Victorious KMT?

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I want to point out again: the KMT was tested in China before the whole War thing, the CPC was not. I am sure that it wouldn't have done a better job. The CPC was tested in China after WWII. There is no reason to think that the planned KMT reforms would have worked worse than the terrible CPC policies.

W know what Chian was going to do and it would have worked better than what the CPC did.

And to say that the KMT is incapable of implementing market reforms? Really? I mean, really? Now, then how did they do it in Taiwan. Would the different circumstances in China suddenly and magically change their economic competency? Or is your assumption that the KMT after WWII till the present day would have been the same KMT from before the War in terms of members? Not only was Chiang going to get rid of those he didn't think would performed well, but there are a few changes of generation that you must really consider.

The only time that the CPC did the right thing was when they started implemented market reforms. Now is that reason sufficient enough to praise them as the best leadership that China could have ever had? I doubt it.
The KMT didn't really wanted a free market economy. Chiang wanted a nationalized industrial base, a mix of Socialism and Capitalism where the most important resources and industries are nationalized, but private enterprise exist on a smaller scale.
 
The KMT didn't really wanted a free market economy. Chiang wanted a nationalized industrial base, a mix of Socialism and Capitalism where the most important resources and industries are nationalized, but private enterprise exist on a smaller scale.

Actually Jiang Jieshi was an Moscow-educated generalissimo and his economic policies was just similar to India before 1991, which is nationalization of industrial bases and mixing socialism and capitalism which is a good thing for China in 1950s because of its lack of industrial bases and similar to Deng Xiaoping's economic policies which is the Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Without Mao's mistakes, China would be better off than in OTL and a developed nation right now similar to Taiwan in terms of GDP per capita because Jiang Jieshi will not close China from foreign investment although it is not easy to develop the continental-sized China compare Taiwan but an earlier economic opening of China would be smoother and better in a long-run than in OTL and more wealth not for the Chinese but also to the whole world because of availability of Chinese investment and consumption.
 

Markus

Banned
Parker just proved my point. Look there on the graphic: things turned way better after they started implementing capitalist economic policies. And after 1989 is when this really got really well really fast.


Why does that surprise you? The is nothing that can fuck up a nation´s economy worse than communism. Even really bad, inept non-communists are usually not nearly as bad. OK, Africa is sort-of an exception but it was/is a tribal society lacking national identities and the countries were even less industrialized than China.

The KMT didn't really wanted a free market economy. Chiang wanted a nationalized industrial base, a mix of Socialism and Capitalism where the most important resources and industries are nationalized, but private enterprise exist on a smaller scale.

Proves my point as it´s not nearly as bad as communist economic policies. The question would also be how much of his ideas Chiang could have put into practice. In the end economc growth matters and capitalism is superior in this regard, far superior.
 

Typo

Banned
Why does that surprise you? The is nothing that can fuck up a nation´s economy worse than communism. Even really bad, inept non-communists are usually not nearly as bad. OK, Africa is sort-of an exception
Proves my point as it´s not nearly as bad as communist economic policies. The question would also be how much of his ideas Chiang could have put into practice. In the end economc growth matters and capitalism is superior in this regard, far superior.
What about the Caribbean, Burma, India, Indonesia, Philippines, half the Middle-east and Latin America sans maybe Brazil? How have they greatly done better than China?
but it was/is a tribal society
jesus christ
Actually Jiang Jieshi was an Moscow-educated generalissimo and his economic policies was just similar to India before 1991, which is nationalization of industrial bases and mixing socialism and capitalism which is a good thing for China in 1950s because of its lack of industrial bases and similar to Deng Xiaoping's economic policies which is the Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Without Mao's mistakes, China would be better off than in OTL and a developed nation right now similar to Taiwan in terms of GDP per capita because Jiang Jieshi will not close China from foreign investment although it is not easy to develop the continental-sized China compare Taiwan but an earlier economic opening of China would be smoother and better in a long-run than in OTL and more wealth not for the Chinese but also to the whole world because of availability of Chinese investment and consumption.
Because the KMT also wouldn't have liquidated the anti-modernization gentry elements and might have truly unified the country much later than the CCP did.

Also keep in mind that barring the Great leap Forward the Chinese economy did grow at very rapid paces under Mao.

And of course, that the KMT was incompetent and corrupt as hell to the point that during the war Stillwell wanted to outright cutoff lend-lease to the KMT regime. So yeah, maybe the regime might have being less crazy during certain years but for the rest you get a regime which is just as brutal as the CCP but worse at managing the country.

But that being said though I doubt China would be as bad as Congo today, I mean it wasn't that bad even during the war. I genuinely think that the situation in china might no be so different today had the KMT won. But then again the plausibility ranges from mega-Philippines to a somewhat more liberal version of OTL's China
 
Last edited:
If Chiang wins the civil war, we can assume that he's going to be top dog. Without any external enemies, he is going to sideline the warlords. He will not tolerate them once he no longer depends on them in any way.

