Korea,Indochina under Nationalist China

[LeX]

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.

Rough possible background timeline for events

1927-1933: The CCP is more swiftly weakened in the extermination campaigns of the 1930s. Mao and/or other key leaders are killed or captured while the rest of the communists try to escape north.

1930-1934: Chiang Kai-shek is ousted or sidelined (made to retire to a prestigious but largely ceremonial role) by more competent and populist leaders in the KMT. They embark on a more socialist interpretation of Sun Yat-sen's political philosophy, while reining in corrupt interests. The political shifts in China also affect the Korean government in exile and revolutionaries in Vietnam.

1931-1938: The KMT builds up its army while trying to buy time with the Japanese as IOTL. The Japanese spend more time trying to break off North China from KMT control, and the KMT let them do it because the more time they have to build up their army, the better. However, the greater focus on economic intervention/socialism cancels out the extra time the Chinese have so their army in 1938 is about as materially good as it was IOTL 1937, just more motivated and united. Communists still exist in Shaanbei/Ningxia area but are a lesser threat. The Wang Ming faction takes over which is more dogmatically pro-USSR but worse than Mao at adapting to China's conditions.

1938-1941/2: TTL's Second Sino-Japanese war breaks out. The specific circumstances and battles are obviously different but the main gist is similar. However, Wuhan and Taiyuan become the Stalingrad and Leningrad of the Chinese war effort, and either do not fall to the Japanese, or fall but are retaken in a fairly timely manner. This limits the presence of the IJA in China proper and sets the ROC up for a more successful war effort in general. In 1941 or 1942, as IOTL, the Japanese-US confrontation over Japan's expansion boils over and turns into a Pacific War.

1941/2-1945: Pacific War goes roughly similarly to OTL; meanwhile WW2 in Europe happens in a similar manner as well, though some things are changed like maybe the Russians lose more or less men resulting in more or less of Germany being captured at the end. In China, the ROC manages to liberate most of its territory as the Japanese are being hounded by the US navy and air force. Burma does not fall to Japan, making the Burma Road open to China from the beginning and not the subject of a massive and grueling operation with limited benefit. Instead of the CCP taking the insurgent role, the KMT's paramilitary and intelligence/reconnaissance units do this work instead as the OTL Juntong was intended to. They also extend their operations to Indochina, working with and influencing the organization that would become the Vietminh.

1943-45: The Allies discuss the postwar world. China's improved performance compared with OTL makes it a more credible power. The US supports its recovery of Manchuria, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, and the foreign concessions. Looking for an ally against the USSR in the postwar, the US also nudges things towards greater Chinese influence in mainland East Asia. The Soviet Union does not invade Manchuria, thinking instead that it is advantageous for the KMT to have to fight the Guandong Army. Thus the Chinese have to mount a tough and costly campaign to get through the Shanhai Pass and even with US support and nuclear bombs against Japan this takes some more time until the IJA in Manchuria finally surrenders in very late 1945 or early 1946.

1945- : Things are set up to develop as I described in earlier posts. The French are not happy but they are also functional losers among the Allies.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

1927-1933: The CCP is more swiftly weakened in the extermination campaigns of the 1930s. Mao and/or other key leaders are killed or captured while the rest of the communists try to escape north.

1930-1934: Chiang Kai-shek is ousted or sidelined (made to retire to a prestigious but largely ceremonial role) by more competent and populist leaders in the KMT. They embark on a more socialist interpretation of Sun Yat-sen's political philosophy, while reining in corrupt interests. The political shifts in China also affect the Korean government in exile and revolutionaries in Vietnam.

Kind of difficult at that point, the period before the Japanese invasion was good in China and Chiang Kai-Shek had just unified China, here he also manages to defeat the CCP, at this point nobody is particularly dissatisfied by his rule inside the government and there are no outside threats to his power. The common people won't love him but they won't manage to overthrow him.
A better way would be Chiang just not arriving to power or being completely different than OTL Chiang and the rest goes as per your TL, but do you have any likely candidates who are that different from Chiang.

1931-1938: The KMT builds up its army while trying to buy time with the Japanese as IOTL. The Japanese spend more time trying to break off North China from KMT control, and the KMT let them do it because the more time they have to build up their army, the better. However, the greater focus on economic intervention/socialism cancels out the extra time the Chinese have so their army in 1938 is about as materially good as it was IOTL 1937, just more motivated and united. Communists still exist in Shaanbei/Ningxia area but are a lesser threat. The Wang Ming faction takes over which is more dogmatically pro-USSR but worse than Mao at adapting to China's conditions.

