Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War/Archive 2

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

At the moment, the result is listed as being "Chinese Victory". Shouldn't this read "allied victory", or something similar.

American starved Japan of resources forcing a general retreat that allowed Chinese forces to advance in central and eastern China, and Russia cleared northern China itself and handed the land over to the communist forces after the fact.

perfectblue 12:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but dont forget that the Chinese was fighting mainly "alone" during the Sino-Japanese war, although the Chinese received a few help, like the "Flying Tigers" but they are considered as "volunter" or "Merchernary not from "Assistance of U.S". The Brits didnt care much about the Chinese theater, Stalin only did the mop up action on an already demoralised Japan after the atomic bombing. The starving of Japan from the U.S didnt do any tactical advantage since the Japanese can gain their resource from already captured Chinese cities. So does this explain to you that the Chinese mainly fought with their backs on their wall?

hanchi 18 August 2007

Let's also not forget that the Chinese didn't drive the Japanese out at the end of the war, they left because they surrendered to the Allies. "Chinese Victory" is at very least incredibly misleading. Parsecboy 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole China front was fought almost all by China, China fought alone with some aid by the allies but little assistance from the number of troops. You can't win something if you don't take part in it. 70.254.215.72 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese surrender in Aug. '45 was forced by America and the Soviet Union. The Chinese had almost nothing to do with it. You can't claim sole victory if you didn't actively contribute offensively towards it's end. Parsecboy 16:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then why don't you put USSR and USA Victory? If you put the USSR and the USA in the combatants box then it might make sense. But then when you look at all the battles, it's all fought by the Chinese. The article is ONLY the China front where China's objective the withdraw of all Japanese forces. China didn't contribute offensively towards the Pacific War as a whole. 70.254.215.72 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it was a combined effort, along with the UK, Australia, India, etc. And the vast majority of those battles were defensive battles. I ask you a question: if Japan had not been defeated by the Allies (i.e., it only fought China), how much of the mainland would still be a Japanese puppet state today? Parsecboy 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

China did take the offensive late in the war after Operation Ichigo. Do you seriously think Japan can withstand a 70 year long war of attrition against the largest country in the world in terms of population? How long did it take the USSR to pull out of its war against Afghanistan? 70.254.215.72 16:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So at what point did China drive the Japanese out? Parsecboy 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

China's objective was the withdraw of Japan. Japan withdrew so China accomplished its objective thus it could claim victory. Your "Allied Victory" would fit if you were talking about the Pacific War as a whole because it had large contributions from several countries but it would be irrelevant on the Sino-Japanese War because China basically fought alone. This article is only on the "China Front" where it was just China vs Japan for the most part with some aid by the other Allies. 70.254.215.72 16:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, to state that it was a Chinese victory is at very best incredibly misleading. You're pretending like it was a war within a vacuum, which is obviously not correct. To state that it was a "Chinese victory" implies that China defeated Japan and drove them out of the mainland, which we both know is not the case. Parsecboy 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Japan withdrew so China achieved its objective and was the victor simple as that. Again this article is specifically talking about the CHINA FRONT where it was China vs Japan. The China front itself was a part of the Pacific War which had the result of an Allied Victory. If it was an "Allied victory" it might make sense if you add the USSR, USA, Britain, etc. in the combatant box but all the battles were China vs Japan. 70.254.215.72 16:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about it as if it occurred in a vacuum. Yes, Japan did withdraw, but for what reason? Surely nothing China did. Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest (and dare I say nationalist POV) to pretend it was a Chinese victory by itself. Parsecboy 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is just on the China Front. The whole front was just China vs Japan, it's not talking about the Pacific War. So if Japan pulls out and China achieved the objective then China is the victor. And the Chinese were winning after Ichigo, You act like China didn't do anything and Japan was winning this front decisively and swiftly. 70.254.215.72 17:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said that Japan was winning "decisively and swiftly". Let's not pretend that the last few years of the war was anything other than a stalemate. Parsecboy 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was mostly a stalemate but after Ichigo, the NRA was on the offensive in 1945 and took back territories in the southeast (although not a lot but an offensive nonetheless). 70.254.215.72 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And it was about as important as the French invasion of Germany at the start of the European Theater. Let's not make mountains of molehills. Parsecboy 17:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Japan suffered 30,000 in one battle of the campaign alone and China took back 2 provinces. So I'd say it's not a big offensive but larger than the French invasion of Germany. Obviously it wasn't very significant but it was an offensive. 70.254.215.72 17:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's no Bagration. Like I just said, let's not make mountains out of molehills. Parsecboy 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

simply, it was a war fought primarily between China and Japan, and who won? China did. Now how this victory was brought about is already explained in the article. Blueshirts 18:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If this wasnt a "Chinese Victory" How come many of the cities that the Japanese took is back to China? I mean look at World War 1, the Japanese kept the cities after the war even though Japan didnt really had any major battles in there (just only because they are in the "Allies" front) while China happens to support Germany. Its a shame that many Western history book always gives a false portrayal China as a "glory jumper" by not doing anything against the Japanese... if you know how to read Chinese Parsecboy, I may suggest you to find books written in Chinese about the Sino-Japanese war, and I mean books written from Hong Kong Chinese historians (in which they give a more accurate and non propoganda) view towards the war. Also you claim that this wasnt a Chinese victory, its similar as you saying the Soviet didnt win in her defence war against the Nazi! Why this is Chinese victory? Here are some points:

1st. Japan was driven out, during 1945, they suffered alot of causalties towards the american armed Chinese. Even without the Pacific war, sooner or later the Japanese will be driven out by numerous particiants or guerilla warfare. Joseph Stillwell even said that "Chinese are quite good natural soldiers if they got good equipment and training".

2nd. China gained back many of her cities in which some of them was former colonies... Only hong kong was being kept british because they are sly foxes in which they straight away moved their army there after the Japanese surrender.

3rd. Even thought Japan signed the surrender paper, many rag-tag Japanese division was too stubborn to surrender that the Chinese was more than gladly to destroy them without prisoners.

4th. Who said that the Japanese only signed the surrender paper to the Americans? There is even a picture of how the Japanese wrote, signed and hand out the surrender paper to Chiang Kai-Shek himself!

5th. Its just a Communist propoganda that portray Chiang Kai-Shek didn't fought against Japanese instead on Communist in which it portray Chiang as "Chinese against Chinese".

