Talk:Battle of Shanghai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Strategic victory?[edit]

It seems, in Wikipedia, all battles that the IJA won have an extra result as "Chinese strategic victory" ahaha I wonder how can all defeats of the chinese can be strategic victories? lol xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A Chinese strategic victory? Based on an inadequate citation? I agree that it's really a stretch in the case of this particular battle. --Yaush (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?[edit]

I came across a book called The Sino-Japanese War, 1937-41 : from Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor by Frank Dorn whose description of the Battle of Shanghai is very similar. --TheAznSensation 06:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is this still a concern? I have a copy of Dorn's book. If someone can point me at the section of the article that is allegedly in violation of copyright, I can do a comparison and see. --Yaush (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bazi Bridge and Yao's Regiment[edit]

The first shot of the Battle fo Shanghai was fired over Bazi Bridge (八字桥). We should note this. Also, Yang Ziqing's battalion (姚子青营) which distinguished itself at the Bloodbath at Baoshan (宝山血战) should be mentioned. Notable commanders should be noted, Weng Guohua (翁国华) for example. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I plan to expand this article by a lot. I am almost finished with the background info on the Chinese side. The background section as of now is around three times longer than the battle itself, so of course more stuff is to be added!BlueShirts 18:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


This article gives no sources, especially regarding Chiang's causes ("trading space for time," diplomatic, etc.) for provoking the Battle of Shanghai. Are these reasons commonly agreed upon by historians? Konekoniku 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote a great majority of the chinese background and so far I've derived the bulk of them from two sources. One is Nationalist China At War 1937-1945 published by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1982. Another source is a doctoral dissertation on the Shanghai-Nanking Campaign from the National Taiwan University. I'll add the inline references when I get a chance to the future. BlueShirts 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great! The article looks awesome. Konekoniku 09:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Order of Battle comes from :
Hsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai, History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) 2nd Ed. ,1971. Translated by Wen Ha-hsiung , Chung Wu Publishing; 33, 140th Lane, Tung-hwa Street, Taipei, Taiwan Republic of China.
Sino-Japanese Air War 1937-45
IJA in China orbat, 1937 to 1945
Monograph 144 Chapter II
Japanese tank unit names from:
Forum: Pacific War 1941-1945, discussion about Shanghai Defense force Aug. 11 1937
Asiaticus 08:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)



I've some photos that I will upload as soon as I'm able to. Every good article needs good pictures. ;) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 18:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I got some too! They are here. BlueShirts 18:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! I'll find ones that I have that you haven't already uploaded. BTW, would you considering uploading these to the Wikimedia Commons instead? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 19:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


I object to the use of this picture due to the fact there is considerable evidence pointing to the possibility it may not be genuine. this website provides some interesting insight as to the true nature of said photograph.Regarded as Japanese propaganda by many I found it hard to believe in at first,but upon seeing a french documentary on the History Channel entitled "China Yellow,China Blue" in which footage of the baby being put on the tracks was shown,I am convinced this photograph,and perhaps others,are doctored. Could anyone try to confirm my information?

Yes the picture with the baby in the rail track was "doctored", the photographer was just taking photos for the Time Magazine, however he found a mother with her baby, so he borrowed the baby and placed him in the railtrack for adding some "effect". The reason why the baby was crying wasnt because of the injuries, but was crying after his mother.
This photo wasn't docotred its in my history textbook.CHSGHSF 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Photographer has always doctored their image to use as propaganda or as a message towards the world. The raising flag of Iwo Jima is a good example, it boasted the U.S military morale. Hanchi
With this is mind,shouldn't we perhaps make it clear that one picture, which was included in this article,was used as a propaganda tool?Otherwise people will continue to think that baby was indeed an orphan who lost his mother in the bombings of the railway station. Ishikawa Minoru 20:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Not just that, but this is an article on the Battle of Shanghai which uses a picture of a baby purportedly orphaned in Nanking. I've deleted it. It's stupid and inflammatory. The Japanese did some horrible things in the war, we don't need to lie about extra things they did just to get a reaction. Bakarocket 12:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
its so obvious that you would take the japanese side LOL, since you are japanese from your username, therefore, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE PRO JAPANESE BIAS BEAUSE YOU ARE ONE LOL, AND ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ON SINO JAPANESE MATTERS UNLESS YOU ARE NEUTRAL......RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please cf. WP:AGF. — LlywelynII 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We have an entire article on the photograph that will dispel most of the (however well-intentioned) misinformation above. In short:

