Talk:Chinese Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cold War (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject China (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Taiwan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Split the Article?[edit]

The Chinese (e.g. the Chinese Wikipedia) usually split the two parts of the civil war, separated by the Second Sino-Japanese War, into "First Civil War" and "Second Civil War". I wonder if this should also be done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Section on KMT's Shanghai Massacre[edit]

Hi, I was redirected here from a "Shanghai Massacre" search. Why isn't there a subheading on this 1927 event, carried out by the Kuomintang, in the article? There used to be an article or at least a section on it as I recall. What's up with this article? It seems in shambles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tooooooooooooooooooooooo biased![edit]

For example, it mentions communism troops recruiting Japanese, but fail to show that KMT also rescuited Japanese (e.g., in Taiyuan).

Another one, it gives a great details of the assistance to the communisum troops from Soviet Union, but never say KMT received far more advanced weapons from US, such as P-51 fighter plane.

Third example: "The Nationalists had already taken the brunt of heavy fighting against the Japanese during World War II, while the Communists (for the most part) took part in guerrilla warfare. As a result, the demoralized Nationalist troops proved unable to stop the People's Liberation Army's advance." These sentences give readers an impression that Nationalist was weaker and PLA was stronger. However, the truth is that when the final stage (1946-1949) of the civil war began, Nationalist troop was far more stronger than PLA. Nationalist kept advancing in every battle field. PLA was defeated at Siping, later lost Changchun, Zhangjiakou, and even lost its capital Yan'an in March, 1947.

Sinolonghai 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the third example. That sentence gives people the impression that KMT was weak because they fighted Japanese, which is obviously an opinion rather than a fact.

KMT lost the war because it lost popular support rather than the debate of comparing weaponry between KMT and CCP. Chinese wanted no more war after Second World War ended, and it was KMT who resumed the civil war after WW2 ended. CCP was preparing to take part in constitutional democratic system after WW2 ended.

All these issues were not critical factor that determined the outcome of this war. KMT's superior military strength was deceptive in that most of its American-equiped crack divisions were either lost or surrounded through a war of attrition and seige with PLA in the Northeast and Northern China. CPC made promises to hungry peasants that by fighting for CPC they would take land from landlords in a CPC victory, so the real belligerents were Chinese farmers (CPC) vs. urbanites (KMT), ergo: the massively outnumbered KMT had no chance! DCTT (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


Why arent the casualties listed?

They are listed as " 1928-1936: ~2,000,000 Military Casualties 1946-1949: ~1,200,000 Military Casualties [5]" . Reference 5 doesn't seem rigorous enough in my opinion - no historical consensus, just an opinion listed by an internet author ( Piero Scaruffi)... Instead, this should be directly sourced - the primary source if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterthomas (talkcontribs) 10:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


Major overhaul - some of the text taken from, other parts taken from History of the ROC. --Jiang 08:57, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Removed questionable statements

And yet, even though the balance of power was shifting toward the CPC, there were still numerous opportunities for a negotiated settlement. Joseph Stalin attempted to restrain Mao on several occasions while he gauged American responses to developments in China. After the Huai-hai Campaign, it seemed that the Communists were going to pause on the northern bank of the Yangtze River. Only when it became clear that American and British support for negotiations was lacking, did Stalin give Mao the go-ahead to cross the river.

1) After the CCP broke out of Manchuria prospects for a negotiated settlement were limited by the fact that the CCP had no particular incentive to negotiate with the KMT.

2) The paragraph makes it sound like Stalin had some sort of influence over Mao. I doubt Mao would have stopped at the Yangtze regardless of what Stalin said. By the time the CCP had reached the Yangtze, the KMT was in such disarray that it would have been absurd to think that Stalin would have been able to stop Mao.

Economist link[edit]

Impressive. The Economist has linked to this article for background on current PRC-ROC relations. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to it. - BanyanTree 13:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How could "The Economist" take up an internet crap writing on the Chinese civil war as authoritative? Get your editorial board to do some serious studies, I guess.

Chiang Kai-shek[edit]

Reverted pending sourcing began in 1926 with the takeover of the KMT by 'the right-wing General Chiang Kai-shek. Thank you. Nobs01 15:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conflict template - Why no casualty details?[edit]

There's no casualty details on the template. Is someone attempting to censor this article? I know the Chinese ruling party has strong ties to the Chinese Wikipedia, I hope it hasn't extended it's links in here as well. Black-Velvet 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't think too much. Casualties aren't included in the article simply because it's tough to come up with the number; the official stats from both sides are either untrue or included surrendered KMT forces (nearly 2 million Nationalist forces surrendered during the war).

--AQu01rius 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If casualties are not reliable, what about looking for the number of guns that Chinese communists possessed on Oct 1st, 1949, the day of their founding? Ceck out

Hope you guys are stunned by 2 million, the incredibley small stockpile of guns that communists claimed to have captured from the Nationalist government troops. -Note American guns, in total, was 16% of the total assets of China before the CHINA AID ACT of 1948 was passed.


I'm going to start writing the campaigns for Chinese Civil War, and maybe make a campaign box.

--AQu01rius 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


--AQu01rius 18:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Some of this needs to be corroborated with Chiang Kai-Shek, because it doesn't say he was expelled. Saying Chiang was "expelled from the KMT" then saying he's still part of the KMT is a bit confusing. The KMT simply split, did he not? It also says that Wang Jingwei rejoined Chiang again. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute[edit]

Final stage of fighting (1946–1950) The person that added this gave no reason that I can find. I would suggest that it is useless to add an NPOV dispute without justification and is it the whole setion or a specific part. Does anyone have any objections to its removal?

I'd imagine that the anon added the tag because of the sentence that states the KMT received millions of aid and the CCP received none. This is sort of factually incorrect because it fails to mention Marshall's policy of "disengagement" from the KMT following the failure to form a coalition government. While the KMT had backing from the United States to try to stabilize its economy, its army was low on ammunition and much american aid was withheld, particularly during the most crucial periods, due to congress infighting. In fact, Wedemeyer's last mission to China produced a report that says it's best to America's interest to continue supporting the KMT, however inept it was. This report was suppressed by Truman until politicians began pointing noses on "who lost China".BlueShirts 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

no objection Wenzi 02:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No it is not factually incorrect. The KMT did recieve millions in US aid and the CCP none; this fact was a major reason for the CCP's reaction to the US (not trusting their negotiations nor their want of a coalition government) because in the end, it was evident that no matter if the KMT introduced reforms or not, and if the KMT stopped fighting the CCP or not, the US would always support Jiang. Yes, Marshall was able to get Truman to embargo arms against the KMT from USG sources (July 29, 1946) but the embargo only lasted 8 months, which afterwards the KMT was given a 'surplus' of military equipment via the post-war Lend-Lease program as well as $125 million US dollars in the China Aid Act. Source: Schaller, Michael. ''THe United States and China into the Twenty-First Century.''

