Talk:Three Alls policy

Rename?

Would a better name for this article be "Three Alls Policy"? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did a quick Google search, and "Three Alls Policy" seems to turn up the most hits of any of the possible names, so I moved the article, with a redirect from Sanko. (We should keep the redirect though, as Herbert Bix uses the term Sanko almost exclusively when discussing the event. I imagine most readers of the book looking for further information will search under that name.) Bueller 007 11:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation please?

This book title is a long line of Japanese "Sankō, Nihonjin Chogoku ni okeru senso hanzai no kokuhaku" with no explanation of what it means. Based on my excellent command of Year 7 English, it says "Three-Alls, Japanese China something something something." Experts? --Sumple (Talk) 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It would mean "Three-Alls: Confessions of War Crimes in China by Japanese".--Ryoske 03:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense

"Many supposed victims of the Three Alls Policy, they claim, actually died at Chinese hands, and their deaths were misattributed to the Japanese" Needs to be Reworded --Bushido Brown 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Written as it is, this is extremely racist. Why don't you deny the holocaust next?

Well, that would depend - who said this? It just says "right wing" politicians, it doesn't explicitly mention who among them is supposedly saying this. So, it should be rewritten to include a quote from someone who claimed this, assuming anyone ever did. It's not impossible for someone to have claimed this, no matter how odd it may seem to us. Stranger things have been claimed, and the Chinese and Japanese have been at odds for years, you know.

However, Japanese war crimes are quite well documented, so these points are not something that can be treated as merely 'allegations.' One only needs to look at the Soviet-German conflict to see similar parallels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aldis90 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Importance

This article was rated as being of low importance, which I found astonishing. Even if you think that this policy is historically questionable, the claim that it is true, the nature and implications of what is claimed and the fact that it is disputed is of very great importance - nationally, globally, historically and in terms of inclusion in this or any encyclopedia. I had no idea about the existence of this policy until I was linked here via wikipedia:World War II. I was very frustrated that there were no more details or at least links to more information. More please from those who can.

So, I changed it to 'high' importance. If you don't agree, please check with the criteria concerning importance ratings for this encyclopedia, before changing. Thanks. Drywontonmee 00:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This article describes something which may be pure propaganda.

The claim that something called the 'Three Alls Policy' even existed is extremely contentious outside of the PRC. This whole article should be covered in 'allegedly'.

The rhetorical structure of Sanko/Three Alls is Chinese, not Japanese. Chinese rhetoric places great importance on enumerating things, whereas Japanese doesn't. "koroshi tsukushi-yaki tsukushi-ubai tsukusu" has a syllable count of 6-6-6 which is rare; 5-7-5 is much more common in Japanese rhetoric.

There are zero primary sources for this policy in Japanese. The first Japanese-language reference comes from 1957, from a man who had spent at least 12 years undergoing imprisonment and torture in Chinese Communist camps. This one man's testimony should not be so heavily relied upon, and a variety of additional sources are required.

The extremeness of the claim warrants exceptionally good sourcing - 'Kill all, burn all, loot all' is exactly the sort of thing that wartime propagandists would make up about their enemies. Even the Imperial Japanese are unlikely to have been so brazen about atrocities.

Did this happen? Was burning and looting really part of a systematic plan? If so, on what scale? Was this a formal policy signed off by senior officers? Or a militarist competition between soldiers? How does it compare to other scorched earth policies in the region? There is so much missing information.

Nevertheless, Sanko is an evergreen topic of PRC propaganda to this day. Sanko appears regularly in the 200+ war films produced by Chinese state media each year, and this propaganda routinely stirs up racial hatred against Japanese people. Wikipedia should be extremely vigilant not to become the mouthpiece for this sort of propaganda, especially on articles relating to the Sino-Japanese War which appear to have disproportionate representation from Communist Chinese sources. (The Nationalist Chinese and Japanese sides are currently underrepresented).

Suggestions: add a warning banner to the top of this article; introduce the policy as something 'alleged' to have happened; add a lengthy section about the historiography of these claims; and for god's sake sort out all the missing citations. Makibadori (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Crimes against humanity category removal

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

restoring these tags as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sook_Ching#Crimes_against_humanity_category_removal Relm (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The civilian death toll is a little off.

Herbert Bix's book states that it was 2.47 million civilians perished [https://allthepics.net/image/S223001.33y81], not 2.7 million. Smercz (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I fixed that but @Wahreit seems to have undone it in part of his changes to remove "denialist" edits Adachi1939 (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Adachi1939

The current estimate is 2.7M per Sarah Paine from 2012. 2.47M is Mitsuyoshi Himeta's number from 1996. You can add the number to the infobox as a low range estimate, but you doing things like typing "alleged" in front of any mention of the Three Alls Policy, which was an extensively documented atrocity that killed millions of civilians, is not acceptable by Wikipedia's standards for neutrality or verifiability.

If you have any personal concerns with how I edit, take them to my talk page, not here. Wahreit (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

and what's Sarah Paine's source? Adachi1939 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

also none of the figures for 2.7M on the article are citing Paine, lmao Adachi1939 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Then go fix them.

