[BlueDragonMagik]

As of this day, Feburary 12, in the year 1912, Hsüan-T'ung (Pu Yi), the last emperor of China, was forced to abdicate following Sun Yat-sen's republican revolution; he was six years old. China became a republic following the overthrow of the Manchu Dynasty. ... I would say this was a great turning point for China. ...

[jiangji]

It is indeed a turning point for china but it is not that great. ROC was supposed to be democractic but soon turn into a dictatorship. Later, Warlords began to fight against each other. By the time ROC reunify the north, they faces threat from Communists and Japan. During this ROC era, it is a period of instability and decline.

[snowybeagle]

Ironically, I would see the abdication of Emperor Pu Yi akin to giving birth to a premature baby (the baby being democratic & progressive China as envisioned by Dr. Sun Yat Sen and many other revolutionaries).

The interim government did not have the capabilities to govern the vast territories inherited from the Qing Dynasty. It did not even have strong unity among the different factions of the Revolutionaries, and opted to accept a deal with the military leadership of the Qing Dynasty. Many of us are aware of what happened, and the warlordism that emerged after the death of Yuan Shi-Kai, traitor to the Republic.

But considering how the revolutionaries in Wu Han sought out Li YuanHong as their figurehead, it was clear they were ill-equiped for governing a new state.


Nonetheless, China is far from being alone in history in experiencing what premature success of a revolution could bring.

The earliest example I could find would be the English Revolution in 17th century England, after Oliver Cromwell successfully led the Parliamentarists against the Royalists.

At that time, no one really knew what to do what they beheaded Charles I. The republican government of the Commonwealth of England ruled England, and later all of Scotland and Ireland, during 1649–1653 and 1659–1660. Oliver Cromwell, a de facto military dictator, refused the crown and ruled as Lord Protector. Without a strong vision and a long-term plan, monarchy made a comeback after his death and his son Richard Cromwell proved unable to maintain what his father built.

The French Revolution of 1789 which ended nearly one and half millenium of monarchy and established an unstable "democratic" government that led ironically to the birth of the French Empire. The stable democratic republic was not established until nearly a century after the Revolution began.

After the Chinese XinHai Revolution of 1911, the next revolution in a major world power was the Russian Revolution of 1917. Continued instability meant the February Revolution was shortly followed by the October Revolution, with the Bolsheviks ousting the Mensheviks, and a not generally known wars against foreign intervention.

Like a butterfly emerging from the cocoon, sometimes, certain things cannot be hastened.

[ahxiang]

snowybeagle, on Feb 12 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

Ironically, I would see the abdication of Emperor Pu Yi akin to giving birth to a premature baby (the baby being democratic & progressive China as envisioned by Dr. Sun Yat Sen and many other revolutionaries).

The interim government did not have the capabilities to govern the vast territories inherited from the Qing Dynasty. It did not even have strong unity among the different factions of the Revolutionaries, and opted to accept a deal with the military leadership of the Qing Dynasty. Many of us are aware of what happened, and the warlordism that emerged after the death of Yuan Shi-Kai, traitor to the Republic.

But considering how the revolutionaries in Wu Han sought out Li YuanHong as their figurehead, it was clear they were ill-equiped for governing a new state.
Nonetheless, China is far from being alone in history in experiencing what premature success of a revolution could bring.

The earliest example I could find would be the English Revolution in 17th century England, after Oliver Cromwell successfully led the Parliamentarists against the Royalists.

At that time, no one really knew what to do what they beheaded Charles I. The republican government of the Commonwealth of England ruled England, and later all of Scotland and Ireland, during 1649–1653 and 1659–1660. Oliver Cromwell, a de facto military dictator, refused the crown and ruled as Lord Protector. Without a strong vision and a long-term plan, monarchy made a comeback after his death and his son Richard Cromwell proved unable to maintain what his father built.

The French Revolution of 1789 which ended nearly one and half millenium of monarchy and established an unstable "democratic" government that led ironically to the birth of the French Empire. The stable democratic republic was not established until nearly a century after the Revolution began.

After the Chinese XinHai Revolution of 1911, the next revolution in a major world power was the Russian Revolution of 1917. Continued instability meant the February Revolution was shortly followed by the October Revolution, with the Bolsheviks ousting the Mensheviks, and a not generally known wars against foreign intervention.

Like a butterfly emerging from the cocoon, sometimes, certain things cannot be hastened.