Subotai 09:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

American guns, in total, was 16% of the total assets of China before the CHINA AID ACT of 1948 was passed.

Part of the goods from CHINA AID ACT of 1948 did not ship out till November of 1948 by which time all major campaigns were over. $125 million US dollars in the China Aid Act were deliberately charged at TEN times the market price of weaponry as well as those sold to Turkey and Greece. In 1949, some ships, en route, were stopped in Japan and Okinawa. The balance of the $125 million US dollars was not even spent till well into the Republican White House of 1953. Chinese civil wars had to be looked at together with VENONA and communist control of the State Department.

Chinese Civil War Template[edit]

It seems unbalanced that the historically more significant Civil War has no template while the less significant Warlords era has a gigantic and very well made template. In fact most characters of the Civil War are included under the warlords template. See Template:Warlord era Contributors intrested in this topic should create a Civil war template.--Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency! 06:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I created a Chinese Civil War tempate please help develop it! --Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency! 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job Gary. Asiaticus 10:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Information[edit]

The section on the disbanding of troops by KMT and the troops going over to the Communists and revealing the location of the Nationalist weapons is repeated with more and less information a few sentences down. Stealthkey 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The disbanding of former puppet troops was a condition for peace talk, that the Chinese communists demanded with George Marshall.

The Russian gift of 800,000 rifles is already a commonly-acknowledged fact.

Nationalist army troops had already locked up American weapons for lack of ammunition. Milton Miles, before leaving China, personally inspected his Chinese forces, and found out that on average, an American weapon had 20 bullets.

No legal document has been signed to end the Chinese Civil War[edit]

No legal document has ever been signed by the waring parties (ROC and PRC) to officially end the Chinese Civil War. PRC and ROC didn't stop shelling each other untill 1979. Even though fighting between the competing parties has not taken place since 1979, the Chinese Civil War has not legally concluded.

Is a legal document required for a war to end? Is a legal document required for a war to begin? When did the Nationalists and Communists sit down and sign a document agreeing to have a war? Without such a document, the war never legally happened. Readin (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a legal document is required to end a war. It is called a peace treaty. Hmortar (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

By that thinking, there was no Chinese Civil War because there was no legal document to begin the war. In fact, the whole war was illegal under ROC law.
Wars are large scale acts of violence, not legally recognized contracts. When the large scale acts of violence ends, the war ends. Readin (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You don't need a legal document to start a war because that would be stupid (e.g.surprise attack?) but you need one to officially end the war ( discuss reparations, war guilt, etc)Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Has the Chinese Civil War been resolved today?[edit]

Even until 1965 , both side still fighting in real conflict each other.. why put the Civil war end date at 1950? 13:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

because that's when major combat on the chinese mainland ended. Blueshirts
Are there official agreements signed by the warring parties to end Chinese Civil War? I don't know any. Redcloud822 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No, but the KMT leadership made the historical visit to the mainland in 2005. I'd say the war has ended, at least unofficially. Blueshirts 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You are free to speculate the state of the Chinese Civil War, but the fact is there is no official agreements to terminate the Chinese Civil War on legal grounds. Therefore, technically the PRC and ROC are still at war. Indeed, as we see the situation could tense up at any moment, given the preparation for war on both sides of the Strait. Redcloud822 03:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Lets talk real politic here. The US with its airpower and fleet and nukes told the PRC hands off in the early 1950s. That is still operative. Until that ends there is at least a defacto cease fire, "peace" or whatever you want to call it. It could heat back up but the PRC would have to persuade, intimidate or pick a fight with the US to try to get it to abandon their protection of Taiwan. I dont think Taiwan is about to pick a fight anymore. I think a 60 year hiatus qualifies it as a resolved event. It will be a Second Civil War or a war between the US and China if it starts up again. Just as WWII is not called WWI round two. Asiaticus 01:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk real politicic all you want. No legal document has been signed to end the Chinese Civil War. So when PRC launches an attack on Taiwan, it would be still a civil war instead of an invasion against a sovereign nation. In other words, PRC's attack on Taiwan is legal, and does not break any international law.Redcloud822 09:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What legal document started the Chinese Civil War? Readin (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No document, just when the first bullet start flying. Wars start when one party start shooting and ends when one party surrender their weapons. -- (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the Union and Confederacy signed any peace treaty after 1865? It occurred to me that the American Civil War might still be going on today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Mississippi. ;) Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a read:

The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents on the grounds that the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government. American_Civil_War#The_war_begins

-- (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What a mess![edit]

There are so many inconsistent statements in this article. Lsxxsc 07:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist and Kuomentang[edit]

I found it quite confusing when the word "Kuomentang" is used in some paragraph, and "Nationalist" is used in others. How about use only "Nationalist"?

The "Nationalist" movement in china was primarly called "Kuamentang". Prehaps it might be stated in the beginning in chinese and english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This article really needs to be cleaned up! There are quite a lot of similar statements in the paragraphs Post-war power struggle (1946-47) and Fighting on mainland China (1946–1950). Moreover, paragraphs are too long and unreadable.


Mao Zedong was not regarded as the commander of the Communist forces until 1935, during the Long March. Before that, various communist forces were scattered around the country led by different leaders - notably, Zhu De and Peng Dehuai. Information regarding these can be easily found in the Long March article. I suggest adding these two to the list of commanders of the communist forces. The same for the nationalists - Wang Jingwei led a significant faction of the nationalist forces at the beginning of the Civil War. Aran|heru|nar 04:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Text[edit]

I deleted a large section of text which was unsourced and seemed at least mildly biased after I noticed several items which directly & materially contradicted the books I've read. One statement particularly stood out:

 ...the Communist force, which previously had never exceeded 50,000... 

