![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I see there had been an extensive reference of Chang and Ming 2005, which is not a very good source to say the least consider that book had been deem rubbish by even the most anti-communist expert on the matter. I also see there is no mention of the memoir and reports of US observation groups as independent POV. Someone better clean that part up up or should delete the whole section. Centralk ( talk) 02:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The infobox currently says that "1,100,000 military (including wounded, prisoners and missing)" died during this campaign, but this is currently unsourced. I checked at the WWII Casualties page, and there it lists the Japanese military casualties in China at 388,605 (185,647 from 1937-41 and 202,958 from 1941-45).
Does this look complete? Then I'll include it. According to the same page 432,000 collaborator forces died. Grey Fox ( talk) 14:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW given the size of the Chinese collaboration army and casualties it's best to find out who their commanders were and include them too in the infobox.
Grey Fox (
talk)
14:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Why have my revision been undone? Comment your action, please. - Arbiter of Elegance ( talk) 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"Within a few days of the attack on Pearl Harbor, both the United States and China officially declared war against Japan"
Wasn't China already at war with Japan?! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria has been included into the list of the SSJW battles again. I think it is obvious that by the scale and the results this battle dwarfed several SSJW campaigns (1941-1945) taken together. In connection to that, I propose either to include the USSR into the list of belligerents (and to change the definition of the scope of SSJW), or to remove this campaign from the list.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
"The war was the result of a decades-long Japanese imperialist policy aiming to dominate China politically and militarily to secure its vast raw material reserves and other resources. At the same time, the rising tide of Chinese nationalism and notions of self determination stoked the coals of war."
Anyone who has any first hand experience in China knows this quote is patenly absurd. The " Nationalist" party was a mob in the meakest sense and had shown untenable hostility to foreigners in every walk including occidentals and Japanese. It would be more accurate to say tat the japanese were unpleased with the restrictions put upon them by the west to take what they believed were the spoils of the war with russia which is stated in good form. However, this idea of imperialism did not appear until well after 1931. The Chinese had (to it mildly) asked them for their economic trade and services while simultaneously supplanting anti-foreign ( specifically anti japanese) propaganda in a smear campaigne by the Kuamingtang which was a proxy group resembling the Ku Klux Klan that the central government used to deliver mean spirited jargon.
Point being, all facts need to be considered. This was not some black and white imperial expansion by the Japanese, even by confession of many British and American foreign agents who were present in China at the time. Also site the facts that are concrete and leave the rest of the arcane literature behind, especially if its content is malignant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redoctober80 ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I remember his rank was higher than Peng Dehuai's in Communist Side? Wasn't he involved in any battle?-- Tricia Takanawa ( talk) 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Noted and Added DCTT ( talk) 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Mukden Incident, or Chinese 九-八事变, many Chinese historians regarded this incident as the beginning of the Imperial Japan's invasion of China. Arilang talk 07:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Per your request at my talkpage, I am here. I have again reverted your long essay back to the last clean edit. Wikipedia is an encyclclopedia, not a blog or a textbook. Your writing is good, but this is not the place for commentary. In addition you destroy previous wikilinking, and aside from the header, there is rarely a need to insert Chinese text. They have their own wikipedia. Please do not edit-war over this. Your text as it is written is not wikilike, though I do understand it was put there in good faith. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this wiki is about Sino-Japanese war, it is not against wiki rule to insert Chinese texts into the article, and I am not here to start a edit war with anyone, my intention is to enrich this article's content, that is all. Arilang talk 08:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't casualties include wounded, POW , missing and KIA? The Japanese casualties is very well detailed but only lists those killed in action, while the Chinese is an estimation of the killed, missing, captured and the wounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.250.198 ( talk) 10:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
In the article, the romanized version of this japanese is "= "Hokushi Jihen", which doesn't seem right; I would think, and quick searches lead me to believe it should be Kahoku Jihen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewnamis ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Soong May Ling(Madam Chiang) played a big part in the coming to China of the Flying Tigers, and hence the ROC airforce, and she gave a very important speech in the US congress.
s:Addresses to the House of Respresentatives and to the Senate by Soong Mai Ling Arilang talk 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about the line "Many supporters of Taiwan independence see no relevance in preserving the memory of the war of resistance that happened primarily on mainland China". It is a bit confusing as it implies that some of the fighting may have happened in Taiwan. Was this the case? Did any of the fighting occur in Taiwan or was it all in China? Readin ( talk) 22:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss your differences in a civil manner, come to a consensus, then let me know and we can make the changes at that point. This pointless revert warring is not productive. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
WhY? Whoever is vandalizing, just block him and continue. I was notified to come and help work on the article, but I find it protected. Teeninvestor ( talk) 15:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey this is a really minor thing that I'd love to fix but the article's protected. At the very end of the Nomenclature section it talks about what the Japanese call the First Sino-Japanese War, and the Japanese characters are not correct. In parenthesis it should read (日清戦争, Nisshin-sensō). I think the characters that are currently used are the Chinese name for the war. You can check out the First Sino-Japanese War article for verification. Could someone fix this? -- Chouji Ochiai ( talk) 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
侵华日军司令官冈村宁次在1939年对国军抗日的评论,他说:"看来敌军抗日力量的中心不在于四亿中国民众,也不是以各类杂牌军混合而成的二百万军队,乃 是以蒋介石为核心、以黄埔军校青年军官阶层为主体的中央军。在历次会战中,它不仅是主要的战斗原动力,同时还严厉监督着逐渐丧失战斗力意志而徘徊犹豫的地 方杂牌军,使之不致离去而步调一致,因此不可忽视其威力。黄埔军校教育之彻底,由此可见......有此军队存在,要想和平解决事变,无异是缘木求鱼" (摘自《大本营陆军部.上》519页)。 Arilang talk 11:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think these two sections can be merged, please offer your comments, thanks. DCTT ( talk) 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is unfair that the Communist Party of China under Mao Zedong is left out of the list of combatants even if they did fight under the Republic of China at times during the conflict. They were a major force fighting against the Japanese and even had to capture Chiang Kai-shek in order to force a truce between the Nationalists and Communists, as he was more concerned with fighting them than the Japanese invaders for a time, while the Communists thought it was more important to repel the Japanese. It is unfair leave them out of the list of combatants and doing this implies that they did not participate at all, which is simply untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.210.50 ( talk) 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
User Jean-Jacques Georges and user DCTT, lets cool down a bit, and try to see the common ground. OK, we now all agree that:
To be translated: “ 日本军阀过去占领了大半个中国,因此中国人民接受了教育。如果没有日本的侵略,我们现在还在山里,就不能到北京看京剧了。正是因为日本皇军占领了大半个中 国,对中国人民来说已没有其它出路了,所以才觉悟起来开始武装斗争,建立了许多抗日根据地,为以后的解放战争创造了胜利的条件。日本垄断资本和军阀给我们 做了件'好事’,如果需要感谢的话,我倒想感谢日本军阀。”会见日本社会党议员黑田寿男等人时的谈话全文(1961/1/24)
1972年,中日建交的时候,毛泽东会见日本首相田中角荣(Tanaka Kakuei 1918-1993)
毛说:“不是对不起啊,你们有功啊,为啥有功呢?因为你们要不是发动侵华战争的话,我们共产党怎么能够强大?我们怎么能够夺权哪?怎么能够把蒋介石打败呀?我们如何感谢你们?我们不要你们战争赔偿!”摘自(田中角荣传,,日语原版。Translated from Tanaka Kakuei Biography, original in Japanese.)
Translation:In 1972, when PRC and Japan established former diplomatic relationship, Mao Zedong met then Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei, and said: Don't have to say sorry, you had contributed towards China, why? Because had Imperial Japan did not start the war of invasion, how could we communist became mighty powerful? How could we stage the coup d'état ? How could we defeated Chiang Kai Sak? How could we pay back you guys? No, we do not want your war reparations! Arilang talk 10:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Editors please read Mao: The Unknown Story, the book have a lot of info on why Mao did not fight the Japanese during the war. Moreover, there are declassified articles claimed that Mao actually help the Imperial Japanese Army to fight the National Revolutionary Army.
