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

[FairAndUnbiased]

Dude the Cultural Revolution was more like a mass dis-organization rather than a mass orgainzation. Wide spread persecutions and violence without any proper rule of law, infighting within the CCP as well as outside such as in the local govt, schools, military, chaos in society, schools getting shut down, innocent people getting killed, etc. It seems like you are the one who doesn’t know what orgainzation is. What what was the “single goal” exactly? To purge some unwanted political rivals and to consolidate power for Mao? Why did the CCP admit that the Cultural Revolution was a mistake? Was it because the “goal” was a mistake or was it because the pursuit of this goal caused some bad consequences? In other words, the CCP had some poor organizational skills when they imposed this Cultural Revolution to persue that goal.

And don’t compare the organization of the Victorian era mines to the Cultural Revolution. The Victorian mine did not cause mass chaos by telling people to disobey their superiors, rebel and be suspicious of theor boss, etc. The Victorian era mines was fairly organized while the Cultural Revolution was just chaos.




You are still comparing apples to oranges. Yea the PRC from the 60s had a few armed skirmishes like the boarder conflict with India or the Soviet but are you saying those were comparable with the civil wars and the invasion of the IJA pre-1949???

So your “benchmarks” are still not valid at all since each “test” all had different “settings”. Ceteris Paribus!!!!

Yep, basically exactly as you said: Mao had a single goal: get rid of his enemies within the CPC. This goal was accomplished pretty well. So there was nothing wrong with the organizational skills here. Whether the goal itself was moral or not, is not the question. The CPC saying that the Cultural Revolution was wrong means that the goal itself was immoral. It didn't mean that the goal was poorly executed.

Another thing: the civil wars were due to KMT incompetence. If they did not attack the CPC in 1927, then again in 1946, the KMT would almost certainly still be a major political party in mainland China today. The KMT had only itself to blame for internal turbulence. Even Japan - why did Japan invade right then and there during the KMT era? Why not earlier or later? There is a reason for everything. The answer: the KMT failed to establish strategic deterrence towards Imperial Japan and failed utilizing its diplomatic resources to secure aid.

Even the Qing Dynasty was able to avoid outright invasion by any one foreign power by using diplomacy to play foreign actors against each other. The KMT failed. They failed to use their very deep relationship with all 4 major powers (British Empire, Germany, USSR and USA) to help China avoid being attacked by Japan. Chiang Kai Shek had extremely deep ties with both the USSR and USA: his son Chiang Ching Kuo was a military officer in the Soviet Army, he had a personal relationship with Stalin and his son married a Russian woman. Meanwhile, he also had a very deep relationship with the US, since his wife was educated in the US and he had the direct ear of President Roosevelt. Yet he was unable to secure any substantial help from EITHER the USSR or the USA. This is incompetence in the extreme.

 

[William Hung]

Yep, basically exactly as you said: Mao had a single goal: get rid of his enemies within the CPC. This goal was accomplished pretty well. So there was nothing wrong with the organizational skills here. Whether the goal itself was moral or not, is not the question. The CPC saying that the Cultural Revolution was wrong means that the goal itself was immoral. It didn't mean that the goal was poorly executed.

No, the CCP said it was wrong not because of the “goal” which is to purge unwanted elements and consolidate power. Rather, the CCP said it was wrong due to the bad consequences the CR causes, meaning, the CCP did crap by executing a crap plan just to achieve a certain narrow “goal”. OK, you can disagree with me on this.

But my original analogy still stand...can I judge and make conjecture of the CCP or KMT future performance just by looking back at incidents in the past? For example, can I be a spectator living in the 1970s and say that the CCP is going to do crap for China because the CCP was willing to cause chaos like the Cutural Revolution just to achieve a specific goal which they later regretted??

