What would China be like today if the Nationalists had won the Chinese Civil War?

[Edison Chen]

China would be a weaker country as well as a poorer one. The major reason that KMT failed is
that their rule in mainland are rooted in landlords and plutocrats while majority was living in utterly poverty, yet KMT have failed in every strive to constrain the wealthy and to help the poor. And the KMT is too “civilized” that always consider too much about the reactions of foreigners over our own interests, they cant insist the rightful stands that China should take, they always felt inferior when facing their western masters. Look at the wreckage of aviation and defence industry of Taiwan, the KMT cant assure a formidable military power for China let alone use it to enforce China's interest. I like the tough and relentless yet flexible and cunning way that CCP imposed when it comes to the interest of China. I like how CCP pushed the benefit of China ruthlessly to the very limit as hard as they can, as much as they can.

我也是这么认为的。国民党的统治根基是地主，买办和一部分资产阶级，而当时中国资产阶级力量非常薄弱，没法真正引领中国民族工业和经济的振兴，所以国民党更依靠买办和外国势力，来维持自己的上层统治。但是当时中国的现状就是农民占绝大多数，这部分的利益没人去代表，所以国民党根基不稳，注定被共产党搞垮。共产党最大的优点就是组织性，纪律性强，能吃苦，党组织党委发展到基层的各个方面，对基层有强大的控制力，当时国民党的党组织在地方政权里没有什么话语权，在县一级政府里更是微不足道，这就给了共产党可乘之机，所以最终国民党统治被连根拔起。所以说，在当时，共产党确确实实是代表了普通中国人的利益的。

 

[XiaoYaoZi Backup]

我也是这么认为的。国民党的统治根基是地主，买办和一部分资产阶级，而当时中国资产阶级力量非常薄弱，没法真正引领中国民族工业和经济的振兴，所以国民党更依靠买办和外国势力，来维持自己的上层统治。但是当时中国的现状就是农民占绝大多数，这部分的利益没人去代表，所以国民党根基不稳，注定被共产党搞垮。共产党最大的优点就是组织性，纪律性强，能吃苦，党组织党委发展到基层的各个方面，对基层有强大的控制力，当时国民党的党组织在地方政权里没有什么话语权，在县一级政府里更是微不足道，这就给了共产党可乘之机，所以最终国民党统治被连根拔起。所以说，在当时，共产党确确实实是代表了普通中国人的利益的。

毛主席说，中国革命的基本问题就是农民问题。农民问题从古至今一直是我国社会发展的重要问题。农民问题解决好了，一切问题就都好办了。
（1）中国是一个半殖民地半封建的农业大国，农民是中国社会的主要群体，是封建主义和帝国主义最大的掠夺对象和剥削对象，历来具有强烈的反抗意识和斗争精神，是革命的主力军。无产阶级对革命的领导权，主要是落实在对广大农民的领导上。（2）中国民主革命的主要任务之一就是反封建，而反封建的核心是解决农民的土地问题，因而农民问题是中国革命的基本问题，中国的民主革命实质上就是农民革命。（3）中国革命的对象是凶恶而强大的，而城市工人阶级的力量相对弱小，中国共产党要积蓄和锻炼力量，就必须领导农民，把落后的农村建成先进的革命根据地，走农村包围城市的革命道路。（4）事实上，作为中国革命支柱的人民军队主要是由穿上军装的农民组成的。中国革命战争正是在广大农民的支持和参加下取得胜利的。

 

[gambit]

Is French revolution necessary?
Is American civil war necessary?
Is McCarthyism necessary?
Is the west camp's Socialist/Communist purge or Military Coup necessary?

Is Vietnam War necessary?

More tap dancing.

There is no universal recipe, formula, step-by-step guide, or playbook. Was the Vietnam War necessary ? No, it was not, but China's meddling into Viet Nam post WW II greatly aided to the creation of the conditions that ended in a war. Each event must be assessed on its own.

So...Was the bloody Cultural Revolution necessary ?

 

[XiaoYaoZi Backup]

China would be no. 1 super power among USA.

Wow, one alive KMT fan, Why you used the fighter developed by CCP as your avatar.

 

[JSCh]

More tap dancing.

There is no universal recipe, formula, step-by-step guide, or playbook. Was the Vietnam War necessary ? No, it was not, but China's meddling into Viet Nam post WW II greatly aided to the creation of the conditions that ended in a war. Each event must be assessed on its own.

So...Was the bloody Cultural Revolution necessary ?

I do not know. It just happened just like all the other events.

You want to simplified it as "necessary or not necessary" and force it on others. I do not think a complex event that span decade could just be judged so simply. Lots of thing could have happen differently along the way.