On page 263 of this[1] source, it's indicated that the Communist military power numbered 500k - 900k by 1945, so that's just a patently false statement. There were other instances of contradiction, as well. I'm going to POV-tag this article for the same reason. It seems to have a definite, though subtle, bias; and those can be the most dangerous. --Xiaphias (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you point those out? Aran|heru|nar 14:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


I agree, this needs to shift away from being biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta3420 (talkcontribs) 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. Benjwong (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed a large chunk[edit]

I removed the following section from the Chinese civil war#Immediate post-war clashes (1945–1946) section. It was very difficult to find sources to support this entirely. Anyone can help, please do. I used including a couple books I owned. Didn't find enough to match. Benjwong (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Immediately after World War II, Chiang Kai-shek made a fatal mistake in trying to simultaneously solve the warlord problem and exterminate communism. Many of the warlords who sided with the KMT were only interested in keeping their own power, and defected to the Japanese side when the Japanese offered to let them keep their power in exchange for their cooperation. After World War II, these former Japanese puppet regimes once again joined the KMT.
Obviously, it was difficult for Chiang to immediately get rid of these warlords for good, as soon as they surrendered to Chiang and rejoined the KMT, because such a move would alienate other factions within the KMT; furthermore, these former warlords could still provide much-needed military assistance to the KMT.
As Chiang had neither sufficient force nor sufficient time to deploy his own troops in the former Japanese controlled regions, these warlords were given titles and ranks in the KMT forces and ordered to "keep order" in their areas of control by not surrendering to the CCP, and by fighting off the CCP if necessary. Chiang and his followers had hoped that these warlords would be able to resist the CCP and hold on to the former Japanese-occupied regions long enough for Chiang to deploy his own troops there. If the CCP were victorious in such conflicts, however, the result would still be of benefit to Chiang and China because the power of these warlords would be reduced as their military forces were smashed by the CCP, and the warlord problem plaguing China for so long could thus be greatly reduced, while at the same time, the CCP would be weakened by the fights and Chiang's own troops would have an easier time taking control. The ensuing battles between the CCP and these warlords resulted mostly in communist victories, exactly as Chiang and his followers had predicted, and their attempt to greatly reduce the problem of the warlords resulted in success.
However, this success came at a huge cost in the KMT' loss of popular support in these Japanese-dominated regions, because the local population already blamed them for losing the regions to the Japanese, while reassigning these former Japanese puppet regime forces as KMT forces to fight alongside of Chinese soldiers against the CCP only further alienated the local populace and strengthened the popular resentment towards Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT."

Removed another chunk[edit]

The following paragraph was removed out of the Chinese civil war#Relationship between the two sides since 1950 section. The info here seems to be vague and could fit into a number of different campaigns. Please readd it if you have references. Benjwong (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, intermittent skirmishes occurred throughout the mainland's coastal and peripheral regions, though American reluctance to be drawn into a larger conflict left Chiang Kai-shek too weak to "retake the mainland" as he constantly vowed. ROC fighter aircraft bombed mainland targets and commandos, sometimes numbering up to 80, landed repeatedly on the mainland to kill PLA soldiers, kidnap CPC cadres, destroy infrastructure, and seize documents. The ROC lost about 150 men in one raid in 1964."

Need statistics[edit]

The following paragraph was removed out of the last part of Chinese civil war#CPC establish People's Republic of China / KMT retreat to Taiwan island. I was not able to find any consistent statistics for the final outcome. Most sources have it in pieces, and I did not want to grab random stats off websites. Please help fill in the casualties and stats. Benjwong (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"According to the CPC, from the beginning of July 1946 through June 1950, the CPC managed to destroy a total of 8.07 million KMT troops (including capturing/accepting the surrender of 4.59 million KMT troops), while losing 1.52 million of its own, including 260,000 fatalities, 1.06 million wounded, 20,000 captured by the enemy, and 180,000 missing and desertions.[citation needed] The KMT disagrees with the CPC's claim on the KMT losses, claiming the figure is improbable."

List of weapons used in the war[edit]

I am concerned with the list of weapons used in the war because it is unreferenced and looks OR-ish. So I tried tagging the section, hopefully someone would fix it later. But I was subsequently reverted. Normally in a situation like this, I would try fixing it myself. But since I am not an expert on this, I don't want to mess with it. Therefore, I have to bring this here. What do people think of the list? What should we do about it? —Chris! ct 05:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is best to chase down the original users who put that info there. Or delete the section. Or find a weapon expert. Benjwong (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why even have this section? Is there any relevance to the article itself? Why not a list over helmets, types of ammunition, the various lengths of boot-straps, the rations etc. etc.? At best, there should be a seperate article on "weapons in the Chinese Civil War" - but even that would be a stretch.--Nwinther (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this section is completely unnecessary. Most war articles might include a paragraph analyzing the role of military technology, but not a long list of weapons.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This section does appear quite pointless, I agree. I support removal, unless someone can convince otherwise. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Why is Japan listed as an ally of the Nationalists. The Nationalists did most of the fighting against the Japanese according to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

huge removal[edit] is trying to restore part of the long section I added a long time ago. The fact that the war against Japan bankrupted the KMT regime and destroyed its armies, even as late as Ichigo 1944, is very well documented in authoritative books on the subject like Seeds of Destruction and Nationalist China at War. Blueshirts (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This article was among the many high priority articles for cleanup. If you have this much to add, you must have some source. Benjwong (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, I already gave you two very authoritative books on the subject that have details on matter. For the time being you can put a citation notice in the paragraphs if you're not satisfied, and do not delete huge sections wholesale. It's vandalism. Blueshirts (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not have access to those books unfortunately. For the time being, I'll flag it with the need-citation notice. Benjwong (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-Shek ordered Japanese troops to fight the CPC?[edit]

Chiang Kai-Shek ordered the Japanese troops to keep fighting the CPC through September, a full month after their surrender.[27]

Wait, what? If this isn't an error then it needs explanation why Chiang Kai-Shek was able to compel the Japanese army to fight the CPC. Tempshill (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek ordered Japanese troops to remain at their post and wait to receive the KMT army for surrender. I'll reword this. Blueshirts (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

the Chinese translation[edit]

The translate of Chinese at beginning of article should literally translate as "the liberation war" --bean 03:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding (Taiwan) to the ROC[edit]

I note that in the last week or so, there have been attempts to add "(Taiwan)" to the ROC in this article.

I don't believe that the ROC was commonly known as Taiwan at the time of Chinese Civil War. At that time of the war, the China was the ROC. The PRC wasn't established until around the time when the ROC relocated its capital to Taipei.