hanchi8 Sept 2007

The point is, China did not defeat Japan in a vacuum. China only defeated Japan with the aid of the Allies, so stating "Chinese victory" is highly misleading as to what actually happened, and how it happened. Parsecboy 12:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As for your reference to the Soviet Union, stating "Chinese victory" here, would be like going to World War II, and changing it to "Soviet Victory". Parsecboy 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And the American War of Independence was an American, French, Spanish (and various assorted French-allied forces) victory, for neither did America defeat Britain on her own. Yes, it is true China did not defeat Japan alone (in a vacuum as you say). But is that a relevant point here? Let us take a look at the title of the article: Second Sino-Japanese War. That implies a war between two sides: China and Japan. For the purposes of this article, (the scope of which is the military conflict between China and Japan from 1937 to 1945), all the help China got from its allies (or The Allies) are accessory to the Chinese war effort. In a war between China and Japan, it stands to reason that the victor would either be China, or Japan. Since Japan signed an unconditional surrender to China on 9 September 1945, the victor of the Second Sino-Japanese War is naturally and unquestionably: China. -- Миборовский 23:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the article for the American War of Independence does not state that the result was an "American Victory". It merely states "Treaty of Paris; establishment of the United States of America". Perhaps a compromise would be something along the lines of "Liberation of China, and Japanese surrender". What do you think of that? Parsecboy 16:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the best thing IMHO to put in the result box would be: Unconditional Japanese surrender; retrocession of Taiwan, Pescadores, Liaodong, Manchuria and other territories (which I think was what WAS in that box.) -- Миборовский 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'll replace what's there currently with what you've said here. If you want to mess around with wording, that's cool too. Parsecboy 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you changed the result to "Retrocession to China of Manchuria, Taiwan and the Pescadores" when it is not really historically accurate? When the war was over, Japanese fulfilled what was demanded of them base on the instrument of surrender and finalized the process with SF peace treaty in which they formally renounced of the rights of Taiwan and Pescadores(see SF peace Treaty Chapter II Article 2. (b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.). No formal "retrocession" or "return of territorial sovereignty" was ever taken place. Treaty of Taipei was ratified and taken into force AFTER the SF Peace Treaty has be in force, and the TOT also endorsed the validity of SFPT. The TOT does not mention in any portion of its text about transferring the sovereignty of Taiwan and Pescadores to the ROC, the fact the Japanese agreed in Article 10 of TOT "for the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores)" does not deal with the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and Pescadores. The realty of sovereignty administration of ROC on Taiwan is only in compliance with the Hague IV "Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. " Furthermore, the Japanese has renounced the rights of territorial sovereignty of Taiwan prior to signing of TOT, so they had no rights to transfer a territory they no longer owned even if TOT specifically states so. I hope you can at least verify historical facts before reverting the changes made by others. Thank you. --Mafia godfather (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To address the confusion it causes by saying plain "unconditional surrender" as a result of this conflict, I had added "to the Allies." Miborovsky seems to have an issue with this saying, ""The allies" are not a participant of this war," and implying Japan surrendered directly and exclusively to China. This reflects a misunderstanding of the time period in general (as well as contradicting what even the article itself says in the introduction). I agree with the result box overall, but believe an additional clause (with a wikilink for people to read up on the allied powers) would be instrumental in helping a novice learn additional information, rather than sticking to a summary that kind of implies the second Sino-Japanese war happened in a vacuum, as Parsecboy notes. As Kurt Leyman reverted to my version, and Miborovsky reverted again, I figured it might be a good idea to come here to try to hash it out (if it needs hashing). —LactoseTI^T 08:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do. The Pacific War was fought by the Allied Powers, defined in the instrument of surrender as "US, China, GB and USSR". Can't argue with that. However, the Second Sino-Japanese War was a war between China and Japan. Two sides: China and Japan. "Allies" can't just pop out anywhere. It's not called the Allied-Japanese War. Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers which includes China. However, in China (which is the country in which all of the fighting in the Second Sino-Japanese War took place) Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and his appointed generals, representing the Republic of China, had the sole authority to demand and receive the surrender of Japanese forces (as defined by a separate act of surrender signed on 9 September). Therefore, the Second Sino-Japanese War resulted in a Chinese victory brought forth by the Japanese unconditional surrender. Миборовский 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the compromise that Miborovsky and I worked out earlier is the best option we have. Whether it implies that China defeated Japan by itself or not is in the eye of the beholder. I think we should leave it as it is, and let the article explain the situation in detail. Now please stop reverting eachother; it'll get you nowhere in the long run. Parsecboy 01:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi parsecboy (u should really change it to parsecdude, boy is kinda like, well, a little gay, no offense) but before i edited the intro it was "the lasts (note the 's', plural) of these incidents, and i was thinking was it the last incident or the one among most incidents happening at roughly the same time that marked the beginning of the war? thanks- stephen) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.130.87 (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just ignore your comments on my username. Otherwise, it appears fine. Parsecboy 20:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The info box and numbers stated in the article are not in agreement. According to the Casualties Assessment, China had about 3.22 million military casualties, however, the info box states China lost 3.8 million men. The info box lists 1.1 Japanese casualties while the info box lists 1.9 million casualties with 480,000 KIA. Can someone clear up this discrepancy? (68.93.2.132 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Different publications and authors quote different numbers. The best that can be done here is to source each quote. -- Миборовский 23:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've long had problems with the Motives section of the article. First, it's always been a breeding ground for POV violations. Also, it's completely unsourced. I'm of the mind to scrap it altogether, but thought I would post my thoughts here before doing so, if anyone disagrees/is willing to search for reliable sources/etc. If no one has done so in a couple days, I'm going to deep-six the it. Parsecboy 18:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. -- Миборовский 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The France (Vichy/Free) portions seem to be rather non-notable; French involvement was minimal to be honest, and Nazi Germany is missing. I can probably dig up a few "official KMT publications" to support the KMT motives section, but I don't think I can improve the others. -- Миборовский 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yeah, both of the France sections aren't really related to the war at all, or only tangentially. I think the best option would be to take some of the important bits of this section and incorporate it into the body of the "Background" section proper. What do you think of that? Parsecboy 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the current motives-by-nation format has merits and could be kept; but they require a lot more work and fleshing out. -- Миборовский 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, I've just been really busy lately. I think one of the big problems, and this is for the article in general as well, is that it's generally written from the Chinese Nationalist perspective. At some point I'll try to overhaul the article, but I won't be able to anytime soon. I still think the best option for the motives section is to merge it into the relevant text, and cut the rest. Parsecboy 11:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

British section needs to fill in the change of attitude of the British to the Japanese in the late 1930s due to their activities in Manchura and China to the point were in the early 40s they were allowing the use of the Burma Road to prop up the Chinese vs Japan. Soviet section should note the Soviet proding to get the Anti Japanese alliance between the CCP and KMT. Also the Soviet aid to China in 1938-39 and their volunteer pilots that flew for the Chinese from 1938-1940 long before the Flying Tigers came on the scene. These events had something to do with the open hostilites with the Japanese in the north in 1938-39. Given the Second Sino Japanese War article is so large perhaps this whole Motive section should be made a separate article on the motives and activities of the outside powers who were not officially involved. The main article could referance the article.Asiaticus 00:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I really like the idea. A separate article on Motives with reference on top of the "Background" Section will make the article flow better, are you going to execute? DCTT 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there solid evidence that the intensions of the Japanese invasion is "friendly", or are they just saying that? Because one can hardly say that an invasion is friendly.Diqiuren 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It was "friendly" just like the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 was to "protect them from the Germans". Parsecboy 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it should say "the Japanese government used the excuse of having neither the intention...". Can I change it? I don't know much about the edit thing of Wikipedia.Diqiuren 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. The only way to learn is to do it. If you need help copyediting it, I'll give you a hand. Parsecboy 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ThanksDiqiuren 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There has recently been a revert war over the combatants. Perhaps we can hash it out here rather than just reverting everything. I for one find it a bit troubling that sourced mentions of combatants are being removed under the guise of undo weight, especially when the article itself mentions that this conflict merged with the greater war at the time. —LactoseTI^T 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Chennault the commander of an important component of the Chinese fighting force, and shouldn't he be mentioned in the header? Alexwoods 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He was the commander of the Flying Tigers, and later, the 14th Airforce in China. Joseph Stilwell was Chiang's chief of staff, and the commander of the CBI theater. Albert Coady Wedemeyer replaced Stilwell in 1944 in both positions. Parsecboy 15:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, so shouldn't all three be mentioned in the box? Alexwoods 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so. I'll add them now. Parsecboy 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The US is a pretty clear case--I would also suggest an addition of the America as a combatant. I'm interested in thoughts regarding the other combatants that have received recently edit-warring. I think we might get further by discussing each of them. —LactoseTI^T 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If You think so you must add Soviet (Vasily Chuikov and other) and German (Alexander von Falkenhausen) combatants and all Chineese and Japan commanders of arms. But it will be unnecessary as well as adding American leaders in this conflict in my opinion. --Arbiter of Elegance 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We could follow the lead of such articles as World War II. There are not so many countries as to be unwieldly, and I find it far too simplistic (ie flat out wrong) to suggest that Japan and China were the only two combatants of this conflict. —LactoseTI^T 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

