In Cairo Conference during WWII the Americans, not wanting the French to return to Indochina, had offered Chiang entire control of French Indochina, but he deliberately withheld his soldiers from occupying Vietnam since he was going to use them to fight the communists inside China. The was because he failed to destroy them during the Encirclement campaigns as they escaped through the Long March. Later China was invented by Japan whom the communists avoided fighting but preferring to grow their power. Whereas nationalists suffered heavy losses in attempts to protect strategic locations. When Stalin in conquered Manchuria he gave the communists Japan's weapons, Japanese prisoners of War and bases to operate from. This made the communists stronger than nationalists and resulted in communist take over of China. Later communist North Korea invaded South Korea and the resulting UN intervention almost ended North Korea only to be stopped by communist China. Even in the Vietnam War communist China provided critical assistance to the Vietnamese communists in winning it. So what if Chiang eliminated the communists in the Encirclement campaigns ? He accepts the American offer of Vietnam and occupies it along with his territory previously occupied by Japan. During the Korean War USSR boycotted UN in protest over the occupation of the seat of China by nationalist China rather than communist China which controlled China. In TTL this obviously won't happen so USSR will bycott UN intervention in Korean War. Then Chiang will intervene to remove other Communists on his border. This results in Korea also coming under Chinese occupation like Indochina. Chiang installs one party regimes of KMT offshoots in Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. He later invades Macau and Hong Kong but is defeated military yet the intervention of USA and USSR results in China victory like in the suez crisis.
Korea,Indochina under Nationalist China
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
If there is no CCP to give land to, the Soviets will keep Manchuria and create a puppet state; ITTL the Korean war probably doesn't happen since the USSR wouldn't allow North Korea to invade the South ITTL.
I have doubts on China keeping Indochina, despite the US might wanting them to stay the Chinese wouldn't be able to control the area easily and France would still try to recover control over their colony, the US wouldn't really prefer China over France.
Chiang doesn't really have a reason to invade Macau and Hong Kong, that would anger its potential benefactors in the Western world since there probably will be communist revolutionaries fighting against the corrupt dictatorship.
You're arguing against reality. OTL North Korea invaded despite Stalin and Mao opposing it
You're arguing against reality. OTL Soviet union gave most of Manchuria to the Nationalist China even before the civil war restarted and CCP was only given pockets. This was despite Stalin's belief that Nationalists will win.
Arguing against reality again. OTL USA did prefer China over France because France gave up Indochina to Japan.
Still arguing against reality. OTL Chiang was very anti colonial and promised to remove foreign influence from China.
Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance - Wikipedia
France didn't gave up on Indochina to Japan, they got invaded by the Japanese and their Thailandese puppet and Nationalist China had done things which angered the West before, had they done this China would be very isolated and that would mean trouble since China would still have problems with the Communists.
Yes but invading Macau and Hong Kong isn't the best idea since that would worsen your already not optimal relationship with the West; he did want to remove the unequal treaties but had he done this the Allies could very well decide to not give Taiwan back to China until they give back Macau and Hong Kong, not the best deal for China.
Last edited:
Also if Chiang tries to hold Indochina he wouldn't get the Leased territory of Guangzhouwan.
They were against an invasion in 1949 but by 1950 with Chinese civil war over, they supported the Northern invasion.
Arguing against reality is, to a degree, rather what we do here. Things have to be plausible, that it.
You do know that withdrawal takes time right ? It doesn't happen instantly. Or are you arguing against OTL USSR giving most Manchuria to KMT with only few pockets to CCPYou referring to this treaty? They did declare that Manchuria was re-integrated in China but Soviet troops remained until 1946 and they continued to support the CCP.Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
America certainly didn't see it that way and only it had the power to negotiate over Indochina
He won't suck upto the West and was non aligned before retreat to Taiwan
Allies cannot decide not give back what don't have because Taiwan was given to KMT even before the civil war restarted
He will get that back just like all the other concessions which were returned without military opposition
No Mao didn't approve of the war over possible US intervention. He didn't even join the war until UN forces reached his border
But he is arguing against what happened in OTL and claiming that it won't happen despite it actually happening. An event actually happening is the closest it gets to being plausible.
Chinese Civil War - Wikipedia
I would ask to cite your sources.
The US didn't have much troops in Indochina, they had a few OSS advisors which helped, ironically, the communist rebels; the French have clearly shown that they were able to transport troops to Indochina and the US isn't going to force France to give up on its colony and prefer China.
