Talk:Hundred Regiments Offensive

Periods of the offensive

• First period (Aug 20 - Sep 10): Targeted rail roads
• Second period (Sep 20 - early Oct): Targeted Japanese strong holds
• Third period (Oct 6 - Dec 5): Clashes with responding Japanese troops

Source: Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power: The Emergence of Revolutionary China 1937-1945, pg. 57-58

Oberiko (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

the problem of source

I don't want to waste my time and take a risk for editing war. The source "劉鳳翰，論百團大戰" which Victorkkd offered claim like this “根據日軍記載，確知日軍傷亡不大...........估計此役日軍傷亡三千” （Based on Japanese record, Japan did not suffer a heavy casualties.......Estimate the Japanese casualty is about 3000） in the last paragraph of page 472.If you define western source is based on Chinese record, I think it also need to write this source is based on Japanese record. Also I cannot confirm whether this source is reliable because in that time ROC and RPC have some kind of opposition. Then I will say I use an another Chinese source which record Japanese strength 270,000. Then Victorkkd revert my change because he think the strength near several brigades stationed near zhentai is not like this. Chinese source define "Hundred Regiments Offensive" means the the whole offensive from 20 August – 5 December 1940. That means it define the whole 1,824 battles as the "Hundred Regiments Offensive" and the "the battle of Zhentai bridge" is just the first step of this offensive. The target of this offensive is the whole Japanese army in North China. There is impossible to spend more than 3 month to offend only one bridge.
The book 北支の治安戦 （Japanese source） record strength and casualties based on each battle (I said Chinese definition include 1,824 battles.). Hence, it record strength and casualties in the battle of Zhentai bridge. Then it record the strength and casualties in other battles (Even Japanese may consider 2 or 3 battles of Chinese definition as 1 battle). You cannot revert my source because you think the strength in battle of Zhentai bridge is much less than 270,000. That means you use some definition from Japanese sources to revert the data from Chinese sources which has different definition with Japanese sources. This is another misrepresenting.
Also, I wonder why define the source the "western source" based on Chinese record.Miracle dream (talk)

This article has serious balance and quality problems.

The vast majority of sources for this article are in Simplified Chinese. There are 3 English language sources and zero Japanese sources. This is not a good start when considering the balance of an article that concerns a touchy conflict.

The 'Hundred Regiments Offensive' was Communist China's biggest anti-Japanese offensive of the Sino-Japanese War, and is used as a propaganda talking point to this day , including stirring up racial hatred of Japanese people . This detracts from the reliability of some sources in Simplified Chinese and should be borne in mind.

There do not seem to be strong grounds for calling this operation a 'Chinese victory' - the page on Japanese Wiki calls the outcome 'Disputed'. Since the PLA achieved some of their objectives in capturing railway lines, but did not cause a major strategic reversal or occupy cities or population centres, calling this a Chinese victory seems premature. The balance of casualties does not favour the PLA either.

The timeline, objectives, and events of the offensive are not clearly presented.

Finally, the reference to the 'Sanko' policy being introduced as a result of this operation is dubious, since it is doubtful whether Sanko actually existed (I shall continue that discussion on the Three Alls Policy page).

Suggestions: refer to Japanese sources and balance these against Chinese claims; amend Chinese victory to Disputed; clearly present the timeline, objectives, and events of the operation; add 'alleged' or similar hedging to the Sanko/Three Alls reference. Makibadori (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References