WI: China was never communist or the kouomingtang won?

[Pedersen]

I don't see Taiwan as the analogy for a KMT China. I think a mix of OTL's Deng/post-deng but pre Winnie the pooh PRC with maybe some elements of Turkey* and India*.

and why not, pray tell?

If one agrees that what allowed KMT Taiwan to build stable institutions, industrialize early and transition to democracy during the 1980s was the lack of Mao-level repression and the inherent mismanagement of central planning (famine being a familiar result with millions of deaths or "malnutrition" if one is being politically correct), then why would one not expect this for a KMT China?

Or similarly: if KMT in defeat grew less coupist, anti-communistic, bureaucratic or protectionist - why would they not also do in victory?

 

[Garetor]

Actually that is a possibility. Strictly speaking by Never Communist, this could mean that another warlord comes to power or a different path which doesn't lead it to a Communist China. While the Ma Clique is funny. Two warlords I am curious about what China might look like if they took over are:

• Yan Xishan: Yan Once boasted that he had formulated an ideology embodying the best features of militarism, nationalism, anarchism, democracy, capitalism, communism, individualism, imperialism, universalism, paternalism, and utopianism. Quite the contradictory mix of ideas but I am curious to know what the hell this China would look like.
• Chen Jiongming: He wanted to create the United States of China which would be a federal multiparty republic; clearly modeled on the USA based on the name.

Joke is on you. Yan actually just discovered the immortal science of Hoxhaism decades early. If he had won out, China would be the safest country in the world, and drive the engine of the world economy through bottomless demand for concrete and rebar.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

and why not, pray tell?

If one agrees that what allowed KMT Taiwan to build stable institutions, industrialize early and transition to democracy during the 1980s was the lack of Mao-level repression and the inherent mismanagement of central planning (famine being a familiar result with millions of deaths or "malnutrition" if one is being politically correct), then why would one not expect this for a KMT China?

Or similarly: if KMT in defeat grew less coupist, anti-communistic, bureaucratic or protectionist - why would they not also do in victory?

running a tiny island is different from running a continental-scale country. the taiwan analogy is imo laughable given the different scale invovled

 

[Johnrankins]

running a tiny island is different from running a continental-scale country. the taiwan analogy is imo laughable given the different scale invovled

It would be difficult for him to do a worse job than Mao.

 

[David T]

Here is just one of many reasons why a KMT China would not be a super-"Taiwan of OTL": Some people have wondered why the land reform program the KMT eventually undertook on Taiwan could not have been applied to the mainland. I think an answer is provided in George Kerr's Formosa Betrayed--admittedly he's biased but he does have a point when he writes:

"On the mainland an abusive traditional Chinese landlord system had long been recognized as a prime source of peasant discontent. The Nationalists had talked of reform but for years had done nothing on a significant scale. The Communists exploited these unfulfilled promises to woo support among the landless peasants. Very late - after World War II - American advisors in China had persuaded the Nationalist Government to organize a Sino-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction. It made little headway on the mainland, for its reform program disturbed too many great landholders who were influential members of the Nationalist Party, Army and Government. They would not tolerate change. The JCRR, as it was called, was transferred to Formosa during the great retreat.

"In Formosa it could surge ahead with its land redistribution plans. The Formosan landholders were fair game; no one in the Government or Party hierarchy was hurt by land reform except perhaps those who had acquired extensive property under the Chen Yi and Wei administrations..." http://homepage.usask.ca/~llr130/taiwanlibrary/kerr/chap20.htm

(There are of course other reasons, such as the fact that the much smaller scale of Taiwan allowed moderate amounts of US aid to go a long way.)

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

It would be difficult for him to do a worse job than Mao.

"not being mao-level psychopathic" doesn't automatically equal "good leadership".

 

[herkles]

Meanwhile I am curious about what would have happened if Yan Xishan or Chen Jiongming were the guys to come out on top. As that does fulfill the qualifications of no commie china.

 

[kernals12]

I hadn't realized how dominant state owned companies were and still are in Taiwan. The government controls the electricity, railroad, telecom, oil and much of the banking and insurance fields, and used to control the steel, aircraft, and shipbuilding industries.
So even without Communists in power, the state would still control the commanding heights of the economy.

