What if Nationalist China won the Chinese civil war?

[Mazokia]

If Nationalist China won, China wouldn't have had the Great Famine, and other things.

China would be a democracy, so no Tiananmen square massacre or Hong Kong protests.

Let's admit that Chiang Kai-Shek was a better leader than Mao. Mao's personal army of brainwashed teenagers killed millions of people, killed teachers, abolished any form of education, and after his death, he left hundreds of thousands if not millions without any skills to get a job. That kind of crap didn't happen in Taiwan!

The Great Leap Forward was a huge failure, destroyed China economy, and killed tens of millions of people.

China would had great relations with the U.S so China would have been a member of NATO.

Chiang Kai-Shek encouraged industry, so China's economy would have been waaay better than it is right now.

[Masimino]

But you forgot Chiang Kai-Shek and his Nationalists were very much corrupt, to the point of actually stealing money from America and other countries. They stole money that was supposed to be used to combat the Communists, they were that corrupt man.

[Alyakia]

China would be a democracy, so no Tiananmen square massacre or Hong Kong protests.

and why do you believe this, exactly? you realize that chiang kai-shek was a dictator and ruled with martial law for nearly 40 years, right? that they did have their own little tienanmen squares? or are you assuming that china would turn out the exact same as taiwan did because reasons i guess?

[Seraven]

If Nationalist China won, China wouldn't have had the Great Famine, and other things.

China would be a democracy, so no Tiananmen square massacre or Hong Kong protests.

Let's admit that Chiang Kai-Shek was a better leader than Mao. Mao's personal army of brainwashed teenagers killed millions of people, killed teachers, abolished any form of education, and after his death, he left hundreds of thousands if not millions without any skills to get a job. That kind of crap didn't happen in Taiwan!

The Great Leap Forward was a huge failure, destroyed China economy, and killed tens of millions of people.

China would had great relations with the U.S so China would have been a member of NATO.

Chiang Kai-Shek encouraged industry, so China's economy would have been waaay better than it is right now.

But in a country where education is limited, democracy is not exactly the best choice, as uneducated people in China back then are many. Communism, on the other hand, offering things benefiting for the people and with the results convincing them as well.

If anything, Chiang is a worse leader than Mao. KMT is rife with corruption, and less support even from the people themselves.

[Organized States]

I think the Republic of China would be one of a group of multiple Chinese states. I'd imagine a Muslim State towards the West, along with Tibet and a large number of other small states. You have to remember that the Communist Party and the KMT put down a lot of the ethnic tensions and divisions during their rule. Without a strongman like Mao or Chang-Kai Shiek, China ran the possibility of splintering quickly in those days.

[East Fancainia]

While Chiang Kai-Shek would be preferable to Mao, the obvious better choice would be a government led by Sun Yat-sen.

[Organized States]

If Nationalist China won, China wouldn't have had the Great Famine, and other things.

China would be a democracy, so no Tiananmen square massacre or Hong Kong protests.

Let's admit that Chiang Kai-Shek was a better leader than Mao. Mao's personal army of brainwashed teenagers killed millions of people, killed teachers, abolished any form of education, and after his death, he left hundreds of thousands if not millions without any skills to get a job. That kind of crap didn't happen in Taiwan!

The Great Leap Forward was a huge failure, destroyed China economy, and killed tens of millions of people.

China would had great relations with the U.S so China would have been a member of NATO.

Chiang Kai-Shek encouraged industry, so China's economy would have been waaay better than it is right now.

But in a country where education is limited, democracy is not exactly the best choice, as uneducated people in China back then are many. Communism, on the other hand, offering things benefiting for the people and with the results convincing them as well.

If anything, Chiang is a worse leader than Mao. KMT is rife with corruption, and less support even from the people themselves.

Unfortunately, I will have to give you the first point on the problems of Democracy being implemented easily in China at the time and the "prospects" offered under Communism.

However, I respectfully disagree with your ideals about Mao, as well, he was no better. Mao and Chiang are responsible for a lot of deaths, and I mean a lot. Sure, the KMT stole money, but the Communists did it too.

[Arab Jamahiriyahs]

The People's Republic of China would only be in a different place.
See my sig, this topic already out of date in China

[Exxosia]

I have the inkling suspicion that we'd probably have an independent Uyghurstan, Tibet, and unified Mongolia with two or three Chinese states. So I guess it would be a better situation from that angle simply because it would allow greater self-determination of peoples.

Also with the Xinjiang and Tibet Autonomous Regions independent, I guess a bunch of border disputes could probably be settled more easily.

[Seraven]

But in a country where education is limited, democracy is not exactly the best choice, as uneducated people in China back then are many. Communism, on the other hand, offering things benefiting for the people and with the results convincing them as well.

If anything, Chiang is a worse leader than Mao. KMT is rife with corruption, and less support even from the people themselves.

Unfortunately, I will have to give you the first point on the problems of Democracy being implemented easily in China at the time and the "prospects" offered under Communism.

However, I respectfully disagree with your ideals about Mao, as well, he was no better. Mao and Chiang are responsible for a lot of deaths, and I mean a lot. Sure, the KMT stole money, but the Communists did it too.

Why it's unfortunately even though I was right?

Well, I'm agree with that. Mao and Chiang have their own good and bad merits.

[Arab Jamahiriyahs]

Exxosia's theory, China will look like this

But probably with Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou and the others.

But possibly this better?

[Organized States]

Unfortunately, I will have to give you the first point on the problems of Democracy being implemented easily in China at the time and the "prospects" offered under Communism.

