Was a Nationalist victory feasible in the War against the Communists?
The Nationalists enjoyed sizable advantages over the Communists in military resources and technology early on in the civil war. The Communists, on the other hand, enjoyed popular support due to being perceived as new, less corrupt, and trendier than the Nationalists.
If the Nationalists had been a much less corrupt organization, and also utilized their superior military forces more effectively, they could very well have crushed the Communists in several decisive battles that would have turned the tide.
Before 1937 the Nationalists were immensely superior - even with all the deficits. The fight against Japan drew too much of their strength while the weaknesses remained. After 1945 the communists enjoed much more soviuet support and could operate out of the "secure fortress" of Manchuria. But even the if the NAtionalists decide to contain the ommunits instead of attacking them a Nationalistz Mainland China is possible - but only as a 2 nations solution (Manchuria a Communist state)
Yes of course, however as several posters have alluded to they require a number of issues to be attended to.
Get rid of Chiang early on, and have the KMT be not quite to corrupt and incompetent.
Or not have Marshall pulling Chiang's legs when he was winning?
Well that was really dumb, what was the rationale behind that?
Complete victory? IMO, no. All the instances where Chiang was supposedly "on the verge" of wiping out the CCP--and never succeeded in doing so--make me skeptical.
What Chiang *might* have accomplished with US aid would be to hold control of China south of, say, the Great Wall. Instead of sending large numbers of troops to Manchuria, where they became bogged down and overextended, Chiang should (with US aid) have sought to consolidate his rule south of the Great Wall and introduce a broad program of reforms there, as Wedemeyer urged. The huge expense of the Manchurian campaign mandated impossibly high taxes and requisitions from the peasants, and when these failed, the regime resorted to finance by hyperinflation, which made things worse...
That seems interesting and insightful. I would be very pleased if you could elaborate on your thoughts.
If Chiang had avoided the Manchurian campaign, could the regime have reformed?
I think that the Soviets were probably in a much better position and more motivated to supply and support the Communists than the United States was to maintain the Nationalists. I can be proven wrong on this, but that would be one of my guesses.
The big big problem is how do you make the Nationalists a 'much less corrupt' organization. That's kind of a world wide, history wide problem. Once corruption takes deep root, it seems impossible to get rid of, and a corrupt apparatus or organization will preserve its corruption even at the cost of its own survival.
Was a Nationalist victory feasible in the War against the Communists?