Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Legacy of Who fought the war

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)

Agreed, whoever wrote this section did little to no actual research into primary sources. Chang and Ming as well as Chang and Halliday (Mao: The Unknown Story) are controversial secondary-contemporary sources still under much debate for their accuracy and citations. The books were well received in the literature academia and among western media, but not by the history academia east and west. I recommend placing this section under the need for revision and the need to be approached based on a purely objective and neutral point of view. In addition, I would like to mention that The Vladimirov Diaries is also an unreliable primary source because of its extremely late publication (1973), which may have resulted in the inclusion of Moscow anti-PRC propaganda after Vladimirov's death. --67.169.161.29 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese casualties

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)

I did not revert your edit, but from edit history there are some disagreemnts with the casualty figures. Japanese (and Chinese) government tend to under report their own casualty figures while over report enemy figures for SSJW. As for collaboration army, they were not deployed in major battles due to poor moral and performance as well as distrust by the Japanese, so listing commanders is not that relevant. DCTT (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the casualty figures provided at Casualties of the Second World war, based on various sources, the collaboration army suffered more casualties than the japanese armiy (probably because of various reasons). I'm not an expert on this theatre of war, but the figures seem reliable, and unless detested by other estimations, I do not see the reason to include them. If you know other estimations, it would be best to start a discussion, or add them to the wwII casualty page so several figures can be included. Grey Fox (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

432,000 Chinese collaborators + 185,647 Japanese killed before 1941 + 202,958 Japanese killed after 1941 + 30,304 Chinese from Taiwan on Japanese side + 14,527 Koreans = 865,436. Therefore, although "the figures seem reliable", in reality the numbers are lower. Numbers were taken from the WWII Casualties page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My comment regarded with the number of 1.1 million. I changed the number and the reference, because it is against the WP policy to use WP articles as sources. The WWII casualties article refers to the Dower's book, so this reference should be used instead of WWII casualties.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvement. Grey Fox (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Russian support

Why have my revision been undone? Comment your action, please. - Arbiter of Elegance (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

confused

"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)

De facto, yes, China was at war with Japan. However, neither side legally declared war, for fear of alienating the Western powers in Asia. Once Japan broadened the conflict, China was released of this binding, and was free to officially declare war on Japan. Parsecboy (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Manchuria

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)

• I agree to leave out August Storm as a separate theatre DCTT (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wish to abrogate this quote from the page

"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)

User Redoctober80, this is a talk page of a history article, not a place for you to say irrelevant stuff like KKK. Please type proper English, wikipedia is a English language encyclopedia. Arilang ^talk 05:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah, Japanese revisionists like this guy appear on wiki from time to time, it is nothing new...DCTT (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Zhu De be also one of the commanders?

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

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)

Arilang1234

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)

• I agree with Arilang that Chinese characters should be available for those of us who need to know, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language) says that "to help establish a simple and clean appearance, if a term is Wikified and has an article, do not provide characters or romanization again." This way everybody's happy. ch (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't totally agree with this. Some of the sources Arilang1234 quoted were never originally in Chinese to begin with. The quote of Mao addressing Tanaka Kakuei was originally in Japanese. The Valdimirov Diaries were originally in Russian. If Arilang would like to preserve the original text, he could attempt to find these passages from their original languages and attempt at a Russian or Japanese to English translation instead of a Russian or Japanese to Chinese and then to English translation. A lot of information could be lost in translation. --67.169.161.29 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese casualties only stating KIA

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)

華北事變 romanization?

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)

Madam Chiang Kai-sak

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)

"Many supporters of Taiwan independence see no relevance in preserving the memory of the war of resistance that happened primarily on mainland China"

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)

Taiwan was bombed by US planes. Many Taiwanese volunteered or were pressed into service for Japan. A smaller number of Taiwanese moved to the mainland before the war and fought against Japan. Blueshirts (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

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 is this article protected?

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)

