China is capitalist during the Cold War

The 1 child policy likely made no real change to China's demographic shift. China with the 1 child policy has experienced demographic shift at about the same as India, which had no such law.

..

So KMT China could very well have a lower population than OTL China.

[/QUOTE]

Do you reckon???

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/india-population/
India 1950 has 376 million, in 2000 it had over a billion, almost 3 times more which is similar to Taiwan

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/taiwan-population/
In 1950 Taiwan had about 8 million people in 2000 about 22.6 million

While China

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/china-population/
In 1950 China had about 600 million in 2000 1,283 million just over double

We are still looking under the KMT of about half a billion more Chinese.




And China isn't Taiwan. So while China can emerge as the no. 1 power in the 20th Century, I don't think it's likely. The US has a big, big lead that China needs to make up.

US population in 2000 was 282.2 million

Indeed China is here much richer than now with over 5 times the population of the US.
 
Chiang should not have went into Manchuria. Holding the rest of China was more critical. The KMT troops got overstretched and their logistics strained.

I don’t think he ever entertained the idea he might lose. He had the bigger army, he had better weapons and that was that. Looking at it more closely the odds was never that good. The Communists won because they had a reason to fight, the KMT soldiers didn’t. Chiang could have won if he played the long game and gave the poor a reason to believe in him.

Say you were the typical KMT private. You’re a peasant drafted to fight the Japanese. The war is over, you have nothing to look forward to but a life of impoverished desperation, but at least you survived and got to go home. But no, the Generalissimo has started a civil war and you are to go fight other Chinese people far away. Maybe if you survive a few more years you can go home at last. What did these Communists do to you? They’re after the landlords not your poor ass. You hear they gave land to families of men that fight for them. They say if you desert and join them you either get land after the war or a middle class factory job in the city, where your kids will get free school and hospital care.

The only reason you don’t take the deal is because you’re pretty sure the Generalissimo will win. He has the bigger army and better equipment. But as soon as it looks like defeat is possible you and your whole outfit will have a quick attitude change.
 
Do you reckon???

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/india-population/
India 1950 has 376 million, in 2000 it had over a billion, almost 3 times more which is similar to Taiwan

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/taiwan-population/
In 1950 Taiwan had about 8 million people in 2000 about 22.6 million

While China

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/china-population/
In 1950 China had about 600 million in 2000 1,283 million just over double

We are still looking under the KMT of about half a billion more Chinese.

Casting an eye over the graphs on the pages you cite would show you that all 3 states were experiencing very different demographic trends to start with. On top of that, their pre-1950 history was very different. For example, with China, we need to consider the impact of the Sino-Japanese war, which killed tens of millions of Chinese. For Taiwan, we need to consider that it was a relatively developed Japanese model colony. For India, we need to consider that literacy was significantly lower than either China or Taiwan. Then after 1950, there are many large differences between the 3. Taiwan gets a big influx of mainland refugees (and refugees, which skew towards the young, healthy and skilled - because people who run need the physical strength and financial resources to run - tend to experience a baby boom when they are able to settle down and rebuild their lives), China experienced Maoist brutality and famine and India experienced federal democracy.

There's no way that all of China will have demography like that of Taiwan. It is starting from a different place and will evolve under different conditions.

Nor will it have demography entirely like that of the PRC. It is starting from the same place but will evolve under different conditions.

Another important issue here: can KMT China gain access to the US market the way Taiwan did? In OTL, the US gave unprecedented access to its market to its allies in Asia and Europe, enabling efficiency gains and economic booms across the US economic hegemony.

If KMT China can gain similar access to the US market as Taiwan did, then it will no doubt out-perform the PRC by a large margin. But the fall of China was one of the things that pushed the US to give its allies access to its market. With no fall of China will the US follow a more protectionist course? Opening up more slowly, if it opens up at all? And given the size of China, will racism, protectionism and cooler relations due to a more assertive KMT foreign policy mean that China gets treated much as India was in the same period, and does not get the economic access that the US accords to its European allies and to Japan and South Korea?

