HoI 4 Dev Diary - Nationalist China

[Duke_Dave]

@podcat are these off the map factories a new feature to let us add IC without having physical buildings on the map? I am asking for a modding context?

I think they're burmese factories. Standing in Burma, would be slightly pissed if there were factories outside of the map, which produce stuff with machines made out of thin air.

 

[Porkman]

People in mainland question his actions in the latter years, but is still overall thankful of the greater good he had brought to the wider nation. The peace, strength and unity of China is Mao’s greatest legacy, which in turn is the true guarantor of Hong Kong’s prosperity. Be greatful for the peace that is gifted, recognize greatness despite its great price, and respect the dead that ultimately achieved in life what most likely none of us would ever achieve.

You're one of those people who thinks that Mao ended the unequal treaties aren't you? Had Chiang Kai Shek won or Zhou Enlai shot Mao in 1951... China would have been where it is now by the 80's. Mao set the country back by 30 years. Mao hated peace and worked to foster disunity. The Anti Rightist campaigns and the Cultural Revolution were both attempts to start chaos so that people would support the Great Helmsman.

Mao was a gifted leader in a time of chaos... but once the PRC was founded he kept creating chaos in order to keep himself in power and millions suffered the consequences.

 

[ChairmanMeow]

You're one of those people who thinks that Mao ended the unequal treaties aren't you? Had Chiang Kai Shek won or Zhou Enlai shot Mao in 1951... China would have been where it is now by the 80's. Mao set the country back by 30 years. Mao hated peace and worked to foster disunity. The Anti Rightist campaigns and the Cultural Revolution were both attempts to start chaos so that people would support the Great Helmsman.

Mao was a gifted leader in a time of chaos... but once the PRC was founded he kept creating chaos in order to keep himself in power and millions suffered the consequences.

China could be better if Mao just died from disease with Zhou or Liu ShaoQi or Deng Xiaoping become the chairman, but it didn't happen. That's why we say we object totalitarianism. But assuming alternate history and let historical figure taking responsbility of pontential gain or loss isn't reasonable, I think. Evaluating Mao's right or wrong must be considered under the circumstances of history. I could say that China could be more developed even under Japanese rules. But Chinese people demanded their liberation and independence at that time, he led people accomplished the mission, so we see his greatness. And after 1956 he caused great damage to the people, although it was a total mess, his merits were still recognized.

 

[Adamgerd]

Mao was totalitarian and you can't separate him from totalitarianism. As for independence, KMT would've also made china independent and ended the unequal treaties, most likely had they won. The cultural revolution was a disaster, setting back china's progress. True, he did end the unequal treaties but had Chang Kai-Shek won, most likely he would've also ended the unequal treaties. And the price for the ending of the unequal treaties by Mao was big (probably not for china's population), but it was a massive amount if you compare it with European countries. Several European countries have less people than the cultural revolution's death toll. Chang Kai-Shek wasn't the best alternative, but Mao did set back china's progress with the various policies

Interested to see the new Japanese focus Tree and finally try ROC in HOI4. Maybe should've bought the paradox expansion pass after all

 

[ChairmanMeow]

Mao was totalitarian and you can't separate him from totalitarianism. As for independence, KMT would've also made china independent and ended the unequal treaties, most likely had they won. The cultural revolution was a disaster, setting back china's progress. True, he did end the unequal treaties but had Chang Kai-Shek won, most likely he would've also ended the unequal treaties. And the price for the ending of the unequal treaties by Mao was big (probably not for china's population), but it was a massive amount if you compare it with European countries. Several European countries have less people than the cultural revolution's death toll. Chang Kai-Shek wasn't the best alternative, but Mao did set back china's progress with the various policies

Of course I don't think Mao was good, nobody shall judge historical figures with simply a good or bad. Unequal treaties were only a part of nation's fate, there is no need to stress that Chiang could also end that, we all know that. In that post I have only two points that intend to express: One is that it's not reasonable to use potential matters to judge history, the other is the reason his merits are still evaluated over faults. That's the mainstream opinion from mainland China, and I don't expect everyone holding the same view. What you've said those people certainly know that crystal clear, but whatever reasons their opinion does have a difference with yours. It's just a matter of perspective, my friend.

