Why did the Communists win the Chinese Civil War?

Geographer

Junior Member
Many were killed is true but it was a time of war, revolution. It should be seen in the backdrop of the millions of peasants with zero rights over the centuries killed who were saved by the revolution.
The farmers had few if any rights before 1949 and had few or any rights after 1949. The Great Leap Forward starved farmers en masse, and those who survived were haunted by the violence and hunger they endured. Mainland farmers did not get the right to buy and sell land, or to choose which crops to grow, or how much to sell and how much to save, or what price to sell them for. They did not gain any political rights, either.

Farmers' lives only began to improve in 1979 when the government began allowing farmers to sell surplus food at market prices...which is what the KMT allowed farmers to do as soon as they relocated to Taiwan. For the repression of leftists in Taiwan, at least they were never so blindly ideological so as to launch the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution. I bet mainland farmers were wishing they lived in Taiwan in 1960, and mainland teachers were wishing they lived in Taiwan in 1970.
 

Schumacher

Senior Member
The farmers had few if any rights before 1949 and had few or any rights after 1949. The Great Leap Forward starved farmers en masse, and those who survived were haunted by the violence and hunger they endured. Mainland farmers did not get the right to buy and sell land, or to choose which crops to grow, or how much to sell and how much to save, or what price to sell them for. They did not gain any political rights, either.

Farmers' lives only began to improve in 1979 when the government began allowing farmers to sell surplus food at market prices...which is what the KMT allowed farmers to do as soon as they relocated to Taiwan. For the repression of leftists in Taiwan, at least they were never so blindly ideological so as to launch the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution. I bet mainland farmers were wishing they lived in Taiwan in 1960, and mainland teachers were wishing they lived in Taiwan in 1970.

A few made good posts with studies on what really happened during GLF. You should respond to them first if you disagree before going on with this 'starved farmers en masse' thing. This is a knowledgeable forum, trying the 'if it's repeated often enough, people will believe' routine may work on most western sites but will only make you look not so smart here.

There should be plenty of open source info like GDP, life expectancy of CCP rule China from the likes of UN, World Bank. Go look them up to back up your so far empty claims of farmers quality of life during the time.
Taiwan is a tiny place with backing from the richest economy USA at the time so it's not comparable to China.
KMT had their chance, they failed miserably to defend the people against poverty, Japan & then lost to CCP.
It's fine to disagree with CCP but it doesn't automatically mean you have to support a perpetual loser like KMT.
 

Geographer

Junior Member
Frank Dikotter's Mao's Great Famine was published in 2010 based on official Chinese documents. He estimates 42 million died in the famine. More importantly, he details the methods of death. It wasn't all accidental, there was widespread violence and intentional starvation of "disloyal" families. Wikipedia's page on the Great Leap Forward lists ten academic studies that estimate the deaths from 23 to 46 million, with the higher numbers coming more recently as more evidence becomes available.

The vast body of academic work on the Great Leap Forward shows there was mass death in the tens of millions and that a lot of the deaths were the result of government violence. Are you denying the mass deaths and government violence inflicted on farmers during the Great Leap Forward?

Taiwan under the KMT is a useful comparison with the PRC because the two governments followed radically different economic policies from 1949-1979. The PRC chose to eliminate private property and subjugate all economic activity to state control while the KMT strongly promoted private enterprise. As a result, the living standard in Taiwan rose much faster from 1949-1979 than it did in the PRC during that time period. As for the KMT being a "perpetual loser", tell that to Ma Ying-jeou. At least the KMT has the confidence to stand in competitive elections. It's easy to be a "winner" when you're the only player in the game.
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
Taiwan under the KMT is a useful comparison with the PRC because the two governments followed radically different economic policies from 1949-1979. The PRC chose to eliminate private property and subjugate all economic activity to state control while the KMT strongly promoted private enterprise. As a result, the living standard in Taiwan rose much faster from 1949-1979 than it did in the PRC during that time period. As for the KMT being a "perpetual loser", tell that to Ma Ying-jeou. At least the KMT has the confidence to stand in competitive elections. It's easy to be a "winner" when you're the only player in the game.

But YET the KMT has proven to themselves that they can NOT manage a large country with much bigger populations than managing simpler smaller territory with much much smaller population when they had the chance right after WW2. If the KMT would have rule China today as back than I'm sure the same or even worse circumstances of death through famine and hunger happens.
 

Geographer

Junior Member
If the KMT would have rule China today as back than I'm sure the same or even worse circumstances of death through famine and hunger happens.
At least the KMT would not have executed the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution! The KMT would not have collectivized all agricultural into government-owned mega farms. If the KMT didn't have much of an opportunity to govern China in peacetime since it was continually at war with warlords, the Communists, and the Japanese until 1949. If the KMT had won the civil war then China would have enjoyed lots of American economic aid, expertise, and markets. But CCP could only look forward to Soviet "expertise". And China needed Soviet agricultural "expertise" like it needed a bullet in the arm.
 

xywdx

Junior Member
I would have to disagree. Jiang allied with the aristocracy out of self-interest and ambition. It was not a necessary move to secure the integrity of the nation. The KMT made this mistake when Sun gave the post of president to Yuan Shikai. Jiang essentially followed in Yuan's footsteps, only successfully subverting the KMT to his own goals.