Another thing: the civil wars were due to KMT incompetence. If they did not attack the CPC in 1927, then again in 1946, the KMT would almost certainly still be a major political party in mainland China today. The KMT had only itself to blame for internal turbulence. Even Japan - why did Japan invade right then and there during the KMT era? Why not earlier or later? There is a reason for everything. The answer: the KMT failed to establish strategic deterrence towards Imperial Japan and failed utilizing its diplomatic resources to secure aid.

Even the Qing Dynasty was able to avoid outright invasion by any one foreign power by using diplomacy to play foreign actors against each other. The KMT failed. They failed to use their very deep relationship with all 4 major powers (British Empire, Germany, USSR and USA) to help China avoid being attacked by Japan. Chiang Kai Shek had extremely deep ties with both the USSR and USA: his son Chiang Ching Kuo was a military officer in the Soviet Army, he had a personal relationship with Stalin and his son married a Russian woman. Meanwhile, he also had a very deep relationship with the US, since his wife was educated in the US and he had the direct ear of President Roosevelt. Yet he was unable to secure any substantial help from EITHER the USSR or the USA. This is incompetence in the extreme.

That’s only one intepretation. And my point still stand: the condition between pre-1949 period is different from the condition of post-1950 period, so you can’t benchmark or compare the economic performances (or the social indicators) between the pre-1949 and post-1950 period, let alone the post-1978 period.

If you like to compare benchmark so much without considering the differing settings, can I compare “KMT 1980-1990s” to “CCP 1980-1990s” and conclude that KMT is superior? Or heck, even compare “KMT 1980-1990s” with the “CCP 1950s” since you seem to ignore time frames?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

But my original analogy still stand...can I judge and make conjecture of the CCP or KMT future performance just by looking back at incidents in the past? For example, can I be a spectator living in the 1970s and say that the CCP is going to do crap for China because the CCP was willing to cause chaos like the Cutural Revolution just to achieve a specific goal which they later regretted??

No you can't because the CPC in 1970's already had achievements with the literacy, healthcare, nuclear, naval and space programs. The KMT had zero achievements by 1949.

Lets not even compare the CPC with the KMT. Lets compare KMT with the Qing Dynasty.

Was there a single thing that the KMT did that was significantly better than the Qing Dynasty? What technological, economic, or social benchmark did the KMT achieve that was superior to the Qing Dynasty? Now this is an apple to apple comparison: there was constant chaos and war during the Qing Dynasty.

That’s only one intepretation. And my point still stand: the condition between pre-1949 period is different from the condition of post-1950 period, so you can’t benchmark or compare the economic performances (or the social indicators) between the pre-1949 and post-1950 period, let alone the post-1978 period.

If you like to compare benchmark so much without considering the differing settings, can I compare “KMT 1980-1990s” to “CCP 1980-1990s” and conclude that KMT is superior? Or heck, even compare “KMT 1980-1990s” with the “CCP 1950s” since you seem to ignore time frames?

No you can't because KMT in the 1980's-1990's vs. CPC in 1950's actually had less achievements, measured by things such as percent GDP increase in that time frame and exclusive technological benchmarks (things that cannot be purchased). 1980's KMT vs. CPC is probably more comparable but then you are comparing a party in its 30th year of power vs. one in its 70th year of power.

Look I'm pretty tired of arguing this shit over and over. This is why I don't like arguing with Viets and Indians; you guys nitpick tiny little irrelevant details and twist words around instead of going straight by the facts. I'm not here to convince you. Those who want to be educated will take in the knowledge, those who don't want to be educated will continue arguing over pointless things and finding excuses.

I presented my side of the facts which showed clearly: the US didn't like the KMT. The Soviets didn't like the KMT. The people of China didn't like the KMT. The KMT had low achievements during their years in power. The KMT did not give a shit about the ordinary people. This is all recorded in historical fact and contemporary writings from authors such as Lu Xun and Xiao Hong. I have nothing else to say that is not opinion, so I'll just leave the facts here and let logical people decide for themselves.

