One does not need to search very thoroughly to find mountains of work on the rise of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the revolution of 1949 or “miracle” economic growth on Taiwan after the Kuomintang (KMT or “Nationalists”) took power following its retreat from the mainland.

What is difficult is finding literature that treats the two incidents of 1949 as two sides of the same coin. Because Taiwan quickly became a market-oriented, pro-capitalist American ally, while China adopted socialist policies at home and revolutionary ones abroad, the idea of comparing the development of the two seemed somewhat pointless.

So, many studies of the two begin with 1949, as if the events preceding were the history of some third country. And yet, these decades paved the way for revolutions on both the mainland and on the island of Formosa. Indeed, there certainly was an island revolution. That revolution was primarily a socio-economic one. Later, democracy would bloom in Taiwan. Taiwan’s successful economy and eventually successful democracy made it one of Asia’s proudest success s

Thus, by 1928, Chiang and the KMT could claim to have accomplished their short-term goals of unifying the country (at least nominally), gaining domestic and international recognition of the KMT capital at Nanjing, and dismissing challenges to the Generalissamo’s leadership. On the face of it, the, the KMT seemed to have done fairly well in the 1920s, at least militarily.

This did not come without a price. In the spirit of his Northern Expedition, but far more effectively, Chiang sought to rid the KMT of officials thought to be left-leaning or threatening. Until real anti-corruption efforts were launched later, Chiang found himself balancing his relationship with old allies and native Taiwanese impatient with such officials Before he was willing to make any concessions to the natives on this issue, Chiang made sure they knew he was in charge. On February 28, 1947, KMT soldiers slaughtered at least 20,000 Taiwanese calling for the removal of corruption.

In answering many who have taken wildly different interpretations of the CCP’s victory, UCLA professor Philip C. Huang argues that, in the end, the class struggle was

A State Under Siege—No Option But Success

Despite the immediate victory, the Nationalist Army was not competent enough to finish the Reds off. Dubious loyalty, corruption, and inepitude all allowed the Red Army to fight another day.

The third significant drawback of the aforementioned theories is that it totally discards the role of the United States. US intervention in China in the early 1940s was part of the overall war effort in World War II, aimed at fighting fascism. The US, in fact, maintained ad hoc alliances with Communist forces in China and elsewhere. It was only in 1945 or 1946, depending on your take on events, that the United States began actively supporting the Nationalists against the Communists in China. Less than three years of solid support was probably not enough to stem the tide. However, long term support for the KMT on Taiwan probably helped hold the Communists at bay and allowed the ROC economy to grow.

Some topics in this essay:
China Taiwan, Kuo Liu, Furthermore KMT, Nationalist China, Imperial China, KMT CCP, Chiang KMT, Western Europe, KMT China, Northern Expedition, land reform, chiang kai-shek, china taiwan, red army, economic policies, cultural revolution, chinese people, kmt china, civil war, economic growth, chinese soviet republic, revolution “traditional” explanation, military leaders north, “crossing 1949 divide”, taiwan land reform,