延安日记 by 弗拉基米洛夫,第三國際派駐延安的代表 according to this book The Vladimirov Diaries, the CCP was busy producing opium for profit while Imperial Japan Army was busy klling National Revolutionary Army. Arilang talk 11:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
毛澤東賣國言論
毛澤東在洛川會議上的講話:“要冷靜,不要到前線去充當抗日英雄,要避開與日本的正面衝突,繞到日軍後方去打游擊,要 想辦法擴充八路軍、建立抗日游擊根據地,要千方百計地積蓄和壯大我黨的武裝力量。對政府方面催促的開赴前線的命令,要以各種借口予以推拖,只有在日軍大大 殺傷國軍之後,我們才能坐收抗日成果,去奪取國民黨的政權。”
“有的人認為我們應該多抗日,才愛國,但那愛的是蔣介石的國,我們中國共產黨人祖國是全世界共產黨人共同的祖國即蘇維埃。我們共產黨人的方針 是,要讓日本軍隊多占地,形成蔣、日、我,三國志,這樣的形勢對我們才有利,最糟糕的情況不過是日本人占領了全中國,到時候我也還可以借助蘇聯的力量打回 來嘛!”
Translation:Some people insisted, to show that we do love our nation, we should be more anti-Japanese, but then the nation belongs to Chiang Kai-sak, we communists, our mother-land is Soviet Union, the common mother-land of the world's communists. The aim of we communists, isto allow the Japanese to occupy more land, then a power triangle will be formed, which consisted of Chiang, Japanese and us, which is the ideal situation, the worst come to the worst, if ever Japanese occupy the whole of China, we would then still be able to fight back, with the help of the Soviet Union. Arilang talk 11:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
“為了發展壯大我黨的武裝力量,在戰後奪取全國政權。我們黨必須嚴格遵循的總方針是“一分抗日,二分應付,七分發展”。任何人,任何組織都不得違背這個總體方針。”!
Mao's order to all party members of CCP: The aim is to develop the military power of the CCP, so that CCP can take over the political power of China. This main directive is to be strictly followed: "10% of energy on anti-Japanese, 20% of energ muddering along, 70% of energy is used to develop(political and military power). Anybody, any groups are not to oppose this paramount directive.
Arilang
talk
12:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
@user Jean-Jacques Georges, nobody said Mao did nothing during the war. The main argument we should talk about is Chiang Kai-sak treated China as mother-land, and Mao Zedong(hence the entire CCP) treated USSR as mother-land. Strictly speaking, the conduct of Mao(hence CCP) should be treated as treason, and charged accordingly. In Chinese, it is called Han-Jian 漢奸, a very serious accusation. Arilang talk 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(1)老毛感謝日本皇軍是大恩人,大救星
一九六-四年七月十日,日本社會黨委員長佐佐木更三偕委員黑田壽男去北京,與毛澤東有下面一段對話:
毛:我曾經跟日本朋友談過。他們說,很對不起,日本皇軍侵略了中國。我說:不!沒有你們皇軍侵略大半個中國,中國人民就不能團結起來對付蔣介石,中國共產黨就奪取不了政權。所以,日本皇軍是我們中國共產黨人的好教員,也可以說是大恩人,大救星。
佐佐木:今天聽了毛主席非常寬宏大量的說話。過去,日本軍國主義侵略中國,給你們帶來了很大的損害,我們大家感到很抱歉。
毛:沒有什麼抱歉。日本軍國主義給中國帶來了很大的利益,使中國人民奪取了政權。沒有你們的皇軍,我們不可能奪取政權。這一點,我和你們有不同的意見,我們兩個人有矛盾。(眾笑,會場活躍)。
佐佐木:謝謝。
毛:不要講過去那一套了。日本的侵略也可以說是好事,幫了我們的大忙。請看,中國人民奪取了政權,同時,你們的壟斷資本、軍國主義也幫了我們的忙。日本人民成百萬、成千萬地醒覺起來。包括在中國打仗的一部份將軍,他們現在變成我們的朋友了。
(摘自《毛澤東思想萬歲》,第五三三至五三四頁。)
(2)毛澤東感謝日本侵略中國,因此,不要日本賠償!
1972年,中日建交的時候,日本首相田中角榮就向毛澤東道歉,“啊,對不起啊,我們發動了侵略戰爭,是中國受到很大的傷害。”
毛澤東說“不是對不起啊,你們有功啊,為啥有功呢?因為你們要不是發動侵華戰爭的話,我們共產黨怎麼能夠強大?我們怎麼能夠奪權哪?怎麼能夠把蔣介石打敗呀?”他感謝田中角榮。“我們如何感謝你們?我們不要你們戰爭賠償!”
Arilang talk 10:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
《延安日记》 The Vladimirov Diaries的作者彼得.弗拉季米洛夫(Soviet liaison to the Chinese Communists Peter Vladimirov )作为共产国际驻中共的联络员兼塔斯社随军记者,于1942年5月-1945年11月,由斯大林派驻延安,他有 权利列席中共中央政治局会议,直接发送苏共和中共领导人之间的电报,他以日记的形式生动详实的记录了他在延安的政治经济文化见闻,揭示了中共与苏共的血缘 联系,和中共对日对蒋的策略方针。虽然限于他本人的见闻有片面局限性,更由于他共产思想意识形态的所限亦有不可取之处,但作为当时历史的亲历者某些方面还 是具有重要的参考价值,现从该书中节选部分精彩片段供大家赏析:
影印版的第29页:"我看,中共领导人希望得到 武器,并不是为了向侵略者展开武装斗争,而是为了同国民党闹摩擦。这使东京的人感到多么高兴呀!可是,康生代表中共领导向我保证,中共军队决心对日作战。 中共其他官员也向我做这样的保证。这只是随便说说呢,还是在搞两面派?还是说,搞两面派已经成为政策了?"
