Without the Republic of China’s Contribution, WWII Would Have Taken a Different Course

[greenwood]

That's 20,000 killed AND injured. ~7000 killed after a month on Iwo Jima.
The 250,000 was actual deaths after 1.5 months of fighting the Germans.

Injured like the captain in <Forrest Gump>? That is movie, in actual life, losing two legs or one leg or two hands or one eyes is worse than be killed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March#Aftermath

That was dramatic? It wasn't until 1945 that Mao controlled his first city. Lenin's theory is the WORKER's revolution. The only reason Mao ultimately chose the peasant's revolution was one China had little industry, not enough workers, and he controlled no cities. As weak as Chiang is relative to the Japanese, he was far stronger than the Tsar was in 1917.

An example is the war lord who occupied the area before Mao, Feng YuXiang, one army of his(US equivalent of division in size), has four mid cannons, and a brigade of swords. His nickname is DaDaoPian大刀片. Meaning blade.

Sure there is, you brought political system to the table as an argument. A terrible argument, I have studied American and Canadian WW2 history in those countries, if you want to know what biased is, you might want to check Canadian one. You would think they won WW2 by themselves.

Wrong. You were replying @Providence in this passage, you were not replying me. You are getting confused. I disclaimed this passage specifically because of not wishing to defend someone else's observations.

All sources originally has to come from the same place, the place that actually happened. Just a random all sources is not a valid reason.

What rubbish. What is that supposed to mean? That there is a gold standard in historical writing, and all others are distortions of that standard? Or are you saying that what happened in reality is known to all concerned, at all times? That is so shallow that it must be concluded that you may be trying to say something else, but that expression has got distorted. So I shall withhold judgement until a clearer picture of what you are trying to say emerges.

And what do you mean 'a random all sources'? It must be sought to read every account possible and to reconcile these, if, and this is a big if, there is to be history based on secondary sources. If primary sources are available, of course they carry greater weight.

I have read American books, Chinese books (both PRC and ROC), from what I can gather, as of now, the official PRC position holds up, and any accounts of it is exactly the same.

Here again, you are making very strange observations. Are you saying that the PRC version is the only authentic one, in saying that its official position holds up? The rest of that sentence is incomprehensible, so it will not be dealt with.

The difference like Canada, is the perspective, PRC will play up the communist role. Like the one hundred regiment battle, that was little more than an annoyance, but to PRC it was a great victory. However the actual damages and details of the battle is exactly as described.

Are you trying to argue that there are two kinds of recording going on, the facts and the interpretation? First of all, we are dealing here with secondary research, so interpretation is already far more pronounced than it is in history derived from primary sources.

just to add, much of nationalist Chinese is still part of China today, so we are right back where we started PRC.

Again, your syntax defeats me. Perhaps if you rephrased what you just said, poorly-educated people might have a chance to grasp your meaning.

@Jlaw made no suggestion that the Nationalist soldier was cowardly. Chiang as a coward is a story I seen, a false story obviously, as his early story including funeral for his assassinated best friend Chen YingShi, was a show of bravery.

His suggestions are still there, in print. I will go by what he has said there, not by what you represent his intentions to be. My objection was, and continues to be, any characterisation of the Chinese Nationalist soldier as cowardly. That objection is based on the fighting record of that soldier in plain display against the Japanese in Burma.

The trouble with you, as with many others, is that you are arrogant, and start thinking that you know what is being said by anyone else, without first checking. My comments are based on the performance of the Chinese soldiers fighting alongside the British, Indian and African troops in Burma, not on their performance in the Chinese theatre against Japan.

This is one of the exaggeration of PRC, I'll admit.

We progress. I am so grateful.

HOWEVER, Chiang had 300,000 under his best student Hu ZongNan in ShaanXi, that he never used against the Japanese. American equipment went to his favorites yes, but not all went to the front line, he had almost half go to Hu, for him to continue to keep an eye on Mao.

I neither know about this nor was I referring to the incident in my comments, so this is a complete waste of time.

He was going to sent the First army under Sun to Japan, but he last minute decided to use them against the Communists. He let Japanese troops go in the final Japanese offensive, so he can conclude the battle and make a toast in his meeting.

