Chinese participation in WWII

**BasileII** · August 17, 2009, 11:28 AM

I really like Axis and Allies, the boardgame. In the anniversary edition, they created some chinese faction, under the control of the USA player. Somebody decided to create some kind of a mod buffing the chinese and giving them a real life (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/...topic=13508.30)

Some people are arguing that it would stop the Japanese from pushing through China to Moscow (which usually happen it this game. The Japanese are just overated). Some others say that this is precisely what happened in real life.

We usually hear that the Chinese had a pathetic army, numerous but unable to fight, that the country was in civil war at the time and that most of modern material was held by Nationalist to fight the Communists. The official occidental version seems to be that if the Japanese didn't destroy all of China, it is only because of USA's help, and China's vastness.

As it seems like the usual crap about Chinese, I was wondering if it was true.

**Farnan** · August 17, 2009, 12:03 PM

Hard to say. Japan without US intervention could not likely take all of China. They lacked the troops and Mao's guerrilla warfare techniques were too effective. However it is unlikely the Chinese could force Japan out of the territories they already took.

**hellheaven1987** · August 17, 2009, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Farnan

Hard to say. Japan without US intervention could not likely take all of China. They lacked the troops and Mao's guerrilla warfare techniques were too effective. However it is unlikely the Chinese could force Japan out of the territories they already took.

Depends; Mao's gureilla warfare hardly caused much harm on Japanese and pretty much suppressed after 1943 by puppets government, not to mention Communist fought Nationalist more than Japanese most time.

Nationalist China, due to nonexist logistic and poor industry capacity, actually could not fight any longer after 1944 - it was at that point useful US aid finally reached China theatre, and Nationalist was able to counter-attack Japanese in 1945.

Originally Posted by bushbush

and to be fair, china at the time did have a pretty

army. It was not unified and the central governemnt was literally central as it controlled only the central area of what it claimed as its jurisdiction (entire China). Not to mention the country was ravaged by warlord civil wars for many decades already and it was on the brink of bankrupcy. Japan invaded in a tough time.

Yes, not to mention import and export tax was all controlled by foreign power...

Anyway, Nationalist China did not go bankrupt only thanks to US's aid - that one billion US dollars did save our ass.

**bushbush** · August 17, 2009, 12:13 PM

it was a stalemate. Japanese was not really interested in giong deep into central and western part of China though, as they already occupied the richest part and most developed parts of China at the time, manchuria, beijing, shanghai and southern coast...going west would be underdeveloped agricultural settlements, mountain villages and etc, essentially invading for nothing.

and to be fair, china at the time did have a pretty

army. It was not unified and the central governemnt was literally central as it controlled only the central area of what it claimed as its jurisdiction (entire China). Not to mention the country was ravaged by warlord civil wars for many decades already and it was on the brink of bankrupcy. Japan invaded in a tough time.

**Chukada1** · August 17, 2009, 03:33 PM

Still, there are many battles between Chinese and Japanese forces. 24 Major Engagements are recorded, all numbering more then 100 000 soldiers on both sides. What saved China (as Bushbush said - but it wasn't all worthless, Changsha for example held enormous rice fields, and Chongqing, the new Industrial Capital. If the Japanese had taken Chongqing, there would have been no where to go, and the Nationalists would be reduced into a guerilla army.) but also the large front where the Japanese simply couldn't gain any more ground, due to guerilla actions behind the borders(communists), which needed valauble soldiers to deal with, and the Nationalist' 5 Million man army. The problem wasn't the quality of soldier (with the exception of the Warlord armies) because the Japanese fought extremely long and costly battles at Shanghai and were utterly destroyed at Changsha in 42', but the firepower ratio.