Please discuss any views contrary to the above here before editing take place. Thank you.--pyl (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Communist Party of China had already created the People's Republic of China (PRC) during the civil war. It is just PRC propaganda to make the civil war look like an "internal war" rather than a war between the two independent sovereign countries known officially as the China People's Republic of China and the Taiwan Republic of China (Taiwan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hi I am not sure what you mean by the PRC was already created? Mao and others may have an idea for "communist China" but it wasn't created until 1949. Benjwong (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Please provide citation that the PRC was already created during the war. I believe the PRC was founded when Mao proclaimed it in Beijing (or Peiping) after the active fighting of the war has ceased. The PRC wasn't there when the war first started.
Further, please provide citation that the ROC was commonly known as Taiwan during the war. I believe the ROC was the China where the two political parties fought, since the PRC didn't exist.
I find your construction of the war highly curious: Taiwan had a war with China in China then Taiwan lost the war and retreated back to Taiwan. Why did Taiwan invade China at first place? How did Taiwan become an independence sovereign country at that time? I thought Taiwan just got off Japanese control. Did the people in Taiwan declare independence right away then attack China? Why would they do that? If they did, please provide citation.--pyl (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'd beg to differ about the "Civil War or not" part. The PRC was not established until the expulsion of the Nationalists from Mainland in 1949. The CCP did create a Chinese Soviet Republic in 1931, but it was short-lived and was de-established in 1934. I would call it a Civil War. The definition of Civil War is "a war between a state and domestic political actors that are in control of some part of the territory claimed by the state." It doesn't really matter if there were 2 states or not. The Korean War is a Civil War, fought between 2 nations (Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea), the Vietnam War is a Civil War, fought between the Republic of Vietnam and Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The American Civil War itself is between two states, the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. Revolutions itself can be considered as a civil war and vice versa. I can say that the Confederates started a Revolution to become independent from the Union.
The Chinese Civil War should be easily identified as a Civil War. It was fought between the Central Government and Communist Rebels. the CCP did not establish a state until 1949. The Korean, Vietnam, and American wars should be even HARDER to argue if it is a civil war or not, as the states were ALREADY established prior to the war. Liu Tao (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It is true that the Communist Party of China (CPC) had already created the a sovereign country during the civil war, officially called National Flag of Chinese Soviet Republic.svg 中華蘇維埃共和國, National Flag of Chinese Soviet Republic.svg 中華蘇維埃人民共和國, and Second War Flag of Chinese Soviet Republic.svg 中華蘇維埃民主共和國. -- Yejianfei (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I added (now known as Taiwan) next to Republic of China, so it does not imply ROC is Taiwan the whole time. Pointing out the Taiwan name is important I think since probably most English speakers haven't heard of the ROC name exactly due to PRC's suppression via the UN etc. Readers can get details of when the name shifted future into the article. --Mistakefinder (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ Sheridan, James E. China in Disintegration: the Republican Era in Chinese History, 1912-1949. New York: The Free Press. pp. 245–300. 


The casualties number seems very low. Only 1.2 million? The website source also states half a million for the Japanese invasion of China. I don't think the website is credible at all. Blueshirts (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Those numbers are deaths. Casualties and deaths are different, death means dead, casualty means injured. Too many times do people get the two muddled up. Anyways, remember to keep the WWII and Civil War casualties apart, they are 2 different wars. Liu Tao (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, you are confused, casualty means both death and injuries. "傷亡" rings a bell? Anyhow, even if only death is included, the number is still way too low. The site is not credible. Blueshirts (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, from a military standpoint, casualty can just mean anyone who is no longer able to serve in the army. So that could include deaths, injuries, MIAs, traumatized, captured, deserted. Casualty is a very broad term. The number may seem low, but the website is managed by Piero Scaruffi, a historian of some note. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. But I think we should find some other reliable source on the casualties, Prof. Scaraffi might not be right here. I mean, half a million for the war against Japan? Nanking massacre killed up to 300,000 already. Blueshirts (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. Scaraffi, according to his own wikipedia article, is primarily a cultural historian. A more accurate and reliable source would be better, but until then, we can keep this. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ROC was not "reduced" to Taiwan[edit]