The Wars for Asia, Sarah Paine, Cambridge University Press, Page 156.

And don't do the "allegedly" thing again. Wahreit (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I fixed it once already. You should know this by now, but as an editor if you want to allege something, it is your responsibility to do so with proper sources. "I read it in some book, so I'll use a random Mark Felton citation already in the article to support it my figure" does not cut it.

Your whole issue with the word "allegedly" being used is emblematic of your deep lack of understanding with the topic at hand (deja vu!). Modern scholarship puts far less weight on Tanaka and Okamura for the implementing the so-called three all's policy (especially given the rebuttals for Okamura), it's far more important to look at the division level and below which enacted the campaign. Neither the Chinese nor Japanese versions of this article assign Tanaka with the responsibility for it's implementation. In fact General Tada Hayao who is saidd by Chinese sources for first bringing about the policy is entirely absent from the English article. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Adachi,

This is an article talk page about an extremely sensitive subject, not a reddit forum to showboat your ego. If you want to discuss this further, like an adult, then watch your mouth. Fix your attitude, then we can talk. Otherwise, bring that to my talk page. Wahreit (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The sensitivity of the subject is exactly why it should be approached the tact and courtesy of ensuring the sources used support the body of the article, not to mention that the sources are up to date with modern scholarship Adachi1939 (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Then do so without skewing the neutrality of the article.

Mitter, Paine and Beevor have written about this. Their books are from the 2010s. They are modern scholarship. You are not supposed to judge which sources are allowed or "superior", nor are you to integrate your personal judgments into the article's body.

I did not write the article, I only added pictures and made some revisions a few weeks ago with those modern sources. If there are issues, fix them. Don't point fingers. And lose the attitude. Wahreit (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

"Added pictures" and the main picture you use is of a completely unrelated unit because you can't tell the difference between Japanese naval infantry and Japanese soldiers. Adachi1939 (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You are doing original research. Nowhere on the picture does it say Japanese naval infantry, that is your personal interpretation. It will be fixed accordingly. Wahreit (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Their canteens are naval infantry issue not used by the Japanese Army. This is like using a photo of Heer for an SS article. It is not original research, it's an easily noticeable detail to anyone familiar with the appearance of Japanese troops. Adachi1939 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, that is your own interpretation. And the caption you originally wrote was your independent judgment of the photo's context. So your own research. Wahreit (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Canteens with fabric covers are Navy issue. Furthermore the flag is not an Army regimental standard, Army troops won't carry a flag like that. It is easily determined as a photo of Naval Landing Forces. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

New changes on the page

Hi all,

Given the scale and weight of the subject, this page required a large overhaul given the lack of photographs and actual content on the original page. I've made a big step today with some of the leading scholarship out there but I'll be making more in the weeks to come. If anyone has any relevant photos to link or sources to rec, your help would be much appreciated. Feel free to contribute wherever.

Until then, @Wahreit Wahreit (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hirohito's Responsibility

The article states:

"According to American historian Herbert Bix, the prototype of the Sankō Sakusen policies were the "annihilation campaigns" launched in late 1938 by the North China Area Army (NCAA) to stamp out the vigorous guerrilla resistance in Hebei province.[11] Emperor Hirohito personally gave his approval in an order dated 2 December 1938."

The actual Imperial Headquarters Order Number 241 issued under Hirohito's authority on December 2 1938 states ”The North China Area Army Commander is responsible for maintaining stability in presently occupied Northern China, particularly in the Northern Hebei Province, Shandong Province, Northern Shanxi Province and Mengjiang regions, where efforts must be made to restore security in critical areas and secure major transportation lines."

Nowhere does this order explicitly state approval for "annihilation campaigns". A better source should be used to assert this claim. Adachi1939 (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Beevor and Paine both use "annihilation" to describe Japanese atrocities in North China. Furthermore, if Bix describes the 1938 campaigns as "annihilation campaigns" in his work, his judgment still remains firm and valid for the article. See again, WP:NOR Wahreit (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Citing random Wikipedia policies does not make terrible sources any better. I will see about changing it I suppose. Adachi1939 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not random if you need to read it. As a wikipedia editor, you cannot bring your own synthesis of materials to allege some sources, particular those by established historians (now including Hastings, Rummel, and Frank), "are bad". Again, No Original Research. Wahreit (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

"the author makes a claim using a military order where the original text of said order doesn't support claim, but it's still a good source actually and disagreeing constitutes original research"

-Second Sino-Japanese War's Greatest Expert, Wahreit Adachi1939 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Adachi1939,

It is not your place to bring your personal interpretations of historians and their works into the article. We are here to summarize existing knowledge for free public access, not add our independent thoughts.

If Bix's work mentions "annihilation campaigns," then they can go in the article. If they don't, then they can be removed. But your own critiques of "bad sources" belong in a book review, not here. You as an editor are not a qualified historian on the matter.

More importantly, you need to start communicating like an adult, not just with me, but with other editors. This isn't grade school anymore, trying to bully other users into submission isn't going to work. And it's about time you showed some respect for the subject at hand; this is an article about an atrocity that killed millions of people.