What do you mean by "it takes more time for the Japanese to break off North China from its control" it took them 2-3 months to conquer all of Manchuria and they had little resistance, the Chinese weren't capable of defending it.
The changing of government in the CCP doesn't quite change much since during the CCW the CCP only did land reforms, if anything being more pro-USSR is beneficial to the Communists since Stalin would be more willing to help them.

1938-1941/2: TTL's Second Sino-Japanese war breaks out. The specific circumstances and battles are obviously different but the main gist is similar. However, Wuhan and Taiyuan become the Stalingrad and Leningrad of the Chinese war effort, and either do not fall to the Japanese, or fall but are retaken in a fairly timely manner. This limits the presence of the IJA in China proper and sets the ROC up for a more successful war effort in general. In 1941 or 1942, as IOTL, the Japanese-US confrontation over Japan's expansion boils over and turns into a Pacific War.

IIRC the KMT abandoned Nanjing and the coast almost without a fight, it would be much better if they fight there instead of destroying dams to slow down the Japanese advance.

1941/2-1945: Pacific War goes roughly similarly to OTL; meanwhile WW2 in Europe happens in a similar manner as well, though some things are changed like maybe the Russians lose more or less men resulting in more or less of Germany being captured at the end. In China, the ROC manages to liberate most of its territory as the Japanese are being hounded by the US navy and air force. Burma does not fall to Japan, making the Burma Road open to China from the beginning and not the subject of a massive and grueling operation with limited benefit. Instead of the CCP taking the insurgent role, the KMT's paramilitary and intelligence/reconnaissance units do this work instead as the OTL Juntong was intended to. They also extend their operations to Indochina, working with and influencing the organization that would become the Vietminh.

Collaborating with the Viet Minh is possible, but it would be an alliance against Japan, just because the Chinese helped them doesn't mean the Viet Minh won't fight against the KMT if they try to conquer Indochina and all other nationalist movements will also fight against them.

1943-45: The Allies discuss the postwar world. China's improved performance compared with OTL makes it a more credible power. The US supports its recovery of Manchuria, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, and the foreign concessions. Looking for an ally against the USSR in the postwar, the US also nudges things towards greater Chinese influence in mainland East Asia. The Soviet Union does not invade Manchuria, thinking instead that it is advantageous for the KMT to have to fight the Guandong Army. Thus the Chinese have to mount a tough and costly campaign to get through the Shanhai Pass and even with US support and nuclear bombs against Japan this takes some more time until the IJA in Manchuria finally surrenders in very late 1945 or early 1946.

Manchuria and Taiwan happened OTL but Xinjiang was a part of China, just under a local warlord and with some insurgencies and Tibet was an independent country who would end up in the Chinese sphere of influence but wouldn't be annexed.
The Chinese army wouldn't be that much better, motivation to fight the Japanese wasn't lacking, the leadership and weapons were, meaning that they won't be able to crush Japanese lines. It doesn't make sense for the USSR not to invade Manchuria, they are an enemy, Stalin wants to avenge the loss in the Russo-Japanese war and it would mean more territories, it's not like the USSR cannot know the state of the Kwantung Army.

1945- : Things are set up to develop as I described in earlier posts. The French are not happy but they are also functional losers among the Allies.

The French are very capable of fighting for Indochina, the Brits control Southern Indochina and will support France since that would be a very bad example for their own colonies; any Chinese government wouldn't see much point in angering the West; the Chinese don't have a way to conquer Indochina unless ASB arrive in Earth and give the land to them (and they know they aren't capable of doing so); and even then they won't be able to hold it for long.

 

[Ohfshkssgb]

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.

They are actual arguments. You are the one repeating the same disproven claims over and again

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.

Suez was not Egyptian territory to be nationalized because it was leased to GB

 

[Ohfshkssgb]

The French are very capable of fighting for Indochina, the Brits control Southern Indochina and will support France since that would be a very bad example for their own colonies; any Chinese government wouldn't see much point in angering the West; the Chinese don't have a way to conquer Indochina unless ASB arrive in Earth and give the land to them (and they know they aren't capable of doing so); and even then they won't be able to hold it for long.

You seem to insistent on conflating TTL with OTL which always conflate your TL

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

They are actual arguments. You are the one repeating the same disproven claims over and again

Explain me, how the Chinese manage to conquer Indochina?

