America supports Nationalist China (WW2)

RousseauX

Donor
If the US had understood Mao was not an "agrarian reformer" and was an dedicated opponent of the West and the US, it would have acted much more different. Instead of trying to mediate a peace deal between Chiang and Mao, it would have given Chiang the military and economic aid he needed to win the war. It would have been cheaper than having to support Taiwan, and fight wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Completely wiping out the CCP in a few years was impossible given that Chiang could not have isolated the CCP from the Soviet Union. However, I think it is possible that Chiang could have driven the CCP from Harbin and consolidated control of southern Manchuria's important industrial base.

US troops would not be needed, but US advisers at the unit level plus a commitment to arm and train troops to put most of Chiang's army at the level of the US trained divisions in X Force would have enabled Chiang to keep control of the country.

Chiang likely only needed to make a few reforms up front that would have helped him greatly - centralize the military payroll, enact compensated land reform, and start an anti-corruption drive. If he did that, the US would only need to make sure enough money flowed so that Chiang did not hyperinflate his currency, and Chiang would have won the civil war.

So in effect, how is this really all that different from Vietnam?
 
Chiang got plenty of aid from the US. Derk Bodde (an American professor who was a witness to the Communist takeover), describing the PLA victory parade in Beijing in 1949 said "what made it especially memorable to Americans was the fact that it was primarily a display of *American* military equipment, virtually all of it captured or obtained by bribe from Kuomintang forces in the short space of two and one half years." https://archive.org/stream/pekingdiaryayear009614mbp#page/n133/mode/2up
 
Screw financial aid. What the U.S. should have done is teach the KMT how not to be corrupt thugs and to adopt land reform.

If the U.S. was capable of that, we would have done better in the Cold War elsewhere. So it's kinda impossible.
 
Screw financial aid. What the U.S. should have done is teach the KMT how not to be corrupt thugs and to adopt land reform.

If the U.S. was capable of that, we would have done better in the Cold War elsewhere. So it's kinda impossible.

That requires ditching all the KMT/GMD leadership for a start. And 'removing' corrupt leaders has worked SO well elsewhere, right? (that was sarcasm, if anyone missed it)

Chiang wouldn't put up with any US adviser who told the truth, so getting rid of him is an absolute minimum for a successful Nationalist China. Your best bet, actually, is probably for him never to rise to the top.
 
The problem being that Chang and his inner circle were utterly corrupt and profiting from the corruption of the country. Also the collapse of the Chinese Economy was more or less managed by State/Treasury guys from the US so fixing that is going to actually annoy the US.

Are you saying Americans destroyed their economy? Why would they do that? Or did I misread your statement?
 

Japhy

Banned
Are you saying Americans destroyed their economy? Why would they do that? Or did I misread your statement?

The 1942-43 Famine occurred when we convinced the KMT to accept taxation in kind. "Free China" never quite recovered for the rest of the war, or in the aftermath.
 
American Constitutional system in that he wanted it to be a democracy, he just wanted all the political issues solved within a singular party apparatus. Obviously thats not how it was pitched to American donors though. And irregardless there's no way that the KMT regime that eventually entrenched itself after his death was going to be interested in that at all.

"Democracy" as part of the Three Principles isn't really democracy but as I've seen it translated more literally as "Government of the People" (I'll admit, I'm no where close to being able to read Chinese myself) Government of the People being most simply "Not the rule of the aristocracy and dynasties." The KMT was going to achieve that by empowering the people and creating a sort of Jeffersonian Aristocracy or a Technocratic leadership, the most talented irregardless of background would be able to rise up to the highest levels of power based on their abilities. Not though, because they beat the KMT in elections. Which is still better than the Qing Dynasty, but isn't particularly pluralistic.

I've heard otherwise. Sun only believed there should be single-party rule AT THE BEGINNING of the Chinese Republic, for the sake of progressing rapidly. He doesn't seem like the type of singularist who would outlaw other political parties. That's what Chiang Kai Shek did.
 
Top