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

lightspeed

Junior Member
Can anyone tell me about PLA munitions production during the WW2?

this is from Vladimirov Diaries ( Chinese version ). i do not know if my version is abridged or not. it is nothing much, just a short paragraph.

September 1942
- the CCP armies could not get a single cent nor supplies from Yan'an. the Commanders He Long, Liu Bocheng, Nie Rongzhen, Chen Guang and Xiao Ke control their own armies and territories, that includes own munition factories, currencies and taxes.
the old weapons are being repaired in the workshops. a dozen or so unusable rifles are disassembled and the usable parts are then assembled together for one usable rifle. the grenades and explosives productions are organized very well. the ammunition casings are made from the old smelting furnace.


Peter Vladimirov said the CCP had around 300-500K regular troops with unknown number of irregular troops at various periods during the war with half of the troops lacking a rifle. the USA and Nationalist Chungking government military reports estimated the CCP troops strength to be around 400-600K with unknown number of irregular troops in late 1944 and 1945. the CCP self-claimed to have 1-1.2 million regular troops and 1-2 million irregular troops by spring 1945.
 
Last edited:

ABC78

Junior Member
The Rice Paddy Navy: U.S. Sailors Undercover in China

I haven't had a chance to read this book but after reading the review I'm very interested in reading it now

The Rice Paddy Navy: U.S. Sailors Undercover in China

By Linda Kush, Osprey Publishing, (2012)

Reviewed by David Kronenfeld

The Rice Paddy Navy relates the unique story of the Sino-American Cooperation Organization (SACO), an intelligence and special operations unit of the US Navy in China during World War II. Author Linda Kush has expended significant research in the writing of her first book length publication. The Rice Paddy Navy provides readers with a history of SACO from its gestation in the halls of Washington, DC to its guerilla actions in Chinese rice paddies and weather collection efforts in the Mongolian desert.

Many Americans barely associate China with U.S. actions in the Pacific. Battles and locales such as Pearl Harbor, Midway, Guadalcanal, Wake Island, Okinawa and Iwo Jima generally take a front row seat in the story of the Pacific War and what mention might be made of China is often a brief reference to General Stilwell and Claire Chennault’s Flying Tigers. The Rice Paddy Navy helps correct this perception and exposes both the serious historian and the armchair admiral to the story of how vital intelligence was fed to American commanders by Captain Milton Miles and his small team of unconventional naval warriors and native Chinese guerillas.

Kush does an excellent job of weaving together numerous threads to present the reader a picture of the various cast of characters involved in SACO (an old China Hand naval officer, the OSS’s Wild Bill Donovan, seamen from America’s heartland, a Chinese warlord, Chinese pirates and even missionaries), their unique mission of intelligence gathering, meteorological observations and guerilla operations in hostile territory and the bureaucratic infighting that accompanied almost every step of their mission. Approaching SACO’s story from a chronological perspective, Kush walks the reader through each phase of SACO’s development instead of focusing on a single thread from beginning to end and then starting the story over with another thread. While this may confuse the reader at times because the story seems to jump between characters, it works very well in giving the reader a measured understanding of how SACO matured as the war progressed.

Overall Kush’s work is highly readable and a worthwhile addition to the library of anyone interested in Asian history or American unconventional operations in World War II. One quibble that could have been cleaned up in the editing process is that the book appears to have been written chapter by chapter in no particular order. When the chapters were later assembled into a book-length publication, there were multiple items that were repeated in a couple chapters and were either repetitive, confusing or both. This is a minor issue, though, as Kush succeeds in providing an entertaining and informative piece in The Rice Paddy Navy.
- See more at:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

ABC78

Junior Member
Forgotten Ally: China’s World War II, 1937-1945

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Forgotten Ally: China’s World War II, 1937-1945

The epic, untold story of China’s devastating eight-year war of resistance against Japan

For decades, a major piece of World War II history has gone virtually unwritten. The war began in China, two years before Hitler invaded Poland, and China eventually became the fourth great ally, partner to the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain. Yet its drama of invasion, resistance, slaughter, and political intrigue remains little known in the West.

