The First Republic of China

>What went wrong?

They betrayed their emperor and got what they deserved.

huh people dont give china credit as a multi ethnic state

why is that?

Basically the revolution failed.

The Nationalist Revolutionaries cut a deal with old-style Chinese Generals (old stye= monarchy & emperor & power for power's sake n shiet). Because the Revolutionary army was shit. Generals- led by Yuan Shikai- went, Ok, so long as I'm first president. And Nationalists went fine.

Generals toppled the Qing dynasty and the Republic was established. However lack of De Facto legitimacy led to that republic being weak and ruled by Generalissimo Yuan Shikai. Yuan Shiggy declared an Imperial Dynasty, but the army talked him out of it. He died in 1916 after a short stint as Chinese Emperor and with the loss of the *only* man powerful enough to keep the military in line, the generals of China carved the republic up and fractured into Dynasty Warriors with artillery, guns, and mechanized war machines..

Because modern china is trying it's best to Han-ify the rest of the country.

>Also, any good scholarly works or first-hand accounts that cover Chinese history that cover the period between 1910-1928?
yes, heres a bibliography on republican china
pastebin.com/tuP2w3DA
china and the world, 1900-1949
pastebin.com/BCutpP9b
modern chinese political thought
pastebin.com/acYNtuMR
fall of the qing
pastebin.com/TahG61rv

because its not

Sun-Yat Sen died too soon.

He was overrated 2bh.

he was way better than chiang kai shek. i'm curious to know what would have happened had he overseen the great northern expedition. the success of it is what caused a rift in the movement in the first place. Would sun have ended up disowning the communists? To me that doesn't seem plausible because in these years sun's disillusion with the western powers grew and his admiration and contacts with the communists deepened. So if Sun didn't abandon the communists, then, the next question was whether he would have been able to bridge the gap between them and the chinese elite, maybe by steering the communists in a social democratic direction, or whether the capitalists would have deposed him, with chiang possibly backstabbing him in a secret deal with the green gang and the shanghai elite.

>what happens when Chinese get freedom/don't have functioning state

legalists were right

>why is that?
>>>
> Anonymous 02/03/17(Fri)05:35:40 No.2311147
Where are these series of images from? Are they the same as the medieval ones of a similar layout?

You mean China since 1911

Sadly, he most likely would have been killed within a couple years

This thread really needs to live longer

1910-1928 China gets so little discussion.

One of my pet peeves is the common assumption that the "anti-Chinese traditions" came from Mao and the Communists. In reality, all post (and most pre) Qing ideological forces desired the "modernization" of Chinese culture so that it could compete with the West/Japan.

People don't see Meiji as a "destroyer of Japanese culture" even though from 1868-1875 his government forcefully changed/destroyed a lot of it.
Meiji's "modernization" campaigns/purges actually are a big influence on the early Cultural Revolutions in Qing China.

China's Warlords by David Bonavia is a bit expensive, but is helpful at discussion the collapse of the Republic and the major players in the Warlord Period for those unfamiliar with the era. Yuan Shikai's tyrannical rule as president - and his attempt to make himself emperor - led to the collapse of the Republic and ushered in civil war.

yes that last bit is a good point. the problem is that japan did not have the geostrategic and economic importance. it was also a more compact and already had a legacy of effective centralized government, which the qing was lacking in by the late 18th century. the linguistic and demographic complexity of china made a nationalist project even more mindboggling, all at the same time as western powers dope up your population, take your strategic ports, emasculate your military and seize control of your ports and tariff revenues. then the taiping rebellion was a shitshow for china. it came at arguably the worst time possible.

>1910-1928 China gets so little discussion.
not only is it studied very little in school, but the period is extremely complex and a whole area of study unto itself. the europeans are a menacing force on the periphery of this period, but the goings-on in china proper are just mindboggling not just politically, as the country splintered and dozens of power centers emerged throughout the country, but socially and economically things changed with a mindboggling speed that is hard to fathom.

Pretty much why the CCP is so paranoid about separatism

Would you recommend reading it? Or just Watching a mememetary?

Really makes you think

>bump

Because it's currently a Han supremacist empire.

Yuan Shikai was such a cunt. How can one man ruin modern China? Answer: be stupidly ambitious and start a dumb scheme to put you in place but end up destroying the federal government. What a cunt. Handsome son though.

They stayed the same. Warlord era didnt have all that much actual fighting, and the widespread chaos with robber bands, lack of law enforcement etc. was a remnant of late Qing.

