Fate of Taiwan if the KMT gets obliterated during WWII

Which Scenario do you find more likely

  • 1

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 8 15.7%
  • 3

    Votes: 12 23.5%
  • 4

    Votes: 28 54.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • Total voters
    51
It's simply not possible to "obliterate" the KMT--if worst came to worst, its leaders would flee into exile, and in 1945 the US could send troops to help them take over those parts of China the Communists could not immediately reach. The US is going to keep recognizing the KMT as the government of China in any event.
 
It's simply not possible to "obliterate" the KMT--if worst came to worst, its leaders would flee into exile, and in 1945 the US could send troops to help them take over those parts of China the Communists could not immediately reach. The US is going to keep recognizing the KMT as the government of China in any event.

Even if the "KMT" is just a disparate and disorganized bunch of exiles with a barely structured leadership, no functioning militairy forces and no way to retake mainland China at all?

I think that what you're suggesting is more or less option 2, the Americans would be left to create a rump RoC pretty much from scratch, as there is not much left of what was the former RoC. While I admit that's a possibility, I don't find it very likely, as I don't see the Americans having much to gain from being that relentlessly supportive of the KMT. No matter what happened, with its government and militairy gone, the KMT, even if it survived, would be unable to immediately take control of the islands. This would mean that they would have to remain under American occupation at least for a while. During the occupation, the future would obviously be vigorously debated in the islands, with the KMT exiles taking the lead of the faction that wants a rump republican chinese state to form, but many people in Taiwan would oppose that. In this scenario, I don't see why America would feel that much compelled to impose the will of the KMT, especially because, as a mere remnant of a political party, they don't really have that much legitimacy. Besides that, the PRC would soon start kicking at the door, which would probably lead most people to support maintaining the status quo (American occupation) in order to ensure their security.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, actually they were kind of a disgrace in the beggining of their rule. Hyperinflation, white terror etc. The good economic policies only came in the 1960s, and they were mostly the result of American influence, in my opinion. US investment also played a very large role in Taiwan becoming and Asian Tiger.
Weren't South Korea and Taiwan dependent on US investments, while Singapore and HK just being city-states that focused on being financial havens?
 
Even if the "KMT" is just a disparate and disorganized bunch of exiles with a barely structured leadership, no functioning militairy forces and no way to retake mainland China at all?
Actually, the issue of not being able to fully destroy the KMT is pretty major when I think about the internal Chinese situation. IOTL the Japanese made excellent military progress until 1939, then stopped for lack of manpower and logistics short of Sichuan, or the center of the country. It didn't manage to conquer much of the south, and none of the western part of the country came under its control for the same reasons. Only in 1944, after a large buildup of men and material and the removal of experienced KMT troops to Burma, did the Japanese launch their Ichi-Go offensive that took some more territory.

Japan can defeat the KMT in combat and force it to keep retreating. But it can't plausibly occupy all of China; in the event that it decisively routs the main KMT armies (IOTL they were pushed back after taking heavy casualties in the lower Yangtze river area), the most I can see the IJA advancing is to the Chongqing-Chengdu basin in Sichuan. The remnants of the KMT would in this scenario be forced into the mountains of western Sichuan, Yunnan, and other areas controlled by KMT-friendly warlords. Even if the KMT lost the ability to mount any meaningful operations to oppose the occupation of the rest of the country, there's no way the Japanese would be able to root them out of these peripheral redoubts. It would also be difficult for the CCP to extend its influence there in a decisive manner in the timeframe provided. So by the time of Japanese surrender the KMT would certainly still hold territory in China.

The question is whether the US will reward them as an ally or condemn them as a bunch of losers in the postwar.
 
Actually, the issue of not being able to fully destroy the KMT is pretty major when I think about the internal Chinese situation. IOTL the Japanese made excellent military progress until 1939, then stopped for lack of manpower and logistics short of Sichuan, or the center of the country. It didn't manage to conquer much of the south, and none of the western part of the country came under its control for the same reasons. Only in 1944, after a large buildup of men and material and the removal of experienced KMT troops to Burma, did the Japanese launch their Ichi-Go offensive that took some more territory.

Japan can defeat the KMT in combat and force it to keep retreating. But it can't plausibly occupy all of China; in the event that it decisively routs the main KMT armies (IOTL they were pushed back after taking heavy casualties in the lower Yangtze river area), the most I can see the IJA advancing is to the Chongqing-Chengdu basin in Sichuan. The remnants of the KMT would in this scenario be forced into the mountains of western Sichuan, Yunnan, and other areas controlled by KMT-friendly warlords. Even if the KMT lost the ability to mount any meaningful operations to oppose the occupation of the rest of the country, there's no way the Japanese would be able to root them out of these peripheral redoubts. It would also be difficult for the CCP to extend its influence there in a decisive manner in the timeframe provided. So by the time of Japanese surrender the KMT would certainly still hold territory in China.

The question is whether the US will reward them as an ally or condemn them as a bunch of losers in the postwar.

That's a fairly good point. What do you think it would take for the KMT to get really discredited in the eyes of the US? Would a really bad defeat against the Japanese suffice, or would something else be necessary? Maybe internal divisions or some kind of white terror during the war?

Anyway, we'll always have the option of strengthening the CCP before the war so that they may be able to take the land more quickly.
 
