I've always had the impression from western commentators that they write as if the CCP won the civil war by essentially trickery, and cannot believe that any possible sound strategic thinking or action was involved. This ideologically driven bias often distorts accurate appraisals of the actual trends that occurred.
Thoughts on the Chinese Civil War
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
Spartan95 wrote in #3:
3. The CCP conserved its strength during the Sino-Japanese War. This is what I come across from western and KMT sources (and definitely not from CCP sources). The claim is that CCP only fought token battles against the Japanese and Mao was conserving his forces to defeat the KMT once the Sino-Japanese War was over. CCP claims they fought significant battles too, although KMT dismisses these as being forced to defend CCP's power base.
You just can't develop you military competence by fighting token battles. So those western and KMT sources can be disregarded as propaganda.
3. The CCP conserved its strength during the Sino-Japanese War. This is what I come across from western and KMT sources (and definitely not from CCP sources). The claim is that CCP only fought token battles against the Japanese and Mao was conserving his forces to defeat the KMT once the Sino-Japanese War was over. CCP claims they fought significant battles too, although KMT dismisses these as being forced to defend CCP's power base.
You just can't develop you military competence by fighting token battles. So those western and KMT sources can be disregarded as propaganda.
vesicles
Colonel
Please name one major battle in the WWII that was fought by the CCP. I can come up with none. The only battle that involved CCP was the battle of one hundred regiments and CCP had only about 2 regiments in it.
And about the experience in combat. CCP didn't have much at the beginning of the civil war. I've watched documentaries made by Mainland China about the initial stages of the civil war, namely the battle of Liao-Shen. In it, even the CCP veterans claimed that the KMT troops were expert technicians in fighting battles while CCP soldiers were grossly inexperienced. One veteran even said that KMT troops were using various techtiques that they learned while fighting the Japanese while CCP soldiers mainly replied on heart and bravery. Another CCP veteran described how he and his comrades have learned so much from fighting the KMT. The guy described many ingenious techniques used by the KMT with much envy. You can tell that he wished he and his buddies could've known those techniques earlier. Even the documentary's narrater mentioned that the CCP promoted many KMT POWs to commanding positions in PLA to better utilize their superior fighting skills. All of these suggest one thing: KMT was in a lot of fight in WWII and gained much experience in fighting the Japanese while the CCP was not fighting and thus didn't have experience. And this showed in the initial phase of the war when the CCP was losing battle after battle. At the end of 1947, Lin Biao became so desperate and was planning to pull his troops (or whatever left of it...) into the great Xingan forest and to go back to gurrella style.
In the same documentary, one PLA veteran who used to serve with the KMT described how he was shocked at how the CCP was so inexperienced at fighting conventional battles that he had to teach his soldiers some very basic concepts minutes before the battle.
So to those who think describing the CCP as inexperienced and not fighting the Japanese as Western propaganda, I would say the opposite would more likely be true. The CCP glorified it itself as invincible and highly skilled in their propaganda. And only now, they are starting to correct their mistakes and begin to let the truth out a bit...
Here is the comprehensive documentary about the battle of Laio-Shen I was talkng about.
Here are some documentary about how the Mainland China NOW is saying what the KMT had done in the WWII.
As you can see KMT lost many its high-ranking generals in fights against the Japanese, which suggests the forociousness of the fighting. How many CCP generals have been lost in combat against the Japanese? I cannot seem to name one...
Note that these documentaries have been made by Mainland China with the full support and permission of the CCP. And this is very different from the old propaganda from the CCP. At least, this is different from what I was taught in elementary school about how the CCP saved China from the Japanese invasion and KMT was cowardice and useless. YOu tel me which one is propaganda...
Last edited:
Spartan95
Junior Member
I would that's not taking into the account of the historical context.
KMT came to power as a result of the Xinhai revolution where the Chinese people had enough of Qing Dynasty's weakness and corruption where large tracts of land were occupied by foreign powers (Qingdao, Macau, Hong Kong, large parts of Shanghai, Formosa, etc). KMT pledged to defend the country and that's what they did at the Battle of Shanghai and a host of other places.
And to say that the Battle of Shanghai is a strategic failure is not quite true either. Quite a few historians agree that due to the Battle of Shanghai, the Japanese realise that China is not so easy to conquer as they initially thought. More importantly, as a result of the Nanjing Massacre where they took revenge for the tough Battle of Shanghai, Japan came under international (actually western) pressure and eventually sanctions. US in particular demanded that Japan withdraw its troops to Manchuria and the oil exports to Japan was cut off.
Peng Dehuai is a brilliant general. Unfortunately, he was also tortured by Mao's Red Guards.
