Thoughts on the Chinese Civil War

Curious George

New Member
(this actually makes me thinking. What did the CCP promised the Soviets??? I guess this would be considered top secret...)

I think one of the CCP's promises to the Soviets was to give up their claim to Outer Mongolia. Interestingly, the ROC never gave up their claim to Outer Mongolia and so if any unification were to take place in the future, the CCP might consider "surrendering" to the ROC so they can use the ROC claim to take back Mongolia.
 

ToxSic

New Member
I think one of the CCP's promises to the Soviets was to give up their claim to Outer Mongolia. Interestingly, the ROC never gave up their claim to Outer Mongolia and so if any unification were to take place in the future, the CCP might consider "surrendering" to the ROC so they can use the ROC claim to take back Mongolia.

but the soviet fell
the promise... carries over to russian fed?

regardless, isnt mongolia agreeably for both sides - china and russia - a buffer state?
 

xywdx

Junior Member
I think one of the CCP's promises to the Soviets was to give up their claim to Outer Mongolia. Interestingly, the ROC never gave up their claim to Outer Mongolia and so if any unification were to take place in the future, the CCP might consider "surrendering" to the ROC so they can use the ROC claim to take back Mongolia.

Except they don't have to do any surrendering.
One of paramount leader Deng Xiao Ping's points was to separate government from party, in which case they could let the KMT take government offices (officially at least), and proceed from there.
 

maozedong

Banned Idiot
I think one of the CCP's promises to the Soviets was to give up their claim to Outer Mongolia. Interestingly, the ROC never gave up their claim to Outer Mongolia and so if any unification were to take place in the future, the CCP might consider "surrendering" to the ROC so they can use the ROC claim to take back Mongolia.

So many people include so many Chinese make mistake that believe ROC neve gave up the claim for Outer Mongolia, it's wrong! in fact, KMT government in order to obtain the Soviet Union's commitment to give up the support of CCP, August 14,1945 KMT government and Soviet Union signed the " Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance ", approved Outer Monolia to organize referendum for independence.
October 1945, Outer Mongolia organized a referendum, declared independence.
January 1946, the KMT Supreme council of National Defence 国防最高委员会official recognition of Outer Mongolia independent.
October 3, 1949, the Nationalist government severed diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, repealed, "Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance" does not recognize Outer Mongolia declared independence.
we can see, Chiang Kai-shek and KMT government should responsible for Outer Mongolia independent. first, Chiang and KMT recognition of Outer Mongolia independent, after they failed in mailand China, they don't recognize Outer Mongolia independence.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

montyp165

Junior Member
At the very least it is a useful point from which to improve the Chinese geopolitical position, and the Russian's shouldn't be much of an issue in this regard either.
 

Spartan95

Junior Member
I think you misinterpreted me, what i meant was Shanghai was undefendable, but Nanjing was. How history unfold was that the KMT had no significant resistance left in Nanjing after committing most of their strength in Shanghai.

In my opinion, a fighting retreat from Shanghai to Nanking with off foot localized rads will be a better choice than to sacrifice the German trained divisions in a Sixth army Stalingrad type destruction.

Which would also achieve the national resistance image and in short, a safer gamble

How is Nanjing defensible when Shanghai isn't? Both are about fighting in urban cities and holding up the Japanese forces in Shanghai has its advantages since it is very much a beachfront for the Japanese.

Between Shanghai and Nanjing, there really isn't much of a terrain advantage for the defender other than the distance. And Nationalist China didn't have the means to harass the stretched Japanese logistics line from Shanghai to Nanjing. Choosing to give up Shanghai to defend Nanjing risks the collapse of morale amongst the troops as well as the population. It also gives the Japanese troops the time to build up and concentrate their troops on the attack in Nanjing.

To be sure, both options (defending Shanghai vs defending Nanjing) have it risks and benefits. But I don't think the advantages of giving up Shanghai to concentrate on the defence of Nanjing is worth the risk.

As for the idea of a fighting retreat, it is very difficult to carry out. A fighting retreat can easily turn into a rout, as happened historically due to the rapid Japanese advance. There is also a need to have proper defensive positions prepared in advance. This is a very manpower intensive endeavour that can come to naught when the enemy chooses to bypass the position by taking another route.
 

Lezt

Junior Member
How is Nanjing defensible when Shanghai isn't? Both are about fighting in urban cities and holding up the Japanese forces in Shanghai has its advantages since it is very much a beachfront for the Japanese.

Between Shanghai and Nanjing, there really isn't much of a terrain advantage for the defender other than the distance. And Nationalist China didn't have the means to harass the stretched Japanese logistics line from Shanghai to Nanjing. Choosing to give up Shanghai to defend Nanjing risks the collapse of morale amongst the troops as well as the population. It also gives the Japanese troops the time to build up and concentrate their troops on the attack in Nanjing.

To be sure, both options (defending Shanghai vs defending Nanjing) have it risks and benefits. But I don't think the advantages of giving up Shanghai to concentrate on the defence of Nanjing is worth the risk.