Also, this article needs A LOT MORE citations, there's only ten as I went through half the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not about vandalism, but rather POV warring. I protected the article until people here could come to a consensus about what changes need to be made, and then the changes can be put into the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Then go ahead and add changes with citations, not put a blanket POV flag on this article. I must have read over 8 books directly or indirectly related to SSWJ in the past year, but have not found the time to finish all the citations. I am begining to wonder if all the other pro-Japan, pro-puppets, pro-allies.fought.in.SSJW and pro-CCP editors have done any homework or know what they are talking about when they make POV challenges! DCTT (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've been accused of being biased by pro-Japanese, pro-Koreans, and pro-Chinese, so I'm assuming your negative comment isn't aimed at me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I just think all these baloney about edit reverts and article protection hinders efforts to improve this article such as adding citations. I agree with Teeninvestor that we should unprotect this article ASAP so that serious editors can start adding citations. DCTT (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss what you want to do here first and come to a consensus. Then we can worry about unprotecting. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is consensus needed before unprotect? I just want to make this article better like I have been doing on and off for the past year, until readers with very limited knowledge about this topic comes along and slaps POV and causing all this mess. What condition is needed for unlocking? The Rfc above clearly indicates that nobody wants the communists listed separately in the combatant box. And more importantly, why should you be the one who decided what consensus needs to be met before unprotect? Are you a subject manner expert in SSJW? A wiki military history coordinator? Please respond. DCTT (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just the nature of wikipedia, which allows everybody to edit any article. But I do think people with limited knowledge should tag carefully and come to the talk page to discuss, instead of making drastic changes to a long-standing version of the article, causing a revert war, and then wasting everybody's time with rfcs, rfas, etc, because admins have to treat everybody (both experts and those with limited knowledge) equally. Blueshirts (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm making the decision due to an edit war that was happening here. I protected the page because of that. Instead of wasting time arguing about this, I suggest coming up with a list of the changes you believe should be made, and then letting people discuss them. It's a far more effective use of your time than arguing about established Wikipedia policies and procedures. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:20, 1 June 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)

To be translated

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)

Yasuji Okamura, commander of the Japanese forces in China, had this to say about the Chinese Nationalist Army: "The center of resistance was neither the four hundred million Chinese civilians, nor the two million-strong ragtag army composed of local troops. Instead, it was the Central Army, led by the young officers of the Whampoa Military Academy, with Chiang Kai-shek at its nucleus. In numerous major battles, the Central Army not only was the main force engaged in combat, but also oversaw the local troops who were increasingly losing the will to fight. The Central Army kept the local troops from wavering. As seen, training by Whampoa was thorough, and it was impossible to resolve the China Incident peacefully with the existence of such an army. Blueshirts (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blueshirts for doing this near perfect translation, and it would be more than perfect if we could insert into the main article some how. Arilang ^talk 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Propose Merging Number of Troops Involved and Chinese and Japanese Equipment

I think these two sections can be merged, please offer your comments, thanks. DCTT (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Chinese communist party in list of fighters

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)

Indeed. While nominally part of the National Revolutionary Army, the communist forces maintained separate commands. Therefore, it is absurd to put Zhu De under the Kuomindang flag, or to leave out Mao Zedong, as he was their leader. Listing the United States and not the Communists - if only as guerilla combatants - borders on POV-pushing, and I'm definitely not a Mao Zedong fan. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The CCP New 4th Army and 8th Route Army were part of the National Revolutionary Army fighting for China against Japan. If you have your history straight the flag for Zhu De and Peng Dehuai (both CCP generals) is the flag of the Republic of China, not a Kuomingtang flag. In fact the much glorified CCP contribution to the SSJW, Hundred Regiments Offensive, a communists figher was shown happily waving after a battle. Mao did not become the leader of the Chinese Red Army until 1941, after the breakdown of the Second United Front between CCP and KMT. He strongly criticized Peng and other Red Army commanders for actively fighting the IJA and suffering major casualties, and instead pursued a policy of avoiding combat with IJA while building up communists influence. Therefore while his contribution to CCP winning the Chinese Civil War is critical, his contribution to ROC fighting Japan is almost zero. Please spend some time understanding the historical facts before making further edits, thanks. DCTT (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Considering that Zhu, Peng et al fought for the Republic of China does not seem quite realistic. Allied they may have been, but it was a purely tactical move and they maintained separate command throughout the war. The existence of the Second United Front clearly meant that these were two separate forces. You might consider that they were fighting "nominally" as the NRA - and one communist fighter may have waved the Republic of China flag, for that matters - but they were pretty much separate combatants. Considering that Zhu De was a Republic of China general is simply ridiculous (he might have considered it insulting, too). What about the communist guerillas ? Did they ALWAYS use the NRA flag. Then again, if you wish to include only the strictly "nominal" combatants, you have to include the puppet states - you cannot have it both ways. The puppet states may have been insignificant, but they were still the banners used by the collaborationists and it is therefore interesting to include them. Just because one does not like the communists - for the record, I despise Mao and would have preferred him to lose against KMT - does not mean that we have to deny them all credit. Even if they did 20, 10, or 5% of the job against the japanese, we'd still have to include them. They certainly did more than the flying tigers. I added several references about communist involvement in the war : to remove this, it would be necessary to find unquestionable sources stating that the communists did NOT do a thing, that there never was such thing as a communist guerilla, etc. As for Mao, he might never have fired a shot himself - neither did Hirohito, for that matters, and he is in the infobox - and have had a complex strategy, but he was still leader of the CCP and therefore deserves inclusion. At best, the section could be expanded, by adding the fact that some sources - and the official chinese version - claim that the CCP did part of the job, and that some sources (citations needed, of course) claim that they did none. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If the Red Army was not fighting for China (called Republic of China at the time of SSJW), who are they fighting for? Japan? How would you know that Red Army generals would be insulted by carrying a ROC flag? Have you interviewed them? If you know anything about the United Front, the Red Army were supplied by the KMT central government from 1937 - 1941, use the same flag and wore the same uniform as all other Chinese armies fighting on the side of China. I am not challenging that the Red Army fought Japan, I am challenging your false assumption that CCP should be listed separately similar to a different country just because they maintain separate commands and later revolted against KMT central government. It is similar to listing all state militia fighting for the United States separately in the American Revolutionary War simply because they organized their own armed forces against the British and were only nominally under the command of George Washington, which is absurd.

