Why did the Communists win the Chinese Civil War?

Oh come on, this is absurd. The KMT were not capitalists, they were Chinese Nationalists.

Click to expand...

Good point, as demonstrated when Chiang Kai-shek bullied the Shanghai industrialists into giving him money. But there was a fundamental difference between the CCP and the right wing of the KMT over how to develop the economy: the CCP wanted a centrally planned economy and government ownership of the entire economy while the KMT preferred to keep the wealth where it was and have a strong central government. The KMT did not become capitalists overnight when they began building up Taiwan's economy in the 1950s. They understood what it took to create a strong industrial economy but never got a chance to do it with the continual wars.

Moreover, the CCP wanted to overhaul Chinese society and viewed every traditional institution as suspect. That was what gave rise to the Cultural Revolution. The KMT favored moderate change in some areas and valued traditional institutions in others. These differences are visible in the divergent architectures of the PRC and ROC. The PRC favored socialist realist architecture while major monuments in Taiwan incorporated traditional Chinese architecture. Below are some examples.

Taipei: National Palace Museum



Taipei: Chiang Kai-shek Memorial



Taipei: National Theater



Beijing: Mausoleum of Mao Zedong



Beijing: Great Hall of the People

Geographer said:

Good point, as demonstrated when Chiang Kai-shek bullied the Shanghai industrialists into giving him money. But there was a fundamental difference between the CCP and the right wing of the KMT over how to develop the economy: the CCP wanted a centrally planned economy and government ownership of the entire economy while the KMT preferred to keep the wealth where it was and have a strong central government. The KMT did not become capitalists overnight when they began building up Taiwan's economy in the 1950s. They understood what it took to create a strong industrial economy but never got a chance to do it with the continual wars.

Moreover, the CCP wanted to overhaul Chinese society and viewed every traditional institution as suspect. That was what gave rise to the Cultural Revolution. The KMT favored moderate change in some areas and valued traditional institutions in others. These differences are visible in the divergent architectures of the PRC and ROC. The PRC favored socialist realist architecture while major monuments in Taiwan incorporated traditional Chinese architecture. Below are some examples.

Click to expand...

You have a very poor grasp of Chinese history, yet you keep trying to make inferences out of your incomplete facts.

The KMT in Taiwan is a completely different beast from the KMT in China. One depends on a foreign country for security while the other was, potentially, the master of its own destiny.

The Cultural Revolution did not happen because the CCP viewed traditional Chinese institutions as suspect. It happened because Mao was sidelined after the failure of GLF and wanted to regain his power. The Cultural Revolution was Mao demonstrating to the rest of the CCP just where real power lay.

That the KMT favored more traditional values than the CCP is unsurprising, since the KMT was founded by an older generation. That doesn't have anything to do with their economic policies unless you think China was a traditionally capitalist society.

What you don't understand is that the KMT were never around long enough to build a functional society. They were too occupied, even before the Japanese invasion, with managing the transition of China from a feudal society into a Republic. The concept of Capitalism vs Socialism was inapplicable to 1920's China. Therefore, to claim that the KMT "had the right ideas" is just absurd conjecture.

Geographer said:

Are you saying you don't care? Or that the death toll is irrelevant to the moral standing of the CCP in the 1960s? Can we at least agree that "a lot" of Chinese people not only starved to death but were beaten, tortured, and executed during the Great Leap Forward?

Isn't it sad that the CCP eventually adopted the same economic policy at the KMT, 52 years after the civil war started? What if the CCP had realized that capitalism, private property, and free trade weren't so evil early on? It's sad that it took the CCP so long to realize that capitalism is more effective at developing the economy than communism.

Click to expand...

Asking you to do your own homework is spun into 'I don't care' ? Nice try to get others to do your homework, next item after that is English.
Sure, many died in GLF just like in most nation buildings in history like slavery in US, lack of minority rights there etc.

It's too simplistic to say they would have been better with capitalism from start. Nation building especially huge ones like China is not like playing games.
Without the land reform, purge of corruption, equal rights etc capitalism would likely have failed.

Ever heard of party owned enterprise? The long arm of the KMT indeed!

