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

[Beast]

Are you so sure? China under the KMT was larger than it is now:

This is just a map visionalised by KMT but in reality, do Chiang KMT really control that large part of China?
Chiang is the one who signed the treaty to let soviet take over dalian port area for 40years of loan. Chiang is also ready to let tibet goes independent to please the western power.
Chiang is anti communist but he know he has no strength to fight soviet and most likely Outer Mongolia and xinjiang will remain under soviet control. Chiang is a person who believe territories sacrifice to archieve at stabilities and he is very eager to support the west.

 

[EAsian]

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).

Well，Wu is a traitor，isn’t he？
And with all these shinny words Wang have said，but deep inside，he is still a traitor and a capitulationist which betrayed the majority of China for his personal interests that he didn't say.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

There are 5 main areas which are "ethnic Chinese majority" in the world. HK/Macau, Singapore, Taiwan, and Mainland China.

HK/Macau and Singapore achieved the highest in terms of GDP per capita.

Mainland China did the most good for the most Chinese people, i.e. by lifting over 800 million Chinese people out of poverty in a few decades. And in terms of scale they dwarf the rest, with an $11 trillion GDP.

Taiwan achieved the least. They don't have anywhere close to the GDP per capita of HK/Macau and Singapore, and nowhere close to the scale of Mainland China.

Taiwan is the worst of all worlds right now, they don't even have diplomatic recognition from most of the countries on the planet. They are stuck in diplomatic limbo.

The Mainland achieved the most for Chinese people, by far. HK/Macau and Singapore did really well for a small number of Chinese people. Taiwan did poorly for a small number of Chinese people.

 

[Beast]

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).

He is consider a traitor by many Chinese but I believed during that circumstances. Making any decision will be difficult and I do not believe he is consider a traitor for letting Qing in. The fact that Ming that time was corrupted to core and many Chinese are suffering. It's better to let Qing govern as proven by kangxi and Qinglong.

 

[Aepsilons]

Well，he is a traitor，isn’t he？With all these shinny words Wang have said，but deep inside，he is a traitor and a capitulationist.

Yes, I understand your perspective perfectly well, lol. When I was in Tsinghua several years ago (took a summer seminar there), I had the same conversation with Ph.D scholars on this issue and they took up the view of Wang as a traitor. However, in my opinion, his collaboration with the Japanese helped to save millions of Chinese in the Northeast as well as the belief in a unified Greater East Asia. It was similar to Wu Sangui's own impetus, the same as Lu Xiufu during the climax of the Song-Yuan milieu.

He is consider a traitor by many Chinese but I believed during that circumstances. Making any decision will be difficult and I do not believe he is consider a traitor for letting Qing in. The fact that Ming that time was corrupted to core and many Chinese are suffering. It's better to let Qing govern as proven by kangxi and Qinglong.

Precisely. Wu Sanghui , as argued by apologists, acquiesced to the plenipotentiary of the Shunzi Emperor --- and sided in favor of the forces of the Shunzi Emperor because he saw that the Ming Dynasty had lost the Mandate of Heaven --- due to the rise of warlordism such as Li Zicheng and others.

One can even argue that Wang Jingwei's defection from Chiang Kai-Shek’s Chongqing government was a remanifestation of what Wu Sanghui had done in regards to defecting from the Ming and from Li Zicheng.

 

[EAsian]

Yes, I understand your perspective perfectly well, lol. When I was in Tsinghua several years ago (took a summer seminar there), I had the same conversation with Ph.D scholars on this issue and they took up the view of Wang as a traitor. However, in my opinion, his collaboration with the Japanese helped to save millions of Chinese in the Northeast as well as the belief in a unified Greater East Asia. It was similar to Wu Sangui's own impetus, the same as Lu Xiufu during the climax of the Song-Yuan milieu.

Look，Everyone have his own theory about things.Wang has its own thoughts on things.Whether he is Truely believe what himself have said or not,it doesn't change that he is a traitor TO THOSE WHO FIGHT.and it doesn't change that he is a capitulationist.

 

[rashid.sarwar]

No one child policy...

