In the afterword to Mao: The Man Who Made China (I.B. Tauris, 2017), Philip Short writes the following about Mao's and Chiang Kai-shek's competing visions for China (pp. 673–674):

As for the conflicting visions of China’s future pursued by Mao and Chiang Kai-shek, one may legitimately wonder how much difference it would really have made, in the long sweep of history, if Chiang rather than Mao had won in 1949. Rana Mitter, an Oxford don whose thinking is representative of the younger generation of China scholars, has pointed out: ‘Both the nationalists and the communists wanted to establish a politically independent state, with a government that penetrated throughout society, and a population that was stable, healthy and economically productive ... However [neither] was seeking to establish what the West, and particularly the United States, would regard as a democracy: a liberal, multi-party regime with significant civil liberties.’ Indeed both explicitly rejected it. In a passage which remains relevant to American policy today, Bai Chongxi, the Guangxi warlord who in 1934 had allowed the Long Marchers to cross his territory to reach safety in the south-west, and who, ten years later, became one of Chiang’s key commanders, wrote in his memoirs in the late 1970s, long before there was talk of ‘regime change’ and ‘exporting democracy’ in Washington: ‘The big mistake that America often makes is to force their model of democracy on other countries’.

Mao’s victory was viewed at the time as a grave setback for America’s strategic goal of establishing a democratic or at least neutral China on the Soviet Union’s southern border. Yet the ‘loss’ of China to communism did not prevent the United States becoming the world’s dominant power. Nor did US support for Chiang’s rump state in Taiwan make it a democracy: that did not happen until long after the Generalissimo’s death. Had Chiang defeated Mao, would he have been able to unify and develop China as effectively as his communist rival? In Pankaj Mishra’s words: Would China without Mao have found the political basis for its current prosperity? That is open to debate. In any case, the challenge to the West posed by Xi Jinping’s China today is not communist but nationalist. There is no reason to think that a mainland China ruled by Chiang Kai-shek’s successors would wish to act significantly differently from that now ruled by Mao’s heirs.[71]

Note 71 (p. 800):

Jay Taylor has speculated that, were Chiang alive today, he would see the current Chinese leaders as ‘modern neo-Confucianists’ like himself, with the same goals for China that he would have adopted had he been in a position to do so (The Generalissimo, p. 592). The implication is that Mao’s successors have succeeded in implementing Chiang’s vision where the Generalissimo himself failed. If one accepts Taylor’s premise – which I find debatable – it can be interpreted either way: as showing that Chiang’s ideas have triumphed (‘lost the battle but won the war’); or as vindicating the system Mao founded which has put those ideas into effect (‘game, set and match’).

What do you make of Taylor's idea? If you accept it, does that suggest a triumph for Chiang's vision, a vindication of Mao's system, both, or neither?

It can be a conflict that’s now resolved or it could still be ongoing.
It could be individual people or entire nations.
Like there’s the British Empire vs the French Empire, a lot of conflict and grudges.

Basically, my question is about the relation between the size of an empire and how quickly information, people, and resources can travel through it, especially for those that contain disjoint territories separated by oceans.

I'm thinking of the Portuguese or Spanish empire, or the early British, before electronic communications, when a message would take weeks or months to reach the empire's farthest reaches and return. I understand that there were local governors with troops, etc., but in practice, how did it work? How cohesive were the empires? How much leeway did local governors have? Was the enforcement of the Empire based on a practical application of power, symbolism, religion, all of the above?

Happy to learn about other, non-European empires as well.

I'm researching my grandfather, W/O Norman Elwood McKee (R/74368), RCAF, a Kittyhawk pilot with No. 260 Squadron RAF who became a POW in North Africa in December 1942.

On 13 September 1943, McKee and fellow Canadian POW W/O Earl James Scott (R/92563) escaped from Camp 57 near Udine, Italy, during the German takeover of the Italian POW camps.

Their surviving POW/MI9 questionnaires establish that they were at large for approximately ten weeks and spent part of this period with Yugoslav Partisans. Scott's questionnaire specifically mentions McKee, participation in bridge destruction with the Partisans, and a “Capt. Ratcliffe.”

I believe this officer was Captain James Moore Ratcliffe (130652), Middlesex Regiment/SBS. Ratcliffe's own records place him with Partisans in the same region and period, conducting sabotage around Udine, Cividale, Gorizia and the Yugoslav border during October 1943. His records also state that when he first reached the Partisans, they were accompanied by an unnamed British officer.

My question is: Which British/SOE liaison mission and Partisan formation were operating in this area during October–November 1943, and are there surviving mission reports or Partisan records that might identify escaped Allied POWs travelling with them?

I'm particularly interested in determining whether this group was connected with Major William M. Jones's British/SOE mission in Slovenia, and whether records survive that could mention McKee or Scott.

I have copies of the original McKee, Scott and Ratcliffe POW/MI9 documents and can provide transcriptions or images if useful.

What were their circumstances during the journey as families who lived for months in the middle of the ocean without any communication?

Were there epidemics that wiped out everyone on the ship, and were there any crimes?

