94 replies to this topic

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Honestly, these types of questions are totally meaningless as mainland China is not Taiwan and hence we would never know what the nationalists could have done in China. Taiwanese economic growth isn't just a miracle of the ROC; its economy started off better than those of China's thanks to Japanese administration and the dynamics of that growth under Japanese occupation has not halted since Taiwan never suffered serious damage from war. The KMT received a centrally administrated Taiwan from the Japanese while left a war torn mainland where centralized administration was largely absent to the communists.

Another thing is that the present growth in China is built uppon experiences and failures, and should not be viewed separately from them. One thing which the PRC has that neither the late Qing nor the ROC had was simply the desire to be number one. It is this desire which pushes modern China through all kinds of experiments and reforms with economic, social, and miltiary matters. These take risks, but the result is that it will grow stronger over time.

2) A foreign policy consisting of belligerence and hostility that nearly plunged the country into nuclear war with both the USSR and the U.S. at various points in the 50's and 60's. Not to mention it also created the NK crisis that we see today that may never be resolved without serious bloodshed.

However none of the wars that the PRC initiated failed, and that is the key point. The PRC is a far more militarily successful regime than either the late Qing or the ROC ever was. It managed to push the American army out of North Korea, reoccupy Tibet, swiftly crush the Indian forces, and indirectly commanded the communists of Vietnam in overthrowing the French. It was able to get a seat in the UN without western support. These successes freed China from any powerful military states to station armies near its border and spared China from relying upon greater powers for protection.

In addition to these, it managed to make its atmoic bomb, develop an ICBM surpassed only by the US and the USSR, and became the world's biggest producer of iron.

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 06 January 2011 - 12:39 PM.

[Lubomin]

Of course, we cannot be sure, what nationalists could do in China. But we can try to see kind of regularities and possible results of their politics. Alternative history doesn't have to be pointless
For example, the KMT's plan, "taiphoon of reforms" was intended for the mainland and used in Taiwan. Chiang's agrarian reform was much more effective and bloodless.
But if we want to discuss, how would KMT rule China, we should get back to the times, when he actually was. And pay our attention on what then Chiang's administration was doing. Leader wasn't a talented economist, but some of his people did. Nanjing decade was the time of developing the infrastructure, building roads and tracks. Currency reform and canceling out the lijin. Great law reform and relative small taxes.
The problem in comparing the China in 1927 and 1949 is not only the war ruination. Communist really controlled whole of the country and could try their every single economic idea. KMT really controlled about 5 provinces. And rather took care of them.
Chiang also wasn't an emperor, he had a wide opposition, in the party and the warlords. Mao didn't have such a problem.
I also admit a possibility, that China wouldn't became a real power under the Chiang's government after 1949. The real value, that CCP gave to China was a stabilisation. If communists wouldn't get annihilated, warlords would still play an important role in politics and KMT wouldn't be united - there wouldn't be the end of fighting.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I suspect, that China would become an economic power really earlier without communists' experiments. Big part of chinese culture would be saved.
Chiang was a good administrator and I believe, he would be better leader for the China after 1949 than Mao (in fact, it's hard to find a worse candidate than this Chairman...). "The Nanjing Decade", 1927-1937, was a time, when a lot of important reforms were started. The biggest problem was an instability, warlords, communists, and soon Japanese attack...
KMT changed Taiwan, made it a rich an well-prospering country. It also gave Taiwanian people democracy. I believe, that after defeating the military opposition, and definitly re-uniting China, Chiangs could do that with whole state.

People here tend to be very critical of the GLF and CR, while ignoring the significant strides in industrial growth that were achieved under the same period as well as the even worse famines and conditions that were going on during Chiang Kai Shek's rule even under the golden period of the Nanjing decade.

But if you compare datas, the nanjing decade is really not all that impressive even compared to the early growth of the PRC. We do not have the exact figures for per capita growth for that period, but we do have several figures for important resources.

For one, the ROC never improved much on iron production, which was one of the biggest indicators of industrialization.

Below is a figure for iron production for the entire country in the unit of 10,000 tons

Year Steel Iron
1927 3.0 43.7
1928 3.0 47.7
1929 2.0 43.6
1930 1.5 49.8
1931 1.5 47.1
1932 2.0 54.8
1933 3.0 60.9
1934 5.0 65.6
1935 25.7 78.7
1936 41.4 81.0
1937 55.6 95.9

The figures above also includes Manchukuo, which had a significant portion of the entire country's iron production, in another word, the total iron production during the nanjing decade of the ROC probably increased by less than three times. The weakness of the KMT's iron industry was one of its major weaknesses in the war against Japan, when the supplies of its soldiers were totally lacking.

Compared to the ROC, between 1950-1960, the PRC steel production increased by over 20 folds in the same breadth of time, and its iron quadrupled in just five years and by 1982, it has became the world's fourth largest producer in steel, and today, it overtook Japan and became #1.


In fact, even compared to the early Beiyang government, the KMT does not compare well, in the area of industrial output, it was estimated that in 1920, the national volume was around 222,600,000 yuan, while in 1937, after the nanjing decade, the KMT only had 206,000,000 yuan worth of industrial output, a decline from the Beiyang regime's productions. In another word, despite the growth of the nanjing decade, Chiangkaishek's China was probably less industrialized than that of Yuan Shikai's China.



As for famine, we do not have exhaustive data for the whole country, but even taking one of the wealthiest region in Jiangsu, we see that the mortality rate during Chiang's nanjing decade surpassed the worst famines during the GLF under the PRC.

From 1931—1934 年江苏省江阴县农村人口贫富死亡率（千分比）
　 1、Mortality Rate:
　　年 度 富有者 安舒者 贫穷者 总 计
　　1931—1932 26.5 39.6 45.6 42.8
　　1932—1933 32.3 31.0 39.6 36.1
　　1933—1934 33.9 49.3 56.0 52.0
　　1931—1934平均 30.9 39.9 47.4 ——
　　2、Infant mortality rate
　　年 度 富有者 安舒者 贫穷者 总计
　　1931—1932 161．3 219．8 198．2 203．4
　　1932—1933 275．9 240．2 239．2 241．8
　　1933—1934 379．3 373．5 403．4 309．3
　
Source：《中国经济年鉴》第三编（1936年）。

In another word, in 1933, the mortality rate in Southern Jiangsu was twice as high as 1960, the worst year of the GLF, and 3 times higher than the average mortality rate in the 50s and 60s China, and 6 times higher than the 70s PRC.
　　



Even in mainland China, despite the GLF and CR, the economic growth rate between 1949-1979 was quite significant for a country of that size and averages around 5.6% a year, which was far superior to the contemporary growth in India which numbered between 1-2% and not that far behind Taiwan's growth of 8% a year. The reason that the early PRC growth is not apparent is because they are focused on heavy industries such as iron, but without these early growth, the reforms under Deng Xiaoping would not be possible.


All of the above does not even take consideration of the military status of Chiang's China which was not only far below that of the PRC, but below even those of Yuan Shikai's Beiyang government, and the last decade of the late Qing, both of which had standing armies or navies that were updated and ranked among the top 10 in the world and had enough military might to repulse foreign invasion.
http://www.chinahist...rs/page__st__75

http://www.chinahist...vy/page__st__30

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 07 January 2011 - 02:11 AM.

[Lubomin]

Iron production is a good rate, but we should rather look at the complete industrial production, including other resources, like coal and also machines. Intustrial production rate was about 8%, what we can compare with PRC in last decade (2001-2010). In fact, critics of KMT's economy usually are concentrated on the rural sector, which was developing more slowly.
Another rate is an economic growth. Thomas G. Rawski (Economic Growth in Prewar China) compares the Nanjing Decade's rate with the one, which describes Japan's economy in 1897-1931.
We can't also blame Chiang for not developing iron extraction and processing in Manchuria. The most industrialised region was controlled firstly by Zhangs, and then by Japan (Pu Yi was only a puppet).
About the mortaliy - I think that the main cause, we can point is the non-stop fighting and divide. Poor peasants were being ruined with the taxes - not official (about 10%, not a high rate), but "the special taxes", levied by the warlords (including communists and KMT's collaborators), villages' governors (also the KMT members) and so on. We can't forget about the natural catastrophies and japanese acts in Manchuria.
Militaries: Yuan Shikai derived the Qing's armies, they've been divided later. Chinese army couldn't grow stronger for a long time, when other states - Germany, USA, Japan - was getting more and more powerful. KMT couldn't use the whole country resources for building the troops - CCP after 1949 had such a possibility, also late Qing's and Yuan. For example, since 1931 Manchuria was being used for this aim by Japan, not China.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

About the mortaliy - I think that the main cause, we can point is the non-stop fighting and divide. Poor peasants were being ruined with the taxes - not official (about 10%, not a high rate), but "the special taxes", levied by the warlords (including communists and KMT's collaborators), villages' governors (also the KMT members) and so on. We can't forget about the natural catastrophies and japanese acts in Manchuria.

