Taiwan Elections 2012

[Ithekro]

If there was still a Mainland Nationalist China a lot of things would be different. Korea would probably be unifed (depending on if the North invaded in 1950 without Communist China being around, and if the Allies took the whole country for the South with or without Allied Chinese support). Vietnam might still be two counties (if the status quo was issued by the West since North Vietnam didn't seem like it would fall at any point, but without Chinese support they might not take South Vietnam). Japan might not be as economically strong as it is today, as American interests would likely have focused on China over the former enemy Japan.

Can't say what it would do for relations with Russia since they probably would have fought a few times with Allied help during the Cold War. They may or may not have gone nuclear had they remained allied to the West against the Soviets.

I certainly cannot say what they would mean for relations with India or Tibet, or anywhere else for that matter if the government was a Western allied Nationalist China.

Formosa...would probably have still gone to China, but is would be as it was for the Japanese I guess. I don't even know if it would be called anything other than Formosa. The Japanese might have even managed to get it back via treaties, but I doubt it. (that is assuming the Communists didn't flee to the island instead...they probably would not and instead flee to some other place)

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I certainly cannot say what they would mean for relations with India or Tibet, or anywhere else for that matter if the government was a Western allied Nationalist China.

Formosa...would probably have still gone to China, but is would be as it was for the Japanese I guess. I don't even know if it would be called anything other than Formosa. The Japanese might have even managed to get it back via treaties, but I doubt it. (that is assuming the Communists didn't flee to the island instead...they probably would not and instead flee to some other place)

Tibet and Xingang would still be a part of China. If either region try to declare independence, the Nationalist would have dealt with them the same way the Communist did. The Nationalist at that point wasn't any nicer then the Communist. Okinawa would have been return to China instead given to Japan. There might not have been a North Korea as Kim(1st) was fighting with Chinese Communist during WW2. If the Nationalist had won he would probably have been kill. The Nationalist might also made a try at taking over the Korean peninsula. Not sure if the US would have allow it through.

[TinyRedLeaf]

It would seem that I made an assertion based on a misread statement. Kokurin is right: The Nationalists weren't particularly interested in fighting the Japanese, not while the communists were helpfully getting themselves bloody at no expense to the Nationalists.

My point still stands that even before the communists clashed actively against the Japanese, they had already scored a massive propaganda victory through the Long March. The war served only to further cement their image as the true patriots.

So, to put it simply, the greater majority of Chinese were more than glad to see a communist victory in 1949. It was arguably the more just result.

To return to Ithekro's question, couldn't Taiwan seek independence on its own terms if the nominal ideological conflict were to no longer exist? I would say, no, it's not that simple at all. As I've already said, mainland Chinese would continue to see reunification as an ideal, the way all Koreans, north or south, wish to see eventual reunification. The way it was, also, for Germans, east or west, to be one country again amid the Cold War.

The problem is that Taiwan has long since moved on, and the present Nationalist government itself no longer sees a "return" to the mainland as its key motivation. Sixty years of living apart is a very long time. That's at least two new generations with no direct emotional ties to the mainland. It's therefore understandable that many Taiwanese would prefer independence rather than reunification, contrary to mainland views.

[Crusify_me]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It would seem that I made an assertion based on a misread statement. Kokurin is right: The Nationalists weren't particularly interested in fighting the Japanese, not while the communists were helpfully getting themselves bloody at no expense to the Nationalists.

My point still stands that even before the communists clashed actively against the Japanese, they had already scored a massive propaganda victory through the Long March. The war served only to further cement their image as the true patriots.

So, to put it simply, the greater majority of Chinese were more than glad to see a communist victory in 1949. It was arguably the more just result.

To return to Ithekro's question, couldn't Taiwan seek independence on its own terms if the nominal ideological conflict were to no longer exist? I would say, no, it's not that simple at all. As I've already said, mainland Chinese would continue to see unification as an ideal, the way all Koreans, north or south, wish to see eventual reunification. The way it was, also, for Germans, east or west.

