|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: bm2617bm2617 Date: Dec 1, 2007 07:16
Greetings and salutations.
The Long March does not go as well as OTL, and Mao and a fair bit of
the Communist leadership dies en route. This does not wipe out the
Communists entirely, but it does weaken them organizationally enough
that although they profit from the Japanese invasion, they are unable
to fully capitalize on the circumstances at the end of the war.
1945-1949 goes differently, and although the Communists make a pretty
fair effort at takeover, they ultimately are defeated by Guomindang
forces. Although full pacification of some parts of the country will
continue through the 50's, by the time the USSR detonates its first
atom bomb, Chiang feels he has the situation well in hand.
Stalin, who didn't really expect anything different OTL, is not
particularly put out: he doesn't really consider Chiang a threat,
after all. (Except in the sense that being Stalin, he considers every
human being over the age of two a potential threat. But a man's gotta
prioritize). As OTL, the Soviets leave Manchuria.
|
| Show full article (4.50Kb) |
|
| | 9 Comments |
|
|
Author: David TennerDavid Tenner Date: Dec 1, 2007 10:23
> Greetings and salutations.
>
> The Long March does not go as well as OTL, and Mao and a fair bit of
> the Communist leadership dies en route. This does not wipe out the
> Communists entirely, but it does weaken them organizationally enough
> that although they profit from the Japanese invasion, they are unable
> to fully capitalize on the circumstances at the end of the war.
>
> 1945-1949 goes differently, and although the Communists make a pretty
> fair effort at takeover, they ultimately are defeated by Guomindang
> forces.
|
| Show full article (6.89Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: eatfastnoodleeatfastnoodle Date: Dec 1, 2007 19:55
> So, what happens to Tibet? For one thing, the local political system
> is going to be dismantled: although the Guomindang does not possess
> the onus against organized religion that the Maoists possess, it's a
> consciously modernizing state, and isn't going to put up with a
> autonomous feudal society existing within the borders of it's state.
> So the monastaries lose their serfs, the (from what I understand,
> rather wierd) Tibetan legal system is replaced by a Chinese (and
> probably richly corrupt, knowing the Guomindang of the time)
> framework, and the Dalai Lama is reduced to the position of the Pope
> in post-unification Italy, a virtual prisoner in his palace.
Influence wise, Dalai Lama can not be compared to the Pope in any real
sense, he was and is big in Tibet, so you can say he is the Pope of
Tibet, a country/province/land, whatever you may call it, with less
than 2 million people, hardly comparable to the highest Catholic
authority with more than 1 billion followers. He has practically nil
influence within China proper.
|
| Show full article (2.98Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Matt GiwerMatt Giwer Date: Dec 2, 2007 00:50
eatfastnoodle wrote:
>> So, what happens to Tibet? For one thing, the local political system
>> is going to be dismantled: although the Guomindang does not possess
>> the onus against organized religion that the Maoists possess, it's a
>> consciously modernizing state, and isn't going to put up with a
>> autonomous feudal society existing within the borders of it's state.
>> So the monastaries lose their serfs, the (from what I understand,
>> rather wierd) Tibetan legal system is replaced by a Chinese (and
>> probably richly corrupt, knowing the Guomindang of the time)
>> framework, and the Dalai Lama is reduced to the position of the Pope
>> in post-unification Italy, a virtual prisoner in his palace.
> Influence wise, Dalai Lama can not be compared to the Pope in any real
> sense, he was and is big in Tibet, so you can say he is the Pope of
> Tibet, a country/province/land, whatever you may call it, with less
> than 2 million people, hardly comparable to the highest Catholic
> authority with more than 1 billion followers. He has practically nil
> influence within China proper.
|
| Show full article (1.41Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bm2617bm2617 Date: Dec 2, 2007 04:45
On Dec 1, 2:56 pm, Old Toby earthlink.net> wrote:
> Very doubtful. OTL, this happened as China was burning its bridges
> with Russia, and wanted to establish that it was a big dog that
> could stand on its own. ATL, China will want to keep the Russians...
|
| Show full article (1.24Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bm2617bm2617 Date: Dec 2, 2007 04:51
On Dec 1, 11:55 am, eatfastnoodle gmail.com> wrote:
> China is always an secular society, even if China were as religious as
> Thailand with Buddhism as the dominant religion, Buddhism is not a
> unified religious, the sect Dalai Lama leads is only a sub-sect of
> one of eight major sects existed in China, and Dalai Lama can hardly
> be considered a figure with serious influence, religious or otherwise,
> inside China itself, it's like calling Iranian Mullahs a big influence
> on Saudi Arabia religiously, or claiming Pope having big religious
> influence in Russia. Comparison between Pope and Dalai Lama is
> complete BS produced and willingly accepted by Westerners.