 

[scherz]

China would be no. 1 super power among USA.

 

[Aepsilons]

China would be no. 1 super power among USA.

China would be a Hyperpower, probably. Japan would be in the 'Sinosphere' along with a unified Korea.

No, the CCP said it was wrong not because of the “goal” which is to purge unwanted elements and consolidate power. Rather, the CCP said it was wrong due to the bad consequences the CR causes, meaning, the CCP did crap by executing a crap plan just to achieve a certain narrow “goal”. OK, you can disagree with me on this.

But my original analogy still stand...can I judge and make conjecture of the CCP or KMT future performance just by looking back at incidents in the past? For example, can I be a spectator living in the 1970s and say that the CCP is going to do crap for China because the CCP was willing to cause chaos like the Cutural Revolution just to achieve a specific goal which they later regretted??



That’s only one intepretation. And my point still stand: the condition between pre-1949 period is different from the condition of post-1950 period, so you can’t benchmark or compare the economic performances (or the social indicators) between the pre-1949 and post-1950 period, let alone the post-1978 period.

If you like to compare benchmark so much without considering the differing settings, can I compare “KMT 1980-1990s” to “CCP 1980-1990s” and conclude that KMT is superior? Or heck, even compare “KMT 1980-1990s” with the “CCP 1950s” since you seem to ignore time frames?

Excellent post, my friend. Great research on dates as well.

China confirm will spilt, look no futher at Taiwan. KMT cannot even hold on to it.

One can also see that Taiwan was the basis from which Singapura, South Korea drove their growth model. Taiwan under the KMT introduced democracy, to which without , there would be no DPP or other minority parties, there would be no representative, participatory democracy that characterizes and defines Taiwanese Political Economy, Period.

I don't think it was possible to form a CPC,KMT joint party.And I don't think ideology matters that much.It is always geo-politics that really matters in international relationship.China and russia are no longer communism countries yet America still look us as threats,so the party that combine CPC and KMT wouldn't change much if we still insist on protecting our national interests.We might be richer if KMT is in charge and China become a lapdog of US like taiwan,also we might loose some territory due to Cowardness deeply rooted in the soul of a southern party KMT.But in the end of the day it was not possible at all.

Thanks for your point, the only reason why I speculated a 'calibration' of the the two's ideologies is because they were obht to form a consensus during the 2nd Sino Japanese War -- and to form a unified front against Japan. In fact, academics would even argue that during the rest of the 8 Year Struggle against Japan, both the KMT and CPC forces worked together effectively.

Given, their ideologies were socialist; I'm sure they could have found 'common ground'. Unfortunately it didn't go that way.

Your take?

 

[S10]

If KMT remained in power, China would not have been able to recover control of Tibet and Xinjiang. In addition, warlords would effectively divide up the country since KMT was never able to exert its control over the major warlords. China would be a slave to US like Japan and Philippines today, perhaps even worse since KMT sucks up to whites like no tomorrow. Vast majority of the population would be living in poverty, as central core of KMT was essentially run by a few wealthy families dividing the country's wealth amongst themselves. China's military would be extremely weak and completely reliant on foreign weapons.

Basically, KMT turns everything it touches to shit. Thankfully, Mao kicked their asses and China moved on to a path of self-reliance (and I'm not even a fan of Mao).

 

[powastick]

One can also see that Taiwan was the basis from which Singapura, South Korea drove their growth model. Taiwan under the KMT introduced democracy, to which without , there would be no DPP or other minority parties, there would be no representative, participatory democracy that characterizes and defines Taiwanese Political Economy, Period.

Singapore is dictatorship, Lee Kuan Yew silence his opponents by suing and throwing them in Jail. KMT introduction of democracy leads to the creation of DPP which promotes regionalism. China is way bigger than Taiwan and Chiang could not control the warlords. I may live in democratic country, day by day I lose faith in democratic system because the outcome is not always democratic. Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and your country Japan benefited more under the cold war umbrella than democracy.

