China taking Tibet in WW2

I understand during WW2, Chiangkaishek seriously considered sending troops to Tibet, and ordered his General Ma Bufang to station several thousand troops. What if Chiang actually ordered the invasion to take? How would the international reaction be, the outcome of the Sino-Japanese war, and ultimately, the war against Mao Zedong and the Communists?
 
That's less troops fighting the Japanese, a lot more international harm, not to mention Mao will probably play the propaganda card of Chiang invading parts of his own country against the KMT.
 
In WWII what is now eastern Tibet was Xikang province which was ruled by Chinese warlord Liu Wenhui. Xikang's borders extended to just east of Lhasa. From Chiang Kai-shek's point of view, he already ruled the best parts of Tibet.

The only reason to officially take over the rest would be to make use of the passage between Tibet and Bhutan to reach India. But this was so far away from the main transportation infrastructure that it would be essentially worthless to the war effort.

Of course, using Liu Wenhui's army would cost Chiang nothing, since they sat around not doing anything the entire war. In my opinion Chiang was simply too distracted to pay any attention to Tibet. Though he would not have to commit resources, there could be complications which he rather not deal with given the gravity of the threat from Japan. Perhaps if the Japanese were more successful, Chiang may have ordered Liu to invade out of panic.

Could he have done it? Yes. Would Britain and the US object? Not at all.

Chiang Kai-shek managed to keep Xinjiang and Manchuria Chinese at the end of his rule. Only Tibet eluded him, and it's recovery is credited to Mao. In this timeline Chiang would get the credit for recovering all of China's lost territory. Chinese historians would have to begrugingly give him a kinder epitaph.
 
Last edited:
That's less troops fighting the Japanese, a lot more international harm, not to mention Mao will probably play the propaganda card of Chiang invading parts of his own country against the KMT.

What international harm? Tibet had no recognition whatsoever.
 
What international harm? Tibet had no recognition whatsoever.
That's actually not true. In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed a treaty, with each state recognizing the independence of the other. So that's at least one.
Prof. Elliot Sperling said:
: The Treaty [between Tibet and Mongolia in 1913] is exactly what its appellation states it to be. It is a treaty signed and sealed by representatives of Tibet and Mongolia in January 1913. The treaty begins with Tibet and Mongolia attesting to their having emerged from under Manchu domination and constituted themselves as independent states.


Britain, of course, only recognized Chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet. While, this shows that the British did not view Tibet as fully independent, if they had merely viewed Tibet as normal Chinese territory, it would not have gone through the extra effort of using "suzerainty". In fact, the Simila Convention, signed by all three groups (Tibet, China, and Britain) mentions Tibet as Chinese "territory", but also pledges the Chinese not to "interfere in the administration" of Tibet. So, the KMT invading and directly administering Tibet would actually be a violation of their treaty with the British. If they tried it during WWII, I think it unlikely that Britain would complain much, given that they were allies. Would it hurt the international image of China? I have no idea--it depends largely on when it happens, and on how much attention is payed to the issue, given how much else is going on in the world at the time. The US government, for its part, did say in 1944 that it considered Tibet a part of the Republic of China, so the Western Allies might just follow the US's lead on this one.
 
Last edited:
Wouldnt there still be issues with the border with Turkestan and with the Amur, Himalayas and Tuva? Tibet might be a good place for the Nationalists to hold out against the Communists who they would have beaten originally if the Americans didnt force a ceasefire. Maybe we should draw maps of the possible borders of Tibet and the other Buddhist countries around there and how they would look compared to the Indians and Russians.
 
If Chiang manages take Tibet, might he be able to hold out on the Tibetan plateau, along with Taiwan, in the Chinese Civil War against the Communists?

No. He couldn't hold out in the highlands of Sichuan where he had local support. Mao's army had no problem at all operating in mountainous terrain. It's his lack of amphibious capability that saved Chiang on Taiwan.

Much more likely, whoever the KMT general is in command of the Tibet garrison would refuse cooperation with Chiang when the war draws to a close and surrender to the Communists in exchange for a nice retirement package. Might even stay on as governor.
 
That's actually not true. In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed a treaty, with each state recognizing the independence of the other. So that's at least one.

Because Mongolia mattered at the time:rolleyes:Next, you'll be telling me that Abkhazia is a legitimate state because it's recognized by Transnistria and Nagorno Karabakh.
 
Because Mongolia mattered at the time:rolleyes:Next, you'll be telling me that Abkhazia is a legitimate state because it's recognized by Transnistria and Nagorno Karabakh.

Did Mongolia "matter"? I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I was not, of course, trying to somehow argue that Mongolia could somehow force China to recognize Tibet as independent. But Tibet and Mongolia both have something in common--they were areas that were part of the Qing Empire, but areas that did not see themselves as "Chinese". When the Manchu Qing Dynasty was overthrown, many Chinese people wanted to create a new state for the Han Chinese, ruled by the Han Chinese. It was something explicitly different from the old, multi-ethnic empire of before.

Given the weakness of the Chinese state at this time, it is not surprising that many peripheral areas of the old Qing Empire tried to break away and form independent states. Mongolia, East Turkestan, and Tibet all tried this, but only Mongolia managed to attract any large degree of outside support. That's why I brought up the Mongolian treaty--it shows how one nation, trying to break away from the old Qing Empire, related to another nation trying to do the same.

It is true that Tibet was not recognized as an independent state by any major power during this time period, but the British Simila Convention shows that it was not seen as a "normal" part of China, either, the way that, say, Shantung Province was. As I said before, the Convention, which was signed by China herself (as well as Tibet and Britain), pleadged China not to "interfere" in the administration of Tibet. I think it is fair to say, then, that if China invaded and directly administered Tibet, it would be seen as a unilateral change in the status quo, at least. Given that Britain, the US, and China were allies during WWII, I don't think they would complain. But you seem to be implying that Tibet was seen around the world at this time as a part of China no different from any other, and that simply is not true. Tibet's status at the time was... complicated.
 
