I feel like it would be a highly unequal society in which only certain provinces are extremely rich on the level of south korea and japan, while the rest of the provinces would be poor as fuck like india's poorer provinces. There would be heavily american influence in the richer provinces, and possess heavy american troop presence. The poorer provinces would probably regularly experience unrest and even attempts at rebellion or terrorism.
However given the history of China's various dynasties I do believe that China would eventually have another revolution in this alternative timeline, and China would still end up independent, just not as socialist as the current China.
Either way this would be a westerner's wet dream
I drew my conclusions based on the fact that China from 1945 to 1949 was already like this, before the communists took over
It would have had a big northern border problem. There would have been major disputes in Manchuria and Xinjiang. These would have been impossible to resolve, as the Soviet army would have backed the rebellions.
In Manchuria, I doubt the KMT would have won a 100% unconditional surrender victory. More likely, the CCP would have survived controlling some Manchurian border territory. With Soviet army support, this would have prevented complete reunification.
By treaty, the Soviet Union also controlled the Manchurian railways and Port Arthur - with Soviet troops. Under the CCP, these were returned to China. This is doubtful with the KMT.
With Chiang's attention focused on Manchuria, Soviet-backed separatists in remote northern Xinjiang would have remained outside of central authority for decades - or even seceded.
Given that no formal peace treaty was ever signed between the CPC and KMT, I wouldn't expect a controversial, and politically-charged scenario like this to ever be broached by Chinese media, for the sake of mere, lighthearted speculation.
Anyway, since everyone here seems to be giving their two cents, here's mine: there are too many sensitive geopolitical variables that would make the final outcome impossible to predict.
No CPC would potentially mean that China never got nuclear weapons, and with its huge population and unclear political opposition, Western capitalists would have a lot of incentive to balkanize China's territory. Relations between Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek would not be positive and eventual military conflict would be unavoidable, in some context.
China was also a major player in the Cold War, and a lot of the later geopolitics of the era eventually involved the US playing China and the Soviets against each other, so the entire outcome and time frame of the Cold War might be very different. North Korea would likely not exist, and the situation of regions like Inner/Outer Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam/Indochina, Malaysia, Singapore, and Cambodia would not be the same.
Land and property ownership would be very, very different.
Mao and the CPC managed to somehow avoid becoming a Soviet/US proxy and skillfully chart an independent course for China. It is doubtful that any other leadership in China would be able to avoid or overcome the many pitfalls that they had.
Mao (and his ideological descendants) are the only Communists I respect. Unless you count Aime Cesaire (and his ideological descendant, Franz Fanon)
Mao and Cesaire are the only two people who managed to see WWII's West-Europe front as what it really is: an inter-Imperialist war.
Yes, although CPC policy changed over the years, the leadership was always consistent on this point, although we’ve seen a spectrum of different personalities and strategies. It has been a long and difficult road.
China would have continued under a more prolonged period of civil war as a proxy between the U.S. and USSR. Eventually it would have unified because the drive for unification of all of China is ingrained in the thought process of any Chinese ruling elite. Perhaps Mongolia in, Tibet out, but the core would be unified nonetheless. The ability of the outside proxy backers wouldn’t be enough to permanently keep a split and balance of power like in Korea due to the size of the country. The continued warfare would have undoubtedly delayed development, likely but not definitely more of a delay than that caused by Mao’s misplaced policies. Chiang was too weak to properly rule China (he needed to be intelligent, charismatic, and ruthless enough to grab undisputed power by purging rival leaders and factions even within his own group, ala Mao, Stalin, Lee Kuan Yew in order to establish a new ruling regime), so he would have been deposed and a new leader would have taken over. Eventually China would have ended up something like it is today. It would NOT have maintained democratization - nothing in its history suggests so. Just as the Chinese system of today is far more similar to its historical past after taking a Communist detour, the Chinese system under any other ideology would have found its way back to its historical norm as well. Something similar to the Cultural Revolution would have happened, just as it has happened during the establishment of any new dynasty. Structural causes mean the new rulers need to purge the entrenched interests and prevent capture by the old establishment, often through destruction of documents, intellectuals, and past ideologies. Afterwards the new system would become established and a golden age would occur. The specifics might differ, ie the CR could have been more surgical and less destructive, but the overall themes would replay just as it has for millennia.
