China Today, with Nationalist Victory!.

North Korea will be interesting if Stalin and Chiang agree to screw Mao and Manchuria falls to the KMT. After all, its still a Soviet zone of occupation, and you know how they usually turn out. No Mao does weaken Soviet confidence they can get away with an invasion of South Korea by proxy - not sure.

Don't forget that the Soviets didn't view Korea as a high priority until relatively late in the game; initially they were fine with a UN Mandate for the penninsula.

Though I doubt he'd try for Hong Kong. However nationalism might be stronger in the city, and the Republic might be able to push for stronger cross-border institutions earlier on.

The Chinese were initially promised Hong Kong back after WW2. So...
 

RousseauX

Donor
Economically, China would be somewhere between the PRC and Taiwan by today.
Probably not: the PRC did over and above what could be expected in terms of economic growth for the last 30 years.

So you end up making the argument that avoiding the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution really will make the Chinese economy much better today. The problem I see with this is that economic growth in PRC was relatively low during the period even during periods without horrible chaos compare to the subsequent boom in the 80s onward. I simply can't see how much growth you could expect from that period no matter what. It's probably not enough to seriously affect what China would look like today. That being said though, the cultural impact would be pretty big.

Either that (or in conjecture) you end up arguing something like Chiang will implement free markets and free markets are simply better than planned economies and will therefore make for a better China. The problem with this is that it's wrong on both counts for the period mentioned. Chiang will run some sort of authoritarian regime without a "free market", and planned economies have historically shown to be very good at driving extensive growth compare to the markets, and then fall apart once intensive growth was required. In other words, I simply can't see unleashing the free market (lol) in 1949 would make China better.

So all in all, I think the -best- case for KMT in economy is probably something which looks like the PRC today. Of course this is assuming they really do manage to avoid pulling a Burma or maybe a Philippines.
 
Let's see, millions of Chinese still alive from not having to go through the Great Leap Forward and five year plans. Am I correct in assuming that KMT China doesn't institute the one child policy? What would the population of KMT China be?
 
That's a fascinating idea for a TL right there: what if Chiang/Jiang and the Nationalists had turned back to the Soviets to get their help against the CCP, and Stalin had decided that it was more profitable to go with old allies than to stick with the unreliable Chinese Communists?

Stalin would have done so in a heartbeat. A man that willingly was purging his generals right into the disasters of the German invasion in the summer of 1941 would sign the order to have the entire CCP leadership shot and sleep like a baby after.
 
The butterflies are huge and they change the course of pretty much all of world history for the rest of the century. What the results are depend heavily on how the KMT wins the civil war and how the Soviets handle things. You probably wouldn't see a Korean War which would butterfly both Germany's and Japan's economic booms to a large extent, especially Japan's. It's unlikely that the Viet Minh go Communist, which will make decolonization in Indochina interesting, if decolonization even proceeds, as the US might seek to bolster European Imperialism rather than tacitly encourage its demise. It's impossible to assume that anything that happened in the latter half of the 20th century will still occur. It really would be a huge POD that offers a writer an opportunity to take history in practically any direction he wants to.

I'll just add that the idea that communism=bad economy and free markets=good economy and therefore China will be wealthier, more populous, and better off is simplistic ideological bullshit.
 
Let's see, millions of Chinese still alive from not having to go through the Great Leap Forward and five year plans. Am I correct in assuming that KMT China doesn't institute the one child policy? What would the population of KMT China be?

Much of the impetus for the population boom that the one-child policy was a reaction to was generated by Communist land reform policies, which made having many male children very beneficial to a much larger segment of the population. Without land reform large families doom peasant families to starvation.
 

