Who was right in the Chinese Civil War

Who was right in the Chinese Civil War.

Chiang Kei Shek or Mao Ze Dong?

From what I am reading, one was a crazy fascist and one was a crazy commie.

(Made this thread on Sup Forums and got deleted, so re-posting here)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bdiBrv4zBuw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_China_(1915–16)
marketoracle.co.uk/Article1068.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Both were shit honestly. Given how China is scrambling for superpower status now, I guess Mao has the edge. In absolute terms, he was a better statesman. CKS was simply incompetent.

On the other hand, Taiwan under CKS was better than China under Mao&co.

Jewish communism or European nationalism both forms were foreign to China and ultimately didn't fit the culture which had to be violently remoulded.

They should have stayed as a empire.

You can't make comparisons like that. Taiwan is a small island settled by refugees from communism. Challenges are different. But yeah, I don't think anyone can deny anymore that in long term command economy fails and Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism was mostly shit.

Qing empire was shit, everyone hated that shit, that's why KMT took control so easily in the first place

Ming were cool I guess

They tried, they got raped. I love how people here pass stern judgements on history without understanding how stuff happened.
>French Revolution should've never happened
>Russian Revolution should've never happened
>Chinese Revolution should've never happened
Because everything was fine and dandy before...oh wait, it wasn't, and those were reactions to the crisis those societies faced.
Elites and old system failed to adapt and they perished. Crying about it is extremely dumb and pointless.

>crazy fascist vs crazy commie
>Who was right
isn't that obvious?

Given how fascism was an even bigger failure than communism, I suspect it's not as obvious as you are implying.

The one who won. Mao also won from a position of extreme weakness, rapidly consolidating and fortifying his position, while Chiang Kai Shek couldn't touch him, despite having no other distractions at the time.

He eventually turned a sick 3rd world nation into a state that competes for the very top of the world.

those three revolution hav been completely made out in (((intellectual circles))) and were not a people revolution
ofc the world isn't perfect and those countries were having pretty bad time but most of it was created by (((them))) and it got so worse after revolutions than we can tell they shouldn't have happened

Chiang and the KMT were /ourguys/.

the failure is due to external causes not internal
it's obviously better although it's not perfect

Every revolution was made in intellectual circles. ''People's revolution'' never happened in human history.
>(((them)))
It's just a tool you use to fill the blanks in your knowledge. That's the crux of conspiracy theories. You're faced with complex subjects and you try to simplify them because you lack the knowledge to explain them properly.
>it got worse
No it didn't. You're crying about something that's inevitable. It's like crying about the fact you'll die.

Patrician choice: Wang Jingwei

I not even sure if it is legitimate to compare fascism and communism this way. Communism in Russia and China were more or less enforced development programs for empires that missed industrialization.

Red ants, black ants. I can't be bothered OP.

>external causes
Nope.
Italian fascism accomplished nothing in practice. They didn't build strong army. They didn't build strong empire. They didn't build strong industry. They didn't raise living standard in any appreciable amount.
Spanish fascism never really won because Franco wasn't a bona fide fascist, but still, Spain accomplished nothing either.
Nazis seized power and dragged Germany and the continent into war in just 7 years, which led to total defeat.
Fascism failed everywhere, just like communism.

what do you mean by right?

>nationalist = fascism
public education christ

I think this could explain the situation further.

youtube.com/watch?v=bdiBrv4zBuw

Chiang Ching Chong

But fascism and communism (Marxism-Leninism and derivatives) are highly similar, so I think they can be compared. Both, in their classic and most prevalent form, are totalitarian ideologies which share many traits.

>A leaf versed in Chinese history
Hmmmmmmm......

>We kill people we don't like.

Basically that is.

Mao was the better choice because he was much more effective in:

- actually fighting against the Japanese whereas the KMT & other warlords half-assed it
- unified most of the country

Chiang thought he had a chance at re-taking the Mainland well into the 50s. Thankfully successive US governments stopped hi mas he would'v been annihilated and the Communists would've been able to invade Taiwan. Backroom diplomacy made Taiwan basically an East Asian Cuba with the larger neighbour agreeing not to invade in exchange for the smaller side not participating in too much guerrilla/terrorism.

Also, a large portion of the Southern KMT forces crossed over into Northern Myanmar and setting up the semi-autonomous Shan state. The spice (opium) must flow...always.

kek

Not really lol, Taiwan did most of its development after that dude died
So did China and Mao actually

The leaders that arose from ww2 in china are all shit desu

t. 56%
average canadian chink just says never forget the 30 gorilllion killed at nanjing
only a real white man supports jingwei

Neither. The only viable option was the Chinese Empire but they decided to get rid of the natural leader

>They didn't raise living standard in any appreciable amount.
they did
also spain was never really fascist but they still got pretty good compared the civil war the got through
nazism saved germany after ww1 and they didn't drag it into war , the war was declared and continued by the other countries which is why I said external causes

Hmm... you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Please fuck off new fag.

>From what I am reading, one was a crazy fascist and one was a crazy commie.

THERE IS NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE HERE

>stopped Japanese from taking over china
>incompetent
kys

disagreed, it's this guy
John James Cowperthwaite

Spain was never fascist, we just had two dictatorships in the XX century, that's it.

I would point out that, unlike fascism, Communism has failed on it's own terms everywhere it has been tried: the USSR collapsed due to the failure of the doctrine of totally centrally planned economics, and the regime in China has only managed to survive through brutal suppression of political dissenters and by slowing shifting to decidedly more capitalistic systems of economics, so you can't even really call it Communism anymore. Then you have Cuba and North Korea, where the standards of living are piss poor and and the nation is capable of limping along only due to generous foreign aid handouts.

By contrast, the fascist regimes of Italy, Germany, and Japan were dismantled after suffering military defeat, not by a gradual collapse of the system. Perhaps the fascist regimes would have eventually collapsed if any had survived the second world war, but we don't know this for a fact, whereas Communism has been repeatedly proven to be a hopless economic and political ideology.

t. burger dukashun

Can YOU please fuck off?

Why are you so triggered?

I'm not denying the violence both sides commited, I'm questioning the motives behind it.
When I was younger and still a marxist, cruelties from Stalin and Mao were justified (even by leftwing liberals) as necessity to close the gap to the modern nations of the west. Germany and Italy could have recovered from WWI without dictatorships, but the communist countries had to close the gap to the west to stay independent.

No it was pretty obviously an overthrow of the ancien regime by merchants and industrialists who were gaining more influence because of increased trade and the industrial revolution.

The question is, if it wasn't for communism, would China be a 1st world country like Taiwan, or Japan, or South Korea?

not likely
pic related

If I had to speculate I'd guess that it would have ended up as an Asian Russia; a wealthy, basically 1st world elite in the coastal cities with a poor, still developing rural population in the interior.

The redpill is they both sucked hard, except Mao was a competent military leader and was able to actually rally the peasants to his cause. After all it is quite impressive for someone to lost 9/10th of their army march 2000km in retreat rebuild your forces and BTFO your enemies. Chiang kai shek was sidely seen as corrupt, which he was and that's why the nationalists lost

>they did
Show data that confirms that.
>nazism saved germany
From what?
>the war was declared
This shitty argument. Hitler was appeased from years and then they declared war on him after he invaded UK and French ally, in yet another land-grab after promising he'll stop.
Apparently UK and France should've let him gobble up everything and wait for him to build-up his armies even more, and then wait for rape.
It wasn't fascism like in Italy or Germany but it did share some traits.
>military defeat
In a war they provoked.
>as necessity to close the gap to the modern nations of the west
They never closed the gap. They just built strong military and industry to back it. Which all wasn't sustainable.
As I said, every revolution is led by intellectual minority.

Does it matter if they provoked the war or not? Was Napoleon a complete failure because his reign was ended by a military defeat?

Napoleon and France were attacked. And yes, Napoleon was a failure overall.

>There will never be a prosperous Wu China led by their capital in Shanghai
The world is too cruel

of course. but they would also be a puppet of zion

>They never closed the gap. They just built strong military and industry to back it. Which all wasn't sustainable.

