NationStates Jolt Archive

A little thought occured to me the other day...

...what if the Communists had not won the Chinese Civil War?

What would the Cold War have looked like if the Kuomintang had retained power? Would the Korean war have even occured? What about India as a possible focus of Soviet efforts?

Would it have ensured a European conflict, (assume before 1965) with less Communist influence in Asia? What would global politics look like today with such changes?

The more I think on the potential changes, the more it seems as though the Communist victory in China was by far the most influential event of the Cold War. It certainly it has more bearing on us today than other events of the era.

Your thoughts?

Ok. No Korean war, very likely - or maybe Kuomintang supporting the US/UN in Korea against Kim Il Sung.
I guess that somehow China would have lost some parts - maybe with India taking Tibet and CCCP taking Manchuria and maybe some parts of Chinese Mongolia.
An alliance between India and CCCP? Likely, but not if CCCP tried to enforce communism on India.


Overall, communist China has been more an annoyance than an help for CCCP - example: China attacking Soviet-backed Vietnam in the late '70s, or the clash between China and CCCP on the Amur.

Revisionist history would be if you claimed that this is what actually happened, and the history books are wrong.

I'm thinking the Sino-Soviet border would be much more peaceful with both sides accepting who owns what.

Also I can imagine communism taking very well to the Indian lower class though I don’t dare imagine how the wars with Pakistan would of gone...

The world would be a much different, in who knows what ways.

The world would be a much different, in who knows what ways.

That sums up this thread rather nicely.

Your thoughts?

The Chinese would get a very good economy but sufffer from land losses to the surrounding communist powers. So, in 2006, China would either be an economic superpower with less land or a war-ravaged country, depending on how far the communists got.

A little thought occured to me the other day...

...what if the Communists had not won the Chinese Civil War?

What would the Cold War have looked like if the Kuomintang had retained power? Would the Korean war have even occured? What about India as a possible focus of Soviet efforts?

Would it have ensured a European conflict, (assume before 1965) with less Communist influence in Asia? What would global politics look like today with such changes?

The more I think on the potential changes, the more it seems as though the Communist victory in China was by far the most influential event of the Cold War. It certainly it has more bearing on us today than other events of the era.

Your thoughts?

One of the first results would have been that "who 'lost' China?", a major contributing factor to McCarthyism, would have been a moot point. As a result, McCarthyism would probably have been, at a minimum, significantly weaker.

Also wrapped up in that would havebeen the retention of the China hands, and their valuable and extrensive knowledge of China.

The Korean War, if it even happened, would have been a total wild card. The defeated PLA may have retreated into the DPRK, much like the KMT retreated into Taiwan and the Golden Triangle. That could have strengthened North Korean military forces enough to crush the Pusan perimeter. If that had happened, the consequences would have been far reaching (bye-bye Japanese miracle built on the back of supporting the US, hello ROK style Japan).

Beyond some short speculation about the immediate aftereffects, it would, as Branin points out, be hard to tell what might have come to pass.

For the moment, I'm just going to focus on the war post-1945
Well I think the key question to ask is:
Is this counterfactual history a result of the Commies fecking up big time, or a result of the GMD tightening itself up sufficiently?

After the war, the GMD had a lot of political capital at its use - it had borne the brunt of the war, it had strong nationalist credentials, it was in control of most of China, plus it was the legitimate government.
Thing is, the GMD mostly wasted that through its inept administrative takeovers, the perceived corruption that resulted from that its immediately anti-Commie campaigns, its use of Japanese troops and collaborators in trying to reoccupy territory (esp. in Manchuria), to name but a few. But it is arguable whether this doomed the GMD... certainly the Commies had a big role to play in defeating them.

Now, if the Commies just failed to do anything right, we would probably see a China revert back to its 1927-37 period i.e. a central government limited by its struggles to impose its authority over regional interests and warlords, but not weak enough to collapse. However, this would rely on other powers not getting involved - though the USSR, having seen the Commies crushed, may accept the status quo (having supported the GMD originally in the 1920s), and may not really bother with it. And without a Commie China vying for the leadership of the communist world movement, the USSR may feel a bit more free to act. This may change after a long time when the GMD finally imposes a strong, efficient central government on the country, and China reasserts it regional influence.

