What if Nationalist China won the Chinese Civil War?

[yourworstnightmare]

If the Soviets allow the Commies to create a satellite in Manchuria then Chinese- Soviet relations would be very hostile. Not ideal for either of them, but very possible. For the Soviets it would be a question of pride, and the RoC was already pushed too much into America's lap for their taste. Chiang's days are counted though. He was useful as a symbol to keep Kuomintang alive OTL, TTL his independence would not go home well in Washington, so he'd probably be replaced by a more loyal general. China would probably be ruled by a Junta for quite some time. Of course there'd be no catastrophal Great Leap Backwards, but China would very much be a Police State. The Kuomintang would officially back a free market, but some nationalization of key industries would be allowed and tolerated by the West. To remedy loss in Chinese pride due to the loss of Manchuria, the West would look the other way when China invade Tibet. Only India and the USSR would be upset.

In time the Junta (which btw would probably be quite corrupt) would have to give in to the demand of reforms. "Democracy" would be introduced, but the rules would be clear. Kuomintang wins every election, opposition candidates will be harassed and even arrested. Thus Kuomintang keep their iron grip on the country. Corruption would be an enormous problem.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The implications for American politics alone would be fascinating -- here's a good thread on that..

Please note that I do not care about the PoD. Go crazy!

Well, just to throw out an idea anyway...

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

Hmm, I've always found that many people have a rather naive view of ole Generalissimo 15%.

I will say that I do think Mao was an utterly **** ruler. However he was a great guerrilla leader & consolidator. Those two traits were the reason he was ever able to get into a position to **** the PRC up so badly in the following decades, but it also gave his successors the chance to turn things around after he died.

Chiang never once displayed any equivalent ability, nor would he ever have been able to fully crush the Communist insurgency or regional strongman/warlords. In short China would remain a bloody mess with nothing approaching the PRC's stable central government.

I really do take serious issue with the idea Nationalist China could outperform the PRC. Given that the KMT had absolutely no post-WW2 staying power in it's own right, the only way Chiang "wins" the civil war is to have the NKVD bump off the leadership of the CCP for him. In that case the slippery old bastard would realize fully that if the USSR withdraws their patronage. His corrupt & feeble regime faces a renewal of most of its old problems.

Thus the ROC survives, but in the same fashion it did in the 1920s and 1930s: kissing up to the totalitarians. How the US McCarthyists would react to the "Red General" returning to his roots is a fascinating Cultural History concept, as their whole concept of "Losing China" would've just got torpedoed with extreme prejudice.

What? Mao certainly can't be called a "great" leader. If he had managed to eject the Japanese from Northeastern China, I could call him a great guerilla leader, but he didn't. Hiding out in Yan'an until the Japanese were defeated hardly suggests genius.

As for Jiang, he was relatively close in Jiangxi, and while the Long March is often overrated as well, it was definitely a harrowing experience. Alright, so maybe he never came close to Mao in terms of guerilla skills. Well, this is blatantly obvious, because Jiang was never a guerilla leader. Even with a post-1945 POD, there's no reason why Jiang can't crush the Communists and stay in power. As for the warlords, he did eliminate a decent number in the Northern Expedition, and given how the warlords are the only people in China with less credibility than the Nationalists, they can be crushed as well.

Knee-jerk hatred of Jiang is unproductive when it comes to counter-factual discussion.

 

[Clandango]

The Long March had Mao being carried in a cot as he drove most of the soldiers to their deaths, ending up with their being more officers than soldiers in the Red Army. The only Red officer to ever die in combat was someone he had knocked off. I was reading a book on Mao but stopped halfway through because I was too revolted to continue.

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

It should be probably noted that if Nationalist China wins the Civil War that would probably mean a major policy change had probably taken place.

 

[Clandango]

It should be probably noted that if Nationalist China wins the Civil War that would probably mean a major policy change had probably taken place.

Not really, they only lost because of Americans breaking their momentum time and time again. Mao was too busy trying to kill all the Chinese soldiers, his rivals, the peasantry, as well as getting the Japanese and Soviets to partition China.

 

[Uruk]

What? Mao certainly can't be called a "great" leader. If he had managed to eject the Japanese from Northeastern China, I could call him a great guerilla leader, but he didn't. Hiding out in Yan'an until the Japanese were defeated hardly suggests genius.

As for Jiang, he was relatively close in Jiangxi, and while the Long March is often overrated as well, it was definitely a harrowing experience. Alright, so maybe he never came close to Mao in terms of guerilla skills. Well, this is blatantly obvious, because Jiang was never a guerilla leader. Even with a post-1945 POD, there's no reason why Jiang can't crush the Communists and stay in power. As for the warlords, he did eliminate a decent number in the Northern Expedition, and given how the warlords are the only people in China with less credibility than the Nationalists, they can be crushed as well.

Knee-jerk hatred of Jiang is unproductive when it comes to counter-factual discussion.

The Northern Expedition AFAIK eliminated no Warlords unless you count as dressing them in a nice KMT uniform that, CKS was post 1945 in no way able to win the civil war unless there is a massive foreign intervention.
His policies of allowing landlords to collect retroactive rents in the areas occupied alone should keep the Chinese Red Army filled with eager recruits.

 

[Uruk]

Not really, they only lost because of Americans breaking their momentum time and time again. Mao was too busy trying to kill all the Chinese soldiers, his rivals, the peasantry, as well as getting the Japanese and Soviets to partition China.

Sound like an interesting alt history TL were have you posted it?

 

[Clandango]

Sound like an interesting alt history TL were have you posted it?

It is OTL.

 

[Blackfox5]

It is OTL.

I disagree that you can put the blame on Chiang losing the Civil War because of the USA. The ruinous inflation and degradign economy had nothing to do with the USA, and all had to do with what Chiang allowed to happen. Furthermore, the fiasco in Manchuria is almost entirely all Chiang's fault, and there was the seeds of the Communist's victory. The combination of incompetent generals kept in place because of their personal loyalty to Chiang, removing of competent generals because of their perceived disloyalty, and the infiltration of the KMT by CCP spies all lie with him.

Chiang's strategy in destroying the CCP was extremely flawed. He thought he was still dealing with "red bandits" isolated from the general population instead of an opponent who made deep propganda inroads with the population, who had a strong ideological cadre, and had benefited from Soviet aide and captured supplies. I tend to give Chiang more credit than popular history gives him, but there is no doubt he made severe mistakes in the postwar period. That is what doomed him, not Marshall asking for a ceasefire.

 

[Clandango]

I disagree that you can put the blame on Chiang losing the Civil War because of the USA. The ruinous inflation and degradign economy had nothing to do with the USA, and all had to do with what Chiang allowed to happen. Furthermore, the fiasco in Manchuria is almost entirely all Chiang's fault, and there was the seeds of the Communist's victory. The combination of incompetent generals kept in place because of their personal loyalty to Chiang, removing of competent generals because of their perceived disloyalty, and the infiltration of the KMT by CCP spies all lie with him.

Chiang's strategy in destroying the CCP was extremely flawed. He thought he was still dealing with "red bandits" isolated from the general population instead of an opponent who made deep propganda inroads with the population, who had a strong ideological cadre, and had benefited from Soviet aide and captured supplies. I tend to give Chiang more credit than popular history gives him, but there is no doubt he made severe mistakes in the postwar period. That is what doomed him, not Marshall asking for a ceasefire.

I should have been clearer. The United States had put pressure on the Nationalists to wait for a cease fire which allowed Mao to regear and conquer China. Chiang was also to blame as he had often supported the Communists to attempt to get Russian aid, as well as his son back, who the Soviets had been keeping hostage much as they did with the children of others. He personally told his generals to leave Mao's group alone for the Long March and other incidences, as well as keeping quite about the many attacks by Mao on his troops during WWII.

