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

[Viet]

You don't know what happend in WWII, as I know, no Vietnamese care that history, two world wars both had no relation with Vietnamese in their opinion. Japan expent more than 90% of the GDP to continue the war (without any potential mobilization ), Japan would collapse ealier than China.
I can understand you, as I mentioned above, Japan and France was ally in WWII. You as a former Frensh of course like to stand in Japan's shoes.

where have you learned history? in a CCP education camp?
sounds to me like repeated lie China controls the SC Sea since ancient time.

not France, Japan and Germany were allies in WW II.
France was a defeated nation, crushed by the german army on battlefields. the French surrendered.

the French army stationed in Vietnam or Indochina had little chance against Japan. hence they surrendered to Japan without fighting.

true. Japan spent almost all national resources in the war effort. hence the goal of conquest of China. with Chinese resources, Japan planned to take on America in the Pacific.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The actual fact was the USA got huge benefits from China since the late Qing period and did care about their interests in China. If you care to check, there were three unequal treaties between China and USA, like Treaty of Wanghia, Treaty of Teintsin and Boxer Protocol. Those treaties gave the USA the right of Extraterritorial jurisdiction, fixed tariff on trade goods, freedom to buy land, receive the same beneficial treatment as other imperial powers, right to station troops in China and freedom of navigation of US warship in Yangtze river etc. Fortunately, those unequal treaties ended in 1943 when New equal treaty was signed between the two nations, however before that the Chinese government himself had no power to abolish any of the treaties. Moreover, USA was also the first one to propose the Open door policy to safeguard his own interests in China, in which to prevent any imperial power can able to solely dominate and control the Chinese market and trade tariffs. The same open door policy was again re-enforced in the Nine Powers Treaty in 1922 by USA government with other nations.
The main reason why USA support Chiang was the same reason that the Open door policy was proposed by USA, to safeguard his privileges in China. The time Chiang changed his master to USA was during the civil war between the KMT and those Warlords, because if KMT was able to conquer the whole China, then China will turn to SU since they were the one who supporting them in the war, and all the US privileges will be gone in a minute. Not to mention communist government would likely confiscate any captialist's property including those from the American. I have to make it clear that USA was not the sole supporter of Chiang, UK was the other one. Therefore, Chiang became a clear candidate for UK and USA to control, since he was the general in chief during the war. This is true that USA at that time was not as active as today, but US did provide funds to Chiang to encourage the split within the KMT.

Any benefits the US got pre-WW2 from China was not considered important enough to fight over. It is true the US sent supplies to China through the IndoChina peninsula pre-1941 during the Japanese campaign. If you want to call that support for Chiang so be it but it was to whoever at the time controlled the money/government. Yes, they probably used much of those supplies against the Communists instead of 100% against the Japanese.

It certainly is logical the US would prefer not to have the Communists take over. I'm sure the Chinese government at the time dangled that scenario in their negotiations.

As for threats the Communists would confiscate US assets/property in China..well Japan could easily have done the same thing...and probably did.

 

[bbccdd1470]

Any benefits the US got pre-WW2 from China was not considered important enough to fight over. It is true the US sent supplies to China through the IndoChina peninsula pre-1941 during the Japanese campaign. If you want to call that support for Chiang so be it but it was to whoever at the time controlled the money/government. Yes, they probably used much of those supplies against the Communists instead of 100% against the Japanese.

It certainly is logical the US would prefer not to have the Communists take over. I'm sure the Chinese government at the time dangled that scenario in their negotiations.

As for threats the Communists would confiscate US assets/property in China..well Japan could easily have done the same thing...and probably did.

I guess we are not talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about USA had intervention in KMT and Chinese affair way before the full support during WW2. US did provide funding to Chiang to split the KMT and secure its own interests in China. That is why I said Chiang had changed his master from SU to USA. But that doesn't mean USA will get involve in the war between China and Japan, since USA itself was in recovery from the great depression and Imperial Japan imported over 80% oil and other resources from USA was actually beneficial to US economy. That is why I mention this was all about national interest.

 

[Archie]

Well in my opinion,

Without the Republic of China's contribution to war in the eastern theatre

America would have been forced to drop a few more nukes on Japan,

 

[greenwood]

where have you learned history? in a CCP education camp?
sounds to me like repeated lie China controls the SC Sea since ancient time.

not France, Japan and Germany were allies in WW II.
France was a defeated nation, crushed by the german army on battlefields. the French surrendered.

the French army stationed in Vietnam or Indochina had little chance against Japan. hence they surrendered to Japan without fighting.

true. Japan spent almost all national resources in the war effort. hence the goal of conquest of China. with Chinese resources, Japan planned to take on America in the Pacific.

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.

 

[Jlaw]

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.

China spent 8 years killing japanese soldiers when they should have killed the Annamese soldiers instead. Than you would not be replying to this poor viet's trolling post

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

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.

