I remembered the elders told me that at that time, people were told to sent all the metal in their home to make steel, pots, tools, even dustpan, everything you can find will be sent to make those shitty steel, it was ironic

@corneliali7747

3 жыл бұрын

.....get out.

@idontwantmyrealnameonhere5955

3 жыл бұрын

@@corneliali7747 ?

@Master-il1sk

3 жыл бұрын

@@idontwantmyrealnameonhere5955 "iron"ic

@JTR253

Жыл бұрын

I heard that too. It was basically sort of like a cash for clunkers program we had in the US for cars but it was grain for pots and pans 😂

Chiang Kai Chek ruled over Taiwan in a one party state dictatorship until the 70s right, so I don’t see why he wouldn’t do the same if he won the civil war and took over the whole nation.

@derek7762

4 жыл бұрын

Dell12 16 One argument is that his continued defeats, armies switching sides, etc., near the end of the civil war is what led him to become so paranoid and desperate to hold on to power for himself later on. There was also, of course, general suspicion and fear of the CCP that led to the acceptance of martial law and dictatorship from the populace. I imagine he wouldn’t have become as horrible as a dictator as he did if he has won the civil war, and perhaps may have even relinquished power. But of course, almost everybody will be corrupted by power so who knows. He was an idiot with everything besides military from the getgo anyways

@hjy2187418

4 жыл бұрын

@@derek7762thing is the one party nature has already been settle at 1931 meeting and that time ccp is just a small minor faction. not to mention when chen arrived at Taiwan they nearlywiped out the entire local political force on the February 28 incident which at the time Taiwan has no influence from ccp what so ever. if this doesn't tells you about chen's turn nature I don't know what will

@derek7762

4 жыл бұрын

appleache he was always a cruel and stupid guy, yes, but he at least trusted and worked with allies (he never considered the communists his allies, and not all of the KMT were his allies as there were many factions). But losing the Chinese civil war, especially having armies and the people turn on him, turned him into a paranoid old man in Taiwan

@flamingopink1721

3 жыл бұрын

At least there was democracy later

@Spider-Too-Too

3 жыл бұрын

@@derek7762 war can do a lot of harm to a person. We could said the same about how mao too

The nationalists believed in the idea of "The people tutelage", the idea of "we gonna keep the state authoritarian until the people and the country are ready for democracy". The enigma that is China today is because of a old philosophy from the days of the Chinese empires that most of the political figure in China believe which i forgot the name (and i hate me for that because i wanted to look more into that, if someone sees this and knows what im talking about can please tell me the name) that goes like this "Adopt what works from west or anywhere and cast into the fire the things that dont" this is why you can see this parallel lines of politics uniting somehow in China that usually will not work in "west", like communist state with market economy ideas. The same thing will happen in China unther KMT they will adopt what works and cast into the fire the things that dont with the current political situation. I need to study more on China but from the things i know i try to help the people that dont know.

@blankblank5409

3 жыл бұрын

Yes

@toasterofdoom9629

Жыл бұрын

Sun Yatsen?

@christopher9727

10 ай бұрын

Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Romans 6.23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus

@user-GTTW

9 ай бұрын

Were you looking for "Pragmatism"?

@mukhtarsyajaratun1025

8 ай бұрын

That'll explain why China adopted open market despite ruled by a communist government

*Sun Yat Sen spining in his grave noises x,(*

I enjoy this vid, nationalists China resembles Mexico, in the sense of one party dictatorship, or how several people have describe it as the "perfect dictatorship", with "democratic values".

@mr.dominguez4546

2 жыл бұрын

Hehe... pues si XD

During the second Sino-Japanese war, the Nationalists might have done better as even though the United Front was formed, Chiang still didn't trust the Communists and had a large force at the Communist border instead of at the front lines with Japan.

@rafaelssj

4 жыл бұрын

Did the communists also have forces in the border?

@azura6804

4 жыл бұрын

@@rafaelssj they was encircled how could they not

@Superbug-tf8zy

4 жыл бұрын

what i think is they would have done the same or even worse, as they killed a lot of communist soldiers, who had quite the impact on the war

Don't assume that the Americans would have supported South Korea to the degree that we did in the Korean War. A big reason why we defended South Korea was because of sensitivity to the "Who lost China" argument being leveled against the Truman administration. It was that same argument that triggered the end of the oppressive occupation of Japan (Japan was given much more autonomy, as well as investment, once the UN defense of Korea was underway. It's also quite possible that Manchuria would have became an independent country similar to Mongolia as a Soviet satellite.

@MrTerry

4 жыл бұрын

Good points

@MidoriOfTheShuinsen

2 жыл бұрын

But, at the very least, North Korea would have been stopped before it could get even worse.

The specific goal of the Northern Expedition by the Kuomintang was the unification of China under KMT-run one-party state, at least initially; because first and foremost, they wanted to see stability to return to the country.

@derek7762

4 жыл бұрын

Telemachos ideally, following Sun Yat-Sen’s steps, they’d stop being a military dictatorship, but you and I both know how well that would go, as evidenced by Taiwan

@Semordnilaps

4 жыл бұрын

@@derek7762 I mean Chiang Kai Shek had certain ideas about political power, mainly that he should have it. Military dictators are like that, you'd be surprised how many military coups have been done with this or that democratic pretense.

@zhen86

Жыл бұрын

We don’t know what Chiang plans was for China. The only reason for the constitution in 1947 is so that they can influence the red army and they can still rule the south of the river.

Taiwan did not democratize until the 1980s. Until then it was a one party authoritarian state. Opposition was banned. Chang Kai Shek wanted to eventually get to a pluralistic democracy but he believed that was a goal for the far future.

@medic_memer

Жыл бұрын

they said that in the vid

@zhen86

Жыл бұрын

To tell the truth, no one really knows if Chiang will give democracy to China. Will it be a capitalist one party state? Will Chiang be even be leader in later years? Remember many warlords hated Chiang, especially the gui clans, with Li Zhong Ren as vice president.

I honestly doubt Vietnam and Korean War would happen in the first place without ensuring China’s neutrality or help Also, on the alternative China still being a one party dictatorship I actually agree. Because it’s alternative history, in our timeline the KMT didn’t have any other opposition then the CCP. We don’t know who will gain popularity and oppose the unpopular KMT, if they’re gonna exist at all.

It’s Extra History and Feature History. Suibhne is another good channel, and Blue has a good history series going over on OverlySarcastic Productions. History Matters does a good short video format, and I’ll give a shout out to History with Hilbert as well.

Glad your enjoying his videos, you should do more of them

a really good fictional sci fi that has a large part of it's story during the cultural revolution, The Three Body Problem by Liu Cixin. being from a chinese author, it has some really interesting insights into that period that, frankly, is a bit unknown in mainstream western history knowledge.

That other channel wasn't Simple History. It was Feature History, a channel that I am certain you will enjoy!