As for the idea of a fighting retreat, it is very difficult to carry out. A fighting retreat can easily turn into a rout, as happened historically due to the rapid Japanese advance. There is also a need to have proper defensive positions prepared in advance. This is a very manpower intensive endeavour that can come to naught when the enemy chooses to bypass the position by taking another route.

Well, it is hard to say, nanking is 100 km inland, it means any carrier aircraft inbound will be easier to detected, loitering time of combat aircraft is less, navel asset can only assault nanking from one side instead of 2 sides for shanghai (as the japanese have exploited with their marines).

The approaches to nanking also is much wider than shanghai, partisan will have more opportunity to attack, Japan will have to move more distance in hostile territory which means more fuel used in locomotion which might translate to weaker supply to front line japanese troops.

would all these make a difference? i do not know as these are all subjective. who knows? would the nanking city wall help the defender? atleast you force the japanese to bring their heavy artillery.

Why would the national morale fall more with shanghai than nanking? historically, it had always been the capital which held more sway than a major commerce port city. I would reason the fall of nanking is a larger morale breaker than shanghai - most chinese dynasties fell with the capitol city, same is true for most European kingdoms and Arabic states.

Which looks worse internationally? a country which could not defend her own capitol or a country which could not defend her largest port city?

a fighting retreat is not easy to execute, Mao did an excellent example during the long march. The Japanese are not that motorized as well and that the Chinese are mainly light infantry again with high mobility. Sure the Japanese have shown they were able to bypass strong points in the pacific campaign, but in doing so they have also exposed their flanks and over extend their supply lines. So it is definitely not an end it all maneuver.

I don't think man power is an issue for china, and fighting retreats do not require huge amounts of men power. Rommel had many fighting retreats with inferior number of tanks and infantry while under enemy air superiority. If the cream of the German trained national army was in shanghai, can we expect a fraction of the German infantry ability from them?
 

delft

Brigadier
Between Shanghai and Nanking there are several waterways, that can be used to delay the advance of the Japanese. But how useful was that, when they could sail up the river? How did they approached Nanking?
 

Spartan95

Junior Member
Well, it is hard to say, nanking is 100 km inland, it means any carrier aircraft inbound will be easier to detected, loitering time of combat aircraft is less, navel asset can only assault nanking from one side instead of 2 sides for shanghai (as the japanese have exploited with their marines).

The approaches to nanking also is much wider than shanghai, partisan will have more opportunity to attack, Japan will have to move more distance in hostile territory which means more fuel used in locomotion which might translate to weaker supply to front line japanese troops.

would all these make a difference? i do not know as these are all subjective. who knows? would the nanking city wall help the defender? atleast you force the japanese to bring their heavy artillery.

Why would the national morale fall more with shanghai than nanking? historically, it had always been the capital which held more sway than a major commerce port city. I would reason the fall of nanking is a larger morale breaker than shanghai - most chinese dynasties fell with the capitol city, same is true for most European kingdoms and Arabic states.

Which looks worse internationally? a country which could not defend her own capitol or a country which could not defend her largest port city?

a fighting retreat is not easy to execute, Mao did an excellent example during the long march. The Japanese are not that motorized as well and that the Chinese are mainly light infantry again with high mobility. Sure the Japanese have shown they were able to bypass strong points in the pacific campaign, but in doing so they have also exposed their flanks and over extend their supply lines. So it is definitely not an end it all maneuver.

I don't think man power is an issue for china, and fighting retreats do not require huge amounts of men power. Rommel had many fighting retreats with inferior number of tanks and infantry while under enemy air superiority. If the cream of the German trained national army was in shanghai, can we expect a fraction of the German infantry ability from them?

On hindsight, I realised that fighting in Shanghai was more advantageous for Nationalist China as opposed to fighting in Nanjing. And here are the reasons why:

1. Shanghai was the equivalent of a beach-head for the Imperial Japanese military. Hence fighting in Shanghai meant that the Japanese were being engaged at the beachhead with hardly any reserve area away from the fighting from which they can rotate troops from.

2. Fighting in an urban city provided a lot of cover from air attacks. This negated to some extent the Japanese superiority in the air.

3. The Japanese advantage in armour is also somewhat negated in urban fighting.

4. The Japanese advantage in artillery is also somewhat negated in a city since the buildings provide protection.

5. In urban fighting, it comes down to familiarity with the area and close range fighting. And Nationalist China is at parity or a slight advantage in these areas.

In contrast, a fighting retreat to Nanjing means exposing the better trained troops to ceaseless air attacks by land-based bombers, armour and artillery. It also allows the Japanese military to field their heavier equipment (i.e., armour and artillery) in open terrain, which is what they have been doing in Manchuria for years. It also leaves Nanjing open to land-based artillery attacks as the Japanese forces draw nearer. I'd say that's a rather bleak situation even if the fighting retreat was successfully conducted.

As for the issue of a lengthening supply chain for the Japanese, the distance between Shanghai and Nanjing isn't too much of an issue as the Yangtze river provided a waterway with which replenishment can be carried out with minimal interference.

@delft
The Japanese approached Nanjing from the south, southeast and east of the city, which is essentially land route. Nanjing's west and north lies the Yangtze river, a natural defensive barrier that became a trap for the people in the besieged city.
 

delft

Brigadier
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.
 
Top