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 » 27 May 2021 05:05

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.
Typical apologist's whataboutism. It doesn't wash.
Right, you set up a standard which no one can meet.
I didn't. The international community did and well before the commencement of WW2. The thinking of the majority of humanity seems to be that these are basic standards in the conduct of war that can and should be met. As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion that being less murderous than the worst offender is an appropriate standard for decency but should accept that you are in a vanishingly small minority on this.
That’s why you don’t even have the gut to name a single one. Brilliant!
I don't need to. It is not I that posed and continues to pose the proposition that the Japanese behaved 'decently' in China.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 27 May 2021 11:41

Hi mamfred zhang,

You ask, "What personal truth I was pushing?"

Simple, the one we have been discussing from the start: ".....the most decent force in the Sino-Japanese conflicts is indeed the Japanese."

This implies that the Japanese were some sort of benign presence in China and completely ignores the biological warfare experiments of Unit 731, or the Nanking Massacre/Rape, or the official fostering of a drug culture among the population of occupied China for reasons of pacification and profit, etc., etc.

Identity is not dependent on literacy.

Again, "welcomed" is not the same as "invited". Japan used an army, not aid agencies. It was an invasion.

You post, "Most of the so-called 731 victims were Anti Japanese terrorists with blood on their hands from Manchurian civilians and officials." Even if true, does that justify biological warfare experiments on them? Are you sure you are Canadian? You don't seem to be advancing a very "Canadian" value here.

So, having objected to the phrase "Rape of Nanking", you are now rejecting your own earlier preference for "Nanking Massacre" in favour of "Nanking Incident"! What next? The "Nanking Scuffle"? The "Nanking Slight Misunderstanding"? The "Nanking Mass Suicide"?

As a matter of interest, what is the threshold between "Massacre" and "Incident"? Presumably higher than 7,000, but quite how high does the death toll have to be to turn an "incident" into a "massacre"?

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 » 27 May 2021 13:51

gebhk wrote:
27 May 2021 05:05

Typical apologist's whataboutism. It doesn't wash.
------------
I didn’t wash anything. I state the fact. Actually in my view, UK and US were certainly more decent than Japan in WWII. See? My standard is pretty consistent. When I say decency is a relative term, I always use comparison.

The thinking of the majority of humanity seems to be that these are basic standards in the conduct of war that can and should be met.
------------
Well, reality is no major players in WWII met that standard. If there is no one being able to meet a standard, then it’s not a standard. It’s a dream. Feel free to enjoy your dreams, I am only interested in facts and realities.

I don't need to.
------------
It’s NOT you don’t need to but simply you can not. Like I said, the so called standard is like Utopia existed only in your dream. That’s why you can't find one single force/country met that standard.

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

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by gebhk » 27 May 2021 15:29

None of the above obfuscation supports your contention that the Japanese behaved decently in China by the standards that most of humanity holds.

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 15:46

Sid Guttridge wrote:
27 May 2021 11:41

Simple, the one we have been discussing from the start: ".....the most decent force in the Sino-Japanese conflicts is indeed the Japanese."
------------------
I’ve already answered the question multiple times. My view of decency is in relative terms. Compared with Chinese, Nationalists or Communists, Japan was the most decent. That’s not what I pushed. That was supported by multiple evidence including but not limited to the Changsha Fire set by the Nationalists, the Yellow River flood by the Nationalists, Three Years Famine by the Communists and live organ harvesting by the Communists in 21st Century! All these incidents killed way more Chinese civilians and in a way more brutal fashion than the Japanese.

This implies that the Japanese were some sort of benign presence in China and completely ignores the biological warfare experiments of Unit 731, or the Nanking Massacre/Rape, or the official fostering of a drug culture among the population of occupied China for reasons of pacification and profit, etc., etc.
-----------------------
I have also addressed Unit 731, Nanking incident. You admitted the so called drug culture was coming from non-citable sources and it was in obvious conflict with Japanese friendly immigrant policy at the time. So BS after BS.

Identity is not dependent on literacy.
-----------------------
Right. So an illiterate Mandarin speaker in Norther China doesn’t understand Japanese nor Chiang Kai Shek’s Wu Chinese. He is self identified as a Northern Chinese or Chaharian. And he wanted the Japanese to help him go independent from Chiang Kai Shek’s Nanking government. That’s his identity. Thanks for making my point.