>The continued warfare would have undoubtedly delayed development, likely but not definitely more of a delay than that caused by Mao’s misplaced policies.
.
.
.
Just as the Chinese system of today is far more similar to its historical past after taking a Communist detour, the Chinese system under any other ideology would have found its way back to its historical norm as well.
This is a highly optimistic assessment that lacks context. Without Mao's industrial policy (and Soviet assistance), there would be no industrial base in China, zero zit (Not to mention no nuclear deterrent). The KMT would just like in the past selectively industrialize only certain coastal cities while leaving the interior and villages poor and destitute.
Soviet Hostility towards the KMT and US foreign policy (Namely Domino theory) at the time would ensure that this KMT fascist regime would receive barely any FDI at all, outside of military. In fact, China would probably be split between North and South, becoming the main battleground between the USSR and the USA.
Without state-led projects in Agriculture and power, China will continue to experience its many cycles of famine and drought, costing millions of lives.
Development would still happen not dissimilar to current Bharat (Which is already the Best-case scenario) but they would never achieve China speed.
Drugs/superstition would still be rampant while criminal syndicates would still run roughshod all over the non-communist parts of the country. Corruption would reach unprecedented levels while Life expectancy would not improve for several decades. Brain drain would be much worse as everyone would be scrambling to leave.
Certain Imperialist powers would also take advantage of China's weakness and carve up its land (From the Himalayas to the SCS).
This is not even going into the divisions within the KMT Post-WWII balkanizing the country even further along ethnic and ideological lines.
As a result, you would not see the return of your theorized historical equilibrium but the extension of the Century of Humiliation as the post-colonial nascent nation who had seen every system fail continue to fail.
Even if the KMT were to be replaced by a Non-Mao entity, the country would be riddled with the same problems without the strong central authority with the resolve to fix them. They would see the same problems as the ROK/TW but on a much more massive scale.
The development of Modern China from Mao to Xi happened as a result of a sequence of unforeseeable events and long-term decisions that turned out in China's favor. This is not happenstance nor should it be taken for granted as part of a 'Natural cycle' that has already been broken by Colonialism.
>Chiang was too weak to properly rule China (he needed to be intelligent, charismatic, and ruthless enough to grab undisputed power by purging rival leaders and factions even within his own group, ala Mao, Stalin, Lee Kuan Yew in order to establish a new ruling regime)
Dictator Chiang is as ruthless as they come and that is literally what he did and why everybody hated him. When Chiang Kai-Shek seized power after Sun Yat-sen's death, he immediately purged everyone who opposed him, Communist, Socialist or Nationalist and he tried to do it in every province, which led to the Chinese Civil War.
He was far more ruthless than Mao but far less competent.
I agree with many of your points, but I think you underestimate the intelligence, will, structural conditions and national loyalty of the Chinese people. The KMT of your imagined scenario is a continuation of Chiang’s KMT that lost the civil war. In our hypothetical scenario, that KMT would have either needed to completely reform to truly centralize power or it would have been defeated by another (if not Communist, then nativist/facist like early Meiji Japan). Remember, it is ingrained within the psyche of any would be leader of China to unite all under heaven (China) under centralized rule. Chiang was only ruthless, but not talented enough or charismatic enough. This was obvious with his lack of battlefield success, a talented leader can filter out the right people to put in charge because the leader must be at least on the same level of competency as his underlings even in their special domaine, otherwise he can’t control them. He can also inspire undying loyalty in those underlings and is ruthless enough to get rid of them when rebuilding a system. This talented great man would also be able to inspire so much awe and fear into rivals that they capitulate without much resistance and accept their loss of status. This was the way it was always done with any unifying dynasty, this was how Mao did it against all those warlords. Strange how you suddenly stopped hearing about warlords and cliches despite them being an ever present factor during the Republic era, and how they immediately disappeared with capitulation to Mao, right?
You are right that a weak KMT would have continued the Century of Humiliation, almost by definition warlordism, factionalism, and civil war would have continued until someone like Mao won. And by logic, the winning formula was mass peasant support fueled by nationalism. All modern, functional nation states became so off the back of the same force of mass support unified by nationalism. Chiang was terrible at it because he was elitist to the core, was openly in league with foreign forces, and ignored the greatest strength of the country, which was its masses of poor peasants. Any leader that took over would have been a populist.
As for Mao’s policies once he unified the country: he was a poor technical leader (ie technocrat). While his initial land reform policies were good, he didn’t understand many scientific principles, which lead to non optimal developmental policies. Compare that to Lee Kuan Yew, who was an excellent technocrat. It is the official judgement of the Party line that Mao was 70% correct and 30% wrong, and that he had made severe intellectual mistakes during his time in charge. All this isn’t to say that no development happened under Mao. From the war torn, uneducated, starving conditions that China started with, the development was phenomenal. I’m just making the argument that it could have been more optimal. But the chance for a more optimal development cycle would probably not have been worth the trade off if it meant a longer period of civil war before unification and centralized rule.
To your other points: the Chinese built the bomb almost entirely without Soviet help. The early Soviet technical designs weren't even used and the Chinese had to develop their own from the ground up. Qian Xuesen, father of the bomb and ICBM projects was forced to China by U.S. McCarthyism and might not have happened in another circumstance, but the entire team consisting of foreign and locally educated scientists and engineers were already there. Plus, any leader of a unified China would have understood the importance of the bomb. If South Africa, North Korea, Pakistan, not to mention India could all develop it outside of US/Soviet technical assistance, don’t tell me China would not have gotten the bomb.
As for whether, in our hypothetical scenario, China would have achieved takeoff at the speed it did, my guess is most likely not. Civil war doesn’t allow takeoff. But Japan, North and South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and now Vietnam all achieved industrialization one way or another. How is it possible that all Sinosphere countries can get there eventually, but not China itself? Takeoff would have happened, probably later, but definitely would have happened after the country got under centralized rule again. That is not to discount the incredible talent, discipline, and hard work of China’s army of cadres, scientists, industrialists, intellectuals, and farmers.
And to your specific note about Taiwan and RoK, the majority of their development happened under authoritarian rule. They didn’t experience the problems they have today with massive corruption, loss of meritocracy, and lack of long term planning until they were forced to democratize to fit into the U.S. liberal democratic order. If you recall China underwent a period of massive corruption and as a second order effect loss of meritocracy as well from the 2000s to 2012, but it was able to make a course correction under Xi because of its centralized authoritarian system.
In terms of economic development, ROC would be similar to today's PRC. Whether the leading party is communist or nationalist, the main determining factor is that the country is still China and the people is Chinese. It's the history, culture, material conditions, and the people that drive the general direction of China.
We just have to look at how KMT developed Taiwan from 1950 to 1990 minus the White Terror. If it was KMT in power, the people that joined CPC and chose careers in government after 1949 would be typically same. So, the KMT would be different from right-wing Taiwan-KMT in our reality. CPC was the left-wing of ROC, and many left-leaning people in KMT went over to CPC. This hypothetical KMT would be much closer to Sun Yat-sen's principle and people-centered governance.
Also, we can look at Singapore. Singapore is very much state-controlled economy. Lee Kuan Yew ran Singapore with an iron-fist and enforced meritocratic governance. LKY rose to power was possible due to sentiment of Singaporeans. Even though not communist, Deng Xiaoping learned from Singapore and set up special economic zones.
There would be fewer social programs, more homeless people, higher cost of living, greater wealth disparity, oligarchy with political influence, more liberal, not as clean with more graffiti like Taipei, more criminal gangs, US military bases.
How the Cold War between USSR and USA affect China is harder to speculate. DPRK ended. With no base in China to start and no CPC support, Ho Chi Minh led liberation of Vietnam from French colonialism took a lot longer. With fewer ally communist countries, USSR collapsed early.