 

[Adamgerd]

Of course I don't think Mao was good, nobody shall judge historical figures with simply a good or bad. Unequal treaties were only a part of nation's fate, there is no need to stress that Chiang could also end that, we all know that. In that post I have only two points that intend to express: One is that it's not reasonable to use potential matters to judge history, the other is why his merits are still evaluated over faults. That's the mainstream opinion from mainland China, and I don't expect everyone hold the same view. What you've said those people certainly know that crystal clear, but whatever reasons their opinion does have a difference with yours. It's just a matter of perspective, my friend.

Yeah, I agree. With the exception of some leaders, many leaders are hard to judge. Mao for one did do both good and bad stuff. Indeed, I agree it's a matter of perspective. Mao was ruthless, but I don't deny that he did do some positive things for china, like centralize the nation or indeed overturn the unequal treaties. I do agree his merits should still be evaluated even with his more ruthless policies, but I do think that when judging a figure like Mao, one should though also remember the price paid for the progress. Rarely, is anything black and white. China, for example, did not really have a good choice in the 40's. Both Mao or Chiang Kai-Shek are controversial figures and in many ways are similar. Both suppresed/purged opponents and critics. Both wanted autocratic regimes. Both fought against Japan and supported the "allies". Both wanted an unified and strong china (although went about this in different ways). And yeah, Mao shouldn't really be charged based on potential, but based on reality (where he did some good things, but also some horrible things). I'd say it also depends on which china. In Taiwan, more people are in favor of Chiang Kai-Shek and less in favor of Mao than in China. It's also partly because, correct me if I'm wrong, there is still censorship and restriction on criticizing Mao in mainland China today.

Anyway this is also going off-topic I think

 

[Adamgerd]

Also does anyone know when the expansion is to be released? or has it not yet been announced?

 

[ChairmanMeow]

correct me if I'm wrong, there is still censorship and restriction on criticizing Mao in mainland China today

Censorship and restriction is not a tight thing in mainland nowadays. Just forgive me for one second, he can be called as "the mummy" and many many words worse than this in mainland forums and websites. You can make implicit jokes and nicknames for "the serious matters", but if one swear on it directly and give it a wide-spread then he will face half a month custody. The reason we cannot find direct swearing online is mostly because people will report and then it's a easy thing to examine automatically. Posts which are automatically blocked won't cause anything, but if a "F**k you, Mao" being "tweeted" over massive amount then it's a thing.

Maybe you know what is a "hath". If you know about this you will find it's a easy thing joking about former country leaders in mainland.

 

[Dod0910]

Good

 

[Porkman]

Of course I don't think Mao was good, nobody shall judge historical figures with simply a good or bad. Unequal treaties were only a part of nation's fate, there is no need to stress that Chiang could also end that, we all know that. In that post I have only two points that intend to express: One is that it's not reasonable to use potential matters to judge history, the other is the reason his merits are still evaluated over faults. That's the mainstream opinion from mainland China, and I don't expect everyone holding the same view. What you've said those people certainly know that crystal clear, but whatever reasons their opinion does have a difference with yours. It's just a matter of perspective, my friend.

THIS is the type of historical ignorance about China that I get frustrated by in Chinese people.

CHIANG ENDED THE UNEQUAL TREATIES. Not "could have ended," His government ended them.

The treaty with Britain was abrogated in 1943, with America in 1942, with France in 1946 and with Japan at the surrender.

Mao had nothing to do with it.

This is fact. Not perspective. Chinese people who think that Mao ended the unequal treaties are wrong. They are the victims of propaganda.

Mao and the CCP have always claimed indirectly that they did it because otherwise their claim to fame is not "we defeated the foreigners," it's "we slaughtered a lot of Chinese people." It's only in the last ten years that the CCP has started to admit that the Nationalists did the majority of the fighting against the Japanese. Heck, in Peng Dehuai's trial in 1959, one of the charges against him was that he fought the Japanese when the party was explicitly ignoring them.

Essentially, the CCP stepped aside and let the Japanese destroy the Nationalists, told lies to a credulous world about how much they were fighting, sold opium from the base areas to the rest of China during the war years, and then plunged China into Civil War and caused the deaths of several more million Chinese people after the end of WW2.

