AHC: Earlier US-PRC positive relations before the 70's?

While reading up stuff about the situation in mainland China in 1945 and in 1950, they revealed that the Chinese communists had numerous chances for a stable relationship with the US even as the Cold War was looming yet that window of opportunity was shrinking since the rejection of their offer to send a representative to the US to explain their cause more clearly, at least form my perspective. And of course that window was closed when the US pulled a variety of moves to tempt the PRC to intervene in the Korean War on the North Korean War in 1950.

In regards to this, the only two ways I can think of to get a positive US-ChiCom relationship is either have the offer get through or have the US not alienate the PRC during the Korean War; that is not having the 7th Fleet stationed in Taiwan and/or holding in MacArthur after the Inchon landing.

Is more ways to achieve this with a POD between 1937 and 1970?
 
. . . that window was closed when the US pulled a variety of moves to tempt the PRC to intervene in the Korean War . . .
I would like a reference or two regarding this if possible.

And if it did happen, it's pretty standard poker play for relations between major powers, as much as you and I might wish it wasn't.
 
See my post on the possibility of a breakthrough in US-PRC relations in 1955-56 at A lost chance for US-PRC detente, 1955-56?
The only I can see this being accomplished is if China doesn't intervene in the Korean War; though thanks for the insight about Sino-US relations at the time.
I would like a reference or two regarding this if possible.

And if it did happen, it's pretty standard poker play for relations between major powers, as much as you and I might wish it wasn't.
It's more my perspective, as I'm still doing research for my TL.

And what do mean by poker play? You mean that stuff like the Vietnam War and the Maoist-inspired groups like the Khmer Rogue and the Shining Path still happening?
 
cambodia_ethnic_1972.jpg


Cambodia 1972

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/cambodia_ethnic_1972.jpg

Okay, so what were the contributing factors of the Cambodian genocide from '75 to '78? Yes, some of it was the specific content of the Maoist ideology of back to the land. That horseshit didn't exactly help matters. But some of it was merely teenagers with guns, regardless of the content of the ideology. Teenagers who are being told that they were purer believers than their elders.

And then, from the above map, a lot of it was ethnic conflict unleashed. Please notice the medium orange Khmer Loeu (Tribal). Some of these hill people willingly became Khmer Rouge soldiers, others skillfully avoided being drafted. And I'd be willing to bet that at least some became leaders in the Khmer Rouge.
 
Last edited:
Well, it damn sure isn't the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia who killed one third of the civilian population. That is not what I mean by poker play.
Then what do you mean by poker play? the possibility that the PRC and the USA aren't going to fully trust each other when relations get established earlier than OTL? I believe that; same thing happened when it came to the PRC's relations with the USSR IOTL.
I know for a fact that the Khmer Rogue would give the Nazis a run for their money when it comes to evilness; the only way they'd top is if they plan to export their "year zero" antics outside of Cambodia but I digress.
 
Then what do you mean by poker play? the possibility that the PRC and the USA aren't going to fully trust each other when relations get established earlier than OTL? . . .
Yes, that the relationship will be both cooperative and competitive. One of my fondest hopes is that the competing economic systems do compete on who can do a better job providing genuine economic development for Indonesia, Thailand, Kenya, Nigeria, Ecuador, Bolivia, etc, etc, etc, and that this becomes the main competition of the cold war, with some cheating of course on accounting and what constitutes genuine trade. But the cool part is that the cheating actually helps the third world.

What I also mean by standard poker play is the whole cold war business of propping up dictatorships and arming rebel groups. I'm generally against this and perhaps you are as well (I hope so! ;)). My only point would be that a seasoned leader resists letting this spiral out of control.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Eisenhower has a better Secretary of State than John Dulles. Instead he has someone who argues that covert actions is exactly the kind of thing which will cons back to bite us in the ass, and that the way to win the hearts and mind of the Third World is to keep rolling on delivering the goods economically. Nothing wrong with jawboning businesses executives that trade has to a damn sight closer to 50-50 than it has been and still plenty of money to be made.

One possibility, the Korean War still happens as scheduled. The psychology is somewhat complicated on who needs to forgive who. It was closer to the Chineses home territory and there was talk of attacking the home territory. But then, China did intervene after we were already there.

Alright, after Stalin dies on March 5, 1953, Eisenhower takes the approach, I'm open to a better relationship if they are, too. And he does this without over-selling or over-investing, and this comes to pass.

And we still want to 'triangulate' with having China as another and competing socialist power to largely offset the Soviets. So, we subtly put out some feelers to China and let's say they go for it.
 
Maybe Eisenhower has a better Secretary of State than John Dulles. Instead he has someone who argues that covert actions is exactly the kind of thing which will cons back to bite us in the ass, and that the way to win the hearts and mind of the Third World is to keep rolling on delivering the goods economically. Nothing wrong with jawboning businesses executives that trade has to a damn sight closer to 50-50 than it has been and still plenty of money to be made.

One possibility, the Korean War still happens as scheduled. The psychology is somewhat complicated on who needs to forgive who. It was closer to the Chineses home territory and there was talk of attacking the home territory. But then, China did intervene after we were already there.

Alright, after Stalin dies on March 5, 1953, Eisenhower takes the approach, I'm open to a better relationship if they are, too. And he does this without over-selling or over-investing, and this comes to pass.

And we still want to 'triangulate' with having China as another and competing socialist power to largely offset the Soviets. So, we subtly put out some feelers to China and let's say they go for it.
If I recall, one post in a similar thread suggested that having Red China lean to the US early in the Cold War would have a huge impact on the NAM in that it would get more influence by Red China and that alone might change the character of the Cold War.
 
Top