It is incorrect to say that a territorial change resulting from the civil war was that The ROC territorial control reduced to Taiwan and other minor islands. The ROC did not control Taiwan before the war and only came into control of Taiwan during the last 5 years of the war. It would be better to say the ROC "relocated" to Taiwan or to say that the ROC "acquired" Taiwan. Readin (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please do stop the BS. The ROC jurisdiction became limited after the communists overtook the mainland. And the war we're talking about here is the civil war, not the war against Japan. Take you POV pushing vandalism elsewhere. Blueshirts (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a simple fact that Taiwan was not in the ROC prior to the Civil War, so saying the ROC territory was "reduced" to Taiwan as a result of the Civil War is inaccurate. Readin (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The ROC may not have controlled Taiwan before the war, but they did so during the war. Nevertheless, they aquired control of Taiwan BEFORE they lost mainland, therefore it is fair to say their territory is reduced to Taiwan and whatever. If you say relocate to Taiwan, you're indicating that Taiwan and the ROC territory is not the same, which is not true either, as Taiwan by then has been handed over to the ROC. Liu Tao (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The territorial change is referring to the changes of the entire civil war, not just the last 4 years of it. Taiwan and ROC territory were not the same at the beginning of the war, but they were at the end. "Relocate" is accurate. "Reduced to" is not (unless you want to change the label to "territorial changes during the last 4 years"). Readin (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
ROC did not acquire Taiwan as a result of the civil war. ROC lost the mainland and their rule became restricted to Taiwan and a few small islands, it's as simple as that. You're just inserting the timeline issue to further your POV, give it up, nobody's buying it. Blueshirts (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Cut the POV accusations crap. Focus on the facts. Taiwan was not part of ROC prior to civil war. Therefor ROC cannot be "reduced to" Taiwan because of Civil War. Readin (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we just think of a term other then "reduced" or "relocate"? We could use "limited". The term doesn't indicate that Taiwan was a part of the ROC before the war as "reduced" would, nor does it imply that Taiwan wasn't part of the ROC before 1949 as "relocated" would imply. All "limited" does is to define the limits of the boundaries and jurisdiction of post 1949 ROC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Tao (talkcontribs) 02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort of trying to think of another term. "Limited to" is very similar to "reduced to" and has similar potential for confusion. What was wrong with the sentence explaining that ROC was reduced to Jinmen and Matsu and also acquired Taiwan? Readin (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Because Taiwan wasn't acquired because of the civil war. ROC used to rule both mainland and Taiwan, and after the war it's limited to Taiwan only. And give us a break, you know very well you've been slinging POV crap here. Blueshirts (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"Limited" actually is a bit different then "reduced". "Reduced" means that whatever you have left you had before whatever that had happened. Reading puts the "Whatever" as the Civil War, Blueshirt puts it as the "loss of Mainland". Anyways, "limited" just means what your jurisdiction is limited to. It doesn't have the meaning that whatever you have after the event that you had it before. Take for example, I'll use Australia as an example, think about it for a sec and tell me if these 2 statements have the same meanings.
"The Jurisdiction of the Australian State is reduced to the Continent of Australia"
"The Jurisdiction of the Australian State is limited to the Continent of Australia"
Think about the meanings of these 2 sentences and tell me if they mean the same thing. Liu Tao (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
How about it "became limited"? Blueshirts (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
How about "consisted of" or "comprised"? Readin (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Those don't work, well, they would, but it'll be awkward. "Consisted of" and "Comprised" are not what I call "effect" terms, they're straightforward verbs used for direct statements. You don't use them to describe the "as a result of". "Limited", or to be more specific, "limited to" is an "effect verb", it describes the "effects", in this case, the aftermath/results of the Civil War. Think about trying to word it in a sentence, the sentences are all a bit funny wording, but you get the main idea:
"As a result of the Chinese Civil War, the ROC's jurisdiction is limited to Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu..."
"As a result of the Chinese Civil War, the ROC's jurisdiction consists of Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu..."
"As a result of the Chinese Civil War, the ROC's jurisdiction is comprised of Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu..." Liu Tao (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"As a result of the Chinese Civil War, the ROC's jurisdiction became limited to Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu." sounds fine. Blueshirts (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
All of those sentences have a problem in that they say the Chinese Civil War is the reason for ROC control of Taiwan. WWII is the reason for ROC of Taiwan. ROC acquisition of Taiwan happened during the Civil War, but not as a result of it.
But we can sidestep that issue. The label in the infobox just says "Territorial changes". It doesn't say whether the changes occurred as a result of the war or simply during the war.
I'm not sure why we're trying to shorten this so much and leave out information. The "Territorial changes" section of the infobox is large enough for multiple sentences. If we must shrink it down to one sentence, it will of course be a bit awkward as we try to fit a complex territorial adjustment into a simple sentence without over-simplifying to the point of inaccuracy.
How about "The ROC's jurisdiction became comprised of Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu...".Readin (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The term "limited", "became limited" or "reduced" do not mean ROC "gained" control of Taiwan, but that it's "left" with only Taiwan. How can you be confused of this? Blueshirts (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(To Readin)That sentence in of itself is more awkward then "limited to", you're trying to write a cause/effect sentence using words that doesn't work for the particular kind of sentence you're writing. And I wasn't trying to shorten it into all in one sentence, I was trying to show you in what context and way the sentencing should be, rewording it into a sentence helps people see what exactly I'm talking about. Also, you do know that the war is still not officially over, and that the ROC still, though not actively claim mainland and all that other stuff. As for territorial changes, I thought we were talking about the results part. Anyways, I think "limited to" would be better, because "comprised of" would in a sense mean that the ROC no longer claims the Mainland, which you know is not true. They still claim Mainland, but are currently not active in pursuing their claims. But anyways, it can go both ways if you push it. I've thought of another possible term, we can use the term "retain". "The ROC retains only Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu... in their jurisdiction." The term "retain" only talks about what the ROC is able to hold on to, what the PRC has failed to take from the ROC. The ROC is able to hold on to Taiwan, and the PRC has failed to take Taiwan from the ROC. It does not matter when Taiwan became a part of the ROC, it just matters if Taiwan was part of the ROC before 1949. You can't retain something you don't have. But then, "retain" also sounds a bit awkward as well, I still favour the "limited" more. Look, this is language, not POV issues, if we were making a direct statement as to saying what the current territories under the ROC's jurisdiction includes, I would use "comprised/consist of" (The Jurisdiction of the ROC consists of Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu...). But for cause/effect statements like this, it would be "limited". You're talking about what the results are, not what the current status is or something like that. "As a result of the Chinese Civil War, The ROC territorial control is limited to Taiwan and other minor islands.). Liu Tao (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not more awkward. Taiwan Island and Penghu (and minor islands, like Green Island, Orchid Island) have a different history from Kinmin, Matsu. So it makes sense to make the distinction. DownUnder555 (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the sentencing is awkward. I've already sentenced it out, tell me that the sentences aren't awkward. And distinction does not need to be made, if you want to make note, then do a footnote, but you don't have to specifically say what was not part of the entities before the war in the main sentencing, it's not needed and crowds up everything. Taiwan was gained as a result of WWII, it has nothing to do with the Civil War. You've no need to make such distinctions, if you want to, make a footnote. Take a look at the Manual of Style. Liu Tao (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Since the ROC occupation of Taiwan was the result of WWII rather than the Chinese Civil War, I've removed the mention of Taiwan in the "territorial changes". Readin (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
But what about Taiwan and Penghu? What you have done makes it seems like the ROC is now only composed of Kinmen and Matsu. Taiwan and Penghu is not prewar territory, but they were aquired by the ROC pre-1949. What about "The ROC territorial control confined to Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, and other minor islands"? Liu Tao (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of your BS. Probably the most major result of the war is that the Nationalist Government became restricted to Taiwan only. Readin, get your POV vandalism out of here. Plus I've wrote here earlier:"The term "limited", "became limited" or "reduced" do not mean ROC "gained" control of Taiwan, but that it's "left" with only Taiwan. Don't try to skirt the issue and act confused to insert your POV crap. Blueshirts (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Readin is right. The ROC's acquisition of Taiwan has nothing to do with the Chinese Civil War itself, so Taiwan shouldn't be mentioned part of the "territorial changes" relating to the Chinese Civil War. The Civil War was about the Nationalist Party fighting the Communist Party. The Nationalist didn't acquire Taiwan by fighting with the Communist Party: it gained Taiwan by getting it from Japan. And Japan had nothing to do with the Chinese Civil War.

But I am not happy with Readin's sentence, as follows:-

The ROC lost all prewar territory except Kinmen, Matsu, and some smaller islands.

The ROC didn't legally lose the territory. The ROC constitution still regards all prewar territory as ROC territory. Would you guys be happy if we change the sentence to:-

The ROC lost control of all prewar territory except Kinmen, Matsu, and some smaller islands.--pyl (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Taiwan was still part of the ROC pre-1949 when Mainland was lost. There a reason I used the term "limited" and not "reduced". If you don't mention Taiwan, you make an implication that the only territory left in the ROC is Kinmen and Matsu. Sure, it's true that Taiwan wasn't part of the ROC before the war, but Taiwan was attained by the ROC BEFORE mainland was lost. We're mentioning what the ROC is LEFT with post-1949, not the ROC has lost. Liu Tao (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see your concerns as well. What about this:-
The ROC territorial control limited to Taiwan (which the ROC acquired from Japan during the war) and other minor islands.--pyl (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The wording implies that Taiwan is a "minor island". How about The ROC territorial control limited to Taiwan (which the ROC acquired from Japan during the war) and other smaller islands. It may not be grammatically perfect, but the normal reader will understand it to mean "other islands smaller than Taiwan". Readin (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't make sense at all and still pushing a pov agenda. "The War"? What war? The War against Jaapan is not the war we're talking about here. The original version makes perfect sense without all the extraneous crap. Blueshirts (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And this?