第26页:1942年6月7日"八路军不是主动开展军事行动来制止日本侵略者的入侵,而只限于有气无力地打局部的防御战。只要敌人发动进攻,八路军就退到山里,避开冲突。"
第 36页:1942年7月9日 "八路军的队伍(当然还有新四军),早已停止了对侵略者的主动出击和反击。尽管疯狂的日本军队在中国东南部发动猛烈攻势,日本还威胁要进犯苏联,这种情况 至今依然没有改变。中共部队对目前日本扫荡其占领区的行动不做抵抗,他们撤上山去或渡过了黄河。中共领导把国民党看作是主要敌人,不遗余力地要夺取中央政 府控制的地盘,用各种手段来达到目的。这些明显的分裂活动危害中国人民反对侵略者的解放运动,加重了中国人民的牺牲,并造成与国民党发生军事冲突。"
第69页:1942年9月"八路军同敌人和平共处。日本人舒舒服服地准备在占领地区过冬了(我们绕过了这些地方)。八路军部队却就在这附近晃晃悠悠。"
第 70页:"反对侵略者的战争,显然打的是被动仗。中共领导没有采取有效措施在华北牵制日本派遣军,这是无可争辩的事实。莫斯科屡次要求中共领导采用一切办 法使日本无法发动反苏战争进行准备,但这都被当成了耳旁风。延安的政策依然如故-缩减八路军正规部队的作战规模。看得出来,八路军主要关心的是国民党军 队。部队中宣传的矛头是对着他们的:战斗行动有朝一日也是要这对他们的。因此,日本人的一切作战行动几乎都成功了。延安发出命令,要不惜任何代价保存八路 军的实力,所以部队正步步后撤,尽管敌人的进攻力量是微不足道的。
第71页:"毛泽东的原则是:进行这次战争为 的是保存他自己的实力,而不是消灭敌人。要达到这个目的,就得对敌人放松抵抗和让出更多的地方。几年来无所事事,使中共的武装力量蜕化了。纪律松弛,开小 差的多了。士兵不爱护武器,部队和团、营本部的训练不组织了。部队之间的协作不组织了。军官们打扑克,聊天,当着农民的面发布作战命令。
含着泪水诉说特区受到严密封锁,这是康生搞的一种宣传骗局。特区的前线和边界都很容易通过,这是我们亲眼看到的。中共领导大谈其严密封锁,无非是要在真正的困难中加进虚构的困难。
到 前线去跑一趟,使我确信中共领导并不想打日本人;他们把战争看成是建立自己根据地的良好时机。而且不是靠自己的部队,而是靠日本和国民党两种力量的对峙来 建立他们的根据地。要是日本人打败了国民党,中央政府的政权被消灭了,八路军部队立即就钻进这个地区。必要时,他们会干掉抗日统一战线中的战友,而夺取政 权。毛泽东在侵略者面前向后退缩,却在乘中央政府和日军冲突之机为自己渔利。在民族遭受灾难,人民备尝艰辛并作出不可估量的牺牲的时刻,在国家受制于法西 斯分子的时刻,采取这种策略,岂只是背信弃义而已。"
第76页:"一比较材料就令人十分沮丧。八路军方面没有采取任何积极的军事行动!更有甚者,军事行动都被严厉地禁止了。"
第102页:1943年1月"毛泽东一心想要打内战。他完全不顾当前的政治形势,一直在人为地加速事态的发展。"
第 103页:1943年1月29日"解放区出现一片怪现象。中共的部队中也同样出现了这种怪现象。它们全都在尽可能地与沦陷区的日军做生意。到处都在做非法 的鸦片交易。例如,在柴陵,远在后方的步兵第120师师部,拨出一间房子来加工原料,制成鸦片后就从这里运往市场。实际上晋西北各县都充斥着五花八门的日 货。这些货物都是由沦陷区仓库直接供应的。在第120师师部里,讨论的中心不是战斗任务、作战和其他军事问题,而是怎么做买卖和赚钱。这一切都是奉命行事 的。;例如,已严令八路军和新四军个部队不得对日本人采取任何有利的作战活动。一句话,就是不准打仗,遭到攻击就往后撤,有可能就休战。"
第265页:"中共领导听到蒋军在河南和湖南战败的消息非常高兴。这是上天赐给毛泽东的一份礼物。他与美国人讨价还价的可能性在迅速增加。他未来的内战对手正在被削弱。"
第 307页:1944年10月14日"中国的分裂是日军获胜的主要原因。这并不是中国军队的战斗力问题。毛泽东认为敌人的胜利是削弱蒋介石力量的一个因素。 不论是军事上的失利,还是反法西斯斗争这样的因素,都不能使中共主席放弃他的分裂政策。这种分裂是中国不祥的现实。而且这种分裂显然有利于日本军国主义 者。毛泽东分裂民族统一抗日的政策无异于为日本增加了几十个打中国的师。毛泽东认为,只要蒋介石在前方打胜仗,他的政策就受到威胁。因此,无论如何也要削 弱蒋介石,这就是中共领导所采取的政策的实质。让日军占领中国土地、烧毁中国城市去吧!毛泽东自称是共产党员。可是,难道一个共产党员能促使别人占领自己 的国土。劫掠自己国家的财富吗?!他并不希望组成紧密团结的抗日统一战线。他明知这是一支有生力量,但是宁愿让蒋介石一方去与日军及伪军作战。他自己的抵 抗不过就是打打游击而已。"
第561页:"我无意中看到了一份新四军总部的来电。这份总部的报告,完全清楚的证 实了,中共领导和日本派遣军最高司令部之间,长期保持着联系。电报无疑还表明,与日军司令部联系的有关报告,是定期送到延安来的。后来我证实,中共军队和 日军的参谋机构之间的联系,已保持很长时间里。联系的两头是延安和南京。"
第563页:"与日本司令部的关系早 已在极端保密的情况下建立了,中共领导人中只有几个人知道此事。毛的一个代理人(或像毛所称的"联络员"),可以说是一直隶属于南京的岗村宁次大将总部 的。什么时候有需要,他都可以在日本反间谍机构的严密保护之下,畅通无阻地往返于南京和新四军总部之间。"
该书披露了一些难得的鲜为人知的秘密真相,可以看出,中国共产党是作为共产国际的中国支部,直接受苏联共产党的援助和指挥,毛虽然已经接受了中央政府的领导却从来没有听从蒋委员长的命令。
毛 泽东的抗日政策就如一些历史学家所说的是:"一分抗日,二分应付,七分发展",基本上是隔岸观火,借日军之手消耗国军力量。共军藏在深山种"革命"鸦片, 趁机养精蓄锐,游而不击,坐收渔翁之利。抗战一结束就如猛虎出山抢占地盘,即下山摘桃子。并空手套白狼一样接收了苏联红军占领的东三省的巨量资源和军事装 备,与国军争夺天下。而此时的国军在长达14年艰苦激烈的抗日民族卫国战争中已经疲惫不堪遍体鳞伤,怎堪匪类的猛扑?
这 些事实充分暴露了中共假抗战、真扩张、通敌卖国、谋夺地盘的阴诈图谋。而且中共非常善于宣传作秀,干的很少吹嘘的很多,花言巧语蛊惑人心,无数爱国青年就 是在中共擂的震天响的抗日口号下大批的来到了延安,等来的却是心惊胆战的"著名"的整风运动,连十三岁的孩子都被打成特务和反革命,人人自危,万马齐喑, 毛借此加强了自己的独裁地位。
借助打土豪分田地的土地革命恐吓胁迫人民充当他的马前卒,美其名曰人民战争的汪洋 大海。大搞特务活动,通过国共合作黄埔军校暗伏红色代理人,谍报战线直达国防部,使共军逃过一次次危机。总而言之中共为了达到夺取政权的目的可以说是不择 手段,根本置民族利益、国家危亡于不顾,最终在苏联帝国的帮助下窃国成功。然而国军在国共内战中不是失败于共产党,而是失败于日本帝国主义对我中华民族长 达十四年的疯狂侵略,也就难怪毛在战后对前来访问中国的日本领导人说“感谢日本侵略中国”的话了。没有日本的侵略,中共就不会夺取政权。
If editors can read Chinese, then the CCP's role during the war is very clear. They never did care much about Japanese invasion, all they wanted was to fight the KMT, and they regarded Imperial Japan Army as friend, KMT as enemy. Arilang talk 12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
to visiting Japanese officials for the invasion, hence the war. He said without Japan's invasion, the CCP would not be here today. And this article is about the war between 2 nations, when tens of millions of Chinese were killed by the invaders. Now Mao was effectively saying, it's OK to kill tens of millions of my people, because only then we can form government, thanks to you buddy. This historical fact, should also be included in wiki.
Moreover, the flag in question is called 共產党党旗, the hammer and sickel flag. CCP did not fight the Japanese under the hammer and sickle flag, they fought under the KMT flag, 青天白日旗, so the insertions of the CCP red flag is plain wrong, should be removed. Arilang talk 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the flag, most of the anti-Japanese military forces were under ROC flag, and this war is about a war fought between ROC and Japan, the CCP did not fight the war under their own flag. For this reason alone, the hammer and sickle flag should be removed. Moreover, the military flag of PLA is 八-軍旗, with the Chinese words 八一 next to the hammer and sickle. Arilang talk 14:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"For many Americans, Madame Chiang's finest moment came in 1943, when she barnstormed the United States in search of support for the Nationalist cause against Japan, winning donations from countless Americans who were mesmerized by her passion, determination and striking good looks. Her address to a joint meeting of Congress electrified Washington, winning billions of dollars in aid."
"A devout Christian, Madame Chiang spoke fluent English tinted with the Southern accent she acquired as a school girl in Georgia, and presented a civilized and humane image of a courageous China battling a Japanese invasion and Communist subversion."
