AHC: Indo-American war against China in 1960s

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Sino-Indian war of 61 and 62 was relatively short and resulted in a Chinese victory. The Indians received arms and assistance from the US, Britain and USSR before it was over I think.

However, could there have been a more escalatory response on the part of India and the USA? It seems to me that India did not lack for infantry or other kinds of ground troops, but could there have been an attempt, possibly successful, to roll back the Chinese in Aksai Chin using Indian ground power backed by US logistics aid and airpower?

What obstacles most need to be overcome for this to happen? Is it enough to have an Indian government more determined to avenge its early defeats and less concerned about non-alignment? Does something need to change in the American calculus? Were the Americans already too heavily invested in Indochina to engage much in South Asia and the Himalayas?
 
China could have gotten over confident and decided to roll the dice and go for broke.

If that happens america drops freaking every thing to stop the chinese, you have to remember more then anything no one wanted to be the person who 'lost' another china. America would prirotize India over vietnam and hell maybe even let that die India is as you remember much bigger and much more important.

Once america steps in, in a major way China who was stimmied in korea might decide to push things out of pride, The soviet union might decide to bury the hatchet and aid China, because a public loss for communism looks bad.

As a result the 60s change, this conflict might have a lot of gurella combat but our ally is a fellow democracy and were fighting against some one weve faced before. China likely does well during the initial combat phase the indian army was in bad shape, but with american money tech aid, and Indias own numbers and capabilities The chinese envitably get kicked out of India. Lets say this war lasts 5 to 6 years.

Vietnam is probally gone of course because America had to shift its priorities but Vietnam is also a small country and saving india is a much bigger prize.

Post war is where things get interesting, India's going to be a lot more well together.

The nation was forced to fight for its national survival and they won, they also had to fight a communist nation to do so. The countries economy gets liberalized earlier with the economy being propped up by its allies. India isn't a part of the non alined movement any more. They just saw how that ended. Pakastan probally flips sides and joins up with the soviets, because its pretty much impossible to have both side as your allies.

The relationship between the US and India is now better much better, China is now the looming threat that indias government uses to bring the nation together. China's economy probally does worse, Mao needs some one to blame and who better then the moderates in the chinese government? They get purged and it takes longer for china to lift off. Meanwhile some of the boom that went to China OTL ends up in India.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@West and @La Rouge Beret -

What is the territorial settlement going to look like at the end of the war? Can the Indians reoccupy Aksai Chin, and restore their border on the McMahon Line?

Does this effect local politics and proxy efforts in Burma at all?

Longer term consequences for Pakistan and Afghanistan?
 
Pakastan goes into Soviet Orbit, don't know if they go communist but their entire thing was that they were not india so they will defect into soviet hands. Which means that with out Pakastan giving weapons, training and money to people in Afganistan that the mujahadine are a lot less capable and probally get squashed. 9-11 is unlikely and probally gets butterflied, that said the US was looking for a way to screw the soviets so they will find some other proxy conflict to burn resources.

As for the line, how far the conflict goes depends on how much resources India and allies are going to pump into the conflict my money is on a status quo anti bellum with the Indians being forced to become more organized due to the fear of being invaded again. India will of course firmly enter american orbit, China might be forced to go more closely into soviet orbit, with this being the conflict rather then nam your not going to get a nixion in china moment. Too many americans have died fighting them in recent memory.
 
This is an interesting WI.

Now with the disclaimer that South Asia is not my area of expertise, here is my 0.02c.

A decision by the Americans to provide greater logistical support to the Indian Army could allow Aksai Chin to be reclaimed, however I doubt if the Americans would formally deploy USAF squadrons. Perhaps they allow the IAF to purchase more American aircraft in an attempt to wean the Indians out of their non aligned camp. One interesting scenario post war is that expect the Tibetan resistance (CIA supported IOTL) to be greatly expanded, and the guerrilla war in Tibet to increase in intensity. The threat of China could enable Burma to be flipped as well away from the non aligned camp to be softly aligned with the West.

All of this really depends on how deft a hand the USA plays IMO, short term status quo ante bellum peace. Although, this could lead to a second go in a couple of years time, potentially involving a coordinated attack with China and Pakistan versus India. Seems to be a great TL potentially in this scenario.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
however I doubt if the Americans would formally deploy USAF squadrons.

would they informally deploy them as "advisers" and "flight and gunnery instructors" a la early Vietnam?

