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

vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
rhino123 said:
The main reason China did not join the Axis (in my opinion) was because Chiang had always viewed himself and China as allies to the US. And US was not in the Axis.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree on this one. Chiang was educated in Japan's military school and served in the Japanese emperial army. So I think his feelings for Japan was more complex than most. That is partly why he didn't fight back when Japan attacked Manchuria. Deep down, he still didn't want to believe Japan would invade whole China. Also at the time, China and Nazi Germany had good relationship, like everyone else not involved in the war (Like the US). If you look at photos of Naitonalist troops during early stages of the war, you'll see clear German-style uniforms (the helmet being the most obvious) as well as German weapons. Many high level commanders in the Nationalist army were either Japan-trained or Germany-trained. So at the time, China was definitely closer to Axis than to the Allies.

I think the main reason China did not join the Axis was that Japan actually invaded China. This was somewhat a dilema since before the war, many Chinese viewed Japan in a very positive light because of its advanced technology and political system. Many popular political phrases used by Chinese Nationalists and CCP at the time and even nowadays are direct translation from Japanese (like "people or renmin"; "democracy or minzhu"; "republic or gonghe", etc). At the time, many Chinese saw Japan as the future for China. This was why many went to Japan to get education. It was a shock when Japan attacked Manchuria. I think Chiang was among these people. That forced Chiang to make a decision: whether to surrender and align himself with Japan and Germany or go to the other side. Of course, surrender to an invador is political suicide. So he had no choice but to fight back. I think that was the time when Chiang decided that he had to align with the US.
 
Last edited:
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
vesicles said:
I have to disagree on this one. Chiang was educated in Japan's military school and served in the Japanese emperial army. So I think his feelings for Japan was more complex than most. That is partly why he didn't fight back when Japan attacked Manchuria. Deep down, he still didn't want to believe Japan would invade whole China. Also at the time, China and Nazi Germany had good relationship, like everyone else not involved in the war (Like the US). If you look at photos of Naitonalist troops during early stages of the war, you'll see clear German-style uniforms (the helmet being the most obvious) as well as German weapons. Many high level commanders in the Nationalist army were either Japan-trained or Germany-trained. So at the time, China was definitely closer to Axis than to the Allies.

I think the main reason China did not join the Axis was that Japan actually invaded China. This was somewhat a dilema since before the war, many Chinese viewed Japan in a very positive light because of its advanced technology and political system. Many popular political phrases used by Chinese Nationalists and CCP at the time and even nowadays are direct translation from Japanese (like "people or renmin"; "democracy or minzhu"; "republic or gonghe", etc). At the time, many Chinese saw Japan as the future for China. This was why many went to Japan to get education. It was a shock when Japan attacked Manchuria. I think Chiang was among these people. That forced Chiang to make a decision: whether to surrender and align himself with Japan and Germany or go to the other side. Of course, surrender to an invador is political suicide. So he had no choice but to fight back. I think that was the time when Chiang decided that he had to align with the US.
Click to expand...

Agreed with you 100%. The only thing that I am pretty surprised was the fact that China would declared war on Germany, Italy and Japan (Japan, I understand, but Germany and Italy?). To aligned to US and the allies doesn't necessary mean to declare war on Germany, Italy and Japan.

Plus at that time, China was pretty weak, with next to no offensive capability. They required massive help from US.

I was wondering, if Japan had not attack Hawaii - Pearl Harbour and US had not officially entered the war, would China still declare war on these three powers?
 
B

bobcou

New Member
Registered Member
Lezt said:
Bobcou, You have to assume that having social safety nets are better than not having them to make your statement. And, by that statement, you are assuming that it is a natural progression to having a European/Canadian social safety net from not having one.

This is what I dispute, because there are inherent issues with social security nets such as much higher tax, increase in fraud, increase bureaucracy and increases basic necessity costs - it is not necessarily a good thing to have.

And thus, if you understood what I said, you will also find that I am focusing on the society not on the government.

Hungry people do riot, so does any disgruntled civilians like those students in the UK right now. Dissatisfied people are not happy and it is true anywhere, and this is no failure of the Chinese government; people will riot for any reason.

Viewing the change of dynasty as mainly a peasant revolt is naive, The Xia was overthrown by the Shang by rebel nobility, Shang was defeated by Zhou which is not "chinese", Zhou inturn was destroyed by internal nobles. Qin was defeated by Chu rebels whom subsequently was subdued by the han rebels, Where Jin the decendents of the defeated Wei of the seven kingdom period disposed of the Han.

I think you get the picture, it is not peasant revolts, but rebel mobilities and the middle class which caused the majority of dynastic failure.

The Ming is an interesting story, the rebels did capture the imperial city finding the coffers empty, and the Ming relief army did arrive to retake the city, but so did the Manchus. Depending your perspective on the Manchus being decedents of the previous Jin, the Ming relief army sided with the Manchus.

