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

inanon said:

Not a huge fan of the liberal use of counterfactuals in history, but in my opinion the Japanese would not have begun operations against the USSR even if China had rolled over like Vichy France. Of course such an outcome is not realistic, but it serves its purpose in being so extreme because it shows there are other factors influencing Japanese strategic thinking at the time. Prior to the Japanese advance south, the militarists were divided into two broad groups; those wanting to strike northwards, against the USSR, and those with the 'strike south' policy. Chinese resistance had very little practical or theoretical influence in this argument. The greatest role the Sino-Japanese war played was perhaps in fomenting anti-japanese sentiment in the US, and firmly placing out of Japanese reach a diplomatic compromise with the USA.

Continuing with my "but for" scenario, the Pacific war would have concluded with the USSR rolling through Manchuria, and progressing into Japanese held China. After Midway it no longer mattered how much manpower Japan had; US naval dominance ensured the IJA's strategic role would be reduced to simply defending islands.

This of course does not downplay the role of Chinese resistance in military terms, in their struggle to defend their homes from foreign occupiers; but strategically China could not be compared to the USA, USSR or even Britain given it's contributions in North Africa.

Click to expand...

There were several Summer Wars between Japan and the USSR. If these had been succesful for Japan it could have got its oil from Siberia and not be vulnarable to the USN if it had occupied China without occupying the Philippines too. Instead the last and largest of these Summer Wars, the Khalkhin Gol incident, ended in a crushing defeat for the Japanese army in Manchuria. So the oil had to come from Sumatra and the US had to be driven out of their colony The Philipinnes and of course the French colonialists in Indo-China were happy to cooperate. And Solarz is quite right about the enormous resources deployed by Japan against China, but he is wrong about IJN being the largest navy in the world. In the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 the proportions of battleships, cruisers and flattops in tonnage were determined in the proportions USA to UK to Japan as 5 to 5 to 3. The Treaty was abandoned in the late '30's but Japan had not been able to change the proportions significantly.
Khalkhin Gol is an "unknown war", but you find a lot about it on the internet.

delft said:

There were several Summer Wars between Japan and the USSR. If these had been succesful for Japan it could have got its oil from Siberia and not be vulnarable to the USN if it had occupied China without occupying the Philippines too. Instead the last and largest of these Summer Wars, the Khalkhin Gol incident, ended in a crushing defeat for the Japanese army in Manchuria. So the oil had to come from Sumatra and the US had to be driven out of their colony The Philipinnes and of course the French colonialists in Indo-China were happy to cooperate. And Solarz is quite right about the enormous resources deployed by Japan against China, but he is wrong about IJN being the largest navy in the world. In the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 the proportions of battleships, cruisers and flattops in tonnage were determined in the proportions USA to UK to Japan as 5 to 5 to 3. The Treaty was abandoned in the late '30's but Japan had not been able to change the proportions significantly.
Khalkhin Gol is an "unknown war", but you find a lot about it on the internet.

Click to expand...

Yes, these conflicts, featuring a relatively unknown Zhukov, had a huge impact on Japanese strategic thinking. Its interesting how badly the Japanese underestimated the USA, preferring a confrontation with what it saw as a decadent and weak democracy than the totalitarian USSR.

solarz said:

Your hypothesis ignores the fact that due to fierce Chinese resistance, the Japanese had to devote vast amounts of resources just to hold on to their occupation. Had China, in your own words, "rolled over like France", Japan would have added the vast resources of NW China to their navy. The IJN was the world's most powerful navy at the beginning of the war. If they had the resources of NW China to match the production of the USN, the outcome of the Pacific War might well have been different.

Click to expand...

Japanese production would NEVER have often close to US levels. Furthermore, even if the Japanese had not been cleared island by island to the Philippines, the war would still have need with a victorious Red Army smashing the inadequate armour and artillery of the IJA. To reverse the argument, even if the Japanese occupation troops were deployed elsewhere, their strategic value would be neglible. See how long it took the Japanese to defeat the 'best' nationalist troops in shanghai, despite superiority in almost all areas.