How do you explain the phenomenon of Ataturk, Kemal [1881-1938] the Founder of the modern Turkish Republic? Was Turkey more advanced than China? Definitely not. Manchu China had dispatched hundreds of thousands of students overseas, and they "harvested cucumber by planting the beans".

It is just one good soul that determines the fate of one nation. China was simply unlucky to find Yuan Shikai as a ruler who was propped up by Anglo-American interests. In northern China, Wu Luzhen failed to shake up Yuan Shikai's crony army. Otherwise, things could very well be different.

Read some details of 1911 Revolution. You would find the so-called North-South Peace talks were initiated and faciliated by the British and American, including ambassador Jordan.

British or American did not care about the southern Chinese government even though over half of the leaders were actually returnees from studies in Europe, Japan and America or graduates of missionary-founded schools. See below to find out how our forerunners were naive in imitating and copycating everything from the American Independence War.

Revolutionaries Embarking On Establishing the Republic & Stipulating the Constitution: On Nov 13th, Chen Qimei, in Shanghai, called upon provinces to send in representatves to Shanghai. Wuchang city agreed with revolutionaries and constitutional maonarchists in Shanghai city that a system similar to USA should be formulated. Agreement was reached to have each province send in two representatives, with one representing Manchu-era consultancy bureau and the other representing provincial governor-general office. With the compromise of revolutionaries and constitutional monarchists, about 18 provinces sent in their representatives to Shanghai. <b>First meeting was held on Nov 15th [Sept 25th per lunar calendar], with a decision to have governor-generals play the role of the senate by mapping the "Continental Congress" scheme of the USA at the time of the Independence War against Britain.</b> At the request of Li Yuanhong & Huang Xing, representatives split into two halves, with the group of people for Wuchang to be bestowed with the responsibility of drafting China's first constitution, i.e., "Organization Guidelines of the Interim Government of the Republic of China" [later commonly known as "Interim Agreed-Upon Laws"]. Representatives also devised the 18-star national flag by mapping the US national flag, which was symbolic of the 18 provinces which declared independence from Manchu court. The 18-star national flag will then be replaced by "five color national flag" which would be symbolic of the union of five ethnc groups of Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui Muslim and Tibetans.


Now back to Anglo-American attitudes. At the news of Xin Hai Revolution, Sun Yat-sen did not sail for China, but Washington DC. No Americans received him. He then went to Britain. No British accepted him. He then went to France. Then he returned to China to be the interim president. British and Americans supported empress dowager Ci-xi even though the witch had incited the boxer turmoil.

Caution: Today's Chinese should have no false hope as in 1911.

This post has been edited by ahxiang: 13 February 2006 - 01:49 AM

[snowybeagle]

ahxiang, on Feb 13 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

How do you explain the phenomenon of Ataturk, Kemal [1881-1938] the Founder of the modern Turkish Republic?

Not all Revolutions had false starts, of course. The American Revolution was one, though the American Civil War nearly a century later showed not every American had the same idea of what the United States should be.

As for Ataturk, I am not sure what parallels you want draw to China.

First of all, the Turkish Republic occupied only a fraction of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire, which was broken up after the end of the Great War (1914-1918).

The same cannot be said about China.

Second, the Allies actually tried to occupy Turkey militarily and administer the country. In China, the Colonials confined themselves to a few foreign enclaves after defeating the Qing in battles. While the colonials were considered as foreign invaders, the profiles of their presence in China was very different from that of Turkey.

Third, the main European state interested in Turkish territories was Greece, but their intentions were thwarted by the Entente powers.

Much of former Ottoman territories were lost to the Allies nonetheless, primarily to Britain and to France.
The major military campaigns of the Turks were against the Armenians and the Greeks.

One thing that must be noted though was the Ottoman Empire comprised on ethnic groups which had no particular love for the Turks, and thus we had the Arabs and the Armenians who were ready to fight to throw off centuries of Turkish dominations, a la Lawrence of Arabia.

A parallel in Chinese history would be the Chinese losing traditional dominance in Korea and Vietnam.

ahxiang, on Feb 13 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

Was Turkey more advanced than China? Definitely not.

First, you should define what you mean by being "more advanced".
I am interested to know because I see no reason for considering Turkey as definitely not being more advanced than Qing Dynasty's China.

