What did the US plan for Korea before the Korean war broke out?

[Gillan1220]

Could an earlier Sino-Soviet split happen and the US being able to establish a working relationship earlier

That's what the U.S. State Department actually hoped for. That Mao Zedong would not align Beijing with Moscow. Hence, why the U.S. basically abandoned the KMT when it became clear the KMT's corruption and incompetence could not turn the tide of the Chinese Civil War.

Let's assume Mao never aligns with the USSR. That would be the groundwork for an earlier diplomatic relations with the PRC. That may butterfly the Korean War as a whole but the Taiwan question would be interesting. How will the U.S. and China deal with it assuming the U.S. recognizes the PRC as early as 1949-1950.

 

[Roon von Bismarck]

That's what the U.S. State Department actually hoped for. That Mao Zedong would not align Beijing with Moscow. Hence, why the U.S. basically abandoned the KMT when it became clear the KMT's corruption and incompetence could not turn the tide of the Chinese Civil War.

Let's assume Mao never aligns with the USSR. That would be the groundwork for an earlier diplomatic relations with the PRC. That may butterfly the Korean War as a whole but the Taiwan question would be interesting. How will the U.S. and China deal with it assuming the U.S. recognizes the PRC as early as 1949-1950.

It would be honestly far easier if the KMT could somehow win and at least be indifferent to the US. I doubt it lasts and the US *should* know it, but it would likely be a much less chaotic Asia initially.

 

[Post]

That's like a similar outcome to post-war Japan if Operation Downfall commenced. A delayed Korean War would butterfly everything we know about South Korea today. Meaning no smartphones, computers, cars, and K-pop.

Smartphones, cars and computers will be made elsewhere. And there's still J-pop (yeah, kind of different genre, which I prefer).

 

[Gillan1220]

It would be honestly far easier if the KMT could somehow win and at least be indifferent to the US. I doubt it lasts and the US *should* know it, but it would likely be a much less chaotic Asia initially.

Assuming the KMT even wins on the Mainland, China still won't be a democracy. It would be ruled by corrupt authoritarians that will have a love-hate relationship with the U.S., Britain, and the West. Chiang Kai Shek was like Charles de Gaulle, skeptical and distrustful of both the Americans and the British. I've read many scenarios about how an alternate version of a Chinese Civil War ending in KMT victory even has the eventual Sino-American split.

Smartphones, cars and computers will be made elsewhere. And there's still J-pop (yeah, kind of different genre, which I prefer).

I should have specified. We probably would not have Samsung, LG, and Kia. J-Pop songs and J-Drama would like be more famous compared to K-pop and K-dramas.

 

[prester.john208]

Assuming the KMT even wins on the Mainland, China still won't be a democracy. It would be ruled by corrupt authoritarians that will have a love-hate relationship with the U.S., Britain, and the West. Chiang Kai Shek was like Charles de Gaulle, skeptical and distrustful of both the Americans and the British. I've read many scenarios about how an alternate version of a Chinese Civil War ending in KMT victory even has the eventual Sino-American split.

I should have specified. We probably would not have Samsung, LG, and Kia. J-Pop songs and J-Drama would like be more famous compared to K-pop and K-dramas.

Would Chiang's son eventually come to power as in the OTL?

 

[Roon von Bismarck]

Assuming the KMT even wins on the Mainland, China still won't be a democracy. It would be ruled by corrupt authoritarians that will have a love-hate relationship with the U.S., Britain, and the West. Chiang Kai Shek was like Charles de Gaulle, skeptical and distrustful of both the Americans and the British. I've read many scenarios about how an alternate version of a Chinese Civil War ending in KMT victory even has the eventual Sino-American split.

I should have specified. We probably would not have Samsung, LG, and Kia. J-Pop songs and J-Drama would like be more famous compared to K-pop and K-dramas.

