AH Challenge: Republic of China in Singapore

[Plumber]

Well, that was the undisputed fact back then...

Except that it wasn't. The RoC setting up shop on Taiwan in 1945 happened without a legal basis. Japan ceded Taiwan in 1952, but not to any specific power. Since the victorious power was the United States, the USA has far more of a claim to Taiwan than the PRC.

Taiwan hasn't been de jure Chinese since 1895. But the RoC was there in 1945, so why would they go to Singapore?

 

[EternalCynic]

Except that it wasn't. The RoC setting up shop on Taiwan in 1945 happened without a legal basis. Japan ceded Taiwan in 1952, but not to any specific power. Since the victorious power was the United States, the USA has far more of a claim to Taiwan than the PRC.

Taiwan hasn't been de jure Chinese since 1895. But the RoC was there in 1945, so why would they go to Singapore?

But Japan also ceded southern Sakhalin without naming any specific power. Is Southern Sakhalin not part of Russia as a result?

If the US was serious about a claim over Taiwan, it will have prevented Chiang from forming a civilian administrative structure over it. At the very least it will have made a token protest. But not only did the US fail to do so, it signed numerous treaties and made numerous statements accepting that Taiwan is RoC territory. Through all these actions, the US has voided any claim it had over Taiwan. Especially since it accepted that Taiwan was part of China when it switched recognition to the PRC.

Of course from a legal standpoint Obama is perfectly free to switch recognition back to the RoC, but that's ASB.

 

[Vingilótë]

Taiwan was a part of Japan until 1952, which covers the time when the KMT will flee from China. It's easy enough to come up with a scenario where the KMT does not occupy Taiwan on behalf of the Allies, and where Taiwan is not handed over to China in the postwar period.

This is technically true; but the return of Taiwan to China was agreed on at the Cairo Conference in 1943; and at the time, the official stance of the Allies (and China, nationalist and communist both) was that it was territory stolen by force in the 1895 war. By 1952 (and 1945, really), it was more a matter of hammering out final terms.

If, for example, Mao had been crushed during the Chinese Civil War, then the result would have been that Taiwan would be indisputably considered part of China under the Nationalists, and that would have been the end of it. As it was, because Chiang had to flee from China, Taiwan, being his last stronghold that hadn't fallen, was a natural choice. Personally, I think it's rather hard to envision a scenario where the result isn't either Communist Taiwan or Nationalist Taiwan, except in the honestly fairly unlikely possibility of independent Taiwan (after all, which leader was supportive of such a possibility?)

Incidentally, the OP is unlikely in the extreme to me; if Taiwan falls, but Chiang escapes, the possibility I see as most likely is Chiang fleeing to America, rather than Singapore (because that possibility is singularly unlikely). To give you an idea of why; the first thing I thought of reading the thread title was Sun Yat-Sen's brief sojourn in Singpore, which was mostly notable because the British, who thought he was there to stir up the Chinese population, threw him in jail.

 

[Solarity]

A PoD of 1949 is pretty implausible. However, a PoD sometime in the 1930s or even later in the 1940s could work, with many flukes of luck for Nationalist China in Singapore, a stronger and more aggressive Nationalist China with better relations with the British (or abysmal if they want to take Singapore by force) and perhaps a mentally instable Chiang-kai Shek possessing an obsession with Singapore?

 

[Vingilótë]

A PoD of 1949 is pretty implausible. However, a PoD sometime in the 1930s or even later in the 1940s could work, with many flukes of luck for China in Singapore, a stronger and more aggressive Nationalist China with better relations with the British (or abysmal if they want to take Singapore by force) and perhaps a mentally instable Chiang-kai Shek possessing an obsession with Singapore?

The primary problem isn't with the RoC, but with the British. Why should they give such a key part of Malaya (not China!) to some Chinese refugees?

 

[Solarity]

The primary problem isn't with the RoC, but with the British. Why should they give such a key part of Malaya (not China!) to some Chinese refugees?

Butterflies, more Sinophiles in the British government and/or in the ruling administration of Singapore, perhaps a more aggressive Chinese nationalist movement in Singapore, a more extensive campaign where Singapore is thoroughly devastated by the Japanese in a longer battle and the costs of rebuilding it to pre-war economical stature are too great, maybe a worse World War II in Europe with greater losses for Britain, and a mentally imbalanced Chiang-kai Shek who loses Taiwan to a Communist uprising but fervently demands Singapore to retreat to due to some sort of developed obsession with the city, a dash of more interest in greater Chinese irredentism and perhaps health problems which are treated by a quack doctor ala Theodor Morell and Hitler which could cause the mental instabilities?

