My fundamental sense of reality, of what cannot be true, forbids me to accept that a Chinese Red Army practically idle for years in base areas behind the Japanese lines proved to be masters at warfare after 1945, utterly crushing far better armed KMT forces and forcing the mighty US Army into humiliating retreat in Korea.
.
If Mao and his generals fought so little, according to you, why were they so incredibly good in the battles no one denies they did fight? If so idle against the Japanese, why so good against the KMT afterwards and against the US in Korea?
.
As the Germans say: He who tries to prove too much proves that he is wrong.
.
I think the KMT propagandists and their suckers will have to abandon this line of attack.
.
My own sense of how things happened is that the Red Army fought and fought extremely hard against the Japanese, with heavy losses, mostly in small unit guerrilla actions. That is how they built up a large force of experienced soldiers with a highly capable and tested command. Had they simply sat safely in base areas without fighting they would have degenerated and would not have been a force that could take the field successfuly in 1945.
.
Common sense should tell you that idle armies do not win wars with experienced ones, especially when the latter are much better armed.
.
Look what happened to the Indian Army in 1962 when, after years of no battle experience, it faced a Chinese force that had much more recently been in action in Korea. The Indians were walloped. (Ironically, a much bigger defeat in terms of losses happened to the Chinese PLA in 1979 when after many years of no war except Cultural Revolution mayhem it tried its mettle against the Vietnamese.)]
.
My fundamental sense of reality, of what cannot be true, forbids me to accept that a Chinese Red Army practically idle for years in base areas behind the Japanese lines proved to be masters at warfare after 1945, utterly crushing far better armed KMT forces and forcing the mighty US Army into humiliating retreat in Korea.
.
If Mao and his generals fought so little, according to you, why were they so incredibly good in the battles no one denies they did fight? If so idle against the Japanese, why so good against the KMT afterwards and against the US in Korea?
.
As the Germans say: He who tries to prove too much proves that he is wrong.
.
I think the KMT propagandists and their suckers will have to abandon this line of attack.
.
My own sense of how things happened is that the Red Army fought and fought extremely hard against the Japanese, with heavy losses, mostly in small unit guerrilla actions. That is how they built up a large force of experienced soldiers with a highly capable and tested command. Had they simply sat safely in base areas without fighting they would have degenerated and would not have been a force that could take the field successfuly in 1945.
.
Common sense should tell you that idle armies do not win wars with experienced ones, especially when the latter are much better armed.
.
Look what happened to the Indian Army in 1962 when, after years of no battle experience, it faced a Chinese force that had much more recently been in action in Korea. The Indians were walloped. (Ironically, a much bigger defeat in terms of losses happened to the Chinese PLA in 1979 when after many years of no war except Cultural Revolution mayhem it tried its mettle against the Vietnamese.)]
.
.
If Mao and his generals fought so little, according to you, why were they so incredibly good in the battles no one denies they did fight? If so idle against the Japanese, why so good against the KMT afterwards and against the US in Korea?
.
As the Germans say: He who tries to prove too much proves that he is wrong.
.
I think the KMT propagandists and their suckers will have to abandon this line of attack.
.
My own sense of how things happened is that the Red Army fought and fought extremely hard against the Japanese, with heavy losses, mostly in small unit guerrilla actions. That is how they built up a large force of experienced soldiers with a highly capable and tested command. Had they simply sat safely in base areas without fighting they would have degenerated and would not have been a force that could take the field successfuly in 1945.
.
Common sense should tell you that idle armies do not win wars with experienced ones, especially when the latter are much better armed.
.
Look what happened to the Indian Army in 1962 when, after years of no battle experience, it faced a Chinese force that had much more recently been in action in Korea. The Indians were walloped. (Ironically, a much bigger defeat in terms of losses happened to the Chinese PLA in 1979 when after many years of no war except Cultural Revolution mayhem it tried its mettle against the Vietnamese.)]
.