What's new

What would China be like today if the Nationalists had won the Chinese Civil War?

Aepsilons

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 29, 2014
Messages
24,960
Reaction score
118
Country
Japan
Location
United States
chinese_republic_poster.jpg



The obvious answer is probably something like Taiwan. Yet would the Nationalists have to reform and adopt democracy with a much wider base of money and resources to finance their rule? How would the Cold War play out? Without Mao, the Cultural Revolution, The Great Leap, would China be worse off, better, or bizzarely and unrecognizably different?


@Shotgunner51 @rugering @XiangLong @HRM YANG @sahaliyan @cnleio @IR-TR @mike2000 is back @LeveragedBuyout @Technogaianist @gambit @jhungary et al.
 
. . . . . . . . . .
Nah,China lost a big part of its territory in KMT period.KMT is a girly coward party.

Actually, they preserved most of China's territory throughout the war with Dai Nippon Teikoku (The Greater Japanese Empire).

It was the Russians who came in at the end of the war and seized most of Manchukoku as well as strategically divided Mongolia.

That was not the KMT's fault; as the KMT was busy engaging the Imperial Army in various theaters in China.

Don't know what will happened to China, but I can imagine the PDF Chinese brigade won't be too happy about that.... lol

One of the so called "PDF Chinese Brigade" actually had grandparents who fought for and worked for the KMT. Tho he is now an ardent CPC supporter, the hypocrisy of it all. lol. :lol::D

Nah,China lost a big part of its territory in KMT period.KMT is a girly coward party.


Mind you, friend, the KMT kept at bay and kept on engaging close to 4 million soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army.

Over 4 million were deployed to China; the KMT engaged the majority of the Imperial Army's divisions in the China Theater.

One cannot deny the contributions of the KMT.
 
.
Actually, they preserved most of China's territory throughout the war with Dai Nippon Teikoku (The Greater Japanese Empire).

It was the Russians who came in at the end of the war and seized most of Manchukoku as well as strategically divided Mongolia.

That was not the KMT's fault; as the KMT was busy engaging the Imperial Army in various theaters in China.



One of the so called "PDF Chinese Brigade" actually had grandparents who fought for and worked for the KMT. Tho he is now an ardent CPC supporter, the hypocrisy of it all. lol. :lol::D




Mind you, friend, the KMT kept at bay and kept on engaging close to 4 million soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army.

Over 4 million were deployed to China; the KMT engaged the majority of the Imperial Army's divisions in the China Theater.

One cannot deny the contributions of the KMT.
But it's Japan‘s choice to deploy millions of soldiers to invade China,nothing to do with the courage of KMT.They do nothing when Northeastern China were invaded and occupied by japan shows what a bunch of cowards they indeed are.You know that PRC sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to korea just because some chinese buildings were bombarded by the US. No need to mention that the biggest traitor Wang jingwei who lead about one million of soldiers to cooperate with Japan also come from KMT.
 
.
But it's Japan‘s choice to deploy millions of soldiers to invade China,nothing to do with the courage of KMT.They do nothing when Northeastern China were invaded and occupied by japan shows what a bunch of cowards they indeed are.You know that PRC sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to korea just because some chinese buildings were bombarded by the US. No need to mention that the biggest traitor Wang jingwei who lead about one million of soldiers to cooperate with Japan also come from KMT.

Wang Jingwei’s decision to collaborate with the Japanese in 1940 during the Sino-Japanese War can certainly be understood and explained, but whether it is justifiable is more debatable. In his last testament Wang claimed to do so to protect the people under Japanese occupation and safeguard China as a whole, as he believed that a ‘War of Resistance’ would be disastrous to the nation. In typical Chinese style of looking to the past and tradition, he also cited the long history of Chinese collaboration and concession with barbarians who are superior militarily in order to protect Chinese culture and society. Indeed historian Lin Han-sheng goes so far as to state “collaboration with alien enemies has always been a common phenomenon [in Chinese history]. It has actually enriched China’s culture and enlarged her territory and influence” (“Documents on the Rape of Nanking”). Yet Wang did acquiesce in the giving up of Chinese sovereignty and economic and political autonomy, with the Japanese dominating at all levels of the relationship. However, this was somewhat inevitable given Japan’s overwhelming superiority and successful strategy of dividing China into puppet regimes. Whilst this may be used to criticize Wang for collaborating, it also means that he cannot be held culpable for the developments in the relationship after his collaboration. Thus to some extent Wang’s decision to collaborate can be seen as justifiable. Certainly, the picture is far more complex and sympathetic to Wang than the simple characterisation of Wang as a ‘traitor’ and ‘puppet,’ which both the Kuomintang and Chinese Communist Party adopt.
 
.
Wang Jingwei’s decision to collaborate with the Japanese in 1940 during the Sino-Japanese War can certainly be understood and explained, but whether it is justifiable is more debatable. In his last testament Wang claimed to do so to protect the people under Japanese occupation and safeguard China as a whole, as he believed that a ‘War of Resistance’ would be disastrous to the nation. In typical Chinese style of looking to the past and tradition, he also cited the long history of Chinese collaboration and concession with barbarians who are superior militarily in order to protect Chinese culture and society. Indeed historian Lin Han-sheng goes so far as to state “collaboration with alien enemies has always been a common phenomenon [in Chinese history]. It has actually enriched China’s culture and enlarged her territory and influence” (“Documents on the Rape of Nanking”). Yet Wang did acquiesce in the giving up of Chinese sovereignty and economic and political autonomy, with the Japanese dominating at all levels of the relationship. However, this was somewhat inevitable given Japan’s overwhelming superiority and successful strategy of dividing China into puppet regimes. Whilst this may be used to criticize Wang for collaborating, it also means that he cannot be held culpable for the developments in the relationship after his collaboration. Thus to some extent Wang’s decision to collaborate can be seen as justifiable. Certainly, the picture is far more complex and sympathetic to Wang than the simple characterisation of Wang as a ‘traitor’ and ‘puppet,’ which both the Kuomintang and Chinese Communist Party adopt.
Whatever Japanese may think about him.He is a traitor in china by every means.
 
.
Whatever Japanese may think about him.He is a traitor in china by every means.

So I assume you consider Wu Sangui as a traitor as well? Not taking into consideration he was instrumental to the genesis of the Qing Dynasty (a Chinese Dynasty).
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom