Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

The 70-20-10 quote has long since been demonstrated to be a fabrication. For discussion, see James E. Sheridan, China in Disintegration: The Republican Era in Chinese History, 1912-1949 (New York: Free Press, 1976), 308n11. He refers to Lyman Van Slyke's Friends and Enemies (1963). The selection of supposed official statements here is highly tendentious towards the unsubstantiated view that CCP war policy was directly primarily against the KMT, not Japan. Alexander C Cook (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this one?

• In the past Japanese warlords had occupied a large part of China. Because of that, the Chinese people had learned a lesson. Without Japan's invasion, the Chinese people would not be awakened, neither colluding nor uniting. In that case we [communists] would still stay in the mountains, let alone come to Beijing to watch the opera. Precisely because of the Japanese Imperial Army, which had occupied a large part of China, leaving the Chinese people nowhere to go, that once they understood they began taking up arm-struggle, resulting in the establishment of many counter-Japanese military bases, thus creating favorable conditions for the coming war of liberation. Japanese capitalist and warlords have done a good deed for us. If ever we need to say thank you, I would like to say Thank you to the Japanese war lords.
  • Speech on welcoming Japanese politicians (24 Jan 1961); the original text is in Japanese; the Chinese translation text is on talk page.

• 有的人認為我們應該多抗日，才愛國，但那愛的是蔣介石的國，我們中國共產黨人祖國是全世界共產黨人共同的祖國即蘇維埃（蘇聯）。我們共產黨人的方針是，要讓日本軍隊多佔地，形成蔣、日、我，三國志，這樣的形勢對我們才有利，最糟糕的情況不過是日本人佔領了全中國，到時候我也還可以藉助蘇聯的力量打回來嘛！
  • 《毛泽东选集》人民出版社，1967年版.

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.

• Section reorganized and additional material with more solid citations added. DCTT (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Does anyone know how to add countries into the user box? The U.S. and USSR should be included. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The were both excluded as a result of a discussion a few months back. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it might be interesting to raise the issue again. It is common for infoboxes to include even minor participants, especially if their contribution happens to have some significance (political or otherwise). US participation led to Operation Ichi-go, which was a fairly major offensive. Actually, even the Chinese wikipedia article includes the US and the USSR. As for the collaborators, they were not that "insignificant" : Wang Jingwei had about 600 000 troops, which were used mostly against communist troops and guerillas. The Japanese article includes the US, the USSR, British support (more questionable, maybe) as well as Wang Jingwei regime, Manchukuo and Mengjiang. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese wiki article states foreign military support as "Soviet Volunteers" and "United States Army Airforce" because they did not send troops to China to fight the Japanese thoughout the entire SSJW. Ichigo was fought (and lost) exclusively by Chinese army on the ground. The collaborators were not commanded by the puppet government officials, but were taking orders from IJA (and secretly cooperated with Dai Li) to suppress the CCP. The puppets Chinese army are literally puppets! DCTT (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Air force counts as military involvement, and other military infoboxes routinely list material "support" when it is significant, which is the case here. As for the collaborators being de facto commanded by the Japanese, it does not detract us from the fact that wikipedia infoboxes list as many belligerents as possible. In Operation Overlord, the Allies were under american (Eisenhower's) command, and yet all countries are listed, and indeed they should. This is for the sake of the readers' information. Actually the current infobox clearly shows that the other belligerents' efforts were subordinate to China and Japan's efforts. I do not see where the problem lies. I'd suggest we all go discuss it on that page so we can have other users' opinions. Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jean-Jacques Georges here. Every single nation that participated in the war, regardless of how major or minor their involvement was, should be included in the infobox. Thus, as the United States, the Soviet Union, Manchukuo, Mengjiang, and the Wang Jingwei regime all participated in the war, they should be listed in the infobox. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My edits clearly stated the nature of USA and USSR participation in the infobox: airforce and volunteers, which is more percise since none of their ground troops were fighting in China. My edits did not eliminate the collaborator regimes, I just made their fonts smaller, furthermore there are a dozen more puppet regimes and a few dozen more independent "peace preservation troops" and "IJA assistant army" set up by the Japanese not listed in the infobox, should we include them as well? They had just as much legitimacy as Manchoukou and Mengjiang but we really want an article-length infobox? DCTT (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the current revision, is there a specific reason why the flags of Wang Jingwei regime, Manchukuo and Mengjiang are omitted? If there are no objections, then I will apply them to the infobox. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said before and maybe elsewhere, the fact that the soviets were officially "volunteers" was because the USSR did not want to declare open war on Japan. This is the same nature as the People's Republic of China's participation in the Korean War (granted, they sent ground troops in the Korean war, but in absolute it's the same thing). The fact that the USA and USSR did not send ground troops is not disputed : but aircraft participation is still offensive participation, and they also lost men. So this actually qualifies as more than just "support" (i.e. just sending money and/or equipment), so they qualify as belligerents (then again, no one disputes the fact that China did 95% of the work on allied side). As for the collaborators, I agree with Belinsquare, they should have their flags no matter what. The infobox's organization clearly shows that they were subordinate. Other - even more ridiculous - puppet regimes have their flags in military conflict infoboxes. Since all puppet regimes where officially merged in 1940 under the Wang Jingwei administration (with the de jure exception of Manchukuo and de facto exception of Mengjiang), its mention might suffice without bothering to include things like the Dadao Municipal Government.