"During the war with the Japanese, Madame Chiang pushed her husband to build up the Nationalist air force, and helped hire Claire Chennault, who commanded a mercenary force of pilots that came to be known as the Flying Tigers."
Madame Chiang Kai-shek, a Power in Husband's China and Abroad, Dies at 105 By SETH FAISON
The article seems heavily POV towards the ROC, for example in the commanders section no communist general is listed. Sherzo ( talk) 16:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
sorry, but that's because you can't read. Blueshirts ( talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No it appears looking at the edit history you are attempting to push a POV bias Sherzo ( talk) 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
you have nothing specific to add and blatantly slap this pov thing on top of the article. Stop vandalizing it please. Blueshirts ( talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't the place to push your personal POV Sherzo ( talk) 17:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have specific problems with any particular claims, sentences, or sections, put a tag there. Don't put a POV tag on top of the whole article. And stay off my talk page and quit putting "vandalism" tag on there, you're not fooling anyone. Blueshirts ( talk) 19:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Zhu De and Peng DeHuai are listed as commanders and were communist generals, they fought under the united front, why do I have to repeat myself all the time to editors who have no or very little idea about SSJW but insist on editing this article? DCTT ( talk) 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have grouped all foreign allieds to "with foreign support" and others to "with collaborationist support". We've had this dicussion before and we're doing it the same way as the Chinese and German articles. New editors please look over the talk page to see what's been the consensus. Blueshirts ( talk) 13:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the point of having a POV tag on the top of the article. Like I've said before and for some people apparently can't read, put the tag before the section or after the sentences you find objectionable, don't put an overall tag for the entire article, especially for an article this length. Blueshirts ( talk) 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
May I ask that everyone involved in this conversation to please remain WP:Civil, and carmly and rationally discuss their concerns about the article and its contents. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 08:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
comments are invited on whether The Communists should be restored to the Infobox. Sherzo ( talk) 05:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Nanjing Massacre is a very important chapter in SSJW when Chiang Kai-shek made a hasty and ill-prepared military retreat from Nanjing, virtually just left the city's inhabitants and remaining soldiers at the mercy of the Imperial Japan Army. I think in the whole of SSJW, The fall of Nanjing occupy an important place in SSJW, as it high-lighted both the incompetence of CKS and the slavage and near-animal-brutality of the Imparial Japan Army. Arilang talk 02:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like to remove both the USA and the USSR from the list of belligerents. They provided supplies and some airmen, but neither committed any ground troops to fight the war in China itself. I'm not trying to diminish their contributions, but putting them in the infobox as main belligerents seems rather out of place, especially when Soviet aid was pulled in Sep. 1939. I like to change it to something like the Winter War infobox. Blueshirts ( talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
About USSR support - there was a mistake: Zhukov never was as adviser in China. Replaced for Chuikov (future army commander during Battle for Stalingrad), who really was Chang Kai-Shek's advisor during Battle for Changsha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.251.107.24 ( talk) 14:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This article need to mention(or a new section) of
Arilang talk 01:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention to all. If you feel the need to edit values in the infobox, make sure you adhere to WP:V, WP:RS. This is a final warning to all those 脑残 people who have 脑水病 and are unable to realise, that after their edits were reverted for the Nth time, that there is nothing wrong with them. 我操他妈, use some common sense and ask before you make 脑残 edits. For Mr.IP from Ontario, Canada (yeah, you know who you are), putting a line of damn text between <ref> and </ref> is not an WP:RS because it is not WP:V by others. </rant> </anger> Thank you all. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 13:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Wang, Jingwei, 1941, "Why I was such an idiot and sold Nanking to the Japanese", Oxford Publishing Press, pp.341. ( ISBN 0-521-40352-9)
Hey can't we all just get along here ? Taiwan Dude 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Taiwanman1
Dont you mean atom bomb ?
What did he do anyways ? Taiwanman1 17:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Taiwanman1 ( talk • contribs)
I just noticed this edit in Recent Changes, where an anonymous editor changed the number of Japanese casualties listed in the infobox and gave a reference in Chinese. Could a Chinese speaker translate this reference into English - based on Google's typical poor effort I suspect it's a reference to a book. -- AJR | Talk 21:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
More Ontario, Canada anonymous IP editor changes to casualty numbers. The fact-challenged casualties we had said 1.8–2.1 million Japanese wounded/dead. The new, referenced number is a solid 2.1 million supported by Chung Wu Taipei's "History of the Sino-Japanese war (1937-1945)" 1972 pp 565. The problem I have with Chung Wu Taipei's quantity as it appears here is not its firm hold on a single number rather than an estimated range, it is its near doubling of the Japanese strength. Chung Wu Taipei puts the Japanese strength at 4.1 million men, instead of the 2.2 million men that were reported by Tohmatsu, Haruo in Strategic Correlation, p.3. If Tohmatsu is right, then Chung Wu Taipei's numbers should all be challenged. Binksternet ( talk) 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not trust this reference either... The "2.1 millions japanese casualties" is included on page 10 of Mikiso Hane's Eastern Phoenix not for the SSJW, but for all the Greater East Asia War from 1937 to 1945, civilians from Okinawa and Hiroshima included !!!! [10]. The SSJW front is only considered specifically from 1937 to 1941.... John Dower, on page 297 of War without Mercy is also refering to the official japanese governments numbers : 185,647 dead from 1937 to 1941 and 1,555,308 from 1941 to 1945, but for all the Greater East Asia War, which gives a total of 1,740,955 military dead not for the SSJW but the GEAW. If we add the 650,000 civilians from all Far East Asia as do Hane, we have a total of 2,390,955 dead.... -- Flying Tiger ( talk) 18:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to delete these beautiful Time/Life images, I think these images are unique, because of their extreme high quality. But wiki commons could not obtain free use licence. Arilang talk 17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Please read 1943 Life magazine photos Arilang talk 12:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The footnote to the infobox states:
1,500,000+750,000+1,500,000+1,073,496+335,934=5,159,430 (obviously, I didn't count those who was just wounded). This number is slightly smaller then "total war deaths of 15-20 million from all causes". The footnote should be either deleted as obvious nonsense, or deeply modified.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
User DCTT, I disagree with your statement. Who did fight in the war, CCP Red Army, or KMT NRA? People who had been brainwashed by the CCP propaganda machine do not know that it was NRA who did the bulk fighting, and CCP was doing only the lip service, as can be verify by s:zh:為日本帝國主義強暴佔領東三省事件宣言 and s:zh:中国共产党为日帝国主义强占东三省第二次宣言, provided readers can read Chinese. And I believe that it is fairly easy for readers to use online machine translator, so it is of no harm to add a few lines of Chinese text, afterall, this article is about a major war between China and Japan. Arilang talk 05:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I've waited long for vengeance -
At last I've had my chance..
I Ve looked the Peanut in the eye
And kicked him in the pants.
The old harpoon was ready
With aim and timing true,
I sank it to the handle,
And stung him through and through.
The little bastard shivered,
And lost the power of speech.
His face turned green and quivered
As he struggled not to screech.
For all weary battles,
For all my hours of woe,
At last I've had my innings
And laid the Peanut low.
I know I've still to suffer,
And run a weary race,
But oh! the blessed pleasure!
I've wrecked the Peanut's face.
Regards, -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 07:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your reference to your IB curricula books, I don't think they should be used as a source, especially in a complicated situation like this. Most textbooks still say Columbus "discovered" America. Here is the exact quote from wikipedia's policy on the use of reliable sources for history topics: Textbooks at the K-12 level do not try to be authoritative and should be avoided by Wikipedia editors. [11] The quotes you cited above are from people who personally have a vendetta against the Nationalists, and I can also cite a bunch by the Nationalists on the said individuals. On the other hand, Ariliang's quotes are the Communists' own directives. Perhaps he can cut down the number of quotes and limit those to after the war had started. Blueshirts ( talk) 14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I see there had been an extensive reference of Chang and Ming 2005, which is not a very good source to say the least consider that book had been deem rubbish by even the most anti-communist expert on the matter. I also see there is no mention of the memoir and reports of US observation groups as independent POV. Someone better clean that part up up or should delete the whole section. Centralk ( talk) 02:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The infobox currently says that "1,100,000 military (including wounded, prisoners and missing)" died during this campaign, but this is currently unsourced. I checked at the WWII Casualties page, and there it lists the Japanese military casualties in China at 388,605 (185,647 from 1937-41 and 202,958 from 1941-45).
