很多人都知道中国的抗日战争打得有多艰难，当时中国军事力量薄弱，兵力不足，武器装备等等都很珍贵，没有硬性条件的支撑，在荷枪实弹的军国主义日本面前，反抗实在是太艰难了，所以理所当然的认为当时的中国军队很弱，但是事实是这样么？
大多数西方国家(实际上东亚以外的国家)所记得的历史是美利坚合众国单枪匹马打败了日本帝国。如果人们还记得中国，通常会说中国被人欺负了，所以他们并没有什么作为。在美国最大的论坛网站上就有网友提出这样的问题：中国是二战期间同盟国中最弱的国家，这是真的吗?
我们来看看国外的民间网友是怎么看待这个问题的，是否都不了解中国在二战中的贡献。
论坛的话题：中国是二战期间同盟国中最弱的国家，这是真的吗?
菲律宾网友的观点
For people in Europe, the Second World War broke out in September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, triggering a declaration of war from Britain and France. But for people in China, the war against Japan had already been going on for more than two years.
对欧洲人来说，1939年9月德国入侵波兰，引发英法两国宣战，第二次世界大战爆发。但对中国人来说，抗日战争已经进行了两年多。
To get an idea of what China was up against, let us benchmark China’s performance against other Allied nations who fought against Japan.
为了了解中国面对的是什么，让我们把中国的表现与其他抗日同盟国的表现进行比较。
French: Japan routed the French out of Indochina within ONE week. Just in case you think it's a freak result, the Nazis routed the French in France in a month.
法国:日本在一周内将法国人赶出印度支那。如果你认为这是一个奇怪的结果，纳粹在一个月内击溃了法国人。
British: Japan routed the British out of Malaysia and Singapore within 2 months, the Japanese totaling ~30,000 soldiers while the British had ~90,000 soldiers.
英国:日本在2个月内将英国人赶出马来西亚和新加坡，日本人总计约3万名士兵，而英国人只有约9万名士兵。
Combined British, Dutch, USA, Australian Forces: ~150,000 of them fought against 50,000 Japanese troops and were routed within 3 months.
英联邦、荷兰、美国和澳大利亚军队:约15万人与5万日本军队作战，在3个月内被击溃。
USA: America fared the best against Japan in Asia. 150,000 American troops in Philippines managed to hold 130,000 Japanese troops for 5 months before capitulating and losing Philippines.
美国:美国在亚洲对抗日本表现最好，15万驻菲律宾美军成功牵制了13万日本军队5个月，然后投降并失去菲律宾。
Let us look at China.China had such inadequate equipment, training, supplies, command system, technology that before war broke up, the Japanese military believed in the slogan “Shanghai in 3 days, China in 3 months” where they believed they could roll over China in 3 months. Instead, China fought Japan for 8 years, forcing Japan to commit 4m troops to the China theatre. After losing the coastal areas that were difficult to defend, China basically fought Japan to a standstill in the interior of China.
让我们看看中国。中国的装备、训练、补给、指挥系统和技术都非常不足，以至于在战争爆发前，日本军队相信“3天上海，3个月中国”的口号，他们认为他们可以在3个月内占领中国。相反，中国与日本打了8年，迫使日本向中国战区投入400万军队。中国在失去了难以防御的沿海地区后，在中国内地与日本的战斗基本陷于停顿。
The Chinese made up for their vastly inferior equipment and supplies by their blood. China had the highest number of Generals who were killed in combat as they refused to retreat and chose a last stand to rally their troops against a vastly superior modern enemy. There were even Chinese battalions called “Saber battalions” because the soldiers were armed with sabers, as guns and ammo were too scarce to be issued to them.
中国人用鲜血弥补了他们极其劣势的装备和补给。中国有最多的将军在战斗中丧生，因为他们拒绝撤退，选择了最后一战来集结军队对抗一个极其优越的现代敌人。甚至有中国营被称为“军刀营”，因为士兵们手持军刀，因为枪支和弹药太少，无法发放给他们。
One can argue that the French, British, Dutch, American forces in Asia were poorly trained and equipped compared to the ones in their home countries. There is an element of truth to this, but I can assure you that compared to the Chinese, they are considered very well equipped and trained. Not even the Soviets, admired by the Nazis for their bravery, go into battle armed with nothing but sabers.