The important thing is, CCP had addressed the issue. The wrongs that had occurred during Cultural Revolution has been redressed. Lesson was learned by both the state and the people and it would never happen again. I think most Chinese people are satisfy with it. So we move on.

 

[XiaoYaoZi Backup]

毛主席说，中国革命的基本问题就是农民问题。农民问题从古至今一直是我国社会发展的重要问题。农民问题解决好了，一切问题就都好办了。
（1）中国是一个半殖民地半封建的农业大国，农民是中国社会的主要群体，是封建主义和帝国主义最大的掠夺对象和剥削对象，历来具有强烈的反抗意识和斗争精神，是革命的主力军。无产阶级对革命的领导权，主要是落实在对广大农民的领导上。（2）中国民主革命的主要任务之一就是反封建，而反封建的核心是解决农民的土地问题，因而农民问题是中国革命的基本问题，中国的民主革命实质上就是农民革命。（3）中国革命的对象是凶恶而强大的，而城市工人阶级的力量相对弱小，中国共产党要积蓄和锻炼力量，就必须领导农民，把落后的农村建成先进的革命根据地，走农村包围城市的革命道路。（4）事实上，作为中国革命支柱的人民军队主要是由穿上军装的农民组成的。中国革命战争正是在广大农民的支持和参加下取得胜利的。

即便现在中国城市化率刚过50%, 农村人口比例仍然远高于其他发达国家, 我们发展潜力依然巨大.

 

[LowPost]

You're right. I imagine that Mao, Zhou, the PLA generals and the entire CPC leadership would've fled to Moscow if the KMT had dispelled them from China. The USSR would use the CPC as a pawn to give Jiang a headache.



Sure. Plus, the US and its allies would try to arm China to its teeth and later, help them develop their own arms industry in order to counterbalance the Soviet Union.

Coming back to the CPC, Moscow could probably mastermind a coup d'état to topple Jiang which brings Mao or anyone else from the CPC to power. A communist-led China would remain friendly to the USSR for some time but I guess the likelihood is high that a Sino-Soviet split would happen regardless, so relations between China and the US-led West would've been reestablished.

If the plan had failed and the Russian bear had wanted to take the risk to directly engage Washington, it could have invaded China outright. Resistance would then depend on how long China had been building up their arms industry and for how long the US had been supplying military equipment to the KMT but imho the Soviet Army would have ended the war after a couple of weeks having captured Beijing. Soviet artillery, air strikes, tank divisions, airborne operations and Spetsnaz raids would possibly paralyse KMT's forces.
The question of America's reaction would be a separate one but if they realise that the KMT had become a lost cause in case of a Soviet invasion, they would have backed off and Washington would have felt riled.

As for Jiang's fate... my money would be on the supposition that he would have been ambushed and captured by Spetsnaz members before he could flee and/or commit suicide.

Another possibility: The USSR would've invaded China as soon as the KMT had won the Civil War. Because that would deny Jiang any chance to lick his wounds, it would end up like this:

@XiangLong

 

[scherz]

Another possibility: The USSR would've invaded China as soon as the KMT had won the Civil War. Because that would deny Jiang any chance to lick his wounds, it would end up like this:

@XiangLong

I am sure capitalist west block ideology enemy of USSR wont allow communism to wide spread over whole china.

 

[tranquilium]

Should KMT achieved victory. China would ended up a lot worse than it is right now, by a very large margin. While it is not going to be as bad as Afghanistan, it will probably at similar level to India.

1. Fundamentally, KMT's idealogy and method of implementation is flawed. KMT's revolution in early 1900s is an incomplete revolution. Much of the bottom to middle level of the political structure of China remain unchanged aside from its name. This is a very big problem because this means China didn't manage to transit from feudal-absolute monarchy rule of Qing dynasty to an actual modern society through KMT's revolution. Worse yet, due to incompetence of KMT, China actually collapsed into a full feudal state which was in some sense a throw back.

In comparison, the political organization by CCP and PRC was a modern nation from day one. Sure, it lacked material infrastructure and was very poor, but PRC was a 20th century nation from day one and rapidly filled up material deficiencies.

2. There is another very important issue. Quite frankly, democracy, or more accurately the method of establishing government through various form of general election of the most population leader, is very bad at making time-critical decisions that are unpopular, but fundamental to the long term well being of the society. It also sucked badly at efficient organization and distribution of limited resources.