As I said, a lot of flukes of luck.

 

[ramones1986]

Incidentally, the OP is unlikely in the extreme to me; if Taiwan falls, but Chiang escapes, the possibility I see as most likely is Chiang fleeing to America, rather than Singapore (because that possibility is singularly unlikely). To give you an idea of why; the first thing I thought of reading the thread title was Sun Yat-Sen's brief sojourn in Singpore, which was mostly notable because the British, who thought he was there to stir up the Chinese population, threw him in jail.

Let'a be clear; even myself think that setting up a Republic of China in Singapore is a ridiculous idea. But I can't help it, you know. So I asked this idea that preoccupied in my mind here in this site.

I hope you understand

 

[mcdo]

At the very least it will have made a token protest.

First off, let me just say that I really didn't want to get into another one of these arguments with you. They are getting repetitive and pointless; neither one of us is going to change the other's mind. But since you said "token protest"... well, the US government (and other bodies) has made any number of "protest" statements against the idea that Taiwan's status is settled, and that it has already been returned to "China". I respectfully direct your attention to the following:

What Plumber stated is correct, the US purposefully had Japan renounce its sovereignty over Taiwan, without specifying whom it now belonged. (In an ideal world, I think it would have reverted to the Taiwanese people themselves, but apparently the US intended for it to remain "undetermined".)

That is why U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles asserted in 1954 that "technical sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores has never been settled…because the Japanese Peace Treaty merely involves a renunciation by Japan of its right and title to these islands. But the future title is not determined by the Japanese Peace Treaty nor is it determined by the Peace Treaty which was concluded between the Republic of China and Japan."--U.S. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 896 (1954).

If the 1952 treaty conclusively gave Taiwan to China, then why did the Soviet delegate to the peace conference cite the treaty's failure to do exactly that as one of the reasons the Soviet Union refused to sign the treaty? The Soviet delegate wrote: "this draft grossly violates the indisputable rights of China to the return of integral parts of Chinese territory: Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Paracel and other islands…. The draft contains only a reference to the renunciation by Japan of its rights to these territories but intentionally omits any mention of the further fate of these territories."--U.S. Department of State, Record of the Proceedings of the Conference for the Conclusion and Signature of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, Publication 4392, 1951, p. 78.

The RoC government itself understood this. When their foreign minister was asked about the "status of Taiwan" in US congressional hearings on the RoC-Japan Treaty in 1952, he said "[T]he delicate international situation makes it that [Taiwan does] not belong to us. Under present circumstances, Japan has no right to transfer [Taiwan] to us; nor can we accept such a transfer from Japan even if she so wishes…. In the [ROC]–Japanese peace treaty, we have made provisions to signify that residents including juristic persons of [Taiwan] bear Chinese nationality, and this provision may serve to mend any future gaps when Formosa and the Pescadores are restored to us".--Robert L. Starr, "Legal Status of Taiwan," U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, memorandum to Charles Sylvester, Director of the Office of Republic of China Affairs, July 13, 1971.

In 1954, the State Department wrote "[The future status of Taiwan] was deliberately left undetermined, and the U.S. as a principal victor over Japan has an interest in their ultimate future."
China and Japan, Vol. 14, Part 1, of Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970–1989), p. 760 (bolding is mine)

We can see further evidence of this during the negotiations for the 1955 RoC-US treaty. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on the Treaty notes that Secretary of State John Foster Dulles "informed the committee that the reference[…]to ‘the territories of either of the Parties' was language carefully chosen to avoid denoting anything one way or another as to their sovereignty."
Starr memo again

Even the Shanghai Communique reflects this US understanding of sovereignty over Taiwan. In the Chinese-language version of the Shanghai Communiqué, the United States insisted that the term "acknowledge" be translated as renshidao (takes note of) rather than as chengren (recognize) to remind the Chinese that the United States was not quite prepared for a final settlement of Taiwan's status.

The Normalization Communiqué of December 16, 1978, that the "United States acknowledges" China's position that "Taiwan is part of China." Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher stressed in several congressional hearings that this did not necessarily connote formal U.S. recognition of the Chinese position. The TRA conference report specifically noted that while the Carter Administration had "acknowledged" the "Chinese position" that Taiwan is part of China, "the United States has not itself agreed to this position." U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Taiwan Enabling Act, Report No. 96–7, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., March 2, 1979, p. 7.

The quotes you see here are from this Heritage Foundation report