Significance of the Chinese military contribution to World War 2 disputed.

Lezt · Jul 21, 2011

Honestly, you are not arguing for the facts but you just want to win.

Regardless if it is isolated incidents or not, I have shown you something that you say is impossible is possible. If you so believe it to be isolated, why don't you give me some statistics by reputable sources saying how many guerrilla raid was successful and how many was a failure - I doubt you can find much statistics at all and as such means that your statement that these are isolated incidents is pure speculation.

China also had super power support during the sino-japanese war? At various times, the Third Reich, Soviet Union and the United States supplied arms and material to China. The Ledo road suppplied 147,000 tons of supplies to China, the Burma airlift had 650,000 tons of supplies to China for around 60,000 tons per month. China provided what, ~4000 ton of supplies to Vietnam per month? Sure Burma was attack-able, but supplies did go through and after 1943~ Burma was as good as unattackable as Pakistan is to Afghanistan.

Lol you think the loss rate is 10:1 for the long march? what was the Nationalist losses? tell me how many were operational losses, combat losses and irrecoverable losses? And as I have said, the long march was a huge propaganda event for the red army as its members were dispersed to spread communism - and is reflected as the communist strength only grew after. Why do you think that the nationalist can force another long march from Yunan? unlike Gawngxi, it have no rail head, is far in the interior in a country without paved roads - and ultimately it is far from the Nationalist power base in Canton.

When did i say that Tet would work against the Japanese? would you be satisfied if I just say that Mongols can conquer China, but Japan can't; and be happy?

Again, Who said raiding arsenals are for heavy arms? the entire discussion was centered upon the small arms, the hugely inadequate rifle issue the Chinese forces had - They don't need to run off with the 75mm cannon, but just the rifles, MG/SMG, mortars and munition they can carry.

Honestly, provide some sources and statistics for your argument. The mujaheddin was not losing badly before the US supplies, The IRA fought for a country and they got a country- you can call it a failure. China was only successfully conquered by the Mongols and the Manchurians and you call the resistance movement in these two cases isolated incidents when it is 100% of the time China was invaded?

Yes the Pen State Line infantry mutinied and refused to defect to the British. Poor conditions were rampant for warfare back then, The Royal navy channel fleet mutinied in 1797. Mutaines and insubordination were common back then - the Royal Navy in the Americas were rampant with Scuvy with 18,000 dying to disease and lost most of the battle against the continental navy. 10% of the ships in the Royal navy cannot put to sea due to lack of men. I believe 40,000 Royal Navy salors deserted out of a total of 170,000. in the American war of independence deserted - So what is your point, that the US have worse conditions?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is English bank notes more reliable than American gold?

Honestly, I give up talking to you, you have no sources for your statements nor do you have statistics and worse of all, you are selective in the history you choose to accept.

p.s. regarding the IRA, do you consider the CCP a failure since China signed away outer Manchuria to the Soviet Union, never reclaimed outer Mongolia, Did not regain hegemony over Korea, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam?

nemo · Jul 21, 2011

Lezt said:
Honestly, you are not arguing for the facts but you just want to win.

Regardless if it is isolated incidents or not, I have shown you something that you say is impossible is possible. If you so believe it to be isolated, why don't you give me some statistics by reputable sources saying how many guerrilla raid was successful and how many was a failure - I doubt you can find much statistics at all and as such means that your statement that these are isolated incidents is pure speculation.

I can said about the same for you. If guerilla warfare is so effective, history would have been much more different. In fact, why even have regular army?

The only reason why one would use guerilla warfare is because one is weaker. Else there would be no need for the hardship of the guerilla warfare -- just go and attack. Why would guerilla melt away when face with superior power -- because it cannot hold ground and cannot retreat (less mobility and may be surrounded). This is why guerilla warfare is really about protection of one's forces and attack only if victory is certain or necessary.

I am citing the reason and definition of the guerilla warfare. You are citing successful cases -- that's picking samples. I can ask you the same about the statistics.

With that said, counter insurgency is one of the harder operation, due to the fact that there is a reason for insurgency in the first place.

Lezt said:
China also had super power support during the sino-japanese war? At various times, the Third Reich, Soviet Union and the United States supplied arms and material to China. The Ledo road suppplied 147,000 tons of supplies to China, the Burma airlift had 650,000 tons of supplies to China for around 60,000 tons per month. China provided what, ~4000 ton of supplies to Vietnam per month? Sure Burma was attack-able, but supplies did go through and after 1943~ Burma was as good as unattackable as Pakistan is to Afghanistan.

China was effectively landlocked -- there was no way large scale supply can reach China not in the amount required and spread across large geographic area.

I think you are off on the aid to Vietnam. 1965-1975-- aid from Soviet block not including China was 630,000 tons. China's aid was significantly larger. From 6/1972 to 12/1973, the aid alone was 650,000 tons. Total amount of rifles was over two million, bullets over 12 billion, 700 artillery pieces, etc.
That was larger than all aids received by China during WW-2.

Lezt said:
Lol you think the loss rate is 10:1 for the long march? what was the Nationalist losses? tell me how many were operational losses, combat losses and irrecoverable losses? And as I have said, the long march was a huge propaganda event for the red army as its members were dispersed to spread communism - and is reflected as the communist strength only grew after. Why do you think that the nationalist can force another long march from Yunan? unlike Gawngxi, it have no rail head, is far in the interior in a country without paved roads - and ultimately it is far from the Nationalist power base in Canton.

10 to one ratio was survival rate. The amount that arrived was less then 20000. It was big propaganda but there is no question it was a defeat and retreat -- else why would you abandon your territory?

Why would paved road be that much of a difference. Road is there and supplies were mostly transported by animals. The strategy of surround, build fortification, and gradual reduction works well. Even if communist are better fighters, it's just a matter of time.

Lezt said:
When did i say that Tet would work against the Japanese? would you be satisfied if I just say that Mongols can conquer China, but Japan can't; and be happy?

No. I am not. I want to know why you think it Japan can't. After all, Japan also resort to terror, and the mongols are even smaller in term of population compare to Japanese.

Lezt said:
Again, Who said raiding arsenals are for heavy arms? the entire discussion was centered upon the small arms, the hugely inadequate rifle issue the Chinese forces had - They don't need to run off with the 75mm cannon, but just the rifles, MG/SMG, mortars and munition they can carry.

Even bullets' are heavy. Typically one don't carry more than 200 rounds in combat. 100 bullet is around 15 Kg. So how many can you carry while preserving mobility? Pack animals will help, but that make you more obvious -- and there is limitation in how much bullet the animals can carry.

Lezt said:
Honestly, provide some sources and statistics for your argument. The mujaheddin was not losing badly before the US supplies, The IRA fought for a country and they got a country- you can call it a failure. China was only successfully conquered by the Mongols and the Manchurians and you call the resistance movement in these two cases isolated incidents when it is 100% of the time China was invaded?

Sorry. The IRA that I talked about is the IRA 'terrorists' in the 1970s.
I will grant you your point on mujaheddin -- there are other failing of the soviet army. But man-portable SAM did limit their operation. But you did admit the the mujaheddin was losing.

Actually, China was invaded more than that -- the period of fracture between Han and Sui/Tang dynasty, for example. Northern China was conquered by barbarian regimes.

You call there resistance movement against Manchurian and Mongol successful? To say the resistance was successful, don't you think it should be successful within the lifetime of the original resisters? The one who actually succeed is not the descent organization of the original resisters. So I think you are overstating it.

Lezt said:
Yes the Pen State Line infantry mutinied and refused to defect to the British. Poor conditions were rampant for warfare back then, The Royal navy channel fleet mutinied in 1797. Mutaines and insubordination were common back then - the Royal Navy in the Americas were rampant with Scuvy with 18,000 dying to disease and lost most of the battle against the continental navy. 10% of the ships in the Royal navy cannot put to sea due to lack of men. I believe 40,000 Royal Navy salors deserted out of a total of 170,000. in the American war of independence deserted - So what is your point, that the US have worse conditions?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is English bank notes more reliable than American gold?

Honestly, I give up talking to you, you have no sources for your statements nor do you have statistics and worse of all, you are selective in the history you choose to accept.

p.s. regarding the IRA, do you consider the CCP a failure since China signed away outer Manchuria to the Soviet Union, never reclaimed outer Mongolia, Did not regain hegemony over Korea, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam?

I can said the same about you. You see the trees but not the forest.

Gold is gold, but the scripts issued by the Continental Congress was worthless, compare to the English notes.

As for the IRA, we were talking of different war. I apologize.

Lezt · Jul 22, 2011

nemo said:
I can said about the same for you. If guerilla warfare is so effective, history would have been much more different. In fact, why even have regular army?

Have I said that guerilla warfare was more effective than conventional warfare? All I have said is, if the terrain is suitable, there is foreign support and the local population supports it – it is very effective.

nemo said:
The only reason why one would use guerilla warfare is because one is weaker. Else there would be no need for the hardship of the guerilla warfare -- just go and attack. Why would guerilla melt away when face with superior power -- because it cannot hold ground and cannot retreat (less mobility and may be surrounded). This is why guerilla warfare is really about protection of one's forces and attack only if victory is certain or necessary.

That is also a very simplified way of looking at warfare. If guerilla/irregular warfare is cheaper, more cost effective why not use it? It is the economics of war, and it is also Sun Tzu’s art of war.
And what makes you think that guerilla warfare mans that they have less mobility? Partisans, Guerillas, Irregulars, often are lightly armed wearing local clothing and blending into local surroundings. Most engagements are ambushes or raids conducted at the timing and location favorable to them.
Having the initiate, they have the choice to engage or disengage and they can blend in with the locals willing to harbor them – and there are many cases of the VC vanishing after an engagement with a US patrol? -> that is already an example of them being able to retreat.

nemo said:
I am citing the reason and definition of the guerilla warfare. You are citing successful cases -- that's picking samples. I can ask you the same about the statistics.

And I have given you reason which they will succeed and have given you arguments against your reasons why they would fail.
I am not sure what definition you are using, but the definition of conventional and guerilla warfare is constantly evolving. For example, 4000 years ago - Charriots and skirmishers were conventional, 2000 years ago - heavy infantry was conventional, 1000 years ago – professional warriors were conventional, 100 years ago – conscript army is conventional.
The definition Wikipedia gives is:
Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare and refers to conflicts in which a small group of combatants including, but not limited to, armed civilians (or "irregulars") use military tactics, such as ambushes, sabotage, raids, the element of surprise, and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and less-mobile traditional army, or strike a vulnerable target, and withdraw almost immediately.
Which you should note the high mobility aspect which allows them to retreat.

nemo said:
With that said, counter insurgency is one of the harder operation, due to the fact that there is a reason for insurgency in the first place.
China was effectively landlocked -- there was no way large scale supply can reach China not in the amount required and spread across large geographic area.
I think you are off on the aid to Vietnam. 1965-1975-- aid from Soviet block not including China was 630,000 tons. China's aid was significantly larger. From 6/1972 to 12/1973, the aid alone was 650,000 tons. Total amount of rifles was over two million, bullets over 12 billion, 700 artillery pieces, etc.
That was larger than all aids received by China during WW-2.

nemo said:

I think you are right that the aid given to Vietnam was larger. But it does not mean that China was insufficiently supplied so that they will fail against the Japanese. Regardless, China still received huge amount of aid and fulfill the criteria of foreign backer for irregular warfare to succeed.
Also to put it into scale, Vietnam war was 20 years after WW2, During Vietnam war, the US dropped 2.7 million ton of bombs on Vietnam, while in WW2, the allies dropped 0.65 million ton of bomb at Japan.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so according to you, the soviets gave 630,000 tons of supply over 10 years and china gave 650,000 tons over 1.5 years for an average of 500,000 tons / year? Compared to 650,000 tons from the western allies to china over ~3 years for an average of 200,000 tons/ year?
China still receive a huge amount of aid.

Click to expand...

10 to one ratio was survival rate. The amount that arrived was less then 20000. It was big propaganda but there is no question it was a defeat and retreat -- else why would you abandon your territory?

nemo said:

I never said the long march was a victory? The thing is, they lost the battle but won the war and the war is what is important.

Click to expand...

Why would paved road be that much of a difference. Road is there and supplies were mostly transported by animals. The strategy of surround, build fortification, and gradual reduction works well. Even if communist are better fighters, it's just a matter of time.

nemo said:

Unless your nationalist pack animals run faster than your communist pack animals, how can the nationalist catch and surround the communist? Without the transport bandwidth of paved roads, how do you amass enough material and men to destroy the soviet? Fortifications require men to man, and they require building as well.
And it is also why the Japanese were not able to conquer interior China. There is simply no rail heads nor paved roads for a professional army to move and deploy while complicating logistics so only very small forces can be sent.

Click to expand...

No. I am not. I want to know why you think it Japan can't. After all, Japan also resort to terror, and the mongols are even smaller in term of population compare to Japanese.

nemo said:

LOL, the mongol army that conquered china was in a large part Chinese. The Mogolian army was estimated to be 450,000+ according to Wikipedia while the Song defenders were around 1.5 million men. And they took 60 years to conquer China.
Japan did not have 60 years to Conquer China after pearl harbor. Nor did the Song have the backing of the western allies.

nemo said:

Even bullets' are heavy. Typically one don't carry more than 200 rounds in combat. 100 bullet is around 15 Kg. So how many can you carry while preserving mobility? Pack animals will help, but that make you more obvious -- and there is limitation in how much bullet the animals can carry.

Click to expand...

The point of contention we had was if it was more effective to pull a rifle/munition/etc from a dead soldier or to lift it from an arsenal. Unless the dead soldier’s rifle and bullet is lighter, then why would there be a difference in weight?
Honestly I would rather attach a lightly guarded arsenal such as the 6 Japanese soldier guarding the ammo dump at Paluan
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
instead of ambushing a typical patrol whom are alert and combat ready of 12-24 men.

nemo said:

Sorry. The IRA that I talked about is the IRA 'terrorists' in the 1970s.
I will grant you your point on mujaheddin -- there are other failing of the soviet army. But man-portable SAM did limit their operation. But you did admit the the mujaheddin was losing.

Click to expand...

The thing is, like the Vietnam war, the soviet union like the USA cannot stomach the losses and the economical cost of war. The soviet union was getting bankrupted quicker than the mujahidin is losing men.
And you are correct, the attrition of men is in the favor of the SU, but the attrition of capital and will to fight the war is in the favor of the Mujahidin. In any case, they won the war.

nemo said:

Actually, China was invaded more than that -- the period of fracture between Han and Sui/Tang dynasty, for example. Northern China was conquered by barbarian regimes.

You call there resistance movement against Manchurian and Mongol successful? To say the resistance was successful, don't you think it should be successful within the lifetime of the original resisters? The one who actually succeed is not the descent organization of the original resisters. So I think you are overstating it.

Click to expand...

Note. I said successfully conquered, not partially and not invaded. So yeah, china was partially conquered and was invaded multiple times. But each of those partial conquest and invasions were beaten back.
So my statement is correct, and as per your statement, China still had conventional forces then, guerilla warfare did not really come into play.
Why should success be measured in one life time? The Jews got their state back 3000 years later – I still consider it a success for the Jewish people.

nemo said:

I can said the same about you. You see the trees but not the forest.

Gold is gold, but the scripts issued by the Continental Congress was worthless, compare to the English notes.

As for the IRA, we were talking of different war. I apologize.

Click to expand...

Nth really to say, gold is gold.
It is just that, I haven’t said a lot of the things you think I said. I am the person whom gauge the success of a struggle on the final effect of the war; not the battles which lead up to it.

Click to expand...

nemo · Jul 23, 2011

Lezt said:
That is also a very simplified way of looking at warfare. If guerilla/irregular warfare is cheaper, more cost effective why not use it? It is the economics of war, and it is also Sun Tzu’s art of war.

You don't use it unless you have to because the cost is exorbitant -- you sacrifice most of your population and industrial base to protect your troops.
And you leave your population open to reprisal from the enemy troops.

Lezt said:
And what makes you think that guerilla warfare mans that they have less mobility? Partisans, Guerillas, Irregulars, often are lightly armed wearing local clothing and blending into local surroundings. Most engagements are ambushes or raids conducted at the timing and location favorable to them.
Having the initiate, they have the choice to engage or disengage and they can blend in with the locals willing to harbor them – and there are many cases of the VC vanishing after an engagement with a US patrol? -> that is already an example of them being able to retreat.

Given the same size of troops, guerilla has less mobility. Only advantage it has is surprise and ability to melt away. That's it. Regular army can be heavier yet faster by using cars and trucks, for example. This is in most, but not all, cases and terrain. If the enemy resorts to extreme brutality, it can even eliminate your local support.

Who do you think invent the concentration camp? -- it's not German. It's British when fighting the Boer War. British fought guerilla by rounding up local population and put them in concentration camps.

Lezt said:
And I have given you reason which they will succeed and have given you arguments against your reasons why they would fail.

...

Which you should note the high mobility aspect which allows them to retreat.

And I have given you the reason why guerilla warfare isn't easy. It's in fact very unforgiving.

It's essentially succeed in attack or die. If the enemy troops ever recover from the surprise, get ready to run or you will be destroyed. If you get pin down due to heavy firepower, you are dead. If you slow down, you are dead.

Lezt said:
LOL, the mongol army that conquered china was in a large part Chinese. The Mogolian army was estimated to be 450,000+ according to Wikipedia while the Song defenders were around 1.5 million men. And they took 60 years to conquer China.
Japan did not have 60 years to Conquer China after pearl harbor. Nor did the Song have the backing of the western allies.

What's your point? I am talking about occupying army vs the total population size. The ration of mongol to Chinese population is more than 100 to 1. Ratio of Japanese to Chinese is around 5 to 1. If 100 to 1 can pacify China, why can't 5 to 1?

