Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War/Archive 1

message: "Japan saw Manchuria as a limitless supply of raw materials and also as a buffer state against the Canada."
"In Chinese, the war is most commonly known as the Beat Those God Damn"
Possibly more.
 Ok i reverted to the last non vandalised version which was as i saw it was 12:22 31st Dec by Cydebot.-- Shadowmuse 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page was vandalized 

message: --219.88.187.67 10:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss in English, people. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning? 

message: If you cover up Manchuria with your hand. You can see that in 8 years of war Japan did not conquer much of China's land at all. They had land equal to about the size of California and Oregon. So what was the deal with the ineffectiveness of Japan in China? It can't be terrain. Japan navigated Vietnam's jungles easily, I'm sure they could've handled Chinese terrain. The Germans got near Moscow in 7 months yet Japan can't even get half of China in 8 years. That is mind boggling.--Secret Agent Man 01:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article to find out. :) I think it does a pretty good job of explaining. If not, well then we've got to work on this article! -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah I think it's because China was just too stubborn and refused to give up. This should be made more clear in the article, which at present kinda hints that China just sits around with loads of foreign cash instead of fighting. Look at France's 6 weeks against the Germans, pffft :) BlueShirts 06:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I get from this article too. Should probably be changed. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 07:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the matter with Japan's military in China? 

message: Fixed a minor typo; the article originally read "The Japanese recorded around 11.1 million military casualties, wounded and missing", which should be 1.1 million.
The number of casualties should be noted and compared to other well know genocide as to provide the scope of the atrocity.  Hd8888 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties assessment 

message: Does anyone know anything about General Hsu Yung-Ch'ang, who was the representative of the Republic of China on September 2, 1945 at signing of Instrument of Surrender of Japan that ended World War II?  Or is that the only thing history has on him?  I am very interested.  I place this here since someone who has an interest in the Second Sino-Japanese War may have some information about this Nationalist General.   --Tony Hecht 01:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanded.--Skyfiler 21:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hsu Yung-Ch'ang 

message: I have rewritten this section. This is likely to be regarded as a red rag to a bull by certain segments of the contributing public. This is not the intent. The problem is that certain questions have been raised about the CCP's self-made claim of having played the central role in fighting against the Japanese. 
Some people who do not agree with this have inserted little counterarguments or excuses wherever what they regard as an objectionable statement is made. The first paragraph outlining the CCP's position has niggling counterarguments. The second paragraph outlining the notion that the Nationalists, not the Communists, bore the brunt of the fighting is filled with niggling counterarguments. Even the third paragraph claiming that the warlords were the most committed to fighting the Japanese has been tampered with.  The end result is to obscure exactly what the section is driving at.
I have therefore tried to disentangle this messy editing. I have not tried to slant the article towards one side or the other. If you feel that there are errors or misrepresentations, please go ahead and modify the text. Feel free to add evidence for all sides. Go ahead and add a paragraph outlining objections to controversial views, if you wish. But please don't insert carping little additions to the text under the impression that you are editing for 'POV'!
Bathrobe 03:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who really fought the Sino-Japanese war? 