If you insist that Mao should be listed, then perhaps it is more appropriate to list him on the side of Japan because he changed the CCP strategy from actively resisting the Japanese to actively attacking Chinese mitilia (both collaborationists and KMT) in occupied areas outside of Japanese control after 1941. He even used the fact that Red Army generals were actively fighting the Japanese for the Republic of China to purge them during the cultural revolution.

Finally, regarding the collaborationist army please refer to the extensive discussion right above this one titled 'combatants', and refrain from editing against consensus just because you prefer to list all those puppet flags, thanks. DCTT (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is pointless. The CCP was definitely not part of the "Republic of China", since they were rebels against it, before and after the conflict, and were basically a different entity. Actually, they destroyed it (or at least pushed it outside Mainland China) after 1945. Mao may have been ambiguous at best, but he has to be listed, since 1) he was the CCP leader 2) you state yourself that he fought the collaborationists. Once again, just because one dislikes the communists is not a reason for denying their participation. As for the puppet states, I don't see where the "consensus" is, besides the fact that you don't want them listed. Again, I don't want to make them more important than they were, just supply immediate information about the various guises the chinese collaborationists fought under. The point about communist involvement is clearly made in part 9 of this article : "The Communists usually avoided open warfare (the Hundred Regiments Campaign and the Battle of Pingxingguan are notable exceptions), preferring to fight in small squads to harass the Japanese supply lines." Small squads they may have been, but they still participated. Including them is not giving them too much credit. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:miborovsky and User:blueshirts among other editors against putting up these puppet flags, and since we are well familiar with this subject manner our consensus needs to be respected until you can find more editors supporting your position. Whatever happened before and after the SSJW should not be the main consideration to include or not include the CCP as a separate combatant in the infobox, and please do not use the strawmen here: I never said the CCP did not participate in the Chinese resistance against Japan, I simply stated the undisputed fact that in the Second United Front CCP agreed to the command of Chiang Kai-shek (what they actually did is another matter), pledge allegiance to the Republic of China, and fought on the side of China wearing the same uniform and using the same flag as all other Chinese troops. If you insist on separating them out as a different so called "entity" simply because they maintained separate commands for their troops, than one can argue that many Chinese warlords' regional armies were not exactly following the orders of Chiang Kai-shek during SSJW and should be separated out as well, which will make the infobox a mess instead of presenting a clear overview of what happened.

SSJW is a complex war unlike any other conflicts of WWII, so please make sure all arguements and different viewpoints are well discussed, and make sincere attempts to build consesus before making subjective edits to the article. DCTT (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the matter seems relatively clear : as it is said and understood that the CCP temporarily sided with KMT with every intention of backstabbing them and ultimately betrayed them, listing them as integral part of the nationalist side is unfair to the situation's complexity. And given the fact that there was indeed communist fighting against the Japanese, it is not communist propaganda to think that they should be included. As for the puppet states, I repeat myself : including them as combatants is merely for informational purposes and showing which colors the collaborationists used, not for exaggerating their importances. Since you insist that only nominal fighters be included, you cannot have it both ways. The mention I added, "Collaborationist Chinese Army, fighting under various banners" is, I think, very explicit. IMHO, we should precisely do justice to the situation's complexity. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

When did I insist that nminal fighters be included??? I support the position that there should be only two belligerents in SSJW: China and Japan, like the German and Russian version of this article! All the complex stuff should be explained in the article itself. But unfortunately in wiki we must respect consensus and sometimes make compromises to reflect the viewpoints of other editors. Please do not misrepresent my position again: I want to make this article better by using the infobox to simplify a complex war, not do justice to the situation's complexity by making the infobox complicated and overly cumbersome. So the infobox was a product of many previous compromises and again if you wish to change it you must find other editors to support you. DCTT (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is as serious as asking me to have more facebook friends. {{mdr}} Now, I did not misrepresent your position, you said explicitely that communists should not be included because they fought under the NRA flag for a time. Seriously, this is absurd. The other editor's point is that Mao was a cynical traitor, which I am not denying. All this, and Mao's duplicity, does not mean that there were absolutely fights whatsoever between communists and Japanese. I don't see why the infobox woud become more unclear or cumbersome by the addition of some combatants who did take part in the fights. The communists were rebels against the Republic of China, and cannot therefore be considered part of it. It is as simple as that. This is all the more ridiculous, because it makes me look like I'm making a case for the communist, while I am certainly not pro-Mao. Wikipedia does not have to endorse a specific stance, but to reflect as unbiased facts as possible. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Unbiased for you does not mean unbiased for all, and other subject manner experts' opinions needs to be respected. I never said that the communists should not be included, in fact I am the one who added Peng and Zhu to the list of commanders on the China side!!! What I am saying is that to list CCP as a separate belligerent in the infobox based solely on events that took place before and after SSJW is misleading, and listing CCP just because they maintained de facto separate command from NRA is insufficient (other than those commanded by Whampoa Academy generals, almost all Chinese armies maintain a certain degree of autonomy during SSJW). It is especially absurd to list CCP under the CCP flag because neither the new 4th army or the 8th route army fought under this flag due to the 2nd United Front. If you continue to subjectively interpret facts based on your personal POV and insist that your way is the only way, than please start a Rfc and see if you can get support from other editors, that's how edit wars are resolved on wiki! DCTT (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mao as a traitor

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:

1. KMT was the main force fighting the war
2. CCP under Mao was at times even helping Japanese to fight the KMT.
3. Mao admitted himself that he liked to see a triangle power structure to emerge. If editors are familiar with ancient Chinese history, he was actually referring to 三國, 魏蜀吳, the tale of three kingdoms. In this case, he did not consider Japanese as a invader, so he was really a 漢奸, and committed treason, who betrayed the then Chinese leader Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, Allied Commander-in-Chief in the China theater from 1942-1945. Mao should have been put under a military court and trial for treason, and the verdict should be death by firing squad.
4. As long as we all agree on the above points, the info box problem is not a problem anymore. Arilang ^talk 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a hasty generalization, from a single viewpoint. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mao said Thank You to Imperial Army

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)

Source, please. In full, either Author-Title-Publisher-Date-ISBN number, or URL-Title-Date. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mao: The Unknown Story

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.

The inclusion of Mao himself should be debated - IMHO, he was at least nominal leader, and anyway he agreed to form the Second United Front, though he obviously backstabbed the KMT - but stating that there was no communist involvement at all is just pointless. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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 bookThe 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)

It is agreed and understood that the Communist's (or, at least, Mao's) attitude was ambiguous and that they probably did less against the Japanese than KMT troops. But does this mean they did nothing at all ? I don't think so. The article is perfectly clear about the war's disputed legacy. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Valdimirov Diaries is not a good source of reference because of its extremely late publication (1973) and possibility of Moscow anti-PRC fabrications inserted into the final publication. To use such a source as definitive proof of lack of communist involvement in the SSJW is bad practice from a historian point of view. I recommend that we put this section under review until further evidence could be found. In addition, Valdimirov can't be considered a third party scholar because of his involvement in Comintern. --67.169.161.29 (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Date of publication being too late is an empty argument. A later author may have further resources to draw upon. Also, the personal involvement of author can't be used against him or her—its possible to write a neutral book even though the author is in the thick of the action. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the date of publication is that the diaries were published after the author's death. Therefore, the author was never given a chance to validate whether the publications were completely his own work or had abridges or insertions by the publishers. This is why this particular primary source is an unreliable one. We can't cite sources without knowing the background and influences of the sources. The quality and accuracy of the sources must be put under constant scrutiny in order to maintain an objective approach at analyzing history. If we don't use this approach, history could be rewritten by parties of interest and sooner or later, we will adopt propaganda as actual history. --67.169.161.29 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: "The Vladimirov diaries: Yenan, China, 1942-1945 was a book written by Peter Vladimirov published in 1973 after his death...The diary has been criticized as having been edited for Soviet propaganda purposes." If you consider the Sino-Soviet Split, it would all make sense to be a "smear campaign". The date of 1973 fits perfectly in this case. Unless there are other sources descibing the sales of opium, consider this dubious. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mao's comments on Japanese invasion to be translated

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)

That still leaves 10% of the energy devoted to anti-Japanese effort, which means that, even in Mao's mind, the Japanese had to be fought (we're not even talking about Peng Dehuai or Zhu De, who arguably were far more active than him). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:52, 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)

Source, please. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:59, 30 June 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)

Once again, it is known that he was far more ambiguous than official CCP history wants us to believe, but does this mean he never agreed on any fighting against the Japanese, and that there was none at all during the war ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

USSR agent diary

《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)

Once again, that brings us to the same point : it is obvious that the CCP double-crossed the KMT, and that they probably would never have conquered China had not the KMT been severely weakened by the Japanese, but does this mean there never was any fighting between Japanese and Communist forces ? Apparently not. The CCP may have considered the KMT as its primary enemy (BTW, Chiang was also more concerned about the Communists, at least for a time) but I doubt that they would have been able to conquer the country, had the Japanese remained. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

@ user Jacques Georges, the CCP did fight the Japanese, but that is not the main point. If you read all these articles(all in Chinese, and I am not sure how well you can understand them) if you do, like Mao himself had personally said "Thank you"

