Was China always destined to be supreme

>>1855708

China's edgy communist phase really slowed down their growth.

the reason for China's decline is that it became to large and stagnant and didn't have the competition aspect that Europe had, having much more divided countries

If Chinese leaders werent full fucking retard they'd be much better off.

>>1855726
This.
China nerfed itself in those years

>>1855708
they have never been a superpower, at most a regional power

>>1855726
yep

>>1855708
They had it too good for too long, ancient china had such an abundance of resources that they had no reason to explore or expand, even places like Formosa, Malaya, and to a lesser extent Indochina remained relatively untouched by China until it was too late, they never grew out of antiquity. This is why yuropoors were able to fuck the Qing so hard during 19th century, also like >>1855726 said Mao really held the country back for decades with economic retardation.

>>1855812

economically why did communism hurt China

because didn't communism lead to economic increase in the Soviet Union?

China was never really a superpower in the Western sense of the word. Most of Chinese history is characterized by domination from outside forces (see: the Mongols).

China has always been an agricultural population, with ~90% of its population working on farms throughout most of its history. It has also been extremely xenophobic. The Chinese believed strongly in their cultural supremacy and the Chinese emperors consistently believed that the mandate of heaven entitled them to be God king the entire planet. As a result, they were very slow to industrialize and develop international trade. Their skepticism of foreign dignitaries resulted in Britain prying open their markets during the Opium Wars, continued domination by Western capital, and being raped by an industrialized, imperial Japan.

Contrary to what most people ITT are saying, China may have arguably needed communism. It helped them acquire nuclear weapons and military hardware from the USSR, and lead to their quick industrialization. I think in 20-30 years we will see China emerge as a global superpower, as it continues to absorb billions of dollars of Western capital and increase its military presence in the south China sea. Just yesterday, the President of the Phillipines stated that he was forsaking his relationship with the US in favor of a closer one with the Chinese.

>>1855817
The economic increase in the Soviet Union was due to Stalin's campaign of industrialization, which can occur with or without socialism. Maoism on the other hand advocates "agrarian socialism", this is why the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward were less about economic growth and more about mass murder.

>>1855708
They've never had any imperial ambition right? That surely must be a factor.

>>1855862
Neither has the US outside of its revolution.

>>1855879
but it did, see philippines and spanish-american war followed by post ww2 ambitions

>>1855862
Oops, ignore my reply. Thought you said "benefactor." You right.

>>1855897
And how is China seizing Tibet not imperial ambition?

File: global-trade-routes-1400-1800.png (392KB, 919x540px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 919x540px

>>1855852
>Most of Chinese history is characterized by domination from outside forces
That's blatantly wrong though.
Also, the "cultural superiority" trend was a line of thought in anti-colonialist movements. It's widespread use is more modern than you think.

>>1855852
At various periods of time they were the most powerful nation on earth.
This obviously was not the case during the Opium Wars, but contrary to american education history does include more then the last 200 years.

>>1855852
I think they could have possibly gotten equipment from the USSR with out communism, as in the 1930's Stalin quietly preferred Chiang Kai-Shek be in charge of the country. This is because he believed that the CCP could likely not hold China together and it would inevitably come to be dominated by Japan; which Stalin was terrified of because it could possibly lead to mother Russia getting a fascist spit-roasting by the Germans and Japanease.

>>1855708
The issue I see with this is that modern China is a a combination of fraudulent economics, blatant intellectual theft, and cheap-ass labor. It doesn't seem stable enough for long-term world leadership.

>>1855903
I mean I guess we're maybe arguing semantics here but Tibet has been part of and not part of China on and off throughout history and it's a province which borders the nation so I'm not so sure that that's equivalent to claiming colonies long away that have no connection with your nation.

China wasn't the biggest power in the east, that title lies on Japan in my book, during their industrial boom during the Meiji era i think they really out did China in the name of a super power. Even though i do think China is getting larger as a whole and more of a power in the modern world

China cannot become king because the Chinese state tries as much as it can to be a Western state. Mao intentionally tried to kill Chinese culture. It's not like the ROC is better, they also don't really care for Chinese culture.
All the people in power in sinophone states try to make their states as Western as possible.