Rana Mitter focuses his gripping narrative on three towering leaders: Chiang Kai-shek, the politically gifted but tragically flawed head of China’s Nationalist government; Mao Zedong, the Communists’ fiery ideological stalwart, seen here at the beginning of his epochal career; and the lesser-known Wang Jingwei, who collaborated with the Japanese to form a puppet state in occupied China. Drawing on Chinese archives that have only been unsealed in the past ten years, he brings to vivid new life such characters as Chiang’s American chief of staff, the unforgettable “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell, and such horrific events as the Rape of Nanking and the bombing of China’s wartime capital, Chongqing. Throughout, Forgotten Ally shows how the Chinese people played an essential role in the wider war effort, at great political and personal sacrifice.
Forgotten Ally rewrites the entire history of World War II. Yet it also offers surprising insights into contemporary China. No twentieth-century event was as crucial in shaping China’s worldview, and no one can understand China, and its relationship with America today, without this definitive work.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


‘Forgotten Ally: China’s World War II, 1937-1945’ b y Rana Mitter

In 1971, as the Vietnam War reached a critical stage, Barbara Tuchman published a book on the United States and China, “Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45,” which became a bestseller and won the acclaimed historian her second Pulitzer Prize. A vocal opponent of the conflict in Indochina, Tuchman wrote the book in part to instruct Americans on the dangers of backing an Asian tinpot dictator. The United States had made this mistake once before, she contended — during World War II, when it allied itself with the corrupt, incompetent regime of Chiang Kai-shek. It should not do so again.

Tuchman’s book was the most influential piece of a slew of scholarship about the United States and China that emerged in the shadow of the war in Vietnam. Even today, the ideas undergirding this scholarship dominate the generally accepted storyline of America’s interactions with the Middle Kingdom. The outlines of that tale are these: The United States tried to help China fight Japan during World War II. But the government that America chose to support was so corrupt and inept that the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt — led on the ground by the heroic U.S. Army Gen. “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell — could do little to get China to fight. Chiang and his commanders avoided battling the Japanese at every turn. The only ones really interested in saving China were China’s communists, captained by Mao Zedong, who even flirted with the idea of maintaining an equal distance between Washington and Moscow. But America, blind to Mao’s patriotism and obsessed with its fight against the Reds, backed the wrong horse and pushed Mao away. The inevitable result? The emergence of an anti-American communist regime in China.

Over the past decade and more, however, historians in the United States, Britain, Russia, Taiwan and even China have dismantled Tuchman’s tale piece by piece. New books — from Jay Taylor’s magisterial biography of Chiang, to a solidly researched new work on Mao by Alexander Pantsov and Steven Levine, to research in Chinese and English by historians Michael Sheng, Chen Jian, Qi Xisheng, Yang Kuisong, Sheng Zhihua, Feng Youcai and the late Gao Hua and Ren Donglai — are telling a very different story. First and foremost, Chiang’s armies fought and bled for China, for four years alone against Japan and then for four more years with their American and British allies. One fact alone sums up the truth of this assertion: 90 percent of the casualties on the Chinese side were nationalist troops.

Second, far from being a strategic visionary, Stilwell committed a string of disastrous military mistakes that resulted in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers — damaging Chiang’s ability to defend his country first against Japan and later against communist forces backed by the U.S.S.R. Third, it is extremely unclear how much Mao’s forces actually fought the Japanese. Mao’s armies conducted what he called a “sparrow war,” limited to small-scale guerrilla attacks. In fact, the communists lost more troops in attacking their erstwhile nationalist allies than in fighting the Japanese. Finally, there is no ground for believing — as Tuchman did so firmly — that the United States had a chance to pull Mao away from the U.S.S.R.’s embrace. Clearly, this new thesis goes, communism’s rise in China was anything but inevitable; Mao swept to power on the tank treads of the Japanese imperial army.