USA didn't take a part of conflict directly. If you think we should add America as combatant we can add the USSR too. American "military advisors" replaced Soviet ones in early 1940s only. --Arbiter of Elegance 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's correct - they should be listed in their capacity as commanders of Chinese forces. They weren't advisors, but actual leaders. Alexwoods 17:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but are we trying to write the article from the (novel) tack that it was a parallel conflict mostly unrelated to World War II, or that it merged into it (as the article currently states with things like, "...the Second Sino-Japanese War merged into the greater conflict of World War II," which should be removed if we are writing according to the former theory). For the theory put forth by the people supporting the former, should China then be removed from the combatants, then? This former idea to me seems very counterintuitive. Regardless of either theory, I would still imagine the US would be listed due to the intellectual (commanders) and physical contributions. (Incidentally, I don't think the US is the only other combatant I would list, and even in the meantime we should perhaps add an "et al." while discussing who merits listing.) —LactoseTI^T 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is already a section "Entrance of Western Allies" that talks about these things. The problem here is whether to include the US (or Germany/USSR) in the infobox and I say no. The war was fought overwhelmingly between the Republic of China and Japan, which separates it from the wider "Pacific War". The US did not command over Chinese troops except for a small force retrained in India that fought primarily in northern Burma. The US did not commit ground troops to fight the Japanese in the Chinese mainland. What China got from the lend-lease was a drop in the bucket compared to what the USSR and the UK received. That's why putting the US there gives it undue weight in this specific war. Blueshirts 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. See my comments below. US forces were involved in the Sino-Japanese War in two distinct ways: under a US flag, which consisted mainly of engineering activity on the Burma Road and flying supplies to Chongqing / Kunming etc. over the Hump, and under a Chinese flag, in actual combat with the Japanese Imperial air force and leading troops on the ground. The former may or may not justify inclusion of the American flag in the box. The most prominent commanders of the latter effort surely qualify as Chinese military leaders important enough to be included in the box. Chennault was the de facto head of the Chinese air force, and Stilwell was among the most important leaders in Chongqing (not that Chiang ever took his advice). Alexwoods 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting to leave anyone but China out of the participants of this conflict, and also remove China as a participant of the Pacific War and World War II articles? —LactoseTI^T 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're confused. In this specific war fought primarily between China and Japan, the US does not warrant mention in the infobox. This war was part of WW2 and a huge theater at that, thus China is in the WW2 infobox. I don't see how you can make the logic jump that they both have to be mutually inclusive. Are you saying that because the US is not listed under the Eastern Front, it shouldn't be in the main WW2 article too? Blueshirts 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand your position--now that you've clarified what you said earlier, it seems you might be supportive of the suggestion that this war contributed to the eventual surrender of Japan to the Allies (some specifically), rather than as happening by itself. It's fine if you want to represent it as part of a whole, but I think its important to avoid the implication that it happened in a vacuum.

While I don't feel strongly on the wording of the surrender line, in any case, my suggestion would still be to follow the WWII template--either saying "et al" for combatants, or perhaps listing the US (and others) as at least minor contributors. Again, it's very important for a novice to view this as happening in the broad context of the global war in the end because certainly the outcome could have been significantly different otherwise. —LactoseTI^T 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the American air forces supplied to China (Flying Tigers, 14th Air Force, etc.) merit its inclusion on the infobox, similar to how the Soviet Union is listed on the Korean War infobox, based on its contributions to the Communist side (air forces, and some supplies). Parsecboy 22:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Was concensus reached? Somebody has added more countries to the combatant list. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that consensus was reached. I suppose Russia's entry at the end of the war could justify its inclusion. I think the American flag probably belongs there because of the Flying Tigers. Chennault, Stilwell and Wedemeyer were actually leading troops on the Chinese side - effectively, they were Chinese generals - and belong in the box regardless of whether we include the American flag or not. As for the other flags, Manchukuo seems questionable (indeed its status as a country is highly questionable) and it's not clear from the article what the Mongolian PR's role might have been. Alexwoods 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I direct your attention to 14th_Air_Force#World_War_II. It was a completely American unit, based in China, commanded by Chennault. Totally separate from the Chinese-American Composite Wing. Also, there was the 23d Fighter Group, the successor to the AVG, and was later incorporated into the 14th AF. Active military participation is enough to justify including America on the infobox. Parsecboy 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Mongolian People's Republic's inclusion in the infobox as combatant on the Chinese side; are the any proves that the Mongolian People's Republic actually provided any military support to the Operation August Storm? Regards, --Kurt Leyman 12:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Communist Party of China must be included, in different of nationalist Republic of China --Arbiter of Elegance 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Why don't we add Nazi Germany as well? von Falkenhausen was also a military leader! Why don't we add the dozens of Chinese warlords? They weren't Nationalists either! Why don't we add the hundreds of puppet administrations? They were just as legitimate as Manchukuo! Миборовский 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the CCP was a little more significant than the individual warlords. You're oversimplifying a bit too much here. Parsecboy 12:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Miborovsky. CCP was under the ROC. And warlords composed a really significant force in republican dynamics that is often overlooked. Chiang spent about as much time and energy dealing with these people as he did with the communists. I don't know man, but I feel like some contributors got wind of vocabs like "manchukuo", "warlords", "wang jingwei government" and some insignificant "mengjiang" administration and began acting like a smart ass adding them in. I mean, wtf? Blueshirts 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated UK from the combatant box because there were no British troops, on the ground or in the air, that ever fought in China. I also changed all the puppet states to "Collaborationist Chinese Army" (偽軍) to highlight point #3 instead of "Manchukou" or "Mengjiang" just to have their pretty little flags shown. Anyone remotely familiar with this topic knows that all these puppet governments were insignificant. DCTT 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask, why the USSR is not included in the list? Despite the Chinese resistance, the Operation August Storm was the pivotal point of the Japanese occupation of China, it effectively ended it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feanorn (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the insistence that the US be included stems from the fact that from a US pov it might be seen as "the war was fought because of something of interest to the US => US involvement". And I think we can agree that this war was mainly a China-and-Japan thing. So I think the reference to the US should be canned. 118.90.35.237 (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, it probably has to do with Chang having had American deputies (Stillwell and Wedemeyer), and there having been American fighters and bombers based in China (23d Fighter Group and the 14th Air Force). Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Asian nations had Western advisors in their governments at that time. IIRC Chiang had Germans training his army at one point. Anyway, China is a whole different kettle of fish even on that issue since they had the whole foreign involvement thing going for them with the British, French etc grabbing various bits of China's body, and the US was just one of them. Imo, the way I suggest this issue goes forward is that "above the fold", only Japan and China should be mentioned, and then in the detail mention other nations. 118.90.35.237 (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found what looks like a good timeline and summary of the Second Sino-Japanese war on ibiblio, but before I put it in the external links, I'd like to find the name of what book it comes from so I can make sure it hasn't been proven factually incorrect. Any one recognize it? Oberiko 12:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's from a series of monographs prepared post-war by Adm. Sadatoshi Tomioka for the US. Миборовский 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Are there any known accuracy issues with the author? It reads a bit pro-Japan to me and I wouldn't want to put any David Irving-esque material up. Oberiko 12:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to break this war down into rough phases, would I be relatively accurate with the following?

• Background
• Japanese establishment in China (Invasion of Manchuria)
• Japanese capture of eastern China (starting with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and ending with the Battle of Wuhan)
• Relative stalemate (1939 - 1943)
• Renewed Japanese offensive and the end of the war (Starting with the Operation Ichi-Go and ending with Operation August Storm)

Oberiko 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would group it into the following phases instead:

1. Piecemeal landgrab (because 9.18 was not an isolated incident, eg. 1.28 in 1932, 5.3 in 1928)
2. All-out offensive (Marco Polo Bridge to Changsha - I would end it at Changsha because it finally stopped the sequence of major Japanese victories)
3. Stalemate (although I don't like that word - it implies inaction, while IRL the Japanese launched numerous failed offensives, it's only a stalemate in that little land changed hands. And not to mention the activity in Burma.)
4. Ichigo (until Kweilin-Liuchow)
5. Chinese counteroffensive (from West Hunan onwards. It's a very short period, but nonetheless represented a shift in directives for Chinese forces)

Миборовский 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In Soviet-Russian historiography:

# first phase (July 1937 — October 1938)... (Invasion in China before new Japaneese strategy)

# second phase (November 1938 — December 1941) (Stalemate until USA, Britain and Holland joined to war)

# third phase (December 1941 — August 1945) (Sino-Japaneese war as a part of Second World War. Before USSR joined to the war)

# fourth phase (August 1945 — September 1945) (until Japan defeat) — Arbiter of Elegance 10:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is great to see more people interested in this topic; however, to new editors who are itching to make changes, doing some homework in preparation would really help. A great place to start is this Time Magazine article: The Army Nobody Knows DCTT 10:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The strong bias in Henry Luce's Time Magazine toward Chiang Kai-Shek and his wife is well documented in Wiki and elsewhere ^[1], and was stated openly by Luce himself at the time. I've now read 'The Army Nobody Knows' and find it dramatically misleading, though it's being so is no surprise, considering the source. New editors and others should avoid this article entirely, and instead read well-respected historians on the subject. Tuchman, with her Pulitzer Prize-winning 'Stilwell and the American Experience in China', is a fine place to start.

