沒有國民黨就沒有中國, Without the Kuomintang there would be no China, A Republic of China Story

Very nice. Considering how the IRL CCP treats them and pushes Han supremacy, this is very very nice. The Uyghurs, Tibetans, and other groups bring diversity to China.

And like tbch, they've always interested me, they give off this vibe of being Chinese but not quite that makes them so fascinating. Their appearances and traditional clothes rock.
They are fascinating. I've met at least one Uyghur before. Their food is amazing. I've never been to Xinjiang though. I've never met any Tibetans. I've met a ton of Hui people. They are culturally Chinese but practice Islam. They have their own dress and cuisine, which is also really good (they invented beef noodles during the middle ages). They have their own autonomous region, but every city seems to have a Hui community. The Hui are unique in that Han Chinese can become Hui simply by converting to Islam and marrying a Hui person. I've also met some Manchus, Koreans, and Mongols.
I am curious about China's foreign policy on Africa. Especially how China will interact with the various African States, their ties to African Nationalist Movements in Decolonization, and their stance on South African Apartheid and Rhodesia's White Minority Government.
Will be covered in one of the next few updates.
 
Thanks! Aksai Chin is still part of India.
Well that removes any obstacles to an Indo-Chinese alliance, which will certainly grow fast and dominate Asia, making the cold war a lot less bipolar and perhaps less tenuous too, with so many 3rd world countries having this "3rd way" option. The non-aligned movement will be even more popular. I could see the entirety of Asia west of Pakistan completely removing itself from the USA-USSR conflict, which is quite interesting.

Also, when India sees China growing as fast as you describe already in the 60's, will they feel the pressure to keep/catch up? In OTL India had a larger economy than China during Maoism, which may or may not have encouraged complacency in economic development and liberalization. If China becomes an Asian Tiger economy, will India, as its ally who likes to see itself as an equal partner reject the "license raj" and socialist economics in favor of a more growth-oriented model as it has eventually in the 00's in OTL? If this happens we could see India and China(along with South East Asia) quickly grow to compete with or even surpass the USSR, Europe, and America by 1980.
 
Well that removes any obstacles to an Indo-Chinese alliance, which will certainly grow fast and dominate Asia, making the cold war a lot less bipolar and perhaps less tenuous too, with so many 3rd world countries having this "3rd way" option. The non-aligned movement will be even more popular. I could see the entirety of Asia west of Pakistan completely removing itself from the USA-USSR conflict, which is quite interesting.

Also, when India sees China growing as fast as you describe already in the 60's, will they feel the pressure to keep/catch up? In OTL India had a larger economy than China during Maoism, which may or may not have encouraged complacency in economic development and liberalization. If China becomes an Asian Tiger economy, will India, as its ally who likes to see itself as an equal partner reject the "license raj" and socialist economics in favor of a more growth-oriented model as it has eventually in the 00's in OTL? If this happens we could see India and China(along with South East Asia) quickly grow to compete with or even surpass the USSR, Europe, and America by 1980.
India I suspect will still have the License Raj. I know a bit of it thanks to my talks with @Imp and fact is India is still feeling quite a disdain for capitalism given how they were used for the British’s ascension to the top and it took what happened to the 1990s to get them to loosen up. At most, perhaps India may shift to borrow elements from Tito’s Yugoslavia or something of state capitalism that isn’t the License Raj, but I don’t see them giving it up.
 
Aksai Chin and Arunchal Pradesh are easily worth sacrificing if it leads to a functioning Sino-Indian relationship, especially since India’s already recognized Tibet as being under Chinese rule here.
 
1: almost 80,000,000 more than OTL China.
I question this, While on the one hand there has been no Great Leap Forward and accompanying famine, the aggressive pro-natal policy decreed by Mao never happened either. The evidence of the last 50-70 years is that increasing prosperity, education, and urbanization leads to declining fertility. And modernization generally. The modern ethic of personal liberation from rigid traditions and controlling family structures, and just generally greater personal freedom of choice has also been a big factor. When people don't have to marry and beget, a lot of them just don't.

