Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Historian's Distortion On WWII
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by mg9900 (U1870754) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
Historian have failed to reveal that Chinese contributed huge to the WWII and sacrificed one of the most.
The Burma Campaign 1941 - 1945 By Michael Hickey
on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ.com WWII subject wrote "and as American troops were advancing from the north with (somewhat unreliable) Chinese Nationalist forces."
Commanded by general SteWell, three armies totaled about Chinese 200,000 soldiers, shoulder to shoulder with the British and Indians, fought the Japanese. Chinese entered into Burma fighting the Japanese twice and sufferred huge loss over 60,000 men and only won Michael Hickey's word "(somewhat unreliable) Chinese Nationalist forces". Those souls should be unrest if they here of such comments.
It was the "(somewhat unreliable) Chinese Nationalist forces" once rescued 7000 British troops from being encircling by the Japanese with only about 1500 men.
I believe if historians to study the history with their honest hearts they should become famous in writing about the China battlefields. The Japanese sufferred more than 1 million men loss in China alone. And there were many fierced bloody battles in China. The brave Chinese troops fought with their dignity and respect. -
Message 2
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
I can see your point mg9900,
As a Chinese friend of mine says "I don't understand why you say WW2 started in 1939, to us it started in 1936". It's a point of view I have some sympathy with as some Americans claim it started in 1941.
It is a failing I have that I look at events from a military point of view primarily, then look at the events and politics second. Then try to make sense out of it. The Chinese militarily were a bit of a disaster I have to say.
I'd would however dispute that politicians of the time didn't recognise that China sufferd. Weren't they the first signatories of the UN charter as they had suffered more than anyone against Facist oppression? Thus they got a seat on the UN Permanent Security Council? To my mind that alone recognises the efforts the Chinese made.
Cheers AA. (Like to deal in facts, not clues). -
Message 3
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Re: message 2.
Arnald,
"as they had suffered more than anyone against Fascist oppression".
I read 4 books from a Chinese-Belgian writer Han Suyin about her life. She was most of her later life an admirer of Mao and as such not highly historicaly trustful, but the facts she described in the books about here life were mostly as far I can check remarkable accurate and I checked most of them. It starts in Brussels end of the 18th century with the history of her Belgian mother and Chinese father.
She was at a certain moment married with a General of Tsang Kai Check and from there I had the first information of the Fascist movement of Tsang Kai Check. He admired the Japanese. And his movement (something to do with a blue? regiment, I have to do research about it) was in fact a Fascist organisation including the secret police. It was only when the Japanese invaded that he turned anti-Japanese, out of necessity? And he was nearly obliged by the Communists, capturing him for some days to work with them against the Japanese. Ask perhaps your Chinese friend. I am very interested about his opinion about all this.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 4
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
PaulRykier,
You have asked some BIG questions that I can't answer. I'm not ashamed at admitting ignorance. As Caro pointed out on a post on the old board Chinese history is something of a closed book, however it's something that should be examined, as they (the Chinese) now appear to be one of the worlds emergent economies.
I'll ask my friend, and hopefully she'll be able to give me some insights, and then I'll be able to respond.
Cheers AA. -
Message 5
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Re: Message 4.
Arnald,
thanks for the reply and if I have time I will do some research about the question too to be prepared when the information of the Chinese she-friend comes.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 6
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Re: message 4.
Arnald,
I was lucky to find it all, even more than in my former research.
In december 1936 Chiang was kidnapped at Xian by his commander Zhang Xueliang to make an agreement with the Communists to fight the Japanese. It seems that Chiang jailed him afterwards for that for the rest of his life.
Google: kuomintang chiang kai shek blue shirts first window 3rd entry.
The Abortive Revolution; China under Nationalist Rule 1927-1937. by Lloyd E.Eastman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1974. "The Blue Shirts and Fascism" chronicles.
"Chiang Kai-shek's attempt to counteract the corruption of the administration through the formation of a revolutionary, fascist organisation..." "their lack of faith in the masses provided them no social base from which to transform government and society. Further more Chiang's policy of encouraging factionalism prevented this group from gaining enough power to make a significant difference". I read in another source that those factions backing him were apart from the "Blue Shirts": The CC group, the political study group and the Whampoa military group.
Other source: By the 1930's Chiang's inspiration became increasingly that of the Fascist movements in Italy, Germany and Spain. In 1931 a group of officers formed the "Blue Shirts" like the Fascist Black Shirts of Italy or Brown Shirts of Germany to promote dictatorship and other Fascist ideological ends.
Now I recall that Han Suyin was married with a General of the "Blue Skirts". She had him encountered on the boat, when she came back to China after her university years in Belgium. She was a Communist in those years and held meetings in the South of Belgium in Wallonia where the Communists had more members than in the North. It was quite a difference for her, but she didn't explain if he was that rightist at the love affair on the boat.
