Significance of the Chinese military contribution to World War 2 disputed.

Double post.

Every Chinese should watch 國殤. At the end of every episode that involved major battles the list of the officers killed were shown. Every one of them are long.

The youtube links:

《國殤》 第一集 重返盧溝橋 第一集 重返盧溝橋

《國殤》 第二集 人為刀俎 第二集 人為刀俎

《國殤》 第三集 四十年長跑 第三集 四十年長跑

《國殤》 第四集 槍桿子與政權 第四集 槍桿子與政權

《國殤》 第五集 安內？攘外？ 第五集 安內? 攘外?

《國殤》 第六集 焚風滿樓 第六集 焚風滿樓

《國殤》 第七集 乾坤一變 第七集 乾坤一變

《國殤》 第八集 最後關頭 第八集 最後關頭

《國殤》 第九集 淞滬會戰（上） 第九集 淞滬會戰（上）

《國殤》 第十集 淞滬會戰（下） 第十集 淞滬會戰（下）

《國殤》 第十一集 南京保衛戰 第十一集 南京保衛戰

《國殤》 第十二集 南京大屠城 第十二集 南京大屠城

《國殤》 第十三集 喋血長空 第十三集 喋血長空

《國殤》 第十四集 破釜沉舟 第十四集 破釜沉舟

《國殤》 第十五集 徐州會戰（上） 第十五集 徐州會戰（上）

《國殤》 第十六集 徐州會戰（下） 第十六集 徐州會戰（下）

《國殤》 第十七集 大遷徙 第十七集 大遷徙

《國殤》 第十八集 武漢會戰 第十八集 武漢會戰

《國殤》 第十九集 另一個戰場 第十九集 另一個戰場

《國殤》 第二十集 烽火桃李劫 第二十集 烽火桃李劫

《國殤》 第二十一集 中期抗戰 第二十一集 中期抗戰

《國殤》 第二十二集 烽煙再起 第二十二集 烽煙再起

《國殤》 第二十三集 長沙會戰 第二十三集 長沙會戰

《國殤》 第二十四集 禍從天降 第二十四集 禍從天降

《國殤》 第二十五集 在北風中出擊 第二十五集 在北風中出擊

《國殤》 第二十六集 突破封鎖線 第二十六集 突破封鎖線

《國殤》 第二十七集 火拼大江中游 第二十七集 火拼大江中游

《國殤》 第二十八集 赤手空拳 第二十八集 赤手空拳

《國殤》 第二十九集 疾風迅雷游擊戰 第二十九集 疾風迅雷游擊戰

《國殤》 第三十集 血染的歷史 第三十集 血染的歷史

《國殤》 第三十一集 死亡工廠731 第三十一集 死亡工廠731

《國殤》 第三十二集 苦撑待變 第三十二集 苦撑待變

《國殤》 第三十三集 悲情與豪情 第三十三集 悲情與豪情

《國殤》 第三十四集 一狼、二虎、四强 第三十四集 一狼、二虎、四强

《國殤》 第三十五集 蔣夫人與抗戰 第三十五集 蔣夫人與抗戰

《國殤》 第三十六集 長夜漫漫 第三十六集 長夜漫漫

《國殤》 第三十七集 鬼哭狼嚎守衡陽 第三十七集 鬼哭狼嚎守衡陽

《國殤》 第三十八集 山窮水盡 第三十八集 山窮水盡

《國殤》 第三十九集 最後的堅持 第三十九集 最後的堅持

《國殤》 第四十集 天亮前後 第四十集 天亮前後

Every Chinese should watch 國殤. At the end of every episode that involved major battles the list of the officers killed were shown. Every one of them are long.

Originally Posted by vincent

Every Chinese should watch 國殤. At the end of every episode that involved major battles the list of the officers killed were shown. Every one of them are long.

Originally Posted by nitroy2k

Every Chinese should watch 國殤. At the end of every episode that involved major battles the list of the officers killed were shown. Every one of them are long.

Hmmm... Nitroy2k... I see that you copied exactly the same words as this Vincent

Originally Posted by vincent

Every Chinese should watch 國殤. At the end of every episode that involved major battles the list of the officers killed were shown. Every one of them are long.

Interesting point of view. Why do they list officers killed and not names of soldiers killed or photographs of all killed?