Does this look complete? Then I'll include it. According to the same page 432,000 collaborator forces died. Grey Fox ( talk) 14:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW given the size of the Chinese collaboration army and casualties it's best to find out who their commanders were and include them too in the infobox.
Grey Fox (
talk)
14:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Why have my revision been undone? Comment your action, please. - Arbiter of Elegance ( talk) 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"Within a few days of the attack on Pearl Harbor, both the United States and China officially declared war against Japan"
Wasn't China already at war with Japan?! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria has been included into the list of the SSJW battles again. I think it is obvious that by the scale and the results this battle dwarfed several SSJW campaigns (1941-1945) taken together. In connection to that, I propose either to include the USSR into the list of belligerents (and to change the definition of the scope of SSJW), or to remove this campaign from the list.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
"The war was the result of a decades-long Japanese imperialist policy aiming to dominate China politically and militarily to secure its vast raw material reserves and other resources. At the same time, the rising tide of Chinese nationalism and notions of self determination stoked the coals of war."
Anyone who has any first hand experience in China knows this quote is patenly absurd. The " Nationalist" party was a mob in the meakest sense and had shown untenable hostility to foreigners in every walk including occidentals and Japanese. It would be more accurate to say tat the japanese were unpleased with the restrictions put upon them by the west to take what they believed were the spoils of the war with russia which is stated in good form. However, this idea of imperialism did not appear until well after 1931. The Chinese had (to it mildly) asked them for their economic trade and services while simultaneously supplanting anti-foreign ( specifically anti japanese) propaganda in a smear campaigne by the Kuamingtang which was a proxy group resembling the Ku Klux Klan that the central government used to deliver mean spirited jargon.
Point being, all facts need to be considered. This was not some black and white imperial expansion by the Japanese, even by confession of many British and American foreign agents who were present in China at the time. Also site the facts that are concrete and leave the rest of the arcane literature behind, especially if its content is malignant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redoctober80 ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I remember his rank was higher than Peng Dehuai's in Communist Side? Wasn't he involved in any battle?-- Tricia Takanawa ( talk) 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Noted and Added DCTT ( talk) 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Mukden Incident, or Chinese 九-八事变, many Chinese historians regarded this incident as the beginning of the Imperial Japan's invasion of China. Arilang talk 07:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Per your request at my talkpage, I am here. I have again reverted your long essay back to the last clean edit. Wikipedia is an encyclclopedia, not a blog or a textbook. Your writing is good, but this is not the place for commentary. In addition you destroy previous wikilinking, and aside from the header, there is rarely a need to insert Chinese text. They have their own wikipedia. Please do not edit-war over this. Your text as it is written is not wikilike, though I do understand it was put there in good faith. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this wiki is about Sino-Japanese war, it is not against wiki rule to insert Chinese texts into the article, and I am not here to start a edit war with anyone, my intention is to enrich this article's content, that is all. Arilang talk 08:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't casualties include wounded, POW , missing and KIA? The Japanese casualties is very well detailed but only lists those killed in action, while the Chinese is an estimation of the killed, missing, captured and the wounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.250.198 ( talk) 10:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
In the article, the romanized version of this japanese is "= "Hokushi Jihen", which doesn't seem right; I would think, and quick searches lead me to believe it should be Kahoku Jihen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewnamis ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Soong May Ling(Madam Chiang) played a big part in the coming to China of the Flying Tigers, and hence the ROC airforce, and she gave a very important speech in the US congress.
s:Addresses to the House of Respresentatives and to the Senate by Soong Mai Ling Arilang talk 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a question about the line "Many supporters of Taiwan independence see no relevance in preserving the memory of the war of resistance that happened primarily on mainland China". It is a bit confusing as it implies that some of the fighting may have happened in Taiwan. Was this the case? Did any of the fighting occur in Taiwan or was it all in China? Readin ( talk) 22:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss your differences in a civil manner, come to a consensus, then let me know and we can make the changes at that point. This pointless revert warring is not productive. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
WhY? Whoever is vandalizing, just block him and continue. I was notified to come and help work on the article, but I find it protected. Teeninvestor ( talk) 15:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey this is a really minor thing that I'd love to fix but the article's protected. At the very end of the Nomenclature section it talks about what the Japanese call the First Sino-Japanese War, and the Japanese characters are not correct. In parenthesis it should read (日清戦争, Nisshin-sensō). I think the characters that are currently used are the Chinese name for the war. You can check out the First Sino-Japanese War article for verification. Could someone fix this? -- Chouji Ochiai ( talk) 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
侵华日军司令官冈村宁次在1939年对国军抗日的评论,他说:"看来敌军抗日力量的中心不在于四亿中国民众,也不是以各类杂牌军混合而成的二百万军队,乃 是以蒋介石为核心、以黄埔军校青年军官阶层为主体的中央军。在历次会战中,它不仅是主要的战斗原动力,同时还严厉监督着逐渐丧失战斗力意志而徘徊犹豫的地 方杂牌军,使之不致离去而步调一致,因此不可忽视其威力。黄埔军校教育之彻底,由此可见......有此军队存在,要想和平解决事变,无异是缘木求鱼" (摘自《大本营陆军部.上》519页)。 Arilang talk 11:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think these two sections can be merged, please offer your comments, thanks. DCTT ( talk) 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is unfair that the Communist Party of China under Mao Zedong is left out of the list of combatants even if they did fight under the Republic of China at times during the conflict. They were a major force fighting against the Japanese and even had to capture Chiang Kai-shek in order to force a truce between the Nationalists and Communists, as he was more concerned with fighting them than the Japanese invaders for a time, while the Communists thought it was more important to repel the Japanese. It is unfair leave them out of the list of combatants and doing this implies that they did not participate at all, which is simply untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.210.50 ( talk) 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
User Jean-Jacques Georges and user DCTT, lets cool down a bit, and try to see the common ground. OK, we now all agree that:
To be translated: “ 日本军阀过去占领了大半个中国,因此中国人民接受了教育。如果没有日本的侵略,我们现在还在山里,就不能到北京看京剧了。正是因为日本皇军占领了大半个中 国,对中国人民来说已没有其它出路了,所以才觉悟起来开始武装斗争,建立了许多抗日根据地,为以后的解放战争创造了胜利的条件。日本垄断资本和军阀给我们 做了件'好事’,如果需要感谢的话,我倒想感谢日本军阀。”会见日本社会党议员黑田寿男等人时的谈话全文(1961/1/24)
1972年,中日建交的时候,毛泽东会见日本首相田中角荣(Tanaka Kakuei 1918-1993)
毛说:“不是对不起啊,你们有功啊,为啥有功呢?因为你们要不是发动侵华战争的话,我们共产党怎么能够强大?我们怎么能够夺权哪?怎么能够把蒋介石打败呀?我们如何感谢你们?我们不要你们战争赔偿!”摘自(田中角荣传,,日语原版。Translated from Tanaka Kakuei Biography, original in Japanese.)
Translation:In 1972, when PRC and Japan established former diplomatic relationship, Mao Zedong met then Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei, and said: Don't have to say sorry, you had contributed towards China, why? Because had Imperial Japan did not start the war of invasion, how could we communist became mighty powerful? How could we stage the coup d'état ? How could we defeated Chiang Kai Sak? How could we pay back you guys? No, we do not want your war reparations! Arilang talk 10:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Editors please read Mao: The Unknown Story, the book have a lot of info on why Mao did not fight the Japanese during the war. Moreover, there are declassified articles claimed that Mao actually help the Imperial Japanese Army to fight the National Revolutionary Army.