The ROC territorial control limited to Taiwan (which the ROC acquired from Japan when the Chinese Civil War was being fought) and other smaller islands.--pyl (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The sentence simply isn't true, as the ROC officially "reclaimed" Taiwan in Oct. 1945, way before full scale civil war blew out. Also, the sentence still sounds extremely awkward. The infobox should have a very succinct description, straight to the point. Every source on the Chinese Civil War will have the Kuomintang lost mainland China, limited to Taiwan, fled to Taiwan, and so forth. I don't get what's the point of adding a long and distracting stretch of words in the parenthesis for this very simple fact. I don't even feel like we should be playing Readin's POV game by discussing this. Blueshirts (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Although I don't always agree with Readin's POV, I don't think Readin is doing POV pushing here. The sentence as it stands can have an implication that Taiwan was under Chinese jurisdiction before the Chinese Civil War. In fact, Taiwan was under Japanese control then.
This implication conflicts with the pro-independence supporters' POV of "Taiwan's sovereignty is undetermined". This POV relies on the fact that Taiwan was under Japanese control and when Japan gave up its "sovereignty" on Taiwan, Japan didn't assign a recipient of the sovereignty and therefore Taiwan's sovereignty is still undetermined.
Although, I personally don't agree with this POV and this POV is only supported by about 8% of the Taiwanese public who are the so-called "deep green", this POV is nevertheless relevant. This POV was last week controversially raised by the Japanese representative to Taiwan.
Wikipedia is a place for provide knowledge neutrally. Providing the extra information in parenthesis provides room for that POV. I agree with adding information in parenthesis is not an elegant solution and is likely to be removed in the future by another editor without knowledge of this discussion. I nevertheless see it a possible solution to the issues at hand.--pyl (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's going to be a problem again in the future, how 'bout we finish it now and get it over with? Anyways, I'm thinking we should make "territorial changes" to "current situation", that will make much more sense and may ease things up considering that the Civil War technically has not yet ended. That way, if we do "ROC jurisdiction limited to Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu", people don't have a thing to say about it cause it's exactly what the statement means. The main problem here is where we view the "Cause" of the "Effect". You view the cause to be the starting of the civil war in the 1920's. Me and Blueshirt here view the "Cause" as 1949. Both does seem logical and are technically correct, depending on how you state the effect... anyways this WILL get ugly if it doesn't get solved soon, believe me. So what do you think of the idea of making "Territorial Changes" to "Current Situation" then? Liu Tao (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am happy with changing "territorial changes" to "current status". According to the Constitution of the Republic of China, the territory was not changed by the civil war. Therefore, there was no change at first place.--pyl (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Although I see this change to "current status" as a way for people with a certain POV to avoid a fact they don't like, we can give it a try.
I've made the following changes to be consistent with the term "current status":
  • The current status is that the PRC controls Hong Kong and Macao, so I've added them.
  • The word "limited" is not being applied neutrally - we don't say "PRC jurisdiction limited to mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau" - and it still can mislead by implying that current jurisdiction was once part of something larger, so I've removed it so that we simply say "ROC has jurisdiction...".
  • I changed "other small islands" to "some small islands". Taiwan is not a small island as the word "other" implies.
Readin (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with Readin's changes, and I hope this issue now settles.--pyl (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we mention that neither side controls outer Mongolia? Readin (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's required, as the ROC and the PRC both claim many other places where they don't have jurisdicitons over.--pyl (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The new version still misses the main points intentionally. It lacks the "changes" associated with the conclusion of the war, except for mentioning PRC establishment on the mainland. You've all been avoiding the most important fact that the Kuomintang lost mainland. EVERY source out there will say the Kuomintang retreated to Taiwan. Readin's version does not tell you this most important fact. Instead it brings HK, Macau, and other unimportant little details into an infobox where it should be succint and straight to the point. And Outer Mongolia? For god's sake. Blueshirts (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed the heading from "result" to "status" as result implies that the war has ended. This implication conflicts with a POV that the war has not legally ended, but "status" enables interpretation either way.--pyl (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think "result" is fine the way it is. Just look at Korean War. Also, by all means and purposes, the war has been over for almost sixty years, save for some minor shellings in the 50s and missile testing in the 90s. Besides, we already mentioned that no armistice has ever been signed. To say "status" seems to imply it's an ongoing war, which the Chinese Civil war doesn't fit the bill. Blueshirts (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
"To say "status" seems to imply it's an ongoing war"
Yes, it can imply that, to the POV that the Chinese Civil War hasn't legally ended. War, generally speaking, is really not just about active combat. The signing of a peace accord for the Chinese Civil War is still being mentioned by the ROC and the ROC as recent as earlier this year. If the war is indeed ended, then the signing of anything is no longer worth mentioning at first place. In this respect, the Chinese Civil War fits the bill.
The status is the active combat has ended, but no armistice has ever been signed. The result could be, a peace accord is signed by the parties.--pyl (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Wars don't need to have a signed agreement in order to end. Otherwise there are a lot of ancient wars still ongoing that will never end. Wars are illegal in the first place (Kellogg-Briand Pact), and certainly insurrections against the central government, which the communist rebellion represented, are illegal. What sense does it make to say something that is illegal doesn't end until it is legally ended?
We should try to be neutral on this question of whether the war ended. That said, I see the problems associated with both "result" and "status" and don't really have a better suggestion. "Territorial Changes" was neutral, but we've rejected that. Between "result" and "status" I think "status" is better. Consider putting the words "final" and "current" in front of each and see what you think. Both "current status" and "final status" seem ok, but "current result" seems self contradictory. Readin (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent for easier reading)

I picked status because of what you were saying, status can be interpreted either way. The template only allows for "status", "result" and "territorial changes" to exist. I think status is the best of them.--pyl (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

About the communist flag[edit]

Chinese soviet flag.svg

I read that the flag of the Chinese communist party as we know it was not codified until 1949, after their victory in mainland China. It seems that they used this flag (see on the right), which I saw in use in the "Mao, a Chinese history" documentary. It was not, as erroneously depicted before, the official flag of the Chinese Soviet Republic (which had several other, codified, flags) but an informal rallying flag for the Chinese communists. Maybe we could use this instead, since for most of the war it was the closest thing to a generic flag that the communists had. What do you think ? JJ Georges (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor problem with timeline in last paragraph[edit]

"Since the election of President Ma Ying-Jeou (KMT) in 2008, significant warming of relations has resumed between Taipei and Beijing with high level exchanges between the ruling parties of both states such as the 2005 Pan-Blue visit or the Chen-Chiang summit series."

