What the hell happened ? why weren't all the communists killed early in the war, and later in the war why did a american trained and backed army with the latest weapons loose ? What am i missing ?
>also general chinese civil war thread
>>409350
no input guise ?
>why did a american trained and backed army with the latest weapons loose ?
Because American trained armies with the latest weapons have a shitty track record, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Also because when the Japs invaded they were effectively fighting a two front war against both commies and Japs.
>>409350
>why weren't all the communists killed early in the war
They were allies VS. the warlords initially, as KMT and CCP were buttbuddies in the fight against the Northern Generals.
When that was over, the KMT tried to actually Order 66 the CCP, but the nationalists didn't get everyone. CCP then staged a fighting withdrawal now known as the Long March. Which consolidated the frontline between KMT and CCP
And then Japs had to ruin everything
>>409400
the communists and government had an alliance when the japs invaded ?
>>409400
>Because American trained armies with the latest weapons have a shitty track record, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Explains why Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines are communist hellholes then. Oh wait...
>>409408
weren't the Indonesians trained by the British ?
>>409413
Those were Malaysians. Either way, the normalfag countries of Southeast Asia ride in US Equipment and received US training as well and defeated/contained their communist uprisings.
Only South Vietnam failed in that regard.
>>409408
American training, equipment and backing still isn't any kind of guarantee, Cambodia had American arms and even American bombing runs to help them and still lost to the Khmer Rouge, then we can bring up Bolivia which again favours the argument that being American backed is good.
>>409406
And Kiev and Novaya Russia have had many effective ceasefires and both sides upheld.
>>409350
>why weren't all the communists killed early in the war
Because they kept escaping from Nationalist controlled regions
>and later in the war why did a american trained and backed army with the latest weapons loose ?
Almost exactly the same reason why South Vietnam lost to the north.
the kuomintang were exhausted having fought the japanese almost single handedly for 8 years, the soviets handed manchuria and japanese materiel to Mao
>>409420
>Only South Vietnam failed in that regard.
And China.
Cough cough
>>409403
70% of Chinese history is basically "And then the Mongols/Japs/Turks/Tibetans/Manchus fucked everything up"
>>409400
this.
I don't know why third world countries get such a hard-on for american military advisors.
All the gulf regimes have the latest and greatest technology and training, but they can't even wreck a tribe of cave Shiites.
>>409408
>being good at repression means being good at war
Syria was a country good at repression, but they still can't win a war.
>>409467
>hire Serb military adviser
>enemy casualty rates skyrockets to 300%
>>409459
>70%
More like less than half.
>>409454
>the soviets handed manchuria and japanese materiel to Mao
See, this is what makes the Communist Victory in China more weird: the Soviets didn't do shit but lip service to the CCP.
Stalin didn't want a China united under Communism, but one split between Gommies and Nationalists. Or a weak Commie China at least. But not one united under Communism.
I had honestly expected this to be brought up earlier or expected that everyone knew about it by default but then I remembered this isn't /k/.
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
Relevant since the discussion has moved on to why US backed Arabs still suck at war.
>>409479
soviets still got the job done.
This American trained army had zero morale compared to the PLA. Despite holding out during WWII like bitches, they'd developed very effective homegrown tactics that would later be put to use in Korea.
Basically, it's a case of a sub-par, poorly led and motivated foreign-trained army going up against one of the most brilliantly led guerilla armies in history.
I think China would've been better in the long run had the KMT won the war. Chiang Kai-Shek was a shitty asshole, but he probably would've reformed China the same way he did with Taiwan in real life. China would be a legitimate superpower.
Also, Nationalist victory would've also prevented Commie victory in my home country, Vietnam. Ho might even become a Nationalist revolutionary rather than a Communist one.
>>409948
Would it have prevented the creation of a North v South scenario?
>>409948
>Chiang Kai-Shek was a shitty asshole, but he probably would've reformed China the same way he did with Taiwan in real life. China would be a legitimate superpower.
Taiwan's reform happened with the removal of the Chiangs. Which was only possible due to the loss of prestige of that name for failing to retake China.
Chiang in control of China would mean he succeeded and his fascist shit would remain in control for far longer.
>>409425
This is pretty meme anon. Nearly all military support is good for defeating an immediate enemy, the constant in failure is not sending enough soldiers.
The failures, at least in american cases, are generally the civil policies of occupation, in spite if their heavy variance.
>>410251
shh
>>409350
commies better ?
>>409350
Because the KMT was an incompetent gang of shitstains, and never really developed into a modern state, actually controlling and administrating its territory.