Richard Coeur de Singe (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The numbers, capture and treatment of prisoners of war, by both sides, is a little-known dimension of this topic and one which is worth mentioning in the text. I have looked for information regarding this on the web and in academic literature, but have found little. I did find it interesting some references to the communists recruiting extensively from their Japanese POWs, some of whom fought with the PLA in the Civil War, after 1945. Grant | Talk 10:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

H. Bix, in Hirohito and the Making..., 2001, p.360, gives an interesting info : «At the war's end, Japanese authorities acknowledged having only 56 Chinese prisonners of war.» We understand what was the fate of the others...--Flying tiger 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a phenomenally low rate and one which deserves inclusion in Japanese war crimes. Do you have the page number? Grant | Talk 10:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I already gave you the page number above. Also, I added this some months ago in World War II but I forgot to do the same with Japanese war crimes : «Japanese POW camps also had high death rates, many were used as labour camp. According to the findings of the Tokyo tribunal, the death rate of occidental prisoners was 27.1%, seven times that of POW's under the Germans and Italians (Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, 1996, p.2,3.) The death rate of Chinese was much larger as, according to the directive ratified on 5 August 1937 by Hirohito, the constraints of international law were removed on those prisoners. (Akira Fujiwara, Nitchû Sensô ni Okeru Horyo Gyakusatsu, Kikan Sensô Sekinin Kenkyû 9, 1995, p.22) Thus, if 37,583 prisoners from the UK and 28,500 from Netherlands were released after the surrender of Japan, the number for the Chinese was only 56.(Tanaka, ibid., Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, 2001, p.360)» --Flying tiger 15:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Soviet Union must be considered a combatant in the 2nd SJW, then Mongolia should too, because Mongolia fought Japan during both Red Storm and the previous skirmishes. I added Mongolia as a combatant along the Soviet Union but somebody deleted it. Why?--Menah the Great 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You raised a good point,although the Soviet Union and Mongolia attacked Japan's Kwangtung Army, this conflict should not be considered part of the second Sino-Japanese war and should be treated as a separate war, therefore I am eliminating the Soviet Union from the combatant box. DCTT 14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's illogical. It stopped being a separate war in 1941, when Japan widened the conflict. It'd be like saying America wasn't a member of the Western European Theatre, because it wasn't there in 1940. The USSR and Mongolia fought in the theatre of operations that encompassed the SSJW, and should therefore be included in the combatants section. Parsecboy 15:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Operation August Storm was fought in Manchukuo, which has not been under Chinese control since 1931, before the SSJW started in 1937. Therefore to include the area of Manchukuo in the Theatre of SSJW is very questionable, and should be treated as a separate war fought between Soviet Union/Mongolia and Japan.DCTT (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, how about we mention the fact that more Chinese civilians died in this war than the total number of casualties in the Holocaust? Without a doubt, one of the defining aspects of this conflict is the ridiculous amount of war crimes committed--more than the Holocaust, more than the 90's conflict in the Balkans, Stalin's policies being the only larger killer of people in the time period--but it's mentioned all of about 5 times in the article. I don't care how much Japan and America seem to be trying to forget about it: to downplay this element of the war is a disservice to all the people that perished in it. GrimmC (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.193.120 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 

To include the Soviets as official combatants just on the merit of sending supplies and airforce volunteers do not make sense, plus these support were promptly withdrawn after the signing of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact in 1941. If no one objects I will eliminate the Soviets in the combatant box. DCTT (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to make rather perfect sense, check out any other article of similar theme, for instance - Spanish Civil War. Support was not fully withdrawn in 1941. I also have to ask you to explain the reasoning behind removing Soviet participation but leaving American - even though the American participation was of exactly equivalent nature except much smaller scale. Kami888 (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, once America joined the war, the Flying Tigers became the Fourteenth Air Force, part of the USAAF. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not going to deny or downplay Soviet military support during the first 3 years of SSJW, but no Soviet regular armed forces fought in the China theatre while Chiang Kai-Shek (China) was designated as the Surpeme Allied Commander in China, with Joseph Stilwell (U.S.) as his Chief of Staff in 1942.DCTT (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

the soviets declared war on japan in 1945 so they are combatants... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.146.180 (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets fought in Manchukou during Operation August Storm, which was not a combat area of either the SSJW and CBIT in 1945.DCTT (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please include the number of troops involved and supplies of the Chinese Communist army since they too partipcipated in the war... I think the National Revolutionary Army is only composed of Nationalists and very few numbers of Communists. -Pika ten10 (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will go ahead and merge these two sections because they contained many overlapping information that can be streamlined.DCTT (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

CNN. Photos document brutality in Shanghai

The photos, taken by a Swiss photographer near Shanghai in 1937, all depict the brutality of Chinese soldiers toward Japanese prisoners and Shanghai residents accused of helping the Japanese as they began their military conquest of China.

We should mention this --Webcamera (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We should also have appropriate mention in their respective articles of Israeli brutality towards Nazi party members after WW2. Your point being? Миборовский (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

These victims were Chinese collaborators whose executions were ment to "kill the chicken to warn the monkey", the Chinese probably might have liked to do the same for the Japanese butchers, but could not capture any.DCTT (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• See also: Allied war crimes during World War II#China

This is Japanese casualties.We should cover it.--Bentecbye (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How the Chinese treated (or mis-treated) their traitors should not be counted as Japanese casualties. Quoting from Crime, Punishment, and the Prison in Modern China, 1895-1949 by Frank Dikötterhttp: "...If any belligerent in World War II was strained for supplies, surely China was one of them. However, Chinese POW camps suggested that China’s strong desire for international legitimacy and continued support from international agencies led one of the poorest participants of the Second World War to go to considerable lengths in providing for its Japanese prisoners..." Therefore it is highly unlikely that the victims in the photos were Japanese POWs DCTT (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• in 1937 near Shanghai, the killing, torture and assault of Japanese POWs and Chinese civilians accused of collaboration, were recorded in photographs taken by Swiss businessman Tom Simmen.[46] (In 1996, Simmen's son released the pictures, showing Nationalist Chinese soldiers involved in arbitrary executions by decapitation and shooting, as well as public torture.)
• the Tungchow Mutiny of August 1937; Chinese soldiers recruited by Japan mutinied and switched sides in Tōngzhōu, Beijing, before attacking Japanese civilians, killing 280 and raping many women.[43]
• Nationalist troops in Hubei Province, during May 1943, ordered whole towns to evacuate and then "plundered" them; any civilians who refused and/or were unable to leave, were killed.