A) It stays. In English sources it's probably the single most WP:NOTABLE aspect of the entire battle: it's one of the most famous photographs in photography.
B) It doesn't need much caveating. It was a baby in Shanghai South Railway Station; there is footage (which actually appears in the Battle of Shanghai sequences of The Battle of China) of the baby being moved from one side of the tracks to the other: it was being moved away from the dead, dying, and wounded, including its dead mother.

It—the photographer didn't know its gender or learn its name—may have been posed, but every aspect that makes it an effective photograph is true. [Reduced the size of above ranting in the interest of politeness.] — LlywelynII 18:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Nanjing" Baby Pic[edit]

Why is there a picture of a baby purportedly orphaned in Nanjing in an article about Shanghai? I've deleted it, again, because I don't understand why it's there. Put it in the Nanjing article, not in Shanghai. Easy to understand? Shanghai != Nanjing.-- Bakarocket 11:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm under the impression this picture was taken by H.S. Wong at the Shanghai South Station right after the Japanese bombed it in the summer of 1937, which means this picture is where it belongs. My only objection is the fact readers are not told the aforementioned photographer purposedly put the baby on the tracks in order to fuel anti-Japanese sentiments in the US. -- Ishikawa Minoru 13:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about any propaganda use of this, and I've only seen mention of that in here as "a program I once saw". To prove this is propaganda would require sourcing it. The fact that the file name of the photo is NanjingXXX.gif kid of made me suspect it was from Nanjing, but hey, whatever. I posted a comment on the page of the user who added it back in without comment after the original delete.-- Bakarocket 18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The photo appeared in Oct.4 1937 of Life Magazine, showing a shanghai station after japanese bombing. It's not from Nanjing, so I dont know what's up with the file name. As for reprints I know it's in LIFE at War and in 100 Photographs That Changed The World (both from LIFE). Of course it was used for propaganda value, just like the aforementioned flag raising on Iwo Jima. Blueshirts 18:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
My guess is the picture was named thus due to the fact some proponents of the "Massacre theory" have come to include Shanghai and the battle that took place there, in the geographical scope and timeframe of the Nanking Incident, in order to make up for the raging contradition between their opinions and the population of Nanking when the Japanese took the city, i.e, since there were only 200,000 people in Nanking, the IJA couldn't have killed 300,000 people. -- Ishikawa Minoru 19:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Leaving the nanking numbers debate to another page, I think the picture was named so since it was procured from a website about the massacre, it's the most parsimonious answer. Blueshirts 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is from Life at War as a picture in Shanghai, then it has to remain (with a filename change), and I apologize for deleting it so quickly. The problem is that no search I've done comes up with it's source. Every single website sources it from here. "Baby on tracks Nanjing" and "Baby on track Shanghai" both return the same results because everyone is using the same source pic. I think this should stay out until it can be properly sourced, and Life Magazine's website hasn't been any help so far.-- Bakarocket 03:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The site this came from doesn't even say where this was taken. Where is the source that says this was taken by Life magazine in Shanghai? The onyl website that doesn't use the same file name as wikipedia with the picture is Princeton University's, and it has the picture on a series of photos abotu Nanjing, with no description beside the photo. The only logical conclusion is that this is a photo of Nanjing considering that every source except Wiki says that it is Nanjing. Even Wiki indirectly says that it is Nanjing. I'm putting a warning under the pic in the article. It must be sourced, Blueshirts, and nothing I can find shows that you are correct. Please tell me the issue number this appeared it. -- Bakarocket 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
My edit of the decription of the photo stinks. Can someone else reword that to show that there is doubt about the veracity of the photo? According to 100 Photos that Changed the World there are problems with some of the photos. If it really is of Shanghai, it should stay regardless because it's a good picture of the destruction the city suffered, but if the baby was just dropped in by the photographer, it should be noted. -- Bakarocket 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, I have Life magazine's "LIFE at War" and the caption says on Aug. 28th the Shanghai south station was bombed, killing two hundred people (p.26). If you still have doubts go check it out yourself.Blueshirts 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Dude, that's awesome. You know as well as I do that many people say things without actually having the sources. And I wasn't denying the truth of the picture, I was just saying it's pretty suspicious when it's named differently than it should be, you have to admit that. Look above at what I wrote, I just wanted to see the source is all. As to the pic, according to our own wiki on 100 photos that changed the world, some of the pictures are noted as possibly being staged. The pic should stay for sure, but we should check the other source for confirmation. I might just buy the book because it looks good anyway. -- Bakarocket 11:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Considering the fact that Ishikawa Minoru is ain fact a japanese nippon, its so obvious hes not to be trusted in these matters LOL, with a japanese user name, whos side you think hed take? of course he says nanking is fake because HE IS JAPANESE!!RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please cf. WP:AGF. — LlywelynII 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Baby photo revisited[edit]

