Upvote:3
The quote refer to here is a historical stereotype. This makes this question unanswerable.
The professional study of history makes these situations very clear. Stereotyping based on subjective arguments, personal feelings and generalizations is unprofessional. But wait, there is more. In my interpretation, the correct question for you to ask would be:
"How many times in history a government got the population complete acquiescence (to the government policies)?"
This takes out the problematic 'moral character', which is a term that originated in the Romanticism and guess what, it's not a scientific term. Then, let's try to answer the question.
It is the case for this in China? It is known that there was a feeling of "social peace" in the latter years of imperial China, before the century of humiliations started to cause major social upheavals. Yet, the Γffentlichkeit (publich sphere) feeling of political appeas*m*nt in late imperial China, gives no proof for the quote to be true. The quote is a simple, non-informed stereotyped generalization made by a foreigner.
In the year 1804, there was in China, at least, a major revolt (Lotus revolt), and I'm sure many minor ones too. I'm sure Chinese experts can explain more and better than me.
The assumptions you make on the Nazi, Soviet, Maoist, and Korean historical contexts are perilously wrong. Historians strugle to teach the inherent diversity and nuances on events of the past, even the most extreme ones. You feel those historical contextes are related to the chinese one only because you have a stereotyped understanding about them. This is only because the wording of the quotation is heavily stereotyping. No historian would say nazi or soviet gov's opinions "swayed" people's "moral sentiments and actions" ever. Nazis and soviets openly used direct, heavy and constant, modern repression tactics upon their populations, which is clearly not the case for 19th century China.