The problem is that Taiwan has long since moved on, and the present Nationalist government itself no longer sees a "return" to the mainland as its key motivation. Sixty years of living apart is a very long time. That's at least two new generations with no direct emotional ties to the mainland. It's therefore understandable that many Taiwanese would prefer independence rather than reunification, contrary to mainland views.

This is why I pointed out earlier that if Taiwan was to achieve full independence, it will likely take a natural course. Future generations will see a change in philosophy, and our ancestors' problems could be eased over time. The Chinese government is bound to change as time/generation passes, Taiwan just has to maintain peace, and secure its economy so that when the time comes, it is more than capable of fully governing itself.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

just a clarification, The Nationalist were more interested in fighting the Communist then the Japanese. The Communist fought Japanese and defeated them on more a few occasions.

That's not quite true. Although the nationalist contains many factions, and not all of them fought the Japanese wholeheartedly, the nationalist was the main force facing the brute force of the Japanese in the front theater. Except a few well known battles, the effectiveness of the guerrilla warfare carried out by the communists is quite debatable.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

That's not quite true. Although the nationalist contains many factions, and not all of them fought the Japanese wholeheartedly, the nationalist was the main force facing the brute force of the Japanese in the front theater. Except a few well known battles, the effectiveness of the guerrilla warfare carried out by the communists is quite debatable.

I should probably switch that to Chiang Kai Shek instead Nationalist.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Also the Warlords who ran the province ignore or only pay lip service to it. there was already a undeclared civil war when the Japanese invade. The Japanese invasion only delay it.

It was a pretty open Civil war, only ended by the Xi'an incident.

just a clarification, The Nationalist were more interested in fighting the Communist then the Japanese. The Communist fought Japanese and defeated them on more a few occasions.

One of the key victories of the Sino-Japanese war, that ensured that China got Western aid (which was crucial to their eventual victory over Japan), was the Battle of Shanghai, in that battle the Nationalist forces fought heroically to prevent the Japanese from taking the city. The Japanese said they'd take it in 3 weeks, instead it took them something like 5 months (wish I had wikipedia). The nationalists showed that the Chinese were capable of fighting the Japanese.

Most of the open battles fought were fought by Nationalist forces, while Communists did large amounts of guerilla warfare. Due to greater nationalist losses, and the communists greater ties to the rural peasantry through their guerillas, that was one reason that the Communists were in a better position at the end of the war.

However, by 1941, the "unified front" had basically fallen apart. Both sides had ceased to focus on the Japanese. The communists were just as bad as the nationalists, in fact, it was the communists that formally broke off the alliance (if I recall correctly), and they had long since been trying to undermine the nationalist position.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Very true. There was also the epochal Long March which literally made heroes out of an entire generation of communist leaders, from Mao Zedong to Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping. Meanwhile, the various factions of the nominally Nationalist forces lived off the fat of Allied war contributions, waiting for the chance to strike communist forces weakened by conflict with the Japanese.

I wouldn't go that far, the Communists were doing the same thing with aid from the Soviet Union. In fact, one of the key reasons for Communist victory was that the Soviet Occupied territories in Manchuria were turned over to the communists, not the Nationalists, along with a lot of captured Japanese weaponry

The thing about the long march, is that the power of the communist faction had been utterly shattered. If the war had not occured, their enclave in Yunnan would have been eventually annihilated.

The problem the Nationalists had was huge levels of corruption throughout the state, with funds being embezzled everywhere. Unfortunately, Communist governors proved to be little different after their victory. The Nationalists, however, had very large support within the cities, though those cities had been worst hit during the war. The communist support base was the hitherto ignored rural peasantry. That was the real secret of Mao's success, being able to harness the power of China's mass of peasants.

