What if nationalist China was victorious against the communi

[karlmarx900]

Mao defeated Chiang. What would it be like if that did not happen?

[lordroel]

Feb 23, 2020 17:08:45 GMT karlmarx900 said:

Mao defeated Chiang. What would it be like if that did not happen?

Would we see a Peoples Republic of Manchuria as last bastion of a Communist China. 

[stevep]

Feb 23, 2020 18:02:48 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 23, 2020 17:08:45 GMT karlmarx900 said:

Mao defeated Chiang. What would it be like if that did not happen?

Would we see a Peoples Republic of Manchuria as last bastion of a Communist China. 

  Possibly depending on the circumstances.  If the POD is after the end of the war with Japan the Soviets occupied much of the area and transferred a lot of resources to Mao's communists.  However a little later the KMT had an offensive into the region which according to some reports was going quite well until he accepted a ceasefire and Stalin sent Mao more aid.  However they didn't intervene directly against the nationalists which would probably have prompted a western or at least US response.  However it could have been that Stalin establishes a Soviet supported communist state in the region if Mao's forces was defeated there or later.

  The big issue is how would China develop?  It's not going to have Mao's insanity but its probably going to be deeply corrupt and autocratic and because of its size and political importance is going to be under less pressure for democratic reform than OTL Taiwan.  So it could go faster initially but not have the sort of massive economic development as OTL recent decades.  Probably also going to have a continued communist insurgence, with any internal opposition to the party similarly being classified as communist terrorists.  You would hopefully see the KMT relax its death grip on power at some stage but probably slower and less dramatically than OTL.  Plus I can't see a KMT China successfully implementing something like the one child policy so the population is likely to be larger but poorer.  At worst you might see another round of widespread civil war at some point, possibly with foreign - i.e. Soviet and American - intervention.

[1bigrich]

Every hope and dream we have for the PRC in the West has been realized in Taiwan. A vibrant democracy, freedom and economic prosperity are part of the ROC's daily life, down to physical confrontations in the legislature!

I think a continental ROC would be authoritarian as long as Chiang is alive, but as on Taiwan, things would liberalize writ large after his passing. With free markets, I think China would be an economic engine from the 1980s onward. It would be a regional military power and an even bigger trading partner with the United States, Japan, Europe and a united Republic of Korea. I think it would be an important ally, as Japan was, during the Cold War, and would be a force regional stability after the Cold War. I could still see a rivalry with India, but it would be between the two largest democracies on the planet, not between a democracy and a dictatorship.

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Posted this once on a different thread, it is about, how would China’s history look like if Chiang Kai-shek had ignored George C. Marshall’s request in 1946?

The original article came from The Diplomat and was called: What if the Kuomintang Had Won the Chinese Civil War?

What if in the spring of 1946, the Nationalists could have militarily defeated the communists under Mao Zedong. Late in 1945, after the Japanese surrender, Chiang had begun to airlift his battle-hardened, U.S.-equipped troops to Manchuria, where the Chinese Red Army (not to be confused with its Soviet namesake) had made its main base.

The communists resisted but, having avoided the worst of the fighting against the Japanese during World War II, were quickly defeated by Chiang’s veteran troops. Many of these men had been fighting for several years in the China-Burma-India (CBI) campaign, and were led by well-trained (and, for a change, mostly non-corrupt) officers. The Nationalists were able to decisively defeat the Red Army at a month-long battle in Sipingjie in May 1946, occupying Southern Manchuria. Lin Biao, one of Mao’s favorite generals, threw 100,000 conscripted factory workers into the path of the advancing Nationalist army, to little avail. The suburbs of Harbin, the gateway to the north, had been reached by the advancing Nationalist units by early June.

However, at the moment of victory, Chiang called a halt. This proved to be a fatal a mistake from which the Nationalists never recovered. Within three years, the communists reorganized and counterattacked, eventually pushing Chiang’s forces out of China proper to Taiwan. The reason for this can be summarized in two names: U.S. President Harry Truman and George C. Marshall. Both these men were undoubtedly great statesmen, but had little experience in navigating the “snake pit of Chinese politics.”