One other thing : why do China and Japan's flags have to be so BIG ? It's definitely not standard if we compare with other infoboxes. The infobox is clearly organized to convey the idea that other belligerents were second-fiddlers in that conflict. I'd say the idea can be perfectly understood without China and Japan having those huge flags.

BTW, wouldn't it be useful to create a "Collaborationist Chinese governments" article which would mention all these entities, linking to all the governments' individual articles ? I also wonder if Collaborationist Chinese Army could not use a title like "Collaborationist Chinese armies", since there was more than one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Now DCCT insists that the infobox's combatants section should link to "Fourteen air force" and not to "United States". Sorry, but I really see no point in this, the US having been involved in the conflict as a sovereign state. As for the Soviet volunteers, as said before, they were only a way for the USSR to be unofficially involved. The Spanish civil war infobox has the mention of "Soviet volunteers", but still links to "Soviet union", by the way. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we list all the Japanese puppet regimes? They are all the same, set up for propaganda purposes and have no real authority. It is very misleading to present them like sovereign states because they are not! DCTT (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Soviet volunteers were part of the Red Army. That's what Hu Jintao said in this link [1]. Volunteers are not by themselves on their own initiative at war with Japan, it's obvious.Sentinel R (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you really read the article, Hu is talking about Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945, which played a key factor in Japanese surrender. This war is separate from 2nd Sino-Japanese War because Manchuria is part of Manchukuo, a Japanese puppet state, and not part of China when this war started in 1937. This is a consensus reached among EXPERTS in this subject manner, so if you have different opinion you need to get support from other editors! DCTT (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation request

A request for informal mediation has been made at WP:MEDCAB. If all parties are happy for me to act as an informal mediator for this issue, please let me know. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have closed the request due to lack of participation. If you require mediation in the future, please do not hesitate to file a new request. Regards ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2010 (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)

How about the fact that they managed to hold on for 8 years and not get taken over? Despite the fact that they were outgunned, poorly equipped and suffering from internal problems.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.82.193 (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2010 (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 —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

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)

1. The best the Chinese could have done was to slow Japanese advance in exchange for Stalin's promise join into the war against Japan after Germany has fallen. It wasn't a trap, it was a strategic necessity to avoid a two front war in Russia. China obviously couldn't have beaten Japan by herself. Japan didn't end China quickly enough. It was her stupidity for inciting America's intervention and underestimating America's will power and the Chinese will power... Hubris on Japan's part.Phead128 (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

hey Phead128. you replied to my comment on YT regarding the TW issue. anyway, does anyone really think the Japanese would have made it all the way to Chongqing? not at all an easy terrain to manoeuvre around. ah, I look upon that time both very tearfully yet with much pride. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (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

(in Chinese)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)

End of the War

War, according to www.m-w.com, is 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : variance, odds 3

Regardless of the Treaty of Taipei's claims to be ending a war, the fact is that the war was already over. From 1945 to 1952 they were no longer in armed conflict, they were negotiating. That's diplomacy - not war.

The article, as you had it, started with "The Second Sino-Japanese War (July 7, 1937 – August 5, 1952)[8] was a military conflict fought between the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan." If you believe the Treaty of Taipei, your opening sentence is wrong because from 1945 to 1952 there was no "military conflict", so you have incorrectly defined the topic. Instead you should be defining the "war" as something like a "state of disagreement".

The Treaty of Taipei's claim to end the war must therefor be viewed with skepticism. Also, see WP:PRIMARY. Please provide a good secondary source to support the Treaty of Taipei's claim to be ending the war. Readin (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does the section of this article that claims that the Chinese Communists had a miniscule role in the war against Japan cite Halliday but not U.S. general Stilwell who thought that Change was dragging his heels in fighting Japan so that he could save his strength for the coming Civil War with the Communists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.86.174 (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stilwell disliked Chiang even before he came to Chongqing due to his prior interaction with Chiang's rival warlords like Fung Yuxiang when Stilwell served as US military attache in Tienjing. He hated Chiang even more when he served as Chiang's chief of staff, and the amimosity was mutual. Therefore Stilwell had a habit of making exaggerated accusations against Chiang, such as accusing Chiang of hording lend lease supplies, but in reality that was impossible because HE (not Chiang) had the sole authority to distribute lend lease supplies to China, and 98% of supplies went to the US 14th airforce (the Chinese army got 2%)! DCTT (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

One of these is wrong

"the media in Japan often paraphrase with other expressions like The Japan-China Incident (日華事變 [Nikka Jihen], 中日事變 [Nisshi Jihen],"

You can't have the "Ni" character (sun) first in the first example, and second in the second example.Eregli bob (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

san.beck.org is not a reliable source

I don't see any indication that san.beck.org is a reliable source. Self-published websites are generally a concern, and while there is a book, the publisher looks like a vanity press. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Notable figures" section

What does and doesn't constitute notability for inclusion? Currently we have NRA leaders, KMT-affiliated warlords, the Ma clique, the Chinese Communists, IJA leaders, collaborators, and foreign supporters. If we are going for an exhaustive list of all major/significant military leaders that participated, then the following are all possible candidates to be added as well:

