ohea.. now we can see clearly your nazi-agenda here..

this chinese boy is russian boy, you stupid nazi.

stop of your claims on forign people and their identities. And respect forign culture and nationality wich you dont know, you idiot.

meenn! what a nazi moron..

My point was that these crimes may be related to their cultures, not races.
Your logic is seriously flawed. There is no nazi agenda here. Only
horrendous crimes, gang rapes, and ortures.



You don't have to go off-topic. You really sound like japanese nationalist.

anyway, mongols are still asian brothers. why don't we all get along?

what a rasist. haha..

Maybe you need to define what racist is for us. I don't think others follow your logic clearly so far.

rasist is a dude, like you, wich make a "Race-borders" between people and their famlies and think he have "right" of superior to tell them wich "race" is better and wich not.

You must have reading comprehension problem. Culture/social inclinations are different from races.
Anyway, this is a thread for scientific interest about Russian behaviours in china.
If Russian did not rape chinese women, I would be glad.

long live your hate on russian people.

perhaps you choke with your ruassian-hate.

god blest it came fast..

I do not hate Russian people. I was merely concerned about what happened
in northeast china.

I stated the fact that China was not among the winners of WW2. China's role is minor and Chinese fought mostly among themselves (Moa vs. Chiang) instead of fighting Japanese. The US had to train Chinese to fight against Japanese. You can't change the history no matter how hard you try to bash other nations it won't bring China as a WW2 winner.

Concentration camps still exist in China and it has nothing to do with Soviet rather with chinese mentality.

Did you read Amnesty International carefully or you have selective approach to their sources. If they write about China then it is probably a lie, and jump on any negative information you could dig on Russia.

I'm not going off top. I respond to your comments in your own manner. You guys are notorious for crimes against humanity, and what right do you have to judge others.



It is hilarious. anyway I think you should be concerned about the government run organ factories, concentration camps and forceful abortions. You have a lot on your plate. I think it is much more interesting from scientific point of view, Dr. Mendele.

To Danoc: you are kinda pathetic. I hope you are not older than 13, otherwise you are lost for society. Your opponent beronis deserves you. I suspect he is much older but not smarter.

China was a victorious nation on paper. If China weren't considered a victorious nation, it would not have been given a spot in the UN security counsel. Why don't you use your logic, the IJA surrendered; therefore, it's considered a loser. We are talking about formal victories, not moral victories (whole other discussion).

No matter how hard you try to bash China, you can't change the fact that China WAS considered a winner, you can't take away its UN security spot. And your words of hate won't undermine China's great potential, just know that small words from a mental midget like you won't change anything. If you don't like China, just come out and say it, nobody cares.

Anyhow, just sit back and enjoy the resurrection of the dragon.

I do not bash China. I just respond to the author of this topic in the manner he deserves to. I think that he should be reminded that people who live in a glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. If he decides to judge on crimes against women in Eastern Europe, than he shouldn't ignore the ones in China.

What the UN secutiry councel has to do with China's role in WW2? I'm not going to take away anything from China.


The words of hate,, please.. spare me of this propaganda and look at the inflammed hatred of you "lovely" compatirot. I think him and his propaganda department should be thought some lessons of..( how do you, guys call it?).. Taosism.. Daos??

You should know that UNSC seats were only granted to the victors of WWII. Thus, China is considered a victor of WWII.

We're talking about facts, not morals. If China has a UNSC seat then it is a considered a victorious nation in WWII.

No, it is all about the morals. The whole discussion is based on morals, which your compatriots lacks. The author took a role of higher authority.

You just read the last two-three posts and decided to intervene without understanding the discussion, jumping to personal conclusion about my attitude towards China by playing the blame game.

Let's just go along with your interpretation of Chinese human rights, and your references to "concentration camps" and "government-run organ factories," this however, has nothing to do with Kang Xi's argument about the status of China as a victor in the outcome of World War Two - which by the way, is a subject you brought up.