However, if the Commies lose because the GMD got its act together and performed admirably in uniting the country and winning the civil war, we may see a China that rapidly recovers and becomes a strong regional power from the get go. This may worry the USSR, especially with its interests in Mongolia, and pressure may be exerted by China, supported by the USA. But I'm sure it would be in both countries' interests to avoid war. Bit difficult to say though.

Just a small, slightly pedantic point - Krakatao made the point that we're not actually discussing revisionist history. This is actually alternate history, which is way more fun anyway.

Anywho...if the Nationalists kept China and Mao was eradicated...

I'll assume, first off, that Taiwan goes to the Maoists, who flee the mainland, and China becomes a giant Korea. The Korean War goes very differently, and a united Korea is run by a Syngman Rhee-type dictator. Chiang Kai-shek fills the same role in China; both regimes are heavily supported by the U.S. in order to keep the Soviets out. The same is true of Japan.

North Korea is surrounded by a nationalist China and a nationalist South Korea, and with help from the U.S., North Korea is dissolved and a united, non-communist Korea is run by Syngman Rhee. The united Korea runs its course in a similar manner to South Korea; China does the same, and there's a chance that a strong executive is put in place in Japan in order to keep that country in line as well.

China's population doesn't skyrocket as it did in our timeline, either, and although it's probably a high number, it takes a lot longer to crack 1 billion people, and no Great Leap Forward takes place. In addition, the dominoes don't start falling in southeast Asia, which starts to turn into a region of American puppet states soon enough. The CIA ousts Pol Pot in the 70s, and the Vietnam War goes a lot better for the Americans. The Viet Cong are defeated, but the Vietnamese learn to resent Americans, and at some point in the 1980s, they revolt under the banner of Vietnamese nationalism.

At this point, the only communist states in the world would be Cuba, Taiwan, and maybe one other. Communism would be discredited sooner, but all that means is that the problem of Islamic fanaticism comes out a bit sooner. Not "sooner" enough to stop 9/11, I don't think, but sooner.

If China was never became communist. America would have won the Korean war and North korea will not have existed. Cause it was the communist chinese who pushed america back to the pre war border. So anyway Korea would be united under democratic rule.

Now if China was never comie, then the bridge of communism would not hit Indo-China, saving America from a defeat an the Vietnam War.

India would never turn commie cause British influence in the region had set it on the path to democratic society, Pakistan would be another story but nobody cares about that.

Assuming China has a good leader, the chinese economy would rise and China may had been a super power with the China yuan equal or even higher to the American Dollar.

Tibet however would not have been invaded and would had been a seperate country

A little thought occured to me the other day...

...what if the Communists had not won the Chinese Civil War?

What would the Cold War have looked like if the Kuomintang had retained power? Would the Korean war have even occured? What about India as a possible focus of Soviet efforts?

Would it have ensured a European conflict, (assume before 1965) with less Communist influence in Asia? What would global politics look like today with such changes?

The more I think on the potential changes, the more it seems as though the Communist victory in China was by far the most influential event of the Cold War. It certainly it has more bearing on us today than other events of the era.

Your thoughts?

Firstly, there is no way the Kuomintang could have won the Civil War without American backing at least, or Japan not invading Manchuria just before the Second World War. I'll go along with the first option, primarily because it's the most likely and frankly much easier, since an alternate history with Just China is much less of a difference than a world with no World War Two. So, here goes.

1946
After the end of the Second World War in the Pacific Theatre, the eyes of the West turn to China, and by the late 1940s, the US Government is convinced that they need to support Chiang Kai-Shek and ensure that China does not become Communist, since they do not want only the USSR to be a major power there. Japan re militarising and becoming a power is not yet politically acceptable. As anticommunist feelings grow in the USA, George Marshall does not decide to oversee a ceasefire in China, instead he oversees aid continuing to flow to the KMT. As a result, Chiang does not demilitarise 1,500,000 soldiers and instead continues to fight the PLA.

1947-1949
After a year of stagnation, the USA decides to send troops to help the KMT in late 1947. Most of northern China is controlled by the PLA, and most of the South by the KMT. Although not a great help, due to the Guerilla tactics of the PLA, the US army does ensure the KMT retains control of all the major cities in north eastern eastern China, and allows more Chinese/American soldiers to fight the PLA. By 1950, with little hope of victory the PLA is finally driven out of Manchuria and the KMT is in control of China.