• Leaders of the various Anti-Japanese Volunteer Armies (e.g. Jilin Self-Defence Army, Heilungkiang National Salvation Army, Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army)
• Korean independence movement-affiliated fighters that included ethnic Koreans who participated in actions in Manchuria in the early 1930s during the Invasion of Manchuria, and later in other places in China and Burma during the later stages of the war. Such figures include Kim Chaek, Chu Chin, Choe Hyon, Yi Hak Man, Choe Yong Gun and Kim Il Sung.
• Other notable leaders involved in the Soviet Red Army invasion of Manchuria in 1945, if there are any that are particularly notable.
• Tibetan leaders that opposed/fought against the KMT and Ma clique, and other belligerents of the Xinjiang Wars that involved the Ma clique. First thing that comes to mind would be the Dalai Lama, although this might bring more controversy to an already controversial article. (this might be more related to the Chinese Civil War than the SSJW perhaps, however Chiang Kai-shek did suspect that the Tibetans were collaborating with the Japanese. CCW tends to overlap with SSJW, so I'm not sure whether this qualifies for inclusion)

Any ideas or comments? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

More sources needed for numbers

As far as I'm concerned, the section Casualties assessment is a touchy topic easily infiltrated with the Chinese and Japanese ultra-nationalism sentiments and often led into a war crime denial issue.

Some problems can be seen here:

• "Communist Chinese sources report that their forces were responsible for the deaths of 1,704,117 Japanese soldiers."

I can't see any search results in Chinese, Japanese and English sources except a few from wikipedia clone.[2][3]

• "Such astronomical claims... was ridiculed by Nationalist authorities as propaganda.... "

1. The figure, which is not accepted by Western or Japanese historians,

NPOV issue.

• "Such astronomical claims... was ridiculed by Nationalist authorities as propaganda.... "

1. The figure, which is not accepted by Western or Japanese historians,

no references to confirm it.

--Winstonlighter (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Communist Chinese sources report that their forces were responsible for the deaths of 1,704,117 Japanese soldiers."

It's listed in page 296 of Alvin Coox's article, "Recourse to Arms: The Sino-Japanese Conflict, 1937-1945," in China and Japan: A Search for Balance Since World War I. According to another contributor on wikipedia, the casualties also can be found on pg 565 of Chung Wu's History of the Sino-Japanese war (1937-1945).

• "Such astronomical claims... was ridiculed by Nationalist authorities as propaganda.... "

It's also listed in page 296 OF Coox's article. He quotes: The senior Nationalist general Ho Ying-ch'in derides the astronomic claims of the Chinese Communists, whose forces he calls 'untrained, undisciplined, poorly equipped,' and without 'an efficient organ of command.' How could the Communists, Ho asks, have killed 1,704,117 enemy soldiers, since the guerillas were outnumbered by about 3 to 1, were 'always on the run,' and were widely scattered? Ho Ying-chi'n was War Minister of China during much of WW2.

• "As far as I'm concerned, the section Casualties assessment is a touchy topic easily infiltrated with the Chinese and Japanese ultra-nationalism sentiments and often led into a war crime denial issue."

That's a huge accusation you're making. Casualties assessment is not a "war crimes denial" or "ultra-nationalism" issue (whatever that means). No Japanese sources are even present; the article is supported by sources from leading American scholars.

For your information, Alvin Coox was Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, specializing in Japanese history. He contributed the WW2 section of the Cambridge History of Japan, so his credentials are very strong in this regard. John W. Dower, Professor of MIT, also specializes in Japanese history. --169.232.190.64 (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WinstonLighter. "Astronomical claims" <--- If there is any prime example of NPOV issue, this would be one example.Phead128 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To the anon ip whos messing with japanese casualty figures

apparently you either think i lack a brain or that i'm not going to bother check your edits. either way, you're wrong

You used the source from Taipei, which is located in TAIWAN, which is currently under nationalist control, and you outright vandalized the article by claiming that it is a communist source.

Its strange that you cherry pick the quote where the Nationalist authorities ridicule the communists, yet when the Nationalists report over 1.77 million Japanese dead, suddenly you are forced to B.S. outright, and claim that the nationalist claim is from a communist source.Дунгане (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop white-washing history. Even Chinese officials secretly ridiculed the 1.77 million figure. You need to be able to discern state propaganda from fact. Please provide reliable sources to your arguments. I'll take John Dower (MIT) and Alvin Coox (UPenn) anytime over some historian in Taiwan. --149.142.75.107 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist authorities ridiculed the COMMUNIST claim that they singlehandedly killed 1.77 million figure but on their own, THEY CLAIMED that 1.77 million japanese were killed. Speaking of which, you have not even read the book from taiwan, nor know who Wu is, so you are not qualified to make judgements on the source.Дунгане (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ScorchingPheonix

User:ScorchingPheonix, you think that if you can register an account, that you can't hide the fact that your the same anon ip whom i was talking to above?

whatever, anyway, if you try a stunt like that again and claim the source doesnt say what it says, im calling in the admin, it says right in the source (source continued) That the japanese exagerated chinese casualties and falsely minimized japanese casulaties, to deliberately cheat the Japanese people of reliable information as the National Herald said.