- It doesn't make too much sense to say relations have warmed since 2008 and then give the 2005 Pan-Blue visit as an example for it. This should be replaced by an example dating after 2008 or removed.

Alfarome (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture on the top of the page.[edit]

May I suggest changing it to the picture on the top of the Huaihai Campaign page? I think that one looks way better than the one on the top of the chinese civil war page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DualThreat (talkcontribs) 21:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Who started it? How the conflict restart after WWII ...[edit]

Both side all knew that this fight was inevitable as china could only have one government but after reading the article section on this conflict i noticed that they failed to mention completely that it was the KMT that started the fight during 1946 when one of their divisions set an ambush point upon an cliff face and caused heavy casualties upon the passing PLA troops i got this info from reliable document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contingency117 (talkcontribs) 13:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're probably right and KMT did that, feeling they were backed up by the US. But why not search that reliable source and share it with us! The statement about inevitability and by force one government is nonsense. in general you cannot say that other options could not have happened, by definition anything that CAN happen, can happen. China could have ended up divided like Korea did.

Enough of that, I have a new question: Background: when as european child (and to outsiders: both china and taiwan seem obviously to be sepereate countries, as they have seperate government, passports etc.) I first heard protests against China being evil because it claims Taiwan to be theirs, I thought: "Poor Taiwan. well anyway China might want to bully them: but Taiwan will not become China as it's de facto souvereign, and the whole world will protest if they do invade it." But when in a small subnote it said: "and likewise Taiwan claims all of China to be rightfully theirs" I thought i fell of my chair. it's one thing that a huge country tries to annex a small neighbourng territory... but the audacity of tiny taiwan (in population) to claim all chinese (1.x billion) to be their subjects, is just staggering. the balls! no wonder China (reciprocically) claims taiwan! now for my QUESTION:

ROC was the only legal central government of China in 1945. As proof, the Communist army was nominally under the command of Chiang Kai Shek (as government head) in 1945, and Chiang issued command to CCP not to take control from Japanese army. CCP didn't issue command to Nationalist army, because they didn't have the legal right to do so. When CCP army refused to obey command, or even started fighting with Nationalist armies, that was considered rebellion. It was as simple as that.

There was no Communist government at 1945, only CCP. The central government has the legal right and responsibility to fight communist insurgency.

An example may help. When Nationalists rebelled against Qing dynasty, nobody asked who started the war. Why? Because The Qing government has the legal right and responsibility to fight insurgency. Ditto for Nationalist government vs. CCP.

It was CCP propaganda that tried to put the blame on Nationalists. You can call an insurgency revolution, but don't put the blame on the government for trying to fight insurgency. Any government that doesn't do so is self destructive.

Happyseeu (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Who claimed who first?[edit]

so presently ROC claims PRC, and PRC claims ROC (claims as in claims the others territory) But why is always China mentioned first to claim ROC? I have been reading a lot of pages on wikipedia on this now and it seems that at the time of the surrender of formosa (ordered by the US) of Japan, ROC quickly stepped forward and claimed all of China. besides... PRC didn't even exist at that time.

(from here on PRC=China, ROC=Taiwan) So whenever it says that China claims Taiwan, it SHOULD in fact FIRST mention that Taiwan cliams China (and still does, though not actively, but passively) It seems to me that the act of China claiming Taiwan, it being a reaction (at the time of civil war) to the fact that the ROC claimed all of China. (historically, maybe now it's different)

note: neither CCP nor ROC leadership obviously represented the whole population, but alas. in general in democratic, capitalistic, and even communitic viewpoints the fact that one side won is usuallt attributed to it having the bigger support of the people/mayority, and for having been 'correct/right'. "We won over them, so our ideology must be the better one."

And so for Taiwan to keep claiming all teritory of China to be theirs. And their population to be their subjects seems rather greedy to me of the past ROC leadership. of course i'm aware that now... they'd like to get rid of that claim, and prefer to be independant. (as military odds are tilting against them) I don't think our generation (of any nation) is responisble for the previous one, but when wrong is done *eg 228) then instead of accusing China for wanting to annex them, they could atleast make a former appology for their ancestors wanting to do the same to the PRC and having taken the island from the minority people living there before. Now they are confronted with the problem that China threatens war if they change their claim of 'one country' to 'independance'. Though China is currently the one pushing and shoving, if the proud Taiwanese would admit their mistake (of claiming China to belong to ROC/Taiwan) that would be a good start. give a finger take a hand though, and so maybe the current situation is the only way, except for the international community sometimes seeming to be anti-Chinese for no good reason. (as i beleive in looking at ourselves first before blaming others)

buy since i'm only guessing about taiwan being first historilcally to claim china: Anyone got any light on the order of who claimed who first? Pakmenu (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Civil War over?[edit]

Major combat is over, and now it's just a Cold War version of Civil War - but nonetheless a Cold WAR...since PRC will have zero legitimacy to claim Taiwan if Civil War ended - clearly it has not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for Kuomintang defeat.[edit]

I replaced the text

The ROC's defeat on the mainland is attributed to several factors: the Yan'an Rectification Movement that remolded the Chinese Communist Party, the June 1946 ceasefire called by U.S. special envoy George Marshall that disrupted the Nationalists' efforts to defeat the Communists in Northeast China, the worsening social and economic problems in Nationalist controlled areas, the handover of the captured artillery from Kanto Army to the People's Liberation Army by the Soviet troops (as footnoted in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 505), and inconsistent American aid to the Nationalists.


The Kuomintang defeat on the mainland is attributed to several factors: Corruption - Chiang wrote in his diary on June 1948 that the KMT had failed, not because of external enemies but because of rot from within.[1]; The strong USA initial support diminished until stopped. (Partly because of KMT corruption and anti-democratic[2] regime.); Communist land reform policy promissed to poor peasants farmland from their landlords. This ensured PLA popular support.

