WWII China really a minor?

[Praetonia]

That wasn't the first instance of foreign countries building some plants in China, or even the Chinese building their own plants. None of these limited, state-focused attempts, including the 5 year plans, resulted in any significant change in China's economic structure.

 

[UKHEIC]

That wasn't the first instance of foreign countries building some plants in China, or even the Chinese building their own plants. None of these limited, state-focused attempts, including the 5 year plans, resulted in any significant change in China's economic structure.

Yes, it was not the first time foreign countries building up plants in China, but it was the first time a major power builds plants for China, teaches China how to use them and lets China own the plants, and on very favourable terms.

No, the early five-year plans had extremely important effect of China's economy and politics, especially the first two of them.

You wouldn't have said that if you know more about the first two plans and the aid from USSR. Here are what I can find from the books:

During the first five-year plans, the following plants began construction as a result of USSR aid:

25 for coal mining and processing, capacity 21.65 million tonnes mining, 9.5 million tonnes washing;
2 for oil refining, capacity 1.7 million tonnes;
25 for power generation, capacity 288.65m kW;
7 for steel, capacity iron 6.7 million tonnes, crude steel 6.366 million tonnes, steel 3.6 million tonnes;*
11 for rare metals, capacity varied, including Al, Mo, Ti, V, Mg, W, Cu, Sn;
7 for chemicals, capacity 0.154 million tonnes synthetic ammonia, 0.188 million tonnes nitrate ammonium, as well as other chemicals;
24 for heavy machinery, basically covered the needs of the aforementioned plants, as well as machine tools, motor vehicles, tractors;
1 for light industry, capacity 50 thousand tonnes bags for concrete and 60 thousand sq. m copper mesh;
2 for medicine, capacity 115 tonnes of antibiotics, China no longer needed to rely on import;
and most importantly, 45 for military industry.

*: In comparison, before 1939, the production capacity for steel under Nationalist Governments control before 1939 was 40 thousand tonnes, whereas Japan had 5.8 million toones and US over 80 million tonnes.

As for the second five-year plan, well, it was, and still is, blamed for that well known famine.

 

[Praetonia]

What these plans had in common with earlier attempts, but not with growth resulting from the 80s reforms, is that they diverted resources from other parts of the economy to subsidise industries that wouldn't otherwise have existed. China traded food for tanks and atomic bombs. As you point out, it (like the USSR before it) sometimes traded off more food than was actually going spare. These plans increased the proportion of China's economic capacity dedicated to war purposes, rather than increasing the capacity.

Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic. For more discussion this is a good article: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Communism.html

 

[Harada.Taro]

Yes they are Minors !

There is no China in 1936 but lots of Chinas doing war together, against each other. There are mines under one clique's control while the industries using those mined products are in areas under other cliques control and the ports to ship out the products are under other factions' control. There was no united China in the 1930 China only untied in the 50's... Not only the factiosn were at wars together but also against japan... and none was helping another.... so.... Définitely Chinas were all minors.

 

[Oddb@ll]

My guess is that this issue will resolve itself. If the post release development will resemble that of eu4, nations are going to be assigned national focii over time. And China will probably be among the first in line to get some love.

So I wouldn't despair.

 

[UKHEIC]

What these plans had in common with earlier attempts, but not with growth resulting from the 80s reforms, is that they diverted resources from other parts of the economy to subsidise industries that wouldn't otherwise have existed. China traded food for tanks and atomic bombs. As you point out, it (like the USSR before it) sometimes traded off more food than was actually going spare. These plans increased the proportion of China's economic capacity dedicated to war purposes, rather than increasing the capacity.

Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic. For more discussion this is a good article: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Communism.html

Like I said, it was an excruciatingly painful and lengthy process, because our leaders at that time were trying to get the result that naturally and gradually occurred in the West after at least 300 years in 30 years. The existence of the People's Republic would be in question if our industrialisation took that long. Likewise, the existence of the People's Republic would also be in question if the reform never happened. Most historians in China agree that the state building attempts in the first 30 years laid a sound foundation for the reform in the 80s, and the reform in the 80s had great and direct benefits to me personally, my family and every other individual in China.