Rana Mitter’s new book, “Forgotten Ally,” falls neatly into this welcome new trend and deserves to be read by anyone interested in China, World War II and the future of China’s relations with the rest of the world. A professor of history at Oxford University, Mitter argues that China’s experience during World War II — from the suffering it received at the hands of the Japanese, to the dysfunctional relationship it developed with the United States, to the new demands put on the population by both the nationalist and communist authorities — is critically important to understanding many of China’s issues today. China’s anti-Japanese demonstrations and neuralgia over the Senkaku Islands — a group of uninhabited rocks in the East China Sea administered by Japan but claimed by China — along with its love-hate relationship with America are all rooted in the war, Mitter believes.

In “Forgotten Ally,” he concentrates on the lives of three men: Chiang, Mao and Wang Jingwei, the dashingly handsome Benedict Arnold of modern Chinese history, who, believing resistance to Japan was futile, broke with Chiang in 1938 to lead a quisling government set up by the Japanese. Adding Wang to the mix was a brilliant move because it allows Mitter to explore the three paths taken by the Chinese in the early 20th century as they confronted the challenges of Japanese and Western power. Chiang established strong links to the West, first Germany and then the United States. Mao relied on the Soviet Union, albeit with a fanatical independent streak. Wang believed that China should unite with other Asian nations to counter the marauding white man. Elements of each view remain prominent in the psyche of China today.

Mitter argues that China’s war story has never been told properly. The country has always been portrayed, he writes, as “a minor player, a bit-part actor.” Yet China was the war’s first victim, he notes, two years before Britain and France were attacked and four years before the United States. And while France caved immediately, China stuck it out until the end, valiantly pinning down more than half a million Japanese troops — men and materiel that would have otherwise threatened British India and possibly even the mainland United States. The toll on China alone qualifies as a major story, Mitter notes — 14 million dead, 80 million refugees and the pulverizing of the country’s embryonic modernization.

Mitter masterfully constructs these interlocking stories of battles, famines, massacres, diplomacy and intrigue. He sprinkles his narrative with foot soldiers, missionaries, journalists and teachers, showing how the war affected all levels of society throughout China. To detail the famine in Henan in 1942, he uses the powerful reporting of Time magazine’s Theodore H. White, who wrote of “dogs eating human bodies by the roads, peasants seeking human flesh under the cover of darkness.” For Japan’s murderous bombing of China’s wartime capital, Chong*qing, Mitter describes the teams of men who pulled bodies out of the rubble and buried them along the banks of the Yangtze River, often tossing a stray limb into its eastward flow.

As for Chiang’s tragic decision to dismantle the dikes along the Yellow River to stem the Japanese advance — inundating a territory twice the size of Maryland, killing more than 800,000 and displacing between 3 million and 5 million refugees — Mitter takes the reader down to the unit level. Chiang’s soldiers first tried to blow up the dikes, but they were too sturdy. The troops had to content themselves with shovels.

The best part of this excellent book is how Mitter dismantles the myth of Joseph Warren Stilwell, the American lieutenant general whom Roosevelt dispatched to China to help lead Chiang’s forces to victory. In “Forgotten Ally,” we see a Stilwell fundamentally at odds with the man lionized in Tuchman’s biography. In Mitter’s artful telling, Stilwell, who had no command experience before his tour in China, comes off as a petulant, small-minded, strategically limited, diplomatically tone-deaf leader obsessed with one thing only: Burma, which, Mitter notes, was “a target of dubious value.”

Twice, in 1942 and then two years later, Stilwell strong-armed Chiang into devoting China’s most professionally trained soldiers to quixotic attempts to beat back the Japanese in Burma, each time with disastrous results. In 1944, he compelled Chiang to do so when a Japanese assault — the largest ever conducted by the imperial army — was plowing down China’s east coast. “Let them stew,” came Stilwell’s reply when subordinates pleaded with him for a mere 1,000 tons of supplies to reinforce Chiang’s armies in China’s east. To Mitter, Stilwell’s troubled relationship with Chiang was just the most obvious symptom of a diseased liaison with the United States — a tortured history that he believes continues to bedevil ties between the two giants today.