 

[Dan1988]

Meanwhile I am curious about what would have happened if Yan Xishan or Chen Jiongming were the guys to come out on top. As that does fulfill the qualifications of no commie china.

As for the former, if his governance of Shanxi province is anything to go by, then China could be dragged along to follow the same paths as Meiji-era and Taishô-era Japan, thus providing an early conclusion to the warlord period. As for the latter - I don't know, but it should be noted that while that would be its English name, in Chinese the reformers favored something close to a United Provinces of China, which is similar but avoids any connotation of separatism.

 

[Johnrankins]

"not being mao-level psychopathic" doesn't automatically equal "good leadership".

I didn't say he was good just better than Mao.

 

[49ersFootball]

If Chiang won the Civil War of 1949, I'm assuming ROC keeps their seat on the UN General Assembly in this TL ? What would Nixon & Co., do ?

 

[Johnrankins]

Do about what? I imagine they would be happy with that.

 

[kernals12]

Here is just one of many reasons why a KMT China would not be a super-"Taiwan of OTL": Some people have wondered why the land reform program the KMT eventually undertook on Taiwan could not have been applied to the mainland. I think an answer is provided in George Kerr's Formosa Betrayed--admittedly he's biased but he does have a point when he writes:

"On the mainland an abusive traditional Chinese landlord system had long been recognized as a prime source of peasant discontent. The Nationalists had talked of reform but for years had done nothing on a significant scale. The Communists exploited these unfulfilled promises to woo support among the landless peasants. Very late - after World War II - American advisors in China had persuaded the Nationalist Government to organize a Sino-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction. It made little headway on the mainland, for its reform program disturbed too many great landholders who were influential members of the Nationalist Party, Army and Government. They would not tolerate change. The JCRR, as it was called, was transferred to Formosa during the great retreat.

"In Formosa it could surge ahead with its land redistribution plans. The Formosan landholders were fair game; no one in the Government or Party hierarchy was hurt by land reform except perhaps those who had acquired extensive property under the Chen Yi and Wei administrations..." http://homepage.usask.ca/~llr130/taiwanlibrary/kerr/chap20.htm

(There are of course other reasons, such as the fact that the much smaller scale of Taiwan allowed moderate amounts of US aid to go a long way.)

With Chiang having crushed the communists, he could have enough of a mandate to crush the landlords.

 

[kernals12]

Chiang would wind up ruling China for 47 years. That's pretty staggering.

 

[kernals12]

Ironically, the Soviet Union would probably get along better with Nationalist China than it did with Communist China.

 

[David T]

Chiang would wind up ruling China for 47 years. That's pretty staggering.

How do you know that? On Taiwan, US aid and the fear of a Communist invasion helped stifle any dissent (as well as the KMT's fear of a Taiwan dominated by non-Mainlanders). Previously, it was fear of the Communists and the Japanese which helped get him support from people in the KMT who were not necessarily happy about him. How do we know how long political stability would last once the Communists were defeated?

 

[kernals12]

How do you know that? On Taiwan, US aid and the fear of a Communist invasion helped stifle any dissent (as well as the KMT's fear of a Taiwan dominated by non-Mainlanders). Previously, it was fear of the Communists and the Japanese which helped get him support from people in the KMT who were not necessarily happy about him. How do we know how long political stability would last once the Communists were defeated?

Rapid economic growth would make him popular. The mantra of "It's the economy, stupid" applies to dictators too.

 

[David T]

With Chiang having crushed the communists, he could have enough of a mandate to crush the landlords.

Chiang was not an all-powerful personal dictator and could not ignore powerful interest groups within the KMT (even assuming that he wanted to do so).

 

[kernals12]

Chiang was not an all-powerful personal dictator and could not ignore powerful interest groups within the KMT (even assuming that he wanted to do so).

Really? Even after the wars?

 

[David T]

Rapid economic growth would make him popular. The mantra of "It's the economy, stupid" applies to dictators too.

How do you know that there would be rapid economic growth? Again, the small scale of Taiwan and the fact that it allowed moderate amounts of US economic aid go a long way make extrapolating from Taiwan's economic growth questionable.