message: Right now the Chinese side is represented by the ROC flag. I wonder if that's accurate or not. The communists, though they were nominally under the NRA, were part of the Shaanxi Soviet, which is not part of the ROC. So, it might be inaccurate to use the ROC flag to represent all of the Chinese sides. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is totally inaccurate, although I agree it is strange that communists are represented by the ROC flag. According to the National Revolutionary Army article, during the Second Sino-Japanese War, Communist forces fought as a nominal part of the National Revolutionary Army, forming the Eighth Route Army and the New Fourth Army units, but this co-operation later fell apart even before the war ends, see New Fourth Army Incident.--Skyfiler 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NRA =/= ROC, just like Wehrmacht =/= Deutsches Reich. Croatians, for example, fought as part of the Wehrmacht, but were by no means German citizens. It would be best if we use the NRA battleflag... if they had any. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The flag of the Chinese Soviet Republic (star + hammer/sickle) stopped being used when the United Front was established. Once the war restarted again, the PLA used a different flag (current national flag w/o the four stars). The current PRC government surely considers the ROC legitimate during that period. The truth is murky. I am not sure whether we should post national flags (as is done here), battle flags (now under battle strength section) or both. If the NRA flag is put up (I am assuming the current ROC army flag is the same as the NRA flag, based on some historical battle footage ive seen) and it must be matched with the Imperial Japanese Army flag. --Jiang 03:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we should use the NRA and IJA flags, then? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think we should use the ROC flag. It's really weird to have an army flag in an international war. The war was country vs country, and the ROC was the internationally recognized government of the unified china at that time. BlueShirts 20:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the communists fought as nominal units under the NRA, but independent of the ROC. Also, the IJA was quite independent of the Japanese (civil) government, as shown by the unwillingness of the government to launch Operation Ichigo but the army went ahead anyway. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 23:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "independent of the ROC"? Is the Nationalist Government (either one existing at the time) synonymous with the ROC? The ROC is the state, which encompasses more than the government. --Jiang 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The ROC had the central government and the warlords. The central government (ie. KMT) was the nominal legitimate ruler of all China, and most of the warlords accepted that (with the notable exception of Xinjiang, I believe). The communists had their own Shaanxi Soviet and did not consider themselves part of the ROC. However, at the formation of the Second Unified Front, the communist army was nominally incorporated into the NRA (as the Eighth Route Army and New Fourth Army), while the communist government itself remained separate from both the central government and the ROC. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are equating state with government. There were several governments flying the same flag and with the same institutions under the same names. The Japanese established first a rival government in Beiping under Wang Kemin and then another one in Nanjing under Wang Jingwei. These "puppet" governments claimed to be the real ROC government (and Wang also claimed to be head of the KMT). What flags did the communists fly during this period? Did they even fly the NRA flag?--Jiang 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not equating the state with the government. There was only 1 (legitimate) state in China, and that was the ROC. The actual control of the different provinces of the ROC were shared between the central government and the warlords. Most of the warlords acknowledged the ROC and considered themselves part of it, on paper at least, so there is no conflict. The warlords' armies were part of the NRA, as were the communists' armies (who probably flew no flag at all, but that doesn't mean they're not part of the NRA). So yes, they were part of the NRA, no they weren't part of the ROC. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 00:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The communists also flew the NRA flag and the KMT white sun blue sky flag. You'd be amazed at the pictures of battle of nianzhiguan. Also, the communists wore NRA uniforms and all of their officers had the white sun blue sky emblem on their caps. BlueShirts 01:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah I think it's best to use country flags. It was a war between the ROC and Japan, between states. The army units might have acted independent of their respective governments, but it was the government that signed the treaties and stuff, not individual commanders or such BlueShirts 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly mind either way, so change it back if you want, though if you do, put the army flags somewhere else. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: uh, question, how about the japanese flag? Was that the flag during the war, or a naval flag or something. BlueShirts 00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That flag is the historical and current flag of both the IJA and IJN, but Japan's national flag is the plain red sun one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 03:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in the warbox 

message: OK if you look in the battlebox, right now it says (for the Chinese side) "National Revolutionary Army, Republic of China". This might sound trivial, but I think we need to represent it... better. Right now, the battlebox in this format suggests that the NRA fought the war. Not inaccurate. However, would it be better to say that the ROC fought the war? The NRA did the fighting, but the ROC directed all the industries and such. Besides, the NRA is a subordinate organisation to the ROC. And there's also the people, who really did the fighting, as compared to some organisations... So, should it (in your opinion) be "NRA, ROC" or "ROC, NRA"?
:Well, NRA is the official army of the ROC, so I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe we can put Republic of China first, then NRA. Yeah, that'd make a bit more sense, since it was the state that made war, then the army that fought it BlueShirts 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who fought the war, the army or the nation? 