I'm not sure US support has to be so limited, the Kennedy administration was more pro-Indian than preceding administrations, was not so bothered by declarations of non-alignment and sent liberal intellectual John Kenneth Galbraith there as Ambassador. They also saw India as providing an alternative third world development path to contrast against communism.

To some extent, if the US is going to pick a battlefield to prove it can stand up to China and reverse Chinese aggression, India is the best place to do it, far better than Vietnam or elsewhere in Asia. I mean, there's Korea - been there, done that, didn't enjoy the stalemate. There's Taiwan straits - well that can be easily defended till the cows come home but supporting a ChiNat attack on the mainland is a fool's errand. There's Indochina, but Indochinese internal politics are a mess, clients are weak, and it could be another Korea, only this time in the jungle. By picking India as a place to make a stand you get an ally that is democratic, has an established nationalism and can provide all the infantry you could need. A wonderful alternative if you're looking for something to instead of fighting in Laos or Vietnam.
 
I've been thinking about this scenario further, after sitting down to read my Christmas present 'The Monsoon War.' Incidentally, I do recommend the book with the caveat that it is a strategic level analysis of the conflict, and perhaps best suited to students or graduates of a Staff College.

Anyway, from my readings the Indian Army spoke at length of the limited British and American support in OTL during the conflict, and of their own logistical difficulties. A good example is that an Infantry Battalion was able to replace their Lee Enfield 303s with SLRs on the way to the front, but due to ammunition shortages were unable to properly qualify on the weapon. This is before we consider the clothing shortages faced by the Indian Army.

Based on this, my suggestion would be for the United States to turn on the taps logistically for the Indians, and to deploy tactical airlift aircraft to assist with getting the supplies to the front. In this case a Material Assistance Command / Mission would be established to co - ordinate these efforts, in the medium term provide the engineering support to improve the lines of communication to the area via road & rail networks. Now if you deploy tactical airlift aircraft, it would seem reasonable to deploy fighter squadrons to escort / protect the transport aircraft.

IMHO, if this occurs the line is stabilised, and within 3 - 6 months the Indians are able to retake all of the positions they have lost.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@La Rouge Beret

Very interesting. So the monsoon war appears to be about the war with Pakistan in 1965, but I guess it has extensive background on the 1962 China war as well. There was also an Indian book on the 62 war, called "the war that wasn't" on the same amazon page.

I ended up just getting and starting to read Bruce riedel's JFK' Forgotten crisis: Tibet, the CIA and the Sino-Indian War, which is pretty interesting so far.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@La Rouge Beret

I finished the Riedel book in the '62 war. It was a bit more diplomatic and strategic history rather than a detailed military one. Pretty good.

I wonder if the book you mentioned, "the Monsoon War" discussed a possibility of Chinese intervention in the 1965 war? In reading through John Garver's "Protracted Contest- the Sino-Indian Rivalry", Garver cites a real possibility of China becoming involved in the '65 war on Pakistan's behalf, and cites communications where Mao was advising Ayub Khan to keep fighting and not take a ceasefire, implying stepped up support from China. I guess we can never know if Mao was just trying to protract India's suffering from a distance, or if it would have put some of its own skin in the game if the war lasted longer.

Of course in the 1971 war, China didn't intervene for Pakistan, but Mao had been "Cultural Revolution"-ing his country for 5 years and the Soviet commitment to India, and Soviet menace to the PRC, had increased in the meantime.
 
Interesting, I read a couple of articles about the Tibet insurgency, and am always on the lookout for another book to add to my collection. Do you recommend Riedel's book?

I haven't progressed too much further with the book tbh, but such is the perils of attempting to read with a newborn in the house! Plus my reading has been confined to the initial skirmishes in Jammu - Kashmir, which due to my current tl (rooftop of the world) interests me. Personally, I think 1965 is the chance you need to have a much wider conflict, and the repercussions would be enormous. If only someone would do a TL on it... ;)
 
There are two issues I can think of. First, Pakistan was a loyal ally of the US and a member of SEATO at the time. So, it's probably impossible for the US to provide full backing to the Indians. Second, IIRC, the conflict was peaking right during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even the most well briefed President can manage only so many crises. So, I dont see the US doing much more than it did.
 
Top