Talk:Battle of Changsha (1941–1942)

56,746 Killed of 120, 000 ? How could that be possible?

this number does not make any sense. if that be true, it's OK to say that all 120,000 IJA's soldiers were killed and wounded. that also means the whole force of IJA in Battle was been completely wiped out and there would be no any treat at all. or we can assume that the soldiers of IJA were supermen or somethings. Flag cloud (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if these figures are accurate, but I don't see why there should be a problem in principle. 56,746 killed from a force of 120,000 leaves 63,254 wounded and unwounded Japanese to retreat (or surrender). Given that a large part (most, I think) of the Japanese were surrounded, the disinclination of the Japanese to surrender and the likely fate of any wounded not able to withdraw under their own steam it may well be that the usual ratios of wounded to killed do not apply in this case.

That said, I have come across an unsourced statement that the Japanese records show 1,591 killed and 4,412 wounded. At least as implausible in my opinion. Elsewhere I have read of 60,000 total Japanese casualties; and total Chinese casualties of the same order - which would roughly match the number killed given for the Chinese.

If anyone can throw any light on Flag cloud's query it would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's make things more clear. In this case, '56,746 killed' definitely is an error.

That's say there is a possible of treatment for 63,254 wounded and exhausted IJAs, which is highly unlikely in a real world. and you should know that Battle of Imphal is being considered as the 'largest defeat to that date in Japanese history' by both sides, which was taking place in 1944. The official casualty figures of IJA in this battle are about 13,500 killed and 41,500 wounded.

2nd historical archives of china had published some books for this war based on its archived documents(《抗日战争正面战场》2005 for example). In those books, after the battle, China had a lots of press meetings for this battle, the official figures are about 56,000 casualties(sometimes with 33,000 killed, 23,000 wounded). So there is not 56,000 killed at first place. I think there are lots of old newspapers you can find to confirm this. And you should know those figures were for propaganda.

further more the figure of 1,591 killed and 4,412 wounded, which I don't think is credit, is not coming from an unsourced statement, in fact, it came from 《中国事变陆军作战史》(which is the documents published by Japanese after war and was translated into Chinese as a reference for history research). Just no one put it on English Wikipedia for now.

I won't edit this page because English is not my native language. Flag cloud (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

These contents need to be rewritten into a paragraph

|strength1 = 300,000 soldiers |strength2 = 120,000 soldiers<ref name="ChinaBitter158">Hsiung, James Chieh; Levine, Steven I. ''China's Bitter Victory: The War with Japan, 1937–1945'', p. 158</ref><br/>600 pieces of artillery<ref name="ChinaBitter158"/><br/>200 aircraft<ref name="ChinaBitter158"/> |casualties1 = 29,217 killed and wounded<ref>翁里陽、博凡、常然著，《中國抗日戰爭-氣壯山河》，台北市：知兵堂，2007年</ref> |casualties2 = Japanese source: 1,591 killed<br>4,412 wounded<ref>[http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/Monos/pdfs/JM-71/JM-71.PDF Japanese Monograph No. 71, Army Operations in China] pp. 76.</ref> Chinese source: 56,000 killed and wounded

Need a paragraph to record the details.   PS: I think it may be necessary to investigate editing war.I feel very confused why the editing time of FormosaKMT and 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:85/61 is very close at 25 October 2018.

I found another problem that may have been added to an untrustworthy reference. The source of the reference is Chinese. So I put {{overcoverage}}.--Witotiwo (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Changsha (1941–1942) → Third Battle of Changsha – I am currently trying to rename four of the pages for battles called Battle of Changsha. These four articles are: Battle of Changsha (1939), Battle of Changsha (1941), Battle of Changsha (1941-1942) and Battle of Changsha (1944).

This is because these four all occurred in the Second Sino-Japanese War, so it follows naming conventions for battles like Second Battle of Alamein. Also, as there are six articles called Battle of Changsha, so the current names of these four articles are not very helpful for finding the specific battle.

However, because there is already a redirect page, I can't rename this article.

Enoryt nwased lamaj (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Battle of Changsha (1939) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)