Feature history reaction?

I mean the hole one party state idea comes from the fact that sen ki sheck ruled china or at least the parts he had authority over with a iron fist I mean he was more or less just as much of a dictator as Putin today which is why he had the title that he did generalissimo I hope I spelled that right. He was not a president or anything like that he was simply a general that ruled a military dictatorship this came about after the northern expedition when well he kind of had absolute power after this.

people dont realise that kmt couldnt even unify china if ccp wasnt around.

@kaiserwillhelmthe2nd337

4 жыл бұрын

noriaki kakyoin yeah

@user-rf2pk1dw2i

4 жыл бұрын

unification is higher than anything, I think the former Qing is better than nationalist, which is a government let the enemies massacre its capital, which is totally unacceptable, shame for the garbage nationalist, no matter how Ccp rules, it never easily surrenders to the foreign enemies, and in the contrast.

@christopherjohnramos2043

3 жыл бұрын

Billy Billy what the nationalists defended nanjing combined with the clusterfuck that was the north and due to risk of encirclement yet they still defended nanjing whilst the ccp fucking stayed out of the far and didn't even fight much the reason why china mostly had to kneel to the west is because china one was in civil strife combined with warlords with there army mostly intact combined with technological prowess of the west so its literally impossible to not accept help from the west.

My take on the whole "Chiang's China would have been authoritarian" thing: Sun may have been a proponent of Western liberal democracy, but Chiang was a warlord through and through. China might not have been as authoritarian as Maoist China or Stalinist Russia under Chiang, but it wouldn't have been a liberal, multi-party representative democracy or anything either. In our timeline, the ongoing 'war' with the PRC and the ostensible re-invasion of the mainland was the justification for his quasi-dictatorship on Taiwan and a state of martial law that existed until 1987. In an alternate timeline, the justification would be friction with communist Russia, especially if other communist uprisings still happen in countries bordering China (even if they don't last nearly as long as they do in our timeline, which I agree they wouldn't). I think a pretty good real world analogue for what Chiang's China would probably look like is something akin to Pinochet's Chile or Franco's Spain: a rightwing military junta-esque quasi-dictatorship centered around a strongman and violently opposed to communism. It likely would have softened and liberalized quite a lot after his death, but he'd have still likely been president for life.

Would really be curious to see AlternateHistoryHub's video about the election of 1912.

In 14:58, the reason why the new government still have the same system like the old Qing Dynasty, because the prime minister/ major general of the Qing Dynasty name Yuan Shika had negotiated with the revolutionary force, that he promise to order the Qing Dynasty to surrounder is in return the revolutionary force allow him to become president of the New Chinese republic. Watch the Extra history video on Sun Yet Sen.

Tai-won wait...

@crazycommie7655

4 жыл бұрын

Bruh

@Hoshimi_Shion

4 жыл бұрын

The Thais won?

@LasVegar

4 жыл бұрын

Tai-lost? My favorit Tai-tie🤓

@stack3843

4 жыл бұрын

"wan" (won) means bay in Chinese.

@blankblank5409

3 жыл бұрын

🌚

Great video!really enjoy it,but the video didn't really talk about what will happened to the small island of Taiwan Here in Taiwan lot's of people think if KMT have won,didn't escape to Taiwan,a few thing will happened to Taiwan: 1.Taiwanese may still be suppress for a long time,Taiwan always been the weirdo in east asia,China didn't really care about Taiwan for century(mainland China think Taiwan was just a unimportant rock until about mid 19 century),so Taiwan has develop a culture that is very different from mainland China,then add 50 years of Dutch rule and 50 years of japanese rule to the mix,so when KMT come to take over Taiwan after the war,regardless KMT won or not,major conflict will still happened(stuff like the February 28 incident) 2.Taiwan's Economy and living standard may not be this good if KMT won,in the cold war Taiwan basically become a military base for US,and US pour huge money on Taiwan(like what US did to post war west german and japan)to build the anti-Communist chain,and Taiwan was a tiny country compare to mainland China,so can industrialization and improve standard of living much faster 3.Taiwan may not become one of the freest country in asia,from post war to about the 2000's,Taiwan is heavy dependence on western trade and support(on everything,from military to education),so western pro-democracy pressure can make a huge different.and like i said in point 1,Taiwanese people really didn't like the China central idea of the KMT,and have lots of culture differences,so when the first general election held in 1996,the pro-reform Taiwan born KMT candidate won,then at the 2000 the pro-democracy DPP won(the DPP start as Taiwanese anti-totalitarian group)to carry on the pro-democracy reform and the small population of Taiwan,and all the pressure coming from the west made social movement and reform relatively easy and successful(ex:Formosa magazine crackdown incident led to the end of nearly 40 years of "martial law period")

Pretty slick intro my dude

Another thing to consider is that China would probably still write in traditional without the pinyin system or a different version of it. Furthermore, would mandarin still be forced upon the Chinese people or would they be allowed to speak their own dialects? or could a different dialect become dominant? And what if another party came to power? Would they implement a different writing system that is based more on phonetics so that it is easier to use?

Hi luv ur vids soooo much!

At 4:55 I don't think that's Simple History, I believe it's Feature History.

this is why many marxists i know. Also many maoists consider china today revisionist. AKA communist in name only. I feel everyone sees communism as just one thing but the reality is more that communism will not be achieved in one nation as it is in the other. i mean marx said you need capitalism to get to socialism then to communism as that was the natural order. The problem with states like the soviet union and china was that they never really experienced capitalism the same way the west did so they kinda i guess winged it. Interesting video and reaction

