This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Shanghai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 13, 2006, October 26, 2006, August 13, 2008, August 13, 2009, August 13, 2010, and August 13, 2016. |
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)
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)
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)
This article gives no sources, especially regarding Chiang's causes ("trading space for time," diplomatic, etc.) for provoking the Battle of Shanghai. Are these reasons commonly agreed upon by historians? Konekoniku 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've some photos that I will upload as soon as I'm able to. Every good article needs good pictures. ;) -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 18:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to the use of this picture due to the fact there is considerable evidence pointing to the possibility it may not be genuine. this website provides some interesting insight as to the true nature of said photograph.Regarded as Japanese propaganda by many I found it hard to believe in at first,but upon seeing a french documentary on the History Channel entitled "China Yellow,China Blue" in which footage of the baby being put on the tracks was shown,I am convinced this photograph,and perhaps others,are doctored. Could anyone try to confirm my information?
We have an entire article on the photograph that will dispel most of the (however well-intentioned) misinformation above. In short:
It—the photographer didn't know its gender or learn its name—may have been posed, but every aspect that makes it an effective photograph is true. [Reduced the size of above ranting in the interest of politeness.] — LlywelynII 18:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
To respond to the above comments, the baby photo used in this article is in fact from Shanghai, but it is a known propaganda shot, staged by Chinese-American photographer Xiaoting Wang (sp?). Feel free to replace it with another picture demonstrating the heart-breaking aftermath of the bombing. But this one is staged. I have removed it.
You can see someone carrying the baby over *to* the tracks at 24:08 in the film Why We Fight: The Battle of China. Watch video here. See this photo also. Again, I have no doubt that the baby was found in an equally miserable condition somewhere in the bombed-out station, but the photograph is known to have been staged and it lowers the integrity of Wikipedia as much to have this photo on here as it lowers the integrity of Reuters to publish doctored photos of smoke over Beirut. Bueller 007 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The article says that 91 planes were more than half the Chinese air force. Would that be the entire air force or just the "Central Army" air force? AFAIK Two-Guang Clique had a large air force of more than 60 planes (can't supply source, though). Also, I think there needs to be mention of the attack on the Japanese flagship Izumo and how they messed it up and bombed the city instead. -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 07:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere (always somewhere, never can remember where exactly) that Feng Yuxiang was given a command in this battle but he messed it up big and had to be relegated to a "ceremonial" role. Fact or fiction? -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 07:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
CNN. Photos document brutality in Shanghai
We should mention this -- 210.231.15.201 ( talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
Documentary film recording the Chinese army fighting against the Japanese invasion of Shanghai.
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)
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)
I can't find it now but, for researchers looking at this page, there was a letter printed in an Australian newspaper from a boy in Shanghai back to his family detailing his first-hand account of the accidental Republican bombing of the International Settlement. Falls under avoid-primary-sources and we've already got that incident covered, but still a powerful passage if you can find it.
Now, a wartime propaganda film is obviously a biased source. It is, in fact, something like the quintessence of biased sourcing.
That said, if The Battle of China’s account of punitive Japanese bombing of the undefended civilian population of Shanghai after the Republican army's retreat was a complete lie, that's worth noting. If it's true, it's even more necessary to include it. Right now, there is next to nothing about Japanese aerial bombardment; absolutely nothing about strikes against civilian targets; and absolutely no link to our article on or Japan's policy of terror bombing. Not sure if it was an over-enthusiastic editor or simple oversight, but it needs to be addressed in greater detail. — LlywelynII 19:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/937JIAF.PDFWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry,I make some mistake in this page.-- Tr56tr ( talk) 04:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
|casualties1 = ~250,000<ref name="ww2db.com">[http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=85 WW II Database: The Second Battle of Shanghai] Retrieved 20 May 2016</ref> |casualties2 = 59,493+ (combat casualties excluding death caused by disease)<ref>{{cite book|title=南京戦史|publisher=Asagumo Shimbunsha|language=Japanese|pp=306–307|year=1966}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=[[Senshi Sōsho]] (戦史叢書)|publisher=Asagumo Shimbunsha|language=Japanese|volume=2|year=1966}}</ref> 98,417 killed and wounded<ref>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。</ref>
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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Same with other articles dealing with the Chinese front of WWII. Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
Hello @ Qiushufang I see you redid my revision after @ Wahreit pointed them out to you. Is there any sort of bar for whether or not a source is deemed too irreptuable to use a citation? I would think a web article with zero citations is not suitable for a source on Wikipedia? Am I incorrect? Also Robinson's work has major flaws such as providing an entirely fictionalized order of battle for the Japanese side. I don't think it is reasonable to use it as a source, at least for the Japanese side given its lack of credibility. It quite literally conflicts with all known Japanese primary sources and the official history of the IJN in the Second Sino-Japanese War authored by Japan's Ministry of Defense War History Study Room. The English-language academic essay by Hattori Satoshi in The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945 also disproves the IJA's involvement in this battle. Given that reputable Japanese secondary sources clearly states the participating forces on the Japanese side was the IJN Special Naval Landing Forces and not the IJA 3rd Division, is it fine to remove the part of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement and correct it with this source? This is a rather frustrating case where most of the English-language sources are extremely unreliable and little coverage in Japanese exists beyond primary sources but I want to work to correct this subsection to offered a more balanced coverage of both viewpoints as was accomplished on the main article. Adachi1939 ( talk) 07:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
context for above: for anyone who wants a tl;dr of the situation above, user @ Adachi1939 has been suppressing the involvement of the 3rd ija division in the battle of sihang warehouse for some time now (coming up on 2 years). in doing so, he has deleted all prior mention of the 3rd division on the main sihang warehouse page which you can confirm via accessing older versions of the article before 2023, constantly reverted all edits that contradict his claims which you can find in the check the article history, and has a habit of aggressively confronting anyone who disagrees with him, which is visible on his talk page, the sihang warehouse talk page, and now this one. there's much more to this situation, but that's for another time.
the consensus: the established consensus is that the primary attackers on sihang warehouse were the 3rd division from the Imperial Japanese Army. this was established on the defense of sihang warehouse page since its origin in 2006, and was only removed by adachi in early 2022 in the spirit of "removing chinese propaganda." furthermore, the following secondary sources, each written and published by established historians, clearly support the 3rd division's involvement:
"Eight Hundred Heroes" by Stephen Robinson, an australian military historian and author:
"The 3rd Division, commanded by General Susumu Fujita, was known as the 'Lucky Division' and its men who survived the next two months of savage fighting would face the Eight Hundred at Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 62).
"However, the troops in the 'Lucky Division', after being in constant battle for over two months, were barely combat effective and in some cases corporals commanded shattered companies which had been reduced to platton strength. These fatigued and bloodied troops would soon reach Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 66).
"The Japanese 3rd 'Luckyy' Division, led by General Susumu Fujita, humiliated by the defiant flag, planned an all-out assault to capture the warehouse that day." (Robinson 95). "On the morning of 31 October, soldiers of the 3rd "lucky" Division, commanded by General Susumu Fujita, continued their siege of Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 108).
"Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse" by Eric Niderost, a history professor and writer, published on Warfare History Network which is fair game as wikipedians are allowed to cite published articles:
"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes." (Niderost).
"Three Months Of Bloodshed: Strategy And Combat During The Battle Of Shanghai," a thesis by Georgetown alum James Paulose who is quoted on the battle of shanghai wikipedia page:
"The 3rd Japanese Division under Matsui advanced to the warehouse after taking Shanghai North Railway Station, but the first assault was ineffective." (Paulose 18).
"On the precipice of Change," a thesis by Marta Kubacki at the University of Waterloo, whilst not explicitly naming the 3rd division in this specific quote (but she does so in a table on page 166):
"In slowing the Imperial Japanese Army advance, the extra time gave the rest of Shanghai's troops time to evacuate downtown Shanghai." (Kubacki 49).
in addition, these vidoes and articles, whilst admittedly not as reliable as the ones above, clearly show the same consensus: the bulk of the japanese attackers were the Imperial Japanese army, the 3rd division.
https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=85: Second Battle of Shanghai by founder C. Peter Chen:
"Moving toward the Sihang Warehouse were troops of General Iwane Matsui's 3rd Division. With access to Type 94 tankettes and Type 89 mortars, the Japanese wielded far greater firepower." (Chen).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxpG19OTmns:
Kings and Generals: Sihang Warehouse 1937 - Chinese Thermopylae - WW2 DOCUMENTARY go to 5:18: "They would be facing the 3rd IJA division, commanded by Iwane Matsui." I know youtube documentaries are not reliable per wikipedia's policies, but the point stands: it is the established consensus that the 3rd division was present.
these are the sources can be found with a quick google search (save for Robinson's book), i'm sure there's more. but what is common ground across all these sites and media, is that the IJA spearheaded the attack on sihang warehouse with the 3rd division. it is more than enough to warrant a presence on the sihang warheouse page and this one too.