Two points, the first one is that there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed, the second one is that there are probably no registry available. Most of the soldiers are probably peasants that got pressed into service and got killed after a week or two of training. There are many battles (especially in the beginning) which entire battlions/divisions got wiped out within a few hours after they get into the battlefield

Not a huge fan of the liberal use of counterfactuals in history, but in my opinion the Japanese would not have begun operations against the USSR even if China had rolled over like Vichy France. Of course such an outcome is not realistic, but it serves its purpose in being so extreme because it shows there are other factors influencing Japanese strategic thinking at the time. Prior to the Japanese advance south, the militarists were divided into two broad groups; those wanting to strike northwards, against the USSR, and those with the 'strike south' policy. Chinese resistance had very little practical or theoretical influence in this argument. The greatest role the Sino-Japanese war played was perhaps in fomenting anti-japanese sentiment in the US, and firmly placing out of Japanese reach a diplomatic compromise with the USA.

Continuing with my "but for" scenario, the Pacific war would have concluded with the USSR rolling through Manchuria, and progressing into Japanese held China. After Midway it no longer mattered how much manpower Japan had; US naval dominance ensured the IJA's strategic role would be reduced to simply defending islands.

This of course does not downplay the role of Chinese resistance in military terms, in their struggle to defend their homes from foreign occupiers; but strategically China could not be compared to the USA, USSR or even Britain given it's contributions in North Africa.

Originally Posted by inanon

Not a huge fan of the liberal use of counterfactuals in history, but in my opinion the Japanese would not have begun operations against the USSR even if China had rolled over like Vichy France. Of course such an outcome is not realistic, but it serves its purpose in being so extreme because it shows there are other factors influencing Japanese strategic thinking at the time. Prior to the Japanese advance south, the militarists were divided into two broad groups; those wanting to strike northwards, against the USSR, and those with the 'strike south' policy. Chinese resistance had very little practical or theoretical influence in this argument. The greatest role the Sino-Japanese war played was perhaps in fomenting anti-japanese sentiment in the US, and firmly placing out of Japanese reach a diplomatic compromise with the USA.

Continuing with my "but for" scenario, the Pacific war would have concluded with the USSR rolling through Manchuria, and progressing into Japanese held China. After Midway it no longer mattered how much manpower Japan had; US naval dominance ensured the IJA's strategic role would be reduced to simply defending islands.

This of course does not downplay the role of Chinese resistance in military terms, in their struggle to defend their homes from foreign occupiers; but strategically China could not be compared to the USA, USSR or even Britain given it's contributions in North Africa.

Your hypothesis ignores the fact that due to fierce Chinese resistance, the Japanese had to devote vast amounts of resources just to hold on to their occupation. Had China, in your own words, "rolled over like France", Japan would have added the vast resources of NW China to their navy. The IJN was the world's most powerful navy at the beginning of the war. If they had the resources of NW China to match the production of the USN, the outcome of the Pacific War might well have been different.

Originally Posted by inanon

Not a huge fan of the liberal use of counterfactuals in history, but in my opinion the Japanese would not have begun operations against the USSR even if China had rolled over like Vichy France. Of course such an outcome is not realistic, but it serves its purpose in being so extreme because it shows there are other factors influencing Japanese strategic thinking at the time. Prior to the Japanese advance south, the militarists were divided into two broad groups; those wanting to strike northwards, against the USSR, and those with the 'strike south' policy. Chinese resistance had very little practical or theoretical influence in this argument. The greatest role the Sino-Japanese war played was perhaps in fomenting anti-japanese sentiment in the US, and firmly placing out of Japanese reach a diplomatic compromise with the USA.

Continuing with my "but for" scenario, the Pacific war would have concluded with the USSR rolling through Manchuria, and progressing into Japanese held China. After Midway it no longer mattered how much manpower Japan had; US naval dominance ensured the IJA's strategic role would be reduced to simply defending islands.

This of course does not downplay the role of Chinese resistance in military terms, in their struggle to defend their homes from foreign occupiers; but strategically China could not be compared to the USA, USSR or even Britain given it's contributions in North Africa.

