From: lix@BUCRSB.BU.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Forward for Mr. Anonymous, #3
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:27:31 GMT

Before I forward the article of Mr. Anonymous, #3. A few words to Mr. Zuo:
zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo) wrote:
=======================================
In article <199204081358.AA01663@thames.bu.edu> lix@BUCRSB.BU.EDU writes:
>JP by Chinese, and they found poor Chinese really did nothing:-( Once I
>read a WWII book, the only contribution of Chinese mentioned in that book
>is "help USA to build an airport near Chengdu" :-(

Other contributions can also be located in some books . Mr. Larence , the
organizer and head of American " Flying Tiger" , once mentioned that
the chinese troop in Burma was really brave , but the troops inside the
China was in general corruptive . He also mentioned the hard efforts by 
CCP to disturb the japanese .

Another contribution is 20,ooo "Coolie" were sent abroad , to help the 
transportation of the coalised army (?)

China was really too weak to beat Japan , Otherwise Soviet Union had no
need to go to Dong Bei at all .  It was already a  history , but we can't
deny it .
=====================End quote==================

I did not say that China was strong enough to beat Japan alone in WWII. What
I said is, after WWII, China's contribution has been systematically under-
estimated by western scholars. Your article is another fresh example. Mr.
Anonymous said that he was writing more on this topic. So let's wait.

Here is his #3:

*******************************************************************
    Footnote on Sino-Japanese War and related issues -- No.3

It is not that I enjoy touching delicate and raw nerves which Mr. Joe 
Huang seems to have in abundance, and neither do I like to mention again 
the much-hated term "Foreign Moon Syndrome", but somehow I have to point
out a strange habit Mr. Huang seems to be laboring under: he always finds
it "chic" to refer to people, places and objects that have had time-
honored Chinese names by some foreign appellations or pronunciations.  

In fact, it would not be wrong to believe that Mr. Huang would have used 
Mo Taku-to or Sho Kai-seki if he could get away with it (without becoming 
a laughing stock among his non-Chinese associates).   Whether he means to
show his "objectivity" (if Joe Huang's objectivity is not a contradiction
in terms) or to impress a bunch of his "ignorant", "mindless" "blatantly
prejudiced"  "fellow Chinese",  I know not.  But it is a proven fact that
he hardly ever does it the other way around.  You will never, never catch
him saying Lai Shi-he, or Gao Ben-han, or Sha Wan, or Bu Bi-de  (even if
he by sheer chance happens to be aware who they were) or TangNuWuLiangHai
or CongLing.

Enough of ancient history for Mr. Huang.  So let's not recall annoying
words like Altan and "Grand Secretaries" to avoid provoking perhaps some
equally sad memories.  Just recently, though, Mr. Huang expressed some
expertly opinions on the Sino-Soviet border conflict.  His knowledge of
military science is of course remarkable, and I may have some comments
later. For now, let's limit ourselves to more useful discussion of the
pressing issues by taking a closer look at what he said  and the way he
said it.

Even the most absent-minded Chinese reader would be struck by the way he
kept reminding us of foreign names like Amur, Demansky, etc.  Indeed, in
a piece Mr. Huang had apparently used as a trial balloon to gauge the
feasibility of ending his exile from SCC he called Heilongjiang by its
Chinese name only once whereas the foreign word Amur was fetishly 
deployed whenever he had a chance to refer to the river.

However, in the same piece where Mr. Huang mentioned the "Russian" city
Khabarovsk repeatedly, he never bothered to cite, even in parentheses,
the city's CHINESE name.  Was it because Mr. Huang simply did not know
the Chinese name, as suggested by his enviably impressive (or much-
discussed) mastery of the Chinese language, both Classic/Wenyan and
Modern/Baihua?  Though I would dare think Mr. Huang may not know the
Chinese name of each of the "Sixty-Four Villages On the East Bank of the
(Amur) River", his much-touted collection of Chinese maps and the self-
implied or alleged expertise on Qing/Manchu/Manchurian history would
make it unlikely that he could not at least find the Chinese names of
those major border "Russian" cities, many of which have Manchurian
origins.

Please don't ever believe I am making a fuss over this "minor" thing
because we shall see this old habit of Mr. Huang's has a lot to do with
his "objectivity" and even his psyche deep down.  Unrelated to the topic
of the Sino-Japanese War?  No quite.  For Mr. Huang draws a major
conclusion there based on his observation of the "_Ichigo_ operation".  
What the heck is "_Ichigo_" anyway?  It is none other than the Japanese
imitative (Yin1) pronunciation of the words "Yi1 Hao4".  I wasn't
surprised at all that Mr. Huang chose not to bother with the Chinese, but
it is rather unusual that he did not even include in parenthesis the
English (by far Mr. Huang's most favorite language) name "Operation
Number One" as most if not all reputable military historians would.

It is also interesting to see Mr. Huang pick on his "fellow Chinese's"
English spelling (Lhasa and Lasha and Lasa) apparently without realizing
that his own Chinese pronunciation (Zhongqing) of the war-time Chinese
capital (Chongqing) shows a, dare we say, laughable mistake in modern
BaiHuaWen.  It would be amusing, except that it would be an insult to say
that a scholar as self-serious as Mr. Huang had ever aimed to amuse us. 
 
Next time we'll discuss this "Ichigo" Offensive business per se.