Should Nationalist China be a major power?

[ariansandstrom]

It's a bit rich to say that the KMT "caused" hyperinflation. The war caused hyperinflation. Maintaining an army that cost 4 times more than the available tax base caused hyperinflation. That they weren't able to arrest the hyperinflation in 1946 is related to them still needing the army in 1946-1949. It's like blaming the Russians besieged in Leningrad for "causing starvation," the starvation was a property of adverse circumstances forced on them from outside. Similarly, the KMT was forced into it.

They weren't all that smart in their attempts to stop the inflation and some policies, like allowing the army to buy grain at set prices made it worse, but inflation was a consequence of the war.

The CCP of today is certainly less corrupt than the KMT was then. But that's neither here nor there. The KMT corruption was the corruption of the powerful in a time of scarcity. Lots of corrupt right wing states have gotten their houses in order if given time to do so. South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, Portugal etc. Corruption alone wouldn't do it.

Modern CCP corruption is on a larger scale but it's not as desperate. It's not the powerful taking food because they and others are starving, it's just taking shit for the sake someone well off getting more.



Two things, 1) Truman was prejudiced by the bad views that Stilwell and then Marshall had for the Chinese. Kong Xiangxi and the Soongs were certainly war profiteers... but we sent aid to Stalin, so I can't really see any moral universe where mere corruption is justifiably seen as more heinous than the things we can't talk about on this forum.

2) So much aid. You really should watch the lecture I linked two, but here is the relevant slide from it.

China got very little aid compared to the other allies, and, of the aid shown in that slide, only about 5% went to the Chinese directly. The rest went towards the maintenance of US forces in China.

Also, why can't you find a better source on KMT corruption? You find an article about modern corruption that has a 2 sentence blurb about corruption back in the Republican period.

Here is an actual book which has lots about how the structure of the KMT exacerbated corruption and how the war led to many decisions which made things worse. This is the book you want for the thesis that the corruption was insurmountable. http://books.google.com/books?id=OTasAAAAIAAJ&q=corruption#v=snippet&q=corruption&f=false

Now, that book was published in 1986, so here's a review of Rana Mitter's book which also has a nice overview on how the historiography of the Chinese war has changed. http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1548





Now my thesis for HOI4, gameplay wise, is that a China that can do more things right from 1936 can be a major power by the end of the game.

What the screenshot says is that China received much less than Russia. It doesn't say that they received 5% of their intended land-lease. It is called land lease for a reason, it did not go to US troops in China or anything else. It went directly to China.

 

[keynes2.0]

snip

V. interesting post, thank you.

 

[FOARP]

What reputable source are you basing this assessment on?

I've spent a while trying to see if there was any reliable data on China's military potential in the 1930's and 40's. It's not been easy to find, but:

- China had a "modern economy" workforce of 3 million in 1933, 1 million of whom worked in factories (see page 159 here - I assume this includes Manchuria, which would make up around 10-20% of the total judging by the output figures given on page 192).

- It has been estimated that China's military expenditure during the war totaled 190 billion USD (1946 dollars), however I doubt this figure as no details are given as to how this figure was reached, and it is nearly four times higher than the figure given for Japan.

- Production of the Type-88 Rifle at the 21st Arsenal (a combination of evacuated arsenals including the Hanyang arsenal) averaged 30-50,000 per year in the years 1939-44.

So no, not as low as Denmark.

 

[yoloswag6969]

Personally,i'm not worried about this national focuses stuff. Modders will create one for most countries before you can create a topic called "We need a national focus tree for communist china"

But i digress,i don't think Nat. China should be called a Major,as it did not have enough indutrial base for that,it should be a Secondary/Regional power. Commie china and the cliques are probably better being classified as minors.

 

[Epicduke]

I don't agree as it being a major power, but i would like official national focuses for it

 

[Centurion1973]

I don't agree as it being a major power, but i would like official national focuses for it

+1

 

[Porkman]

What the screenshot says is that China received much less than Russia. It doesn't say that they received 5% of their intended land-lease. It is called land lease for a reason, it did not go to US troops in China or anything else. It went directly to China.

That screenshot taken from a lecture that I linked to earlier. The lecture is by Richard Frank, who is a historian of the period. His words, that accompany that slide, are this:

In addition to that, there are two other ways of looking at it. If you take the Lend Lease Aid to the Soviet Union, over 17 million tons, and compare that to what get's over the Hump to China, you'll see it's about 4% of what goes to the Soviet Union.

I also looked up, uh... these are East bound loaded ships, sent from the US to the UK, and reduced that to liberty ship equivalents, about 7,000 tons each, and you'll see that that equals about seven tenths of one percent 00.7% of what were sending to the UK.

