Chiang Kai-Shek ruled China

As part of the Sino-Soviet treaty of friendship after WW2, China renounced its claims to Outer Mongolia. That treaty was renounced by Chiang in the 1950s, but in TTL it would remain in force.

There would still potentially be disputes along the Manchurian border and in Central Asia. The OTL border disputes in India and in Southest Asia would still exist. The republic of China also claimed a bit of Burma for some reason. China could probably easily annex it.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The real problem with a Chiang victory is that he could never achieve total victory. There will be parts of the country under left wing insurgency rule today. What made Mao dispicable was also what made him effective.
That's actually fine as long as they get limited to a few inland poor provinces, China is huge as long as most of the provinces gets developed China will do well even if the CCP becomes the FARC-analogue for RoC
 
The distinction is a fine one for me, the ROC was nationalist, the PRC not that must less so, the KMT had socialist roots, the CCP obviously to eleven, both Mao and Chiang want a unified China, a return to her greatness, both used the vast multitudes to build the way, China suffered and China prevailed, so I tend to see a ROC today maybe a generation ahead on the climb back to its place as Middle Kingdom. Both Chiang and Mao must pursue land reform, it is likely the decisive difference. Chiang is going for a command economy, not dissimilar from the CCP, it will be far more tolerant of the Chinese business class, it may be too tolerant of organized crime, and it might be too slow in breaking the stranglehold of the landlords, but is that enough to fuel insurgency or civil war?

I think Chiang is only friendly with the USA like he was with Weimar Germany, he needs support to push back Japan, but the USA exploited China and would soon be discarded once Chiang has secured his rule, I would predict a third way path, China is not part of the Soviet camp or American alliances, it will try to steer between them to reassert China as the third pole. I agree with others, a more aggressive India, within Asia the KMT are going to be very anti-colonial/imperialist, the fight to shake off the unequal treaties will leave China bitterly opposed to the UK, France, Japan (aside from whatever war occurs), and also the USA but more velvet gloved with the Americans so long as they are strong in Asia or a big enough trade partner. This is not going to be Taiwan on steroids, it will not even be a Japan or Korea, China will claw its way up and be somewhat better off financially than the PRC as trade will not stagnate in the interim. I might hope for some bigger middle class and a better distribution of wealth than even the PRC, and I would predict democratic reform is not as slow or thwarted but it certainly evolves on a slow pace.
 
How would it affect the Cold war if Chiang Kai-Shek won the Chinese Civil War? How would it affect the treatment of the Uyghurs and would there be an invasion of Tibet? Would China be an ally of USA or be rival of it like Mao was after Stalin to the USSR.
Does he owns all of China (as in there is a separated "North China")? If yes then he'll probably work with Nehru in championing the Non-Aligned Movement, but he'll probably try to look good to the USA as the Soviets are right next door* and relation between those, particularly if USSR funds Communist insurgencies, are going to be rather cold. In more broad terms there is no Korean War as Kim won't invade the South if he is worried about the KMT crossing the Yalu, this would greatly alter the politics and economy of East Asia, the war thoroughly devastated both Korea's economies and destabilized both politically, in the North Kim il-Sung used the failure to purge most of the opposition and consolidate power in the South Syngman Rhee also went on scaling up political repression and purges, culminating in his resignation in 1960, although he was already old at the time and probably wouldn't rule that much; ITTL both Koreas would remain in an unease peace, maybe they develop in the same fashion as the Germanies. Japan was also greatly benefited by the war as the American demand for supplies lead to massive investment on the rebuilding of the Japanese economy and the threat of Communism taking over in Korea lead to the formation of the Japanese Reserved Police (which would later turn into the JSDF) and the hasting of the Treaty of San Francisco, the occupation of Japan couldn't last much longer honestly but you may see a slower recovering Japan with maybe no military whatsoever.
Vietnam also greatly changes as North Vietnam is now completely isolated from the Communist World, but I don't know much about this to comment.
For the minorities we get more in the inner instability that will definitely plague the RoC for the next decades. The * earlier was to mention East Turkestan Republic, a Stalin-backed Uyghur-Kazakh state in Northern Xinjiang that was only disestablished after the CPC won and made a deal with them, how would it evolve ITTL (union with the USSR, bloody reconquest or an agreement with Stalin) will set the tone of both Sino-Soviet relations as well as how Chiang and the KMT would see the Uyghurs and other minorities anti-KMT stances. Worthy noting that during both the Warlord Era and the Nanking Decade provincial leaders in the Chinese Northwest underwent a policy of Sinicization of their territories, with consent of the KMT so expect those policies to continue for a while. Tibet is a goner, may not as immediately and bloody as the Communist invasion but the place is too strategically important for the KMT to left to its own devices.
On the inside the situation is a mess, however Chiang defeats the Communists the country is devastated, all Chiang's work in the economy and the military was destroyed and that will be China's greatest challenge; he needs to rein the warlords as soon as possible, that can be tricky as if he goes too harsh they main get him Xian'd again, but even as the RoC was collapsing he was able to remove Long Yun from Yunnan, which shows he was able to manipulate the warlords and their armies to some extend. The biggest stone in Chiang's shoe is of course the land reform that was promised for a while and isn't coming, I admit lacking knowledge in how to deal with it, but I must say that the survival of the Nanking regime will depend on its success.
In conclusion, don't expect a giant Taiwan/South Korea, China is too big and with many peculiarities (and issues) that prevents the same miracle growth, but you don't have to assume it'll descend into Africa-tier instability and economic catastrophe (ignoring also how China and post-colonial Africa are way too distinct to make such compassion), China has shows to reinvent and transform many times during the 20th century, the post-war RoC was different from the Nanking Decade in the 30s, that was different from the never-ending warlord wars in the 20s, that was different from the Beiyang regime of Yuan Shikai in the 10s, that was different from the late Qing monarchy of the 00s, there is no reason to assume the RoC will be locked down in the same static political situation (although it can if everything goes wrong of course).
 
