Although a little off-topic, I will continue because it does have relevance to both Ukraine and Taiwan (especially with all that stupid Kuma academy BS going on).
A revolutionary movement cannot be born automatically as the majority. It has to grow from a minority first, not necessarily along ethnic lines. This is just a matter of statistics.
It is easy to criticize the failure of this movement as some historical footnote, but when the enemy is burning down your house, starving and poisoning your people (Agent Orange was first deployed here, but just more famous in Vietnam), and publicly displaying the heads of your comrades, you might question the commitment to your cause too. Ultimately such brutal tactics were able to dispel the possibility of the movement gaining a critical mass.
What you are talking about is a whole of society mobilization, not the historical application of People's War (especially with respect to the Civil War). Whole of society mobilization can be achieved regardless of the existence of the Party if the survival of the nation is at stake. In World War 2, the people of Western nations were rationing materials, able bodied labour working in factories, saving money for war bonds, etc.
This is not to discount the ability of the Party to perform this mobilization task, but it is not integral. This is also not to discount the achievements of the government. I am not from PRC, but I have heard from some things from older generations like "At least communists don't make you pay for school!".
You are basically saying there is no line between government/army/civilians in the war, but of course there is. A Senior NCO once said in a lecture, "we will support the country whenever we are needed, if there are floods or other disasters, but never forget that the main job of a soldier is to fight". There is the actual war, that is the fighting part done by soldiers, and there is the war effort, those are the supporting tasks that every one else can contribute to.
Don't overromanticize history, although the support of the people was integral, the fact is that most of the Red Army/PLA leadership were either career soldiers or formally trained officers from Military Academies.
Back to why this is relevant to this thread. In Taiwan, there is a widely growing misconception that the citizens of Ukraine are mobilized to fight in a way like the romantic/historical sense of People's war. However, this is false. Since 2014, the armed forces was receiving professional training from NATO forces, much of the fighting strength are professional soldiers.
The world news and Taiwanese media were boasting of the donation of 100 million US dollars to train 3 million civil defenders. This is an utter joke to anyone who does the math. The ~$30 or so is not even enough to buy 1 day of meals for one person.
I can guarantee you, there is no hope for them if they cling onto such fiction. Even with a fraction of the mobilization of the mainland's resources.
A revolutionary movement cannot be born automatically as the majority. It has to grow from a minority first, not necessarily along ethnic lines. This is just a matter of statistics.
It is easy to criticize the failure of this movement as some historical footnote, but when the enemy is burning down your house, starving and poisoning your people (Agent Orange was first deployed here, but just more famous in Vietnam), and publicly displaying the heads of your comrades, you might question the commitment to your cause too. Ultimately such brutal tactics were able to dispel the possibility of the movement gaining a critical mass.
What you are talking about is a whole of society mobilization, not the historical application of People's War (especially with respect to the Civil War). Whole of society mobilization can be achieved regardless of the existence of the Party if the survival of the nation is at stake. In World War 2, the people of Western nations were rationing materials, able bodied labour working in factories, saving money for war bonds, etc.
This is not to discount the ability of the Party to perform this mobilization task, but it is not integral. This is also not to discount the achievements of the government. I am not from PRC, but I have heard from some things from older generations like "At least communists don't make you pay for school!".
You are basically saying there is no line between government/army/civilians in the war, but of course there is. A Senior NCO once said in a lecture, "we will support the country whenever we are needed, if there are floods or other disasters, but never forget that the main job of a soldier is to fight". There is the actual war, that is the fighting part done by soldiers, and there is the war effort, those are the supporting tasks that every one else can contribute to.
Don't overromanticize history, although the support of the people was integral, the fact is that most of the Red Army/PLA leadership were either career soldiers or formally trained officers from Military Academies.
Back to why this is relevant to this thread. In Taiwan, there is a widely growing misconception that the citizens of Ukraine are mobilized to fight in a way like the romantic/historical sense of People's war. However, this is false. Since 2014, the armed forces was receiving professional training from NATO forces, much of the fighting strength are professional soldiers.
The world news and Taiwanese media were boasting of the donation of 100 million US dollars to train 3 million civil defenders. This is an utter joke to anyone who does the math. The ~$30 or so is not even enough to buy 1 day of meals for one person.
I can guarantee you, there is no hope for them if they cling onto such fiction. Even with a fraction of the mobilization of the mainland's resources.