Now, as bad as these numbers look from the standpoint of Chiang and the Nationalist government, it was even worse because all that tonnage that goes over the Hump is NOT going to Chiang and the Nationalist government. It is overwhelmingly going to support General Claire Chennault's airmen, leader of the Fourteenth airforce in China. It goes to sustain the American presence in China, diplomatic and military. It goes to General Stilwell's program to train selected Chinese divisions, and it goes to the ill conceived idea of basing B-29's in China for attacks on Japan.

According to the best student of the Hump, John Plating, an airforce officer, basically, Chiang and his outfit received 5% of of all the Hump tonnage that got to China.

You can even go look up the book he's citing. It's called The Hump: America's Strategy for Keeping China in World War II.

That will take you to page 193 where he writes.

In 1942, the War Department regarded Chiang with a degree of skepticism that had soured into a palpable cynicism over the next two years. And despite the fact that in Ichi-go, the Chinese had suffered their greatest defeat since the war began, US aid to the KMT would shrink, despite soaring tonnages over the Hump. Between August 1944 and December 1945 - surely a great period of great domestic distress for Chiang- Hump deliveries to the Nationalists totaled 19,542 tons, while total Hump deliveries totaled 567,688 tons. Put another way, Chiang's government got three pounds for every one hundred that crossed the Hump. .

To put that into perspective, when the Allies planned D-day, they assumed that each Allied division would need 600 tons of supplies per day.

So the amount of aid given directly to China with 300+ division in six months was equal to what one Allied division would use in a single month.

Can people on this thread please stop talking about the "massive aid" provided by the US?

I am here educating the masses.

My contention is this. China had several things go wrong early that prevented them from doing more than holding on by their fingernails. First, the loss of Burma to the Japanese. That wasn't a foregone conclusion, and had the Commonwealth accepted Chinese help earlier or fought better or the Japanese fought worse or any number of plausible things, (Chiang asked to send troops but Churchill didn't let the Chinese come in until after the commonwealth was in headlong retreat), than the Burma Road could have stayed open and the Allies could have really "turned on the hose" and shipped way more supplies starting in 1942.

Had Stilwell not been sent or been recalled earlier, the relationship between Chiang and the Americans might not have gotten so poisonous.

 

[Secret Master]

So, do you want China to just have national focuses like major powers, or would you rather China be really done properly?

I ask because just about every Paradox game has gotten China "wrong" in every game's initial run. Not from ignorance or racism, but because the mechanics in various iterations of their game engines generally don't do justice to the situation in China in 1936 or 1444. From what little we've seen of the mechanics for national focus stuff, it doesn't really seem like it would be anything more than window dressing if applied to Chiang's China (or Mao's Communists, for that matter).

Maybe giving China the mechanics it deserves is well beyond the scope of this particular game mechanic, and maybe podcat and Johan aren't arbitrarily biased against the Chinese. Or maybe there's something else in the works.

 

[toroltao]

So, do you want China to just have national focuses like major powers, or would you rather China be really done properly?

I ask because just about every Paradox game has gotten China "wrong" in every game's initial run. Not from ignorance or racism, but because the mechanics in various iterations of their game engines generally don't do justice to the situation in China in 1936 or 1444. From what little we've seen of the mechanics for national focus stuff, it doesn't really seem like it would be anything more than window dressing if applied to Chiang's China (or Mao's Communists, for that matter).

Maybe giving China the mechanics it deserves is well beyond the scope of this particular game mechanic, and maybe podcat and Johan aren't arbitrarily biased against the Chinese. Or maybe there's something else in the works.

My problem with this line of thinking is that even though Nt. China was very much a large part of WW2 as an active participant, it always gets sidelined for what seems to very little in the way of reason. I honestly doubt the first major DLC will be to "fix" the Chinese theater because PI has never done this in the past. I'd be totally fine with a Civil War DLC that adds content to both the Spanish and Chinese civil wars as well as mechanics to the Second Sino-Japanese War, but so far PI's DLC does not fill me with confidence. The latest twitter feed confirms that the next few EU4 DLCs will be improving upon the HRE system. Of course it could be improved, but is it what EU4 really needs right now? With Confucianism and Buddhism in desperate need of flavor? You're talking about doing China "right" but none of PI's content has actually improved that area of the world since the very first EU except maybe Divine Wind, and when that was first released people complained about how the whole purpose of the faction system was to limit Ming rather than improve it. Theoretically PI could release an expansion that makes the area fun to play, but that seems rather unlikely from their track record. I'm willing to be the first major expansion will have something to do with "Primary Contributors" like Canada or Australia.