In military terms, Qing Dynasty's China had no equivalent to Turkish achievements at Battle of Gallipoli (1915).
China's vindication only came during the Korean war, and even then, at a high cost of human lives.

ahxiang, on Feb 13 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

Manchu China had dispatched hundreds of thousands of students overseas, and they "harvested cucumber by planting the beans".

Could you clarify what you mean by this and how it relates to the subject.

This post has been edited by snowybeagle: 13 February 2006 - 02:17 AM

[ahxiang]

snowybeagle, on Feb 12 2006, 11:16 PM, said:

Not all Revolutions had false starts, of course. The American Revolution was one, though the American Civil War nearly a century later showed not every American had the same idea of what the United States should be.

As for Ataturk, I am not sure what parallels you want draw to China.

First of all, the Turkish Republic occupied only a fraction of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire, which was broken up after the end of the Great War (1914-1918).

The same cannot be said about China.

Second, the Allies actually tried to occupy Turkey militarily and administer the country. In China, the Colonials confined themselves to a few foreign enclaves after defeating the Qing in battles. While the colonials were considered as foreign invaders, the profiles of their presence in China was very different from that of Turkey.

Third, the main European state interested in Turkish territories was Greece, but their intentions were thwarted by the Entente powers.

Much of former Ottoman territories were lost to the Allies nonetheless, primarily to Britain and to France.
The major military campaigns of the Turks were against the Armenians and the Greeks.

One thing that must be noted though was the Ottoman Empire comprised on ethnic groups which had no particular love for the Turks, and thus we had the Arabs and the Armenians who were ready to fight to throw off centuries of Turkish dominations, a la Lawrence of Arabia.

A parallel in Chinese history would be the Chinese losing traditional dominance in Korea and Vietnam.
First, you should define what you mean by being "more advanced".
I am interested to know because I see no reason for considering Turkey as definitely not being more advanced than Qing Dynasty's China.

In military terms, Qing Dynasty's China had no equivalent to Turkish achievements at Battle of Gallipoli (1915).
China's vindication only came during the Korean war, and even then, at a high cost of human lives.
Could you clarify what you mean by this and how it relates to the subject.

The difference of Turkey vs China was that imperialist nations resuscitate Dowager Empress Ci-xi and subsequently selected Yuan Shi-kai as the proxy in the aftermath of 1911 Revolution, while the same countries, in Ottoman's case, attempted to carve up the country but had to recognize Kemal's emergence.
Not many books had paid attention to the Anglo-American actitivites in pressuring the Manchu court on the matter of invoking Yuan Shikai. The only international loan of the period, which was used as a threat against the Manchu court, would be that granted to Yuan Shikai in 1913. South-North peace talks were initiated and faciliated by Anglo-American envoys and ministers. China's revolutionaries, who had been products of overseas studies as well as missionary schools, were not supported by Anglo-American interests. Sun Yat-sen, while visiting US, Britain and France, did not get to have a meeting at all. When Sun arrived in Shanghai in late Dec 1911, he said he was without a penny.

About Manchu China's reform and military strength

Manchu China had taken in almost all overseas students no matter what their background and political views. Those returnees had served in both military and civil organs. Foreigners had served in China as well. Burlingam was conferred the post of an ambassador by Manchu court.

This, however, would lead to historians' conclusion as to Manchu harvesting cucumbers for planting beans beacuse almost all returness had joined the revolutionary movement. Refer to http://www.chinahist...4&#entry4790404 for my points on "Sun Yat-sen's Establishing Contacts With Intelligentsia From Societies of Yangtze Area" and "Sun yat-sen being persuaded into believing the influences of students and soldiers from Hunan-Hubei provinces in lieu of the role of secret societies"

Manchu China, after debacles in two opium wars, had earnestly pushed for reform, i.e., Tongzhi Resurrection and Foreign Affairs Movement. Certainly, Manchu China's ideology did not change, ending in debacles of both its Southern Fleet and Northern Fleet, in the hands of French and Japanese "pre-emptive strikes" respectively. - The 1894 Sea Battle was the first iron-clad fleet against iron-clad fleet [note the word 'fleet', not one or two iron-clad warships] (Communist China, in developing its nuclear capabilities, had incurred the same precariousness of a possible American preemptive strike and later a Russian one when Sino-Russian Relations soured. Today's Iran would most likely get a preempt sooner or later.)

