What is the best-case scenario for China with a POD of sometime after the Mukden Incident of 1931? A common scenario is, of course, Chiang's KMT regime defeating the Communists and leading China on a path similar to OTL South Korea and Taiwan. But others, of course, have disputed this on the basis of Chiang's corruption, brutality, and incompetence.
Best case scenario for China with a post-1931 POD
- Thread starter Marius Mazzini
- Start date
Hmmm. No Second United Front in 1936, the KMT beats the Communists, WW2 goes more or less OTL and Chaing rules after the war with no civil war? That plausible enough?
Some more enlightened warlords co-opt land reform from the CCP and drain its peasant support. Chiang actually crushes the communists at Xi'an. Communism vs. Capitalism is an imperfect dichotomy to look at at political economy because "capitalism" means so many different things, but any non-communist China would be better off than OTL. As long as they don't try to collectivize agriculture or purge all their educated people, living standards may stagnate but at least they won't collapse like it did for the rural peasantry during the Great Leap forward.
The development strategy of a non-communist China would be interesting, there's a spectrum of non-communist paths they could take on spectrum from India to the Asian Tigers + Botswana. If the KMT tries to stay geopolitically independent of both the Soviets and Americans, it may take an economic nationalist strategy for several decades.
The Great Depression and Soviet industrialization had discredited laissez faire by mid century, so publicly owned industries and state planning were the consensus from the '30s up until the '70s. Most developing countries between the '40s and the '70s saw foreign trade and investment as exploitative, and reoriented their industrial base toward domestic markets rather than exports (hence Import Substitution Industrialization, ISI). The New Deal was seen as a model for the global south, and the Chinese nationalists were considering a version of the Tennessee Valley Authority for the Yangtze river.
India is probably the most left wing a non-communist state could get. The term democratic socialism is thrown around a lot in a vague way, but it describes the early Congress Party leadership well. People like Nehru were heavily inspired by the Soviet Union, and they tried to combine a Westminster-style liberal democracy with Soviet-style economic planning. An extremely left wing KMT may decide to go this route of cutting as close to communist planning as it's possible to while still being either a one-party democracy like the PRI in Mexico, or a developmentalist dictatorship like Ataturk.
On the other side of the spectrum they could end up more like Japan and Taiwan, and orient their industry toward foreign exports. A more economically right-wing or pro-American KMT could decide to orient the economy toward foreign exports, and possibly open the economy to foreign direct investment.
The development strategy of a non-communist China would be interesting, there's a spectrum of non-communist paths they could take on spectrum from India to the Asian Tigers + Botswana. If the KMT tries to stay geopolitically independent of both the Soviets and Americans, it may take an economic nationalist strategy for several decades.
The Great Depression and Soviet industrialization had discredited laissez faire by mid century, so publicly owned industries and state planning were the consensus from the '30s up until the '70s. Most developing countries between the '40s and the '70s saw foreign trade and investment as exploitative, and reoriented their industrial base toward domestic markets rather than exports (hence Import Substitution Industrialization, ISI). The New Deal was seen as a model for the global south, and the Chinese nationalists were considering a version of the Tennessee Valley Authority for the Yangtze river.
India is probably the most left wing a non-communist state could get. The term democratic socialism is thrown around a lot in a vague way, but it describes the early Congress Party leadership well. People like Nehru were heavily inspired by the Soviet Union, and they tried to combine a Westminster-style liberal democracy with Soviet-style economic planning. An extremely left wing KMT may decide to go this route of cutting as close to communist planning as it's possible to while still being either a one-party democracy like the PRI in Mexico, or a developmentalist dictatorship like Ataturk.
On the other side of the spectrum they could end up more like Japan and Taiwan, and orient their industry toward foreign exports. A more economically right-wing or pro-American KMT could decide to orient the economy toward foreign exports, and possibly open the economy to foreign direct investment.