The IJA Couldn't even be compared to the Wehrmacht, and really only lasted as long as it did because of the unique nature of the Pacific feature, with amphibious warfare opeations for the first time in the 20th century where it wasn't simply infantry that was involved (cf Anzac deployment in turkey in ww1)

inanon said:

Japanese production would NEVER have often close to US levels. Furthermore, even if the Japanese had not been cleared island by island to the Philippines, the war would still have need with a victorious Red Army smashing the inadequate armour and artillery of the IJA. To reverse the argument, even if the Japanese occupation troops were deployed elsewhere, their strategic value would be neglible. See how long it took the Japanese to defeat the 'best' nationalist troops in shanghai, despite superiority in almost all areas.

The IJA Couldn't even be compared to the Wehrmacht, and really only lasted as long as it did because of the unique nature of the Pacific feature, with amphibious warfare opeations for the first time in the 20th century where it wasn't simply infantry that was involved (cf Anzac deployment in turkey in ww1)

Click to expand...

Well, the Red Army was not always victorious from the beginning, in fact they got their ass kicked by German pretty badly, and many people would argue if Hitler had not intervene in the decision making, for example, redirected 1 of his army to the caucus front, they would have got to Moscow before Russia got it is act together and beat the German back.

And lastly, the turning point of the war in Russia was the encirclement of the 6th Germany Army at Stalingrad. And guess where did the Soviet Army come from??? A lot of it were deployed from the Far Eastern front, who's main goal is to protect it is border against possible Japanese invasion.

So I can argue that if China have just lay down like France and give up everything, it is not inconceivable for the Japanese army to pincer Russia from Manchuria while the German slowing eating it from the West.

China didn't have any epic battles like Normandy or Stalingrad or Kursk, but overall they did a good job protecting their homeland from the invaders.

Oh and this is also because no one publicize the Chinese battle during WW2 because of few reasons.

1. Most of the battle was fought by KMT, which lost the civil war, so their contributions are dismissed by the CCP. There were some major battles, but CCP is not talking about them for the obvious reasons.

2. Post civil war KMT's focus was to keep it is independence from China, so it have to stay good terms with USA, who is allied with Japanese against the CCP. So again, no one wants to talk about the past.

3. Mainland China was the bad guys during the cold war who have bad relationship with USA and USSR at same time, so of course, no Western nation will want to talk about it as well.

I personally believe in the up coming decades, you will hear more about battles during WW2, because mainland will want to improve relations with Taiwan, and one thing they can do is to talk about their common enemy the Japanese. And as China gets stronger in the future, it is history will be closer studied by everyone.

jackliu said:

Well, the Red Army was not always victorious from the beginning, in fact they got their ass kicked by German pretty badly, and many people would argue if Hitler had not intervene in the decision making, for example, redirected 1 of his army to the caucus front, they would have got to Moscow before Russia got it is act together and beat the German back.

And lastly, the turning point of the war in Russia was the encirclement of the 6th Germany Army at Stalingrad. And guess where did the Soviet Army come from??? A lot of it were deployed from the Far Eastern front, who's main goal is to protect it is border against possible Japanese invasion.

So I can argue that if China have just lay down like France and give up everything, it is not inconceivable for the Japanese army to pincer Russia from Manchuria while the German slowing eating it from the West.

China didn't have any epic battles like Normandy or Stalingrad or Kursk, but overall they did a good job protecting their homeland from the invaders.

Oh and this is also because no one publicize the Chinese battle during WW2 because of few reasons.

1. Most of the battle was fought by KMT, which lost the civil war, so their contributions are dismissed by the CCP. There were some major battles, but CCP is not talking about them for the obvious reasons.

2. Post civil war KMT's focus was to keep it is independence from China, so it have to stay good terms with USA, who is allied with Japanese against the CCP. So again, no one wants to talk about the past.

3. Mainland China was the bad guys during the cold war who have bad relationship with USA and USSR at same time, so of course, no Western nation will want to talk about it as well.

I personally believe in the up coming decades, you will hear more about battles during WW2, because mainland will want to improve relations with Taiwan, and one thing they can do is to talk about their common enemy the Japanese. And as China gets stronger in the future, it is history will be closer studied by everyone.