During the battle of ShanDong, he took the only two artillery division away from it's commander, and forced him to run, then executed him for running. He was given aid for the eighth route army (Communists) from the Americans, not one cent reached the eighth.

There are countless stories of his wartime pettiness, while all political and not exactly unprecedented, it is still what it is. His historical representation is largely fair, today. He didn't lose the mainland for no reason.

The first (official by both parties) victory in WW2 for China wasn't even done by Chiang it was the warlord Li ZongRen, who btw deflected to China after civil war.

None of this has anything to do with my comment. It does not even illuminate the events referred to by me.

Lastly WW2 actually happened in 1931, when my province Liaoning was invaded by the Japanese. Chiang gave the do not resist orders. 1937 was when Beijing was invaded.

Bullshit. Get your nomenclature correct.

World War II started on September 1, 1939, with the German attack on Poland and the declarations of war by France and Great Britain. Japan entered the war on December 7, 1941, with an attack on the United States, and that brought other Japanese conflicts into the general ambit of the war.

Your war with Japan was the Second Sino-Japanese War; the period from 1937 to 1941 does not count within the Second World War, not by the view of the rest of the world outside a Sinocentric set of eccentrics. During the period 1937 to 1941, China received help from several quarters, including Germany, Russia and the US. It was a completely different war and only merged when the Japanese set themselves apart from everybody else except the Germans and Italians (and Hungarians and Romanians) by their attack on the US.

By 1941 it was more than apparent the Japanese couldn't advance anymore, stagnation had set in, this is before the Americans played a major role in the war yet.

Japanese tanks were slowed and made useless by the mountains, decades of civil war meant food was scarce, and resistance across occupied territory was strong.

Americans played a key role in pacific theatre, but that doesn't make what you said true.

By 1945, a major offensive was planned by ROC that would have driven the Japanese back to Shanghai. The battle prior to that was the first one that had a major Japanese loss from China and Japan was completely defeated in that battle.

Your understanding of WW2 is superficial at best, considering that comment. Know that there are people very well versed in this part of history.

You are answering someone else here.

 

[Genesis]

Wrong. You were replying @Providence in this passage, you were not replying me. You are getting confused. I disclaimed this passage specifically because of not wishing to defend someone else's observations.

True, but your way of quoting is confusing. This is the first time, I seen someone quote a reply to someone else and comment on it in such a way.

What rubbish. What is that supposed to mean? That there is a gold standard in historical writing, and all others are distortions of that standard? Or are you saying that what happened in reality is known to all concerned, at all times? That is so shallow that it must be concluded that you may be trying to say something else, but that expression has got distorted. So I shall withhold judgement until a clearer picture of what you are trying to say emerges.

And what do you mean 'a random all sources'? It must be sought to read every account possible and to reconcile these, if, and this is a big if, there is to be history based on secondary sources. If primary sources are available, of course they carry greater weight.

Chinese participated in the Chinese theatre. Whatever you are going to hear has to come from Chinese one way or another. An American, British or any other nationality can have their opinion, but they can only be that, an opinion. China is one of two that holds the factual accounts. The only one that holds the Chinese side of events.

Any Indian history from a Chinese account can only mirror what the Indians have said, anything else is just making stuff up.

Here again, you are making very strange observations. Are you saying that the PRC version is the only authentic one, in saying that its official position holds up? The rest of that sentence is incomprehensible, so it will not be dealt with.

The PRC more or less hold all the records. Any reasoning behind actions can be from anyone, and Chinese view of the events can be biased, but the actions taken and the statistics can only truthfully come from China and Japan. Any Americans claim to know statistics are just guessing. While this doesn't mean Chinese or Japanese account is 100% accurate it is far more accurate than anything anyone else has, that can only come from estimation.

Are you trying to argue that there are two kinds of recording going on, the facts and the interpretation? First of all, we are dealing here with secondary research, so interpretation is already far more pronounced than it is in history derived from primary sources.

Not interpretation, but the way it was taught. Canada didn't deny any of the other participants, in fact it's account and the American one is largely the same. However, unless you are interested in reading it yourself, you are only going to hear the Canadian side.

