Talk:1939–1940 Winter Offensive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:16, 19 September 2010 editLevellend (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users10,934 edits →User:ScorchingPhoenix ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:05, 29 September 2010 edit undoReconquista1492 (talk \| contribs)13 edits →User:ScorchingPhoenix Next edit →
Line 39:		Line 39:

	Both played important roles in the defense of western Suiyuan during the Japanese campaign early in 1940 in the Wuyuan sector. General Ma Hung-pin's troops suffered heavy casualties but fought on and finally repulsed the enemy.] (]) 07:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)		Both played important roles in the defense of western Suiyuan during the Japanese campaign early in 1940 in the Wuyuan sector. General Ma Hung-pin's troops suffered heavy casualties but fought on and finally repulsed the enemy.] (]) 07:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

			Well, I eventually did find a source from a notable expert in the field, Lloyd Eastman, who explicitly writes that the battle was a Chinese defeat (I guess Rummel's "fiasco" wasn't strong enough to convince you that the campaign was a disaster for the GMD). Stymying a massive offensive is usually considered a defeat for the defenders. Also, nowhere does Lloyd Eastman (or Rummel, or van de Van's "War and Nationalism in China") talk about the Suiyuan and Ningxia campaign, a seemingly insignificant campaign that I believe you've blown way out of proportion to create the image that the campaign was a tie. Nice independent research, though! Maybe someday you can change how history is written and write your own book and argue that the Winter Offensive was a tie (笑).] (]) 08:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:05, 29 September 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1939–1940 Winter Offensive article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

China: History B‑class Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: Asian / Chinese / Japanese / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	World War II task force

Early talk

I am going to add a discussion of the actions of the various War Areas to execute the offensive and the Japanese actions/reactions to them.

I have partial oob from the account too.

As big an effort as this seems to have been I am surprised it is not better known.

So what do I need to clean up?

As to cleanup, I would suggest first and foremost putting everything into sections instead of bolded headings; check out WP:GTL for basic layout guidelines. Also, the code on the wikilinks is incorrect. Hope this helps! UnDeadGoat 17:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this battle showed that the Chinese army was not ready to take the offensive and had a better chance of waging positional battles. BlueShirts 23:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Difficult to read

This is a really difficult article to read. I think the editors of it should start by creating a good framework to build off of. Oberiko 14:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ScorchingPhoenix

Do NOT add japanese victory unless a specific source says japanese victory, or chinese defeat. forming your own conclusion from given information from the articles is ORIGINAL RESEARCH see Misplaced Pages:No original research.

Its a fact that the japanese were militarily frustrated in Suiyuan and Ningxia by Ma Hongbin, who derailed their plans for a puppet state in the area during the offensive. The japanese did NOT complete their objectives- source.Дунгане (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

western source Both played important roles in the defense of western Suiyuan during the Japanese campaign early in 1940 in the Wuyuan sector. General Ma Hung-pin's troops suffered heavy casualties but fought on and finally repulsed the enemy.Дунгане (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I eventually did find a source from a notable expert in the field, Lloyd Eastman, who explicitly writes that the battle was a Chinese defeat (I guess Rummel's "fiasco" wasn't strong enough to convince you that the campaign was a disaster for the GMD). Stymying a massive offensive is usually considered a defeat for the defenders. Also, nowhere does Lloyd Eastman (or Rummel, or van de Van's "War and Nationalism in China") talk about the Suiyuan and Ningxia campaign, a seemingly insignificant campaign that I believe you've blown way out of proportion to create the image that the campaign was a tie. Nice independent research, though! Maybe someday you can change how history is written and write your own book and argue that the Winter Offensive was a tie (笑).Reconquista1492 (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories: