>>563936 China would be neutral to hostile with the USSR from the start, especially without a Mongolian buffer state and with them both claiming Tuva.
This also means there's no communist China to support North Korea (if there still is a Korean war and a North Korea), which means the peninsula stays united and probably in Chinese sphere of influence instead of American.
Also means the Soviets won't be able to supply the Viet Cong nearly as much. They might still win out a war of attrition, again assuming that still happens.
>>564422 Hard to say. Taiwan is developed today, but it's much smaller and has a much smaller population than the rest of China, and has had a ton of direct help from America. A united Republican China would probably have an even larger population without all the people dying from the Great Leap Forward and also no one-child policy ever going into place. The whole area might end up having more poverty outside of cities like Hong Kong.
>>564438 Population was stabilizing by the time the policy went into affect and was mostly to make sure it didn't get out of hand in terms of economic development not quite sure but I think the us would have given plenty of aid to prevent such a powerful nation from going communist
>>564474 >>564438 You have to remember that populations stabilize and drop even when the quality of life goes up. If republican china grows, the cities will develop more, and as such will stabilize, and then the surrounding areas will do the same. As more people move into the growing cities, rural areas will depopulate and stabilizes as well. This is only, however if the state of ROC is well developed. Places like Tibet, Mongolia, and Xinjiang might not develop as quickly as the rest of china, because of the poorer racial barrier and barren rural lands, which can effect things in development. Also, China is massive, and has a lot of people, and while most of them identify as Han, a republican china might see a spike in other races calming their ethnicity, which might lead to more problems. There is also the language barrier, which might grow wider with unknown results, although its already a problem in china now anyways, so... Until PRC falls and turns into a republic, its all speculation right now. I have hopes for the future however.
>>564438 Collectivization from The Great Leap Forward is the only reason people didn't starve in the millions during the Three Bad Years. Not collectivizing would've been old hat landlord hoarding of food. It's a cold war myth that "all the people" died from the GLF.
>>566052 >le poo in da loo While they aren't as good as a western country, they are doing great considering the limitations of: >Multiple languages, at least 30 of which have at least 1 million speakers and dozens of scripts >Several different ethnicities making up a population of 1 billion >Having just recovered from releasing themselves from the Raj and still recovering from other civil wars >Having to start with 3rd world tier infrastructure because of it >A conflicts with its neighbor thats just as advanced, but is back by china. >A massive democracy with dozens of parties having their own ideas of how to run the nation. >A religious conflicts between the Muslims and Hindus with other smaller religions like Sikh being put on the wayside >Having to deal with a made up unifier like "Indian" When people make fun of a nation like india they have no idea what they are talking about.
>>563936 It would be like India. Mao was the father of the centralized state in China, Chiang Ka Shit had only a lose alliance of raping pillaging warlords. >>564248 >Vietcong needing supplies. The Ho chi minh trail was entirely a feint. They were buying Artillery from Cambodia.
How would India have been affected by a Republican China? Would the use of nuclear arms on the USSR have gone through without a pre-SS split China to muck around? Would the Principles of Sun Yat-Sen have survived, or would warlordism rule the day with an incompetent strongman like Kai-Shek at the helm?
Fuck, why did Sun have to die at the most pivotal moment in modern Chinese history? We could have stopped the gommies.
>>566026 >m-muh landlord boogeyman Even the Party accepts that the Famine was caused by Mao's idiotic policies. Collectivization was disastrous every time it's been tried.
>>566055 The Communist Party also received monetary backing from the U.S. because the U.S. received it's intelligence from Communist journalists who portrayed the KMT as Satan and his hordes instead of a loose hodgepodge.
>>566848 Tbh the problem wasn't the communists as they worked together with the nationalists very happily under Sun Yat-Sen. However Chiang just had to be fucking autistic and act like an old world dictator.
A lot of the most important communist leaders used to be nationalists. They simply saw the communist party as a better future for China. Examples include one of China's best military leaders Zhou Enlai and our former Chairman Deng Xiaoping.
>>566289 India's fucking incompetent because China has as many languages and ethnicities but it's government is good at controlling the population. Indians are just too complacent. It's been the bane of their country since the dawn of civilisation.
Speaking of, was Deng ever really on Enlai's side? Mao for sure hated the guy, but I keep reading that Deng's euology for Zhou Enlai was a scathing critique of Mao's regime in a thinly-veiled manner, or it really was a straight-up state-written speech.
