Republican China: consequences on its periphery?

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Nationalist China: consequences on its periphery?

What would a post-WWII KMT victory in China mean for Tibet, the East Turkestan Republic, (Outer) Mongolia, Korea, and Vietnam?

 

[Easterling]

We asume that China is stable and the KMT had consolidated power and does not spend all its time and energy putting down challenges.

I think Tibet is still going to be absorbed into china. The Nationalists still claim it, and it doesn't have the protection of any great power.
The sowiets might try to break off East Turkestan, but they will probably fail. Their presence there is too weak. On the other hand, Outer Mongolia is porbably lost to China, even if they will claim it. They might still try to fight a proxy war there. But the most likely scenario is that they will eventually give it up in the name of normalizing the relationship between China and Russia. I don't see Chiang tying his fate to that of the western powers, once they are no longer needed to prop him up. The Chinese are much more likely to still want to go their own way and form a third pole of power. As for the Russians, they will probably panic if the nationalists win the civil war, and try to reverse the situation, but unless they imediately do something radical (like starting a full scale war) some sort of diplomatic agreement should be reached eventually. In the long run, they might get along better with the nationalists then with the communists, as they won't regard eachother as "heretics".
North Korea might survive if they keep their heads down. But a Korean War is out of the question (at least one started from the north).
The Vietnamese communists however are doomed. Communist Chinese support was crucial in them securing power in North Vietnam, and it won't be coming in this case. It is more likely that the KMT will prop up a friendly (to them) ruler. We would have seen Bao Dai stay in power, or maybe Diem.

As a side note. I don't know how "republican" a Nationalist Chinese regime would be that is not a complete US puppet. I expect that if Chiang was secure in his power, he would be quite authoritarian (in some form of confucian authoritaris, to be more precise).

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

I agree that Tibet is going to be brought into China but it may be a less authoritarian process with the Dalai Lama allowed to retain his authority conditional on accepting Chinese rule.

I wonder what Sino-Indian relations would be like? Would there have been an equivalent of the 1962 war?

 

[Easterling]

I agree that the Dalai Lama would probably retain spiritual authority, but loose all political power. Maybe some Chinese version of a "concordate" will be signed.

As for the war with India: ...possibly. Remember that the Nationalists claim all the territories claimed by Communists and then some.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

On the other hand, Outer Mongolia is porbably lost to China, even if they will claim it.

Nationalist China renounced its claim to Outer Mongolia in the 1945 treaty with the USSR and resumed it in the early '50s after denouncing the treaty, which the Soviets had thoroughly violated.

As for the Russians, they will probably panic if the nationalists win the civil war, and try to reverse the situation, but unless they imediately do something radical (like starting a full scale war) some sort of diplomatic agreement should be reached eventually.

Why would Stalin panic at the sight of the KMT doing what he initially expected it to do?

I don't know how "republican" a Nationalist Chinese regime would be that is not a complete US puppet.

Damn it, I meant "Nationalist China." I was thinking of the ROC and got my wires crossed. I'll try and fix it.

Edit: I've changed the title of the OP but still can't edit that of the thread. Double-clicking to the left of its name in the Post-1900 sub-forum isn't working. I'll have to leave it be.

 

[EternalCynic]

Nationalist China renounced its claim to Outer Mongolia in the 1945 treaty with the USSR and resumed it in the early '50s after denouncing the treaty, which the Soviets had thoroughly violated.

That particular treaty was signed when the Red Army had invaded Manchuria and Mongolia, and Stalin threatened to turn the former into a puppet state and seize Inner Mongolia. The treaty provided for a referendum in Mongolia over its independence from China. Lo and behold, it passed with literally 100% of the vote. Assuming the ROC becomes loosely western-allied, some KMT officials will occasionally call for Mongolia to be "revisited". It's too irresponsible to actively claim it, though.

 

[Wendell]

I'm surprised that no one has discussed Korea. Jiang saw it as being within the Chinese sphere of interest, but may prefer American influence over the Peninsula to that of the USSR. Vietnam depends upon seprate factors I suspect, but its dynamics will be interesting. Mongolia is lost, but there may be a "government-in-exile" that answers to Jiang in Nanjing.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Without Mao in power, the Soviets would be even more determined to keep North Korea as a buffer - if it is formed in the first place, I take its survival as a given. They may also renege on their commitment to renounce the Manchurian concessions in 1975.