In another word, Manchu China did its best to rescusitate itself. Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Government did its best as well. No matter Manchu failure or Chiang Kai-shek's failure, international factors weighed at least the same extent as domestic. Please, just do not carry on the easy talk about China's backwardness and unworthiness for democracy. We Chinese are simply unlucky to see majority of our brothers and sisters as slaves working TODAY in the 'world factories' for the benefit of the chosen of the God. The unfortunate thing is that Chinese themselves do not realize they are in the spider web at this moment.

This post has been edited by ahxiang: 18 February 2006 - 02:14 AM

[jiangji]

ahxiang, on Feb 18 2006, 07:09 AM, said:

About Manchu China's reform and military strength

Manchu China had taken in almost all overseas students no matter what their background and political views. Those returnees had served in both military and civil organs. Foreigners had served in China as well. Burlingam was conferred the post of an ambassador by Manchu court.

Manchu China, after debacles in two opium wars, had earnestly pushed for reform, i.e., Tongzhi Resurrection and Foreign Affairs Movement. Certainly, Manchu China's ideology did not change, ending in debacles of both its Southern Fleet and Northern Fleet, in the hands of French and Japanese "pre-emptive strikes" respectively. - The 1894 Sea Battle was the first iron-clad fleet against iron-clad fleet [note the word 'fleet', not one or two iron-clad warships] (Communist China, in developing its nuclear capabilities, had incurred the same precariousness of a possible American preemptive strike and later a Russian one when Sino-Russian Relations soured. Today's Iran would most likely get a preempt sooner or later.)

In another word, Manchu China did its best to rescusitate itself.

Only under the situation of desperation, the Qing started to carry out substantial reform and it is can be considered as "late". Most of funds was used for Qing Conquest campaign or lost to corruption. By the Late of Qiang Long, the imperial treasuries was empty and it make any reform or achieving technology progress doubtful. Qiang Long even says he did not need anything from the western country without realizing the nation already far behind the Britain.

The worse part is instead of repair the deficiency of the old Ming System, the new reform actually make it worse. After Song dynasty, China started to go downhill in term of innovation, technological and economic progress. It is mainly due to different policy and administration being adopted by the Song which is much superior to the Late dynasty. Song believe economy is the most powerful tool to achieve something rather than Military. Their financial administartion ,practices, and capacity are far beyond the Ming and Qing dynasty.

Quote

Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Government did its best as well. No matter Manchu failure or Chiang Kai-shek's failure, international factors weighed at least the same extent as domestic. Please, just do not carry on the easy talk about China's backwardness and unworthiness for democracy. We Chinese are simply unlucky to see majority of our brothers and sisters as slaves working TODAY in the 'world factories' for the benefit of the chosen of the God. The unfortunate thing is that Chinese themselves do not realize they are in the spider web at this moment.

Chiang Kai shek actually did little to improve situation. He unify China but did little to reform the inefficient system and allow Corruption and abuse to grow. Economic continue to decline and Inflation grow rapidly. He abandon Sun Yat Sen vision of turning the nation into a democratic country. He determine to destroy the Communist when China faces a much bigger threat from Japan.

After the WWII, ROC lose its "mandate" to rules China and easily being defeated by the PRC.

This post has been edited by jiangji: 18 February 2006 - 04:21 AM

[ahxiang]

jiangji, on Feb 18 2006, 01:14 AM, said:

Only under the situation of desperation, the Qing started to carry out substantial reform and it is can be considered as "late". Most of funds was used for Qing Conquest campaign or lost to corruption. By the Late of Qiang Long, the imperial treasuries was empty and it make any reform or achieving technology progress doubtful. Qiang Long even says he did not need anything from the western country without realizing the nation already far behind the Britain.

The worse part is instead of repair the deficiency of the old Ming System, the new reform actually make it worse. After Song dynasty, China started to go downhill in term of innovation, technological and economic progress. It is mainly due to different policy and administration being adopted by the Song which is much superior to the Late dynasty. Song believe economy is the most powerful tool to achieve something rather than Military. Their financial administartion ,practices, and capacity are far beyond the Ming and Qing dynasty.
Chiang Kai shek actually did little to improve situation. He unify China but did little to reform the inefficient system and allow Corruption and abuse to grow. Economic continue to decline and Inflation grow rapidly. He abandon Sun Yat Sen vision of turning the nation into a democratic country. He determine to destroy the Communist when China faces a much bigger threat from Japan.

After the WWII, ROC lose its "mandate" to rules China and easily being defeated by the PRC.