Mao's China was held out of this liberalizing trend by the ideological rigidity and insularity of Communism. ITTL, China would be far more in contact with the general world, and IMO would follow the general trend.
 
Aksai Chin and Arunchal Pradesh are easily worth sacrificing if it leads to a functioning Sino-Indian relationship, especially since India’s already recognized Tibet as being under Chinese rule here.
Parts of Askai Chin and at a push maybe all of it, but definitely not Arunanchal Pradesh.

@CountDVB is correct in assuming the License Raj will still be in play (ty for the mention!), but I think that'll depend significantly on how long Nehru rules for. If, for example, Lal Bahadur Shastri comes into power earlier and/or rules for longer than OTL then all bets begin to be thrown off. I'd assume the License Raj would still be around in some forms but it'll begun to be loosened in the sixties rather than the eighties of the OTL.

One thing I'll say however, is Nehru would actually like to work together with China. His letters to his daughter from prison in the thirties clearly point to an admiration of China, who he viewed as India's sister in ancient history. He was friendly with Chiang and his wife. Therefore I do think there is serious potential for friendly relations between the two powers, and potential border solutions between the nations if done in Nehru's time.
 
Parts of Askai Chin and at a push maybe all of it, but definitely not Arunanchal Pradesh.

@CountDVB is correct in assuming the License Raj will still be in play (ty for the mention!), but I think that'll depend significantly on how long Nehru rules for. If, for example, Lal Bahadur Shastri comes into power earlier and/or rules for longer than OTL then all bets begin to be thrown off. I'd assume the License Raj would still be around in some forms but it'll begun to be loosened in the sixties rather than the eighties of the OTL.

One thing I'll say however, is Nehru would actually like to work together with China. His letters to his daughter from prison in the thirties clearly point to an admiration of China, who he viewed as India's sister in ancient history. He was friendly with Chiang and his wife. Therefore I do think there is serious potential for friendly relations between the two powers, and potential border solutions between the nations if done in Nehru's time.
I can’t say anything on diplomatic matters, but maybe India would start going from the license raj over to what Yugoslavia did with their market socialism plan. It had a couple of its flaws, but dang, they still really tried and looked like they were having a fair bit of results.

And of course! You’re quite knowledgeable after all!
 
India I suspect will still have the License Raj. I know a bit of it thanks to my talks with @Imp and fact is India is still feeling quite a disdain for capitalism given how they were used for the British’s ascension to the top and it took what happened to the 1990s to get them to loosen up. At most, perhaps India may shift to borrow elements from Tito’s Yugoslavia or something of state capitalism that isn’t the License Raj, but I don’t see them giving it up.
It is worth noting that there was an attempt to liberalize India's economy in 1966. Interestingly, I read that India was suffering the same issues in 1966 that it was suffering in 1991. In OTL, this attempt failed. In this timeline, with the extra pressure, it may succeed, especially if the butterflies cause Lal Bahadur Shastri to live.
 
It is worth noting that there was an attempt to liberalize India's economy in 1966. Interestingly, I read that India was suffering the same issues in 1966 that it was suffering in 1991. In OTL, this attempt failed. In this timeline, with the extra pressure, it may succeed, especially if the butterflies cause Lal Bahadur Shastri to live.
Possible I imagine, but as the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. Liberalizing could likely go in a different route or direction.
 
I can’t say anything on diplomatic matters, but maybe India would start going from the license raj over to what Yugoslavia did with their market socialism plan. It had a couple of its flaws, but dang, they still really tried and looked like they were having a fair bit of results.

And of course! You’re quite knowledgeable after all!
Could work, especially in that time period. India and Yugoslavia were quite friendly back in the day so I think there is potential.

Ty, and right back at ya!

It is worth noting that there was an attempt to liberalize India's economy in 1966. Interestingly, I read that India was suffering the same issues in 1966 that it was suffering in 1991. In OTL, this attempt failed. In this timeline, with the extra pressure, it may succeed, especially if the butterflies cause Lal Bahadur Shastri to live.
Exactly. Shastri also had a reputation for being a canny politician, thus he may really be able to control the Congress party well and stop it becoming dynastic while also pushing for more open markets and better relations with a somewhat friendly major power to the north. A side effect I could see of this would be Congress moving more to the right while a new organic left-wing party arises (maybe the Communist split into the Marxists and Socialists instead of the Maoists here?).
 
