3 ms·

The 'winners' of WWII were given priority in the UN, and the exiled government of Taiwan represented the whole of China. The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was

by RC_ITR 3y ago

The 'winners' of WWII were given priority in the UN, and the exiled government of Taiwan represented the whole of China. The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was 'Major power on the winning side of WWII.' Many more people fought for the Allies in China than those that left for Taiwan.

godelski 3y ago
> The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was 'Major power on the winning side of WWII.' Both matter, but more importantly, both are highly correlated. But you're right that GDP is being used as a proxy for a much larger picture that is much more difficult to quantify. My point is really that at the time China was in a downturn and deeply unstable as it was remaking itself. That at that time they had no business being a major player and would be at least as silly were Canada to make a similar complaint.
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  Again, Taiwan, a much smaller entity was given that power on behalf of China. Everyone agreed China should be a major player, the West just chose a government in exile to represent them. In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't? I encourage you to study WWII a bit deeper if you think China was merely a peripheral player. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
  - godelski 3y ago
    > In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't? Yes, because 1) Taiwan sided with the major powers (democracy/West) and 2) one could make compelling arguments that Taiwan was more stable. Obviously there is more to this. And my take is far from being centered around GDP. I specifically mentioned that I was using it as a proxy for a larger evaluation that was happening. I do not feel compelled to make this explicit a third time. You're going to have to read more than the first paragraph of my first comment to make a meaningful response, especially when your reference to the Second Sino-Japanese War adds to my comment, not detracts. I was just focusing on a different period. It is not a productive conversation is you ignore 80% of my claim.
    - RC_ITR 3y ago
      I think my trouble is a lack of consistency. 1) The major powers were not all Western and Democratic (as you admit). 2) Stability is not a sufficient condition. Being a representative of the country that won WWII is. You brought in GDP, I'm just telling you that's completely irrelevant. China (as one entity) won WWII and the majority of Chinese people and GDP still existing in Mainland China after the PRC/ROC split. 3) I understand the logic as to why people in the 50's chose ROC over PRC, but I am just trying to tell you that the PRC does not agree with that logic as is their right as a sovereign nation. Maybe where we disagree is that you assume all people who fought for the ROC in WWII fled to Taiwan (and therefore the people living in the PRC had nothing to do with winning WWII?). FWIW that is not true.

by RC_ITR 3y ago

godelski 3y ago

> The criteria was not 'Big GDP,' it was 'Major power on the winning side of WWII.' Both matter, but more importantly, both are highly correlated. But you're right that GDP is being used as a proxy for a much larger picture that is much more difficult to quantify. My point is really that at the time China was in a downturn and deeply unstable as it was remaking itself. That at that time they had no business being a major player and would be at least as silly were Canada to make a similar complaint.

RC_ITR 3y ago
Again, Taiwan, a much smaller entity was given that power on behalf of China. Everyone agreed China should be a major player, the West just chose a government in exile to represent them. In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't? I encourage you to study WWII a bit deeper if you think China was merely a peripheral player. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
- godelski 3y ago
  > In your argument around GDP and influence, it makes sense that the <50mn people in Taiwan got a Security Council vote, but the 500mn people in PRC didn't? Yes, because 1) Taiwan sided with the major powers (democracy/West) and 2) one could make compelling arguments that Taiwan was more stable. Obviously there is more to this. And my take is far from being centered around GDP. I specifically mentioned that I was using it as a proxy for a larger evaluation that was happening. I do not feel compelled to make this explicit a third time. You're going to have to read more than the first paragraph of my first comment to make a meaningful response, especially when your reference to the Second Sino-Japanese War adds to my comment, not detracts. I was just focusing on a different period. It is not a productive conversation is you ignore 80% of my claim.
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    I think my trouble is a lack of consistency. 1) The major powers were not all Western and Democratic (as you admit). 2) Stability is not a sufficient condition. Being a representative of the country that won WWII is. You brought in GDP, I'm just telling you that's completely irrelevant. China (as one entity) won WWII and the majority of Chinese people and GDP still existing in Mainland China after the PRC/ROC split. 3) I understand the logic as to why people in the 50's chose ROC over PRC, but I am just trying to tell you that the PRC does not agree with that logic as is their right as a sovereign nation. Maybe where we disagree is that you assume all people who fought for the ROC in WWII fled to Taiwan (and therefore the people living in the PRC had nothing to do with winning WWII?). FWIW that is not true.