The Nationalists win the Chinese Civil War

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,777
Republika Srpska
As for Vietnam, I wonder if the US would have been much more willing to invade North Vietnam in this scenario since there's no risk of Chinese intervention to help and save North Vietnam in this scenario.
Would Chiang like to see such a large build-up of American might at his border though? He was never the one to fully trust the Westerners and his relations with the US were not always warm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Would Chiang like to see such a large build-up of American might at his border though? He was never the one to fully trust the Westerners and his relations with the US were not always warm.
That might depend on whether Chiang views the Vietnamese Communists or the Americans as the greater evil.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
5,017
India
A more accurate term for what Mao did would be the Great Leap Backwards. Indeed, that's what I refer to it as. As for Ukraine, AFAIK, people in southern Russia and Kazakhstan also extremely heavily suffered as a result of the early 1930s famines in the Soviet Union. So, I don't think that it was an attempt to exterminate the Ukrainians as a nation.
Such mass starvation was the outcome of failed economic policies and economic fantasies of the communist leader. A "great" communist revolutionary can't be a great economists. Everyone was asked by Mao to stop farming and start producing cheap quality steel to overtake Great Britain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Such mass starvation was the outcome of failed economic policies and economic fantasies of the communist leader. A "great" communist revolutionary can't be a great economists. Everyone was asked by Mao to stop farming and start producing cheap quality steel to overtake Great Britain.
Interestingly enough, one would think that China would have had enough people to both farm the land and produce a lot of steel.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
China wouldn't be like it is today. It at best would be and look like Indonesia, with a similar historical development with one or more genocides occurring under Chiang's rule, like it happened under Suharto, during the Cold War and then becoming a corrupt "democracy" after he dies with human rights abuses, crime and inequality rampant, like in modern-day Indonesia.

Also, Xinjiang and Tibet most likely would not be in China, and most likely would look even poorer than they look today. So we would have a China the size of India and equally poor or poorer East Turkestan and Tibet surrounding it.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
You're more likely to starve to death under Maoism
At best, only during the GLF. Outside of it, Chiang's Nationalist regime starved millions to death as well and was in a state of civil war, which the Communists ended. You're more likely to die under Chiang than under Mao. You're also far more likely going to lead a better life in the 60 and 70s, when there was no war and Communist social welfare policies gave you education and health care, than under a Nazi sympathiser who most likely would have been like Suharto and commit intentional genocide like him to stop Communism.

Also, people seriously citing the tiny island of Taiwan to demonstrate what would have happened in continent-sized China can't be taken seriously, especially when the US developed Taiwan using land reforms and millions upon millions of dollars in subsidies - policies that if applied in the US would have been demonised as socialist - only because the Communists won and the US needed to prevent the Communists from taking Taiwan while also showing how capitalism is supposedly better (it's not, as one can look in the rest of the world). It's really a blessing that the Nazi ally who sent his son to train with Hitler didn't win.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
India is also a good example of how capitalist "democracy" would have worked in China:
Chomsky on Amartya Sen and death tolls in communist China vs. capitalist India « Economics Job Market Rumors

Today, India lags behind China in every human development index statistic, including life expectancy, literacy and gender equality. China is only worse with higher incarceration rates, but even then, a Chinese cell is far superior to an Indian cell in living quality, and the militarised zone of Kashmir (to which whatever military occupation of Tibet can't compare to) has been called one of the biggest open-air prisons in the planet.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
5,017
India
Would Chiang like to see such a large build-up of American might at his border though? He was never the one to fully trust the Westerners and his relations with the US were not always warm.
Taiwan was under martial rule after the nationalist retreat to Taiwan.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
5,017
India
India is also a good example of how capitalist "democracy" would have worked in China:
Chomsky on Amartya Sen and death tolls in communist China vs. capitalist India « Economics Job Market Rumors

Today, India lags behind China in every human development index statistic, including life expectancy, literacy and gender equality. China is only worse with higher incarceration rates, but even then, a Chinese cell is far superior to an Indian cell in living quality, and the militarised zone of Kashmir (to which whatever military occupation of Tibet can't compare to) has been called one of the biggest open-air prisons in the planet.
India never had a Capitalistic democracy it was rather a Socialist democracy. India lags behind China because India is far more socialist compared to China despite India has democracy and China is communist. You can't blame democracy for that. The period of 1947-1991 is often referred as "License Raj" period in India, in this period the growth of private own industries was curtailed and foreign investment was completely curtailed as per true Marxist/Socialist ideology.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
India never had a Capitalistic democracy it was rather a Socialist democracy. India lags behind China because India is far more socialist compared to China despite India has democracy and China is communist. You can't blame democracy for that. The period of 1947-1991 is often referred as "License Raj" period in India, in this period the growth of private own industries was curtailed and foreign investment was completely curtailed as per true Marxist/Socialist ideology.
Already since the 1960s we see India being described the Western press as drifting from socialism to "pragmatism". The INC always implemented a mixed economy at best with a fanatical anti-Communism and, except for a brief alliance with the Soviet Union, closeness to the West especially by offensively remaining part of the British Commonwealth. Moreover, India was partly devastated by its war with Pakistan over Bangladesh, which resulted in one of the bloodiest carnages of the Cold War. Finally, you seemingly call India today more socialist than China but this is ridiculous seeing how the INC no longer has any monopoly in power and the INC in any case has implemented neoliberal policies that surrendered India to foreign capital and native private companies. As if that wasn't enough, India's neoliberalism started just a few years after Deng Xiaoping's liberal reforms, and yet it still looks far more closely to Guatemala or Haiti than to Japan or South Korea, like China does.

foreign investment
Anti-INC Indian right-wingers (almost invariably Hindutva) should stop presenting themselves as nationalist when they are what in Latin America we call vendepatrias, or nation sellers.