message: OK guys some help needed here. I'm not literate in Wade-Giles so I would appreciate it if anyone could take all the battle articles I wrote and check if they all got their respective WG article names as redirects... thanks. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are my guesses.
*Battle of Sinkow somewhere in Hubei?
*Battle of Hsuchow see Battle of Xuzhou
*Battle of Wuchang and Hankow see Battle of Wuhan
*Battle of Southern Kwangsi Guangxi
*Battle of Tsaoyang-Ichang see Battle of Zaoyang-Yichang
*Battle of South Honan should be Henan 
*Battle of Shangkao see Battle of Shanggao
*Battle of Southern Shansi Shansi->Shanxi
*Battle of Chekiang-Kiangsisee Battle of Zhejiang-Jiangxi
*Battle of Western Hupeh Hupeh->Hubei
*Battle of Changteh see Battle of Changde
*Battle of Central HonanHenan 
*Battle of Central Hunanambiguous
*Battle of Kwangsi-Kewichow Guangxi-Guizhou
*Battle of West Hupei Hubei
*Battle of Chungyuang North China Plain?
*Battle of Changteh Changde again??
*Battle of Hunan ambiguous
*Battle of Beijing-Hankow Rails ?
*Battle of West Hopei Hebei
*Battle of Changsa-Hengyang Changsha
*Battle of Kweilin-Liuchow Guilin and Liuzhou?
*Battle of Lungling Longling Yunnan
*Battle of Tengchung Tengchong,Yunnan
*Battle of Wanting Yunnan
*Battle of North Hupei Hubei
*Battle of West Honan Henan
*Battle of West Hunan
*Battle of Ninhsiang Ningxiang, Changsha?
*Battle of Yiyang Yiyang,Hunan
*Battle of Wuyang Wuyang,Hunan
*Battle of Nanning
*Battle of Liuchow Guilin and Liuzhou?
*Battle of KweilingGuilin and Liuzhou?
*Battle of Tengchung again?
*Battle of Lungling again?
*Battle of Beijing-Tientsin see Battle of Beiping-Tianjin
*Battle of Linchi ?
*Battle of North Ahnwei Anhui
*Battle of West Shangtung Shandong
*Battle of Lutsun?
*Battle of Lienshui?
*Battle of Laohoko Lankao?
*Battle of Hsueh-Feng Shan Xuefeng Mountain
*Battle of Hsihsiakao?
*Battle of Xiushui River
*Battle of Jehol Rehe? 
*First Battle of Hopei Hebei
*Szechwan Invasion Sichuan
*Battle of Pingxingguan
not included:
Battle of the Great Wall (zh:长城战役)--Skyfiler 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks, that's pretty much all I need. I will try to find out the names for those that are still somewhat ambiguous. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle names in Wade-Giles 

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

message: :The Japanese had neither the intention nor the capability of directly administering China.  Their goal was to set up friendly puppet governments favorable to Japanese interests. However, the atrocities of the Japanese army made the governments that were set up very unpopular, and the Japanese refused to negotiate with either the Kuomintang or the Communist Party of China, which could have brought them popularity.
I think there were attempts by the Japanese to negotiate with Chiang and make him surrender. However, Chiang refused any propositions unless the Japanese return to pre-1937 conditions, which the Japanese promtply refused. Also, does anyone have any info on Japan's intention on conquering all of China. From what I've read, it seems that the pro-war factions in Japan's army actually wanted to totally annihilate China, while some other factions only wanted to keep Manchuria and regarded the invasion as a grave mistake. And the last sentence of the above paragraph doesn't really make any sense either. These need to be fixed. BlueShirts 22:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  weird paragraph 

message: :Why there are only Chinese generals name which were apparently less important, and there is none on the Japanese side?
::Because I can't be bothered. Because japanese ones are apparently less important. If you want a list of japanese generals, add it yourself and stop bitching. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of ROC generals 

message: Can you say, "DONE"?!?!?! All 22 major battles are now BLUE, and for "minor" (but just as important, haiz) battles there's only 4 left, 3 of which are't in the "official" timeline. Go us! Chūgoku Banzai! -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will finish Lanfeng, well, some time. Maybe later tonight. Homework's suffering. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: w00t!

