One China and One Korea

Here's something I havent seen done yet. Stalin dies in September 1950. Instead of China sending troops to aid North Korea as they were about to be over run by the UN, what if Mao sent those troops to invade Taiwan. Mao was concerned the US would declare war on China next, so we'll have MacArthur send Mao basically saying "If you get involved ask yourself, how long will it be until China stops glowing in the dark?" Mao turns to Moscow, but there is a power struggle over who replaces Stalin, believing the US to be good on its threat to nuke his country, and seeing the Soviets as bickering amongst themselves, Mao turns his attention to Taiwan.

As the UN encroaches upon the Yalu River, Mao launches his invasion of Taiwan. MacArthur seeks permission from Truman to make good on his promise to make China glow, but Truman declines. The British and Portugese also pressure Truman not provoke war with China fearing for Hong Kong and Macao. A detachment of US Marines lands on Taiwan to help defend it from the invading Chinese, but Mao has pumped hundreds of thousands of soldiers across the straight. The US Navy evacuates the surviving Marines, and a large number of Taiwanese citizens. Meanwhile the US has its handful with the last of the North Korean forces, but by May 1951 has pushed the communists across the Yalu River. The Korean War is over, and an western friendly government rules over the entire peninsula.

In Moscow, Molotov emerges as the new Premeir of the USSR and a new chapter of the Cold War begins. The loss of the Republic of China to the Communists sends bells ringing in Washington, fueling McCarthyism. Kai-shek had escaped the Chinese invasion and now set up a Government in exile in San Francisco, still recognized by the US and UN as the government of China. The Korean/Chinese border became the most heavily fortified border in the world, with the US keeping troops stationed with in view of the Peoples Republic of China. Just as Kai-shek had a government in exile in the US, Kim Il Sung set up a Korean government in exile along a border town on the Yalu River.

Now there was one China, and one Korea, and a hot war in southeast Asia with the French and Ho Chi Minh, the strategies of both east and west were now radically different.

Okay, where'd Mao get a navy that could defeat the American navy?

Faeelin said:

Okay, where'd Mao get a navy that could defeat the American navy?

Click to expand...

He wouldn't necessarily have needed one, it was teh Korean war that set America firmly against Communist China, before there had been some signs that the Truman administration was prepared to get over the loss of its ally and deal with reality as the Russians already had. It's therefore POSSIBLE that they wouldn't have tried to stop the invasion.

OTOH Xen has US marines landing, can't see why they'd try to stop the Chinese on land and not also send a fleet into the strait.

Matthew Craw said:

OTOH Xen has US marines landing, can't see why they'd try to stop the Chinese on land and not also send a fleet into the strait.

Click to expand...

Call it a token, like the US showing they wont let their ally fall, of if that doesnt work, just have MacArthur send them without the President approving.

Xen said:

Call it a token, like the US showing they wont let their ally fall, of if that doesnt work, just have MacArthur send them without the President approving.

Click to expand...

So what makes the US decide it's not worth sinking the mysterious Chinese armada, which seems to have appeared out of nowhere?

Faeelin said:

So what makes the US decide it's not worth sinking the mysterious Chinese armada, which seems to have appeared out of nowhere?

Click to expand...

it's hardly an armada, just a buch on civilian ships pressed into service as transports, and what's teh point of stopping it? it'd make normalising relations with the PRC near impossible and saddle them with a weak client state that serves no useful purpose.

Matthew Craw said:

it's hardly an armada, just a buch on civilian ships pressed into service as transports, and what's teh point of stopping it? it'd make normalising relations with the PRC near impossible and saddle them with a weak client state that serves no useful purpose.

Click to expand...

So then why was Taiwan never invaded OTL, and why has the US been willing to defend Taiwan?

It's politically impossible for an American president to just sit by while Mao invades Taiwan.

Faeelin said:

So then why was Taiwan never invaded OTL, and why has the US been willing to defend Taiwan?

It's politically impossible for an American president to just sit by while Mao invades Taiwan.

Click to expand...

After 1950 yes, but there is an argument that this situation is, in large part, a product of the Korean war. I don't necessarily entirely agree, but it does make a certain amount of sense.

Faeelin said:

So what makes the US decide it's not worth sinking the mysterious Chinese armada, which seems to have appeared out of nowhere?

Click to expand...