1950s
Although the KMT is in control of China, it in in massive debt and cannot become a democracy. It becomes a one party dictatorship. However, because the government does implement Mao's economic disasters, China's economy, although poor, does start to recover with Japan during the 1950s, since they use similar policies. Growth is especially strong in the Eastern provinces in the late 1950s.

The Korean War happens, but because of Chinese support, it is only brief, and a Syngman Rhee style dictator takes control.

As China grows in the late 1950s, and overcomes most problems in exerting central control over the rest of the country (with more help from the USA) they take over Tibet, as a part of the Qing Dynasty, which they claim to be the successor of, and still lay claim to Mongolia, but the USSRs strength there prevents them from controlling it.

1960s and 1970s
Growth continues, but is much slower in China and Japan than it actually was in 'reality'. However, the 'domino effect' never happens and instead South East Asia does not undergo communist revolution, although because of the Geneva Accords, Vietnam still becomes Communist in the North, but because of the USA and China, this does not last long, due to joint Sino-US intervention.

Because of improvements in living standards and the emergence of a middle class, coupled with better growth in the late 1960s due to China being the fifth Asian Tiger, when the Peanut does in 1975 the Republic of China can slowly embark on a democratic route, as it does in reality, but communism is still banned.

1980s-1990s
More growth. More democracy. More opposition parties form, mostly out of independent Legislative Yuan and National Assembly members that appear in the 1970s. Tibet becomes its own country in the very late 1980s after free elections to the Tibet Provincial government.

2000s
China is a democracy, along with Tibet. Probably similar in terms of wealth to how it is now, and although democratic is a dominant party system much like the Liberal Democrats in Japan.

I don't think history would be much different, except that China would be a lot weaker today.

Communist China has never acted in an expansionist or aggressive fashion (Tibet doesn't count, as China had a legitimate claim over that territory anyway), and it is likely that Nationalist China would not act in such a way either, seeing as both movements were born from the anti-Qing sentement, and as such reacted against the Chinese Imperial system of concentrating on expanding or maintaining borders at the expense of national unity. China would probably be a fraction smaller however, as India would likely have much more luck against the Nationalist Army in any border disputes.

Kim Il-sung, as a popular hero of the anti-Japanese resistance may very well have tried to take over Korea, but he would have failed very quickly, and most likely executed for treason... meaning he would never spawn young Yuri Ilseniivich Kim.

China would not be democratic. After suffering years of brutal dictatorship from Chiang Kai-sek (who was quite brutal on the homogenous loyal island of Taiwan, so one hates to think what he would be like against a population that is actually diverse and not 100% devoted to his leadership). After his death China would likely resort to a system of partisan cartels, dodgy tribal elections would elect dodgy tribal leaders... (imagine the situation we have no in the Chinese countryside, only with no strong leadership to restore order when things get out of control.

Above all this, China would be the West's bitch. Almost all of the country's wealth would be controlled by the Americans, the British, the French and the Japanese, with bits and pieces owned by corrupt Chinese politicians. The world would continue to see China as a backward place and an insecure market as there would be no strong national drives to modernise the economy.

People have said that the USSR would concentrate more on bringing India into their fold, well, India WAS in the USSR's fold. Although India was officially a member of the British Commonwealth, there is no question that while the Indian Congress was in power that India was in the pocket of Moscow.

However, I do think the USSR would have attempted to create another Communist state in the region, and I think their best choice would be Iran, as the USSR did indeed occupy parts of Iran during the War. In the 1950s we would have seen an Iranian Civil War, resulting in the foundation of the Peoples' Republic of Persia (which alliterates beautifully don't you think?).

Persia would be a lot like this timeline's China. It would go through a turbulent few decades as the state tries to stamp out cultural variety and impose a singular socialistic national identity while developing a base of heavy industry and collectivised farming - before eventually a Persio-Soviet Split would occur and a process of economic reform would begin to clunk along. With a nominal ally to the west, it is much more likely that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan would have been successful, and that the country would have been partitioned between them and the Persians. Realpolitik would also suggest that Pakistan would fall strongly into Persia's influence, and the Iran-Iraq War would be one of the greatest proxies of the Cold War.