During the 1945-1946 period, there was discussion that formed into what is known as the Double Tenth Agreement, which was to get the CCP to disarm the Chinese Red Army of over 300,000 troops (20 divisions/375 battalions based on average standards of the time, or about 30 divisions/600 battalions based on Chinese averages of the time) and be integrated into the National Revolutionary Army (military under the KMT), but the CCP would only agree if free and democratic elections would be opened up and the CCP to be allowed as a legitimized political party. Though despite the authoritarianism under Chiang Kai-shek and strong hatred of it so as to say that "The Japanese are a disease of the skin and the Communists are a disease of the soul", the government still elected and governed despite this strongman/cult of personality with the 5 Yuans/branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Examination, Control/Audit) remaining active parts of the government, which occurred even during the Nanjing Decade of 1927 to 1937 despite heavy fighting against the Communists. 14:53 The change did eventually occur with old Qing government members dying out such as the warlords like Zhang Zongchang, Sun Chuanfang, Feng Yuxiang, Wu Peifu, etc, with more and more that joined the new revolution replacing these old warlords and any growing up during the Republican Era, which by the end of the War Against Japanese Aggression had more and more with beliefs differing from their parents and grandparents. 18:43 Stalin and Chiang had a rocky relationship during the late 1930s when the Soviets were in a critical position of fears from the Nazis potentially rolling through the Russian plains and forests with China being the only buffer that can stop Japan if the Russians were to face a two front war with Germany and Japan. With Chiang being the most valuable and well minded out of the bunch in China at the time, instead of getting the CCP, which the Soviets were aiding, to rebel against Chiang, Stalin gave strong orders to cooperate for the sake of the Worldwide Revolution to not be destroyed by the Fascists of Japan and Germany as China needed to be strong enough to withstand a prolonged war with Japan while the Russians can be given time to face the Germans. 21:50 Yes, the defining events of Chiang for terror was the Shanghai Massacre and other ways to bleed out the Communists with a second as the White Terror in Taiwan, mainly due to a fear of Japanese or Communist sympathy that came to the locals of Taiwan. If you look into some of the CCP propaganda, a lot of it was against the KMT, but the interesting ones are about the support of aboriginals of other nations, mostly in Africa due to the failure of the West to dismantle their empires directly after WW2 in fear of rising Communism on the continent, which in turn, could be (in a wide view) also towards the Taiwanese aboriginals. 25:02 The KMT were more tolerant in religion and for one, many were Christians such as Chiang Kai-shek, his mentor, Sun Yat-sen, and the Soong Family, especially Soong Mei-ling, Chiang Kai-shek's wife who encouraged him to embrace Christianity. 27:02 If the Double Tenth Agreements were followed through by both sides fully with CCP troops joining the NRA (National Revolutionary Army), than the KMT would follow through with opening free elections as in the Double Tenth Agreements, though as realized by the modern China, the Western form of democracy will not be as easily applied and not as efficient as other kinds of government (look to India as a prime example). 27:54 Democracy in China as of 2020 (mainland) is a form not recognizable to the West, rather, it is more meritocratic. Those who join government can't just suddenly end up in the Great Hall of the People the day they join the government. It is rather a form derived from the Confucian and Imperial Bureaucratic systems. To join government, you have to take the examination to become a member of government and begin usually very low such as the leader of a village. Only after some time and you prove you are capable can you potentially apply for a promotion to the next level, which is competitive as thousands of others will try to do the same. It is like going from a worker to assistant manager to manager, etc etc until you finally get the chance to enter the Great Hall of the People and run as one of the potential candidates for presidency. And there are 8 other registered political parties in China (In the USA, you also have to register to create your own political party as on the FEC website), which are non-Communist, unlike here in the USA where we have 2 major ones (Democratic and Republican). The thing about Chinese democracy in the PRC is that the system is more of a cooperative multi party system with these other parties directing the CCP in how to better reform the nation such as new laws, economic projects, internal and foreign affairs, etc. In terms of the USA, that would be like if the Demoratic-Republican Party back from the 1790s decided to be revived and be the major political party in the USA with the modern Republican and Democratic Parties being reserved seats to contribute advise and information as a means to progress the country alongside several other political parties like the Green, Libertarian, and Constitutional, but instead of fighting to gain votes for more political power and clout, they instead work together in a mega partisan agreement to actually get things done in the government instead of focusing on getting reelected for their position.

@Seth9809

4 жыл бұрын

This ends with misleading words.

Well they had other political movements and parties in China in the early days, but the KMT had them assassinated. One of those even happened under Sun Yat-Sen's leadership, and carried out by Chiang Kai-Shek himself (Tao Chengzhang)

I literally watched both videos*(including the whole extra credit series)

I stand to reason that the Korean War and Vietnam War would have happened in a different form. Possibly Ho Che Minh would have seen the winds against Communism blowing and reformed the NVA to be an anti-corruption, anti-colonialist guerrilla war with the French and South Vietnam, and presumable with the Americans. Remember, Vietnam was invaded by China for a thousand years and was a colonial state by the French for at least a century. The American experience of Vietnam would have been different in this scenario, my guess is by the Kennedy Administration would have worked as a mediator to decolonize France from Vietnam. Korean would have been a one sided bloodbath, over in 6 months.

@MidoriOfTheShuinsen

2 жыл бұрын

Would've been nice.

@blackpowderuser373

2 жыл бұрын

Korea: Either Kim Il-Sung invades, gets wiped out by 1950 as China just sits it out. OR NoKor gets the East Germany treatment and peacefully reintegrated with Seoul by the late 80s. Vietnam: Independence war against France still happens. The difference is USA stays neutral since France and China are BOTH important to the overall US strategy of Soviet containment (France trying to return to good old imperial grandeur and China being anti-colonialist). Ho Chi Minh reunifies Vietnam by emphasizing Vietnamese nationalism but still subtly reforms Vietnamese society with some socialist policies (akin to Tito's Yugoslavia) Sino-Vietnamese tensions would still happen anyway especially if China starts going territorial.

Can you react to Horrible Histories (British TV show) (series 1-5)

Please watch complete history of the soviet union arranged to the melody of tetris. Its such a great video that no one reacts too

Chiang Kai Sek was dictatorship since beginning. So many communist symphatizer and opposition butchered like animals, why you think his regime will better than Mao? The difference is since Chiang Kai Sek is not Communist, his ruthlessness will be downplayed alot.

Just some of my views. It's long, sorry. 1. The reasons why China will most likely still be a one party state was that many people at that time have a dim view of democracy, of sharing power or giving people more say in the rule, etc. These ideas are very alien to a society that's been under the archaic system for thousands of years. The US at this time had about 2 centuries of experimenting and developing their version of democracy, and for China, these changes were sudden and no historical background to reference to. So, the one party state would have made the most sense in their minds, but also in practicality. 2. If we could use Taiwan (or other Asian "democracies") as an example, the emergence of different parties was due to an external factor. Like in Taiwan, basically, parties are split between those who are closer to China and those wanting independence. If somehow the communists were defeated, and considering the Nationalists were not entirely isolationists nor completely open, things were somewhat balanced. There would haven't been any need or push for another major political party. Assuming corruption and other factors didn't affect the Nationalists (but those issues did existed, hence, contributed to their defeat in the real time line). 3. The relationship between Soviets and Nationalist China has too many variables to imagine. Communist China in real time line, had the added protection of a huge Mongolia as a buffer state. Whereas in the Nationalist China map, Mongolia (and some parts of Russia and Central Asia today) was considered part of Chinese territory. In Nationalist China, those differences be gone and you would have a much larger shared border with the Soviets. There's potential for major conflicts, or perhaps not that major. Very hard to say. 4. Nationalists had a large presence throughout Southeast Asia, especially among the scattered overseas Chinese communities who have huge economic affluence. A Nationalist China might change the makeup of the region. A need for a Singapore might not exist, or it's possible there be multiple places like Singapore. It could emboldened other nationalistic elements in Southeast Asia as they were in the end stage of decolonization. A lot could happen here. Like the Soviet scenario, also very hard to say.