Fact of the matter is, China (ROC) did win the second Sino-Japanese War, and was a victor of World War 2. Kang Xi is correct about the seats in the UNSC - which was distributed among the big 5 that defeated the Axis powers at the end of WW2. Also, you should note that although China did receive aid from the U.S., it was much less in comparison with that of other allied nations. As well, most of China's best units were German-trained/equipped - and they performed quite well against the Japanese in key battles such as the Battle of Shanghai.

I'm not playing any game, I'm just pointing out your use of false information. A discussion of Russian atrocities is Dongbei is evidently to tough to carry out. Simply because, we don't have much historical evidence at all, but since the game is war, we can assume the worst (see germany) occurances.

All I see here is the same useless $hit that resides inside your head, so keep your garbage to yourself.

China's resistance against Japan lasted over 14 years, much longer than any other country in the world. China was Japan's main theatre of war in East Asia; During the initial stage of the Pacific War, 35 divisions out of a total of 51, including the strong Japanese Kwantung Army stationed in Northeast China, were pinned down (unable to invade the Soviet Union). Thus Japan was able to employ only 10 or 11 divisions in the Pacific theatre, with the other five divisions stationed on Japanese islands.

China's KMT forces engaged the Japanese invaders in a series of large-scale campaigns involving hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of men around Shanghai, Xuzhou, Wuhan, Changsha and other cities. Though ultimately losing, China made Japan pay a heavy price for each city gained. The main reasons for such poor performances on the battlefield were logistical and the Chinese lack of modern equipment. Some divisions were considered 'elite' by virtue of having received training and a decent allocation of equipment; the vast majority would be comparable to, at best, the Home Guard and at worst a medieval militia (spears, swords, daggers)...

Take the Battle of Shanghai for example, about 50,000 KMT soldiers, or five divisions, under the leadership of general Zhang Zhizhong (on the left and general Zhang Fakui on the right, were given the task of overcoming the Japanese positions. Zhang Fakui recalled in his memoirs: "Chinese soldiers did not have artillery to destroy Japan's defence works. They had to charge again and again, with their fallen bodies providing shelter to later waves." General Feng Yuxiang, chief commander of the Third War Zone covering Shanghai and nearby regions, said in his memoirs: "The whole Shanghai battlefield was like a big furnace, melting down division after division of our soldiers. Sometimes a division of 10,000 lost half its strength in just three hours." Senior officers also perished in the battle for Shanghai, including generals Wu Keren, Cai Bingyan, Pang Hanzhen, and Wu Jiguang. In his letter to US President Roosevelt, US captain Evans Carlson, who was Roosevelt's special envoy to Shanghai, wrote that he had never seen the Chinese so united and so brave in his 10 years in the country.

Without Shanghai, the Japanese would have simply waltzed into Nanjing. Between the Shanghai battle and the end of the Wuhan Campaign, China's armies had shattered the Japanese dream of conquering China in three months, at a cost of more than a million soldiers.

"After the Wuhan Campaign, Japanese troops became so exhausted that they could not launch massive attacks to conquer China's hinterland. This enabled guerrillas most led by the CPC to fight in the rear of occupied areas. The blood of Chinese soldiers and generals eventually led to China's great victory over Japan in 1945."

The Chinese Y-Forces in Burma crushed two Japanese divisions, including the 18th Division, the conquerors of Singapore and lead to the eventual liberation of Burma.

You meant "toO tough to carry"?

Not at all because first of all it is not proven, second of all I'm not Russian, but it is irritating to see attempts to elevate your country and make it more meaningful by bashing other countries, which never works.

Second of all China was involved more in its own civil affairs and fight against Japan rather than WW2. It is participation in WW2 is minor and this is very well documented unlike any Russian autrocities. China allied with Nazi Germany first and if it was not for Japan and Manchukuo China would never be even interested to fight Nazis.