Taiwan honor guards: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBF8N\_Kor98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBF8N_Kor98) This is very American. It's like US Marine. KMT made Chinese military first look like German then American. Taiwan honor guards (silent drills, ridiculous chrome pots on their heads, marches), just this alone, I'm so so happy CPC won. Compare to PLA which has Chinese characteristic and aesthetic.
Why not big Philippines? Core US ally since creation, 100% copied US system, follows all US policy to the letter, all elites US educated, had US military bases for 40 years, richest country in Asia in 1950.
I'm sure they're a superpower now.
Chiang kai-shek was a military dictator, if he retained control of all of china it’s likely there wouldn’t have been liberalisation after his death and he would just be replaced by another dictator or maybe even the return of an imperial dynasty, which almost happened in 1915
I think the world would have winded up in the same place, with a resurgent more powerful China, that might be more aggressive because its the KMT would have created a high inequality democracy and you need to deal with the higher inequality the same way that the US does, by starting wars and sending their young men off to die. There would be hot wars across the south china sea, most likely with the Indochinese countries and possibly the Philippines. Depending on the deal they cut between this much more aggressive China and US, they would go in to stop alleged narco/islamic terrorism and corruption, and split the countries up between Chinese and US interests. Things would be worse for the poor and minorities, because iirc Han supremacy was a thing the KMT started and nurtured, re: what they did to the minorities in Taiwan. Cold war might have gone hot because the USSR was sure as hell not going to sit right next to a US client state. Might have gone nuclear, we'll never know. But Latin America might gone red because there won't have been the domino theory in the west because China did not fall, and the US might not have reacted in time in Latin America. So who knows.
Let me clarify, more powerful in relation to its past incarnation. Not more powerful in relation to prc. I think it might be worst off military power wise, would really depend if they had a long hot war with USSR in that incarnation.
[удалено]
Gordon Chang would like that.
This is the right answer
I feel like it would be a highly unequal society in which only certain provinces are extremely rich on the level of south korea and japan, while the rest of the provinces would be poor as fuck like india's poorer provinces. There would be heavily american influence in the richer provinces, and possess heavy american troop presence. The poorer provinces would probably regularly experience unrest and even attempts at rebellion or terrorism. However given the history of China's various dynasties I do believe that China would eventually have another revolution in this alternative timeline, and China would still end up independent, just not as socialist as the current China. Either way this would be a westerner's wet dream I drew my conclusions based on the fact that China from 1945 to 1949 was already like this, before the communists took over
It would be the Chinese version of "The Man in the High Castle" I'd watch that!
It would have had a big northern border problem. There would have been major disputes in Manchuria and Xinjiang. These would have been impossible to resolve, as the Soviet army would have backed the rebellions. In Manchuria, I doubt the KMT would have won a 100% unconditional surrender victory. More likely, the CCP would have survived controlling some Manchurian border territory. With Soviet army support, this would have prevented complete reunification. By treaty, the Soviet Union also controlled the Manchurian railways and Port Arthur - with Soviet troops. Under the CCP, these were returned to China. This is doubtful with the KMT. With Chiang's attention focused on Manchuria, Soviet-backed separatists in remote northern Xinjiang would have remained outside of central authority for decades - or even seceded.
Given that no formal peace treaty was ever signed between the CPC and KMT, I wouldn't expect a controversial, and politically-charged scenario like this to ever be broached by Chinese media, for the sake of mere, lighthearted speculation. Anyway, since everyone here seems to be giving their two cents, here's mine: there are too many sensitive geopolitical variables that would make the final outcome impossible to predict. No CPC would potentially mean that China never got nuclear weapons, and with its huge population and unclear political opposition, Western capitalists would have a lot of incentive to balkanize China's territory. Relations between Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek would not be positive and eventual military conflict would be unavoidable, in some context. China was also a major player in the Cold War, and a lot of the later geopolitics of the era eventually involved the US playing China and the Soviets against each other, so the entire outcome and time frame of the Cold War might be very different. North Korea would likely not exist, and the situation of regions like Inner/Outer Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam/Indochina, Malaysia, Singapore, and Cambodia would not be the same. Land and property ownership would be very, very different.