有人会说，法国、英国、荷兰和美国在亚洲的军队与他们本国的军队相比，训练和装备都很差。这有一定的真实性，但我可以向你保证，与中国人相比，他们的装备和训练都非常好。即使是被纳粹崇拜的勇敢的苏联人，也不会只带着军刀上战场。
So yes, on paper, in terms of capabilities, China is the weakest Allied member. But in terms of actual performance, China performed much better.
所以，是的，理论上，就能力而言，中国是最弱的同盟国成员。但就实际表现而言，中国的表现要好得多。
来自芬兰的网友的观点
It was the weakest major state during the war. Its economy was completely wrecked with inflation and other issues, it was never able to industrialize even before the war, infrastructure was very poor, and the logistics situation was awful. They had to deal with an ongoing civil war while fighting with Japan, and the Kuomintang government itself was by no means unified.
它是战争期间最弱的主要国家之一。它的经济被通货膨胀和其他问题彻底摧毁，即使在战前它也从未能够实现工业化，基础设施非常差，物流状况也很糟糕。他们不得不在与日本作战的同时应对一场持续的内战，国民党政府本身也根本不统一。
It almost looked like they would lose at the opening blow, given how pretty much the best units were routed at Shanghai and Nanjing. Historically, whoever holds the eastern river deltas holds China. But the Chinese held on, and they held down dozens of Japanese divisions off of other fronts in doing so.
考虑到上海和南京几乎是最好的部队，看起来他们几乎会在第一次打击中失败。从历史上看，谁控制了东部三角洲，谁就控制了中国。但是中国人坚持住了，他们在这样做的时候在其他战线上压制了几十个日军师。
Consider how battles like Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Peleliu, etc. stand in history. The US had a 2–1 numerical advantage at Guadalcanal and a 5-to-1 at the other two. Consider what those landings would have been like at closer to parity.
想想硫磺岛、瓜岛、贝里琉等战役在历史上的地位。美国在瓜达尔卡纳尔岛拥有2比1的数量优势，在其他两个岛屿拥有5比1的数量优势。想象一下在接近平衡的情况下，这些着陆会是什么样子。
The Japanese likely wouldn’t have invaded Australia, as they said after the war that they had never even considered it, but they could have pushed successfully into India and set up a defensive sphere that would have been impossible to break through until we got nukes…and that’s assuming they surrendered after that.
日本人很可能不会入侵澳大利亚，就像他们在战后说的，他们甚至从来没有考虑过那样，但他们可以成功地推进到印度，并建立一个防御领域，在我们有核武器之前是不可能突破的，这是假设他们在那之后投降。
The Chinese were also never really dealt with well. The Burma campaign was managed badly, and our relationships were always awkward. Stillwell should have been sent to Europe where his kick-ass-and-take-names demeanor would have worked well, and somebody who knew how to play politics and mend fences like Eisenhower should have been sent to China.
中国人也从未被好好对待过。缅甸战役管理得很糟糕，我们的关系一直很尴尬。史迪威应该被派到欧洲去，在那里，他那种粗暴粗暴的作风会很奏效，而像艾森豪威尔这样懂得玩弄政治、修补关系的人应该被派到中国去。
Alternatively, Roosevelt could have given up on the southern prong of the island hopping campaign and sent Macarthur to China, where he could have done all kinds of fancy maneuvering and generally enjoyed being a Kipling protagonist/Conrad villain. Chiang and his wife likely would have played him like a harp. He also would be able to get a closer look at the CCP and make some better decisions come 1951.
或者，罗斯福本可以放弃南部的岛屿跳跃运动，把麦克阿瑟派到中国，在那里他可以做各种各样的花式的操作，享受做吉卜林的主角和康拉德的反派。蒋和他的妻子很可能会像对待竖琴一样对待他。他也能更近距离地观察中共，在1951年做出更好的决定。
Churchill had some relevant thoughts on this. He didn’t want China on the UNSC after the war, based on the fact that their contribution to the war effort was “We didn’t get conquered!” However, he was willing to recognize the PRC and thought an offensive war from Korea into China would be “flies invading flypaper,” and that China’s communism wouldn’t last through the ages. He’s not a saint, but he was an impressive political realist.
