As someone who studied Chinese history 1911 to 1976, from a variety of sources (if you think Wikipedia is a source for serious academic study then you're not serious about studying - it's informative, but Wiki is useful only if you know it's limits), I'm actually very happy with Dale's decision-making. I think within the scope of what he had to work with, he's made sound choices, representative of the "best fit". More importantly I think he's done a good job balancing between historical purism and gameplay.
For the record, I'd like to see any evidence that Jiang Jieshi (Let's not mix Wade-Giles and Pinyin up, people) did anything in the war period other than put up a token resistance. Almost all credible evidence points to Jiang sitting on an ever growing stockpile of US supplies during the war and doing comparatively nothing with them - something that played against him when CCP Cadres were able to exert considerable influence over regional leaders after Japan's defeat.
Those who would imply that Jiang was *the* leader of China and exercised some semblance of control over regional leaders and warlords during the war would need to explain how the CCP managed to subvert that supposed powerbase in under 12 months after the Japanese surrender, and would also need to explain how someone can be said to exercise effective Command and Control in an immense Area of Operations when he can't even speak the same language as the warlords who are apparently flying his colours. Jiang Jieshi was not the leader of China. He was the leader of the Guomindang. BIG Difference there kiddies.
Again, Dale, top effort. Have only been able to take a cursory look to this point, but mate, splendid job as always....
...Well done, that man.