PRC certainly plays up its role, it's history is largely accurate, but unless you want to read up on the subject, you won't have much understanding of the war as a whole.

Again, your syntax defeats me. Perhaps if you rephrased what you just said, poorly-educated people might have a chance to grasp your meaning.

The officers and soldiers of WW2 are living in China, they are PRC citizens. They were interviewed and provided evidence to the events. They would not fall under a ROC perspective, they would fall under the PRC perspective.

So almost all of the people that participated in the war are in fact in the PRC. Whether you believe our sources are reliable or not, we are almost the only people who can provide an account of what happened.

His suggestions are still there, in print. I will go by what he has said there, not by what you represent his intentions to be. My objection was, and continues to be, any characterisation of the Chinese Nationalist soldier as cowardly. That objection is based on the fighting record of that soldier in plain display against the Japanese in Burma.

The trouble with you, as with many others, is that you are arrogant, and start thinking that you know what is being said by anyone else, without first checking. My comments are based on the performance of the Chinese soldiers fighting alongside the British, Indian and African troops in Burma, not on their performance in the Chinese theatre against Japan.

This is what he said

No one is laughing at Chinese history. Laughing at English documentaries that claim Chiang was courageous and all that. If you know real Chinese history, which I supposed you do not as you do not read Chinese than your view will be different when it comes to Chiang.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/without-...aken-a-different-course.437862/#ixzz4DeYkgHIW

How is this in any way about Chinese and not about Chiang. You made it not about Chiang, when first you somehow judged this to be not about Chiang, and then you made it about all Chinese.

Bullshit. Get your nomenclature correct.

World War II started on September 1, 1939, with the German attack on Poland and the declarations of war by France and Great Britain. Japan entered the war on December 7, 1941, with an attack on the United States, and that brought other Japanese conflicts into the general ambit of the war.

Your war with Japan was the Second Sino-Japanese War; the period from 1937 to 1941 does not count within the Second World War, not by the view of the rest of the world outside a Sinocentric set of eccentrics. During the period 1937 to 1941, China received help from several quarters, including Germany, Russia and the US. It was a completely different war and only merged when the Japanese set themselves apart from everybody else except the Germans and Italians (and Hungarians and Romanians) by their attack on the US.

WW2 from a western perspective yes. However, the North Eastern China had been at war with the Japanese for far longer. Technically you are correct WW2 did start with Poland, but 1937 was only the official start date because Chiang was willing to declare war, 1931 was the year Japanese actually invaded China.

It would be more correct to call it Sino-Japanese war.



Your claim that we only believe what we are told to believe is completely unfair assessment since we are the only people that can tell what others to believe in regards to this war. You can count the Japanese too, but I have not seen too much difference regarding events other than casualties and atrocities, but that I would doubt even more than Chinese version of events. This is my opinion based on the events that unfolded after the war, not a fact.

 

[Joe Shearer]

True, but your way of quoting is confusing. This is the first time, I seen someone quote a reply to someone else and comment on it in such a way.

You have a point. I will try to clean it up, and let us see if we find common ground. So far, you have been very restrained in your choice of words, but it would be less than truthful if I did not say that I found your approach irritating. Let me try to seek the grains of truth, and ignore the rest.

Chinese participated in the Chinese theatre. Whatever you are going to hear has to come from Chinese one way or another. An American, British or any other nationality can have their opinion, but they can only be that, an opinion. China is one of two that holds the factual accounts. The only one that holds the Chinese side of events.

Any Indian history from a Chinese account can only mirror what the Indians have said, anything else is just making stuff up.



The PRC more or less hold all the records. Any reasoning behind actions can be from anyone, and Chinese view of the events can be biased, but the actions taken and the statistics can only truthfully come from China and Japan. Any Americans claim to know statistics are just guessing. While this doesn't mean Chinese or Japanese account is 100% accurate it is far more accurate than anything anyone else has, that can only come from estimation.

Not interpretation, but the way it was taught. Canada didn't deny any of the other participants, in fact it's account and the American one is largely the same. However, unless you are interested in reading it yourself, you are only going to hear the Canadian side.

PRC certainly plays up its role, it's history is largely accurate, but unless you want to read up on the subject, you won't have much understanding of the war as a whole.



