当前位置: > www.loo888.com >

www.loo888.com

???人:若?介石??? 中?大不同 - kellygun20000

(中央社台北5日?)本期英?「???人」??指出,如果?年毛??的共???有打??介石??的?民?,?共??由??出,?今?洲情?或?截然不同。


「???人」(The Economist)本期「如果??」,以「?後中?,或者?的中?」(Post-war China, alternatively Chiang's China)???述?,若?年?共??是?介石??的??打?,之後的?洲情?、冷??模都可能截然不同。

文章指出,第二次世界大??束?,「?委??」率?的370?大?,??和日本?共??交?而兵困?疲,但?的?力依?比共??占上?,人????都??。??退出先前?日本手中接收的?州之後,?的???回?北,在?地接受??支持的共???逃。

但1946年,美??力避免?共全面??,因此?服?介石停?,?史可能就??一刻有了改?,www.0js0.com。???星期的停??毛??有了喘息??,得以靠著???助重振??。

?共停??定破裂後,?介石失去?州,最??掉??。之後多年,美?人、特?是右翼人士自?不已。

如果??可以避免毛??打??

中?大??去30年?人崛起,?共??得避免大??有毛???更富裕的?法:但若?有毛??,大?或?真的?更好。

?介石??的??退守台?,台?繁??展,毛???治的中?大???破?,直到?小平1970年代末期?放才有改?。倘若1950後大???成?步伐?台?相仿,大?2010年前的??生?毛?,?比????高42%。

文章?,?介石若未?掉??,?民?也得面??村?人的不?,但?式?裁可能比毛???厚,或?不?只因意?形?就???百?地主,不?有1950年代末期造成?千?人?死的「大??」。

?介石不?像毛??般消?私人企?,?迫?民把土地交?「人民公社」,以致?荒加速,?村?展至今仍深受其害,也不??大?陷入1960?1970年代的文化大革命??,?致?百?人遭到?害或??。

?介石?治下的大?,不?等30年才成?全球??的一份子。他必???保?中?大?市?,不受外???之?,就像台?等?洲???在??迅速起??期的作法,但他也?更快速放???限制。

若?介石打???,?洲的?略地??非常不同。他不?支持北?1950年侵略南?。若?有大??腰,金日成可能不?得到史?林支持。

但?介石身??定的民族主?者,若打???,他和日本的??必???。中日之?的?意可能使??安全局?更快?糟,?早於1990年代??成??域??源?之前。

若?介石打???,冷?可能?更?激烈。?不接受??控制蒙古,1960年代,毛??治下的大?在?界和??短???,若??政,那???的?模和血腥程度可能更甚。

但大?那?可能已成政治更民主的?家,畏?分?主?可能??民主?展,但中????比在共???治下更快速成?。

文章指出,?管?介石??的?民??制?治,大?仍?是美?盟邦,因此?洲不?像?在??,因?美、???老大哥地位而分裂,www.0js0.com,可能甚至?日本,都要?著和??富?的??共?。

http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201508050230-1.aspx

--

英??威??《???人(The Economist)》本期「如果??」刊文,以〈?後中?,如果是?介石的中?(Post-war China, alternatively Chiang's China)〉??,?述如果?共??由?民??出,今天的?洲情??有?大不同。
文章指出,?介石政府?然仍?有?腐、?裁的情形,但?氏?裁?比毛???厚柔?,他不?消?所有私人企?,或?迫?民把土地交?「人民公社」,造成大?荒,他也不太可能??激?的「文化大革命」,而?中?在比??定的?境中?展。以台???起?的速度?看,中??比??中早30年成?全球????,其2010年的GDP估??高出42%。
此外,www.0js0.com,?介石若在?共???出,他必然不????一起扶植北?,?它在1950年侵略南?,也就是北?政??胎死腹中。但相?地,中俄之?的?立??得激烈,?介石不?接受??控制蒙古,?方之?如果?生像「珍??事件」的?境?突,那??的?模和血腥程度恐怕比??中?烈地多。
而且在中日??方面,?民?政??日本??抱?深的仇恨心?,且因?台?回?中??土,日本的海洋???被控制住咽喉,有可能使??安全局?更快?糟,?早於1990年代?海成??域??源?之前。不?由於中日都是美?的盟友,因此??的?域情???在美?的管控之下,也不?像?在???生美、中??老大哥地位的情形。


原文?址: ???人:若?介石?得??,中?早30年成???? | ETtoday??新? | ETtoday 新?? http://www.ettoday.net/news/20150806/545845.htm#ixzz3qO8vEiEh

What if Mao Zedong’s Communist Party had lost the Chinese civil war to Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Party?