Oh definitely, they isn't going to be a democracy as long as the USSR exists, and until they get back what they perceive as *western plunders*. That includes Korea, Okinawa, Mongolia...
Unless the KMT can break from their weird nationalism, there won't be liberalization. I feel like China's conflict with the USA is pretty much guaranteed no matter who becomes China's dominant political force.

 

[prester.john208]

Oh definitely, they isn't going to be a democracy as long as the USSR exists, and until they get back what they perceive as *western plunders*. That includes Korea, Okinawa, Mongolia...
Unless the KMT can break from their weird nationalism, there won't be liberalization. I feel like China's conflict with the USA is pretty much guaranteed no matter who becomes China's dominant political force.

Korea and Okinawa?

 

[Gillan1220]

Oh definitely, they isn't going to be a democracy as long as the USSR exists, and until they get back what they perceive as *western plunders*. That includes Korea, Okinawa, Mongolia...
Unless the KMT can break from their weird nationalism, there won't be liberalization. I feel like China's conflict with the USA is pretty much guaranteed no matter who becomes China's dominant political force.

A Sino-American split and eventual Cold War is stated to be inevitable. Because of the large disparity in terms of economics, population, and projection within Asia. Plus, the American public around the 19th to early 20th century had racist views of "Yellow Peril" or the mindset that any country in the Orient would have caught up with the United States. Chinese people were often mistaken as Japanese during the internment during WWII, hence why most Chinese-Americans in the United States had to fly the ROC flag to avoid being targeted. Nonetheless, America in the 1940s-50s was a racist place. It was not an ideal place to be an African-American, Asian, or Latino.

An ROC victory in the mainland would not be the same as Taiwan of OTL. It would still have its own interests that would clash with neighbors. For starters, the ROC drew the 9-dash line of the South China Sea in 1947, something that the PRC inherited after 1949.

For reference, here is the map of ROC claims to this day:

Korea and Okinawa?

Ancient Chinese dynasties had claims on the Ryukyu Islands. Regardless of what political entity ruled the Mainland, they'd see Korea as a dagger pointed towards Japan. Not that this political entity would annex Korea, but probably turn it into a an ally or a satellite as buffer against Japan.

Not to mention, the ROC only relinquished claims of Mongolia in 2002.

 

[Simon]

Interesting, perhaps from this viewpoint had China not gone communist somehow, would we have seen a much lesser drive to rebuild Japan and ally with Korea, with a potential massive trading partner (China) right there in Asia?

Depends on what Sino-American relations are like, even were the KMT to win the civil war there's no guarantee that China would be friendly or pro-West. Japan also has the advantage of the US being able to station occupying troops there, it being an island, and local politics being generally acquiescent.

Task Force Smith, the first US Army formation to fight the NKPA arrived was on paper… [SNIP]

With all of which they got ordered out to act as rearguard against against advancing NKPA forces that included armoured units. Seven hours delay but at a cost.

 

[Canopus108]

That's what the U.S. State Department actually hoped for. That Mao Zedong would not align Beijing with Moscow. Hence, why the U.S. basically abandoned the KMT when it became clear the KMT's corruption and incompetence could not turn the tide of the Chinese Civil War.

Let's assume Mao never aligns with the USSR. That would be the groundwork for an earlier diplomatic relations with the PRC. That may butterfly the Korean War as a whole but the Taiwan question would be interesting. How will the U.S. and China deal with it assuming the U.S. recognizes the PRC as early as 1949-1950.

The US in 1950 fully expected Taiwan to fall by the end of the year. Robert Strong's 1950 communiques are stunningly pessimistic, disapproving of Chiang's White Terror for turning the Taiwanese against him and the military for being unable to resist invasion. State already planned the evacuation of US staff to Hong Kong as well as further attempts at approaching Mao (although a full Tito-style split was deemed implausible by some). No Korean war means the US probably lets Mao attack in 1950.

Mao would definitely keep good relations with Stalin though - better arguably since there's no alleged betrayal by the Soviets in not providing air support in Korea - and would continue to frustrate the Americans by supporting Asian communists. It's after Stalin's death when the opportunities for rapprochement pop up early; Mao actually pivoted hard to being against the Soviets, far more than military figures like Peng who wanted continued collaboration and since you can't have a 1958 Taiwan crisis without Taiwan negative impressions of America would recede far earlier.