The officers and soldiers of WW2 are living in China, they are PRC citizens. They were interviewed and provided evidence to the events. They would not fall under a ROC perspective, they would fall under the PRC perspective.

So almost all of the people that participated in the war are in fact in the PRC. Whether you believe our sources are reliable or not, we are almost the only people who can provide an account of what happened.




This is what he said



How is this in any way about Chinese and not about Chiang. You made it not about Chiang, when first you somehow judged this to be not about Chiang, and then you made it about all Chinese.




WW2 from a western perspective yes. However, the North Eastern China had been at war with the Japanese for far longer. Technically you are correct WW2 did start with Poland, but 1937 was only the official start date because Chiang was willing to declare war, 1931 was the year Japanese actually invaded China.

It would be more correct to call it Sino-Japanese war.



Your claim that we only believe what we are told to believe is completely unfair assessment since we are the only people that can tell what others to believe in regards to this war. You can count the Japanese too, but I have not seen too much difference regarding events other than casualties and atrocities, but that I would doubt even more than Chinese version of events. This is my opinion based on the events that unfolded after the war, not a fact.

True, but your way of quoting is confusing. This is the first time, I seen someone quote a reply to someone else and comment on it in such a way.

Chinese participated in the Chinese theatre. Whatever you are going to hear has to come from Chinese one way or another. An American, British or any other nationality can have their opinion, but they can only be that, an opinion. China is one of two that holds the factual accounts. The only one that holds the Chinese side of events.

Any Indian history from a Chinese account can only mirror what the Indians have said, anything else is just making stuff up.

Somewhere down the line, it became clear that we were talking at cross-purposes.

I was annoyed at someone sneering at a leader, and, by implication, at his men, and, knowing their gallant record in Burma, fighting side by side with Indian soldiers, resting and recuperating in Indian territory, and going back to fight again, and fighting very well indeed, found it very difficult to accept.

It is not about the general theatre of Sino-Japanese warfare, but about the specific Burma Theatre that I write.

The PRC more or less hold all the records. Any reasoning behind actions can be from anyone, and Chinese view of the events can be biased, but the actions taken and the statistics can only truthfully come from China and Japan. Any Americans claim to know statistics are just guessing. While this doesn't mean Chinese or Japanese account is 100% accurate it is far more accurate than anything anyone else has, that can only come from estimation.

Not interpretation, but the way it was taught. Canada didn't deny any of the other participants, in fact it's account and the American one is largely the same. However, unless you are interested in reading it yourself, you are only going to hear the Canadian side.

PRC certainly plays up its role, it's history is largely accurate, but unless you want to read up on the subject, you won't have much understanding of the war as a whole.



The officers and soldiers of WW2 are living in China, they are PRC citizens. They were interviewed and provided evidence to the events. They would not fall under a ROC perspective, they would fall under the PRC perspective.

So almost all of the people that participated in the war are in fact in the PRC. Whether you believe our sources are reliable or not, we are almost the only people who can provide an account of what happened.




This is what he said



How is this in any way about Chinese and not about Chiang. You made it not about Chiang, when first you somehow judged this to be not about Chiang, and then you made it about all Chinese.




WW2 from a western perspective yes. However, the North Eastern China had been at war with the Japanese for far longer. Technically you are correct WW2 did start with Poland, but 1937 was only the official start date because Chiang was willing to declare war, 1931 was the year Japanese actually invaded China.

It would be more correct to call it Sino-Japanese war.



Your claim that we only believe what we are told to believe is completely unfair assessment since we are the only people that can tell what others to believe in regards to this war. You can count the Japanese too, but I have not seen too much difference regarding events other than casualties and atrocities, but that I would doubt even more than Chinese version of events. This is my opinion based on the events that unfolded after the war, not a fact.

More later.

Unless I give it a long interval, my comments get added one to the other, in a sort of chain. Very confusing.

 

[Wolfwind]

Annam 安南 is the ancient name of Vietnam, going back to the Tang.

well, Chinese army had success in slowing down the Japanese advance but won´t change the course of conquest of China. it is like the Chinese wall. it might slow down the advances of the Mongols and other northern barbarians a bit, but won´t stop them.

in fact, it was the US that defeated Japan in the Pacific, the USSR defeating Japan in Manchuria, both countries were the real victors over Japan.