And I agree this is getting off-topic. I also recommend The Cambridge History of China for anyone interested in Chinese history. For modern and contemporary history, go directly to Volume 10~15. It is mostly accurate and unbiased, and friendly to Western readers, just has some usual quirks of Cambridge University Press when they are writing about East Asia.

 

[Praetonia]

Like I said, it was an excruciatingly painful and lengthy process, because our leaders at that time were trying to get the result that naturally and gradually occurred in the West after at least 300 years in 30 years.

It was painful because firstly their ideas about how to develop an economy were wrong and second their main priority was probably staying in power (military) rather than economics.

The existence of the People's Republic would be in question if our industrialisation took that long.

As I said PRC was still largely a rural economy in 1990. The PRC's first 30 years did not lead to any significant economic development and in some instances led to de-industrialisation (e.g. backyard blast furnaces...). OTOH the PRC did have the tanks necessary to roll over those objecting to this at the end of this time and it did have the nuclear weapons needed to enforce its borders at the end of this time, and that was in part a result of these policies, so in this sense military rather than economic sense they achieved their objectives.

Likewise, the existence of the People's Republic would also be in question if the reform never happened. Most historians in China agree that the state building attempts in the first 30 years laid a sound foundation for the reform in the 80s, and the reform in the 80s had great and direct benefits to me personally, my family and every other individual in China.

No doubt; those historians prefer their state pensions to facing the tanks. The 80s reforms were an embarrassing retreat of the regime from its official ideology that is causing the state major legitimacy problems. Those historians are paid to paper over those problems.

 

[UKHEIC]

It was painful because firstly their ideas about how to develop an economy were wrong and second their main priority was probably staying in power (military) rather than economics.


As I said PRC was still largely a rural economy in 1990. The PRC's first 30 years did not lead to any significant economic development and in some instances led to de-industrialisation (e.g. backyard blast furnaces...). OTOH the PRC did have the tanks necessary to roll over those objecting to this at the end of this time and it did have the nuclear weapons needed to enforce its borders at the end of this time, and that was in part a result of these policies, so in this sense military rather than economic sense they achieved their objectives.


No doubt; those historians prefer their state pensions to facing the tanks. The 80s reforms were an embarrassing retreat of the regime from its official ideology that is causing the state major legitimacy problems. Those historians are paid to paper over those problems.

So we finally came to this. Have your fun.

 

[Chukada]

Yes they are Minors !

There is no China in 1936 but lots of Chinas doing war together, against each other. There are mines under one clique's control while the industries using those mined products are in areas under other cliques control and the ports to ship out the products are under other factions' control. There was no united China in the 1930 China only untied in the 50's... Not only the factiosn were at wars together but also against japan... and none was helping another.... so.... Définitely Chinas were all minors.

Well you see, that's not how it was in real life. Paradox' interpretation of China is factually wrong. There were no "Chinas" Specifically those resources you see under one clique's controls (fake country by the way), is actually Guangzhou, the birthplace of Nationalist China. It was completely under control by Nationalist China in 1936. Its like if Leningrad was a country and not part of the USSR in 36'. It's very silly, but until Paradox can model China accurately, its the best we will get from a gameplay perspective, cuz history has been thrown out the window by this point.

It was painful because firstly their ideas about how to develop an economy were wrong and second their main priority was probably staying in power (military) rather than economics.


As I said PRC was still largely a rural economy in 1990. The PRC's first 30 years did not lead to any significant economic development and in some instances led to de-industrialisation (e.g. backyard blast furnaces...). OTOH the PRC did have the tanks necessary to roll over those objecting to this at the end of this time and it did have the nuclear weapons needed to enforce its borders at the end of this time, and that was in part a result of these policies, so in this sense military rather than economic sense they achieved their objectives.


No doubt; those historians prefer their state pensions to facing the tanks. The 80s reforms were an embarrassing retreat of the regime from its official ideology that is causing the state major legitimacy problems. Those historians are paid to paper over those problems.

Come on. You know that's not true.

Deng Xiaoping's reforms did not start from a 1946 starting point.

..

Neither is it true that China's economy did not industrialize between 1946-1990.

You could back-up your silly claims with proof.