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with some of your points. As mentioned earlier, the battles fought in Mongolia between the USSR and the IJA in 1939, before Hitler opened up his front against the USSR, ended in a crushing defeat for Japanese forces, despite their numerical superiority. This influenced Japanese strategic thinking (strike south, because the USSR was too much to handle), although strangely enough the IJA learned very little tactically from their defeat. The point is that even if Japan had been able to pacify China, those troops would not likely have been used to open a front against the Soviets, instead they would probably have been used to proceed further into British held territories, or into the SE Asian theatre.

This in turn, would strategically have mattered little, because the IJN would still have been smashed. Perhaps more American lives would be lost retaking islands in the Pacific.

I do not mean to belittle the Chinese resistance of Japanese occupation, just that those troops strategically would not have much strategic impact after the Japanese decided to strike south. Even 2 years after Khalkin Gol, when Germany had declared war on the USSR, Japan refused to do the same.

My point also goes to show how the IJA was a doctrinally outdated force, unversed in combined arms operations or advanced coordination with air power. Such a force might have worked against the Chinese, who lacked a period of unified military training and were chronically plagued with logistical problems, partly due to the diversity of troops in China, but as shown, the IJA was no match for either the US or the USSR.

Also I agree that the Chinese, given the conditions, fought the very best they could. As I mentioned above, the defence of Shanghai is one of the examples where the Chinese fought incredibly valiantly despite being effectively a light infantry only force, against both the naval, air and armour superiority of the Japanese.

This may sound contradictory to my above statement about the IJA being doctrinally outdated, but having an inferior tank deployed is better than having no tanks and only light weapons.

inanon said:

I would have to disagree with some of your points. As mentioned earlier, the battles fought in Mongolia between the USSR and the IJA in 1939, before Hitler opened up his front against the USSR, ended in a crushing defeat for Japanese forces, despite their numerical superiority. This influenced Japanese strategic thinking (strike south, because the USSR was too much to handle), although strangely enough the IJA learned very little tactically from their defeat. The point is that even if Japan had been able to pacify China, those troops would not likely have been used to open a front against the Soviets, instead they would probably have been used to proceed further into British held territories, or into the SE Asian theatre.

This in turn, would strategically have mattered little, because the IJN would still have been smashed. Perhaps more American lives would be lost retaking islands in the Pacific.

I do not mean to belittle the Chinese resistance of Japanese occupation, just that those troops strategically would not have much strategic impact after the Japanese decided to strike south. Even 2 years after Khalkin Gol, when Germany had declared war on the USSR, Japan refused to do the same.

My point also goes to show how the IJA was a doctrinally outdated force, unversed in combined arms operations or advanced coordination with air power. Such a force might have worked against the Chinese, who lacked a period of unified military training and were chronically plagued with logistical problems, partly due to the diversity of troops in China, but as shown, the IJA was no match for either the US or the USSR.

Also I agree that the Chinese, given the conditions, fought the very best they could. As I mentioned above, the defence of Shanghai is one of the examples where the Chinese fought incredibly valiantly despite being effectively a light infantry only force, against both the naval, air and armour superiority of the Japanese.

This may sound contradictory to my above statement about the IJA being doctrinally outdated, but having an inferior tank deployed is better than having no tanks and only light weapons.

Click to expand...

You are going by the assumption that Japan lost some battles with Soviet when both side were equally strong, therefore whenever Soviet meet Japan under any circumstance Soviet will ALWAYS win!!!

This assumption is totally false, do you have any idea how weak Soviet was when German invaded? In just a few months, Russia have completely lost it is entire defense along the bordering with Europe. Now, if I were the German high command, would I not try to get Japan to attack USSR? At least to tie down their army in the far East while I finish off Stalingrad and Moscow? And if I were the Japanese high command seeing the entire Soviet army in Europe just wiped out, and the army in front of me have no logistic backing anymore, wouldn't I want to take advantage?