The long arm of the KMT
Jun 11th 1998 | TAIPEI |From the print edition

IN MOST countries voters are scandalised when they learn that a political party is in bed with big business. Not in Taiwan—at least, not until recently. The ruling party, the nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) has itself been one of the country's biggest businesses. Its commercial interests include Taiwan's largest holding companies. Its nominees include managing directors or chairmen in some 70 firms. Were KMT an ordinary company, its pre-tax profits, of NT$16.1 billion ($488m) in 1997 would make it Taiwan's second-most profitable business group.

Click to expand...

I just bought the book "Soldiers of the White Sun: The Chinese Army at War 1931-1949". This book is mostly of photos with captions and descriptions almost no battlefield analysis or breakdown. A very basic chronology of the events of the period of time this book covers.

The book does have a decent section on the types of organization for Divisions and Brigades. And a lot nice pics.

Now to the subject of this thread.

Another factor that probably added to the Nationalist defeat to the Communist was the cost in arms procurement and shortages. The Communist got most of their arms without having to pay for them. The USSR transfer of captured Japanese weapons after Japan Surrendered and the most common methods of the Communist procurement process capture, Beg, Borrow and Steal. In the book I just mentioned the Nationalist had to pay for there arms as well as over pay for them from the US.

From the book.

By early 1949 the Nationalist were suffering real shortages of small arms for the first time which affected recruitment. Even last ditch efforts were made to recruit a mass militia in the Peking region there were not sufficient arms to equip them with. Ammunition was also in short supply. As early as December 1947 only twenty-two days supply of 7.92mm, thirty-six days supply of U.S. .30 for the M1 carbine ammunition were available for the army. Unfortunately for the desperate Nationalist they were often forced to pay over the odds for arms with U.S. army surplus M2 carbines selling for $5.00 in the States being charged to the Chinese at $51.00 each!

Click to expand...

Geographer said:

The KMT has maintained that the reason the Communists won the Civil War is because the KMT exhausted all its military strength fighting Japan. Of the 22 main engagements of the Second Sino-Japanese War, the KMT was the primary and usually only Chinese participant.

How much did Soviet support help the CCP? As I understand it, the USSR initially favored the KMT over the CCP in 1945 for an unknown-to-me reason. Is that right? How much support did the surrendering Japanese army give the Communists? How important was American support for the KMT?

Who did Chinese popular opinion favor in the Civil War? We can break it down by socio-economic class like business people, farmers, land owners, intellectual, urban workers, and government officials.

Click to expand...

Well there are different factions within the KMT, meaning it wasn't united unlike CCP. It also didn't help that the KMT was far stronger then CCP in 1945 and had more soldiers. The Soviets assistence was almost next to none as the CCP and USSR were not allies and USSR being more friendly to KMT.

The Soviets were supporting however had the best chance to defeat the Japanese. They did not consider the CCP to be capable of doing it. At least not back then.

gelgoog said:

The Soviets were supporting however had the best chance to defeat the Japanese. They did not consider the CCP to be capable of doing it. At least not back then.

Click to expand...

Fair enough but the main reason why KMT lost was corruption, lack of unity and incompetence.

By the time the Japanese empire surrendered, the KMT began a plan to destroy the CCP, but the Americans saved the CCP by forcing the KMT to negotiate with the CCP. And the CCP has enough time to mature, by the time the CCP gets stronger, the US government begins to give arms aid to the KMT. The goal of the United States is for KMT and CCP to coexist, so that China will forever weaken and divide. That's how Americans shot themselves in the foot. CCP won

FangYuan said:

By the time the Japanese empire surrendered, the KMT began a plan to destroy the CCP, but the Americans saved the CCP by forcing the KMT to negotiate with the CCP. And the CCP has enough time to mature, by the time the CCP gets stronger, the US government begins to give arms aid to the KMT. The goal of the United States is for KMT and CCP to coexist, so that China will forever weaken and divide. That's how Americans shot themselves in the foot. CCP won

Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up. But I hate how westerners forget the original CCP army was made up of KMT soldiers who were left wing.