 

[vota dc]

So what's your point? Losing a battle versus a numerically inferior enemy doesn't make Italy a minor nation. By the same logic, does the battle of Singapore make the UK a minor as well? What about the battle of Kasserine pass, doeas that mean that the USA is a minor nation as well?
Italy is the weakest major, but they are still a major at 1936 because they can project their power over other continents. China on the other hand is a weak nation with internal troubles but she has the potential of becoming a big player.

In 1936 Italy was a major. They even defeated soviet tanks in Spain. During WW2 no more: they just managed to win in Somaliland with 5:1 odds and big casualties.

 

[Harada.Taro]

In 1936 Italy was a major. They even defeated soviet tanks in Spain. During WW2 no more: they just managed to win in Somaliland with 5:1 odds and big casualties.

In 1936, they had one the strongest air force in Europe, their navy was the 4th on earth, equal to the French one just after RN,USN and IJN. Their army was well equiped for 1936, numerous. What they lacked and what plagued them all along WWII was that their industry was a civil one and not military one... and the complete lack of efficient command.... Italy got her Great purge too, taking all the competent, efficient commanders out and replacing them by Fascist young members unable to command or foresee a war and plan a battle...

Compared to that China was still a middle age country on the industrial level, had no modern commanders, had no technology. The only strength of China was her population. As Mao said one day to Kroutchev. I can sacrifice 200 millions of my people I will still have 600 millions to fight you. Can CCCP sacrifice 200 millions of her population ?

 

[Porkman]

No, those areas was not heavily industrialised at all, they were sparsely industrialised at best. By the way I am from Guangzhou.

Yes, most of China's industry concentrated in those areas, but very few of them were heavy industry. Those industries include fabrics, wheat/rice mills and other walmart products. The Nationalists can produce limited amounts amounts of rifles, and nothing beyond that, not even bayonets.

The real industrialisation of China began in early 1950s after Korean War, when USSR somehow decided to help China with hundreds of factories and technologies, including their own copy of V2 missile and nuclear fission.

Mao admitted himself (on a diplomatic occasion) that China was not one of the major power in the war. Sacrifice and casualty do not equal to contribution. While war in China was insignificant in military sense, it was extremely significant politically. It basically defined what happened and what would become of China and Asia after 1945, all the way to nowadays, as well as how Chinese governments and people think and behave.

My opinion is to make a unique focus tree for CHN and CHC, let China play a bigger role after 1945, and allow China to have a go on major power status. Perhaps even make a dedicated scenario for Korean War, that war has the most political influence on China than anything else after 1949, well maybe with the exception of nuclear bomb.

You have been a victim of some biased teachings. One of the things that the PRC historians did when writing their history was to erase any accomplishments of the KMT before the revolution. (This has changed recently in the last 10 years with the emphasis on the KMT in WW2, but it's still taboo to say that the KMT did anything good during the Nanjing decade.) There was industrialization going on, there were cars constructed in China. There was reform and opening happening in the 1930's and large scale industrialization... but the war erased it.

 

[Praetonia]

Come on. You know that's not true.

Deng Xiaoping's reforms did not start from a 1946 starting point.

..

Neither is it true that China's economy did not industrialize between 1946-1990.

You could back-up your silly claims with proof.

Well one random metric: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_vehicle_production

PRC motor vehicle production as proportion of total world production was 1% in 1990, 26% in 2014. In 1990 the PRC was making roughly the same number of motor vehicles as Taiwan with 50x the population.

I don't make the claim that the PRC did not experience any economic development at all between 1946 and 1990; that would after all be difficult in the face of new inventions coming in from abroad and would ignore the fact that the free market reforms began in 1978. I have claimed, and continue to claim, that the PRC did not actually succeed in becoming an industrialised country until the 1990s. I further claim that the thirty year period 1948-1978 was essentially wasted pursuing economic ideas that were fundamentally mistaken, and that that whole period could have been skipped resulting in an industrial PRC with living standards comparable to those of today in the 1980s.

This is all a bit beside the point, though, which is that the PRC was certainly not industrialised in the 1930s and 40s, and therefore not a significant military power at that time...