After several failed diplomatic missions (notably the Dixie and Hurley missions), Truman sent his heavyweight secretary of state, General George C. Marshall, to negotiate a coalition government between Mao and Chiang. Marshall ultimately become famous for his ability to inspire his subordinates and build bridges between conflicting personalities, as well as the Marshall Plan, a keystone of Europe’s post-war economic recovery.

However, Marshall was completely unprepared for the political situation that met him in China in 1946. Although Chiang was dependent on the Americans for military aid and support, that hardly meant he trusted them. Much of this was not Marshall’s fault. Chiang’s trust in the U.S. had been severely strained by his sour relationship with General “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell, the U.S. commander in the CBI theatre. (As Jay Taylor writes, Stilwell basically hated Chiang due to his perceived corruption and incompetence, calling him “the Peanut,” and at one stage requested that the Office of Strategic Services plan an assassination of the Nationalist generalissimo.)

Marshall requested that the Nationalists call off their offensive in Manchuria, or risk losing American support. Chiang reluctantly agreed. His shocked generals begged him to be allowed to capture Harbin, which might have dealt a knock-out blow to the Red Army. On the other hand, the Nationalists’ supply lines were stretched perilously thin, and a continued advance could have exposed their flanks to the sort of guerilla tactics that Mao’s forces were so adept at. In any case, this represented the last chance the Nationalists had at defeating the communists militarily.

What if Chiang had either ignored Marshall’s request, or what if the Truman administration had never requested it in the first place? These questions are the first order counterfactuals in this hypothetical scenario.

The Soviet Union had invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria in the twilight weeks of the Pacific War. Under the Soviet Red Army’s protection, Mao’s forces were given weapons and allowed to reorganize in late 1945. This represented a crucial move for Mao’s forces, as their previous headquarters in Yanan was strategically isolated from the most populous parts of China. However, the Soviets were on speaking terms with the Nationalists as well. When Chiang asked Moscow to withdraw its troops from Manchuria by May 1946, the Soviets obliged, perhaps, as Tanner suggests, reassured by American and British guarantees of the preservation of Soviet interests in the region.

Looking into our contrafactual crystal ball, several possibilities arise. If it had been possible that the Nationalists were able to overrun Manchuria as quickly as Chiang’s generals promised, China might still be under the Kuomingtang (or some derivative) today. However, it is far from certain that Stalin would have accepted the wholesale conquest of Manchuria by Chiang’s regime. The KMT had enormous problems trying to govern China in the 1920s and 1930s. Perhaps China would have fragmented again, as it had so many times during its history.

If Chiang had elected to ignore the Americans’ request, the Cold War and the present day might look very different as well (here we get into second- and third-order counterfactuals). While the KMT were on relatively good terms with the Soviet Union, it is perhaps more likely to believe that Chiang would have gravitated either towards the U.S. or a non-aligned movement. This could have meant that China would have been integrated in the post-war U.S. order, in essence becoming another South Korea, or might have entailed a looser association, as for example the U.S. and France.

Another aspect of the hypothetical path is the differences that could have occurred within China’s domestic politics. Would humanitarian disasters on the scale of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution have occurred without Mao’s regime? Probably not, but considering Chiang’s record of human rights abuses and authoritarian leadership, China, under Nationalist rule, could have suffered some serious internal challenges all the same. Chiang was not exactly an ardent advocate for human rights and democracy.

How China’s economic development might have progressed under Chiang is another interesting hypothetical. Historically, the KMT on Taiwan was able to spark a remarkable economic recovery, becoming one of the so-called “Asian Tigers” by following the “Developmental State” model. Could the Nationalists have recreated this on the mainland if they had been victorious over Mao’s forces? There are many variables—most notably the vast difference in size between Taiwan and the mainland—but that the CCP has been largely able to achieve breakneck economic growth since the late 1970s at least indicates that it is possible. Another alternative is that China would have stagnated due to the KMT’s endemic corruption and mismanagement, ending up as a poor country even today.