I question this, While on the one hand there has been no Great Leap Forward and accompanying famine, the aggressive pro-natal policy decreed by Mao never happened either. The evidence of the last 50-70 years is that increasing prosperity, education, and urbanization leads to declining fertility. And modernization generally. The modern ethic of personal liberation from rigid traditions and controlling family structures, and just generally greater personal freedom of choice has also been a big factor. When people don't have to marry and beget, a lot of them just don't.

Mao's China was held out of this liberalizing trend by the ideological rigidity and insularity of Communism. ITTL, China would be far more in contact with the general world, and IMO would follow the general trend.
China by 1960 isn’t *that* liberalized/economically developed ITTL, though. So I could buy this demographic difference but also see China’s demographic transition beginning earlier than OTL even without the one child policy
Parts of Askai Chin and at a push maybe all of it, but definitely not Arunanchal Pradesh.

@CountDVB is correct in assuming the License Raj will still be in play (ty for the mention!), but I think that'll depend significantly on how long Nehru rules for. If, for example, Lal Bahadur Shastri comes into power earlier and/or rules for longer than OTL then all bets begin to be thrown off. I'd assume the License Raj would still be around in some forms but it'll begun to be loosened in the sixties rather than the eighties of the OTL.

One thing I'll say however, is Nehru would actually like to work together with China. His letters to his daughter from prison in the thirties clearly point to an admiration of China, who he viewed as India's sister in ancient history. He was friendly with Chiang and his wife. Therefore I do think there is serious potential for friendly relations between the two powers, and potential border solutions between the nations if done in Nehru's time.
Wasn’t Shashtri a pretty doctrinaire socialist in the mold of Gandhi? Why would he specifically be the man to unwind the License Raj? (Genuine q since my knowledge of Indian history is a giant black hole)
 
Wasn’t Shashtri a pretty doctrinaire socialist in the mold of Gandhi? Why would he specifically be the man to unwind the License Raj? (Genuine q since my knowledge of Indian history is a giant black hole)
He was a socialist for sure, however he was also responsible for the so called White and Green Revolutions (milk and food respectively). He oversaw the Amul dairy co-operative growing into one of India's premier brands and supported India's growth into self reliance for milk and eventually food. Such things were not the outright rejection of bigger industries in favour of small scale local industry; on the contrary, he was looking to utilise new methods of organisation and industry to try to account for the biggest problem he saw facing India - hunger. On this note, he was pretty visionary - allowing a nation of 500 million who couldn't feed themselves to transform into a nation of 1.4 billion who can.

Though he was Socialist, Shastri stated that India cannot have a regimented type of economy. Therefore, in this case I don't think India would outright become capitalist but even moving to a more capitalist system would allow for India to move away from the highly unproductive system it had ongoing. I could see him having to make concessions to Morarji Desai, who was much more in favour of free enterprise reforms as the two would likely have a vested interest in keeping Indira Gandhi locked out from the halls of power and so concessions would be needed to keep him onside as he too was a credible candidate for the PMship.
 
He was a socialist for sure, however he was also responsible for the so called White and Green Revolutions (milk and food respectively). He oversaw the Amul dairy co-operative growing into one of India's premier brands and supported India's growth into self reliance for milk and eventually food. Such things were not the outright rejection of bigger industries in favour of small scale local industry; on the contrary, he was looking to utilise new methods of organisation and industry to try to account for the biggest problem he saw facing India - hunger. On this note, he was pretty visionary - allowing a nation of 500 million who couldn't feed themselves to transform into a nation of 1.4 billion who can.

Though he was Socialist, Shastri stated that India cannot have a regimented type of economy. Therefore, in this case I don't think India would outright become capitalist but even moving to a more capitalist system would allow for India to move away from the highly unproductive system it had ongoing. I could see him having to make concessions to Morarji Desai, who was much more in favour of free enterprise reforms as the two would likely have a vested interest in keeping Indira Gandhi locked out from the halls of power and so concessions would be needed to keep him onside as he too was a credible candidate for the PMship.
Very interesting insight! So you could possibly see, perhaps, a situation with Shashtri as PM and, say, Desai as his Finance Minister in a Cabinet otherwise heavy on traditional INC functionaries/Nehru-ites?
 
I question this, While on the one hand there has been no Great Leap Forward and accompanying famine, the aggressive pro-natal policy decreed by Mao never happened either. The evidence of the last 50-70 years is that increasing prosperity, education, and urbanization leads to declining fertility. And modernization generally. The modern ethic of personal liberation from rigid traditions and controlling family structures, and just generally greater personal freedom of choice has also been a big factor. When people don't have to marry and beget, a lot of them just don't.

Mao's China was held out of this liberalizing trend by the ideological rigidity and insularity of Communism. ITTL, China would be far more in contact with the general world, and IMO would follow the general trend.
I agree to an extent but lots of children was a part of Chinese culture, which was deeply conservative. China would undergo demographic transition, but without the CCP enforcing One-Child Policy or tearing up its ancient culture in the Cultural Revolution, this certainly would not already be the case in 1965.

1965 was still part of the post WWII surge in population.
 
Well that removes any obstacles to an Indo-Chinese alliance, which will certainly grow fast and dominate Asia, making the cold war a lot less bipolar and perhaps less tenuous too, with so many 3rd world countries having this "3rd way" option. The non-aligned movement will be even more popular. I could see the entirety of Asia west of Pakistan completely removing itself from the USA-USSR conflict, which is quite interesting.

Also, when India sees China growing as fast as you describe already in the 60's, will they feel the pressure to keep/catch up? In OTL India had a larger economy than China during Maoism, which may or may not have encouraged complacency in economic development and liberalization. If China becomes an Asian Tiger economy, will India, as its ally who likes to see itself as an equal partner reject the "license raj" and socialist economics in favor of a more growth-oriented model as it has eventually in the 00's in OTL? If this happens we could see India and China(along with South East Asia) quickly grow to compete with or even surpass the USSR, Europe, and America by 1980.
India gets a very brief mention in the next chapter. There will be a chapter dedicated to India probably between chapter 55 and 60 (the next chapter is chapter 52).
Parts of Askai Chin and at a push maybe all of it, but definitely not Arunanchal Pradesh.

@CountDVB is correct in assuming the License Raj will still be in play (ty for the mention!), but I think that'll depend significantly on how long Nehru rules for. If, for example, Lal Bahadur Shastri comes into power earlier and/or rules for longer than OTL then all bets begin to be thrown off. I'd assume the License Raj would still be around in some forms but it'll begun to be loosened in the sixties rather than the eighties of the OTL.

One thing I'll say however, is Nehru would actually like to work together with China. His letters to his daughter from prison in the thirties clearly point to an admiration of China, who he viewed as India's sister in ancient history. He was friendly with Chiang and his wife. Therefore I do think there is serious potential for friendly relations between the two powers, and potential border solutions between the nations if done in Nehru's time.
Yes, though Nehru and Chiang have somewhat of a falling out as they did in OTL (Nehru is dead by this point though).
I question this, While on the one hand there has been no Great Leap Forward and accompanying famine, the aggressive pro-natal policy decreed by Mao never happened either. The evidence of the last 50-70 years is that increasing prosperity, education, and urbanization leads to declining fertility. And modernization generally. The modern ethic of personal liberation from rigid traditions and controlling family structures, and just generally greater personal freedom of choice has also been a big factor. When people don't have to marry and beget, a lot of them just don't.

Mao's China was held out of this liberalizing trend by the ideological rigidity and insularity of Communism. ITTL, China would be far more in contact with the general world, and IMO would follow the general trend.
China by 1960 isn’t *that* liberalized/economically developed ITTL, though. So I could buy this demographic difference but also see China’s demographic transition beginning earlier than OTL even without the one child policy
I'll admit that this is probably the maximum population difference between OTL and KMT-ruled China. Part of this is helped by the fact that the ROC rules Taiwan, some overseas Chinese have returned to China, and the millions who fled China after 1949 have stayed (though these factors combined account for a small portion of the change).

