Talk:Yasuji Okamura

Untitled

I would like to ask for a citation as to his retention as a "military advisor" by Nationalist China after the war. It seems odd to me that the Chinese government would have a Japanese war criminal on retainer, so unless there is evidence to back this up, it should be deleted or at the very least cited as being completely unfounded and unreliable.

Crimson Phantom - April 2, 2008 17:48 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.23.2 (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Prior to the rise of the Kuomintang in China, Chiang Kai-shek studied in Japan, and many of Okamura's close officers were old buddies of Chiang. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Three Alls

The description of the policy as 'so-called' and a matter of allegation cited only to a collection of primary sources that are not even independent of the subject creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE off of WP:OR. The academic consensus on the matter is clear per the most recent and reliable secondary source material. I have thus reverted the edit. Relm (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

To clear this up a bit, there is no official "Three All's policy" in the Japanese Army, so that is why I use the term "alleged" or "so-called". It was originally a Chinese term used to criticize the IJA's brutal pacification/annilhation campaigns. Thus a passage like "Order Number 575 authorizing the implementation of the Three Alls Policy" does not make sense. The citation for that includes two books with no page numbers listed, but on page 366 of Bix's work which is one of the two referenced, it actually reads "Hirohito gave his approval to this policy in Imperial Headquarters Army Order 575 of December 3, 1941, which ordered the theater army to "strengthen the containment of the enemy and destroy his will to continue fighting."

I'll try to reword my changes more neutrally and remove the primary source to make the counterpoint. If it still is problematic after then feel free to revert it back. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Took me a while to take a look at this. The first paragraph changes seem fine to me for the most part, but the second paragraph is still primary sources being cited to contradict reliable secondary sources - which is not in line with Wikipedia's policies. As such I've removed them. Relm (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

"The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements."

from WP:Identifying and using primary sources.

Also considering Bix as a "reliable secondary source" is really something... Adachi1939 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

For the former, you are misunderstanding WP:ABOUTSELF. This is for trivial personal details such as height, birthday, etc. This is not justification to cite a primary source written by someone to rationalize their decisions. That is certainly out of line with WP:Primary as in point 4:

4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

If you have an issue with Bix, or more aptly with the academic consensus on the Three All's Policy, feel free to take it to RSN. Relm (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

"Conversely, in a postwar interview discussing wartime atrocities witnessed by Prince Mikasa, the Prince and former Army Major stated "The Japanese Army was not always like this. The likes of General Okamura Yasuji stationed in Beijing took concern with the breakdown in military discipline and said to strictly the prohibit the four evils (rape, looting, arson, and murder)."[8] Okamura himself alleges that towards the end of 1941 he had instructed his senior officers to "Eradicate Communism, Love the People", and that the actual Three Alls policy was his orders of "do not burn, do not rape, do not kill."[9]"

I fail to see how this breaks the rule you cited. The two statements are separated and are just repeating what was stated in the original material. I don't think Prince Mikasa's statement would fall under WP:Aboutself anyways. There are few more important people than a prince to vouch for one's character, especially a prince that was rather open about the Japanese military engaging in war crimes. If Okamura's own words aren't allowed, at the very least Mikasa's statement is very valuable for the article. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This is patently original research, which is why I also linked WP:Primary. It's different to aboutself because you are taking primary sources in order to piece together an argument in defense of Okamura's character - which is inappropriate. Mikasa being a Prince does not factor into this. Relm (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I would not go as far as to say "patently original research", it's two independent important statements joined in a paragraph. This seems to be based on your own arbitrary interpretation of editing policies, as I can find nothing on WP:Primary or WP:OR explicitly prohibiting this. The notion that Bix's questionable research is okay, but words from Prince Mikasa and the subject himself should be removed is rather ludicrous. I would like to hear what other editors think about the matter. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to seek a WP:THIRD opinion, raise it to a relevant noticeboard (original research noticeboard would be the best in my view), or start a topic on wikiproject military history. Regarding Bix, that goes to the reliable sources or fringe theories noticeboard depending on what you're trying to argue.

I am confident that any will tell you what I have told you: Wikipedia works on WP:Secondary sources, and prioritizes these while excluding WP:Synthesis and WP:OriginalResearch of WP:Primary sources. Relm (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on Bix's work here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bix's_Hirohito

Personally I would throw any supposed academic work making such careless mistakes into the trash but others may be more lenient. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I agree with Adachi1939 that the paragraph in question is not original research, and is indeed a potentially acceptable use case of a non-independent source - non-independent sources are typically reliable for the statements and words of the subject themself. Whether or not these statements are WP:DUE is a separate question. If reliable independent secondary sources do not analyze the statements made by Prince Mikasa, then it's unclear why we are including it here. As for the claims about the Three Alls policy, I don't think there is any problem with referring to it in wikivoice, and "so-called" is inappropriate. We have an existing Wikipedia article on the topic, Three Alls policy and it appears to document the policy. I support removing the middle section that includes the quotes from Prince Mikasa. Katzrockso (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adachi1939 @RelmC tagging because I forgot in the original 3O. Please let me know if there are any unresolved questions or further advice you might want. Katzrockso (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You mention the statement by Prince Mikasa, but the paragraph also cited Yasuji Okamura's own statements about it - which is why about self was invoked. I do not see how these statements, when cited solely as primary sources, do not violate WP:ABOUTSELF's prohibition on unduly self serving claims (namely, it is about claims in defense of Okamura's character against accusations of committing atrocities - something few who did such things would ever admit to) which is why putting it against secondary sources is undue.

As for the Three Alls Policy, the relevant context is that Adachi1939 has been trying to introduce doubt about the policy's validity into several articles for the past while, which is why I removed the 'so called' label since it can also be interpreted as conferring doubt about it's validity just as much as denoting it as a moniker given to the event later. Relm (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

There was no official "Three Alls Policy" in the Japanese military, so I am opposed to using that term as its misleading. Even the Chinese-language wiki article states:

"日本方面則並未使用“三光”說法，目前也沒有最高層下達實施所謂三光命令的原始文件，但是在战时的下屬部隊中称为「燼滅作戰」、「徹底的肅正作戰（討伐）」、「徹底覆（討）滅」、「討滅作戰」、「掃蕩作戰」、「剔抉掃蕩作戰」、「治安肅正作戰」、「治安強化作戰」等等的指令是存在的."

Japan did not use the term "Three Alls" (kill all, burn all, loot all), and there are currently no original documents from the highest levels issuing orders to implement the so-called Three Alls. However, during the war, orders referred to by subordinate units as "Operation Eradication," "Thorough Suppression Operation," "Complete Annihilation," "Suppression Operation," "Sweeping Operation," "Purge and Suppression Operation," "Pacification Operation," and "Pacification Enhancement Operation," etc., did exist.

I don't doubt the Japanese military engaged in an excessive amount of criminal behavior that would fall under "kill all, burn all, loot all", but existing scholarship, including Bix's, does not present evidence that Okamura explicitly enacted a policy calling for such. Anyways, if anyone should be credited with implementing such a policy, it should be Hayao Tada and his staff. Adachi1939 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You should focus your efforts on editing the Three Alls policy Wikipedia article, since we should generally match the language and scholarship of that article unless there are compelling reasons not to. The lack of a specific order giving the directions enumerating each of the "three alls" is not particularly relevant, historians have yet to uncover a specific document ordering the Final Solution, much to the chagrin of dishonest Holocaust deniers, yet we can still speak of the Final Solution. Katzrockso (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

One concern I have of a WP:COATRACK is that the quoted position of Eguchi Keiichi.

This page cites a 1988 work of his to say:

Conversely, historian Eguchi Keiichi states that the Northern China Area Army's implementation of the Three Alls Policy had already began earlier under Okamura's predecessor Lieutenant General Hayao Tada. Eguchi notes that Okamura himself had proclaimed a motto of "Destroy Communism, Love the People" (滅共愛民) and issued three commandments of "Do not burn, do not violate, do not kill" to his men. Okamura had these three commandments written in a pamphlet which was distributed to all of his forces on April 8 1942. However, Eguchi concluded that the Three Alls Policy would not entirely cease under Okamura's command and brutal annilhation campaigns persisted, citing the Lunan Communist Eradication Operation (魯南剿共作戦) as one example—which resulted in over 5000 dead and numerous facilities destroyed including two hospitals and an elementary school.

but on Three Alls Policy a 2002 work of his to say the opposite:

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

and

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese military began redeploying troops and resources from the North China Army for the broader war. However, the North China Army only intensified its "mopping-up operations" against regional Communist guerrillas. 1942 marked the greatest intensity of the Three Alls Policy and its campaigns.

Given that the 1988 work contradicts the current academic consensus, and the authors own later works contradict it, I am inclined to say that it is the more recent works which should take precedence. I admittedly own neither work and can not verify the addition Adachi made here. Relm (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

We could ask at WP:RX if necessary Katzrockso (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

An English language Wikipedia article does not necessarily represent the current academic consensus, especially given the language barrier. The 2002 version of Eguchi's work is the Chinese edition of his 1998 publication "日本帝国主義史研究".[1][2]

This same 2002 publication cited to remove my changes, was cited for the following statement on the Chinese version of the Three Alls Policy article:

雖1942年起，冈村宁次曾经在训令中提到“灭共爱民”和“不杀、不烧、不犯”的口号，改為治安作戰，但是並沒有完全停止毀滅性軍事攻擊，記錄稱“在冈村军司令官之下，三光作战完全没有停止.” 286, 江口圭一. 日本帝国主义史研究-以侵华战争为中心. 世界知识出版社. 2002.

English machine translation:

Although from 1942 onward, Yasuji Okamura had issued directives emphasizing the slogans “Exterminate Communists, Love the People” and “Do Not Kill, Do Not Burn, Do Not Rape,” shifting to security operations, destructive military attacks did not cease entirely. Records indicate that “under the command of General Okamura, the Three Alls Policy was never abandoned.”Page 286, Keiichi Eguchi. A Study of the History of Japanese Imperialism—Focusing on the War of Aggression Against China. World Affairs Press. 2002.

This reads largely in line with what I had already written. While it does occasionally happen, a diligent researcher like Eguchi is generally not going to 180 on a position they had already well-established.

I should also note, the Chinese article also quotes the same publication from Eguchi to say that Tada Hayao was the one who first implemented the so-called Three All's Policy, not Okamura. Again, if this English version of the Three Alls article is somehow the "academic consensus", why is mention of Tada Hayao entirely absent from it?

Based on the vast differences in what is written on the Chinese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia articles citing the same source, and the fact said source is in Chinese, I am inclined to say whoever wrote the English entries took some serious liberties. I'm going to revert the changes here for now, and someone should look into correcting the English version of the Three Alls article using an actual copy of the book, or at least to match what the Chinese article says.

@RelmC, the ball is in your court to prove the source you provided explicitly states "Okamura issued new orders on July 9, titled the "Three Alls Operation". While I know this is not feasible for everyone, I will never make changes to an article without checking the source material. The 2002 Chinese edition is pretty hard to source in the west, but used copies of the 1998 original Japanese publication can be found for reasonable prices. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

After further looking into the passage:

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".

Which was mentioned above and on the English Three Alls Policy article, it is clear it is a gross simplification of what Eguchi actually wrote and whoever added it to the article took massive liberties with the interpretation. Nowhere does it explictly state Okamura issued orders for a "Three Alls Operation" and Eguchi even notes that Tada Hayao was still acting commander when the actual order mentioned below came into effect. Eguchi's 1988 work states the following (you can verify this by searching sentences on the National Diet Library Digital Library[example]):

さらに四一年七月九日北支那方面軍(司令官事務取扱多田駿中将、七月七日付で岡村寧次大将が新任）は「晋察冀辺区粛正作戦計画」を決定したが、これは「晋察冀辺区の敵共産軍を撃摧し、其根拠を覆滅すると共に、封鎖と相俟って自給自活力を破壊し、該地区に於ける敵共産勢力を消耗枯渇せしむ」という方針のもとに、「敵の集団戦力を撃摧せば敵地区内の要点に一時的駐兵を実施し、之を根拠として山地内に蟄伏又は遊動する敵匪を急襲捕捉し、或は之を追蹤撃滅し、或は敵の施設資材等を燼滅搬出する等其勢力を削減枯渇せし」め、「便衣化せる敵を剔抉剿滅」し、「現地物資の取得、遺棄物及鹵獲物品の収集還送並に之が利用に努む」とするものであったこと。　63頁、藤原彰, 今井清一 編、十五年戦争史 2 (日中戦争)、青木書店、1988

English translation:

Furthermore, on July 9 1941, the North China Area Expeditionary Army (acting Commander Lt.Gen Hayao Tada, General Okamura Yasuji had been newly appointed on July 7) issued the "Jin-Cha-Ji Border Region Pacification Plan", a policy to "Crush the Communist forces in the Jin-Cha-Ji Border Region, destroy their bases and blockade them to break their means of self sufficiency, wear down and exhaust their strength from the target region", which in conjunction saw that "Once the enemy's combined strength is crushed, we will temporarily station troops in key points within their territory, where we shall form bases from which we will quickly capture the enemy hiding and attacking from the mountains, and/or pursue them and annihilate them, and/or eradicate and seize their facilities and materials to exhaust their strength" as well as "expose and eradicate plainclothes enemies" and "work to take the local resources, collect abandoned and captured materials and send them to the rear or reuse them."　Page 63, Akira Fujiwara and Seiichi Imai, eds., Fifteen Years of War History 2 (Sino-Japanese War), Aoki Shoten, 1988

On the same page, Eguchi does conclude

やはり三光作戦以外のなにものでもないかった。

All in all, this was nothing other than a Three Alls Operation.

But it's pretty clear in Eguchi's writing that this order was something Okamura inherited from Tada as he was taking up his post and was never titled "Three Alls Operation" Adachi1939 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

One final thing, the editor that added the misleading 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"" was a user known as Wahreit[diff]. They have a history of doing this on articles. It's almost 100% the case that they rewrote info off the Chinese version of the Three Alls Article which originally 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).

Again, this info is largely the same as Eguchi's earlier 1988 work I cited above, only the context that Tada Hayao was still active commander has not been quoted. Contributions from this editor should be treated with extreme scrutiny. At the very least, it would be best to not immediately assume that their contributions represent the academic consensus. Adachi1939 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@RelmC @Katzrockso

Since my most devoted fan @Adachi1939 has felt the need to summon me yet again, I'll weigh in as a third opinion.

Having read through this talk page, I agree with the existing consensus that we should prioritize secondary sources and that we not include Okamura's statements for DUEness. Furthermore, the academic consensus provided by numerous historians on the Three Alls page clearly implicate Okamura as a key proponent of the campaigns. The independent conclusions and beliefs of a random internet user don't belong on that page or this one. I also agree with @RelmC that labeling "so-called" and "alleged" to every mention of the "Three Alls Policy" is unacceptable.

Also as a heads up, adachi has a history of inserting doubt into contentious articles (the Nanjing Massacre, Three Alls Policy), pushing his personal synthesis over mainstream scholarly sources (which he claims are "garbage" or "Chinese propaganda" ), and has sought to show how "humiliated" China really was in this history . And when he can't get his way, his behavior never fails to be unimpressive . A quick skim of this talk page shows he's already making condescending remarks towards @RelmC and trying to boss them around. Go figure... Wahreit (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Nobody has tagged you here and as evident by my comment above you literally wrote your own version of history inconsistent with the source you cited. If you actually checked the source you were citing, you would see the author was talking about Tada Hayao, not Okamura. Again, you are taking issues I have with your misleading contributions as an attack on your character. Accept responsibility, fix the mistake, and learn from it. Adachi1939 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@RelmC@Katzrockso

As @Adachi1939 has just proven, his ideas of conflict resolution are finger pointing and mediocre insults.

Anyway, the point earlier stands. Secondary sources come first, independent synthesis of primary materials have no place here per WP:NOR. Calling the Three Alls Policy "alleged" or "so-called" is unacceptable.

>Contributions from this editor should be treated with extreme scrutiny. At the very least, it would be best to not immediately assume that their contributions represent the academic consensus

@Adachi1939, try pinging me if you want to talk like this, don't be afraid of pushback. And don't tell me what to do. Don't tell @RelmC what to do either. Wahreit (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the lack of clarity, I also oppose the inclusion of Yasuji Okamura's statements unless DUEness can be demonstrated by commentary on these statements by secondary sources. Katzrockso (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Relm (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, I appreciate it. Adachi1939 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@RelmC @Katzrockso Regarding the scholarly consensus, the English Three Alls Policy lists the following sources for mentions of Okamura Yasuji.

1. Paine, Sarah (2012). The Wars for Asia, 1911–1949. Cambridge University Press

2. Bix, Herbert P. (2000). Hirohito and the making of modern Japan (1st ed.). New York, NY

3. 藤原彰; 今井清一 (1988). 十五年戦争史 2 (日中戦争) [Jugonen Sensoshi 2 (History of the 15-Year War 2)]. 青木書店

4. Joint Editorial Committee of *Modern and Contemporary History of the Three East Asian Countries (1st ed.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Joint Publishing. 2005

Let's actually analyze their content before jumping to conclusions.

Paine writes on page 288 (epub) of her work:

General Okamura Yasuji responded with the Three Alls Campaign, the Chinese abbreviation for "kill all, burn all, and pillage all," but which the Japanese insisted was actually the Three Prohibitions Campaign, admonishing the Chinese not to burn, commit crimes, or kill. Whatever the name, the Japanese waged a war of annihilation, including the use of poison gas.

For the above statement, Paine cites Eguchi Keiichi "The Japanese Army on the China Front", Edward L. Dreyer, China at War, 1901-1949, and Dagfinn Gatu, Village China at War

Bix wrote on page 595 (epub)

At the end of 1938 the North China Area Army inaugurated the first of many self-designated campaigns of annihilation against guerilla bases in Hepei Province. These operations targeted for destruction "enemies pretending to be local people" and "all males between the ages of fifteen and sixty whom we suspect to be enemies." They continued off and on for the next four years, gradually becoming larger in scale, more organized, systematic, and widespread. Eventually the Chinese Comunist Party labeled them the "three alls policy"; that is, "burn all, kill all, steal all," or, in Japanese, sanko sakusen.

Here Bix cites Eguchi Keiichi "Chugoku sensen no Nihongun", Himeta Mitsuyoshi "Nihongun ni yoru Sanko Seisaku Sanko Sakusen o Megutte" and Fujiwara Akira "Sanko Sakusen to Kita Shina Homengun"

I have already brought up Eguchi a lot here, but once again, here is what they had to say.

しかし三光作戦は以上にみたように岡村の着任以前から多田司令官のもとで実施されており、森山康平『証言記録三光作戦』の「三光作戦の実施は、一九四〇（昭和一五）年秋に実施した晋中作戦からだといわれている」という記述のほうが正確である。64頁、藤原彰, 今井清一 編、十五年戦争史 2 (日中戦争)、青木書店、1988

English translation:

However, as seen here, the Three Alls Policy began before Okamura's arrival under Commander Tada, Moriyama Kohei's "Oral Testimony of the Three Alls Campaign" states "The enactment of the Three Alls Campaign is said to have began in fall of 1940 (Showa Year 15), starting with the Jinzhong Operation", which is probably correct. Page 64, Akira Fujiwara and Seiichi Imai, eds., Fifteen Years of War History 2 (Sino-Japanese War), Aoki Shoten, 1988

The work "Joint Editorial Committee of *Modern and Contemporary History of the Three East Asian Countries" does not exist, it is a machine-translation of the Chinese-language publication "《東亞三國的近現代史》共同編寫委員會 (编). 《東亞三國的近現代史》 香港第一版. 香港: 三聯書店（香港）. 2005" which originally appeared as a source in the Chinese article on the Three Alls Policy.