WHEN the second world war ended, the 3.7m-strong army of China’s leader, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, was badly weakened by its fight with the Japanese and a Communist insurgency. But it still had the upper hand against the Communists: superior by far in numbers and equipment. As Soviet forces withdrew from Manchuria in the north-east, which they had taken from the Japanese, Chiang’s forces surged forward to regain the territory. Chinese Communists in the area, who had hitherto been backed by the Russians, were shattered by the onslaught.

But in 1946 the Americans, anxious to prevent an all-out civil war between Chiang and the Communists’ leader, Mao Zedong, persuaded Chiang to stop fighting. It was a moment that may have changed history: the few weeks’ hiatus enabled Mao to replenish his forces with Soviet aid. When the truce broke down, Chiang lost Manchuria and eventually the civil war. Americans—particularly right-wingers—kicked themselves about it for many years afterwards. What if Mao’s victory had been avoided?

China’s spectacular rise in the past three decades has helped the Communists parry suggestions that the country would have been better off without Mao. But it may well have been. Chiang’s army fled to the island of Taiwan, which prospered. Mao’s China suffered economic ruin before Deng Xiaoping eventually began to turn its fortunes around in the late 1970s. Had China’s economy grown at the same pace as Taiwan’s since 1950, its GDP would have been 42% bigger by 2010 than it actually was. In other words, it might have achieved its growth miracle plus another one about the size of France’s economy.

Chiang would have remained in charge of a corrupt, autocratic government with a brutal secret police. His Nationalist Party, the Kuomintang (KMT), would have faced discontent among the rural poor who formed the bulwark of Mao’s forces. However, Chiang’s brand of authoritarianism may have proved a softer one than Mao’s. There would have been no killings of millions of landlords purely on ideological grounds, and no Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s, which caused a famine that killed tens of millions. Unlike Mao, he would not have wiped out private enterprise and forced peasants to surrender their land to “People’s Communes”, a policy that exacerbated the famine and that—though long since officially repudiated—still plagues the development of China’s countryside. Neither would Chiang have plunged China into the chaos of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, during which millions more were killed or persecuted.

Under Chiang, China would not have had to wait 30 years before becoming part of the global economy. To be sure, Chiang would have tried to protect China’s markets from foreign competition, just as Taiwan and other Asian economies did during their periods of rapid take-off. But he would have been quicker to relax such restrictions. Taiwan was ready for membership of the World Trade Organisation long before China joined in 2001.

Asia reimagined

The strategic map of Asia would have been very different had Chiang won the civil war. He would not have supported North Korea’s invasion of the South in 1950. Without China’s backing, Kim Il Sung would probably not have got Stalin’s support for such a venture either. Chiang would not have had a Taiwan problem: Mao’s rebels never had a foothold there.

But Chiang was an ardent nationalist. His relationship with Japan would have been fraught. Millions of Chinese had been killed during Japan’s occupation of China, with the KMT rather than Mao’s forces suffering by far the worst casualties. Animosities between China and Japan, which Mao did not appear eager to play up, might have bedevilled east Asian security long before they did emerge in the 1990s as a source of regional tension. Chiang’s domination of Taiwan as well as the mainland would have given him control over the shipping lanes on which the economy of Japan depends. America’s restraining hand in the region may still have been needed.

The cold war might have turned hotter too. Chiang did not accept the Soviet Union’s control of Mongolia. Under Mao, brief battles broke out on the Chinese-Soviet border in the 1960s. They might have turned bigger and bloodier under Chiang. The Chinese public, indoctrinated by the KMT into a belief that Mongolia was China’s, might have clamoured for their government to assert the claim more forcefully once the Soviet threat was gone.

But China by then may have become a more politically liberal country. Moves towards democracy would have been slowed by fears of secessionism, especially in Tibet and other ethnic-minority regions (many Taiwanese would have been chafing at the KMT’s rule; they had begun to even before Chiang fled to the island). But a middle class would have grown far sooner than it has under the Communists.

Despite the autocratic rule of Chiang’s KMT, China would have remained an ally of America. Asia would therefore not be riven as it is today by a struggle for supremacy between America and China. Perhaps even Japan would be learning to live with its powerful, rich neighbour.

Much of the tension that now plagues Asia relates to the nature of China’s Communist Party. Neighbouring countries worry about the way the party behaves: secretively, high-handedly and sometimes (at home at any rate) brutally. But all of them fear what might happen were the party now to follow the KMT’s path and liberalise. The KMT was voted out of power in Taiwan in 2000, before returning in 2008. It is likely to be voted out again next year. Few in Asia believe that the Communist Party could ever accept the vagaries of democratic politics. Its eventual demise might well involve bloody tumult; a return, even, to the chaos of the 1940s. The rest of Asia would prefer the devil it knows.

http://worldif.economist.com/article/16/what-if-mao-zedong%E2%80%99s-communist-party-had-lost-the-chinese-civil-war-to-chiang-kai-shek%E2%80%99s-nationalist-party