There are two persistent questions in the Chinese revolution that are central to the understanding of modern China - 1.) did Japan fatally weakened the Guomindang or Nationalist by invading and 2.) did the Communists ultimately win the revolution or did the Nationalist simply lose it? Provide an answer to both these questions.
By Jiyo Montanez
Though Sun Yatsen, the founder of the Republic of China, promised a new republic for the people based on the three principles of the people (nationalism, democracy, and livelihood of the people) it failed to live up to it when Yuan Shikai came into power. The first legal president of the ROC, Yuan Shikai, attempted to revive monarchy in China. From the UMUC reading, I learned that by doing so he dismantled parliament, dissolved the Kuomintang Nationalist party, and re-drafted a new constitution that would make him emperor for life; as a result numerous provinces were declaring their independence and China was nearly divided into many new different independent countries (NA, 1987). After his death in 1916 various warlords were competing for control over Beijing. By then China was a politically fractured country with local areas being ruled by local landlords. The country hasn't been this fractured since the Warring States period. This began the new era known as the warlord era with the Kuomintang eventually achieving control over most of China until they were, however, challenged by the Chinese Communist Party. By 1928, Sun Yatsen's close ally Chiang Kai-Shek would become leader of the government of the ROC. From the readings I have discovered that there were multiple factors as to how the KMT got weakened.
Fearful, Chiang Kaishek, now head of the KMT, initiated an all out purge on communists. Mao Zedong, leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), made an escape from these purges with his fellow communists and conducted the "Long March", a very important part of history essential to the founding of modern China. "Forced to evacuate their camps and homes, Communist soldiers and government and party leaders and functionaries numbering about 100,000 (including only 35 women, the spouses of high leaders) set out on a circuitous retreat of some 12,500 kilometers through 11 provinces, 18 mountain ranges, and 24 rivers in southwest and northwest China" (Pike, 2016). They started from their base in Jiangxi making their way up north to Shaanxi where only a small number of people survived. By 1931 the KMT's competition for controlling China wasn't just the CCP and other warlords but the Japanese as well who started occupying Northern China establishing the puppet state of Manchukuo. This meant, according to John Pike's description in contribution to the events that took place in China's civil war, war for the KMT against Japan - so Chiang had to send his best troops to fight the Japanese (Pike, 2016).
To answer the first question, Japan did take some responsibility "weakening" the KMT, though they did do a lot of damage. In the face of fighting against Japanese aggression, both the KMT and CCP agreed on a truce to fight the Japanese together. However, both the KMT and CCP still clashed with each other trying to gain control of unoccupied territories not occupied by the Japanese. Though there was a "truce" the KMT still had their main priority of annihilating the CCP but also suffered significant losses when fighting the Japanese. In fact, each time they lose a battle to the Japanese their image of prestige among the population was lowered. With the KMT in charge of the government they also had to take responsibility for the losses caused by Japanese invasion. The invasion caused China's economy to totally collapse and industry fell apart, especially with the loss of Manchuria (Pike, 2016). They were also unfortunately plagued by corruption and caused tyranny to the people by the army which meant that they were losing support and loyalty from the masses of the people resulting in chaos. An academic article by Matthew Portwood and John Dunn stated that "Lawless- ness on that level served as an excuse for Japanese intervention, creating the Jinan Incident (May 3–11, 1928), where Japan sent troops to occupy the provincial capital and nearly started a full-scale war with the Guomindang. (Portwood, 2014)". Researching on an outside source, I discovered that one other act that the KMT did to diminish their public image was when their soldiers changed into civilian clothes when fighting the Japanese in Nanjing (Askew, 2004). Because of the Japanese invasion the KMT was weakened militarily leaving them exhausted, experienced an economic collapse, and lost support from the majority of people.
The second question leads me to a simple answer - the Communists ultimately won the revolution. In the face of the KMT's humiliation to its own people the CCP provided an alternative government to the masses by expanding their influence wherever they could (Pike, 2016). The CCP appealed to the people "through mass organizations, administrative reforms, and the land- and tax-reform measures favoring the peasants" (Pike, 2016). CCP was better at attracting support from the people (mostly peasants) by making sure that troops didn't pillage their lands (like nationalist troops have done) and giving peasants a greater voice in local government also by making intellectuals and other well off individuals go down into the countryside living like the peasants do in order to further educate them. The current nationalist government was very authoritarian in nature yet very fragile. According to Pike, Mao had the intellectuals "lead the masses by living and working with them, eating their food, and thinking their thoughts." (Pike, 2016). He also promised that he would grant peasants land if they were loyal to the CCP. This ultimately had the peasants, who Mao saw should be the cause of revolution, to start shifting their loyalty to the CCP. Also, the communists were simply just better at fighting the Japanese than the KMT because the CCP conducted guerrilla warfare by dressing as civilians then attacking. "The Red Army fostered an image of conducting guerrilla warfare in defense of the people. Communist troops adapted to changing wartime conditions and became a seasoned fighting force" (Pike, 2016).
Following Manchukuo coming into the sphere of Soviet influence after Japanese occupation, the communists were quick to come in and start using weapons left behind by the Japanese to use against the nationalists. When nationalist troops surrendered to the CCP they would be converted into fighting for the CCP. The KMT army was so exhausted after fighting the Japanese that there wasn't even a fight for Beijing and the CCP just walked in. Citizens were quick to trust the communists more than the nationalists "because of the rampant corruption in government and the accompanying political and economic chaos" (Pike, 2016). The nationalists had an army of over 2 million while the communists had just over 10,000 yet the communists emerged victorious. This was due to the overwhelming losses by the KMT due to the Japanese invasions from all directions - nationalist troops lost their morale and quite a number simply just quit fighting and switched into civilian clothes and hide within the civilian population to escape. Communist troops' morale were considerably higher and their use of guerrilla warfare proved successful against the Japanese. The KMT's defeat wasn't just caused due to military reasons but the Chinese people just knew that the KMT wasn't doing a good job due to the collapsing economy, abuse of troops to the civilians, and corruption in the government. The communists promised complete change therefore having the masses of the population shift their loyalty to the CCP which would eventually turn China from the Republic of China into the People's Republic of China.
Sources Cited:
NA. 1987. Republican China. UMUC Library. Web. <https://umuc.equella.ecollege.com/file/ed1693b4-b9c9-4ff5-94fb-601a7f10e261/1/RepublicanChina.pdf>
Pike, John. 2016. Chinese Civil War. Global Security. Web. <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-civil.htm> Portwood, Matthew R., Dunn, John P. 2014. A Tale of Two Warlords. Asia: Biographies and Personal Stories, Part I. Web. <http://aas2.asian-studies.org/EAA/EAA-Archives/19/3/1316.pdf> Askew, David. 2004. "New Research On The Nanjing Incident". USC US-China Institute. Web. <http://china.usc.edu/new-research-nanjing-incident>
RSS Feed