(I'm currently working on my first Alt-Hist timeline about this, but it's become much longer than planned).

A Sino-American split and eventual Cold War is stated to be inevitable. Because of the large disparity in terms of economics, population, and projection within Asia. Plus, the American public around the 19th to early 20th century had racist views of "Yellow Peril" or the mindset that any country in the Orient would have caught up with the United States. Chinese people were often mistaken as Japanese during the internment during WWII, hence why most Chinese-Americans in the United States had to fly the ROC flag to avoid being targeted. Nonetheless, America in the 1940s-50s was a racist place. It was not an ideal place to be an African-American, Asian, or Latino.

An ROC victory in the mainland would not be the same as Taiwan of OTL. It would still have its own interests that would clash with neighbors. For starters, the ROC drew the 9-dash line of the South China Sea in 1947, something that the PRC inherited after 1949.

For reference, here is the map of ROC claims to this day:

Ancient Chinese dynasties had claims on the Ryukyu Islands. Regardless of what political entity ruled the Mainland, they'd see Korea as a dagger pointed towards Japan. Not that this political entity would annex Korea, but probably turn it into a an ally or a satellite as buffer against Japan.

Not to mention, the ROC only relinquished claims of Mongolia in 2002.

The worst case KMT scenario is that Chiang "wins" but the economy collapses and he fails to rein in the warlords. The golden triangle was rooted in KMT stay-behind divisions: how much worse would it be if there are opium fields from Xinjiang to Guangdong? And even if Chiang kills Mao there's going to be red insurgencies over the entire country. At least if Chiang wins and consolidates control he has market incentives to be "merely" as aggressive as modern China is in the SCS (fun fact is that Mao actually reduced China's claims in the SCS from an 11 dash line incorporating the gulf of Tonkin down).

That said if not for the retreat to Taiwan we might keep President Li Zongren and Premier Yan Xishan instead. Everyone's favourite wholesome warlords

 

[Eric C Johnson]

Mao would definitely keep good relations with Stalin though

Mao made a two month visit to Moscow in December 1949-February 1950. Stalin refused to meet Mao until three weeks after his arrival, and Soviet demands in return for aid were exorbitant. Mao resented being treated as a manservant. How good Sino-Soviet relations would be would be highly situationally dependent.

 

[Canopus108]

Mao made a two month visit to Moscow in December 1949-February 1950. Stalin refused to meet Mao until three weeks after his arrival, and Soviet demands in return for aid were exorbitant. Mao resented being treated as a manservant. How good Sino-Soviet relations would be would be highly situationally dependent.

That event shows the opposite of your interpretation though? Mao overlooked that slight and others - such as Stalin invading Xinjiang and backing Uyghur uprisings, looting the Chinese northeast of industry, refusing to hand back Mongolia when Mao requested it, and opposing Mao's crossing of the Yangtze - in real life to continue backing the Soviets and rebuffing America. He also overlooked slights that would not occur in a "no Korean war" timeline such as the exorbitant charges the Soviets put on Chinese purchases and the perceived lack of Soviet air support during the war. Relations only really broke down in the back half of the 50s as a backlash to Khruschev's destalinisation and Mao's opposition to a growing Soviet class of technocrats who stood opposed to his beloved peasant-soldier ideal and ideological "sciences" such as Lysenkoism.