Jimmyson

Banned
I'll just add that the idea that communism=bad economy and free markets=good economy and therefore China will be wealthier, more populous, and better off is simplistic ideological bullshit.
True Freedom=Good Economy. Dictatorship=Bad economy. Communism isn't exactly a bad ideology (In its bases form it can actually encourage economic growth), but it is usually overtaken by dictators, and the massive bureaucratic states that follows. So Dictatorship =eventual economic stagnation (I believe we will be seeing this with China in the near future 20 years or so)
 
Where would China be? I'd say that it might be able to get to where China is now economically, and in terms of HDI perhaps somewhat higher. In terms of human rights it'd probably be a bit better as well. More religious freedom definitely, no mass purges or killings, certainly nothing like the Cultural Revolution. You'd probably see rich, prosperous cities from the 60s onward, but the inland regions and countryside would still be dirt poor, though improving over time. Demographically there'd probably be a similar number of people if not a couple hundred million more , but the growth trends would resemble OTL if the country's development proceeds normally.

Overall, I'd say it'd be a better outcome.

But not Mongolia?
No, because Mongolia was a close puppet of the USSR.
 
I don't think you can assume that the KMT wouldn't have done anything the Communists did. One Child Policy? It's possible. GLF? Maybe. Oppression of non-Han minorities? I actually think there'd be less of that done by the KMT in this case, than in OTL.

The Communists, the horrible bastards that they were, were at least idealists, and you just don't know what idealists are willing to do until they do it. KMT idealism was long dead, so it would've been SSDD for China.
 
I don't think you can assume that the KMT wouldn't have done anything the Communists did. One Child Policy? It's possible. GLF? Maybe.
Certainly not. The GLF was caused by deliberate ignorance of starvation, in exchange for providing much of the Eastern Bloc with food for weapons. The Soviets even asked at one point what the Chinese were eating. Mao's underlings themselves were by and large disgusted with the whole thing. It's unlikely that the KMT's rule would've been totalitarian or extreme enough to go through with letting 30-40 million starve.

EDIT: Oh, and the Maoists also forbade peasants from picking their own crops in many places, as well as encouraging them to leave the crops to rot. Don't think the KMT would do that.
A "lack of idealism" isn't always such a bad thing.
 
These pretty much:
Economically, China would be somewhere between the PRC and Taiwan by today.

Politically, the ROC would likely have transitioned to real democracy sometime by the mid-1990s similar to Korea and Taiwan, as opposed to some sort of pseudo-democracy that covers an authoritarian regime which is the likely course of China for the immediate decades after a Nationalist win. Chiang Kai-Shek would likely have retained power in some form until he died, although we might see that exercised behind the scenes in the form of a compliant, loyal subordinate assuming certain positions. Afterwards, his son Chiang Chi-Kuo would take over. Given the larger size of China versus Taiwan, there would likely be more challenges to the Chiangs than occurred in Taiwan as it would be harder for one man to control. I suspect we will see pro-democracy turmoil in China create the same kind of disturbances like we saw in South Korea in the 1970s and 1980s.

Despite all the faults of Chiang, he would avoid the disastrous policies that Mao pursued. Furthermore, the KMT areas under his control were run vastly better than those under the warlords (with some caveats). Basically, whenever Chiang eliminated warlord control of the area, it benefitted. Any Nationalist victory timeline must be based on the idea that Chiang must have eliminated the worse of the corruptions that doomed the KMT regime post WWII. If not, victory is impossible. If you look at the successes (and limits) of Chiang during the "Nanking Decade", you see definite improvements although unequal benefits. There is a certain amount of corruption that is tolerable, and the Nanking Decade seemed to have it.

I must disagree with Snake Featherston's analysis, which I always do when this topic comes up. Although Chiang was a Confucian style authoritarian with some Fascist leanings (in the style of Salazar or Franco, not Hitler or even Mussolini) I think a comparison to the Burma junta is too extreme. That level of repression and isolation was never a characteristic of Chiang's KMT. There was far more free press and toleration of internal opposition than in Burma even if Dai Li and the Green Gang might rough up people who were too outspoken (actually being killed seemed limited to being Communist).