 

[Hikuran]

You have been a victim of some biased teachings. One of the things that the PRC historians did when writing their history was to erase any accomplishments of the KMT before the revolution. (This has changed recently in the last 10 years with the emphasis on the KMT in WW2, but it's still taboo to say that the KMT did anything good during the Nanjing decade.) There was industrialization going on, there were cars constructed in China. There was reform and opening happening in the 1930's and large scale industrialization... but the war erased it.

Come on, dude. You really want to put on these "All Chinese are victims of evil communism propaganda" thing? We aren't idiots who just 100% believe what they tried to let us believe. We can read foreign languages not just some Chingchongchang some rasists think we only speak, so we can read other sources.

There always has been records and history lessons regarding the efforts what Nationalists did during WW2 to lead Chinese to victory, not much of details but there still are. And guess how much did those separatists in Taiwan speak good of Communists? IT IS ILLEGAL TO SPEAK GOOD OF COMMUNISTS almost anywhere out of Communisism for quite a long time. I will stop here because it's off-topic, but I recommend you think twice before accusing one country brainwashing their citizens

One last thing, the one you were commenting, is actually from Taiwan not Mainland

 

[Chukada]

I dont know why the focus is on industry anyways.

China is a major country in ww2, full stop. You begin the game in 1936.

China entered ww2 in 1937 and was in it until the end.

Battles of more than 100,000 troops on both sides, happened, often enough. A few times the numbers reached as high as 1,000,000, in a single battle on the Chinese side. 1,000,000 + if adding Japanese forces to the mix.

Japan attacked the allies as a direct result of its China campaign. China also sent two armies to defend British territory in Burma in 1942, and was a major part of the Burma campaign in 1944, to re-open the Burma Road.

After the war China became the only non-white member of the security council, because of its sacrifice during WW2.

China did more than France.

So if the game was called Industrial Majors of WW2: The economics Game. I would say China is not a major country to pick. However the game is called Hearts of Iron IV, and its main focus is on the world war period 1936-1945.

People are too caught up on what major means in terms of patriotism and colonial attitudes. It's not a rubber stamp that separates the strong countries from the insignificant. To me it means, the countries that had the most war happen, where they fought the most, and therefore you have the most to do. China is a candidate for major status. I mean you have to fight a losing war for 8 years, but in the end you win by outlasting Japan in a war of attrition, and because you keep fighting and never surrender, your industries keep pumping out weapons, and your government maintains control, you directly bring in foreign powers to vanquish your enemy. That's pretty fun to play that challenge, its also a country where your choices matter a whole lot, because you only have 1 and a half years to prepare your country for total war.

 

[Zaku]

So if the game was called Industrial Majors of WW2: The economics Game. I would say China is not a major country to pick. However the game is called Hearts of Iron IV, and its main focus is on the world war period 1936-1945.

It's strange that you say this, because HOI always used IC to determine if a nation is a major or not.

 

[Praetonia]

I dont know why the focus is on industry anyways.

Because industry determined the ability to produce munitions which in turn determined the effectiveness of a country's armed forces. The ability to mobilise large numbers of men, on its own, did not contribute greatly to a country's power.

If you are saying that a game as China can be fun, that it involves doing interesting things, that may be true, and true to a greater extent than a game as France. But that isn't what I understand by the question, "Is China a major?".

 

[Porkman]

Come on, dude. You really want to put on these "All Chinese are victims of evil communism propaganda" thing? We aren't idiots who just 100% believe what they tried to let us believe. We can read foreign languages not just some Chingchongchang some rasists think we only speak, so we can read other sources.

There always has been records and history lessons regarding the efforts what Nationalists did during WW2 to lead Chinese to victory, not much of details but there still are. And guess how much did those separatists in Taiwan speak good of Communists? IT IS ILLEGAL TO SPEAK GOOD OF COMMUNISTS almost anywhere out of Communisism for quite a long time. I will stop here because it's off-topic, but I recommend you think twice before accusing one country brainwashing their citizens

One last thing, the one you were commenting, is actually from Taiwan not Mainland

真的嗎？ How do you know he's from Taiwan？

I've lived in both places (Taiwan and China) and the historiography of what the Nationalists accomplished before the war has been almost entirely erased in the mainland. The narrative is that the ROC was a corrupt failed state that the communists were right to get rid of. It's a necessary narrative for a revolutionary state, but it also required that the Communist historiographers paint the ROC in the blackest light possible. The PRC had to make it seem like China was starting from the lowest of low positions in 1949 so that the party would be glorified by its ability to raise China back up. WW2 and the civil war certainly didn't give the communists a good base, but they squandered what the Nationalists had been able to accomplish.