>>1856038
Wow, I sure made my post confusing.
What I meant to say was, no matter how powerful the PRC may become in the future, they'll always be in the interesting condition of trying to be Western, meaning they cannot become a cultural superpower.

>>1856050
They seem to be moving away from that now, There's a renewed interest in history in China.

>>1856076
That's neat. I think in the long term (hundreds of years) it's in humanity's best interests to have more than just western culture.

China has a very nice patch of temperate plains that has always been a major global population center, if anything we should be asking what went so horribly wrong. It is like travelling to another dimension and finding the US backwards and impoverished.

>>1856103

China really got fucked by the Manchu taking over.

Ming dynasty was on par with the West in a lot of ways and had no trouble adopting Western technology (such as their cannon designs) when they were better than their own.

Along come the Manchu in a moment of weakness and take over, then proceed to shit all over everything that made Ming great. They let the Ming irrigation system fall into disrepair, causing famines on a scale that China hadn't seen before, refuse to further develop their arms technology or adopt Western tech and generally act like total morons. Most of the Chinese didn't like their Manchu overlords either, but couldn't overthrow them. No wonder they even latched unto a failed bureaucrat claiming to be the brother of Jesus as long as he promised to overthrow the Manchu rulers.

Thanks to the terrible Manchu rule you've got events like the Opium Wars and the clusterfuck of warlords in the power vacuum when the Qing dynasty collapsed.

They're on a good path now, but Mao fucked their culture and wrecked their country, if Mao had died a few years earlier he'd be remembered as a great revolutionary and China would most likely be in a much better state.

There's been a resurgence in interest in traditional Chinese culture, but a lot of historical artifacts and buildings have been lost and cannot be recovered. I'm happy that they're rediscovering their history though.

>>1856253
I honestly wonder how China would've turned out if Chiang Kai-shek had maintained control after ww2. He was a dictator and I think his party had tyrannical tendencies, but he probably would've done a better job of modernization and wouldn't have tried to erode Chinese culture.
I've never been to Taiwan and can't say for sure how much better or worse it is than mainland China but maybe under Chiang there would've been fewer purges and overall less death. Though Chinag did try to purge all of the communists in 1927 and probably would have later tried to purge other groups so who knows?

>>1855708
>They were always the leading superpower right in the world
lol
What a ridiculous meme.

>>1856310
If the Nationalists kept sucking American dong like he did in WW2 China would probably be a lot better. Taiwan has a western style democracy and is one of the four Asian tigers, denoting a strong industrialized economy. It's a lot better than mainland China in those terms.

>>1856310

Chiang would most likely fuck the country as well. Besides being corrupt and not actually holding much power across China, he also thought you could modernize the city whilst ignoring the country side. The country was still under control by warlords who paid lipservice to Chiang but were otherwise fairly independent. After they would've beat the commies together the loose coalition of warlords would most likely fall apart and revert back to post-WW1 state.

People should really stop pointing at Taiwan and claim that's what China would be like. Taiwan was already a modern island when the Chinese Republic sought refuge there and it was only after the Chiangs are gone from the government that the place really picked up.

In short, I think both Mao and Chiang were shit leaders and the country would've needed someone like Deng much earlier.

>>1855708
How long until China breaks into a bunch of different nations?

>>1856461
Not likely, the han ethnicity has a firm grip on all the rest, in the state.

>>1856310
Chiang Kai-Shek was a corrupt fucker. American generals in WW2 hated him because he was so corrupt, and his cabinet so feckless. He didn't have the power he imagined he had.

From The Coldest Winter by David Halberstam, pp234-235

> The Communists were getting very little aid from the Russians... By contrast, the Nationalists had become ever more dependent on the Americans. **That they were turning over American made weapons to their enemies at what the Americans thought was an alarming rate did not seem to bother them.**... "[Chiang] is losing about 40 percent of his supplies to the enemy," [George] Marshall told [Wellington] Koo and added sardonically, **If the percentage should reach 50 percent he will have to decide whether it is wise to continue to supply his troops." Chiang Kei-shek, Mao would later comment laconically, "was our supply officer."