@Mystic-Dust

4 жыл бұрын

I agree with the first two points though, especially your second point. The whole point of Taiwan's Green DPP party is more pro-independence, while the KMT is still more pro-unification with China. China would likely still be one party state, since China was looking at Singapore that is ruled by majority Chinese population as a model for China, and Japan is largely ruled by the same political party too for the past 7 decades, with one exception. South Korea and Taiwan is kind of an outlier in terms of East Asian style party politics structure, when compared with China, North Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Vietnam, all one party states or technically one party states in the case of Singapore and Japan. As for point 3, I think the Nationalists might lose control of regions like Xinjiang and Tibet given how little control they had over China as opposed to CCP who had much firmer centralized control, and these regions are more prone to secessionist movements. As for Manchuria, it is possible for the Soviets to set up a puppet communist government there. So tensions could perhaps run high between Soviets and the Nationalist Chinese. But then, considering how Chiang himself was not totally opposed to allying himself with the Soviets since he actually studied there for a while, it is more likely China would have a relationship with the Soviets like how the Indians are relatively closer to the Soviets than the Americans despite being non-aligned. So Manchuria might be returned to China anyways to maintain good relations. As for point 4, I never thought about this before. But even in our current timeline, the Communist China received the most foreign direct investments from overseas Chinese, and especially HKer and Taiwanese during the 1980s and 1990s, China's first two decades of opening up. Japan and South Korea started investing more in China during the 1990s, and are still the biggest investors in China today. For a time during the 1980s, China's largest source of FDI were from HK, Taiwan, and overseas Chinese. USA contributed very little FDI in comparison, even today, USA did not make the top 5 sources of FDI for China. But I do think that overseas Chinese would be more eager to invest in a Nationalist China earlier in the 1950s and 1960s, but Japan and South Korea would not be rich and economically large enough to give that extra boost to China like they did in the 1990s and 2000s. But, China would have more time to develop so they can spread out development more.

@wolf-man-bear-pig-torque

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mystic-Dust I think for your Manchuria scenario...I can see that happening. If that were to happened, there would probably some major dealings (like world impacting effects) Chiang would have with the Soviets which the Americans might not like. It be interesting to speculate. As for Xinjiang and Tibet, I want to agree with you, but I've read there's too much "strategic" value in these places. I know there's a lot of propaganda regarding these places today, but in a way, they do have some deep historical and cultural ties with China overall. (maybe not as much as other regions, but it's there). They may lose control, but at same time, I kinda could see the Nationalists making moves to retake it as well. Just my conjecture. I think in terms of overseas investment...there's kinda several variables to consider. Overseas Chinese will still contribute, but I don't know how the rest of Asia and USA/West could adapt to such an massive growing economy at those times. The US was most prosperous at those times cause it wasn't ruin by war and there were no major competitors...many countries were rebuilt with aid as a counterweight against the Soviets. After they were rebuilt, some countries, like Korea/Japan/Taiwan/Germany especially, "anchored" economically on the US... providing cheaper labor, products at first then later more hi tech/cultural goods. A Nationalist China who may be friendly or neutral in the USA-Soviet power game would be a real big question mark on the world stage. Not sure how much aid they would have gotten to rebuild, or if they could economically anchor on to others. Nationalist China would probably have to develop in a different manner.

@Mystic-Dust

4 жыл бұрын

@@wolf-man-bear-pig-torque True, I agree with your anchoring comment. China pretty much made a deal with Nixon in 1971 to side with the Americans possibly in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, and China was pretty much seen as a temporary ally of the USA since 1979 against the Soviet Union. This may have allowed China the needed anchoring to expand to its current size as well. Otherwise, I would worry China would become closed off like India as well. India did not block off all trade from the rest of the world and was not sanctioned like China, but they chose a more protectionist route which inhibited the opening up of their economy. China may still be very wary of outside influence (anything after Opium Wars is basically economic exploitation) and act the same as India as well in the alternate timeline. But in our timeline, our China was desperate for any economic gain because of so much economic instability during Mao's rule, so they were forced to open up bit by bit. And they benefited a lot from this gradual opening up of their economy.

@wolf-man-bear-pig-torque

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mystic-Dust The thing with India was that it sorta had an existential issue. The concept of an India is still very new. Throughout it's long history, this region was always a place of many different tribes and kingdoms with an occasional empire ruling large parts of it (but not in an continuous order like China's history). It was always in danger of breaking up, so it had to focus on itself primarily to keep it together...this on top of the many other issues. Nationalist China may not have these existential issues, but assuming they win it all at the end, they have to contend with solidifying their rule, especially among the rural places. If we take Taiwan and S.Korea for examples, in their early periods it was brutal as they tried to solidify their rule, so I'm assuming there would also be a brutal period of time in a Nationalist China. Regarding opening up to world, I think in Nationalist China's case, they probably be similar to Japan, that is being able to maintain their own character but be open just enough to learn the important parts of the world. Just my guess.

@kinanshmahell8065

4 жыл бұрын

Us is an oligarchy not a democracy

That's feature history not simple history

@MrTerry

4 жыл бұрын

My bad! Love that channel too.

@kyudanpi4436

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrTerry I would recommend "Yan Xishan" or "Histodome" on KZread for objective Chinese history. They are mappers, so they only put historic documents into account. I believe it's would be enrichment.

@kyudanpi4436

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrTerry Especially Histodome, very delicate mapping. 10 episode for Han dynasty!

My dad works at a steel mill

@MrTerry

4 жыл бұрын

But is it in his backyard? 🤔

@celticcomradelad1850

4 жыл бұрын

Mr Terry History It certainly ain't located in the rich mans backyard.

@MrRjh63

4 жыл бұрын

Nice great leap forward reference.

@geraldramirez3883

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrTerry It's obviously in his front yard, there are regulations you know.

So doesn't this mean that most liberals could support the CCP and most conservatives would support the KMT? Cool story, I guess that works, they both belong with each other.

Wasn't part of our involvement in Vietnam due to France asking us for help with the Civil War in The Colony cuz Vietnam was a French Colony for a long time but they pulled out almost immediately as we entered I heard that once upon a time I don't remember if it's factual or not

@TheFamousMockingbird

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, it has a huge part. North Vietnam had been fighting for independence since 1945, initially against French Indochina, by 1954 north Vietnam beat the French and established independence recognized by the Geneva conference and south Vietnam was established as a colonial asset of France and the south would not agree to unification with the north, kicking off the Vietnam war in 1955, which is the first time that the USA became involved, in the way of CIA puppet operations.

@steveno3141

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheFamousMockingbird cool thank you for the info

I got a feeling that after nationalist being in power with actions they took during ww2, unpopular actions. After ww2, being peaceful for a while, revolution would happen just like any dynasty in Chinese history. And don't forget, ussr is just a border away, possibility of USSR using local rebel and supplying them with weapons to overthrow nationalist party is there. With nationalist power being spread thin in such vast country after war torn through the country, rebuilding it with rebels on hand, I expect lands will be lost and eventual land mass of China will not be the same as current China. That's just my analysis of whatifs.

27:02 I like that Russia reference

React to History of the Earth by Algol (the most recent one)

9,000 km is about the distance from Barrow, AK to the Galapagos or from Dakar , Senegal to Islamabad, Pakistan.

@MrTerry

4 жыл бұрын

Brutal!

Could you react to Dovahatty's "Unbiased History" series? They are really really funny and intentionally biased - it's the history the Romans would have written about themselves.

Something I'd like to add is how Manchuria would play into this scenario with the Soviets having historically occupied it and then gave it to Communist China but in the scenario, Communist China doesn't exist and Nationalist China would be hostile to the Soviet Union. Needless to say the Soviets would more than likely establish a puppet regime in Manchuria and I can see an East West Germany situation unfolding. I also think that in this alternate universe the Korean War would end the same but just with Soviet volunteers instead of Chinese volunteers

@hanglei9865

3 жыл бұрын

That's an interesting point, I think it's very likely considering Soviet didn't return the Port Arthur to communist china until mid 1950s, because they are always fond of ideas of direct or indirect control of far east

Looking back at Chek's life, it's hard to imagine that he would allow a second political party exists. I mean his son inherit this "throne" after he passed away in taiwan

Back to what you said about what you said of how WW2 had help the communist, in a large sense yes it's true that as WW2 drags on the Nationalist government becomes even more corrupt than it use to before WW2. Because large scale war like WW2 are really expensive, also there were large percentage of corruption before WW2. About the communist having more army after WW2, I would disagree. Because even after WW2, when the Chinese Civil War resume, the Nationalist still has more men than the communist, also on top of that they had planes such as the Flying Tiger and Tank from the USA. But this is just my opinion Mr. Terry.

I think vietnam would still have been mess. I can't imagine those living under french colonial rule. Felt the same about that after the war as it did before it. Especially there. I think after france fell. The Japanese were right there to scoop up the region. Not implying they were worse to live under than Japan. I just think self rule would have been more attractive. I agree the effect on the cold war would have been major. I could see a scenario that the Soviets would have been more cautious. And one where they're isolation. Would cause them to be more desperate and aggressive because of it. The allies they would have. Would be far more important.

recommendations that coincide with althist's interpretation: video by The Alternate History - cdkkYWgyqg4 (mainly what if rather than what would happen) video by CaptainCool07 - hYEFrsuwq4o (has accent and can be very '''''political''''' but still good)

@LZin-uk5nh

4 жыл бұрын

Your second suggestion is about a guy who thinks China is a "democracy" because they call themselves that way. With that logic, North Korea is also a democracy. Yet this guy fails to point out that the only reason other non-communist organization are even allowed to breath is because they have expressed loyalty to the communist politburo and are being bribed by them to be quite and obedient. Also, he makes an idiotic comparison between two inherently different countries with a very different geography, history and resources which ultimately results in a different political system. The CCP is just another Chinese Dynasty, another era in their history of unity and stability. The current leader, Xi Jinping, is the son of a known communist government official. He's the second generation of "princes", people whose life are designated to be future replacements of the first generation. Everything in China is corrupt, everything there requires connections with the right people, everything there for the party, with the party and nothing but the party. The CCP is not part of the state, it's ABOVE the state. Your life, as an ordinary Chinese person, is irrelevant and you dedicate your life for the party and not for your success and prosperity, otherwise comrade Xi will see it as a counter-revolutionary action against the party and the state. Then it's gulag for you in Xinjiang. This argument of "just because you westerners disagree with that, doesnt mean it's bad" is retarded as hell.

@sinoroman

4 жыл бұрын

@@LZin-uk5nh yeah, some things don't line up

Do more of his videos please

I think the nationalists could take inspiration of the federal system in the US, with local free elections, but the difference would be that the head of state is not elected, or greatly controlled by the political elite

The reason KMT or Kuomintang party would be a 1 party dictatorship is that was their governance model in China and the parts they owned and it was likewise their choice of governance up until the 1980s where citizens pushed for democracy.

I disagree with his view on vietnam. That war was far deeper than just an ideological struggle. It was and is seen by vietnamese as a war of independence that just shifted opponents from french to japanese to french again and finally the americans.

@TheFamousMockingbird

4 жыл бұрын

It began in 1945 really when the north went to war with french Indochina to declare independence, they won. South Vietnam was established as a French puppet state and would not unify with the north causing the vietnam war to start in 1955

@salomaogomes7311

4 жыл бұрын

I think that his reasoning was that the vietnamese would not risk declaring war knowing that china would just end up getting involved, and against them they have no chance of winning

If you compare the productivity of China in 1949 and in 1979, you will see productivity rising dramatically even with the Great Leap and Cultural Revolution happening. That argument of "Mao's era economy didn't work out" is still very debatable.

Love your vids Mr Terry - When I get bored with cute cats I like to learn stuff!

That channel wasn’t simple history but feature history. A channel you haven’t reacted to that makes some really great videos but usually about more modern history. A freaky video is the troubles.

I think you missed it but Cody clarified that the nationalists did not support democracy and that their goal was one party rule. That’s why it would be a one party state. Even talks about how democracy didn’t come to Taiwan until the 80s.

I would argue that the 'dynastic cycle' wasn't really a dynastic cycle, but more a cycle of centralization and fragmentation, and that it never ended. The classic saying goes: The empire long divided must unite. the empire long united must divide. I don't get how people don't understand that the warlords of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were no different from earlier periods of division in chinese history, and the communist party aren't really any different from previous dynasties, they just use different terminology and a different criteria for picking an emperor.

@MrTerry

4 жыл бұрын

I would say the communist party ended the dynastic cycle. The current leadership isn’t hereditary or divinely claimed.

@marvelfannumber1

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrTerry Wouldn't the foundation of the Republic of China in 1912 be the end of the dynastic cycle? Aside from some brief, ill-fated attempts to either proclaim a new dynasty or restore the Qing, China was pretty firmly republican after that.

Would think that to create a likely scenario of how this plays out, you'd have to bring the European conflict into it. That would also entail the US's involvement in Lend-lease and convoy shipping, bringing an already friendly disposed toward China US possibly into conflict with Japan earlier. Depending on the situation, Japan might elect to not even invade China, rendering a lot of the horrors of that occupation moot.

ROC actually held their first election in 1947, and they already passed the Constitution a year before. Only when the civil war went bad for the nationalist then Chang Kai chek managed to persuade the Congress to bring out martial law.

Moral of the story.... dang it Sun Yat Sen why couldn’t you live another 20 years and been the president and kick corruption and establish the democracy? John Green of crash course agrees with this take.