"Freedom was a mistake"
-Zhuangzi

[Citation needed]

[any knowledge of China needed]

First was Sun Yat-Sen stepping down so that Yuan Shikai wouldn't crush the fledgling republic.
Second was Yuan Shikai doing exactly what everybody thought he would and attempting to become Big Dick Emperor.
Third was Sun Yat-Sen dying at what must have been the absolute most critical period of the era for China.
Fourth was there being no proper figurehead for the assortment of petty assholes to rally around and stop them from being petty warlord assholes.

The only way things could have gone in any way well, I think, was for the Qing to have crushed the rebellion and subsequently modernized.

>not an argument

>Because it's currently a Han supremacist empire.
There wouldn't be ethnic minorities if this was the case.

The Qing didn't have the political resources needed to modernize though

And thus answers the question of "How could things have gone right in any way, shape, or form?"

Virtual monarchy was replaced by virtual republic. It wasnt changed proportions of real Chinese states, but increased its' struggle.

>supremacist means violent genocide
Nope. The Han run China, refuse to allow other groups to break off, actively seek to ethnically dilute those groups until they exist only as curiosities.

>Stephan "Final Argument" Molyneux

>implying any other country would allow any group to break off

>The Han run China,
By virtue of the preexisting population disparity between the Han and everyone else.

>refuse to allow other groups to break off
How is maintaining territorial integrity even relevant to Han supremacism?

If Taiwan declared formal independence they would be quashed.

>actively seek to ethnically dilute those groups until they exist only as curiosities.
The PRC copied the Soviet system in recognizing minorities and formulating an inclusive multi cultural history.

Han chauvinism is actively discouraged by the government.

>muh ethnic group imposes itself on all others by force of arms while demographically displacing them and has control of the levers of state
>but it's not supremacist, how could non-whites run a racially supremacist empire?

>>muh ethnic group imposes itself on all others by force of arms while demographically displacing them and has control of the levers of state
Only really applicable to the Tibetans/Uighurs.

>but it's not supremacist, how could non-whites run a racially supremacist empire?
>Discouraging ethnocetrism is supremacism.
>Recognizing ethnic minorities and providing economic benefits is supremacism.
>Including non Chinese polities in Chinese history for the sake of promoting a multicultural China is supremacism
If you want historical example of Han supremacism look at the Qing era colonization of Taiwan and how those natives were treated.

The situation with Uyghurs is improving over time and they are getting better social status. You'll see more Uyghur celebs in China than you'll see Chinese celebs in the west. Han can't resist them, they are too cute!

That's almost half of China, so yes, it is applicable.
They might discourage some ethnic supremacism, but they hold the reigns and the Chinese identity is still mainly Han. If you're white, you have no chance at being recognised as Chinese. If you're African you're subhuman, if you're Uighur or Tibetan you're regarded as a threat.
I get that it's not 100% black and white, but it's one ethnic group dominating over all others and actively working to destroy the power of other groups in their homelands.
So it's clearly a Han supremacist empire and the definition of Han is mainly racial (an overseas Chinese is Chinese without having to speak Manadarin, but if your facial features don't look Chinese you're out of luck).

>That's almost half of China, so yes, it is applicable.
Conveniently ignore integrated minorities such as the Hui and Manchus or how southwestern China was traditionally ruled by native chieftains.

>and the definition of Han is mainly racial (an overseas Chinese is Chinese without having to speak Manadarin, but if your facial features don't look Chinese you're out of luck).
There's no biological basis for the Han ethnicity,which historically functioned as a cultural identity.

Sinitic speakers from Guangxi and Liaoning are considered Han despite their genetic differences.

>So it's clearly a Han supremacist empire
Enough of your ancedotal evidence. Repeating the same debunked tripe doesn't make it anymore true than your spurious claim.

The government doesn't view itself as a Han nation state nor does it exclude minorities from their national ethos.

What you can argue is the noticeable explicit bias towards Uyghurs and Tibetans.

Very unfamiliar with chinese history, but I read a bit about the Republic once.

Wasn't part of it over-ambition? IIRC the nationalist plan was to unify china and THEN enact reforms. Unifying china is a super hard task, that they could only accomplish on time with the help of warlords, who hindered any meaningful reforms, and coupled with the sheer size of the country, any reforms would be spread too thin.

Then, the communists not having to rely on warlords and being small enough to effectively administer the territory they controled, got the loyalty of the people by enacting meaningful reforms? In addition to Yuan Shit-kai and the other factors mentioned already.

If you can find it at a library that would be best; it's a slim text as far as history books go. It is more focused on the warlords themselves, though in explaining them Bonavia provides detail to their men, fighting tactics, and governance in brief. What is almost better than the book is the references, many of which lead to more specific english language sources. I found a book on Szechwan from 1911-1938 through it, for example.

From my understanding, Chiang Kai-Shek was very inept in both military and governance, and the nationalists were only held together by his ambition and through the efforts of Sun Yat-sen. Once Sun died, it was only a matter of time before their defeat. The nationalist regime galvanized the repressed peasant classes and created the resurgence of the communists who actually tried to enact helpful reform. Many of the warlords, with figures like Feng Yuxiang or Wu Peifu perhaps being exceptions, did not care about the people whom they governed and only saw them as revenue to fuel their military cliques. The promises and achievements of the Communists were the best alternative in the situation.

Republic was too corrupted to be able to deal with the warlords, as shitty as the commies were they at least has the strength to end warlordism.

>what went wrong

Couldn't decide if they wanted to be Romania or Prussia.

>The Nords run Norway, refuse to allow other groups to break off, actively seek to ethnically dilute those groups until they exist only as curiosities.

>That's almost half of China, so yes, it is applicable.
? Where ?

Only two provinces were ever non-Han majority

Han is a meme ethnicity anyway, the Southern Chinese who today are considered Han were originally separate peoples with their own languages and cultures.

Warlords got CULTURAL REVOLUTION'D

Not to mention that Hui, a group sometimes said to be oppressed by Western media (The Economist), is more genetically Han than most of Southwest China.

Thanks, but damn, many are published by Cambridge University and even paperback's are very expensive.
And no, I cannot into library.

>One of my pet peeves is the common assumption that the "anti-Chinese traditions" came from Mao and the Communists.
Sure thing, but it is not okay to use this argument to whitewash the crimes of communists.
And in fact that is false: most negative aspects of forced 'modernization' did indeed come from Mao. They brought the society to knees, which of course would been good (meaning bad for Mao and his merry buddies) for the mainland.

>the communists not having to rely on warlords and being small enough to effectively administer the territory they controled, got the loyalty of the people by enacting meaningful reforms?
You are parroting CCP 'offical' history, which is nothing but lies and myths.
They didn't get any loyalty and how could they when terrorising the population wherever they went. Well-to-do villages were left poor and massacred when communists left.

>From my understanding, Chiang Kai-Shek was very inept in both military and governance,
He could not bring himself to get rid of obvious communist agents and collaborators in his government and military, if he personally liked them.
He had too many changes to destroy all communist bases during the time when hi's forces were large in number and well trained and execute all commie leaders, but he didn't (only few massacres againts communists were ever put to practice, all of which Chiang himself didn't even propose and which obviously was too little).

When did I whitewash these "crimes"?

>negative aspects
Good meme

>They didn't get any loyalty and how could they when terrorising the population wherever they went. Well-to-do villages were left poor and massacred when communists left.
[Citation needed]

CCP official history isn't necessarily inaccurate history.

You /pol/ anons need to learn that just because historical consensus disagrees with your ideology, that doesn't make it "propaganda".

CCP official history pushes the fictional narrative that the KMT military were more interested in fighting against the CCP than against the Japanese during WW2, and that the CCP was really protecting the peasants. Practically the opposite was true, the KMT was bearing the brunt of the fighting against the Japanese and had their strength bled out of them, while Mao and the CCP sat back and did very little preserving their resources for resuming the civil war.

Bias in one respect doesn't mean it's wrong in another.

bookzz.org
libgen.io
you can download a lot of them free on these sites
for free academic articles
sci-hub.cc

The other user is right, user. The communists spent the entire war biding their time, watching the Kuomintang get weakened by fighting the Japs, and then seized control.

so we can all agree that yuan shikai ruined EVERYTHING. he shitted up the water so badly its so tragic. China really did need a bold leader to lead China into a new future and offer hope but this motherfucker was a selfserving cunt who prostituted the country to get foreign loans to crush the republicans.

they did though. the only mistake that was made was setting up regional assemblies too quickly. had they rolled out a limited constitutional monarchy in a really careful way it could have gone half-decently.

>He could not bring himself to get rid of obvious communist agents and collaborators in his government and military, if he personally liked them.
here's your (you)

BASTARD OF THREE FATHERS

Local Yuan ruins everything

Had Cixi not been an unimaginably shortsighted cunt the 100 Day's Reforms could have proceeded and maybe have given Qing China a shot in the arm.

As it was, the halfhearted attempt to modernize, Boxer Rebellion, and rising anti-Qing public sentiment led to an inevitable collapse.

bump

>Han is a meme ethnicity anyway
Not a meme,the Ming were the one's that decided to apply it to all Sinitic speakers not just northern Chinese.

Han was never based on bloodline but shared elite culture.

>the Southern Chinese
Southern Chinese is an ever bigger meme. A Han from the Jiangsu isn't the same as a Han from Guangxi or Hubei.

