How exactly would history be changed if in the Korean War, we went with Douglass MacArthur's strategy to invade China? How would a World War III turn out (I know how it's possible, but what would it be like)?
Invasion of China - Korean War
- Thread starter Pearlshire19
- Start date
China invaded by USA. USA has even worse results than in Korea since now the Chinese are fighting on their homeland and there is greater incentive to fight. USA can't bomb the same % of targets as compared to Korea since Manchuria is like 10 times larger. USA f*cked after like a year, probably pushed out with way higher casualties than OTL.
Oh and the nations that participated as part of the UN force would probably leave the war.
Oh and the nations that participated as part of the UN force would probably leave the war.
World War III
I remember hearing that it would be imagined that a World War III would happen if the US invaded China. How exactly would that turn out?
I remember hearing that it would be imagined that a World War III would happen if the US invaded China. How exactly would that turn out?
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Depend, if the USSR see it worthwhile to intervene, which I doubt unless US use the bomb. The Soviets knew Mao would be able to chase the Yanks back to the sea on their own.
A history prof mentioned that the Korean war was actually a secret Stalinist scheme to get the USA and China to go to war thereby weakening each other and the USSR is now in a much better position and Stalin may proceed with his plan to invade Western Europe.
I suppose what kind of invasion it would be. It would be interesting if the US launched small incursions along the Chinese coast. China can't fight a long war against a in and out operation and I dubt they could get that much benefit from their large manpower reserves. And it would tie down large forces to guard the coast.
If the US had gone into China they would have had to double or triple there forces plus send a major naval fleet to the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan. In the Sea of Japan to block the Soviets from supplying NK.. Problems would be the Soviet frontier with NK. and China from which the Soviets could send supplies.
And then what if the Soviets got into the war. Probably would have to use Korean or UN troops, no US troops, near the Soviet border to try to prevent that. But there is a big chance the Soviets not wanting the US next to there border would find a way of getting directly involved.
As for China the US might have a chance to hold back China if they could take and conquer the higher elevations in Eastern Manchuria. See Map below. Then maybe they could stop the Chinese from advancing and have something to negotiate with if they wanted. Or establish a buffer zone. And it would have to be a localized war in Manchuria since a larger war throughout China would have started a long drawn out war.
Following is a US military map of Manchuria:
And then what if the Soviets got into the war. Probably would have to use Korean or UN troops, no US troops, near the Soviet border to try to prevent that. But there is a big chance the Soviets not wanting the US next to there border would find a way of getting directly involved.
As for China the US might have a chance to hold back China if they could take and conquer the higher elevations in Eastern Manchuria. See Map below. Then maybe they could stop the Chinese from advancing and have something to negotiate with if they wanted. Or establish a buffer zone. And it would have to be a localized war in Manchuria since a larger war throughout China would have started a long drawn out war.
Following is a US military map of Manchuria:
Last edited:
By 1950 Chiang Kai-sheck, had little/no support on the mainland, and he'd have even less than that if he was seen as a US hireling.
A US invasion is doomed to fail from the start the ChiComms are experts in Partisan warfare, and China’s population is 80% rural seize cities doesn’t matter much. Mao can also spin this as another war against a Weston power seeking to once again subjugate China.
The Soviets will also send a near limitless suppy of arms, and the ChiComms will be pushed much futher into the Soviet orbit since they'd have no other choice. Much stronger Pro-Russian and correspondingly Anti-US sentiment would preclude any Sino-US rapprochement later. (So no Nixson-Mao agreement)
That nasty Sino-Soviet squabble may also be less troublesome, thought some friction would be expected.
A humbleing loss in Asia could also make the US more isolationist for a few years, projects like the Marshal Plan may never get off the ground, lots of butterflies here folks.
The fate of Korea would be interesting through I assume a return to the pre-war status quo is most likely.
Actually any war involving an invasion of China would require the US to rearm and retrain the Nationalist Chinese Military. It is quite possible that with US military support that the Nationalist could make it back to the mainland and re-establish a presence there..
There is some indication according to a recent book that a black op that was carried out in Korea and Manchuria by US and Nationalist forces indicated a strong possibility that if the US had managed to pus the red bak into Manchuria that it could have lead to a much wider war. One that would have seen the rearming of Japan and required a massive mobilization.