To respond to the above comments, the baby photo used in this article is in fact from Shanghai, but it is a known propaganda shot, staged by Chinese-American photographer Xiaoting Wang (sp?). Feel free to replace it with another picture demonstrating the heart-breaking aftermath of the bombing. But this one is staged. I have removed it.

You can see someone carrying the baby over *to* the tracks at 24:08 in the film Why We Fight: The Battle of China. Watch video here. See this photo also. Again, I have no doubt that the baby was found in an equally miserable condition somewhere in the bombed-out station, but the photograph is known to have been staged and it lowers the integrity of Wikipedia as much to have this photo on here as it lowers the integrity of Reuters to publish doctored photos of smoke over Beirut. Bueller 007 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal. The photo was taken from 1 and does not indicate that the photo was staged or faked. I watched The Battle of China at 24:08. Firstly, we don't see the man actually placing the baby on the tracks; secondly, we don't even know if the baby the man was carrying was even the same baby on the tracks; thirdly, your rationale for removal is completely original research given the fact that the photo was taken from, where it does not indicate the photo was staged. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Far from original research. Photos 1-3Photos 4-5. Read the captions from the original source. Quite clearly the baby was FOUND elsewhere and moved over to the tracks. What you see in "Battle of China" is scenes 1-3. The Wang photo being used on this page was clearly taken some time before photo 4. (Either that or he was a total scumbag and he asked the man and child to get out of his shot.) Obviously this is NOT the position where the baby was found. Perhaps I was hasty to delete it as "staged" (the person carrying him was not necessarily staging the photograph, although I do find it suspect that he decided to place the child so close to the ledge and near a cloud of rubble smoke despite much safer locations being only feet away), but this photo used by itself is totally misleading, as it implies that this was the location and condition in which the child was originally found. In fact, he had been found elsewhere, set there, and then the photo was intentionally taken in the short span of time between the "rescue worker" leaving frame and the man and the boy entering frame. Misleading photos used to promote a political cause are the very definition of propaganda. Bueller 007 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the caption under the photo reads "A terrified baby in Shanghai's South Station after a Japanese bombing" - this in fact reflects what the U.S. National Archives says of the photo, and it does not conflict with the possibility that somebody placed him there. Earlier you talked about the "integrity" of Wikipedia - well, how about reflecting what a very reliable source says, and questioning sources from Japanese revisionists who think that Japan was all-benevolent in WW2 and that atrocities did not happen because some shadows in some photos don't look right to them? How do we know that this supposed "evidence" by revisionists is not fake itself? Even if we are to use the two photos which you just linked, the current caption is correct. The caption in Photo 1 actually says that a young Chinese man picked up the baby which was left half hidden under the wreckage, and the caption in Photo 4 says that the young Chinese man left the baby there to help other victims, and then a man comes to take the baby to a first aid station (implying that the man with the hat in Photo 4 is taking the baby to get first aid). How does the current caption in this article mislead any information? Do you want the caption to state that the baby was actually left half hidden in a wreckage? Do want it to state that the baby received first aid? Regardless, it was a baby in a Shanghai train station after a Japanese bombing - the caption says nothing of the baby's state before or after he was sitting there in that photo. More importantly, the current photo caption quite simply reflects its source, the U.S. National Archives. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. The source in question is LOOK Magazine. The reporters were actually *on the scene*. Are you really going to regress into semi-racist ad hominem drivel based on the person who POSTS the original source? That's pretty weak.
"How does the current caption in this article mislead any information?" Imagine I post a picture of 1950's Nanjing and say "Nanjing after the attack by Japanese forces". The caption is 100% accurate. 100% true. BUT MISLEADING AS HELL. If you're not giving the full story, you are intentionally misleading people. That's called "propagandizing".
