like that word - it implies inaction, while IRL the Japanese launched numerous failed offensives, it's only a stalemate in that little land changed hands. And not to mention the activity in Burma.)
  4. Ichigo (until Kweilin-Liuchow)
  5. Chinese counteroffensive (from West Hunan onwards. It's a very short period, but nonetheless represented a shift in directives for Chinese forces)
Миборовский 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Soviet-Russian historiography:
# first phase (July 1937 — October 1938)... (Invasion in China before new Japaneese strategy)
# second phase (November 1938 — December 1941) (Stalemate until USA, Britain and Holland joined to war)
# third phase (December 1941 — August 1945) (Sino-Japaneese war as a part of Second World War. Before USSR joined to the war)
# fourth phase (August 1945 — September 1945) (until Japan defeat) — Arbiter of Elegance 10:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homework for new editors

It is great to see more people interested in this topic; however, to new editors who are itching to make changes, doing some homework in preparation would really help. A great place to start is this Time Magazine article: The Army Nobody Knows DCTT 10:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POWs

The numbers, capture and treatment of prisoners of war, by both sides, is a little-known dimension of this topic and one which is worth mentioning in the text. I have looked for information regarding this on the web and in academic literature, but have found little. I did find it interesting some references to the communists recruiting extensively from their Japanese POWs, some of whom fought with the PLA in the Civil War, after 1945. Grant | Talk 10:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H. Bix, in Hirohito and the Making..., 2001, p.360, gives an interesting info : «At the war's end, Japanese authorities acknowledged having only 56 Chinese prisonners of war.» We understand what was the fate of the others...--Flying tiger 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a phenomenally low rate and one which deserves inclusion in Japanese war crimes. Do you have the page number? Grant | Talk 10:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you the page number above. Also, I added this some months ago in World War II but I forgot to do the same with Japanese war crimes : «Japanese POW camps also had high death rates, many were used as labour camp. According to the findings of the Tokyo tribunal, the death rate of occidental prisoners was 27.1%, seven times that of POW's under the Germans and Italians (Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, 1996, p.2,3.) The death rate of Chinese was much larger as, according to the directive ratified on 5 August 1937 by Hirohito, the constraints of international law were removed on those prisoners. (Akira Fujiwara, Nitchû Sensô ni Okeru Horyo Gyakusatsu, Kikan Sensô Sekinin Kenkyû 9, 1995, p.22) Thus, if 37,583 prisoners from the UK and 28,500 from Netherlands were released after the surrender of Japan, the number for the Chinese was only 56.(Tanaka, ibid., Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, 2001, p.360)» --Flying tiger 15:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian participation

If the Soviet Union must be considered a combatant in the 2nd SJW, then Mongolia should too, because Mongolia fought Japan during both Red Storm and the previous skirmishes. I added Mongolia as a combatant along the Soviet Union but somebody deleted it. Why?--Menah the Great 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raised a good point,although the Soviet Union and Mongolia attacked Japan's Kwangtung Army, this conflict should not be considered part of the second Sino-Japanese war and should be treated as a separate war, therefore I am eliminating the Soviet Union from the combatant box. DCTT 14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's illogical. It stopped being a separate war in 1941, when Japan widened the conflict. It'd be like saying America wasn't a member of the Western European Theatre, because it wasn't there in 1940. The USSR and Mongolia fought in the theatre of operations that encompassed the SSJW, and should therefore be included in the combatants section. Parsecboy 15:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Operation August Storm was fought in Manchukuo, which has not been under Chinese control since 1931, before the SSJW started in 1937. Therefore to include the area of Manchukuo in the Theatre of SSJW is very questionable, and should be treated as a separate war fought between Soviet Union/Mongolia and Japan.DCTT (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War Crimes

Hey, how about we mention the fact that more Chinese civilians died in this war than the total number of casualties in the Holocaust? Without a doubt, one of the defining aspects of this conflict is the ridiculous amount of war crimes committed--more than the Holocaust, more than the 90's conflict in the Balkans, Stalin's policies being the only larger killer of people in the time period--but it's mentioned all of about 5 times in the article. I don't care how much Japan and America seem to be trying to forget about it: to downplay this element of the war is a disservice to all the people that perished in it. GrimmC (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Sino-Japanese_War&oldid=177802979"