What would a KMT-led China look like?

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,497
Republika Srpska
#11
The KMT can't even maintain a pure Chinese identity from attempts at erosion by Taiwanese DPP and hold onto power in the tiny island of Taiwan, how could it hope to create and force a uniting national identity and keep power and order on the mainland?
By enforcing their will and creating a one-party system which is what Chiang Kai-Shek would have done had he won the Civil War. He did so in Taiwan.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,687
SoCal
#13
By enforcing their will and creating a one-party system which is what Chiang Kai-Shek would have done had he won the Civil War. He did so in Taiwan.
Yes, but this one-party state might have very well eventually crumbled and democratized like it did in South Korea and Taiwan in real life.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,687
SoCal
#15
The PRC didn't.
That might have been because it was conquered by Communists--who generally tend to be more resistant to giving up power. Vietnam and Laos also didn't democratize--and neither did Cuba or North Korea. All nominally Communist countries (or at least in NK's case, Communism being replaced by Juche).
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,497
Republika Srpska
#16
Chiang Kai-Shek was just as power-hungry as Mao. Remember, Chiang's portrait was in Beijing before Mao's. And in this hypothethical future, the KMT has no reason to give up power like they had to do in Taiwan.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,687
SoCal
#17
Chiang Kai-Shek was just as power-hungry as Mao. Remember, Chiang's portrait was in Beijing before Mao's. And in this hypothethical future, the KMT has no reason to give up power like they had to do in Taiwan.
Why did the KMT give up power in Taiwan?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,687
SoCal
#19
What about if they will mostly win on the mainland but fail to reacquire Manchuria--which will be a Soviet puppet state led by Mao Zedong?
 
Oct 2013
4,519
Canada
#20
That might have been because it was conquered by Communists--who generally tend to be more resistant to giving up power. Vietnam and Laos also didn't democratize--and neither did Cuba or North Korea. All nominally Communist countries (or at least in NK's case, Communism being replaced by Juche).
The one-party hold on China did not degrade but strengthened and gained ever more legitimacy because the concept of a one party state has cultural and civilization roots. This is an unbroken two millennia foundation of China. The "Communists" did not give up power, but they didn't need to. They [CCP - Chinese "Civilization" Party] just had to function as a continuously refining and practical imperial bureaucracy and governing organization, and they did a great job at it since the death of Mao.

Taiwan become multiparty because of artificial "de-Sinicization" processes started during Lee Tenghui's rise and continued after him.

Consider: the KMT lacked the spiritual characteristics that made the CCP so much more successful. The CCP enjoyed much greater support from the masses of Chinese people, and they shared in their minds a brighter common purpose, and they imagined and felt something new and better. It's the unity and drive the KMT lacked in comparison.

By enforcing their will and creating a one-party system which is what Chiang Kai-Shek would have done had he won the Civil War. He did so in Taiwan.
But the KMT failed that even on tiny Taiwan. The one party state failed to maintain itself on Taiwan.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions