Why did China do better in Korean War than Sino-Japanese War?

From 1937 to 1945, China was thoroughly beatened by Japan. With few exceptions, China lost almost all battles and had most of its territory under Japanese occupation. China was on the verge of being totally conquered.

But only a few years later in 1950-1953, China under the Communists fought the USA, the most powerful nation on Earth, and actually reversed the American conquest of North Korea and kept it from being reconquered.

Why didn't Chinese forces do as well in Sino-Japanese War as they did in Korean War?
 
Last edited:
Until 1941, nobody really cared about China and the Nationalists, in power, fought the Communists as much as they did Japan. They weren't stellar administrators, either.
As WW2 progressed, both the US and the USSR armed their faction for the final showdown; the Communists won, showing real cohesion and organization which allowed them, with further help by the USSR and the sheer advantage of geographical proximity, allowed them to resist some of the US forces.
 
In a single word, motivation. The Communists in their revolution upturned Chinese society and essentially overturned society in the favor of the broad mass of the people via land reform, whereas the nationalists, and the Qing before them, had centered society on a small group of elites. The result was that Chinese communist soldiers felt much more invested in their cause and hence put a lot more effort into things like training, discipline, and even actual combat.

As WW2 progressed, both the US and the USSR armed their faction;

Prior to 1949, the Chinese Communists received more supplies from the US via nationalist corruption and incompetence then they did the USSR.
 
It's actually not true that the Chinese were ever on the verge of being totally conquered by the Japanese in WWII. True, they lost a slew of major battles in the beginning (not all of them throughout the war, however) and never succeeded in beating the Japanese decisively. They more or less fought them to a stalemate. China was simply too big and too hard to conquer for the Japanese to achieve ultimate victory. The amount of resources they invested in the China quagmire, along with horrible decisions the Japanese made as a result of the conflict (namely the Pearl Harbor attack) ultimately doomed them.

In Korea, the Chinese fought to a stalemate as well. It's just that particular stalemate looks better on paper.

And, FWIW, we're also talking about two different Chinese armies overall under two different sets of leadership; the KMT Chinese National Army, occasionally joined with the Communist guerrillas and just as often fighting against them, and the Chinese People's Volunteer Army, a different beast altogether.
 
In Korea, the Chinese fought to a stalemate as well. It's just that particular stalemate looks better on paper.

I don't think that's true.

From the PoV of Koreans, the war was ultimately a stalemate. But from the PoV of China, it was a tremendous victory.

Remember China only entered the Korean War when US forces were almost to the border and had basically conquered North Korea. China reversed this and restored North Korea with nearly the same prewar borders.

The Korean War was really two wars back to back:
1. North Korea vs USA/South Korea
North Korean attempt to conquer South Korea fails

2. China vs USA/South Korea
USA attempt to conquer North Korea fails

USA/South Korea won the first war.
China won the second war.
 

RousseauX

Donor
From 1937 to 1945, China was thoroughly beatened by Japan. With few exceptions, China lost almost all battles and had most of its territory under Japanese occupation. China was on the verge of being totally conquered.

But only a few years later in 1950-1953, China under the Communists fought the USA, the most powerful nation on Earth and actually reversed the American conquest of North Korea and kept it from being reconquered.

Why didn't Chinese forces do as well in Sino-Japanese War as they did in Korean War?
The Chinese army got -a lot- better between 1945-49
 
Motivation, training, and organization are all key here.

The KMT in the Second Sino-Japanese War was a broken mess struggling to rebuild itself following the defeats early in the war that cost them the best of their German-trained troops and their irreplaceable equipment. For the rest of the war, it was scrambling for men, equipment, money, and training, often having to rely on ill-trained, ill-equipped militia and on unreliable warlord allies to fight their battles. Whatever supplies they received were rare and gained through much squabbling with the Western Allies, due to arguments between Gen. Stilwell and Chiang Kai Shek. Plus, they were fighting for a total of twelve years, from 1937 to 1945; that's bound to be more exhausting than a mere two to three years in Korea. And yet, they still managed the occasional victory.

The People's Liberation Army in the Korean War is a very different beast. Formed from the volunteers and cadres of the Communist party, many were strong believers in Chinese Communist propaganda, and as such were more motivated to fight. If they weren't, there were bound to be a few political officers around to 'keep morale up'. While the KMT at least had the odd tank and the Chinese Communist "volunteers" were overwhelmingly infantry, they were much better trained and equipped per platoon, a result of the experience of the PLA in the final years of the Chinese Civil War They were trained to fight in both regular infantry formations and guerrilla warfare. They were fighting as members of a single army, so issues of communication, cooperation, and command were much less problematic than the KMT's in the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Plus, the victories of both wars have been seen differently. China's contributions in the Second World War were generally forgotten, both as a result of a Western focus on the European and Pacific theaters, and China becoming communist and thus "the enemy", not to be glorified but vilified. China in the Korean War fought the UN forces to a standstill, thus causing a shock among US and European troops who expected Chinese forces to be as weak as they were in WW2 (don't forget the whole racism thing was still big at this time).

Though while China "won" its goal in defending North Korea, it still failed in "destroying the imperialists". Mao said the West, especially America, was "a paper tiger", a weak enemy who would fold with one good hit. Turns out, the US turned the tide and forced a stalemate when the Chinese were certain (especially after their initial victories) that they were going to kick the Americans off the peninsula.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Training and organization I can understand. But motivation makes no sense.

