Thoughts on the Chinese Civil War

delft said:

Spartan95,
Your arguments sound good. There is only one question I still have. Manchuria has mostly firm ground, where armor can maneuver easily. On the map I see manly canals between Shanghai and Nanking, suggesting that the area is wet and therefore less suitable for armor. If I'm right it will take very little from the value of your arguments.

Click to expand...

I'll be the 1st to concede that I'm no expert on the Battle of Shanghai. I only know some of the brief facts of the battle.

As regards your question on Japanese armour, they are a rather unique "breed" of armour as compared to their western contemporaries at that time. The Japanese Imperial Army's tanks were mostly light and medium tanks designed to overrun infantry and not so much to fight other armour (they didn't face armoured resistance most of the time in Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula). As demonstrated later in the Pacific War and the Malayan Campaign, Japanese tanks have no/little issues operating in wet areas, islands, jungles and crossing rivers/canals (there are a heck of a lot of such river crossings in the Malayan Campaign alone).

Also, when bridges are blown to slow down the Japanese advance, their combat engineers are often able to get floating bridges up in a matter of hours that are able to get their tanks across. This is well chronicled in the Malayan Campaign.

Just to add on to my earlier points on why it is more beneficial to fight in Shanghai instead of a fighting retreat to Nanjing (just came across these):

1. The January 28 Incident (一·二八事變) aka Shanghai Incident of 1932 saw Nationalist China's army fight the Imperial Japanese Army to a near standstill in Shanghai. With this experience, Chiang Kai-Shek was convinced that it is possible to fight the Japanese to a standstill again in the Battle of Shanghai in 1937.

2. Nationalist China needed time to shift her factories from the coastal areas to the interior. Hence, fighting in Shanghai will buy them this time and prevent the Japanese from capturing Nationalist China's industries.

3. Nationalist China was hoping that the foreign powers present in Shanghai will intervene during the Battle of Shanghai and get both sides to a ceasefire so that their commercial interests and investments will not be affected further.

4. As the Japanese essentially controlled all the waterways, including the Yangtze river, they can make amphibious assaults anywhere on the Yangtze river to outflank Nationalist China's army should they attempt to conduct a fighting retreat. This was what actually happened during the retreat from Shanghai to Nanjing historically. Thus, a fighting retreat strategy is unlikely to be effective due to the various flanking manouevres that the Imperial Japanese Army carried out.

Thank you, that seems to be very clear. In the Khalkin Gol battle the Soviets only used BT tanks that were actually lighter than the Japanese Type 97. If we reckon that WWII lasted from July 7, 1937 to August 15, 1945, the Japanese had reason to be content with their tanks until more than half way through the war.

I dont know very much about the Chinese Civil War. I do know that around 1945-1947 the Asia Development Corp. bought a American Ship,towed it to Shanghai and renamed it WANSU. Is there any information or links concerning this Company,and its activities around this time? Thank you.

the civil war fought between the Nationalists and the Communists was a misunderstood war. it was misreported then, and it is misremembered now. that is the Chinese tragedy.

lightspeed said:

the civil war fought between the Nationalists and the Communists was a misunderstood war. it was misreported then, and it is misremembered now. that is the Chinese tragedy.

Click to expand...

Hear hear.

You could also say the same about all Chinese history after 1949. In China, the authoritative history of a dynasty was always commissioned after the dynasty had collapsed - by the following dynasty. Each dynasty, while in power, sought to suppress all information that could cast its rule in a bad light.

These retroactive histories tended to be more objective (because retroactive historians are less politically motivated to spin their narratives in one direction or the other), and maybe in a sense you can say that hindsight is 20-20, however all retroactive versions of history will be unavoidably revisionist. Also, much of the information will either be lost or distorted by the time that one dynasty is succeeded by another. It is best to publicize the primary records and let future (and current) generations judge for themselves.

The tragedy with China is that even in this modern age, the powers that be are still unable to trust the Chinese people with a clear and objective record of their own history. The political motivations that create this circumstance are obvious to us all, and I don't need to elaborate further on them. But until we are given full disclosure on what exactly happened over these past 100 years, we will be forced to relay incomplete narratives and misinform one-another time and again. This will only be an obstacle to our growth as a people and a society and doom us to repeating the same mistakes.

History has never been an objective account of events, and there is nothing unusual with the victors writing their own story. That said, much of the so-called "truths" disseminated by the KMT side is nothing but unfounded rumors, speculations, and allegations, all ingested as facts by those with an axe to grind against the CPC.

The CPC's version of events have been widely publicized and as a result, any inconsistencies have long been dissected and exposed by historians on both sides of the strait. Those who think scholars on the Mainland are forced to toe the party line are being ignorant of the reality of 21st century China.

Unfortunately, the KMT's version of events have not been subject to the same degree of critical analysis.

stibyssip said:

Hear hear.