Chiang himself is very natalist too. And while cities like Shanghai or Nanking have a lot of rich and well-educated people, that's not the experience of the average Chinese person. Most Chinese people in 1965 have never met a foreigner unless it was in wartime. Demographic change is coming, and its coming soon, but not yet.
If India, Bhutan, and Nepal join the Organization for East Asia Cooperation would the organization get a name change.
India was a founding member, alongside China, Burma, Thailand, and South Korea.
 
I agree to an extent but lots of children was a part of Chinese culture, which was deeply conservative.
The "deep conservative" culture of China had been overturned in 1900-1950. In that period, China experienced vast changes, including abolition of the monarchy, emancipation of women (compared to earlier times), establishment of democracy (even nominal democracy) and introduction of new technologies (printing, railroads, telegraphy). Add the intrusions of foreigners and the disruptions from war, and pretty much every part of the country was affected to some degree. Heck, Arabic numbering had become pretty much universal (I guess), and that touched everything.
China would undergo demographic transition, but without the CCP enforcing One-Child Policy or tearing up its ancient culture in the Cultural Revolution, this certainly would not already be the case in 1965.

1965 was still part of the post WWII surge in population.
The One-Child Policy is irrelevant, as the question is ITTL China's population in 1965 or so, long before the OCP in OTL. As to when the demographic transition would happen, see below.
Chiang himself is very natalist too. And while cities like Shanghai or Nanking have a lot of rich and well-educated people, that's not the experience of the average Chinese person. Most Chinese people in 1965 have never met a foreigner unless it was in wartime.
Wartime counts, IMO. (Does "wartime" in this context include the Japanese occupation of Manchuria?) Also, ITTL, China would have much greater contact with foreigners - no "Bamboo Curtain".
Demographic change is coming, and its coming soon, but not yet.
Hmm. This is a graph of Total Fertility Rate in OTL Taiwan.
TFR, OTL Taiwan.png

I note that TFR remained very high in the early-mid 1950s, suggesting that Chiang had a substantive pro-natalist policy at that time. But TFR had declined sharply by 1960, continued to decline pretty rapidly all through the 1960s, and was not much above replacement by Chiang's death in 1975. That suggests that he moved away from pro-natalism much earlier that the OTL PRC.
 
Last edited:
Wartime counts, IMO. (Does "wartime" in this context include the Japanese occupation of Manchuria?) Also, ITTL, China would have much greater contact with foreigners - no "Bamboo Curtain".
It would count. There is no bamboo curtain, but only a small percentage of the population is having regular contact with foreigners. The further out you get from Shanghai or Nanking, the more likely it is that the foreigners you encounter are either Christian missionaries or people from Southeast Asia.
Hmm. This is a graph of Total Fertility Rate in OTL Taiwan. View attachment 758484
I note that TFR remained very high in the early-mid 1950s, suggesting that Chiang had a substantive pro-natalist policy at that time. But TFR had declined sharply by 1960, continued to decline pretty rapidly all through the 1960s, and was not much above replacement by Chiang's death in 1975. That suggests that he moved away from pro-natalism much earlier that the OTL PRC.
I think that the TFR would remain higher in TTL China longer than in OTL Taiwan, however, looking back at it, I do think that having nearly 80,000,000 extra people is not realistic. I'm going to change it to >50,000,000 extra people.
 
五十二, China and Asian Communism
The story of Sino-Soviet relations is one full of ups and downs. Sometimes the two countries were allies, other times they were rivals. By the late 1960s, the two were rivals once more. China did not fight the Soviet Union (Chen Lifu’s proposal of arming and funding Kazakh, Kyrghiz, and Tajiki separatists were ignored), but it did fight against Soviet aligned countries or rebel groups. In Vietnam, the Soviet Union backed the Viet Minh, who likely would have taken over the entire country had China not intervened in support of its favored faction. The Soviet ally of Mongolia hosted Chinese Communist exiles who raided ROC territory. The Soviet ally of East Turkestan promoted Uygur separatism.

