What do you mean? If China starts to invade European colonies it won't make them more willing to accept to give them back and China cannot force the West to comply since they have a way inferior military; the US isn't going to intervene to force the handover of HK and Macau if China is invading them, you can't decide to help China if they are invading your allies.
Korea,Indochina under Nationalist China
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
They didn't OTL when Nationalist China was considered more likely to win, I don't think they will.
If that true then which battles did CCP lose Manchuria to KMT
Indochina was controlled Japan which surrendered to US so it has the complete mediating influence over Indochina and France has to agree with whatever America does with Indochina
That's why US offered Indochina to China over France ? First learn about OTL rather merely speculating about it
In OTL. Ever heard of Cairo Conference ? I presume you don't because only seem to speculate about OTL rather than learning about it
Egypt was also right-wing dictatorship propped up by US yet Khrushchev did support it
So Egypt avoided destruction by the technological superiority of the West because Anubis vanished British and French armies in Suez ? misrepresenting me again
That nothing to do with this
When did US support their allies in colonial wars in Asia that didn't involve communists
HK was never internationally recognized as European territories they only leased just like Suez was Yet both US and USSR opposed them in retaining the latter
Suez was as much British territory as HK
Last edited:
Weren't the New Territories the only part of the lease while the rest were ceded to the UK by the Qing?
Even if the US gave full support to the KMT to take over Indochina, then succeeding is ASB.
On a more serious note Egypt got invaded when it nationalized a canal, here China invaded European territory, China would deliberately cause a war against a superior enemy while it cannot be sure about anyone's support, it's a suicidal move.
You know what? I give up, you clearly won't listen to me no matter what I say, have fun in your imaginative world where the US is a world superpower in 1812.
You claimed that KMT Manchuria from CCP which was granted to it by USSR so show in what battles did that happen ?
That was only because America ordered Japan to give it to France which won't happen this time
Agreements last longer than people's lives
FDR will make it happen because he was the most influential person in the Pacific War
You keep repeating the same things which proved were false
This is a colonial war because meteropoles won't be effected
You keep refuting actual history while claiming to know it
You keep misrepresenting me
Hold up, to clarify Hong Kong and the Suez Canal (unless I'm misunderstanding things)...
Suez Canal:
Suez Canal:
- Under a company (Suez Canal Company) until Nasser nationalized it in 1956.
- Britain has half the stocks in the company
- Was always Egyptian territory. The Canal itself was a concession to the company.
- Britain also did have military presence in the canal (the rest of Egypt lost military presence after 1936 excluding WW2)
- Island ceded to Britain in 1839. Kowloon in 1860.
- New Territories to Britain in 1898 under 99-year lease.
- Crown colony of Britain. Therefore actually owned by them.
You don't use actual arguments, you just repeat the same things over and over again without explaining for example how China manages to conquer Indochina. This conversation is pointless since you don't want to have an actual one.
Yes, it's completely different from the Suez Crisis, in the Suez Crisis GB and France invaded Egypt because it nationalized a canal whereas here the KMT is invading an European territory meaning that they have all rights to defend themselves, the US cannot support China if it does this and the USSR doesn't have a reason to either, at best they give vocal support and do nothing.
Didn't China occupy Northern Indochina while the British occupied the south in 1945 if I recall correctly? The KMT also had a sister party in Vietnam (the VNQDD) and a Lao government already set up (Lao Issara)
I don't see the KMT moving into South Indochina/supporting the Viet Minh after they leave northern Indochina (to France) when they have an entire civil war to deal with. Besides in Cambodia, I doubt there's anything they have to set up anything sticking, aside from pre-existing government institutions from the French protectorate.
KMT did have some troops in Indochina but that wasn't a very significant force and as soon as the locals understand that the Chinese have the intention to puppet the territory it won't last long for the. There were some movements but they controlled almost nothing, they don't stand a chance against the Viet Minh and the French will try to retake Indochina no matter what the US says.
Britain did have some troops but the British collaborated with the French at the beginning of the war and they will also do this ITTL.
War in Vietnam (1945–1946) - Wikipedia
Here the premise is that the CCP is destroyed in the encirclement campaigns and therefore Chiang decides that he will try to conquer Indochina and Korea after WW2. The KMT decided to withdraw IOTL precisely because they had to fight a civil war but that doesn't mean that they will try to conquer Indochina just because he doesn't have other priorities.
