alternatehistory.com

Apparently this was an option under consideration in Chiang’s Nanjing government. What difference does it make to Nationalist China’s military and diplomatic development?

I think it changes the hardware and uniforms and training manuals of the KMT central army divisions.

Now in OTL Chiang’s German trained and equipped divisions were credited with successful anticommunist encirclement campaigns and with making a valiant stand at Shanghai against the Japanese, despite eventual defeat.

We are accustomed to regarded French equipment and especially methods of warfare in mid century as lower quality than Germanso theoretically the Chinese could perform worse across the board.

On the other hand, I am not so sure those differences are bad for China or affect it in any negative way. The KMT’s 5the encirclement offensive against the Chinese Communists in the south was a deliberate, methodical offensive, emphasizing blockhouses and superior firepower.

There does not seem to be anything particularly “un-French” about those methods, in fact they seem very French in approach.

Perhaps there still might be a negative impact on China’s performance against Japan. By then again, maybe not. At Shanghai the Chinese took advantage of urban conditions in mounting their defense. I do not think French advisors would steer them wrong for an urban fight.
I am also skeptical how much of the German auftragstaktik and initiative for lower officers really transmitted over to Chinese practice. So, those finer points of the German way of war might not be missed.

I wonder if the French Communist Party would make any meaningful trouble over French advisory support for Chiang’s anticommunist extermination campaigns.

Other than differences in The weapons and training other effects include Germany needing to find an alternate way to pay for Chinese tungsten.

Your thoughts?
Top