Whatever you had posted could be said to be generalizations that went on for past half a century, permeated in both the communist China's historical dialect materialism as well as Faibank's Old China Hands school of thoughts.

Before you carry on the generalizations, please read on a bit
http://uts.cc.utexas...apers/elman.pdf
is a good article on Naval Warfare and the Refraction of China's Self-Strengthening ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

After reading that, you could safely disacard the craps like Manchu China's sailors drying their wet clothes on gun barrels.

--You have to remember that Japan's attack at Manchu China was a preemptive strike as well as an Anglo-American setup. Japan, since Perry visit, was a part of the global game. It should not be too difficult to see how US and Britain had built up Japan's naval prowess. Needless to repeat what I said before, i.e., President Grant's attempt at making Manchu China divide Ryukyu into three parts, and Secretary John Watson Foster 's collusion with Japanese in selling the Shimonoseki Treaty.

Now back to Chiang Kai-shek. Should he fail to hire Germans for rebuilding his armies, China would not be able to hold up against Japan till the 1941 Pacific War. It was more than military buildup, not to mention the Airforce of China that was built up in the same timeframe. Should you have so easily discounted Chiang Kai-shek's construction efforts, you would have trashed the whole Chinese people's "Each County Donate One Plane" movement of 1930s. In 1930s, Chiang had to withstand the US Silver Crisis, and he took the measures to nationalize industries [especially arson industry], build railways and highways, and strengthen people's will by the New Life Movement. In 1936, at Huang Fu's deathbed in a Shanghai hospital, Chiang assuaged his sworn brother that he had "completed half of the necessary preparations for fighting against Japanese, with one or two more years at most to finish the rest" and assured Huang Fu that whatever humiliations he had taken would not be in vain.

You dont want to say Chiang Kai-shek was just enjoying life himself. He was a hermit kind of person after marrying Soong Mei-ling. It is likely he had lost sexual and reproductive capabilities before the 1927 marriage. A peson, absent women and concubine, is a person of will and perseverence. In contrast, Mao was a womonizer. Chiang's only shortcoming was his inability to discern Stalin's conspiracy of so-called "World Anti-Fascist Alliance" of 1935. Soon after he heard about the Comintern resolutions, he sent messenger to Moscow. He for sure played three cards, Russian card, Anglo-American card and German-Japanese card. He was tilted to Russians after 1936 Xi'an Coup. Even so, Chiang, keeping the futile courtship of Americans and British, had always kept Anglo-American ambassadors informed of every move he made to Germans who played the role of mediation in late 1937. I could not tell why Chiang Kai-shek continued Sun Yat-sen's blind faith in Americans. Perhaps the only answer lies in Chinese people's appreciation of the philanthropic activites of American priesthood in China.

This post has been edited by ahxiang: 18 February 2006 - 01:37 PM

[TaiE]

Honest says, personally I don't dislike Chiang Kai Shek.

Quote

Whatever you had posted could be said to be generalizations that went on for past half a century, permeated in both the communist China's historical dialect materialism as well as Faibank's Old China Hands school of thoughts.

Both you and jiangji give different views upon Chiang, the former focus upon the result, you stress on the process.

Which is much more important, as According to Chinese value, no doubt, the former, 盖棺论定.
But into the detail of history, your opionions of Chiang is welcome, and thx for your information which as the historical evidence is not covered in China .

What i originally intent to say, please don't mix up materialism historian view with the political need conclusions.

[jiangji]

ahxiang, on Feb 18 2006, 06:32 PM, said:

Whatever you had posted could be said to be generalizations that went on for past half a century, permeated in both the communist China's historical dialect materialism as well as Faibank's Old China Hands school of thoughts.

Before you carry on the generalizations, please read on a bit
http://uts.cc.utexas...apers/elman.pdf
is a good article on Naval Warfare and the Refraction of China's Self-Strengthening ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

The beginning of the articles says a little bit about ineffcient of fiancial practices. This is what I want to says is as the Qing did little reform to repair the defieciency of old Ming system before the 19th century. The Qing adopt a very different policy compare to Song. If they were to follow the Song, everything would have be different. By the time the Qing did carry out reform, severe of shortage of funds retarded the process. Without strong financial capacity, no technology or economy progress can be achieved. Mordenization of the army is again be disrupted by insfficient funds, corruption and later decentralization of power.

