How would China have turned out if they won?

>>935769
Fascist

>>935795
so the same?

>>935795
Well, they pretty much practice a form of National Socialism to this day so it's not like anything would change

>>935769
The USSR would truly be encircled, NATO in the West and Japan/ROC/US in the East.

Counterfactuals are dumb but can you imagine the paranoia of the Soviets if this had happened? I could see a Soviet offensive into China as soon as the RoC won (lets assume they win in 1949), in a sort of inverse Vietnam, where the USSR goes in to fight an anti-commie regime

>>935839
Very possible considering the concentration of Communist forces/power in the north, along with the connection to Mongolia and North Korea

There was an essay in What If (great anthology of counterfactuals by actual historians) on this where China ends up divided into a commie north and nationalist south along some river

>>935769
just as corrupt first of all, kmd wasnt much better than mao, and wouldnt be much better today

maybe more freedoms, unrestricted information access, but over all not much, only big difference is we probably wouldnt speak mandarin

I don't think they would even manage to unify China.

What few people know about communists is that they are masters of counter-insurgency warfare. Seriously, with the exception of the Soviets at Afghanistan, they have never lost a single war to a guerrilla army. They are extremely ruthless, they kill anyone, they don't give a fuck and no one cares because most intellectuals and journalists who usually complain about "human rights abuses" are communists anyway.

So you can imagine what would happen if the Nationalists somehow managed to miraculously defeat the communists even without American support. They would turn against the warlords and the bandits, the warlords and bandits would claim to be left-wing guerrillas, they would be killed and then the survivors would complain on Western media about the "human rights abuses" of Chiang kai-shek. The people who gave China to the commies, such as Edgar Snow, Owen Lattimore and Brooks Atkinson would write article upon article on the repressive methods the Nationalists used against the bandits (while they didn't gave a fuck when the commies wiped them out in real life) and in the end the Chinese regime would be subjected to an(other) embargo by the U.S. and would end up collapsing.

In the end, only the commies would be able to unify China, because only communists would get a free pass by the Western intelligentsia and the Western media to take the necessary actions that were needed to unify China.

Assuming that China don't go full realpolitik the Korean and Vietnamese war would have been a hell lot of different, if they had even happened at all.
No red dragon to smite whatever US soldiers that got to closer to the red Sun.

>>935839
>>935868
Didn't the Soviets give support to the Nationalists until it was obvious Mao was going to win?

>>935897
>implying 1960 china couldnt live through an international embargo

>>935897
unless usa and europe sent troops and intervened, kmt wouldnt let a couple of journalists and some embargo stop them from removing communisim village from village

this was 1950s, and this was china, most didnt even want west stuff and just 50 years before, qing was all about limiting the trade

>>935868
>I could see this happening ala Germany. Would be a fascinating world desu. I'm guessing Shanghai would be part of the KMT, maybe even the Berlin equivalent; partitioned by the two states. The KMT capital would be Chengdu or Guangdong or something, and Beijing the capital of communist china.

>>935897
this.
>>935868
In the What If article i believe Manchuria is broken off as a seperate communist state.
Xinjiang and Tibet remain independent too. I'm not sure whether they are communist or not, my guess is that they'd be contested.

>KMT military ever getting anything right

The KMT was simply outclassed by a huge margin when the CCP could field armies of equal size. It was basically like a disciplined professional boxer fighting against some town drunk bolstered by alcohol-fueled confidence.

My dream what-if scenario is a communist-led China circa 1950 versus the might of the IJA. This might be controversial, but IMO the PLA would've rekt the IJA all the way to Korea.

>>935769
Better.

>>935899
Yes, though not to a large extent. Their actions during the Chinese Civil War were one of the causes of the Sino-Soviet Split.

>>935899
>Didn't the Soviets give support to the Nationalists until it was obvious Mao was going to win?

it's complicated

The KMT were a way bigger force in 1920s than the CCP, and even though they weren't communists themselves, they still had a lot of socialist ideas and were considered a 'revolutionary party'. Chiang Kai-shek even said he was "almost a communist" in his ideology in 1925 (but if he ever really believed it he renounced it a few years later).

So, on that pragmatic basis Moscow encouraged the CCP to align with the KMT and form a kind of coalition to establish a centralised government in China that would be convivial to the Soviet Union.

But by the late 1920s this united front fell apart and they KMT and CCP started fighting each other. It was at this point Moscow realised that the KMT and CCP were irreconcilable and just supported the CCP alone.

