But then you can also recognize that the main forces (Taiwan) were massively weakened by the Japanese and had WW2 not happened then they wouldn’t have lost
Did you really just reply with an article that says
During World War II, popular support for the Communists increased. U.S. officials in China reported a dictatorial suppression of dissent in Nationalist-controlled areas. These undemocratic polices combined with wartime corruption made the Republic of China Government vulnerable to the Communist threat.
In response to me saying they wouldn’t have lost without WW2?
Looking at your comments in aggregate, you seem to be taking the position that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the end of a gun rather than the consent of the governed. Is that really a position you want to promote?
Me: “The KMT was corrupt , repressive, and did not have popular support on the mainland for some time before their retreat to Formosa.”
You: “But WW2 depleted their capacity to resist the Maoists militarily, so you can’t say they lost popular support!”
Me: “I fail to see how the former fact supports your latter assertion. Popular support for the Communist side is broadly attested.”
You: block quote supporting my point "See, you’re wrong! Your own source says the KMT was made vulnerable to the communists during WW2!
Me: “It seems to me like you’re valuing the WW2 military contributions of the Nationalists over the broad domestic support for revolution against them.”
You: “That’s not what I said, you’re being ignorant”
It’s not just the military toll as KMT worked to save China while Communist forces hid. The public opposition as per your link was because of the involvement of WW2. If Japan hadn’t invaded then public support wouldn’t have swayed
That isn’t in any person’s mind “because they couldn’t keep killing people”
But then you can also recognize that the main forces (Taiwan) were massively weakened by the Japanese and had WW2 not happened then they wouldn’t have lost
Not the will of the people
Dude, even the US State Department notes that the Communists had broad popular support against the repressive Nationalist government.
Did you really just reply with an article that says
In response to me saying they wouldn’t have lost without WW2?
Looking at your comments in aggregate, you seem to be taking the position that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the end of a gun rather than the consent of the governed. Is that really a position you want to promote?
How did you arrive at that?
Were you not aware of the civil war?
Me: “The KMT was corrupt , repressive, and did not have popular support on the mainland for some time before their retreat to Formosa.”
You: “But WW2 depleted their capacity to resist the Maoists militarily, so you can’t say they lost popular support!”
Me: “I fail to see how the former fact supports your latter assertion. Popular support for the Communist side is broadly attested.”
You: block quote supporting my point "See, you’re wrong! Your own source says the KMT was made vulnerable to the communists during WW2!
Me: “It seems to me like you’re valuing the WW2 military contributions of the Nationalists over the broad domestic support for revolution against them.”
You: “That’s not what I said, you’re being ignorant”
You are ignorant but as per your last
It’s not just the military toll as KMT worked to save China while Communist forces hid. The public opposition as per your link was because of the involvement of WW2. If Japan hadn’t invaded then public support wouldn’t have swayed
That isn’t in any person’s mind “because they couldn’t keep killing people”