No other Chinese dynasties like the Qing has introduced so little orgnization changes. Because of this, the Qing financial administration was far inferior to the Song dynasty and never gearing their policies to expanding economy. Money is everything. Any self-strengthening strategy will fail evetually if there were no effective financial practices being established first.

Quote

Now back to Chiang Kai-shek. Should he fail to hire Germans for rebuilding his armies, China would not be able to hold up against Japan till the 1941 Pacific War. It was more than military buildup, not to mention the Airforce of China that was built up in the same timeframe. Should you have so easily discounted Chiang Kai-shek's construction efforts, you would have trashed the whole Chinese people's "Each County Donate One Plane" movement of 1930s. In 1930s, Chiang had to withstand the US Silver Crisis, and he took the measures to nationalize industries [especially arson industry], build railways and highways, and strengthen people's will by the New Life Movement. In 1936, at Huang Fu's deathbed in a Shanghai hospital, Chiang assuaged his sworn brother that he had "completed half of the necessary preparations for fighting against Japanese, with one or two more years at most to finish the rest" and assured Huang Fu that whatever humiliations he had taken would not be in vain.

I disagree. Chiang had done no preparation against Japan invasion and always believe the US would back him up. A small number of German-trained army was already set up long time ago before the japan invade Manchuria and its initially purpose was not to deal with Japan army. They barely change a situation and only delay the japan control of China for only several months Before 1937, Chiang policy is to destroy Communists first and then move against the Japan. If it wasn't his general kidnap him and forces him to create United front, the entire western China would had fall much quickly to the Japan.

Even during the Wars, Chiang did not commit all forces against the Japan and preserve some of them for future use against the communists. Chiang also did little in reorganization and rebuild his resources base to deal effectively against the japan like the USSR did.

Look at the USSR which suffer much worse than CHina in its initial war, more than 1/3 of the Soviet forces was destroyed by the German army. However, the soviet adopt a new policy on reorganization, coordination of manpower, improvement of military technology, and effecient use of resources which later score a major victory on the German forces.

About his constrution effort, it fails because of insufficient funds as most of it was used for military campaign and loss to corruption. By the late 1930, China suffer economic decline and inflation grow rapidly. After the wars, the situation remain unchange which is also one of the main factor of his defeat and losing popularity among people.

Quote

You dont want to say Chiang Kai-shek was just enjoying life himself. He was a hermit kind of person after marrying Soong Mei-ling. It is likely he had lost sexual and reproductive capabilities before the 1927 marriage. A peson, absent women and concubine, is a person of will and perseverence. In contrast, Mao was a womonizer. Chiang's only shortcoming was his inability to discern Stalin's conspiracy of so-called "World Anti-Fascist Alliance" of 1935. Soon after he heard about the Comintern resolutions, he sent messenger to Moscow. He for sure played three cards, Russian card, Anglo-American card and German-Japanese card. He was tilted to Russians after 1936 Xi'an Coup. Even so, Chiang, keeping the futile courtship of Americans and British, had always kept Anglo-American ambassadors informed of every move he made to Germans who played the role of mediation in late 1937. I could not tell why Chiang Kai-shek continued Sun Yat-sen's blind faith in Americans. Perhaps the only answer lies in Chinese people's appreciation of the philanthropic activites of American priesthood in China.

He is too obssess with detroying the Communists which finally lead to his downfall. He rather sacrifice his people life in order to destroy the Communist and totally ignore Japan threat.

This post has been edited by jiangji: 18 February 2006 - 03:28 PM

[snowybeagle]

ahxiang, on Feb 18 2006, 03:09 PM, said:

The difference of Turkey vs China was that imperialist nations resuscitate Dowager Empress Ci-xi and subsequently selected Yuan Shi-kai as the proxy in the aftermath of 1911 Revolution, while the same countries, in Ottoman's case, attempted to carve up the country but had to recognize Kemal's emergence.

I will respond to the other points later.
But on this point, you still had not addressed a fundamental issue - The Turkey founded by Kemal was only a shadow of the former Ottoman Empire.

The colonial powers did succeed in carving up the Ottoman Empire.

Turkey was eventually left alone because (1) the colonial powers already got gains in other parts of the Ottoman Empire and (2) They couldn't agree about Turkey itself.

Where is the comparison to China which despite the concessions of international settlements did not get broken up into several different states like the Ottoman Empire -> Turkey, Iraq, Syria and so on etc.