丘吉尔对此有一些相关的想法。他不想让中国在战后进入联合国安理会，因为他们对战争的贡献就是“我们没有被征服!”然而，他愿意承认中华人民共和国，并认为从朝鲜到中国的进攻战争将是“苍蝇入侵苍蝇纸”，中国的共产主义不会持续很久。他不是圣人，但他是一位令人印象深刻的政治现实主义者。
美国历史爱好者的观点
Ok, I was going to move on, but after seeing some of these other answers - especially one that adopted such a condescending tone to the original poster of the question in the form of “Eyy congrats for falling for a logical fallacy” - I’m going to write that the original poster is most likely referring to the book “Forgotten Ally” by East Asian historian Rana Mitter.
好吧，我本打算继续，但在看到一些其他的答案后——尤其是一个采用了一种居高居高下的语气，以“恭喜你陷入了逻辑谬误”的形式来回应这个问题的原始海报——我打算写道，原始海报很可能是指东亚历史学家Rana Mitter的书《被遗忘的盟友》。
Rana Mitter is a professor of the history and politics of modern China at Oxford University and I happen to have been taught by one of the students who attended his lectures.
拉纳·米特(Rana Mitter)是牛津大学(Oxford University)研究近代中国历史和政治的教授，我的老师恰好是听过他讲课的一位学生。
And contrary to these other so-called answers which baselessly and outrageously claim that the low coverage of China’s war effort during WW2 was due to its insignificance, Rana Mitter painstakingly compiles evidence and provides an eye-opening and logical argument for why mainstream movies and documentaries today have seemingly suffered amnesia about China’s role in the years between the well-documented start of the Second-Sino Japanese War in 1937 and the Allied Victory in 1945 that saw the Republic of China being given a permanent security council seat in the newly formed United Nations.
与这些毫无根据和无耻地声称二战期间中国战争努力的低报道是由于其无足轻重的其他所谓答案相反，拉纳·米特煞费苦心地收集证据，并提供了一个令人大开眼界和合乎逻辑的论点，说明为什么今天的主流电影和纪录片似乎对中国在1937年第二次中日战争有据可查的开始和1945年盟军胜利之间的几年中的角色产生了健忘症，1945年盟军胜利后，中华民国在新成立的联合国获得了安理会常任理事国席位。
Hmm, I don’t suppose the reason China was given so much political power had anything to do with the crucial role she played in defeating Japan?
嗯，我不认为中国被赋予如此多政治权力的原因与她在打败日本中扮演的关键角色有关。
Even a cursory search online can provide the numbers game that proves China was to Japan, what the Soviet Union was to the German Reich! Japanese militarists at the onset of war confidently predicted a capture of Shanghai in a week and capitulation of Chiang’s Government within a month. Instead the Blue Republic resisted in the Battle of Shanghai for 3 Months, fighting a brutal street battle that has been dubbed “The Stalingrad on the Yangtze”! Alas, that the sacrifice of Chinese soldiers for the lives of their American, British and Australian allies would be so easily dismissed today.
即使是粗略的在网上搜索也能提供数字游戏，证明中国之于日本，就像苏联之于德意志帝国!战争一开始，日本军国主义者就自信地预测，一个星期内就会攻占上海，一个月内就会投降蒋介石政府。相反，蓝色共和国在上海会战中抵抗了3个月，进行了一场残酷的巷战，被称为“长江上的斯大林格勒”!唉，中国士兵为了美国、英国和澳大利亚盟友的生命而做出的牺牲，在今天会被如此轻易地忽视。
四行仓库
This answer was not intended to come out as an attack against you, dear reader, and I apologise. The truth is thanks in large part to the victory of the CCP in the Chinese civil war, it became politically inconvenient to remind the US public that Chinese soldiers held the line against the Japanese when it became clear that the Chinese were now their Communist rivals and propaganda cannot work with such grey areas.
亲爱的读者，我的回答并不是为了攻击你，我道歉。事实是，在很大程度上，由于中国共产党在中国内战中的胜利，在政治上不方便提醒美国公众，中国士兵坚守着对日本人的战线，因为中国现在显然是他们的共产党对手，而宣传无法在这样的灰色地带发挥作用。
Why take my word for it when Uncle Sam agrees with me?
山姆大叔同意我的意见，为什么要相信我呢?
And so that is why China has been “forgotten” in the perception of WW2 by the Anglosphere. The terrible part about this is that as more time elapses and more people come to believe that American island hopping was more crucial than China’s resistance, the greater the likelihood that Chinese nationalism will flare up.