Lezt said:
The point of contention we had was if it was more effective to pull a rifle/munition/etc from a dead soldier or to lift it from an arsenal. Unless the dead soldier’s rifle and bullet is lighter, then why would there be a difference in weight?
Honestly I would rather attach a lightly guarded arsenal such as the 6 Japanese soldier guarding the ammo dump at Paluan
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
instead of ambushing a typical patrol whom are alert and combat ready of 12-24 men.

Here you go again using exceptional cases and present them as usual. Raiding supply is one of the oldest strategy, so guarding supplies are one of the basic thing you can do. You think all supplies are only guarded by 6 soliders?

It's easier to ambush on a road, for example, then to attack an defended position.

Lezt said:
The thing is, like the Vietnam war, the soviet union like the USA cannot stomach the losses and the economical cost of war. The soviet union was getting bankrupted quicker than the mujahidin is losing men.
And you are correct, the attrition of men is in the favor of the SU, but the attrition of capital and will to fight the war is in the favor of the Mujahidin. In any case, they won the war.

BS. It's benefit vs cost. Vietnam and Afghanistan are rather marginal -- they weren't worth the cost. China was different. Chinese per capita at time is around half to 1/3 of Japanese, at 4-5 time population. You bet they wills pend a lot more.

Lezt said:
Note. I said successfully conquered, not partially and not invaded. So yeah, china was partially conquered and was invaded multiple times. But each of those partial conquest and invasions were beaten back.
So my statement is correct, and as per your statement, China still had conventional forces then, guerilla warfare did not really come into play.
Why should success be measured in one life time? The Jews got their state back 3000 years later – I still consider it a success for the Jewish people.

It's actually worse than you described. The heartland was at north, and the central authority was destroyed. And the unification only happened AFTER the barbarians got assimilated. For all intend the purpose, it's more of reunification rather than 'beat back'

You got to put some limit else it doesn't make sense. Within a generation is a good cut off, continuous fighting is oen good cut off. The way you are doing it is over-generalization.

Lezt said:
Nth really to say, gold is gold.
It is just that, I haven’t said a lot of the things you think I said. I am the person whom gauge the success of a struggle on the final effect of the war; not the battles which lead up to it.

Continental Congress issue *banknotes* to finance the war -- it actually didn't have much coins on hand. Washington was actually pissed when his treasurer paid of interests of the debt with real money rather than on his supplies. As you can imagine, those scripts wasn't worth a lot. British paid with cash, and they got the supplies. One of the reason why Yorktown was won was because French paid for supplies with real cash.

I think more factors need to be considered. One of the reason that British decided not to continue the fighting was the situation in Europe, which matters more than the Colonies. A lot of time guerilla war was won is due to external factors, such as external assistance. I am not convinced guerilla warfare is decisive by itself, as you claimed. -- in fact, few ever succeed without special factors, if regular army is reasonably competent.

xywdx · Jul 23, 2011

Both of you are making some good points, it's interesting to see where this debates goes, though I would like to add to the following.

nemo said:
What's your point? I am talking about occupying army vs the total population size. The ration of mongol to Chinese population is more than 100 to 1. Ratio of Japanese to Chinese is around 5 to 1. If 100 to 1 can pacify China, why can't 5 to 1?

The Mongols were able to use much more heavy handed techniques because they did not have the material and financial need of the Japanese. Like I mentioned before Japan was spending up to 70% of it's income on the military, they need the occupied lands to make money for them or their empire would collapse, dead people don't pay taxes. Now the Mongols, they were nomads, they had little requirement for life besides killing and pillaging, they had no problem purging numerous villages or even cities to get their point across.

nemo · Jul 23, 2011

xywdx said:
Both of you are making some good points, it's interesting to see where this debates goes, though I would like to add to the following.

The Mongols were able to use much more heavy handed techniques because they did not have the material and financial need of the Japanese. Like I mentioned before Japan was spending up to 70% of it's income on the military, they need the occupied lands to make money for them or their empire would collapse, dead people don't pay taxes. Now the Mongols, they were nomads, they had little requirement for life besides killing and pillaging, they had no problem purging numerous villages or even cities to get their point across.

Japanese did try something like that -- the 3-all campaign. You don't need to kill everyone -- just enough so the survivors are too scared to revolt. Even Mongols didn't kill everyone.

Manchurians also succeed in pacifying China. And Chinese in Taiwan --- even now there are those who regard themselves as subjects of Japan.

Lezt · Jul 24, 2011

nemo said:
You don't use it unless you have to because the cost is exorbitant -- you sacrifice most of your population and industrial base to protect your troops.
And you leave your population open to reprisal from the enemy troops.

Why do you equate guerilla warfare to abandoning your population and industrial base? The green berets, Rangers, SEAL, SAS, SBS, Spetnaz – all fight guerilla warfare and yet they all come from a country with a strong conventional military.
And back to the Vietnam, northern Vietnam was definitely not lost and regular NVA troops were station there. You can argue that the American did not invade because they don’t want to provoke a Chinese intervention – but, in history, North Vietnam preserved its population and held its industrial base.

nemo said:
Given the same size of troops, guerilla has less mobility. Only advantage it has is surprise and ability to melt away. That's it. Regular army can be heavier yet faster by using cars and trucks, for example. This is in most, but not all, cases and terrain. If the enemy resorts to extreme brutality, it can even eliminate your local support.

Extreme brutality generally strengthens the will to resist if the invading force were unable to kill them all. The Mongols and the Romanians being the exception. English brutality did not crush Ireland not Scotland – William Wallace *wink wink*. French brutality did not crush Algerian resistance and German brutality did not crush the soviet union.
Why fight with the same size of troop? That a very conventional way of thinking and do Guerilla warfare fight a corp vis a corp or a division to a division? By the definition of Guerrilla warfare, it denotes small group warfare hitting unexpected targets.
Why would a guerilla troop engage something alert and more powerful then themselves? It is against the principle of guerilla warfare. And given the same size of troop, we don’t know who would be better armed. Front line regular troops may be better armed compared to partisans, support troops, logistic toops and engineering troops are defiantly less well armed. On the other spectrum; if you guerilla force is lets say the Spetnaz – then it is very likely that they are better armed than a conscript force they might ambush. So it depends, I won’t say it with the certainty you are.

nemo said:
Who do you think invent the concentration camp? -- it's not German. It's British when fighting the Boer War. British fought guerilla by rounding up local population and put them in concentration camps.