This might have been true for other parts of China, but the data I presented was southern Jiangsu, the wealthiest part of the country directly under KMT rule without warlordism. So the mortality rate is due to famine and agricultural negligence instead of war. Indeed if we use other parts of China as a reference, then the mortality rate was most likely even higher.
Speaking of famine, the GLF stands out because its closer to our times and its also under the PRC when it happened. However, if we put it in context of the history of famines in China, the famines under early PRC up to 1979 was significantly less severe and frequent than the periods before.

A total of 435 famines occurred between 1850 and 1932 in 146 counties across 20
provinces. Some are far worse than the GLF and others are just as large. For example the famine of 1876-1879 killed 13 million people, more than twice as many people as the GLF and there are revisionists which consider the people died during the GLF to be significantly less. The famine of 1928-1929 killed 3 million people, a scale comparable to the GLF, and as a percentage of the population, it was greater. Several smaller famines occured throughout the nanjing decade. Despite the GLF, its really the PRC which finally solved such problems in the 60s-70s.

Honestly, the whole idea that the early PRC was a stagnant period or even brought the Chinese economy back is seriously misleading, despite several catastrophic experiments, the Chinese economy on the whole was moving forward, and quite fast too, in both the agricultural and the industrial sector. Despite criticisms of PRC's uncontrolled birthrate, the population growth itself could not have been achieved without an introduction of new agricultural techniques, a reduction of famine and hence mortality rate. In another word, China's population growth under Mao was itself a sign of improving agricultral production and management.

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 07 January 2011 - 11:50 AM.

[Mei Houwang]

Some are far worse than the GLF and others are just as large. For example the famine of 1876-1879 killed 13 million people, more than twice as many people as the GLF and there are revisionists which consider the people died during the GLF to be significantly less.

Last time I checked the CCP claimed that the GLF killed 12 million, while the most conservative western estimates put it at 20 million. Where did you get the 6-7 million from?

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Well the figure you brought up came from the PRC conducted census.

│年份　│　　（万人） │ （％）　 │　 （‰）　　　　│　 （‰）　　　│

　　│1957　│　64，653　　│ 34·03　 │　 10·80　　　　│　23·23　　　 │
　　│1958　│　65，994　　│ 29·22　 │　 11·98　　　　│　17·24　　　 │

　　│1959　│　67，207　　│ 24·78　 │　 14·59　　　　│　10·19　　　 │

　　│1960　│　66，207　　│ 20·86　 │　 25·43　　　　│　—4·57　　　│

　　│1961　│　65，859　　│ 18·02　 │　 14·24　　　　│　 3·78　　　 │

　　│1962　│　67，295　　│ 37·01　 │　 10·02　　　　│　26·99　　　 │

　　│1963　│　66，172　　│ 43·37　 │　 10·04　　　　│　33·33　　　 │

　　│1964　│　70，499　　│ 39·14　 │　 11·50　　　　│　27·64　　　 │

　│1965　│　72，538　　│ 37·88　 │　 9．50　　　　 │　28·38　　　 │


The figure of 12 million hence comes from the drop in the year between 1959-61
However, recent argument has it that the census itself has been miscounted, and hence the actual amount was probably a lot smaller, althought it is one of the theories.

In any case, the GLF was probably not the biggest famine in Chinese history, the famine of 1876 was greater and took a toll on a far larger percentage of the Chinese population. While several famines during the ROC also killed millions and compared quite well with the GLF. Whatever the size of the GLF was, the frequency of famine under the PRC clearly decreased when compare to earlier times.

If we are to trust the higher figures of 30-50 million dead, that means out of every 15-20 people one would have died. There is no evidence that suggests such a widespread mortality even in the worst years. The famines broke out regionally and was controlled(btw, the mortality figures I compared the KMT Jiangsu area is actually based on the 10 million figure)

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 07 January 2011 - 01:17 PM.

[wredsa]

Knowing Chiang Kai Shek's habit of being genocidal maniac and iron fisted tyrant, he would exterminate all the ethnic minority, and even kill of all non-christian Chinese. China would become another Philipine.

[mariusj]

Knowing Chiang Kai Shek's habit of being genocidal maniac and iron fisted tyrant, he would exterminate all the ethnic minority, and even kill of all non-christian Chinese. China would become another Philipine.

You know Chiang Kai Shek? Wow that is really amazing. You must of been someone pretty important in ROC aren't you? How did you know him? Personally? Through job? Did you serve in the military? You wouldn't happen to know Zhang Xue Liang too would you? How about Mao? Are you a personal acquittance of Mao as well?

