Conclusion
After concluding the nationalists would not launch anymore counterattacks, the Communist finally declared a victory on August 10, 1945. The Communist succeeded in retake all of the territories previously lost by destroying all of the six nationalist companies stationed there, succeeding in capturing over a hundred nationalist enlisted, thirty-six nationalist officers (including a battalion commander), while killing most of the remaining nationalist troops. A total of nineteen machine guns and huge amount of ammunition also fell into Communist hands. The conflict was used by the Communists as a mean to evaluate the training of their troops, especially the 358th Brigade.
The nationalists not only learned that the rugged mountainous terrain favored the enemy defenders but ill-suited for the mechanized force of their own, but was also worrying the political fallout of alienating the general public for launching an attack on the Communists instead of the Japanese invaders. Furthermore, the American investigation team (accompanied by Yang Shangkun, with Huang Hua and Ma Haide (George Hatem) as interpreters) visited the site on August 12, 1945 concluded that the nationalists were at fault, which agreed with the perception of the general public, and losing US support was simply a risk the nationalists could not afford to take. The nationalists therefore decided not to attempt a retake of the region, and the campaign concluded as both sides turned their attention to capturing more territories from the Japanese invaders.
Read more about this topic: Yetaishan Campaign
Famous quotes containing the word conclusion:
“The chess pieces are the block alphabet which shapes thoughts; and these thoughts, although making a visual design on the chess-board, express their beauty abstractly, like a poem.... I have come to the personal conclusion that while all artists are not chess players, all chess players are artists.”
—Marcel Duchamp (1887–1968)
“The conclusion has never changed: the worst sort of people come here for the worst sort of reasons and put upon those of us who have conveniently forgotten where we came from and how we got here.”
—Anna Quindlen (b. 1952)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)