Well Germany far outgunned Japan. The French Army lost 250,000 soldiers in a little more than a month. That's extreme German firepower at its worst.

 

[Viet]

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.

that is nothing.

the german army annihilated nearly 1,000,000 soviet soldiers in a single battle. the battle of kiew (1941).

 

[greenwood]

that is nothing.

the german army annihilated nearly 1,000,000 soviet soldiers in a single battle. the battle of kiew (1941).

Your Frensh didn't open a fire before surrendered to Japan, that's something. How did you endure being slave of such coward?

 

[beijingwalker]

SCAP General Order no. 1 divided Indochina at the 16thparallel, and gave the responsibility for accepting the Japanese surrender to Chiang Kai-shek in the north and to Britain in the south.

Refusal of French Indochina[edit]
U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, through General Stilwell, privately made it clear that they preferred that the French not reacquire French Indochina (modern day Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) after the war was over. Roosevelt offered Chiang control of all of Indochina. It was said that Chiang replied: "Under no circumstances!"[45]

After the war, 200,000 Chinese troops under General Lu Han were sent by Chiang Kai-shek to northern Indochina (Vietnam) (north of the 16th parallel) to accept the surrender of Japanese occupying forces there, and remained in Indochina until 1946, when the French returned.[46][47] The Chinese used the VNQDD, the Vietnamese branch of the Chinese Kuomintang, to increase their influence in Indochina and to put pressure on their opponents.[48] Chiang Kai-shek threatened the French with war in response to maneuvering by the French and Ho Chi Minh's forces against each other, forcing them to come to a peace agreement. In February 1946 he also forced the French to surrender all of their concessions in China and to renounce their extraterritorial privileges in exchange for the Chinese withdrawing from northern Indochina and allowing French troops to reoccupy the region. Following France's agreement to these demands, the withdrawal of Chinese troops began in March 1946. Despite the withdrawal, many Vietnamese who considered themselves as Chinese continued to fight against the French government. Some of Chiang's army stayed to assist the struggle. Many even went to study in China then return to fight for the cause. Ho Chi Minh would be one example. Although denied by the Vietnamese government, Ho Chi Minh married a Chinese wife during his study in China

Japanese troops surrendered to Chiang Kai-shek in North Vietnam.

 

[greenwood]

Well Germany far outgunned Japan. The French Army lost 250,000 soldiers in a little more than a month. That's extreme German firepower at its worst.

A small scale Iwo Jima battle, America lost more than 20,000 soldiers. America had the confidence, it would not drop atomic bombs. America's war crime is recorded.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

A small scale Iwo Jima battle, America lost more than 20,000 soldiers. America had the confidence, it would not drop atomic bombs. America's war crime is recorded.

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.

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

Well Germany far outgunned Japan. The French Army lost 250,000 soldiers in a little more than a month. That's extreme German firepower at its worst.

Its all relative. China did not have an airforce, no tanks, limited ammo and limited training (outside of the German trained divisions). A Japanese light tank is hopelessly outclassed against a German tank but in China there was very little to counter them.

Japan was ruthless in that they killed, tortured, raped and burned their way into China. Most casualties of the war against japan was civilian. In comparison, the Nazis were benevolent in their occupation of France.

that is nothing.

the german army annihilated nearly 1,000,000 soviet soldiers in a single battle. the battle of kiew (1941).

China did not have Nazi equipment, technology and training. little ammo. No tanks. No planes. little electronics for communication. No industrial base of size. Little food.

The balance of power was rediculously bad and the enemy was psycho, murderous and brutal.

 

[21 Dec 2012]

Whatever be the political affiliation, the Japanese couldn't reach deep into Mainland China and it wasn't for lack of effort. China made the largest sacrifice of all the Allies and that's all that matters.

 

[Genesis]

Yes. I would like some sources. Mao's situation was not even that dramatic as you just made it out to be.

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 calibre cannons, not four brigades, four in total, and a brigade of swords. His nickname is DaDaoPian大刀片. Meaning blade.

There is nothing in what you have written that was related to my post, far less to my position on the subject.

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.

And that is precisely what a student of history does. Study ALL the sources. That is what I do. Not from the national narrative, but from independent, sceptical reading.

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.

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.

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.

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

The observation made was not just false, it was terrible in its attitude of condescension and seeking to humiliate those who are not today in political ascendancy.

I am not concerned with the western perspective either, so that pronouncement leaves me stony cold. It is not America's version of the history that we are discussing that I follow, it is a compound one drawn from various narrations, including the Japanese. Whose war role I hate intensely, by the way, however much I admire them as a nation today, and as a culture and society.

I protested the denigration of the Chinese soldier, both the 'Nationalist' and the 'Communist' soldier, by a Chinese, and I stick to that. Other than refining and putting a subtle slant on whatever was said earlier by your countryman, there is nothing you have added to suggest that my protest was mistaken.

@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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.