There is some indication according to a recent book that a black op that was carried out in Korea and Manchuria by US and Nationalist forces indicated a strong possibility that if the US had managed to pus the red bak into Manchuria that it could have lead to a much wider war. One that would have seen the rearming of Japan and required a massive mobilization.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
ASB, the Nationalist had no means to reestablish a foothold without massive American support, ie. the Americans would have to fight the war for them.
I wouldn't call it ASB, but certainly your overall point is correct.
Fact is however, that the JCS had no desire to fight a war in China, and the opportunity for that passed in 1947 when the Nationalists actually came close to defeating the Communists in Manchuria before a US imposed cease fire gave the Communists time to regroup and destroyed the momentum the Nationalists had developed.
The US would have had to completely refit and rebuild the Nationalist Army, and this would have taken time. While doing that, it would also be rebuilding the ROK Army, and almost certainly having to go to general mobilization. Most likely the US could get 100 divisions into action by 2 years after mobilization, based on what it did in World War II and with a bigger economy and larger population.
Of course most of those divisions would end up fighting in Europe in all probability.
Defeating the Communist Chinese could only have been handled by building up the Nationalists, and launching a combined Nationalist/US invasion into China, probably in the Hong Kong / Canton area or near Foochow. The Communists were not overwhelmingly popular however in China and were still dealing with remnants of Nationalist and warlord forces as late as 1953, so don't assume that the Communists are automatically going to have huge numbers to throw at the US.
The Communists still have to arm those troops, and Chinese industry is still in tatters from the Sino-Japanese War, Russian occupation and conquest of Manchuria (and subsequent looting of everything not nailed down), the last few years of Civil War and likely US bombing.
So the Soviets will have to equip the Chinese, and they don't have unlimited resources either (even if not fighting World War III their economy is still recovering from the Nazi invasion)
My best guess is that eventually the US manages to establish a Nationalist China south of the Yellow or Yangtze River (depending on available resources) using a rebuilt Nationalist Army, US airpower and a core of US troops. After three years at least of fighting.
And that is a best case too....
Of course if the US detonates several hundred atomic weapons on the Soviet Union during a 3-5 year war, along the likely effective destruction of Western Europe (because of Russian atomic strikes and conventional invasion) AND the US has any political will after all of that, it could help the Nationalist reconquer all of China... but that seems unlikely in the extreme.
Of course the US and NATO could very well lose too... the Russians could conquer Western Europe and we could end up with a the situation laid out in "1984"
Oceania vs Eurasia vs Panasia in a permanent state of war...
At this point in time, Mao would actually WELCOME the Nationalists to try and invade China.
Its true, the Communists weren't overwhelmingly popular, but the Nationalists were even less popular.
Their armies will still be comprised of corrupt generals, many of whom were ex-warlords who collaborated with the Japanese. You also have to remember that one of the reasons that the CCP was able to win the Civil War in the first place was the fact they had Communist spies in every level of the Nationalist party, including some within Chiang's own inner circle. These spies had also fled to Taiwan to be used should the Nationalists once again go to war.
Most of the Nationalist troops are also Mainland Chinese, and most of these are peasants. In the last parts of the Civil War, there were Nationalist troops defecting to the Communists, and they brought their equipment, expertise and experience to their cause.
Also, the base of popular support that they had, which was the urban centers, landlord class had been destroyed by the Japanese invasion, and the radical land reform (assuming that this happens even while the Communist troops are fighting in Korea) and pograms of the Communist party. Then you'd also still be fighting with the same corrupt generals, many of them ex-warlords, and some of whom had actually collaborated with the Japanese, and counting on them to seize control of China.
Therefore, like in the Chinese Civil War, you risk that these Nationalist soldiers become disillusioned and simply defect to the Communists, and thus all this American equipment, training and expertise ultimately ends up in PRC hands.
Chaing would then say that he needs more support and more American arms, and a US that simply sees black and white will dole out millions upon millions to Chiang, only for his corrupt generals to waste it, or that the new units trained and the equipment provided are lost to the Communists, and therefore, the Americans would be actually funding the Communists, only the US wouldn't know it because they can't see shades of grey.