the issues with the claims above:
first is the assertation that Satoshi's essay in Drea's book, the Battle for China disproves the involvement of the 3rd division in the battle of sihang warehouse. this is false. nowhere does satoshi or drea explicitly disprove the participation of the 3rd division. it is true that sihang warehouse is not touched on in the chapter, but considering this chapter is a macro-meso analysis of the entire yangtze 1937 campaign, and not an in-depth analysis of all events in the battle of shanghai like peter harmsen's work (which does detail the battle of sihang warehouse), this is understandable. this is not however, a legitimate counter to the sources above; just because satoshi doesn't mention sihang warehouse doesn't automatically disqualify the involvment of the 3rd division: omission does not constitute a legitimate rebuttal. what is stated however, is that the 3rd division was engaged at combat at suzhou creek, something backed up by the sources from Shina Jihen Gaiho Dai, which also indicate the Japanese 3rd division approaching and fighting across the creek.
now for context, the sihang warehouse is also located on the suzhou creek, meaning per those "classified japanese records," the 3rd division and the sihang warehouse were sitting on the exact same axis of attack. furthermore, this map from adachi's own source indicates the location of the 3rd division relative to the sihang warehouse:
https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/meta/listPhoto?LANG=default&REFCODE=C14120674900
copy paste the link and go to page 13: the 3rd division is indicated by "3D" at the lower right of the map near the suzhou creek, whilst the Sihang Warehouse is located just east around the bend in the creek. the distance between the two is less than half a mile.
the distance between the 3rd division's center of mass and the sihang warehouse, when laid over a map of shanghai, is less than half a mile. this means that the 3rd division during the days of the battle was located, per adachi's own sources, a ten minute walk west of the warehouse, which is exactly where the weight of the japanese attack force came from according to the most sources: the western side.
finally, this entire section has required taking adachi's claims at full face value, something one should be cautious about given the problematic scenes we have witnessed for the past week.
if anything @ Adachi1939, robinson and niderost's works are your best supporters, as they are amongst the few legitimate sources that actually state the involvement of the imperial japanese marine forces (which you claim to be the sole attackers of sihang warehouse). now the two are not mutually exclusive: stephen robinson and niderost indicate the participation of ija and ijn forces, but as it stands there is no real reason to completely remove all mentions of the 3rd division on this page or the sihang warehouse page.
furthermore, it's not on anyone to prove the involvement of the 3rd division here because that is not our role as wikipedia editors; we are not supposed to provide our own independent interpretations and original research as @ Qiushufang has caught you doing multiple times on the sihang warehouse page, we are supposed to deliver the research in a fair and accurate manner as the sources detail. and the sources, from what is visible, establish a clear consensus: the imperial japanese army was involved, and it was the 3rd division who was most involved in the fighting. we will be fixing this as per Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
for those of you who managed to read this to the bottom, i apologize for the wall of text, but it was time someone finally got to the bottom of the matter. there is no ill will towards anyone here, we're simply trying to deliver the facts as they are. if anyone has any perspectives or questions, i'm all ears. Wahreit ( talk) 19:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
|
I would like to seek a third opinion regarding this subject matter. The user @ Wahreit has been quite attached to the narrative of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement in this battle, asserting it with a number of low quality cherry-picked generally non-academic sources which often do not provide citations for their claims. As seen above and many times before I have tried to explain in detail why these sources do not hold up and conflict with more reliable sources. In spite of this they have been frequently overriding my edits and also trying to interpret Japanese sources which it seems they can't understand and are unwittingly asserting false claims with them. I have been trying to correct these incorrect changes but I want to avoid edit-warring.
This dispute is not limited to this page but also the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page as well, where the disputed matter is largely the same. As I see it, the Japanese sources clearly demonstrate this notion of the IJA 3rd Division's participation to be incorrect. Regardless of being primary sources, I don't see how there is room to assert this claim when the actual participating units are well documented in Japanese. I have been simply translating records and using zero synthesis to reach my conclusions. It is documented that the IJA 3rd Division was at the bank of Suzhou River trying to cross it when this happened. It is documented that the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces were the ones involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. The only counterclaims @Wahreit has provided are western sources in which 5/6 did not even provide citations for their claims (and half had no citations at all!).
It would be great if someone else can offer their opinion, especially if they can read Japanese sources. I know the heavy use of primary and Japanese language sources is far from ideal on my side as well.