The Nationalist officers also made a habit to beat their soldiers, which was abolished in the PLA. But anyways, the Chinese didn't have the weapons to go on the offensive. Soldiers had a rifle, mabye American, mabye Japanese, mabye built in Chongqing, and grenades. Some soldiers as young as 13 were only equipped with grenades. Artillery was given to special army groups, and the dao sword was still in use by peasents, mostly communist guerillas, but that shows you the lack of weaponry available. The Chinese had no planes, except the Flying Tigers, and no tanks of any numerical percentage, and their navy didn't last very long.

But the idea that the Japanese historically walked over China is wrong. The war began in the summer of 37', and by December, the Japanese had captured the Northern China plain, Beijing, Kaifeng, Jinan, Yantai, the yellow river, Xuzhou, Heifei, Shanghai, Nanking, and the rest of the coast. In the following years they made minimal gains in the South, capturing Canton, but the inland territory was conscricted to only railroads, rivers and cities. After the initial complete success of 37', the Japanese found themselves stuck in a war which would bog down 3, 200 000 of their best soldiers, and after Nanking, found themselves no longer tollerated as an occupying force. Its interesting to note that war began in 1937, and ended in 1945 with almost the exact same control on both sides. (With the exception of Vietnam, and Burma) Which was due to the Chinese inability to go on the offensive, and actually fight a war of mobility, but to say it was easy for the Japanese is absurd.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgur...3D100%26um%3D1

**hellheaven1987** · August 17, 2009, 07:05 PM

The problems were:

1. Japanese unplanned and unwilling to go deeper; IJA's original plan was to take Beiping and surrounding area, gained rights and set up a puppet faction there. The battle around Nanjing and Shanghai was completely out of expected from IJA, and a full war in China was only planned after 1944.

2. On the other hand, Nationalist China also had their own problems; the main problem was lacked of industry capacity. Sure, there was increase of industry around Chendu and Choqing, but that was far not enough. The campaign in 1937-38 also screwed Central Army so badly that they would never recovered until WWII ended. The other troops were simply meat shield, not much to say about them.

3. The effectiveness of Communist China force was also quite questionable; apartly, those gureilla force hardly did any damage on Japanese, and pretty much suppressed by puppet government after 1943. The Communist force also prefered to fight Nationalist gureilla force instead Japanese (in fact, Communist force was fighting Nationalist gureilla force ever since 1939, before Chiang decided to kick out Communist from National Front in 1941).

Basically, the main problem was heavily due to Japanese unplanning to go deep into China; Nationalist China could hardly stop a major engagement (as Operation Ichigo shows) and could not afford a war of attrition (X force could only regain full strength after two years - pretty much suggests why Chinese force was so ineffective).

**hellheaven1987** · August 17, 2009, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Chukada1

Changsha for example held enormous rice fields, and Chongqing, the new Industrial Capital.

It was rather questionable; clearly, Japanese's intention for the two Changsha campaign was to cut off all rice and got away as soon as possible, which they did.

When Japanese did want to take Changsha, they did it quick and swiftly (third battle).

Originally Posted by Chukada1

but also the large front where the Japanese simply couldn't gain any more ground, due to guerilla actions behind the borders(communists), which needed valauble soldiers to deal with, and the Nationalist' 5 Million man army.

Paper strength was around 300 divisions with 3 millions men, actually strength was probably far lower than that due to corruption.

Originally Posted by Chukada1

The problem wasn't the quality of soldier (with the exception of the Warlord armies) because the Japanese fought extremely long and costly battles at Shanghai and were utterly destroyed at Changsha in 42', but the firepower ratio.

No, the quality of Chinese soldiers was very bad, due to non-exist logistic. Most troopers could hardly pass medical exams and those who could were sent to "special units" to train as shock troops.

The firepower ratio also very questionable; for example, a Chinese military report in 1941 stated there were only one millions rifles - consider three millions men on field it means only one-third of men got something to shoot while the two-third of troops fought in bare hand. Not to mention all units heavily lacking MG and artillery support. Hence, in turn of fire ratio, Japanese actually had advantage.

And I don't need to mention the same report suggests each soldier only had four routes of ammo.