>>935806
Go back to gargling bleach.

>>935806
Yeah, pretty much. The best case scenario for Nationalist Victory is "Basically Deng Xiaoping."

>>935839
Except Chiang wasn't anti-Soviet. He was quite chummy with the Soviets. One of his sons went to study in the Soviet Union.

Stalin constantly tried to get Mao to cut that shit out. Chiang in China would probably have at least one foot in the Soviet Camp.

>>935899
>Assuming that China don't go full realpolitik the Korean and Vietnamese war would have been a hell lot of different, if they had even happened at all.
Would not have happened at all. Without Mao, Kim never launches the invasion. Even without the issue of his guarantee, he's short by 3 of his best divisions.

>>937000
And his step son completed airborne training with the Nazis m8. Chiang was chummy with whoever was giving him weapons and funding, but he was executing commies wherever he could find them.

>>935897
This is completely ass fucking backwards but not surprising that you actually believe it. The communists won because they were the only ones not brutally murdering random peasants and were in fact defending them- the Nationalists were a confederation of warlords that couldn't mesh old imperialism with new capitalism whose only means of political maneuvering was, not surprisingly, warfare. The Communists, not surprisingly, integrated with the people and helped establish self-governance and linked them with other groups.

That you spend all your time defending the Nationalists but defending your own American legacy is telling. But we live in a bizarre universe where people don't agree with you: for example, a universe where the vast, vast majority of Chinese became communists because they saw it as the only viable option and the communist party as the only group of people that was of, by, and for the people. You deny that but, again, strange world.

>>937000
>koreans
>invading korea

>this is what they actually teach Americans

>>935769
>How would China have turned out if they won?

China would be 50 years ahead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

>>937029
t. Edgar Snow

>>937029
>The communists won because they were the only ones not brutally murdering random peasants and were in fact defending them
Top kek you don't really believe that do you?

They brutally murdered around 10 million random peasants as soon as they came to power.

Oh sorry, "filthy kulaks".

>>937555
>>935769

Not 50 years, but certainly further forwards than they are.

On the other hand, it's possible democracy would have done for them what it did for India, and inflame petty regionalism and stymie their growth. But it's honestly hard to think of anything being worse than what they actually went thru.

>>938198
IMO Thailand would be a better paralel to a KMT-lead China.

>>938343

Possibly, China is a huge country like India and has problems unique to such huge countries, arguably the Gommies did away with a lot of those problems by simply killing tens of millions of people and moving hundreds of millions around internally, without such brutality China's historic regions would want more autonomy and greater representation, as minorities everywhere always do.

>>938349
>by simply killing tens of millions of people
>Great Leap Forward
>Political/Ethnic Genocide
Wew lad.

>>938352

That was ironic understatement on my part. The Gommies destroyed the feudal basis of Chinese society far more thoroughly than the KMT could have done, who knows what consequence that might have for a KMT China?

>>938362
>Feudal Basis
>Imperial China
>Feudal
This is Commie Talk.

The basic Chinese rural unit was...a clan village. People toiled in the fields not because the Marxist HURR OPPRESSED BY THEIR LANDLORDS PEASANT narrative but because their whole village (i.e. THEIR WHOLE EXTENDED FAMILY) will starve if they didn't.

Yes there were landlords but these were few, and they didn't own the peasants: they just worked for the cunt. If he starts treating them like private property he's going to have a bunch of his employees going up to the magistrate and he'll have a visit from the friendly prefect real soon.

In fact: calling them peasants is a misnomer since it implied being some tenant farmer to a landlord. The Chinese word for peasant is "nongfu." Meaning "agrarian worker."

>>938373
>The basic Chinese rural unit was...a clan village. People toiled in the fields not because the Marxist HURR OPPRESSED BY THEIR LANDLORDS PEASANT narrative but because their whole village (i.e. THEIR WHOLE EXTENDED FAMILY) will starve if they didn't.

Explain how this is different in any way from the experience of a European peasant, tied to his village by feudal obligation.

>Yes there were landlords but these were few, and they didn't own the peasants:

Ownership of peasants is called serfdom and is not typical of feudalism. Only Russia really practised it for any length of time, the usual model was of "free" peasants who were tied to a specific village.

>If he starts treating them like private property he's going to have a bunch of his employees going up to the magistrate and he'll have a visit from the friendly prefect real soon.

Fun fact: Medieval peasants were notoriously litigious. They knew their rights and were quick to sue their "betters" if they crossed the letter of the law.