Fighting a brutal invader pillaging, looting and raping inside China would seem to be far more motivating than fighting in Korea against a nation that was literally an ally just a few years ago.
motivation was an absolute huge problem in the KMT armies outside of units directly under Chiang's commands: there were reports that recruits had to be literally chained to each other to get to army depots without them deserting en masse.

In theory there should be more motivation to fight the Japanese than the US, in reality army morale depends highly on training, indoctrination, battle experience and competent organization which most KMT armies did not have.
 
Though while China "won" its goal in defending North Korea, it still failed in "destroying the imperialists". Mao said the West, especially America, was "a paper tiger", a weak enemy who would fold with one good hit. Turns out, the US turned the tide and forced a stalemate when the Chinese were certain (especially after their initial victories) that they were going to kick the Americans off the peninsula.

Even that was somewhat due to the speed of early Chinese victories in the Korean War. After their surprise entrance, the PVA captured Seoul on that initial wave of momentum, but found themselves overstretched, starving, and unable to consolidate their gains. Had a few variables been different (better supply lines, fewer casualties, etc...), the PVA may have done better than OTL. Doubt that forcibly evicting the UN forces from the entire peninsula was feasible though. Maybe just a shorter war and greater territory for the DPRK, including Seoul.
 
Training and organization I can understand. But motivation makes no sense.

Fighting a brutal invader pillaging, looting and raping inside China would seem to be far more motivating than fighting in Korea against a nation that was literally an ally just a few years ago.

Oftentimes, the KMT would use just those tactics for forced conscription and then, when you get to the army, the training is poor and your superior officer is a corrupt incompetent. There was plenty of motivation for the average Chinese to resist the Japanese, but the KMT government also squandered plenty of good will through their incompetence and heavy-handedness.
 
Training and organization I can understand. But motivation makes no sense.

Fighting a brutal invader pillaging, looting and raping inside China would seem to be far more motivating than fighting in Korea against a nation that was literally an ally just a few years ago.
China during the Second Sino-Japanese War was a mess. The cream of the KMT troops were practically wiped out by the early battles of the war, so what was left were undertrained, underpaid and scared conscripts and militia. Plus, most of the troops were warlord troops, most of whom were more comfortable bullying the peasants and collecting "taxes"/bribes than they were fighting the crazy Japanese troops.

The PLA "Volunteers" had a few years of propaganda, drilling, and indoctrination drilled into their skulls by the Communist Party to ensure their loyalty. Many actually believed the UN troops were brutal bastards who were worse than the WW2 Japanese, and thus had the extra "push" to see them beaten and/or destroyed. Granted, the propaganda backfired when thousands of DPRK and Chinese troops held as POWs by UN forces refused to go home, as they found much of what they'd been told was way off (the UN forces weren't merciless killers, the Americans weren't starving the South, they treated POWs fairly instead of treating them like slaves, etc...). But for the first few months, they had a higher morale, especially as they saw the UN forces reeling before their surprise attack.
Even that was somewhat due to the speed of early Chinese victories in the Korean War. After their surprise entrance, the PVA captured Seoul on that initial wave of momentum, but found themselves overstretched, starving, and unable to consolidate their gains. Had a few variables been different (better supply lines, fewer casualties, etc...), the PVA may have done better than OTL. Doubt that forcibly evicting the UN forces from the entire peninsula was feasible though. Maybe just a shorter war and greater territory for the DPRK, including Seoul.
Which certainly played a part, but Mao and his generals were seriously overconfident of their abilities to force the USA to come to heel. I mean, they beat the Japanese and the KMT, did they not? I mean, you're talking about the guy who thought he knew everything about how basic stuff like steelmaking and agriculture worked (and boy howdy did that backfire during the Great Leap Forwards!).
 
If you are comparing how successful the PLA "Volunteers" were in meeting the mission of pushing back the UN forces, you are correct. But when comparing casualties of Chinese Communist combat troops of the 2nd Sino-Japanese War vs. Korean War, the PLA "Volunteers" lost more troops and had much worse statistical casualties in Korea than fighting Japan
 
It's actually not true that the Chinese were ever on the verge of being totally conquered by the Japanese in WWII. True, they lost a slew of major battles in the beginning (not all of them throughout the war, however) and never succeeded in beating the Japanese decisively. They more or less fought them to a stalemate. China was simply too big and too hard to conquer for the Japanese to achieve ultimate victory.

These statements don't seem right.

Japanese gains slowed but never stopped. As late as Dec 1944, Japan continued gaining territory in Operation Ichigo. Chinese forces never had the initiative. In time Japan likely forces China to surrender we'e it not for Japanese losses in the Pacific War.
 
Last edited:
The performance of the KMT Nationalist Army in the Sino-Japanese War and the PLA 'volunteers' in the Korean war can't really be linked. They were two entirely different organizations with entirely different historical lineages, leadership and doctrines.

The KMT was an unwieldy mass of competing factions bound by tenuous central control and poor supply that was defending in a brutal, almost decade long, war of conquest against a superior force.

The PLA on the other hand was a cohesive well trained and relatively well supplied army that had just finished defeating the crippled husk of the KMT in the Chinese civil war, and prior to that had largely sat out the fight with the Japanese in favor of building up iots strength for use against what it's leaders deemed the 'true threat'.
 
Top