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

lightspeed said:

they promised land ownership to the peasants.

you heavily underestimated the Soviets' help to CCP. there was of course material aid. the US huge aid to KMT was exaggerated. there are revisionist narratives of the CCP-Soviet relationship because the historians found new evidences from newly released CCP and Soviet historical documents. some things just don’t add up. it seems that things aren't what they seem. there are little speculation. they based their revisionism on new facts. no great conspiracy here.

do provide the list of CCP’s battles and its military units at the end of ww2, and we start from this point.

the Communists governed a “peaceful” country. the Nationalists can’t govern a country that was beset by endless destructive wars.

Click to expand...

1- The communists promised common land ownership to the peasants. You know, the whole "communist" thing.

2- The communists didn't inherit a magically peaceful country. They fought for it. In addition to defeating the KMT, they also had to destroy the various warlord forces that were not controlled by the KMT. Then there was the Korean War, the clashes with the Soviet Union, the Indian War, and the Vietnam War.

lightspeed said:

they promised land ownership to the peasants.

you heavily underestimated the Soviets' help to CCP.

it seems that things aren't what they seem.

they based their revisionism on new facts. no great conspiracy here.

provide the list of CCP’s battles and its military units at the end of ww2

the Communists governed a “peaceful” country.

etc., etc., etc..

Click to expand...

No matter how you dice it...Mao and the communists won.

Despite the odds, despite the help that the Nationalists got. Despite it all, Mao won.

Do not underestimate what all he had to do to make that happen.

Part of it was of course knowing when to parley and allow his enemies to fight each other.

Part of it was an ability to go to ground and fight an inusrgency...guerilla type war.

Part of it was convincing large numbers of people to follow him.

Part of it was being able to engage where he had a credible chance to defeat large forces arrayed against him.

Part of it was being able to get the supplies he needed, from wherever he could, to keep going.

Look, I did not agree with Mao or his communist ideology...or some of the horrible things it resulted in for many decades in China after he won.

But I can also not argue with, or rationalize, or make excuses for the fact that he won and all of those things that had to happen for him to emerge victorious on the mainland.

Jeff Head said:

No matter how you dice it...Mao and the communists won.

Despite the odds, despite the help that the Nationalists got. Despite it all, Mao won.

Do not underestimate what all he had to do to make that happen.

Part of it was of course knowing when to parley and allow his enemies to fight each other.

Part of it was an ability to go to ground and fight an inusrgency...guerilla type war.

Part of it was convincing large numbers of people to follow him.

Part of it was being able to engage where he had a credible chance to defeat large forces arrayed against him.

Part of it was being able to get the supplies he needed, from wherever he could, to keep going.

Look, I did not agree with Mao or his communist ideology...or some of the horrible things it resulted in for many decades in China after he won.

But I can also not argue with, or rationalize, or make excuses for the fact that he won and all of those things that had to happen for him to emerge victorious on the mainland.

Click to expand...

you are probably unaware or choose to ignore the anti-Japanese war’s catastrophic damage and destruction to China that greatly softened the ground for Communism. that consists of all your parts of it.

i agree with Zhou Enlai’s opinion that the Communist undercover spies won CCP the war. if you think this idea is diminishing CCP’s military accomplishments. feel free to think this way. i won't change your belief. Zhou Enlai didn’t think this way. the spies had written their memoirs to boast about their trickery. they generally had nothing to hide in this aspect. subversion and espionage directed against the enemy is an integrant part of warfare. it doesn’t take the shine off CCP’s military accomplishments or makes the victory less enjoyable.

solarz said:

That's a ridiculous assertion. Taiwan did not have to fight the Korean War, Taiwan did not have to bootstrap itself into industrialization, and Taiwan most definitely did not have to feed hundreds of millions of mouths with only a fraction of arable lands. Taiwan is a lush subtropical island, while vast swathes of Chinese mainland are deserts and arid plateaus. The fact that you think the two are comparable is simply mind-boggling.

Click to expand...