It is therefore not hard to see how the Nationalists had long since lost the moral high ground well before the Japanese surrendered. Any Chinese who professed to be a patriot would fight with the communists, with a fervour that antagonised the Japanese sufficiently to inflict bloody reprisals against Chinese in all occupied territories.

I wouldn't go that far, I think the main issue was that the vast majority of chinese had far more contact with Communist Guerillas then they had with Chiang Kai Cheks professional army. Because of this, the communists were able to downplay Nationalist contribution to the war effort (which in raw numbers was probably higher then the Communists, particularly in the early years of the war), while playing up their own role.

It was the nationalist army that fought all the largest battles, and arguably kept China in the war. Communist Guerrila action were important as well, but guerillas alone don't win battles.

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

Correct. The war between Nationalists and Communists already started when Japanese invaded China. The Nationalist government was more of a dictatorship, or more precisely, the biggest warlord.

Absolutely true, and the KMT's power was quite limited outside the coastal cities and Central China. The KMT had huge warlord problems.

This is false.

Nationalists continued to target Communists only for a short while after Japanese invasion. The Xi'an incident in 1936 changed that. Zhang Xueliang (warlord from Manchuria) kidnapped Chiang Kai-shek and forced a temporary peace between them that lasted until end of WWII.

The core is correct, but the Xi'an incident was before the beginning of the second Sino-Japanese war (starting in june 1937), and the peace had broken down by 1941/1942.

In the war against Japanese. Nationalist government took Japan head-on in a few occasions, most notably Nanjing where a massacre followed. Communists mostly engaged Japanese in guerilla warfare. They suffered much less loss than Nationalists.

Very true, though the battle you're referring to is Shanghai. Nanjing was taken with little resistance, as the Nationalist forces were depleted after Shanghai.

The Nationalists knew they'd lose at Shanghai, but had to show the world that they(China) weren't a pushover, and worth supporting with aid.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It would seem that I made an assertion based on a misread statement. Kokurin is right: The Nationalists weren't particularly interested in fighting the Japanese, not while the communists were helpfully getting themselves bloody at no expense to the Nationalists.

I think you'll find it was as much the other way around. Both sides were jostling to ensure they would come out of WW2 on top. The communists did it a lot better, partially because they didn't need to deal with the internal discord (warlordism) that the KMT had. It was as much the KMT defeating itself through warlord politics as the communists actually winning.

My point still stands that even before the communists clashed actively against the Japanese, they had already scored a massive propaganda victory through the Long March. The war served only to further cement their image as the true patriots.

I'm not so sure. It was mythologized after the fact, but at the time the communists were really on the ropes and at the edge of complete defeat. Their greater ability to build ties with the rural peasantry during the war was the real war winner to them. That and mass defections from the KMT army at the end, along with the cession of Manchuria(and the captured japanese industry and arsenal there) by the Soviets.

So, to put it simply, the greater majority of Chinese were more than glad to see a communist victory in 1949. It was arguably the more just result.

The communists were very good at maneuvering things so that it turned out that way. I don't really think you can call one side better then the other though. Ultimately the KMT were a much more modernizing force then the Communists, despite their flaws.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Lol, I suppose this is what 20 years after studying Immanuel Hsu and increasingly selective memory does to me as I age. I can't quibble with the various objections since they serve to jog long-dormant facts about the civil war I do recall but had largely gone to rust. The major telling point, I suppose, would be what I've remembered and half-remembered, because it hints at what media on both sides of the strait had chosen to play up over the years.

Extrapolate from there, and you'll come closer to why Chinese on both sides of the strait believe what they do today, rightly or wrongly.

[Ithekro]

Hmmm. It seems even the two Chinas disagree on that part of their history...at least in the details.

Taiwan, for now, has no way to be fully independant from China. China won't allow it, and without outside (materials) help, Taiwan cannot defend itself if China wants to take it by force.

