Was the death toll in China inflated?

Discussions on all aspects of China, from the beginning of the First Sino-Japanese War till the end of the Chinese Civil War. Hosted by YC Chen.
gebhk
Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by gebhk » 25 May 2021 08:31

If you choose to take a more global view, it began in 1937.
Or even 1941 - albeit I would suggest it was Hitler's declaration of War on the US on 11 December '41 that made it so rather than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. It is logical to consider the start of the conflict going global (1941) as the start of World War 2 or the start of the first local conflict that fed into it (1937). It is not logical (albeit often politically expedient) to select a different start point just because it suits our political narrative.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by gebhk » 25 May 2021 09:18

That’s all about this topic Was the death toll in China inflated.
And that would be fine if all you had said was that Chinese rulers had killed more Chinese than the Japanese in the 20th century (which may well be true - much the same can be said for many states for that matter) but that is not what I am addressing. What I question is your absurd statement that
That’s solid proof of Japanese decency
Clearly your definition of decency is to kill fewer people than someone else at any any point in history. Not a definition I or, I would suggest, most people would concur with.

manfredzhang
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: 07 Feb 2008 04:52
Location: Canada

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by manfredzhang » 25 May 2021 12:42

Sid Guttridge wrote:
25 May 2021 06:34


He posted, "..........the most decent force in the Sino-Japanese conflicts is indeed the Japanese." He didn't say something along the lines of "least worst", he said "most decent". I don't have to rehearse for you what the Japanese actually did while in China for it to be obvious that the Japanese weren't "decent" at all.

Cheers,

Sid
Well, IMHO least worst is almost identical to most decent. Decency is largely a relative term to begin with...

manfredzhang
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: 07 Feb 2008 04:52
Location: Canada

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by manfredzhang » 25 May 2021 12:49

Sid Guttridge wrote:
25 May 2021 06:47
Hi manfredzhang,

The Chinese welcoming the Japanese checking Russian aggression is not at all the same thing as them inviting the Japanese in.
Actually, the moment you stated Chinese did not invite Japan, the moment I know you are lack of many common sense of Chinese history. I will expand the topic a bit later on today or tomorrow. Without that context, it's very hard for you to understand the interaction between Japanese and different interest factions within China. The simple conclusion is there were Chinese who welcomed Japan's presence.

You post, "I don't consider Sino-Japanese conflicts is at World War level". And the German attack on Poland was?


Yes. The attack on Poland triggered two major powers' declaration of war against Germany. So absolutely this is world war level.

manfredzhang
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: 07 Feb 2008 04:52
Location: Canada

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by manfredzhang » 25 May 2021 12:51

gebhk wrote:
25 May 2021 09:18
That’s all about this topic Was the death toll in China inflated.
And that would be fine if all you had said was that Chinese rulers had killed more Chinese than the Japanese in the 20th century (which may well be true - much the same can be said for many states for that matter) but that is not what I am addressing. What I question is your absurd statement that
That’s solid proof of Japanese decency
Clearly your definition of decency is to kill fewer people than someone else at any any point in history. Not a definition I or, I would suggest, most people would concur with.
As stated, decency is a relative term to begin with...

In this sense, killing less is more decent...

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by gebhk » 25 May 2021 13:16

As stated, decency is a relative term to begin with...

In this sense, killing less is more decent...
That's OK then. Since we are travelling in the absurd and 'alternative' language, we can all relax, all those regimes some of us complain about (Nazi, Soviet, Pol Pot etc) were in reality perfectly decent - after all they killed far fewer people than the lowly motor car in the 20th century. And all those hundreds of serial killers on record were all decent upstanding citizens. Apart from Louis Garavito, of course.

The only fly in the ointment is that it is small consolation to the victims of the crimes.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by gebhk » 25 May 2021 13:26

Well, IMHO least worst is almost identical to most decent. Decency is largely a relative term to begin with...
Since decency is generally considered to be compliance with acceptable standards of morality and behaviour then, as Sid has noted, you must be setting the bar very low if you consider merely killing fewer people than the very worst offender an acceptable standard of morality and behaviour.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9478
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 25 May 2021 13:55

Hi Manfredzhang,

You post, "IMHO least worst is almost identical to most decent."

I am not sure many people would prefer to be described as "least worst" rather than "most decent".

It is a bit like equating the top club of the bottom division in a football league with the top club of the top division!

Anyway, if there is no functional difference to you, why not just change what you write from one to the other?

That might keep everyone happy!

Problem solved?

Cheers,

Sid.

manfredzhang
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: 07 Feb 2008 04:52
Location: Canada

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by manfredzhang » 26 May 2021 00:20

gebhk wrote:
25 May 2021 13:26
Well, IMHO least worst is almost identical to most decent. Decency is largely a relative term to begin with...
Since decency is generally considered to be compliance with acceptable standards of morality and behaviour then, as Sid has noted, you must be setting the bar very low if you consider merely killing fewer people than the very worst offender an acceptable standard of morality and behaviour.
Sure, what are the so called acceptable standards of morality and behaviour? Please be specific. And which forces/countries fit the so called acceptable standards of morality and behaviour?
Last edited by manfredzhang on 26 May 2021 03:07, edited 1 time in total.

manfredzhang
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: 07 Feb 2008 04:52
Location: Canada

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by manfredzhang » 26 May 2021 00:25

Sid Guttridge wrote:
25 May 2021 13:55
Hi Manfredzhang,

You post, "IMHO least worst is almost identical to most decent."

I am not sure many people would prefer to be described as "least worst" rather than "most decent".

It is a bit like equating the top club of the bottom division in a football league with the top club of the top division!

Anyway, if there is no functional difference to you, why not just change what you write from one to the other?

That might keep everyone happy!

Problem solved?

Cheers,

Sid.
I am not sure many people know basic facts of Sino-Japanese conflicts. Why I should be concerned of their preference?
As I mentioned many times, decency in my view is a relative term. I did not equate the top club of the bottom division in a football league with the top club of the top division. I was telling the differences between the top club and bottom clubs of the bottom division. So what’s the issue?
I am here to state truth not to entertain anybody.
Last edited by manfredzhang on 26 May 2021 03:07, edited 1 time in total.

manfredzhang
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: 07 Feb 2008 04:52
Location: Canada

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by manfredzhang » 26 May 2021 03:06



Actually, the moment you stated Chinese did not invite Japan, the moment I know you are lack of many common sense of Chinese history. I will expand the topic a bit later on today or tomorrow.


As mentioned above, here are some contexts of Sino-Japanese conflict which I think will be a bit helpful for folks who are talking about Chinese did not welcome Japanese on their soil.

1, I will start with the Ming dynasty which was ruled by Han Emperors. Near the end of the dynasty, the territory is like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dyna ... 0_(en).svg
Then the ethnic Manchu people defeated the Ming dynasty and became the new master of China.
Keep in mind, Manchu and Han are two different ethnic groups with different languages and cultures.
The land where Manchu resided was called Manchu’s Land or a more familiar term to many, Manchuria.
Manchuria was pretty much independent from Ming dynasty. After Man’s conquer of China and established Qing dynasty, the Manchu rulers viewed Manchuria holy land of their ancestors and forbid ethnic Han Chinese from entering these lands.
So when you think China is a unified country from Qing dynasty, most of the Chinese with Han background were not allowed to enter Manchuria because this was not considered their land.
After the Opium War, the Qing Emperors felt pressure from Western Powers and Russia, especially Russia. And they started to loosen the rule and allow certain number of Han Chinese to get into Manchuria. But it’s not until after the Russo Japanese war did large number of Han Chinese migrated to Manchuria. At the same time, many Japanese, Koreans and Russians also moved to Manchuria.
When the Republic of China was formed and Manchu people being driven away from their ruler position, all they wanted was to restore the Pre Qing status, meaning they gave up the power in China in exchange for the control of Manchuria. While the new ruler of Republic of China refused, they don’t have direct control of the land at all.
It was under the administration of Warlord Zhang, Zuoling who was Han Chinese and later his son Zhang, Xueliang. Between 1911 when ROC was formed to 1928, Manchuria was technically independent from ROC. Even after 1928, it was merely Zhang Xueliang’s posture that Manchuria is unified with China on paper but still, it was under Zhang’s rule not ROC.
At about the same time, there is a concept called China Proper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper
This is the real Han’s land and being largely the same as Ming’s territory posted above.
So tell me, was the people of Manchuria really against Japanese help to form their own Nation state? If we talk about self determination, don't you think Manchu people have a right to form their own Nation state with land they inherited from their ancestors?

2, Talking about Han Chinese. I start with my own experience. I was born in Shanghai. Wu Chinese or Shanghainese is my native language. Before enrolled in primary school, I can understand people speaking in Mandarin, but I myself could not speak one complete sentence in Mandarin. Chiang Kai Shek was from Zhejiang Province where people speak Wu Chinese which is non interchangeable with Mandarin. Many Mandarin speakers who resided in Northern China.
When you talk about Han Chinese, there were various language subgroups which had much larger difference in language than say German vs Dutch or even German vs English. Calling Han Chinese is like calling Germanic people. You have Dutch, German, Danes and so on and so on all fall under Germanic people. They had formed various Nation countries. If they were justified to form their own countries, why can not the Northern Chinese do the same? Why Chiang Kai Shek sent troops on their land is unification while Japanese sent troops on their land became aggression?
Again, which Chinese were you talking about?