This is Japanese casualties.--Boobom (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you.We should mention both Japanese war crimes and Allied war crimes during World War II#China. It is NPOV.--Bentecbye (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Less than 300 Japanese civilians killed vs. 17,500,000 Chinese civilians killed during SSJW. You guys are making a mockery of NPOV! DCTT (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We should mention both "300 Japanese civilians killed" and "17,500,000 Chinese civilians killed". It is NPOV.Please understand it.--Bentecbye (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the USSR waited until the last minute to get involved in this conflict. But seeing as how the were the ones who actually kicked the Japanese out of Manchuria, shouldn't they be listed in the list of belligerents in Infobox Military Conflict? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say the last minute came when the USSR got involved. There is a controversy between historians as what was a reason for Japanese decision to surrender: atomic bombing or invasion of Manchuria. Although strategic bombing of Japanese main islands seems more probable reason, the fact is that both these factors are a subject of consideration. In addition to that, the very fact that even before Soviet invasion Japanese had to keep their largest army near the Soviet border, without doubts, affected the course of the whole war in Asia (similarly to the fact that Hitler kept at least one quarter of his troops in Western Europe even in 1942). --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Was an "unconditional surrender of Japan" a result of Sino-Japanese war? Such a conclusion is somewhat logically inconsistent. The article, in its present form, creates an impression that the result of Sino-Japanese war was almost complete defeat of China: by 1941 Japan occupied the most economically developed and strategically important parts of China, and Chinese were unable to push them back. Of course, Japan appeared to be unable to control all territory she occupied, and that probably was a reason for halting further advances into Chinese mainland. However, Operation Ichi-Go clearly demonstrated that even by the end of the war Japanese Imperial Army was capable to launch a successful large scale offensive against China, whereas the article tells almost nothing about successful military activity of Chinese during 1942-1945.
Right now, I have no reasonable formulae to summarize a result of Sino-Japanese war, but "unconditional surrender of Japan" is definitely incorrect. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There were the Battle of West Hubei,Battle of Changde before Ichigo and Battle of West Hunan after, all Chinese victories, plus the bulk of the Chinese crack divisions were fighting in Burma, they won many battles to re-open the Ledo Road.DCTT (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If the title is "World War 2", I will agree that the result is "Allied victory". If the title is "Pacific War", I will agree that the result is "Amarican victory". But this title is "Sino-Japanese War" that ia a war between China and Japan , so I consider that the result is"Chinese victory".Sunsmile (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

However, the fact remains that the Chinese army did not defeat the Japanese army, the Allies, and primarily the US, defeated Japan. It's a gross misrepresentation of history to present it as a "Chinese victory", as if China defeated Japan and drove Japan out of China. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. However, let us review the whole history of World War 1. Although France had not drove Germany out of France, people still consider that France defeated Germany in World War 1. According to the same reason, the result of "Sino-Japanese War" is "Chinese victory" clearly.Sunsmile (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the situations of WWI and the SSJW are totally different; Germany was defeated primarily by the British naval blockade, coupled with increasing public discontent with the war. We wouldn't say "British victory" in the WWI infobox. The SSJW ended primarily because of the American island-hopping campaign across the Pacific, which led to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and just as important, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Obviously, it's quite wrong to say "Chinese victory", as if it occurred in a vacuum. In my opinion, a more accurate description would be "Stalemate after 1941, broken by Allied defeat of Japan in 1945", or something to that effect. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If there was not Chinese resistance against Japanese military during 7 July 1937 to 9 September 1945, Japan would attack USSR. On the one hand, USSR would be assailed from two sides by Germany and Japan simultaneously. On the other hand, Japan would put more and more resources and troops in Pacific battlefield. Furthermore, the Japanese troops in China formally surrendered on September 9, 1945 and by the provisions of the Cairo Conference of 1943, the lands of Manchuria, Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands reverted to China. Considering all the above, it is apparent that the result of SSJW is "Chinese victory".Sunsmile (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about "what if" scenarios (Japan never had an intention of attacking the USSR after having its nose bloodied by Zhukov at Khalkin Gol, which is beside the point). You are ignoring the point that China did not defeat Japan; she did keep the majority of Japanese ground forces occupied, but as Napoleon said, one never wins wars on the defense. I've altered the result section to what I feel is a more accurate description of the course of the war. Take a look and tell me what you think. Parsecboy (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Japan could be defeated by USSR if Japan attacked USSR solely. However, Germany and Japan had a plan of attacking USSR by two sides during WW2. Besides, Germany had a big advantage over USSR during 1940 to 1942. So, USSR would be defeated if China gave up his resistance against Japan. Finally, China drove Japanese military after Japanese surrender to China on 9 September 1945.Sunsmile (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The point remains, though, that Japan never had an intention of attacking the Soviets after Khalkin Gol in 1939. As to your last point, it's not that hard to eject military occupiers after they've already surrendered. It means nothing. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the two wars, SSJW and Pacific War. The two wars are relative but different. On the one hand, the Japanese official surrender aboard the battleship USS Missouri was on 2 September 1945, and it resulted in the end of Pacific War. On the other hand, the Japanese official surrender in China was on 9 September 1945, and it resulted in the end of SSJW.Note that the two different dates are 2 September 1945 and 9 September 1945. In short, Japan surrendered to Allies on 2 September 1945 and surrendered to China on 9 September 1945. All the reasons go to show that the result of SSJW is Chinese victory.Sunsmile (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the two conflicts merged after 7 December 1941; that the treaties were signed on different days is irrelevant; VE Day is both 7 May and 8 May 1945; are you going to insist that Germany was fighting two wars, one against the Western Allies, and one against the USSR? Most historians consider the SSJW to have become part of WWII after the Japanese attack on the Western Allies. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Japan did have an intention to attack the USSR. Had the German offensive of Moscow or Stalingrad been more successful Japan would attack the USSR in 1941 or 1942. That is why the USSR kept about 30 divisions in the far east even during 1941-42. The Japanese discussed a possibility to attack the Soviets with Hitler in 1942 who, being overconfident, told them that Japan should continue tying down the American troops in Pacific, and that Germany would do the rest.
Going back to the outcome of the Sino-Japanese war, "inconditional surrender of Japan" looks a little bit illogical. The surrender was a result of at least 3 factors: the American naval and aerial virtories, the bloody stalemate in China and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Therefore, the most adequate formula in the info box should be something like that: "Stalemate. Inconditional surrender of Japan as a result of her defeat in a global scale". --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede that you are correct that Japan likely would have attacked the USSR in the east had Germany been more successful in 1941-42. I proposed something similar above: "Stalemate after 1941, broken by Allied defeat of Japan in 1945". Anyone else have any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the concrete formula depends on who is considered a belligerent. If the Sino-Japanese war was the war between the Chinese (+the Flying Tigers as an official United States Army Air Force unit) and Japan, whereas all other theatres of war and all other belligerents are beyond the scope, then the result of the war must be a "stalemate", because there were no decisive battles in China (excluding Manchuria) that could be considered a reason for Japan to surrender. If all major allies are included into the info box, the formula "Stalemate after 1941, broken by Allied defeat of Japan in 1945" is quite correct.
I would also point out at one considerable difference between Sino-Japanese and Soviet-German wars. In the first case, Japan almost achieved her military objectives in China by 1941 and after that she appeared to be in position to launch two major assaults against the USA and the UK. In contrast, after the Soviet-German war had started Germany was unable to initiate no major hostilities elsewhere. Sino-Japanese theatre of war posed no threat neither to the Japanese mainland nor to her major continental possessions in Manchuria and Korea. In contrast, the German Eastern Front steamrolled up to the central part of Germany, lead to a capture of the German capital and physical death of her leader, destroyed more that 3/4 of German military capabilities. Nevertheless, the Eastern Front page states that the result of the war was just the "decisive Soviet victory", not the unconditional surrender of Germany, because the latter is a result of joint efforts of all Allies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is the tendency of some editors of this article, is to view the war as having solely occurred between Japan and China, from 1937 until 1945. After the Japanese attacks on the Western Allies in Dec. 1941, the SSJW was essentially over as a separate conflict; it was merged into the Pacific theater after that point. At the time this thread started, I changed the infobox to what seems to me to be the most accurate representation of the course of the war (see here). Perhaps it would be be best to alter it somewhat to include that the war became a stalemate after 1940. "Stalemate after 1940, merged into World War II after 7 December 1941, Allied victory, Japanese unconditional surrender" or something similar? Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not completely correct. After Pearl Harbour the war was not over, because the stalemate was in actuality a very bloody stalemate that continued to tie down more than a half of all Japanese military forces. Therefore, even after 1941 China remained to be a very important factor, and it is not completely correct to say that this conflict (a land theatre) merged to the Pacific (primarily a naval and very distant) theatre. I would rather say the Burma/Indochina merged to the Chinese theatre.
However, this doesn't question your major point: the Sino-Japanese war taken separately resulted in almost complete defeat of China followed by a long lasting stalemate situation. Without other Allies there were no hope for the Chinese to win that war even in a distant future. By the way, the article by itself is written in such a way that it becomes obvious for a reader that there were almost no decisive battles during 1941-1945. In other words, it is absolutely unclear from the article (in contrast to the Eastern Front article, for instance) what concrete events in China caused unconditional surrender of Japan.
Consequently, I see two possible ways to resolve a situation. Either a "Stalemate" should be in the info box (your formula is also good because it contains a direct reference to other theatres and belligerents), or "unconditional surrender" remains there, provided that at least a brief description of the Pacific theatre and Manchurian offensive are included into the article and the US (not only due to Flying Tigers), the UK and the USSR are included into the info box as the belligerents. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant that it was more or less over as a separate conflict, not that the fighting itself was over. Much the same as how the Continuation War cannot really be called a separate conflict from the Eastern Front, despite the fact that it was a continuation of the Winter War, which is generally held to be outside the scope of WWII.

