What if the Nationalists won the Chinese Civil War?

[Barry Goldwater]

Thread title. Would China be better off? From what I know Chiang doesn't seem as bat insane as Mao, so the insane stuff (Great Leap Backward Forward, Cultural Revolution, etc.) that happened under Mao would probably never happen under him, but he was still a dictator and the KMT appeared to be far more corrupt than the CCP. Would China still eventually become a democracy like Taiwan?

Also, how would this affect neighboring countries & conflicts in those countries? (Korea, Vietnam, Tibet...)

[bushbush]

Democracy or not, china's economic development certainly would be 30 years ahead now because CCP wasted about 30 years messing around and killing random people. Although china might not be the level of taiwan in per capita basis because China is so much larger and underdeveloped for most part by 1950, i would say China at least would be a borderline developed country by now. Its political system might not be a liberal democracy, probably more like a neo-confucian semi-democracy in singapore.

in terms of foreign policy, China would NOT necessarily become a hardcore ally of the US. Keep in mind the nationalists cooperated with the soviets when they needed them. The proximity of soviets meant Chiang could not be too arrogant in dealing with them. China would probably pursue a middle-way policy, avoiding taking side in the cold war and focus on development and political stability.

btw, the nationalists were ....MORE NATIONALIST than the CCP in terms of trying to conquer what they saw as Chinese lands. IF you think CCP was bad to take tibet and xinjiang, you can check out Republic of China (taiwan)'s official map lol. It's...a lot bigger than China today.

[Barry Goldwater]

Democracy or not, china's economic development certainly would be 30 years ahead now because CCP wasted about 30 years messing around and killing random people. Although china might not be the level of taiwan in per capita basis because China is so much larger and underdeveloped for most part by 1950, i would say China at least would be a borderline developed country by now. Its political system might not be a liberal democracy, probably more like a neo-confucian semi-democracy in singapore.

in terms of foreign policy, China would NOT necessarily become a hardcore ally of the US. Keep in mind the nationalists cooperated with the soviets when they needed them. The proximity of soviets meant Chiang could not be too arrogant in dealing with them. China would probably pursue a middle-way policy, avoiding taking side in the cold war and focus on development and political stability.

btw, the nationalists were ....MORE NATIONALIST than the CCP in terms of trying to conquer what they saw as Chinese lands. IF you think CCP was bad to take tibet and xinjiang, you can check out Republic of China (taiwan)'s official map lol. It's...a lot bigger than China today.

I'd imagine nothing too big happens in Korea or Vietnam then, while the Kuomintang may not actively intervene in either conflict I doubt they would support the Communists either...so does that mean a reunited Korea & surviving 'State of Vietnam' under an emperor today? I'd imagine the North Koreans would be crushed by the UN & SK while the Viet Minh don't become nearly as successful as they actually were without Chinese help.

Yes, the Nationalists going after Tibet would make sense...they apparently want Mongolia too

[bushbush]

I'd imagine nothing too big happens in Korea or Vietnam then, while the Kuomintang may not actively intervene in either conflict I doubt they would support the Communists either...so does that mean a reunited Korea & surviving 'State of Vietnam' under an emperor today? I'd imagine the North Koreans would be crushed by the UN & SK while the Viet Minh don't become nearly as successful as they actually were without Chinese help.

I think KMT might stay neutral in cases the soviets were involved, because of the proximity with soviets, whose armor force could reach Beijing in a week realistically speaking during the cold war. On korean war, i 'd think KMT would welcome a US backed regime in Korea, providing a direct land connection between the two and help to facilitate a defense against the Soviets.

On vietnam i am not too sure how the KMT will react. But by being an non-communist country, the viets might have to station a lot of troops in the north to guard its border for a possible Chinese attack. So the US might have done more damage to the vietnamese regime during the war.

Yes, the Nationalists going after Tibet would make sense...they apparently want Mongolia too

oh you bet haha, and the islands in southern chinese sea. Remember KMT"s doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_P..._of_the_People

-nationalism
-people power/democracy
-economic development/public welfare

[hellheaven1987]

On vietnam i am not too sure how the KMT will react. But by being an non-communist country, the viets might have to station a lot of troops in the north to guard its border for a possible Chinese attack. So the US might have done more damage to the vietnamese regime during the war.