It remained in that mid 20s warlord mindset, with the KMT demanding tribute in the form of supplies from various smaller warlords in return for protecting them.
They could beat the Communists in battle, but unless and until they could actually administrate the areas they "won", they were doomed to lose, as the communists would keep seeping back in and the endemic chaos would continue.
>>409350
>What the hell happened ?
The good guys won.
>>409948
>I think China would've been better in the long run had the KMT won the war.
You're forgetting that they had power and one of the reasons the people were so welcoming of the communists is because the communists are the only faction, whether imperialists or nationalists, that actually gave a fuck about them. Chiang's policies were garbage and all he wanted was to be de-facto Emperor.
>Also, Nationalist victory would've also prevented Commie victory in my home country, Vietnam. Ho might even become a Nationalist revolutionary rather than a Communist one.
>Ho
>Not a Communist and Nationalist
Fuck off em
>>409350
Because Chiang and his army were in methods and operations, a bunch of nignogs.
Wherever Mao's army went, they set up a modern, functioning state.
An incompetent, totalitarian state, but still a state.
Wherever Chiang's army went, they destroyed anything resembling government.
Chiangs army looted Nanking in 1945. The city he destroyed the elite of his army defending, and spent a year building up as an economic center, they pillaged like a pack of Huns.
On top of that, because he was a rapacious nigger, Chiang treated everyone beneath him like a rapacious nigger, and so on down the line, until the frontline troops were treated like beasts of burden or criminals who couldn't be trusted to make decisions or even have access to vital equipment.
The real question isn't why Chiang lost, it's what took him so fucking long.
>>409475
>>70%
>More like less than half.
Yea they were too busy fucking each other over(three kingdoms and what not) or being fucked by royalty who were 'divine'
>>409350
>why weren't all the communists killed early in the war
Because the most of the nationalists got killed fighting the japs.
>>412771
>good guys
>>409350
Read pic related, and it should shed a lot of light, about what happened behind the scenes as to why the nationalist lost.
>>413149
Don't. This book does not even work as a hitpiece.
>>409475
Not true Stalin was sending funds regulatory to them through the Comintern including materials to fight the Chinese nationalist. When he was able to capture Manchuria he was finally able to send huge stockpiles of weapons in, including giving formal training the CCP troops for the two months of cease fire they had with the nationalist, because of the US who threatened the nationalist if they didn't.
>>409926
>most brilliantly led
Not true one bit.
>>412960
Indeed.
>>413161
What don't you like about it?
>>413167
I'm writing a paper about this so I may as well post about it.
The CCP tried to take East Turkestan/Xinjiang jn 1937 but got BTFO by Muslims. This was largely because they wanted to hook up directly with the USSR. 13 years later, following the Chinese united front against Japan, the Nationalist armies fled the region and the Communists took the region with little resistance.
>>410251
The consistent failure of U.S. Army advisors is also that American Soldiers have a hard time envisioning the problems of weaker states.
They advise you on how to have and use U.S. quality troops, but if you were able to field that, you probably wouldn't need the advise.
Soviet advisors seemed to have more success because the Soviets were more aware of what it's like to have a third world shithole, a politicized army, etc. etc.
>>413182
It never pulls anything together into a coherent point.
It never provides a clear insight into Mao's character, because I don't think the author really cares about Mao's character. In fact, 90% of the time, Mao is just an emblem for the PRC or the CCP, and not really a person living in these events.
The other 10% is just bringing up lurid biographical details without putting them together in any context.
It's pretty confusing and bewildering if you don't have familiarity with the period, as it usually follows a format of introducing key events, then explaining why Mao's part in them was secretly shittier than is imagined, and then maybe offhandedly mentioning what they actually were about.
It's just a pile of complaints, that doesn't reach any farther.
>>409350
>why weren't all the communists killed early in the war
Because most of China was still nearly medieval, without rails or paved roads. It was stupidly easy for commies to retreat into inland China and regroup.
And then Japan attacked China and the communists had basically a decade to chill and gather their strength.
Japs happened
>>410076
Chiang Ching-kuo is good though
>>410076
>fascism
>not the redpill China needed
>implying a fascist China allied with NATO wouldn't be like Japan on steroids today and have caused the USSR to collapse far earlier.
Or the cold war turning hot I guess.
>>413177
you are indeed delusional if you think they were "good guys"
>>415333
>DUDE
>BRO
>LIKE
>MAO
>AYYY
Pic related. The good guys. Mao isn't the only Communist leader in China.