延安日记 by 弗拉基米洛夫,第三國際派駐延安的代表 according to this book The Vladimirov Diaries, the CCP was busy producing opium for profit while Imperial Japan Army was busy klling National Revolutionary Army. Arilang talk 11:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
毛澤東賣國言論
毛澤東在洛川會議上的講話:“要冷靜,不要到前線去充當抗日英雄,要避開與日本的正面衝突,繞到日軍後方去打游擊,要 想辦法擴充八路軍、建立抗日游擊根據地,要千方百計地積蓄和壯大我黨的武裝力量。對政府方面催促的開赴前線的命令,要以各種借口予以推拖,只有在日軍大大 殺傷國軍之後,我們才能坐收抗日成果,去奪取國民黨的政權。”
“有的人認為我們應該多抗日,才愛國,但那愛的是蔣介石的國,我們中國共產黨人祖國是全世界共產黨人共同的祖國即蘇維埃。我們共產黨人的方針 是,要讓日本軍隊多占地,形成蔣、日、我,三國志,這樣的形勢對我們才有利,最糟糕的情況不過是日本人占領了全中國,到時候我也還可以借助蘇聯的力量打回 來嘛!”
Translation:Some people insisted, to show that we do love our nation, we should be more anti-Japanese, but then the nation belongs to Chiang Kai-sak, we communists, our mother-land is Soviet Union, the common mother-land of the world's communists. The aim of we communists, isto allow the Japanese to occupy more land, then a power triangle will be formed, which consisted of Chiang, Japanese and us, which is the ideal situation, the worst come to the worst, if ever Japanese occupy the whole of China, we would then still be able to fight back, with the help of the Soviet Union. Arilang talk 11:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
“為了發展壯大我黨的武裝力量,在戰後奪取全國政權。我們黨必須嚴格遵循的總方針是“一分抗日,二分應付,七分發展”。任何人,任何組織都不得違背這個總體方針。”!
Mao's order to all party members of CCP: The aim is to develop the military power of the CCP, so that CCP can take over the political power of China. This main directive is to be strictly followed: "10% of energy on anti-Japanese, 20% of energ muddering along, 70% of energy is used to develop(political and military power). Anybody, any groups are not to oppose this paramount directive.
Arilang
talk
12:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
@user Jean-Jacques Georges, nobody said Mao did nothing during the war. The main argument we should talk about is Chiang Kai-sak treated China as mother-land, and Mao Zedong(hence the entire CCP) treated USSR as mother-land. Strictly speaking, the conduct of Mao(hence CCP) should be treated as treason, and charged accordingly. In Chinese, it is called Han-Jian 漢奸, a very serious accusation. Arilang talk 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(1)老毛感謝日本皇軍是大恩人,大救星
一九六-四年七月十日,日本社會黨委員長佐佐木更三偕委員黑田壽男去北京,與毛澤東有下面一段對話:
毛:我曾經跟日本朋友談過。他們說,很對不起,日本皇軍侵略了中國。我說:不!沒有你們皇軍侵略大半個中國,中國人民就不能團結起來對付蔣介石,中國共產黨就奪取不了政權。所以,日本皇軍是我們中國共產黨人的好教員,也可以說是大恩人,大救星。
佐佐木:今天聽了毛主席非常寬宏大量的說話。過去,日本軍國主義侵略中國,給你們帶來了很大的損害,我們大家感到很抱歉。
毛:沒有什麼抱歉。日本軍國主義給中國帶來了很大的利益,使中國人民奪取了政權。沒有你們的皇軍,我們不可能奪取政權。這一點,我和你們有不同的意見,我們兩個人有矛盾。(眾笑,會場活躍)。
佐佐木:謝謝。
毛:不要講過去那一套了。日本的侵略也可以說是好事,幫了我們的大忙。請看,中國人民奪取了政權,同時,你們的壟斷資本、軍國主義也幫了我們的忙。日本人民成百萬、成千萬地醒覺起來。包括在中國打仗的一部份將軍,他們現在變成我們的朋友了。
(摘自《毛澤東思想萬歲》,第五三三至五三四頁。)
(2)毛澤東感謝日本侵略中國,因此,不要日本賠償!
1972年,中日建交的時候,日本首相田中角榮就向毛澤東道歉,“啊,對不起啊,我們發動了侵略戰爭,是中國受到很大的傷害。”
毛澤東說“不是對不起啊,你們有功啊,為啥有功呢?因為你們要不是發動侵華戰爭的話,我們共產黨怎麼能夠強大?我們怎麼能夠奪權哪?怎麼能夠把蔣介石打敗呀?”他感謝田中角榮。“我們如何感謝你們?我們不要你們戰爭賠償!”
Arilang talk 10:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
《延安日记》 The Vladimirov Diaries的作者彼得.弗拉季米洛夫(Soviet liaison to the Chinese Communists Peter Vladimirov )作为共产国际驻中共的联络员兼塔斯社随军记者,于1942年5月-1945年11月,由斯大林派驻延安,他有 权利列席中共中央政治局会议,直接发送苏共和中共领导人之间的电报,他以日记的形式生动详实的记录了他在延安的政治经济文化见闻,揭示了中共与苏共的血缘 联系,和中共对日对蒋的策略方针。虽然限于他本人的见闻有片面局限性,更由于他共产思想意识形态的所限亦有不可取之处,但作为当时历史的亲历者某些方面还 是具有重要的参考价值,现从该书中节选部分精彩片段供大家赏析:
影印版的第29页:"我看,中共领导人希望得到 武器,并不是为了向侵略者展开武装斗争,而是为了同国民党闹摩擦。这使东京的人感到多么高兴呀!可是,康生代表中共领导向我保证,中共军队决心对日作战。 中共其他官员也向我做这样的保证。这只是随便说说呢,还是在搞两面派?还是说,搞两面派已经成为政策了?"
