A ruthless murderer, or a saving grace?

>He was a worse ruler than Mao by a long shot
go back to alternet or whatever hole your crawled out of.

Reminder that if Hitler had one we'd be saying the same things about him.

Good revolutionary. Should have died in 1949 and let Deng and Zhou Enlai run things.

Precisely. If we talked about the Nazis the way we talk about communist mass murderers nobody could mention the Holocaust without some dweeb like this cuntSaying "Yeah but the Autobahn is lovely. Look at all their public health improvements!"

ruthless murderer that back stabbed china

>mao killed tens of millions of people out of negligence alone but chiang was a bad strategist so there's really no question who was worse for China xDDDDDD

Allot of people died

Nice

>Mao "Great Leap """""Forward""""" Zedong

Kai-Shek wasn't ruler of China as long as Mao. Judging with how he ran the nationalist south, with the ruthless regime and purges he did there, it is not question he would have been just as bad as Mao if not worse if he took control of the mainland. He murdered thousands within his domain for wearing glasses, or other stupid shit that to him hinted towards communism. At least Mao tried to implement some reform.
Chiang tried his best to fuck over Taiwan too, but Western influence didn't let him.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)

>3000 to 4000 were executed
>for possibly being spies that wanted to implement the mainland regime that slaughtered millions
keep trying.

>beneficial to china in the long term

it literally means that china was better without him. kekekek.

>Mao "No steel, no meal" Zedong

You are not thinking clearly. I am speaking of Ifs. If they reversed; if Zedong ruled Taiwan and Chiang Kai-Shek China, there would be very little difference. Kai-shek's inability to rule anything effectively, and his incompetency in warfare, led to the extension of the warlord period and the victory of the communists. He was a dunce, and the only reason people think of him favorably is that he was the alternative to Mao, even though at the same time period he was much worse in rule of the territory he owned.

>He murdered thousands within his domain for wearing glasses
That's what the communist did during cultural ((revolution))

Did Chiang Kai-Shek engineer a famine that killed tens of millions because of his bat-shit insane economic theories?
did he try to destroy traditional chinese culture?
Did he send people to re-education camps?
Shoot people summarily for whatever things he found offensive?
Oh he didn't? Well then why the fuck is this even a question as to who's better?
>mao defeated the warlords hurr durr
>replaced local tyrants with his own centralized and far more autistic tyranny
>we should give him great credit for this

All of that happened after the warlord period. If you look at their rule during it, it is a much different story. Chiang was prevented from doing anything too terrible in Taiwan from threat of China and pressure from Western Powers. Mao and the Communists had free range. Looking to when they were roughly equal in strength, we see Kai-Shek's actions and policies are much worse.

keep flailing

It's a reasonable position to take, but people don't understand how Chiang ran the Kuomintang at that time because there are only scant english language resources concerning the warlord era.

did he do any of these things
Is there any reason whatsoever to suppose he would have had he become the sole ruler of china?

Like Stalin, his criticizers seem to overlook how much did the average length of life and quality improved after the great jump (or in Stalin's case collectivization)

I had a Chinese teacher who was educated enough that she got pushed into the Down to the Countryside program. She said a lot of people an heroed because of the fact they were forced into labor.

The 20th century is full of violent cultural shifts, that killed many, but those cultural shifts were necessary, people of the last era have to die off.

When Mao took over China, there was an opium epidemic and an aristocratic class that was largely separated and apathetic to the majority of the people, there was no monolithic Chinese identity, a low education and literacy rate and a country that was so susceptible to famines and the whatnot that they had the "Mandate of Heaven" was a major part of their culture.

The economy of the PRC was lousy in his time, it was lousy before him, by unifying China culturally and increasing the literacy rates he made it so that Deng's more capitalist reform would be able to China into more of a competitor faster.

I mean you just look at 20 years ago and China had people commuting to work on fleets of bikes.

