"Reunification" would only be even in the realm of possibility of a correct term if the KMT took control of PRC territory. Since the CPC has never ruled Taiwan, it's nonsensical to say unify or reunify.

In any case that's impossible, the kmt government that once ruled is gone. It's been replaced by a government that held the name but is Democratic, and the KMT party has been losing power ever since then. The people have clearly decided to detach themselves from that way of doing things.

Furthermore, given the identities of the people in the PRC and Taiwan, any term involving "unify" is just engaging in cultural propaganda. The taiwanese identify as taiwanese, and lately as distinctly anti-chinese (binary oppositional development is an important sociological concept, see the difference between femininity and masculinity in many cultures, or, the French vs the English cultural identities), the PRC people identify as chinese, these cultures and preference for forms of governance are too different to "unify."

If one government rules both of these people anytime soon it will have been imperialism, plain and simple.

"China" died at the end of the Qing dynasty imo, since then it's just been a couple han supremacist governments weaponizing the term to leverage nationalist sentiment. There's no more Chinese nationalism in Taiwan so it won't work here anymore (despite even older taiwanese government officials blundering around with han supremacist presumptions even today). I think it's still working in the PRC and that's why they're allowed to do cultural genocide there without much pushback from their citizens.

Obviously the ROC did not control the mainland, since they were eventually forced to flee to Taiwan.

> Before that, Taiwan was part of the Qing empire before being invaded by the Japanese.

Anschluss is German reunification because Austria was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Ditto for the Sudetenland, and, well, why not the rest of Czechia, too.

* * *

Crimea had barely any Russians until the mid-19th century and no outright majority until the mid-20th.

Anyway, either we live in a civilised era where things like ethnic cleansing and genocide should be condemned, or we live in an era where it is 'bog standard to invade a place occupied by your co-ethnics'.

After WW2, ethnic Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Königsberg and Poles and Ukrainians were uprooted forcefully into the boundaries of their modern nation-states.

If wars of conquest on the basis of 'this place contains our people' become 'bog standard', the ethnic cleansing of post-WW2 Europe and the post-Soviet Balkans becomes the inevitable and logical conclusion.

> Crimea had barely any Russians until the mid-19th century and no outright majority until the mid-20th.

And it had considerably fewer Ukrainians[1]. The Ukrainian claim to Crimea is weaker than Russia's.

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ethnic_P...

And that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said; your claim was that Crimea was populated with Russians since Rurik, which is maybe true but extremely misleading because it constituted a percentage point or two at best. Bringing up the Ukrainian population accounts for nought unless you're suggesting expelling all the Slavs from Crimea and returning it to Tatar rule.

> The Ukrainian claim to Crimea is weaker than Russia's.

The Ukrainian claim to Crimea is stronger because they have a legal basis to its claim. If we return to a state of the world where claims to land are made on the basis of 'my group lives here, therefore it's ours', we will inevitably reap the consequences of post-war Europe.

On the same logic, Germany had a stronger claim to the Sudetenland than Czechoslovakia. But what did that get the Germans in the end? Complete expulsion from the Sudetenland.