Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War

'Considered' by whom? It wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.40.180.36 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

it was a part of the pacific theater, so i think it count as a part of world war II. Swedishfalangnist (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

From what I understand about the conflict, it makes sense to include the United States as a belligerent, but I don't think the same is true for the USSR. I'd appreciate others' thoughts. Remsense ‥ 论 21:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

So, I do think this is pretty tricky. The USSR did have direct involvement in 1945 with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. So, the question is: what do reliable sources say? Do they often include the USSR as a belligerent in the war? What do they say about the US and UK? I think we may have a clearer answer if we can explore those sources. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• At least the United States should be included below China. We can discuss the USSR involvement later. Koshuri ^(あ!) 14:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The phrase "Asian Holocaust" only appears in the lead paragraph, but not in the article body. Three sources use it. Two are news sources i.e. not academic. One also puts it into quotation marks and doesn't use it in its own voice, whereas the other one uses the term "forgotten Holocaust" instead. One academic source apparently uses it as well, though I can't verify that.

Is this really due for inclusion? The article currently doesn't support that this is a widely used term. Cortador (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with your analysis above, and would like to add some of my thoughts as a reader.

Honestly speaking, as a reader, it's shocking to see this term in a Wikipedia's article. This is the first time I have ever seen the massive, complex war between the two major Asian nations is described as a "Holocaust". I can't recall ever seeing this term in any serious historical context. When had Wikipedia became a platform for inflammatory, big-character-poster style political slogans?

I understand some people's desire to emphasize the immense casualties of Chinese civilians and POWs in the war, but "The Holocaust" is a specific historical term. It refers to the Nazi German policy of genocide against European Jews and other minorities during WW2. It has a very unique historical, ideological context (for example, industrialized slaughter, an explicit theory of racial extermination against a specific domestic minority group) and cannot be generalized to all civilian casualty in warfare, no matter how devastating the scale. Ultimately, to do so is a form of intellectual laziness. Otherwise should the indiscriminate atomic bombing of Japanese civilian cities be also labeled as "the Asian Holocaust"?

This kind of term-inflation looks like a cheap form of propaganda slogan and a tool for emotional incitement. For the sake of an encyclopedia's credibility and seriousness, this fringe and sensationalist term should be removed undoubtedly. Leave it to propaganda posters and tabloid headlines pls, not on Wikipedia. Wikireader1006 (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Most of the time the Chinese Nationalist Party is called "Kuomintang" in the article, but sometimes (like in the start of the Chinese civil war section) it's called "Guomindang". Shouldn't the article just use one standardized romanization to avoid confusion? Or at least add a hover text clarifying the differences. Ciciinho (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It says commanders and leaders. Hirohito is most definitely a leader, furthermore he was complicit in the granting of orders to the front. Hirohito was, at the very least, a leader. Konoe, on the other hand, is much more reasonable of a removal, but I do not understand the removal of Hirohito at all. ~2026-40548-04 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)