I never said the Germans invented it, and besides, The idea of concentration camps or similar are as old as warfare itself. I did not even talk about it.
For example which precede the Boer war: “In 1803, Napoleon Bonaparte issued a decree through which France detained British citizens within the Empire. The détenu law differed from the then accepted rules of war which allowed a country to kill, enslave or allow a captured citizen of an enemy nation to be rescued for ransom”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The idea wasn’t new. Both Ivan the Terrible and Count Vladislaus Dragulia interned and detained a large population of their own country.

nemo said:
And I have given you the reason why guerilla warfare isn't easy. It's in fact very unforgiving.

I never said it was easy and if this is all you wish to prove, I agree with you. My perspective is Guerilla Warfare like conventional warfare is a necessity of war and is both a valid methodology to fight a war. We should be in agreement here.

nemo said:
It's essentially succeed in attack or die. If the enemy troops ever recover from the surprise, get ready to run or you will be destroyed. If you get pin down due to heavy firepower, you are dead. If you slow down, you are dead.

This is based on the assumption that the attacked have superior fire power. And history and Guerilla theory have shown that they attack the weak. Take the US army supply convoy on March 31 2004 in Fallujah. The US army definitely is very well armed but the supply convoy was only guarded by… 4 men?

nemo said:
What's your point? I am talking about occupying army vs the total population size. The ration of mongol to Chinese population is more than 100 to 1. Ratio of Japanese to Chinese is around 5 to 1. If 100 to 1 can pacify China, why can't 5 to 1?

How do you get these numbers? The last Song census was in 1120 according to Wikipedia for a population of 119 million while the mogul invasion was from 1235-1279. The mogols invade the southern Song which should have less population since half the country and as recorded by the Yuan of 1290, there were only 58.8 million people. The invading Mongol army was said to be more than 450,000 men so lets say 0.5 million?
The Japanese invading army was 3.9 million men, The Chinese population estimate at 1944 was 452 million – which should be more as alteast 20 million Chinese have perished in the war
So 2 things, 1) I just don’t think you have the sufficient data to make your claim. And 2) 3.9/452 is not 1:5 but is closer to 1:11

nemo said:
Here you go again using exceptional cases and present them as usual. Raiding supply is one of the oldest strategy, so guarding supplies are one of the basic thing you can do. You think all supplies are only guarded by 6 soliders?

As seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes, convoys are lightly guarded

nemo said:
It's easier to ambush on a road, for example, then to attack an defended position.

Why don’t you do the math of how many soldiers are to guard a supply depot and how many supply deports are there. But the data for the number of supply depot are hard to come by, so why not assume that the number of strategic important site is 10 per the number of towns and cities? (Stalingrad had 3 airfields alone, and multiple arsenals and supply workshops)
China have around 700 cities of significant size. The majority of which are near the coast line hence under Japanese control. Lets take 75% for ~550 cities? Japan stationed 1.2 million men in Manchuria to guard the soviet union in 1945. The central army group had 620,000 men in 1945, the southern army group also had 500,000 men around 1945.
This means that the 3.9 million troops which served in China (including replacements) 2.34 were at front line duty and cannot perform guard duty. Leaving 1.56 million to be replacements and perform guard duties. The maximum Japanese strength in China was in 1943 for 3.1 million men, meaning ~800,000 men were replacements. So the available men for guard duty is 0.76 million men.
Lets say that 50% of those men are working in the logistics elements, driving trucks, maintaining railroads, maintaining equipment in field workshops. With 0.38 million men available to perform guard duties or a staggering 55 soldiers to guard each strategic important location.
Note that you will have more at let’s say airfields and that we are not counting the airfoce which is also represented by those numbers.
Reality is, you will have very few men guarding a far flung supply depot.

nemo said:
BS. It's benefit vs cost. Vietnam and Afghanistan are rather marginal -- they weren't worth the cost. China was different. Chinese per capita at time is around half to 1/3 of Japanese, at 4-5 time population. You bet they wills pend a lot more.

LOL, you are total BS, if you compare per capita then the amount of population does not matter as it is per capita.
What benefit vs cost do Japan invading China has? According to you, the per capita income of Afghanistan is much less than the Soviet Union and the per capita income of Vietnam is much less than the USA – incidentally just like the per capita income of China is much less than Japan. So what is your point?
When you are at it, why don’t you figure out what is the GDP PPP per capita of each of these nations? This is really irrelevant to this discussion

nemo said:
It's actually worse than you described. The heartland was at north, and the central authority was destroyed. And the unification only happened AFTER the barbarians got assimilated. For all intend the purpose, it's more of reunification rather than 'beat back'

Does it matter? Assimilation is also warfare, if you can’t beat them, then you breed them out. The British also tried it with the Scotts.
The fact is, the Han majority regained control of the entire country and there was a military defeat for the invaders.

nemo said:
You got to put some limit else it doesn't make sense. Within a generation is a good cut off, continuous fighting is oen good cut off. The way you are doing it is over-generalization.

Well, the definition of being conquered is pretty much well established. And it is different than a war; that is why the third war Rome had with Carthage is also called the conquest of Carthage. And the war with Spain was called the conquest of Hispania.
The original question was, when was China conquered, and the Yuan and the Qing is really the only case.

nemo said:
Continental Congress issue *banknotes* to finance the war -- it actually didn't have much coins on hand. Washington was actually pissed when his treasurer paid of interests of the debt with real money rather than on his supplies. As you can imagine, those scripts wasn't worth a lot. British paid with cash, and they got the supplies. One of the reason why Yorktown was won was because French paid for supplies with real cash.