By 2006, we would see an Asia-Pacific region that is still quite unimpressive, with only Japan being clearly industrialised, Korea would be lagging behind seeing as no North Korea means no competitive aid payments. The USSR would have collapsed as in our timeline, but Persia would still be in the firm grasp of the Persian Peoples' Party (again, I feel sorry for Fahrsi speakers for missing out on all this alliteration), who, while maintaining strict control of the political discourse would be residing over the largest period of economic growth since Marshall Plan-era Europe and experience considerable regional influence over the former Azeri, Kyrghyz, Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkmen, Tajik and, of course, Afghan Soviet Socialist Republics.

To counteract Communism's more Western centre-of-gravity, European integrationism would be much more prevailant, and Saudia Arabia would be a military superpower that frequently threatens its neighbours into submission. The lack of any trans-Islamic philosophy (caused by the strong Arab-Persian tensions) would have hindered the creation of any al-Qaeda-eque organisation.

After the end of the Cold War the West lost all interest in picking a side in the Arab-Persian conflict. As Saudi Arabia was the primary source of oil, and the Persians (and their (ironic) allies, the Israelis) would be a prime source of investment. The West continued to sell arms to both sides of the Persian Gulf, but seeing as Saudi Arabia and Iran both have considerable nuclear arsenals it is fairly obvious that no conventional war would ever arise.

EDIT: Oh yeah, Vietnam. There would not have been any American involvement. Firstly, America had no reason to care what was happening in that unimportant corner of the world, and secondly, any conflict that did occur was easily taken care of by the French presence. I say easily, there was some war-weariness by the mid-60s, leading to a 1970's release of a French film very much like Apocalypse Now, but with Gérard Depardieu playing the part of Marlon Brando.

SECOND EDIT: I might have overlooked the question of Tibetan succession. I suppose if China is really so crippled by the lack of a central leadership there is nothing to stop a revolutionary Buddhist organisation seizing control of Tibet, banning Han practices, closing down livestock keeping farms and founding a strict police state that insures that the citizens follow the Eight-fold Path (if the West remains apathetic towards China, the Dalai Lama and co. would not have to pretend to support liberal values and could instead concentrate on establishing a revolutionary theocracy in Tibet). And hell, if the Tibetans break away, then what's stopping the Uighurs? Or the Mongols? Or the Guangs? It is very possible that from the late '70s onwards there might be a Balkanisation of China. Some breakaway states might be Soviet-sponsored (Mongolia probably), some Persian-sponsored (Uighuristan?) and some may even by sponsored by the West, a Republic of Canton with its capital in Hong Kong perhaps?

(Comments in red.)

Firstly, there is no way the Kuomintang could have won the Civil War without American backing at least, or Japan not invading Manchuria just before the Second World War. I'll go along with the first option, primarily because it's the most likely and frankly much easier, since an alternate history with Just China is much less of a difference than a world with no World War Two. So, here goes.

Agreed (more or less) on the conditions.

1946
After the end of the Second World War in the Pacific Theatre, the eyes of the West turn to China, and by the late 1940s, the US Government is convinced that they need to support Chiang Kai-Shek and ensure that China does not become Communist, since they do not want only the USSR to be a major power there.

Maybe could have happened, but...

Japan re militarising and becoming a power is not yet politically acceptable.

Japn was re-militarising by 1950.

As anticommunist feelings grow in the USA, George Marshall does not decide to oversee a ceasefire in China, instead he oversees aid continuing to flow to the KMT.

The McCarthy red scare got a big boost from the 'loss' of China. I think this is a bit weak.

As a result, Chiang does not demilitarise 1,500,000 soldiers and instead continues to fight the PLA.

I might buy that...

1947-1949
After a year of stagnation, the USA decides to send troops to help the KMT in late 1947. Most of northern China is controlled by the PLA, and most of the South by the KMT. Although not a great help, due to the Guerilla tactics of the PLA, the US army does ensure the KMT retains control of all the major cities in north eastern eastern China, and allows more Chinese/American soldiers to fight the PLA. By 1950, with little hope of victory the PLA is finally driven out of Manchuria and the KMT is in control of China.

Sounds reasonable. Where does the PLA go, though? DPRK, as I suggested above? USSSR?

1950s
Although the KMT is in control of China, it in in massive debt and cannot become a democracy. It becomes a one party dictatorship.

That'd be a bingo.