message: Not trying to be controversial here, but to say Zhukhov witnessed this battle must be one of the greatest understatements of all time. GdlR 11:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 23:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zhukhov and the [[Battle of Khalkhin Gol]] 

message: I found some WWII maps on University of Texas at Austin website, and the page claims most of them are from US Army Center of Military History. --Skyfiler 21:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chūgoku Banzai! 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  found some useful maps 

message: We have an interesting new template — :Template:Infobox Military Conflict (3 sided). Shall we use it here for the fact there were really three factions? Of course the overview in terms of casualties and strength would have to be segregated for the Second Sino-Japanese War alone though, hence harder to extract than simply using the Chinese Civil War overview. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be useful... -- Миборовский 02:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL it's five-sided: KMT, CCP, regional powers, Japan, collaborationist. But I don't think we need to make it more complicated, two sides is fine. BlueShirts 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Meh, I thought Wang Jingwei was on the sameside as the Japanese. There might be rival factions between Chiang and the warlords but IIRC there wasn't any significant fighting between them. Similarly in World War II the USSR and the United States were competing powers on the Allied side but they never really fought against each other until at least the conclusion of the war. The CPC however had its incidents and skirmishes with Nationalist forces. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wang had a lot of conflicts with the Japanese. His continuous efforts to consolidate his administration as Japan had promised were continuously dashed. He wasn't able to restore much sense of "normalcy" to the occupied areas because of these issues with Japan. He was obviously an opportunist, but not the evil chinese traitor which is the common perceptin of him. The regional forces had their conflicts with the central forces too. In fact, one glaring example is the failure of the chinese 1939 winter counteroffensive, caused by the regional warlords' reluctance to launch coordinated operations. It really showed how little command Chiang has over the regional forces. They didn't fight openly but very rarely did they cooperate with each other. BlueShirts 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of which, is there an article that goes into detail about the tenuous situation of Chiang's command, concerning regional warlords?  I haven't uncovered anything yet that appears to be more than just a broad explaination.  And if not, could the National Revolutionary Army article be expanded to cover it or should a new article be created?~ The Rebel At ~ 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  three-sided conflict template 

message: does anyone have a map showing how much of China was controlled by nationalists and communists after the Japanese surrender in September 1945? I havent found a map which depicts this, the only ones I found start in 1946 like , or was the situation in sep 45 the same as in 46? --Astrokey44 14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map? 

message: I think it should be left there. However, it is indeed quite interesting. This number of more than 8 million were killed for non military reasons. That is higher than the 6 million who were killed as a result of the Nazi Holocaust. Yet, the Holocaust is frequently taught in schools whereas the Sino-Japanese War as a whole (much less the slaughter of 8 million civilians) is barely mentioned.
As a Chinese person myself, I have the right to say the following: our people SUCK at marketing.
Goddamn Confucian legacies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik-the-red (talk • contribs) 
:I had meant to remove that, but somehow ended up bolding that line instead... subconsciously, I must be agreeing with it. But whatever. That is not the place to speculate on insinuate similarities between Nazis and Japan. -- Миборовский 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can maybe add that Chinese casualties was the highest or the second highest during WWII. BlueShirts 04:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. But death tolls for both China and USSR vary greatly in different estimates. It's best to just quote the death tolls followed by the sources, and let the reader draw his own conclusion. -- Миборовский 04:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "interesting note" in the casualties assessment 

message: The article for the Yellow River mentions the following:
In 1938, during the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Nationalist troops under the orders of Chiang Kai-Shek broke the dike holding back the Yellow River in order to stop the advancing Japanese troops. This resulted in the flooding of an area covering 54,000 km² and the death of 500,000-900,000 people.--Gkklein 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See 1938 Yellow River flood. The sentence is seemingly POV though, I will adjust it later. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  23:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalist troops flooded 500,000-900,000 people? 