Still, even in a work as groundbreaking as Mitter’s, the misconceptions of the past seem hard to shake. The weakest part of the book is his acceptance of the notion that Mao’s men fought the Japanese. Mitter details only one major communist campaign — the Battle of the Hundred Regiments, which was an absolute failure. Throughout the book, Mitter quotes Mao spouting off about military strategy and even celebrating nationalist defeats. But we never see the communists actually fighting, except for stray claims that they conducted troublesome but unspecified guerrilla campaigns.

Mitter even bolsters the counterargument — that Mao kept his powder dry, grew his army and waited to profit from Chiang’s victory. If the communists hit the Japanese so hard, why then did the imperial army not target their revolutionary capital in Yenan more often? From 1938 until late 1941, Mitter reports, Japanese bombers hit it a mere 17 times for a combined death toll of 214. How can this compare with the suffering visited on Chiang’s capital, Chongqing, where 5,000 died in just two days of air raids on May 3 and 4, 1939?

“In the end,” Mitter writes, “Chiang won the war but lost his country.” And Mao walked off with the prize.
 

lightspeed

Junior Member
Mitter even bolsters the counterargument — that Mao kept his powder dry, grew his army and waited to profit from Chiang’s victory. If the communists hit the Japanese so hard, why then did the imperial army not target their revolutionary capital in Yenan more often? From 1938 until late 1941, Mitter reports, Japanese bombers hit it a mere 17 times for a combined death toll of 214. How can this compare with the suffering visited on Chiang’s capital, Chongqing, where 5,000 died in just two days of air raids on May 3 and 4, 1939?


Japan had a secret agreement with the Soviet Union that the Shaan-Gan-Ning under the control of CCP was to be a Communist region and the Japanese will not capture Yan'an. the CCP reciprocated by avoided confrontation with the Japanese Army as much as possible. in addition, if the Japanese showed signs of defeating the Kuomintang in Chungking, the Soviets would invade China from Central Asia and divide up China jointly between them and Japan. the Soviets played both sides, making an arrangement with the Japanese to divide up China and also giving some military aid to China to fight off the Japanese. in 1940, the Soviet Union and Japan agreed to recognize the existing status of Manchukuo and Outer Mongolia which dealt a big diplomatic blow to China.
 

lightspeed

Junior Member
Still, even in a work as groundbreaking as Mitter’s, the misconceptions of the past seem hard to shake. The weakest part of the book is his acceptance of the notion that Mao’s men fought the Japanese. Mitter details only one major communist campaign — the Battle of the Hundred Regiments, which was an absolute failure. Throughout the book, Mitter quotes Mao spouting off about military strategy and even celebrating nationalist defeats. But we never see the communists actually fighting, except for stray claims that they conducted troublesome but unspecified guerrilla campaigns.


Peng Dehuai wrote some papers making a strong defense of the Hundred Regiments Battle in prison during the Cultural Revolution. Peng talked about the necessity and success of the battle, entirely from the CCP's perspective. he also acknowledged his mistake then. this is interesting. Peng got the wrong intelligence information and thought that Japan was going to attack Xi'an and cut off CCP capital Yan'an contact with the Southwestern provinces. Peng did not realize that Japan wanted to clear up the Canton-Wuhan railway to facilitate the implementation of the Pacific War. if he had seen through the Japanese's attack plans. the battle could be delayed for another six months or so until the Japanese made their forward thrust toward Changsha, Hengyang and Guilin, the Japanese troops' strength would be dispersed and the CCP would profit greatly from it than before. Peng believed that the battle was a success but the downside was it delayed the Japanese's control of the Canton-Wuhan and Hunan-Guangxi railway by around 1 month. it eased the pressure on Chiang Kai Shek and Chungking. the battle benefited Chiang Kai Shek.
source: 彭德怀自述

is the Hundred Regiments Battle an absolute failure ? i don't think so. the Japanese took one month to resume normal operations of the transport and communication system ( Shijiazhuang–Taiyuan railway ) after the battle. therefore the CCP did inflict some significant damage on the Japanese's transport lines for the first and only time during the war. the Hundred Regiments Battle. the Battle of Pingxingguan ( it is a very small battle ) and some battles fought by the New Shanxi Army ( joint army between Yan Xishan and CCP ). this are all of the Chinese Communists' noteworthy battles during the war.
 