[ahxiang]

jiangji, on Feb 18 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

The beginning of the articles says a little bit about ineffcient of fiancial practices. This is what I want to says is as the Qing did little reform to repair the defieciency of old Ming system before the 19th century. The Qing adopt a very different policy compare to Song. If they were to follow the Song, everything would have be different. By the time the Qing did carry out reform, severe of shortage of funds retarded the process. Without strong financial capacity, no technology or economy progress can be achieved. Mordenization of the army is again be disrupted by insfficient funds, corruption and later decentralization of power.

No other Chinese dynasties like the Qing has introduced so little orgnization changes. Because of this, the Qing financial administration was far inferior to the Song dynasty and never gearing their policies to expanding economy. Money is everything. Any self-strengthening strategy will fail evetually if there were no effective financial practices being established first.
I disagree. Chiang had done no preparation against Japan invasion and always believe the US would back him up. A small number of German-trained army was already set up long time ago before the japan invade Manchuria and its initially purpose was not to deal with Japan army. They barely change a situation and only delay the japan control of China for only several months Before 1937, Chiang policy is to destroy Communists first and then move against the Japan. If it wasn't his general kidnap him and forces him to create United front, the entire western China would had fall much quickly to the Japan.

Even during the Wars, Chiang did not commit all forces against the Japan and preserve some of them for future use against the communists. Chiang also did little in reorganization and rebuild his resources base to deal effectively against the japan like the USSR did.

Look at the USSR which suffer much worse than CHina in its initial war, more than 1/3 of the Soviet forces was destroyed by the German army. However, the soviet adopt a new policy on reorganization, coordination of manpower, improvement of military technology, and effecient use of resources which later score a major victory on the German forces.

About his constrution effort, it fails because of insufficient funds as most of it was used for military campaign and loss to corruption. By the late 1930, China suffer economic decline and inflation grow rapidly. After the wars, the situation remain unchange which is also one of the main factor of his defeat and losing popularity among people.
He is too obssess with detroying the Communists which finally lead to his downfall. He rather sacrifice his people life in order to destroy the Communist and totally ignore Japan threat.

Any history books, published by non-mainland-China, had a section entitled "Ten Year Construction", i.e., shi nian jian she. Today, even communist China had begun to show appreciation of Chiang Kai-shek's resistance war efforts. You want to read a bit about the "Battles of the Great Wall", http://www.uglychine...-Cheng-Zhi-Zhan before you make generalizations. If you had thoroughly negated Chiang, you would be negating the sacrifice of 20 million Chinese who had died in the resistance war. Now back to the communists. When Zhang Xueliang revoked Russian control of Manchurian Railway in 1929, CCP claimed to be ready to "militarily defend the Soviet Union". Just check Kang SHeng, Wang Ming and etc, you would read their speeches repeatedly talking about "defending the Soviet Union", not China. More, check out American response to Japanese invasion of Manchuria on Sept 18th 1931. Hoover said Japanese invasion could play the role of inhibiting the Russian communists. As said before, the "international factors" influenced the historical course of China more than domestic. That's it concerning my reply to you on this issue.

This post has been edited by ahxiang: 19 February 2006 - 01:03 PM

[ahxiang]

snowybeagle, on Feb 19 2006, 06:42 AM, said:

I will respond to the other points later.
But on this point, you still had not addressed a fundamental issue - The Turkey founded by Kemal was only a shadow of the former Ottoman Empire.

The colonial powers did succeed in carving up the Ottoman Empire.

Turkey was eventually left alone because (1) the colonial powers already got gains in other parts of the Ottoman Empire and (2) They couldn't agree about Turkey itself.

Where is the comparison to China which despite the concessions of international settlements did not get broken up into several different states like the Ottoman Empire -> Turkey, Iraq, Syria and so on etc.

The reason I brought out the issue of Turkey was to diffute the prevalent cliam that China was so backward and ignorant as to not be worthy of a Republic in 1911. You are not alone in thinking so. Even historian Tang Degamng repeatedly claimed that it would take like 100-200 years for China to be democratic on its own natural development. Tang even gave a date of 2050 as the final transition for China. -- Should China continue as is, nothing would happen in 2050, neither in 2150. - Scholar Yang Kuisong made a comparison of Chinese status quo vs Japanese and concluded the same. Why? Yang Kuisong pointed out that Japan, after defeat of WWII, had adopted a real free education including breakfasts. China, today, is ven worse than Mao era.