You're quite limited in your thinking. Who said it has to be an armada? I want to know that? The US basically lets it fall as Truman doesnt want to get involved with China, basically adopting an attitude give them Taiwan, keep them out of Korea. The troops can get there in the old wooden ships used for centuries. Could Taiwan rip them to shreds? You bet, but China has alot of volunteers that would come anyway, and willingly, and not every ship will come will be destroyed in the straights, some will make it. Besides if Red China is able to get air superiority over Taiwan then getting the ships there wont be as much of a problem. Getting tanks there will be a problem, but making the right pre invasion connections, and planting people in the right places they can take Taiwanese tanks to use against them. So I dont see what your harping on. You dont think before the big modern warships, people got to Taiwan by swimming do you? In short China can simply overwhelm Taiwan, and the US only gives token support at best.

Matthew Craw said:

it's hardly an armada, just a buch on civilian ships pressed into service as transports, and what's teh point of stopping it? it'd make normalising relations with the PRC near impossible and saddle them with a weak client state that serves no useful purpose.

Click to expand...

Was anyone interested in normalizing relations at this time?

Xen said:

You're quite limited in your thinking. Who said it has to be an armada? I want to know that? The US basically lets it fall as Truman doesnt want to get involved with China, basically adopting an attitude give them Taiwan, keep them out of Korea. The troops can get there in the old wooden ships used for centuries. Could Taiwan rip them to shreds? You bet, but China has alot of volunteers that would come anyway, and willingly, and not every ship will come will be destroyed in the straights, some will make it. Besides if Red China is able to get air superiority over Taiwan then getting the ships there wont be as much of a problem. Getting tanks there will be a problem, but making the right pre invasion connections, and planting people in the right places they can take Taiwanese tanks to use against them. So I dont see what your harping on. You dont think before the big modern warships, people got to Taiwan by swimming do you? In short China can simply overwhelm Taiwan, and the US only gives token support at best.

Click to expand...

Hundreds of thousands of men, across a strait bigger than the Channel, with a bigger army than was deployed at D-Day?

Do you consider the D-day warships to be an armada?

You can believe what you want, but I believe in a world where you can't just hijack enemy tanks and send thousands of ships across the strait in wodden vessels while Truman says he doesn't care.

Do you also think the Nazis could have invaded America?

Faeelin said:

Hundreds of thousands of men, across a strait bigger than the Channel, with a bigger army than was deployed at D-Day?

Do you consider the D-day warships to be an armada?

You can believe what you want, but I believe in a world where you can't just hijack enemy tanks and send thousands of ships across the strait in wodden vessels while Truman says he doesn't care.

Do you also think the Nazis could have invaded America?

Click to expand...

Thats your business. Matthew Craw has it down with what Im getting at. I dont believe anybody could cross thousands of miles of ocean, but the Taiwan straight is hardly thousands of miles of ocean is it? Keep in mind, Chinese philosophy was different from western. They would have crammed into the most uncomfortable hole, piled almost literally on top of each other to fight their enemy. They do something similiar, Chinese civilians crawling in a small little rickety boat by the hundreds to thousands to make it across the Pacific so they can find freedom in the United States. The living conditions are awful, many are half starved just trying to make it, alot die but yet they continue to try to come. Thats the power of people believing in something. And that is the REAL world, and thats the one I live in.

I do believe a US President would have let it happen to, even at this time. Hell who would have thought we would of let mainland China fall without sending a few thousand Marines in to try to take it back? Look at Latin America, how many democratically elected Governments did the US topple for a friendlier dictatorship? All the time saying we support Democracy in the world. It happened quite a bit, the Cold War US had a nasty habit of selling out other people's freedoms for peace of mind with a government's friendliness.

Faeelin said:

Hundreds of thousands of men, across a strait bigger than the Channel, with a bigger army than was deployed at D-Day?

Do you consider the D-day warships to be an armada?

You can believe what you want, but I believe in a world where you can't just hijack enemy tanks and send thousands of ships across the strait in wodden vessels while Truman says he doesn't care.

Do you also think the Nazis could have invaded America?

Click to expand...

Nobody's suggesting it would have been a terribly well organised invasion, it would probably have been akin to anarchy. However, in 1950 the KMT was demoralised and hadn't yet firmly established themselves on Taiwan so even a relatively weak invasion would stand some chance of success, it's not like they'll have to storm beach defenses held by veteran,motivated troops.

It's US opposition that would be the killer, but in 1950 Truman was rather exasperated with Chiang, coming close to writing him off, and there's no essential US interest at stake.