If KMT China has more limited access the US market, it won't be able to pursue an export led strategy with as much success as Taiwan and OTL's PRC after 1980 had. In such a case, the economy is still, in my view going to outperform the PRC during the Maoist period, but not by anywhere near as large a margin.

Will China be a greater power in this scenario? Almost certainly. Will it have a larger economy than the Soviets or Japanese by 1980? Quite possibly. Will it have a larger economy than the US by 1980? I am doubtful.

After 1980 I am unsure. My gut instinct is that a KMT China would grow more slowly than OTL's PRC between 1980 to the present, but that starting from a higher base and less damage from the "over development" that Communist planning is prone to would result in overall higher levels of wealth. But there are so many unknowns that my "gut feeling" could be as well labelled "wishful thinking".

fasquardon
 
Casting an eye over the graphs on the pages you cite would show you that all 3 states were experiencing very different demographic trends to start with. On top of that, their pre-1950 history was very different. For example, with China, we need to consider the impact of the Sino-Japanese war, which killed tens of millions of Chinese. For Taiwan, we need to consider that it was a relatively developed Japanese model colony. For India, we need to consider that literacy was significantly lower than either China or Taiwan. Then after 1950, there are many large differences between the 3. Taiwan gets a big influx of mainland refugees (and refugees, which skew towards the young, healthy and skilled - because people who run need the physical strength and financial resources to run - tend to experience a baby boom when they are able to settle down and rebuild their lives), China experienced Maoist brutality and famine and India experienced federal democracy.

There's no way that all of China will have demography like that of Taiwan. It is starting from a different place and will evolve under different conditions.

Nor will it have demography entirely like that of the PRC. It is starting from the same place but will evolve under different conditions.

Another important issue here: can KMT China gain access to the US market the way Taiwan did? In OTL, the US gave unprecedented access to its market to its allies in Asia and Europe, enabling efficiency gains and economic booms across the US economic hegemony.

If KMT China can gain similar access to the US market as Taiwan did, then it will no doubt out-perform the PRC by a large margin. But the fall of China was one of the things that pushed the US to give its allies access to its market. With no fall of China will the US follow a more protectionist course? Opening up more slowly, if it opens up at all? And given the size of China, will racism, protectionism and cooler relations due to a more assertive KMT foreign policy mean that China gets treated much as India was in the same period, and does not get the economic access that the US accords to its European allies and to Japan and South Korea?

If KMT China has more limited access the US market, it won't be able to pursue an export led strategy with as much success as Taiwan and OTL's PRC after 1980 had. In such a case, the economy is still, in my view going to outperform the PRC during the Maoist period, but not by anywhere near as large a margin.

Will China be a greater power in this scenario? Almost certainly. Will it have a larger economy than the Soviets or Japanese by 1980? Quite possibly. Will it have a larger economy than the US by 1980? I am doubtful.

After 1980 I am unsure. My gut instinct is that a KMT China would grow more slowly than OTL's PRC between 1980 to the present, but that starting from a higher base and less damage from the "over development" that Communist planning is prone to would result in overall higher levels of wealth. But there are so many unknowns that my "gut feeling" could be as well labelled "wishful thinking".

fasquardon


KMT China is so huge gaining unprecedented access to the US market will create a trade war in the 70s and 80s...even the Japanese were taking heat for it starting in the 60s. KMT China is way too big to export its way to success. Western Europe and Japan were already industrialized before world war 2. The export boom after the war served as the second part of their growth and development. Only South Korea went from poor and agricultural to rich on exports ALONE. Europe and the Asian tigers were freeloading off US market generosity...in a way, the US kind of screwed itself over.