>>413149
Bad book bro. It's a poorly written hitpiece that has been slammed academically.
http://www.amazon.com/Fanshen-Documentary-Revolution-Chinese-Village/dp/1583671757
This is the single best book into understanding why Mao was so popular and why he was beloved by the people during the civil war. Written by someone who was actually there at the time seeing everything unfold before his very eyes.
Mao later went on to go full retard, but what has been lost is how insanely worse everything was under the KMT to absolutely insane degree (the KMT annual death rate was double that of the 1960 GLF death rate for example)
>>415344
never said anything about mao you see you are jumping the gun. they were all bad even if there were a few good ones.
>>409471
During the Second Congo War, the Congolese government were sent Serbian mercenaries as covert help from the French government, but since the Serbs couldn't tell who was who, they just fucked around. At least, IIRC.
>>410058
Probably not, we may have seen a state similar to North Korea but with a higher probability of it collapsing before the 21st century.
>>415354
>William Howard Hinton (February 2, 1919 – May 15, 2004) was an American farmer and prolific writer. A Marxist, he is best known for his book Fanshen
>Hinton wrote and lectured extensively to explain the Maoist approach and, in later years, to criticize Deng Xiaoping's market reforms.
Yes, this sounds like the work of a completely objective person who would not have let ideological bias taint his works
>>416091
serbs honestly were pretty useless in that war
>>416243
That book was written when he was in China working for the US Government.
He became a Marxist because of the insane changes he saw in Chinese society.
Fun fact, towards the end of the war. Mao actually had a pretty positive view of Japan and thanked them for weakening the Nationalists.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Mao-thank-Japan-for-invading-China
>>415839
>they were all bad
Source on this please?
>>409420
British troops and advisors were involved in both the Malayan Emergency and the Indonesian Confrontation.
>>409400
>Korea
Except South Korea was trained and equipped by Americans into a major regional military power
>>409350
>What the hell happened ? why weren't all the communists killed early in the war, and later in the war why did a american trained and backed army with the latest weapons loose ? What am i missing ?
You're missing the role of trasonous American officials such as Owen Lattimore and Edgar Snow, who convinced the U.S. to withdraw support to Chiang kai-shek based on exaggerated reports of Nationalist corruption and Communist righteousness.
Check out the Amerasia affair and the Institute of Pacific Relations.
>>415354
Most academic historians are communist nowadays. Their opinions are worth less than dung.
People who think a Nationalist China would be worse than what happened under Maoism are deluded. There is not a single case of a country being divided over communism and anti-communism where the communist part fared better. Finland vs Russia, West Germany vs East Germany, South Korea vs North Korea, in all cases, even though anti-communist leaders were often corrupt, had link with mafia and fascists, they were better than communism.
Communism is a social and political cancer. Communist historians are a cancer and they should be physically removed from existance ASAP before their lies convince another generation to abandon reality in the name of a utopia which justify any abuse to come into power.
>>417737
SKs got shit on by NKs until Murca and friends stepped in and fought the war for them. Then China stepped in and fought the war for NK.
>>417771
>Joseph Stillwell, who saw the various Chinese factions firsthand and was definitely no communist, must have just been an idiot then for saying that the Chi-Coms could run China better than Peanut ever could!
>>417814
>Joseph Stillwell
>definitely no communist
There are controversies. About George Marshall too.
>>417814
>Joseph Stillwell
>not an obnoxious guy in the wrong place
Great general probably, but not one that was suited to the task in China.
>>417850
The probably wasn't really the generals, but the press and aides around them who convinced them that the communists were the good guys, see this, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Atkinson
>While in China, he visited Mao Tse-Tung in Yenan and was captivated by Mao, writing favorably on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) movement, and against the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-Shek, which he saw as reactionary and corrupt. After visiting Yenan, he wrote that the CCP political system was best described as an "agrarian or peasant democracy, or as a farm labor party."[2][3] Atkinson viewed the Chinese Communist Party as Communist in name only and more democratic than totalitarian; the Times effusively titled his article Yenan, a Chinese Wonderland City.
Remember, this was the same period of the Yenan Rectification Movement, when Mao executed tens of thousands of party members. These journalists handed China to communism, they should have been sentenced and shot and yet they went on as if nothing happened and nowadays no one remembers this shit, no one remembers that left-wing journalists from the New York Times are responsible for the death of tens of millions.
This shit is worst than Walter Duranty, Duranty lied about a famine. The lies of people like Brooks Atkinson, Edgar Snow, Agnes Smedley, John Service and Owen Lattimore caused a famine.
