Why is Nationalist China Pan Asian in Historic now?
Please log in to post a reply.
Given the circumstances of National China during 1939, they are definitely not inclined to use Allied doctrine despite using Allied equipment. Allied doctrine advocates faster research and getting better units quickly right? Sadly this was not the case for them.
If it is based on their fighting style I would say more like Comintern Doctrine.
But we can't do that as China was the ultimate enemies of a communist regime.
Well, Nationalist China used to have Comintern skin.
Because it wouldn't make sense for them to be the same doctrine as Germany, a close ally of Japan.Buzzy02 wrote:
You are missing the point. They used to be Axis, now their doctrine is changed to Pan-Asian. Why?
No very accurate, there USED, note USED to be a lot of Chinese tourists in Japan.vietcong2005 wrote:
in fact they still hate Japan now.
It's what Whowh wrote they have a similar fighting style so the Pan-Asian doctrine makes sense. Nationalist China being Axis doesn't make any sense as they weren't allied with the Axis nor did they have Axis equipment. You could argue that they should be allied doctrine as they had allies equipment but than again they also had Sovjet equipement. In the end it all comes back again to the fighting style.whowh wrote:
It is based off of the fighting style which occurred in the area that China fought. Even though they were enemies, they fought in a similar manner and this is what makes them the same doctrine.
The Germans aided and trained the Nationalist army as well as provided economic aid to China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_(1926%E2%80%931941)BMfox wrote:
It's what Whowh wrote they have a similar fighting style so the Pan-Asian doctrine makes sense. Nationalist China being Axis doesn't make any sense as they weren't allied with the Axis nor did they have Axis equipment. You could argue that they should be allied doctrine as they had allies equipment but than again they also had Sovjet equipement. In the end it all comes back again to the fighting style.whowh wrote:
It is based off of the fighting style which occurred in the area that China fought. Even though they were enemies, they fought in a similar manner and this is what makes them the same doctrine.
So the sneaky Germans were playing both sidesTomtheBuilder wrote:
The Germans aided and trained the Nationalist army as well as provided economic aid to China. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Ger…ration_(1926%E2%80%931941)
The change was made for multiple reasons:
a) There were too few pan-asian countries on the historical map. We increased that diversity. It wasn't the only Doctrine change btw, if you look closely.
b) We looked at the tech that Nationalist China used, and it used tech from all kinds of countries, from allies over axis to even japanese. So this wasnt a strong factor for giving them a particular Doctrine.
c) Because of their fighting style. It wouldnt make sense to give them Axis Doctrine which has super strong and expensive units, and it wouldnt make sense to give them Allied with super good research. Comintern might make sense, and so does Pan-Asian.
Please log in to post a reply.