 

[Wendell]

Without Mao in power, the Soviets would be even more determined to keep North Korea as a buffer - if it is formed in the first place, I take its survival as a given. They may also renege on their commitment to renounce the Manchurian concessions in 1975.

How do you see its survival as a given if Kim Il-Sung is still the figure in this timeline that he was in our own?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

How do you see its survival as a given if Kim Il-Sung is still the figure in this timeline that he was in our own?

And in OTL North Korea survived.

 

[Wendell]

And in OTL North Korea survived.

Due to Red Chinese intervention. This timeline imples that there is not a Communist China.

Perhaps the crisis is averted at the U.N., but if there's a war, Korea will NOT be Commuist.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

The only reason there was a war is because Stalin gave the green light. I doubt he'd do the same with the Nationalists across the Yalu. Absent a war, North Korea's survival is a given. Absent a Communist victory in China, a war is unlikely.

 

[Wendell]

The only reason there was a war is because Stalin gave the green light. I doubt he'd do the same with the Nationalists across the Yalu. Absent a war, North Korea's survival is a given. Absent a Communist victory in China, a war is unlikely.

A war is unlikely without a Communist China, true, but a crisis is likely with a Kim Il-Sung. Perhaps Korea is made neutral and united?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

A war is unlikely without a Communist China, true, but a crisis is likely with a Kim Il-Sung.

What do you mean by crisis?

Perhaps Korea is made neutral and united?

That would have to be decided early on. After 1948 it's too late.

 

[Wendell]

What do you mean by crisis?



That would have to be decided early on. After 1948 it's too late.

I mean that that Kims speak before they think, and may try something without Stalin's say-so, thereby provoking a political crisis as the southern half of the peninsula is invaded, but war will not ensue, because the Soviets are not boycotting the U.N., and Kim either is forced to back down, or the invasion ends up being efectively unchallenged.

 

[EternalCynic]

Without Mao in power, the Soviets would be even more determined to keep North Korea as a buffer - if it is formed in the first place, I take its survival as a given. They may also renege on their commitment to renounce the Manchurian concessions in 1975.

If Stalin decided to proclaim Manchuria as a puppet state against a western-aligned rest of China, it would be an eastern version of the DDR and, especially since it was previously a Japanese puppet state, even more of an Achilles Heel to the Soviet Bloc than the Berlin Wall. And what if an anti-Soviet revolution occurs after the ROC develops nuclear weapons and already has extensive military presence along its northern border? If this happens when relations between the west and the USSR are already bad, it could spiral into war.

 

[Cook]

Absent a war, North Korea's survival is a given.

Up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. After which it has no external benefactor.

 

[EternalCynic]

Up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. After which it has no external benefactor.

Oh no. I can see Mao becoming Manchuria's Walter Ulbricht, with his successor a similarly hardline and orthodox equivalent of, say, Ceausescu. After 1989, Manchuria and North Korea would form a hardcore, retrenched bloc against the corrupt capitalist outside world and their puppets.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

I mean that that Kims speak before they think, and may try something without Stalin's say-so, thereby provoking a political crisis as the southern half of the peninsula is invaded, but war will not ensue, because the Soviets are not boycotting the U.N., and Kim either is forced to back down, or the invasion ends up being efectively unchallenged.

OK, I'm not sure what your overall argument is anymore. You challenged me when I said that North Korea's survival is a given and now you come up with a scenario where it either survives or triumphs. A scenario which is unlikely, since: 1) Kim had already tried to get Stalin's permission to invade before 1950 and did nothing when it was denied, so the historical records indicates that he wouldn't act independently, and 2) the United States would intervene with or without UN support.

So let's go back to square one. On what do you disagree with me?

 

[Easterling]

Why would Stalin panic at the sight of the KMT doing what he initially expected it to do?

Expected when? Maybe in the 20's and the 30's when he was favourable towards the KMT? By 1945, Stalin had thrown in his lot with Mao, and Chiang with the western democracies. So if the Nationalists win, it means that the SU is now sharing a long land border wiht a very large and powerfull western-aligned nation. I can see the Soviet leadership thinking something like: "The imperialist capitalists have encircled us! We are doomed!" That's why they would do anything in their power to stop the KMT from seizing power in China.

I'm surprised that no one has discussed Korea.

Without encouragement from Mao, Kim wouldn't have started the war. And I don't think th South would start a war either, as they showed no inclination to do so in OTL, so Korea would stay a quiet place for some time. And Chiang wouldn't be able to do anything there either without antagonizing either one (if not both) of the superpowers.