Could the Republic of China under Chang Kai-shek, have won the civil war against Mao with increased NATO involvement or was their effort all for nothing? And if they did would they put Puyi back on the throne?
I don't know, but I have heard that Communists had popular support as well as Soviet support. The Communists also captured most of Japanese equipment in Manchuria after WW2. I think it is possible, before the Japanese invasion.
Until sometime in 47 the Nationalists still had the advantage in pure firepower so that mean they still have a shot in my book, especially if they can convince the Americans to keep sending material. They where also non-insignificant divisions inside the CCP back then so while I can't really gave a precise POD in that regard its definitely possible they could manage to loose the war by themselves if said differences became too accute.Basically, the time to beat the Communists was any time up to the Japanese invasion. After WWII was over, conditions for the KMT had arguably eroded too far and the CCP was surging.
That said, I'm no expert on the post-WWII Chinese Civil War. Perhaps there was a point in '47 where the KMT could've stemmed the Red Tide in a decisive battle? Most seem to agree that all was lost by '48.
Why would they put Puyi back on the throne? The KMT was founded by the anti-monarchy revolutionaries who overthrew him in the first place, and after his collaboration with Japan they wanted to have him executed and the only reason Puyi survived was because he was in communist captivity and the communists wanted to show off how they could reform anyone.Could the Republic of China under Chang Kai-shek, have won the civil war against Mao with increased NATO involvement or was their effort all for nothing? And if they did would they put Puyi back on the throne?
I think it'd help if the reasons the Nationalists lost are listed, since we could then focus on how Chiang could have solved each of these problems (disclaimer, I know very little intuitively about the Chinese Civil War)
Some reasons for Nationalist loss/Communist victory:
Of course, there are probably a lot more reasons, but these are some of the more concrete ones IMO.
- Immediately after WWII the Nationalists had exhausted a lot of resources fighting the Japanese, whereas the Communists mostly stuck to surviving in preparation for the postwar era with occasional guerrilla raids on the Japanese to at least look like they're fighting the invaders. The Communists came out of the war a lot fresher than the Nationalists.
- Chiang managed to make too many enemies, fighting the Japanese while also fighting the Communists (at least until his generals kidnapped him and forced a truce). His alliance with the warlords alienated much of the peasantry, which the Communists eagerly gobbled up with their land reform policies and the like.
- The oft-quoted corruption (including conscription which often resulted in corrupt officers taking extra pay and thus not leaving any for the lower ranks) and mismanagement, while their effect on their own is debatable, managed to persuade the US to withdraw aid.
- The Nationalists decisively lost the public opinion war, failing to punish Japanese collaborators, brutally torturing and executing Communists publicly (thus making them martyrs), giving the countryside and thus the peasant population to the Communists
- Economic failure caused by hyperinflation, price control failures, corruption, etc, which alienated the middle class.
- Relative incompetence (in general, but special note goes to) in the military command structure compared to the Communists, who at least allowed their generals to make their own decisions and exercised impressive amounts of cohesion
- (although the source for this one was somewhat dubious) apparently Chiang discharged a large number of soldiers after solidifying alliances with the warlords, and with nowhere else to turn, most of them joined the Communists