Another interesting scenario is that Moscow and Washington could have pressured Chiang and Mao into accepting a division of China, much like Korea or Germany. In this case, there is a possibility that China would have become another ideological battleground of the Cold War. For one thing, Communist China might have been much more dependent and aligned with the Soviet Union than it historically was. The renowned scholar Chen Jian of Cornell University argues the case that Mao was in essence a nationalist ideological warrior; it is far from certain that he would have accepted a division of the country. However, parts of the CCP leadership conceivably could have, which might have led to him being deposed in a Soviet-backed coup. As the Brezhnev doctrine later proved, Moscow had no compulsions about deposing supposed client rulers who didn’t fall in line.

How this would have been resolved with the collapse of the Soviet Union is an interesting question. If the KMT had been able to keep the country together and been able to develop economically, perhaps Nationalist China would have absorbed its communist neighbor, as happened in Germany. Or maybe our contrafactual “People’s Republic of China” would have become another North Korea: belligerent, dangerous and desperately poor.

History is learning about what has been. That does not mean that it’s impossible to think of history as it could have been or even should have been. Only by making some plausible assumptions about what would have happened if history had taken a different path than it actually did is it possible to understand the full implications of the present day.

[EwellHolmes]

It'd be much the same as the PRC, except less developed and beset by a Maoist insurgency just like India. Comparing Taiwan to a situation where the KMT wins in China is Apples to Orange; case in point being the extensive land reform that occurred in Taiwan but could not be emulated in the mainland without pissing off the landowners that formed much of the KMT's support base.

[lordroel]

Mar 1, 2020 8:18:45 GMT EwellHolmes said:

It'd be much the same as the PRC, except less developed and beset by a Maoist insurgency just like India. Comparing Taiwan to a situation where the KMT wins in China is Apples to Orange; case in point being the extensive land reform that occurred in Taiwan but could not be emulated in the mainland without pissing off the landowners that formed much of the KMT's support base.

A yes, so how long do we think a Maoist insurgency wich will be a lot bigger than in OTL to last in a KMT controlled China.

[EwellHolmes]

Mar 1, 2020 9:22:01 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 1, 2020 8:18:45 GMT EwellHolmes said:

It'd be much the same as the PRC, except less developed and beset by a Maoist insurgency just like India. Comparing Taiwan to a situation where the KMT wins in China is Apples to Orange; case in point being the extensive land reform that occurred in Taiwan but could not be emulated in the mainland without pissing off the landowners that formed much of the KMT's support base.

A yes, so how long do we think a Maoist insurgency wich will be a lot bigger than in OTL to last in a KMT controlled China.

India is a useful example, in that said Maoist insurgency is still ongoing albeit by now heavily repressed.

[lordroel]

Mar 1, 2020 9:52:26 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Mar 1, 2020 9:22:01 GMT lordroel said:

A yes, so how long do we think a Maoist insurgency wich will be a lot bigger than in OTL to last in a KMT controlled China.

India is a useful example, in that said Maoist insurgency is still ongoing albeit by now heavily repressed.

So the Maoist insurgency will have a good foothold in the countryside while the KMT will hold the cities and surrounding areas i guess.

[dayton3]

This was one of my favorite scenarios in the alternate history anthology "What If". The scenario was I think the title was "A Cold War a little warmer".

Basically they said that if the Nationalists had won completely or even partially on mainland China there would likely have been no Korean War as we knew it or for that matter a Vietnam War as occurred in real life.

[Zyobot]

Feb 27, 2020 19:18:15 GMT 1bigrich said:

Every hope and dream we have for the PRC in the West has been realized in Taiwan. A vibrant democracy, freedom and economic prosperity are part of the ROC's daily life, down to physical confrontations in the legislature!

I think a continental ROC would be authoritarian as long as Chiang is alive, but as on Taiwan, things would liberalize writ large after his passing. With free markets, I think China would be an economic engine from the 1980s onward. It would be a regional military power and an even bigger trading partner with the United States, Japan, Europe and a united Republic of Korea. I think it would be an important ally, as Japan was, during the Cold War, and would be a force regional stability after the Cold War. I could still see a rivalry with India, but it would be between the two largest democracies on the planet, not between a democracy and a dictatorship.

My thoughts,

I get the feeling that in terms of economic dominance, it'd be at least comparable to OTL China in terms of GDP, raised living standards and infrastructural development? Also, I wonder if it'd employ the East Asian model of capitalism, in which the government invests in certain sectors instead of letting markets largely run their course.

