Nationalist China dominated Mainland.

I've seen a lot of people claim that if Nationalist China win the CCW, then China would be a much bigger of Taiwan or South Korea. The problem is, China is dirt poor in the 1950s, while Taiwan and SK already had some development under Japan, not to mention that Taiwan and SK are small and thus, easier to industrialize. And also, how would Chiangkaishek deal with all those warlords? Sure internal warlord fighting was gone by WW2, but much of China was still under autonomous rule by local leaders. And what about being hated by 90% of China's population? How could they effectively have conquered that, especially considering China's huge population?
 
China was still mainly an agrarian, peasant based country, but it is not true that the entire country was dirt poor. Shanghai and Nanking were very industrialized, and there were other significant industry in the Wuhan, Canton, Taiyuan, and Chungking areas. And even those areas that lacked industrialization were still in a country that was considered to be quite wealthy by mid and late 19th century standards. We are not talking about pre-colonial Africa here or stone age tribes in the Amazon jungle.

It is true that Taiwan was more heavily developed overall, and that any growth in China would not be spread evenly. It would be concentrated in certain select areas, and that would lead to various problems (similar to what is happening in the PRC today with labor migration and unrest). But the country as a whole was developing. There was a lot of wealth there and significant industry, although not to European or North American levels. You are also overstating the development of Taiwan (mainly light industry) and Korea (most of the industrial area was in North Korea, not South Korea).

The Nationalists were always having trouble with the warlords, but the situation would be very different after World War II than during the prewar era. First, the rest of the world was much more supportive and invovled with Chiang's government than they were before. If Chiang merely centralized army payroll and supply (rather than give it to the warlords to distribute to the troops under their command), than the warlords would lose most of their influence. The only reason Chiang did not do that during WWII was that he was very dependent on the warlord troops after the main core of the Nationalist Army was destroyed in heavy fighting in 1937. He couldn't risk any warlord defecting at that time. Chiang had actually achieved a lot of centralization in the late 20s and early 30s, but it backslided when dealing with the immediate pressures of the war. I don't think he would have much problems with most of the warlords after the war as he could rely on American aid to arm and supply his forces.

The Nationalists were also not hated by 90% of the population. Chiang was extremely popular before the war. And as WWII ended, he still enjoyed immense popularity. The problem was that he did not tackle the immediate issues of corruption and allowed inflation to ruin the economy. He tolerated that because he thought he could put that off until after he destroyed the Communists. Instead, he should have addressed the issues immediately and delayed a confrontation. If he had done that, and I think any scenario involving the Nationalists winning the civil war would have to include, then it eliminates most of the dissatisfaction the Chinese people had with his rule during the postwar civil war.

So in short, it is distinct possibility that the Nationalists/Chiang could have won. He made bad decisions that caused him to lose, but it was not inevitable.

I don't think we could expect a Nationalist China to achieve Taiwan style development across the entire mainland. But I think it would have achieved comparable growth now back to the 1980s or early 1990s or so. The coastal areas and select cities would have developed first, and we'd see more even development happening in the last two decades. The per capita GDP would be lower than Taiwan (about $21,000 right now), but higher than the PRC (about $4800 right now). It would probably be somewhere between $10-15,000 which would put it in the same class as Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, or Argentina. Some cities would probably be world class, and certain areas would be impoverished. However, given Chinag's strong Confucian ideals and China's historical culture, there would be much stronger emphasis on education and better infrastructure so we'd probably avoid the worst favelas/slums situation found in Mexico or Brazil.
 
I don't think we could expect a Nationalist China to achieve Taiwan style development across the entire mainland. But I think it would have achieved comparable growth now back to the 1980s or early 1990s or so. The coastal areas and select cities would have developed first, and we'd see more even development happening in the last two decades. The per capita GDP would be lower than Taiwan (about $21,000 right now), but higher than the PRC (about $4800 right now). It would probably be somewhere between $10-15,000 which would put it in the same class as Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, or Argentina. Some cities would probably be world class, and certain areas would be impoverished. However, given Chinag's strong Confucian ideals and China's historical culture, there would be much stronger emphasis on education and better infrastructure so we'd probably avoid the worst favelas/slums situation found in Mexico or Brazil.

If China would have GDP per capita would be between 10-15 000 wouldn't that make them the world largest economy or at least on par with USA and EU?
 
^^They would. And it would certainly influence rest of the world. How long do you think Soviet Union would survive against not one but two hostile superpowers?
 
Yes, but in such a world, the US and EU would also have benefitted from China's growth so their economies would also increase. But overall, China would be on par with them, but with a much lower standard of living.

A Nationalist China would put the odds greatly against the Soviet Union, and would alter Soviet politics. It would certainly make them feel much more encircled, which would have good and bad consequences. However , it would take a long time before China could really affect world politics. A Nationalist win would still come after several decades of revolution, civil war, and foreign invasion. And the Red Army isn't going to be afraid of the Nationalist Army. It would not be until the 1970s that the Nationalists would be considered a real threat (and only in conjunction with NATO, not by itself), and it's possible that by then some kind of Khruschev Thaw/Detente could have been reached. Strangely, it's possible that the Soviet Union could have better relations with Nationalist China than they did with the PRC because of no Sino-Soviet split because of revisionism. There would also be no inspiration for the various Maoist groups that later spread.