I think more factors need to be considered. One of the reason that British decided not to continue the fighting was the situation in Europe, which matters more than the Colonies. A lot of time guerilla war was won is due to external factors, such as external assistance. I am not convinced guerilla warfare is decisive by itself, as you claimed. -- in fact, few ever succeed without special factors, if regular army is reasonably competent.

[/QUOTE]
Note, I did not say that guerrilla warfare is decisive by itself; if I did, why do I keep mentioning that China was backed by the western allies and the whole discussion on how many ton of supplies were delivered?
And again, I talked about pearl harbor as with the case where Japan simply did not have the time to conquer China and so China only have to stall Japan. I believe that that qualifies as external factor?
So in essence, we agree

nemo · Jul 24, 2011

Lezt said:
Why do you equate guerilla warfare to abandoning your population and industrial base? The green berets, Rangers, SEAL, SAS, SBS, Spetnaz – all fight guerilla warfare and yet they all come from a country with a strong conventional military.
And back to the Vietnam, northern Vietnam was definitely not lost and regular NVA troops were station there. You can argue that the American did not invade because they don’t want to provoke a Chinese intervention – but, in history, North Vietnam preserved its population and held its industrial base.

You are grasping straws. You are confusing counter insurgency and special operation with guerilla warfare. Those are very different.
Don't confuse the concept. One very significant difference is that regular forces and law enforcement troops are there to hold and protect territories-- so those are not of concern of the special op and counter insurgency troops. Why are you bringing this up?

North Vietnam was under the protection of China, which threaten intervention if US cross the border. That's the only reason North Vietnam is able to protect its population and industrial base. Compare that with North Korea before Chinese intervention.

If you want to argue this further, let's agree on what point we are arguing about.
My argument is guerilla warfare has a low chance of success by itself if the opposing army is reasonably competent.
My perception of YOUR argument is you thinks if a competent guerilla with the support of the population is almost always successful.

Lezt said:
Extreme brutality generally strengthens the will to resist if the invading force were unable to kill them all. The Mongols and the Romanians being the exception. English brutality did not crush Ireland not Scotland – William Wallace *wink wink*. French brutality did not crush Algerian resistance and German brutality did not crush the soviet union.

English did crush Scotland, and English did crush Ireland. It took the fiasco of the Great Famine to re-woke Irish Nationalism.

Strictly speaking William Wallace -- although he did use raiding as tactics, Scottish are regular forces, and major engagement are fought as set-piece battle rather than skirmishes. I am not sure that qualifies as guerilla warfare. Never the less, English did execute William Wallace, it took Robert the Bruce's regular force victory at Bannockburn to end that war. After the political merge of the Scottish and English crown, there were Jacobite rebellions to around mid 1700s. English finally was able to pacify Scotland by bribing the Scottish lords to screw their own people -- English paid high price for the fleece, which caused the Scottish lords to boot tenants off their land for more pasture. From that point on, Scottish lords can no longer raise troops, even if they wanted to rebel.

As for Algeria, French politics, international pressure, and war exhaustion after WW-2 and Indo-China didn't allow them to use even more brutality. As for the German -- they didn't have enough time, and they were facing regular armies also.

Lezt said:
Why fight with the same size of troop? That a very conventional way of thinking and do Guerilla warfare fight a corp vis a corp or a division to a division? By the definition of Guerrilla warfare, it denotes small group warfare hitting unexpected targets.
Why would a guerilla troop engage something alert and more powerful then themselves? It is against the principle of guerilla warfare. And given the same size of troop, we don’t know who would be better armed. Front line regular troops may be better armed compared to partisans, support troops, logistic toops and engineering troops are defiantly less well armed. On the other spectrum; if you guerilla force is lets say the Spetnaz – then it is very likely that they are better armed than a conscript force they might ambush. So it depends, I won’t say it with the certainty you are.

I said same size because I anticipate you argument -- you would have argued one band of guerilla is more mobile then a division, no matter how ridiculously that comparison is. I said same size so to make the comparison fair. I do not mean they will be used that way.
Yes, no one attack into strength when they can help it, but no one avoid using their strength also, unless one has a good reason.
And who do you think have strength to spare?

Lezt said:
This is based on the assumption that the attacked have superior fire power. And history and Guerilla theory have shown that they attack the weak. Take the US army supply convoy on March 31 2004 in Fallujah. The US army definitely is very well armed but the supply convoy was only guarded by… 4 men?

Again, exceptions does not imply a rule. If you can show this is a standard operating procedure or doctrine, I will agree with you. There are people with military background in the forum, why don't we ask them?

Lezt said:
How do you get these numbers? The last Song census was in 1120 according to Wikipedia for a population of 119 million while the mogul invasion was from 1235-1279. The mogols invade the southern Song which should have less population since half the country and as recorded by the Yuan of 1290, there were only 58.8 million people. The invading Mongol army was said to be more than 450,000 men so lets say 0.5 million?
The Japanese invading army was 3.9 million men, The Chinese population estimate at 1944 was 452 million – which should be more as alteast 20 million Chinese have perished in the war
So 2 things, 1) I just don’t think you have the sufficient data to make your claim. And 2) 3.9/452 is not 1:5 but is closer to 1:11

Look, I am using full population vs full population, you are doing army vs population. In either case, no matter what number you are using, we have a smaller population vs a larger population. So what's your point?

To make your argument, you are also using occupied China's population in your calculation. But in order for that to be a valid comparison, then occupied China has to be already pacified -- which help my argument more than yours.