"Starting in the late 1920s, Germany and China became close partners in areas of military and industrial exchange. After 1933, because of Chiang's anti-communist policies, Nazi Germany provided the largest proportion of Chinese arms imports. German military advisors assisted the Kuomintang armies; Chinese officers (including Chiang's second son) were trained by and served with the German Wehrmacht. The Nazis denounced Japanese war crimes in China, such as the Nanking Massacre of 1937. However the Nazis broke off the cooperation in May 1938 when they recognised the existence of Manchukuo."


Another thing is that all Chinese participants avoid subject of human right ethics in China. Unless your own acts cleaned up it is pointless to blame other countries in autrocities. You have more auctrocities inside of your country according to beronises' favorite information source Amnesty International, than Russia ever commited.

There are plenty of minor WW2 winners, who could "proudly" claim to beat Nazis: el Salvador, Panama, Iraq....need I say more?

What a Eurocentric guy China a minor winner,Japan a minor invader.
You seemed to know an aweful lot about WW2 and what China had done in it.I thought there was something equally decisive in the WW2 that you knew but you would not like put it here.With my respect to you learned,i better not to fetch it here again.



I am quite impressed by your righteousness.By a shadow of shadow,Is there something that indicates you always pick and choose China? It is irritating to see..



yeah,say something negative about China is quite pleasant,isnt it?

No, it is just relevant when people like lostn or beronis choose to be a higher judges and bash European or Central Asian countries without looking in their own backyard. Has nothing to do with pleasure, just trying to balance thing a bit.

Do You think Europeans should sit, observe and say thank you for inflammatory and unjustified threads? I think that people who say something negative about others should expect to get response: Look at yourself and not cry and complain about victimized afterwords.

Say something negative about Russia, it seems to be orgasmic for people in this thread.

not true... Chinese Communists were fighting guerilla war against Japanese in rural areas from 1937-1945 ... like Vietcong in Vietnam, or Afghans against Soviets... they played important role in tying down Japanese forces in China theater after Nationalist retreat to western China...

[quote name='GokTurk' date='Apr 16 2006, 01:06 PM' post='1756997']
I stated the fact that China was not among the winners of WW2. China's role is minor and Chinese fought mostly among themselves (Moa vs. Chiang) instead of fighting Japanese. The US had to train Chinese to fight against Japanese. You can't change the history no matter how hard you try to bash other nations it won't bring China as a WW2 winner.

Good logic.



I am jealous of Enropeans who are so united and "non-exclusive".



Cry and complain is not my characteristic. i am not for it

get out of here man you turkish man. Your $hit country is no different than other middle-eastern countries. From time to time, there are someone blowing himself up in the country. Also, i have seen some of you fu-k in hong kong. Get the fu-k out of here man. We don't want to see you here. We are not Germany, I know the german host a lot of you turkish in their country but we chinese are not german. Get the fu-k out of here.

get out of here man you turkish man. Your $hit country is no different than other middle-eastern countries. From time to time, there are someone blowing himself up in the country. Also, i have seen some of you fu-k in hong kong. Get the fu-k out of here man. We don't want to see you here. We are not Germany, I know the german host a lot of you turkish in their country but we chinese are not german. Get the fu-k out of here.

Nice to meet you too. Pardon me, I had not idea that this thread is exclusively for Chinese.



It is quite natural expecially after Nanking massacre to fight back on certain level, but without support of allies like the US I don't think it could have brought a desired result.

Does beronis care to discuss Japanese autrocities during WW2?


It depends... I consider myself a Eurasian, rather than European.

P.S. for reasonable people I think that there is nothing wrong to discuss ideas different from your own. On another hand, China today is in the most favorable political position anyone could ihave magines and it should bring satisfaction to Chinese.

Warning and 3 day temp ban

It's completely off-topic, but if you think you can neutralize Russian behaviours
at the end of the war, I can surely contribute.

As one of my sources was from BBC, I will use BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4145356.stm


We do not need to discuss much about the horrific crimes of japanese imperial army men. They killed tortured, and raped chinese people, and the rest of asian in the manner out of the despicable level.