>Not to mention that Hui, a group sometimes said to be oppressed by Western media (The Economist), is more genetically Han than most of Southwest China.
How is this surprising? Genetic affinities correlate with geography with the Hui only having minor West Eurasian input.

Same reason why the a non Han ethnicity such as the Tujia is more northern shifted than a Han from Hunan.

Alternatively,some southern Han groups have minor northern Han ancestry and LARP as their purported ancestors(looking at Yue,Kejia and Min speakers).

[Citations needed]

>CCP official history pushes the fictional narrative that the KMT military were more interested in fighting against the CCP than against the Japanese during WW2
[Citation needed]

And it's historical consensus that the KMT chose not to fight the Japanese, but rather the rest of the Chinese, for 7 years straight.

Many contenporary Japanese officers at the time wrote about how cowardly the Chinese/KMT were and how they always fled the battlefield.

Not him but here's a source
books.google.co.jp/books?id=DUg2KGMQWHQC&lpg=PA169&ots=R-xZNVQK20&dq=zhou enlai secret report to Stalin January 1940&pg=PA169&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q=zhou enlai secret report to Stalin January 1940&f=false

>and fractured into Dynasty Warriors with artillery, guns, and mechanized war machines..
Sounds fun.

Were the warlord era lives for peasants really shit, even shittier than Mao era, or is that just a commie meme?

>.jp
>file cannot be opened
>Zhou Enlai report
>not even during the war

Oh yes because 1 propaganda report to Stalin proves what "contribution" the CCP made to the Second Sino-Jap war.

>this thread
Fucking Maoists on my Veeky Forums.

>not even during the war
1940... not during the war
>Oh yes because 1 propaganda report to Stalin proves what "contribution" the CCP made to the Second Sino-Jap war.
Your propaganda report is false and instead i'll believe the propaganda reports created by the communists after the war

Sometimes i feel bad for humanity

It's a commie meme. The warlords had a vested interest to making sure the smaller area under their control was managed properly, so they didn't crush their peasantry generally. There was no Great Famine equivalent under the warlords. Warlord itself an unfair pejorative term.

Reminder that this man was the only chance for China to have a model leader.

Did you actually read that article in the Economist?

Because it was specifically about how well the Hui are doing, and how much more amicable the relationship is than with the Uyghurs.

>1940

Please post an actual readable source. I'm not Japanese.

Thought you were referring to Zhou Enlai's famous May 1950 message to Stalin where Enlai discusses China's military capabilities.

You're using the same logical fallacy that people who claim because Zhukov said X once, it must be the reality.

>tfw idolise sun yat sen but realise he handed yuan the power

Ummm yes I did, all 20 of them, and no they are not all specifically about "oh Hui get along so well!"

There's literally one about how the Hui are hated by an "islamophobic Chinese society" and "have surveillance units constantly harassing them".

????
It's a page in an English language book
amazon.com/gp/product/0674060490/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0674060490&linkCode=as2&tag=thewaspos09-20&linkId=DBCMEWLSAQUZJRKA

Here's an article about it a
washingtonpost.com/opinions/china-should-come-clean-about-its-history/2015/09/04/8d36c5d4-5254-11e5-b225-90edbd49f362_story.html

These are not the same links

books.google.co.jp/books?id=DUg2KGMQWHQC&lpg=PA169&ots=R-xZNVQK20&dq=zhou enlai secret report to Stalin January 1940&pg=PA169&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q=zhou enlai secret report to Stalin January 1940&f=false

The first one you posted clearly has .jp in it

Source?

>Jan 1940
>hurdur the war ended in Jan 1940

It is historical consensus that the CCP had over 500,000 casualties during the war.
The CCP was tiny compared to the KMT. But proportionally, both lost similar amounts of soldiers.

This doesn't even go into the fact
>We got BTFO more so we contributed more to the war effort!
is a fallacy

Because when people criticize mao its not for the Nationalist era politicial discussion about modernizing china, alot of that thought came from chinese nationals/intellectuals who had studied in japan.

Because what was envisaged then was NOT the 60s Cultural Revolution.

>The warlords had a vested interest to making sure the smaller area under their control was managed properly, so they didn't crush their peasantry generally

>For the warlords, the desire to possess power in and of itself was their main motivation and they were devoid of any sort of ideas, principles, values or ideals alongside the corollary that human life counted for nothing.[3] As a reflection of this, the warlords treated both their own soldiers and the Chinese people with considerable brutality.[4] In 1921, the North China Daily News reported that in Shaanxi province: "Violence and robbery stalk abroad. Farmers are afraid to venture out of doors with even a donkey, lest both man and beast be pressed into the service of some warring faction."[5]

>Because what was envisaged then was NOT the 60s Cultural Revolution.

How do you know that?

Read about this
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Culture_Movement