WI Nationalists Win Chinese Civil War

[pericles]

What if the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek, and not Mao Zedong's Communists, won the Chinese Civil War? What PoD would be needed to make this happen? what would be the effect of a Nationalist China and not a Communist one? How would the Cold War go differently? What if?

[lordroel]

Apr 1, 2016 4:39:44 GMT pericles said:

What if the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek, and not Mao Zedong's Communists, won the Chinese Civil War? What PoD would be needed to make this happen? what would be the effect of a Nationalist China and not a Communist one? How would the Cold War go differently? What if?

Have Mao Zedong killed during a Japanese raid somewhere in 1939, by 1946 when the second phase of the Chinese Civil War begins the Chinese Communists will be weaken with out their symbol.

[pericles]

The US and South Korea would very likely win the Korean War TTL. Vietnam War may go differently too. What would China be like now without communism? A propserous, US-ally democracy China? Or not?

[lordroel]

Apr 2, 2016 4:08:18 GMT pericles said:

The US and South Korea would very likely win the Korean War TTL. Vietnam War may go differently too. What would China be like now without communism? A propserous, US-ally democracy China? Or not?

It also depends on the Soviet Union, they supported the Communists during the Sino-Japanese war and later heavily during the civil war, i do not think they are going to like to have a large pro-american country sharing its border.

[whiteshore]

Do the Nationalists rule over all of China or is a PRC-in-Manchuria okay?

[lordroel]

Jun 9, 2016 2:26:16 GMT whiteshore said:

Do the Nationalists rule over all of China or is a PRC-in-Manchuria okay?

I think that is more plausible than saying that there is a PRC controlled Taiwan.

[spanishspy]

I doubt there'd even be a Korea or Vietnam War in this timeline. A Western-backed China would force the Soviet Union to focus more on its Eastern defenses, and the situation in Europe would become more tense. I can easily see the Soviet Union funding rebels in Tibet and Uyghurstan.

[lordroel]

Jun 9, 2016 3:12:31 GMT spanishspy said:

I doubt there'd even be a Korea or Vietnam War in this timeline. A Western-backed China would force the Soviet Union to focus more on its Eastern defenses, and the situation in Europe would become more tense. I can easily see the Soviet Union funding rebels in Tibet and Uyghurstan.

The only way for the soviet Union to back Tibet is true India, how are they going to do that.

[spanishspy]

Jun 9, 2016 3:14:28 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 9, 2016 3:12:31 GMT spanishspy said:

I doubt there'd even be a Korea or Vietnam War in this timeline. A Western-backed China would force the Soviet Union to focus more on its Eastern defenses, and the situation in Europe would become more tense. I can easily see the Soviet Union funding rebels in Tibet and Uyghurstan.

The only way for the soviet Union to back Tibet is true India, how are they going to do that.

Not necessarily; the Tajik republic borders Tibet. They could also smuggle in weapons et al. through Uyghurstan.

[lordroel]

Jun 9, 2016 3:16:42 GMT spanishspy said:

Jun 9, 2016 3:14:28 GMT lordroel said:

The only way for the soviet Union to back Tibet is true India, how are they going to do that.

Not necessarily; the Tajik republic borders Tibet. They could also smuggle in weapons et al. through Uyghurstan.

Also can we assume that the Soviet Union wants to keep control of a puppet government in the Second East Turkestan Republic, of course they will control much larger territory than they did in OTL.

[stevep]

I think the methods, let alone the outcome of a KMT controlled China would depend on the circumstances. Chiang's regime is normally seen as massive corrupt and riven by infighting while he sought to avoid anyone else, especially generals gaining any influence or popularity that might mean they could become a rival. If you can get past that then the KMT's chances are much greater. Possibly then something removing Chiang, especially if it causes disfavour for the Communists.

There might be butterflies during the war, for instance Britain managing to hold onto Burma. This would make supply of the Nationalists far easier than having to fly stuff over the hump. Have the KMT better armed and equipped and able to avoid the defeats in 43-44 and their morale and economic position is markedly stronger.

Stalin also supported the KMT, probably more than the communists who he thought too weak. This changed later and the latter gained hugely by supplies and equipment from the Soviets in the Civil War post 1945. However if the Soviets still size Manchuria from Japanese control but the KMT are in a much better position Stalin could seek to mantain Manchuria and possibly some neighbouring provinces as a buffer state under his domination. Which would definitely alienate the KMT. In this case the Korean war is unlikely to occur and if it does will probably be a western victory.

The other alternative is that Stalin feels the need to support Mao for reasons of prestige and to stop China becoming a pro-western state and the conflict in China becomes a much larger 'Korean' type situation. which could seriously affect both western-Soviet relations and the recovery of much of China.