BTW. the whole policy of Chiang Kai Shek seems hesitating and caught by or thinking perhaps that he was playing with the several factions. His son , which came later the head in Taiwan, studied at a Communist party leaders school in Moscow and he married a Russian lady. He was also a faction and many times acting against his father. Then you had the faction of his rich wife which was American backed.
In another source I read that the armies of Chiang weren't well led and very corrupt. The American Stilwell wanted to organize them on a good military basis, but obviously Chiang wasn't competent enough for that. Some commentators say: if Chiang could? have followed Stilwell's advise he would be had much stronger for the coming civil war with the Communists. But it was only the Communists who were gaining from the battle experience and training against the Japanese, and to the end of the war were good organized and trained for the battle with the Nationalists. And other BTW: at the end the Communists had won the mandate from Heaven and not the Nationalists by their corruption and stupidity. I read also Barbara Tuchman's "role of Stilwell...", which gives also some clues about it.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Dear mg9000,
That is exactly the greatness of the English empire. They usually could get away with utilising local troops using the dogma of 'divide and conquer'. Their own forces were most often used as a reserve forces. For all english that may protest I will underline once more that empires are ruled in that way not by sending own armies to be slaughtered and then having no reserves to ensure the defenses. Roman empire used that dogma even before it became one - that is how it became an empire.
In their most famous battle, the Waterloo, English had only 9000 troops that hardly gave any fight at all, leaving the battle's space for the more than 45,000 Prussians as well as by ensuring treachery on the french side (Napoleon is said to had been betrayed by certain of his own generals and higher officials, which is more close to the truth than what they say about 'Napoleon not knowing the weather and ordering canons to move on the mud').
Depending on geography or other factors, the english frontline would be as following:
anylocals(e.g. indians,chinese etc.), allies, new zealandese, Australian, Canadese, Scottish, Welsh, Northern English, Southern English.
Of course the above line is a bit arbitrary but one reading the names of the poor english that died in the WW1 then he finds out that accidentally 90% of dead were from northern England ... that cannot be justified even by the fact that southern tended to be more educated and thus taken more administrative posts.
In England there was always a class system and that is how it went in their armies also. -
Message 8
Posted by Ninja-Badger (U1689794) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Um, is this a serious post?
-
Message 9
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Dear mg9000,
That is exactly the greatness of the English empire. They usually could get away with utilising local troops using the dogma of 'divide and conquer'. Their own forces were most often used as a reserve forces. For all english that may protest I will underline once more that empires are ruled in that way not by sending own armies to be slaughtered and then having no reserves to ensure the defenses. Roman empire used that dogma even before it became one - that is how it became an empire.
In their most famous battle, the Waterloo, English had only 9000 troops that hardly gave any fight at all, leaving the battle's space for the more than 45,000 Prussians as well as by ensuring treachery on the french side (Napoleon is said to had been betrayed by certain of his own generals and higher officials, which is more close to the truth than what they say about 'Napoleon not knowing the weather and ordering canons to move on the mud').
Depending on geography or other factors, the english frontline would be as following:
anylocals(e.g. indians,chinese etc.), allies, new zealandese, Australian, Canadese, Scottish, Welsh, Northern English, Southern English.
Of course the above line is a bit arbitrary but one reading the names of the poor english that died in the WW1 then he finds out that accidentally 90% of dead were from northern England ... that cannot be justified even by the fact that southern tended to be more educated and thus taken more administrative posts.
In England there was always a class system and that is how it went in their armies also.Β
Are you actually being serious??????????
I think you might want to visit the war graves in france or the cenotaphs here in the UK!!!
I am not one to appologise for the English as I am Welsh and proud of it, but what you have just typed is insulting to all the brave men and women who died for Britain in past wars.
The British were not known for using "local" troops over and above British. Auxillaries were not professional soldiers and the BRitish Army was nothing if not a professional outfit during the time of the Empire.
<<"In their most famous battle, the Waterloo, English had only 9000 troops that hardly gave any fight at all">>
You are having me on arent you?? Is it april fools day?.
The British Empire was not founded on just using local levies. Once the crown became involved with Indian affairs the days of the private EIC armies slowly passed away leaving the BRitish army to lead the way forward. Your bias here is outrageous
And all the class system ment was that the Officers tended to come from the landed Gentry and Aristocrats but the ordinary soldier was just that ordinary, whether or not from the south or the north.
Try and remove your bias please -
Message 10
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Nikolaos,
I have already challenged you in another thread to prove your figures on Waterloo. What are your sources for this? Please tell us, so we can check. Welington's army was an allied army with troops who were German (not Prussian), Dutch, Belgian and around 20,000 British.