The KMT wasn't much better, but the CCP went a long way to convince China's public that they won power by fighting the Japanese, defeating the foreigners, and ending the unequal treaties. When what they actually did was kill the KMT... who had fought the Japanese, defeating the foreigners, and ending the unequal treaties.

Name two engagements that the Communist fought against Japan.

Spoiler

Pingxingguan and the Hundred regiments offensive... because those were the only two they ever fought. Both of which happened before 1941... They spent the last 4 years fighting the Nationalists and building up their forces.[\spoiler]

Sorry, Chinese people being ignorant of Chinese history is one of my pet peeves.

 

[ChairmanMeow]

THIS is the type of historical ignorance about China that I get frustrated by in Chinese people.

CHIANG ENDED THE UNEQUAL TREATIES. Not "could have ended," His government ended them.

The treaty with Britain was abrogated in 1943, with America in 1942, with France in 1946 and with Japan at the surrender.

Mao had nothing to do with it.

This is fact. Not perspective. Chinese people who think that Mao ended the unequal treaties are wrong. They are the victims of

Mao and the CCP have always claimed indirectly that they did it because otherwise their claim to fame is not "we defeated the foreigners," it's "we slaughtered a lot of Chinese people." It's only in the last ten years that the CCP has started to admit that the Nationalists did the majority of the fighting against the Japanese. Heck, in Peng Dehuai's trial in 1959, one of the charges against him was that he fought the Japanese when the party was explicitly ignoring them.

Essentially, the CCP stepped aside and let the Japanese destroy the Nationalists, told lies to a credulous world about how much they were fighting, sold opium from the base areas to the rest of China during the war years, and then plunged China into Civil War and caused the deaths of several more million Chinese people after the end of WW2.

The KMT wasn't much better, but the CCP went a long way to convince China's public that they won power by fighting the Japanese, defeating the foreigners, and ending the unequal treaties. When what they actually did was kill the KMT... who had fought the Japanese, defeating the foreigners, and ending the unequal treaties.

Name two engagements that the Communist fought against Japan.

Spoiler

Pingxingguan and the Hundred regiments offensive... because those were the only two they ever fought. Both of which happened before 1941... They spent the last 4 years fighting the Nationalists and building up their forces.[\spoiler]

Sorry, Chinese people being ignorant of Chinese history is one of my pet peeves.

My apologies, it's my fault with my English. I was going to stress that Chiang had the ability for doing that, and use the past tence wrongly, my apologies.
CCP never denied their expanding during the Sino-Japanese war, but not in the way of killing KMT and let them won Japanese at the same time.
I will not say CCP had fought any big campaigns and bring Pingxingguan on my lips all the time. Only except Hundred Regiment Offensive. Communist partisans dragged a huge amount of Japanese and its puppet army in Huabei plains. What about so many Japanese blockhouses in there? What about those miles of iron fences even the bamboo one? Since 1943 Japanese army was ordered not to leave the blockhouse unless the whole squadron go out together, I don't think tiny guerilla actions can cause such a reaction. Just be aware I'm not a fool who desperately keep saying good words for those commies, I just want to say that you can't simply judge their influence by counting large campaigns they organized, not to mention their intention was to avoid these thing. Also, in the late 1944, they were able to liberate small towns in Hebei, despite NRA was still confronting a large number of enemies.

Again I never deny what NRA did in the war.

And don't get me wrong, when I said it's a matter of perspective I mean that's the reason why people see Mao differently, I never said who ended those treaties is "a matter of perspective".

 

[Porkman]

My apologies, it's my fault with my English. I was going to say that Chiang had the ability for doing that, and use the past tence wrongly, my apologies.
CCP never denied their expanding during the Sino-Japanese war, but not in the way of killing KMT and let them won Japanese at the same time.
I will not say CCP had fought any big campaigns and bring Pingxingguan on my lips all the time. Only except Hundred Regiment Offensive. Communist partisans dragged a huge amount of Japanese and its puppet army in Huabei plains. What about so many Japanese blockhouses in there? What about those miles of iron fences even the bamboo one? Since 1943 Japanese army was ordered not to leave the blockhouse unless the whole squadron go out together, I don't think tiny guerilla actions can cause such a reaction. Just be aware I'm not a fool who desperately keep saying good words for those commies, I just want to say that you can't simply judge their influence by counting large campaigns they organized, not to mention their intention was to avoid these thing. Also, in the late 1944, they were able to liberate small towns in Hebei, despite NRA was still confronting a large number of enemies.