Whether it'd become a global industrial hub like China, with Western nations outsourcing their manufacturing to it like IOTL, remains an open question, I'd think. Though, there'd probably be less scrutiny directed towards free trade and the like thanks to the fact that China's a wealthy liberal democracy that maintains friendly relations with the West (as opposed to a one-party communist state that has liberalized economically).

[gillan1220]

The first years would probably be messy since Chiang Kai Shek was a dictator and the KMT was known to be full of corrupt and incompetent officials. This is what annoyed the Truman administration after WWII where he declared China was a loss anyways.

Taiwan only became somehow democratic after the death of Chiang in 1975. In this scenario, it would be probably be the same way as OTL. China would be a buffer between the USSR and the USA. The USSR would want to have capitalist country as a border so they could trade with it.

Also, Cody made a video of this:

[stevep]

May 11, 2020 5:57:38 GMT gillan1220 said:

The first years would probably be messy since Chiang Kai Shek was a dictator and the KMT was known to be full of corrupt and incompetent officials. This is what annoyed the Truman administration after WWII where he declared China was a loss anyways.

Taiwan only became somehow democratic after the death of Chiang in 1975. In this scenario, it would be probably be the same way as OTL. China would be a buffer between the USSR and the USA. The USSR would want to have capitalist country as a border so they could trade with it.

Also, Cody made a video of this:

  gillan1220,

  Suspect that would be largely accurate.  Of course with a unified nationalist China prior to the Japanese invasion and less internal conflict as a result it should do somewhat better against Japan - especially since Chiang isn't keeping his best units back to fight the communists.  As such what happens when Japan surrenders?  If the Soviets occupy Manchuria as OTL then does it return it to the KMT or does it try and establish a communist state there?  If it does return it will even Kim be stupid enough to attack the south when his northern border is insecure?  If that still happens then would Stalin feel forced to support its ally?

  Other than that would agree your likely to see China stay autocratic but markedly less bloody than under Mao.

  Steve

[ukron]

Well, a Nationalist victory won't be a good news for everyone/
North Korea will be forcibly aligned with the USSR while France and the thorny Indochinese question would have been a political nightmare between Chinese nationalists wishing to settle in Vietnam, local anti-French nationalists, anti-Chinese nationalists, Viet Minh (probably much less Communist and more eager to get rid of the French as quickly as possible to be able to drive out the Chinese).

[gillan1220]

May 11, 2020 8:22:05 GMT stevep said:

May 11, 2020 5:57:38 GMT gillan1220 said:

The first years would probably be messy since Chiang Kai Shek was a dictator and the KMT was known to be full of corrupt and incompetent officials. This is what annoyed the Truman administration after WWII where he declared China was a loss anyways.

Taiwan only became somehow democratic after the death of Chiang in 1975. In this scenario, it would be probably be the same way as OTL. China would be a buffer between the USSR and the USA. The USSR would want to have capitalist country as a border so they could trade with it.

Also, Cody made a video of this:

  gillan1220 ,

  Suspect that would be largely accurate.  Of course with a unified nationalist China prior to the Japanese invasion and less internal conflict as a result it should do somewhat better against Japan - especially since Chiang isn't keeping his best units back to fight the communists.  As such what happens when Japan surrenders?  If the Soviets occupy Manchuria as OTL then does it return it to the KMT or does it try and establish a communist state there?  If it does return it will even Kim be stupid enough to attack the south when his northern border is insecure?  If that still happens then would Stalin feel forced to support its ally?

  Other than that would agree your likely to see China stay autocratic but markedly less bloody than under Mao.

  Steve

Stalin liked Chiang over Mao because Stalin knew he could not control Mao. At least under Chiang he could trade. The Soviets would most likely return Manchuria to the KMT as a sign of goodwill that the USSR respects international norms. The Korean War would be butterflied away if China is ruled by the ROC instead of the PRC. Stalin would have a hard time supporting Kim Il-Sung this time. Even better to ponder even before the actual Korean War, both the USA and the USSR saw Korea as something geographically insignificant for their interests.