Japanese reports were ridiculed by Chinese military authorities. The chinese military authorities in 1940 were nationalist, not communist, the source was published in 1940. the source is american, and at that time america only regarded nationalists as military authorities in China.Дунгане (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

These are snippet views, and don't show anything. All I can see from your link is that Nationalist authorities ridiculed one report by the Japanese, and it doesn't even show what report. You could have used the sentence out of context, and when presented by somebody with a history of plagiarism (you), I'm not sure I have much faith in your interpretation. It's also from The China Weekly Review, not the National Herald.

The wiki article doesn't present Japanese wartime records of Japanese casualties or Chinese casualties. What is your point here? Are you trying to contest that 396,000 Japanese soldiers were killed in China? Do you want the number to be higher so that it's closer to Nationalist deaths? Do you really believe that 1.7 million Japanese soldiers were killed in China? Or do you not trust the research of some of America's most talented historians?

Anyways, I like how you typed "The Japanese attempt on the part of china to minimize the number of casualties in Japan was, stated the National Herald" into the search engine to go fishing for sources that try to discredit the Japanese death toll. You did not present the source in a scholarly manner (it doesn't list which particular statistics the Nationalist government ridiculed) and I doubt you even read the whole article since you couldn't get the name of the newspaper right. I will revert your edits.--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Дунгане, let's not get into any edit wars here. I would like us to both respect our positions, even if they differ. I think it would be interesting if somebody with a Western education can discuss differences in historiography with somebody with a Chinese education. Let's take the time to hear each others' opinions and provide criticisms. I just want you to realize that what you may have been taught in Taiwan can be significantly different from what is taught in the US. Notice that I haven't used any Japanese sources, so not everything you disagree with is Japanese propaganda.--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether something is a snippet view on Google Books or not is a poor excuse, as you're ignoring that the book is available elsewhere, and is a poor attempt at assuming bad faith on your behalf. Also, avoid making personal attacks; they're irrelevant and unnecessary. Rather than being worried about someone's history, you should consider your own edits. Refer to the topic at hand, rather than pointless rubbish about others. All you have done is assumed that others have had Chinese education, an education apparently inferior to yours; you defend your arguments by saying that you're not spewing Japanese propaganda because you never used Japanese sources, despite the fact that you have been cherrypicking non-Japanese sources that fit in with what you want to bring across. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, since you like irrelevant personal attacks so much, I'll give you a taste of your own medicine. You spelt Phoenix wrong. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The report, however, was ridiculed bv Chinese military authorities. The Japanese attempt to exagerate the number of casualties on the part of China and to minimize the number of casualties in Japan was, stated the National Herald - Enough said- it clearly cited National Herald in the source- by the way, china monthly review is a western source, not communist, and not nationalist either.Дунгане (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry on this article is so obvious that its not even funny

I have a nagging feeling that User:Reconquista1492 is the same guy as User:ScorchingPheonix and the ip 76.172.217.103, 169.232.190.64, 149.142.75.107 in addition to the other ips which were messing around on the Second Sino Japanese War Article. The other ips constantly changed chinese victories to japanese victories on Second sino Japanese war, plus User:Reconquista1492 made an edit mentioned Los Angeles, and 76.172.217.103, in addition to the other ips trace to Los Angeles, California, 169.232.190.64 even traces to Los Angeles University,Office of the President,as does 149.142.75.

They are all the same guy, they all are obssesive with editing articles about universities, they push Japanese POV on Second Sino-Japanese War related articles.Дунгане (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Reconquista1492 is even making edits referring to University of California- [4] [5]

I also suspect User:Phoenix7777 of being the same person

User:Ninthwhen is another suspect. You do realize this guy is a serial sockpuppet?Дунгане (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

you gotta like how this guy makes exactly the same edits with diffferent accounts- [6] [7]. I urge you to submit a sockpuppet investigation, i have no idea how to do it.Дунгане (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, several of these accounts are obsessed with the Senkaku Islands article.Дунгане (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an ip tracing website, just put in the ip address into the box and press the look up button [8]Дунгане (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Don't spam peoples' talk pages. If you have hard evidence, take it to WP:SPI. • Ling.Nut 03:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of these are definitely not the same person, I can tell just from behavior. I don't know about most of these guys, but Ninthwhen is not the same as Phoenix7777 at least (I haven't checked the others), they have highly different editing styles. In particular, Ninthwhen never used edit summaries or posted on talk pages, ever. His new account, User:Tenthmonth, doesn't either. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, i am filing them all, but leaving out Ninthwhen. Phoenix and the other guys are going to get filed at sockpuppet requests.Дунгане (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have filed an investigation- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reconquista1492.Дунгане (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is even more ridiculous now. Even I am being accused of being this Phoenix. Check this out. This particular editor seems disruptive enough to warrant banning imho. If he has a history of personal attacks here or elsewhere please let me know on my talk page so I can compile a comprehensive complaint and get it properly dealt with. I begin to suspect this whole socket puppet thing was engineered to silence editors he doesn't agree with. Taken in context this history of behavior is just too suspicious to ignore. Of course I may be wrong, but its good to check these things. Binesi (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese casualties

I have two issues with the following sentence:

Most Western historians believed that the total number of casualties was at least 20 million.