I think we're more or less in agreement over the need to rework the "result" section of the infobox, but I'd like to hear what others have to say, particularly the other editors who frequently edit this page, so we have a wider consensus than just the two of us. However, we've been having this discussion for a few days now, and no one else has joined the discussion. Perhaps it's time for an RfC? Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified some of the more regular editors of the article in an attempt to garner some more input on the issue. Parsecboy (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say, we are in complete agreement. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressing some points made in the above discussion (by no means a complete list):

1. Without other Allies there were no hope for the Chinese to win that war even in a distant future.

   Unless you reference results of wargames simulating the outcome of this particular scenario, I cannot see how you can make that assertion. You may not realize this but you are trying to base your judgment of this case on your own conjecture and research.

2. By the way, the article by itself is written in such a way that it becomes obvious for a reader that there were almost no decisive battles during 1941-1945.

   Which is in no way equivalent to the statement "there were (almost) no decisive battles during 1941-1945". I can name a bunch off the bat: Zhe-Gan, 3rd Changsha, Ichigo, W. Hunan, and not to mention the 2 Burma expeditions. That the article is deficient in this respect is no excuse for basing your arguments off of it.

3. In other words, it is absolutely unclear from the article (in contrast to the Eastern Front article, for instance) what concrete events in China caused unconditional surrender of Japan.

   If you apply this criterion to every war, you'll find there are rarely "concrete events" that are wholesale responsible for ending a war. Would the atomic bomb have ended the war if Japan had not been at war with China and consequently had devoted all of their resources to fighting the Allies? Would the Allies have been conclusively defeated had they failed D-Day? Which was the decisive battle that ended Germany? So IMHO it is completely pointless to argue over whose contribution was the more important.

Instead, let us focus on what did happen, which, in this case, was the unconditional surrender of all Japanese forces in the ROC (sans Manchuria), Taiwan, and Vietnam above 16deg N to Chiang Kai-shek. So let's work with that, shall we? --Миборовский (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

1. It is not a problem to find an appropriate reference, however, I thought the phrase you argue about was an obvious conclusion from this concrete article.

2. The very fact that the article is deficient in description of the decisive battles in China during 1941-45 is quite sufficient to question the validity of the conclusion about unconditional surrender. Note, I don't state this conclusion is incorrect a priori. My point is that this conclusion is inconsistent with the article itself. I am not a specialist in Chinese history, but when I looked through the article to refresh my memory about some key events, the scale of Chinese resistance in 1941-45 appeared too low to speak about a victory over Japan. I thought Chinese achievements were much more impressive.