Politically, this means KMT China is an authoritarian dictatorship lead by Chiang, either directly or behind the scenes. Some very trusted subordinates may get the actual positions to preserve the illusion of democracy. Like Taiwan IOTL, he will make sure his son inherits power after he dies. There are likely to be rival factions within the KMT (like Li Zongren) which will disrupt this. If so, these power struggles will be the closest thing to a change in government, but true opposition political parties likely won't exist until later.

Economically, Chiang will pursue a policy of a mixed economy. He will implement agrarian reform, but this is something that will be harder to do in China (where many landlords are still politically powerful) than in Taiwan (which was not ruled by China previously, and whose land Chiang could simply extort). However, there will be some available land that gets distributed. Instead of a sudden reform, we probably see this stretched out over decades. The KMT will run some state owned enterprises, especially in heavy industries with military applications. But most of the other economy will be in private hands.

KMT China will avoid the disasters of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. The economy will be much better than under the CPC, but probably not as good as Taiwan. There will be more entrenched poverty, but with the greater resources in China, there may be more dynamic companies. I think the key to economic development here will be the example of Hong Kong. Hong Kong companies will continue to invest and develop southern China, and will serve as a check if KMT becomes too statist. US companies will likewise be doing business in China. And the overseas Chinese in southeast Asia and in the US will continue to build ties and serve as financial and educational resources.

KMT China will not be friendly with the Soviet Union, but won't antagonize them either. KMT China still claims Mongolia which will cause issues. Chiang will encourage the end of the European colonial empires. He may become the leader of a non-aligned movement, but ITL, it may be more pro-American. Chinese relations with America will be strong. With the Japanese economy not stimulated by the Korean War, China will likely be the most important Asian trading partner to the US. With the potential of a friendly China ont he USSR's east flank, the US will be less likely to intervene in Asia. They might rely on China to watch over things in Vietnam, or even if Vietnam goes Communist, might not be worried given KMT China is on its doorstep. Tibet may remain independent. I don't see Chiang actually sending troops to invade. Tibet might become a protectorate where China controls its foreign policy, but local matters are decided internally. In fact, all international relations in the 1950s and 1960s becomes very different with a KMT China. None of the European powers will feel comfortable with it, and now they are dealing with China and the US being friends.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I disagree. I think KMT China would be quite indifferent to the Cold War. US and the USSR are both potential trading partners, that's all. Chiang don't want a hostile USSR on his northern border, the USSR don't want a hostile China. Some kind of agreement between the two is inevitable. Without Chinese communists to support, the USSR would have nothing against the KMT.

I also disagree over Tibet. I think it's clear that KMT China would expand to Tibet and East Turkestan as soon as they're strong enough. First, they claimed these territories and second, if they don't India and the Soviet Union might move in.
 
By the way, Outer Mongolia was already an independent nation and KMT China will not antagonize the Soviets by claiming that nation, so expect that Jiang will renounce its territorial claims to Outer Mongolia and Tuva to avoid confrontation with the Soviet Union. The borders will be nearly identical to OTL Communist China. Tibet and Xinjiang will be under the KMT fold no matter how they differ with Mao in terms of ideology but they have a common stand that is to have a united China including Tibet and Xinjiang.
 
KMT's relationship with Moscow will depend a great deal on Moscow's relationship with Chinese communists. Just because KMT comes out on top in the civil war doesn't mean the communists are finished. Look at India, it's struggle with the Naxalites are going on decades. The Chinese communists are far more organized and you can bet there wont be lasting peace.

That being the case Moscow will have to decide whether to back the Chinese communists in their continued effort to overthrow the KMT. OTOH Moscow has done fairly little to support them in the past. However after WWII China's relationship with the US will be very strong. In fact China will be dependent on US investment and expertise. American value as an economic and political partner will mean China cannot be neutral in the Cold War. It may try to avoid antagonizing the Soviets, but none the less it is entirely possible the Soviets will help the Chinese communists as a leverage against the Sino-American relationship. It could well escalate out of control, despite intentions to avoid conflict.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
KMT's relationship with Moscow will depend a great deal on Moscow's relationship with Chinese communists. Just because KMT comes out on top in the civil war doesn't mean the communists are finished. Look at India, it's struggle with the Naxalites are going on decades. The Chinese communists are far more organized and you can bet there wont be lasting peace.

That being the case Moscow will have to decide whether to back the Chinese communists in their continued effort to overthrow the KMT. OTOH Moscow has done fairly little to support them in the past. However after WWII China's relationship with the US will be very strong. In fact China will be dependent on US investment and expertise. American value as an economic and political partner will mean it cannot be neutral in the Cold War. It may try to avoid antagonizing the Soviets, but none the less it is entirely possible the Soviets will help the Chinese communists as a leverage against the Sino-American relationship. It could well escalate out of control, despite intentions to avoid conflict.

USSR don't want a hostile China, China don't want a hostile USSR. It's that simple, if the KMT won, and the Chinese Communists are weak, Stalin and his successors would happily betray them in exchange for a non- hostile China.
 
