What if the Eastern Pact was real?

This was an old Wikipedia hoax I came across in 2005. I mistook it (and the corresponding Vientiane Treaty) as real, and mentioned it in my Why never a three-sided Cold War? thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Pact&oldid=573928725

The Eastern pact was a military alliance established in 1980 and dissolved five years later.

History​

Creation of the Eastern Pact​

The need for the alliance was a result of the Cold War. The People's Republic of China, a powerful communist state, had experienced a worsening of relations with the Soviet Union. The difference arose from the USSR's desire for a unified communist bloc under its control, while China held its own ambitions. By the 1970s through the 1980s Sino-Soviet relations had reached their worst point. Wanting to secure its place as leader of the Asian communist nations (which it had kept by supporting North Korea and North Vietnam during the Korean war and Vietnam war), China initiated the establishment of third alliance, the Eastern Pact, which would be set against both Soviet and American interests in Asia, and probably would have sought influence over other Asian countries as well, in a similar fashion to NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The alliance was founded on July 4, 1980 by the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia (nominally under Vietnamese control at the time). The laws of the fledgling alliance stated that the number of votes allotted to each member was apportioned according to their respective GNP, which firmly secured Chinese control. Both the Vietnamese and North Korean government, however, saw the alliance as a possible safety against the United States, or other western powers who might stage an invasion.

Expansion and collapse (1981-1985)​

On January 13th 1981, Mongolia was accepted as the fifth member of alliance when the foreign ministers of all five countries signed an agreement of expansion in Beijing. This led to Soviet protests however, because Mongolia shared a long border with the Soviet Union, and had the effect of further damaging Sino-Soviet relations. In February of 1981, the alliance was reformed, its permanent headquarters was opened in Shanghai, where each of the member countries sent a delegation. China continued to work to attract more countries to join the alliance. In April of 1981, Laos joined the Eastern Pact, unofficially in exchange for major Chinese aid. China also aggressively pursued the expansion of the Eastern Pact outside of Asia, becoming a major partner for various socialist "third world" governments and attempting to create a third respectable player in the cold war. The only success of this policy was admission of Angola to alliance in 1982; other attempts proved to be failures (primarily because the unwillingness of third world countries to depend exclusively Chinese aid, as they perceived the Soviet Union to be more reliable), although some countries received associated status. The alliance's expansion stopped after early 1982, when negotiations with Yugoslavia met with no results. With the relaxation of tensions with the Soviet Union, the need for the alliance was lost. The Eastern Pact was officially dissolved in September of 1985. It was replaced by the short-lived Vientiane treaty, which included the Southeast Asian nations of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, but this treaty quickly proved unworkable and was dissolved.

Structure​

Each country's votes were apportioned by its GNP (not GNP per capita), therefore China's vote was grossly overwhelming. Each country had to defend any other country of the Eastern Pact in case of war. The headquarters were established in Shanghai in 1981, and each member state sent an ambassador to the Eastern Pact there (the Vietnamese ambassador also supposedly represented Cambodian interests, due to the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia at the time after the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge). Sessions of the Eastern Pact were held four times a year, and could also be called at any time if countries constituting 25% of Eastern pact GNP called for a session. An emergency session would also be called in the case of a declaration of war by or against any of the member states, however the alliance was only defensive. This was agreed on as a means for China and other countries to prevent North Korean aggression against South Korea.

Members​


Sadly the editors caught on at the end of May and deleted both articles.

So, what if the PRC tried to make its own Warsaw Pact? First off, I doubt Vietnam or North Korea would be very eager to jump on- the former because of age-old animosity towards China, and didn't the Kims always try to play Moscow off against Beijing? And wasn't also Mongolia more in the Soviet sphere than the Chinese one? Funnily enough, Albania might've been interested in this after the Albanian-Soviet Split, up until it split with China. (Were they like North Korea of Europe, or what? Just remarkable.)

Anyway, I'm sure there are other Wiki hoaxes that might make for fun althist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia
 
Mao establishes a permanent occupation force in North Korea after the Korean War and takes a much bigger role in the Vietnam War, also with a mind to keeping Chinese troops there. The PRC "gifts" North Korea a massive piece of Stalinist neoclassical architecture built in Pyongyang. In 1955 the Pyongyang Pact is proclaimed.

By 1975 the Pyongyang Pact consists of China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

The geostrategic implications of this alliance mean that the US never tries to engage China to the extent it did IOTL. China carries out some limited economic reforms but never experiences the massive economic boom of OTL. India and China's economic positions are reversed.

North Korea does not develop nuclear weapons ITTL but Taiwan does. It also stays a dictatorship under KMT rule.
 