Again, "welcomed" is not the same as "invited". Japan used an army, not aid agencies. It was an invasion.
----------------------
Wrong again. Both Zhang, Zuoling and Zhang, Xueliang had Japanese military advisors in the Dongbei Army/Northern Eastern Army. Were they not invited? They were actually paid by the warlords to guide his army to fight. Again, a clear sign of lacking basic common sense.

Even if true, does that justify biological warfare experiments on them?
----------------
Donald Trump said Baghdadi died like a dog. Human beings had long been using white mice for biologic tests. See? I have effectively established a logic chain. Terrorists are like animals and can be/(in my view) should be treated as animals.
Talking about Canadian value. Yeah, we rewarded convicted terrorist with $10M. Yak! Great value! But sorry, we were discussing WWII events NOT modern-day events. The Canadians had plans to execute German POWs in Dieppe. And they actually did. This is the WWII Canadian value which aligned with the Japanese behaviors pretty well.

So, having objected to the phrase "Rape of Nanking", you are now rejecting your own earlier preference for "Nanking Massacre" in favour of "Nanking Incident"!
--------------------
When you are talking about massacre, aside from mass killing it also implied that the killings are deliberate with the purpose to kill. It’s certainly true in the case of individual Japanese soldiers who committed the atrocity. Yet, there was no evidence that Japanese High Command/Japanese government had plans to mass kill Chinese civilians/POWs. The quarter million civilians within Nanking safety zone were largely intact. Japan largely honored the safety zone which were guarded by several Western missionaries/businessmen. In no way they could stop a Japanese advance.
It’s like first degree murder vs. negligence in driving causing death. In criminal code, these are different charges, different penalties. The same thing here. Nanking incident was not deliberate in nature in the military or government level. There were issues of discipline enforcement. That’s all. That does not constitute massacre or genocide. Unlike Nazis who had Wannsee conference and came with a clear intention to eliminate the Jewish population, Japan certainly did not have such plan.
Last edited by manfredzhang on 27 May 2021 18:31, edited 6 times 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 » 27 May 2021 15:48

gebhk wrote:
27 May 2021 15:29
None of the above obfuscation supports your contention that the Japanese behaved decently in China by the standards that most of humanity holds.


I repeat again my words. Japan is the most decent force in Sino-Japanese conflict.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 27 May 2021 23:19

Hi manfredzhang,

You post, "I’ve already answered the question multiple times." Sadly not adequately.

In writing, "Compared with Chinese, Nationalists or Communists, Japan was the most decent," you make it sound like a competition among decent competitors for the title of "most decent".

I would disagree. All did abominable and reprehensible things, so the competition is actually about who is least indecent.

We have already rehearsed several of the "indecent" activities of the Japanese.

In using the word "decent" you seem intent on carrying out a whitewash of Japanese crimes in China.

This is confirmed by your apparent defence of biological warfare experiments by the Japanese on thousands of Chinese.

Interesting that you write, "Terrorists are like animals and can be/(in my view) should be treated as animals." Isn't that the Communist Chinese philosophy as well?

You post, "we were discussing WWII events NOT modern-day events." Exactly the point I made to you earlier. You are repeatedly engaging, as gebhk has said several times, in "whataboutism" that is neither concerning WWII, nor China.

So your latest euphemism for the the Nanking Massacre/Rape is the Nanking "Discipline Enforcement"!

Your reality tops my satire!

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 » 28 May 2021 14:14

Sid Guttridge wrote:
27 May 2021 23:19

Sadly not adequately.
---------------
I am here for serious history discussion not to educate a three-year-old. I have provided tons of information including correcting your wrong impression that most Chinese in the 1930s knew their national identity.

In using the word "decent" you seem intent on carrying out a whitewash of Japanese crimes in China.
---------------
I did not whitewash any Japanese crimes. For Nanking incident, I recognized there were atrocities happened. I used Lewis Smythe’s survey as my support to the death toll. For unit 731, I recognized, the transfer of prisoner may not comply with procedure law. And I also expressed that I do think UK and US are both more decent than Japan in WWII despite their bombing of German and Japanese cities are clear acts of murdering unarmed civilians.
But you can not accuse Japan of crimes it did not commit. In the case of Nanking incident, there is no evidence that the atrocities were a result of high command or government instruction. It is more about not enforcing disciplines.