Are you satisfied now? So, let's go back to the topic, and discuss Russian behaviours, and her supposed atrocities against her vital allies.

You should also admit that you lost the arguments. Yes, china was the victor of the WWII. No question about that. Russian, simply put, stole the part of giving final blows to japanese who are already weakened enough by the long war in china, and by the US. Please do not exaggerate as if you did something great, because Russian in early 1940's made a peace pact with imperial Japanese, and ignored what was happening in china.

It is no off-topic, it only demonstrates whether you have any right to judge others or not and you obviously are not entitled.

So Amnesty International is not a good source anymore or the head of propaganda department decided to change tactics. If you use Amnesty International as a reliable source then you should admit that other fact, reported by amnesty International as modern day concentration camps in China, where people abused, robbed of their organs is true and there is a policy of force abortions.

Otherwise you and your sources doesn't make sense. BBC is not a history institution, but a mass media, which is also part of propaganda machine even more than you.


As someone mentioned here China is WW2 winner on paper. It was a very good expression. It is a winner, so is Iraq a winner of WW2 and Venesuela. I do not believe in equality among people as communists and kindergardeners do. There are winners, second league winners, minor winners, winners on paper, etc.

Do not try to mix piece act with cooperation. USSR supported Mao a lot. Piece act is an act to not attack, at least without warning. It is different from sending your children to be an SS officers, active industrial cooperation and purchasing weaponry from Nazi Germany.

Japan was wickened not by guerilla war, which is very noble in it own way but by the US mostly, the USSR and again the US-atomic bomb. Guerilla war could have lasted forever unless it is supported by a real power.

I'm not satisfied utill you acknoledge Communist Chinese atrocities towards your own people or stop judging other nations, making them a monsters of a people.

If china wasn't a major winner then why was it 1 of 5 permanent security council nations to be in the UN after the war?

Because it always was a huge country with huge population and important strategic arena in Asia and all concequences coming from those factors were enough to become a security council. War front in mainland Asia (and Pacifics) was not even close in its toughness to European fronts, but it existed and Asia had to be represented. It was only fair to choose China, but not any other Asian country because Russia got its seat automatically with all its Asian protectorats.

Not as tough? More chinese died than Italians, French, British, American, and Germans combined.

Civilians or sodliers?

P.S. Casualities only indicates that some nations like Russia and China were ready to sacrifice more people, including unskilled and underage forces for victory. Those countries treated people as disposable raw material. It cannot refelect the whole scale of a war theatre. European war thatre was considered much more severe than Asian. It is a well nkown fact. On other hand, yes, Far East war theatre was much more active and brutal than African or Indian.

3-4 million soldiers and 10 million+ civilians

wow sad if it is true

Do some research if you don't believe me, some sources say at least 30 million chinese died but I think its more around 15-20 million.

I answered you in P.S. of my previous post. Russia also suffered a lot of casualities, but it is because they were much less skilled than Germans and had a brutal policy towards their own soldiers ready to sacrifice lives for victory even when it was unnecessary. I find it is a criminal in a way, but they were always inclined more towards Asian mentality to overpower by numbers and relying on collective heroism. Also thos countries had larger populations than Germany, France, Britain etc.

Ok the Russian front was tough with 20+ million russian casualties and you don't consider China's front tough with about the same amount? Btw how is it like a criminal if you want to die for your country?

It is criminal when authorities send people unequipped and hope that they'd win by sheer numbers. It is treating people like animals.

It was not Russian front, but European front-Eastern European war theatre.

I told you that it is not in a death toll but in number of battles, the territory, the weaponry involved on both sides, etc. Japan lost 2 million soldiers during WW2, Germans 5 million. It means that less than 2 million Japanese managed to slaughter 4 million Chinese soldiers, plus Civilians. The same when it comes to Germans and Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

What are they suppose to do, let the enemy takeover? You have to defend yourself no matter now badly u are equipped.

