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 Shakuhachi (talk | contribs) at 23:52, 15 November 2005 (Propaganda picture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiProjectWars

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Why? We would also need to rename the first for consistency --Jiang 19:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

UnHoly 11:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Read the article to find out. :) I think it does a pretty good job of explaining. If not, well then we've got to work on this article!
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WWII concurency

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

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

The name

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

Casualties assessment

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

Japanese Error

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

If you have something to contribute feel free to add it to the article itself. BTW, Japanese imperialism in itself is a mistake. -Hmib 06:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English Error

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

Worse than Just English Grammer

--Needs cleaning

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

-Needs proofreading

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

problems

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

Please do not put templates on this talk page.

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

Hsu Yung-Ch'ang

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

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

Who really fought the Sino-Japanese war?

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

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

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

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

Flags in the warbox

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

I don't think it is totally inaccurate, although I agree it is strange that communists are represented by the ROC flag. According to the National Revolutionary Army article, during the Second Sino-Japanese War, Communist forces fought as a nominal part of the National Revolutionary Army, forming the Eighth Route Army and the New Fourth Army units, but this co-operation later fell apart even before the war ends, see New Fourth Army Incident.--Skyfiler 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NRA =/= ROC, just like Wehrmacht =/= Deutsches Reich. Croatians, for example, fought as part of the Wehrmacht, but were by no means German citizens. It would be best if we use the NRA battleflag... if they had any.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The flag of the Chinese Soviet Republic (star + hammer/sickle) stopped being used when the United Front was established. Once the war restarted again, the PLA used a different flag (current national flag w/o the four stars). The current PRC government surely considers the ROC legitimate during that period. The truth is murky. I am not sure whether we should post national flags (as is done here), battle flags (now under battle strength section) or both. If the NRA flag is put up (I am assuming the current ROC army flag is the same as the NRA flag, based on some historical battle footage ive seen) and it must be matched with the Imperial Japanese Army flag. --Jiang 03:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we should use the NRA and IJA flags, then?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who fought the war, the army or the nation?

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

Battle names in Wade-Giles

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

These are my guesses.

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

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

GDP comparison definitely wrong

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

Propaganda picture

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Sino-Japanese_War&oldid=28451276"