Suez was not Egyptian territory to be nationalized because it was leased to GB

Stop saying nonsense, just because the British government has 50% shares of a company that owns a house in Egypt doesn't mean this house is British territory.

You seem to insistent on conflating TTL with OTL which always conflate your TL

You mean that the French didn't fought for Indochina OTL? The US wasn't transporting French troops to Indochina you know.

 

[Ohfshkssgb]

Explain me, how the Chinese manage to conquer Indochina?

Making up assumptions without reading OP. Indochina will be given to China by Japan under order from America.

Stop saying nonsense, just because the British government has 50% shares of a company that owns a house in Egypt doesn't mean this house is British territory.

More hogwash. Lease of Suez to Britain was extended by Egypt in Anglo Egyptian treaty of 1936

You mean that the French didn't fought for Indochina OTL? The US wasn't transporting French troops to Indochina you know.

You're ignoring that it only happened because China rejected America's offer of Indochina

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Making up assumptions without reading OP. Indochina will be given to China by Japan under order from America.

I'm not asking on paper, I'm asking how do the Chinese manage to conquer and control it when France (and two decades later the US) failed to do so?

More hogwash. Lease of Suez to Britain was extended by Egypt in Anglo Egyptian treaty of 1936

That treaty was abrogated in 1951, in 1956 it isn't British territory and the treaty only stated that 10k troops could guard the Suez Canal since at that point Egypt was British territory.

You're ignoring that it only happened because China rejected America's offer of Indochina

You're ignoring the fact that De Gaulle wanted to recover Indochina when FDR was still alive and wanted to prevent the return of the French to Indochina, FDR wanted to give Indochina independence once Chiang refused, Truman wouldn't see a point in refusing the French return and he certainly wouldn't order to prevent militarily the return of the French.

 

[Ohfshkssgb]

I'm not asking on paper, I'm asking how do the Chinese manage to conquer and

Don't make repeat myself China doesn't need to conquer it because it will be given to them by Japan

control it when France (and two decades later the US) failed to do so?

Vietnam only became a major problem for France and US because it's rebels were supported by the largest country in the world and the most populous country in the world. That won't happen in this TL

That treaty was abrogated in 1951, in 1956 it isn't British territory and the treaty only stated that 10k troops could guard the Suez Canal since at that point Egypt was British territory.

Abrogating treaties isn't a uniquely Egyptian ability. Anybody including China can do it.

You're ignoring the fact that De Gaulle wanted to recover Indochina when FDR was still alive and wanted to prevent the return of the French to Indochina, FDR wanted to give Indochina independence once Chiang refused, Truman wouldn't see a point in refusing the French return and he certainly wouldn't order to prevent militarily the return of the French.

De Gaulle doesn't have much leverage when France is still completely occupied by enemies. Treaties don't change with presidents

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Don't make repeat myself China doesn't need to conquer it because it will be given to them by Japan

No

Vietnam only became a major problem for France and US because it's rebels were supported by the largest country in the world and the most populous country in the world. That won't happen in this TL

But China has a much worse army than France and the USSR will support the Viet Minh anyways.

Abrogating treaties isn't a uniquely Egyptian ability. Anybody including China can do it.

HK remains British, if you abrogate the treaty and try to conquer it you're still breaking international law.

De Gaulle doesn't have much leverage when France is still completely occupied by enemies. Treaties don't change with presidents

What do you mean? France wasn't occupied after WW2, that was Germany and it fought for Indochina right after WW2 so it definitely was able to.

 

[Taco Shark]

Abrogating treaties isn't a uniquely Egyptian ability. Anybody including China can do it.

Nasser didn't simply abrogate a treaty, he nationalized the Suez Canal from a company.

Hong Kong is NOT owned by a British company. Chiang can't just decide to "nationalize" Hong Kong.

 

[walmart]

Hong Kong is NOT owned by a British company. Chiang can't just decide to "nationalize" Hong Kong.

It's would be quite easy to get the British to just hand over Hong Kong early especially once the decolonization wave starts.

 

[Ohfshkssgb]

No

So you keep imposing your assumptions on my TL to deny it can happen

But China has a much worse army than France and the USSR will support the Viet Minh anyways.

USSR has no means to support Viet Minh because obviously Nationalist China won't allow it send supplies to Vietnam unlike Communist China

HK remains British, if you abrogate the treaty and try to conquer it you're still breaking international law.

Just Egypt but US and USSR still forced UK and France to give up

What do you mean? France wasn't occupied after WW2, that was Germany and it fought for Indochina right after WW2 so it definitely was able to.

