AHC: No Sino-Soviet Split

With a POD of post-1953, create a timeline where there is no Sino-Soviet Split.

My apologies if this subject has already been covered; I wasn't able to find it during my searches
 
France does not surrender in 1940 and helps the British drive the Germans out of North Africa in early 1942. The invasion of Sicily happens on November 8, 1942. The invasion of Normandy happens on July 10, 1943. Germany surrenders on June 6, 1944. The Soviet Union enters the war against Japan on September 6, 1944, and is able to conquer most of China by the end of the war. China becomes a Soviet Satellite.
 
Well if the Nationalists hadn't agreed to a armistice with the Communists at harbin, Manchuria could've become a North Korea like ally relying on the Soviets for support. Otherwise impossible, unless the Soviets organized a coup to overthrow Mao.
 
I would say the coup to overthrow Mao is possible. Maybe after the Great Leap Forward, during the Cultural Revolution or in the early days when the Soviets had influence.
 
Either make China weak enough or make the Americans stronger. A heavier American presence in Asia, perhaps from a Japanese insurgency in the home islands and/or a fully occupied Korean peninsula. It will be an alliance of necessity and not really one of ideological consensus.

Another way is to get rid of Khrushchev and have a Soviet leader post-1953 that does not feel the need for Destalinization. The split, according to the Chinese, was over the ideological break the Soviet Union made with supposed orthodox Marxist-Leninism. Someone like Suslov or even Molotov would favor keeping the good graces of the PRC. Though it must be admitted that Molotov's own reverence for orthodox Marxist-Leninism might cause him to push the split and not the Chinese. Suslov is similar, but seemed more willing to compromise with the Chinese position.
 
Just get rid of Mao before the Great Leap Forward. His designated successor, Liu Shaoqi, AKA the Chinese Khrushchev would be happy to maintain the status quo. Divisions may arise later in the Brezhnev era though. I can't imagine any Chinese leader would be happy with the Brezhnev Doctrine.
 

Phyrx

Banned
I think having the Anti-Party Group succeed would do the trick. They tried to depose Khrushchev in '57 for his de-Stalinization and all that, and they came pretty close to doing so. I figure that maybe if Zhukov had backed the Group, they could have done it. Khrushchev would have been replaced by Nikolai Bulganin, and I think this would prevent Mao from feeling like the USSR were going reactionary.

I wonder how this would have effected China's drift toward capitalism...
 
I think the main problem is that you have two great powers trying to be seen as #1 in the Communist World. China is big enough that once it gets its act together it will be a natural rival to the USSR. It is less ideology and more trying to prove who is the biggest kid on the Communist block. :D
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Thought I'd dust off this old chestnut.

I agree that a Molotov-Malenkov-Zhukov troika ousting Khrushchev in '57 is the best option. Without Soviets seeking peaceful coexistence with the West, Mao has no reason to lose faith in the USSR, especially as the troika begins to reverse Khrushchev's polices: neo-Stalinism, severing relations with Yugoslavia, drumming up anti-Westernism, support for the PRC's second five year plan in '58, etc.

 
Thought I'd dust off this old chestnut.

I agree that a Molotov-Malenkov-Zhukov troika ousting Khrushchev in '57 is the best option. Without Soviets seeking peaceful coexistence with the West, Mao has no reason to lose faith in the USSR, especially as the troika begins to reverse Khrushchev's polices: neo-Stalinism, severing relations with Yugoslavia, drumming up anti-Westernism, support for the PRC's second five year plan in '58, etc.


That might extend the Sino-Soviet alliance by a few years, but sooner or later the two giants will no longer be able to act as co-leaders of the communist world. Perhaps Deng's supporters manoever to eject as many of Mao's confidantes on the grounds that they are "plotting against our Chairman". Or as what happened OTL China seeks better relations with the west.

Letting China become subordinate to someone else would cost too much face and act as a pretext for an internal power grab.
 
According to a friend of mine in the PRC. The Russians pretty much had a 'do whatever you like' (stealing machinery, raping, the usual stuff) policy in Manchuria just after the war. Much to the annoyance of the communists but they couldn't do too much because they needed the Russians at the time. If you could make the Russians a bit more benevolent in Manchuria then maybe the Sino-Soviet split wouldn't be so big.
 
Let's say that India had won the 1962 war and manages to liberate Tibet and install a friendly government. This would easily avert the Sino-Soviet split. Instead of this, China will get closer to the USSR, wanting an ally that help she to get back her lands.
 
Let's say that India had won the 1962 war and manages to liberate Tibet and install a friendly government. This would easily avert the Sino-Soviet split. Instead of this, China will get closer to the USSR, wanting an ally that help she to get back her lands.

Liberating Tibet isn't going to happen, the Sino-Indian border is horrific for supporting an invasion, not to mention India would not have the military capacity to do such a thing, nor would the Chinese lie down and allow it to happen.
 
Just get rid of Mao before the Great Leap Forward. His designated successor, Liu Shaoqi, AKA the Chinese Khrushchev would be happy to maintain the status quo. Divisions may arise later in the Brezhnev era though. I can't imagine any Chinese leader would be happy with the Brezhnev Doctrine.

You are falling for the Maoists' myth about Liu. The fact that they (during the Cultural Revolution--though not at its start) *called* him "China's Khrushchev" does not mean that he was. For example, the Maoists claimed that Liu was trying to rehabilitate Peng Dehuai (who could more plausibly than Liu *could* be considered pro-Soviet) in 1962. In fact, however, "The relationship between Liu and Peng was never close. At the Seven Thousand Cadres Conference in January 1962, when Peng wrote to the CCP central committee to appeal for a review of his case (Peng was purged by Mao at the CCP leadership conference at Lushan in the summer of 1959 because he questioned Mao's Great Leap Forward), many leaders thought that Peng should be rehabilitated. Liu, however, accused Peng of 'maintaining illicit relations with a foreign country' - i.e. the Soviet Union.6 This was equal to a political death sentence...Gao's claim that "Mao had succeeded in destroying the pro-Soviet faction within the Chinese Communist Party" by late 1960s (p. 8) is farfetched. During the Sino Soviet polemics in early 1960s, both Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping toed Mao's line. Although they advocated more moderate policy toward the Soviet Union, they didn't disagree with Mao on the split with the Soviets." http://china.usc.edu/gao-zhou-enlai-last-perfect-revolutionary-biography-2007
 
Top