Now we seem to nearing the point where we are both talking about the same issue.
But we are not there yet...You see i'm not stating that China and Soviets used their political officers in similar ways, in fact the politruks in soviet army units had their role being varied several times. It was very soon discovered how badly it worked in practise, and the political officers were surpassed in the chain-of-command in quite early stage.
But again you fail to see my point about the athmosphere whihc isen't purely relative to any spesific issue, more of result of many fafourable (or in this cas infafourable) elements. But actually you nor I cannot awnser to my question, only those actually served PLA in those days can...
I'm not going to venture to pointing out all non so succesfull efforts of PLA's operational history, we are already way too oftopic. But i will say this: If you take good look at all conflicts were PLA has involved, can anyone honestly say that it has performed without faults? I can name few good examples which will support my doupts quite unquestionably, but like i said it isen't the issue in this thread and we can do it in some other place.the communist army proved they are capable of switching from convential warfere to guerrilla warfare in 1937 proved they are capable of change. the fact the they manage to creat effective tatics that allowed them to break jap encircument proved they are capable of innovation. in the korean war they had to rapadily adpt from semi-guerrilla to trench warfere also proves my point.