Lezt said:
As seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes, convoys are lightly guarded

Why don’t you do the math of how many soldiers are to guard a supply depot and how many supply deports are there. But the data for the number of supply depot are hard to come by, so why not assume that the number of strategic important site is 10 per the number of towns and cities? (Stalingrad had 3 airfields alone, and multiple arsenals and supply workshops)
China have around 700 cities of significant size. The majority of which are near the coast line hence under Japanese control. Lets take 75% for ~550 cities? Japan stationed 1.2 million men in Manchuria to guard the soviet union in 1945. The central army group had 620,000 men in 1945, the southern army group also had 500,000 men around 1945.
This means that the 3.9 million troops which served in China (including replacements) 2.34 were at front line duty and cannot perform guard duty. Leaving 1.56 million to be replacements and perform guard duties. The maximum Japanese strength in China was in 1943 for 3.1 million men, meaning ~800,000 men were replacements. So the available men for guard duty is 0.76 million men.
Lets say that 50% of those men are working in the logistics elements, driving trucks, maintaining railroads, maintaining equipment in field workshops. With 0.38 million men available to perform guard duties or a staggering 55 soldiers to guard each strategic important location.
Note that you will have more at let’s say airfields and that we are not counting the airfoce which is also represented by those numbers.
Reality is, you will have very few men guarding a far flung supply depot.

You didn't count the collaborators and local law enforcement troops. With them, those figures can easily be doubled. Front line troops also have it's own supply dumps and transport troops.

However, you do have a point in that it's not possible to guard everywhere and amount of forces are limited.

Lezt said:
LOL, you are total BS, if you compare per capita then the amount of population does not matter as it is per capita.
What benefit vs cost do Japan invading China has? According to you, the per capita income of Afghanistan is much less than the Soviet Union and the per capita income of Vietnam is much less than the USA – incidentally just like the per capita income of China is much less than Japan. So what is your point?
When you are at it, why don’t you figure out what is the GDP PPP per capita of each of these nations? This is really irrelevant to this discussion

My point is people fought wars for a reason. When cost exceed benefit, then there is no point going on. Resources are part of the equation -- another is geographic access. Why do you think US want to stay in god forsaken place like Afghanistan? Because it is the route of propose pipeline that transport oil and gas from Central Asia to Indian Ocean. In Iraq, there is the large oil reserve. In Libya, there is oil. In Syria, there is nothing -- so do you see anyone want to intervene in Syria?

Why do you think Japan invade China? Just for the hack of it?

So what's you point again? Occupying power will automatically turn tail when uprising happened?

Lezt said:
Does it matter? Assimilation is also warfare, if you can’t beat them, then you breed them out. The British also tried it with the Scotts.
The fact is, the Han majority regained control of the entire country and there was a military defeat for the invaders.

Well, the definition of being conquered is pretty much well established. And it is different than a war; that is why the third war Rome had with Carthage is also called the conquest of Carthage. And the war with Spain was called the conquest of Hispania.
The original question was, when was China conquered, and the Yuan and the Qing is really the only case.

That is one strange argument. You have a point IF assimilation is happening because of occupied people's intention and strategy, instead of happening naturally. But there is no evidence of that.

Lezt said:
Note, I did not say that guerrilla warfare is decisive by itself; if I did, why do I keep mentioning that China was backed by the western allies and the whole discussion on how many ton of supplies were delivered?
And again, I talked about pearl harbor as with the case where Japan simply did not have the time to conquer China and so China only have to stall Japan. I believe that that qualifies as external factor?
So in essence, we agree

Yes, that qualifies as external factor. But I thought you are arguing even if there are no external factors, Japan will fail?

Lezt · Jul 25, 2011

nemo said:
You are grasping straws. You are confusing counter insurgency and special operation with guerilla warfare. Those are very different.
Don't confuse the concept. One very significant difference is that regular forces and law enforcement troops are there to hold and protect territories-- so those are not of concern of the special op and counter insurgency troops. Why are you bringing this up?

Actually, here is the definition of guerrilla warfare:
‘the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force.’

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“Guerrilla warfare is the irregular warfare and combat in which a small group of combatants use mobile military tactics in the form of ambushes and raids to combat a larger and less mobile formal army.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“military actions carried out by small forces in the rear of an enemy with the object of harassing the enemy, interrupting his lines of communication, and destroying his supplies”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As you can see, special forces fall into the specifics of guerilla warfare. – Special operations such as assignations, demolitions are a form of guerilla warfare.

nemo said:
North Vietnam was under the protection of China, which threaten intervention if US cross the border. That's the only reason North Vietnam is able to protect its population and industrial base. Compare that with North Korea before Chinese intervention.

If you want to argue this further, let's agree on what point we are arguing about.
My argument is guerilla warfare has a low chance of success by itself if the opposing army is reasonably competent.
My perception of YOUR argument is you thinks if a competent guerilla with the support of the population is almost always successful.

Your perception is wrong, my argument is that China would win over the Japanese because she was fighting a guerilla warfare with significant foreign support and that the Chinese guerilla are competent fighters.

nemo said:
English did crush Scotland, and English did crush Ireland. It took the fiasco of the Great Famine to re-woke Irish Nationalism.

These are points of contentions, Scotland and Northern Ireland today is not a part of England but the United Kingdom. As such the Union Jack today is a child of the English red vertical cross on white with the Scottish white diagonal cross on blue and the Irish diagonal red cross on white.
If England was victorious, why share the crown with Scotland and Ireland? If England prevailed, then Scotland and Ireland would be a part of England like Wales is.
I don’t think the potato famine of 1845 was anything significant for irish nationalism, for recent history, the Irish waged war/revolted in 1315, 1536, 1560, 1594, 1607, 1641, 1689, 1798, 1803, 1848, 1867, 1916, 1919, 1939, 1942, 1956, 1968 and more. The Irish have revolted generally every few years regardless of the potato famine.

nemo said:
Strictly speaking William Wallace -- although he did use raiding as tactics, Scottish are regular forces, and major engagement are fought as set-piece battle rather than skirmishes. I am not sure that qualifies as guerilla warfare. Never the less, English did execute William Wallace, it took Robert the Bruce's regular force victory at Bannockburn to end that war. After the political merge of the Scottish and English crown, there were Jacobite rebellions to around mid 1700s. English finally was able to pacify Scotland by bribing the Scottish lords to screw their own people -- English paid high price for the fleece, which caused the Scottish lords to boot tenants off their land for more pasture. From that point on, Scottish lords can no longer raise troops, even if they wanted to rebel.