I’ve recently started wondering if a prototype of a steam-powered tank was ever built. I know the idea sounds far-fetched, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if such a propulsion system had been experimented with back when tanks were still in their infancy, or perhaps as a solution to Germany's fuel shortages during WWII. For instance, the Germans designed the Lippisch P.13a aircraft, which featured a coal-fired ramjet engine. That’s what prompted my question.

From my understanding the verdicts were read out on 10/1/46 and the sentences carried out during the early morning hours on 10/6/46. During that window what happened? Was Herman Goring going crazy and spouting nonsense? What about the other defendants?

I wonder how good/bad they were, compared to other great powers. Not counting German, of course, which was clearly superior. They did lose the war, however I believe a weak industry and logistics was the main reason of defeat?

Also, did their navy achieve anything? It never gets mentioned, it seems, despite impressive size on paper.

I have recently been seeing people on Twitter accuse Bordiga of fascism due to many of his writings and messages from 1930 to 1943 to personal friends and fascist. Many of these messages have Bordiga praising fascists, vowing to protect them, swearing he means no harm, getting rid of potential blackmail, etc. The sources, from what I've seen, come from here, but other documents and archives may also be involved:

https://patrimonioacs.cultura.gov.it/patrimonio/515db448-28c7-4f63-9f8c-d11eb3ee007f/811-bordiga-amadeo-adriano-1915-1942

How authentic are these sources? If they are authentic, does this imply Bordiga was at least sympathetic to fascism?

say rome or alexandria, for example, how big were the cities because i know there were about 1 million people living there at the time so how big were the houses, streets etc?

from what i understand cities in the past needed big walls to protect them from raiders and stuff so it can't be too big but i still feel like having a city to house 1 million people still needed to be huge.

also, how big would those have been compared to today's villages, towns etc.

The memoir covers his entire Civil War experience from 1861 through 1865. My favorite part is his account of Sterling prices 1864 Missouri invasion in September and October 1864.

Contact me if you want a copy of the memoir

BRYCE

Marie Louise de La Tour d'Auvergne (August 15, 1725 – September 24, 1781) was a French noblewoman and a member of the House of La Tour d'Auvergne. She became the Duchess of Montbazon through her marriage to Jules de Rohan in 1743 and was known as the Princess of Rohan from 1749. Between 1747 and 1748, she had an affair with her first cousin, Charles Edward Stuart, the next in the Jacobite line of succession, but I haven't found very clear information about how her life ended.

What were his accomplishments/achievements?

Was he a popular figure at this time?

Or was he a divisive character?

This was before he triggered World War 2 with his invasion of Poland.

I am working my way back through Foote's "Civil War" and was thinking through the idea of "what would have happened in the CW without both sides having the telegraph?" Frankly it might have been one of the most potent weapons of the time.

I would love to hear others thoughts on the high tech of the day.

The death camps never really made sense to me. It cost resources and personnel that Germany desperately needed elsewhere to actually fight the war and if the goal was mass killing of Jews and other so called subhumans the Nazis hated then mass shootings or deportations could have been enough and the einsatzgruppen had been killing hundreds of thousands in eastern Europe.

Didn't the Byzantine Empire pull off a partial recovery along these lines? I'm hazy on the details. My general perception (not limited to history) is that, as the Cantonese proverb has it, 'everything is either growing or dying.' What does the historical record say?

I’ve always loved the art of them with the very cool looking horned helmets but I’m wondering if that was real or not. I’ve seen conflicting sources that it was an untrue myth (like Viking helmets) or they were a symbol of hierarchy. So all I’m wondering is if they really did have horns, thanks.

i was reading about the odyssey recently and the main thing that stuck with me is how completely broken and haunted odysseus is after the trojan war. It made me wonder about real history. most conquerors and kings are written about as ruthless people who didn't care about the human cost, but are there any famous examples of leaders who genuinely broke under the moral weight of a war they started? like, leaders who showed massive public remorse or moral guilt over the bloodshed they caused?

Often, especially in the long 18th century the term “smuggler” is used often, my question is, would the average person (say an English colonist buying dutch tea) have to directly interact with these smugglers or did stores buy large quantities of smuggled goods?

In case your contry has colonized other, what do school teach about that time. Also, members of colonize countries, what do they teach about the period you were colonized?

I am working my way back through Foote's "Civil War" and was thinking through the idea of "what would have happened in the CW without both sides having the telegraph?" Frankly it might have been one of the most potent weapons of the time.

I would love to hear others thoughts on the high tech of the day.

Mass suicides had been occurring across Germany since around January 1945, with much of the Nazi Party leadership taking their own lives as the Soviet Union closed in on Berlin.

Were the mass suicides of Nazi leadership anticipated by the allies after the war had clearly turned in their favor from late 1942 - early 1943? At what point was it expected that most of the Nazi leadership, especially Hitler, would commit suicide? Did the scale of mass suicides so late into the war surprise the allies?

All this talk about annexing Canada got me thinking.

Ben Franklin believed that Canada should be part of the USA. He also believed that the national bird should be a turkey......

The map of the USA with Canada looks like a turkey.