I think it was called French Indochina. "Annam" was not a sovereign country, it was a vassal state of France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Indochina

 

[3Kingdoms]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/opinions/china-wwii-forgotten-ally-rana-mitter/
By Rana Mitter, Special to CNN.

That book by Mitter is favorable to KMT so you support OP's claim?

.
If Japan didn't invade IndoChina the US would have done the same thing we had been doing since 1931...nothing.

US bide time to financially bankrupt Allied powers.

If Axis powers gained vital resources US would of been surrounded both flanks (contained). It's not that you would do nothing because Indochina was key to Japanese domination of the East.

Lets take a look at KMT in real action from amazing film.

You describe strange opinions. France who surrendered was a major power, China fought against 8 years, killing more than 400,000 Japanese soldiers was not major power.

Supa Powa by name of 'Century of Humiliation'

 

[beijingwalker]

Supa Powa by name of 'Century of Humiliation'

There was a era in Vietnam history which lasted for a millennium, called Chinese Domination. That is history, powers rise and fall and disappear... what matters is the situation like in your life time, luckily in my life time I see my country rising fast and racing to the top of the world.

 

[Genesis]

Somewhere down the line, it became clear that we were talking at cross-purposes.

I was annoyed at someone sneering at a leader, and, by implication, at his men, and, knowing their gallant record in Burma, fighting side by side with Indian soldiers, resting and recuperating in Indian territory, and going back to fight again, and fighting very well indeed, found it very difficult to accept.

It is not about the general theatre of Sino-Japanese warfare, but about the specific Burma Theatre that I write.

Just on that point alone, I hope you see the irony.

Chiang ordered his defeated troops to retreat back into China via the mountains. Sun, an American educated soldier ordered his troops to go to India, he tried to talk his commanding officer Du to retreat with him to India. Du however, is a completely submissive to Chiang, he would retreat through the mountains.

Even Chiang's student Liao who also got further education in France through special favor from Chiang retreated with Sun to India that formed the new first and sixth army. This really shows how outrageous that decision is, even a loyal general to Chiang would do this.

Du knew the risks, Chiang knew the risks, but Chiang wanted no army of his outside of his control. Thousands died due to that decision.

While you praise Chinese solider's bravery in Burma, I hope you know, had two generals not disobeyed orders, there wouldn't be a X force to work with British Indian forces. So any criticism of Chiang is justified.

As to Indian forces, I know of their existence, but Chinese sources made little mention of them and even American and British sources made little reference to their actions, other than they exist. So I can't yet return the compliment, until further reading.

 

[C130]

Without the Republic of China’s Contribution, WWII Would Have Taken a Different Course

while ROC did it's part, but I don't think if they had surrendered to Japan that it would have changed who the outcome of WW2


the U.S would have still gotten the A-Bomb and used it against Hiroshima and Nagasaki effectly ending the war.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Just on that point alone, I hope you see the irony.

Chiang ordered his defeated troops to retreat back into China via the mountains. Sun, an American educated soldier ordered his troops to go to India, he tried to talk his commanding officer Du to retreat with him to India. Du however, is a completely submissive to Chiang, he would retreat through the mountains.

Even Chiang's student Liao who also got further education in France through special favor from Chiang retreated with Sun to India that formed the new first and sixth army. This really shows how outrageous that decision is, even a loyal general to Chiang would do this.

Du knew the risks, Chiang knew the risks, but Chiang wanted no army of his outside of his control. Thousands died due to that decision.

While you praise Chinese solider's bravery in Burma, I hope you know, had two generals not disobeyed orders, there wouldn't be a X force to work with British Indian forces. So any criticism of Chiang is justified.

As to Indian forces, I know of their existence, but Chinese sources made little mention of them and even American and British sources made little reference to their actions, other than they exist. So I can't yet return the compliment, until further reading.

Starting from the back, there is no space here for compliments; I believe that we are both discussing objective events and objective reality, and the real fighting spirit and gallantry of real men (and some women). My remarks about Chinese Nationalist soldiers were in no way meant as compliments, but as recognition of very brave and gallant soldiers, who distinguished themselves in combat.

Second, there is a serious misunderstanding at the core of your thoughts relating to my posts. The purpose of these posts was to uphold the fighting reputation of the Nationalist soldier, not of Chiang. Last night, I stopped short; I was on the verge of repeating the description (by a European observer) of Chiang's manoeuvering as being to head in the opposite direction to the enemy and not stop for at least a hundred kilometres.

The component of the KMT army that retreated through the mountains suffered heavily; however, a nasty old buzzard named Joe Stilwell supported Chiang in this as in all other decisions (it is thought that many of those decisions were his, served up in the name of Chiang). It was in spite of these leaders that a significant portion retreated to India, recuperated and were re-armed and re-equipped and then wrote a glorious chapter for themselves in the Burma campaign.

If you are interested, you will find 'Defeat into Victory' by Field Marshal Bill Slim to be a good account of that obscure but very interesting campaign. That was where Ayub Khan was tried in battle, and was evaluated. That was also where two Indian Field Marshals, Cariappa and Manekshaw, were seen in combat. A very large number of those who served in the Indian Army until quite recently, the mid-70s for instance, also served in WWII, either on the Western Front, in Eritrea, in Africa, or in Italy, or on the Eastern Front, at Hong Kong, at Singapore, in Burma and finally, at the two climactic battles which marked the turn of the tide, Kohima and Imphal.

I will continue with my apportioned remarks after reaching my home town this evening,and settling back in over the next two to three days.

 

[beijingwalker]

while ROC did it part, but I don't think if they had surrendered to Japan that it would have changed who won WW2


the U.S would have still gotten the A-Bomb and used it against Hiroshima and Nagasaki effectly ending the war.

It's like saying that Soviet Union's role in defeating Germany is insignificant, cause US had the bombs and if Russian hadn't beaten Germany, US would have bombed Germany to surrender anyway.

 

[Genesis]

Second, there is a serious misunderstanding at the core of your thoughts relating to my posts. The purpose of these posts was to uphold the fighting reputation of the Nationalist soldier, not of Chiang. Last night, I stopped short; I was on the verge of repeating the description (by a European observer) of Chiang's manoeuvering as being to head in the opposite direction to the enemy and not stop for at least a hundred kilometres.

The component of the KMT army that retreated through the mountains suffered heavily; however, a nasty old buzzard named Joe Stilwell supported Chiang in this as in all other decisions (it is thought that many of those decisions were his, served up in the name of Chiang). It was in spite of these leaders that a significant portion retreated to India, recuperated and were re-armed and re-equipped and then wrote a glorious chapter for themselves in the Burma campaign.

Whether these decisions were his or not is an opinion, no one can definitively know at this point. However, what is known at this point is that it is highly unlikely. A few reasons.

First, Chiang rejected American officers leading Chinese troops. Second, his officers only obey Chiang personally. Example, during the battle of Shanghai, commander of the battle cannot order three German equipped artillery regiment without Chiang's personal written approval. This was later confirmed, as that man defected to PRC.

Third Stillwell was withdrawn, because he was not much of a yes man. Chiang worked well with Chennault, mostly because he had ideas similar to Chiang. The American perspective shares this view. Stilwell wanted command of Chiang's troops and Chiang would sooner die then let someone else do that, as proven when he was replaced as president during the civil war.

So almost all evidence would point to Chiang being the man that made the call. He had to be the one to give the order, because there is no way in hell Du would listen to Stilwell, if nothing else the fact he was made a war zone commander during the civil war showed as much.

Now the reputation of the Nationalist troops is good in PRC, a lot of TV shows shows them as the key in battle. This is not a foreign concept in China. Maybe during the height of revolution this may have been misrepresented, today. No.

If you are interested, you will find 'Defeat into Victory' by Field Marshal Bill Slim to be a good account of that obscure but very interesting campaign. That was where Ayub Khan was tried in battle, and was evaluated. That was also where two Indian Field Marshals, Cariappa and Manekshaw, were seen in combat. A very large number of those who served in the Indian Army until quite recently, the mid-70s for instance, also served in WWII, either on the Western Front, in Eritrea, in Africa, or in Italy, or on the Eastern Front, at Hong Kong, at Singapore, in Burma and finally, at the two climactic battles which marked the turn of the tide, Kohima and Imphal.