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)

That Mao was, under many aspects, a cynical monster is out of discussion. The point is that the Communists should not be left out. Now, all the details you quote are worth mentioning and developing in this or Mao's article. As for the flag, the Party's flag seems indicated for use in this article, as the PRC did not exist back then. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:34, 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)

Are you kidding? Where is the hammer and sickle next to 八一? At any screen resolution, the image on People's Liberation Army is clearly a star. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Soong May-ling section needed

"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

POV

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)

What nice, friendly language I am reading here. Calm down please, and AGF. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:48, 30 June 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)

Which talk page? Which consensus? Undoing until specifics are given. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:36, 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)

Watch your tone, there, your edit summaries and your talk are condescending and rude. Grow up and provide specific examples of this "discussion before", and this "consensus" you speak of. You're wrong on both counts, I can read (and speak English more clearly than you are able), and I have edited the article before. Even if I hadn't, you've no right to talk down to anyone. Again reverting your edit without clear, definable consensus located somewhere. Telling others "look it up" doesn't cut it, proof is on you for such a massive change. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The tag was added by somebody who's never edited this article. The person has not responded to my request of pointing out specific passages he finds POV. Instead he puts the tag right at the top of this very long article. It's like putting an NPOV tag on top of WWII article without providing any specifics. Any you agree with this very coarse method? Blueshirts (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The tag was no longer there. The complainant has as much time as he likes to explain what he finds POV. You do not own this article, anyone is welcome to put any tag they like. Your last edit didn't remove tags, it removes names of commanders and other useful information. Your accusations of vandalism violate WP:CIVIL. So far, I see nothing in your favor, and a long history of blocks and bans. Haven't you learned to watch yourself better in two years? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact i haven't edited the article before has if anything more credence as i approached the article as someone who was just looking to learn more upon reading it clearly had a POV and thus placed a tag, so that more expert users on the subject could resolves the issues. Sherzo (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case I stand corrected. The two of them have been altering this article and leaving vandalism charges on my talk page at the same time, I assumed they were making the same edits. But I don't agree with adding different factions and commanders for the reason I've laid out in "other participants" section above. If you want to add this much to the infobox discuss it here first. Blueshirts (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo, Let's discuss quietly : 1) There is a problem with the "2.1 millions japanese casualties" you want to bring in folllowing user:Trickster206's initiative. This number 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 !!!! [1]. The SSJW front is only considered specifically from 1937 to 1941.... I do not have Dower's War without Mercy but his two other books, but from what I remember, he is refering to the same stats, so, we need another source.

2) Before user:Sherzo's move, their was a many weeks consensus during which the infobox was simplified and did not showed all the flags of the armies involved to prevent war edits as in the World War II article. And as soon as last January, you were not opposed to this [[2]] --Flying tiger (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

replyNothing in the revision you showed says I was unopposed to removal of the commanders, the revision shows them intact. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

replyI don't "want to bring in" anything, my concern is the removal of all the commanders for a cheapened "with outside help" leaving the reader to figure out for themselves who was involved.

Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, meanwhile you brought back the "2.1 millions" ... Did you check that ?

About your second point, I am refering to the multiple flags of nations which were not there in January... --Flying tiger (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Then clearly you picked a bad example trying to paint me as supporting the removal, as they are surely there when I click that link. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

this is untrue since examining the edit history shows the changing of flag images and the exercising of the communists commanders from the article occured on the same day i raised initial concerns Sherzo (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, has the question be raised either by you or user:Trickster206 is not the problem. The point is there was a tacit agreement for some months until a few days ago and the "2.1 millions" you promoted here [[3]] is wrong. 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) 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

replyAs to "tacit agreement", apparently there is not agreement or we wouldn't be here belaboring this. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You surely can change your mind ... Wikipedia is elvolving each day! As for the stats, from what I remember the officials japanese govermental numbers for the SSJW are between 1,100,000 and 1,420,000 casualties, with 480,000 deaths, but I can't find the reference in my stuff.--Flying tiger (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What you can remember isn't a reliable source you an NPOV source for any figures like that. Sherzo (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I oppose adding all those flags, because the on the Chinese side the countries only provided some materiel support and committed zero ground troops in a war that was fought primarily between China and Japan. This war was specific to China and Japan, and this is not a "Pacific War" article where adding all those countries is appropriate. Plus somebody added "France", which France we're talking about here? The third republic or Vichy France? That is why I have grouped all the countries into "with foreign support", which is directly linkable to the corresponding section within the article that lists the countries and their individual help to China. Same thing is done for the puppet regimes, which were numerous but rarely fielded troops against the Chinese army. DCTT grouped them to "with collaborationist support" which is also a link to its corresponding article. Again, this is not a general Pacific War article and I feel the situation is more akin to Winter War, where only the main combatants are listed. Blueshirts (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly POV to eliminate the Communists from the infobox as you have done. Also the Soviets British and USA all had substantial operations, I could understand not including the British since at the time the parts of china under British control weren't part of china, but the Flying tigers were a major component of the air war, the Soviets lent substantial personnel and then effectively ended the war with August Storm Sherzo (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The People's Republic wasn't established until 1949. Are you thinking of two countries fighting together against Japan? I have serious doubts about your knowledge on the subject. You wrote "The People's Republic" before changing it after being called out.[4] Blueshirts (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the communists were since China had been in the midst of a civil war, which was put on hold to fight the Japanese, I have never claimed to have expert knowledge on the subject i originally came to this article to learn more about a topic I only had limited knowledge upon reading it seemed POV thus i placed a tag, by your response and determination to remove the communists it appears you have a POV to push from one perspective that isn't representative of all significant viewpoints. Sherzo (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You must be joking. I'm sure you don't recognize the names, but there have been a couple communist commanders listed in the infobox before you came along. Blueshirts (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, if you have a POV that differs from the current article, you have the responsibility to find supporting citations and make recommended changes, not slap a balant POV on top because it "appears" POV to you.DCTT (talk) 09:16, 1 June 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)