Depends. KMT did not want a communist neighbour for sure, but also not a European colony. The more possible route would be both US and Nationalist China joined hand to put pressure on France for a Free Vietnam.

[hellheaven1987]

Democracy or not, china's economic development certainly would be 30 years ahead now because CCP wasted about 30 years messing around and killing random people. Although china might not be the level of taiwan in per capita basis because China is so much larger and underdeveloped for most part by 1950, i would say China at least would be a borderline developed country by now. Its political system might not be a liberal democracy, probably more like a neo-confucian semi-democracy in singapore.

Don't forget the US Marshall Plan, which was a big factor for the early economical development in Taiwan.

btw, the nationalists were ....MORE NATIONALIST than the CCP in terms of trying to conquer what they saw as Chinese lands. IF you think CCP was bad to take tibet and xinjiang, you can check out Republic of China (taiwan)'s official map lol. It's...a lot bigger than China today.

Tibet would probably be a semi-independant region under Nationalist, and for XinJiang, there would be no complain since people in XinJiang voluteenrly joined Nationalist China, not like we begging them to come back. Mongolia might also remain with China too.

Overall, it really depends on how Chiang was going to deal the crappy situation after WWII. Remember that, Chiang was forced to resign due to the pressure of other warlords, and I cannot see how he could really solve both the compeitition within the warlords and the pressure from Communist.

[bushbush]

Don't forget the US Marshall Plan, which was a big factor for the early economical development in Taiwan..

haha true. Most importantly i think it's the trade with europe and US. By being communist, China was cut off from the world market and capital flow, losing the golden opportunity of development in the 50s completely and lagging behind ever since.

Tibet would probably be a semi-independant region under Nationalist, and for XinJiang, there would be no complain since people in XinJiang voluteenrly joined Nationalist China, not like we begging them to come back. Mongolia might also remain with China too.

not too sure about xinjiang and tibet being more autonomous. KMT has shown in many cases in history it was more cruel than the communist in dealing with oppositions. The KMT in the 30s and 40s was a form of quite brutal authoritarianism, witnessing its massacre of taiwanese population after it took over.

Overall, it really depends on how Chiang was going to deal the crappy situation after WWII. Remember that, Chiang was forced to resign due to the pressure of other warlords, and I cannot see how he could really solve both the compeitition within the warlords and the pressure from Communist.

true. Could Chiang finish off the old foes would be an issue.

[hellheaven1987]

not too sure about xinjiang and tibet being more autonomous. KMT has shown in many cases in history it was more cruel than the communist in dealing with oppositions. The KMT in the 30s and 40s was a form of quite brutal authoritarianism, witnessing its massacre of taiwanese population after it took over.

That was largely because Chiang, although look like a dictator, had no absolute power. A large number of atrocities were committed by KMT that not controlled by Chiang, which was quite a majority. Using the case for the massacre of Taiwanese population, Chiang actually condenmed it when he heard military force was used to crush the Taiwanese protest (the local governor took matter on his hand before informed Chiang), but too late to stop the violence (but the protest was not strickly innocent. Some evidences suggest it was backed by Communist).

[Barry Goldwater]

Overall, it really depends on how Chiang was going to deal the crappy situation after WWII. Remember that, Chiang was forced to resign due to the pressure of other warlords, and I cannot see how he could really solve both the compeitition within the warlords and the pressure from Communist.

From what I've read, the KMT kinda 'snatched defeat from the jaws of victory' in the late war - they were receiving plenty of aid from the US and controlled most of the country (at least on paper), but were still insanely corrupt and screwed up so badly that their soldiers defected in droves to the Communists and the equipment the US gave them ended up in Communist hands. Not sure how they'd pull off a victory there, and yes, there is the not-so-minor issue of the various warlords left hanging around after a Nationalist victory in the CCW.

Then again, they could just get lucky and crush the Communists in the Long March But that just raises even more questions...namely, how a more united China would do against Japan once the Second Sino-Japanese War starts.

I think KMT might stay neutral in cases the soviets were involved, because of the proximity with soviets, whose armor force could reach Beijing in a week realistically speaking during the cold war. On korean war, i 'd think KMT would welcome a US backed regime in Korea, providing a direct land connection between the two and help to facilitate a defense against the Soviets.