I will continue with my apportioned remarks after reaching my home town this evening,and settling back in over the next two to three days.

noted.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Whether these decisions were his or not is an opinion, no one can definitively know at this point. However, what is known at this point is that it is highly unlikely. A few reasons.

First, Chiang rejected American officers leading Chinese troops. Second, his officers only obey Chiang personally. Example, during the battle of Shanghai, commander of the battle cannot order three German equipped artillery regiment without Chiang's personal written approval. This was later confirmed, as that man defected to PRC.

A possibility of a misunderstanding, or a misapprehension here.

Stilwell's role was not so much as a battlefield commander as one of a strategist, who wanted Chinese troops to be deployed only through him, and after he was persuaded, and who wanted all decisions relating to China, the Chinese establishment and Chinese troops to be routed through him.

This DOES NOT necessarily mean that he sought to exercise day-to-day command over the Chinese Nationalist troops; it meant that the British had to speak to the Chinese through him.

Third Stillwell was withdrawn, because he was not much of a yes man. Chiang worked well with Chennault, mostly because he had ideas similar to Chiang. The American perspective shares this view. Stilwell wanted command of Chiang's troops and Chiang would sooner die then let someone else do that, as proven when he was replaced as president during the civil war.

The disposal of Chinese troops, I can understand. Day-to-day operational command seems unlikely.

So almost all evidence would point to Chiang being the man that made the call. He had to be the one to give the order, because there is no way in hell Du would listen to Stilwell, if nothing else the fact he was made a war zone commander during the civil war showed as much.

Quite possible and not contradictory to the impression that the British had, not in the sense that they still had to deal with Stilwell, no matter who was taking orders from whom within the Chinese chain of command.

Now the reputation of the Nationalist troops is good in PRC, a lot of TV shows shows them as the key in battle. This is not a foreign concept in China. Maybe during the height of revolution this may have been misrepresented, today. No.

Please go back to the picture which I protested, and the mocking remarks addressed by a member. I protested that, and not the current value put to the Nationalist troops within China today. It is heartening to note that their contributions have been acknowledged and are known.

The evidence is convincing, especially in terms of the personalities involved. However, it is the context that counts, and this is where those theories about one objective truth existing break down.

SEAC never, or rarely heard from Chinese officers; all matters relating to the Chinese troops was rigidly channeled through Stilwell, who was hated by the British and the Chinese alike, for rather similar reasons. So whatever the internal workings, and the account given above may very well have been accurate, as far as the SEAC was concerned, all that happened within the Chinese chain of command was reported by Stilwell, and reported in possessive terms.

[An aside] While Claire Chennault was said to have been easier to handle, he was at an obvious disadvantage due to the nature of the campaigning having been so heavily terrestrial (yes, the irony of a naval admiral heading the entire organisation is also apparent, but then there was hope that at a later stage, after winning back Burma and Singapore, there would be amphibious operations and naval operations in the Dutch East Indies, as Indonesia was then known).

noted.

 

[Genesis]

A possibility of a misunderstanding, or a misapprehension here.

Stilwell's role was not so much as a battlefield commander as one of a strategist, who wanted Chinese troops to be deployed only through him, and after he was persuaded, and who wanted all decisions relating to China, the Chinese establishment and Chinese troops to be routed through him.

This DOES NOT necessarily mean that he sought to exercise day-to-day command over the Chinese Nationalist troops; it meant that the British had to speak to the Chinese through him.



The disposal of Chinese troops, I can understand. Day-to-day operational command seems unlikely.



Quite possible and not contradictory to the impression that the British had, not in the sense that they still had to deal with Stilwell, no matter who was taking orders from whom within the Chinese chain of command.

Stilwell is still a very important figure in the war. Sun and Stilwell had a good relationship from Burma and beyond. However, the nature of China at that time of the warlords, whoever controlled the military controlled the power.