Best Regards, Adachi 2024/07/16 Adachi1939 ( talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Shanghai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 13, 2006, October 26, 2006, August 13, 2008, August 13, 2009, August 13, 2010, and August 13, 2016. |
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)
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)
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)
This article gives no sources, especially regarding Chiang's causes ("trading space for time," diplomatic, etc.) for provoking the Battle of Shanghai. Are these reasons commonly agreed upon by historians? Konekoniku 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've some photos that I will upload as soon as I'm able to. Every good article needs good pictures. ;) -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 18:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to the use of this picture due to the fact there is considerable evidence pointing to the possibility it may not be genuine. this website provides some interesting insight as to the true nature of said photograph.Regarded as Japanese propaganda by many I found it hard to believe in at first,but upon seeing a french documentary on the History Channel entitled "China Yellow,China Blue" in which footage of the baby being put on the tracks was shown,I am convinced this photograph,and perhaps others,are doctored. Could anyone try to confirm my information?
We have an entire article on the photograph that will dispel most of the (however well-intentioned) misinformation above. In short:
It—the photographer didn't know its gender or learn its name—may have been posed, but every aspect that makes it an effective photograph is true. [Reduced the size of above ranting in the interest of politeness.] — LlywelynII 18:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
To respond to the above comments, the baby photo used in this article is in fact from Shanghai, but it is a known propaganda shot, staged by Chinese-American photographer Xiaoting Wang (sp?). Feel free to replace it with another picture demonstrating the heart-breaking aftermath of the bombing. But this one is staged. I have removed it.
You can see someone carrying the baby over *to* the tracks at 24:08 in the film Why We Fight: The Battle of China. Watch video here. See this photo also. Again, I have no doubt that the baby was found in an equally miserable condition somewhere in the bombed-out station, but the photograph is known to have been staged and it lowers the integrity of Wikipedia as much to have this photo on here as it lowers the integrity of Reuters to publish doctored photos of smoke over Beirut. Bueller 007 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The article says that 91 planes were more than half the Chinese air force. Would that be the entire air force or just the "Central Army" air force? AFAIK Two-Guang Clique had a large air force of more than 60 planes (can't supply source, though). Also, I think there needs to be mention of the attack on the Japanese flagship Izumo and how they messed it up and bombed the city instead. -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 07:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere (always somewhere, never can remember where exactly) that Feng Yuxiang was given a command in this battle but he messed it up big and had to be relegated to a "ceremonial" role. Fact or fiction? -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 07:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
CNN. Photos document brutality in Shanghai
We should mention this -- 210.231.15.201 ( talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
Documentary film recording the Chinese army fighting against the Japanese invasion of Shanghai.
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)
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)
I can't find it now but, for researchers looking at this page, there was a letter printed in an Australian newspaper from a boy in Shanghai back to his family detailing his first-hand account of the accidental Republican bombing of the International Settlement. Falls under avoid-primary-sources and we've already got that incident covered, but still a powerful passage if you can find it.
Now, a wartime propaganda film is obviously a biased source. It is, in fact, something like the quintessence of biased sourcing.
That said, if The Battle of China’s account of punitive Japanese bombing of the undefended civilian population of Shanghai after the Republican army's retreat was a complete lie, that's worth noting. If it's true, it's even more necessary to include it. Right now, there is next to nothing about Japanese aerial bombardment; absolutely nothing about strikes against civilian targets; and absolutely no link to our article on or Japan's policy of terror bombing. Not sure if it was an over-enthusiastic editor or simple oversight, but it needs to be addressed in greater detail. — LlywelynII 19:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/937JIAF.PDFWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry,I make some mistake in this page.-- Tr56tr ( talk) 04:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
|casualties1 = ~250,000<ref name="ww2db.com">[http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=85 WW II Database: The Second Battle of Shanghai] Retrieved 20 May 2016</ref> |casualties2 = 59,493+ (combat casualties excluding death caused by disease)<ref>{{cite book|title=南京戦史|publisher=Asagumo Shimbunsha|language=Japanese|pp=306–307|year=1966}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=[[Senshi Sōsho]] (戦史叢書)|publisher=Asagumo Shimbunsha|language=Japanese|volume=2|year=1966}}</ref> 98,417 killed and wounded<ref>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。</ref>
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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Same with other articles dealing with the Chinese front of WWII. Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