On the other hand, a Nationalist China would pose all sorts of problems for the European colonies in Asia. The US and China would probably push for the British, French, and Dutch to leave in good order which slightly speeds up that process from OTL. But none of the European powers are going to like that, and their relationship with China will be strained for many years. There will be butterflies in Indochina.

There would likely also be no Korean War, which served as the ignition spark to revitalize the Japanese economy (as the Japanese economy provided a lot of equipment to support the UN troops there). Interesting butterflies there as well.
 
People seem to just brush over the fact that the KMT lost because the Maoists were simply more compatent than them in every way and the KMT never showed any hint of being able to control a unified state from a single capital.

China under the KMT would be as messed up as the Congo is today. People grossly underestimate the Maoist role in actually unifying China under a single government, instead of the KMT’s unstable pack of periodically feuding warlords. Most of whom would kill or be killed before giving up their private fiefdoms, or worse try to usurp Chiang. Not to mention te crazy levels of incompetence and corruption in the areas the KMT actually ‘’governed’’. To the degree that crime cartel bosses were members of Chaing's inner circle.

Anyone who looks at just how cruel, incompetent, stupid, sort-sighted and riddled by infighting the KMT was could never make the claim that China under it’s rule would prosper. There are very good reasonS they lost the civil war. Despite having control of the vast majority China’s land mass & population, having a 5 to 1 numbers advantage and being lavishly supplied with US money and weaponry. It’s simple the Maoists were simply better in every category (aside from weaponry) and weren’t as wretchedly unpopular as the KMT. Whose troops were mostly press-ganged peasants with no morale at all and whose ''generals'' were of dubious loyalty and stockpiled arms for use against old rivals.

The KMT’s ‘’success’’ in Taiwan could never be replicated on the mainland, on a large-scale. Taiwan in 1948 had an urbanized & easily controlled population, had a good infrastructure and industrial base built by the Japanese and had US aid poured into it by the billions. Even the KMT couldn’t screw that up. Also the shock of defeat & exile did cause Chiang to clean up his act and it also eliminated most of Chiang’s old/potential rivals.

Assuming the KMT ITTL has amazing luck and the whole Maoist leadership drop dead (so no Mao, Zhou or Deng etc) and the Communist fall into disorder, you now had a deeply unpopular, corrupt, incompetent and unstable regime. Suffering factional infighting and facing constant rebellions and mass desertion in it’s armies

To top all that off there may or may not have hostile Red Army troops in Manchuria to enforce Soviet intrests depending on the KMT's stance during the Cold War.​
 
People seem to just brush over the fact that the KMT lost because the Maoists were simply more compatent than them in every way and the KMT never showed any hint of being able to control a unified state from a single capital.

China under the KMT would be as messed up as the Congo is today. People grossly underestimate the Maoist role in actually unifying China under a single government, instead of the KMT’s unstable pack of periodically feuding warlords. Most of whom would kill or be killed before giving up their private fiefdoms, or worse try to usurp Chiang. Not to mention te crazy levels of incompetence and corruption in the areas the KMT actually ‘’governed’’. To the degree that crime cartel bosses were members of Chaing's inner circle.​

Anyone who looks at just how cruel, incompetent, stupid, sort-sighted and riddled by infighting the KMT was could never make the claim that China under it’s rule would prosper. There are very good reasonS they lost the civil war. Despite having control of the vast majority China’s land mass & population, having a 5 to 1 numbers advantage and being lavishly supplied with US money and weaponry. It’s simple the Maoists were simply better in every category (aside from weaponry) and weren’t as wretchedly unpopular as the KMT. Whose troops were mostly press-ganged peasants with no morale at all and whose ''generals'' were of dubious loyalty and stockpiled arms for use against old rivals.​

The KMT’s ‘’success’’ in Taiwan could never be replicated on the mainland, on a large-scale. Taiwan in 1948 had an urbanized & easily controlled population, had a good infrastructure and industrial base built by the Japanese and had US aid poured into it by the billions. Even the KMT couldn’t screw that up. Also the shock of defeat & exile did cause Chiang to clean up his act and it also eliminated most of Chiang’s old/potential rivals.​

Assuming the KMT ITTL has amazing luck and the whole Maoist leadership drop dead (so no Mao, Zhou or Deng etc) and the Communist fall into disorder, you now had a deeply unpopular, corrupt, incompetent and unstable regime. Suffering factional infighting and facing constant rebellions and mass desertion in it’s armies​


To top all that off there may or may not have hostile Red Army troops in Manchuria to enforce Soviet intrests depending on the KMT's stance during the Cold War.​

I don't know if the KMT were that bad. They too had competent generals, such as Xue Yue. They almost did wipe out the CCP during the Long March in the '30s. From what I've read, Chiang's real mistake was trying to seize Manchuria in 1946-47, which overextended the NRA and led to the loss of many of their best forces. If Chiang had instead chosen to consolidate his area and stamp out the communists outside of Manchuria, he could very well have prevailed, or at least held on to most of China.

