So I'm reading Max Hasting's history of the Pacific War. And he mentioned that Jiang Jieshi is regarded with favor even in mainland China as a result of historical revisionism that seems him as a Chinese nationalist unifying figure. A Communist Party historian is even quoted as saying that he deserves the same 7-parts good and 3-parts bad ratio as Mao Zedong. Certainly he proved to be a very effective governor of Taiwan leading a backward Confucian feudal society into 1st world status. But he was the governor of a small American-backed province as opposed to a huge land-empire. And while its true that he reigned under one of the worst periods in Chinese history, to a large extent he brought on himself especially through the corrupt gangster friends he made in the 1920s. The unbelievable corruption of the Chungking WW2 government pales in comparison with the relatively austere and disciplined Red regime in Yanan during the same period. So its not simply cultural that Chinese troops had to be poor and demoralized during the 1930s.
So I guess that brings me to my main POV mainly the bad choices made by Chiang in the 1920s that brought on all the disasters. Stalin always had a soft spot for Chiang, even in 1948 he urged Mao to form a unity government with the KMT. Chiang's son was trained in the USSR. And Soviet agents helped reorganize the KMT on Leninist lines. One of the major bones of contention with Trotsky on the Comintern front was the role of the "progressive" KMT. Stalin strongly promoted the progressive credentials of Chiang and considered him a revolutionary democrat along the lines of Ataturk. Unlike Trotsky he suggested the CPC play second-fiddle to the KMT during the "bourgeouis democratic" phase of backwards China's revolution.
So I'm wondering what could have happened if Stalin's policy had worked out. If Chiang had had a change of heart or a different KMT leader had been in power in 1927. I don't see the possibility of direct Communist rule in 1920s China. But there was a real possibility of a Left-KMT CPC coalition government. A Popular Front along the lines of the Spanish Republic of 1936. Through a combination of ruthlessness and genuine popular support a Bolshevized Chinese government might have achieved a degree of unity and stability akin to say early 1950s PRC. This close alignment with the USSR comes at the expense of American sympathy. But this proved relatively ineffectual as far as US aid in WW2 actually goes. Militarily and industrially I think this Chinese government could acheive the level of 1930s Mongolia or 1950s Korean War PRC. Both a far cry from the motley army of Chiang. US observers who had seen the 1940s KMT army, could not believe that the same Chinese army could accomplish the Battle of the Yalu. A Soviet backed Chinese army could at least achieve the level of the Mongolian People's Republic. Which despite being smaller and poorer, with Soviet aid delivered crushing blows to Japan in the 1930s. So a Left-KMT government might very will be able to face down the Japanese threat in 1928 when they halted Chiang's Northern Expedition. Or achieve a Nomohan-style border battle victory in 1931 in Manchuria.
Of course the question is how does this butterfly in the larger international scene? European events most likely proceed as in OTL. Tensions between the USA and Japan do not heat up, since American fear of Communism means less sympathy for a perceived ally of the USSR. And in addition China might very well be able to take care of itself anyway. The Japanese still ally with Nazi Germany if anything they are pushed into their arms faster since they perceive the threat as greater. With greater animosity towards USSR for the perceived humiliation in Manchuria, and less beef with the USA. Japan might very well join in Hitler's invasion in 1941. This might not be as disastrous as it would have been in our time-line, since a far better trained and equipped Chinese army might be able to hold the Pacific Front for the Soviets and thus allow Stalin to remove reserves from Siberia anyway. The Sino-Japanse war would play out less like the pitiful one-sided massacre it did in OTL and more like the Soviet-German war. Still without any direct cause of Pearl Harbor and US intervention, the USSR, PRC and UK face a much harder task in crushing the Axis.
So I guess that brings me to my main POV mainly the bad choices made by Chiang in the 1920s that brought on all the disasters. Stalin always had a soft spot for Chiang, even in 1948 he urged Mao to form a unity government with the KMT. Chiang's son was trained in the USSR. And Soviet agents helped reorganize the KMT on Leninist lines. One of the major bones of contention with Trotsky on the Comintern front was the role of the "progressive" KMT. Stalin strongly promoted the progressive credentials of Chiang and considered him a revolutionary democrat along the lines of Ataturk. Unlike Trotsky he suggested the CPC play second-fiddle to the KMT during the "bourgeouis democratic" phase of backwards China's revolution.
So I'm wondering what could have happened if Stalin's policy had worked out. If Chiang had had a change of heart or a different KMT leader had been in power in 1927. I don't see the possibility of direct Communist rule in 1920s China. But there was a real possibility of a Left-KMT CPC coalition government. A Popular Front along the lines of the Spanish Republic of 1936. Through a combination of ruthlessness and genuine popular support a Bolshevized Chinese government might have achieved a degree of unity and stability akin to say early 1950s PRC. This close alignment with the USSR comes at the expense of American sympathy. But this proved relatively ineffectual as far as US aid in WW2 actually goes. Militarily and industrially I think this Chinese government could acheive the level of 1930s Mongolia or 1950s Korean War PRC. Both a far cry from the motley army of Chiang. US observers who had seen the 1940s KMT army, could not believe that the same Chinese army could accomplish the Battle of the Yalu. A Soviet backed Chinese army could at least achieve the level of the Mongolian People's Republic. Which despite being smaller and poorer, with Soviet aid delivered crushing blows to Japan in the 1930s. So a Left-KMT government might very will be able to face down the Japanese threat in 1928 when they halted Chiang's Northern Expedition. Or achieve a Nomohan-style border battle victory in 1931 in Manchuria.
Of course the question is how does this butterfly in the larger international scene? European events most likely proceed as in OTL. Tensions between the USA and Japan do not heat up, since American fear of Communism means less sympathy for a perceived ally of the USSR. And in addition China might very well be able to take care of itself anyway. The Japanese still ally with Nazi Germany if anything they are pushed into their arms faster since they perceive the threat as greater. With greater animosity towards USSR for the perceived humiliation in Manchuria, and less beef with the USA. Japan might very well join in Hitler's invasion in 1941. This might not be as disastrous as it would have been in our time-line, since a far better trained and equipped Chinese army might be able to hold the Pacific Front for the Soviets and thus allow Stalin to remove reserves from Siberia anyway. The Sino-Japanse war would play out less like the pitiful one-sided massacre it did in OTL and more like the Soviet-German war. Still without any direct cause of Pearl Harbor and US intervention, the USSR, PRC and UK face a much harder task in crushing the Axis.