The only counterargument would be fear of teh domestic reaction to abandoning the last vestige of the Chinese Nationalists. Of course, that might actually be enough to push Truman into action

Of Couse you could have the US not give Japanese Formosa to China in 1943.
Chaing retreats and fortifies Hainadao Island in the south. Mac Authur stops Fifty miles short of the Yalu River and sents Mao, the glowing message.
Mao turns South. The Haikou channel is narrow enuff to swim. A fifty mile strip is not viable and in the seventies when the US & China resume relations, the ROK asorbs the remains of North Korea.

Remember people, this is the era right after WW2. They are selling out their small, weak allies in the hope that a powerful aggressor will be "nice" and become friends once it is in a stronger position. Am I the only one who sees the connection here?!?

These people haven't forgotten Hitler. They saw appeasement fail. And that is inarguably what this is: appeasement. There is no chance, whatsoever, that the US would stand for anything short of a fait accompli. I doubt they would accept even that.

Good idea Duquesne. Much simpler, and overall just better. I assume Taiwan was set up as an independent republic?

Even in that TL, though, it's hard to picture the US just doing nothing as one of its allies is devoured by an aggressive neighbor.

Admiral Matt said:

Remember people, this is the era right after WW2. They are selling out their small, weak allies in the hope that a powerful aggressor will be "nice" and become friends once it is in a stronger position. Am I the only one who sees the connection here?!?

These people haven't forgotten Hitler. They saw appeasement fail. And that is inarguably what this is: appeasement. There is no chance, whatsoever, that the US would stand for anything short of a fait accompli. I doubt they would accept even that.

Good idea Duquesne. Much simpler, and overall just better. I assume Taiwan was set up as an independent republic?

Even in that TL, though, it's hard to picture the US just doing nothing as one of its allies is devoured by an aggressive neighbor.

Click to expand...

You mean like the way the US and allies rushed to the aid of Kai-Shek in mainland China when it became clear Mao would win. Or how they came storming in when China invaded Tibet or Uighuristan. Lets not forget about Eastern Europe in its entirity. Or What about giving the French Air Support in Southeast Asia to keep Ho Chi Minh and his communists from overrunning an important ally. Oh yes, and let us not forget the US would never let a nation in our hemisphere, so any chance of Cuba becoming Communist is very improbable, and would never happen at the height of the Cold War would it?

I think I have proven my point quite adequately, God it feels good to be right.

"You mean like the way the US and allies rushed to the aid of Kai-Shek in mainland China when it became clear Mao would win."

The fact is that intervention would have required the deployment of literally millions of US troops, who could not necessarily have done more than hold coastal cities. That is a long way from preventing China from invading Taiwan, which would require a small portion of the US navy to intervene for a couple days. Believe it or not, the US sometimes has to consider whether it can actually do anything before it decides to go to war.

"Or how they came storming in when China invaded Tibet or Uighuristan."

The US had zero obligations to defend Central Asian states. Plus the usual massive commitments that would have been required. And don't forget that as long as Taiwan was safe, the US had a way of holding the Chinese in check.

"Lets not forget about Eastern Europe in its entirity."

NATO was formed because of the percieved Nazi-like aggression of the Soviets. It was an equivalent of drawing the line at Poland, but this time doing it right away instead of waiting until too late. I suppose you mean why we didn't go to war with them over it right away? Well, aside from the Russians being the second greatest military and industrial power in the world, the USSR had a right to be in Eastern Europe initially. They didn't come in with the express purpose of annexing territory (like the Chinese in your proposal) - they came for the same reason we did: to whup the Nazis. Setting up puppet governments in their sphere of influence is not enough to justify WW3.

"Or What about giving the French Air Support in Southeast Asia to keep Ho Chi Minh and his communists from overrunning an important ally."

Are you aware that we offered to give the French nuclear weapons to help put down the uprising?

And anyway, that was smack dab in the middle of the Truman Doctrine, now wasn't it? That would be the doctrine that called for any support of nations threatened internally by communism short of actual US troop deployment.

"Oh yes, and let us not forget the US would never let a nation in our hemisphere, so any chance of Cuba becoming Communist is very improbable, and would never happen at the height of the Cold War would it?"

Castro wasn't a communist when he came to power. He was initially pro-US. But you're right, how come we never tried to overthrow him once he went red?

Oh wait, we did.

So you have examples where the US couldn't do anything, and didn't, along with a couple examples of times the US could, and did. If you want something relevant to the Taiwan issue, I'm afraid you'll have to keep going.