Hello @ Qiushufang I see you redid my revision after @ Wahreit pointed them out to you. Is there any sort of bar for whether or not a source is deemed too irreptuable to use a citation? I would think a web article with zero citations is not suitable for a source on Wikipedia? Am I incorrect? Also Robinson's work has major flaws such as providing an entirely fictionalized order of battle for the Japanese side. I don't think it is reasonable to use it as a source, at least for the Japanese side given its lack of credibility. It quite literally conflicts with all known Japanese primary sources and the official history of the IJN in the Second Sino-Japanese War authored by Japan's Ministry of Defense War History Study Room. The English-language academic essay by Hattori Satoshi in The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945 also disproves the IJA's involvement in this battle. Given that reputable Japanese secondary sources clearly states the participating forces on the Japanese side was the IJN Special Naval Landing Forces and not the IJA 3rd Division, is it fine to remove the part of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement and correct it with this source? This is a rather frustrating case where most of the English-language sources are extremely unreliable and little coverage in Japanese exists beyond primary sources but I want to work to correct this subsection to offered a more balanced coverage of both viewpoints as was accomplished on the main article. Adachi1939 ( talk) 07:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
context for above: for anyone who wants a tl;dr of the situation above, user @ Adachi1939 has been suppressing the involvement of the 3rd ija division in the battle of sihang warehouse for some time now (coming up on 2 years). in doing so, he has deleted all prior mention of the 3rd division on the main sihang warehouse page which you can confirm via accessing older versions of the article before 2023, constantly reverted all edits that contradict his claims which you can find in the check the article history, and has a habit of aggressively confronting anyone who disagrees with him, which is visible on his talk page, the sihang warehouse talk page, and now this one. there's much more to this situation, but that's for another time.
the consensus: the established consensus is that the primary attackers on sihang warehouse were the 3rd division from the Imperial Japanese Army. this was established on the defense of sihang warehouse page since its origin in 2006, and was only removed by adachi in early 2022 in the spirit of "removing chinese propaganda." furthermore, the following secondary sources, each written and published by established historians, clearly support the 3rd division's involvement:
"Eight Hundred Heroes" by Stephen Robinson, an australian military historian and author:
"The 3rd Division, commanded by General Susumu Fujita, was known as the 'Lucky Division' and its men who survived the next two months of savage fighting would face the Eight Hundred at Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 62).
"However, the troops in the 'Lucky Division', after being in constant battle for over two months, were barely combat effective and in some cases corporals commanded shattered companies which had been reduced to platton strength. These fatigued and bloodied troops would soon reach Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 66).
"The Japanese 3rd 'Luckyy' Division, led by General Susumu Fujita, humiliated by the defiant flag, planned an all-out assault to capture the warehouse that day." (Robinson 95). "On the morning of 31 October, soldiers of the 3rd "lucky" Division, commanded by General Susumu Fujita, continued their siege of Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 108).
"Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse" by Eric Niderost, a history professor and writer, published on Warfare History Network which is fair game as wikipedians are allowed to cite published articles:
"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes." (Niderost).
"Three Months Of Bloodshed: Strategy And Combat During The Battle Of Shanghai," a thesis by Georgetown alum James Paulose who is quoted on the battle of shanghai wikipedia page:
"The 3rd Japanese Division under Matsui advanced to the warehouse after taking Shanghai North Railway Station, but the first assault was ineffective." (Paulose 18).
"On the precipice of Change," a thesis by Marta Kubacki at the University of Waterloo, whilst not explicitly naming the 3rd division in this specific quote (but she does so in a table on page 166):
"In slowing the Imperial Japanese Army advance, the extra time gave the rest of Shanghai's troops time to evacuate downtown Shanghai." (Kubacki 49).
in addition, these vidoes and articles, whilst admittedly not as reliable as the ones above, clearly show the same consensus: the bulk of the japanese attackers were the Imperial Japanese army, the 3rd division.
https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=85: Second Battle of Shanghai by founder C. Peter Chen:
"Moving toward the Sihang Warehouse were troops of General Iwane Matsui's 3rd Division. With access to Type 94 tankettes and Type 89 mortars, the Japanese wielded far greater firepower." (Chen).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxpG19OTmns:
Kings and Generals: Sihang Warehouse 1937 - Chinese Thermopylae - WW2 DOCUMENTARY go to 5:18: "They would be facing the 3rd IJA division, commanded by Iwane Matsui." I know youtube documentaries are not reliable per wikipedia's policies, but the point stands: it is the established consensus that the 3rd division was present.
these are the sources can be found with a quick google search (save for Robinson's book), i'm sure there's more. but what is common ground across all these sites and media, is that the IJA spearheaded the attack on sihang warehouse with the 3rd division. it is more than enough to warrant a presence on the sihang warheouse page and this one too.