message: I don't think it's appropriate to add us, uk, and ussr flags to the infobox. If we do that then we also have to add germany (1937-1938) and then it's gonna be really cluttered. These countries provided military aid and training (especially the US) at most, but did not commit combat forces on the chinese mainland. I think their role would be best described in the "foreign aid" section rather than listing them in the infobox. BlueShirts 04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See South-East Asian theatre of World War II. US and British forces co-operated extensively with the RoC in southern China and Burma. Soviet forces ditto in Operation August Storm. After 1941, this war was indistinguishable from the Pacific War. Grant65 | Talk 03:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  flags  

message: I removed the statement about the CCP because it didn't actually state any figures or estimates for CCP casualties. The point that was trying to be made, I think, that participation by the CCP was limited, but that they used their involvement to advance their political activities in their battle with the Nationalists and later proclaimed themselves as in the vanguard of the battle is made in a linked article on the Chinese Civil War. I see that there is a continuing debate on this discussion page about the role of the CCP which I don't propose to enter. This particular statement didn't add say anything about the topic.
Meb53 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese Casualties

message: I have removed that line from the summary of territorial changes for the follwoing reasons:
* I have found no information to suggest that the Republic of China or any Chinese warlord wielded any power over Outer Mongolia at some point during the 1930s.
* If it refers to the ROC's claim, then it is misleading insofar as actual control of the territory had already been lost before the war, and ROC claims to it have never changed, as can be seen from the ROC denying the Mongolian People's Republic membership in the United Nations in 1955.
* If it refers to the renunciation of territorial claims by the People's Republic of China, it would be likewise misleading, as the PRC was not established until years after the war ended.
If you put it back in, please explain who lost Outer Mongolia in what way to whom. Wikipeditor 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked the same thing before, and BlueShirts had something to say about it. I think he convinced me, so he'll probably convince you. Something about a deal brokered at Cairo (or somewhere) with the Soviets or something. -- 我♥中國 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance (August 1945, not the 1950 PRC one), the Soviet Union was to recognize the KMT central government as the legitimate government of China and respect Chinese sovereignity in Xinjiang and Manchuria. China on the other hand was to grant railway/port rights in manchuria to the soviets and also recognize independence of outer mongolia BlueShirts 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Loss of Outer Mongolia” 

message: Is it true that popular fiction depiction of Sino-Japanese war is a bit "censored" in Mainland China and Japan? I mean, in Europe and U.S there has been alot of Hollywood type of computer games, movies and comic books that "glorify" the Second World War while the Second Sino-Japanese war is a bit "forgotten" somehow, even if Japanese are mentioned, its always about U.S vs Japan type of storyline. Is this war really considered sensitive or is it just a politic goodwill of an already strained Sino-Japanese relation?
hanchi 11 Januari 2007
:To date I know of 3 game series that feature the 2SJW.
#Hearts of Iron series "鐵膽雄心" (available, but not openly in mainland China), English (and German, French etc, no Chinese)
#"Chinese Dragon" (抗日:血戰某某地) series, with installments in Shanghai, Burma etc, Time Crisis style shooter, in Simplified Chinese and available in mainland China
#"War of Resistance Against Japan"... "八年抗戰" a hex-based TBT with rather dated graphics... traditional Chinese, not sure about availability in mainland China.
:-- 我♥中國 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also another point that should be taken into consideration: While the CPC (Chinese Capitalist Party) would like to exploit the 2SJW for its own purposes, they can't delve into the "how" too much. A person who grew up under the impression that "Chinese people destroyed the invaders, long live the Party!" will notice something amiss when their video games make them wonder "Hey, how come 'the Party' appears in only 1 out of the 30 missions???" As for Japan, it's simple. They lost the war. Why remember it? -- 我♥中國 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Germany has gone through thorough denazification, so there aren't much "glorification" of war in their movies. The Japanese on the other hand mostly focus on the pacific war against america, portraying themselves as fighting a losing but glorious war. And the sad thing is americans buy it because they know very little about the war in the far east. Filmmakers can talk about exotic things about "bushido" and "samurai spirit" and suddenly people will feel sympathy for these goddamn invaders. Plus you can also throw in the claim that the japanese were fighting western imperialism for asia or that they were forced to fight because of american embargo, and the western media eats it up. It's a pathetic phenomenon really, just shows how ignorant and easily swayed most people are. Most general history books in the west tend to portray the KMT as a reactionary force that lost to the communists, and because the KMT lost to the communists, the KMT must have done little in the war against Japan. This is really really sad. Although there are lots of western books that portray the KMT in the right light, these books are mostly specialist and you won't find them in regular bookstores. BlueShirts 05:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea if we can create a list of good books and films on the war and post it somewhere so people will have a better idea of resources out there that they can take advantage of. -- 我♥中國 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: chinese military task force looks like a good place to keep sources. BlueShirts 07:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: General sources yes, but for this specific war I think we can start here. Anyhow, I've already a small list of pretty good websites at the milhist task force page if anyone wants to take a look. -- 我♥中國 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the unhealthy obsession with instances of national victimization is a result of the victim mentality of Chinese people worldwide. Until that changes, the prevailing trend will continue, and China during WW2 will continue to be known (to both Chinese and foreigners) as a country whose sob story is more important than tales of heroics and bravery. Sad, but true. -- 我♥中國 21:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular fiction 