第26页:1942年6月7日"八路军不是主动开展军事行动来制止日本侵略者的入侵,而只限于有气无力地打局部的防御战。只要敌人发动进攻,八路军就退到山里,避开冲突。"
第 36页:1942年7月9日 "八路军的队伍(当然还有新四军),早已停止了对侵略者的主动出击和反击。尽管疯狂的日本军队在中国东南部发动猛烈攻势,日本还威胁要进犯苏联,这种情况 至今依然没有改变。中共部队对目前日本扫荡其占领区的行动不做抵抗,他们撤上山去或渡过了黄河。中共领导把国民党看作是主要敌人,不遗余力地要夺取中央政 府控制的地盘,用各种手段来达到目的。这些明显的分裂活动危害中国人民反对侵略者的解放运动,加重了中国人民的牺牲,并造成与国民党发生军事冲突。"
第69页:1942年9月"八路军同敌人和平共处。日本人舒舒服服地准备在占领地区过冬了(我们绕过了这些地方)。八路军部队却就在这附近晃晃悠悠。"
第 70页:"反对侵略者的战争,显然打的是被动仗。中共领导没有采取有效措施在华北牵制日本派遣军,这是无可争辩的事实。莫斯科屡次要求中共领导采用一切办 法使日本无法发动反苏战争进行准备,但这都被当成了耳旁风。延安的政策依然如故-缩减八路军正规部队的作战规模。看得出来,八路军主要关心的是国民党军 队。部队中宣传的矛头是对着他们的:战斗行动有朝一日也是要这对他们的。因此,日本人的一切作战行动几乎都成功了。延安发出命令,要不惜任何代价保存八路 军的实力,所以部队正步步后撤,尽管敌人的进攻力量是微不足道的。
第71页:"毛泽东的原则是:进行这次战争为 的是保存他自己的实力,而不是消灭敌人。要达到这个目的,就得对敌人放松抵抗和让出更多的地方。几年来无所事事,使中共的武装力量蜕化了。纪律松弛,开小 差的多了。士兵不爱护武器,部队和团、营本部的训练不组织了。部队之间的协作不组织了。军官们打扑克,聊天,当着农民的面发布作战命令。
含着泪水诉说特区受到严密封锁,这是康生搞的一种宣传骗局。特区的前线和边界都很容易通过,这是我们亲眼看到的。中共领导大谈其严密封锁,无非是要在真正的困难中加进虚构的困难。
到 前线去跑一趟,使我确信中共领导并不想打日本人;他们把战争看成是建立自己根据地的良好时机。而且不是靠自己的部队,而是靠日本和国民党两种力量的对峙来 建立他们的根据地。要是日本人打败了国民党,中央政府的政权被消灭了,八路军部队立即就钻进这个地区。必要时,他们会干掉抗日统一战线中的战友,而夺取政 权。毛泽东在侵略者面前向后退缩,却在乘中央政府和日军冲突之机为自己渔利。在民族遭受灾难,人民备尝艰辛并作出不可估量的牺牲的时刻,在国家受制于法西 斯分子的时刻,采取这种策略,岂只是背信弃义而已。"
第76页:"一比较材料就令人十分沮丧。八路军方面没有采取任何积极的军事行动!更有甚者,军事行动都被严厉地禁止了。"
第102页:1943年1月"毛泽东一心想要打内战。他完全不顾当前的政治形势,一直在人为地加速事态的发展。"
第 103页:1943年1月29日"解放区出现一片怪现象。中共的部队中也同样出现了这种怪现象。它们全都在尽可能地与沦陷区的日军做生意。到处都在做非法 的鸦片交易。例如,在柴陵,远在后方的步兵第120师师部,拨出一间房子来加工原料,制成鸦片后就从这里运往市场。实际上晋西北各县都充斥着五花八门的日 货。这些货物都是由沦陷区仓库直接供应的。在第120师师部里,讨论的中心不是战斗任务、作战和其他军事问题,而是怎么做买卖和赚钱。这一切都是奉命行事 的。;例如,已严令八路军和新四军个部队不得对日本人采取任何有利的作战活动。一句话,就是不准打仗,遭到攻击就往后撤,有可能就休战。"
第265页:"中共领导听到蒋军在河南和湖南战败的消息非常高兴。这是上天赐给毛泽东的一份礼物。他与美国人讨价还价的可能性在迅速增加。他未来的内战对手正在被削弱。"
第 307页:1944年10月14日"中国的分裂是日军获胜的主要原因。这并不是中国军队的战斗力问题。毛泽东认为敌人的胜利是削弱蒋介石力量的一个因素。 不论是军事上的失利,还是反法西斯斗争这样的因素,都不能使中共主席放弃他的分裂政策。这种分裂是中国不祥的现实。而且这种分裂显然有利于日本军国主义 者。毛泽东分裂民族统一抗日的政策无异于为日本增加了几十个打中国的师。毛泽东认为,只要蒋介石在前方打胜仗,他的政策就受到威胁。因此,无论如何也要削 弱蒋介石,这就是中共领导所采取的政策的实质。让日军占领中国土地、烧毁中国城市去吧!毛泽东自称是共产党员。可是,难道一个共产党员能促使别人占领自己 的国土。劫掠自己国家的财富吗?!他并不希望组成紧密团结的抗日统一战线。他明知这是一支有生力量,但是宁愿让蒋介石一方去与日军及伪军作战。他自己的抵 抗不过就是打打游击而已。"
第561页:"我无意中看到了一份新四军总部的来电。这份总部的报告,完全清楚的证 实了,中共领导和日本派遣军最高司令部之间,长期保持着联系。电报无疑还表明,与日军司令部联系的有关报告,是定期送到延安来的。后来我证实,中共军队和 日军的参谋机构之间的联系,已保持很长时间里。联系的两头是延安和南京。"
第563页:"与日本司令部的关系早 已在极端保密的情况下建立了,中共领导人中只有几个人知道此事。毛的一个代理人(或像毛所称的"联络员"),可以说是一直隶属于南京的岗村宁次大将总部 的。什么时候有需要,他都可以在日本反间谍机构的严密保护之下,畅通无阻地往返于南京和新四军总部之间。"
该书披露了一些难得的鲜为人知的秘密真相,可以看出,中国共产党是作为共产国际的中国支部,直接受苏联共产党的援助和指挥,毛虽然已经接受了中央政府的领导却从来没有听从蒋委员长的命令。
毛 泽东的抗日政策就如一些历史学家所说的是:"一分抗日,二分应付,七分发展",基本上是隔岸观火,借日军之手消耗国军力量。共军藏在深山种"革命"鸦片, 趁机养精蓄锐,游而不击,坐收渔翁之利。抗战一结束就如猛虎出山抢占地盘,即下山摘桃子。并空手套白狼一样接收了苏联红军占领的东三省的巨量资源和军事装 备,与国军争夺天下。而此时的国军在长达14年艰苦激烈的抗日民族卫国战争中已经疲惫不堪遍体鳞伤,怎堪匪类的猛扑?
这 些事实充分暴露了中共假抗战、真扩张、通敌卖国、谋夺地盘的阴诈图谋。而且中共非常善于宣传作秀,干的很少吹嘘的很多,花言巧语蛊惑人心,无数爱国青年就 是在中共擂的震天响的抗日口号下大批的来到了延安,等来的却是心惊胆战的"著名"的整风运动,连十三岁的孩子都被打成特务和反革命,人人自危,万马齐喑, 毛借此加强了自己的独裁地位。
借助打土豪分田地的土地革命恐吓胁迫人民充当他的马前卒,美其名曰人民战争的汪洋 大海。大搞特务活动,通过国共合作黄埔军校暗伏红色代理人,谍报战线直达国防部,使共军逃过一次次危机。总而言之中共为了达到夺取政权的目的可以说是不择 手段,根本置民族利益、国家危亡于不顾,最终在苏联帝国的帮助下窃国成功。然而国军在国共内战中不是失败于共产党,而是失败于日本帝国主义对我中华民族长 达十四年的疯狂侵略,也就难怪毛在战后对前来访问中国的日本领导人说“感谢日本侵略中国”的话了。没有日本的侵略,中共就不会夺取政权。
If editors can read Chinese, then the CCP's role during the war is very clear. They never did care much about Japanese invasion, all they wanted was to fight the KMT, and they regarded Imperial Japan Army as friend, KMT as enemy. Arilang talk 12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
to visiting Japanese officials for the invasion, hence the war. He said without Japan's invasion, the CCP would not be here today. And this article is about the war between 2 nations, when tens of millions of Chinese were killed by the invaders. Now Mao was effectively saying, it's OK to kill tens of millions of my people, because only then we can form government, thanks to you buddy. This historical fact, should also be included in wiki.
Moreover, the flag in question is called 共產党党旗, the hammer and sickel flag. CCP did not fight the Japanese under the hammer and sickle flag, they fought under the KMT flag, 青天白日旗, so the insertions of the CCP red flag is plain wrong, should be removed. Arilang talk 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the flag, most of the anti-Japanese military forces were under ROC flag, and this war is about a war fought between ROC and Japan, the CCP did not fight the war under their own flag. For this reason alone, the hammer and sickle flag should be removed. Moreover, the military flag of PLA is 八-軍旗, with the Chinese words 八一 next to the hammer and sickle. Arilang talk 14:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"For many Americans, Madame Chiang's finest moment came in 1943, when she barnstormed the United States in search of support for the Nationalist cause against Japan, winning donations from countless Americans who were mesmerized by her passion, determination and striking good looks. Her address to a joint meeting of Congress electrified Washington, winning billions of dollars in aid."
"A devout Christian, Madame Chiang spoke fluent English tinted with the Southern accent she acquired as a school girl in Georgia, and presented a civilized and humane image of a courageous China battling a Japanese invasion and Communist subversion."