There was a key point after the Chinese defeated the Japanese. In Oct-10, 1945. it's called Chongqing Negotiations.(重庆谈判) Which many Chinese believes that if that the negotiation were successful between the two parties, also among some other smaller democratic groups and independents. The civil war wouldn't really happen, then China would become a state of dual-party system. They did signed an agreement toward avoiding civil war, peacefully reconstruct the country, political democracy, and nationalized military. (In KMT, even tho they all nationalist, but there were few different factions within themselves, Chiang didn't really had ultimate power over KMT, there were other nationalist leader who were warlords before the WW2, and they have powers on major part of KMT military Force). There are many reasons that the Negotiations was broken. During the negotiations both sides had some military movement, secretly and openly. But mainly because Chiang still wanted to unify China under one party of KMT(could also have some other reasons, at least that's how I was taught.). the Negotiation were never succeed. but it can be a very interesting hypothesis if ever the two parties could co-exist during that time.

I think it would have had 2 possible effects on the US, Europe, and Soviet Union. 1) Without backup from the Chinese, the Soviets are far less aggressive and focus internally, stabilizing if not really becoming a success compares to western Europe and we never really see the fall of the Soviet Union. Cold war is a footnote of history. 2)The Soviets, knowing they are more or less alone and don't have a chance, gets desperate, and the Cold war goes hot with the Soviets trying to break NATO not long after WW2 ends and they have had a chance to recover a bit. Europe burns to the ground again, Russia never recovers, development in the US is halted or set back, and a China already on the path of industrialization and no real reason to involve itself in a European war becomes a superpower much earlier.

Having study a few years of social study in Taiwan, Sun’s original roadmap is to eventually achieve 2 parties democracy with nationalist and maybe a communist party. The roadmap basically state a congress of sort backed by a military at first then open up elections to eventually a constitutional democracy backed by the people. The problem with this road map happen almost immediately as an imperialist general demand the title of president, refuse to be inaugurated at the capital and try to reinstate a new dynasty. Congressional power were undermined and no military leader is willing to back it, causing local leaders to just ignoring it. An American analogy would be Washington died before the war end and the fist president declared to be a king and suspend the constitution and all the states decided to peace out and start fighting each other with their militia. Until a strong arm military dictator pacify all the colony. Democratization of Taiwan lies in a cultural tension of the ruling class viewing Taiwanese as lesser ex Japanese Subject and the civil right movement of equal justice. It is definitely harder to replicate on the mainland as a whole.

17:09 Kim Il-Sung would be Kim Il-Gone

You should react to leo major

React to History vs Series by Ted-Ed History vs Che Guevara History vs Vladmir Lenin History vs Cleopatra History vs Richard Nixon History vs Napoleon History vs Genghis Khan

Two main drivers for mainland china's behavior is easily understandable. 1- Everybody wants more. China is taking it's chance to grab more. Only countries that want to maintain the status quo complain about "playing fair". 2- China's past experience with The West has MOSTLY been about being exploited. Yes the allies helped them in WW2. But that only covered 5 years of their history. If your early memories of a neighborhood was abuse and assault with a short period of them being nice to you, you would still want revenge. After that, the other reasons come to play, such as they are lead by evil people, they have a cheap view of life, their culture is all about bribery, "harmonizing" is more important that individual rights, to them, "business ethics" is an oxymoron, etc.

the issue for the KMT would be operation August Storm by the soviets. Assuming the soviets will return the land they took from the Japanese back to ROC.

Whiffed on the big issue of territorial integrity. Would the USSR return the Northeast to Nationalist China? Would the USSR take a big bite out of what is now called Xinjiang? Would the Brits have agreed to return Hong Kong? Would Nationalist China send armies to Tibet and if they did would they have been successful?

Industrialization isn't necessarily predicated on a market economy... the soviet union industrialized pretty effectively even if the rest of their economy was crap

Japan would also probably have worse relations with the US. The incentive to improve relations beyond "Let's make sure the country is stable before leaving" would be far lower. Americans would of much preferred to work with the Chinese than the Japanese I think if were not for the Chinese being communist, keep in mine anti-Japanese sentiment was pretty high during the earlier Cold War years. And if the US/China had better relations, Japan would not be needed as a military foothold in Asia, thus less investment would be made.

Moral of the story: Japan messed everything up

@trollmastermike52845

4 жыл бұрын

meh they made hentai

@2Links

4 жыл бұрын

@@trollmastermike52845 Username checks out.

@rhino1207

4 жыл бұрын

US messeed up everyyhing then

@rkit6707

4 жыл бұрын

@@trollmastermike52845 That's another way Japan ruined the world.

@trollmastermike52845

4 жыл бұрын

@@rkit6707 tell me how art ruined the world

If they were lost, china will be way more modernized and democratic like Taiwan today, that would be great

Yes, the Cold War would have been much shorter and the satellite states in Europe would have also collapsed much earlier. One of the things that people either don’t know or don’t link, is that part of the reason why the effects of the famine in China under Mao was so bad was that... his underlings from the provincial level all the way up were misreporting... actually way over reporting crop yields with the truth not reaching Mao for... I can’t remember the exact length that I learnt in uni, but I think it was something like 1-2 years. How this links back to the European satellite states like the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) is that Mao thinking that China had a massive surplus of crops, offered those crops as part of his deal with the Soviets to buy Soviet technology and know how to modernise China. And these crops were EXTREMELY important to these satellite states due to a shortage of said crops over in Europe and these made up the bulk of the crops appearing in the konsums. Said shortage of crops, if not supplied by China, would have to be diverted from other satellite states and I don’t believe that they had any surplus (in fact, I vaguely recall that all of them had a shortage, but I could be wrong).

One issue I have with this... The only reason China invaded into the Korean Peninsula was because the American general Douglas MacArthur decided to cross a river that the Chinese had warned America not to cross (and I think MacArthur was even told not to cross it)... So China still could've invaded if something like that happened, though, I guess with a different government running it and also a less communist one, the odds of them giving the Americans that warning and becoming so angered when the Americans disregarded it would be less likely... Fun fact: After doing what he was told not to do, MacArthur went to the president hoping he would fire a bunch of nuclear weapons along the border between China and Korea to create a radioactive wasteland that China could not send reinforcements through... MacArthur was then promptly fired from his position...

@billzhang591

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think Jiang's China would do anything in Korea, well, it might help the US. It's clear that there is only one western or capitalist power, it's the US. If Jiang wanted to be friends with the US then it would just be another puppet like European countries today. Jiang would probably give up on any of those unfair treaties and just left Hong Kong and Macau alone, let remote provinces be independent and so on. And about relationship with the US, unlike PRC we know today who was the second largest enemy of the US (well, all capitalists) and also an "enemy" of USSR, a Nationalist China would be doing its best to appease the West, and with China's location, the US might have China as a base of war. China becomes what we know because there was literally no one to trust, with the US imperialism threatening, USSR not helping (at least USSR didn't attack China after the relation break down), China had to do everything itself, it got its own nuke, then hydrogen bomb, then satellites, then missiles, all those stuff just to make sure that if the US or USSR attacks, China could put up a fight. With the US watching, do you think the Nationalist China can do all these? No, it would just be a larger follower of the US. Just look at India, India has similar history, large population, no technology or any industrial power, colonized by the west, and finally independent after WWII, I think we all know how India is compared to China.