The KMT already suffered from corruption and an inefficient bureaucracy, and Chiang was all too aware of this. He'd definitely focus his efforts on reforming everything after the communists were gone, presuming that they were wiped out in the POD.
While a military dictator who enjoyed centralizing all power into his hands and not afraid to use brute force, he was not a blind idiot flogging the population to death, at least in China (Taiwan is a different story altogether). He was aware that there were chronic issues, and did attempt modest reforms in China OTL. Problem is, when you give yourself 100 job titles and have to deal with both a growing insurgency and warlord politicking, you'll never have the time.
With that, you have the usual; more wooing of foreign investors, presumably reaching out to the US more, continued collaboration with Germany to modernize the National Revolutionary Army via Von Seeckt and then Falkenhausen, modernization of China and building the economy further. Plus intimidating or persuading most of the warlords into submission.
I'm assuming that Japan will still invade. In any case, the KMT should be in a stronger position, although I'm of the opinion that they can't fully defeat Japan without Lend-Lease from various nations, and the entrance of the Western Allies in December 1941.
While a military dictator who enjoyed centralizing all power into his hands and not afraid to use brute force, he was not a blind idiot flogging the population to death, at least in China (Taiwan is a different story altogether). He was aware that there were chronic issues, and did attempt modest reforms in China OTL. Problem is, when you give yourself 100 job titles and have to deal with both a growing insurgency and warlord politicking, you'll never have the time.
With that, you have the usual; more wooing of foreign investors, presumably reaching out to the US more, continued collaboration with Germany to modernize the National Revolutionary Army via Von Seeckt and then Falkenhausen, modernization of China and building the economy further. Plus intimidating or persuading most of the warlords into submission.
I'm assuming that Japan will still invade. In any case, the KMT should be in a stronger position, although I'm of the opinion that they can't fully defeat Japan without Lend-Lease from various nations, and the entrance of the Western Allies in December 1941.
Last edited:
KMT loses. Japan wins.
China gets a decade where it is patchwork of benign neglect and horrific abuse. Japanese and Japanese supported warlords rule a divided China. So... not that different to OLT.
Eventually Germany rolls the dice and Japan is going to be really, really, really tempted to secure its access to South East Asia's oil, rubber, tin, etc.
So Japan rolls the dice. The end of active combat in China frees up more frontline troops. But there are still those scary Russians and an inability to project force (because the Navy didn't do anything to win in China so lacks the funds and time to expand more) so they are mostly useless.
The Asian war is remarkably similar to OTL. We get to the end and here is the big difference. Russia can probably legitimately claim everything north of Beijing. But the West will put its prefered dictator in charge of the south like South Korea. But unlike the KMT the West owns this guy and will be obliged to support him.
Cue 40 years as "South China" decides what it wants to be and build the infrastructure to achieve it. Some time in the 70s it will start getting traction and another Aisan miracle will be born.
China gets a decade where it is patchwork of benign neglect and horrific abuse. Japanese and Japanese supported warlords rule a divided China. So... not that different to OLT.
Eventually Germany rolls the dice and Japan is going to be really, really, really tempted to secure its access to South East Asia's oil, rubber, tin, etc.
So Japan rolls the dice. The end of active combat in China frees up more frontline troops. But there are still those scary Russians and an inability to project force (because the Navy didn't do anything to win in China so lacks the funds and time to expand more) so they are mostly useless.
The Asian war is remarkably similar to OTL. We get to the end and here is the big difference. Russia can probably legitimately claim everything north of Beijing. But the West will put its prefered dictator in charge of the south like South Korea. But unlike the KMT the West owns this guy and will be obliged to support him.
Cue 40 years as "South China" decides what it wants to be and build the infrastructure to achieve it. Some time in the 70s it will start getting traction and another Aisan miracle will be born.