He hated democracy and disagreed with Sun Yat-sen's plan, favoring a authoritarian regime, so he probably would have ruled alone had he conquered China.
He massacred peasant workers, capitalists, and seized numerous business assets in Shanghai, using his secret police and mob connections to silence dissidents and force investment in his expeditions. When purging communists, his forces would target any academic-looking person and murder them in public. His social reforms, like the New Life Movement aimed at instilling traditional values, did nothing to aid the suffering populace and was bizarre - like advocating cold water bathing as a sign of strength. I would say that he would have done similar things had he ruled the entire country.

Interesting information. If true, one could argue he was nearly as bad as Mao.

Which was not the original question of the thread. If you want to say Chiang was awful fine, but the Mao apologia is nauseating.

Mao was one of the worst people to ever have lived.

I find the glorification of the nationalists equaling appalling. The only better alternative was if Dr.Sun hadn't died.

or the Qing dynasty actually got its shit together and became a constitutional monarchy

Taiwan has turned out pretty well now that Chiang the individual man is gone.

His collectivist policies was a failure.
His Great leap forward was a failure.
However, he did manage to win the Chinese Civil war through purging his ranks from time to time and he did manage to thwart a cue that the Communist committee was planning.
He was smart and very lucky. However, he was an awful leader that devastated China.

Chiang was a good leader in the initial stages of the Chinese Civil war. However, corruption in the ranks lead to incompetence in the battlefield leaving the Communist to take over mainland China.

Well yeah, fascism and communism are two sides of the same ugly coin that needs to be buried

yep
youtube.com/watch?v=eYTrvutFsoE

Why do people fall for the coin meme, there are far more sides to the oppressive government scale of the 20th century, Liberalism and "Conservatism" have been just as destructive on a global scale

That being said, despite the genocide and fucked up constantly warring parts of the world, the excessive statist approach that all ideologies took in the 20th century did more good than harm.

Communism killed a lot of people when they switched over to the planned economy and fucked up the food chain.

Fascism killed a lot of people because there was the racist and militaristic approach to it that required using the military to maintain nationalist fervor.

Liberalism killed a lot of people because the countries that adopted it were largely wealthy and expansionist at the development of capitalism so they ended up being the ones who ruined Native customs and killed a bunch of them.

Conservatism killed people because the Liberals created power vacuums that were taken by religious leaders, these power vacuums naturally also led to instability

>no that's Deng

1. No it was not
2. Deng himself credits Mao with helping get China to the level where it can soar.
70% good/30% bad

The Chinese regime owes it's existence to Mao, they can't openly repudiate his legacy even if they know he was a disaster.
>the autobahn is so lovely

Warlords were still around in significant numbers in 1945 user

>1.4 billion person mainland with USSR right next to it, no diplomatic relations with Western world 1949-1971, and absolutely no aid
>20 million person island with massive US aid and US military protection, not to mention the KMT taking all the money with them when they fled

Ahh yes very comparable!

That is literally not true.

Have you even read about the 1976-1982 period?

with regard to what?
i'm not sure what point this is supposed to prove.

People do acknowledge that the Nazis contributed things like a federal road system and conservationism.

the tree of chinese socialism gotta be litterd with the blood of peasants

Who are the japanese?

No Chinese government has ever been able to function post Mao without having to pay homage to him profusely or at least upholding his legacy of social benefits. None.

Deng did amazing work. Probably the most effective leader of China but without Mao literally zero of Deng's work would have been possible.

Mao massively industrialised an enormously agricultural and rural economy, he streamlined all judiciary powers and created certain social control mechanisms like the hukou system and the Danwei work units which allowed Deng's modernisation process to become much more effective and fluid.

>heritage foundation
hahahahaha

I can understand costing some 500,000 people (and even 1,000,000 being generous) as a sort of sacrifice for advancement. But how the fuck can you kill 45,000,000 of your own people while failing to meet your industrial and economical goals?

It's called, "Russia-level infinite population."