I think that China creating this alliance with this kind of control would stunt reproachment efforts, or at least prevent freeing up of trade so easily. But I'm not sure to what extent.
 
There will be two countries pretty unhappy with the Eastern Pact.: USA and USSR. That means that both US allies and Soviet allies will limit their trade, cultural/scientific exchange, political cooperation etc. It might be quite painful economically for China.
Meanwhile SEATO might see a revivial, possibly with Japan and South Korea as new members.
India might also join or become even closer to USSR.
 
I'd be interested in knowing whether they might support their own proxy insurgents around the region and maybe wider world? Perhaps Maoists in Nepal (or even India), maybe some faction in Afghanistan, communist rebels in the Philippines? And what would be Myanmar's relation to them? Perhaps we can even see communism expand in East Asia with a more organised bloc driving it, with domino theory coming true? They might also look for some very obscure groups to support outside of East Asia.
 
Last edited:
So I'm not going to follow the exact timeline given in those fake articles, but I do think its possible to get a Chinese-led Asian communist bloc, even if it is difficult.

First thing that is necessary is having the Soviet Union view Asia as a region not worth contesting. Stalin definitely saw Europe as the real lynchpin of world geopolitical power, and it wasn't until Khrushchev came to power that we really saw the Soviet Union expand their contest with the West globally. So you need to get a successor to Stalin that is more European focused and less adventurist (maybe Beria?). The reason the Soviet Union has to be less involved in Asia is that their relatively advanced level of technical and scientific knowledge (relative to Mao's China) as well as greater military power makes them a preferable patron for most smaller Communist states than China. But if the USSR isn't an option, beggars can't be choosers...

Mongolia is a really hard one to get as part of their alliance. They really don't want to be part of China because they're worried about getting demographically overwhelmed like Inner Mongolia (Nei Mongol) did by Han settlers. IOTL they literally asked to be admitted into the Soviet Union (a la Tannu Tuva) in order to be guaranteed against China. The only way I can see this being at all possible, and would cause a massive international crisis, would be some really intense abuse by the Soviets in Mongolia. Short of that, hard to see anything that would drive the Mongols into Beijing's arms.

Laos and Cambodia are both quite straightforward to get them into China's camp. With the Vietnamese, whilst they might chafe at Chinese influence, with no USSR involvement in SE Asia, the Chinese are the only ones giving them guns, so it's that or be under someone else's jackboot. Even in a north-south civil war scenario, Mao isn't going to allow a pro-US government bordering him (look what happened with the Korean War).

Korea is actually a relatively plausible entry too. DPRK could have easily won the Korean War if the USSR had vetoed UN intervention, or if the US just didn't care enough about Korea, and there was a pro-Beijing faction of the Korean Worker's Party.

For Angola to be in it you would probably need either an internal MPLA power struggle resulting in a pro-China faction winning (easier to achieve but later in time); or a successful Eastern Revolt, since Daniel Chipenda was supported by the Chinese. However you would need to completely change up other things in Africa (what regimes are on the Angolan borders for instance) to make that feasible and the butterflies might prevent Chipenda from being notable entirely.
 
So I'm not going to follow the exact timeline given in those fake articles, but I do think its possible to get a Chinese-led Asian communist bloc, even if it is difficult.

First thing that is necessary is having the Soviet Union view Asia as a region not worth contesting. Stalin definitely saw Europe as the real lynchpin of world geopolitical power, and it wasn't until Khrushchev came to power that we really saw the Soviet Union expand their contest with the West globally. So you need to get a successor to Stalin that is more European focused and less adventurist (maybe Beria?). The reason the Soviet Union has to be less involved in Asia is that their relatively advanced level of technical and scientific knowledge (relative to Mao's China) as well as greater military power makes them a preferable patron for most smaller Communist states than China. But if the USSR isn't an option, beggars can't be choosers...

Mongolia is a really hard one to get as part of their alliance. They really don't want to be part of China because they're worried about getting demographically overwhelmed like Inner Mongolia (Nei Mongol) did by Han settlers. IOTL they literally asked to be admitted into the Soviet Union (a la Tannu Tuva) in order to be guaranteed against China. The only way I can see this being at all possible, and would cause a massive international crisis, would be some really intense abuse by the Soviets in Mongolia. Short of that, hard to see anything that would drive the Mongols into Beijing's arms.

Laos and Cambodia are both quite straightforward to get them into China's camp. With the Vietnamese, whilst they might chafe at Chinese influence, with no USSR involvement in SE Asia, the Chinese are the only ones giving them guns, so it's that or be under someone else's jackboot. Even in a north-south civil war scenario, Mao isn't going to allow a pro-US government bordering him (look what happened with the Korean War).