This is confirmed by your apparent defence of biological warfare experiments by the Japanese on thousands of Chinese.
----------------------
As I always said, when you judge historic event, you have to bring in historic contexts. In WWII era, it’s common practice to summarily execute spies and terrorists. Most of the so-called thousands of Chinese were under cover agents or resistance fighters who did not have POW status. According to one pro Chinese scholar, there were four known survivors from unit 731. Two of them were local Nationalist Party officials, one of them regular Nationalist Party member, and the last being an Anti-Japan Alliance under cover agent as well as a Communist Party member. These were the representatives of the thousands of Chinese. They were not peaceful civilians and not regular fighters wearing uniform. They were not protected under International Law or Hague/Geneva Convention.

Isn't that the Communist Chinese philosophy as well?
-----------------------
No! Don’t use your imagination on something you don’t know. You have tried on Chinese national identify in the 1930s and lost bitterly. And now you tried again! Let me give you a 5 min class so you have better understanding of how Communist China works.
For the Japanese, they sent prisoners who indeed committed sabotages to unit 731. There were procedures to validate all the crimes they committed.
For Chinese Communists, they sentenced people to death for crimes they did not commit but if their organs were a match to any VIPs. Let’s say Sid you have a liver perfectly matches with President Xi’s and he had a liver failure. The Communist will find a dead body and arrest you for murdering. They then will torture you and make you confess. Now with all the “evidence”, they will organize a trial and produce a death sentence. They will then have you volunteered to donate all your organs. After putting a bullet in your head, they will mail your parents the bill for the cartridge. All happened within a two-week period. Isn’t that very humane and decent?
The Communist Chinese did not officially stop using prisoners’ organs for transplant until 2014.
Stop whitewashing the Communists PLEASE!

Exactly the point I made to you earlier. You are repeatedly engaging, as gebhk has said several times, in "whataboutism" that is neither concerning WWII, nor China.
----------------------
You are the one brought the Canadian value shxt which supposedly the modern-day version. I am the one dragging you back to the WWII Canadian value of executing POWs.

So your latest euphemism for the the Nanking Massacre/Rape is the Nanking "Discipline Enforcement"!
---------------------
That is what it is.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1137
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by Peter89 » 28 May 2021 16:05

manfredzhang wrote:
28 May 2021 14:14
So your latest euphemism for the the Nanking Massacre/Rape is the Nanking "Discipline Enforcement"!
---------------------
That is what it is.
Your dark humour reminds me of the Umberto Eco book titled Foucault's Pendulum.

- Vous êtes nègre?
- Oui, mon général!
- Bravo, bravo, continuez!
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 28 May 2021 18:52

Hi manfredzhang,

You post, "I am here for serious history discussion not to educate a three-year-old." .....and apparently also to throw kindergarten insults!

You post, "I have provided tons of information including correcting your wrong impression that most Chinese in the 1930s knew their national identity." No, you have offered tons of opinion.

You post, "For Nanking incident, I recognized there were atrocities happened. I used Lewis Smythe’s survey as my support to the death toll." The trouble is that it is not on the spectrum of decency. It is on the spectrum of indecency.

You post, "For unit 731, I recognized, the transfer of prisoner may not comply with procedure law." Again, the use of prisoners in biological warfare and other experiments is not on the spectrum of decency, but of indecency.

You post, "But you can not accuse Japan of crimes it did not commit." Agreed. Who has done that here?

You post, "In the case of Nanking incident, there is no evidence that the atrocities were a result of high command or government instruction." Has anyone suggested otherwise? I certainly haven't!

You post, "It is more about not enforcing disciplines." So? Does this lessen the casualties? Does this change the identity of the perpetrators or the victims?

Only two posts ago your original Nanking "Massacre" was actually an example of "discipline enforcement". Now it is the result of "poor discipline" on the part of Japanese troops. You are not being consistent.

As long as you persist in trying to put these crimes, whatever their scale and however you choose to characterize them, on the decency spectrum, I would suggest that you are effectively whitewashing the Japanese record in China.