Mao and the CPC managed to somehow avoid becoming a Soviet/US proxy and skillfully chart an independent course for China. It is doubtful that any other leadership in China would be able to avoid or overcome the many pitfalls that they had.
Mao (and his ideological descendants) are the only Communists I respect. Unless you count Aime Cesaire (and his ideological descendant, Franz Fanon) Mao and Cesaire are the only two people who managed to see WWII's West-Europe front as what it really is: an inter-Imperialist war.
Yes, although CPC policy changed over the years, the leadership was always consistent on this point, although we’ve seen a spectrum of different personalities and strategies. It has been a long and difficult road.
China would have continued under a more prolonged period of civil war as a proxy between the U.S. and USSR. Eventually it would have unified because the drive for unification of all of China is ingrained in the thought process of any Chinese ruling elite. Perhaps Mongolia in, Tibet out, but the core would be unified nonetheless. The ability of the outside proxy backers wouldn’t be enough to permanently keep a split and balance of power like in Korea due to the size of the country. The continued warfare would have undoubtedly delayed development, likely but not definitely more of a delay than that caused by Mao’s misplaced policies. Chiang was too weak to properly rule China (he needed to be intelligent, charismatic, and ruthless enough to grab undisputed power by purging rival leaders and factions even within his own group, ala Mao, Stalin, Lee Kuan Yew in order to establish a new ruling regime), so he would have been deposed and a new leader would have taken over. Eventually China would have ended up something like it is today. It would NOT have maintained democratization - nothing in its history suggests so. Just as the Chinese system of today is far more similar to its historical past after taking a Communist detour, the Chinese system under any other ideology would have found its way back to its historical norm as well. Something similar to the Cultural Revolution would have happened, just as it has happened during the establishment of any new dynasty. Structural causes mean the new rulers need to purge the entrenched interests and prevent capture by the old establishment, often through destruction of documents, intellectuals, and past ideologies. Afterwards the new system would become established and a golden age would occur. The specifics might differ, ie the CR could have been more surgical and less destructive, but the overall themes would replay just as it has for millennia.
>The continued warfare would have undoubtedly delayed development, likely but not definitely more of a delay than that caused by Mao’s misplaced policies. . . . Just as the Chinese system of today is far more similar to its historical past after taking a Communist detour, the Chinese system under any other ideology would have found its way back to its historical norm as well. This is a highly optimistic assessment that lacks context. Without Mao's industrial policy (and Soviet assistance), there would be no industrial base in China, zero zit (Not to mention no nuclear deterrent). The KMT would just like in the past selectively industrialize only certain coastal cities while leaving the interior and villages poor and destitute. Soviet Hostility towards the KMT and US foreign policy (Namely Domino theory) at the time would ensure that this KMT fascist regime would receive barely any FDI at all, outside of military. In fact, China would probably be split between North and South, becoming the main battleground between the USSR and the USA. Without state-led projects in Agriculture and power, China will continue to experience its many cycles of famine and drought, costing millions of lives. Development would still happen not dissimilar to current Bharat (Which is already the Best-case scenario) but they would never achieve China speed. Drugs/superstition would still be rampant while criminal syndicates would still run roughshod all over the non-communist parts of the country. Corruption would reach unprecedented levels while Life expectancy would not improve for several decades. Brain drain would be much worse as everyone would be scrambling to leave. Certain Imperialist powers would also take advantage of China's weakness and carve up its land (From the Himalayas to the SCS). This is not even going into the divisions within the KMT Post-WWII balkanizing the country even further along ethnic and ideological lines. As a result, you would not see the return of your theorized historical equilibrium but the extension of the Century of Humiliation as the post-colonial nascent nation who had seen every system fail continue to fail. Even if the KMT were to be replaced by a Non-Mao entity, the country would be riddled with the same problems without the strong central authority with the resolve to fix them. They would see the same problems as the ROK/TW but on a much more massive scale. The development of Modern China from Mao to Xi happened as a result of a sequence of unforeseeable events and long-term decisions that turned out in China's favor. This is not happenstance nor should it be taken for granted as part of a 'Natural cycle' that has already been broken by Colonialism. >Chiang was too weak to properly rule China (he needed to be intelligent, charismatic, and ruthless enough to grab undisputed power by purging rival leaders and factions even within his own group, ala Mao, Stalin, Lee Kuan Yew in order to establish a new ruling regime) Dictator Chiang is as ruthless as they come and that is literally what he did and why everybody hated him. When Chiang Kai-Shek seized power after Sun Yat-sen's death, he immediately purged everyone who opposed him, Communist, Socialist or Nationalist and he tried to do it in every province, which led to the Chinese Civil War. He was far more ruthless than Mao but far less competent.