message: Josh Baran's review of Brian Victoria's book Zen at War pointed out the significant role of Zen in Japan during that time. It seems that some soldiers relied on religion to deal with having to kill people. Baran mentions "Zen bushido in action" is "Killing as high art." I think Japanese religion were twisted to cope with the pollitical situation, and it had profound influence on soldiers, more than just mere propaganda. Therefore I question the necessity to include these information on this article or perhaps on another article will be more appropriate.  -- 法網 ian 13:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of Religion during the War 

message: Much of this article reeks of POV, not to mention it's rife with spelling and grammar mistakes, redundancy, and contradictions. The majority of the "The Pacific War" section is unsourced and blatant POV. The phrase about Allied leaders losing faith in the Chinese Army is false; read the Ledo Road article for a good quote from Field Marshal Slim: "...I believed that, properly equipped and efficiently led, Chinese troops could defeat Japanese if, as would be the case with his Ledo force, they had a considerable numerical superiority...". Also, without sources, how is it possible to speculate on the reasons America preferred the island hopping campaign or the outrageous statement that the Allies wanted Japan to still be in possession of China at the war's end, so they could regain their colonial possesssions. There were no Allied peace-keeping zones like in Germany, so that argument is void. The claim that the USSR looted Manchuria is false as well; if they intended to simply give the equipment taken to the CPC, they would have simply left it there, not take it back to the USSR. The argument "British insistence that China send in...the gate to India from falling to Japan" is completely POV. It could be argued that the British wanted to reopen the Burma Road, with Chinese help. Unless there are documented sources stating that the British in fact wanted to use China to expand it's colonial holdings, it's blatantly POV to state it. The last sentence of the Pacific War section makes it sound like the Japanese moved out of Manchuria to make it easier on the Soviet invasion. At some point, I'll rewrite the section, post it here on the talk page, and as long as there are no objections, put it into the article. Parsecboy 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allied leaders did lose interest in properly using the Chinese army to repel the Japanese from the Asian mainland. The China theater had always been on the low priority list and that's one reason China received so little supplies until spring 1945. During the SEXTANT, the allied supreme command and the southeast asian command  had agreed on forcing a landing in Burma to push out the Japanese and secure a supply route to China, but this promise was broken as all the equipment embarked for Burma were instead allocated for England to prepare for D-Day, as a result of the Tehran Conference. Just because some generals like Stilwell/Mountbatten/Wedemeyer were enthusiastic about relying on the Chinese doesn't mean this enthusiasm transferred into reality. (from Wedemeyer Reports!) I don't know who wrote that the Allies wanted to Japan to occupy China by the war's end, but yeah, it sounds really outrageous. As for the Soviet dismantling of Manchurian industry, it was real. The Soviets removed tons and tons heavy machinery built by the Japanese in Manchuria and transported them back to the the USSR. I've seen it documented in Nationalist Era in China 1937-1949 and in the memoir of James Lilley (American ambassador who grew up in China), who saw the Soviets blasting holes in factory walls to remove the equipment. The soviets didn't give a damn about giving the equipment to the CCP, as it was for their own use. Seriously, this article could be a lot better. I had some idea about rewriting it about a year ago but never got the time to do it, but I've put it right here, I think the basic idea looks good. BlueShirts 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed the title of "the Pacific War" to "Entrance of Western Allies" because it fits the information contained therein better, and did some substantial rewording. Take a look at it, and we'll go from there. Parsecboy 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs some restructing. The section on Chinese Strategy seems redundant, as it covers whole eight years. I think it's better to go by chronological order. BlueShirts 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chonological order would make more sense. Another thing that seems to be very cluttered and cumbersome is the "Major Figures" section. I think it would be better to leave that section out. A lot of the names don't belong there anyways, like Nagumo, Yamamoto, and Yamashita, who never did anything in China. The names should be worked into the battle articles for which they are important. Also, I think Mao, as the leader of the CCP should be 2nd from the top, underneath Chiang. Parsecboy 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy POV, batman! 

