Talk:Battle of Shanghai

message: 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 212.174.190.23 (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Strategic victory?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Copyright infringement?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bazi Bridge and Yao's Regiment

message: 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)
replies: text: I got some too! They are here. BlueShirts 18:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Needed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Please cf. . — LlywelynII 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nanjing" Baby Pic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Air war questions and nitpicks 

message: 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)
replies: text: As an illustration of my inquiry  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Foreign concessions  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Background 

message: 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)
replies: text: You mean "misstatement"? — LlywelynII 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalingrad of the East = The [[Battle of Changde]]?

message: 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 --210.231.15.201 (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is this? 

message: 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 66.91.92.166 (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Aftermath section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Video

message: According to Shanghai Ceasefire Agreement (see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Incident) 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 109.65.137.6 (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ōyama Incident

message: There should be a representation of the Vickers 6-Ton tanks covered in this wiki article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Chinese_armoured_forces_(1927%E2%80%9345)  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 128.221.224.61 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Forces Number of Tanks 

message: ===Chinese===
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.
===Japanese===
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)
thread_title: Bombing

message: 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)
thread_title: Japanese

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Shanghai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/937JIAF.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321233313/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/china_armour.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/china_armour.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sorry,I make some mistake in this page.--Tr56tr (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am wrong 

message: |casualties1 = ~250,000WW II Database: The Second Battle of Shanghai Retrieved 20 May 2016
|casualties2 = 59,493+ (combat casualties excluding death caused by disease) 
98,417 killed and wounded戴峰、周明《淞滬會戰-1937年中日813戰役始末》，台北市：知兵堂出版，2013年，P194。
Need a paragraph to record the details.
PS:Don't delete the paragraph without reference recently, I found that it has too much impact on this page.--Witotiwo (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  These contents need to be rewritten into a paragraph 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The new infobox photo is a borrowing from the Dutch Wikipedia article for the Battle of Shanghai if anyone's wondering. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox photo change

message: Same with other articles dealing with the Chinese front of WWII. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get some maps for the Battle of Shanghai? 

message: This name appears to be a misnomer, as while a second source that seems to support it has been added, it is a source that makes explicit reference to the book by Peter Harmsen, and includes quoted material from the author himself, and it seems especially problematic with the line "he acknowledges that this is merely a metaphor". I would have no issue using either the term 'Stalingrad on the Yangtze' or 'Asia's Stalingrad' if we can produce a source that shows the battle being referred to by anyone other than the singular author who adopted that title for his book, but neither Google Scholar nor JSTOR seem to verify the claim of the term being used. Loafiewa (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the series of additions and reversions on this point. I thought I might add my perspective in the hope it will help avoid back-and-forth. This kind of historical analogy or metaphor is not very useful, I would recommend we NOT include it unless a compelling reason exists, for example, sustained usage in discourse or the popular imagination. The proposed 'Stalingrad' additions fall far short of this.  JArthur1984 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Asia's Stalingrad'