3, In 1930s, over 90% of Chinese were illiterate. They don’t know Nationalism. They had never been brainwashed of Nationalism. And hence why, small cash incentive like Japanese offered in Manchuria attracted Million of Chinese to migrate. China was not even a Nation state. Most Chinese don’t give a fxck about Nationalism or whether Chiang Kai Shek or Japanese would become their ruler. Or put it this way, they will bow to whoever the stronger. Doesn’t matter it’s Chiang Kai Shek, the Japanese, the Russians or the Americans. Whoever the strongest will be my ruler. Whoever paid me more, I will go there and work. Plain and simple. So again, which Chinese are you talking about?

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9478
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 26 May 2021 07:08

Hi manfredzhang,

No, you are not here to tell the truth. You are here to tell what you think is the truth. Most people are here to establish the facts, not push their own personal "truths".

You post, "So tell me, was the people of Manchuria really against Japanese help to form their own Nation state? If we talk about self determination, don't you think Manchu people have a right to form their own Nation state with land they inherited from their ancestors?" I have no problem with that in principle. However, that is not actually what happened, is it? The Japanese Army moved in and formed a puppet government in its own interest, didn't it? As you point out, it was the Japanese who imported a million Chinese to Manchuria. How would this help Manchuria form a "nation state"? And if you believe Manchuria is not part of "China", what relevance does this have to China anyway?

Again, I have no problem with the 20% of the population who are not non-Han Chinese forming their own states if they so wish. But again, that is not what the Japanese were about, was it?

I would suggest that virtually all Chinese citizens knew they were Chinese citizens and that the great majority of the population knew they were linguistically Han Chinese. I would also suggest that virtually all Chinese citizens, Han or not, knew that they were not Japanese.

Sure, one can find collaborators pretty much anywhere, but this doesn't necessarily make them representative of the population at large.

Certainly, out of necessity people "will bow to whoever the stronger". Are you suggesting that "might is right" is a justification, rather than an explanation, for the rapacious Japanese presence in China?

I get that you are a Wu regional nationalist and I have some sympathy for that, but Japan was not in China to promote regional nationalism. It was there to exploit China's schisms in its own self interest. Japan wasn't invited. It invaded and acted abominably. This doesn't make Japan "most decent". Decency has positive connotations and it is impossible to put a positive spin on the biological warfare experiments of Unit 731, the Nanking Rape/Massacre, the promotion of drug usage, etc., etc.. These are all clearly extremely indecent, rather than decent, activities.

Cheers,

Sid.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by gebhk » 26 May 2021 07:48

Sure, what are the so called acceptable standards of morality and behaviour?
Since our entire discussion was prompted by you raising the issue of murdering civilians as a measure of decency, let's stick to that. Most people, I would suggest, myself included, consider the murder of unarmed civilians or POWs to fall below acceptable standards of morality and behaviour, regardless of the numbers involved. When talking about whole armies and formations, one clearly has to differentiate between the acts of individuals stepping outside the code of conduct (this will always happen both in war and peace - which is why we have a police force) and an ethos of ignoring basic decency by the entire unit either sanctioned by policy (such as the Japanese in China with the 3K policy) or encouraged or even just tacitly permitted informally. What is not acceptable behaviour at the macro level is clearly defined in the Statute of Rome, so there seems little point in repeating it. Clearly, measured against this benchmark, the Japanese in China failed to achieve anything remotely resembling 'decency' as it was recognised by the international community and the vast majority of humanity even then.

You are, off course, entitled to a different opinion on what the benchmark for decency in this regard is - and you have defined it repeatedly as being killing fewer people than the worst offender. You have to accept, however, that you set the bar so low it is, as makes no difference, at nadir level and that, in this, you are in a vanishingly small minority.
And which forces/countries fit the so called acceptable standards of morality and behaviour?
I have no intention of engaging this off-top straw man. The only issue I am addressing here is your claim that the Japanese were 'decent' in China.

manfredzhang
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: 07 Feb 2008 04:52
Location: Canada

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by manfredzhang » 27 May 2021 00:09

Sid Guttridge wrote:
26 May 2021 07:08



Sid.
You are here to tell what you think is the truth. Most people are here to establish the facts, not push their own personal "truths".
------------------
What personal truth I was pushing? Is Manchu and Han are two ethnic groups with different languages and culture NOT fact? Is Wu Chinese non-interchangeable with Mandarin NOT fact? Is 90% Chinese at the time were illiterate NOT fact? Tell me, what truth I was pushing? What stuff I made up? Can you find a single one?

