Chinese and history

[wushijiao]

I don't think it's fair to call it "skillfully". They took 35 years! Just took any 35-years period from history, see how many things had happened and gotten done. Finishing off World War II, 6 years. Sending men to the moon, less than a decade. Transferring China from a failing central planned economy to the world's 3rd largest, 3 decades. Think those tremendous amount of work to be done.

But then again, the CCP was simply walled up in Yan'an, taking money from the Soviets, purging each other, and letting the ROC do the bulk of the governing and fighting...

Had the ROC won, God only knows how much stronger China would be today. With 60 years of development, China's GDP would probably be at least twice the size that it is now, and they wouldn't have killed off all of the best talent in the anti-Rightist campaign, and CR....so who knows how far China could have gone in the arts and science. But then again, there's no way to actually know.

Edited April 14, 2010 at 02:48 AM by wushijiao

[skylee]

But then again, there's no way to actually know.

Indeed.

[Outofin]

Recentment about People's Republic's past or present doesn't have to translate into idealization of KMT. KMT's records were really awful.

[gato]

That should apply both ways. One should try to be objective about both CCP and KMT.

There is a lot of historical writing making the case that KMT did a very credible job in patching the country together before the invasion by the Japanese. Try to read some history books about the 1920s.

[renzhe]

Sure, but Dr. Sun Yat-Sen's (before 1925) and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek's KMT (after 1925) were hardly exactly the same thing.

Assuming a benevolent treatment of intellectuals and a friendly democratic society from the latter is a bit of a stretch.

I agree with the people who say that we have no way of knowing what might have happened. We do know for a fact that the CCP messed up epically several times. But they also had quite a difficult task in front of them, and the KMT of the time was also no stranger to vicious fundamentalism. So one can only wildly speculate about what might have been.

I also agree that authoritarian capitalism (the Soviet model) is the fastest way to industrialise and grow an economy, but this is straight from the Marxist theory.

Edited April 14, 2010 at 03:39 PM by renzhe

[gato]

I am reading a biography of Chiang right now, the one by Jay Taylor.

[bhchao]

I was under the impression that the Americans supported the KMT because of the cold war, like they did in Korea and Vietnam, not because they were itching to rain technical assistance all over the world.

It was a combination of Cold War politics and the KMT's public relations campaign in WWII.

During WWII, and especially before Pearl Harbor, Americans expressed high sympathy for China's battle against the Japanese. American literature, media, and political circles helped create positive sentiments in America toward China. Pearl Buck's (who grew up in China) The Good Earth helped create a favorable impression of the hardworking Chinese peasant.

Magazine tycoons like Henry Luce (also grew up in China) exposed Japanese atrocities in China to the American public. Many Americans were shocked by the pictures they saw. Eventually, public outrage at the Japanese helped pressure FDR to force an embargo against Japan.

The KMT's lobbying efforts during WWII produced longer-term effects. Song Meiling's efforts during the war to cultivate the relationship eventually benefited Taiwan.

[gato]

Video of 1937 of Soong Mai-ling address to the world in English

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61bV9-zeCrA&feature=related

1943 Soong Mai-ling address to the American Congress

(for those behind the GFW, tudou has an excerpt and audio, but no full video)

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/J901XArWjns/

1943 Soong May-ling speech to US Congress (except)

http://www.tudou.com/playlist/playindex.do?lid=6019547

1943 Soong May-ling speech to US Congress (full recording)

[wushijiao]

During WWII, and especially before Pearl Harbor, Americans expressed high sympathy for China's battle against the Japanese. American literature, media, and political circles helped create positive sentiments in America toward China. Pearl Buck's (who grew up in China) The Good Earth helped create a favorable impression of the hardworking Chinese peasant.

Yes, also, I'd highly recommend "The Age of Openness: China Before Mao", which is a great book for understanding the progress that was made during the time of the ROC.

The book talks about how people in this time period made progress in many fronts: getting rid of widespread famines, public health, academia (ie. setting up universities and gaining knowledge in sub-fields like sociology), prison reform, law, diplomacy, commerce, news and media...etc. Almost all of these things China had to re-learn in the 1980's. For example, China went from having very little institutional knowledge at the academic level as far as International Relations in the 1970's, since Mao basically destroyed academia, but then in the 1980's China set scholars abroad, and quickly got up to speed, and now has almost all the major works translated, and lots of journals. For anybody looking at any particular field, say, knowledge about psychology and mental health, the changes that China has made, and the institutional knowledge gained, has been phenomenal. It's just amazing to think how things might have been different without the 30 years lost down the drain.

Another thing the book points out is that foreigners in the Republic era (ie. missionaries, businesspeople, and others), by and large, identified strongly with the ROC, and they were working hard to assist it.

Although with that said, as Ouofin points out, that resentment against the CCP shouldn't get in the way of seeing the ROC objectively.