"Do you want the caption to state that the baby was actually left half hidden in a wreckage?" YES. You're finally starting to understand. Bravo. If you wish to keep the picture, a good caption would be "Shanghai's South Station after a Japanese bombing run: A terrified baby found under a pile of wreckage and placed on a platform by a rescue worker". That would be a much more accurate portrayal of the young child's story. Unless you would prefer to hide this information for some reason. Bueller 007 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how it is misleading. Like I've said multiple times, the caption reflects what the U.S. National Archives says. Hell, to me, the baby that the man was carrying and the man that's sitting on the platform don't even look like the same baby. I'll even insert a footnote to provide a source for the caption reading of the photo. I'm not trying to hide anything - the photo was taken directly from the U.S. National Archives, and the caption reflects what the U.S. National Archives says. You can't be more direct than that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a reason why people have to testify to the "whole truth" in addition to "the truth and nothing but the truth." Not saying that this child was found elsewhere violates the "whole truth", and there's no reason to keep this information from anyone except to mislead them into thinking that the photographer just happened upon the child in this condition. I've added the caption I recommended above. Bueller 007 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So I've got a question about those two URLs you provided - how do we know they are reliable sources? It looks like they are posted from a Japanese forum. How do we know they are authentic and not fake photos that were cropped together? How can we trust that someone didn't photoshop in the captions and the LOOK magazine indexing at the bottom? Can we find these photos hosted on a more reliable site? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Again ad hominem claim for which you have no substantiation. Your thinly-veiled contempt and racism aside, just because it's Japanese doesn't mean it's dishonest.
The majority of photos on the Nanjing page come from Chinese sources, i.e. Can I claim that these are all untrustworthy and delete them as well?
The LOOK article is still copyrighted. On the internet, you're not going to find a more reliable source than something underground. Bueller 007 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm questioning the source because it is hosted by a forum, which is not exactly the most reliable source around. And especially since this is a controversial issue involving Japan, a Japanese forum makes it even less reliable. But note that I have not reverted your addition to the photo caption. Asking whether or not we can really trust that source is perfectly legitimate. We can trust a reputable establishment to provide a reliable source, but since this is just a forum, how do we know that someone didn't just photoshopped in the captions and the LOOK magazine indexing? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand how the original caption is misleading or in anyway imply the photo was "faked"? Japanese planes bombed the station. Rescue workers rushed to the scene. Pulled out a baby under the wreckage. Placed him on the safety of the platform. Went to help other victims. Photographer snapped the shot. Rescue workers came back and placed the baby on the stretcher. OMG, the picture must be is staged lolololuluz!!! Blueshirts 02:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
bueller007 AKA a japanese pretending to be a foreinger, since its obvious from your user page that YOU LOVE JAPAN, its also obvious you would have a pro japanese stance, therefore, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO TALK ON SINO JAPANESE MATTERS BECAUSE SINCE YOU LOVE JAPAN YOU ARE NOT NEUTRAL. RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
SRSLY? I'm not qualified either then, since I LOVE CHINA and obviously have a pro-Chinese stance... Shit... let me go erase all my edits... Миборовский (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Kindly remember to ASSUME GOOD FAITH. And also that all caps just makes you look bad. — LlywelynII 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned, we have an entire article on the photograph that will dispel most of the (however well-intentioned) misinformation above. In short:
A) It stays. In English sources it's probably the single most WP:NOTABLE aspect of the entire battle: it's one of the most famous photographs in photography.
B) It doesn't need much caveating. It was a baby in Shanghai South Railway Station; there is footage of the baby being moved from one side of the tracks to the other: it was being moved away from the dead, dying, and wounded, including its dead mother.
It—the photographer didn't know its gender or learn its name—may have been posed, but every aspect that makes it an effective photograph is true. This is nothing like a "staged shot" where a healthy baby was introduced and pinched while its mother sits happily nearby: it is warzone photography, one of the most notable aspects of the battle, and its non-inclusion would reflect badly on this article's coverage. [Reduced the size of some ranting above in the interest of politeness.] — LlywelynII 18:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Air war questions and nitpicks[edit]