Korea is actually a relatively plausible entry too. DPRK could have easily won the Korean War if the USSR had vetoed UN intervention, or if the US just didn't care enough about Korea, and there was a pro-Beijing faction of the Korean Worker's Party.

For Angola to be in it you would probably need either an internal MPLA power struggle resulting in a pro-China faction winning (easier to achieve but later in time); or a successful Eastern Revolt, since Daniel Chipenda was supported by the Chinese. However you would need to completely change up other things in Africa (what regimes are on the Angolan borders for instance) to make that feasible and the butterflies might prevent Chipenda from being notable entirely.
The mention of Angola got me wondering if there was a prospect of an African bloc forming.
It's more than likely the sheer size, cultural and tribal differences and lack of external support would make it near impossible, but just because I can't see how doesn't mean it can't be done.

As for a China-led bloc, the break with Soviet communism could provide an opportunity for someone a bit more outward looking than Mao to try reaching out, but from the safety of 2024 that looks like it would involve a very big personal risk. Then there's also the question of what China would bring that might inspire enough others to join.
 
The mention of Angola got me wondering if there was a prospect of an African bloc forming.
It's more than likely the sheer size, cultural and tribal differences and lack of external support would make it near impossible, but just because I can't see how doesn't mean it can't be done.

As for a China-led bloc, the break with Soviet communism could provide an opportunity for someone a bit more outward looking than Mao to try reaching out, but from the safety of 2024 that looks like it would involve a very big personal risk. Then there's also the question of what China would bring that might inspire enough others to join.

At risk of being "that guy" is that it all really depends in what you define as a "bloc". To really compete with the Western and Soviet blocs you would need the capacity for worldwide power projection. A united Western Europe is really the only alternative to that in the timeframe. You can have more major regional powers (I do that in my Cold War TL), but a true "Third Bloc" is very difficult to establish. There's a reason the Non-Aligned Movement isn't really a third bloc.

Probably time I actually start talking about your post now haha. If you have a loose definition of bloc, there is the Organisation of African States, which was dominated by "African socialist" countries like Tanzania and Ghana. Well "dominance" is probably the wrong term. I guess the OAS consensus tended to follow those countries' lines. Regional African blocs are absolutely possible. But nowhere in Africa can become a superpower between 1960 and 1989. Its just too short a timeframe to overcome all the infrastructural, economic and institutional hurdles necessary.

China still has a lot to offer. An Asian communist bloc is possible if a couple of internal political developments go differently in the prospective member states
 
Having Kim Il-Sung removed during the August Faction Incident and replaced by a more orthodox communist leader aligned with China could probably help stir things. Maybe Removing Hoxha at the right time too could help gravitate Albania into this pact.

wouldnt this third bloc just be CONEFO, then?
That was more of an Indonesian experiment than anything else (plus it only lasted for like a year).
 
Having Kim Il-Sung removed during the August Faction Incident and replaced by a more orthodox communist leader aligned with China could probably help stir things. Maybe Removing Hoxha at the right time too could help gravitate Albania into this pact.


That was more of an Indonesian experiment than anything else (plus it only lasted for like a year).
CONEFO was always a joint Sino-Indonesian project, it was just spearheaded by Indonesian.
 
I think a side-effect some people might be overlooking is, perhaps, a stronger unified left-wing movement across the world. A stronger PRC with its own geopolitical bloc definitely means a more harsh treatment of left-wing movements in the West, but if the Cultural Revolution can be merged into China's rise as its own superpower with a more geopolitical bloc (and maybe similar revolutions across the bloc? definitely not as extreme as China's but I imagine more people engaging in multiple Cultural Revolution-esque movements could bring more focus to the grassroots efforts of the GPCR before Mao betrayed it in 1969) instead of being singled out as something only happening before China became a world power and subject to a lot of both domestic and foreign propaganda a stronger, more unified New Left could form. Before the Cultural Revolution was disparaged by the CPC, a lot of New Left groups were Maoist and still very explicitly Marxist-Leninist, just following the Chinese line instead of the Soviet line. Some that come to mind are the Black Panthers and Revolutionary Labor Party in the US. Once the USSR collapses, if this theoretical Chinese Bloc is still around and China still follows a Maoist line (which I think could be possible with Cultural Revolutions across it: especially if some are far more successful than China's. Maybe in Vietnam... Albania, maybe? Depends on how long Hoxha stays around...) then I think Maoism would become the de facto strain of communism across the western world and overtake traditional Marxism-Leninism.

I wonder how this would affect Soviet aligned governments outside of Asia. Albania is obvious, but what about Cuba? Cuba itself was never a real hotbed of Marxism-Leninism (moreso a nationalist progressive revolution using Marxist rhetoric), and I'm curious how they'd look at China once the USSR falls apart.
 
Last edited:
Top