I will only have one thing to say. If you dont like the timeline then dont participate. I hate having my timelines thrown off track because people have doubts about things when history has been written by men and things happen that we didn't imagine would happen with a certain countries doctrine and power. Who would of thought the US would fail time and again to overthrow Castro? How many times did we fail to assassinate him? Thats ASB territory with how often he survived those attempts.


America's foreign policy in Asia was a direct result of the Korean War, Ive read more than once Truman really didn't consider rushing to the aid of Taiwan if the Reds were to invade until after Chinese intervention in Korea. Why risk a full blown war over Taiwan? China at the time was in good with the USSR, this could have led to WWIII.

Not to mention as I said in the timeline Britain and Portugal had concerns over Hong Kong and Macao. Heck just have Mao tell them if the UN interferes too much with the invasion of Taiwan, he will take those two cities by force. So out of respect for its European allies the US lets Taiwan go, to take back those two cities would mean a full blown war, right in middle of the unpopular Korean War.


God I hate it when people nitpick timelines, but alas thats what some people seem to come here for.

Xen said:

I will only have one thing to say. If you dont like the timeline then dont participate. I hate having my timelines thrown off track because people have doubts about things when history has been written by men and things happen that we didn't imagine would happen with a certain countries doctrine and power. Who would of thought the US would fail time and again to overthrow Castro? How many times did we fail to assassinate him? Thats ASB territory with how often he survived those attempts.


America's foreign policy in Asia was a direct result of the Korean War, Ive read more than once Truman really didn't consider rushing to the aid of Taiwan if the Reds were to invade until after Chinese intervention in Korea. Why risk a full blown war over Taiwan? China at the time was in good with the USSR, this could have led to WWIII.

Not to mention as I said in the timeline Britain and Portugal had concerns over Hong Kong and Macao. Heck just have Mao tell them if the UN interferes too much with the invasion of Taiwan, he will take those two cities by force. So out of respect for its European allies the US lets Taiwan go, to take back those two cities would mean a full blown war, right in middle of the unpopular Korean War.


God I hate it when people nitpick timelines, but alas thats what some people seem to come here for.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you on US policy, a practical decision to abandon Chiang was effectively made before he fled to taiwan when teh American (unlike teh Russian) ambassador did not accompany him from Nanking to Shanghai when he was driven out by the Communists. This decision was not reversed until after the Chinese became involved in Korea, a fact which I have also found in virtually every serious work on the war.

You're missing the chronology

Thing is, the US put Taiwan behind the shieldd of the US 7th fleet *before* September 1950. It started protecting Taiwan from June 25th 1950 on, right when it got involved in Korea. So, its clearly a matter of US prestige and commitment by Sept 1950. Mao would have no reason to think it would work.

Now if you're arguing that Chinese entry into the Korean War made the commitment to Taiwan *more* solid, I would agree.

You could make an argument that if China does not go into Korea, and then invades Taiwan in 1951 after the US has drawn down again, maybe Truman does not intervene - the "neutralization" of the straits was seen at first as a war measure. I still doubt that's enough.

Another way to have one China / one Korea is if WWII ends differently so the USSR does not get into the fight. The US is the exclusive occupier of Korea and permits it independence after a couple years. IMHO Soviet involvement in Manchuria was not decisive for ChiCom victory, which will occur probably no later than 1951.

Without a divided Korea there is no Korean War. Without a Korean War, there is no immediate cause for Truman's announcement of sending the 7th fleet - Mao has a much better chance of invading Taiwan without US opposition. IT's still not a guarantee.

Here's the way we should think about the power of McCarthyism in OTL:

1945-1948 only miniscule McCarthyism and not a strong attachment to Chiang Kai-shek. Tossing a few more dollars for him was proposed but doing more was a fringe position (John Birch Society)

October 1949-September 1950 W/ the reality of the PRC and Soviet bomb and Soviet spies setting in, mini-McCarthyism began. It was not insignificant, but it wasn't strong enough to have the White House running scared yet. The memories of Chiang's misrule were too fresh for lots of Americans for the China Lobby's position to become a majority view.

September 1950 through the 1950s- Mega McCarthyism sets in. With Chinese troops actually fighting us, the pro-Chiang lobby becomes more credible. China Lobby sentiment is strong enough to scare Democratic lawmakers into changing their Asian policies. While domestic McCarthyism abates, Democrats are forced to demonstrate toughness versus communism until the middle of the Vietnam War. The threat of Nixon's criticism is enough to mean that only Nixon can go to China.