the issues with the claims above:
first is the assertation that Satoshi's essay in Drea's book, the Battle for China disproves the involvement of the 3rd division in the battle of sihang warehouse. this is false. nowhere does satoshi or drea explicitly disprove the participation of the 3rd division. it is true that sihang warehouse is not touched on in the chapter, but considering this chapter is a macro-meso analysis of the entire yangtze 1937 campaign, and not an in-depth analysis of all events in the battle of shanghai like peter harmsen's work (which does detail the battle of sihang warehouse), this is understandable. this is not however, a legitimate counter to the sources above; just because satoshi doesn't mention sihang warehouse doesn't automatically disqualify the involvment of the 3rd division: omission does not constitute a legitimate rebuttal. what is stated however, is that the 3rd division was engaged at combat at suzhou creek, something backed up by the sources from Shina Jihen Gaiho Dai, which also indicate the Japanese 3rd division approaching and fighting across the creek.
now for context, the sihang warehouse is also located on the suzhou creek, meaning per those "classified japanese records," the 3rd division and the sihang warehouse were sitting on the exact same axis of attack. furthermore, this map from adachi's own source indicates the location of the 3rd division relative to the sihang warehouse:
https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/meta/listPhoto?LANG=default&REFCODE=C14120674900
copy paste the link and go to page 13: the 3rd division is indicated by "3D" at the lower right of the map near the suzhou creek, whilst the Sihang Warehouse is located just east around the bend in the creek. the distance between the two is less than half a mile.
the distance between the 3rd division's center of mass and the sihang warehouse, when laid over a map of shanghai, is less than half a mile. this means that the 3rd division during the days of the battle was located, per adachi's own sources, a ten minute walk west of the warehouse, which is exactly where the weight of the japanese attack force came from according to the most sources: the western side.
finally, this entire section has required taking adachi's claims at full face value, something one should be cautious about given the problematic scenes we have witnessed for the past week.
if anything @ Adachi1939, robinson and niderost's works are your best supporters, as they are amongst the few legitimate sources that actually state the involvement of the imperial japanese marine forces (which you claim to be the sole attackers of sihang warehouse). now the two are not mutually exclusive: stephen robinson and niderost indicate the participation of ija and ijn forces, but as it stands there is no real reason to completely remove all mentions of the 3rd division on this page or the sihang warehouse page.
furthermore, it's not on anyone to prove the involvement of the 3rd division here because that is not our role as wikipedia editors; we are not supposed to provide our own independent interpretations and original research as @ Qiushufang has caught you doing multiple times on the sihang warehouse page, we are supposed to deliver the research in a fair and accurate manner as the sources detail. and the sources, from what is visible, establish a clear consensus: the imperial japanese army was involved, and it was the 3rd division who was most involved in the fighting. we will be fixing this as per Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
for those of you who managed to read this to the bottom, i apologize for the wall of text, but it was time someone finally got to the bottom of the matter. there is no ill will towards anyone here, we're simply trying to deliver the facts as they are. if anyone has any perspectives or questions, i'm all ears. Wahreit ( talk) 19:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
|
I would like to seek a third opinion regarding this subject matter. The user @ Wahreit has been quite attached to the narrative of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement in this battle, asserting it with a number of low quality cherry-picked generally non-academic sources which often do not provide citations for their claims. As seen above and many times before I have tried to explain in detail why these sources do not hold up and conflict with more reliable sources. In spite of this they have been frequently overriding my edits and also trying to interpret Japanese sources which it seems they can't understand and are unwittingly asserting false claims with them. I have been trying to correct these incorrect changes but I want to avoid edit-warring.
This dispute is not limited to this page but also the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page as well, where the disputed matter is largely the same. As I see it, the Japanese sources clearly demonstrate this notion of the IJA 3rd Division's participation to be incorrect. Regardless of being primary sources, I don't see how there is room to assert this claim when the actual participating units are well documented in Japanese. I have been simply translating records and using zero synthesis to reach my conclusions. It is documented that the IJA 3rd Division was at the bank of Suzhou River trying to cross it when this happened. It is documented that the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces were the ones involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. The only counterclaims @Wahreit has provided are western sources in which 5/6 did not even provide citations for their claims (and half had no citations at all!).
It would be great if someone else can offer their opinion, especially if they can read Japanese sources. I know the heavy use of primary and Japanese language sources is far from ideal on my side as well.
Best Regards, Adachi 2024/07/16 Adachi1939 ( talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)