However, because the government does implement Mao's economic disasters, China's economy, although poor, does start to recover with Japan during the 1950s, since they use similar policies. Growth is especially strong in the Eastern provinces in the late 1950s.

Japan's recovery in the 1950's was largely due to US "special military procurements" for the Korean war.

The Korean War happens, but because of Chinese support, it is only brief, and a Syngman Rhee style dictator takes control.

See the wild card point above.

As China grows in the late 1950s, and overcomes most problems in exerting central control over the rest of the country (with more help from the USA) they take over Tibet, as a part of the Qing Dynasty, which they claim to be the successor of, and still lay claim to Mongolia, but the USSRs strength there prevents them from controlling it.

Needs a better explanation/justification.

1960s and 1970s
Growth continues, but is much slower in China and Japan than it actually was in 'reality'.

Depends on if the Korean War happens and the outcome.

However, the 'domino effect' never happens and instead South East Asia does not undergo communist revolution, although because of the Geneva Accords, Vietnam still becomes Communist in the North, but because of the USA and China, this does not last long, due to joint Sino-US intervention.

As above, depends on the Korean War.

Because of improvements in living standards and the emergence of a middle class, coupled with better growth in the late 1960s due to China being the fifth Asian Tiger, when the Peanut does in 1975 the Republic of China can slowly embark on a democratic route, as it does in reality, but communism is still banned.

1980s-1990s
More growth. More democracy. More opposition parties form, mostly out of independent Legislative Yuan and National Assembly members that appear in the 1970s. Tibet becomes its own country in the very late 1980s after free elections to the Tibet Provincial government.

2000s
China is a democracy, along with Tibet. Probably similar in terms of wealth to how it is now, and although democratic is a dominant party system much like the Liberal Democrats in Japan.

There're just too many variables for the rest of all that...

The world would be a much different, in who knows what ways.
I would, at least, probably stop having nightmares about being chased by the giant, disembodied head of Chairman Mao.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/Fiddlebottoms/Mao/Mao-Start.jpg

Oh no, by mentioning his name, I've summoned him! Oh god, please, stay away!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/Fiddlebottoms/Mao/Mao-Closer.jpg

NO! NO MEANS NO!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/Fiddlebottoms/Mao/Mao-Doom.jpg

AIIEEEE!

Chiang-Kai Shek would have been better than Mao? The utter corruption of his organization would hardly have made China some shining beacon even if he somehow was able to beat the communists during their civil war. Would have been ample oppurtunity for his government to collapse and for chaos to reign, warlords taking over and then Mao getting another shot at power.

I would say if the above did not happen, that Korea would have been a decisive victory for the U.S. and I would certainly guess that Vietnam would never have occured for the U.S.

I bet other forces in Vietnam still would have kicked the French out but that is a different topic entirely. ;)

Chiang-Kai Shek would have been better than Mao? The utter corruption of his organization would hardly have made China some shining beacon even if he somehow was able to beat the communists during their civil war. Would have been ample oppurtunity for his government to collapse and for chaos to reign, warlords taking over and then Mao getting another shot at power.


He did, however, unite the nation from 1927-37. And whilst he faced all sorts of problems e.g. regional interests, warlord remnants, entrenched economic problems, weak authority, a factionalised GMD and above all the Communists, some progress was made; it is debatable whether, given a heck of a lot more time than 10 years (of which the first 4 were fighting against warlords), he would have done better.
And arguably in 1945, his position was enhanced by his conduct in the war, and he was in a very strong position. But yes, how he managed to squander this to the point where Mao could beat him is surprising. But I imagine the potential for Chiang to do good after defeating the Communists is there. Plus, with most of the warlords already co-opted into the GMD, and the CCP discredited by defeat, I don't see that much potent opposition to Chiang establishing himself effectively.

I think what would be another interesting counterfactual to ask is what China would be like if Mao and the CCP were eliminated in late 1936/early 1937. Chiang was close to it, with Mao holed up in Yan'an and with his back to the wall; it was a shame for him that his general, Zhang Xueliang, decided to kidnap him instead and force him to make a United Front with the CCP versus the Japanese.
The war would still have incorporated many guerrilla elements (GMD/warlord troops trapped behind enemy lines often went underground), but more importantly, Chiang would not be committing troops to blockading/hindering the CCP, and with them not around after the war, the way is definitely open for Chiang to rebuild China under his rule.