KMT China was originally supposed to be an export market for Europe and the Asian Tigers. The loss of China made the US fear that Europe and the Asian tigers would have to make do with China, tolerating its communist government, in order to gain market access. This resulted in the US opening up its market to Europe, Japan, and South Korea to keep them on side. Now, KMT China will still have high tariffs starting out so Japan, South Korea, and Europe will likely invest in China to get around the tariffs. The loss of China may result in the US negotiating trade and investment agreements with certain countries. Even if the KMT wanted to export, it would not have the options that the CCP eventually got. Latin America, Africa, Middle East, South Asia, and much of the developing world were doing ISI, Japan was protected, South Korea was protected, Western Europe was protectionist, Central & Eastern Europe were under the iron curtain, USSR is mostly a no-go, and the US may give limited access.

KMT China will do better than the PRC in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. There will also be more urbanization in China as 1980 rolls around. From 1980 onwards, the stronger base in China, will result in lower growth than OTL PRC so a KMT China will be a bit wealthier than the PRC, with per capita income slightly higher. Too many people predicting a KMT export boom from 1950 - right now with the KMT China having the largest economy in the world LOL...this sounds ridiculous.

In regards to the unknowns, I would like to mention the 1973 oil crisis. Without the US giving too much market access, maybe the crisis gets tempered down but if it does happen since KMT China is also developing, perhaps China will have to do some infrastructure projects to offset the negative growth. OTL Taiwan had Chiang Ching kuo do this. If Chiang ching kuo runs the mainland, he may do this. If someone else from the KMT is running the mainland, they may do this as well. Also, the 1997 Asian financial crisis gets interesting as well.
 
Last edited:
that now
Casting an eye over the graphs on the pages you cite would show you that all 3 states were experiencing very different demographic trends to start with. On top of that, their pre-1950 history was very different.

Looking at South Korea, we also see a higher rate too not quite as high as the others which may be due to the war which devostated the country much more then the China Civil War did China.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/south-korea-population/

Let me also point out that Russia under communism suffered a loss in population growth too. China today would have a higher population. The other issue is without collective farms, there is a lot more food being produced and a much stronger peasant base. I am sure that would increase the population too.



Will China be a greater power in this scenario? Almost certainly. Will it have a larger economy than the Soviets or Japanese by 1980? Quite possibly. Will it have a larger economy than the US by 1980? I am doubtful.

After 1980 I am unsure. My gut instinct is that a KMT China would grow more slowly than OTL's PRC between 1980 to the present, but that starting from a higher base and less damage from the "over development" that Communist planning is prone to would result in overall higher levels of wealth. But there are so many unknowns that my "gut feeling" could be as well labelled "wishful thinking".

The growth in agriculture would also help stimulate the economy in China compared to the OTL when almost all of China foreign reserves had to be used to import food.



KMT China is so huge gaining unprecedented access to the US market will create a trade war in the 70s and 80s...even the Japanese were taking heat for it starting in the 60s. KMT China is way too big to export its way to success. .

We are seeing that now. We are adapting to it. Nor is the US all important, for example, a third of Australia's exports are shipped to China, this is more than the combined value of our trade with Japan and the United States.
 
Europe and the Asian tigers were freeloading off US market generosity...in a way, the US kind of screwed itself over.

"Freeloading" implies that the US didn't make out like a bandit from opening up its market. Post WW2 was the point of maximum US economic advantage - and thus maximum advantage for the US to engage in free trade. And if the US didn't open its market, there'd be no way for the Western Europeans to get the dollars they needed to maintain the advantageous (for the US) trade links started by the mandatory "buy American" condition Marshall Aid came with. Add to that, opening the US market to US allies was a key part of enabling the US allies to grow faster than the Soviet Bloc. Offering the PRC access to the US market was a vital part of wooing the Chinese away from a neutral position and into the pro-US camp, creating an absolutely brutal situation for the USSR. We could debate whether the benefits of US trade policies have been spread sufficiently evenly over the US population, but a protectionist US in the post WW2 era would have been hurting itself economically and handing away one of its most powerful weapons against the USSR.