"During the war with the Japanese, Madame Chiang pushed her husband to build up the Nationalist air force, and helped hire Claire Chennault, who commanded a mercenary force of pilots that came to be known as the Flying Tigers."
Madame Chiang Kai-shek, a Power in Husband's China and Abroad, Dies at 105 By SETH FAISON
The article seems heavily POV towards the ROC, for example in the commanders section no communist general is listed. Sherzo ( talk) 16:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
sorry, but that's because you can't read. Blueshirts ( talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No it appears looking at the edit history you are attempting to push a POV bias Sherzo ( talk) 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
you have nothing specific to add and blatantly slap this pov thing on top of the article. Stop vandalizing it please. Blueshirts ( talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't the place to push your personal POV Sherzo ( talk) 17:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have specific problems with any particular claims, sentences, or sections, put a tag there. Don't put a POV tag on top of the whole article. And stay off my talk page and quit putting "vandalism" tag on there, you're not fooling anyone. Blueshirts ( talk) 19:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Zhu De and Peng DeHuai are listed as commanders and were communist generals, they fought under the united front, why do I have to repeat myself all the time to editors who have no or very little idea about SSJW but insist on editing this article? DCTT ( talk) 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have grouped all foreign allieds to "with foreign support" and others to "with collaborationist support". We've had this dicussion before and we're doing it the same way as the Chinese and German articles. New editors please look over the talk page to see what's been the consensus. Blueshirts ( talk) 13:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the point of having a POV tag on the top of the article. Like I've said before and for some people apparently can't read, put the tag before the section or after the sentences you find objectionable, don't put an overall tag for the entire article, especially for an article this length. Blueshirts ( talk) 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
May I ask that everyone involved in this conversation to please remain WP:Civil, and carmly and rationally discuss their concerns about the article and its contents. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 08:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
comments are invited on whether The Communists should be restored to the Infobox. Sherzo ( talk) 05:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Nanjing Massacre is a very important chapter in SSJW when Chiang Kai-shek made a hasty and ill-prepared military retreat from Nanjing, virtually just left the city's inhabitants and remaining soldiers at the mercy of the Imperial Japan Army. I think in the whole of SSJW, The fall of Nanjing occupy an important place in SSJW, as it high-lighted both the incompetence of CKS and the slavage and near-animal-brutality of the Imparial Japan Army. Arilang talk 02:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like to remove both the USA and the USSR from the list of belligerents. They provided supplies and some airmen, but neither committed any ground troops to fight the war in China itself. I'm not trying to diminish their contributions, but putting them in the infobox as main belligerents seems rather out of place, especially when Soviet aid was pulled in Sep. 1939. I like to change it to something like the Winter War infobox. Blueshirts ( talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
About USSR support - there was a mistake: Zhukov never was as adviser in China. Replaced for Chuikov (future army commander during Battle for Stalingrad), who really was Chang Kai-Shek's advisor during Battle for Changsha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.251.107.24 ( talk) 14:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This article need to mention(or a new section) of
Arilang talk 01:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Attention to all. If you feel the need to edit values in the infobox, make sure you adhere to WP:V, WP:RS. This is a final warning to all those 脑残 people who have 脑水病 and are unable to realise, that after their edits were reverted for the Nth time, that there is nothing wrong with them. 我操他妈, use some common sense and ask before you make 脑残 edits. For Mr.IP from Ontario, Canada (yeah, you know who you are), putting a line of damn text between <ref> and </ref> is not an WP:RS because it is not WP:V by others. </rant> </anger> Thank you all. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 13:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Wang, Jingwei, 1941, "Why I was such an idiot and sold Nanking to the Japanese", Oxford Publishing Press, pp.341. ( ISBN 0-521-40352-9)
Hey can't we all just get along here ? Taiwan Dude 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Taiwanman1
Dont you mean atom bomb ?
What did he do anyways ? Taiwanman1 17:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Taiwanman1 ( talk • contribs)
I just noticed this edit in Recent Changes, where an anonymous editor changed the number of Japanese casualties listed in the infobox and gave a reference in Chinese. Could a Chinese speaker translate this reference into English - based on Google's typical poor effort I suspect it's a reference to a book. -- AJR | Talk 21:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
More Ontario, Canada anonymous IP editor changes to casualty numbers. The fact-challenged casualties we had said 1.8–2.1 million Japanese wounded/dead. The new, referenced number is a solid 2.1 million supported by Chung Wu Taipei's "History of the Sino-Japanese war (1937-1945)" 1972 pp 565. The problem I have with Chung Wu Taipei's quantity as it appears here is not its firm hold on a single number rather than an estimated range, it is its near doubling of the Japanese strength. Chung Wu Taipei puts the Japanese strength at 4.1 million men, instead of the 2.2 million men that were reported by Tohmatsu, Haruo in Strategic Correlation, p.3. If Tohmatsu is right, then Chung Wu Taipei's numbers should all be challenged. Binksternet ( talk) 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not trust this reference either... The "2.1 millions japanese casualties" is included on page 10 of Mikiso Hane's Eastern Phoenix not for the SSJW, but for all the Greater East Asia War from 1937 to 1945, civilians from Okinawa and Hiroshima included !!!! [10]. The SSJW front is only considered specifically from 1937 to 1941.... John Dower, on page 297 of War without Mercy is also refering to the official japanese governments numbers : 185,647 dead from 1937 to 1941 and 1,555,308 from 1941 to 1945, but for all the Greater East Asia War, which gives a total of 1,740,955 military dead not for the SSJW but the GEAW. If we add the 650,000 civilians from all Far East Asia as do Hane, we have a total of 2,390,955 dead.... -- Flying Tiger ( talk) 18:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to delete these beautiful Time/Life images, I think these images are unique, because of their extreme high quality. But wiki commons could not obtain free use licence. Arilang talk 17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Please read 1943 Life magazine photos Arilang talk 12:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The footnote to the infobox states:
1,500,000+750,000+1,500,000+1,073,496+335,934=5,159,430 (obviously, I didn't count those who was just wounded). This number is slightly smaller then "total war deaths of 15-20 million from all causes". The footnote should be either deleted as obvious nonsense, or deeply modified.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
User DCTT, I disagree with your statement. Who did fight in the war, CCP Red Army, or KMT NRA? People who had been brainwashed by the CCP propaganda machine do not know that it was NRA who did the bulk fighting, and CCP was doing only the lip service, as can be verify by s:zh:為日本帝國主義強暴佔領東三省事件宣言 and s:zh:中国共产党为日帝国主义强占东三省第二次宣言, provided readers can read Chinese. And I believe that it is fairly easy for readers to use online machine translator, so it is of no harm to add a few lines of Chinese text, afterall, this article is about a major war between China and Japan. Arilang talk 05:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I've waited long for vengeance -
At last I've had my chance..
I Ve looked the Peanut in the eye
And kicked him in the pants.
The old harpoon was ready
With aim and timing true,
I sank it to the handle,
And stung him through and through.
The little bastard shivered,
And lost the power of speech.
His face turned green and quivered
As he struggled not to screech.
For all weary battles,
For all my hours of woe,
At last I've had my innings
And laid the Peanut low.
I know I've still to suffer,
And run a weary race,
But oh! the blessed pleasure!
I've wrecked the Peanut's face.
Regards, -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 07:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your reference to your IB curricula books, I don't think they should be used as a source, especially in a complicated situation like this. Most textbooks still say Columbus "discovered" America. Here is the exact quote from wikipedia's policy on the use of reliable sources for history topics: Textbooks at the K-12 level do not try to be authoritative and should be avoided by Wikipedia editors. [11] The quotes you cited above are from people who personally have a vendetta against the Nationalists, and I can also cite a bunch by the Nationalists on the said individuals. On the other hand, Ariliang's quotes are the Communists' own directives. Perhaps he can cut down the number of quotes and limit those to after the war had started. Blueshirts ( talk) 14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)