But, if China weakens, Taiwan might be able to break free. If they want to break free, as oppose to turning the tables and rejoining a non-Communist China to make the whole stronger than before. There will be issues...there are always issues (just look at Hong Kong...now increase to the scale of Taiwan and allow for distance).

Question: (because Wiki is down), what was Formosa like before the nationalist came? Before (and I guess after) the Japanese held it. and how long did hey hold it in reflection of what would happen to the Island if the Nationalist (nor Communists) exiled themselves there in 1949? Its fate was still being deided by post war treaties when stuff started happening for the Cold War.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

I should probably switch that to Chiang Kai Shek instead Nationalist.

Not really, it is true he didn't do much before 1937 (the Japanese encroachment of China officially starts from 1931 when they took Manchuria, but there were not much WAR, there were lots of "incidents", after which the Japanese demands more concession and territory after each one), but he did put in his elite forces to guard Shanghai after the war broke out.

Keep in mind that the Japanese were trying to conquer China, for which Chiang Kai Shek's government was the legitimate one, and therefore the main enemy of the Japanese. Chiang was not a great leader, but he did fought the Japanese. It's not like he has much choice.

Question: (because Wiki is down), what was Formosa like before the nationalist came? Before (and I guess after) the Japanese held it. and how long did hey hold it in reflection of what would happen to the Island if the Nationalist (nor Communists) exiled themselves there in 1949? Its fate was still being deided by post war treaties when stuff started happening for the Cold War.

For around 50 years. Taiwan was ceded to Japan after the first Sino-Japan (fought by the Qing dynasty on the Chinese side) at the end of the end of 19th century. As for how they hold it, as far as I know, it is quite mixed,in the beginning they crush any resistance by brute force, during the war they did conscript comfort women from it, but they also helped to develop it as part of its colonial efforts (for example, the national Taipei University, which is the best university in Taiwan, was founded by the Japanese). I guess the saving grace is that the Japanese rule was comparably less brutal than what they did in Korea, mainland China, etc. Their colonial efforts did have its results: president Lee shamelessly claim that in the first part of his life he was "Japanese".

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Question: (because Wiki is down), what was Formosa like before the nationalist came? Before (and I guess after) the Japanese held it. and how long did hey hold it in reflection of what would happen to the Island if the Nationalist (nor Communists) exiled themselves there in 1949?

If I recall correctly, the Island was a lot less Chinese, and a lot more "aboriginal" (similiar to the filipino aboriginals, I'd guess).

A lot of Chinese came into Formosa when the Nationalist government fled there, and the KMT government had a fairly ruthless assimilation program.

Not only did they succeed in making Chinese the majority language, but they also succeeded in expanding usage of Mandarin as the official language, whereas Hokkien would have been the main spoken language prior to that.

I can't really comment further on Hokkien vs. Mandarin in Taiwan though. Hokkien is still spoken in Taiwan, whether it's still the majority language I can't really comment on.


Anyway, when it comes to discussing the KMT and CCP in the Chinese theatre of WW2, it's important to remember that both sides were ruthless dictatorships after the war, both of which having a stake in portraying themselves as heroes and the other side as traitorous skinks.

Just remember, the PRC government still pretends Tiananmen square never really happened. There's no reason to believe their attitude to facts and information are any different when it comes to WW2. Propaganda trumps truth.

The truth of the matter when it comes to the Chinese theatre is a lot more murky then either side of the straits would have their citizens believe. Taiwan is a bit better about this now though, if only because it has reasonable free press etc. but while Chiang Kai Chek was still a dictator they were little different from the other side.

It's generally unfortunate that the Chinese theatre of WW2 is criminally understudied and underrepresented in the west, where you might expect to find a more evenhanded account, heck how many westerners even know China was in the war? And that they did the bulk of the fighting against Japan?