Wellington had no Prussian troops, they were all with their own army which arrived late on the afternoon of the battle, by which time the British (including the Germans, but not the Ducth / Belgians, most of whom had fled) had already defeated the Old Guard. The arrival of the Prussians sealed the victory. This is all well documented.
Please give some proof for your extravangant claims.
On the point of Britain using local troops, yes, there is a lot of evidence for this. In India in particular, sepoy troops comprised a large part of the army in the 18th & 19th century battles. -
Message 11
Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Thursday, 8th September 2005
Sepoy troops - well, the British Government didn't take over from the HEIC until after the so-called Mutiny, so regular army troops weren't readily available in the peninusula. Sepoys served on the Western Front in WWI - as almost half the pre-war army was made up of the Indian Army, they were all that could be brought to bear until the "New Armies" were trained.
None of this affects the fact that the part Chinese troops played in Burma is well attested, and features in most decently comprehensive histories of WWII - just because one historian failed to give them due prominence doesn't mean they are being "ignored" or "edited out" of history. -
Message 12
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 8th September 2005
Re: message 6.
Arnald,
have you any comments on my research about your question?
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 13
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 8th September 2005
Re: message 12.
Is there something wrong with the boards again?
I had to wait for 7 minutes after the former post get through. To be exact. It didn't get
through. I received a Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ window.
And when I returned to the message and posted again it immediately get through.
And BTW. the old nasty thing of eating the following letters if you do a correction in your text, is happening again as on the old boards here on this message again. -
Message 14
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 9th September 2005
PaulRyckier, apologies, my work means that I don't have as much time as I'd like to check out this board midweek, I will respond, I just need a bit more time for me to check a few things rather than dash off a quick reply which can then be challenged for basic errors.
Cheers AA. -
Message 15
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Saturday, 10th September 2005
Re: message 6.
Arnald,
have you any comments on my research about your question?
Kind regards,
±Κ²Ή³ά±τ.Μύ
Paul, hi,
First off my primary source wasn't illuminating, as she pointed out most of what she learnt about the 2nd World War had been influenced by Mao and the version of events he wanted to be believed, however she is quite determined that the 2nd World War started with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1936.
Secondly, I can't find fault with your postings Chiang Kai Shek (CSK) is a complex character that I haven't been able to understand. Certainly he did have beliefs that were along the lines of Mussolini. To modern eyes and loose use of language then yes he could be described as a fascist. (In defence of my use of language I have "described" George Washington as a communist in the light of history!). CSK had right wing views, up until the Japanese invasion he did admire them and promoted the ideals as being correct for China.
Now here I start to get into uncharted waters as I can't find a persuasive arguement either way to challenge what actually happened. As far as I can work out, the USA whilst not wanting to declare war on Japan, but still worried about the Japanese build up of military strength decided to support the next strongest (non European) nation in the area, i.e. the Chinese and so got themselves involved in an area of the world that had nothing to do with them. (This bit I can understand as a Brit).
After this the USA sent out Stilwell (missing a couple of years history here) as advisor to the "Chinese", i.e. CSK, the one they thought was going to be the winner. In CSK they backed the wrong horse and (without the benefits of diplomacy as practised by Perfidious Albion) stuck by him. The Chinese communist forces were a lot more effectively militarily against the Japanese than the "Regular" Chinese forces under CSK. From what I can gather Vinegar Joe Stillwell did try his best to direct resource from the USA to the "communists" but was effectively stopped by his own government and CSK.
In answer to the original post I think that there is a big opportunity for a historian to examine the effect of the Chinese in WW2, and get it printed in English. I think it could be as big a profit as anything Antony Beevors has done.
To sign off (Thank the Lord I hear you say), I haven't found (yet!) anything to back up my original statement that "China" was the first signatory of the UN Charter. I think it cane from an unreliable source, i.e. a Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ History programme
.
I'll content myself with that Number 28 (Special Fried Rice) is wonderful.
Best Wishes AA. -
Message 16
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
The position with the Chinese is rather like atitudes to WW2 prior to about the mid-80s. They are influenced by events in between - the Russians and Chinese were the red enemy whilke Japan and Germany had been drawn into the western alliances. Then first Russia opens up and what happened there is wriiten about more clearly (Beevor on Stalingrad for example) and China will follow in duie course, Every nation's historians want to believe they won and it sells books too - see Hollywood on anything WW2.
Much of Wellington's army was made up of Dutch, Belgians and German troops, although there were more than 9K British there. The Prussian part ahs been largely forgotten as it did not suit either British or French historians in the 20th century given more recent events. It is an influence on history, which is often forgotten about. -
Message 17
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Re: message 15.