There were several Summer Wars between Japan and the USSR. If these had been succesful for Japan it could have got its oil from Siberia and not be vulnarable to the USN if it had occupied China without occupying the Philippines too. Instead the last and largest of these Summer Wars, the Khalkhin Gol incident, ended in a crushing defeat for the Japanese army in Manchuria. So the oil had to come from Sumatra and the US had to be driven out of their colony The Philipinnes and of course the French colonialists in Indo-China were happy to cooperate. And Solarz is quite right about the enormous resources deployed by Japan against China, but he is wrong about IJN being the largest navy in the world. In the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 the proportions of battleships, cruisers and flattops in tonnage were determined in the proportions USA to UK to Japan as 5 to 5 to 3. The Treaty was abandoned in the late '30's but Japan had not been able to change the proportions significantly.
Khalkhin Gol is an "unknown war", but you find a lot about it on the internet.

Originally Posted by delft

There were several Summer Wars between Japan and the USSR. If these had been succesful for Japan it could have got its oil from Siberia and not be vulnarable to the USN if it had occupied China without occupying the Philippines too. Instead the last and largest of these Summer Wars, the Khalkhin Gol incident, ended in a crushing defeat for the Japanese army in Manchuria. So the oil had to come from Sumatra and the US had to be driven out of their colony The Philipinnes and of course the French colonialists in Indo-China were happy to cooperate. And Solarz is quite right about the enormous resources deployed by Japan against China, but he is wrong about IJN being the largest navy in the world. In the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 the proportions of battleships, cruisers and flattops in tonnage were determined in the proportions USA to UK to Japan as 5 to 5 to 3. The Treaty was abandoned in the late '30's but Japan had not been able to change the proportions significantly.
Khalkhin Gol is an "unknown war", but you find a lot about it on the internet.

Yes, these conflicts, featuring a relatively unknown Zhukov, had a huge impact on Japanese strategic thinking. Its interesting how badly the Japanese underestimated the USA, preferring a confrontation with what it saw as a decadent and weak democracy than the totalitarian USSR.

Originally Posted by solarz

Your hypothesis ignores the fact that due to fierce Chinese resistance, the Japanese had to devote vast amounts of resources just to hold on to their occupation. Had China, in your own words, "rolled over like France", Japan would have added the vast resources of NW China to their navy. The IJN was the world's most powerful navy at the beginning of the war. If they had the resources of NW China to match the production of the USN, the outcome of the Pacific War might well have been different.

Japanese production would NEVER have often close to US levels. Furthermore, even if the Japanese had not been cleared island by island to the Philippines, the war would still have need with a victorious Red Army smashing the inadequate armour and artillery of the IJA. To reverse the argument, even if the Japanese occupation troops were deployed elsewhere, their strategic value would be neglible. See how long it took the Japanese to defeat the 'best' nationalist troops in shanghai, despite superiority in almost all areas.

The IJA Couldn't even be compared to the Wehrmacht, and really only lasted as long as it did because of the unique nature of the Pacific feature, with amphibious warfare opeations for the first time in the 20th century where it wasn't simply infantry that was involved (cf Anzac deployment in turkey in ww1)

Originally Posted by inanon

Japanese production would NEVER have often close to US levels. Furthermore, even if the Japanese had not been cleared island by island to the Philippines, the war would still have need with a victorious Red Army smashing the inadequate armour and artillery of the IJA. To reverse the argument, even if the Japanese occupation troops were deployed elsewhere, their strategic value would be neglible. See how long it took the Japanese to defeat the 'best' nationalist troops in shanghai, despite superiority in almost all areas.

The IJA Couldn't even be compared to the Wehrmacht, and really only lasted as long as it did because of the unique nature of the Pacific feature, with amphibious warfare opeations for the first time in the 20th century where it wasn't simply infantry that was involved (cf Anzac deployment in turkey in ww1)

Well, the Red Army was not always victorious from the beginning, in fact they got their ass kicked by German pretty badly, and many people would argue if Hitler had not intervene in the decision making, for example, redirected 1 of his army to the caucus front, they would have got to Moscow before Russia got it is act together and beat the German back.

And lastly, the turning point of the war in Russia was the encirclement of the 6th Germany Army at Stalingrad. And guess where did the Soviet Army come from??? A lot of it were deployed from the Far Eastern front, who's main goal is to protect it is border against possible Japanese invasion.

