How would China have looked?

[Dimentio]

If the Nationalists in China had won the Civil War in the 1940;s, how do you think that China would have looked today?

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:40 pm
If the Nationalists in China had won the Civil War in the 1940;s, how do you think that China would have looked today?
Probably a lot like India today. A semi feudal capitalist colony.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:40 pm
If the Nationalists in China had won the Civil War in the 1940;s, how do you think that China would have looked today?
Most likely it would have resembled Japan, with the Kuomintang as the predominant party, just as the Liberal Democratic Party is the ruling party in Japan.

[Ismail]

Portraits of Chang Kai-Shek would of been hung across the walls and Tibet would be independent and remain as a feudalistic and backwards nation with some reforms.

How would development have been done though? Would we still have "Made in China" in the US as is today? Would there still made "Made in Japan"? Etc.

[lvleph]

I think it would resemble Taiwan. lol

[autrefois]

^ Yeah lol... considering the Nationalists were mostly moved into Taiwan.

[Zazaban]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:56 pm
I think it would resemble Taiwan. lol

I think it would resemble Taiwan. lol

That seems likely.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:56 am
I think it would resemble Taiwan. lol
Actually, no it won't.

Chiang Kai-shek went to Taiwan with ALL of China's gold reserves, one of the main reasons why Taiwan developed so fast. (Similarly, Japan poured all the gold it looted from Asia--including China into the reconstruction effort.)

In contrast, the China CCP inherited was a gigantic dump, depleted of wealth.

Chiang Kai-shek went to Taiwan---a "virgin island" without huge established capitalist/landlords---Unlike China. Thus Chiang was actually able to make land reforms similar to those carried out by the Chinese communists...He would never have done the same in China, where much of the capital is held by the "Four Great Families", i.e., Chiang and his gang.

So, yeah, China would be like India (could be even worse...the KMT could never have solved the monumental food crisis immediately after the war, with China having MUCH less arable land than India).

[RNK]

I'd even wager than China would look more like the Asian poverty belt -- Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, etc; India is as prosperous as it is today only because of the massive influence of the British Empire and its long-established presence in the international market via the British. India was, essentially, guided towards industrialization by the British who sought to make it a powerful imperialist ally. China had no such "big capitalist brother".

[Led Zeppelin]

India and the British are not allies, and industrializing India was not in the best interest of British imperialism.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 15, 2007 04:00 pm
India and the British are not allies, and industrializing India was not in the best interest of British imperialism.
yes it was... to make India richer... British Poor Laws made by One Nation Tories from the mid 1850s onwards made it harder to exploit people as easily, thus (and much like many multi National corporations) industry relocated to a cheaper labour market.

India was under British control.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Modern Life is Rubbish+December 18, 2007 11:39 pm--> (Modern Life is Rubbish @ December 18, 2007 11:39 pm)
Led [email protected] 15, 2007 04:00 pm
India and the British are not allies, and industrializing India was not in the best interest of British imperialism.
yes it was... to make India richer... British Poor Laws made by One Nation Tories from the mid 1850s onwards made it harder to exploit people as easily, thus (and much like many multi National corporations) industry relocated to a cheaper labour market.

India was under British control. [/b]
I'm pretty sure RNK was referring to India after it had gained its independence, since it industrialized after that.

[Reuben]

Redstar is essentially right in terms of what he has. The crucial fact about nationalist government in the 1920s and 1930s was its sheer impotence vis-a-vis the landlord class. China would experienced neither land reform nor significant developement

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+December 19, 2007 01:27 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ December 19, 2007 01:27 am)
Originally posted by Modern Life is [email protected] 18, 2007 11:39 pm

Led [email protected] 15, 2007 04:00 pm
India and the British are not allies, and industrializing India was not in the best interest of British imperialism.
yes it was... to make India richer... British Poor Laws made by One Nation Tories from the mid 1850s onwards made it harder to exploit people as easily, thus (and much like many multi National corporations) industry relocated to a cheaper labour market.

India was under British control.
I'm pretty sure RNK was referring to India after it had gained its independence, since it industrialized after that. [/b]
ah okay then.

Nationalist china would look like modern day russia.

a complete fucking mess, one party state, endemic corruption etc.

[Holden Caulfield]

modern day russia without the bolshevik history?

[Luís Henrique]

Most likely it would have resembled Japan, with the Kuomintang as the predominant party, just as the Liberal Democratic Party is the ruling party in Japan.

You must be kidding.

It would resemble Nigeria, only bigger and poorer.

Luís Henrique

[Janus]

The problem with all these "if" questions is all the possible factors that one needs to take into account. For example, it's quite possible that China would be similar (or worse) to India in terms of poverty, illiteracy, etc. but it's also possible that China would be in a comparable state (depending on Western aid) as rapid economic growth may have begun prior to the 80/90's.