The war in Vietnam and Laos was winding down. In January 1968, Viet Minh leader Võ Nguyên Giáp was killed in Laos. Chinese troops began to withdraw from Vietnam and Laos. Chiang Kai-shek declared that the war had been a success. The last troops returned to China in 1969. From this point on, fighting the Viet Minh and Pathet Lao was mostly the responsibility of the Vietnamese and Laotian governments respectively. The Chinese air force would aid Vietnam and Laos on occasion. The Soviet Union had abandoned all attempts to aid either the Viet Minh or Pathet Lao years earlier. Instead, the Soviets courted favor with Cambodia and Indonesia instead. Chiang Kai-shek was not overly concerned with these developments.

1657893164990.jpeg

(Võ Nguyên Giáp, 1911-1968)

The Chinese Communists in Mongolia continued to launch raids into Chinese territory. The raids into Suiyuan, Chahar, and Xing’an provinces became less frequent as the decade went on, as the Chinese military presence on the border increased. The Chinese exiles turned their focus towards Xinjiang. At the same time, the East Turkestan government was sending agents into Xinjiang to foment rebellion. In 1966, the Kumul rebellion began in Northern and Eastern Xinjiang. The rebellion involved over 10,000 mostly Uyghur residents of Xinjiang, joined by volunteers from East Turkestan. The rebellion lasted until 1968, when it was crushed by Chinese general Ma Bufang. China was determined to bring the fight back to Mongolia and East Turkestan.

Both the East Turkestan and Xinjiang governments sought to subvert each other through propaganda. Both sides had a hard time making their case. The Communist government of East Turkestan had a hard time appealing to devout Muslim Uyghurs in China. The Chinese government had a hard time making the case for Chinese rule to Uyghurs. Nevertheless, both sides found people willing to work against their governments. In 1968, China sent Uyghur volunteers trained at the Academy of Central Asia into East Turkestan. Xinjiang Governor Yulbars Khan helped the volunteers. They intended to overthrow the Communist government, and they failed. Ehmetjan Qasim, the East Turkestani leader, celebrated the failure of the “reactionary imperialists.”

1657893270402.jpeg
1657893221876.jpeg

(Left: Yulbars Khan, Right: Ehmetjan Qasim)

In 1967, Defense Minister He Yingqin formulated the New Mongolia Policy, which was approved by Chiang Kai-shek. The new policy was that forces of the Republic of China Army had the authorization to cross the border into Mongolia to fight Chinese Communists. The military was reluctant to actually cross the border, fearing that fighting in Mongolia might get China into a war with the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Wu Heling, an ethnic Mongol who had previously been involved in the Mengkukuo government, formed the Mongolian Freedom Association. The Mongolian Freedom Association was made up of Mongols in China, including Mongolian defectors. Its goal was to overthrow the Communist government in Ulaanbaatar. Some of its members disguised themselves as nomads and destroyed a small Chinese Communist outpost in Ömnögovi Aimag. Chinese soldiers crossed into Mongolia and fought skirmishes with Chinese Communists in 1968.

1657893352583.jpeg

(Wu Heling)

Chiang Kai-shek and Georgy Malenkov had something in common. Neither man wanted the violence in East Turkestan, Mongolia, and Northern China to escalate further. Neither side was likely to gain much from continued fighting. The two agreed to meet in a neutral country in 1969. India was the perfect country to host such a meeting. It was politically stable and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was friendly towards both countries. The two men met to discuss terms to define the new relationship between the two countries. The East Turkestan Republic was a thorny issue. The USSR was determined to keep its puppet regime while China saw viewed the regime as occupying part of Xinjiang province. Nevertheless, China agreed to stop sending revolutionaries there. China also agreed to stop all incursions into Mongolia. The Soviet Union agreed to stop any support for Chinese revolutionaries and to reign in the Chinese exiles in Mongolia. In addition, China and the USSR would drop their opposition to North and South Korean membership in the UN respectively. Hopefully, the talks would lead to lasting peace, but neither leader was confident that it would.
 
Last edited:
Top