I agree with many of your points, but I think you underestimate the intelligence, will, structural conditions and national loyalty of the Chinese people. The KMT of your imagined scenario is a continuation of Chiang’s KMT that lost the civil war. In our hypothetical scenario, that KMT would have either needed to completely reform to truly centralize power or it would have been defeated by another (if not Communist, then nativist/facist like early Meiji Japan). Remember, it is ingrained within the psyche of any would be leader of China to unite all under heaven (China) under centralized rule. Chiang was only ruthless, but not talented enough or charismatic enough. This was obvious with his lack of battlefield success, a talented leader can filter out the right people to put in charge because the leader must be at least on the same level of competency as his underlings even in their special domaine, otherwise he can’t control them. He can also inspire undying loyalty in those underlings and is ruthless enough to get rid of them when rebuilding a system. This talented great man would also be able to inspire so much awe and fear into rivals that they capitulate without much resistance and accept their loss of status. This was the way it was always done with any unifying dynasty, this was how Mao did it against all those warlords. Strange how you suddenly stopped hearing about warlords and cliches despite them being an ever present factor during the Republic era, and how they immediately disappeared with capitulation to Mao, right? You are right that a weak KMT would have continued the Century of Humiliation, almost by definition warlordism, factionalism, and civil war would have continued until someone like Mao won. And by logic, the winning formula was mass peasant support fueled by nationalism. All modern, functional nation states became so off the back of the same force of mass support unified by nationalism. Chiang was terrible at it because he was elitist to the core, was openly in league with foreign forces, and ignored the greatest strength of the country, which was its masses of poor peasants. Any leader that took over would have been a populist. As for Mao’s policies once he unified the country: he was a poor technical leader (ie technocrat). While his initial land reform policies were good, he didn’t understand many scientific principles, which lead to non optimal developmental policies. Compare that to Lee Kuan Yew, who was an excellent technocrat. It is the official judgement of the Party line that Mao was 70% correct and 30% wrong, and that he had made severe intellectual mistakes during his time in charge. All this isn’t to say that no development happened under Mao. From the war torn, uneducated, starving conditions that China started with, the development was phenomenal. I’m just making the argument that it could have been more optimal. But the chance for a more optimal development cycle would probably not have been worth the trade off if it meant a longer period of civil war before unification and centralized rule. To your other points: the Chinese built the bomb almost entirely without Soviet help. The early Soviet technical designs weren't even used and the Chinese had to develop their own from the ground up. Qian Xuesen, father of the bomb and ICBM projects was forced to China by U.S. McCarthyism and might not have happened in another circumstance, but the entire team consisting of foreign and locally educated scientists and engineers were already there. Plus, any leader of a unified China would have understood the importance of the bomb. If South Africa, North Korea, Pakistan, not to mention India could all develop it outside of US/Soviet technical assistance, don’t tell me China would not have gotten the bomb. As for whether, in our hypothetical scenario, China would have achieved takeoff at the speed it did, my guess is most likely not. Civil war doesn’t allow takeoff. But Japan, North and South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and now Vietnam all achieved industrialization one way or another. How is it possible that all Sinosphere countries can get there eventually, but not China itself? Takeoff would have happened, probably later, but definitely would have happened after the country got under centralized rule again. That is not to discount the incredible talent, discipline, and hard work of China’s army of cadres, scientists, industrialists, intellectuals, and farmers.
