Hong Kong isn't gonna be handed over immediately, there's still a lease that would expire in 1997. Portugal isn't really important in the geopolitical sense, so it would be handed over anyway in the future if the ROC persists.
Would KMT China become a bigger super power than CCP China is today?
- Thread starter sirjackalot
- Start date
Didn't matter to Jiang, which wanted HK and Taiwan returned to China. Even with the New Territories lease. All other countries, including France with Guangzhouwan (and Britain with Weihaiwei) had already given up their concessions and leased territories to China (of course, the Japanese occupation helped quite a bit). Hong Kong would be no exception in Jiang's mind. Even if a different leader of the ROC was in charge, they'd still press Britain to hand over Hong Kong, with no exceptions.
Of course. Helped by the Japanese making Britain lose face in Hong Kong during the occupation and FDR's persistence.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
They eventually swallowed a lot of pride with East of Suez, and giving up Batleships, the large Carriers, to where they are today, with More horses in ceremonial units than Tanks
Every source I see does not have China going through a six fold increase in GDP per capita between 1950-1980 unless it is denominated in USD.
Is your source adjusted for inflation?
Ficboy
Banned
A Kuomintang China would not have the disastrous Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution that killed millions of it's own people under Mao Zedong and the Communist Party.
On the other hand, Kuomintang China would be a dictatorship that while aligned with the United States stays rather neutral in other affairs and has its own interests. It would take decades for Kuomintang China to become democratic let alone even allow other political parties besides them just look at when they ruled Taiwan from 1949 to 1987.
As far as non-Chinese ethnic minorities are concerned, the Uyghurs would be treated a lot better under the Kuomintang than under communism in OTL given that they were ed an insurgency against them in 1951 even after their benefactors fled to Taiwan.
On the other hand, Kuomintang China would be a dictatorship that while aligned with the United States stays rather neutral in other affairs and has its own interests. It would take decades for Kuomintang China to become democratic let alone even allow other political parties besides them just look at when they ruled Taiwan from 1949 to 1987.
As far as non-Chinese ethnic minorities are concerned, the Uyghurs would be treated a lot better under the Kuomintang than under communism in OTL given that they were ed an insurgency against them in 1951 even after their benefactors fled to Taiwan.
Last edited:
My thoughts exactly. KMT China would be unstable like how Taiwan and South Korea was in its early years. I expect Chiang would do a purge of his rivals and opponents while the country will be racked with protests from students and intellectuals.
Deleted member 109224
Without the Communists cleaning house (... more or less burning everything to the ground and having the effect of razing the field which allowed for more systemic reform) you likely have lower growth rates. But, you'd also have another ~30 years of growth, so on net it'd probably be a plus.
Ficboy
Banned
Kuomintang China would also serve as an effective bulwark against communism in Asia preventing any of the regimes rising up during and after the Vietnam War in OTL. The United States would likely view Kuomintang China as an important ally for the policy of containment of communism.
Except that the only reason communism became viewed as the boogeyman as it is in the US was because China, the biggest nation, became communist.
If China doesn't, it would just be in a more Europe-contained area. Meanwhile, we have KMT China attempting to modernize and I have no idea how well that would go. Honestly, many people compare the present China as much more similar to Kai-Shek's vision, so basically take current China and have it be more culturally conservative, which means we could still something like a "one child policy" or some other stuff if they don't have reforms.
KMT China would only align with the West until they can stand on their own feet and then form their own side, using an ideology probably formed out of a mix of nationalism, resentment toward the West, state capitalism and so on. Not sure how well Southeast Asia would fare, given there would still be conflict.
I wonder how the US would take when KMT China would blow them off. And if the arguments over Tibet persists, the USSR could draw India closer in. Pakistan meanwhile could be lured by China.
Not necessarily - the GMD does have interests of its own, after all, and among them were its satellite parties overseas that targeted the Chinese diaspora. Parties like, for example, the Malaysian Chinese Association and the VNQDD, the latter of which was quite chummy with the Communists as part of the Việt Minh. China could therefore serve as a non-Communist fount of support for (North) Vietnam and the Việt Minh - as would the US, if it wanted to piss off the French and support Ho Chi Minh instead of Bao Dai and Diem. Regardless of whether Mao or Jiang take the helm, a main goal for China along its border with Indochina is national security - even more so because Yunnan, the province which covers much of this border area, is one of China's poorest provinces. So China would view containment of Communism differently from the US - within its own borders, it would be a threat, but outside of its borders it would only be a threat if it cannot be coopted to serve Nanjing's interests.
Unless the US just wanted to get under Britain's skin for no real reason, I see no reason why the US would want to push up the expiry of the 99 year lease?
I could even see a scenario where Thatcher in the 80s asks the US to support a request to extend that lease, if they are still on KMT China's good side.
Because Jiang would demand Hong Kong be returned to China immediately, with no exceptions. And not just the immediate termination of the New Territories lease (the 99-year bit), but also the retrocession of Hong Kong proper and Kowloon as well. (On top of, again, the Japanese making Britain lose face during WWII and Japan's victory in the Battle of Hong Kong and the subsequent occupation. Strangely, though, Macau was not subject to the same policy, and for once, Portuguese neutrality was respected.) Either way you look at it, HK was going back to China - and Jiang had the means, should he felt like he needed to, to forcibly take HK back from the British and "finish the job" the Japanese left by launching a reign of terror akin to the treatment of the Shanghai merchants (something which was the responsibility of Jiang Jingguo, not Jiang Jieshi). He wouldn't want to, though, and prefer that it be retroceded along with Guangzhouwan and Taiwan around the immediate aftermath of WWII.