 

[DmUa]

Personally,i'm not worried about this national focuses stuff. Modders will create one for most countries before you can create a topic called "We need a national focus tree for communist china"

But i digress,i don't think Nat. China should be called a Major,as it did not have enough indutrial base for that,it should be a Secondary/Regional power. Commie china and the cliques are probably better being classified as minors.

I don't agree as it being a major power, but i would like official national focuses for it

- il just repeat myself: In case of HOI term "major power" used only to describe game "main" player nations and not some special status ala GP in Victoria or EU. Arguing about China's status as "major", "regional" or something else is completely pointless, because term "major" does not indicate any special game mechanics in HOI. Term "major" is only used by devs to describe nations that are most important in portrayed conflict, it does not mean that China or Spain would be left on side.

 

[Vonboe]

All of the 7 major powers got their own unique infantry, tank, naval and air tech tree.
Besides a unique national focus tree what could you actually add to China that is different from any other minor nation??

 

[Cardus]

My problem with this line of thinking is that even though Nt. China was very much a large part of WW2 as an active participant, it always gets sidelined for what seems to very little in the way of reason. I honestly doubt the first major DLC will be to "fix" the Chinese theater because PI has never done this in the past. I'd be totally fine with a Civil War DLC that adds content to both the Spanish and Chinese civil wars as well as mechanics to the Second Sino-Japanese War, but so far PI's DLC does not fill me with confidence. The latest twitter feed confirms that the next few EU4 DLCs will be improving upon the HRE system. Of course it could be improved, but is it what EU4 really needs right now? With Confucianism and Buddhism in desperate need of flavor? You're talking about doing China "right" but none of PI's content has actually improved that area of the world since the very first EU except maybe Divine Wind, and when that was first released people complained about how the whole purpose of the faction system was to limit Ming rather than improve it. Theoretically PI could release an expansion that makes the area fun to play, but that seems rather unlikely from their track record. I'm willing to be the first major expansion will have something to do with "Primary Contributors" like Canada or Australia.

The problem is that to fix China is rather complicated and maybe the money required for the development isn't not justified.

^. I've given up on new HoI games as a result, given the amount of time it took for me to work on China in DH (which is still not done and I've essentially given up due to lack of time). Too much time and effort.

Sincerely speaking I don't think that China was a major for the reasons already mentioned by many: broken country, very little IC, almost nil R&D, war ended in a stalemate where the most richest parts were taken by the Japanese (which makes the war uninteresting), etc.

I hope that Paradox in future will take care of China as well as of colonies. I could be wrong but I remember Porkman explaining how colonies could be handled. That was a good thread.
For the time being I would ask Paradox only to give some space for modders to do what they can.

 

[Secret Master]

My problem with this line of thinking is that even though Nt. China was very much a large part of WW2 as an active participant, it always gets sidelined for what seems to very little in the way of reason. I honestly doubt the first major DLC will be to "fix" the Chinese theater because PI has never done this in the past. I'd be totally fine with a Civil War DLC that adds content to both the Spanish and Chinese civil wars as well as mechanics to the Second Sino-Japanese War, but so far PI's DLC does not fill me with confidence.

Do you really think that the Spanish Civil War and the situation in China are similar enough to use the same mechanics? I'm not sure I do.

I figure the situation in China is so different that it would really need its own system.

The latest twitter feed confirms that the next few EU4 DLCs will be improving upon the HRE system. Of course it could be improved, but is it what EU4 really needs right now? With Confucianism and Buddhism in desperate need of flavor?

Well, if more people play Europe and buy the game to play in Europe, then it's the right decision to make. Which brings up a question I've always had: I've heard before that HOI3 is banned in PRC (someone else said Taiwan, too). Is that actually true? If it is true, then perhaps the lack of stuff for China in HOI4 in its first iteration is also a business decision.

You're talking about doing China "right" but none of PI's content has actually improved that area of the world since the very first EU except maybe Divine Wind, and when that was first released people complained about how the whole purpose of the faction system was to limit Ming rather than improve it.

You can't be arguing that Ming China didn't need a nerf in Divine Wind. Even the AI was conquering a path of land all the way to Moscow every other game like it was no big thing. Making China harder to play was a part of getting China right. Whether Divine Wind did it the right way is a different question.

Theoretically PI could release an expansion that makes the area fun to play, but that seems rather unlikely from their track record. I'm willing to be the first major expansion will have something to do with "Primary Contributors" like Canada or Australia.