>>566904 You forgot the prior politics, religion, and having no real central national identity like china those are important. And even so china isn't even all that great. It has the virtue of being walled off at least a little, but otherwise its a shithole just like India, sometimes worse so with mass pollution, ghost cites, falling infrastructure, a growing decide between the poor and rich, a one party """"""""democracy"""""""" and forced backyard abortions because Muh One Child policy. India may be a shithole, but its a free one, it has that over china.
No one is mentioning the huge problems the KMT had they would had to have delt with. They were corrupt beyond comprehension. The warlords held unbelievable power. Despite being a democracy it was in effect a one party dictatorship. And the people were still ruled like it was the 16th century in small feudal villages in some places. Now I still belive that it would lead to a stronger china today but it would had its own problems to deal with. Good ol chang would had to have removed the warlords, dealt with the rampid corruption in his own party, deal with the almost crushing debt they owed to the americas and industrialized the peasants. He also was no stranger to playing the soviets and americas against each other so I doubt he would had ever joined NATO but I also doubt he would had done anything in Korea. Still I would have high hopes for a great china today if the KMT won. Chan kai sheck showed he knew how to play the warlords the governments and his own party quite well. Pic the nationalists 88th division the best they had in the sino-japanese war. They along with the other german trained divisions basically held the japs long enough for the nation to survive. If the japs left the chinks alone for 5 more years it would had been a very different war. This last part is just me wanking a bit.
>>567453 >Good ol chang would had to have removed the warlords The question is whether he would have wanted to. Because
> Chan kai sheck showed he knew how to play the warlords the governments and his own party quite well. Exactly this. Chiang got to his position by his ability to manipulate the warlord system. He lived, breathed, ate and shat warlordism. He never stamped it out, and he never even tried to stamp it out, he just sometimes replaced different warlords. As bad as the CCP has been, it at least created a functional state. I don't know if Chiang would have done that.
The best hope for China if the CCP loses is another revolution.
>>567510 I dont know about that. The south and east part of china were fairly centralized with some warlords being given concessions out of necessity because of the ever present threat of the commies and japs. If chang won he would had gotten manchuria and the north central area. Still I cant guarantee that he wouldnt had given that land to local warlords or any of that but still I dont think chang wouldnt had tried to centralize more with the two big things that kept him from doing it earlier gone. Hell now that I think about it shit would pretty much be the same with the only major difference being a unified Korea. Of course its 3:30 am and im tired and might be wrong on some points.
>>567510 >>567532 Heres a pic I found that shows the situation. As you can see nanking controlled a fair chunk of china. And most of that blue part went to the commies after WW2 and if the commies lost would had gone to chang. He still would had to deal with the warlords in the west. So alternate history were instead of red terror white terror.
>>563936 If one judges bad generals by how many people died because of his bad decisions, then Chiang was quite possibly the worst general in recorded history. At one point, his own generals, exasperated by his continuing idiocy, actually kidnapped him and put him under house arrest. It was only the threat of losing US aid that forced them to release him and return him to command. I think it's safe to say that were it not for a handful of US advisors, and his own wife (who was far more politically astute than he was) Chiang would have been murdered by his own men fairly early on in his career. That said, Mao was not the military genius he is often portrayed as, but he did give his own generals considerable authority to make decisions. Also, politically Mao wisely took the long view. He knew the Japanese were going to lose the war by 1943, and stopped committing his own Communist forces to anything but skirmishes and guerilla warfare around that time. Instead, the bulk of the Communist army was being readied to battle the Nationalists, post-war. Another significant policy that proved disastrous for Chiang was the sheer brutality of his anti-Communist campaign after 1945. People suspected of Communist sympathies were tortured and executed in public, and these events were often filmed and broadcast by the Nationalists in an attempt to terrify the people into submission. The public nature of the violence had the opposite effect on a population sick of seemingly endless war, and made the Communists, who were no angels, seem like brave and helpless victims, Within a few months of the Japanese surrender, poor people in every province of the country began to see the Communists in a more romantic light.
>>568169 God no; at least this way it keeps all their retardation somewhat contained to the subcontinent and the rest of the world only has to deal with a superficial façade created by their political elite instead of having to deal with these feces-fuelled balkan pretenders.
>>564474 >the us would have given plenty of aid to prevent such a powerful nation from going communist
The US would most likely support an absolute dictator that would brutalize his own people but support indiscriminate capitalist explotation of the country's natural resources by American or British corporations.
Thread replies: 45 Thread images: 7
Thread DB ID: 432088
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.