So I can argue that if China have just lay down like France and give up everything, it is not inconceivable for the Japanese army to pincer Russia from Manchuria while the German slowing eating it from the West.

China didn't have any epic battles like Normandy or Stalingrad or Kursk, but overall they did a good job protecting their homeland from the invaders.

Oh and this is also because no one publicize the Chinese battle during WW2 because of few reasons.

1. Most of the battle was fought by KMT, which lost the civil war, so their contributions are dismissed by the CCP. There were some major battles, but CCP is not talking about them for the obvious reasons.

2. Post civil war KMT's focus was to keep it is independence from China, so it have to stay good terms with USA, who is allied with Japanese against the CCP. So again, no one wants to talk about the past.

3. Mainland China was the bad guys during the cold war who have bad relationship with USA and USSR at same time, so of course, no Western nation will want to talk about it as well.

I personally believe in the up coming decades, you will hear more about battles during WW2, because mainland will want to improve relations with Taiwan, and one thing they can do is to talk about their common enemy the Japanese. And as China gets stronger in the future, it is history will be closer studied by everyone.

Originally Posted by jackliu

Well, the Red Army was not always victorious from the beginning, in fact they got their ass kicked by German pretty badly, and many people would argue if Hitler had not intervene in the decision making, for example, redirected 1 of his army to the caucus front, they would have got to Moscow before Russia got it is act together and beat the German back.

And lastly, the turning point of the war in Russia was the encirclement of the 6th Germany Army at Stalingrad. And guess where did the Soviet Army come from??? A lot of it were deployed from the Far Eastern front, who's main goal is to protect it is border against possible Japanese invasion.

So I can argue that if China have just lay down like France and give up everything, it is not inconceivable for the Japanese army to pincer Russia from Manchuria while the German slowing eating it from the West.

China didn't have any epic battles like Normandy or Stalingrad or Kursk, but overall they did a good job protecting their homeland from the invaders.

Oh and this is also because no one publicize the Chinese battle during WW2 because of few reasons.

1. Most of the battle was fought by KMT, which lost the civil war, so their contributions are dismissed by the CCP. There were some major battles, but CCP is not talking about them for the obvious reasons.

2. Post civil war KMT's focus was to keep it is independence from China, so it have to stay good terms with USA, who is allied with Japanese against the CCP. So again, no one wants to talk about the past.

3. Mainland China was the bad guys during the cold war who have bad relationship with USA and USSR at same time, so of course, no Western nation will want to talk about it as well.

I personally believe in the up coming decades, you will hear more about battles during WW2, because mainland will want to improve relations with Taiwan, and one thing they can do is to talk about their common enemy the Japanese. And as China gets stronger in the future, it is history will be closer studied by everyone.

I would have to disagree with some of your points. As mentioned earlier, the battles fought in Mongolia between the USSR and the IJA in 1939, before Hitler opened up his front against the USSR, ended in a crushing defeat for Japanese forces, despite their numerical superiority. This influenced Japanese strategic thinking (strike south, because the USSR was too much to handle), although strangely enough the IJA learned very little tactically from their defeat. The point is that even if Japan had been able to pacify China, those troops would not likely have been used to open a front against the Soviets, instead they would probably have been used to proceed further into British held territories, or into the SE Asian theatre.

This in turn, would strategically have mattered little, because the IJN would still have been smashed. Perhaps more American lives would be lost retaking islands in the Pacific.

I do not mean to belittle the Chinese resistance of Japanese occupation, just that those troops strategically would not have much strategic impact after the Japanese decided to strike south. Even 2 years after Khalkin Gol, when Germany had declared war on the USSR, Japan refused to do the same.

My point also goes to show how the IJA was a doctrinally outdated force, unversed in combined arms operations or advanced coordination with air power. Such a force might have worked against the Chinese, who lacked a period of unified military training and were chronically plagued with logistical problems, partly due to the diversity of troops in China, but as shown, the IJA was no match for either the US or the USSR.

Also I agree that the Chinese, given the conditions, fought the very best they could. As I mentioned above, the defence of Shanghai is one of the examples where the Chinese fought incredibly valiantly despite being effectively a light infantry only force, against both the naval, air and armour superiority of the Japanese.

This may sound contradictory to my above statement about the IJA being doctrinally outdated, but having an inferior tank deployed is better than having no tanks and only light weapons.