On vietnam i am not too sure how the KMT will react. But by being an non-communist country, the viets might have to station a lot of troops in the north to guard its border for a possible Chinese attack. So the US might have done more damage to the vietnamese regime during the war.

Depends. KMT did not want a communist neighbour for sure, but also not a European colony. The more possible route would be both US and Nationalist China joined hand to put pressure on France for a Free Vietnam.

If the Chinese stay completely neutral in Korea I'd imagine NK would be ed royally anyway, they had their backs up against the wall by the time the Chinese came in OTL and unless the Soviets directly intervene there I don't think they'd be able to miraculously turn the tables around like they did in reality.

So would a Republic of Vietnam covering the whole country be the most likely outcome in Vietnam?

[hellheaven1987]

From what I've read, the KMT kinda 'snatched defeat from the jaws of victory' in the late war - they were receiving plenty of aid from the US and controlled most of the country (at least on paper), but were still insanely corrupt and screwed up so badly that their soldiers defected in droves to the Communists and the equipment the US gave them ended up in Communist hands. Not sure how they'd pull off a victory there, and yes, there is the not-so-minor issue of the various warlords left hanging around after a Nationalist victory in the CCW.

Blah, the reason why Nationalist lost Civil War because silly Americans cut off supply support and kept calling a cease fire - something Nationalist obeyed and Communist did not care. The leadership problem also cause a major rip off for Nationalist, especially when warlords were compeiting against eachothers and Chiang could not control his force.

One side cease fire is most stupid thing ever.

Then again, they could just get lucky and crush the Communists in the Long March But that just raises even more questions...namely, how a more united China would do against Japan once the Second Sino-Japanese War starts.

Long March was not a waste. In fact, provinces like Sichuan and Yunnan were not under Nationalist China's control until Central Government's chasing force entered those two provinces during Long March, for chasing the Communist force. Later on those two provinces became the main base of Chinese during Second Sino-Japanese War.

Besides, even Communist force did got wiped up during Long March, new Communist force would still pop up again - it already happened twice from 1920 to 30.

If the Chinese stay completely neutral in Korea I'd imagine NK would be ed royally anyway, they had their backs up against the wall by the time the Chinese came in OTL and unless the Soviets directly intervene there I don't think they'd be able to miraculously turn the tables around like they did in reality.

So would a Republic of Vietnam covering the whole country be the most likely outcome in Vietnam?

I highly doubt NK would even jump on SK if Soviet did not help them...

For Vietnam, Nationalist just wants a free Vietnam without Communist, and does not really care its boundary as long as it does not violate border of China.

[bushbush]

Blah, the reason why Nationalist lost Civil War because silly Americans cut off supply support and kept calling a cease fire - something Nationalist obeyed and Communist did not care. The leadership problem also cause a major rip off for Nationalist, especially when warlords were compeiting against eachothers and Chiang could not control his force.

One side cease fire is most stupid thing ever.

eh that's probably the easy answer, blaming the americans. But more critically is i thought the KMT represented the old reactionary class, the military officers, land owners and merchants while the communists figured out how to gain the support of majority of chinese society --- peasants. Militarily speaking KMT won a number of victories initially (especially in the critical area of manchuria) but the communists were always able to retreat to the countryside and find more manpower and attack again. The KMT was probably more unlucky than fully incompetent. Chinese society was gearing for a revolution, not just a plain old civil war for power.

For Vietnam, Nationalist just wants a free Vietnam without Communist, and does not really care its boundary as long as it does not violate border of China.

KMT might bully vietnam a little more from the start though. The island disputes in south china sea are quite ugly and ROC today has a very firm stance on it.

[Barry Goldwater]

Blah, the reason why Nationalist lost Civil War because silly Americans cut off supply support and kept calling a cease fire - something Nationalist obeyed and Communist did not care. The leadership problem also cause a major rip off for Nationalist, especially when warlords were compeiting against eachothers and Chiang could not control his force.

One side cease fire is most stupid thing ever.