[Ithekro]

I did take a course in Chinese history in college. But since it was a quarter long class...and China's history covers several millenia, we got kind of short versions of things. We got the Long March and Mao's ties with the peasantry. We got some of teh warlord problems the Nationalists had, we got little pieces of the Japanese invasion and the war. We really didn't get much on aftermath, nor the finer details, as that was the last week or so of the class (if I remember correctly), and definately not much on Taiwan as the class focused on Red China at that point...Mao's Red Book, the programs, and everything up to Tiananmen square.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

If I recall correctly, the Island was a lot less Chinese, and a lot more "aboriginal" (similiar to the filipino aboriginals, I'd guess).

For the "aboriginal" part, no, not really. Remember there were two conquering of the island from the mainland in the 17th century, and it was under Qing's rule for 2 centuries before the Japanese took it by force.

Just remember, the PRC government still pretends Tiananmen square never really happened. There's no reason to believe their attitude to facts and information are any different when it comes to WW2. Propaganda trumps truth.

Again, the popular western portrait of the event is hardly correct in detail either. Was there killing in Beijing? Yes, quite a lot of places. Was there a massacre on the square? No, the students were let go that night. The so called "quest for democracy" is mostly a later invention as well. Establishing "one vote for one person" type of government was certainly not on its agenda. The students were singing the internationale on the square.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

It was a pretty open Civil war, only ended by the Xi'an incident.

i was referring to the entire period form the collapse of the Qing dynasty to the start of the Japanese Invasion.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

For the "aboriginal" part, no, not really. Remember there were two conquering of the island from the mainland in the 17th century, and it was under Qing's rule for 2 centuries before the Japanese took it by force.

And before that it was last refugee of the Ming Dynasty.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Again, the popular western portrait of the event is hardly correct in detail either. Was there killing in Beijing? Yes, quite a lot of places. Was there a massacre on the square? No, the students were let go that night. The so called "quest for democracy" is mostly a later invention as well. Establishing "one vote for one person" type of government was certainly not on its agenda. The students were singing the internationale on the square.

I never said anything about what happened in the event. Only that the PRC censors any mention of it anywhere, and acts like the event never occured, or was too minor to be noticed.

I made no claims as to what happened during the even itself. Only that it happens, and the PRC ignores it, and that they also ignore any parts of WW2 that are inconvenient to their interests, and doesn't gel with their version of events.

The PRC government, like many other communist governments, have no inhibitions about rewriting history to suit their needs.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The PRC government, like many other communist governments, have no inhibitions about rewriting history to suit their needs.

forget the word communist, it is Autocratic. China is more capitalistic then the Europe to be call communist.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

forget the word communist, it is Autocratic. China is more capitalistic then the Europe to be call communist.

True, but they were still communist when they wrote their version of WW2 history.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I never said anything about what happened in the event. Only that the PRC censors any mention of it anywhere, and acts like the event never occured, or was too minor to be noticed.

I made no claims as to what happened during the even itself. Only that it happens, and the PRC ignores it, and that they also ignore any parts of WW2 that are inconvenient to their interests, and doesn't gel with their version of events.

The PRC government, like many other communist governments, have no inhibitions about rewriting history to suit their needs.

Such arguments is not going anywhere. Do the British or the French teach their people that they have looted and burned down the summer palace? It probably is most forgotten, too.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Such arguments is not going anywhere. Do the British or the French teach their people that they have looted and burned down the summer palace? It probably is most forgotten, too.

No, but it's in the history books.

The whole colonialism thing and exploitation of peoples all over the world is quite widely taught though. It's just that the summer palace incident was relatively minor.

WW2, on the other hand, is not.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

No, but it's in the history books.

The whole colonialism thing and exploitation of peoples all over the world is quite widely taught though. It's just that the summer palace incident was relatively minor.

WW2, on the other hand, is not.

Sure, one can rob and kill someone, as long as he writes it in the history books, it is all good. How noble.

As I said, painting it with ideology and pretending that one has the moral high ground is not going anywhere.