I don't deny he had his own interests and ambitions, but what was the alternative?
Focus all his energy to fighting the Japanese and have the CCP grow and undermine his power base, and eventually take over.

If it's a choice between self interest or removing himself from office, then there isn't much for any politician to think about.
I'm just not seeing anything else he could have done that was better for himself and for China.
 

stibyssip

New Member
Frank Dikotter's Mao's Great Famine was published in 2010 based on official Chinese documents. He estimates 42 million died in the famine. More importantly, he details the methods of death. It wasn't all accidental, there was widespread violence and intentional starvation of "disloyal" families. Wikipedia's page on the Great Leap Forward lists ten academic studies that estimate the deaths from 23 to 46 million, with the higher numbers coming more recently as more evidence becomes available.

The vast body of academic work on the Great Leap Forward shows there was mass death in the tens of millions and that a lot of the deaths were the result of government violence. Are you denying the mass deaths and government violence inflicted on farmers during the Great Leap Forward?

Taiwan under the KMT is a useful comparison with the PRC because the two governments followed radically different economic policies from 1949-1979. The PRC chose to eliminate private property and subjugate all economic activity to state control while the KMT strongly promoted private enterprise. As a result, the living standard in Taiwan rose much faster from 1949-1979 than it did in the PRC during that time period. As for the KMT being a "perpetual loser", tell that to Ma Ying-jeou. At least the KMT has the confidence to stand in competitive elections. It's easy to be a "winner" when you're the only player in the game.

taiwan had a better economic foundation from the get-go because it had been previously industrialized by the japanese, had american backing, and also enjoyed a huge surplus of wealth from the upper crust of chinese society who fled there when the communists took the mainland. you have cited many things that a lot of chinese people already know, but to lament that the mainland would have developed faster had the kmt stayed in power is not really useful. maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have, we can't hypothesize history like this because balance of power in global geopolitics would have changed if china were on the american side of the cold war.

a huge factor in why japan, south korea, and taiwan developed so fast can be attributed to favourable trade terms from the americans because they wanted strong allies to contain communism; if china were on america's team, maybe the soviet union would have fell much sooner and then the u.s. could instead impose exploitative trade terms on china, japan, and korea, (as with latin america, the philippines, etc) but i digress.

all events are the result of past consequences, the kmt lost china for a reason, and to demonize the ccp for its mistakes while dreaming whether things would have been different under the kmt is to ignore why the kmt lost the country in the first place. (which i thought was the whole point of this thread!)

to bring the discussion back on topic, the reason the communists won is because of the underlying factor behind almost all revolutions: social inequity and wealth disparity. 孔子云:不患寡而患不均。 we see that even 2000 years ago, confucius realized that it is not poverty that causes instability for the state, but inequality. no matter how poor china was after the communists took over, most people supported the regime because it ideologically empowered the poor, and also because EVERYONE was poor.
 

Schumacher

Senior Member
Frank Dikotter's Mao's Great Famine was published in 2010 based on official Chinese documents. He estimates 42 million died in the famine. More importantly, he details the methods of death. It wasn't all accidental, there was widespread violence and intentional starvation of "disloyal" families. Wikipedia's page on the Great Leap Forward lists ten academic studies that estimate the deaths from 23 to 46 million, with the higher numbers coming more recently as more evidence becomes available.

The vast body of academic work on the Great Leap Forward shows there was mass death in the tens of millions and that a lot of the deaths were the result of government violence. Are you denying the mass deaths and government violence inflicted on farmers during the Great Leap Forward?

I doubt Chinese docs says the number. More likely those western sources used their own interpretation & heavy dose of wishful thinking to arrive at the number.
Of course there're many deaths, just like there're more deaths before CCP & in other huge countries during their nation building like US with slavery & long periods of injustices.
Instead of playing with numbers, go find life expectancy number during CCP rule to get the overall picture not just a glimpse.

Taiwan under the KMT is a useful comparison with the PRC because the two governments followed radically different economic policies from 1949-1979. The PRC chose to eliminate private property and subjugate all economic activity to state control while the KMT strongly promoted private enterprise. As a result, the living standard in Taiwan rose much faster from 1949-1979 than it did in the PRC during that time period. As for the KMT being a "perpetual loser", tell that to Ma Ying-jeou. At least the KMT has the confidence to stand in competitive elections. It's easy to be a "winner" when you're the only player in the game.

Again, Taiwan is tiny. Even pea brains can make it work especially with blank cheque support from the riches country in the world US.
LOL. When I said loser, I was thinking of something bigger like war, not some contest where you compare who blows the more hot air. But if it works for you, that's ok.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Frank Dikotter's Mao's Great Famine was published in 2010 based on official Chinese documents. He estimates 42 million died in the famine. More importantly, he details the methods of death. It wasn't all accidental, there was widespread violence and intentional starvation of "disloyal" families. Wikipedia's page on the Great Leap Forward lists ten academic studies that estimate the deaths from 23 to 46 million, with the higher numbers coming more recently as more evidence becomes available.