montyp165

Senior Member
Still, even in a work as groundbreaking as Mitter’s, the misconceptions of the past seem hard to shake. The weakest part of the book is his acceptance of the notion that Mao’s men fought the Japanese. Mitter details only one major communist campaign — the Battle of the Hundred Regiments, which was an absolute failure. Throughout the book, Mitter quotes Mao spouting off about military strategy and even celebrating nationalist defeats. But we never see the communists actually fighting, except for stray claims that they conducted troublesome but unspecified guerrilla campaigns.


Peng Dehuai wrote some papers making a strong defense of the Hundred Regiments Battle in prison during the Cultural Revolution. Peng talked about the necessity and success of the battle, entirely from the CCP's perspective. he also acknowledged his mistake then. this is interesting. Peng got the wrong intelligence information and thought that Japan was going to attack Xi'an and cut off CCP capital Yan'an contact with the Southwestern provinces. Peng did not realize that Japan wanted to clear up the Canton-Wuhan railway to facilitate the implementation of the Pacific War. if he had seen through the Japanese's attack plans. the battle could be delayed for another six months or so until the Japanese made their forward thrust toward Changsha, Hengyang and Guilin, the Japanese troops' strength would be dispersed and the CCP would profit greatly from it than before. Peng believed that the battle was a success but the downside was it delayed the Japanese's control of the Canton-Wuhan and Hunan-Guangxi railway by around 1 month. it eased the pressure on Chiang Kai Shek and Chungking. the battle benefited Chiang Kai Shek.
source: 彭德怀自述

is the Hundred Regiments Battle an absolute failure ? i don't think so. the Japanese took one month to resume normal operations of the transport and communication system ( Shijiazhuang–Taiyuan railway ) after the battle. therefore the CCP did inflict some significant damage on the Japanese's transport lines for the first and only time during the war. the Hundred Regiments Battle. the Battle of Pingxingguan ( it is a very small battle ) and some battles fought by the New Shanxi Army ( joint army between Yan Xishan and CCP ). this are all of the Chinese Communists' noteworthy battles during the war.

To use a Vietnam War analogy, only something like Tet would have been a noticeable campaign or battle, because for a guerilla force in general Pingxingguan is the ideal maximum conventional type of battle against a stronger foe, and this is something that many historians tend to overlook when looking at military history. Another good example to look at from the western perspective is the Spanish guerrilla campaigns against Napoleon, the individual battles were insignificant in size compared to conventional battles like Talavera, but the countless tiny battles undermined French control of Spain. The Communists did no less in the northern sectors that they were most active in, but those countless skirmishes just wouldn't be noticed.
 

delft

Brigadier
If the CCP didn't fight the Japanese and Chang did, how was it then possible for the communist staff work to be so superior to that of Chang? See those early battles in in '45, '46, when the communists were numerically weaker and still beat the Chang forces.
 

chuck731

Banned Idiot
If the CCP didn't fight the Japanese and Chang did, how was it then possible for the communist staff work to be so superior to that of Chang? See those early battles in in '45, '46, when the communists were numerically weaker and still beat the Chang forces.


Accordding to Mitter's thesis, Chang's army fought the Japanese on the conventional battlefield effectively given the disparity in equipment and training from 1937 - 1940. By 1940 there militarily had reached a more or less a stalemate between Chang and Japanese army.