You could also say the same about all Chinese history after 1949. In China, the authoritative history of a dynasty was always commissioned after the dynasty had collapsed - by the following dynasty. Each dynasty, while in power, sought to suppress all information that could cast its rule in a bad light.

These retroactive histories tended to be more objective (because retroactive historians are less politically motivated to spin their narratives in one direction or the other), and maybe in a sense you can say that hindsight is 20-20, however all retroactive versions of history will be unavoidably revisionist. Also, much of the information will either be lost or distorted by the time that one dynasty is succeeded by another. It is best to publicize the primary records and let future (and current) generations judge for themselves.

The tragedy with China is that even in this modern age, the powers that be are still unable to trust the Chinese people with a clear and objective record of their own history. The political motivations that create this circumstance are obvious to us all, and I don't need to elaborate further on them. But until we are given full disclosure on what exactly happened over these past 100 years, we will be forced to relay incomplete narratives and misinform one-another time and again. This will only be an obstacle to our growth as a people and a society and doom us to repeating the same mistakes.

Click to expand...

every dynasty writes the history of the previous dynasty, and has some responsibility to record the events truthfully, even if the interpretations may differ. the KMT should have clearly tell its side of the story when it mattered but they failed miserably in that. the CCP should have a healthy respect for history. they may exaggerate the role or accomplishments of the CCP but they shouldn’t rewrite history with fictitious elements/events.

a good collection of the CCP's historical records are declassified now. with the new materials, historians discovered contradictions in the CCP’s version of events. for example. Yang Kuisong dug extensively into the Soviet and the PRC archives, and wrote about the Soviet’s concealed huge military aid to the CCP before 1949 in his book (毛泽东于莫斯科的恩恩怨怨).

no matter how long and ignored, the truth will eventually come out and show itself, even in the most unlikely of ways.

stibyssip said:

Hear hear.
The tragedy with China is that even in this modern age, the powers that be are still unable to trust the Chinese people with a clear and objective record of their own history. The political motivations that create this circumstance are obvious to us all, and I don't need to elaborate further on them. But until we are given full disclosure on what exactly happened over these past 100 years, we will be forced to relay incomplete narratives and misinform one-another time and again. This will only be an obstacle to our growth as a people and a society and doom us to repeating the same mistakes.

Click to expand...

The question is who does not? Which country in this world does not paint it-self as on the right-side in a war, and which country does not glorify its achievements and hide its under dealings? This is called "propaganda".

In the "Art of War", the very first, and most important, and decisive step in achieving victory is "propaganda".

“故经之以五事，校之以计而索其情：一曰道，二曰天，三曰地，四曰将，五曰法。道者，令民与上同意也，故可以与之死，可以与之生，而不畏危。”

It cannot have explained the importance much better. If you do not read Chinese, then my, rather poor, translation:

"So there are five issues that one must consider: first, "morality" (aka propaganda), second "heaven" (time and weather), third "earth" (geography), forth "general" (commander, leadership), fifth "law" (organisation, laws and regulations). By "morality": it is to let people to agree with the leader, so that they can be led to death, they can be led to live, but they will never be hesitant and afraid."

The people who ignore this important fact gets taken out in the natural evolution process.

All successful powers in history of man-kind won the propaganda war before they dominated their respective regions. The UK, US included, BTW.

lightspeed said:

a good collection of the CCP's historical records are declassified now. with the new materials, historians discovered contradictions in the CCP’s version of events.

Click to expand...

What constitutes CCP's version of events? Their propaganda that served a particular purpose in a particular time-window, or their actual historical records?

For historians, that should always be the latter. And for a government, the responsibility should have always been make the latter as factual, and as detailed as possible.

That is the whole point of a "declassification" process. Historical facts that will no longer harm your strategic interests can be made open, while those that will still harm your strategic interest should be kept a secret. Just as a very recent example here: look at how much damage Edward Snowdon and Wikileaks have done and are still doing to the US national interests, whereas the declassification of some (arguably equally questionable) CIA operations that happened back in the 50s will only attract the interest of a few odd historians, and raises little to no eyebrows, and damages no US national interest.

wtlh said:

What constitutes CCP's version of events? Their propaganda that served a particular purpose in a particular time-window, or their actual historical records?

For historians, that should always be the latter. And for a government, the responsibility should have always been make the latter as factual, and as detailed as possible.

That is the whole point of a "declassification" process. Historical facts that will no longer harm your strategic interests can be made open, while those that will still harm your strategic interest should be kept a secret. Just as a very recent example here: look at how much damage Edward Snowdon and Wikileaks have done and are still doing to the US national interests, whereas the declassification of some (arguably equally questionable) CIA operations that happened back in the 50s will only attract the interest of a few odd historians, and raises little to no eyebrows, and damages no US national interest.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. All organizations have sensitive information that they want to keep secret, and governments are no exception. No matter the lip-service to "transparency", there isn't a single government in this world that does not keep secrets.