The vast body of academic work on the Great Leap Forward shows there was mass death in the tens of millions and that a lot of the deaths were the result of government violence. Are you denying the mass deaths and government violence inflicted on farmers during the Great Leap Forward?

Taiwan under the KMT is a useful comparison with the PRC because the two governments followed radically different economic policies from 1949-1979. The PRC chose to eliminate private property and subjugate all economic activity to state control while the KMT strongly promoted private enterprise. As a result, the living standard in Taiwan rose much faster from 1949-1979 than it did in the PRC during that time period. As for the KMT being a "perpetual loser", tell that to Ma Ying-jeou. At least the KMT has the confidence to stand in competitive elections. It's easy to be a "winner" when you're the only player in the game.

I never want to get involve into the pissing contest but your contention is just too much As I said before most of the 30 million death is nothing but guesstimate at best product of faulty statistic to demonize the communist. A lot of this western liberal including professor has agenda to drive . They just pick and choose fact from history to support their agenda. Which is human right, democracy, etc

There is no doubt that there are atrocities committed by the communist . But both side commit atrocities. The Kuomintang open the gate of Zhoukou and flooded Anhui, Henan, Jaingsu killing 800,000 people or more .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To stop further Japanese advances into the western and southern part China, Chiang Kai-shek, at the suggestion of Chen Guofu, determined to open up the dikes on the Yellow River near Zhengzhou. The original plan was to destroy the dike at Zhaokou, but due to difficulties at that location the dike was destroyed on June 5 and June 7 at Huayuankou, on the south bank. Waters flooded into Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu. The floods covered and destroyed thousands of square kilometers of farmland and shifted the mouth of the Yellow River hundreds of miles to the south. Thousands of villages were inundated or destroyed and several million villagers driven from their homes and made refugees. An official Nationalist post-war commission estimated that 800,000 were drowned, which may be an underestimate.[2]

The number of casualties in the flood remains disputed and estimates have been revised by the Chinese government and other researchers in the decades after the event. There is no way of accurately assessing the casualties: much of the population, including officials had already fled, leaving no government control and no one to count the dead. In the shifting battles between bandits, Nationalists, Communists, and Japanese, counting casualties was not a high priority. The government, after initially claiming that the breach was caused by Japanese bombing, used the heavy casualties to demonstrate the scale of sacrifice required of the Chinese people. They claimed that 12 million people had been affected by the flood, and in 1948 it estimated the number of deaths at 800,000. A 1994 official history of the war put the dead in the flood at 900,000 and the refugees at nearly 10 million. Scholars exploring the archives now give much lower figures: 400,000–500,000 dead, 3 million refugees, and 5 million people affected (another estimate puts the number of dead at 500000, and the number of homeless at 500000). [3]

This is after all bitterly fought civil war and there is nothing pretty about civil war people get killed in the war . You of all people should know how many people on both sides get killed in American civil war

So I don't understand your obsession with Mao killing . Are you using it trying to undercut the legitimacy of PRC. As so many people here have answer your question eloquently.

The first generation of PRC are poorly educated people basically peasant . Their conviction was born in the bitterly fought civil war and they believe in mass movement Believing wrongly everything can be solved by mass movement . After all who could blame them . Against all odd they win the civil war and forced the mightiest army in the world to standstill in Korean war!. The PRC officially acknowledge their failing in GLF including Mao role in that disaster and most Chinese accept the fact and move on not dwelling on history that will not bring back the dead

But most Chinese in mainland and overseas believe that the communist are the only cohesive political entity that can bring change to China. History prove them to be right . The question whether Kuomintang will do better is academic. The record of Kuomintang in Taiwan cannot be used as gauge as so many people here already told you.
Under Kuomintang China might be bigger India or at best Brazil

Why not Singapore, she is even better comparison. Singapore is Chinese society that has the highest per capita income even higher than Taiwan. but We cannot use Singapore as yardstick for China . Singapore is a small island. Much more easier to control and lead!

I really don't understand what is your beef The Chinese has already make the choice and they stuck with it The Beijing spring die of natural cause nobody bother to attend it.Nobody in China is interested in regime change or revolution. Exactly because they know what is the consequence of upheaval from history. So live with it and no more revision history we have enough of it.
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
At least the KMT would not have executed the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution! The KMT would not have collectivized all agricultural into government-owned mega farms. If the KMT didn't have much of an opportunity to govern China in peacetime since it was continually at war with warlords, the Communists, and the Japanese until 1949. If the KMT had won the civil war then China would have enjoyed lots of American economic aid, expertise, and markets. But CCP could only look forward to Soviet "expertise". And China needed Soviet agricultural "expertise" like it needed a bullet in the arm.

Are you kidding me? The KMT would have be ruled by a bunch of warlord thugs that would've been just as bad or worse than the CCP. They would've commits atrocities that would not have been recorded or care by the West because as long as they tote the US line. The KMT LOST the war because of its weakness and incompetency in leadership, not to mention carelessness of it's elite ruling class. China today was a lot better under Communism than if it were a democratic government. So get over it already!
 
Top