The Nationalists are treated either as villains or setting for the glorious rise of the communist party. They aren't treated as a viable political force that could have made something good had the twin evils of the Japanese invasion and Civil War not happened. Take the history of the CCP during the war. They launched two major actions. Pingxingguan and the Hundred Regiments campaign. After that, they adopted a "live and let live" policy vis a vis the Japanese where they left them alone in the cities and the Japanese left the communists alone in the countryside. It was strategically the right play to win the Civil War, but it didn't sound heroic. So afterwards, the war was recast with the brave communists defeating Japan and doing the bulk of the fighting. What the ROC did accomplish during the war, namely the end of the unequal treaties and getting treated as a major power were reattributed to the PRC.

How many Chinese students today know that the unequal treaties ended in 1942, 1943 and 1946?

Most of them are going to say 1949.

The PRC was founded on the blood of Chinese people, so they had to do things with the historiography:

1) Make it so these dead people were "Bad Chinese people." (The ROC was a terrible nearly fascist regime, but it was still the better path forward for China. Heck, China now is where Taiwan was in the 1970's. A one party dictatorship where the party focuses on technocratic economic growth and will leave you alone if you leave it alone.)

2) Claim the actual fighting that the "bad Chinese people" did against Japan as their own.

The 1980's reform and opening period is lauded as this amazing new idea when the the ROC was doing something very similar in the 1930's. There's this whole era of development and international cooperation that has been erased on the mainland.

 

[Hikuran]

真的嗎？ How do you know he's from Taiwan？

I've lived in both places (Taiwan and China) and the historiography of what the Nationalists accomplished before the war has been almost entirely erased in the mainland. The narrative is that the ROC was a corrupt failed state that the communists were right to get rid of. It's a necessary narrative for a revolutionary state, but it also required that the Communist historiographers paint the ROC in the blackest light possible. The PRC had to make it seem like China was starting from the lowest of low positions in 1949 so that the party would be glorified by its ability to raise China back up. WW2 and the civil war certainly didn't give the communists a good base, but they squandered what the Nationalists had been able to accomplish.

The Nationalists are treated either as villains or setting for the glorious rise of the communist party. They aren't treated as a viable political force that could have made something good had the twin evils of the Japanese invasion and Civil War not happened. Take the history of the CCP during the war. They launched two major actions. Pingxingguan and the Hundred Regiments campaign. After that, they adopted a "live and let live" policy vis a vis the Japanese where they left them alone in the cities and the Japanese left the communists alone in the countryside. It was strategically the right play to win the Civil War, but it didn't sound heroic. So afterwards, the war was recast with the brave communists defeating Japan and doing the bulk of the fighting. What the ROC did accomplish during the war, namely the end of the unequal treaties and getting treated as a major power were reattributed to the PRC.

How many Chinese students today know that the unequal treaties ended in 1942, 1943 and 1946?

Most of them are going to say 1949.

The PRC was founded on the blood of Chinese people, so they had to do things with the historiography:

1) Make it so these dead people were "Bad Chinese people." (The ROC was a terrible nearly fascist regime, but it was still the better path forward for China. Heck, China now is where Taiwan was in the 1970's. A one party dictatorship where the party focuses on technocratic economic growth and will leave you alone if you leave it alone.)

2) Claim the actual fighting that the "bad Chinese people" did against Japan as their own.

The 1980's reform and opening period is lauded as this amazing new idea when the the ROC was doing something very similar in the 1930's. There's this whole era of development and international cooperation that has been erased on the mainland.

A words-wall of hatred and you accused Mainlander being biased by Government brainwashing education. Irony

Let us focus on whether or not CHI was major in WW2 and not deviate from the original topic.

 

[Munin]

It still is interesting reading, I m not be surprised that China will have different history classes about the topic than Taiwan though. Maybe agree to disagree?