Had the Manchus not be there, or the eight nation alliance, Chinese history would have been much different. But in all these cases, it is the nobility/middle class/educated whom organized, funded and perpetuated the military, economics and systems to replace the government. The peasant had traditionally been only a tool.

Back to the GDP, you can call China's fake, but so is everybody else.

How China contributed to WW2? I think it is more important in noting how China did not join the Axis, being a large supplier of rare earth metals to Germany and China's natural resource would have made the Axis much stronger.

What China did, in defiant of Tojo when he said that to conquer the world, first you need to conquer China, to conquer China, you need to first conquer Manchuria; is to hold the Japanese war machine at bay.
Click to expand...

I agree that social security safety nets aren't 100% foolproof and have their cons, but it is something. Sure this mainly started during WW2 for war funds, but its something to the individual (Regardless of the further money needed to maintain the program). Whether in desperate times it will show up, that's a what-if question. But its there currently, and in the present, you will get the benefit if you are on the lower end. In China there is none, not even any debate. Its like saying I'm starving, and you say your bread isn't that good either.

I think one factor here that is underestimated is China's population. China has 1.3 billion people while the US has 300 million. 10,000 with shovels and pickaxes may sound like a big number, its not in China, but they carry the same strength. 10,000 in China's demographic is 0.0007%. Get my drift? This is what the government is fearful of, and for very good reasons. Its the potential and the unknown. (Which is why I mentioned this safety net in the first place due to all the migrant workers)

I saw the riots on BBC (not a good source, but its all I got and CNN), it was great. Makes me wish fellow Canadians would advocate more, we just complain.

There were a few stories that I remember that Chang had a volunteer army or individual Chinese people who were in the Wehrmacht fighting Tito in Yugoslavia in the mountains. Don't know if that was legit or not.
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
bobcou said:
I agree that social security safety nets aren't 100% foolproof and have their cons, but it is something. Sure this mainly started during WW2 for war funds, but its something to the individual (Regardless of the further money needed to maintain the program). Whether in desperate times it will show up, that's a what-if question. But its there currently, and in the present, you will get the benefit if you are on the lower end. In China there is none, not even any debate. Its like saying I'm starving, and you say your bread isn't that good either.

I think one factor here that is underestimated is China's population. China has 1.3 billion people while the US has 300 million. 10,000 with shovels and pickaxes may sound like a big number, its not in China, but they carry the same strength. 10,000 in China's demographic is 0.0007%. Get my drift? This is what the government is fearful of, and for very good reasons. Its the potential and the unknown. (Which is why I mentioned this safety net in the first place due to all the migrant workers)

I saw the riots on BBC (not a good source, but its all I got and CNN), it was great. Makes me wish fellow Canadians would advocate more, we just complain.

There were a few stories that I remember that Chang had a volunteer army or individual Chinese people who were in the Wehrmacht fighting Tito in Yugoslavia in the mountains. Don't know if that was legit or not.
Click to expand...

First off. Can we get back to topic... and if you want to discuss welfare system in China, start another thread. Stop hijacking this otherwise fine thread and complained about what China is lacking and china is doomed in forseeable future because of the lacking of welfare for the people.
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Other than fighting in China mainland, I think I read somewhere that Chiang also sent his most elite units to Mymmar. I think this would also count a great war contribution.
 
L

Lezt

Junior Member
Watching of era newsreels, it seems like the Chinese soldier was well regarded in importance as the British, Russian and American soldier. Which leads me to think the downplay happened after the war like how it happened to the British.
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
The downplay happened because CCP took control of the govn't. The fact that China became one of the five permanent members on the security council of the United Nation suggests that at the time immediately after the war, China was seen as extremely important, as important as the US and UK and the Soviets. That was when Chiang was in power. So clearly the downplay of China's contribution happened after the CCP won the civil war and China became an enemy.

Another reason might be that the 20th century was pretty much a Western-centered time. So the Eastern hemisphere is generally ignored. If Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor and the US did not fight in the Pacific, that part of the war might not be mentioned at all. Let's face it, even with the US fighting a brutal war with the Japanese in the Pacific, the Pacific theater is generally less known than the European theater. In terms of scale of things, the biggest naval battles and air battles were all fought in the Pacific. And the US suffered the largest casualties in the Pacific. But whenever we think about WWII, what's the first thing that comes to mind? D-day! Also, the Korean War is generally considered as a forgotten war although the scale of fighting was equivalent to most of the what happened in Europe in WWII and the Allied forces suffered heavy casualties and fought almost as long as the WWII (the US entered WWII in 1942 --> 3 years of fighting; In Korean War was 1950-1953, also 3 years).