I think it's understandable for people to get a bit heated when someone is trying to advance the view that the ROC did not significantly participate in the SSJW. I mean, seriously; there's plenty of POVs you could push and make a good case, but as far as factual basis, this is a really bad one to pick. Illisium (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)illisium

I must say, this article is slightly leaning towards the ROC side. Neglecting the education system in both the PRC and ROC, if you look at the history curriculum in Australia, and that of the International Baccalaureate, they teach that Chiang Kai-Shek and the KMT followed a policy of "sell space for time", hoping that the Allies would be able to defeat Japan, and so could use all KMT firepower against the CCP. In this Wikipedia article, I find that there is a anti-CCP bias, especially in the section titled "Legacy: Who fought the War of Resistance?", where the PRC-leaning section is very brief and poorly written, while the ROC side of the story is more detailed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of Communists from Infobox

comments are invited on whether The Communists should be restored to the Infobox. Sherzo (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Communists are in the body of the article already, and they don't need to be in the infobox. They weren't "in charge" of the country during the war. At that time, their influence on the war was analogous to a very strong political party which had great regional influence and its own militia. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per above. All the forces fought under the flag of the Republic of China, and that includes nationalist/communist/warlords. In addition, important communist generals are listed in the infobox commander section already, so I don't understand what the fracas is all about other than some people don't recognize their names. Blueshirts (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Blueshirts it's not appropriate for you to comment here this an RFC so that non involved users can comment, nor is it something you support or oppose you just offer opinions to try and help the issue its not a vote. Sherzo (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to comment at an RFC. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

lol. I don't think so. Blueshirts (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The communists of Zhu De, mostly fought during the battle of Pingxingguan and after as part of the united front, and are therefore included as such. As User:Blueshirts pointed earlier, their main commanders are in the infobox. After operation sankō, which followed the offensive of the 100 regiments, however, communists forces were decimated and refrained from open combat and thus were not a major fighting force after the end of the united front. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The united front means all forces fought under one flag, the red army included. DCTT (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Outside comment I am not sure why the communists should not be included. In many wars all major components of the alliance are added, and unless the CCP military submitted to direct control until the ROC army of CKS then I think they should be separate. I looked at a bunch of Iraq articles and the official Iraqi army is separate from the Awakening Council militia. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The war was between China and Japan. And at that time, China was fighting under the united front of the Republic of China. I don't think the communists dispute that. If we are going to list non-government parties in the infobox, then we will have to list at least all the major ones, including the warlords. The non-government parties should be mentioned in the main text, but not the infobox.--pyl (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Blueshirts has violated WP:CANVASS by contacting several editors in a non-neutral, partisan manner: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. All of these editors, except for Ngchen have either supported Blueshirt's view, or identify themselves with the ROC in one way or another. In these messages, he called other editors' edits "vandalism", when it is actually a legitimate point of view. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The Communists and Nationalists were two separate entities, so unless the KMT had direct de facto command of the CCP forces, having them lumped together as one entity is at best, misleading. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. They agreed to fight under an united front that is the Republic of China regardless of how limited the Red Army actually were. If you include them then you have to include the warlords as well. It really is complicated which is why while they should be mentioned in the article they don't warrant being in the info-box. OneiroPhobia (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mao Zedong(hence the whole of CCP) was happy to see that the ROC under Chiang Kai-shek was weaken by the Imperial Japan Army. In the full volumns of The complete works of Chairman Mao Zedong, he hardly ever talk about anti-Japanese; in fact, throughout his life, he was more into killing his own political rivals than anything else. During the whole of SSJW, the Red Army did not lose a single high ranking officer in fighting the Japanese, and according to official Japanese war record, the communist's Eight Route Division(八路軍)(which was under ROC flag anyway) did kill about one thousand Japanese soldiers only. So, the communist's hammer and sickle flag should be removed from the info-box. Arilang ^talk 10:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is jumping away from the topic. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: "hence the whole of CCP" - generalization much? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and outside comment: Having read through the discussion and some other similar articles, I agree that there is no need to list seperate factions. This would keep in line with how other wikipedia articles are constructed. Gtadoc (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre

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)

Other participants

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)

Please go ahead, since this has already been the case for the SSJW article in German. DCTT (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

okay I changed them to foreign support. Blueshirts (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This change doesn't make sense. For example, according to the article itself, in 1945 USSR spent a month fighting on Chinese soil and destroyed a million-strong Japanese occupying force there. This was ground combat by Soviet and Mongolian soldiers, not just moral or material support. To ignore the contribution of belligerents that destroyed a million-strong enemy army on a battlefield is not just "diminishing their contribution" or even POV-pushing. It is undermining the credibility of the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.112.153 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet's invasion of Manchoukuo to wipe out the Kwangtong Army in 1945 should not be considered part of SSJW because Manchuria has not been under Chinese control since 1932, way before the SSJW started in July 7, 1937. Therefore the Soviets are not in the combatant box for this reason. DCTT (talk) 04:15, 30 July 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)

China Burma India theatre

This article need to mention(or a new section) of

1. China Burma India Theatre of World War II.
2. Northern Combat Area Command
3. Chinese Army in India
4. Burma Campaign

Arilang ^talk 01:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

INFOBOX

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)

The book that the user cites seems to be from the official war records written by He Ying-chin. Now if he'll provide a page number... Blueshirts (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how notable the author is, a source is only WP:V if it is written in the proper format, so that others are able to verify it. Printed sources (i.e. books) MUST be written in the format AUTHOR – DATE – TITLE – PUBLISHER – PAGE – ISBN NUMBER. For example:

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)

(note that the above is only an example, it does not exist) Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, you can always search book details and ISBN numbers at the catalogue on Google Books. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey can't we all just get along here ? Taiwan Dude 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Taiwanman1

I suggest you change your WP:SIGN as it does not meet WP standards. There must be a link to at least your userpage and talkpage. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dont you mean atom bomb ?

What? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What did he do anyways ? Taiwanman1 17:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Taiwanman1 (talk • contribs)

A picture says a thousand words

Japanese Type 92 machine gun.

Soldier with no gun

IJA conducted Chemical warfare on Chinese army.

Bombs for Chiang Kai-shek.

IJA armor cars for Battle for Shanghai.

Underaged and malnutrition Chinese "soldiers".

Can an army equipped with swords fight an army equipped with fighter/bombers?

File:Chinese Army replacement.jpg

Look-like-beggers bare feet Chinese Army replacement.

Operation Ichigo IJA tanks charging.

Nice job. Try to think about making a collage from these photos. It would be very useful to show how difficult was for the Chinese to fight against IJA.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

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)

Tell him to go see a doctor. Putting a bunch of text between two ref markers is not a source. How on earth can we WP:VERIFY it? And since his edits have been reverted N+1 times, he should get the picture now, that he really needs to go find some sources. All he has done is put a line of prose between ref markers, and called it a WP:SOURCE, so in my opinion, he needs a neurosurgeon. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and next time, this site may help you in translating Chinese, it's much more understandable than Google Translate. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:22, 18 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)

Sorry, Time/Life images to be deleted

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)

Why Commons? If you simply upload them on EN Wiki, you can use a fair-use template given that you actually place them within an article, and with a good reason. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read 1943 Life magazine photos Arilang ^talk 12:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Some arithmetic

The footnote to the infobox states:

"An academic study published in the United States estimates total war deaths of 15-20 million from all causes: military casualties: 1.5 million killed in battle, 750,000 missing in action, 1.5 million deaths due to disease and 3 million wounded; civilian casualties: due to military activity, killed 1,073,496 and 237,319 wounded; 335,934 killed and 426,249 wounded in Japanese air attacks."

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)

I have a problem with communist killed/wounded too. The infobox states that there are 3.2 million Nationalist and 0.5 million communist casualties. If my memory is correct, the communists expanded to around one million troops by the end of the war. That's a 50% casualty rate for an army that was still growing, and was mainly involved in harassing guerrilla attacks, not frontal set-piece battles like the Nationalists. Does this number make sense? I know the Nationalists conscripted or recruited around 14 million in total (not the standing army strength at any one time, but the number of all who served during the entire war). 3.2 million out of 14 million seems reasonable. But the communist statistics needs to be better referenced. Blueshirts (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User Blueshirts, this 0.5 million communist casualties is definitly wrong. The communist hardly did any fighting (against the Japanese), where this 0.5 million communist casualties come from? Arilang ^talk 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese text and photo with little relevancy

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)