Is it really tho? Are you sure there's no other alternatives to the great leap forward and the cultural revolution? Are you sure, that it's inconceivable, that the US would not have supported a post war KMT, an ally in the great struggle? Are you sure that the money that went to Japan wouldn't have gone to a friendly China instead? Are you sure that the Chinese on the mainland, who are no different to the Chinese that went to Taiwan would not have developed earlier? Taiwan went through their white terror era as well. Are you sure a government other than the CCP couldn't handled China's challenges?

Are you sure that the path the CCP has taken the Chinese down was the ONLY and BEST route that it could've happened?

Look, history is history. It happened. But you don't need to rationalise for yourself that what happened was the best that could've happened.

Doombreed said:

Is it really tho? Are you sure there's no other alternatives to the great leap forward and the cultural revolution? Are you sure, that it's inconceivable, that the US would not have supported a post war KMT, an ally in the great struggle? Are you sure that the money that went to Japan wouldn't have gone to a friendly China instead? Are you sure that the Chinese on the mainland, who are no different to the Chinese that went to Taiwan would not have developed earlier? Taiwan went through their white terror era as well. Are you sure a government other than the CCP couldn't handled China's challenges?

Are you sure that the path the CCP has taken the Chinese down was the ONLY and BEST route that it could've happened?

Look, history is history. It happened. But you don't need to rationalise for yourself that what happened was the best that could've happened.

Click to expand...

Had the KMT won China's position with the US would be very close to how Indian or Yugoslav relations with the US went during the Cold War, in terms of wanting US trade and assistance but at the same time wanting an independent course of action too, while balancing relations with the USSR at the same time. There are several elements to consider here. The first big one is the Warlord situation, since the KMT didn't have monopoly of authority over its forces to the extent the CCP had, the warlords would have control over regions like the Afghans currently face, making national policy implementation more difficult. Another thing is that Taiwan's land reform was implemented from the KMT failures on the mainland, whereas in the case of a KMT victory the will or means of doing so would be much lower (since the land reform issue helped bolster the CCP's position during the 1930's). Although not having the GLP or Cultural revolution helps with continuous development, the Philippines and and India are both examples of when armed factions and class lines impede economic development, of which the KMT would need to face. The CCP in effect had to fulfill what Lenin called the "Bourgeois revolution" of liberating the productive forces of the working class in order to advance economic modernization.

The best case scenario for Chinese economic development during the 20th century would have been a CCP-led KMT, since it would have avoided the problems of the Right-wing and Maoists while combining the large KMT party base of the time with the CCP progressives (like Deng Xiaoping) who were among the best and most active KMT party elements in gaining popular support and economic improvements through land reform et al.

montyp165 said:

The best case scenario for Chinese economic development during the 20th century would have been a CCP-led KMT, since it would have avoided the problems of the Right-wing and Maoists while combining the large KMT party base of the time with the CCP progressives (like Deng Xiaoping) who were among the best and most active KMT party elements in gaining popular support and economic improvements through land reform et al.

Click to expand...

So much this. Imagine that.

An interesting discussion you guys are having maybe it should be taken to it's own thread.

On to the matter of this thread's actual theme The Significance of Chinese Military contributions to World War 2.

I was watching Sinovision a couple of a couple of days ago and they were playing an episode of Dialogue they were talking about the 70th anniversary of D-Day. They talk about D-Day's significance, reasons and the lead up to the second front invasion of Europe and the conversation kind of gets side tracked. During this one of the guest made the statment about how Chinese and American forces kept the IJA busy in the Pacific Theater that they couldn't threaten the Soviet far east. Thus allowing the Soviet Union to free up several armies to go and fight the Nazis in the European Front.

Here the address to watch the complete show.

Doombreed said:

Is it really tho? Are you sure there's no other alternatives to the great leap forward and the cultural revolution? Are you sure, that it's inconceivable, that the US would not have supported a post war KMT, an ally in the great struggle? Are you sure that the money that went to Japan wouldn't have gone to a friendly China instead? Are you sure that the Chinese on the mainland, who are no different to the Chinese that went to Taiwan would not have developed earlier? Taiwan went through their white terror era as well. Are you sure a government other than the CCP couldn't handled China's challenges?