Excerpt from Chinese wiki (
1962年，彭德怀上書八万言要求平反，賀龍受命成立彭德怀專案小組，虽然后来毛泽东对彭德怀的态度有某种程度的松动，但是在1966年开始的文化大革命中他遭到长期迫害，1966年12月北航造反派韓愛晶派紅衛兵到四川成都把老帥彭德懷押回北京，周恩來下令保護彭的安全。然而在康生、陳伯達支持下，1967年7 月9日，韓愛晶強行針對彭德懷逼供和毆打，聲稱「審鬥會」要「刺刀見紅」，要彭德懷交待「在抗日戰爭時期幹了哪些壞事？」「你為什麼要打百團大戰？」，彭德懷被「打翻在地」7次，前額受傷出血，第五、十肋骨骨折。至1971年底，彭已受審訊二百多次。1974年9月，彭德怀因患直腸癌，得不到醫療救治，身體狀況急劇惡化，去世前他希望見离异的妻子浦安修一面，但當時正在北京師範大學圖書館進行勞動改造的浦安修終究沒去見他。10月以後，陷入昏迷狀態。1974年11月29日下午14時25分在北京的中国人民解放军总医院（即“三〇一医院”）因病去世，享年76岁。
CCP fought many small actions,first against KMT and war lords, later against the Japanese, providing it with a large cadre of officers skilled in such actions.The next phase, of conventional warfare, was difficult to adapt to, but conquered by political superiority and the attraction of people from KMT.
Spartan,
I don't think you can use the chronological order of results to gauge the strategical mastery of the battle of Shanghai, yes, the US did join the war, yes, the US did embargo Japan. But the connection is really hard to make to the Battle of Shanghai. How do we at the time before the battle of shanghai know that Shanghai will be lost and that the Rape of Nanking will follow, and soon after Japan would be embargoed?
Even if someone in the high command thought of it, it would be a high stake gamble and more so, how retarded to commit your best troops to their doom knowingly and allow your capital to be ransacked?
although I do admit China had to put on a good show for the westerners in Shanghai at that moment.
Spartan95
Junior Member
I think there is a need to put the Battle of Shanghai in its proper historical context. At that time, KMT was lobbying hard for western (US in particular) support against the Japanese in the Sino-Japanese War. However, the western perception was that China is unable to defend itself against any foreign aggressors (as demonstrated in the many decades prior to Sino-Japanese War, such as the Opium Wars). Hence, KMT needed to demonstrate that Nationalist China is different and that they are able to put up a good defence of their own country.
Thus, KMT threw in their best divisions in the Battle of Shanghai to prove this point. At the same time, Chiang Kai-Shek's wife, Soong Mei-Ling (宋美齡) was in US lobbying for US' support against the Japanese. This was a famous historical event in the US as she was the 1st Chinese national to address both Houses of US Congress. While this lobbying is going on, the KMT divisions was putting up a good fight against the Japanese. Much better than any western countries thought possible by Nationalist China.
At that time, there was also increasing concerns about Japanese atrocities in China by western countries. However, whilst western countries wanted Japan to stop carrying out these atrocities, they didn't do anything to stop Japan (i.e., no embargoes or sanctions). As a result of the Nanjing Massacre, which was well documented by foreigners in Nanjing, the western world came to condemn Japan for it. The pressure was so great that the Anglo-Japanese alliance dating from before WWI was broken off. This set the stage for the isolation and embargo of Japan by the various western countries that ultimately led to the outbreak of the Pacific War and the defeat of Japan by the Allies.
Yes, the Nanjing Massacre was unforseen. However, the loss of Shanghai was expected by KMT despite their best troops being committed. KMT wanted to slow the Japanese and show the world that Nationalist China is not the same push-over as Qing Dynasty China.
If KMT reserved their best troops and just allowed token resistance at Shanghai and their capital Nanjing, this would be the equivalent of the foreigner militaries marching to Beijing during the Qing Dynasty. And it would be the end of Nationalist (KMT) China. The KMT leadership is aware of this since they grew up / took part in the Xinhai revolution, which is why they committed their best troops.
Also, your point about not committing a country's best troops to defend the country and its capital is rather strange to say the least. If that is not the time to commit the best troops, when should the best troops be committed?
I think you misinterpreted me, what i meant was Shanghai was undefendable, but Nanjing was. How history unfold was that the KMT had no significant resistance left in Nanjing after committing most of their strength in Shanghai.
In my opinion, a fighting retreat from Shanghai to Nanking with off foot localized rads will be a better choice than to sacrifice the German trained divisions in a Sixth army Stalingrad type destruction.
Which would also achieve the national resistance image and in short, a safer gamble
Diplomacy is mostly slow. If Chiang had made a fighting retreat from Shanghai and go in for a long battle of Nanjing, would his diplomats have enough time to achieve what he needed?
He didn't have guerrilla's to sabotage the the Japanese approach and provoke Japanese misconduct in Shanghai to be reported in London and Washington. I suppose he was not allowed to have enough artillery along the river because it was an international waterway with naval ships from several countries, who would have protested.
Was there a an alternative way in which he could have kept Nanjing?
If not, he should have moved his capital in August.
I have only questions.
He didn't have guerrilla's to sabotage the the Japanese approach and provoke Japanese misconduct in Shanghai to be reported in London and Washington. I suppose he was not allowed to have enough artillery along the river because it was an international waterway with naval ships from several countries, who would have protested.
Was there a an alternative way in which he could have kept Nanjing?
If not, he should have moved his capital in August.
I have only questions.