Given the track record of national ideas from EU4, I'm willing to be that China will be fleshed out in terms of focus stuff within the first year (or at least an announcement of content coming relevant to China's focuses will come within a year of release). Even the tiniest minors in EU4 are slowly getting unique national ideas.

 

[Alliegorical]

Given the track record of national ideas from EU4, I'm willing to be that China will be fleshed out in terms of focus stuff within the first year (or at least an announcement of content coming relevant to China's focuses will come within a year of release). Even the tiniest minors in EU4 are slowly getting unique national ideas.

I had the same feeling. While I'd certainly prefer KMT-China to have its own focus tree, I won't be too bothered if it comes a littler later; my first games will be as Europeans anyway.

 

[jju_57]

Language is a terrible thing because a term like "major power" is used but never defined. So we get hundreds of posts on why X is or isn't a "major".

There are two very important things to remember. First and foremost is that HOI is a game from 1936 through 1948. So discussion about 1800's or modern impact is meaningless. They are non-sequitur arguments plain and simple.

In case of HOI term "major power" used only to describe game "main" player nation and not some special status ala GP in Victoria or EU. So i cant really see how a sane person can really justify lack of flavor for nations other than those 7 mentioned as "majors" in last DD. And i think eventually Pdx will add focuses for all other nations in game via patches or DLC.

And that is the second point. People, and I include myself, have gone off on tangents to include things that are not relevant to what "major power" actually means. Just looking at the 7 "major's" as defined by PI clearly shows that these countries for better or worse dictated WW2 and all the political events leading up to and through the war. A "major power" for PI is not based on how many tanks or planes the country had but instead on HISTORICAL actions taken from 1936 through the end of WW2.

It doesn't matter if France is strong or weak. That country played a major role in various decisions that lead to WW2 or maybe could have prevented it. China on the other hand did not. It was simply another country that was attacked. I bet if Franco in real life sided actively with Hitler and fought against the UK it would be classified as a "major". But since it stood on the sidelines it is not a "major" for PI.

So you can argue all you want about number of soldiers, planes tanks and ships but that is irrelevant to what a "major" is and isn't. History dictated to us who the "major" powers or players actually were during WW2.

Now a generic national focus might include a way to join one of the three groups. So playing a non-major doesn't mean you are left out. You probably will be given the chance to be a player and join a faction.

 

[Glacierfairy]

Well, if more people play Europe and buy the game to play in Europe, then it's the right decision to make. Which brings up a question I've always had: I've heard before that HOI3 is banned in PRC (someone else said Taiwan, too). Is that actually true? If it is true, then perhaps the lack of stuff for China in HOI4 in its first iteration is also a business decision.

HOI3 was banned in China precisely because of the lacklustre job Paradox did in modelling China, especially with regards to splitting China up into substates to model its internal division, which if China ever had a state religion, would be considered as the ultimate heresy. The PRC Ministry of Culture considered the HOI series as (my own translation) "severely distorting historical facts, promoting separatism and threatening Chinese sovereign territorial integrity".

 

[adam_grif]

It wasn't just banned because of lacklustre modelling. Part of it was that Taiwan was depicted as Japanese territory and the Tibetan flag used in the game is banned in China (although the CD news post doesn't directly say this is part of the reason)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/29/content_334845.htm

Apparently the factually true depiction of Taiwan as being part of the Empire of Japan in 1936 was a "severe historical distortion"

 

[Glacierfairy]

It wasn't just banned because of lacklustre modelling. Part of it was that Taiwan was depicted as Japanese territory and the Tibetan flag used in the game is banned in China (although the CD news post doesn't directly say this is part of the reason)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/29/content_334845.htm

Apparently the factually true depiction of Taiwan as being part of the Empire of Japan in 1936 was a "severe historical distortion"

I have read more about it since I last posted and I must admit it certainly didn't help the case of the censors when they mentioned about Taiwan. *shrug* Even then, I also found out that the HoI series has a sizeable fanbase in China despite the ban so I guess not everybody is that touchy.

 

[BestOfTheWest]

Its really bewildering what the tell Chinese Students in history lessons. But I wonder what the "officially approved" map 1936 looks like...

 

[Caesar15]

It wasn't just banned because of lacklustre modelling. Part of it was that Taiwan was depicted as Japanese territory and the Tibetan flag used in the game is banned in China (although the CD news post doesn't directly say this is part of the reason)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/29/content_334845.htm

Apparently the factually true depiction of Taiwan as being part of the Empire of Japan in 1936 was a "severe historical distortion"

They probably want it to be considered "Occupied Territory" rather than straight up Japanese land.