Arnald,
thank you very much for your reply. "(thank the Lord I hear you say)". Not any word too much at all, but following your arguments in depth as every argument is important to uncover the history. I think I am cut from the same wood (Dutch proverb) as you. Up to the bitter end to discover what happened in history. The truth and notting but the truth without any nationalistic bias.
I remember the epic conversations between lol beeble and the Greek Tassos about the origins of the Alphabeth. I did evenings research for it on the internet and in books and lined up with what lol said about the origins and Tassos was not to convince. Now we have Nikolaos and he says exactly the same of what Tassos said, even starts now about Linear C and Linear D the Greek alphabeth adopted by the Semites? Lol had already a long discussion with Nikolaos about it and I wanted to join but then I have to do again all the research to prove what I say as now the discussion about the Greek Dark Ages on the Ancient and Archaeology. But with all what I have to reply to I lack the courage.
What I want to say it is easy to make sweeping statements, but you have to prove them with facts and figures, what many on these boards seems to forget. And I am the first to admit that I am wrong if someone can prove, but then really prove, that I am wrong.
To prove my addiction:
"I haven't found (yet!) anything to back up my original statement that "china" was the first signatory of the UN charter."
The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the 50 founding members and entered into force on 24 October 1945 following its ratification by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States (The "Permanent Five" members) plus a majority of other signatories.
I first thought that you were right because seemingly everywhere you seek China stays the first. But are they really signing the first, I found only a photograph of the Egyptian delegation signing and it was not told who first signed. And now I see it suddenly: it is the alphabethic order.
Google: china ratification united nations charter: first window fifth entry: The Avalon...
Republic of China September 28, 1945.
France August 31, 1945.
The UK October 20, 1945
The USSR October 24, 1945
The US August 8, 1945.
You can see the list of the others on the web. As a matter of fact the US was the first and China was only the 9th or the 10th.
But now I am thinking about the alphabethic order on 26 June. There was Argentina...But if they started with the five permanent members...China would be the first...(very broad smile)
CSK a complex character. Arnald, I agree with you. It fits with all what I read too. Fascist, yes, but it was only one of his factions the Blue Shirts and it came not from the ground as I found the arguments: CSK playing the factions against each other and the so-called Fascist Blue Shirts never had a real big appeal in the Chinese community. I learned only about it by reading the books from my favourite Han Suyin about her life. She gives in her five books that many details about daily ife in China starting from the Eighties of the 19th century telling about her mother's life: The Crippled Tree. She was born in 1917 and living now in Switzerland. I heard a recent radio interview with her in her home there. Have to be now 88. I only read the books about her life and no one else, because I don't trust what she writes about Mao and all and was not interested in her fiction novels too, although they seems also to be based on real experiences...
The US and especially the public opinion was very harsh against Japan for the start of the war in China (many American missionaries overthere and China constantly in the American news) Indeed I think that it was due to that public pressure that Washington imposed a ban on scrap iron to Japan and later the oil embargo, which led to the start of the Pacific war.
In answer to your 4th and 5th paragraph I agree there is a lot to do to enlighten about China in the Interbellum and in WWII, but please without bias especially from the nowadays People's Republic. I mean real history writing. Yes, Barbara Tuchman's book is IMO a good start and there is a lot available yet, but you have to do a lot of research for it and if a good! historian could do it once for us? The total perspective?
To sign off (Thank the Lord I hear you say),
Best Wishes,
Paul.
PS. What is all that stuff about Number 28 Special Fried Rice? Is that a British joke I don't understand. I am a Flemish Belgian... -
Message 18
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 12th September 2005
Paul,
Dredging my memory banks I think my source is a Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ History programme, one of those short 5 minute fillers that are shown on the UK History channel. This one covered the San Francisco conference in June 1945. As far as I remember from the programme China was the first signatory on the 26th June, followed by France, UK and USSR then all the other countries in alphabetical order (if my memory is correct). For some reason this stuck in my mind.
Regarding the reference to 28 Special Fried Rice it is a (weak) joke. Chinese takeaway food outlets in the UK have all the different meals numbered. Why, I don't know.
Best Wishes AA. -
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 12th September 2005
Re: message 18.
Arnald,
thank you very much for your reply.
"China was the first..." Aftermore than one hour research on the internet I didn't find it.
Was it not because China was the first of the five permanent ones in alphabetical order? (hilarious smile).
Yes, yes. Number 28 Special Fried Rice. I read in several books that, even in the 20th century, in Chinese families, nephews called for instance Uncle 1 and Uncle 2. Older Sister and Younger Sister, not the names. I have to seek it on internet to explain it better.
Best Wishes,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.