@billzhang591

4 жыл бұрын

By "It's clear that there is only one western or capitalist power, it's the US." I mean all other capitalism countries are just following the US, they don't have their own goals or anything, just like most of communism countries blindly followed USSR.

8:20 "Would the communist party not being there, would that have an effect on China defending against Japan?" Suddenly remembered that in their book Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang and her husband Jon Halliday (who's also a historian) accused the Chinese communist party to use war fundings for planting weeds for sell, which the profit goes into party development. Given how extreme the book narrate Mao as a monstrous leader we may need to take a pinch of salt on this account. Even though if the Chinese communist party is absent, considering the mismanagement of Kuo Min Tang the money is still likely to be not much of significant anyway. But it's still kind of funny to know.

Destroying the Olds wouldn't happen and I think that's great Even if it wouldn't be much better I would take it over what we have now just because of them preserving history and traditions better

one last thing it almost certainly wouldn't be the same thing same system sure but different culture yes completely different culture I mean even the language would have been different or to put it on other words the underlying pins of society would have been different but nothing else. No cultural revolution is the biggest change but also no "simplified Mandarin" and a few other small things

@Mystic-Dust

4 жыл бұрын

To be honest, the Japanese also simplified their Kanji too. They call it shinjitai. Some Simplified Chinese characters are similar to simplified Japanese Kanji. So the simplification could have also happened under Chiang, there was already talk of doing that under the Nationalists, the Communists continued this discussion and actually did it. A big reason why Taiwan still kept traditional Chinese characters may be due to just opposing what mainland China does as a political move. Anything the Communists did, they would find a reason to oppose it out of spite. Still, I saw some traditional Chinese characters in some Chinese stores in China nowadays, and their TV shows do sometimes have traditional Chinese mixed in, especially if it's a historical drama. So traditional Chinese is still in use in China, just that they also have simplified Chinese for people who have trouble with writing traditional Chinese. Besides, they only simplified around 500 Chinese characters, and the average Chinese knows more than 3,000 Chinese characters. So they still understand the vast majority of what is written for both traditional and simplified Chinese. It's very much like how words in English are spelled differently or used differently in the UK and in the USA, like color and colour, flavor and flavour, what is called chips in each country is different. The biggest change for China from the Cultural revolution, is how much traditional gender roles are destroyed. Basically China has more gender equality than neighboring Japan and South Korea, which is quite surprising. In addition, while some superstitions are gone, some superstitions still remain. As for books, very few important books were destroyed, it's mostly small local temples and very old residential buildings being destroyed. Major temples are still present in China today, so the big and important temples are still here, the artifacts in the Forbidden City are safe as well. A lot of China's important sites like the Summer Palace, were already destroyed by the Europeans, and the ancient walls in Nanjing were destroyed due to Japanese invasion. The Cultural Revolution fail to compare with what the Japanese and Europeans did to China in terms of damage to artifacts and architecture.

@elliotyourarobot

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mystic-Dust Agreed i like your understanding

China would definitely be a lot more similar to modern China like Alt History talked about. The reason for this is mainly an ideological one. Sun Yat-Sen, the founder of the Kuomintang was almost like a ''Proto-Social Democrat'' in a sense, he didn't fully believe in the cold-hearted free-market mindset that Americans have. He believed in somewhat of a Scandinavian model, although not fully. Chiang Kai-Shek was very different though, he was firmly the leader of the ''Right Opposition'' within the Kuomintang, not only that, but he would've run China more or less like a military dictatorship, sementing power into his own hands like he did in Taiwan until the 80s. Both Mao and Chiang were inspired by Sun Yat-Sen, as he is very much celebrated in both China and Taiwan till this day.

Trust to be told here is some back story China was never a communist country to begin with, and the Nationalist Party that fought the communists could of won, but there was 2 major reasons why it didn’t: The first having the USA asking the Nationalists to stop fighting as they wanted peace, but it turned out bad when the Communists used that as time to reposition, causing the downfall of the Nationalists Second, the Nationalists requested a 500 million USD worth of guns, ammo and supplies, but was ignored, and it led to the Nationalists fleeing to Taiwan Another reason was that the Nationalist party spent most of their army attacking the Japanese Imperial army, while the Red army conserved and recruited more communists on their side Now USA has now spent billions in wars for defend smaller countries like south Vietnam and Korea, which were winnable wars if USA wasn’t being an idiot

One important thing, if China isn't communist the other countries would trade with it. Thus the outsourcing would have occurred way earlier, meaning all those really good factory jobs that Americans got in the 50s/60s simply wouldn't have existed. As no company is going to give a great pension, high wage, benefits when they can just send the whole production offshore and pay next to nothing.

I think in this scenario there’s a good chance the Soviets occupy parts of China post WW2 and set up communism even if the communists lost the civil war. Additionally post WW2 the world was very set on decolonization. This could push a rise in Chinese nationalism against European colonizers, but I think could easily be a push against imperial aspects of China. There would likely be a democratic referendum which could push communism or could stay democratic capitalist. It could be the Korean War on a bigger scale.

How would have this affected the Saur Revolution? Would the west have been as against USSR's involvement a la Vietnam? Do we see the Gulf War and the turmoil we still see today?

@kinanshmahell8065

4 жыл бұрын

No because China was the major ally of the Soviets with out them the of communism becomes much smaller

i think what would have happened with the soviets would be, they don't have china as an ally and thus don't go into the cold war, not rising those tensions as much with the usa, making the soviets not collapse

I agreed with you if the nationalist won Korean War would had different outcome. However, China might still maintain good relations with the Soviet. First of all the KMT party was a Leninist party that was created based on the structure of the Bolshevik. Soviet Russia sent representative Mikhail Borodin to assist nationalist with their party building. Chiang kai shek used to be a sympathizer of communist ideology especially in terms of Marxist and Leninist modernization theory about urbanization industrialization and electrification. Chiang even sent his son to Soviet for college. The only thing that changed his mind was a field trip to Moscow in 1923 one year after the Soviet civil war and he witnessed the remnants of war time communism which had changed chiang’s opinion about the Soviet Russia. However, It does not mean Chiang would completely turned against Soviet. On the contrary I believed the nationalist party would maintain good relationship with Khrushchev government because the Sino-Soviet split was mainly because of ideological divergence between Mao and Khrushchev which would not exist if the nationalists won the civil war. So China would hedge between Soviet and US.

Japanese, Communist or Nationalist. As a Chinese, I would rather choose the last one.

@ArnoldTeras

Жыл бұрын

Do you think Nationalist China (ROC) would have had friendly relations with ASEAN, and India and Russia also??