The Japanese Army moved in and formed a puppet government in its own interest, didn't it? As you point out, it was the Japanese who imported a million Chinese to Manchuria. How would this help Manchuria form a "nation state"? And if you believe Manchuria is not part of "China", what relevance does this have to China anyway?
--------------------
Yes, IJA did it for Japan’s interest. US entered the Gulf War to secure oil production in the Middle East. Can we say US did it for her own interest? Even so, does that deny the truth that Kuwait fought the war for her sovereignty and Saudi fought the war for self defense? So what’s the problem? Japanese did not import a million Chinese to Manchuria. That’s not my word. My word was they paid a premium salary (to all the people not just Chinese) to work in their enterprises in Manchuria. And that premium salary was attractive enough for Millions of Chinese to drop down their so perceived National Pride (They did not really have it in the first place and I will explain why) and went to Manchuria to work for both the State of Manchuria and Japanese.
I am a Canadian citizen. I also welcome immigrants from all over the world. We need them to add value to our economy the same way as Manchurians and Japanese wanted everyone in Manchuria including the Chinese immigrants to add value to their economies. How hard is it for you to understand it?
It’s not about me believing or not whether Manchuria is part of China. When you say Chinese did not invite Japanese, I was using this as an example to counter that argument. Now decision time for you. Do you consider Manchuria part of China? If so, then your early conclusion is void. If not, I certainly welcome this position.

I would suggest that virtually all Chinese citizens knew they were Chinese citizens and that the great majority of the population knew they were linguistically Han Chinese. I would also suggest that virtually all Chinese citizens, Han or not, knew that they were not Japanese.
----------------------
Sorry to disappoint you but they did NOT. As I mentioned above, at that time over 90% Chinese were illiterate. They did not go to school to solute the National Flag, to sing the National Anthem and to be brainwashed by Nationalism. They couldn’t even write their names nor did they know Arabic numbers. To them, China is more a culture concept than a modern Nation State concept. They don’t know China. All they know is 天下 which literally meant under the sky or the world. And talking about languages, I already mentioned too. Mandarin, Wu Chinese, Minnan China and Cantonese are not interchangeable to one another. So what do you mean linguistically Han Chinese. There was even no unified language. On the other hand, in Chinese history, at least there were Mongolian Yuan Dynasty and Manchu Qing Dynasty. Han Chinese could not bother to have another Japanese Dynasty. If that meant better pay/life, they would go for it.
As stated above, millions of ordinary Chinese migrated to Manchuria simply because of better pay. The so called National Pride was not even worth a 20%~30% pay increase. See how far your suggestion is from reality?
Japan wasn't invited.
-----------------
Japanese were welcome by Manchus to help them establish their Nation State. The same as Mongols and Norther Chinese.

biological warfare experiments of Unit 731, the Nanking Rape/Massacre
---------------------
Most of the so-called 731 victims were Anti Japanese terrorists with blood on their hands from Manchurian civilians and officials. Even the US did not recognize terrorists’ human rights in the 21st century. I don’t see this is a problem. Terrorists should be harshly punished. Period.
There was no Nanking Massacre. There was only Nanking Incidents as the death toll was relatively small and 10 folders less than Communist/Nationalist Chinese exaggerated. The death toll of Nanking incident is probably lower than Changsha fire and definitely lower than Yellow River Flooding and three year famine.
All these things made Japan the most decent force in the Sino-Japanese conflict.

manfredzhang
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: 07 Feb 2008 04:52
Location: Canada

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by manfredzhang » 27 May 2021 00:27

gebhk wrote:
26 May 2021 07:48

such as the Japanese in China with the 3K policy
-------------------
3K policy? What is that? Knocking, Kidding and Kissing? I didn’t know Japanese were so adorable in the war. Thanks, I learned something new.

consider the murder of unarmed civilians or POWs to fall below acceptable standards of morality and behaviour,
------------------
Really? The strategic bombing of German and Japanese cities by both UK and US were clearly murdering unarmed civilians. So they were not decent forces/countries. I wonder who else met that standard in WWII.

I have no intention of engaging this off-top straw man.
---------------------
Right, you set up a standard which no one can meet. That’s why you don’t even have the gut to name a single one. Brilliant!

Return to “China at War 1895-1949”