The article says that 91 planes were more than half the Chinese air force. Would that be the entire air force or just the "Central Army" air force? AFAIK Two-Guang Clique had a large air force of more than 60 planes (can't supply source, though). Also, I think there needs to be mention of the attack on the Japanese flagship Izumo and how they messed it up and bombed the city instead. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the entire air force also counts guangxi-guangdong clique planes, but I'd say yes. Guangxi clique joined the Shanghai front in mid september I think. BlueShirts 07:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Feng Yuxiang's role[edit]

I read somewhere (always somewhere, never can remember where exactly) that Feng Yuxiang was given a command in this battle but he messed it up big and had to be relegated to a "ceremonial" role. Fact or fiction? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Feng was given the command of 3rd Warzone and then transferred to North China. BlueShirts 07:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
When and when? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure when Feng was made the 3rd Warzone commander, but I'd imagine it's in early august when China was divided into warzones. Feng got transferred in mid-september. BlueShirts 08:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
K, thanks. I'll look around. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Got it:
8-6:南京軍事會議,於軍事委員會內分置六部,黃紹竑等分任部長。 (Doesn't specify Feng Yuxiang though)
-- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 08:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The 3rd War zone was estalibhsed in August 20th, with Feng as the commander. Chiang Kai-shek replaced him on september 11th. BlueShirts 08:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreign concessions[edit]

Seeing how the international settlement was an extremely large part of the city I'm surprised this isn't covered more? Wouldn't it be a rather major consideration militarily alone and not just diplomatic (actually, I'm looking for maps) - I'd imagine military commanders would have thoughts of how to get troops from one street to another without crossing into Anglo-American territory, for example. Or how best to use the Japanese advantage of having concessions inside Shanghai itself.

Of course I'm not sure if it was such a huge issue but it sounds like it is. It's supposedly one of the ROC's core cities and yet foreign-controlled (I think I saw a show on television which seemed to portray the Chinese-controlled part of Shanghai as a miniscule portion compared to the concessions). I'd imagine that organising a defense of the city wasn't so straightforward. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As an illustration of my inquiry [1] I found a map of Shanghai's concessions. It seemed that anything that was valuable to the Nationalist government seemed to be nested in the concessions (although probably the greater metropolitan area remains unaccounted for)... Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The foreign concession was in downtown Shanghai, where the Chinese made the initial offensive. All the other combat operations were in other outlying areas like Luodian, Liuhang, Dachang...etc, which were pretty far off from the downtown. As you can see the area from your map is really detailed, concentrated around a small section of the Huangpu river. However, the frontline that stretched from downtown Shanghai to Liuhe, a small northeast town, was some 40 km, not to mention the later combat that happened halfway between Shanghai and Nanjing. BlueShirts 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. I was wondering how it could be the core of economic activity even despite the concessions, with my initial thoughts being that either there was little to defend or it was highly defensible....I guess most of the areas valuable to the KMT lay outside the downtown area, then? I assume that though a lot of the front lay outside the downtown area, it was still quite urban? The existing material doesn't seem to make the historical geography clear, especially with military utility of existing Japanese possessions inside China. I'm trying to visualise it. I think we need a map, wonder if Yeu Ninje can help?Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've got some maps but they have got copyright. I'll see if I can get this official ROC history book where there's no copyright I presume. It'd be great to have maps or templates like the chinese dynasty ones. BlueShirts 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


