Talk:Hundred Regiments Offensive

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. 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 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 C 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

• 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)[reply]

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)

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 ^[1], including stirring up racial hatred of Japanese people ^[2]. 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)[reply]

I agree that certain claims seem to be rather lacking in weight. We do not seem to know what's the first source for the "Three Alls policy" within the Western world (and academic community) either, and for years, I had believed that the proof for it is rock solid! In opposition to massive waves of actual Japanese atrocities in China, the "Three Alls" existence as a concept coined and issued by a Japanese officer - is actually surprisingly dubious.

It's a shame that there's not much mainstream attention on the Hundred Regiments Offensive or the "Three Alls" - so general academic interest in it (on a global scale, not within the Sinosphere) is critically low. Bloody-pin (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One particular individual I want to focus on is "Lieutenant Colonel Okazaki" (冈崎谦受). Everyone knows that "冈崎" = Okazaki, and the presence of the character "谦" means that his name is most likely "Ken-something", but the character "受" seems extremely unusual, with different translations giving Kenshu, Kenju, Kensuke, Kenjiro... There's also a note from the Chinese version of the "Battle of Guanjianao" page, which basically said: "Other documents refer to him as Okazaki Kencho (冈崎谦长)." No idea what these documents are.

In all, I've never seen a name like this before, and it looks almost as fantastical as "南造云子", whom we've since learnt is an invented character from a Chinese author. Yet, there's actually credible documents supporting Okazaki's existence.

For this page and the "Battle of Guanjianao" page, I'd recommend checking with an expert on the Japanese language for the sake of accuracy and consistency. I will check myself. It's just a shame that there's next to no attention on these issues. Bloody-pin (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The document regarding his posthumous promotion to Colonel on the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records also put his name as "岡崎謙受".[1] However, since I'm unsure what "謙受" is better to be translated as, I've removed the romanization for his first name in the page. Cent58 (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]