Which side would you have supported in the Chinese Civil War

[OSR stands with Israel]

Of Course the Nationalists

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I support liberal democracy, so either side would have shot me.

[PSOL]

While Chiang Kai-Shek would have been better leader overall, that would have only have happened if the warlords across China were pacified. I fail to see him after winning the war he successful in purging a huge portion of his army after beating the communists, it would possibly spark decades of conflict. Mao, while inexperienced and crazy, did maintain power even while purging some officials, as he had more control over his fringe group. We would just have to wait a few decades for China to open up with Dengist reforms.

[jaichind]

While Chiang Kai-Shek would have been better leader overall, that would have only have happened if the warlords across China were pacified. I fail to see him after winning the war he successful in purging a huge portion of his army after beating the communists, it would possibly spark decades of conflict. Mao, while inexperienced and crazy, did maintain power even while purging some officials, as he had more control over his fringe group. We would just have to wait a few decades for China to open up with Dengist reforms.

I would argue that the KMT lost the civil war BECAUSE Chiang prioritized finishing off warlords almost as high as beating CCP.  If the KMT had focused on making sure the various warlord armies were working with the core ROC armed forces to defeat the CCP the 1945-1949 conflict would have gone differently.  Chiang's attitude toward various warlord armed forces actually drove a lot of them into the ranks of the PLA, especially in the Northeast.

[ABTars2000]

Nationalists

[Person Man]

While Chiang Kai-Shek would have been better leader overall, that would have only have happened if the warlords across China were pacified. I fail to see him after winning the war he successful in purging a huge portion of his army after beating the communists, it would possibly spark decades of conflict. Mao, while inexperienced and crazy, did maintain power even while purging some officials, as he had more control over his fringe group. We would just have to wait a few decades for China to open up with Dengist reforms.

I would argue that the KMT lost the civil war BECAUSE Chiang prioritized finishing off warlords almost as high as beating CCP.  If the KMT had focused on making sure the various warlord armies were working with the core ROC armed forces to defeat the CCP the 1945-1949 conflict would have gone differently.  Chiang's attitude toward various warlord armed forces actually drove a lot of them into the ranks of the PLA, especially in the Northeast.

So, things might not have gotten settled there until the 60s or 70s had things gone differently but maybe it would be immediately opened up to the modern world fast enough for there not to be much delay in what China now has become. Maybe the ROC would have liberalized and modernized like Taiwan did but it could have just stayed like a giant Spain or Chile through today and well into the future.

[jaichind]

I think if the KMT had won the civil war a united China would now be a very large Brazil.  It would have similar levels of economic development of PRC today but with much more social conflict and more cloudy economic future. 

A lot of the sound economic policies that ROC put in place starting in the 1950s-1970s were only possible after a comprehensive defeat on the Mainland forcing Chiang and the KMT to reflect on how to avoid mistakes of the past.  If you read Chiang's diary which was only made public a decade ago it was clear that while he was devastated by his defeat in the 1945-1949 Civil War on the Mainland he was happy that defeat freed him to carry out his policy vision in one Province, namely Taiwan, without all the various complications and burdens he had to deal with in the 1930s-1940s on the Mainland.

In many ways what took place on Taiwan Province in the 1950s-1970s was a model for what the PRC did in the 1980s-2000s where entire policies were copied wholesale.  When a lot of my businessmen relatives moved their business operations to Mainland China in the late 1980s they call came back and said "they are just coping what we did back in the 1960s, this is going to be great since we know exactly how to operate in that policy model."

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Communists... (esp. when you wouldn't know what would become of a country and live in that time age), but i could've become an opponent of the government. Now i'm definitely an opponent because lack of democratization and freedom and also it's not communist anymore but just another capitalist state.

Not sure though that nationalists would've been so much better for that country. Possibly, it would on the long run for it's democracy, but i assume in that scenario, China would've had a tradition of strong communist parties in parliament, and would as someone have said be very similar to Brazil and India. It would definitely be still a country that faces a lot of problems, and possibly even a country that would be less economically and military strong (because it's authoritarian rule made it possible for the Chinese government to rapidly strengten their economy). A nationalist China would also have changed the history of communism, because there wouldn't have been a red schism and the rise of maoism, which means that there would be more unity, and it would give the USA more of a base on Korea and SE-Asia and i even doubt there would be civil wars in Vietnam and Korea, or communism in Cambodia.

[dead0man]

Communists... (esp. when you wouldn't know what would become of a country and live in that time age), but i could've become an opponent of the government. Now i'm definitely an opponent because lack of democratization and freedom and also it's not communist anymore but just another capitalist state.

uggg, I hate this bit of "conventional wisdom".  Capitalist states don't own all the banks and important industries and have complete control of the economy.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

The Yellow Turbans...oh wait.

[jaichind]

Communists... (esp. when you wouldn't know what would become of a country and live in that time age), but i could've become an opponent of the government. Now i'm definitely an opponent because lack of democratization and freedom and also it's not communist anymore but just another capitalist state.

uggg, I hate this bit of "conventional wisdom".  Capitalist states don't own all the banks and important industries and have complete control of the economy.

Well, until 1989 the ROC banking system was also dominated by and controlled by the state.  I am not defending this policy at all either in the ROC or PRC case.  But most prices on PRC are set by market forces since the early 1990s which is also the case on ROC as well during its economic takeoff period.  Having state domination of banks did not deter that from taking place.  Question here is not capitalist or socialist but more "are prices generally being set by the market."

[DC Al Fine]

The Yellow Turbans...oh wait.

I remember that scenario on Dynasty Warriors