1. Why is the past form "believed" used?

2. The source given is a professor that states: Japanese school text-books still refer to the total war Japan waged against China between 1937 and 1945, in which some 20 million Chinese died, as the ‘China incident’. Why is the unsourced statement from one professor generalized to "most Western historians"? Matt77 (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor need to be able to read Chinese

"只有中国共产党，才能最澈底的领导全中国的工农兵学生以及一切劳苦群众向帝国主义国民党进攻。日本侵掠东三省的事变，不但丝毫不能减轻中国共产党向国民党统治的进攻，而且却正相反，正因为这些事件，中国共产党将加倍努力去推翻帝国主义的工具中国国民党在中国的统治！"

To IP user:130.126.8.78, the above quotation is taken from wikisource, if you read the full text, it is very clear that 共产党 did not call for it's Red Army to fight, instead, they called for united action to overthrow the KMT government, the then legitimate government. Arilang ^talk 12:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

>Implying that being from Wikisource means anything significant at all, so that WP:V, WP:N and WP:UNDUE can all be overlooked as a result -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

wikisource is not a reliable source- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and by the way, why is every single one of your quotes in simplified? Are you from mainland China? if you are, you have a a very distorted view of the KMT, because Dr. Sun was far from being an american puppet. Dr. Sun praised Lenin and said he was a great leader. You have a seriously distorted view of the KMT, which , by the way, proclaimed that Manchu's were one of the five nationalies of china, equal to the other nationalities. Those of us who are from taiwan and other places familiar with the KMT know that not everything in its ideology is geared toward anti communism, in fact, Dr. Sun said that the KMT was to be socialist. But those of you from the mailand, who are oppressed by the Communists, have this misconcieved idea that just because the CCP hates the KMT that every single one of their policies is different?Дунгане (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that it really matters as per WP:ADHOM, but as far as I know Arilang is either from Hong Kong, or is an overseas Cantonese speaker. Just saying. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, CCP don't hate KMT, they hate KMT under the leadership of Chiang Kaishek.Wo.luren (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User Benlisquare, regardless of either Wikisource is a reliable source or not, no one can deny that "中国共产党为日帝国主义强占东三省第二次宣言" is a reliable secondly source. And this info is ever more relevant today, as the CCP of China still put forward the view that CCP was the "Leader" of military actions against the Japan Imperial Army. You and me know that the military arm of CCP was 红军, the Red Army, which had never been in active combat with the Imperial Army. Arilang ^talk 03:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the WP:BURDEN still lies on your shoulders, does it not? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Muslim and Ethnic Minority Section is too long

While this section offer valuable and reliable information on what's happening in western China, but the fact is that western China is not a major front of this war, therefore this section's current length needs to be shortened. I propose writing a summary on this topic and create a separate article for main article reference. Please offer your opinion, thanks. DCTT (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The role of Muslim troops in the second Sino-Japanese war was rather limited, yet this is the longest section in the article. This seems excessive to me and creates the appearance of somebody writing with an agenda.

Note that I am not saying that Muslims had no role in the war, nor that there should be no mention of them at all; only that they are being given undue weight. I have not tried to trim down the section; it seemed appropriate to discuss the issue with other editors first. But I have flagged the section. Yaush (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally not much of a deletionist; would splitting into a separate article be an option? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That, or create an article on Islam in World War II. The latter seems like a reasonable article topic and this section would be an appropriate part of it. Yaush (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian), Hitler_religion#Islamic_and_eastern_religions.03:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we can make use of all the information in the current section to create a new article, with article title open for suggestions. One option is adapting the current section title such as "Muslim Jihad against Japan during the Second Sino-Japanese War". DCTT (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(indent) I guess we can move it to a main article, and leave only a small section on the SSJW page with a small, brief mention, along with the { {main|article name}} template, so that the SSJW article doesn't end up too long. Possible titles can be Muslims during the Second Sino-Japanese War, Minorities of China during the Second Sino-Japanese War, Actions in Western China during the Second Sino-Japanese War, Western China theatre of the Second Sino-Japanese War or Military actions of the Ma Clique during the Second Sino-Japanese War. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Western China theatre of the Sino-Japanese War sounds good to me. Arilang ^talk 10:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I would prefer/recommend a title such as Western China theatre of the Second Sino-Japanese War (or Western China theatre of World War II; and similarly Western China theatre of the Chinese Civil War for similar CCW topics on Xinjiang and Tibet), even though the term makes a lot of sense, since it is rarely used in other publications, I think it may violate WP:COMMONNAME or WP:OR. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Video

Battle of Changsha, The Hump...

(1)Battle of Nanking (2) Massacre of Nanking (3) Space For Time (4) 30 million Chinese moved West for 2000 miles (5) Factories, schools, hospitals, railways, all moved west.

1937 documentary film recording the Chinese army fighting against the Japanese invasion.

Questions:(1) Which section would be best for this video? (2) Could the content be used as a source for this article? Arilang ^talk 09:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

the high point of their cooperation came in 1938 during the Battle of Wuhan.

But Battle Wuhan doesn't inform about Chinese Communists. Xx236 (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Muslim General?