Trust me on this. My own Grandfather was an ambassador for the Nationalists, he had been part of the landed-gentry class that had been destroyed by the Japanese and Communists, and he himself had been forced to flee to Taiwan. The level of corruption, disloyalty, cronyism, etc. within the Nationalist armies was such that Mao would actually welcome them to invade the PRC. They would either switch sides, or desert, and those that will fight would be ineffective and suffer from low morale.
Thus, the UN would have to be faced with another difficult decision. Do they send in American troops to bolster the flagging Nationalists? How many troops will be needed to achieve this? Ten thousand? A few hundred thousand? Because at this rate, the Nationalists would be forced back to Taiwan, or perhaps their armies even destroyed for good, which would be a politically horrifying setback.
What this means is that America is now involved in a Vietnam war type situation, except they are dealing with the most populous country on Earth.
Also, if the US and Nationalists invade in southern China, they have to deal with massive guerilla warfare in the countryside. Mao and the Communists had basically mastered guerilla warfare by this time, first against Chiang and the Nationalists in the 30s, and then against the Japanese and would be employed once again against the Nationalists and the US.
How will the UN forces pacify the Manchurian countryside of guerilla activity? Where will they get the manpower to achieve this? If the mantra is simply 'Root out the reds', then you're looking at indiscriminate massacres, and you basically make the same mistake as the US did in Vietnam. Will the US employ 'Body Count' tactics, like they did in Vietnam, considering that China has 500 million people? Will the UN have the stomach to employ the brutal 'Japanese' (kill all, burn all, loot all) for lack of a better term, tactics to quell the insurgency, because nothing less than that is going to stop it.
If the US commits ground troops to Mainland China, its a trap in the making.
Its true, the Communists weren't overwhelmingly popular, but the Nationalists were even less popular.
Their armies will still be comprised of corrupt generals, many of whom were ex-warlords who collaborated with the Japanese. You also have to remember that one of the reasons that the CCP was able to win the Civil War in the first place was the fact they had Communist spies in every level of the Nationalist party, including some within Chiang's own inner circle. These spies had also fled to Taiwan to be used should the Nationalists once again go to war.
Most of the Nationalist troops are also Mainland Chinese, and most of these are peasants. In the last parts of the Civil War, there were Nationalist troops defecting to the Communists, and they brought their equipment, expertise and experience to their cause.
Also, the base of popular support that they had, which was the urban centers, landlord class had been destroyed by the Japanese invasion, and the radical land reform (assuming that this happens even while the Communist troops are fighting in Korea) and pograms of the Communist party. Then you'd also still be fighting with the same corrupt generals, many of them ex-warlords, and some of whom had actually collaborated with the Japanese, and counting on them to seize control of China.
Therefore, like in the Chinese Civil War, you risk that these Nationalist soldiers become disillusioned and simply defect to the Communists, and thus all this American equipment, training and expertise ultimately ends up in PRC hands.
Chaing would then say that he needs more support and more American arms, and a US that simply sees black and white will dole out millions upon millions to Chiang, only for his corrupt generals to waste it, or that the new units trained and the equipment provided are lost to the Communists, and therefore, the Americans would be actually funding the Communists, only the US wouldn't know it because they can't see shades of grey.
Trust me on this. My own Grandfather was an ambassador for the Nationalists, he had been part of the landed-gentry class that had been destroyed by the Japanese and Communists, and he himself had been forced to flee to Taiwan. The level of corruption, disloyalty, cronyism, etc. within the Nationalist armies was such that Mao would actually welcome them to invade the PRC. They would either switch sides, or desert, and those that will fight would be ineffective and suffer from low morale.
Thus, the UN would have to be faced with another difficult decision. Do they send in American troops to bolster the flagging Nationalists? How many troops will be needed to achieve this? Ten thousand? A few hundred thousand? Because at this rate, the Nationalists would be forced back to Taiwan, or perhaps their armies even destroyed for good, which would be a politically horrifying setback.
What this means is that America is now involved in a Vietnam war type situation, except they are dealing with the most populous country on Earth.