Just because Japan lost few battle earlier does not means Japan lack the intelligence to exploit the enemy's weakness. And this claim that Japan will always be inferior than Soviet union or any Western force... Well I don't want to use the word racism here, but you do know that Japan have won a lot battles against the British force in South East Asia early in the war, as well as defeated the entire 80k US army in Philippines early on as well. The best you can argue is that Japan run out of steam later and didn't have enough resources to change their doctrine and adopted to the enemy, while their enemy soon learn the doctrine of Japan and got their act together and beat them back.

Also you act as if China tieing down well over 80% of all Japanese troops means nothing, just imagine what would happen if additional 4-6 million Japan solders meet no resistance from China and just roll down to South East Asia, are you so confident that the garrison force of UK left there can defend against it? Or think of a worst case scenario, what if Japan have employed millions of Chinese collaborators troops to fight for them, would you still say they won't matter at all? Or how about if Japan have able to harvest the vast amount of resource of China for it is war effort? If they have achieve all of that, the outcome would be far different.

And as for the Battle of Shanghai, that is not surprising that you know it, because it is probably the only 1 or 2 battle they teach you in history class, because it is politically correct, the helpless Chinese with nothing but willpower sacrificed themselves while waiting for the rescue from Western armies. But I bet you never heard of battles such as the 3 failed IJA encirclement of Changsha, where the KMT withstand 3 brutal full front assault from IJA regulars and beat them back each time.

Or many other battles where KMT actually went on the offensive and won. Trust me, there is a lot things you don't know about, China was not as useless as you think, I suggest Wikipedia is a good starting source to learn from.

inanon said:

Yes, these conflicts, featuring a relatively unknown Zhukov, had a huge impact on Japanese strategic thinking. Its interesting how badly the Japanese underestimated the USA, preferring a confrontation with what it saw as a decadent and weak democracy than the totalitarian USSR.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Japanese underestimated the US, especially not Yamamoto, but Japan had manoevred itself into a position in which war was unavoidable. Attacking the USSR was proven to be madness, war with the US gave a chance. Unfortunately, or more likely by design, the US flattops were not in Pearl Harbor to be destroyed and the Japanese hope that the US would be, no doubt temporarily, too weak to pursue the war was dashed.

delft said:

I don't think the Japanese underestimated the US, especially not Yamamoto, but Japan had manoevred itself into a position in which war was unavoidable. Attacking the USSR was proven to be madness, war with the US gave a chance. Unfortunately, or more likely by design, the US flattops were not in Pearl Harbor to be destroyed and the Japanese hope that the US would be, no doubt temporarily, too weak to pursue the war was dashed.

Click to expand...

I think there are leaderships within Japan knows that attacking US was madness as well, once US got it is industry together and shift into full military production, no nation on earth can withstand it. And yes, I believe Yamamoto was one of them. Maybe the best outcome Japan have hoped for is for US to sue for peace seeing it is navy in ruins. So if they were to attacked USSR while in 1939-1940 when it was weak, it would have been the best move they would have done.

¦^��: Re: Significance of the Chinese military contribution to World War 2 dispute

jackliu said:

I think there are leaderships within Japan knows that attacking US was madness as well, once US got it is industry together and shift into full military production, no nation on earth can withstand it. And yes, I believe Yamamoto was one of them. Maybe the best outcome Japan have hoped for is for US to sue for peace seeing it is navy in ruins. So if they were to attacked USSR while in 1939-1940 when it was weak, it would have been the best move they would have done.

Click to expand...

You know what the best option would have been for the Japanese empire in the 1930s? Maintain the peace with the US and continue to receive oil while at the same time possessing a grand military, although not as large as the US. But no, they HAD to be aggressive idiots and attack the two strongest industrial complexes of the world, just pure genius.

I think the thing that gets most of us rilled up is that France is some how a greater contributor to the Allied victory over the Axis than China on Wikipedia. USA UK and USSR absolutely made more of a difference than China but France no way. China is also a victim of the evolving strategy against Japan. The US's early strategy against Japan was to use air fields in China to bomb Japan and push throw China but with the US Navy's victories against the IJN and the island hoping campaign as well as the land grab of IJA Ichigo operation China is just left to hold out.

If any of you get the chance check out the book The Battle for China it is collection of essays from all sides of the conflict. Many of the Chinese victories were in defensive situations like The Battle of Taierzhaung.