3. "Concrete events" that are responsible for the outcome of the war are not rare. The decisive battles that ended Germany were: battle of Moscow/failure of Barbarossa (German blitzkrieg failed), victory at El-Alamein (Germany failed to reach the Middle East with its oil fields and friendly arabs), battle of Stalingrad (the best German armies destroyed, the last attempt to get an access to the oil failed, transition to the war of attrition with no chances for Germany to win), Kursk (the first failure of Germany's major summer offensive, the lost of strategic initiative), invasion of Italy (second major European Axis member surrendered), Smolensk, battle of Dnieper (the formidable German defensive line broken), Normandy (Second front open), Bagration (Army Group Center destroyed), Lvov-Sandomierz, Yassy-Kishinev (invasion of central European Axis members, loss of the last Germany oil supply), Budapest offensive (last German ally defeated), battle of Bulge (last German major counter offensive defeated), Vistula-Oder offensive, battle of Berlin (German capital captured, Hitler committed suicide). They form a sequence of events that eventually led to the victory in the global war. I don't see such a sequence in China in this concrete article, probably because the article is poorly written. So the conclusion about unconditional surrender of Japan may be quite correct, but not for that concrete article.
If someone will re-write the article and present the sequence of the events that led to such an outcome, I have no objections against unconditional surrender of Japan. However, now I object.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time following the logic of your argument. You seem to be saying that, because the body of this article sucks and does and poor job of presenting the truth, we should opt out of presenting the truth entirely and change the infobox to follow the inaccurate portrayal in the article? ... The truth is the truth, and the truth is absolute. We report the truth. The truth is, Japan surrendered unconditionally blah blah, etc. The truth is truth-in-itself, it is stand-alone. The truth, even if buried in a mountain of shit, is still the truth. I didn't want to get all philosophical, but this is the truth of the matter. I protest strongly against any attempt to deviate from presenting the truth. --Миборовский (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the truth is absolute. The fact that Japan surrendered unconditionally is the absolute truth, and noone can question it. However, the info box states something different. The statement is: Japan surrendered unconditionally as a result of SSJW. And I doubt if it is the absolute thuth. And I also protest strongly against any attempt to deviate from presenting the truth. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to us editors to speculate and deduce the critical factor that led to the unconditional surrender of Japan. Since no army (United States, Soviet Union or China) conquered Tokyo by force and wiped out Hirohito similar to the battle of Berlin, one could make a good argument based on any number of events that caused the Japanese to wave the white flag. Therefoer we should report what really happended at the end of the SSJW, which is the unconditional surrender of all Japanese forces in the ROC (sans Manchuria), Taiwan, and Vietnam above 16deg N to Chiang Kai-shek, instead of wasting time on speculation and hearsay. DCTT (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not speculating about critical factors, I just demonstrate that it is not a problem to identify them. As regards to the reasons for surrender of Japan, I think the Japanese themselves know that better that anybody else (Sadao Asada. The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration. The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 477-512). In addition, the Surrender of Japan article presents the analysis of the reasons for surrender.
If you look at the WWII article talk page, you find that I am a proponent of the more detailed representation of the ROC's contribution into WWII, because the role of the Chinese is understated there. However, you cannot speak about "unconditional surrender" in that concrete article without making appropriate changes in the text, because it looks ridiculous.
Let me explain what I mean. Imagine, I have no sources of information besides WP. What does it tell me? The article states clearly that "By 1940, the war had reached a stalemate with both sides making minimal gains." Almost nothing is said in the article about the events in the SJW theatre that had broken that stalemate. In 1944 the Japanese started Operation Ichi-Go that involved near the million troops (Chinese+Japanese) and was a decisive Japanese victory. After that, in 1945 ROC won Battle of West Hunan (80,000 Japanese troops, 20,000 losses), and Second Guangxi Campaign (unknown number of troops involved, unknown number of losses). In other words, the reader is proposed to believe that these two battles only, had tipped the balance towards the Chinese side and led to the surrender of Japan. Note, the Manchurian offensive, that involved move that a million armies from every side and was a decisive defeat of Japanese troops is beyond the scope, because the USSR is not mentioned as a belligerent (by the way, I cannot understand why has this battle been included into the "Battles" section if it was outside the SJW theatre and involved no Chinese troops?). I think, you must respect your potential readers, at least their capabilities of logical thinking.
If you look at the Eastern Front (World War II) article you find "Decisive Soviet victory" as a result of the war. The Western Front tells "1939–1940 Axis victory; 1944–1945 Allied victory." The result of Pacific War was :"Allied victory, fall of the Japanese Empire". Each of these articles are more modest in their conclusions.
The difference between " Japanese unconditional surrender" and "unconditional surrender of all Japanese forces in the ROC (sans Manchuria)" is tremendous, and the latter reflects the result of the war better. However, even this formula seems not fully appropriate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will agree to a modified version of the unconditional surrender you proposed, but any mention of "Allied Victory" in the results section is grossly misleading. Being the poorest Allied nation that fought for the longest time, China got less than 1% of total US Lend Lease supply during WWII, and even the distribution of this meager materiel were subject to the descretion of Stilwell, a restriction not placed on any other Allied nation. In the SSJW, other than the Flying Tigers China never got any meaningful support from the US, but that was already so much more than the other so-called Allies. The Soviets refused the US proposal to supply China through Kazakhstan to Xinjiang because Stalin was afraid of anagonizing Japan. Also hoping to avoid potential conflicts with Japan, the UK actually closed the Burma road, China's only connection to the outside world, right before being overran by IJA. With great friends like these, who needs an enemy? DCTT (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that the Chinese sufferings were tremendous. And I am convinced that other Allies resolved their problems paying with Chinese blood for that. I am sure that the bloody stalemate in 1941-45 contributed to the victory over Japan in greater extent than Guadalcanal+Midway+Philippines did. It is very probably that Chinese resistance saved the USSR from Japanese invasion and, therefore, determined the outcome of the whole WWII (in contrast to the naval battles in Pacific, by the way). However, the truth is that ROC had not won the war with Japan. And I cannot propose the appropriate formula that takes into account all these facts. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Soviet contribution to SSJ: from Nov 1937 to Jan 1942 China recieved 1285 aircraft, 1600 guns, 14 thousand machineguns and various other weapons and supplies; about 5 thousand Soviet pilots and instructors took part in the war. Oh, and the Manchurian offensive of 1945. That being said, I would like to mention that I'm also strongly against "Allied victory" in the infobox, because allied contribution to the Chinese front wasn't desisive. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, during 1940-45 Japan had to keep her best Kwantung army close to the Soviet border to oppose 30 Soviet divisions there, so it couldn't be fully involved in the battles in China. I don't have exact numbers before me, but I have a feeling that this indirect involvement of the Soviets outweighed the contribution of other Allies (besides China) to the SSJW theatre.
However, I would say that the "Allied victory" is the most appropriate formula, because Japan had not been defeated in the SSJW. She was defeated outside that theatre of war and she was defeated by the Allies, not ROC.
To explain what I mean, let's imagine that the USSR appeared unable to advance west after the battle of Moscow, resulting in a bloody stalemate, so the Allied bombing and subsequent landing in Normandy (in 1949, not earlier) eventually caused a surrender of exhausted Germany to the UK, US, and two weeks after that, all troops in Ukraine and Belarussia surrendered to the USSR. Could we call the Eastern Front a major front of WWII in this case? Yes. Could we state that the outcome of the Soviet-German war was a Soviet victory? No.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing that the result should be "Chinese victory" per your speculative analogy above, but the result was definitely not "Allied victory" in SSJW because by 1945 other than some US fighters and bombers NO ALLIED FORCES OTHER THAN CHINA were fighting in this theatre. One could make a case of Operation August Storm being the final battle of SSJW, but that is somewhat controversial because Manchoukuo had not been part of China since 1931, and Chiang Kai-shek indirectly recognize Manchoukuo being separate from China in the Tanggu Truce.DCTT (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not insist the August storm is the part of SSJW. I do not insist on the "Allied victory" in the info box. My only point is that the article and the info box cannot contradict each other. If the USSR was not a belligerent, the August storm should be removed from the article. If ROC (+Flying Tigers) and Japan were the only belligerents, than neither "Chinese victory" nor "Japanese surrender" is not the appropriate definition for the result of SSJW.
To my opinion, "stalemate" is the best definition, especially if appropriate explanations will be done in the article about the real (immense) importance of maintaining that stalemate during 1941-1945. Of course, I mean "Stalemate. Japanese surrender after fall of Japanese Empire". --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think here's our place to say whether the war was a "stalemate, until blah blah". That just feels really tacky and smack full of OR. It's like saying WWI "ended technically in stalemate, with Germany still holding most of its front in France, until they surrendered due to foresight and turmoil at home and blah blah blah." Japanese defeat, Chinese victory, Allied victory, each of the above would suffice, I don't really care. China was one of the signatories on the USS Missouri accepting Japanese surrender, and China also signed a separate surrender in Taipei. If the reader wants to learn more about the situation surrounding the surrender, he or she would be best advised to read on. Stuffing the infobox with so much OR and technicalities isn't really my cup of tea. Blueshirts (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. In actuality, the first thing I have done was an attempt to read on. I looked at the info box, found "inconditional surrender" there and decided to read on to learn more about the situation surrounding the surrender. However, I found absolutely no information on that subject in that concrete article. And only after that I decided to initiate this discussion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To everybody who makes stress on the fact that SSJW ended with Japanese unconditional surrender. In actuality, the statement in the info box is: "The result of the SSJW was the Japanese unconditional surrender". However, the article itself doesn't support that statement.
You probably know that one of the major reason for scholarly article to be rejected is: "the author's conclusion are not supported by the article". Therefore, had this article been submitted to any scientific peer-reviewed journal it would be rejected for the above mentioned reason.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A legitimate concern, a couples sentences need to be added to show that Japan surrendered to China on the Missouri, in Nanking, and Taipei.

My proposal: "Japanese capitulation to Allies of World War II" or simply "Japanese capitulation to Allies". Would reflect both Japanese surrender and the fact that it surrendered to all Allies, including China. Maybe we could also add "Military stalemate" to result, as that would reflect military situation (assuming that August Storm is not considered part of this war). Anyway I think that result should also mention the fact, that Chinese Civil war restarted after this conflict.--Staberinde (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If the result is so important to some, I can do some research and write a new article for it: "Surrender of Japanese forces in the China" DCTT (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is elementary logic important for me, not a result of SSJW. In actuality, the story ends at 1941 in the present article: the first period ends at 25 October 1938 (Fall of Wuhan), the second at December 1941. According to the article: "By 1940, the war had reached a stalemate with both sides making minimal gains." - and there is no third period there.
Instead of that, the section "Entrance of Western Allies " represent the SSJW theatre as an auxiliary one, implying that the major events had been taking place somewhere else. And in conclusion I am proposed to believe that SSJW, taken separately, resulted in Japanese surrender. Are you serious?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I think the discussion is getting more and more ridiculous. Who won, who surrendered? History is very clear on that. China and Japans signed both on the USS Missouri, and in Nanking, and another one in Taipei. Please, I don't want to hear any more "stalemate" nonsense. If something is missing, write that in the article mainspace. If you want to add anything on the factors that brought Japanese capitulation, put that in the article. I don't want to hear anymore arguing about the friggin' infobox and the friggin' result and making up OR as you go. Suddenly everyone is the friggin' expert here, jesus. Why not go over to the WWI article and say yeah, it was technically a stalemate, Germany lost but still had plenty of French territory, blah blah blah. Blueshirts (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling that that something is missing because there is essentially nothing to wright about the events of 1941-45 in China... --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We shouldn't "self-reference" wikipedia and decide what to put and what not to put in another section of the article. Plenty of things happened after 1941. Blueshirts (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Ichi-Go? --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the WWII is going very badly for Japan by 1945, the IJA was pretty much in one piece and could fight on if it choose to, but instead Hirohito choose to surrender after weighting internal and external factors. Therefore if some insist that in SSJW result is "stalemate until blah blah...", the same criteria should apply to the entire Pacific War and its result should be changed to "Allies inflicting heavy military and civilian casualties on Japan, which caused Japanese emperor to decide to surrender even when the IJA had over one million in strength..." We can even go further and changed the result for WWII to "Nazi Germany got wiped out by the Allies and surrendered, while Japan was suffering heavy casualties and decided to surrender despite having over 1 million men in its army capable of fighting..." Do you see my point?DCTT (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cannot agree. The two events that forced Hirohito to surrender were Hiroshima and August storm. Before that, there was a continuous series of naval and insular battles lost by the Japanese during 1942-45, American air superiority and de facto a naval blockade of home islands. So the situation was gradually becoming worse in all theatres, and the two final shocks convinced Japan goverment to stop their resistance. In contrast, there were no concrete events in the SSJW theatre during 1941-1945 that could serve an evidence that the balance started to tip to the Chinese side. In contrast, this theatre was the sole theatre where IJA had managed to start successful major offensive. Therefore for the SSJW (and, probably, Burma) theatres a stalemate seems to be appropriate definition in contrast to the others.
Your reference to one million Japanese army seems not to be relevant, because by the moment of surrender the one million army had already been wiping out (August storm) and it was clear that it would be completely destroyed in 1-2 months.
In other words, by August 1945