I believe these are much more relevant reasons. If KMT leader sees corruption as the main cause, we should cite it first. The land reform policy is cited later in the article as the main reason for Communist popular support. Dl.goe (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


I've removed a couple mentions of "mainland China" as unnecessary because they were referring to, in one instance, "victory in mainland China", and in another instance to "Fighting in mainland China". Since the war took place entirely in mainland China, such usages are redundant. I've fixed a few other places where "mainland" is used alone. The convention when contrasting Taiwan with China is to use "mainland China", not simply "mainland" (since it is unclear - an English speaker visiting Taiwan's Green Island or Pescadores, could use "mainland" to refer to Taiwan).

I think we should try to cut down on the use of "mainland". If there is a specific contrast being made between Taiwan and China, then it makes sense. However the majority of the war took place in China while Taiwan was still part of Japan. No fighting took place in Taiwan. It should be sufficient in some cases to simply say "China". Readin (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


The date section in the infobox needs to be simplified and exact dates (if possible) added for duration. As it is now, at first glance it's very cumbersome (especially for a lay person) trying to determine the length of this conflict. Jmj713 (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Osprey publishing book on chinese civil war armies[edit]

Rajmaan (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese civil war refugees[edit]

Most of Malaysian Chinese and Singaporean Chinese used to be a refugees of the Chinese civil war back in 1927- 1949 , when things started to get bad in Mainland China, people start migrating to South East Asia, i think this article need to improve based on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain2123 (talkcontribs) 13:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah. A lot of war articles, especially those for modern wars, contain info on refugees. If we can find a good source for this, I definitely agree it should be included..-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China article[edit]

Hello, this was recently added to the Incorporation of Tibet into the PRC article, and I thought it would be more relevant to this article. I see that Soviet aid to the PLA is already covered in this article, but here it is anyway. Perhaps the reference can be of use.

In his essay Hidden Tibet: History of Independence and Occupation published by the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives at Dharamsala, S.L. Kuzmin, quoting Soviet declassified documents, claims that the military strength of Chinese communists and their victory over the KMT resulted only from the massive support by Joseph Stalin from the Soviet Union [3]

Cheers.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead. Looks good.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The IP that originally added the material has put it in this article. I added mention of Soviet aid to the lead in the paragraph on factors contributing to the Kuomintang defeat.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


The names applied to the Chinese leaders throughout this article are inconsistent. There are British and American spelling of each name, yet the article doesn't use either consistently. ex. It uses the American Spelling of Mao Zedong, instead of the British Mao Tse Tung, yet uses the British Chiang Kai-Shek, rather than the American Jiang Jeishi.

We need naming Consistency throughout articles on China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drprufrock (talkcontribs) 16:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is more a matter of Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-Shek being the more commonly used spellings in the English speaking world (see WP:Common Name for general guidelines). (A search through the article shows that Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong are used throughout.) It is not, in fact, a difference between British and American spellings; we call him Chiang Kai-Shek in America too, and if the BBC [1] is any guide, Mao Zedong is used in Britain. See WP:Naming conventions (Chinese) and its talk page for how Wikipedia is trying to keep consistency in naming articles on China.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sentence in intro needs clarification and citations.[edit]

"After the surrender of Japan at the end of World War II, Soviet forces turned over their captured Japanese weapons to the CPC and allowed the CPC to take control of territory in Manchuria, in which Soviet Union was allowed to do so by the consent of Unites States and United Kingdom to intervene and influence the outcome of Chinese Civil War (especially in the decisive battles in Northeast China) at the expense of the Republic of China government by the result of Yalta Conference until the start of Cold War across the Taiwan Strait (see United Nations General Assembly Resolution 505)."

I've added citation and clarification needed tags to the sentence quoted above (from the article intro). The articles linked in that sentence don't seem to support the claims it makes. The sentence needs work for clarification and grammatical correctness. Because I don't fully understand the sentence's intended meaning, and because I'm not familiar with the subject matter, I don't want to edit and unintentionally change the substance of the information given. -Xxiggy (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

ROC has never officially declared that the war was over. Please consider revising.[edit]

I raise this because of one sentence in the "Aftermath" section, which says "the war was officially declared over by the ROC in 1991."

I have to say that's a misinterpretation. In 1991, the Republic of China ended the Period of mobilization for the suppression of Communist rebellion, followed by revocation of many war-time laws and regulations. But a proclamation to end this period in no way means a formal proclamation of the end of the war. Although we're very clear that the ROC does not want to fight any more, ROC has never unilaterally declared the war was over. ----BlueYearning (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article is currently slanted towards a PRC point of view in that it states the war was over by 1950. This is not the case. There were several campaigns by PRC forces attempting to sieze ROC held island groups throughout the 1950's, some successful some not. Additionally there was sustained efforts by ROC armies headquartered along the Burma border aimed at retaking Yunnan province throughout the 1950's into the 1960's. There were also sporadic naval clashes lasting until the mid 1960's, as well as commando raids along coastal mainland areas. The last incidents of active combat that i am aware of were in the 1980's involving PRC shootdowns of ROC military aircraft. I would suggest that the date of the last of these shootdowns consitutes the true end to the conflict as there has been no combat incidents since that time.XavierGreen (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

inadequate reference[edit]

this line in the "Second Sino - Japanese War" category carries an inadequate reference link: "...eng to carry out suppression of the CPC; however, their provincial forces suffered significant casualties in battles with the Red Army.ref"

The link takes one to a non - cited, non - verifiable .com website with no author named, no adequate study of presentism, or objectivity notations. The cited article contains grammatical errors, incorrect punctuation and spelling errors.

Wikipedia, if I read the policies correctly, requires "Verifiability", first and foremost. If a website in incapable of passing a CRAAP test, it is not regarded as verifiable source information in any academic definition.

(; ;

Wikipedia cites as follows here ( :

"...Sources that are usually not reliable See also: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Questionable and self-published sources Policy shortcuts: WP:NOTRELIABLE WP:NOTRS WP:QS Questionable sources Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others...."

In this case, the referenced website is certainly a promotional site, with lack of "meaningful editorial oversight", and "relies heavily on personal opinion" rather than a preponderance of evidence.

As such it is " not suitable sources for contentious claims about others", certainly nothing as contentious as the KMTs reasons for deciding to create the Second Unified Front. (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)J. Halfin63.142.225.186 (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hoover Institution – Hoover Digest – Chiang Kai-shek and the Struggle for China
  2. ^ [2] retrieved 7 Aug 2012
  3. ^ Kuzmin, S.L. Hidden Tibet: History of Independence and Occupation. Dharamsala, LTWA, 2011, pp. 157-167.