Again I never deny what NRA did in the war.

Mao's strategy during WW2 and during the Civil war was the right strategy. He did win. But the Japanese commitments to partisan suppression behind the lines (i.e. fighting the communists) was nowhere near what they committed against the KMT. The Communists did hamper the Japanese but they largely adopted a live and let live policy and built the base areas in the parts that Japan didn't want (so anywhere that wasn't city or rail) and fought, defeated, and absorbed any Chinese formations in those areas whether they were KMT, independent, or Japanese puppet.

You may know the unequal treaties were ended by Chiang... but look at our poor compatriot @Adamgerd. He did not.

Essentially, the KMT built this suit called "the international role of China." It had a lot of cool stuff... a UN seat, the end of the unequal treaties, unifying the country. Then the CCP stabbed them and started wearing the suit the KMT made.

Then they told all of the Chinese people... "Hey, look at this awesome suit that the CCP made."

 

[ChairmanMeow]

You may know the unequal treaties were ended by Chiang... but look at our poor compatriot @Adamgerd. He did not.

Hmm, like I always said, its their regime, they won't talk about these things until these have become history.
I usually don't care about politics, I just knew that from one occasionally online searching and felt annoyed that there was no such description in the textbook. Although it could be thought as reasonable for a present regime, but it just annoyed me.

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

@Porkman
There is also the logistical side to partisan warfare, mind you. Without proper supplies, it is nearly impossible to conduct large-scale operations
@ChairmanMeow What is your opinion on Mobo Gao's perspective of Mao's China? You seem to be fairly neutral

 

[ChairmanMeow]

What is your opinion on Mobo Gao's perspective of Mao's China? You seem to be fairly neutral

Gao MoBo is a wise man, I'm quite assured. His book "Gao Jia Cun" is definetly worth reading, it provides a view from ordinary peasant-style citizen to see that specific period. I strongly recommend you read the English version, since the Chinese translated one doesn't show his "slight sarcasm" with a proper way. His point of view is objective, and has a lot of reference value, honestly, a lot of. I think it is hard for one to be objective to that part of history without reading that book, if he cannot have access to many historical resources.

My personal historical value, however, was not helped by the book:

Spoiler

I voluntarily took historical courses in the another university despite I'm a EE man actually, hence I have a lot of chances staying with professors and senior citizens to acquire my knowledge. And honestly my family was quite big in 1940s and had a communist partisan, a KMT officer and a bandit(Just like cliche from common-sense-lacking Chinese TV drama). They all survived, and they helped me a lot with their experience.

 

[imvdm]

You're one of those people who thinks that Mao ended the unequal treaties aren't you? Had Chiang Kai Shek won or Zhou Enlai shot Mao in 1951... China would have been where it is now by the 80's. Mao set the country back by 30 years. Mao hated peace and worked to foster disunity. The Anti Rightist campaigns and the Cultural Revolution were both attempts to start chaos so that people would support the Great Helmsman.

Mao was a gifted leader in a time of chaos... but once the PRC was founded he kept creating chaos in order to keep himself in power and millions suffered the consequences.

Speak not what you don’t understand. The KMTs were a failing mess that never would have truly reform under Chiang Sr, and Zhou failed his chance as the leader of the party. History do not leave room for maybes, and I know for a fact it was because of Mao’s life work that no child of China today know of true hunger or war, and No Parents in China Will Ever Be Forced To Smother Their Own INFANT CHILD in the corn fields to Hide From Japanese (true family story). Mao was the one that ended the Chaos that the KMTs never had the muscle or will to accomplish, and the bones left in his wake is but a small price (for China) for the proven greater good.