It was completely occupied during the Cairo Conference so it has little leverage.

 

[Ohfshkssgb]

Nasser didn't simply abrogate a treaty, he nationalized the Suez Canal from a company.

Hong Kong is NOT owned by a British company. Chiang can't just decide to "nationalize" Hong Kong.

No Anglo Egyptian treaty was with Britain itself not Suez company

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

USSR has no means to support Viet Minh because obviously Nationalist China won't allow it send supplies to Vietnam unlike Communist China

The USSR has plenty of ways, how do you think it managed to supply Cuba or Guinea-Bissau?

Just Egypt but US and USSR still forced UK and France to give up

It wasn't British territory.

It was completely occupied during the Cairo Conference so it has little leverage.

It had the intention of recovering Indochina, whether the US accepts it or not.

No Anglo Egyptian treaty was with Britain itself not Suez company

The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty was signed while Egypt was British so the treaty never stated that Suez is British territory

 

[Taco Shark]

No Anglo Egyptian treaty was with Britain itself not Suez company

That's for military presence.

Nasser nationalized the canal (which isn't tied to the treaty) while abrogating the treaty.

 

[Ohfshkssgb]

The USSR has plenty of ways,

USSR and Gurriellas in Vietnam had no means to reach each other that was why China was the trade route for USSR through the Vietnam War

how do you think it managed to supply Cuba or Guinea-Bissau?

USSR wasn't involved in the Cuban Revolution and after the Castro was sovereign a while Cuba had a coast. USSR in Guinea-Bissau the rebels controlled the coast from early. Viet Cong never controlled the coast before Chinese and Soviet involvement

It wasn't British territory.

Then neither is Hong Kong

It had the intention of recovering Indochina, whether the US accepts it or not.

They can't recover Indochina without a means to enter it

The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty was signed while Egypt was British so the treaty never stated that Suez is British territory

Suez was leased to Britain just like Hong Kong was

 

[Taco Shark]

Then neither is Hong Kong

Hong Kong is literally a crown colony. It is British territory, even if overseas.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

USSR and Gurriellas in Vietnam had no means to reach each other that was why China was the trade route for USSR through the Vietnam War

They supplied Vietnam since 1947.

USSR wasn't involved in the Cuban Revolution and after the Castro was sovereign a while Cuba had a coast. USSR in Guinea-Bissau the rebels controlled the coast from early. Viet Cong never controlled the coast before Chinese and Soviet involvement

The Viet Minh would very much control the coast in your TL, there's no way the Chinese manage to conquer more than parts of Northern Vietnam.

They can't recover Indochina without a means to enter it

France has a navy, an airforce and a land army of its own, it doesn't need US permission to use these and they managed to fight for a long time in Indochina IOTL, it won't just give up on its colony.

Suez was leased to Britain just like Hong Kong was

You might want to re-explore the Suez Crisis.

 

[ArtosStark]

Suez was leased to Britain just like Hong Kong was

No, actually it wasn’t. The Suez Canal was dug by mostly French commercial interests (though with help from the French Imperial government) and started operation in 1869. At the time Egypt was a territory of the Ottoman Empire, though very autonomous under the Khedive. In 1875 the Khedive, a heavy spender on Military and personal items, needed to sell his shares in the Suez company to keep up with his debt payments. The British government bought them, becoming the largest singular, though not majority, shareholder and gaining seats on the board in the coming years. In the 1870’s Britain and France would take over Egyptian finances to attempt to curb overspending and increase development (somewhat successfully, though not purely so). There was then a military coup attempt in the 1880’s aimed at removing the Khedive and pushing out the Europeans. In response, the British militarily reinstated the Khedive and took de facto control of Egypt, though de jure rule was still with the Porte in Constantinople. When the British and Ottomans ended up at war with each other in WW1 the British annexed Egypt directly, but then released it as an independent nation after the war. They tied that independence to a treaty that allowed them considerable influence in Egypt, the ability to base there and the ability to protect the canal. These terms were extended in much reduced form after the war. However, when they were close to expiring entirely, the now President of Egypt, Nasser, was looking for funding for the Aswan Dam project and finding no one who would offer terms he found acceptable. He thus determined to nationalize the Suez Canal Company to gain a greater share of its revenues (the Egyptian government had been getting a portion of them before). At the same time he abrogated the treaty with Britain a couple of years early.