[wredsa]

take it easy dude, it is just my opinion. He did commit massacre before in his life so it is understandable he might have done more, with more power corrupting him even more.

hope did not hit your ego too much.

Edited by wredsa, 05 March 2011 - 07:53 PM.

[mariusj]

You know the meaning of genocidal right?

Whether or not he committed massacres is another debate, but I am questioning the genocidal part, which have very little to do with massacring. You are merely making assumptions that he would kill all non Christian Chinese, in which, I must say, is ******* retarded.

So no, it wasn't my ego that was hit, but rather my faith in human gene pool.

[Optimus]

For example, the KMT's plan, "taiphoon of reforms" was intended for the mainland and used in Taiwan. Chiang's agrarian reform was much more effective and bloodless.
But if we want to discuss, how would KMT rule China, we should get back to the times, when he actually was. And pay our attention on what then Chiang's administration was doing. Leader wasn't a talented economist, but some of his people did. Nanjing decade was the time of developing the infrastructure, building roads and tracks. Currency reform and canceling out the lijin. Great law reform and relative small taxes.

Dr.Arthur.N.Young, financial advisor to ROC 1942-1946 on the 1937 Chinese Nationalist Govt.

By 1937, the Nationalist Government 9 years of financial rehabilitation had reaped rewards after the financial mess of the numerous Peiping regimes. They succeeded in unifying and stabilizing the currency, developed large revenues (customs and internal), the greater part of the foreign debts had been settled. The Government had a large degree of financial stability.

China economy was developing nicely and going ahead rapidly. Foreign capital was coming into the country. The future outlook was really very promising, Ambassador Dr. Hu. Shih Chinese Ambassador in Washington said that during the 1930, China had the best government it has ever had. One of the reasons why the Japanese attacked in 1937 was that China was getting ahead so rapidly that they had reached the conclusion that it was now or never.

The result of the Japanese attack was to disrupt and destroy the great deal of good work which the Nationalist Government had done during this period.

The Japanese overran the principal cities and destroyed the main sources of revenue. The Chinese fled out of the areas where the most modern development had taken place. The Chinese government couldn't find adequate revenues and therefore was forced to rely on paper money, inflation as the main financial resource available for the purpose of fighting the war.

4 years of fighting, in 1941 – China needed help in averting imminent economic collapse that faced her solely as a result of the protracted war she had been fighting.

Edited by Optimus, 06 March 2011 - 05:30 AM.

[hpyp]

Honestly, these types of questions are totally meaningless as mainland China is not Taiwan and hence we would never know what the nationalists could have done in China. Taiwanese economic growth isn't just a miracle of the ROC; its economy started off better than those of China's thanks to Japanese administration and the dynamics of that growth under Japanese occupation has not halted since Taiwan never suffered serious damage from war. The KMT received a centrally administrated Taiwan from the Japanese while left a war torn mainland where centralized administration was largely absent to the communists.
...

Well said. It is worth noting that Chiang secretly shipped massive amount of gold, silver and foreign exchange from mainland to Taiwan at the end of the civil war. Chiang Ching-kuo, son of Chiang Kai-shek and president after his death, was said to have written in his diary: “if we have not had this gold in the early period of moving the government to Taiwan, it is unimaginable what would have happened. How would we have the stability of today?” (http://guanyu9.wordp...-from-the-reds/) Wouldn't that make one wonder how PRC managed to stablize and grow its economy, at a size many times bigger than Taiwan's, *without* the gold reserve that was stolen from them? What PRC has accomplished since 1949 is nothing short of a miracle in the human history, even dwarfing the so-called "Taiwan miracle".

[baybal]

Well said. It is worth noting that Chiang secretly shipped massive amount of gold, silver and foreign exchange from mainland to Taiwan at the end of the civil war. Chiang Ching-kuo, son of Chiang Kai-shek and president after his death, was said to have written in his diary: “if we have not had this gold in the early period of moving the government to Taiwan, it is unimaginable what would have happened. How would we have the stability of today?” (http://guanyu9.wordp...-from-the-reds/) Wouldn't that make one wonder how PRC managed to stablize and grow its economy, at a size many times bigger than Taiwan's, *without* the gold reserve that was stolen from them? What PRC has accomplished since 1949 is nothing short of a miracle in the human history, even dwarfing the so-called "Taiwan miracle".

With half of the world's capital being invested in one prc. There are no wonder that there are progress and development.

[hpyp]

With half of the world's capital being invested in one prc. There are no wonder that there are progress and development.

Since when?