Chiang doesn't even want Indochina, it would be very difficult to hold that territory since he doesn't have a big technological advantage over the Viet Minh, his troops already are low on morale and the Viet Minh have popular support and know the territory much better. France would try to reconquer the territory anyways and would support the rebels to some extent. And even if China somehow managed to conquer Indochina, they would've thrown a lot of resources and would only get some rebellious territories which are basically impossible to hold while angering the West therefore becoming diplomatically isolated.
He already had tensions with the West because he wanted to remove the unequal treaties on China which obviously angered them.
If he tries to do everything you want him to he would be seen as a threat to the West.
Taiwan was given back but if China decides to do what you want it to China certainly cannot hold it for long, especially after the mismanagement of the KMT, it was nominally annexed but it was de facto something like an autonomous region.
The Leased Territory of Guangzhouwan was given back to China after the Chinese agreed to retreat all of their troops from Indochina, it would be already difficult to invade since it was a natural defense and claiming that there would be no military opposition to invading Macau, Hong Kong and Guangzhouwan is ASB, the first two were given back in the late 1990's there is no way they are going to give up on them in the 50's, China is nowhere near ready to oppose the Europeas at that time.
I would argue that you are citing events that didn't happen OTL.
Soviets approved, here they won't since the KMT is on the Northern border of the DPRK
Wikipedia is not source and atleast read you quote because even that agrees that KMT controlled most of Manchuria until Liaoshen campaign along with actual history https://iupress.org/9780253016928/where-chiang-kai-shek-lost-china/Chinese Civil War - Wikipedia
I would ask to cite your sources.
France has absolutely no troops in Indochina. They won't be forced but just ignored. All troops in Indochina are either Japan's or Rebels and Japan surrender to America so it is only America that decides who gets regions occupied by Japan.
He couldn't care less about France while the US and USSR are trying get him on their side
I would be given back like the rest of concessions in China were in 1945
Now you are misrepresenting me
OTL doesn't mean your ATL
Last edited:
No Mao opposed it
Mao Zedong's Revolutionary Diplomacy: Keeping the Wolves from the Door
Start reading The Dragon Roars Back | Suisheng Zhao
Read an excerpt from The Dragon Roars Back: Transformational Leaders and Dynamics of Chinese Foreign Policy - Suisheng Zhao
www.sup.org
Last edited:
You will notice that the Soviets never gave up Manchuria to the KMT as you were claiming, they simply retreated from Manchuria and after they gave it to the CCP, what happened in the CCW is another matter.
Here there is no CCP to speak of so the Soviets would have no reason to pull out of there.
And most of Manchuria is an exaggeration, it controlled 'only' the Southern part.
I would ask you how did France have more than 100k casualties in the Indochina war if they did not have any troops there? There weren't any troops immediately after WW2 but the French can transport them there and they will try to get their colony back.
The US could decide to give Indochina to China on paper, however this violates international law (and at that moment international law was just created so they will follow it) since it was occupied territory of France, completely ignores the fact that China cannot and doesn't want to control Indochina and the US doesn't prefer China over France, even if they wanted China to remain in Indochina they wouldn't force France not to try to regain their colony; and assuming Chiang tries to conquer it and the US does force France to give up they will allow them to try to do so once Chiang miserably fails.
- The US doesn't want to anger France.
- France is able to fight against China.
- West doesn't mean France, if he tries to conquer territories of GB, Portugal and France that's a violation of international law and France and GB have all rights to try to defend territories who are theirs.
- Stalin wouldn't support Chiang in any actions you want him to do.
- Chiang doesn't want this because it is a suicidal move which gains absolutely nothing.
- If Chiang does all of this then the US wouldn't try to get him on their side, he would be seen as an enemy.
Which concessions are you talking about? Hong Kong and Macau remained outside of China up until the 90's.
What happened with the Suez Crisis won't happen here, the only reason the US opposed it was because they feared the Arab world would be in the Soviet sphere and at that time France and GB were on the 'wrong' side of the conflict while here they have all rights to defend themselves, the US won't force France, Portugal and GB to give up on a territory that is theirs, it isn't the same as invading another country because it nationalized a canal.
Last edited:
You can read an interesting exposition on the actual policy of Chang here. I think you got most things wrong, OP.
The gist of it is: he'd have loved to, and certainly tried, but he could not manage to do it when he had Roosevelt on his side. Unless the failures of Ichi-Go are averted (and let's be clear, they're 100% on Nationalist China), he lacks both the strength and the diplomatic clout to even try. And had he tried, he was disliked by most Vietnamese patriots so Indochina very much turns into an ulcer which he cannot easily heal and costs him even more friends (though it probably makes the USSR a frenemy).
