In 1950, the United States decided to dispatch the Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Straits in order to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This is speculated by some to have triggered a Chinese intervention into Korea. Suppose that the Seventh Fleet is never dispatched and China is bogged down in Taiwan. How does this affect the course of the Korean War and subsequent history?
No Chinese intervention in Korean War
- Thread starter Evil Opus
- Start date
It's quite possible that Taiwan would have fallen to the PRC; the troops sent to Korea had been earmarked for the invasion of Taiwan; if the US 7th Fleet is not sent, then there's literally nothing standing between China and Taiwan.
I don't really foresee an American success significantly delaying the 22nd amendment.
I don't really foresee an American success significantly delaying the 22nd amendment.
Truman was Grandfathered in under the 22nd Amendment, and was the last President capable of serving how many terms he could win. His second elected term (Remember he came in as FDR died) might have a grudge match against the hero of WWII and Korea, Eisenhower. If not he might be able to squeak by Taft (who opposed just about everything), but party fatigue (if Truman won, that would be the 6th consecutive Democratic term in office) might win out.
Yep. Grandfathered in. Also, would the Soviets really intervene in Korea if the Chinese didn't? They also share a border, but it's tiny compared to the NK-Chinese border. They have to tolerate non-communist Turkey, Iran, Finland and Norway on their borders. Will they let a non-communist Korea survive, or is it not worth it?
Yep, but with a successful Korean war, Americans might be more willing for a sixth Democratic term, also could Truman pass more of his program if he wins reelection in 1952.
The Soviets technically didn't; the only soldiers they sent were pilots who were pretending to be Chinese or North Korean pilots, and the aid they sent was contingent on Chinese intervention, since they'd be using most of it.
Threat of Chinese involvement in the war would likely be a persistent factor so long as the US openly declares their intentions to press all the way up to the Yalu River. China would at best tolerate a post-war settlement in which a severely reduced North Korean buffer state separates the US-backed South from the Yalu by 50 km or so. Any scenario in which territory occupied by US forces directly borders China is an untenable and unacceptable one in the eyes of the Chinese leadership.
As for Soviet involvement, I think the USSR would've been willing to ditch the DPRK if the situation looked grim enough. Kim Il Sung didn't even so much as consult the Kremlin before launching his invasion of the ROK, which cultivated an element of distrust between the two powers, and Soviet contributions IOTL never went much further than extensive materiel support and the large number of volunteer MiG-15 pilots.
As for Soviet involvement, I think the USSR would've been willing to ditch the DPRK if the situation looked grim enough. Kim Il Sung didn't even so much as consult the Kremlin before launching his invasion of the ROK, which cultivated an element of distrust between the two powers, and Soviet contributions IOTL never went much further than extensive materiel support and the large number of volunteer MiG-15 pilots.
Could a 50 km NK really qualify as a state? They'd lose Pyongyang under such a settlement; and a good deal of the most valuable portion of their state.
Vjacheslav Malyshev
Banned
The Soviets were planning a intervention in the Korean War so a a Soviet intervention is possible.
That would be quite interesting, could some of the Fair Deal initiative pass?
Honestly, I think sending troops to Korea was going to be an attractive option for Mao no matter what the US and UN forces do or don't do. Remember, the Chinese Civil War only ended the year before. Millions of soldiers needed to be demobilized. Any time a state has many men who have been trained to kill, and may not be able or be willing to rejoin civillian society, it is a very dangerous time for that state. It can easily result in brigand armies, or even rebel forces.
It's the same reason (but of course not the only reason) that Toyotomi sent his armies to Korea, it's part of the reason that Spain sent soldiers to the New World, or why Weimar turned a blind eye to Freikorps in Eastern Europe. Don't get me wrong, if the US/UN looks like it will encroach upon the Yalu, or if the US offers the KMT shelter outside of China in Taiwan, it will make the PRC will be more likely to act. But finding a use for those troops, including it must be said possibly seeming some of them die off, has a logic all its own.
It's the same reason (but of course not the only reason) that Toyotomi sent his armies to Korea, it's part of the reason that Spain sent soldiers to the New World, or why Weimar turned a blind eye to Freikorps in Eastern Europe. Don't get me wrong, if the US/UN looks like it will encroach upon the Yalu, or if the US offers the KMT shelter outside of China in Taiwan, it will make the PRC will be more likely to act. But finding a use for those troops, including it must be said possibly seeming some of them die off, has a logic all its own.
Going back to the scenario specified in the OP, I think that Chinese involvement in Korea in the aftermath of a full scale invasion of Taiwan is heavily dependent upon the number of casualties the PLA suffers during their landings on the assorted islands in the Formosa Strait. By the early '50s, the amount of armor and air assets that the KMT was able to concentrate on those miserably outcroppings of lifeless rock was enough to stymie the tide of repeated Chinese advances. Chinese air assets prior to the invasion of the Korean peninsula (and subsequent injections of massive Soviet materiel support), on the other hand, were lacking to such an extent that all of their modern jet units (primarily MiG-9s), had to be stationed around Beijing and Shanghai to ward off KMT bombing raids and reconnaissance flights. And as everyone on AH.com likes pointing out, a successful large scale seaborne invasion in the 20th century requires both mastery of naval and air superiority over the channel of water in question. You can't expect to get by with just one of the two halves.
Pretty sure. It depends on the numbers after 1950 and 1952, and if Johnson still gets to be Majority Leader. McFarland isn't going to lose his seat, but Lucas could very well hang on by the skin of his teeth, and if that happens he'll have resigned or died within the year because of his health issues. Or he loses and McFarland replaces him per OTL; but MacFarland could be Truman's VP in his second term.
Given that Eisenhower will endorse Truman over Taft, and Taft was the Goldwater of his age, a landslide is more likely than not. Significantly, Taft opposed civil rights and would have campaigned in the South if he had gotten the nomination.
... I admit my ignorance, but I had to look up " Fair Deal" on wikipedia ... very interesting ... has anyone made a TL were it passed?