Sino-Soviet relations under Stalin were incredibly solid. The Mao of 1950 would rather be treated poorly by Stalin, a fellow revolutionary, than get help from a (again perceived) technocrat like Khruschev or a capitalist. You would have to completely change who Mao and Stalin were to have a break before 1954

 

[Gillan1220]

That event shows the opposite of your interpretation though? Mao overlooked that slight and others - such as Stalin invading Xinjiang and backing Uyghur uprisings, looting the Chinese northeast of industry, refusing to hand back Mongolia when Mao requested it, and opposing Mao's crossing of the Yangtze - in real life to continue backing the Soviets and rebuffing America. He also overlooked slights that would not occur in a "no Korean war" timeline such as the exorbitant charges the Soviets put on Chinese purchases and the perceived lack of Soviet air support during the war. Relations only really broke down in the back half of the 50s as a backlash to Khruschev's destalinisation and Mao's opposition to a growing Soviet class of technocrats who stood opposed to his beloved peasant-soldier ideal and ideological "sciences" such as Lysenkoism.

Sino-Soviet relations under Stalin were incredibly solid. The Mao of 1950 would rather be treated poorly by Stalin, a fellow revolutionary, than get help from a (again perceived) technocrat like Khruschev or a capitalist. You would have to completely change who Mao and Stalin were to have a break before 1954

That was definitely a weird time in history. The U.S. abandoning the KMT, having preferred Mao to be the leader of China due to the KMT's incompetence, while Stalin was against Mao's communist armies to cross the Yangtze.

Despite Sino-Soviet relations being solid, Mao and Stalin secretly despised each other. Mao even brought his own toilet when he visit Moscow to celebrate Stalin's birthday just so the NKVD or KGB won't get a sample of his fecal matter.

 

[Canopus108]

That was definitely a weird time in history. The U.S. abandoning the KMT, having preferred Mao to be the leader of China due to the KMT's incompetence, while Stalin was against Mao's communist armies to cross the Yangtze.

Despite Sino-Soviet relations being solid, Mao and Stalin secretly despised each other. Mao even brought his own toilet when he visit Moscow to celebrate Stalin's birthday just so the NKVD or KGB won't get a sample of his fecal matter.

Definitely. It’s one of the strangest international relations of the 20th century. Completely rock solid under Stalin-Mao for the first four years of the PRC despite the two mistrusting each other before collapsing under Khrushchev who was a far better partner.

What’s funny is that not only was America offering talks to Mao, in 1950 many urbanites still preferred America. Neil J Diamant’s “Embattled Glory” quotes Shanghai archives revealing that many residents in 1950 advocating siding with America. Now that American troops (unpopular since the Chen Chong case) were gone and China was free, they would rather side with the powerful British and Americans. Many felt that Korea was more enemy than friend after the actions of Korean IJA soldiers, and that taking Taiwan would be a better use of resources. Of course this was also during those brief few years where China had an NEP style policy and Mao was much softer on dissent. It would have been a very easy for Mao to sell engagement with America and market socialism to the general public.

Or Mao could have sided with Khrushchev, who after all was the one who withdrew troops from the Chinese northeast and offered technical support. Khrushchev was popular with the party rank and file who saw Moscow as a socialist brother nation. Even in the late 50s generals like Peng Dehuai wanted to deepen the Sino-Soviet alliance, and much of China’s energy and transport infrastructure was rooted in Soviet investment.

Instead of either option Mao trashed relations with America to double down on Stalin, purged anyone with a history in business, before then trashing relations with Khruschev and driving the country into isolation only to side with America anyway. And the strange thing is it’s hard to imagine what external pressure could have changed Mao’s mind down a more sane path because anyone else would have made completely different choices. Shame Mao didn’t die in 1949 and leave behind a solid legacy instead of this mess.

 

[the man in the fly castle]

Oh definitely, they isn't going to be a democracy as long as the USSR exists, and until they get back what they perceive as *western plunders*. That includes Korea, Okinawa, Mongolia...
Unless the KMT can break from their weird nationalism, there won't be liberalization. I feel like China's conflict with the USA is pretty much guaranteed no matter who becomes China's dominant political force.

I doubt the KMT has that kind of power. The Soviet Union was ready to separate Manchuria and Xinjiang, and Britain (or later India) would also increase its influence in Tibet. The United States had already controlled almost all of China's economic lifelines through various treaties with Chiang Kai-shek.
In this situation, China under KMT more like "American Raj".