While I do not have this book, the Chinese article does state citing the above source:

5月1日起，冈村宁次亲率三个师团和两个混成旅团共5万余日军在冀中展开大规模扫荡。“扫荡地区之广，持续时间之长，残酷性之甚，均属空前”。日军在扫荡区域内建立了1733个据点和碉堡，挖掘了4100余公里的封锁沟；同时大建铁路公路，增强调兵速度和机动性。5月之中，日军在饶阳县杀死3万余人，武强县被杀者有三百多人，被抓往东北当奴工者四百多人。烧毁房屋千余间。5月，日軍華北方面軍第110師團一個大隊500多人突然襲擊「掃蕩」冀中定縣東南50里之北瞳村；該村地處平原，原有住家220戶，1,227人；村民為躲避日軍而挖貫通全村之地道

English machine translation:

Starting May 1st, Okamura Yasuji personally led three divisions and two mixed brigades, totaling over 50,000 Japanese troops, in a large-scale mopping-up operation in central Hebei. "The scale, duration, and brutality of the operation were unprecedented." The Japanese established 1,733 strongholds and bunkers within the operation area and dug over 4,100 kilometers of trenches; simultaneously, they constructed railways and highways to enhance troop deployment speed and mobility. In mid-May, the Japanese killed over 30,000 people in Raoyang County, over 300 in Wuqiang County, and over 400 were captured and sent to Northeast China as slave laborers. They burned down over 1,000 houses. In May, a battalion of over 500 men from the 110th Division of the Japanese North China Area Army launched a surprise attack on Beitong Village, 50 li southeast of Ding County in central Hebei, during their "mopping-up" operation. The village, located on a plain, originally had 220 households and 1,227 people; the villagers had dug tunnels running through the entire village to avoid the Japanese army.

So in summary, of the four sources mentioning Okamura, all do properly indicate Okamura's involvement with the Three Alls Campaign, however, of those, both Bix and Eguchi indicate the Three Alls began before Okamura's appointment to the North China Area Army. Both Paine and Bix point out the term Three Alls was a Chinese-term used to criticize the Japanese army's aggressive policies, not an official military term. While Paine says Okamura was the one who launched them, she does cite Eguchi, who states the contrary.

It seems pretty clear there is not an established consensus on Okamura being the one to first implement the so-called Three Alls, if anything it is the opposite. As such, I will be editing this page on Okamura to more closely match the scholarship surrounding him. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adachi1939 @RelmC @Katzrockso

You're acting like you have the final say here. Not so. Those conclusions of there "not being an established consensus" are your own. Again, per WP:NOR, you as an editor do not interpret or synthesize different materials for your own insights. Wahreit (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The same goes to you, you've come in twice and made disruptive revert edits to this article without awaiting input from others in the discussion, and then assume they agree, writing "3v1 consensus". You do not offer any actually valuable input in any of the comments, such as how we can rewrite it to be more appropriate, or which sources to use. Here you just cite WP:NOR which is irrelevant, I've just taken what secondary sources say.

This is really a simple matter, the scholarship on Okamura is different than what was written on Wikipedia until now. Now we're working to update it.

The initial issues with my edits presented by RelmC and Katzrockso was that they relied on primary sources, fair enough—I changed that to secondary sources. Then the issue was they were supposedly in contraction with other scholarship. Upon further review, as we determined above, they were not, rather you (Wahreit) engaged in fabricating a statement that did not align with the source material.

