Nationalist China as the Third Superpower in the Cold War?

CELTICEMPIRE

As we all know, the Communists won the Civil War, and Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang fled to Taiwan. And from there on out Chiang's Republic of China was reliably pro-US in foreign policy. But then again, Taiwan didn't have much of a choice in that regard due to its small size.

I think that if the KMT had won the Chinese Civil War, China would have an independent foreign policy and would act as a third superpower in the Cold War. Chiang Kai-Shek, while anti-Communist, was by no means a committed free market Capitalist either. He believed in allying with the West when it was advantageous, but wanted China to eventually be free of Western interference.

Could Nationalist China act as a third superpower in the Cold War? Would we see revolutionaries in Asia and other parts of the world align themselves with KMT China rather than the US or USSR?
 
Kinto

Kinto

This is possible I suppose, but I see the KMT being just another third way ideology like Peronism.
 

CELTICEMPIRE

Kinto said:
This is possible I suppose, but I see the KMT being just another third way ideology like Peronism.
Click to expand...

You can do a lot more with China than with Argentina.

Theoretical_TJ said:
The KMT would have to stop being ludicrously corrupt first.
Click to expand...

I think they could do it. IIRC Chiang Kai-shek wanted to implement reforms after the Communists were defeated and I think there were crackdowns on corruption in Taiwan after the war.
 
Kinto

Kinto

For this to work, there would have to be rapid reconstruction and industrialization (in the style of 5 year plans) before China could export its ideology to different parts of the globe.
 

CELTICEMPIRE

Kinto said:
For this to work, there would have to be rapid reconstruction and industrialization (in the style of 5 year plans) before China could export its ideology to different parts of the globe.
Click to expand...

True, but Nationalist China isn't going to do anything like the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, so I'd say that by 1970, ATL China is doing much better than OTL China.
 

CountDVB

RvBOMally did a map on that I believe called the Plum Blossom Blooms where China becomes the Third superpower and gets India and Brazil as allies in its Third World branch.

My own thoughts would be that it could be possible though how they'd interact with the other powers would change. My guess is that they may enjoy a brief honeymoon period between them and the West (or at least the USA) due to shared antagonism with the Soviets and the US even lending some help and such. Nationalist pride would probably get in the way and China would strike off of its own and cause the East/West cap to widen somewhat. Meanwhile, China would get into conflicts with Russia over Mongolia and possibly Korea and just have plain antagonism. Around the 80s, the vitriol leaves as a new generation comes and China has carved its own branch of itself and relations warm between them in the US. Perhaps both would even get fads based off of their cultureal influence.

Overall, it would be kinda like the USA dealing with a version of itself, but instead of being an arrogant cocky younggun like the USA is viewed, it'd be an arrogant experienced old man like China. Probably once they realize they ain't that different and when the USSR folds in like a house of cards, they'll probably work with the West to help clear things up. Heck, China might try and split Russia in half and muscle in further into the Middle East.
 

SunilTanna

China could not possibly be a superpower for decades after 1945, because it would take decades to rebuild the country to the position where its a great power or better in every region of the world (which is basically the definition of superpower)
 

Berkeley2017

CELTICEMPIRE said:
True, but Nationalist China isn't going to do anything like the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, so I'd say that by 1970, ATL China is doing much better than OTL China.
Click to expand...

Neither did OTL India. Yeah OTL India still lags behind the PRC today, despite both countries starting out at roughly the same place in 1950. But what OTL India does have along with KMT China are massive amounts of corruption that would severely hinder economic growth. Corruption wasn't really a problem in the PRC until after the success of Deng's economic reforms.
 

CELTICEMPIRE

Berkeley2017 said:
Neither did OTL India. Yeah OTL India still lags behind the PRC today, despite both countries starting out at roughly the same place in 1950. But what OTL India does have along with KMT China are massive amounts of corruption that would severely hinder economic growth. Corruption wasn't really a problem in the PRC until after the success of Deng's economic reforms.
Click to expand...

China's modern success is a direct result of Deng Xiaoping's reforms and moving away from Communism, a system that the ROC would never have to suffer under.

China has more people and (I think) more resources than India. I think China is more favored than its Southern neighbor.
 

Berkeley2017

CELTICEMPIRE said:
China's modern success is a direct result of Deng Xiaoping's reforms and moving away from Communism, a system that the ROC would never have to suffer under.

China has more people and (I think) more resources than India. I think China is more favored than its Southern neighbor.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Deng Xiaoping succeeded mostly because of China's centralized government and the relative lack of corruption in the 1980s (lower than either China or India today). Yes, the ROC would never have to suffer from communism, but it would also not have the centralization and efficiency that allowed Deng to succeed, thus it would be closer to OTL India than OTL China.
 

CELTICEMPIRE

Berkeley2017 said:
Yeah, but Deng Xiaoping succeeded mostly because of China's centralized government and the relative lack of corruption in the 1980s (lower than either China or India today). Yes, the ROC would never have to suffer from communism, but it would also not have the centralization and efficiency that allowed Deng to succeed, thus it would be closer to OTL India than OTL China.
Click to expand...

IIRC the KMT had plans for reform, but they were put on the backburner during the war.
 

Berkeley2017

CELTICEMPIRE said:
IIRC the KMT had plans for reform, but they were put on the backburner during the war.
Click to expand...
Not sure how well they would've turned out though. The KMT was hopelessly corrupt and unpopular, which was why the CCP won the Civil War despite overwhelming odds against them. If the KMT were corrupt enough to be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I'm not certain how well they could've fared even if they won.
 

CELTICEMPIRE

Berkeley2017 said:
Not sure how well they would've turned out though. The KMT was hopelessly corrupt and unpopular, which was why the CCP won the Civil War despite overwhelming odds against them. If the KMT were corrupt enough to be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I'm not certain how well they could've fared even if they won.
Click to expand...

Is it something that is Chiang Kai-shek's problem, or just the KMT as a whole?
 

Thon Taddeo

OTL the KMT land reform program was successful because most of the large landowners were Japanese who fled after the end of the war. Chinese landowners were compensated with confiscated Japanese wealth. Land reform is going to be much more difficult in Mainland China.
 
Kinto

Kinto

Personally I would say that OTL China still hasn't reached superpower status, if such a term could still be applied in 21st century geopolitics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top