Are you sure that the path the CCP has taken the Chinese down was the ONLY and BEST route that it could've happened?

Look, history is history. It happened. But you don't need to rationalise for yourself that what happened was the best that could've happened.

Click to expand...

First, Taiwan's development cannot be used as an example of "alternative Chinese development". The two are geographically and politically incomparable.

Second, we already know what Jiang was like, and we already know what China under the ROC was like. If Jiang was capable of unifying China and strengthening the country, he would never have lost to the Communists. To think otherwise is merely wishful thinking.

ABC78 said:

An interesting discussion you guys are having maybe it should be taken to it's own thread.

On to the matter of this thread's actual theme The Significance of Chinese Military contributions to World War 2.

I was watching Sinovision a couple of a couple of days ago and they were playing an episode of Dialogue they were talking about the 70th anniversary of D-Day. They talk about D-Day's significance, reasons and the lead up to the second front invasion of Europe and the conversation kind of gets side tracked. During this one of the guest made the statment about how Chinese and American forces kept the IJA busy in the Pacific Theater that they couldn't threaten the Soviet far east. Thus allowing the Soviet Union to free up several armies to go and fight the Nazis in the European Front.

Here the address to watch the complete show.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The operation Barbarossa began half a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor. That would have been the time for Japan to attack the USSR. But the Kwantung Army had lost the summer war of 1939 against Mongolia and the USSR ( Khalkhin Gol incident: ). Japan made its choice not to try to conquer the Siberian oilfields but to go for those in Sumatra after that experience. That choice directly lead to the try to knock out the US for - what did they hope? 5 counts? certainly not 9 - enough time to build a strong position in East Asia.

ABC78 said:

An interesting discussion you guys are having maybe it should be taken to it's own thread.

On to the matter of this thread's actual theme The Significance of Chinese Military contributions to World War 2.

I was watching Sinovision a couple of a couple of days ago and they were playing an episode of Dialogue they were talking about the 70th anniversary of D-Day. They talk about D-Day's significance, reasons and the lead up to the second front invasion of Europe and the conversation kind of gets side tracked. During this one of the guest made the statment about how Chinese and American forces kept the IJA busy in the Pacific Theater that they couldn't threaten the Soviet far east. Thus allowing the Soviet Union to free up several armies to go and fight the Nazis in the European Front.

Here the address to watch the complete show.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

the KMT government failed to dispel the lies and half-truths to smear its war efforts during the war. KMT = China then. because the Nationalists were smeared successfully, China’s war efforts were downplayed and ridiculed to some degree. the lies and half-truths developed a form of its own and became the facts. that is why Significance of the Chinese military contribution to World War 2 is disputed.

there is this widely held but false idea that the US gave huge lend-lease aid to China during ww2, and China wasted it's lend-lease material help through misappropriation and hoarding.

let’s examine the figures first.
A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $656 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining 2.6 to the other Allies.


China received $1.6 billion and 3% of world’s lend-lease during ww2. it received 50% of its lend-lease after VJ day which means it received just $0.8 billion and 1.5% of world’s lend-lease during ww2. China received $0.176 billion and 22% of its total lend-lease during 1941-1943, that amount was too little and too ineffective to be of significant help when China needed them most during those crucial years and it had already exhausted it’s resources and manpower fighting the Japanese for 4 years.

let’s compare the Soviet aid. they received $11.3 billion and 22.6% of world’s lend lease. they received 70% of its lend-lease in the first 18 months of the war. the large amount of lend-lease material, military and non-military provided vital help for the Soviets at the right time, when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory.

the Europe war of course took priority over China's war but China’s lend-lease aid was still too little by any standard. China received no weapons and ammunition for its ground troops in China proper till late 1944. General Joseph Stillwell fully controlled the military material of the lend-lease to China. Stillwell only armed the expeditionary forces and hoarded considerate military supplies at Yunnan during his time, and he refused to give considerate supplies to General Chennault’s Air force too.