>>409350
Goumindag was corrupt as shit, had terrible leadership and had useless men who would just give up instead of trying to fight, even when they had superior numbers.
During WW2 there was a Japanese company who disarmed and captured about 20 000 Chinese alone in one go.
Then Mao and his red guys had the red march across the mountains in Tibed. They had some serious dedication, and would die for their cause.
>>417570
China and Japan are pretty close, economically speaking. Perversely enough, the CCP and LDP depend on each other. The CCP just whips up anti-Japanese sentiment to deflect from domestic issues.
>>418011
Quoted verbatim from communist propaganda. People like you would easily survive the Cultural Revolution.
>>417587
>not knowing how to use a search engine
>>412783
>the communists are the only faction, whether imperialists or nationalists, that actually gave a fuck about them.
I guess they cared so much that they killed 45 million chinese in four years.
>>412783
>Chiang's policies were garbage and all he wanted was to be de-facto Emperor.
yeah, because Mao didnt turn out to be exactly that to a fucking t
>>417587
Not him but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_Suppress_Counterrevolutionaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
>>418070
Not him, but my grandparents were in the KMT. The KMT's National Revolutionary Army was pretty awful when you compare it to the People's Liberation Army.
Then again, warfare was the only thing the Communists were good at.
>>418120
I would argue much of the failures of these policies came from misguided and poorly implemented policy and ignorance rather than spite.
Great Leap Forward in theory makes sense, industrialize rapidly and implement mass mobilization into agriculture and development of rural areas, too bad it was based largely on dumb folk ideas and sycophantic Nomenklature basically doomed the policy, the higher ups didn't even know the policy was a disaster because all the people at the bottom lied about their successes and it was only when Mao himself SNUCK out unannounced to his home village did he learn what a clusterfuck the policy was.
Cultural Revolution was both and attempt to massively socially reform china into a modern egalitarian country and stamp out the disastrous Nomenklature culture of the CCP that got insanely out of hand.
Again, the faults lie with the CCP and their shit policy, but much of these were done with good intentions (and bad information)
>>418180
>Great Leap Forward in theory makes sense, industrialize rapidly and implement mass mobilization into agriculture and development of rural areas
No it fucking doesnt. Forcing farmers to abandon their subsistence farming and make them produce completely useless iron in completely useless backyard domestic forges and count that as an attempt at industrialization is beyond retarded. Unfortunately its nothing surprising for centrally planned countries though.
>and it was only when Mao himself SNUCK out unannounced to his home village did he learn what a clusterfuck the policy was
lol what shitty Maoist propaganda have you been reading m8, there was plenty of people in the party that were trying to warn Mao about the abject failure that the Great Leap Forward was, but he just flat out ignored them.
Plus, Mao and some other members of the high cadres purposefully and conciously let people starve to death:
During a secret meeting in Shanghai in 1959, Mao demanded the state procurement of one-third of all grain to feed the cities and satisfy foreign clients, and noted that "If you don't go above a third, people won't rebel." He also stated at the same meeting:
"When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill."
>Cultural Revolution was both and attempt to massively socially reform china into a modern egalitarian country and stamp out the disastrous Nomenklature culture of the CCP that got insanely out of hand
Nah, it was just a power-grab attempt by Mao to completely silence his critics and to reinstate his cult-of-personality by supporting some small group of extremist teenagers and ramp their cause, putting all of China under hostage of a batshit insane movement that had no exact political purpose other than to institute complete anarchy
>>418268
shh
>>409408
the insurgency of the Philippines was mostly contained by the time US advisors were in the mix, both the npa and the hukbalahap were/are specific to only particular territories and land relations.
>>417436
>serbs
>useless at war
cry more buttmad croat
It might not be saying much, but they're the toughest lot in the balkans.
>>418080
>>418093
> All this hindsight
Jesus fuck. Disengage yourselves from what we know now and put yourself in the shoes of a Chinese peasant during this time period.
To you, yes, the Communists were the only people who gave a fuck about you. The warlords didn't and the KMT essentially treated you like vermin.
did it really go on for that long
how can a country and its population in constant war exist under those conditions
>>420030
acquire some reading comprehension bogdan
>>420030
pls leave
>>409948
>I think China would've been better in the long run had the KMT won the war. Chiang Kai-Shek was a shitty asshole, but he probably would've reformed China the same way he did with Taiwan in real life. China would be a legitimate superpower.
Ye, one of the reasons China would be stronger today is because the shitty polices of Mao would never been implemented.