China was close to start a Industrial Revolution in the end of the XIII century, but they failed for different reasons, social and political.

>>1856461

Doubtful, they're living better now than they were 50 years ago. The old generation remembers starving in the 60s, their current lives are heaven compared to that, meanwhile the young generation got their iphones and other inane crap like the kids in the West to keep them occupied.

Besides, China is a mostly homogenous country and always strives for reunification anyway.

>>1856526

I've heard that before, but what actual proof is there that they were close to it?

Globalisation and the importing of food allows the Modern Chinese state to survive, take away trade and the people starve and famines occur

>>1856693
They invented eolic and hydraulic machines for industrial uses during the Song Dinasty, and started using carbon and Coque like a energy source in a intensive way. In 1078 They reached to produce up to 127 metric tons of iron per year. Sorry for my poor English, is not my native lenguaje

>>1856803
127 tons of iron a year is a lot less than the Romans were.

I think the real stumbling block for an Industrial Revolution was a Scientific Revolution, which would enable empirical engineering to be replaced with scientific engineering.

It's going to be hard to do "Industrial Revolution" without an Isaac Newton or Liebniz.

>>1856814


Well they start using iron before the Europeans and progress in another things like the gunpowder weapons, printing and enginery.the economic historian Robert Hartwell analyzed and determined that Chinese production of iron and coal in the twelfth century became equal to, or greater than, the production of iron and coal in England during the first phase of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth century. However, the China of the Song Dinasty did not transform the energy potential of coal into mechanical energy, something that did happen in the Industrial Revolution.

>>1856868
See, I wouldn't be surprised if medieval China had the ability to use coal energy.

What I'd be surprised is if they had the scientific knowledge base to turn coal energy into things like railroads or steamboats or electricity, or fertilizer.

Early Modern Europe had a huge amount of scientific knowledge that medieval China didn't.

>>1856882
Yeah, that’s right, they did not have the same “concept” of science or even philosophy that the Europeans did have.

>>1856868
>Chinese production of iron and coal in the twelfth century became equal to, or greater than, the production of iron and coal in England during the first phase of the Industrial Revolution
Would that really be enough for a country that is many times the size of England and presumably had a population that was many times the size too?

>>1855726
medieval china's isolationism was much worse for it than their communist phase.

>>1857196
Enough for an industrial revolution I mean.

>>1856019
You're a fucking retard with horrible reading comprehension

>>1855708
China never was a superpower. It was a regional power. Superpower only became possible with the advent of modern technology.

>>1856103
America has two oceans, weak neighbors, and wayyyyyy more arable land.

Not comparable

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2007x1433px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2007x1433px

>>1856310
>and wouldn't have tried to erode Chinese culture.

Ignorance of history on /his/. As usual

>>1856358
Wait. You're comparing an island nation of 3 million (in 1949) to an isolated disunified nation of 500 million (in 1949)?

>>1856310
>and wouldn't have tried to erode Chinese culture.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Culture_Movement

Guess the two important people that were inspired by this movement.

>>1857249
>en.m.wikipedia
>.m.
Phoneposter.

China economy strong. Building China economy, economy, for China, for China. *gong*

File: image.jpg (157KB, 1024x510px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1024x510px

>>1857321

>>1857350
China grows larger

Is there a more inept dynasty in all of history than the Qing?

>>1857196

I can’t really answer your question my friend, I must answer I just don’t know because maybe the technological advantage of China in that time was thanks to its high population and the size reached by China during that period, perhaps they failed to start an industrial revolution for social or political reasons, perhaps they were simply intended to failing to start an industrial revolution. I really I don’t Know. Sorry for my poor English again, is not my native language.

>>1856814
>127 tons of iron a year is a lot less than the Romans were.
Debunked meme. The Roman/Han estimate are derived differently.

>>1857391
Tell me more about that, please

File: chinagrowinglarger.png (33KB, 814x688px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 814x688px

>>1855708
>>1857362

>>1857370
English Stuarts?

>>1857402
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?733453-The-Rise-of-Ming-and-the-Conquest-of-China

post #18

The way the estimates are derived are nowhere near compatible.

>>1855726
no

Communism was great for China, they stopped it before it got bad.