Brainwashed by commies? Not really... that is the exact interpretation of history recognised in secondary school and tertiary school history studies in Australia, as well as the International Baccalaureate. I could show you some of my old IB textbooks if you like. (I was in an IB history class during 初中) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What is generally recognised by the IB history curricula is that Chiang "saved space for time" when fighting with the Japanese, relying on the Allies to defeat Japan, so that he could deal with the commies afterwards. The reds however were constantly engaged in guerilla warfare and mobile warfare, and although they were not very successful 100% of the time (especially during the time period after the implementation of the Three Alls), they were successful in mobilising the peasantry into forming militias and stirring nationalism. The KMT failed to gain the support of the peasants, due to heavy land and crop taxes, conscription, poor military training, supplies and treatment (Corporal punishment was prevalent within the NRA for the most simplest of things, which led to many NRA deserting and/or defecting to the CCP), and the US Truman administration believed that Chiang was corrupt as hell. In Maoist terms, the CCP was able to "move mountains" while the KMT could not, because the CCP promised land reform and so appealled to the people, to which the majority were peasants. Not high-income gentry the KMT supported, the peasants. Almost 90% of Chinese were peasants, while the gentry the KMT supported only represented a minority that lived along the coast; the gentry brought riches to the KMT during peacetime, but then became occupied by the Japanese along the eastern coastline. The CCP appeared to, as Edgar Snow puts it, be "more nationalist than the Nationalists themselves", as they were actively in pursuit of the Japanese; despite their horrific failures on the battlefield, CCP guerillas destroyed railways and bombed outposts, CCP militia created security for the peasants in some areas, and were seen as much more active than the KMT, which were retreating. Corruption was endemic within the KMT, with high ranking officials stealing funds and hoarding weapons given by the US meant to send the Japanese to hell; US general Joseph Stilwell wrote a poem, referring to Chiang as a "peanut" and accuses him of being a useless force in the war against Japan. There are even various quotes from Truman regarding his dislike of Chiang. You can't really argue with an international education organisation's interpretation of history without some really good and strong arguments, convincing sources and a lot of confidence. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

List of quotes for Ariliang

• Truman (written in response to a report that the KMT had pocketed $750 million in US aid): "the Chiangs, the Kungs, and the Soongs (were) all thieves" - Bagby, Wesley Marvin, The Eagle-Dragon Alliance: America's Relations with China in World War II, University of Delaware Press, 1992, pp.65. (ISBN 0874134188)
• Joseph Stilwell (a poem about Chiang): “I have 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.” - Taylor, Jay, "The Generalissimo: Chiang Kai-shek and the Struggle for Modern China", Harvard University Press, 2009, pp.290. (ISBN 0674033388)

full length of Stilwell's poem

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.

• Brooks Atkinson (New York Times correspondent): "The decision to relieve General Stilwell represents the political triumph of a moribund, anti-democratic regime that is more concerned with maintaining its political supremacy than in driving the Japanese out of China. The Chinese Communists... have good armies that they are claiming to be fighting guerrilla warfare against the Japanese in North China—actually they are covertly or even overtly building themselves up to fight Generalissimo's government forces... The Generalissimo naturally regards these armies as the chief threat to the country and his supremacy... has seen no need to make sincere attempt to arrange at least a truce with them for the duration of the war... No diplomatic genius could have overcome the Generalissimo's basic unwillingness to risk his armies in battle with the Japanese." - Crisis - Time Magazine, 1944-11-13.

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)

I don't regard the IB curricula as simply "K-12 textbooking" - it's internationally scrutinized and judged. Sure, there's no oranges, but it's like comparing apples grown in Ghana and apples grown in New Zealand, two things that are at a markedly different level. Also, just to make sure there's no confusion, the said quotes above are from printed books, not the IB, just in case you may have thought otherwise. I also believe that we shouldn't be relying on media obtained from internet forums, as done a few sections above, as they are very speculative and dubious. It doesn't take much to start a website, especially in the PRC, but it costs thousands of dollars to publish a book. Oh, and I wasn't intending on using IB textbooks as a source for the article; I was noting to Ariliang that POVs from all sides are much more complex as percieved. And your Columbus remark is a bit of a generalisation, is it not? I mean, we would have pretty fucked up and retarded kids if that's all they learn in school. Keep generalisations at a low, and find what you can easily back up. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I also took both IB and AP classes in high school, and looking back, I would not regard them anything other than K-12 education, or at most a couple college credit hours, which isn't saying a lot either. That's why you take them in high schools. I believe Ariliang's quotes can be found in Mao's own quotations. I suggest some specialist books like "War and Nationalism in China" by Hans van de Ven or the new biography of Chiang Kai-shek by Jay Taylor. Blueshirts (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this section with Mao's quotes are already sufficient to explain the situation, there is no need to provide Chinese texts and links in the body of an English wiki article. 左權 was such a insignificant person in SSJW that showing his picture in the article is also unnecessary. DCTT (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We can mention in the text how Zuo Xuan was the only communist division commander to be killed in action, whereas the Nationalists had many more. Blueshirts (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)