From 1941-1944, Japanese attention was primarily absorbed by the war in the pacific. There were few large scale engagements. During this time severe economic conditions and hyperinflation made life very hard in the Chang army. The army responded by becoming more corrupt and abusive of civilian population. The relationships between Chang army and the general population in important parts of central China also declined to the point of being toxic. The actual fighting quality of the Chang army as examplified by obedience to order and steadiness before the enemy also declined between 1940-1944. In 1944 the Japanese, losing badly in the Pacific, decided to make a supreme push to defeat the nationalist army and collapse the Chang regime to free up force in China for the fight in Pacific. As it turns out at this point in the war the goal was simply beyond the reach of Japanese logistic resources. But nonetheless most of the nationalist army that was engaged on this occassion did very badly, much more poorly than they did in 1937-1940, with even officers who faught admirably in 1938 falsifying reports and abandoning defensible positions without a shot. This foreshadowed its performance in the later civil war.

Most of the heavy conventional battles between Japan and China was fought by the nationalist forces, but primarily before 1940. The 5 year decline after 1940 is why the nationalist army did not therefore emerged from the war as an efficient and experienced fighting machine. The Chang army that emerged from the war consisted of a small well equipped and competent component that primarily fought outside of China and received full benefit of lend lease, and a large and corrupt component mostly deprived of good leadership or modern equipment.

The small competent component was not enough in the subsequent civil war.

I think it wouldn't be unfair to say "Vinegar" Joe Stilwell's dealings and machinations during WWII prevented Chang's economy and main army in China from receiving the full benefit of allied lend-lease and support for China, and thus went a long way towards costing Chang the later civil war, thus gaining Stilwell something of an ultimate if unwitting revenge against Chang.
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
To use a Vietnam War analogy, only something like Tet would have been a noticeable campaign or battle, because for a guerilla force in general Pingxingguan is the ideal maximum conventional type of battle against a stronger foe, and this is something that many historians tend to overlook when looking at military history. Another good example to look at from the western perspective is the Spanish guerrilla campaigns against Napoleon, the individual battles were insignificant in size compared to conventional battles like Talavera, but the countless tiny battles undermined French control of Spain. The Communists did no less in the northern sectors that they were most active in, but those countless skirmishes just wouldn't be noticed.

It's interesting that these "historians" only look at the Hundred Regiment campaign while ignoring the "Three Alls" retaliation campaigns from the Japanese. That would be like saying the Taliban did not take part in Operation Medusa.

Furthermore, these accounts invariably overlook the quality of battles. In the Hundred Regiment campaign, 400k Eighth Route soldiers took on 800k Japanese and collaborator troops, and kicked their asses. According to wikipedia, the casualty ratio was 1:2 in favor of the Eighth Route. Typical battles between the Nationalists and the Japanese had far less favorable ratios for the NRA.

While casualty ratios do not necessarily translate into military gains, it certainly does reflect the combat effectiveness of participating forces. It is simply absurd to think that the Eighth Route Army would be able to perform such a feat if they rarely fought the Japanese.

Also, to those saying the Nationalists fought 90% of battles against the Japanese, I would like to point out that at peak strength, the NRA numbered over 5 million. At peak strength, which would have been the 100 Regiment campaign, the Eighth Route Army numbered 400k. So even discounting guerilla campaigns, the Eighth Route Army was punching above its weight.
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
Japan had a secret agreement with the Soviet Union that the Shaan-Gan-Ning under the control of CCP was to be a Communist region and the Japanese will not capture Yan'an. the CCP reciprocated by avoided confrontation with the Japanese Army as much as possible. in addition, if the Japanese showed signs of defeating the Kuomintang in Chungking, the Soviets would invade China from Central Asia and divide up China jointly between them and Japan. the Soviets played both sides, making an arrangement with the Japanese to divide up China and also giving some military aid to China to fight off the Japanese. in 1940, the Soviet Union and Japan agreed to recognize the existing status of Manchukuo and Outer Mongolia which dealt a big diplomatic blow to China.

More importantly, what would bombing Yan'an have accomplished? Unlike the rest of the NRA, the Eighth Route Army was divided into independent regiments operating on their own. Neither was Yan'an an important economic center like Chongqing. Yan'an was the political center of the CPC, but had little military value. If the Japanese put a concerted effort into destroying Yan'an, the CPC leadership would have simply moved elsewhere. I'm pretty sure the Japanese were well aware of these facts.
 
Top