 

[S10]

Singapore is dictatorship, Lee Kuan Yew silence his opponents by suing and throwing them in Jail. KMT introduction of democracy leads to the creation of DPP which promotes regionalism. China is way bigger than Taiwan and Chiang could not control the warlords. I may live in democratic country, day by day I lose faith in democratic system because the outcome is not always democratic. Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and your country Japan benefited more under the cold war umbrella than democracy.

Note that Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea all experienced their fastest growth when they were under authoritarian regimes. Economic growth is certainly not tied to "democracy" as the snake oil salesmen in the West want you to believe. They want "democracy" so they can legitimately support their puppets in the country to do their bidding.

 

[William Hung]

What you briefly wrote below, fundamentally conceded to my argument, even if you did not intended to. This is the crux of my argument all along:

1980's KMT vs. CPC is probably more comparable but then you are comparing a party in its 30th year of power vs. one in its 70th year of power.

^^ Let’s see, are you suggesting that 80’s KMT vs. 80’s CCP is not really an accurate comparison because one was only in its 30th year of power while the other was in its 70th year of power? Are you saying that it’s not really fair to compare two variables when there are also other different variables that affect how the first two variables are measured up??? Well duh!! That’s precisely what I have been arguing all along! Why do you think I kept saying from the start that pre-1949 period are different to the post-1950 period due to its different historical contexts and conditions? It means that they have other variables that would render any comparisons between them invalid. Why do you think I kept reminding you about ceteris paribus??? Thank you for finally conceding to this point.

And your whole previous post still committed this fallacy. You kept comparing 1920-1949 KMT with other time periods that all had different variables that renders your comparison invalid. Was the post-1950s CCP in the midst of the brutal WWII?? There are other different variables from 1920-2000s that affect how a power would perform in each time period. You were willing to point out one variable (how long each party was in power) but you ignored all the other variables. It is you who is nitpicking, singling out details that fits your narrative, while ignoring the other important details to twist facts.

No you can't because the CPC in 1970's already had achievements with the literacy, healthcare, nuclear, naval and space programs. The KMT had zero achievements by 1949.

Lets not even compare the CPC with the KMT. Lets compare KMT with the Qing Dynasty.

Was there a single thing that the KMT did that was significantly better than the Qing Dynasty? What technological, economic, or social benchmark did the KMT achieve that was superior to the Qing Dynasty? Now this is an apple to apple comparison: there was constant chaos and war during the Qing Dynasty.

No you can't because KMT in the 1980's-1990's vs. CPC in 1950's actually had less achievements, measured by things such as percent GDP increase in that time frame and exclusive technological benchmarks (things that cannot be purchased). 1980's KMT vs. CPC is probably more comparable but then you are comparing a party in its 30th year of power vs. one in its 70th year of power.

Look I'm pretty tired of arguing this shit over and over. This is why I don't like arguing with Viets and Indians; you guys nitpick tiny little irrelevant details and twist words around instead of going straight by the facts. I'm not here to convince you. Those who want to be educated will take in the knowledge, those who don't want to be educated will continue arguing over pointless things and finding excuses.

I presented my side of the facts which showed clearly: the US didn't like the KMT. The Soviets didn't like the KMT. The people of China didn't like the KMT. The KMT had low achievements during their years in power. The KMT did not give a shit about the ordinary people. This is all recorded in historical fact and contemporary writings from authors such as Lu Xun and Xiao Hong. I have nothing else to say that is not opinion, so I'll just leave the facts here and let logical people decide for themselves.

^^This is a good example nitpicking details to fit your narrative while ignoring other important details, this is nothing but nitpicking. You pointed out that 1980-1990s PRC had bigger GDP growth rate while ignoring that 1980-1990s Taiwan’s GDP per capita was already well ahead of the PRC and that Taiwan had a much higher living standard at a more mature level of industrialisation while CCP was still shooting and rolling tanks over its unfortunate and unarmed civilians in the middle of that time period.

You said KMT don’t give a s**t about ordinary people but ignored the fact that CCP imposed the Cultural Revolution that caused a lot of harm, chaos and deaths to civilians just to achieve one single goal that you yourself mention: to get rid of Mao’s enemies within the CPC. Now that I think about it, 1989 Tiananmen blood bath was perhaps carried out in similar spirit: stay in power at all cost, even if it means unarmed civilians will get harmed and killed.

See, if you want to make comparisons then you need to consider every other variables. Remember, you were the one who kept make comparisons (by nitpicking) while I’ve always maintained my position that making these kind of comparisons are invalid. Me using counter-comparisons was to hightlight how flawed your “benchmarks” was.

But I see that you have finally conceded to my point that making comparisons would not be fair if there are different variables that affect the outcome. I wasted a lot of posts just to make this point.

 

[gambit]

Yep, basically exactly as you said: Mao had a single goal: get rid of his enemies within the CPC. This goal was accomplished pretty well. So there was nothing wrong with the organizational skills here. Whether the goal itself was moral or not, is not the question. The CPC saying that the Cultural Revolution was wrong means that the goal itself was immoral. It didn't mean that the goal was poorly executed.

Wrong.

As I have often said here in the past: That we do not live in an intellectual and moral vacuum.

Everything we do, even biological acts, have a cause or urge. We eat because of hunger. We drink because of thirst. No different than whatever we do outside of our bodies. Any act ALWAYS begs the question of cause and inevitably the moral and intellectual foundation of that cause. In a chain of events (actions), each event always compels the investigator (you or I) to trace its parentage.

What I have seen so far is nothing but cowardice from the Chinese members here. All of you obliquely defends the bloody Cultural Revolution in so many ways and not one of you have the courage to say it in simple words: That the Cultural Revolution was necessary for China.

Excellent post, my friend.

I 2nd that. The man is a better wordsmith than me.

 

[steelseries779]

I have to say the CCP was a miracle. A sparkle among the dark old China. There was not one army in old China that could create so many miracles as CCP army did. Unlike spineless KMT, CCP had strong mind and was more tactical. Even though bad equipped, CCP's army was the greatest one in China history. It's very unlucky for Japanese that they invaded China when CCP was there.

The real reason of the long march is they have to survive, so they run to escape KMT's encircle and suppress, only Shaa'n Xi or northwest China is safe, because KMT was weak there and it's near USSR, easy to get help.

 

[Aepsilons]

I 2nd that. The man is a better wordsmith than me.

Indeed, Sir.

 

[soundwave1987]

China would be a weaker country as well as a poorer one. The major reason that KMT failed is
that their rule in mainland are rooted in landlords and plutocrats while majority was living in utterly poverty, yet KMT have failed in every strive to constrain the wealthy and to help the poor. And the KMT is too “civilized” that always consider too much about the reactions of foreigners over our own interests, they cant insist the rightful stands that China should take, they always felt inferior when facing their western masters. Look at the wreckage of aviation and defence industry of Taiwan, the KMT cant assure a formidable military power for China let alone use it to enforce China's interest. I like the tough and relentless yet flexible and cunning way that CCP imposed when it comes to the interest of China. I like how CCP pushed the benefit of China ruthlessly to the very limit as hard as they can, as much as they can.

 

[JSCh]

Is French revolution necessary?
Is American civil war necessary?
Is McCarthyism necessary?
Is the west camp's Socialist/Communist purge or Military Coup necessary?

Is Vietnam War necessary?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

China would be no. 1 super power among USA.

Another clueless KMT fanboy, and you should change your avatar with the KMT's Ching Kuo fighter, not CPC's J-20.

That's what you truly deserved. Oh, and I forget it was built with the US radar & electronics, the US engine and the US composite materials.