what if: Mao dies at the long march
- Thread starter stalin006
- Start date
Mao was the one who held the Communists together during their horrendous march to Yenan; if he had died, the Communists as a significant political force would have petered out altogether. He also reformulated the Communist overall strategy - of basing their support in the countryside, among the peasantry (he himself was born into a peasant family in Hunan). Prior to this, the Communists were based mainly in the cities, esp the treaty ports (i.e. Shanghai) and working amongst the working class.
The KMT, under Chiang, would survive WW2, despite losing much valuable personnel and material during the war. Since they would have no significant overall national-level opponent, they would retake all of China. However, warlord politics would return (some of the so-called KMT generals used to be warlords who submitted to Chiang at various times) and China, as a whole, would be weaker. Chiang's hold over the country was debatable.
China would look much like it was today, minus Tibet probably. Hard to say how it'd all turn out....
The KMT, under Chiang, would survive WW2, despite losing much valuable personnel and material during the war. Since they would have no significant overall national-level opponent, they would retake all of China. However, warlord politics would return (some of the so-called KMT generals used to be warlords who submitted to Chiang at various times) and China, as a whole, would be weaker. Chiang's hold over the country was debatable.
China would look much like it was today, minus Tibet probably. Hard to say how it'd all turn out....
SKILORD
Insurgent
the revolution would have lost it's socialist direction and china would never have been subjugated to the "Great Leap Forward" among other things. A capitailist Republic china would have emerged, becoming a world superpower.
You of course presume that Capitalism was ideally suited for China at the time, which of course, it wasn't.
China had no experience with Capitalism; as examples have shown, industry in the hands of the unexperienced serves to benefeit of those with the industry. China did need Socialism at the time, and dare I say, was a better answer to the corrupt and over-glorified regime of Chiang Kai Shek. I think that K-D is correct in his analysis that China would be weaker, I would similarly expect to see a still-independent Tibet, but as we go further East we would see more warlords. Whatever semblence China might have had as a unified nation could not have been accomplished without the iron fist of authoritarianism that Mao employed.
Regardless of the deaths from the political prisoners and the great leap forward, what China needed was a strong, beefy central government. To say that Mao's failure as a leader is the sole cause of China not being a "superpower" today is far beyond a gross oversimplification. Like many of the other nations after World War II, China had to rebuild itself, but to presume that any of the other forces BESIDES a Communist, authoritarian regime would have been automatically better is shortsighted.
SKILORD
Insurgent
U win Toasty.
jpowers
Emperor
I think the racism inherent in the Chinese power structure would have found a way to express itself regardless. Maybe not to such an extreme result, but warlords are no better than communists when it comes to democide.
If Mao had died, that sixty million wouldn't even be born in the first place. It was after the Communists had come to power that China's population began to skyrocket. Mao's call for the people to reproduce didn't help much....
newfangle
hates you.
sharpe is of course right when he says that the 60 million dead is revolting. BUT, it was due to horribly poor management, rather than the system.
What did we learn:
YOU CAN'T DOUBLE THE IRON OUTPUT OF AN UNIDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY IN A YEAR!
What did we learn:
YOU CAN'T DOUBLE THE IRON OUTPUT OF AN UNIDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY IN A YEAR!
Actually I would not have been surprised if more than 60 millions peoples die if Mao hasn't come to power. This would have been result in a weak China. This rich but defendless land would have been too tempting and a bloody war may have result between many world power: USSR, India, USA.
EdwardTking
Deity
(1) If MAO had died; the surviving communists would probably have done a deal with the nationalists. They'd have fought the Japanese together and been incorporated within the power structure. The resultant nationalist government would
therefore not have been so anti-communist.
(2) The US would have probably provided a lot of aid to a
post WW2 China and therefore less to a post WW2 Japan.
(3) The Chinese would also have traded with the USSR.
(4) Peasant owner occupier of farms was the norm before
MAO and every village and town had its small business
artisans etc. In many ways China had a much more
developed market economy than feudalistic Russia.
(5) However regional instability, corruption and warlords
would have slowed it down.
(6) Regional deaths due to flooding and over population
arising from western drugs reducing infant mortality and subsequent malnutrition and starvation would have continued
as in Indian sub/continent with BanglaDesh.
(7) I rather think that there would have been a national
state; but with spoken language regions being left to
internally govern themselves. Probably much like India today.
(8) Tibet would be independent; but Taiwan would be included.
Hong Kong would have reverted to China much earlier; probably expanding inland rather than upwards.
(9) Without communism in China; the North Vietmanese
would not have adopted communist; so the US would not
have involved themselves very much.
therefore not have been so anti-communist.
(2) The US would have probably provided a lot of aid to a
post WW2 China and therefore less to a post WW2 Japan.
(3) The Chinese would also have traded with the USSR.
(4) Peasant owner occupier of farms was the norm before
MAO and every village and town had its small business
artisans etc. In many ways China had a much more
developed market economy than feudalistic Russia.
(5) However regional instability, corruption and warlords
would have slowed it down.
(6) Regional deaths due to flooding and over population
arising from western drugs reducing infant mortality and subsequent malnutrition and starvation would have continued
as in Indian sub/continent with BanglaDesh.
(7) I rather think that there would have been a national
state; but with spoken language regions being left to
internally govern themselves. Probably much like India today.
(8) Tibet would be independent; but Taiwan would be included.
Hong Kong would have reverted to China much earlier; probably expanding inland rather than upwards.
(9) Without communism in China; the North Vietmanese
would not have adopted communist; so the US would not
have involved themselves very much.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Without Mao the communist/socialist movement does not win the mainland. As the Dragonsays, that leaves the KMT in thoeretical leadership. But, without Mao to run the purges, the resulting regional warfare may have been worse. The years before the Japanese invaded were not pretty ones. JPowers has the right of it. The violence would have found expression
On the other hand, a great deal of western culture would not have been forcibly removed. Whether the law and order needed to take advantage of the technical side of it, as the Japanese did, may or may not have been present, even in limited areas. We might have seen a nation as fragmented as the Middle East, or as unified as it is now. It depends on who steps up to the mike.
J
On the other hand, a great deal of western culture would not have been forcibly removed. Whether the law and order needed to take advantage of the technical side of it, as the Japanese did, may or may not have been present, even in limited areas. We might have seen a nation as fragmented as the Middle East, or as unified as it is now. It depends on who steps up to the mike.
J
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I think the socialists would have won the revolution and China would be better off today than it is. It was things like the great leap forward that really put china behind, china is still reeling back from that.
This was the arrangement betw the CCP and the KMT up till 1927-28 when Chiang Kai-shek launched his Northern Expedition and his troops reached Shanghai. Members of the CCP also joined the KMT as private members and both organisations were organised similarly.
Then he turned savagely on the Commies, probably to garner support fr the elite class of Shanghai (the Commies were inciting the workers to riot) despite the Communists' aid in helping his Northern Expedition to succeed in many areas (esp cities). Within days, thousands of Communists had been executed (beheaded actually) in the streets of Shanghai and the survivors fled into the countryside, trying to organise soviets.
Only 2-3 of the soviets would survive to join the Long March to Yenan.
Indeed, the US intended for KMT-ruled China to be the regional power in Asia, replacing Japan. As the Cold War developed, China would probably join the Western camp. The Soviets would have to station even more troops along the long Sino-Soviet border. The Soviet Union's collapse might come sooner.
With the inception of the Cold War, this would probably be unrealistic. Besides, the Russians always had a historical fear of an Asian invasion fr the east (remember the Mongols?).
True. Particularly the Yangzi valley (the heart of KMT power) was developing rapidly up till the Japanese came. Shanghai was the banking center of East Asia etc.
There was also the millions of Overseas Chinese (like me
), who were even more exposed to Western ideas. Get them back; China will develop even faster. 
True, but the KMT with its support base in the Yangzi would eventually gear up enough resources to hold the rest of the country firmly. Main problems were time and Japan.
I think this is pure speculation... Besides, China would probably receive a lot of help of the US in managing population and natural disasters.
Not likely, the Chinese had always practised a strong form of centralization since ancient times. With modern technology, more likely to develop national-level bureaucracies.
Hard to say about Tibet; Chiang and the KMT were fervent nationalists (it's called the Nationalist Party for a reason
). Chiang would probably like to gather all the ex-Manchu domains under the Chinese dominion. It was only under heavy Soviet pressure that he agreed to Outer Mongolia's 'independence' in the early 1920s (when he was weak). The Vietnamese Communist movement was separate fr the Chinese one. Hard to say.
BlueEarth
Chieftain
I think that if Mao had died then the Japanese would have gotten a lot farther into China and China would have been more destroyed after the war. Some of western China, after being liberated, would have, I suspect, given to some of the smaller countries west of China. China would thus be smaller and more centralized within the areas around Shanghi and Bejing. With China weak and no solid power base the US probably would have set up a puppet goverment that would very slowly turn solo. Eventually China would probably become just like Japan is today with a democratic goverment (after several elections) that wouldn't be very corrupt and a technology based economy, instead of a farming based economy.
First of all, welcome to CFC.
Mao and his guerillas' main value is in guerilla warfare, disrupting the enemy's supply routes, communications etc.
This was why Chiang tried so hard to finish off the Commies after WW2, despite the fact he could easily have reached a partition settlement with them. There could only be one ruler/govt/state over all of China or else it wouldn't be 'legal'.
Same reason why China is so insistent about Taiwan today.
Mao and his guerillas didn't do that much to stem the Japanese attk. It was Chiang and the KMT forces who did most of the positional fighting with the Imperial Japanese Army. The only time the Communists engaged the Japanese in positional warfare (during the so-called Hundred Regiments Offensive or something), they got beaten badly.
Mao and his guerillas' main value is in guerilla warfare, disrupting the enemy's supply routes, communications etc.
Depends on your definition of 'Western China'. Anyway, Xinjiang was being held firmly by a KMT-aligned warlord, so no question of it being 'given' away. All the remaining Chinese-populated territories will eventually rally around the acclaimed Chinese state, despite who's in power. It's a historical theme of Chinese reunification politics - there can only be one 'legal' Chinese ruler and state.
This was why Chiang tried so hard to finish off the Commies after WW2, despite the fact he could easily have reached a partition settlement with them. There could only be one ruler/govt/state over all of China or else it wouldn't be 'legal'.
Same reason why China is so insistent about Taiwan today.
Very speculative...
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
In fact the communist motto for the war was pretty much to stay away from the front lines so they don't lose troops. It was the nationalists who did the bulk of the fighting.
BlueEarth
Chieftain
Ahh but speculation is exactly what this thread is about!
Similar threads