 

[Aepsilons]

Look，Everyone have his own theory about things.Wang has its own thoughts on things.Whether he is Truely believe what himself have said or not,it doesn't change that he is a traitor TO THOSE WHO FIGHT.and it doesn't change that he is a capitulationist.

However, the complete dominance of Japan in the early stages of the war means we should forgive anyone who did not share this optimistic view, and Wang Jingwei clearly did not. The lack of Soviet help due to the pact signed with Germany and then its absolute concentration on Europe after Operation Barbarossa in 1941 was further evidence of Mao being overly confident and deterministic. The tone of his propagandistic statements designed to raise morale and ensure commitment to the anti-Japanese, also somewhat undermines his argument that a ‘War of Resistance’ is the only justifiable course to take. Thus we may see Wang’s collaboration in 1940 as an understandable (if not justifiable) and pragmatic response to a seemingly hopeless situation.

Look，Everyone have his own theory about things.Wang has its own thoughts on things.Whether he is Truely believe what himself have said or not,it doesn't change that he is a traitor TO THOSE WHO FIGHT.and it doesn't change that he is a capitulationist.

Wang argues that he collaborated “because of depredations against his people – not in spite of them”; effectively he wished to help those Chinese living in the areas occupied by Japan.

It should also be noted that American intelligence personnel were impressed with Wang’s efforts in avoiding the indoctrination of Chinese children under his regime with Japanese propaganda, as he refused to allow the Japanese to determine which textbooks would be used. In classrooms, he personally lectured on Sun’s Three Principles and kept the stories and memory of patriotic heroes from the Song dynasty alive (“Documents on the Rape of Nanking”). Thus, we can begin to understand the reasoning behind Wang’s collaboration and the minor successes he had in helping China from within the Japanese camp.

 

[EAsian]

However, the complete dominance of Japan in the early stages of the war means we should forgive anyone who did not share this optimistic view, and Wang Jingwei clearly did not. The lack of Soviet help due to the pact signed with Germany and then its absolute concentration on Europe after Operation Barbarossa in 1941 was further evidence of Mao being overly confident and deterministic. The tone of his propagandistic statements designed to raise morale and ensure commitment to the anti-Japanese, also somewhat undermines his argument that a ‘War of Resistance’ is the only justifiable course to take. Thus we may see Wang’s collaboration in 1940 as an understandable (if not justifiable) and pragmatic response to a seemingly hopeless situation.



Wang argues that he collaborated “because of depredations against his people – not in spite of them”; effectively he wished to help those Chinese living in the areas occupied by Japan.

It should also be noted that American intelligence personnel were impressed with Wang’s efforts in avoiding the indoctrination of Chinese children under his regime with Japanese propaganda, as he refused to allow the Japanese to determine which textbooks would be used. In classrooms, he personally lectured on Sun’s Three Principles and kept the stories and memory of patriotic heroes from the Song dynasty alive (“Documents on the Rape of Nanking”). Thus, we can begin to understand the reasoning behind Wang’s collaboration and the minor successes he had in helping China from within the Japanese camp.

What you have said shows he is a capitulationist.When war get harder and harder,capitulationists become more and more in every country.But he is a traitor to those who still fight after all.No need to mention that he didn't fight much and surrendered directly as a government leader.I am sure this kind of treason won't be tolerated in any country include Japan.

 

[William Hung]

@Nihonjin1051 why didnt you tagged me buddy.

IMO,

we can’t compare who is doing better than who just by comparing what HK/MC/TW/CN have each achieved, because each country has different contexts, e.g. we can’t say the CCP is better cos she lifted over 800 million out of poverty. Well thats not really a good comparison because the KMT was never in charged of 800 million in the past few decades.

The question was, what would mainland China be like if the KMT were in charge of mainland China. People here will doubt my ESP power so I’ll just hightlight two points. How the KMT would perform if they were in charge of the mainland would mainly be speculative but I think the 2 following points are concrete historic facts:

1. After the CCP and KMT went their separate way, the CCP imposed the Cultural Revolution on their population which was demerital to the country while the KMT didn’t. There was that White terror thing but I don’t think it was as harmful as the the Cultural Revolution.

2. Taiwan, under the KMT, opened up to capitalism, opened its market and integrated itself to the western world earlier than mainland China did.

IMO, these 2 factors made a big impact on the development of the 2 respective countries. I could be wrong though. Please forgive me if I’m wrong.

But if I’m correct, then let’s just imagine for a second that the KMT was in control of the mainland and the CCP was in control of Taiwan.

Then apply the 2 mentioned historic facts onto this imaginary scenario where CCP’s small Taiwan had to go through the Cultural Revolution and integrated itself to the rest of the world much later. Then imagine the KMT’s mainland China not having had to go through the Cultural Revolution but integrated itself to the rest of the world much earlier than the CCP of today, I think we will see a big difference.

 

[Aepsilons]

What you have said shows he is a capitulationist.When war get harder and harder,capitulationists become more and more in every country.But he is a traitor to those who still fight after all.No need to mention that he didn't fight much and surrendered directly.I am sure this kind of treason won't be toranlated in any country include Japan.

Not necessarily so. The Emperor of Japan was the one who surrendered , even against the wishes of the Army.

I'm not in favor of labeling people as "capitulationist" or what have you.

All I'm saying is that we should (and you) consider the context and reasoning for actions done.

Its part of a speculative inquiry, this is part of research.

@Nihonjin1051 why didnt you tagged me buddy.

IMO,

we can’t compare who is doing better than who just by comparing what HK/MC/TW/CN have achieved, each country have different context, e.g. CCP is better cos she lifted over 800 million out of poverty. Well thats not really a good comparison because the KMT was never in charged of 800 million in the past few decades.

The question was, what would mainland China be like if the KMT were in charge of mainland China. People here will doubt my ESP power so I’ll just hightlight two points. How the KMT would perform if they were in charge of the mainland would mainly be speculative but I think the 2 following points are concrete historic facts:

1. After the CCP and KMT went their separate way, the CCP imposed the Cultural Revolution on their population which was demerital to the country while the KMT didn’t. There was that White terror thing but I don’t think it was as harmful as the the Cultural Revolution.

2. Taiwan, under the KMT, opened up to capitalism, opened its market and integrated itself to the western world earlier than mainland China did.

IMO, these 2 factors make a big impact on the development of the 2 respective countries. I could be wrong though. Please forgive me if I’m wrong.

GREAT points, buddy, and please, I'd like to hear your views on Wang Jingwei , Wu Sanghui. Any comparisons?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Guys, I don't understand why you bother to waste your time with Nihonjin?

He is a die hard right-wing Japanese who pretends to be friendly with everyone, and he knows that KMT represents the weak China, and all Japanese right-wing members are desperate for a weak China that could let them to rape it again.

CPC has turned China into a strong superpower, and that literally drives every Japanese right-wingers apesh1t crazy.

 

[Shotgunner51]

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.

My take is that it would become "bizzarely and unrecognizably different", and may even have altered world geopolitical map in say the Soviet bloc, Korean Peninsula, Japan, SE Asia, HK, etc.

It seems like a topic of politics, about alternate history, so may I suggest it be discussed in Seniors' Section between Senior/TTA members? For meaningful discussions.

@waz @Horus please change me rank so that I can participate in Seniors' Cafe

 

[Aepsilons]

He is a die hard right-wing who pretends to be friendly with everyone, and he knows that KMT represents the weak China, and all Japanese right-wing members love a weak China that could let to be bullied again.

I'm not a 'die hard' right winger. I'm actually a centrist.

PS. You mad, bro?

 

[EAsian]

Not necessarily so. The Emperor of Japan was the one who surrendered , even against the wishes of the Army.

I'm not in favor of labeling people as "capitulationist" or what have you.

All I'm saying is that we should (and you) consider the context and reasoning for actions done.

Its part of a speculative inquiry, this is part of research.




GREAT points, buddy, and please, I'd like to hear your views on Wang Jingwei , Wu Sanghui. Any comparisons?

I understand your point from your beginning.But the difference between Japanese emperor and Wang is just too obivious.Wang is not an emperor,he has no right to represent anyone except him and he surely will be condemn and be punished by those who fight and those who support the fighters like me.After all Japan loses WWII while we win.