I agree that the soviet union collapsed under the weight of its own military industry, but the communist party still rules china. They didn't close the gap but are far away from beeing a agricultural nation.

>a wealthy, basically 1st world elite in the coastal cities with a poor, still developing rural population in the interior.

and that's different from what they are now how?

Reason why they survived is because they abandoned command economy. Unlike Soviet communists who didn't want to listen to their economists who predicted economic collapse decades before it happened.

The Kuomintang was more or less like Putin's party, a supposedly nationalist group that sucks at being nationalist because the leaders were corrupt kleptocrats. The commies ended up winning because they pretended to fight the Japanese (while in reality doing nothing) and then backstabbing the weakened Kuomintang and taking over

the redpill is depends whose side you're on. if you're american, then obviously losing china to mao was a defeat. if you're chinese however, it's a win because they get to dictate their own terms without having to be a puppet of the (((liberal world order)))

they're both Western puppets
it's a shame the Chinese had no strong traditional leader

trips means truth.
You're right. Many moons ago I read an article about an soviet economist who proved that the soviet union wasn't immune to economic crisis (Stalin thought so because the collapse of the markets in the 20's spared russia).
This economist was killed in the next stalinistic cleansing.

>they're both Western puppets

which is why mao fought the korean war, vietnam war, and is allies with russia while the (((US))) is hellbent on destabilizing china and (((installing))) ROC. ok

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_China_(1915–16)

>Upon being recalled from Germany, Chiang Wei-kuo visited the United States as a distinguished guest of the US Army. He gave lectures detailing on German army organizations and tactics.
What an asshat

Chiang Kei Shek was more aesthetic.

Fucking bullshit. Taiwan was better before (Japanese colony) and after his reign. It was better because it was already rich and had great infrastructure left behind by the Japanese. The Nationalists did nothing but pillage the things already there in an attempt to build up an attack to retake mainland.

Just look up Lysenkoism for ultimate retardation. Or Mao's Four Pests campaign. Or making steel from iron pots. Or sending 300,000 men to get captured in Tunisia. Or shooting people who conducted census which showed Soviet population didn't grow as planned.
People who defend totalitarianism are people who know little. All those regimes were enemies of human and common sense, at the very least.

> Lysenkoism
Reminds me of aryan physics (atoms are just a jewish lie, there is only aether).

>people still think that communism will always fail
>people still think that fascism will always fail
>people still think that it's the ideology of the nation that determined the outcomes instead of the quality of the leaders and the people
Will you ever grow up?

When it comes to extremist ideologies they have inherent features and faults, and they tend to attract a certain type of people, which enables us to predict that they will end in failure in long term (which is relatively short when talking about extremist ideologies), even if we didn't have massive empirical evidence from history.

none of them stopped the sino Japanese invasion. it was majority allies doing. Mao doesn't have an legitimate army and the nationalist kept losing.

The chinese aristocracy sans taoism/buddhism/confucianism turned into degeneracy, just like any aristocracy without a solid philosophical foundation. If it had stayed in it's prime, if it had embraced Buddhism more, then I think communism wouldn't have won people over. They wound up going "eh who gives a shit about common people and their religious and idealogical tendencies" and got shafted for it.

>>people still think that communism will always fail
Look at the people drawn to communism. It is doomed to fail eternally.

(((Thesis))) & (((anti-thesis)))

marketoracle.co.uk/Article1068.html

>which enables us to predict that they will end in failure in long term

In the long term every country collapses. You need to make a comparison if you intend to make a comparison.

No nation can ever achieve true greatness, righteousness, epicness & JUSTICE without a solid philosophical foundation.

It's the RAIL the guides TRAIN which is the NATION into the future, ensuring future generations keep the flame of righteous & justice lit to prevent a dark dystopian totalitarian hell from incarnating, which is a very possible outcome for humanity if certain corrupt government & business bodies have their way.

At this point and time, yes. But once good people create a communist society it will thrive. Same goes for any other ideology.

All of them have pros and cons however I'm not going to demonize something because it failed in the past.

T. Ancap