Now, KMT China will still have high tariffs starting out so Japan, South Korea, and Europe will likely invest in China to get around the tariffs.

True. And I wonder if China may grow close to those European countries that were trying to be more independent of US influence? A Sino-French alliance could be very interesting.

In regards to the unknowns, I would like to mention the 1973 oil crisis. Without the US giving too much market access, maybe the crisis gets tempered down

In 1973 the US didn't import any oil from the middle east. The middle east in this period was mainly exporting to Europe.

Now, the oil crisis may be postponed due to US protectionism retarding growth across the developed world, meaning the oil supply just isn't tight enough for OPEC and Arab-Israeli wars to cause strong price rises yet.

fasquardon
 

Marc

Donor
In 1973 the US didn't import any oil from the middle east. The middle east in this period was mainly exporting to Europe.

In 1973 the United States was importing roughly a third of its oil needs, around 6 million barrels a day, of that approx. 500K was Saudi, can't recall how much from the other Islamic countries with OPEC - but OPEC in general did provide about half of our imports.
The larger problem was that 70% price increase on an essential commodity - which became the baseline around the world.
A better alternative than embargo and blockades, squeeze their purses dry....
 
Last edited:
In 1973 the United States was importing roughly a third of its oil needs, around 6 million barrels a day, of that approx. 500K was Saudi, can't recall how much from the other Islamic countries with OPEC - but OPEC in general did provide about half of our imports.

Most all of US imports were from Venezuela (an OPEC member, of course, but one without much concern for the Arab-Israeli wars).

The issue was that the world oil markets were strongly integrated with regards to deciding price, not that the US itself couldn't get oil from the middle east, which is how the crisis is remembered in the popular consciousness.

fasquardon
 
Would be interesting seeing a capitalist China as head of a genuinely impartial / centrist to right leaning analogue of the Non-Aligned Movement (called Neutral Alliance or something).

I think you'd see China and Yugoslavia align globally against the US and Soviets , unless India became communist. Then you might see a US-aligned China.
 
"Freeloading" implies that the US didn't make out like a bandit from opening up its market. Post WW2 was the point of maximum US economic advantage - and thus maximum advantage for the US to engage in free trade. And if the US didn't open its market, there'd be no way for the Western Europeans to get the dollars they needed to maintain the advantageous (for the US) trade links started by the mandatory "buy American" condition Marshall Aid came with. Add to that, opening the US market to US allies was a key part of enabling the US allies to grow faster than the Soviet Bloc. Offering the PRC access to the US market was a vital part of wooing the Chinese away from a neutral position and into the pro-US camp, creating an absolutely brutal situation for the USSR. We could debate whether the benefits of US trade policies have been spread sufficiently evenly over the US population, but a protectionist US in the post WW2 era would have been hurting itself economically and handing away one of its most powerful weapons against the USSR.



True. And I wonder if China may grow close to those European countries that were trying to be more independent of US influence? A Sino-French alliance could be very interesting.



In 1973 the US didn't import any oil from the middle east. The middle east in this period was mainly exporting to Europe.

Now, the oil crisis may be postponed due to US protectionism retarding growth across the developed world, meaning the oil supply just isn't tight enough for OPEC and Arab-Israeli wars to cause strong price rises yet.

fasquardon


When the US was opening up its market to US allies, US allies were using protectionist measures back home and dumping their exports on the US market. The buy american marshall aid was useful in the 50s and 60s but by the 70s and 80s, Europe and Japan were killing the US. This is what I mean by freeloading. Post world war 2 gave the US a manufacturing monopoly in the 50s and even 60s, but this made US businesses soft. When European and Japanese companies started running circles around the US while continuing their restrictive practices back home, the US market access plan backfired. Japan and Europe would eventually lessen their reliance on US Marshall aid as they were rapidly rebuilding their own local industries. At some point, it was always going to be expensive to maintain this arrangement without reciprocity from the other side and adjustments from US businesses, from an American perspective.
 