The US wouldn't be able to support that request if it wanted to maintain good graces with the GMD.
Again, that depends on the type of government China has. Is this KMT-controlled China democratic or a one-party state? If it's the latter and assuming the KMT is a US ally, I doubt you would see the US kick up a fuss about the autonomy of Hong Kong. The only reason why the US gives a damn about Hong Kong in OTL is because ideologically, the PRC and the USA are opponents. The USA gets to look good if it speaks up in opposition to a Communist government cracking down on freedom of speech. If it was a US ally, their hands would be tied.
In OTL 1946, the KMT recognized Mongolia's independence in the Sino-Soviet Friendship Treaty, though due to a border conflict, diplomatic relations were never established. After it was exiled to Taiwan in 1949, the ROC voided the treaty in 1953, claiming the Soviets had violated the terms of the treaty.
There's also the fact that in OTL, one of the reasons why China never invaded Hong Kong to take it back from the British, was because they wanted Hong Kong to be economically viable. The only way it was going to be prosperous economically was if it remained under British control. I am not sure if Chiang kai-Shek would follow this same line of thought, however.
There's also the unfortunate reality that if the ROC really wanted to, they could just shut off Hong Kong Island's water supply since most of it comes through the New Territories.
I am of the opinion if CKS has his way in delaying a war with japan China would be so much better off .honestly the reason why GMD is so corrupt and ineffective is because CKS absorb the warlords into his party in an effort to speed up China unification ( easier to get rid of the oppositing side if you are merciful). If he is able in purging them from the party and a longer nanjing decade with the communist finished off first.Japan will find a much stiffer resistance and a moderately successful KMT China is Highly possible. Too bad Zhang Xueling can’t think far ahead enough lol but then again the young marshal provoke japan and tried to have CKS take care most of the fighting while his own troops stay back maybe he is more cunning than most people think of him
I don't know about that. It's true that China under the KMT wouldn't be content to be just a pro American satellite permanently stuck under the US sphere of influence. Its size, resources, and inevitable economic growth following rapid industrialization would see China be a world player like it is now. But the idea that a KMT run China post Civil War wouldn't be either inclined or obligated to make an alliance with the United States on some level to protect itself and suppress from further Soviet/Communist incursion would be a ridiculous assertion. Putting aside the possible need of outside help from a country like the US to win over Mao, the amount of devastation that China went through after both WW2 and the Chinese Civil War would cause Chiang seriously look for outside help to rebuild his country's industrial capacity and military. The country most readily able to provide assistance to Chiang and the KMT to rebuild other than the USSR is the United States. That American aid to help rebuild and reinvest in China would most certainly make the Republic of China dependent upon the US for an extended period of time (probably until the mid to late 70s or early 80s at the latest), making the KMT obligated in all likelihood to institute major political reforms pushing China towards democracy. Reforms that Washington would see as necessary for Chiang to continue receiving aid. This would likely see China become an economic and manufacturing powerhouse by the 80s that is no longer dependent on the United States and would definitely be a major player on the world stage, but it would also probably become a more democratic nation as well that would be able to build strong ties with democracies around the world, particularly in the Americas and Europe. It is not unrealistic to presume that while China could have its own geopolitical interests that are independent of the United States and be in alliance with the United States at the same time as equals.
Up unto the bolded part, I agree, but the bolded part is one of the more contentious bits. The US was certainly fine with the GMD on Taiwan remaining as an authoritarian state for a long time; what pushed Taiwan towards the edge was a combination of internal pressures from the tangwai movement and a series of scandals, mainly involving corruption (a "surprise" for the "reformed" GMD) but also involving extrajudicial killing of critics overseas via using Triad groups, one of which triggered an FBI investigation and became such an embarrassment that the GMD had no other alternative for the continuation of the Taiwanization process. In a China with a GMD victory, I don't think China would have as much pressure towards democratic reform and could continue indefinitely as an authoritarian state, or at least gradually evolve into something like Singapore. After all, during the Cold War, the US was perfectly happy to prop up dictatorships because they were not Communist, and at this point in time American aid did not necessarily translate into conditions for reform that were beyond window-dressing if it meant the resurgence of the Communists into positions of power. Most attempts to institute democracy in China - at least not on the GMD's terms - would be pushed back either by appealing to Asian values or by stating outright that democracy is incompatible with Chinese conditions for many reasons, such as China's traditional Confucian outlook on life - especially social harmony and the family, that Western democracy is inappropriate for China, that they lack the civic consciousness, that they are not at a suitable socioeconomic status to make it work, because democracy would mean China would disintegrate, and so on and so forth. All of which Westerners and non-Chinese would view as a bunch of claptrap, but arguments like that would serve the GMD in justifying why they alone should continue to rule. One would have to wait for a long time before it would finally crack. So China would remain an authoritarian dictatorship for a long time to come.