At the beginning of the article, it seems that the second and third paragraph more appropriately fall under the sub-heading "Background." - IstvanWolf 22:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalingrad of the East = The Battle of Changde?[edit]

I just saw that on the main WWII article. What an understatement! The Battle of Shanghai surpass Battle of Changde in everyway! Does anybody know where they got the name from? TheAsianGURU 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean "misstatement"? — LlywelynII 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

what is this?[edit]

CNN. Photos document brutality in Shanghai

The photos, taken by a Swiss photographer near Shanghai in 1937, all depict the brutality of Chinese soldiers toward Japanese prisoners and Shanghai residents accused of helping the Japanese as they began their military conquest of China.

We should mention this -- (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath section[edit]

The aftermath section to me looks like nothing more than lavish praise to the Chinese defenders at Shanghai. The article mentions nothing of the effects of the battle for Japan, other than that it carved a path to Nanjing in a previous section. Despite the valiant efforts of the Chinese army, this battle was still a Japanese victory. I think a part needs to be added about Japanese gains and if there was a resistance movement afterwards, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody who was reading this article (even if they didn't get the information from the 'infor box') would mistakenly believed that the Chinese somehow "fought off" the Japanese Imperial Army. The aftermath section was created way back in June of 2006. And yes, you are the ONLY person who thinks that it's a "Lavish praise to the Chinese defenders." For starter, the Japanese calls it an "Incident" (even till this day, Check out the Japanese Wikipedia yourself) and the Imperial Army was "just responding/counter attacking" "the attack" of the Chinese National Army......Well, on the other hand, I don't blame them. If they can say FDR planned the whole thing and enshrined 14 Class-A war criminals (hit me up if you need the list) at Yasukuni, what's in a little name calling?! Give me a break~ TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


Documentary film recording the Chinese army fighting against the Japanese invasion of Shanghai.

Questions:(1):Which section is best for this video? (2): Can editors use this video as a source? Arilang talk 09:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ōyama Incident[edit]

According to Shanghai Ceasefire Agreement (see. Chinese were forbidden to garrison any troops in Shanghai or its vicinity, apart from police force inside the city. Who exactly were these Chinese Peace Preservation Corps garrisoned and armed inside the airport? It seems that their presence there was illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese Peace Preservation Corps were, as their title suggests, strictly speaking not a military force, but a police force under the law. Today's Japanese Self-Defense Force is our modern counterpart: it looks like an army, it acts like an army, but it is strictly speaking a civilian service. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Forces Number of Tanks[edit]

There should be a representation of the Vickers 6-Ton tanks covered in this wiki article: For example "The 1st Battalion in Shanghai had 32 Vickers Amphibious tanks and some Vickers 6-ton tanks, and the 2nd Battalion also in Shanghai had 20 Vickers 6-ton tanks, 4 Carden Loyd tankettes and carriers." The non-inclusion of these numbers makes it seem like the Chinese at Shanghai had no armor support, which is innacurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)



I can't find it now but, for researchers looking at this page, there was a letter printed in an Australian newspaper from a boy in Shanghai back to his family detailing his first-hand account of the accidental Republican bombing of the International Settlement. Falls under avoid-primary-sources and we've already got that incident covered, but still a powerful passage if you can find it.


Now, a wartime propaganda film is obviously a biased source. It is, in fact, something like the quintessence of biased sourcing.

That said, if The Battle of China’s account of punitive Japanese bombing of the undefended civilian population of Shanghai after the Republican army's retreat was a complete lie, that's worth noting. If it's true, it's even more necessary to include it. Right now, there is next to nothing about Japanese aerial bombardment; absolutely nothing about strikes against civilian targets; and absolutely no link to our article on or Japan's policy of terror bombing. Not sure if it was an over-enthusiastic editor or simple oversight, but it needs to be addressed in greater detail. — LlywelynII 19:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)