 

[Uruk]

Considering that the KMT broke the anti-Japanese Front by attacking the New 4th Route Army its hardly surprising that the CCP began attacking the KMT.

Can you give any examples on how CKS supported the Communist to get Soviet aid? The Soviets would have supported the KMT against Japan regardless of what happened to the local communists. The fact that Stalin had such a low opinion of the CCP leadership even in 1945 that he ordered/advised them to create a coalition government with the KMT speaks for itself

 

[Clandango]

Considering that the KMT broke the anti-Japanese Front by attacking the New 4th Route Army its hardly surprising that the CCP began attacking the KMT.

Can you give any examples on how CKS supported the Communist to get Soviet aid? The Soviets would have supported the KMT against Japan regardless of what happened to the local communists. The fact that Stalin had such a low opinion of the CCP leadership even in 1945 that he ordered/advised them to create a coalition government with the KMT speaks for itself

The KMT had been keeping secret the attacks on them so as to not reveal their depleted forces to the Japanese or to look bad infront of the Russians. They had been after military intelligence, the Generalissimo's son, and support in unifying the country. In exchange they let the Communists exist, allowed them to move to a region they got free rein of, released communist prisoners, gave them money and arms... It varied from time to time.

 

[rcduggan]

The Long March had Mao being carried in a cot as he drove most of the soldiers to their deaths, ending up with their being more officers than soldiers in the Red Army. The only Red officer to ever die in combat was someone he had knocked off. I was reading a book on Mao but stopped halfway through because I was too revolted to continue.

What book is this? I've read firsthand accounts of the Long March, as well as Edgar Snow's Red Star Over China, which includes extensive anecdotes about the Long March and interviews with Mao himself, none of which indicate that any of your posts in this thread have any grounding in our reality.

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

The Northern Expedition AFAIK eliminated no Warlords unless you count as dressing them in a nice KMT uniform that, CKS was post 1945 in no way able to win the civil war unless there is a massive foreign intervention.
His policies of allowing landlords to collect retroactive rents in the areas occupied alone should keep the Chinese Red Army filled with eager recruits.

As far as I know? Have you read anything on the Northern Expedition? The main targets of the Nationalists, Wu Peifu, Sun Chuanfang, and Zhang Zuolin, were defeated and eliminated, though Zhang managed to secure a base in Manchuria after he left the rest of northern China.

You might be talking about the Central Plains War, which is completely different.

 

[Clandango]

What book is this? I've read firsthand accounts of the Long March, as well as Edgar Snow's Red Star Over China, which includes extensive anecdotes about the Long March and interviews with Mao himself, none of which indicate that any of your posts in this thread have any grounding in our reality.

Mao was a liar. This comes from various books on Mao I have found. Do you want all of them?

 

[Cook]

...about the Long March and interviews with Mao himself...

I think we can rule the good chairman out as a reliable and unbiased sourse.

 

[YLi]

Mao was a lot of things. Foolish wasn't one of them. At minimum, he seemed to be better at long term planning than his Nationalist counterpart.

JJS on the other hand, seemed out of his depth to say the least. He lost his grip on all aspects of the Sino-Japanese War and WW2. Despite America's best efforts, he would have lost anyway.

 

[Faeelin]

Mao was a lot of things. Foolish wasn't one of them. At minimum, he seemed to be better at long term planning than his Nationalist counterpart.

Between the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Backwards, what?


Chiang wasn't a brilliant statesman, but "Unite a nation riven by warlords during the depression while the Japanese are preparing to eat you" is a tall order for any man.

But not, perhaps, any woman.

 

[AltHistWriter'87]

What about an earlier PoD?

What would have happened if say, the Nationalists had won the election of 1912-13 outright, rather than just having the largest block of votes.

Would Yuan Shikai have been given the positional authority to be able to outlaw the Nationalists as he did?