>calling them peasants is a misnomer since it implied being some tenant farmer to a landlord.

It absolutely does not imply this, peasants are tied to the land, they are not necessarily tenants.

In fact: calling them peasants is a misnomer since it implied being some tenant farmer to a landlord. The Chinese word for peasant is "nongfu." Meaning "agrarian worker."

And the word "peasant" means "one from the countryside", it's etymology says nothing about being a tenant tho it does >imply "farmer".

Taiwan would be a part of China

Since there would have been no capitalists fleeing the Communist advance to Hong Kong, Hong Kong's economy and population wouldn't have grown as much as it did. There would also be no closed border between Hong Kong and mainland China since the border only went up in the first place to stop the flow of refugees. Hong Kong would still be returned to 1997, but with less fanfare since it would just be viewed as a colonial backwater rather than a global financial center.

Mongolia might still be a part of China

The Dalai Lama would still be in China since the KMT would retake Tibet, but probably wouldn't have tried to reform Tibetan society as quickly as the Communists did, thus preventing the 1959 Tibetan revolt from taking place.

Xinjiang would probably still be unstable since Han Chinese would still migrate to the area. Although depending on whether or not Chiang capitulated to the USSR on Mongolian independence, he might also capitulate to the USSR establishing an East Turkestan republic in at least part of Xinjiang.

Hard to say if China would still be a one-party state by this point.

China would already have a bigger economy than the US since they wouldn't have wasted the thirty years they did under Mao.

Millions wouldn't have died from the Great Leap Forward, millions wouldn't have been politically persecuted during the Cultural Revolution and other "anti-rightist" movements.

Millions wouldn't have died in the Korean War.

Thousands of historical artifacts wouldn't have been damaged, and the best artifacts from the Forbidden City would be in the mainland rather than in Taiwan.

Mainlanders wouldn't be as big assholes as they are now since the political environment wouldn't have ruined people's morality like the Mao era did.

While the KMT wouldn't have a built a paradise by any means, China would still probably be better overall than it is now.

File: Hahaha I am Using the Shaving Creams.jpg (151KB, 537x700px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 537x700px

>>938454
>Explain how this is different in any way from the experience of a European peasant, tied to his village by feudal obligation.
You just said it yourself: feudal obligation.

To who? The Feudal Lord.

Meanwhile in Imperial China: WHAT FEUDAL LORD? The last time Chinks had a feudal lord the Roman empire was still alive, and even then the Chink feudal system was in it's dying days.

The council of village elders? They aren't your lords, they're family. Whose next up in line?
>Prefect
Government official.
>Magistrate
Government official.
>Governor
Government official

Claiming that Chinks had "feudal obligation" is like claiming you have a feudal obligation to the fucking mayor.

Absolutely 0 nobility/royalty until I hit the Imperial Clan. Sure you'd have governors titled "Dukes" or "Marquises" but in mid to late Imperial China, these titles are the equivalent of modern British knighthoods and aren't inheritable to boot.

Nonetheless the talk of Chinese """""""""""""feudalism"""""""""""" is communist justification for their takeover of China. There was no feudalism in place.

>>938487
>Government official.

What do you think a feudal lord is? A Count doesn't own "his" county, he governs it on behalf of HIS lord, probably a Duke, who in turn governs on behalf of HIS lord, the King or Emperor. All the land ultimately "belongs" to the King or Emperor, his vassals have a hereditary right to govern parts on his behalf and in this sense China and Europe were quite different, but apart from that they are far more alike than you realise.

And as far as I'm concerned the Gommies don't need any justification, they took power because they won the war, simple as that.

>>938507
Except they do own it de Facto- how many times in European history did Dukes and Counts treat their shit as an independent country? Not to mention the times when they WERE independent countries? Not to mention the existence of Manorial Rights?

Not to mention the fact that rule over said land heritable within the family?

Meanwhile some Chink bureaucrat have to bust their ass in office/suck up to superiors to be appointed to a governing post, or get cycled/promoted out of Prefecturedom and Magistrate work. A son of a Magistrate does not become a Magistrate. Hell, he doesn't get to work at any government office until he passes the civic/military exams. And 0 shit resembling manorial rights.

Lets throw in the fact that he doesn't have his own military force, while Feudal Nobles did. The only thing military ever entrusted to Chink Officials was the village posse, who owned their own weapons and whose campaigns were limited to fighting bandits or arresting the village drunk before he burns down the village again.