这就是为什么在对二战的看法中，中国被盎格鲁圈“遗忘”了。可怕的是，随着时间的推移，越来越多的人开始相信美国人的岛屿迁移比中国的抵抗更重要，中国民族主义爆发的可能性就越大。
As Rana Mitter noted in an interview with the New York Times, he felt that it was chilling to see events from 70 years ago that he studies as a historian return to life as newspaper headlines today such as when Japan continues to deny the Rape of Nanjing. According to Mitter, China and Japan do not share closure or even the same narrative of WW2 that France and Germany can and as a result a resurgence of war between China and Japan actually has a frighteningly realistic chance of occurring whereas this prospect is unthinkable in Europe.
正如拉纳·米特在接受《纽约时报》采访时所指出的那样，他感到令人不寒而栗的是，他作为一名历史学家研究的70年前的事件在今天成为报纸头条新闻，比如日本继续否认南京大屠杀。根据米特的说法，中国和日本没有像法国和德国那样分享二战的结局，甚至没有相同的二战叙事，因此，中日之间的战争死灰复燃实际上有令人恐惧的现实可能性发生，而这一前景在欧洲是不可想象的。
And unless outsiders looking in at China, people like you and me, do our research and honor the fallen Chinese of WW2, modern Chinese will always feel that we can never understand their heritage of pain and loss.
除非像你我这样的局外人来观察中国，做研究，向二战中倒下的中国人致敬，否则现代中国人会一直觉得我们永远无法理解他们的痛苦和损失。
Best of wishes, friend.
致以最美好的祝愿，朋友。
EDIT: Thomas Finnegan points out rightfully so that US involvement in the Pacific War deserves more credit in my answer as China had no realistic naval or air power to invade the Japanese Home Islands and so the US navy would have been necessary for a “killing blow” , while also pointing out that had China resisted less, substantially more Japanese troops would be stationed in the Home Islands which might have bolstered the Japanese will to fight possibly even after the use of atomic weapons. Something worth thinking about…
编辑:托马斯·芬尼根指出正当,我们参与了太平洋战争更值得信贷在中国我的答案没有现实的海军和空军力量入侵日本本土,所以美国海军“死亡打击”是必要的,同时也指出了中国抵制少,更多的日本军队驻扎在家里岛屿可能会提振日本后将打击甚至原子武器的使用。一些值得思考的事情……
美国历史爱好者的观点
If you are a relatively comprehensive national strength. China was indeed the weakest at the time.
如果你是一个国力比较综合的国家。中国当时确实是最弱的。
If you compare this effort and mental strength of the military under a limited resource condition. China is probably the strongest. Or one of the strongest.
如果你把这种努力和军队在有限资源条件下的精神力量进行比较。中国可能是最强的。或者是最强的。
Especially in such a backward era, China is in Germany. With the help of German people, there are the smartest strategies. Throughout the entire process of the war, China is strategically smarter than Japan. The tactical level is actually not much different. But the material level is too much, too much.
特别是在这样一个落后的时代，中国在德国。在德国人的帮助下，有了最聪明的策略。在整个战争过程中，中国在战略上比日本更聪明。战术层面其实也没什么不同。但是物质层面太多了。
Don't be fooled by the vastness of China's land and its huge population. Modern warfare is not about population, but about the industrial base. And bring in the army's fire.
不要被中国广袤的土地和庞大的人口所迷惑。现代战争与人口无关，而是与工业基础有关。并带来军队的火力。
At that time, China's industrial base Steel production is only a few tenths. ，Steel production, Japan should be dozens of times that of China. With steel, you can build all kinds of weapons. China had nothing at the time.
当时，中国的工业基础钢铁产量只有十分之一。日本的钢铁产量应该是中国的几十倍。有了钢铁，你可以制造各种各样的武器。中国当时一无所有。
China is a completely agricultural developed country. Japan is an industrialized country.
中国是一个农业发达的国家。日本是一个工业化国家。
The Japanese army has undergone more scientific training. The Chinese army is to gather some farmers directly and send them directly to the battlefield after a few days of training. They didn't even fire a few shots before they went to war, Is to train the marksmanship without enough bullets.
日本军队经历了更科学的训练。中国军队是直接召集一些农民，经过几天的训练后直接派他们上战场。他们上战场前连几枪都没开，就是为了在没有足够子弹的情况下训练枪法。
Japan can make planes, tanks and artillery, and China has limited rifles.