As such, I've undone your disruptive revert. You need to actually establish a consensus rather through sources or the other participants in the article before making such sweeping changes, but you have done neither. Adachi1939 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't say "we" when it's only you making these changes. You were the one reverting @RelmC's edits and trying to boss them around earlier. You don't have consensus. You didn't bother asking for input before declaring:

>It seems pretty clear there is not an established consensus on Okamura being the one to first implement the so-called Three Alls, if anything it is the opposite. As such, I will be editing this page on Okamura to more closely match the scholarship surrounding him

Again, Wikipedia is not a place to “decide” who’s "right". It should present the range of scholarly views fairly. You can't publish your own conclusions or interpretations. Don't mistake yourself for a historian. And again @Adachi1939, you don't have the final say. You don't determine who's disruptive or not. I don't need to do anything for you, nor does anyone else. Edit warring won't change that. Wahreit (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Okamura's memoir about the Nanking Massacre

I know primary sources as discouraged, but I wonder if we can work this into the article. In Okamura's memoirs (岡村寧次大将資料 上 (戦場回想篇) (明治百年史叢書)) on page 291 he states:

東京で、南京攻略戦では大暴行が行われたとの噂を聞き、それら前科のある部隊を率いて武漢攻略に任ずるであるから大に軍、風紀の維持を努力しなければならないと覚悟し、差し当り「討蒋愛民」の訓示標語を掲げることにした、それはわれらの目的は蒋介石の軍隊を倒滅することであって、無辜の人民には仁愛を以て接すべしというに在った。

上海に上陸して、一、二日の間に、このことに関して派遣の宮崎周一参謀、中支那派遣軍特務部長原田少将、杭州特務機関長萩原中佐等から聴取したところを総合すれば次のとおりであった。

・南京攻略時、数万の市民に対する掠奪強姦の大暴行があったことは事実である。

・第一線部隊は給養困難を名として俘虜を殺してしまう弊がある。

English:

While in Tokyo I heard rumors of serious outrages occurring during the capture of Nanking, and as I would be taking command of the forces involved in that for the Wuhan Operation, I endeavored to restore discipline, and adopted a motto of "Down with Chiang, Love the People", the purpose of that being to focus on annihilating Chiang's forces while treating the innocent civilians with benevolence.

After arriving in Shanghai, within 1 or 2 days I spoke with dispatched staff officer Miyazaki Shuichi, chief of the Central China Expeditionary Army Special Affairs Bureau Harada, and chief of the Hangzhou Special Service Agency Hagiwara, and gathered the following:

・During the capture of Nanking, it is true that mass violence which saw tens of thousands of civilians being subject to rape and pillaging occurred.

・Our men on the frontlines have a bad habit of killing prisoners under the pretense of insufficient supplies.

I have never heard of another Japanese Army General so openly admit to the Nanking Massacre, so I think it may have value to this article. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This quote is discussed in a secondary source here (this is material from a published journal article excerpted for a class) , page 95, so I might support inclusion of the quote, though we would need to write maybe another sentence describing the scholarly consensus on the number of victims so readers do not come away with the wrong impression. Perhaps something like Yasuji Okamura acknowledged the Nanking Massacre, the mass murder of 100,000-200,000 civilians and rape of 20,000-80,000 women and children, in his memoirs: <insert quote>. It would also work without the quote

It also quotes some other generals who admitted to it. Katzrockso (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I did some more searching and found some Japanese secondary sources on it as well. I have included it in an article with a note on the actual number of victims. If it would be better for the note to be moved inline into the paragraph, I will change it to that. Adachi1939 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adachi1939 @Katzrockso @RelmC

You do not have an "actual number of victims" for the Nanjing Massacre. That is original research and the Nanjing Massacre article lists a wide range. For that reason the note has been removed from the article. Wahreit (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I wrote a scholarly estimate and stated it as such, along with the source of it. There was no original research. It was the same range as the Nanking Massacre Wikipedia article states as well. It seems you are being unreasonably belligerent at this point. Adachi1939 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adachi1939

The range on the Nanjing Massacre Wikipedia page is 40,000 to 340,000. You do not have an "actual number of victims", that is your opinion and original research. It has been removed. It shouldn't be this difficult to abide by simple rules. Wahreit (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)