IOTL by December 1936, Zhang Xueliang and Yang Hucheng were semi-openly colluding with the CPC, with whom they were in talks of creating a de facto independent Northwestern China (minus Xinjiang) under the guise of "resisting Japanese aggression" [1] with Soviet aid. Chiang Kai-shek has gotten wind of it, or at least suspicious of the lethargy displayed by Zhang and Yang's forces when fighting against the Chinese Red Army (which were in really, really, REALLY dire straits) [2], and had thus made plans to relocate their forces to other parts of China, and their positions at the Northwestern Pacification HQ taken over by loyal men. Naturally, the Xi'an Incident (closer to a Mutiny by nature) derailed said plans. The rest, as they say, is history.
So here's a POD: instead of flying to Xi'an in December 1936, CKS stayed at Luoyang and coordinated the final push against the last CPC holdouts in northern Shaanxi; Zhang and Yang were replaced as planned, their forces moved out of the area, and CKS's boys move in and finish the job. The Chinese Red Army and CPC leadership were thus shattered, rendered powerless and politically irrelevant even if they were alive. The Japanese invade around roughly the same time as OTL, and the Chinese retreated as per OTL; but this time, National Revolutionary Army stay-behind forces wage a more effective campaign without being constantly attacked by Communist guerrillas (it was pretty much official CPC policy to spend most of their effort on expanding their power base behind enemy lines, often at the expense of other NRA forces).
No doubt that corruption and incompetence would still play a part in the ROC government, but better performances in the field would definitely help; remember, OTL WWII for China was Veteran Difficulty (compared to the US's Easy, UK's Regular and USSR's Hardened).
[1] That was a really convenient slogan to gather support in 1930s China and do whatever the hell you damn well please;
[2] The Western Expeditionary Force was surrounded on all side by the Ma Cliques in Ningxia and Gansu, and the main army was trapped in northern Shaanxi and experiencing crippling shortage on anything from funds, food, winter clothing to manpower
Marc A
So here's a POD: instead of flying to Xi'an in December 1936, CKS stayed at Luoyang and coordinated the final push against the last CPC holdouts in northern Shaanxi; Zhang and Yang were replaced as planned, their forces moved out of the area, and CKS's boys move in and finish the job. The Chinese Red Army and CPC leadership were thus shattered, rendered powerless and politically irrelevant even if they were alive. The Japanese invade around roughly the same time as OTL, and the Chinese retreated as per OTL; but this time, National Revolutionary Army stay-behind forces wage a more effective campaign without being constantly attacked by Communist guerrillas (it was pretty much official CPC policy to spend most of their effort on expanding their power base behind enemy lines, often at the expense of other NRA forces).
No doubt that corruption and incompetence would still play a part in the ROC government, but better performances in the field would definitely help; remember, OTL WWII for China was Veteran Difficulty (compared to the US's Easy, UK's Regular and USSR's Hardened).
[1] That was a really convenient slogan to gather support in 1930s China and do whatever the hell you damn well please;
[2] The Western Expeditionary Force was surrounded on all side by the Ma Cliques in Ningxia and Gansu, and the main army was trapped in northern Shaanxi and experiencing crippling shortage on anything from funds, food, winter clothing to manpower
Marc A
Last edited:
Would the Soviets try and spin off an independent Xinjiang as a Soviet client state in this scenario? Sheng Shicai had moved closer to the Soviets during the much of the '30s and up until Barbarossa.
Sheng Shicai also flip-flopped between the KMT and the Soviets depending on who was most favorable, following the instinctive rule in Asian politics to fall behind the strongest force.
If the KMT's in a powerful position post civil-war, Sheng will switch his allegiance to them. If not, he'll willingly be Stalin's other Eastern puppet, and perhaps enjoy the fruits of Soviet aid if he stays loyal.
The man changed sides like clean underwear.
If the KMT's in a powerful position post civil-war, Sheng will switch his allegiance to them. If not, he'll willingly be Stalin's other Eastern puppet, and perhaps enjoy the fruits of Soviet aid if he stays loyal.
The man changed sides like clean underwear.