Assuming WW2/the conflict with the communists goes VERY well for the KMT prior to the Japanese capitulation, I can see them maybe sending troops to Korea and Indochina to accept the local surrender ceremonies, and those countries could end up in the Nationalist Chinese sphere of influence by default, as would Burma very likely.
But formal annexation or even attempted puppeting by the ROC would violate the very international norms that the Allies were trying to set up for the postwar world, and it's not like Korea and Indochina were minor nations. It would not only damage Nanjing's reputation but also engender severe local opposition and the Chinese would have to waste their limited resources controlling the restive population.
But formal annexation or even attempted puppeting by the ROC would violate the very international norms that the Allies were trying to set up for the postwar world, and it's not like Korea and Indochina were minor nations. It would not only damage Nanjing's reputation but also engender severe local opposition and the Chinese would have to waste their limited resources controlling the restive population.
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you think so
The DPRK is there and it certainly won't be in the KMT's sphere.
South Korea is a US puppet and it doesn't have a reason to become a puppet of China, there probably would be some ties but nothing crazy.
North Vietnam is an enemy of China due to its Communist nature.
Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam would be affected by TTL's Vietnam war and wouldn't be its puppets, they would be at best allies.
Burma doesn't have a reason to be a Chinese puppet.
France who has a much, much better army than the Chinese failed to take over Indochina so the Chinese managing to do so is ASB.
I think it's very hard because you have to fix a lot of Nationalist China's massive prewar problems, but assuming that they get their game in order, you can avoid a bunch of the conditions obtaining in OTL 1945.
Stuff like:
-- No North Korea due to changes in the overall China front leading to possibilities like no Soviet invasion of Manchuria, different negotiation results at Yalta.
-- Likely no South Korea either due to America seeing TTL's stronger China and the State Department just putting all of Korea under ROC purview.
-- Stronger Chinese military and proximity to Indochina facilitating their walking over the border, accepting Japanese surrender at Hanoi, and setting up bases in Vietnam.
-- Different outcome of negotiations leading to France accepting existence of independent, loosely China-aligned Indochina.
-- Vastly more competent KMT setting up friendly independent govt in Indochina/Vietnam, sideling or co-opting Vietminh. Insurgency avoided.
The more things are changed before and during the war, the greater the possibilities after the war. The challenge is setting up the earlier changes and progression of events to be realistic.
Last edited:
Only if the US and UK would agreed to have KMT in the Soviet Sphere. Which I agree with you they would not.
The Soviets would have been more than likely kept it as a Soviet Puppet if not for the CCP.
I could even see the Soviets "split it" with KMT but I doubt the KMT would like that much either.
Chiang only wanted to get the surrender of Japanese troops and go home, this was during the CCW but I doubt he would seriously want to try to get Indochina.
France wanted its colony back, they wouldn't just give up on it because the Chinese occupy the Northern part of it and the Chinese won't hold it for long.
If the Chinese troops are there to stay then the Viet Minh will very quickly turn against them, the only reason they didn't OTL was because Ho Chi Minh didn't want to get China involved but had he not done that the Chinese troops which were there only to take the Japanese surrender could've very well fought with the Viet Minh, here the KMT is actively trying to conquer Indochina, there is no way they'll just let them especially when the Chinese realize that they are communists.
You would need to completely change the path the KMT went on and even then it's unlikely they manage to.
Last edited:
How old is the Vietminh? Were they like the CCP, i.e. always communist since like 1920, or was there a gradual evolution of its ideology/political platform?
EDIT: Note the OP is talking about the KMT destroying the CCP in the 1930s so we have at least back to then as the point of departure. Many things can happen.
Viet Minh was created during WW2(the CCP asked them IIRC), it always was communist but it prioritized the independence of Vietnam over proletarian revolution.
In the 1930s Chiang is still there, he still isn't the most popular leader of the world and he still would face difficulties against the Japanese. Even if Chiang or who replaces him does every single thing right and has an incredible luck he still wouldn't be able to win since France who has a much, much better army than him failed to take Indochina back after 8 years of fighting, the KMT won't be able to conquer Indochina or puppet it, it doesn't have the geopolitical reach to do so without direct intervention either.