However, I respectfully disagree with your ideals about Mao, as well, he was no better. Mao and Chiang are responsible for a lot of deaths, and I mean a lot. Sure, the KMT stole money, but the Communists did it too.

Why it's unfortunately even though I was right?

Well, I'm agree with that. Mao and Chiang have their own good and bad merits.

It's more or less I disagree with Communist ideals and believe that Democracy is a more fair method to Government, but let's not let that butt in on a conversation about history.

True. Chiang did try to modernize China (and failed due to the Japanese Invasion and the Second Sino-Japanese War) and Mao probably stopped China from collapsing in the days after the Civil War.

[West Aurelia]

(Image)
But possibly this better?

I've never heard of an Inner Mongolian independence movement.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

I have to ask this guy for a good answer.
https://www.youtube.com/user/alternatehistorypt

He will make a video soon if I ask.

[Seraven]

Why it's unfortunately even though I was right?

Well, I'm agree with that. Mao and Chiang have their own good and bad merits.

It's more or less I disagree with Communist ideals and believe that Democracy is a more fair method to Government, but let's not let that butt in on a conversation about history.

True. Chiang did try to modernize China (and failed due to the Japanese Invasion and the Second Sino-Japanese War) and Mao probably stopped China from collapsing in the days after the Civil War.

My view with what Chiang did with the Chinese is a more or less justified with a movie of Hemingway and Gellhorn, especially with the part where one of the Nationalist officer who gave support to Communist, not because he sides with them of ideology, because he sides with them as he saw the Communist as the future and Nationalist as the past.

[Herskerstad]

Chang Kai.... oh dear, that's a leader who's very hard to nail down.

Firstly, it seems pretty clear that during the interwar era, he took quite a liking to Mussolini. His strictly military outlook was competent, but he was not a brilliant administrator nor a negotiator. Furthermore, he was a 'weak' leader in the sense that in a highly illiterate nation like China, few of the common folk knew his name, whereas it did not take long for everyone to know who Mao was. He was generally quite distanced from the common people through his political structure which he did little, and to a degree would be unable to improve.

With Mao you got quite a different character. Had a very abridged view on history and the development of technology in particular. Not so good at organizing a group as he was at picking group organizers. An absolutely excellent guerrilla fighter, but as history would prove, a very cold, unforgiving, unpractical, ideologically impaired individual, yet who's achievements arguably is only matched by the first emperor even though he quite strictly left China with the bill.

If the nationalists had won, there would have been a white terror of some limited proportions, which would still be significant taking into consideration the population of China. And I won't blame him for losing the war as much as I would blame Harry Truman for not extending additional postwar support, which he could have easily done with more significant men and materiel while still profiting both sides between him and Chang,Stalin on the other hand would supply Mao to no end regardless. The one thing Chang could have done would be to enact a very visible land reform, but it is hard to tell exactly how much this would have disenchanted his base which let's face it, was not exactly representative of the average Chinese. However, there would have been some internal fighting even if Chang would have doomed the general population to an extended period of serfdom, or reformed the land owners which was one of the few factions which really supported him. Culturally speaking, China would like be more 'modern' than it was historically. It would undoubtedly have had a more gradual westernization. While I suspect there would be some kind of times of trouble, I doubt it would rival the great leap forward or the cultural revolution in terms of how damaging it was. Culturally I think it would have developed somewhat like South Korea. The Christian population would undoubtedly be more significant. I do not think he would have rivaled the level of industrialization of Mao or any later administration the modernization under later rulers. I think the general democratic standard would be somewhat more like Turkey, as in having rulers with strong ties to the military in one form or another. Tibet would likely still be independent. Cold war would most likely have ended earlier. Civil rights would be further ahead than they were historically, but by no means a smooth transition. There would be a general anti-socialist movement on all stages of power even though his government would not be unfriendly to the left in general, as it was not European/US conservative by any stretch of the imagination. The Vietnam war would have likely been won by the western powers and it is uncertain if North Korea would have survived at all. Overall, I'd say the world would have been better.

[Socialist Czechia]

China would look basically same, with perhaps even less civil rights And Mongolia would be totally annexed. Kuomintang was very irredentist band.

[Manisdog]

bad things would have happened

[Neo Philippine Empire]

My ideology would have been more different.

[Herskerstad]

China would look basically same, with perhaps even less civil rights And Mongolia would be totally annexed. Kuomintang was very irredentist band.

Given soviet influence over mainland Mongolia such a scenario would be incredibly unlikely.

[Baltenstein]

North Korea would have probably lost the Korean war and unified with the Republic of Korea, thus robbing the world of a million Kim memes.

[Megali Helles]

30 million people wouldnt have been murdered by their government.

[Herskerstad]

North Korea would have probably lost the Korean war and unified with the Republic of Korea, thus robbing the world of a million Kim memes.

Nonsense, the wise people of the north would have one against the hedonistic south and the dirty, capitalist Chinese. The only difference is that the world would be far more exposed to the divinely-ordained heroism of Kim and instead of stealing advanced technology of North Korea, would have pleaded and begged to be in a state of peace and subversion to the heavenly will of his dynasty.

[Socialist Czechia]

China would look basically same, with perhaps even less civil rights And Mongolia would be totally annexed. Kuomintang was very irredentist band.

Given soviet influence over mainland Mongolia such a scenario would be incredibly unlikely.

It would happened just after USSR's fall. To 'protect local civilians from post-communist chaos'.

[Alyakia]

30 million people wouldnt have been murdered by their government.

yeah there's no way that my preffered dictator would be bad