A really simple option:
- Chiang Kai-shek dies in the early part of a massively more successful Japanese invasion that routs the KMT armies.
- without Chiang's persona, the KMT splits into roughly pro-Japanese and pro-CCP camps
- the pro-Japanese guys join the puppet government and the pro-CCP camp joins the United Front
- KMT remnant is thus effectively absorbed into communist movement, now explicitly backed by the Soviet Union.
- No matter how much territory they still control in the postwar, no way US is going to give Taiwan to this Soviet client state.
 
The way this would work is if China had no functional regime after WW2 that could lay claim to the entire mainland, or if the KMT fell and the CCP simply seized power (with still the issue of minor warlords and the odd regionalists to deal with) following Japan's surrender.

Or if the 228 Incident spirals further beyond just merely removing Chen Yi and becomes a demonstration for Taiwanese independence. Alternatively, one could have the double whammy of Hainan flaring up at the same time as the 228 Incident, and then somehow linking the two without any of them falling for the PRC and/or having the KMT claw them back into their control. Either way, the US will have to get involved, due to the high prestige of Americans in Taiwan and resolve the mess.

Alternatively, if your situation is the one taken, there's the United Nations Trust Territory option, much like the area which now comprises the CNMI, the Marshall Islands, Belau/Palau, and the FSM. In reality, the United Nations Trust Territory option would result in de facto US occupation under UN auspices, though in the context of the Chinese Civil War that leaves Taiwan out of the hands of the KMT. If Hainan gets linked with the United Nations Trust Territory of Formosa (as I think it would probably be called), and maybe even the Dachen Islands:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Zhejiang_ROC.jpg
then that makes for some interesting dynamics there. Of course, the thing about the Trust Territory is that it has to be prepared for independence and thus eventually the Trustee has to let it go. At the same time, I think Taiwan will do better than the TTPI, which was an awful shambles.
 
Alternatively, if your situation is the one taken, there's the United Nations Trust Territory option, much like the area which now comprises the CNMI, the Marshall Islands, Belau/Palau, and the FSM. In reality, the United Nations Trust Territory option would result in de facto US occupation under UN auspices, though in the context of the Chinese Civil War that leaves Taiwan out of the hands of the KMT. If Hainan gets linked with the United Nations Trust Territory of Formosa (as I think it would probably be called), and maybe even the Dachen Islands:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Zhejiang_ROC.jpg
then that makes for some interesting dynamics there. Of course, the thing about the Trust Territory is that it has to be prepared for independence and thus eventually the Trustee has to let it go. At the same time, I think Taiwan will do better than the TTPI, which was an awful shambles.

Interesting. What would the PRC be doing in this scenario? Obviously, they would not agree with the UN's decision to "trust" the islands to the Americans. This basically puts them in situation in which is them against the rest of the world. Could they even refuse to join the UN in this scenario? How would the normalization of China's relations with the west play out? Would Taiwanese independence be more or less likely compared to the scenario in which there is a "normal" US occupation?
 
Interesting.

Thanks. :) Believe it or not, but IOTL, from what I can tell, there were calls among some Taiwanese to place the islands under UN rule or American rule. By placing it as a Trust Territory, they both would mean the same thing, as was the case with the TTPI.

What would the PRC be doing in this scenario?

For Taiwan in particular, it all depends on several factors, among them how the Chinese Civil War progresses. Before we get to the PRC, let's assume a scenario similar to OTL where the ROC still exists - however tenuous its control - and thus Jiang Jieshi retains power. Obviously, as a founding member of the UN, Jiang would obviously not be happy about this, since to him (and many other Chinese nationalists) of course Taiwan should be returned to China ASAP. The only way in that case to placate Jiang is to induce incentives for him to accept trusteeship - and plus, as a founding member of the UN, Jiang would have a say over how Taiwan would be run, even if indirect. Now, for the situation you're thinking of for the OP where I think a UN Trust Territory could work, the PRC is in a bind of its own. On one hand, they'd probably complain, but on the other hand (unlike OTL) there will still be difficulty trying to maintain control over what existing territory it had. The PRC would be in no situation to accept Taiwan at that moment. So the PRC would be preoccupied elsewhere. Which brings me to:

Obviously, they would not agree with the UN's decision to "trust" the islands to the Americans. This basically puts them in situation in which is them against the rest of the world.

The only way I could see the PRC agree with the UN is if the trusteeship is temporary - which is part of the nature of a trusteeship. Say, give it about 50 years, so if we start the trusteeship in 1945 then it should end at around 1995. In that case, as the trusteeship comes to a close, that's when the decisions will have to be made. What will happen is anyone's guess; I'd love to see an independent Taiwan come out of that scenario, but all options would be open. If there would be no agreement on what would happen come 1995, then there could be a possibility (though I don't know of any precedent) of extending the trusteeship agreement unless the situation is resolved.

Could they even refuse to join the UN in this scenario?

If they want to - no one's stopping them from joining ITTL.

How would the normalization of China's relations with the west play out?

That I do not know.

Would Taiwanese independence be more or less likely compared to the scenario in which there is a "normal" US occupation?

For all intents and purposes - yes. The only differences between a trusteeship and a "normal" US occupation is that in addition to being part of US jurisdiction, it would also fall under the authority and supervision of the Trusteeship Council. Which would mean, like the Japanese colonization of Taiwan beforehand, that the US would have to put on its best behavior when it comes to administering the colony. At least more so ITTL considering the OTL behavior of how the TTPI actually occurred, where the UN criticized the US for basically doing nothing to improve the islands and thus failing to prepare them for independence. Taiwan would ITTL be the US's "model Trust Territory" to deflect criticism from the TTPI, which would mean that Taiwan would probably have it better than, say, Puerto Rico or the Philippines.
 
Top