Long March was not a waste. In fact, provinces like Sichuan and Yunnan were not under Nationalist China's control until Central Government's chasing force entered those two provinces during Long March, for chasing the Communist force. Later on those two provinces became the main base of Chinese during Second Sino-Japanese War.

Besides, even Communist force did got wiped up during Long March, new Communist force would still pop up again - it already happened twice from 1920 to 30.



I highly doubt NK would even jump on SK if Soviet did not help them...

For Vietnam, Nationalist just wants a free Vietnam without Communist, and does not really care its boundary as long as it does not violate border of China.

So to have the Nationalists win, you'd need the Americans to be harsher on the Communists? Doesn't seem like an implausible POD. They definitely had all the advantages (numbers, equipment etc.), at least on paper, when the war started up again.

Though yes, I believe the Nationalists would have to somehow win the support of the Chinese peasants to win big.

I meant if the Soviets didn't support the North with huge numbers of troops (like the Chinese) a little later into the war, when it became clear that NK was losing and losing badly.

[Argeus the Paladin]

This is a what-if, my friend. The truth is KMT lost because they lost the support of the peasantry (read: 90% of the population at that time). So let's just assume that fact away and discuss on the possible outcomes.

[hellheaven1987]

This is a what-if, my friend. The truth is KMT lost because they lost the support of the peasantry (read: 90% of the population at that time). So let's just assume that fact away and discuss on the possible outcomes.

What if the Nationalists won the Chinese Civil War?

Reading thread title is first and most important step for a poster.

[Argeus the Paladin]

I thought the title means "what would have happened had the Nationalists won" rather than "How could the Nationalists have won".

[Landsknecht_88]

Thread title. Would China be better off? From what I know Chiang doesn't seem as bat insane as Mao, so the insane stuff (Great Leap Backward Forward, Cultural Revolution, etc.) that happened under Mao would probably never happen under him, but he was still a dictator and the KMT appeared to be far more corrupt than the CCP. Would China still eventually become a democracy like Taiwan?

Also, how would this affect neighboring countries & conflicts in those countries? (Korea, Vietnam, Tibet...)

I think that one shouldn't exaggerate China's potential under a better leadership, but the Nationalists would certainly have handled the economy far better. The retarded ideas of Communism --and Socialism too for that matter-- doesn't exactly tend to result in a well-developed economy.

And I do agree with bushbush that the Nationalists would also have exerted some influence over their neighbors, but I doubt that the rest of the world would have cared in the middle of the Cold War. It wouldn't exactly have been in the United States' interests to alienate the Chinese over a little picnic in Tibet.

[Farnan]

China would be a capitalist nation. Oh wait...

[Ronojoy1917]

Thread title. Would China be better off? From what I know Chiang doesn't seem as bat insane as Mao, so the insane stuff (Great Leap Backward Forward, Cultural Revolution, etc.) that happened under Mao would probably never happen under him, but he was still a dictator and the KMT appeared to be far more corrupt than the CCP. Would China still eventually become a democracy like Taiwan?

Also, how would this affect neighboring countries & conflicts in those countries? (Korea, Vietnam, Tibet...)

I think it would have become much more like India is today. Initially the government would be very authoritarian and extremely corrupt. The elite would prosper while the masses lived in poverty for a few decades. Then, either with a leadership change, or shift in strategy, they would take liberalizing measures to reform the economy, and open it up, leading to a boom. This would bring it to a state very close to India today, and maybe the government would gradually grant more political freedoms to the people. Giving away some of the power to hold on to the rest.

Strategically in the Cold War I think they would seek out a middle way, maybe with a tinge of pro-America. But with the Soviet threat so close they would probably be members of the Non-Aligned Movement and make sure that they stayed balanced between the two.

North Korea would be beaten to a pulp and the peninsula would be united. I'm not very sure about Vietnam, but the Communists there would likely have failed. The situation in Tibet would probably worse, I think they would give them less autonomy.

[Dr. Croccer]

It would probably collapse anyway. The Nationalists had very little support from most of the population, and the leadership was extremely primitive and almost feudal. Chiang's authority depended on his personal relationd with all of his generals, who often effectively ruled large parts of the country. Once Chiang died China could've easily fragmented de facto or even de jure.

[Exarch]

what if the communists nd the nationalists did end up having a coalition government?