>>1857847
the great leap forward and cultural revolution would beg to differ

China is only powerful because they're deluded enough to believe they're all Han Chinese.

Emperor Qin wiped out nearly all ethnic trace of pre-Han Chinese. They have a sense of unity that Europeans will never have.

What are the odds of China imploding within a century?

>>1855879

what is the moon? :^)

>>1855708
China's becoming a superpower due to Ir's expansionism in the Philippines and the South Chinese Sea.

>>1855879
Cuba/ Philippines/ Puerto Rico, Hawaii just to name a few.

File: 12th 5 year plan.png (16KB, 681x307px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 681x307px

This entire thread is fucking horrendous. I know for a fact that not a single poster here can read.


>>1855852
This is probably the least worst.

Two things not understood however. First that China was for a long time superior to the rest of the world on almost all factors, having a higher living standard than England well into the 19th century.

Second thing is that China had a subjugated past, while all the current world powers were developing China was under the thumb of Japan, Germany, Britain, France and Russia. Until liberation by the Communist Party China was still very much controlled by external forces. It only got Hong Kong back in 1997 for Christ's sake.

The period between 1950 and the onset of Deng wasn't some stupid dark ages, Mao and Enlai took upon themselves to industrialise the nation. Efforts that were built on when Deng came into power which has produced the China we see today, the worlds largest economy and still growing.

It did all of that without engaging in colonialism, consider that.

When the world bank says that poverty has reduced across the world substantially it's literally all down to the efforts of the Communist Party of China.

So what happened with China? It used to be king until foreigners began meddling, then when a good anti-imperialist movement developed the tides began to reverse.

In 2010 the Communist Party announced it's goals for 2020 was the first stage of socialism and to have doubled their GDP. It has been 6 years since then and they are actually completely on track.

File: og.png (17KB, 730x340px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 730x340px

>>1858399
...except for the fact that A) China is not Socialist, its an oligarchy, and B) China's growth rate has been consistently decreasing, and that is only based off the official numbers given by the Chinese government, so it could in fact be much lower.

Can someone thoroughly explain this "建極綏猷"?

Google translate was shit, didn't know where else to ask, and didn't want another thread.

>>1858440
As a person studying Chinese, I think it means 'to establish order, pacify schemes'.
Literally, to establish the ridgepole (figuratively: the order of the state, the highest principle[s]), pacify scheming.

>>1855862
Tibet, East Turkestan, and Inner Mongolia would like a word.

>>1858399
t. Chang

>>1857362
The fire Sinocises

>>1858513
Ah okay, thanks.

Although I am Chinese, I can't read; though I do find the language quite interesting. Too many characters to learn.

>>1858513
How about 正大光明?

I know 光明正大 means something along the line nothing to hide.

>>1855708
>They were always the leading
*cling* 5 cent have been added into your bank account

It was Allies's biggest mistake that they stopped Japanese soldiers from massacre all of the chinks.

>>1857362
fighting for China

>>1858413
>could
Is desu. China is the 200 pound gorilla with an 800 pound sticker on its forehead.

>>1858654
They both mean the same thing: 'Just and honourable', literally 'Upright/correct, big/great, illumination/radiance (figuratively: radiance as in the glory of a Buddha, openheartedness).

>>1859035
光明 also means 'bright prospects', so I think what's being gotten at is a good future created by a person's uprightness.

>>1858642
I enjoy it :)

>>1858413
lel, suck a fat dick nothing you said contradicts anything i did

how desperate and afraid can americans be

>>1858399
>The period between 1950 and the onset of Deng wasn't some stupid dark ages, Mao and Enlai took upon themselves to industrialise the nation.

Any credit for achievements between 1949 and Reform and Opening Up should go to Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, Deng, and literally any other leader besides Mao and his stoogies like Lin Biao. While other leaders were trying to run a country, Mao did nothing but launch "mass movements" which kept disrupting any progress which was being made. Mao was a brilliant guerilla leader, but he knew jack shit about actually running a country.

>>1859412
>how desperate and afraid can americans be

And how delusional can Chinese be to believe they'll have high GDP growth forever and will never have a recession?