Talk:Chinese Civil War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shouldn’t it be a stalemate?

The war never technically ended and tensions are still flaring up. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call this a frozen conflict? I feel like calling it a PRC victory is propaganda in order to diminish the legitimacy of the Republic of China, which is still recognized by other nations. GigaDerp (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the size of the territory that each side ended up controlling (see [1]), I'd say one side clearly won. Vpab15 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Regional warlord's role in the war

Does warlords have anything to do with this conflict? Warlords might pledge loyalty and even deploy forces to resist and hold against their lands or allow nationalist force to move through their territory. However, the warlords have little to no mention in this article and briefly described as a band.This war could be a multi-sided conflict with warlords betraying both sides and other warlords.\ yes. Chiang tried to control them, to varying degrees of success. One showed he was ready to destroy the ccp if needed but at that point japan was coming back, so Chiang said "if you surrender, I'll attack you first, then japan, then the ccp."

section on sino-japanese war is rather innaccurate

It says that the CCP did relatively little fighting, and that the ccp-kmt collaboration was in name only. No. Just No. Just because they fought on different fronts does not mean they did not collaborate. And asking the poorly armed Eighth route army to fight directly along with kmt troops would be useless and wasting their value. The ccp did not, as it is implied, just wait for the KMT to win but be severely weakened. Mao literally wrote the book that helped the Chinese win the war. The eighth route army controlled larged swathes of land BEHIND enemy lines. These areas were often attacked by the japanese so they suffered heavy losses. They did engage in warfare, often delivering heavy blows to japan such as in the 百团大战。 In addition most of japan's railways mining oil etc was all heavily hindered. And then there's the part where the "new forth army harrased kmt troops". if so, do you think they'd really retreat when asked? It was all part of Chiang's willingness to get rid of the ccp as soon as the war settled down a bit. And no, this isn't a conspiracy theory, it's literally proven with telegrams and Japan tried to take advantage of this. The new 4th endured attacks from the KMT army, it was not until their commander was captured did they fight back. He was sentenced to five years of jail. And why? To weaken the ccp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.171.145 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

too vaguely presented with other intermingled Chinese civil wars

The article overlooked the importance of internal (if there was a de jure KMT) conflicts between Chiang faction’s KMT vs other factions, especially like the Central Plains campaign 1928-1930 paralleled with (what this article’s claim of purely) CCP-KMT conflict. Chiang did not take CCP as priority target before defeating other factions within KMT. Even during the peak of the so called Long March, Chiang admitted that part of the purpose to send his faction’s KMT over the retreating CCP troop was to gain control of minor warlords’ territories CCP merely passing by. And this also contributed why CCP painted the Long March as military miracle while actually minor warlords’ half measures to passively assist Chiang contributed greatly. This article overlooked these critical factors to analyze. 142.186.93.240 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Chinese Communist Party (Pre-1996).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Frozen conflict in the infobox

it's pretty silly and detached from both reality and sources to have the fact that a peace treaty was never signed be reflected so prominently in the article — Remsense聊 16:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. You should delete it. I tried to do so just now but for some reason my preview doesn't look right so I didn't make the change. The correct point is already handled by the infobox references to Taiwan strait conflicts. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done— Remsense聊 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Remsense Nobody wrote it's a frozen conflict. They instead wrote the fighting ended without a mutual agreement between the two sides. Which is true.

@JArthur1984 Hello, I know you haven't replied here in months but hope you can read this and don't mind me inviting you to join the thread below. I see that you are that editor who sorta agreed with Remsense. I kindly ask you to review my arguments below and reassess if it's reasonable to remove the wording in infobox that the fighting had ended with no peace treaty. I think such wording should come back as omitting it, may mislead people into thinking that both sides have officially agreed with each other when the fighting stopped, when that is strongly not the case. Your participation in our discussion is of course voluntary, but your participation would be

much appreciated.Totenkopfeternal (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PRCFounding.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

it's "CCP" not "CPC".

the name for Mainland China's Communist Party has been agreed to (by the CCP article itself) be referred to as "CCP". as I have a new account (have been using IP in the past), I cannot edit yet. Someone please review my comment. thank you. Joséthewikier (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Both are used, and both are acceptable, as long as use is consistent within a given article. Remsense诉 07:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

the problem is that it isn't consistent for this article, and it makes most sense to change all the "CPC"s to "CCP". most of the sources (other than the most primary source straight from the Party's mouth) refer to the party as "CCP" rather than "CPC" and I think if we were to aim for consistency, we should change all to "CCP". I don't know though, if everyone else disagrees, please be consistent the other way and change all to "CPC" (along with other Chinese politics related articles too). Thank you! Joséthewikier (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems someone changed it recently from CCP. Regardless, the standard here would be intra-article, I think. I'll make it consistent. Remsense诉 07:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to you! Joséthewikier (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)