As for battles and territory

* The Kuomintang fought in 22 major engagements, most of which involved more than 100,000 troops on both sides, 1,171 minor engagements most of which involved more than 50,000 troops on both sides, and 38,931 skirmishes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

Can you name a battle in the pacific that involved more than 100,000 troops on both the American side and Japanese side?

Does the pie chart include dead before September 1, 1939? Japan invaded china on July 7, 1937, the Sino-Japanese war before 1939 was not considered a part of WWII.

Because they were not properly equipped. If you send ill equipped people against well equipped people it mean to happen.



What this has to do with Pacific? I compared Asain front to European one. All Pacific population of those days probably was smaller than one chinese province'.

It is not about the sizes here.

You have to defend your country, but there are smarter ways to do it- retreat, ally and wait for help. Russians and Chinese didn't like the words "retreat and wait", and they paid for it. They were also not so industrialized as Germany or Japan. It is like Neanderthals fighting against mideviel people.

Alies: 548,000 marines

Japan: 107,000 regulars, 24,000 militia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

If I have numerical superiority but my troops are ill equipped, what am I going to do? Stand around and call myself a criminal while the enemy comes to kill me?

Nationalists retreated after the Marco Polo Bridge incident and again after the battle of Shanghai. Most of the deaths were in 1937-1938. After the Nationalist defeat at Wuhan, the war became a stalemate as both sides were only able to make subtle gains. Why didnt chiang kai-shiek just retreat out of china according to your statement?



That is 1, Name another

You are discussing to WW2 but china-Japan war now. China joined WW2 in 1941, so do not mix those two events. I told you that China even allied with Germany to get weapons to fight against Japan.

You take literally. There is not necessity for Chiang to retreat but too change attack technique. If you analized the battle technique of Russians and chinese, you should know that there was not possibility for them to retreat. Russians had special forces withc executed their own soldiers who were retreating during the battle, which could have saved many lives and give some of them break and time to recover and chinese kept sending people with old rifles against updated Japanese army. The tactics where uncompromising, How else it could be explained that Japanese suffered only 2 million military casualities?


civilized countries suffered less military casualities than uncivilized. Your mentality is very close to those in 40-ies of lthe ast century. I wonder why you bother to complain or state casualities as a proof of toughness? For me it is reflection of stupid military behavior and uncivilized approach.

Japan slaughtered 300,000 civilians in Nanjing china and they are more civilized because they lost less troops during the war?

go and do search self before you do make false statements.

Battle of Singapore
British- 85,000
Japanese- 36,000

Fall of Hong Kong
British-15,000
Japanese 50,000

Battle of Guadacanal
Americans-29,000
Japanese-30,000

Iwo Jima
Americans- 70,000
Japanese- 22,000

Saipan
Americans-71,000
Japanese-31,000

None of these involved mroe than 100,000 combatants on both sides.

GokTurk explain why my mentality is of the 40s

you see, you can it without me!





well, i think i did go to talk with a enemy of my enemy and question for his help for me.



like Soviet Goverment have do it in a WW2.

Don't play with words now. It is childish and just discredits you. You know perfectly what I mean by being civilized. The utmost duty is to treat your own people right, and by this I mean to equip them, to feed them, to care for their lives, then come the others.

Japan benefited from civilization more than Russia and China together by industrialzing itself and applying modern for those days tactics of warfare.

So if you are less advanced, going through a famine and ill equipped then you should just surrender right away even though you can hold the enemy off? Its every citizens' duty to defend their country. Most of the chinese soldiers volunteered and were not forced to join the military during the war.



Yes I did and I found out that they were all less than 100,000 combatants on both sides.

well. i do question me why so many chinese soldiers and civil people have fought against chinese nationalist before and after japanese invasion from machukuko into china?



you did want a battle in pazific with more as 100 000 soldiers, you have get it. and now dont cry if you dont find more.

from stategical view, is realy stupid to use more soldiers if you can be winner without them. or?

it is a battle and not slaughterhouse.