I also think it is completely inaccurate to think that Chiang would become Stalin's bitch. The only time Chiang and Stalin were even remotely "close" was when both viewed Japan as a threat, and Stalin gave the Nationalists lots of aid (1937-1940). Before that, Stalin was the enemy. After that, Stalin was the enemy. Chiang would likely give way to political expedience and accomodate a powerful Soviet Union (just as he had Japan at times), but he was a nationalist first and foremost and didn't like making any concessions to the Soviets. Chiang's plan towards the USSR would be the same as he had towards Japan - delay a showdown until China improved internally to be able to stand up to the Soviets. I think the most likely foreign policy would be to be mildly pro-USA while avoiding anatagonizing the Soviets too much. Ultimately, Chiang understood that the Soviet bear was much more likely to act predatory towards China than the American eagle even if US officials naively pressed Chiang on domestic political issues. Politically, Chiang would be more like France or the Shah's Persia than Britain or Japan. In other words, he'll pursue his goals independently instead of being attached to the hip of the US, but he'll cooperate more than not.

As Jeremy Lin said - post-WWII, the assumed outcome of the Chinese Civil War was the Communists bottled up it Manchuria under Soviet protection and Chiang overlord of the rest. However, Stalin, ever unimpressed by Mao, was planning on pulling out after concessions and letting the KMT roll into town. The Communists were so complacent they spent 1945/6 setting up local party offices and designing stamps for their Marxist 'North China'. However Chiang was hampered by Marshall and his stop-start course and a changing international situation allowed the Communists to rearm rapidly and go on the offensive.

Chiang never trusted Stalin but in doesn't mean he's uninterested in doing business with him.

North Korea will be interesting if Stalin and Chiang agree to screw Mao and Manchuria falls to the KMT. After all, its still a Soviet zone of occupation, and you know how they usually turn out. No Mao does weaken Soviet confidence they can get away with an invasion of South Korea by proxy - not sure.

Vietnam however, oh boy does that get interesting! Chiang took inspiration from many political ideologies but one was definately anti-colonialism. The Viet Minh and its predecessors had his full backing against the French and then the Japanese, and will certainly have it against the French yet again. How the Americans deal with that, is a very interesting question. It one thing to oppose international Communism, its another to choose between two allied powers, one anti-communist and a developing 'democracy', the other a declining colonial power with the occassional communist minister.

Given the timing of the Indochinese War and Suez (Nasser still has good odds with a 1945/6 PoD in China), it might see an early French split with NATO if the Americans back China's horse. If Chiang helped stop a Korean War, the White House might even feel they owe him and demand Paris just give up. In turn this has the interesting knock on that Ho Chi Minh or whoever might install a bog standard NAM pseudo-socialist republic rather than full blooded Marxist-Leninist state, one open to cooperation with the highest bidder...

Actually Nasser might be a decent comparison to how Chiang could play the superpowers. Prior to Suez, Nasser openly admitted he was accepting a bidding war. However Egypt is not China, and Chiang might have much more room to mess around with the superpowers.

On Tibet, the KMT might take a more softly softly approach but who knows. Xinjiang is interesting, with that AND Manchuria, Stalin might ask for some decent concessions, possibly (a guess based on his neo-Tsarist foreign policy) basing rights at Harbin/Port Arthur? Certainly investment oppourtunities, possibly keeping an influence in Manchurian resources.

Ironically I can see US idealism towards her 'third world' ally, a wish to pull back post-war and their approach to Japan, could all make Chiang become a major nuisance to America's early Cold War effort, even more than the PRC due to their UN seat and a more ambiguous position.

This will probably mean more Soviet interest in the Middle East, and perhaps an earlier crack at Africa. After all, Moscow seems to have missed the opportunity to get in on the hullaballoo of decolonisation IOTL, leaving it til the 1970s to give it a good old go.

Chinese culture/society? Well we'll see Chinese cinema bleed into the Western conscience earlier. Perhaps an earlier interest in Eastern philosophy and spirtuality? Hong Kong and Macau could get interesting. When India goes for Goa, Chiang might seize Macau. Though I doubt he'd try for Hong Kong. However nationalism might be stronger in the city, and the Republic might be able to push for stronger cross-border institutions earlier on.

Except Manchuria and Xinjiang are Stalin's toys. Chiang could invade Manchuria during the Korean War, and Stalin would probably throw Mao to the wolves there.

Less people than OTL though because none of Mao's insane super-natal policies are performed. The One-Child Policy was done to curb that, but if the KMT had done a Two Child Policy the result would have been the same. That's how much Mao's policies fucked up the birth rate.
 
Top