With due respect, I beg to differ. The Nanjing Massacre occurred partly because the Japanese wanted to vent their frustration after being bogged down in Shanghai. The Japanese army faced strong Chinese resistance and both sides suffered heavy casualties in the Battle of Shanghai, effectively destroying the possibility of conquering China in 3 months. They had thought that conquering China would be a breeze and it would take at most 3 months.
Yes, I have heard that reason for the Nanjing massacre. However, declaring Nanjing an open city might
have not brought about the destruction of the city. Giving Japan a reason that they might succeed again would bring their old ideas of victory in 3 months back. This would raise their confidence, and at a more opportune time, such as Wuhan, China could deliver the snapping blow to their moral in another Shanghai style battle.
You are right, defending the city is not going to raise morale but abandoning the capital at such an early stage of the war without a fight would be detrimental to the morale of the whole nation. The morale of the whole nation, and not just that of the soldiers, is all important at that time. It is this morale and the stubborn resistance of the Chinese race that enabled China to survive the initial difficult stage of the war without much foreign aid. Moreover, abandoning the capital without a fight would also add more ammunition to the communist propaganda of labelling Chiang as non-resistant towards the Japanese.
I don't think it's fair to lay the blame of Nanjing Massacre on Chiang as I had mentioned above. It is also not objective to label him as stupid for that. Anyway, it did not cause more harm to the morale than ever before as mentioned by you. The massacre did the reverse. It further united the Chinese and increased their hatred towards the Japanese. This unity and hatred had remained even till today. The Chinese were definitely not demoralized by the Nanjing Massacre.
Okay, lets look at the result of Nanjing. The retreating Chinese forces exposed Wuhan, China's main war effort. If Japan had siezed the opportunity, she would have destroyed China. However, the Japanese didn't act on this quickly enough, and Wuhan was defended. However, the exposure of Wuhan is dangerous. Again, decide, raise moral in a battle where the chance of victory is like 1%, with the cost of defeat being an exposed industrial heartland for the enemy to chew up, or retreating from the city with a temporary blow to moral?
I agree with you that their "mobile warfare" tactics 運動戰 were effective in Korea. However, do not forget that they suffered high casualties in that war against a much well-equipped Americans. But against the same well-equipped Japanese, there were not such high casualties. Why is it so? This is because they only engaged in guerilla warfare 遊擊戰 against the Japanese and not mobile warfare 運動戰. That is to "fight in small squads to harass the Japanese supply lines in order to reserve their strength for their "revolution" against the KMT in future." They simply did not used the same mobile warfare 運動戰 tactics which they would use later in Korea, against the Japanese. Mao Zedong only fully engaged his military tactics against the KMT and the Americans. Against the Japanese, they adopted the hide and seek gueriila warfare 遊擊戰 to reserve most of their strengths and avoid full confrontations with them.
The difference in the number of casualties suffered by the KMT and communist is too great for it to be so casually concluded that the communist were better led and the KMT were not. The communist only had 30,000 troops after their long march and after the war the had a force of almost 3 million. This is an increase of 10,000%! Is there any other major military force during the WWII that had such a tactician who could avoid heavy casualties, increased it's strength by such whopping percentage and later still claimed maximum credit for driving out foreign invaders?
Pingxing Pass. Ever heard of that battle?
Battle of Taiyuan. Heard of that?
Zhou Enlai's offers to win back Burma from Japan?
How the communists during 41-42 had "enaged more then twenty-four Japanese divisions, or 44 per cent of the total Japanese troops in China?" (When Tigers Fight)
You forget that the main reason why the Communists were so large was because the Nationalists focused more on killing Chinese then Japanese. Thus, many deserted the KMT and joined the Communists.
I'd like to see the source of your argument that the Communists reserved their strength for the Civil War later. All the sources I've read show that the Communists fought just as hard. The reason why the Communists did not take part in such a massive attack as the 100 regiments again was because they lacked the strength:
"The Chinese Communists were never again able to launch an offenseive of this magnitude against the Japanese...For this brief advantage the Red Army sacrificed too many men and too much ammunition, as they themselves later admitted. One of the Japanese staff officers in this sector described the Hundred Regiments campaign as the Chinese Communists' biggest blunder." (When Tigers Fight)
The KMT had a total force of 4.3 million and suffered a total casualties of 3.65million and 203 generals perished as compared to 1 communist general killed. If sending your best troops to war and fighting in 23 major engagements, most of which involved more than 100,000 troops on both sides, 1,117 minor engagements most of which involved more than 50,000 troops on both sides, and about 38,000 skirmishes, is not more contribution to the war, then what is? Is this then the so called non-resistant KMT as often propagated by communist propaganda?
In your opinion, the KMT should had used the same hide and seek guerilla tactics which the communist had used? These tactics were used with the main intention of reducing casualties and reserving their strengths. The best effect that these could do was to slow down the Japanese advance and harassed their supply lines.
However, this would be meaningless if not complemented with conventional warfare and battles by the KMT.
Guerilla warfare of hide and seek alone cannot effectively stop the enemy and could only result in abandoning of cities to the Japanese without a fight. If the communist had used the more effective mobile warfare 運動戰 or conventional warfare 陣地戰 against the Japanese, their casualties would be just as high.
At the same time, I would like to clarify another myth. Not all guerillas operating behing enemy lines were communist. There were KMT soldiers and other volunteers fighting behind Japanese line as well. The notion that the communist were leading the guerilla warfare behind enemy lines is therefore a myth.
No its not a myth, its the truth. Yes, the KMT had a very large partisan force. However, the main leader in guerilla operations is the Communists. The KMT forces themselves were in trouble just to survive. Many of them turned to the Communists to help themselves survive.
And for your arguments of casualties, heres a list of major author's casualties list of the war:http://users.erols.c...28/ww2stats.htm
Along with that list, you can see how Chinese the Nationalists killed in comparason with the Communists. The Communists killed many, but compared to the Nationalists, they look like innocent bunnies.
Remember the quote from When Tigers Fight that I had put up? The Communists in Northern Chinafought 75% of the engagements, but only 35% of the POWs and 50% of the dead were Communist. These facts and figures were all taken from When Tigers Fight, the best written English book on the War. I'd like to see your sources on your absurd claims that the Communists lost so fewer troops then the Nationalist. For every Communist soldier saved for the Civil war, a Nationalist soldier is saved.
This statement is contradicting. Everyone know that it is not easy to lead a weak China against the powerful Japanese military during that time. The fact that Chiang was the only person capable and recognised for doing it speaks for his competence as a leader of a nation. To brush him off as totally incompetent to worth any mention is not justifiable.
No its not contradicting. Bush is able to win a 2nd term and he is a blundering baffon. Chiang might have held China together, but he cost China millions of unnessesary lives. You yourself admited that Mao was the better leader. If he was in command, I believe the war might have turned out much better. Chiang was not in control of China. The Communists occupied the North, Japan the Middle, and Chiang the south. China was split in three.