Chiang had to take Stilwell seriously, but he would rather lose than to give control of his troops. A little known fact is he was the commandant of Whampoa military academy until 47. For over 20 years. He wanted personal servitude from the officer corp. This isn't really an opinion but a very well known fact.

Also Chiang signed over control of north eastern China to Japan in 31, for less than glorious reasons. He's not a traitor, but he is too political and calculating, which I guess is why he succeeded in getting the position, but he considered other things more urgent, and the elimination of all other warlords and him being the sole military commander was definitely front and center as evident by his following actions.

Whatever Stilwell wanted, as long as it's not just an advisory role, but anything even touches on real authority and Chiang was not going to have. Truthfully he won't be able to command troops even if Chiang did hand the reigns. As evident by him doing this quite a few times in history, by stepping down.

Please go back to the picture which I protested, and the mocking remarks addressed by a member. I protested that, and not the current value put to the Nationalist troops within China today. It is heartening to note that their contributions have been acknowledged and are known.

The evidence is convincing, especially in terms of the personalities involved. However, it is the context that counts, and this is where those theories about one objective truth existing break down.

SEAC never, or rarely heard from Chinese officers; all matters relating to the Chinese troops was rigidly channeled through Stilwell, who was hated by the British and the Chinese alike, for rather similar reasons. So whatever the internal workings, and the account given above may very well have been accurate, as far as the SEAC was concerned, all that happened within the Chinese chain of command was reported by Stilwell, and reported in possessive terms.

[An aside] While Claire Chennault was said to have been easier to handle, he was at an obvious disadvantage due to the nature of the campaigning having been so heavily terrestrial (yes, the irony of a naval admiral heading the entire organisation is also apparent, but then there was hope that at a later stage, after winning back Burma and Singapore, there would be amphibious operations and naval operations in the Dutch East Indies, as Indonesia was then known).

I feel like I'm missing something here, what picture? A literal picture? Or as in the picture painted. Either way, I think I missed something.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Stilwell is still a very important figure in the war. Sun and Stilwell had a good relationship from Burma and beyond. However, the nature of China at that time of the warlords, whoever controlled the military controlled the power.

Chiang had to take Stilwell seriously, but he would rather lose than to give control of his troops. A little known fact is he was the commandant of Whampoa military academy until 47. For over 20 years. He wanted personal servitude from the officer corp. This isn't really an opinion but a very well known fact.

Also Chiang signed over control of north eastern China to Japan in 31, for less than glorious reasons. He's not a traitor, but he is too political and calculating, which I guess is why he succeeded in getting the position, but he considered other things more urgent, and the elimination of all other warlords and him being the sole military commander was definitely front and center as evident by his following actions.

Whatever Stilwell wanted, as long as it's not just an advisory role, but anything even touches on real authority and Chiang was not going to have. Truthfully he won't be able to command troops even if Chiang did hand the reigns. As evident by him doing this quite a few times in history, by stepping down.

I realise that the direct control of Chinese troops was always in Chinese hands, and Chiang's obsession with concentrating power in his own hands is not new to me. While I have refrained from mentioning this, for reasons that will be disclosed, at the beginning of my own study of military history, I was quite knowledgeable about the Second Sino-Japanese War, and the personal histories of the main leaders, including, of course, Chiang Kai Shek himself. That has not been worth mentioning here so far as it is 30 years and 2,000 kms away

This is not a very important point, the main one being that the Chinese soldier was a brave man, and not the wimpish kind of character that some accounts would have it. And I point that out in the context of the gallant comrades in arms that they proved to be, fighting shoulder to shoulder with the forefathers of those who formed today's Indian Army and Pakistani Army.

I feel like I'm missing something here, what picture? A literal picture? Or as in the picture painted. Either way, I think I missed something.

A literal picture and a very nasty remark by a Chinese member. My anger rises even as I think about it. I will point to it in a minute or two.

The picture is the picture in post #1.

The remark:

They were a US puppet. I watched documentaries about China from the 40s, before 1949 and they all have positive things to say about China. They even praised Generalissimo Chiang for his courage and fighting spirit that helped drove out the Japanese ! How hilarious is that

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/without-...aken-a-different-course.437862/#ixzz4Dhn3lXMg