Thus, the canal was never leased to the British. They had the treaty right to defend it and were a large shareholder and board member of the company that owned and managed it.

The USSR had little to do with the British and French needing to back off of Egypt. It was a lack of American Support, and indeed outright American economic attacks on the pound (or the threat of them) that caused British withdrawal.

Hong Kong, on the other hand, was ceded to Britain a bit at a time. The island in the 1830’s, Kowloon in the 1860’s and the New territories were Leased in the 1890’s. By the text of the treaties the Island and Kowloon were no longer Chinese territory and were now under British sovereignty. The New Territories were under British control until 1997. Understandably the Chinese didn’t see these treaties as being wholly legitimate having been forced on China by military strength that was no longer so clearly in British favour. And there were indeed many points after WW2 where the status of Hong Kong was in doubt. However, by the late 50’s, early 60’s a balance of understanding had been found between Britain and Communist China. By that point Britain could not have opposed a Chinese takeover of Hong Kong militarily without considerable escalation and it was unlikely it was willing to try. The US did not want a Chinese takeover, which probably did factor into Chinese thinking, but it was not completely clear that they would go to the same lengths to maintain it as they did in Berlin. But, the existence of Hong Kong as a separate port was quite useful to the Communist regime. They had a need to engage in trade with the world even while controlling the means of production entirely. Hong Kong thus became effectively a treaty port for China in the same way as earlier Chinese empires had established them for limited trade with European nations. Thus the understanding became that China would not undermine British rule in Hong Kong through propaganda (the Chinese state newspapers operated freely in Hong Kong and until being pulled back by the party were quite scathing against British governance), blockade (Hong Kong relied on China for food from at least WW2, and for water from the 1970’s on, IIRC) or through migration (China could pretty easily have flooded the colony with immigrants and taken it over that way). In exchange the British would not allow Hong Kong to be used as a base to undermine the CCP. Everyone benefited and everyone knew it would likely be returned in 1997. There was little other option, and it suited both nations interests well enough.

A Nationalist China may make a different calculation. The KMT’s goals were generally to remove European influence from East Asia so that China could once again be the centre of the Asian sphere that, in their view, was its right to be. By necessity the extent of this centrality would have to be set opportunistically. If full replacement of European colonialism with Chinese was possible, great. If more subtle domination was seen as more practical than so be it. Or if simple removal of colonial influence was the best that could be had, then they would probably accept that (as long as the local regime was not connected to the CCP) and hope to bring about domination later.

However, the KMT would likely have more immediate concerns than Hong Kong. First on the list would be Manchuria, and indeed the whole North of China. By end of war the KMT was effectively confined to power in the South of the country. Chiang always believed, probably rightly, that the North had to be brought back under control of the KMT by military means. If not to defeat the CCP, as IOTL, then to avoid a return to decentralized warlordism. The huge fly in that ointment was that by the end of the war the USSR had taken Manchuria.

This means that the KNT will have a massive diplomatic and military challenge on their hands. They will have to establish a fairly solid control on the parts of the country outside of the south and Manchuria, and negotiate with the Soviets and Americans for try and regain Manchuria.

Moscow will do with Manchuria what is in Moscows best interests. That may not be reuniting it with KMT China even in the absence of the CCP. They could still declare it a new SSR, or an independent Communist state under a puppet regime. So Chiang would need to either convince Moscow that it is in their interests to pass it to him, which would probably mean subordinating himself to them more than he would like, or try and gain American support, giving him a better bargaining position. The former would be difficult to swallow for Chaing . The latter would, at least after the death of Roosevelt, probably preclude any overt movement on Hong Kong for the time being.

If the KMT manages to regain Manchuria, then Hong Kong would compete for priority to the KMT with Tibet, influence in Korea, and influence in Indochina. If a desire for diplomatic support, or just the requirement for military force in these areas outstrips desire to take back Hong Kong, then they likely come to a similar unofficial agreement with Britain that the CCP did and live and let live for the time being. If Hong Kong becomes top priority then they likely can get it, and if they play it right, not even lose that much diplomatic capital in doing so.

 

[Ohfshkssgb]

They supplied Vietnam since 1947.

Where did you that from USSR didn't supply Vietnam until years after China became communist and in 1947 CCP didn't even control Manchuria.

The Viet Minh would very much control the coast in your TL, there's no way the Chinese manage to conquer more than parts of Northern Vietnam

Stop misrepresenting me

Don't make repeat myself China doesn't need to conquer it because it will be given to them by Japan