I am not at all sure that your view of Unit 731 is supported by, Unit 731: The Forgotten Asian Auschwitz, which I see has gone to a second edition. If the unit was only concerned with people not covered by international law (hardly an excuse for barbarity under any circumstances) why were so many POWs of other nationalities used in its experiments? Why were some of its agents apparently used operationally in China?

You keep returning to organ transplants in contemporary China. Nobody is arguing with you about that. The fact Communist China may be doing abominable things today doesn't make Japanese atrocities eighty years ago in any way "decent". They were indecent then and they are indecent now.

You say, "You are the one brought the Canadian value shxt....." Who, do you think, told us you were Canadian? I didn't just make a lucky guess!

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 » 28 May 2021 20:51

Sid Guttridge wrote:
28 May 2021 18:52

throw kindergarten insults!
-----------------
I am not calling you a three-year-old. I am saying I can not offer explanation to fit a child’s knowledge level.

No, you have offered tons of opinion.
-----------------------
90% illiteracy in the 1930s China is not my opinion but a fact. Millions of Chinese civilians went to Manchuria is not my opinion but a fact. Chinese languages are not interchangeable to each other is not my opinion but a fact. During the war, Chinese civilians helped Japanese to disarm Chinese army is not my opinion but a fact.
Simple fact is I know Sino-Japanese War much more than you do. Again, that’s not an opinion but a fact.

Again, the use of prisoners in biological warfare and other experiments is not on the spectrum of decency, but of indecency.
------------------------
Under covered spies and terrorists did not have human rights and were not protected by International Laws and Conventions. When countries and organizations sent these people to kill and sabotage, they already lost decency. Of course, it’s WWII. Everybody did that.

The trouble is that it is not on the spectrum of decency. It is on the spectrum of indecency.
--------------------
Compared with Changsha Fire and Yellow River flood, way more decent.

Again, the use of prisoners in biological warfare and other experiments is not on the spectrum of decency, but of indecency.
---------------------
Nothing wrong to use under covered spies and terrorists that way…

Agreed. Who has done that here? Has anyone suggested otherwise? I certainly haven't!
--------------------
Yes you did. By calling it Nanking Massacre you are suggesting it’s Japanese high command/government’s deliberate action which is not.

So? Does this lessen the casualties? Does this change the identity of the perpetrators or the victims?
--------------------------
It certainly reduced casualties. If it’s Japanese policy to kill all civilians in Nanking, there would have been a quarter million more dead civilians within the safety zone and possibly another million in the rural area.

You are not being consistent.
-------------------------
I am consistent. I called Nanking incident from the very beginning. The only time I said Nanking Massacre, I either quoted the Chinese government or Chinese Fan boys.

I would suggest that you are effectively whitewashing the Japanese record in China.
---------------------------
Why do I care someone’s opinion when this exact person doesn’t even know basic facts of Sino-Japanese war?

I am not at all sure that your view of Unit 731 is supported by, Unit 731: The Forgotten Asian Auschwitz, which I see has gone to a second edition. If the unit was only concerned with people not covered by international law (hardly an excuse for barbarity under any circumstances) why were so many POWs of other nationalities used in its experiments?
----------------------
That is the problem of you people. You don’t study Japanese or even Chinese languages but instead rely on second hand some time third hand materials. That’s why you came up with imaginations of most Chinese in the 1930s had National identities. So many POWs with other nationalities? Source Please? How many Soviet POWs? How many British? How many Americans? Names? Ranks? From what sources? Japanese Archive? UK Archive? US Archive? Or ChiCom BS?

he fact Communist China may be doing abominable things today doesn't make Japanese atrocities eighty years ago in any way "decent".
------------------------
It certainly does. They are seven/eight decades behind Japan in decency.

Who, do you think, told us you were Canadian?
--------------------
I told you I am Canadian. Why does it have anything to do with you babbling about the Modern day Canadian value and was slapped by the WWII Canadian value, PRETTY HARD.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 29 May 2021 09:21

Hi manfredzhang,

Thank you for clarifying the "three-year-old" matter. There are precious few three-year-old members of AHF, so it would be pretty pointless pitching any argument here at that level!

You post, "90% illiteracy in the 1930s China is not my opinion but a fact. Millions of Chinese civilians went to Manchuria is not my opinion but a fact. Chinese languages are not interchangeable to each other is not my opinion but a fact. During the war, Chinese civilians helped Japanese to disarm Chinese army is not my opinion but a fact." And has anyone here disputed any of that? Not me.