Since the strategically, the Atlantic has been the focus of the world in the 20th century, it's only natural things happening elsewhere get diluted...
 
Last edited:
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
I think the main reason for the downplay was simply that the West do not see the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 as part of the WWII. This is because at that time, the West are not at war and Germany had not launched any offensive campaign. Plus I don't think Axis are being formed in that era.

It just looked like war between two countries and not an actual World War. Only after the formation of the Axis and the all out invasion by Germany, Italy and Japan that the war turned global and that was when the war in China (from that period onward) was consider part of WWII.

During that period of time, the Chinese are pretty weak and struggling in defence for their homeland and so not extending their battle outward and that the west are pretty much too self involved too that they do not really care what is happening in the East.

Acknowledgement for the Eastern theatre came pretty late when the Japanese began their invasion south ward and eating into South East Asia which at that time was pretty much Western powers' colonised places. That is when the West began to feel the pinch.

Thus in some extend, it was not really downplay of the importance of the Chinese involvement, but due to general ignorance of what is happening in china. And to the west, China at that time was merely fighting their own war against Japanese invaders and was so weak that required help from US and the rest of the Western forces thus there really is no or little significant involvement by the Chinese (be it KMT or CCP) to the cause of the war.

Also the reason for China to take up seating in the permanent security council might be because of the land mass of the country, her huge population and the west viewing China as a strategic place which they could exploit to contain Japan and Soviet.
 
W

ww2buff

Just Hatched
Registered Member
The reason Chinese educated people believe the CCP's version of the Nationalists being blundering fools who stood by and watched Japan rape China....it glaringly obvious. Revisionist history, anyone?

Censorship in China is not an unknown fact people. There are plenty of political prisoners rotting away in communist holding cells. Some great cultural revolution....

China is obvious doing well economically....I believe it would have been further ahead of itself if not for the bumbling fool Mao...who shot the Chinese in there own foot so to speak.

The Chinese fought valiantly in WW2...most of the offensive came from the Nationalists.



Now all of the sudden the West wants to contain China so -- oops -- China disappears off the list of major allied powers.
Click to expand...
??? This is a juvenile thought at best. American attitudes of the second sino-jap. war were in favor of the Chinese...and included many different economic blockades, and the financing of the FAMOUS American Volunteer Group.

American skepticism of China has plenty to do with China's positioning after the war. Mass censorship, revisionist history, and arms/support to North Korea hasn't helped relations.

A interesting fact about the Chinese resistance revolves around the Chinese Muslim community, who were battle hardened from fighting the soviets, and gave the japs quite a beating.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
ww2buff said:
The reason Chinese educated people believe the CCP's version of the Nationalists being blundering fools who stood by and watched Japan rape China....it glaringly obvious. Revisionist history, anyone?

Censorship in China is not an unknown fact people. There are plenty of political prisoners rotting away in communist holding cells. Some great cultural revolution....

China is obvious doing well economically....I believe it would have been further ahead of itself if not for the bumbling fool Mao...who shot the Chinese in there own foot so to speak.

The Chinese fought valiantly in WW2...most of the offensive came from the Nationalists.

??? This is a juvenile thought at best. American attitudes of the second sino-jap. war were in favor of the Chinese...and included many different economic blockades, and the financing of the FAMOUS American Volunteer Group.

American skepticism of China has plenty to do with China's positioning after the war. Mass censorship, revisionist history, and arms/support to North Korea hasn't helped relations.

A interesting fact about the Chinese resistance revolves around the Chinese Muslim community, who were battle hardened from fighting the soviets, and gave the japs quite a beating.
Click to expand...

You might want to check up on your facts.

Actual KMT resistance against the Japanese happened only after Chiang was abducted and forced to declare a truce with the CCP and concentrate on fighting the Japanese. Even then, the KMT did not throw in their best forces until Shanghai was threatened. In case you didn't know, Shanghai was the source of Chiang's wealth.

In fact, one could argue that without Air and Naval support, Shanghai was a very poor place to mount a concentrated defense. The Japanese knew that, which was why they boasted that they would take Shanghai in 3 days, and China in 3 months.

The fact that the siege of Shanghai lasted 3 months is not only a testament to the valor of the Chinese soldiers, but also because Chiang threw in his best and most elite forces into that battle. What it ISN'T, however, is a sign of good strategy.

While in the early years of PRC, the CCP tended to omit KMT accomplishments in the anti-Japan war, their tales of KMT corruption, persecution of CCP and of Chiang's reluctance to fight the Japanese were all true.

As for calling Mao a fool... you are showing your ignorance of China here. While the Cultural Revolution was certainly a great tragedy, China's economic achievement today would not have been possible without that generation of Cultural Revolution youths who were forced to relocate to rural areas and worked for years with the poorest peasants. People of my parents' generation, those born in the 50's, have an unmatched work ethic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top