Maybe it is my lack of knowledge, but why is it important that some key persons are described as "Muslim Generals"? Is this a special kind of officer? Or has one muslim been editing this article, just to put undue weight to the involved muslims?Jeff5102 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Muslim generals were a specialised faction. See Hui people. I don't think you get Chinese history. See Ma Clique. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for showing these articles. Interestingly, the history of all these articles show that the term "Muslim General" did not occur in them until the summer of 2010, when User:Labnoor started to make his edits. It looks suspiciously like WP:ADVOCACY, I must say.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's important to know that many Muslim generals were loyal allies of the KMT (contrast the other generals involved in the Central Plains War, but many of their provinces were not strictly ruled by the central government. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

He may be biased, and maybe he can be watched, but my misgivings are not strong. Cultural pride shouldn't inhibit editing in an area. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a few moths ago, but just let me say that you are right. But would you be so kind to watch his edits, and act in the case that his biases woulfd get problematic? Thanks and regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

CCP vs KMT in brunt of fighting

I'm sure this isn't going to get changed as I don't have the books at hand and changing the passage would lead to recriminatory accusations of bias, but at the moment the section implies that the CCP is the only body promoting the line that communists primarily repelled the Japanese invasion and it references Chang and Halliday. Chang and Halliday's bias is clear from their biography of Mao containing the word 'monster' in the title and also I would say the consensus in professional history (e.g. J.D. Spence, Lloyd Eastman) is that both the CCP and the KMT fought the Japanese and it was not 90% KMT. Joseph Stilwell advocated sending arms to the CCP because of the KMT's refusal to fight the Japanese and threats to make peace with Japan if America did not do everything he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.80.135.94 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet Union

Shouldn't the Soviet Union be listed as a co-belligerent, since Japan tried to invade them as well in the Soviet-Japanese Border Wars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Russian success at Khalkhin Gol, however, stoked Western fears of Soviet expansionism

>>The Russian success at Khalkhin Gol, however, stoked Western fears of Soviet expansionism, and in July of 1939, negotiations between Japanese Foreign Minister Arita Khatira and the British Ambassador in Tokyo, Robert Craigie, led to an agreement by which Great Britain recognized Japanese conquests in China.

How the war of deffence could stoke fears of Soviet expansionism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VetMax (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

War

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZHgtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3JgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5009,4498794&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lIkzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=L_UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7188,1645582&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zR9kAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P3sNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2670,3996296&hl=en

Rajmaan (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

These are interesting references, but usually for history articles, we use more modern sources, such as books and textbooks, or online materials. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Map caption

So if I click on the map showing the area of China occupied by Japan in 1940, why is the picture heading stated to be "Chinese civil war" ?? Eregli bob (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Map is confusing

The map gives the impression that somehow Taiwan (Formosa) and Korea were not under Japanese control at the time.

It also seems to suggest that the Japanese invasion of the Asian mainland seemed to stop at the southern border of China.

A map like this one: http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/map-japan.gif gives a fuller picture.

116.55.65.71 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That map contains even bigger mistakes. It shows southern Qinghai as under Tibet's control when it was ruled by Ma Bufang who even pushed further into Xikang during the earlier Sino–Tibetan War. It also shows Xinjiang as independent while it was ruled by the pro Soviet warlord Sheng Shicai, who never openly seceded from China and Xinjiang came back under central government control after Sheng's defection from the Soviets.Rajmaan (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that THAT WAS NOT :"Sino-Japan War". It should be "Anti-Japanses War" or " The Empire of Japan Invasion China"

Please be justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.50.145.216 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by the published reliable sources, and they call it that. Editors here are required to be neutral regarding Japan and China, and not proponents of one or the other. Rjensen (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify or nitpick, editors are not required to be neutral regarding Japan and China during the war. To be neutral about such a situation would be a form of mental illness. It is our editing that must be neutral. Readin (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

yes but neutral editing is well neigh impossible is a person comes here for the sole purpose of denouncing a national enemy in an event 70 years ago. The title is quite exactly right and the proposed "Anti-Japanese War" is a propaganda slogan used by a reader in China who has not been previously active here. Note that anti-Japanese slogans are in fashion in China today (not to mention burning Japanese cars) Rjensen (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Second Sino-Japanese War" is the correct title Readin (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mission 204

Just read about Mission 204 and also British Army Aid Group should this be acceptable to include the British & Australian flags in infobox? ChrisWet (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang Biological weapons attack which killed Japanese soldiers

Japanese biological weapons boomeranged on their own soldiers and resulted in 10,000 Japanese dead in 1942 in Chekiang (Zhejiang)

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZzlNgS70OHAC&pg=PA171#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good.Phead128 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead needs rewrite

I've just tagged the article with "lead rewrite". Why? The lead section of the article does not summarize the main events of the war. The third paragraph is really odd, it contains very minor details about Winston Churchill's statements and nothing whatsoever about what happened between 1939 and 1945 in China! Wangedgar (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:First Sino-Japanese War which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Tongchow Mutiny