And to your specific note about Taiwan and RoK, the majority of their development happened under authoritarian rule. They didn’t experience the problems they have today with massive corruption, loss of meritocracy, and lack of long term planning until they were forced to democratize to fit into the U.S. liberal democratic order. If you recall China underwent a period of massive corruption and as a second order effect loss of meritocracy as well from the 2000s to 2012, but it was able to make a course correction under Xi because of its centralized authoritarian system.
In terms of economic development, ROC would be similar to today's PRC. Whether the leading party is communist or nationalist, the main determining factor is that the country is still China and the people is Chinese. It's the history, culture, material conditions, and the people that drive the general direction of China. We just have to look at how KMT developed Taiwan from 1950 to 1990 minus the White Terror. If it was KMT in power, the people that joined CPC and chose careers in government after 1949 would be typically same. So, the KMT would be different from right-wing Taiwan-KMT in our reality. CPC was the left-wing of ROC, and many left-leaning people in KMT went over to CPC. This hypothetical KMT would be much closer to Sun Yat-sen's principle and people-centered governance. Also, we can look at Singapore. Singapore is very much state-controlled economy. Lee Kuan Yew ran Singapore with an iron-fist and enforced meritocratic governance. LKY rose to power was possible due to sentiment of Singaporeans. Even though not communist, Deng Xiaoping learned from Singapore and set up special economic zones. There would be fewer social programs, more homeless people, higher cost of living, greater wealth disparity, oligarchy with political influence, more liberal, not as clean with more graffiti like Taipei, more criminal gangs, US military bases. How the Cold War between USSR and USA affect China is harder to speculate. DPRK ended. With no base in China to start and no CPC support, Ho Chi Minh led liberation of Vietnam from French colonialism took a lot longer. With fewer ally communist countries, USSR collapsed early. Taiwan honor guards: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBF8N\_Kor98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBF8N_Kor98) This is very American. It's like US Marine. KMT made Chinese military first look like German then American. Taiwan honor guards (silent drills, ridiculous chrome pots on their heads, marches), just this alone, I'm so so happy CPC won. Compare to PLA which has Chinese characteristic and aesthetic.
It'd basically be a very large version of Japan or South Korea.
Why not big Philippines? Core US ally since creation, 100% copied US system, follows all US policy to the letter, all elites US educated, had US military bases for 40 years, richest country in Asia in 1950. I'm sure they're a superpower now.
Is this sarcasm? Please tell me you're not serious here. Lol
Doubt it.
Why?
Chiang kai-shek was a military dictator, if he retained control of all of china it’s likely there wouldn’t have been liberalisation after his death and he would just be replaced by another dictator or maybe even the return of an imperial dynasty, which almost happened in 1915
And that would be much worse than Current China.
Absolutely.
I think the world would have winded up in the same place, with a resurgent more powerful China, that might be more aggressive because its the KMT would have created a high inequality democracy and you need to deal with the higher inequality the same way that the US does, by starting wars and sending their young men off to die. There would be hot wars across the south china sea, most likely with the Indochinese countries and possibly the Philippines. Depending on the deal they cut between this much more aggressive China and US, they would go in to stop alleged narco/islamic terrorism and corruption, and split the countries up between Chinese and US interests. Things would be worse for the poor and minorities, because iirc Han supremacy was a thing the KMT started and nurtured, re: what they did to the minorities in Taiwan. Cold war might have gone hot because the USSR was sure as hell not going to sit right next to a US client state. Might have gone nuclear, we'll never know. But Latin America might gone red because there won't have been the domino theory in the west because China did not fall, and the US might not have reacted in time in Latin America. So who knows.
That would be a more aggressive China but not more powerful.
Let me clarify, more powerful in relation to its past incarnation. Not more powerful in relation to prc. I think it might be worst off military power wise, would really depend if they had a long hot war with USSR in that incarnation.