For all above, I said not true. Your last reply, however, did confirm what I said repeatedly here, i.e., the "international factors" influenced the historical course of China more than domestic. It was the imperialist powers who decided to keep empress dowager Ci-xi in power, and it would be the same powers who made a unanimous decision to have Manchu invoke Yuan Shikai with the threat of cutoff of any financial support to Manchu court and subsequently proposed a south-north truce. - The same spider web is still at work today. The lonely US Congressman Lantos, for example, disapproved Cisco, Yahoo, Microsoft and Google in helping China build the firewall, while majority US statesmean see the continuance of a communist regime as in the best national interests of USA.

In Posted Feb 12 2006, 10:44 PM reply, I had talked about the 18-star flag, Constitution, senate, and Republic. By 1911, China had innumerable overseas returnees and graduates of both missionary schools and homegrown "foreign enterprise movement" schools. Their thinkings and intelligence, in another word, had far outweigned the contemporary Chinese of 21st century. Their devotion to the cause of China is something nobody of today's China could match.

The hit to the Chinese cause came from "international factor". Like the French and Japanese preemptive strike against Manchu southern and northern fleet, the "international factor" is playing the role of the same, just in a nuanced way, not an obviously militrary action.

[jiangji]

ahxiang, on Feb 19 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

Any history books, published by non-mainland-China, had a section entitled "Ten Year Construction", i.e., shi nian jian she. Today, even communist China had begun to show appreciation of Chiang Kai-shek's resistance war efforts. You want to read a bit about the "Battles of the Great Wall",

Actually, I haven't a lot of book from the mainland. I mostly read it from book written by western historian. I only give credit when he deserves it. He did reunify China and the credit of resistence effort during WWII go to KMT.

However, the greatest mistake he make was not prepared for Japan invasion and concentrate all his energy on the communists. According to Western historian, the occupation of Manchuria by Japan went on smoothly and Chiang refused to send his armies north of Great Wall because he want to destroy the Communists forces first. This allow the japan to establish a strong military presence there. Manchuria was crucial for Japan future invasion of China.

Quote

If you had thoroughly negated Chiang, you would be negating the sacrifice of 20 million Chinese who had died in the resistance war.

If he had make proper preparation or send armies to the north before the japan army was well establish in Manhuria, China would not had loses so many people. Even Western historian point to that mistake.

Chiang adopt a strategy which avoid war with Japan but come to the end in 1937.

He never think of chinese lives. Western historian like E Alyn Mitcher and R jonanne critizes him for his inconsideration. For example, Intent to stop Japan quick advance, Chiang ordered the dykes a long the Yangtze cut, to flood the low lying plains. It was a total failure as it only stop Japan for a few days and one millions peasant lose their life.

Western Historian also mention that Chiang calculated that if the war with japan to continue, one of his allies will come to his side. He then saved the nationalist strenght for future encounter with Communists forces.

Quote

http://www.uglychine...-Cheng-Zhi-Zhan before you make generalizations. Now back to the communists. When Zhang Xueliang revoked Russian control of Manchurian Railway in 1929, CCP claimed to be ready to "militarily defend the Soviet Union". Just check Kang SHeng, Wang Ming and etc, you would read their speeches repeatedly talking about "defending the Soviet Union", not China.

Action is more important than words. It is clearly that the Chiang always advocate to defend china, but what did he done to saves million of chinese lives ? Furthermore, a few person says does not hold anything. Recently, a Chinese general says that China will execrise its first strike capability (nuclear), does the entire PRC mean that ?

Quote

More, check out American response to Japanese invasion of Manchuria on Sept 18th 1931. Hoover said Japanese invasion could play the role of inhibiting the Russian communists. As said before, the "international factors" influenced the historical course of China more than domestic. That's it concerning my reply to you on this issue.

What does this is relevant ? If KMT control the Manchuria, he would also says the same thing.

This post has been edited by jiangji: 19 February 2006 - 02:47 PM

[snowybeagle]

ahxiang, on Feb 20 2006, 02:02 AM, said:

The reason I brought out the issue of Turkey was to diffute the prevalent cliam that China was so backward and ignorant as to not be worthy of a Republic in 1911. You are not alone in thinking so.

WHAT UTTER RUBBISH!!!

I had not posted anything to the effect of saying that China was backward and ignorant and not worthy of a Republic in 1911.

This post has been edited by snowybeagle: 19 February 2006 - 08:34 PM