That is why the majority of Chinese, despite knowing full well of the horrors of the far left, still respects Mao to this day. He brought hope to the majority of people and at least laid the ground for the revival of the nation. Chiang’s legacy is dying as we speak, and Zhou was not a war time leader that China needed back then up.

 

[Porkman]

@Porkman
There is also the logistical side to partisan warfare, mind you. Without proper supplies, it is nearly impossible to conduct large-scale operations
@ChairmanMeow What is your opinion on Mobo Gao's perspective of Mao's China? You seem to be fairly neutral

@Porkman
There is also the logistical side to partisan warfare, mind you. Without proper supplies, it is nearly impossible to conduct large-scale operations
@ChairmanMeow What is your opinion on Mobo Gao's perspective of Mao's China? You seem to be fairly neutral

The logistical cost of conquering China was insurmountable by the Japanese. Their only hope of victory would have been destroying the Chinese army in Wuhan and even then... It probably wouldn't have worked.

I haven't read the book, but I've read a lot of scholarly reviews of it. Mobo Gao seems like a bit of a Maoist hack in much the same way that Jung Chang was an anti Maoist hack.

He cites Chinese Internet posts and official Chinese statistics from the 1970s to prove that the CR was good for the peasants. Neither of those constitute reliable data.

He uses the general nostalgia for the past when faced by a fast changing present and pretends it's an accurate reflection of actual past conditions.

You know what's under the swimming pool at Sichuan University? The graves of the people that died when Mao told the students to arm themselves and protect the revolution.

It was a bad and unnecessary thing. Whatever good was accomplished wasn't worth it. It destroyed the moral fiber of the communist officials. They went from being the genuine if misguided servants of the people to the corrupt officials of the 80's and 90's. Mao destroyed their faith in communism.

Also, none of the reviews said anything about if Gao talking about how bad the CR was for the minority areas of China. Which was a huge problem.

 

[ChairmanMeow]

He cites Chinese Internet posts and official Chinese statistics from the 1970s to prove that the CR was good for the peasants. Neither of those constitute reliable data.

He uses the general nostalgia for the past when faced by a fast changing present and pretends it's an accurate reflection of actual past conditions.

Well, I doubt if he really use nostalgia, I mean I can sense it a little but I never thought it would affect his overall attitude. I prefer this book rather than Jung Chang's is because he's book makes more sense than Jung Chang's. Whether he is a Maoist hack or not I have no idea, but he provided a novel thought which is not negligible.

EDIT: I read "the wild swan" before reading his book. The former I think it has many distortions but I can't recall it clearly.

 

[Porkman]

Speak not what you don’t understand. The KMTs were a failing mess that never would have truly reform under Chiang Sr, and Zhou failed his chance as the leader of the party. History do not leave room for maybes, and I know for a fact it was because of Mao’s life work that no child of China today know of true hunger or war, and No Parents in China Will Ever Be Forced To Smother Their Own INFANT CHILD in the corn fields to Hide From Japanese (true family story). Mao was the one that ended the Chaos that the KMTs never had the muscle or will to accomplish, and the bones left in his wake is but a small price (for China) for the proven greater good.

That is why the majority of Chinese, despite knowing full well of the horrors of the far left, still respects Mao to this day. He brought hope to the majority of people and at least laid the ground for the revival of the nation. Chiang’s lagacy is dying as we speak, and Zhou was not a war time leader that China needed back then up.

Why is Chiang responsible for a mother having to smother a child and not Mao?

(I would hold the Japanese responsible, personally)

(Also, even though this is after Mao.. Google "One child policy" and "female infanticide" The communists unfortunately caused many many Chinese people to smother their own children.)

Mao could end the chaos because he started the chaos. After the central plains war, China was largely united with the only major internal schism being the communists. Thanking Mao for ending the chaos in China is like thanking an arsonist when they finally stop setting fires... after they've stabbed the fire fighter.

Mao needed and thrived on chaos. He didn't have a use in peace time so he started the anti rights to campaign and the CR. He hated the idea that the Chinese state and Chinese people would move away from struggle to normal governing.

 

[ChairmanMeow]

You know what's under the swimming pool at Sichuan University? The graves of the people that died when Mao told the students to arm themselves and protect the revolution.

Could you please tell something with more details? I have never heard of that, which pool are you refering?