日本可以制造飞机、坦克和火炮，而中国的步枪有限。
China was a peasant country at that time, and the people generally did not have any education. The minimum technical work is not competent.
当时的中国是一个农民国家，人们普遍没有受过任何教育。最基本的技术工作都不能胜任。
It is under such circumstances that China can drag Japan for eight years.
在这种情况下，中国可以拖日本8年。
Can hold off Japan for eight years. In my opinion, the Chinese are very great. This is the result of the most brilliant strategy.
可以拖住日本八年。在我看来，中国人是非常伟大的。这是最聪明的策略的结果。
In the end, it was able to defeat Japan, and it did have a major relationship with the US Pacific War, but it is unthinkable that China has dragged Japan for eight years.
最终，中国打败了日本，它确实与美国的太平洋战争有重大关系，但不可想象的是，中国拖了日本8年。
Let any country. Whether American, German, French, Soviet, Italian, or even Japanese themselves. So that they can only master the economic culture of the Chinese at that time. Social structure of the political system of the environment. And industrial and social conditions. They may not be able to perform better than the Chinese.
让任何一个国家。不管是美国人，德国人，法国人，苏联人，意大利人，甚至日本人。所以他们只能掌握当时中国人的经济文化。社会结构的政治制度的环境。还有工业和社会条件。他们可能不会比中国人表现得更好。
Look at the Russians and the French. They are an industrial country against Germany, an industrial country. It's all a piece of shit.
看看俄国人和法国人。他们是一个工业国家，而德国是一个工业国家。这都是一坨屎。
The French, in particular, are a joke. They have exactly the same industrial base as Germany, as well as the economic base, as well as civilization and this structure.
尤其是法国人，简直就是个笑话。他们有和德国一样的工业基础，同样的经济基础，同样的文明和这种结构。
So if you look at the performance of China at that time, you should look at it in light of the specific situation and various resource conditions of the Chinese at that time. You know that the Chinese army is very great.
所以如果你看中国当时的表现，就应该从中国当时的具体情况和各种资源条件来看。你知道中国军队是非常伟大的。
But if you only look at the general surface results, China's performance at that time was indeed very bad, which was caused by the fact that all aspects of the country were very backward.
但如果只看总的表面成绩，中国当时的表现确实很差，这是由于国家各方面都很落后造成的。
As long as the Chinese have completely straightened out these aspects, Japan is not an opponent at all. Even the United States is not necessarily an opponent.
只要中国完全理顺了这些方面，日本就根本不是对手。甚至美国也不一定是对手。
In the latter part of World War II, The Chinese expeditionary force to Myanmar can basically draw with Japan, because weapons and equipment have training, and they have already caught up.
在第二次世界大战后期，中国赴缅远征军基本上可以和日本打成平手，因为武器装备有训练，已经赶上了。
Later, supporting Vietnam ’ s war against France, as well as the Korean War, showed that the Chinese army only had to give them sufficient political conditions, weapons and equipment, and adequate training. 。All western countries, whether France, Germany or the United States, are no match for the Chinese.
后来支持越南对法战争，支持朝鲜战争，说明中国军队只需要给他们足够的政治条件、武器装备和足够的训练。。所有的西方国家，无论是法国、德国还是美国，都不是中国人的对手。
If Japan invades China in the last ten years After China has one of the most basic industrialization conditions, Japan will not be able to move at all. They chose one of China's most vulnerable times.
如果日本在中国拥有最基本的工业化条件后的最后十年侵略中国，日本将动弹不得。他们选择了中国最脆弱的时期。
I believe in putting the Americans at that time in that position in China. I don't think the Americans or the Germans, the Soviets will perform better than the Chinese.
我认为应该把美国人放在中国的那个位置上。我不认为美国人，德国人，苏联人会比中国人表现得更好。
Western countries do not have any special talents in the military. The reason why they are strong is because the national strength of the whole country is strong.
西方国家在军事上没有任何特殊的人才。他们之所以强大，是因为整个国家的国力强大。
To sum up, it is, A critically ill patient got into a fight with a enjoy good health athlete. The requirements and evaluation criteria for the two are different. China is the critically ill patient.
总之，它是，一个危重病人和一个健康的运动员打了起来。两者的要求和评价标准是不同的。中国是危重病人。