You post, "Simple fact is I know Sino-Japanese War much more than you do. Again, that’s not an opinion but a fact." I am happy to agree that that is very likely true.

My problem is not your possession of facts, but the spin you choose to put on them. The description of Japanese actions as if they are on the decency spectrum rather than the indecency spectrum. Your preference for using euphemisms such as "incident" to describe what was actually a massacre. Your default justification and apparent approval of the use of prisoners in biological warfare experiments.

You post, "Under covered spies and terrorists did not have human rights and were not protected by International Laws and Conventions. When countries and organizations sent these people to kill and sabotage, they already lost decency." Even assuming all that is true, how does this justify using them in biological warfare and other experiments?

You post, "Of course, it’s WWII. Everybody did that." Really? Please tell us about the biological warfare and other experiments on prisoners by other countries in WWII. For example, did China conduct them on Japanese POWs?

You post, "Compared with Changsha Fire and Yellow River flood, way more decent." And yet still not on the decency spectrum!

I will let stand on its own your opinion that there is (was?) "Nothing wrong to use under covered spies and terrorists......" "in biological warfare and other experiments."

How does "...calling it Nanking Massacre" suggest "it’s Japanese high command/government’s deliberate action." To be a massacre only requires that a number of defenceless people be killed. To be a massacre by the Japanese only requires that these killings be done by Japanese. That is what happened in Nanking.

How can it possibly be that using a euphemism like "Nanking Incident" to describe a massacre in which even by your own minimalist sources some 7,000 people died, "certainly reduced casualties"?

You post, "If it’s Japanese policy to kill all civilians in Nanking, there would have been a quarter million more dead civilians within the safety zone and possibly another million in the rural area." Perhaps, but has anyone here actually suggested that it was Japanese policy "to kill all civilians"? Certainly not me!

You post, "Why do I care someone’s opinion when this exact person doesn’t even know basic facts of Sino-Japanese war?" You certainly don't have to. But you might consider caring about the impression you are giving of being an apologist for some of Japan's more atrocious activities in China.

You post, "That is the problem of you people." Who are "you people"?

You post, "You don’t study Japanese or even Chinese languages but instead rely on second hand some time third hand materials." Yup. If you want to deconstruct these second and third hand sources, feel free to do so here, starting with Unit 731: The Forgotten Asian Auschwitz. But remember, you are, yourself, a second or third hand source operating here in English, just like the materials of which you are criticizing the use. Why should we trust you any more than a footnoted book?

You post, "That’s why you came up with imaginations of most Chinese in the 1930s had National identities." Well, given that Chinese culture is probably the longest continuous one on the planet (at least until about 1910) and that for much of that time it had come under a centralized government (albeit sometimes under alien monarchies), it seems reasonable to assume that all Han Chinese and most others were aware that they belonged to a particular polity and that that polity was not Japanese.

You post, "So many POWs with other nationalities? Source Please? How many Soviet POWs? How many British? How many Americans? Names? Ranks? From what sources? Japanese Archive? UK Archive? US Archive? Or ChiCom BS?" You will have to take that up with Unit 731: The Forgotten Asian Auschwitz. Given your expertise in this area, I assume you are familiar with its contents?

I reiterate my point that the fact Communist China may be doing abominable things today doesn't make Japanese atrocities eighty years ago in any way "decent". What the Chinese do today doesn't change what the Japanese did in the past.

You post, "I told you I am Canadian." Thank you. If you don't consider it relevant, why mention it?

What does the following mean: "Why does it have anything to do with you babbling about the Modern day Canadian value and was slapped by the WWII Canadian value, PRETTY HARD."?

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 » 29 May 2021 19:49

Sid Guttridge wrote:
29 May 2021 09:21

it would be pretty pointless pitching any argument here at that level!
------------------
Oh really? Given that many facts after I posted, you still called not adequate, I think you fell that level pretty much.

And has anyone here disputed any of that? Not me.
-----------------
You did. You said it’s my opinion, NOT facts. You sound like a bot who could not remember what you have said yourself.

Your preference for using euphemisms such as "incident" to describe what was actually a massacre.
--------------------
I have already explained, massacre indicated it’s deliberate.