The Tongchow Mutiny massacre at which Chinese soldiers raped and killed about 250 Japanese women and Children brutaly. This massacre gave strong impact to Japanese residents, especially in Shanghai. So, when Cian Kai-Sek approached to Shanghai and provoked in various way, many felt that be the second victim of Tongchow Mutiny. It was the one of main reason of 2nd Shanghai Incident. Later, Chinese became to insist IJA committed atrocities to which Tonchow Mutiny very resemble — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windersteinburg (talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't use NPOV language like "provoke" especially when its unsourced, and speaking of provocation anyway, if we go by your original research logic,what were Japanese troops doing in China, killing and torturing civilians decades before the Tungchow mutiny? Japanese were torturing, killing, and raping civilians in China years before the Tungchow mutiny, such as in Unit 731 and the reason Japanese were even in Tungchow was because they invaded China first in the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and since the Mukden Incident. Rajmaan (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

About foreign support in sino-japanese war

I don't want to make any edit war so I put my comment in the talk page [9] before. I can't understand why list British Empire as the foreign support but nothing detail in the article. When I read Second Sino-Japanese War, it describes the support from soviet, US and even Germany but doesn't describe any support from Britain. I don't know why list Britain as a foreign support but did not write any detail in the article. Moreover, soviet and US all sent military adviser (Vasily Chuikov and Joseph Stilwell) to China. If you think Britain is one of the major foreign support for sino-Japanese war, can you add a reference to that article. It seems it is unsource contents now. If list Britain as a major support because it is the major power of Allies, then we can also list Netherlands, Australia and Canada because they are all major power of allies in Pacific war. For Burma Campaign, I think north part of Burma Campaign was considered as part of sino-japanese war but it's hard to say the entire Burma Campaign was. Most of time, it seems British force and Chinese force were in the independent operation in Burma Campaign. Anyway Burma Campaign is the only relation between Britain and Sino-Japanese War. If you all consider the entire Burma Campaign was part of Sino-Japanese war, I can accept to list Britain as a major support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.173.116 (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Memoirs and recollections of Chinese and Japanese soldiers.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_-nbylSlvn8C&pg=PT94&dq=Japanese+tanks+dare+to+die+grenades&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9GvbU56EIuHIsATAtoLABw&ved=0CB0Q6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=Japanese%20tanks%20dare%20to%20die%20grenades&f=false

article

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZVdpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA273&dq=Japanese+tanks+dare+to+die+grenades&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KmzbU4imEcnLsQTPpoGIDQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Japanese%20tanks%20dare%20to%20die%20grenades&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=PVW0AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA273&dq=Japanese+tanks+dare+to+die+grenades&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KmzbU4imEcnLsQTPpoGIDQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Japanese%20tanks%20dare%20to%20die%20grenades&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Chinese suicide bombers and suicide squads used against the Japanese

"Dare to Die Corps" or "Suicide squads" were used by Chinese armies against the Japanese

敢死隊 敢死队 gǎnsǐduì

use against the japanese

http://books.google.com/books?id=dhuNIR6GKPcC&pg=PA319&dq=dare+to+die+corps+swords&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oWfbU_6lKs_LsQS2i4DIDA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=dare%20to%20die%20corps%20swords&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=PNJOxyP0SqEC&pg=PA319&dq=dare+to+die+corps+swords&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oWfbU_6lKs_LsQS2i4DIDA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=dare%20to%20die%20corps%20swords&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=s2NKutuUlA8C&pg=PA18-IA9&dq=dare+to+die+corps+swords&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oWfbU_6lKs_LsQS2i4DIDA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dare%20to%20die%20corps%20swords&f=false

page 284

http://books.google.com/books?id=8VIUAQAAIAAJ&q=dare+to+die+corps+swords&dq=dare+to+die+corps+swords&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oWfbU_6lKs_LsQS2i4DIDA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCA

page 234

http://books.google.com/books?id=N68GRK67FjQC&q=dare+to+die+taierzhuang+japanese&dq=dare+to+die+taierzhuang+japanese&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eWjbU6nNLLHfsASKmYC4Ag&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ

http://books.google.com/books?id=wJrLhcgog8oC&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=dare+to+die+taierzhuang+japanese&source=bl&ots=dkbLcnATPO&sig=FwXmV9pnmfmZq9gtp4ISF3E-8o4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jmfbU7vzFI_isATZjICYCg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=dare%20to%20die%20taierzhuang%20japanese&f=false

Chinese suicide bombers against Japanese tanks

At the Battle of Shanghai

http://books.google.com/books?id=jpPUAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT127&lpg=PT127&dq=shanghai+grenade+tanks+japanese&source=bl&ots=FDtZrlcho4&sig=E4q36bLMXdDCFJ0MK1wxaDQTxrQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WXDbU-CtC_HJsQSSiIHwBA&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=shanghai%20grenade%20tanks%20japanese&f=false

Battle of Taierzhuang

http://books.google.com/books?id=bt7q8hfiZ4gC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=taierzhuang+suicide+bombers&source=bl&ots=WPZRmC3Wz6&sig=5LxRk4wGlVgS40x9YfPKryla1mE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I2_bU7HPL6_gsASt1IKQAQ&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=taierzhuang%20suicide%20bombers&f=false

Model 24 hand grenades

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Stories/Newsletter1-8-2/xinhui.htm