The first few decades post-WWII were a critical make and break period for 21th century powers. This is because this time period is characterized by the drastic decline of old powers and at same time new powers have yet to rise to their fullest height. This represents an unprecedented window of opportunities for weaker nations to catch or even carve a place for itself. For example, during this time period, both US and USSR are unwilling to commit to full scale military activities due to the costly WWII. Old colonial powers like Britain, France, Germany, etc are in decline and unable to muster significant forces. This means for the first time in the past three centuries, old powers no longer has the military might to enforce their opinion or influence the decision of other nations. This stands in stark contrast to two decades later, where US and USSR have recovered sufficiently that military forces are very frequently utilized against weaker nations.

Economically, the first few decades after WWII also signifies sufficient financial independence for weaker nations. Due to being weakened by the war, old powers are also much more generous when looking for allies. Japan benefited from US' weakness during this time period and China benefited from USSR's weakness. For your information though, KMT winning the war would have been worse for both Japan and China. This is because in actual history, while Japan remained a semi-puppet of US, it also served as a front line for cold war, but did not suffer actual military campaign. This means it got all the infrastructure and technological investment without the war devastation. Had KMT won the war, Japan would simply be a puppet without the infrastructure, somewhat similar to the present day Philippine. (Remember, Philippine was second most industrialized nation in East/Southeast Asia back in the day and look at it now) China would also be worse off if KMT won the war. This is because while China would have been a cold war front in either case, thus getting investment from either USSR or US, PRC did it as an independent power while KMT would have ended up as a puppet. Of course, this is not even count the mountain gap of competency between CCP and KMT.

Also, once the old economical powers recovered, it also becomes much harder for new players to flourish. For example, the modern day China is a monster of an economic power that accounts for 1/4 of the industrial production value of the entire world and about half of the total capacity. You have another economic monster like US which another huge portion of the rest of the market. Against this kind of competition, it is difficult for even nations like Japan, France or Germany to compete in the long term, let alone nations that are still in the process of industrialization. Economy is a snowballing game. This is because as time goes, without drastic events like war, stronger economic power continue to get stronger and the weaker ones will continue to get weaker. Without Mao's rapid industrialization from 1949 to 1976, China would never be able to take its global market share like today.

As for the maps, KMT actually controlled only tiny strips of these territory. Qing dynasty controlled more territory. Had KMT actually managed to take solid control of all territory of Qing dynasty, Tibet and Xianjian wouldn't have nearly as much problem as it had right now. KMT also, in one of the worst moves in Chinese history, signed away outer Mongolia before the civil war and welcome its entrance to UN in the 60s. This made integrating Mongolia back much more difficult.

In summary, KMT's capacity to govern is limited to a small provincial level entity and much of their later successful techniques are learned from CCP. Had they actually won the war, well, the Americans would probably be happy because it would have another weak punching bag to bully, but the Chinese won't.

 

[gambit]

I do not know. It just happened just like all the other events.

You want to simplified it as "necessary or not necessary" and force it on others. I do not think a complex event that span decade could just be judged so simply. Lots of thing could have happen differently along the way.

The important thing is, CCP had addressed the issue. The wrongs that had occurred during Cultural Revolution has been redressed. Lesson was learned by both the state and the people and it would never happen again. I think most Chinese people are satisfy with it. So we move on.

But making gross simplistic arguments against the KMT is exactly what you guys have been doing all this time. Simply put, the way China is today is the result of a chain of events and your guys' illogical reasoning is that those things must have happened IN ORDER for China to get to where she is today. Those things could be good such as unifying the country, but they could be bad such as the periodic bloody purges in/out of the Party, and they could outright disastrous such as the adoption of Marxism that set China back decades behind the West.

By your illogic, in insisting the KMT could not have achieve what the communists did, you guys are saying all those things were necessary. Of course, it is easy for you guys to say that since none of you suffered like your grandparents did.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

But making gross simplistic arguments against the KMT is exactly what you guys have been doing all this time. Simply put, the way China is today is the result of a chain of events and your guys' illogical reasoning is that those things must have happened IN ORDER for China to get to where she is today. Those things could be good such as unifying the country, but they could be bad such as the periodic bloody purges in/out of the Party, and they could outright disastrous such as the adoption of Marxism that set China back decades behind the West.

By your illogic, in insisting the KMT could not have achieve what the communists did, you guys are saying all those things were necessary. Of course, it is easy for you guys to say that since none of you suffered like your grandparents did.

The adoption of Marxism was not what set China decades behind the west. 1/3 of the country being destroyed, 30 million people being killed, the gold reserves being stolen by the KMT, the KMT being so incompetent that even Americans like George Stillwell and Harry Truman were disgusted by them and billions of dollars in infrastructure being destroyed, in an unindustrialized country, to the educated and rational mind, was what set China decades behind the west.

The KMT really couldn't have done it. They had a track record that was worse than the CPC even when the CPC was only in charge of a tiny corner of northwestern China. You might think "great leap forward" when you think "man made famine in China" but Chinese people think "ROC's Henan famines" when they think of "man made famine in China".

1938 Yellow River flood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese famine of 1942–43 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the 1942 famine, the ROC regime used methods commonly used by Nazi Germany, British Empire in India and North Korea, such as seizing grain from the peasants to feed the military, stealing of grain by corrupt officials and selling it on the black market, and refusal to send grain relief.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The adoption of Marxism was not what set China decades behind the west. 1/3 of the country being destroyed, 30 million people being killed, the gold reserves being stolen by the KMT, the KMT being so incompetent that even Americans like George Stillwell and Harry Truman were disgusted by them and billions of dollars in infrastructure being destroyed, in an unindustrialized country, to the educated and rational mind, was what set China decades behind the west.

The KMT really couldn't have done it. They had a track record that was worse than the CPC even when the CPC was only in charge of a tiny corner of northwestern China. You might think "great leap forward" when you think "man made famine in China" but Chinese people think "ROC's Henan famines" when they think of "man made famine in China".

1938 Yellow River flood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese famine of 1942–43 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the 1942 famine, the ROC regime used methods commonly used by Nazi Germany, British Empire in India and North Korea, such as seizing grain from the peasants to feed the military, stealing of grain by corrupt officials and selling it on the black market, and refusal to send grain relief.

Keep in mind that Harry Truman had labelled the whole KMT party as bunch of thugs.

This was the authentic opinion from an American President, and never mind those gossips from a wannabe American who was born in Vietnam.

 

[terranMarine]

Keep in mind that Harry Truman had labelled the whole KMT party as bunch of thugs.

This was the authentic opinion from an American President, and never mind those gossips from a wannabe American who was born in Vietnam.

I watched a documentary, an American woman (i think she was a journalist) in China at that time was astonished how some KMT told her that the Chinese beggar she saw wasn't human, no need to bother with him. She was not surprised the Communist eventually won and kicked the KMT out.

 

[JSCh]

But making gross simplistic arguments against the KMT is exactly what you guys have been doing all this time. Simply put, the way China is today is the result of a chain of events and your guys' illogical reasoning is that those things must have happened IN ORDER for China to get to where she is today. Those things could be good such as unifying the country, but they could be bad such as the periodic bloody purges in/out of the Party, and they could outright disastrous such as the adoption of Marxism that set China back decades behind the West.

By your illogic, in insisting the KMT could not have achieve what the communists did, you guys are saying all those things were necessary. Of course, it is easy for you guys to say that since none of you suffered like your grandparents did.

You say we used gross simplistic arguments. What about the opposite argument that because KMT is democratic, then it would be better. I would say that is a even grosser simplistic argument. There is a reason why Chiang is called generalissimo.

The Chinese people at the time has two choices. They made their choice and the rest, as they say, is history. Given the condition of the time, there were very good reasons why Chinese people made the choice they did. I think outsider often ignore that it is ultimately the Chinese people that made that decision. China is big and number numerous, it is a force that always need to be reckon with.

It is actually logical to say that China get to what it is today because of what happened before. That is a fact that cannot be ignored. We Chinese being practical people, has to acknowledged that as it is the only argument with concrete proven evidence.

China today is world no. 2 GDP. Seem certain set to be no. 1. A comprehensively industrial nation. The achievements of China is undeniable. No other 3rd world nation is comparable, including those that had chosen the western democratic path. Given that fact, it is unlikely that KMT would have done better.

Given the geopolitical make up of the time, China under KMT would have face the same option as all the other similar 3rd world per-industrialized nation. Ceteris paribus.

I think that China under KMT would go the way of India because China is as sensitive of foreign interference as India because of similar history dealing with western imperialist. China even under CCP has at the end move closer to the non-aligned movement.

And if China under KMT has moved totally towards western camp like S. Korea. It is unlikely that the west would allow China to be as industrialized as China is today.

Nobody here are saying that CCP do not make mistake. Even CCP acknowledged that. Things could have been better that some of our grandfather do not have to suffer.

But CCP did listened to our grandfathers' greatest wish, when Mao proclaimed China has stood up in 1949. And that is, China as a nation being master of our own fate.

Yes, maybe under some miraculous circumstances that China under KMT could be richer that it is today, but long term, the future China under CCP would be brighter.

 

[Aepsilons]

I am sure capitalist west block ideology enemy of USSR wont allow communism to wide spread over whole china.

They would have supported a KMT-controlled China, just as the same way as how they supported South Korea and Japan (economically, militarily and politically) tho probably on a much larger basis.