Without this and with the KMT holding most/all of China it could be anything from an economic giant like present day China or a strif torn mess in which a brutal 'nationalist' regime is facing serious internal unrest supported by communists. Something like a Burma on mega-steroids!

[lordroel]

Jun 9, 2016 13:52:14 GMT stevep said:

I think the methods, let alone the outcome of a KMT controlled China would depend on the circumstances. Chiang's regime is normally seen as massive corrupt and riven by infighting while he sought to avoid anyone else, especially generals gaining any influence or popularity that might mean they could become a rival. If you can get past that then the KMT's chances are much greater. Possibly then something removing Chiang, especially if it causes disfavour for the Communists.

There might be butterflies during the war, for instance Britain managing to hold onto Burma. This would make supply of the Nationalists far easier than having to fly stuff over the hump. Have the KMT better armed and equipped and able to avoid the defeats in 43-44 and their morale and economic position is markedly stronger.

Stalin also supported the KMT, probably more than the communists who he thought too weak. This changed later and the latter gained hugely by supplies and equipment from the Soviets in the Civil War post 1945. However if the Soviets still size Manchuria from Japanese control but the KMT are in a much better position Stalin could seek to mantain Manchuria and possibly some neighbouring provinces as a buffer state under his domination. Which would definitely alienate the KMT. In this case the Korean war is unlikely to occur and if it does will probably be a western victory.

The other alternative is that Stalin feels the need to support Mao for reasons of prestige and to stop China becoming a pro-western state and the conflict in China becomes a much larger 'Korean' type situation. which could seriously affect both western-Soviet relations and the recovery of much of China.

Without this and with the KMT holding most/all of China it could be anything from an economic giant like present day China or a strif torn mess in which a brutal 'nationalist' regime is facing serious internal unrest supported by communists. Something like a Burma on mega-steroids!

Could we not end up with a balkanization of China with several countries emerging instead of on big KMT controlled China.

[stevep]

Jun 9, 2016 13:56:19 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 9, 2016 13:52:14 GMT stevep said:

I think the methods, let alone the outcome of a KMT controlled China would depend on the circumstances. Chiang's regime is normally seen as massive corrupt and riven by infighting while he sought to avoid anyone else, especially generals gaining any influence or popularity that might mean they could become a rival. If you can get past that then the KMT's chances are much greater. Possibly then something removing Chiang, especially if it causes disfavour for the Communists.

There might be butterflies during the war, for instance Britain managing to hold onto Burma. This would make supply of the Nationalists far easier than having to fly stuff over the hump. Have the KMT better armed and equipped and able to avoid the defeats in 43-44 and their morale and economic position is markedly stronger.

Stalin also supported the KMT, probably more than the communists who he thought too weak. This changed later and the latter gained hugely by supplies and equipment from the Soviets in the Civil War post 1945. However if the Soviets still size Manchuria from Japanese control but the KMT are in a much better position Stalin could seek to mantain Manchuria and possibly some neighbouring provinces as a buffer state under his domination. Which would definitely alienate the KMT. In this case the Korean war is unlikely to occur and if it does will probably be a western victory.

The other alternative is that Stalin feels the need to support Mao for reasons of prestige and to stop China becoming a pro-western state and the conflict in China becomes a much larger 'Korean' type situation. which could seriously affect both western-Soviet relations and the recovery of much of China.

Without this and with the KMT holding most/all of China it could be anything from an economic giant like present day China or a strif torn mess in which a brutal 'nationalist' regime is facing serious internal unrest supported by communists. Something like a Burma on mega-steroids!

Could we not end up with a balkanization of China with several countries emerging instead of on big KMT controlled China.

  That's been a common condition for much of Chinese history, far more than most people realise.  However given the strength of the Chinese identity and also of nationalism in general I think your only likely to see states separated by very strong idealogical differences, such as between capitalism and communism.

[lordroel]

Jun 9, 2016 14:05:08 GMT stevep said:

Jun 9, 2016 13:56:19 GMT lordroel said:

Could we not end up with a balkanization of China with several countries emerging instead of on big KMT controlled China.

  That's been a common condition for much of Chinese history, far more than most people realise.  However given the strength of the Chinese identity and also of nationalism in general I think your only likely to see states separated by very strong idealogical differences, such as between capitalism and communism.

But would a KMT controlled China leave Tibet alone and would the Soviet Union give the Second East Turkestan Republic back to a KMT controlled China.

[whiteshore]

What would a PRC-in-Manchuria look like? Would it be a larger DPRK? Or would it basically be the GDR dubbed into Chinese?