message: Any interested editors please comment on the naming/nomenclature discussion at: Talk:Pacific_War#China.2FRepublic_of_China_.26_Taiwan.2FFormosa Grant | Talk 13:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: China/Republic of China & Taiwan/Formosa

message: The CCP sought to avoid direct conflicts with the Japanese Army in order to emerge from the war stronger than the Nationalist forces, so in the inevitable struggle for dominance, the CCP would be the victor.
Thanks for mentioning the Nationalists purged and massacred Chinese Communists following the First United Front, and then ambushing the New Forth Army after the Second United Front. Hanfresco 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, put new comments on the bottom of the page, not the top. Secondly, if you see NPOV, be bold and fix it. Part of the problem is users like TAIWAN who are apparently vehemently anti-CCP and have an axe to grind. Perhaps I'm thinking of an earlier version, but I'm pretty sure the New 4th Army incident was mentioned. Parsecboy 12:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Hanchi, I really don't think "personal luxury" is the point here. There were two sides in China, Communists and Nationalists. When you have homework to do, do you do the one that's due tomorrow first, or do the one that's due in a week first? The two sides assessed the dangers, and compared to the Japanese, they viewed each other as bigger threats. Wouldn't it be awesome if Chiang never purged the Communists? I could totally picture a potential 2 party political system of Nationalists and Communists! Hanfresco 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I won't say this article is full of anti-cpc, but rather downplays their participation in the war.  There is actually space for expansion in various fields, as better emphasis on the Hundred Regiments campaign (and the aftermath).  If I get the chance in the future, I'll try and do this, but folks are welcome to do so sooner.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually didn't mean "the entire article", but rather just the "motives" part. If you take Nationalist China had several goals: to resist Japanese aggression, to unite China under one central government, to rid China of foreign influence, to defeat communism, and to re-emerge as a strong country. and switch "Nationalist" with "Communist, and simply eliminate "to defeat communism", everything said would be true for the Communist agenda, too.  Hanfresco 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Guerrilla warfare against the Japanese was of limited military value, and Chiang Kai-shek was defeated by the communists not by guerrilla warfare, but by classic set-piece battles where the PLA front armies had concentrated artillery and all that stuff. That's how armies upon armies of KMT forces were annihilated. Blueshirts 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Full of anti-CCCP

message: The external link: The Charlston Gazette Friday Jan 1st,1932 does not lead anywhere. Has the piece moved or does it no longer exist?
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely, 
A concerened researcher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.151.44 (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link problem 

message: one error must be the casualties listed for the Japanese as over 2 million.  Is this casaulty, as in WIA and KIA, or just KIA?  It seems really high either way, as the SIno-Jap War was not a high intensity war like that one being waged in Europe in WWII where the Germans and Soviets had comparable losses (the most violent theatre in history) to what is listed here.  What is the source for this high number? JohnHistory 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  errors 

message: Be careful not to insinuate that Incedent is used to downplay what happened, when used by japan. It can be, in some circumstancves, however it is also the correct term in many.
Also, can we get a japanese translation for the war's name? And Chinese? 203.29.106.59 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are several translations for both Japanese and Chinese in the first section after the table of contents. Parsecboy 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: I wonder who can believe Vladimirov - not a diplomat, but a secret agent? His book (Special Region of China) was published as a blatant anti-Mao propaganda piece, as were dozens of so-called diplomatic memoirs (for instance, Berezhkov - Stalin's interpreter managed to serve propaganda twice with the same basic set of memories - once as a true Commie, and then in 1990 or sth like that - as a true anti-Stalinist anti-Commie). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.118.144.226 (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vladimirov