Don't get all riled up - I'm aware the Lama isn't a Buddhist "pope", I
was just making an analogy. It was just my impression that given the
often fairly eclectic approach to religion in China, you don't get the
kind of doctrinal hostility between the local different variants on
Bhuddism that you do between, say, Shi'a and Sunni, and that the Lama
commanded a fair amount of spiritual respect among non-Tibetans. If he
is in fact considered a foul heretic among most Chinese Bhuddists,
feel free to correct me...
Bruce
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: eatfastnoodleeatfastnoodle Date: Dec 2, 2007 06:25
> On Dec 1, 11:55 am, eatfastnoodle gmail.com> wrote:
>>> China is always an secular society, even if China were as religious as
>> Thailand with Buddhism as the dominant religion, Buddhism is not a
>> unified religious, the sect Dalai Lama leads is only a sub-sect of
>> one of eight major sects existed in China, and Dalai Lama can hardly
>> be considered a figure with serious influence, religious or otherwise,
>> inside China itself, it's like calling Iranian Mullahs a big influence
>> on Saudi Arabia religiously, or claiming Pope having big religious
>> influence in Russia. Comparison between Pope and Dalai Lama is
>> complete BS produced and willingly accepted by Westerners.
>
> Don't get all riled up - I'm aware the Lama isn't a Buddhist "pope", I
> was just making an analogy. It was just my impression that given the
> often fairly eclectic approach to religion in China, you don't get the
> kind of doctrinal hostility between the local different variants on
> Bhuddism that you do between, say, Shi'a and Sunni, and that the Lama
> commanded a fair amount of spiritual respect among non-Tibetans. If he
> is in fact considered a foul heretic among most Chinese Bhuddists, ...
|
| Show full article (3.44Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: eatfastnoodleeatfastnoodle Date: Dec 2, 2007 06:32
> On Dec 1, 11:55 am, eatfastnoodle gmail.com> wrote:
>>> China is always an secular society, even if China were as religious as
>> Thailand with Buddhism as the dominant religion, Buddhism is not a
>> unified religious, the sect Dalai Lama leads is only a sub-sect of
>> one of eight major sects existed in China, and Dalai Lama can hardly
>> be considered a figure with serious influence, religious or otherwise,
>> inside China itself, it's like calling Iranian Mullahs a big influence
>> on Saudi Arabia religiously, or claiming Pope having big religious
>> influence in Russia. Comparison between Pope and Dalai Lama is
>> complete BS produced and willingly accepted by Westerners.
>
> Don't get all riled up - I'm aware the Lama isn't a Buddhist "pope", I
> was just making an analogy. It was just my impression that given the
> often fairly eclectic approach to religion in China, you don't get the
> kind of doctrinal hostility between the local different variants on
> Bhuddism that you do between, say, Shi'a and Sunni, and that the Lama
> commanded a fair amount of spiritual respect among non-Tibetans. If he
> is in fact considered a foul heretic among most Chinese Bhuddists, ...
|
| Show full article (1.56Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Old TobyOld Toby Date: Dec 2, 2007 18:23
> I dunno about the Sikkim area dispute, but it was my understanding
> that the quarrels over the area east of Kashmir was a dispute about
> lines on the map - the Indians were claiming a border based on British
> maps, although there were no "facts on the ground" (it was an
> essentially uninhabited region, IIRC, with no Indian government
> presence) and being rather stubborn about the matter.
Who's being stubborn? The guy who points to a line on the map and says
"this is the border, and we won't budge an inch"? Or the guy who points
to another line and says "no, this is the border, and if you don't agree
there will be war"? The world has thousands of miles of disputed or
undemarcated borders, but the normal course of business is for the
two sides to stick to their guns and make occasional bellicose
statements, while quietly tolerating the status quo. China itself
has disputed borders with almost all of its neighbors, yet it rarely
lets them flare into even border clashes (although China would have
a bad track record in the 1960s and 70s, not just with India, but
with the Soviets and Vietnam).
|
| Show full article (1.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: bm2617bm2617 Date: Dec 2, 2007 19:51
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