USSR don't want a hostile China, China don't want a hostile USSR. It's that simple, if the KMT won, and the Chinese Communists are weak, Stalin and his successors would happily betray them in exchange for a non- hostile China.

It's not that simple because politics is not always rational. China may not want a hostile USSR, but it will want a close partnership with the USA. Will the Soviets trust such a partnership to remain friendly toward Soviet interests when the Cold War heats up and the US starts pressuring China?

Keep in mind there will be several things about the Soviets that will be abnoxious to China. The Soviets maintain significant influence in Xinjiang, it remained in control of Dalian (formerly Port Arthur) and intended to use it for it's Pacific fleet, the border in North East China is not clearly defined, Outter Mongolia will not as easily resolved as suggested here.

One must remember IOTL much of these issues were resolved because the Soviets were content to let China have Dalian and Xinjiang after Mao came to power. They have no reason to do so with Nationalist China. PRC accepted Outter Mongolian independence largely due to Mao's clout, something KMT will not have. Such a controversial decision would weaken Chiang. The border in the North East was not settled in OTL despite many years of Sino-Soviet alliance.

All these baggages will mean a serious lack of trust which makes rational decision making rather optimistic.
 

Markus

Banned
jesus christ

Relax. I meant to say that they are artificially created nations. Back in the late 19th century the western powers drew the borders of their colonies right through any cultural, ethnic, religious, political and whatever borders that previously existed. The result were endless civil war, revolts and so on after independance as this clan, tribe, religion fought another one for control of the state.

With regard to India and other nations. China did well in spite of the commies killing millions and acc. to that graph China only started to do well once the commies gave up commie economics. Thus my money is on a never-commie China would have done at least as well.
 

Typo

Banned
Relax. I meant to say that they are artificially created nations. Back in the late 19th century the western powers drew the borders of their colonies right through any cultural, ethnic, religious, political and whatever borders that previously existed. The result were endless civil war, revolts and so on after independance as this clan, tribe, religion fought another one for control of the state.
What about countries like Egypt? Like not all of Africa was that big a mess you know.
With regard to India and other nations. China did well in spite of the commies killing millions and acc. to that graph China only started to do well once the commies gave up commie economics.
Not true really, even under Mao the Chinese economy grew significantly, it's just that it was overshadowed by later growth.
Thus my money is on a never-commie China would have done at least as well.
And why is that exactly when so many other non-communist countries failed to do so? Why do you expect the KMT regime to be competent enough to somehow kickoff the Chinese economy in 1950 under the same circumstances as 1980? Do you know when the Taiwanese economy kicked off even though it was far easier to manage than China?
 
Chiang hated the Communists, and that included the USSR. And the Soviet Union also had ambitions to reconstitute its influence in China that Russia had. KMT is going to oppose that.

Stalin is going to pull the same crap with China that he always pulled with all his neighbors. He is going to push hard and see if the other person buckles or pushes back.

Chiang usually had a good sense of China's and her rival's strength. He'd be willing to accomodate some of Stalin's demands when he felt weak. But after winning the civil war, especially if backed by American aid and a strong anti-Communist sentiment in the US, he is going to push back. I don't see him starting any foreign adventures, but he is not going to be neutral. He will be pro-American to varying degrees because he knows he can use the US to achieve Chinese interests.
 

Markus

Banned
Why do you expect the KMT regime to be competent enough to somehow kickoff the Chinese economy in 1950 under the same circumstances as 1980?

First how was the Chinese economy doing before the war with Japan? Clusters of capitalist growth around major cities and ports like H-K, Shanghai, Nanking I guess? Why would this stop? And than there is what Blackfox5 said, the USA would make China a western bastion during the Cold War. In return the KMT would have to give up on overly socialist economic policies. And last but not least, you said even the Commies could make the Chinese economy grow. Thus I don´t buy that China under the KMT would be worse off today.
 

Typo

Banned
First how was the Chinese economy doing before the war with Japan? Clusters of capitalist growth around major cities and ports like H-K, Shanghai, Nanking I guess?
Jesus Christ I don't even know where to begin
the USA would make China a western bastion during the Cold War. In return the KMT would have to give up on overly socialist economic policies. And last but not least, you said even the Commies could make the Chinese economy grow. Thus I don´t buy that China under the KMT would be worse off today.
Why would Chiang fold to American influences on how to run china when he's in charge of the whole thing? He sure as hell didn't even during the war.

Also answer my question, when did the Taiwanese economy take off?
 
In What If, Volume 2, I recall an article where Chiang didn't invade the Communist establishment in Manchuria after WWII, leading to a permanently divided China (Communists get Manchuria and are dependent on Soviet aid; Nationalists get everything else). I can't remember the precise name of the expedition Chiang didn't launch, though.

I've read that one. It was an expedition to the city of Harbin.
 
A list of OTL countries/regions ATL KMT China was be compared to in this thread.

Congo/Zaire
"African Nations"
Warlord-era China
Nanking-Decade China
Philippines
India
Thailand
Taiwan
"The Asian Tigers"
Exact comparison between conditions in TTL KMT China and the above OTL countries deserves its own thread.
 
Top