That's actually fine as long as they get limited to a few inland poor provinces, China is huge as long as most of the provinces gets developed China will do well even if the CCP becomes the FARC-analogue for RoC

With FARC you have a left wing rebellion in the western hemisphere cut off from support from Communist state actors. There’s also indentity politics in racially diverse Columbia, limiting their appeal. China is a whole different thing entirely. A Communist defeat just means opportunity for the Soviet Union to appoint new leadership, and if they retain control of Manchuria that’s half the country’s heavy industry. If Nationalist China doesn’t cater to their interests, Moscow could fund another civil war down the line.

The Nationalists had been discribed as too weak to rule, too strong to overthrow. A victory in the civil war just reaffirms that status quo. If they do develop the wherewithall to totally eliminate the Communists, and all left wing opposition entirely, and crush ethnic separatists like on Taiwan... then China today would be super Taiwan. But there is a long ways to get there and I really doubt they could. More likely they would slowly grind the leftists down with gradual economic gains and long term counter insurgency.

Duterte’s Phillipines as a model of Nationalist China is really not that unreasonable IMO.
 

RousseauX

Donor
With FARC you have a left wing rebellion in the western hemisphere cut off from support from Communist state actors. There’s also indentity politics in racially diverse Columbia, limiting their appeal. China is a whole different thing entirely. A Communist defeat just means opportunity for the Soviet Union to appoint new leadership, and if they retain control of Manchuria that’s half the country’s heavy industry. If Nationalist China doesn’t cater to their interests, Moscow could fund another civil war down the line.
The KMT had good relations with the USSR though, Stalin supported the KMT even after they massacred the Communists in 1927 while Trotsky supported the CCP. As long as the KMT aligns with the USSR geopolitically. Which is actually pretty likely, KMT could be an India or Egypt 1950s analogue. Anti-Communist, but suitable enough for Soviet geopolitical purposes to be an ally.

The Nationalists had been discribed as too weak to rule, too strong to overthrow. A victory in the civil war just reaffirms that status quo. If they do develop the wherewithall to totally eliminate the Communists, and all left wing opposition entirely, and crush ethnic separatists like on Taiwan... then China today would be super Taiwan. But there is a long ways to get there and I really doubt they could. More likely they would slowly grind the leftists down with gradual economic gains and long term counter insurgency.

Duterte’s Phillipines as a model of Nationalist China is really not that unreasonable IMO.
I basically think you get something very close to China today eventually, first world conditions in the big cities and in coastal provinces, second world further inland, third world once you get to the western provinces. But with greater potential for liberalization relative to today's PRC.
 