Well I didn’t say that Wallace was fighting a guerilla war – my meaning was only that he gave a British a good whooping.

nemo said:
As for Algeria, French politics, international pressure, and war exhaustion after WW-2 and Indo-China didn't allow them to use even more brutality. As for the German -- they didn't have enough time, and they were facing regular armies also.

Well France held and brutalized Algeria from 1830-1962. That is 132 years + the early wars to brutalize the population. But no, I agree with you that you need time and the climate to do it and that is my argument that brutality cannot simply be a end it all discussion for pacifying a nation.

nemo said:
I said same size because I anticipate you argument -- you would have argued one band of guerilla is more mobile then a division, no matter how ridiculously that comparison is. I said same size so to make the comparison fair. I do not mean they will be used that way.
Yes, no one attack into strength when they can help it, but no one avoid using their strength also, unless one has a good reason.
And who do you think have strength to spare?

And that is the beauty and tenant of guerilla warfare, your strength is kept mobile so that your enemy cannot match them in the locations that they will strike.

nemo said:
Again, exceptions does not imply a rule. If you can show this is a standard operating procedure or doctrine, I will agree with you. There are people with military background in the forum, why don't we ask them?

Oh, sure: U.S. Army Guerrilla Warfare Handbook

Look, I am using full population vs full population, you are doing army vs population. In either case, no matter what number you are using, we have a smaller population vs a larger population. So what's your point?
[/QUOTE]
Okay, originally you said:

What's your point? I am talking about occupying army vs the total population size. The ration of mongol to Chinese population is more than 100 to 1. Ratio of Japanese to Chinese is around 5 to 1. If 100 to 1 can pacify China, why can't 5 to 1?

We can do a total population size vs total population size too but do you have a Mongolian empire population estimate or census? Don’t forget the mogolian alliance which attacked China is a consortium of Jin, Tata and Tibetans.

nemo said:
To make your argument, you are also using occupied China's population in your calculation. But in order for that to be a valid comparison, then occupied China has to be already pacified -- which help my argument more than yours.

I did? What is the total population of china in the 1940s in your opinion? The 1944 estimate was a total population estimate not an unoccupied population estimate. For example, the total Chinese population estimate by the united nations population fund is 550 million in 1950 – Japan occupied 1/3~ of China and most of the population centers. [URL="http://www.photius.com/rankings/world2050_rank.html"]http://www.photius.com/rankings/world2050_rank.html
China after the war was estimated to have a population of 375-425 million in 1945 and the nationalist published a total figure of 452 million in 1948.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So, unless you have a better source of better total population of China, then I don’t know how you would have thought that I gave an unoccupied population size?

nemo said:
You didn't count the collaborators and local law enforcement troops. With them, those figures can easily be doubled. Front line troops also have it's own supply dumps and transport troops.

However, you do have a point in that it's not possible to guard everywhere and amount of forces are limited.

No I didn’t count collaborators just as I won’t count local warlords into the Chinese army roster against the Japanese. In short, how many collaborators are there? 500,000? They don’t change the equation much given their dubious reliability.

nemo said:
My point is people fought wars for a reason. When cost exceed benefit, then there is no point going on. Resources are part of the equation -- another is geographic access. Why do you think US want to stay in god forsaken place like Afghanistan? Because it is the route of propose pipeline that transport oil and gas from Central Asia to Indian Ocean. In Iraq, there is the large oil reserve. In Libya, there is oil. In Syria, there is nothing -- so do you see anyone want to intervene in Syria?

Mmmhmmm yeah, but honestly we don’t know. For all you and I care about, it could be that Bush wanted the USA to be in perpetual war so that his family’s investment in the defense sector will pay much higher dividend. Or with Iraq, Senior bush had a grudge with Iraq, Clinton stopped the war and Junior Bush went back to finish business?
Syria have no oil? What are you smoking? Syrian oil production is 0.5 million barrel per day which is less than the 2.5 million barrel Iraq produces, but is still not small. Syria had a proven oil reserve of 2.5 billion barrels which is smaller than Iraq and Libya but is still the 32nd largest in the world.

nemo said:
Why do you think Japan invade China? Just for the hack of it?

Why did Japan want to invade China? 1927, the Japanese prime minster Baron Tanaka Giichi said in the Tanaka Memorial:
“In order to take over the world, you need to take over China;
In order to take over China, you need to take over Manchuria and Mongolia.
If we succeed in conquering China, the rest of the Asiatic countries and the South Sea countries will fear us and surrender to us.
Then the world will realize that Eastern Asia is ours.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does that answer your question in why Japan want to conquer China?

nemo said:
So what's you point again? Occupying power will automatically turn tail when uprising happened?

My point was that war in Vietnam was economically unviable for the USA and war in Afghanistan was economically unviable for the USSR.

nemo said:
That is one strange argument. You have a point IF assimilation is happening because of occupied people's intention and strategy, instead of happening naturally. But there is no evidence of that.

Well, it doesn’t need to be in a book for it to be real right? There are reasons why terms such as Sinotization, Romanization and Americanization exist. It is the export of culture, values and ideals which is also a part of warfare. This is the reason why Africa speaks French and South America speaks Spanish when France and Spain deliberately destroyed each respective culture.
It is also true how Canadian indigenous people were forced to have their kids sent to residence schools where they were not taught their native languages, culture and customs while English culture was enforced onto them. Similar practices were performed in Australia, and the USA during the 1800s

nemo said:
Yes, that qualifies as external factor. But I thought you are arguing even if there are no external factors, Japan will fail?

No, I was arguing that china wouldn’t lose because china was fighting a guerilla war with those circumstances and in that time frame. I admit it wasn’t all that clear at first.

Phead128 · Aug 4, 2011

There has never been a Han Chinese ruler that has ever controlled Mongolia, for which the Great Wall of China was built to protect against.

This however will change during WW3.

Significance of the Chinese military contribution to World War 2 disputed.

Lezt

Junior Member

nemo

Junior Member

Lezt

Junior Member

nemo

Junior Member

xywdx

Junior Member

nemo

Junior Member

Lezt

Junior Member

nemo

Junior Member

Lezt

Junior Member

Phead128

Captain