It would have turned out much better than in OTL. Mao set them back 20 years or more.
Yeah, it is hard to see how he could do worse than Mao.
It would have turned out much better than in OTL. Mao set them back 20 years or more.
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.Yeah, it is hard to see how he could do worse than Mao.
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.
I don't see why the KMT would have a differrent foriegn policy than the PRC in the multipolar world. Except maximum Russophobia.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.
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 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?