The France Fights On tl posits an interesting theory that if the Burma Road had been kept open during WWII, it would have enabled a continuous (albeit narrow) supply line to the KMT, which would have led to a better armed and equipped NRA, a quicker Japanese defeat in China, and a much stronger KMT in the civil war.
 
The main advantage that a Nationalist China would have over a Communist China is an attachment to the U.S.A.'s economy instead of the U.S.S.R.'s economy. The U.S.'s economy was healthy and growing, while the U.S.S.R.'s economy had been smashed by WWII. So China's economy should grow with America's economy. This, and the lack of Mao's more destructive idea's, should result in better economic growth in a Nationalist China timeline then in our timeline.
 
Chiang Kai-shek was allied to the Soviets for a lot longer than the CCP was. I suspect Nationalist China might end up in the Soviet camp, and probably a significantly more pliable and stable ally than Mao. Though I suspect they might try to play both sides against each other. But they wouldn't necessarily be in the U.S.A.'s camp, as it were.
 
China was still mainly an agrarian, peasant based country, but it is not true that the entire country was dirt poor. Shanghai and Nanking were very industrialized, and there were other significant industry in the Wuhan, Canton, Taiyuan, and Chungking areas. And even those areas that lacked industrialization were still in a country that was considered to be quite wealthy by mid and late 19th century standards. We are not talking about pre-colonial Africa here or stone age tribes in the Amazon jungle.

It is true that Taiwan was more heavily developed overall, and that any growth in China would not be spread evenly. It would be concentrated in certain select areas, and that would lead to various problems (similar to what is happening in the PRC today with labor migration and unrest). But the country as a whole was developing. There was a lot of wealth there and significant industry, although not to European or North American levels. You are also overstating the development of Taiwan (mainly light industry) and Korea (most of the industrial area was in North Korea, not South Korea).

The Nationalists were always having trouble with the warlords, but the situation would be very different after World War II than during the prewar era. First, the rest of the world was much more supportive and invovled with Chiang's government than they were before. If Chiang merely centralized army payroll and supply (rather than give it to the warlords to distribute to the troops under their command), than the warlords would lose most of their influence. The only reason Chiang did not do that during WWII was that he was very dependent on the warlord troops after the main core of the Nationalist Army was destroyed in heavy fighting in 1937. He couldn't risk any warlord defecting at that time. Chiang had actually achieved a lot of centralization in the late 20s and early 30s, but it backslided when dealing with the immediate pressures of the war. I don't think he would have much problems with most of the warlords after the war as he could rely on American aid to arm and supply his forces.

The Nationalists were also not hated by 90% of the population. Chiang was extremely popular before the war. And as WWII ended, he still enjoyed immense popularity. The problem was that he did not tackle the immediate issues of corruption and allowed inflation to ruin the economy. He tolerated that because he thought he could put that off until after he destroyed the Communists. Instead, he should have addressed the issues immediately and delayed a confrontation. If he had done that, and I think any scenario involving the Nationalists winning the civil war would have to include, then it eliminates most of the dissatisfaction the Chinese people had with his rule during the postwar civil war.

So in short, it is distinct possibility that the Nationalists/Chiang could have won. He made bad decisions that caused him to lose, but it was not inevitable.

I don't think we could expect a Nationalist China to achieve Taiwan style development across the entire mainland. But I think it would have achieved comparable growth now back to the 1980s or early 1990s or so. The coastal areas and select cities would have developed first, and we'd see more even development happening in the last two decades. The per capita GDP would be lower than Taiwan (about $21,000 right now), but higher than the PRC (about $4800 right now). It would probably be somewhere between $10-15,000 which would put it in the same class as Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, or Argentina. Some cities would probably be world class, and certain areas would be impoverished. However, given Chinag's strong Confucian ideals and China's historical culture, there would be much stronger emphasis on education and better infrastructure so we'd probably avoid the worst favelas/slums situation found in Mexico or Brazil.

He was popular? Really? That guy imposed harsh taxes on peasants, even when China was fighting Japan. During WW2 as well as the CCW, his forces stole food from peasants, and kidnapped locals to fight for them.

Also, will a KMT China turn itself into a regional, if not global, superpower militarily (better than the PLA today), considering that it'll be more open to U.S. aid. Perhaps, even the USSR might help out, since I've heard that non-aligned nations tend to flirt with both sides to get free aid.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Chiang Kai-shek was allied to the Soviets for a lot longer than the CCP was. I suspect Nationalist China might end up in the Soviet camp, and probably a significantly more pliable and stable ally than Mao. Though I suspect they might try to play both sides against each other. But they wouldn't necessarily be in the U.S.A.'s camp, as it were.

Not after WW2, but if Kuomintang start winning Stalin would be more than happy to betray Mao. As you said, before the war USSR had better relations with the Nationalists than with the Communists. Chiang would definitely try to make China neutral in the Cold War, but his American backers would not be happy about that, so Chiang could actually be replaced by someone more willing to lick the American boot. In that case a prolonged Soviet invasion of Manchuria is possible.
 
Top