Your default justification and apparent approval of the use of prisoners in biological warfare experiments. ven assuming all that is true, how does this justify using them in biological warfare and other experiments?
-------------------
They were not protected. Thus, anything is justified.

Really? Please tell us about the biological warfare and other experiments on prisoners by other countries in WWII.
------------------
You don’t seem to have comprehensive reading skills. When I said Everybody did that, I meant every country including UK and possibly US sent spies/service people in civilians clothe to conduct sabotage. By doing so, these countries were putting these people in harm’s way.

How does "...calling it Nanking Massacre" suggest "it’s Japanese high command/government’s deliberate action."
---------------------
Because per Oxford Language, Massacre means deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people). Nanking Massacre was particularly a term used by Chinese, Nationalists and Communists who accused Japanese high command and Japanese government deliberately killed peaceful civilians and POWs. You chose the ChiCom term. I am assuming you know all the contexts when you chose to use and particularly insisting on using this term.

Perhaps, but has anyone here actually suggested that it was Japanese policy "to kill all civilians"? Certainly not me!
-------------------
Yes it’s you. Because you are insisting using the term Nanking Massacre, a Chinese specific wording to describe this incident.

Why should we trust you any more than a footnoted book? You will have to take that up with Unit 731: The Forgotten Asian Auschwitz. Given your expertise in this area, I assume you are familiar with its contents?
-------------------
Because I simply know more than you do. You are the one promoting there were many countries’ POWs killed by unit 731. Then the onus is on yours. You have to provide details to support that opinion. Obviously, you don’t. Case closed.

Well, given that Chinese culture is probably the longest continuous one on the planet
------------------
Really? Since when Manchu queue became part of Chinese culture? And where is the Manchu queue now? You sure the culture is continuous? Can you stop the ChiCom propaganda BS please?

it seems reasonable to assume that all Han Chinese and most others were aware that they belonged to a particular polity and that that polity was not Japanese.
---------------------
Right the Han Chinese who were aware they belong to the Chinese Nation country left their own land for a mere 20%-30% jump of salary and contributed to rival Japanese effort. The Han Chinese who were aware they belong to the Chinese Nation country helped Japanese by disarming their own Army simply because Japan distributed food to them while their own government did not. The Han Chinese who were aware they belong to the Chinese Nation country also joined Wang, Jingwei’s collaborate regime to cooperate with Japan. Reasonable assumption? As I said BS after BS after BS. Nothing from your mouth has any historic truth.

What the Chinese do today doesn't change what the Japanese did in the past.
-----------------------
Right, China today is not matching Japan seven to eight decades ago in terms of decency. Another example that Japan is more decent than China, both in WWII and now.

If you don't consider it relevant, why mention it?
----------------------
I want to mention whatever I want to mention.

What does the following mean?
-------------------------
That means whatever trick you wanted to play was foiled and beaten back.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9480
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 29 May 2021 23:03

HI manfredzhang,

I think we have reached the point where you are not debating me but some imaginary me of your own creation.

This relieves me of having to address what you write in any detail.

You appear to have an agenda that is crippling your ability to see a number of matters with clarity and it is leading you to become an apologist for what were at root clearly Japanese crimes, however much Chinese sources might exaggerate or spin them, or however bad the Chinese themselves may, or may not, have been.

Please come back to me when you are willing to address what I actually write.

All the best,

Sid.

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

Re: Was the death toll in China inflated?

Post by gebhk » 31 May 2021 08:16

I state the fact. Actually in my view, UK and US were certainly more decent than Japan in WWII. See? My standard is pretty consistent. When I say decency is a relative term, I always use comparison.
And most rabbits have four legs - that is also a fact, but just as irrelevant.
The point is that you refuse to accept, what the vast majority of humanity accepts, that while decency has degrees (and that therefore you can compare it) that is not the same as being relative, which it is not. A point is reached where behaviour cannot be considered decent at all. In short, as Sid has pointed out, the race to the nadir is not one of decency but of indecency. Just because you can find someone whose behaviour is more indecent than your own does not make yours decent. This sort of obfuscation (along with the re-invention of the meaning of language) is a typical ploy of apologists for the utterly unacceptable behaviour of regimes and individuals worldwide and that is what you are doing here. Good luck with that!

Return to “China at War 1895-1949”