So again, if you have something actually relevant or useful to the conversation, by all means share. But if controlling your emotions is too much of an ask, then at least have the common decency to vent them on my talk page. Wahreit (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Ensuring the reliability of sources is absolutely a responsibility for an editor. Speaking of grade school, this is something you should have learned there. Even as just a general reader, you should regularly be checking the sources of works you read to ensure the author is actually able to support their claims. Your disclosure of your neglect to do this is a good reason for you to step away from this discussion and argument. You require a lot more fundamental understanding before approaching not just this subject but Wikipedia editing as a whole. The constant issues you cause with editors on other pages is indicative of this. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Since you can't be bothered to act your age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wahreit

I'll be ignoring any more replies here unless they serve a purpose to the article. Wahreit (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring over photo

{{uw-3rr}} removed. Please focus on content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wahreit, as previously stated on the talk page, the photo you are using to illustrate this article is irrelevant to it. The photo depicts IJN Landing Forces, which were not subordinate to the IJA North China Area Army which carried out the so-called Three All's policy.

This is evident by the fact that:

1. The troops all have canteens with fabric covers, such models were used by Naval Landing Forces, not the Japanese Army. This can easily confirmed in period photos, such as this example.
2. The troops carry a Naval ensign flag, not the Army's regimental standard. The Army's regimental standard is fringed like seen here, while the Naval ensign carried by Naval Landing Forces is a regular flag like this example.
3. Furthermore, the troops wear their canteen on the right hip which was standard among Naval Landing Forces, as seen in numerous examples such as this photo. On the contrary, it was customary for Japanese Army infantry to wear their breadbag on their right hip instead, like in this photo.

While the two points were already made clear, you have perceived this general knowledge of Japanese forces as "original research" and undone my changes three times now in violation of the edit-warring policies. Adachi1939 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wahreit now that the edit warring request has been closed, care to actually read through this to understand why the photo is not related to the Three All's policy and work to finding a more suitable photo? Writing "Hey buddy, You're now 0-2. Even after 18 months of prepping the comeback. You must feel like a real champ." is not going to help either of work towards improving the quality of this article. Adachi1939 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Issue with my sources

Hello @RelmC, thank you for the heads up. One of my sources has already been mentioned for a while in this article under further reading as "Fujiwara, Akira (藤原彰). The Three Alls Policy and the Northern Chinese Regional Army (「三光作戦」と北支那方面軍), Kikan sensô sekinin kenkyû 20, 1998." The CiNii for it can be found here: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1520573330577086592

The other sources from Kasahara appears in the same journal: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1520573330868647296

These journal articles are an absolute goldmine of information on the Three All's policy and other Japanese war crimes. Bix which is used quite a bit in this article actually heavily references them in his work. Adachi1939 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Article content inconsistent with source

Editor Wahreit added the statement:

"In July 1941, General Yasuji Okamura assumed command of the North China Area Army. Okamura issued new orders on July 9, titled the "Three Alls Operation""

[diff].

It's almost 100% the case that they rewrote info off the Chinese version of the Three Alls Article which stated, citing page 285 of Eguchi's 2002 work:

7月7日，冈村宁次接替多田骏出任日军北支那方面军司令官。7月9日，《晋察冀边区整饬作战计划》出台。其主要内容是：“摧毁晋察冀边区之敌共产军，摧毁其根据地之同时，与封锁相配合，破坏其自给自足以求生存之能力，使该地区之敌共产势力消耗枯竭”。“如果击溃敌之集体战斗能力，则在敌地区内之重要地点实施暂时之驻兵，以该地为根据，急袭与抓获隐藏于山中或流动之敌匪，或追踪击溃之，或将敌之设施材料等销毁、搬走，使其势力削减枯竭”。“努力取得当地之物资，收集与运回遗弃物品及缴获之物品，并利用之”。这个计划内容仍旧是“三光作战”。

English (machine translated):

On July 7, Okamura Yasuji succeeded Tada Hayao as commander of the Japanese North China Area Army. On July 9, the "Plan for the Reorganization and Operation of the Jin-Cha-Ji Border Region" was released. Its main contents were: "Destroy the enemy communist army in the Jin-Cha-Ji Border Region, destroy its base areas, and simultaneously, in conjunction with a blockade, undermine its ability to survive on its own, thus exhausting the enemy communist forces in the region." "If the enemy's collective combat capability is defeated, then temporarily station troops at key locations within the enemy territory, using these locations as bases to launch surprise attacks and capture enemy bandits hiding in the mountains or on the move, or track and defeat them, or destroy and remove enemy facilities and materials, thus reducing their strength to a minimum." "Strive to acquire local resources, collect and transport abandoned and captured items back, and utilize them." This plan still adhered to the "Three Alls" strategy (kill all, burn all, loot all).

What Wahreit has contributed is vastly different than originally written by Eguchi. Okamura did not simply issue an order entitled the "Three Alls Operation", furthermore, a 1988 publication from the same author in the original Japanese notes that Tada Hayao was still the acting commander. I have made changes to reflect this on the article.[diff] I would ask that editors on this article be diligent with checking sources, and those making contributions remain faithful to the source material. Adachi1939 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)