Last edited:
The US share of the world's GDP is about 27%, there are a lot more countries. They would see an economically prosperous China is a big market, as it is not just China exporting but other countries wanting to export to China.
 
The US share of the world's GDP is about 27%, there are a lot more countries. They would see an economically prosperous China is a big market, as it is not just China exporting but other countries wanting to export to China.

Post world war 2 US was the most open economy. The Soviet bloc was off limits, the developing world was practicing ISI, and US allies were practicing export oriented dirigist policies. These dirigist policies closed off their markets to US goods as local industries became more and more competitive (decline of Marshall Plan buy american aid policy). KMT China will allow US investments but be dirigist with tariffs on imports to boost local industry.
 
.
Post world war 2 US was the most open economy. The Soviet bloc was off limits, the developing world was practicing ISI, and US allies were practicing export oriented dirigist policies. These dirigist policies closed off their markets to US goods as local industries became more and more competitive (decline of Marshall Plan buy american aid policy). KMT China will allow US investments but be dirigist with tariffs on imports to boost local industry.

This would reduce China economic growth but hardly stop it plus better Chinese agriculture would reduce China on food and open up much Chinese capital for other things.

Plus I am not so sure the Soviets would be off limits, Russian raw materials would be highly in demand to Chinese.
 
.

This would reduce China economic growth but hardly stop it plus better Chinese agriculture would reduce China on food and open up much Chinese capital for other things.

Plus I am not so sure the Soviets would be off limits, Russian raw materials would be highly in demand to Chinese.

The Soviet are off limits in terms of foreign companies (not from the Communist bloc) going into the USSR to invest there. If China does not use dirigist policies, foreign imports will destroy Chinese infant industries and retard industrialization.
 
Last edited:
What would a KMT's foreign policy be in Africa and elsewhere? Do they support Anti-Communist regimes in return of concessions, etc?
What if the kmt in Vietnam, they did have a branch party there, emerges as power brokers during the chaotic three years, between the fall of diem and the rise of ky theiu? Could we see large scale Chinese aid in support of the us Australian campaign to save the south?
 

Marc

Donor
What if the kmt in Vietnam, they did have a branch party there, emerges as power brokers during the chaotic three years, between the fall of diem and the rise of ky theiu? Could we see large scale Chinese aid in support of the us Australian campaign to save the south?

You do realize that with a non-communist China, the whole political dynamics of Indochina are massively changed? Pretty much throw out most of your knowledge about what happened in Southeast and Eastern Asia after 1950. Events rarely occur independently of each other - why alternate history about big changes are far more fantasy than counterfactual speculations once you get past the pivot point.
 
Population may be lower or higher, Nationalist China might impose similar draconian population control measures. But if we are assuming that the Chinese Civil War still occurs ITTL, China will be very reliant on the US to keep everything from falling apart. The KMT won’t be able to afford to be non aligned like Yugoslavia or Austria. It’s too important and too unstable to not choose a side.

It’d be intriguing what SEATO would look like though.
 
Population may be lower or higher, Nationalist China might impose similar draconian population control measures. But if we are assuming that the Chinese Civil War still occurs ITTL, China will be very reliant on the US to keep everything from falling apart. The KMT won’t be able to afford to be non aligned like Yugoslavia or Austria. It’s too important and too unstable to not choose a side.

Let's remember that Yugoslavia didn't start non-aligned. It started as Stalin's most loyal ally. KMT China won't be inert on the geostrategic landscape, they'll be active players shifting diplomatic stance according to their own interests and reacting to the moves of other states.

And I think that once the civil war was over, the KMT regime would stabilize greatly. After all, a big part of the instability they had in OTL was the success of the Communists, which made people reconsider their allegiances.

fasquardon
 
Top