• Japanese navy had been destroyed.
• Home island were under almost constant bomber attack.
• It had become clear that their best land forces would be destroyed in close future, and their the most important continental possession would be lost.
  This situation is far from a "stalemate" definition. In contrast, the events had started to develop very quickly in Aug 1945, that resulted in surrender.
  However, I wouldn't say situation in SSJW theatre taken separately to have a direct relation to that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, the infobox for the Pacific War is correct; the Allies were victorious, and the Japanese Empire fell. There is nothing misleading or wrong about it. The point Paul and I are trying to make is that simply stating "Japanese unconditional surrender" without saying why is a bit misleading, because no Chinese actions directly caused Hirohito's decision to surrender. It's what I was getting at the last time we had this discussion over a year ago. Our job is to provide the most accurate description of the subjects on which we write to the average reader (who we have to assume knows little or nothing about the topic). The fact remains that the SSJW, if taken by itself, did result in a stalemate; neither Japan or China were strong enough to defeat the other when the war ended. And it only ended when it did because of external actions. "Japanese unconditional surrender" makes it appear, to the average reader who knows little to nothing about the SSJW, as if the war itself directly led to the Japanese surrender. That, in a nutshell, is the problem I see. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, so based on your expert military analysis the IJA in China did not surrender and the conclusion of this war was a stalemate?? Not even you can seriously propose this is the result of SSJW. DCTT (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, there's no need for strawmen here. My point is that it's misleading to present "Unconditional Japanese surrender" as a result of the SSJW; it most unambiguously was not. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally, as Paul pointed out above, directly because of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the American atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not directly because of anything China did. Therefore, to solely state that the result of the SSJW was the Japanese unconditional surrender is irreparably flawed. As Paul said in a thread higher up on this page, that's a clear post hoc ergo propter hoc type of fallacy.

I think, though, we might be talking past each other. It may be that I (and perhaps Paul, but I won't speak for him) see the "Result" field as "x happened as the result of the war" (i.e., Japanese unconditional surrender because of the SSJW), while you may see it as "how the war ended" (i.e., Japanese unconditional surrender ended the SSJW). Is that correct? Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we use differen definitions.
For me, "Result Japanese unconditional surrender" in SSJW box means: "SSJW resulted in Japanese unconditional surrender". That is false.
Probably, majority of people understand that as "SSJW ended with Japanese unconditional surrender"? That is correct without any doubts, but that is something quite different. I think we have to discuss the meaning of the "result" formula at the Military History talk page, because the rule should be uniform.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Template:Infobox Military Conflict explains all of the fields, and seems to me to support our meaning instead of what I am thinking DCTT means. Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the Template:Infobox Military Conflict, the result can be "XX(decisive/inconclusive) vistory" and, probably, "stalemate". So we can choose from that minimal set. "Surrender" is more polytical category that military one, so it cannot be and don't used in other articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that whole problem comes down to question, if SSJW would be counted as separate war, in which case peace treaty/surrender fits well , or one of many campaigns of WW II. If its counted as campaign of WW II, and considering that it did not really play most importnant role in japanese capitulation, "japanese surrender" indeed does not fit well.--Staberinde (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is quite simple. If you look at "Belligerents" section you see that SSJW was the war between China (+ some Soviets and American volunteers) and Japan. Therefore, this concrete article considers SSJW as a separate conflict. The "results" have to reflect that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually campaign infoboxes also only include as belligerents states which participated in those. We dont have UK in Eastern front infobox, but that doesnt meant that eastern front was separate war and not part of WW II.--Staberinde (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Eastern front result was a decisive Soviet victory, and that conclusion is supported by the article. I doubt incorporation of the UK to change anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the argument back to square one? The fact is Japan signed the surrender to the Allies on the USS Missouri and to China specifically in Nanking and also in Taipei. What is the result here? Should I use the WWI analogy again? Why all of the sudden a bunch of "experts" come here and try their best at OR to define a bunch of technicalities or quantifiers to decide what to put at the results section. I mean, just what the heck is this? Blueshirts (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of this endless and unproductive discussion as well. Let's bring this to an end by stating the result as "Surrender of all Japanese forces in China after Allied victory in World War II". DCTT (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to that proposal. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, except I like "Allied victory" better, a lot more succinct for the infobox. Blueshirts (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Parsecboy

Does anyone know what this category on commons (commons:Category:Japanese_Pacification_Work_in_China) is about? According to the info texts in the images thus categorized, it appears that there was some Japanese insitution called the "pacification unit[s]" which did a mix of social work and propaganda. But I can't find any information about it, and the term sounds like strong POV to me, so I'm considering to ask for the categories deletion on Commons, but I'm not sure if I'm missing something and the description may be adequate. -- 790 ♫ 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, the Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was basically voided when the USSR and Japan made their own non-aggression pact in 1941. The USSR pulled its support and also recognized Manchukuo and Outer Mongolia in exchange for temporary peace with Japan while the war Germany raged on. Still count them as Allies? Wait, maybe they're belligerents, since the USSR also allowed Japan to transport cargo to and from Germany through the trans-Siberian railway before Operation Barbarossa. Why not add Germany to China's side since it provided the bulk of arms and training for the Chinese central army, and Falkenhausen was actually there in person when the Shanghai battle broke out. Oh wait, while we're at it, please also put Germany at the Japanese side, because China and Germany then declared war on each other after Pearl Harbor. Blueshirts (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What's your argument? Are you against listing "Soviet volunteers" (note:not Soviet Union) in the infobox, despite the undeniable fact of their participation? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Kwantung Army? Both the Japanese and the Soviets didn't trust each other, so both Japan and the USSR kept considerable forces around Amur river. These Soviet divisions would be extremely useful at Stalingrad or Moscow, whereas Japan would utilize her Kwantung army to get rid of the remnants of the Chinese army. I think this factor is much more important than the contribution of Soviet volunteers...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Western allies tied considerable German forces to the West, as well as dealing serious damage to Luftwaffe, as well as supplying the Soviet Union with some weapons and materials - however, this doesn't make the Western allies participants on the Eastern Front. How is the Kwantung/Soviet case any different? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They didn't participate in the Eastern Front, but they were the allies, however. Therefore, if there is no much difference between trans-Amur (Soviet-Japanese) and trans-Channel (German-British) oppositions, then the USSR remained de facto Chinese ally, despite signing the non-aggression pact with Japan. At least, the military effect of that was obvious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Benefitting from two other states mutual distrust, does not make one allie of one of those states. Even if X and Y are both fighting against Z, it doesn't neccessarily mean that X and Y are allies, although both probably tie up part of Z's forces.--Staberinde (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is welcomeArilang1234 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no objection vote, I shall proceed in adding of the image onto front page.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• One Flying Tiger image in the article should be enough, thanks DCTT (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks user DCTT, since both pictures look just as good, it is hard choose among the two.Arilang1234 (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

File:P40-fighter.jpg

I will discuss with other editors on the Yes or No of addition of the image.Arilang1234 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfectly fine to me. It's very relevant to this article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no objection vote, I shall proceed in adding of the imageArilang1234 (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

thumb|300px|left|The Flying Tigers-- Young American pilots fighting the Japaneses in 1943 China

Discussion also welcome.Arilang1234 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is welcome.Arilang1234 (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)