Does he owns all of China (as in there is a separated "North China")? If yes then he'll probably work with Nehru in championing the Non-Aligned Movement, but he'll probably try to look good to the USA as the Soviets are right next door* and relation between those, particularly if USSR funds Communist insurgencies, are going to be rather cold. In more broad terms there is no Korean War as Kim won't invade the South if he is worried about the KMT crossing the Yalu, this would greatly alter the politics and economy of East Asia, the war thoroughly devastated both Korea's economies and destabilized both politically, in the North Kim il-Sung used the failure to purge most of the opposition and consolidate power in the South Syngman Rhee also went on scaling up political repression and purges, culminating in his resignation in 1960, although he was already old at the time and probably wouldn't rule that much; ITTL both Koreas would remain in an unease peace, maybe they develop in the same fashion as the Germanies. Japan was also greatly benefited by the war as the American demand for supplies lead to massive investment on the rebuilding of the Japanese economy and the threat of Communism taking over in Korea lead to the formation of the Japanese Reserved Police (which would later turn into the JSDF) and the hasting of the Treaty of San Francisco, the occupation of Japan couldn't last much longer honestly but you may see a slower recovering Japan with maybe no military whatsoever.
Vietnam also greatly changes as North Vietnam is now completely isolated from the Communist World, but I don't know much about this to comment.
For the minorities we get more in the inner instability that will definitely plague the RoC for the next decades. The * earlier was to mention East Turkestan Republic, a Stalin-backed Uyghur-Kazakh state in Northern Xinjiang that was only disestablished after the CPC won and made a deal with them, how would it evolve ITTL (union with the USSR, bloody reconquest or an agreement with Stalin) will set the tone of both Sino-Soviet relations as well as how Chiang and the KMT would see the Uyghurs and other minorities anti-KMT stances. Worthy noting that during both the Warlord Era and the Nanking Decade provincial leaders in the Chinese Northwest underwent a policy of Sinicization of their territories, with consent of the KMT so expect those policies to continue for a while. Tibet is a goner, may not as immediately and bloody as the Communist invasion but the place is too strategically important for the KMT to left to its own devices.
On the inside the situation is a mess, however Chiang defeats the Communists the country is devastated, all Chiang's work in the economy and the military was destroyed and that will be China's greatest challenge; he needs to rein the warlords as soon as possible, that can be tricky as if he goes too harsh they main get him Xian'd again, but even as the RoC was collapsing he was able to remove Long Yun from Yunnan, which shows he was able to manipulate the warlords and their armies to some extend. The biggest stone in Chiang's shoe is of course the land reform that was promised for a while and isn't coming, I admit lacking knowledge in how to deal with it, but I must say that the survival of the Nanking regime will depend on its success.
In conclusion, don't expect a giant Taiwan/South Korea, China is too big and with many peculiarities (and issues) that prevents the same miracle growth, but you don't have to assume it'll descend into Africa-tier instability and economic catastrophe (ignoring also how China and post-colonial Africa are way too distinct to make such compassion), China has shows to reinvent and transform many times during the 20th century, the post-war RoC was different from the Nanking Decade in the 30s, that was different from the never-ending warlord wars in the 20s, that was different from the Beiyang regime of Yuan Shikai in the 10s, that was different from the late Qing monarchy of the 00s, there is no reason to assume the RoC will be locked down in the same static political situation (although it can if everything goes wrong of course).

Lets say Manchuria excluded.
 
The KMT had good relations with the USSR though, Stalin supported the KMT even after they massacred the Communists in 1927 while Trotsky supported the CCP. As long as the KMT aligns with the USSR geopolitically. Which is actually pretty likely, KMT could be an India or Egypt 1950s analogue. Anti-Communist, but suitable enough for Soviet geopolitical purposes to be an ally.

Given the relationship with America in WWII, that FDR seated ROC at the UNPSC over ally objections, and his efforts to make ROC America’s deputy in East Asia, I don’t see alignment with USSR as a realistic trajectory. India and Egypt were not potential threats to the Soviets, nor did they have massive Communist armies looking for support from Moscow.

I basically think you get something very close to China today eventually, first world conditions in the big cities and in coastal provinces, second world further inland, third world once you get to the western provinces. But with greater potential for liberalization relative to today's PRC.

I agree long term the two timelines probably merge.
 
The Nationalists had been discribed as too weak to rule, too strong to overthrow. A victory in the civil war just reaffirms that status quo. If they do develop the wherewithall to totally eliminate the Communists, and all left wing opposition entirely, and crush ethnic separatists like on Taiwan... then China today would be super Taiwan. But there is a long ways to get there and I really doubt they could. More likely they would slowly grind the leftists down with gradual economic gains and long term counter insurgency.

I sometimes wonder if people are too unfair to the Nationalists. Even in the 1930s, they were making strides in industrializing, modernizing, and crushing the Communists. Then the Japanese come along and seize their most developed regions and they spend years fighting them, taking the brunt of Japanese attacks. Somehow we're surprised they dont' unite the country during this?
 
I sometimes wonder if people are too unfair to the Nationalists. Even in the 1930s, they were making strides in industrializing, modernizing, and crushing the Communists. Then the Japanese come along and seize their most developed regions and they spend years fighting them, taking the brunt of Japanese attacks. Somehow we're surprised they dont' unite the country during this?

It’s really two questions, were the Nationalists competent, and were they up to the challenge of their time? The latter is easier to answer, Maoist rebellions are really hard to deal with, especially given the international environment. Perhaps they were ultimately doomed by starting the civil war in the 20’s. My assertion is this impossible situation isn’t going to get that much better in the Cold War either.

As for the former, there is ample evidence from contemporary observers that the Nationalists did not impress anyone. Even Chiang’s own supporters defended him as the only man who could keep things from falling apart, not that he “at least got the trains to run on time”.
 
Lets say Manchuria excluded.

If we are dividing China into a Communist and KMT paradigm then I think we get a parallel to North and South Korea, except here ROC also borders the USSR. Having a genuine enemy and a hostile break away on the borders might go further in unifying the remnant China, it should bring in more American investment, align the ROC fully to the West and can hasten the development as it did in miniature on Taiwan. China looks rather like Europe with a Bamboo Curtain carving off Manchuria, maybe Northern Korea, and some more in a post-war occupation zones solidified in opposition. Here ROC forms like Western Europe, unified by threat, developed in common and benefiting from the American presence to contain the Soviet threat. This CCP ruled China might not have Mao, it will be far more a Soviet puppet, smaller, industrial but obsolete, burning wealth for its military and suppressing its citizens, the long term will be brighter in ROC but worse for Manchuria as it drags the Soviet Bloc burdens forward, potentially burning through Soviet wealth fast enough to hasten the collapse of the USSR in a colder war. Here the ROC might get the same long term quasi-dictatorship, repressive one party rule but also the desperate investment in itself to be strong in the face of an implacable foe that arguably transformed ROK.
 
If we are dividing China into a Communist and KMT paradigm then I think we get a parallel to North and South Korea, except here ROC also borders the USSR. Having a genuine enemy and a hostile break away on the borders might go further in unifying the remnant China, it should bring in more American investment...
I might be getting the sequence of events confused but wasn't it due to American pressure that that the Nationalists slowed their advances on the Communists in the north-east under the idea of a negotiated settlement? Even if the Nationalists weren't likely to be able to actually succeed in their assault I could see them still blaming the US for snatching the 'inevitable' victory from their grasp and the splitting of their nation. If Chiang gets the hump then the RoC might be less than receptive to either Soviet or American investment and influence, a much earlier independent third way?
 
I might be getting the sequence of events confused but wasn't it due to American pressure that that the Nationalists slowed their advances on the Communists in the north-east under the idea of a negotiated settlement? Even if the Nationalists weren't likely to be able to actually succeed in their assault I could see them still blaming the US for snatching the 'inevitable' victory from their grasp and the splitting of their nation. If Chiang gets the hump then the RoC might be less than receptive to either Soviet or American investment and influence, a much earlier independent third way?

I am thinking the Soviets take Manchuria and here never give it back, more like East Germany, rather than a hand off back to the Nationalists. In your scenario I would think Stalin is handing Manchuria to Chiang because he preferred him to Mao and here the KMT is Soviet leaning. Relations deteriorate much akin to OTL and there is a Sino-Soviet part of the ways to get the "third-way". A Soviet leaning ROC is going to fall out with the USA but might regain friendship later as the split deepens.
 
It’s really two questions, were the Nationalists competent, and were they up to the challenge of their time? The latter is easier to answer, Maoist rebellions are really hard to deal with, especially given the international environment. Perhaps they were ultimately doomed by starting the civil war in the 20’s. My assertion is this impossible situation isn’t going to get that much better in the Cold War either.

They were winning the Civil War before the Japanese rolfstomped into the country, and it's not like the Japanese won the war either...
 
Top