@Renato_Zheng

Жыл бұрын

@@ArnoldTeras I think free China will be friendly with ASEAN and India, but will be hostile to Russia. Here are the reasons: For ASEAN and India, The issues of territorial disputes with them will still remain. But Free China government will not slove these problems by invade India and Vietnam like what communists do in 1962 and 1979. Don't forget how Chiang sent Chinese Army to help them even in the hardest time for Nationilst China during WW2. (Which we Chinese called "中国远征军", but now, Shameless Communists stolen the story for them) I bielieve the friendships built with blood are not easily destroyed by diplomatic disputes such as territorial issues. In the other hand, share the same value make Nationalist China more easier to get along with. Many people will not die in those meanless wars caused by Communists, in order to "export" thier boring Communism ideas. For Russia (or CCCP), history lover today may only notice how Sun Yat-Sen(KMT main founder) Cooperated with them, but ingore the story afer that. In fact, Sun just wanted to use the Soviet's power to help him to fight with Chinese warlords in the north. As for thier ideas, Sun showed little interest. (Source: Sun-Joffe Manifesto) After Chiang kicked communists out of KMT, Russian Communists and Chinese Nationalists often conflicted in the north Asia. Here I give you a typical example: Soviet Union and its Chinese vassal CCP killed the nationalist officer Zhang Xinfu(I translated it with simplified Chinese pinyin, maybe no the correct translation of traditional Chinese. You can google "张莘夫" instad of "Zhang Xinfu", Wikipedia Chinese has the full story of how he was been killed) when Nationalist China wanted to take back Northeastren China from russians occupation. You may say "That's a old stroy, The Soviet Union no longer exists." But a part of russian（even some russian politicians) still keep dreaming of greater russia, they lust of land never disappear, just look what they are doing now in Ukraine. I think russians need more time and sincerity to fix the relationship of most courties in the world. (I hope they can do it, a world without Russia isn't a normal world.) So I think before that, Nationalist China will not be a freind with Russia(or CCCP).

Yeah, I don't see the KMT letting go of their authoritarian powers and opening up to democratic reforms too much. The main reason they did so in real life was because they lost strong leadership, mostly ruled over a non-Han Chinese population and ruled over a fairly small population. If they still controlled all of China, most of these problems would be eliminated. At best they could eventually democratize a little bit, but with such a large population, creating a true representative democracy becomes very difficult. The real problem is that the KMT and China's whole republican experiment was never democratic in practice. Sun Yat-sen had some nice ideas, but they were just that, ideas. From the very moment Sun gave Yuan Shikai (the leader of the Beiyang Army) the presidency, democracy in China was doomed to fail. Even if he hadn't done this, the 1911 revolution would have been a failure because the Beiyang Army's support was the key reason they won. The best hope one has of creating an alternate timeline where China is semi-democratic would probably be to keep the Qing around somehow. The Qing were actually in the process of making democratic reforms (with British "help") before the revolution, with the goal of establishing some kind of parliamentary monarchy with a constitution. The Qing were also far better (not perfect, but better) at keeping China united than the incompetent KMT and Beiyang governments were.

I am Chinese,and i watched the original video.it's a complicated topic for foreigners. This is what i think of "china under KMT rule during the cold war" 1 East Turkistan and inner Mongolia would be 100% independent under influence of USSR as it did happen in history while USSR stop supporting the seperatists as CCP was winning. 2 USSR would keep ruling Port Arthur(ljushun) and never return it to China. 3 there would be no Korean War since Korean soldiers from PLA forms N.Korea's major military power without whom Kim would never start the war.and there would be no Viet Cong and Viet Nam war since CCP helped thefounding of Viet Nam Communist party. 4 But the front line of cold war would move to the great wall on the border between China and the USSR satelite states which would make KMT keeping the military law as what they did in Taiwan. 5Leftists including communists would rush to HongKong and take refugee which makes leftwing ideology populor in Hongkong. 6there would be no "Taiwan"since both mainland and Taiwan were under the same sovereign.Most Taiwannese separists would be huntdown by the KMT ,while others fleed to Hongkong like communists.they might become allies.

OMG he looks so young here.

You should react to monsier z

I think with out a prolonged Korean conflict and without a long war in Vietnam, the US will be far less likely to militarize to the extent we did. The only real threats we would have would be the USSR and Cuba. And without Korea and Vietnam, the US might have a lot less interest in being the sort of global police we like to think we are. We will probably be on "high alert" until the late 50s, maybe early 60s, but it will probably die down once it becomes obvious that the "communist threat" simply didn't materialize. The impact on Russia would probably be even more significant. Since the US is less likely to do the massive military buildup we did, the USSR won't need to compete as heavily, which would likely open up significant economic power to be able to do things like feed themselves. The space race would likely still happen, but since we are far less militarily involved, it would likely be slower (military satellites dominated the early space race), and potentially involve more cooperation (like the Apollo-Soyuz mission). Additionally, without the massive military debt the USSR incurred, they may not need the same levels of draconian control to maintain power, and may instead be able to institute reforms earlier. In fact, with the US appearing less belligerent, economic may even seem more palatable. I think overall, the cold war will end in the early 80s with an arms treaty, rather than in the 90s with a total collapse of the Union. The USSR may still break down, but it would likely be for political reasons rather than economic, and it would probably still happen in the early 90s.

Wouldn't manchuria be under communist rule as a Soviet puppet

China would be even more nationalist I bet.

What about Tibet?

@user-rf2pk1dw2i

4 жыл бұрын

I doubt if the weak nationslist could unify Tibet or not

kuomintang vs gongchandang

Like your video, I know it's fictional history but if KMT won the civil war, there are still two main issues: There are many warlords in China at that time and new small civil wars would probably happen, China might split into small nations not like the size today, also means conflicts might happen quite often around those borders. And at the same time a KMT China would definitely be an anti-Russia-Communism country, I think Russian will be very likely invading China, or not leave like the real history after they defeated the Japanese at the end of WW2, and eating up quite a large part of China. Russia is a lot lot more powerful in military compared to Japanese army in China, I don't think KMT China would have any chance to win and maybe the invasion would be stopped by Global pressure upon Russia and I would say cities like Beijing, the old capital located in relatively north part of China, would probably become one of the cities in Russia.

@hoanhuang

4 жыл бұрын

Fun fact that Russian had the control of North-East China after Japan surrender, they trick KMT by agreed with them that they were going to give it back, but really they were a distraction for CCP to go to North-East China and gain the military advantage for CCP. If CCP was gone in the first civil war, I believe that Russian would never even consider giving that huge land back. After all, North-East China was the place where all the heavy industries located.

A teacher who embraces what if?situations I don’t believe it

The world would be a much, much better place.

India is catching up to china in terms of population

@leaveme3559

3 жыл бұрын

@@edwardji5570 no one wants 1 billion people...india should absolutely ban more than 3 children in a family