Originally Posted by Chukada1

The Nationalist officers also made a habit to beat their soldiers, which was abolished in the PLA. But anyways, the Chinese didn't have the weapons to go on the offensive. Soldiers had a rifle, mabye American, mabye Japanese, mabye built in Chongqing, and grenades. Some soldiers as young as 13 were only equipped with grenades. Artillery was given to special army groups, and the dao sword was still in use by peasents, mostly communist guerillas, but that shows you the lack of weaponry available. The Chinese had no planes, except the Flying Tigers, and no tanks of any numerical percentage, and their navy didn't last very long.

Again, a lot of misconcepts:

1. Whether Nationalist officers had the habit to beat their soldiers is questionalbe (never heard that). Again, Nationalist here only applies on Central Army, wich only roughly occupy 25% of whole Chinese force.

2. American equipments would not arrive until 1945, which able the Chinese force to counter-attack Japanese (and retake some territories).

3. Dao was first used by Shanxi troops as secondary weapon, and I never read before Communist used that.

4. Chinese plan was to "hold as much as they could, until American came"; besides that, Chinese really had no much choice.

**pannonian** · August 18, 2009, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

The firepower ratio also very questionable; for example, a Chinese military report in 1941 stated there were only one millions rifles - consider three millions men on field it means only one-third of men got something to shoot while the two-third of troops fought in bare hand. Not to mention all units heavily lacking MG and artillery support. Hence, in turn of fire ratio, Japanese actually had advantage.

When Sun Liren served with the British, he was astonished by the amount of artillery that was now available for his use. I found an article somewhere, I can't remember where, which told of his giggling with glee as he watched the 25 pounders fire in practice. He probably enjoyed having armour under his command as well.

**hellheaven1987** · August 18, 2009, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by pannonian

When Sun Liren served with the British, he was astonished by the amount of artillery that was now available for his use. I found an article somewhere, I can't remember where, which told of his giggling with glee as he watched the 25 pounders fire in practice. He probably enjoyed having armour under his command as well.

Ya, consider the Chinese Expedition Force was the best in Chinese force, it is rather not hard to imagine how badly equiped the troops in mainland.

By the way, Sun Liren was a graduate of VMI (Virginia Military Institue); he was also a graduate from Purdue University, which I am currently attending (

).

**Godless Pickle** · August 17, 2009, 07:16 PM

China, for the most part, did have a crappy army, until the Russians invaded in the later years of WW2, and after adopting Communism, overran the Japanese defensives (and started the roots of the Korean War).

**Ridiculas** · August 18, 2009, 04:58 AM

Sun was a tragic figure though, had he been given a full go the outcome of the Civil war might have been different. he was unfortunately a guy too far ahead of his time.

**hellheaven1987** · August 18, 2009, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Ridiculas

Sun was a tragic figure though, had he been given a full go the outcome of the Civil war might have been different. he was unfortunately a guy too far ahead of his time.

Na, the fact was that there was no resource for him to "full go" until 1950s - by that time Nationalist was lost the war.

The only way Nationalist could do was not starting the war, but considered Postdam Conference already stated Manchuria could only transfer to Nationalist China's hand the action itself was rather legal... Either way, I hardly able to think a way Chiang could do after WWII... Especially his power was actually weaker due to many powerful warlords occupied the government seats.

**BasileII** · August 18, 2009, 10:42 AM

Thank you all. This was exactly what I was asking for.

**hellheaven1987** · August 18, 2009, 07:55 PM

Second Sino-Japanese War is probably the least study WWII campaign; up to now, I still unable to find a satified source to provide a detailed account of whole war. Perhaps, the reason is largely because mass amount of Chinese sources are either biased or unable to reach (it is notabal that a lot of Nationalist sources are still not publized; for example, Chiang's dairy is still classified as national secret today), hence we can only rely on Japanese source, which was publized after WWII (due to the necessary of war crime trail).