But with Nationalist China winning, especially if they wipe the CCP before the end of WW2, there simply is not going to be a Korean War, so Korea quite likely becomes a de facto China-USA condominium. For sure, Chang is not going to ever dream of attacking the West over Macau and HK. It would be tantamount to suicide.
The gist of it is: he'd have loved to, and certainly tried, but he could not manage to do it when he had Roosevelt on his side. Unless the failures of Ichi-Go are averted (and let's be clear, they're 100% on Nationalist China), he lacks both the strength and the diplomatic clout to even try. And had he tried, he was disliked by most Vietnamese patriots so Indochina very much turns into an ulcer which he cannot easily heal and costs him even more friends (though it probably makes the USSR a frenemy).
But with Nationalist China winning, especially if they wipe the CCP before the end of WW2, there simply is not going to be a Korean War, so Korea quite likely becomes a de facto China-USA condominium. For sure, Chang is not going to ever dream of attacking the West over Macau and HK. It would be tantamount to suicide.
For you CCP not going control of Manchuria until years after Soviet withdrawal is another matter yet you still claim it was given to CCP by USSR
What TL are you talking about ? OTL France gave up Indochina to Japan and that won't be it's territory unless Japan returned to it. That decision can only be made by US
Again what TL are you talking about OTL US didn't care about how many angry France can get when it asked China to take Indochina. It's the other way around France had to placate America because it was toed economically .
Stalin doesn't matter because he will be dead by 1953 and replaced by Khrushchev eager to support even non communist state against the west
US won't care even if Western colonies go up in flames as in the First Vietnam War
If you think Guangzhouwan, Hong Kong and Macau were in only concessions in China they you know very little about concessions in China
These are the concessions returned to China before Guangzhouwan
Shanghai international settlement
Beijing legation quarter
Kulangsu International Settlement
British concession of Shamian Island, Guangzhou
OTL US also feared China would be in the Soviet sphere
Even here France and GB will be on the 'wrong' side of the conflict and don't have any rights to defend themselves,
What do you know Suez crisis ? Sues canal was British territory as much as Hong Kong yet USSR and US forced it to withdraw from there
The USSR gave Manchuria to the CCP and then during the CCW the KMT conquered parts of Manchuria, the fact that they lost parts of it doesn't mean the USSR didn't give it to the CCP, saying that is arguing against reality.
You are arguing against reality, France never gave up on the colony, the concessions that the French gave to the Japanese never included giving up on the colony they only gave things such as using some Indochinese ports and stationing some troops. For most of the war the French colonial institutions remained in place, until the Japanese couped the French on the 9th of March 1945.
The Japanese control over Indochina was taken by the French in a few months, the US doesn't have any mediating influence and it doesn't want to, they have no reason to force the French to give up on their colony.
In what TL did the US ask China to take over Indochina?
Even if it did Chiang doesn't want and cannot take over Indochina, France failed to do so after more than 100k casualties and with US support, China will never be able to conquer and hold Indochina and even assuming some divine intervention allows you to do so you gained a rebellious territory which ,objectively, isn't worth that much.
Not really since it is also a right-wing dictatorship who hates communism and even if he wanted to he cannot do much about the fact that China is going to be destroyed by the technological superiority of the West, not to talk about the fact that he already has problems at home.
Had Franco invaded France in 1956 would've the USSR supported him? Same thing here.
The US invaded countries in the Americas because someone touched their business of selling bananas, now imagine how it will react to a country that is actively invading its allies
What's the point of NATO if you support those who invade your allies?
That's not the point, 1 and 3 were returned in 1943, 2 wasn't a concession and 4 was returned in 1945. But GB, Portugal and France won't give anything to China if it starts invading French colonies.
You cannot support China while it is invading someone else's territory especially not when they are your allies.
And if Chiang starts to do this then he would be (rightfully) considered an enemy of the West, he may or may not join the Soviets but he is already your enemy.
Yes they do, HK, Macau and Guangzhouwan are internationally recognized as European territories and China (under the Qing) has acknowledged them, meaning that they are their territories and that you are invading them, it's not the same as invading Egypt because it nationalized the Suez canal.
You are arguing against reality, Suez was in Egyptian territory, the only thing GB and France had was the shares of the Suez company which had the canal but it's not because a Brit bought a house in Egypt that it becomes part of Britain.
Last edited: