Economic Development of Nationalist China

If America helps rebuild KMT China to the hilt (to present massive potent dagger at the USSR's back) and Chiang is willing to accept it despite all the strings attached (turning the USSR into a mortal existential foe), China can totally be on the path of being the world's #1 economic power by 2000, assuming WWIII analogue didnt wipe the country out.

All the money and managerial talent that went to rebuild Japan/S Korea would instead be funneled into KMT China in a feverish ramshackle attempt to build em back up to quickly threaten the USSR. Korea and Japan's own development will be delayed, although not totally as i still see the US setting up secondary tertiary bases in those 2 countries, just cuz they can.

However both Truman was lackluster in his support of KMT China and Chiang DID NOT want the USSR to be forever pissed at him, so that easily throws out the best case China economic hegemon scenario but vastly decreases the chance of China getting involved in some horrendous war that'll fuck it up (who the hell knows, maybe psychos in US military will think a pre-emptive 1st strike on the USSR in the late 50s will totes work and the US will suffer ZERO damage, although haha sucks to be Western Europe and China).

China will go through its growing pains as the KMT consolidates its hold over the country and start building things back up. Likely KMT China will get things into pretty good working order by the early 60s and thus theyd have a 10 year headstart over Maoist China as i doubt the KMT wouldnt do anything as insanely self damaging on itself as the Cultural Revolution (although i totes see some purges and mass killings here and there to stamp down dissent). China will play both sides off of each other for its own maximum benefit.

With a likely medium case scenario for China i see em surpassing the US GDP in 2010 then stumble a bit as they go through their own little demographic snafu.
 
However both Truman was lackluster in his support of KMT China and Chiang DID NOT want the USSR to be forever pissed at him, so that easily throws out the best case China economic hegemon scenario but vastly decreases the chance of China getting involved in some horrendous war that'll fuck it up (who the hell knows, maybe psychos in US military will think a pre-emptive 1st strike on the USSR in the late 50s will totes work and the US will suffer ZERO damage, although haha sucks to be Western Europe and China).

China will go through its growing pains as the KMT consolidates its hold over the country and start building things back up. Likely KMT China will get things into pretty good working order by the early 60s and thus theyd have a 10 year headstart over Maoist China as i doubt the KMT wouldnt do anything as insanely self damaging on itself as the Cultural Revolution (although i totes see some purges and mass killings here and there to stamp down dissent). China will play both sides off of each other for its own maximum benefit.

With a likely medium case scenario for China i see em surpassing the US GDP in 2010 then stumble a bit as they go through their own little demographic snafu.

What if Nationalist China along with a few other nations managed to establish a nominally Western-leaning or at least genuinely impartial ATL analogue of the Non-Aligned Movement (or Neutral Alliance)?

Would National China also adopt a form of the One-Child Policy or would that likely be butterflied away with any potential excess population growth leading to increased Chinese emigration, possibility adding a demographic dimension to a ATL Nationalist Chinese equivalent of the PRC's OTL Neo-Colonialism in parts of Africa and elsewhere?
 
Would National China also adopt a form of the One-Child Policy or would that likely be butterflied away with any potential excess population growth leading to increased Chinese emigration, possibility adding a demographic dimension to a ATL Nationalist Chinese equivalent of the PRC's OTL Neo-Colonialism in parts of Africa and elsewhere?
I don't see why the KMT would have a differrent foriegn policy than the PRC in the multipolar world. Except maximum Russophobia.
 
I don't see why the KMT would have a differrent foriegn policy than the PRC in the multipolar world. Except maximum Russophobia.

That I would seriously doubt, at least for the first few years or so. The GMD and USSR were actually on pretty good terms right up to when Stalin realised that the CCP would actually win the civil war and totally switched his support to Mao. But given that even before then the USSR had provided some aid to the CCP (i.e. handing over Manchuria and the captured Japanese arsenals to the Red Army) I think there would be a downward slide as Nanjing becomes more beholden to the US for assistance, and also stiffens its resistance to the USSR's demands.
 
I don't see why the KMT would have a differrent foriegn policy than the PRC in the multipolar world. Except maximum Russophobia.

After Stalin died, the Sino-Soviet relationship under Chiang couldn't be any worse than it was under Mao in OTL.

Mao let his ego get in the way of his decision making, as he has done many times in history to disastrous effect, and expected Khrushchev to look to him as the leader of the Communist world after Stalin's death. When this didn't happen, in addition to a few differences in foreign and domestic policies (mainly Khrushchev trying to discourage Mao from a reckless and dangerous foreign policy in a nuclear world, as well as warning him of the damage caused by Stalinist economics in the USSR and not to replicate this in China...which he still did), Mao threw his toys out of the pram.

Khrushchev and Chiang would likely have a more professional relationship. Chiang would likely be closer to the US, but maintain cordial relations with the USSR, as he did in OTL before the Communist take over.
 
Last edited:
The problem with Chiang is that while more able than Mao, he'd have a much harder time running his country. Because corruption. Also being a semi-warlord.

Wat.

Chiang was not a warlord. Authoritarian? Yes. Maybe running things slightly below "democratic" standards? Yes. Recognizes there is a corruption problem and is striving to fix it? Yes. Absolutely detests warlords and undertook a campaign to wipe them out? Yes.

Chiang was not a warlord, unless you mean the literal definition which is a military commander that has control over a country. Then yes, he is a "warlord". But he is also the elected president of the country and actively pursued a path to make said country better, which is a lot better than what "warlords" do.

And EVRYONE here seems to forget that the PRC has massive corruption problems them and NOW as well? Why doesn't anyone mention that?
 
Best case scenario KMT China turns out as the OTL China except a decade or so forward - its military-industry complex far more developed, its economy towering over the United States and the rest of the world, completely dominated by state-owned enterprises and private conglomerates. Income inequality may turn out more or less the same because the Three Principles was still a pretty socialist ideology.

Worst case scenario it's a total trainwreck. The US gives up on China after pouring billions into investments in military and industry, i.e. South Vietnam. Income inequality, anarchy, and brutality under paramilitary forces run wild. Due to high discontent, the CCP, while too weak to face the KMT directly, attacks the government via small guerrilla units or terrorist attacks; due to fears of Communism, the KMT goes on a killing spree against minorities, intellectuals, anything that has a possibility of supporting Communism. The world witnesses millions of Chinese dead in the worst White Terror recorded in history.

Most likely it's somewhere in between.
 
The problem with Chiang is that while more able than Mao, he'd have a much harder time running his country. Because corruption. Also being a semi-warlord.

The Communists had similar corruption , at the least. A good part of the reason why the Great Leap Forward was such a disaster is that corrupt Chinese officials kept lying about their production numbers in order to receive their "above plan production" bonuses. A lot of the reason he was a "semi-warlord" is that he was fighting both the Japanese Imperialists and the Communists at the same time through much of his rule. That make control much more difficult.
 
Wat.

Chiang was not a warlord. Authoritarian? Yes. Maybe running things slightly below "democratic" standards? Yes. Recognizes there is a corruption problem and is striving to fix it? Yes. Absolutely detests warlords and undertook a campaign to wipe them out? Yes.

Chiang was not a warlord, unless you mean the literal definition which is a military commander that has control over a country. Then yes, he is a "warlord". But he is also the elected president of the country and actively pursued a path to make said country better, which is a lot better than what "warlords" do.

And EVRYONE here seems to forget that the PRC has massive corruption problems them and NOW as well? Why doesn't anyone mention that?

Agreed, if anything Maoist China was even more corrupt. I also want to know why people overlook the fact that Chiang fought the Japanese and the Communists at the same time much of his rule while the Communists barely fought the Japanese.
 
We all know how destructive the so-called 'Great Leap Forward' was, and how horrible life during the Cultural Revolution was. These two are classic showcases of the Maoist stagnation, all led and controlled by none other than Dear Chairman Mao himself.

But how does that makes, very hypothetical, Chiang's China viable?

I just can't see it. Chiang failed to control hyperinflation, failed to curb corruption, failed to build up internal support, and failed to build up external support as well. Officials, including Chiang's cabinet itself, was full of cronyism, and factional infighting between these groups were rampant. During the war he had lost control over economy, and by 1945 his rule was in a death spiral. Here we see an opposite pattern. The Cultural Revolution was a deliberate attempt by Mao to take back control over the country, backed by a fanatical, mass movement that worshipped the Comrade Chairman. Chiang had no control over the mass and couldn't pull neither a 'Great Leap Foward' to curb inflation nor a 'Cultural Revolution' to subdue local cliques. Instead he allowed his cronies to flourish and resorted to (unpopular) political repression.

Sure, his records before 1937 are impressive, not without failures and setbacks but still. If we're to talk about topic like, 'Nationalist China without the Second Sino-Japanese War' or such, then I'd be rather positive, but no, by 1945 all his previous achievements were busted to ashes and atoms. Of coursely it is totally possible for him to pull an another Nanjing Decade and rebuild the country, but he would have to start from somewhere below zero point, and unlike 1927 there is one popular alternative to the Nationalists. I'm very sure it would take yet another decade to subdue communist insurrections in the countryside. Simply saying 'Communists are corrupted as well' wouldn't make sense, in 1949 they had much better 'record' than that of the Nationalists.
 
Top