Also, if the US and Nationalists invade in southern China, they have to deal with massive guerilla warfare in the countryside. Mao and the Communists had basically mastered guerilla warfare by this time, first against Chiang and the Nationalists in the 30s, and then against the Japanese and would be employed once again against the Nationalists and the US.
How will the UN forces pacify the Manchurian countryside of guerilla activity? Where will they get the manpower to achieve this? If the mantra is simply 'Root out the reds', then you're looking at indiscriminate massacres, and you basically make the same mistake as the US did in Vietnam. Will the US employ 'Body Count' tactics, like they did in Vietnam, considering that China has 500 million people? Will the UN have the stomach to employ the brutal 'Japanese' (kill all, burn all, loot all) for lack of a better term, tactics to quell the insurgency, because nothing less than that is going to stop it.
If the US commits ground troops to Mainland China, its a trap in the making.
What I said but in far greater detail.
How would the US be effected it'd be dragged in to a massive blood-draining war just like the European nations like France were.
It'd hand the U.S.S.R a massive boost, while they are still recovering from WW2, Asia may turn even redder...
What BMAO said about the US being trapped in China in 1950's would be true.Thats what happened to the Japanese. Involvement in China would result in a quagmire.
Galveston Bay says the Nationalist came close to defeating the Communist in 1947 is not what it seems. The communist were losing territory in Manchuria but they had changed there way of fighting.
Unless the US had been able to get popular support in China no war could be won there.
And with the US tied up in Asia the Soviets might try to expand in Europe.
Galveston Bay says the Nationalist came close to defeating the Communist in 1947 is not what it seems. The communist were losing territory in Manchuria but they had changed there way of fighting.
In the following he means by the end of 1947:
Got above quotes from this informative article which explains what happened in China those years: http://www.san.beck.org/21-5-ChinaatWar1937-49.html
Unless the US had been able to get popular support in China no war could be won there.
It would be all but impossible for the US to gain popular support from the Chinese population in this scenario. The Communists would emphasize how the US are just another of a long string of Imperialist encroachers (Britain, France, Russia, Japan and now the US), and after more than 120 years of foreign encroachment into China proper I can see the Nationalists as being seen as little more than US puppets by the vast majority of China's population.
I remember General Zod saying that 'we should just threaten to nuke China back to the stoneage and Mao will grovel to save his regime' but to defeat the Chinese in this scenario you'd basically have to glass China, and there aren't enough hard targets to achieve this. If the US were to use nukes, they'd bomb Beijing, Nanjing, Guangzhou, Harbin, Shanghai, etc, but the thing is China's population is overwhelmingly rural and they would have to basically have to turn China into the surface of the moon, and the US doesn't have enough nukes to do that.
Such a solution is politically unfeasible anyhow. First of all, the US can't waste a substantial number of its nukes on China, because they'd have to save some to use against the Soviet Union in case the shit hits the fan. Secondly, if the purpose is to restore Chiang and the Nationalists to power, then the US would have to resort to using tactical nukes instead of bombing cities, as that's where what's left of Chiang's popular support base is located.
Perhaps such a brutal display might work after five years of continuous nukage, but what sort of message would that send about the US to the rest of the world? The political fallout in the US itself from repeated nukings would probably tear the US apart from within.
I remember General Zod saying that 'we should just threaten to nuke China back to the stoneage and Mao will grovel to save his regime' but to defeat the Chinese in this scenario you'd basically have to glass China, and there aren't enough hard targets to achieve this. If the US were to use nukes, they'd bomb Beijing, Nanjing, Guangzhou, Harbin, Shanghai, etc, but the thing is China's population is overwhelmingly rural and they would have to basically have to turn China into the surface of the moon, and the US doesn't have enough nukes to do that.
Such a solution is politically unfeasible anyhow. First of all, the US can't waste a substantial number of its nukes on China, because they'd have to save some to use against the Soviet Union in case the shit hits the fan. Secondly, if the purpose is to restore Chiang and the Nationalists to power, then the US would have to resort to using tactical nukes instead of bombing cities, as that's where what's left of Chiang's popular support base is located.
Perhaps such a brutal display might work after five years of continuous nukage, but what sort of message would that send about the US to the rest of the world? The political fallout in the US itself from repeated nukings would probably tear the US apart from within.