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Stories/emagazine-3/tanks/Chinese_Tank_Forces_and_Battles_before_1945_ed.htm

http://numistamp.com/Taierzhuang-1938----Stalingrad-1942-(Page-1).php

page 518

http://www.gobetweenfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/PhD_Angry_Monk_07.pdf

http://www.zora.uzh.ch/17710/3/Angry_Monk_Dissertation.pdf

page 447

http://books.google.com/books?id=nRlWAAAAYAAJ&q=Thus,+for+instance,+a+group+of+Chinese+soldiers,+in+spite+of+heavy+artillery+fire,+attacked+a+column+of+Japanese+tanks+with+hand-grenades+and+destroyed+four+tanks,+sacrificing+their+own+lives.+These+courageous+soldiers+thereby+opened+the+way+for+the+Chinese+troops.+According+to+reports+from+Shanghai,+the+losses+of+the+Japanese+army+operating+on+the+eastern+front+amounted+in+February+to+5,400+killed+and+12,700+wounded.+400+oificers+were+killed+or+wounded.+In+March+35+Japanese&dq=Thus,+for+instance,+a+group+of+Chinese+soldiers,+in+spite+of+heavy+artillery+fire,+attacked+a+column+of+Japanese+tanks+with+hand-grenades+and+destroyed+four+tanks,+sacrificing+their+own+lives.+These+courageous+soldiers+thereby+opened+the+way+for+the+Chinese+troops.+According+to+reports+from+Shanghai,+the+losses+of+the+Japanese+army+operating+on+the+eastern+front+amounted+in+February+to+5,400+killed+and+12,700+wounded.+400+oificers+were+killed+or+wounded.+In+March+35+Japanese&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LnHbU6nJJdfNsQTq7oLQCw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA

page 172

http://books.google.com/books?id=TevqAAAAIAAJ&q=The+men+in+the+trenches+waited+till+the+tanks+came+close,+then+jumped+out+and+threw+bundles+of+hand-+grenades+under+their+wheels+and+into+their+ports.+Four+tanks+were+destroyed,+neatly+pierced+by+anti-tank+shells,+and+nine+others+were&dq=The+men+in+the+trenches+waited+till+the+tanks+came+close,+then+jumped+out+and+threw+bundles+of+hand-+grenades+under+their+wheels+and+into+their+ports.+Four+tanks+were+destroyed,+neatly+pierced+by+anti-tank+shells,+and+nine+others+were&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9HDbU9iuMq3esATmw4L4Dw&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA

http://grognard.com/info1/stormover.pdf

http://csonfz28.fotopages.com/?&page=18

Rajmaan (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification as Second World War

Did Second World War actually start in 1939 or is it just the date from which America or Britain joined the war? I am still not able to comprehend how the same war is a local war from 1931 to 1941 and part of Second World War from 1941. The dates in the article themselves show that Germany joined the Chinese bandwagon in 1933 and Russia in 1937. Does this not make it a world war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbk123 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect2

Can someone fix Redirect2 please? Invasion of China no longer directly redirects and I cannot fix the redirect notification. Minecraftwizard (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Better Map of Japanese Occupation (far enough south to include Hainan?)

The current map of Japanese Occupation in 1940 doesn't extend far enough south to include Hainan. Do we have a better one?Naraht (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Other names

I'm very skeptical of the claim that "the media in Japan often paraphrase with other expressions like 'The Japan–China Incident' (Japanese: 日華事變 Hepburn: Nikka Jiken, 日支事變 Nisshi Jiken)". Both of those names sound very old to me and I've never seen them in modern usage. Both have few hits on Google and are only referred to in the Japanese wiki article on the war as having been used during the war. --Cckerberos (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Martin B-10 raid over Japan

Chinese Martin B-10 bombers dropped leaflets over Japanese cities on May 19, 1938, to prove that the Chinese air force was capable of striking Japan.

http://books.google.com/books?id=s2NKutuUlA8C&pg=PA320#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=mpSkIrOCrQkC&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Re8pJnCXvWoC&pg=PA265#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=N6yy9mXwAEUC&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false

Confusing video clip

Video clip entitled, The beginning of the war, is in fact a propaganda video by the USA for their reasons of being in the war. The majority of the clip only shows the USA military views on Chinese history and only in the last 1 minute or so gives their reasons why Japan invaded China. It should be removed for being biased or that there should be a note explaining the source of it and what it was used for.

Anonymous, 12:23, 11 January 2014, GMT

American support to Japan from 1932- 1940

Why isn't all the American sold oil, copper and other war resources to Japan up until the embargo placed due to the Japanese invasion of French Indochina mentioned in the article?Rajmaan (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it isn't relevant. Normal trade is normal trade and historically uninteresting. It's the end of such trade that is interesting. --Yaush (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing

I thought that whoever removed the part ", except Senkaku Islands." is inaccurate. The Japanese still hold the island, and it was ceded after the first sino japanese war. It is deemed inaccurate in a dispute to remove that term.

FakeCow (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Japan had began to search on possession of Senkaku Islands since 1885 and declared possession at January 1895. While First Sino-Japanese war ended at November 1895. There are no relation between the Japan's possession of Senkaku Islands and First Sino-Japanese war. So it is inadequate to discribe "be ceded after the fisrt sino japanese war".

はぐれがらす (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)