Did Mongolia "matter"? I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I was not, of course, trying to somehow argue that Mongolia could somehow force China to recognize Tibet as independent. But Tibet and Mongolia both have something in common--they were areas that were part of the Qing Empire, but areas that did not see themselves as "Chinese". When the Manchu Qing Dynasty was overthrown, many Chinese people wanted to create a new state for the Han Chinese, ruled by the Han Chinese. It was something explicitly different from the old, multi-ethnic empire of before.
I agree that Tibetan annexation to China was not inevitable given the right circumstances and lament the failure of alternate histories to give each of the "Five Races Under One Flag" their own states in the long term. But that was not the question here, and, short of a Communist or pro-Japanese Han chauvinist state emerging from the wreckage of the Q'ing state, I doubt anyone relevant to the prevailing international situation of the time will care about the fate of Tibet.
Given the weakness of the Chinese state at this time, it is not surprising that many peripheral areas of the old Qing Empire tried to break away and form independent states. Mongolia, East Turkestan, and Tibet all tried this, but only Mongolia managed to attract any large degree of outside support. That's why I brought up the Mongolian treaty--it shows how one nation, trying to break away from the old Qing Empire, related to another nation trying to do the same.
Mongolia 'benefitted' from being in the Russian orbit due to proximity. Here, Tibetan survival probably depends upon British interests in the area.
It is true that Tibet was not recognized as an independent state by any major power during this time period, but the British Simila Convention shows that it was not seen as a "normal" part of China, either, the way that, say, Shantung Province was. As I said before, the Convention, which was signed by China herself (as well as Tibet and Britain), pleadged China not to "interfere" in the administration of Tibet. I think it is fair to say, then, that if China invaded and directly administered Tibet, it would be seen as a unilateral change in the status quo, at least. Given that Britain, the US, and China were allies during WWII, I don't think they would complain. But you seem to be implying that Tibet was seen around the world at this time as a part of China no different from any other, and that simply is not true. Tibet's status at the time was... complicated.
We know that the current Chinese state essentially rejects the validity of the Simla conference, and furthermore, the PRC was not an ally in the Second World War, but at most a cobelligerent force on the allied side, and yet the West did next to nothing to prevent the Communist takeover of the region in our timeline, so if anything this undermines your point.
 
We know that the current Chinese state essentially rejects the validity of the Simla conference, and furthermore, the PRC was not an ally in the Second World War, but at most a cobelligerent force on the allied side, and yet the West did next to nothing to prevent the Communist takeover of the region in our timeline, so if anything this undermines your point.

We did nothing to actually try to stop it, that's true. However, the Foreign Ministry of Indian issued a complaint to China, and both the US and Britain issued statements agreeing with that position.

Foreign Ministry of India said:
Now that the invasion of Tibet has been ordered by Chinese government, peaceful negotiations can hardly be synchronized with it and there naturally will be fear on the part of Tibetans that negotiations will be under duress. In the present context of world events, invasion by Chinese troops of Tibet cannot but be regarded as deplorable and in the considered judgment of the Government of India, not in the interest of China or peace.


I think we can be forgiven for not actually proposing military action to end the invasion of Tibet, though. The invasion happened on Oct 7, 1950, and we had been at war in Korea since June. Not only did the US and Britain already have the hands full, but we didn't want to do anything that might bring the USSR and/or PRC into the conflict. I haven't seen any proof on this either way, but I get the feeling some people on the US side welcomed the invasion, since they hoped it would keep the PRC too busy to intervene in Korea.
 
We did nothing to actually try to stop it, that's true. However, the Foreign Ministry of Indian issued a complaint to China, and both the US and Britain issued statements agreeing with that position.



I think we can be forgiven for not actually proposing military action to end the invasion of Tibet, though. The invasion happened on Oct 7, 1950, and we had been at war in Korea since June. Not only did the US and Britain already have the hands full, but we didn't want to do anything that might bring the USSR and/or PRC into the conflict. I haven't seen any proof on this either way, but I get the feeling some people on the US side welcomed the invasion, since they hoped it would keep the PRC too busy to intervene in Korea.
Even so, if Communist conquest only provokes an angry letter in response, then your whole premise remains a non-starter under the circumstances outined in this thread.
 
Even so, if Communist conquest only provokes an angry letter in response, then your whole premise remains a non-starter under the circumstances outined in this thread.

We only did the "angry letter' thing because
1.) We were busy in Korea at the time
and
2.) We had zero leverage over the PRC.

As I have already said, I don't think we would have complained if the KMT had invaded Tibet during WWII. If they did invade, though, and we wanted to stop them, we actually had leverage over them. We could have just cut back on our aid... This is especially true if this happens after 1943 or 1944, when it became clear that it was not worth trying to bomb Japan from air bases in China.
 
We only did the "angry letter' thing because
1.) We were busy in Korea at the time
and
2.) We had zero leverage over the PRC.

As I have already said, I don't think we would have complained if the KMT had invaded Tibet during WWII. If they did invade, though, and we wanted to stop them, we actually had leverage over them. We could have just cut back on our aid... This is especially true if this happens after 1943 or 1944, when it became clear that it was not worth trying to bomb Japan from air bases in China.

Who's "we"? FDR wouldn't mind at all, in fact he wanted Chiang Kai-shek to run French Indo-China after the war.

The British were using Chinese troops to help defend India and liberate Burma, they were hardly going to cause a rift in the alliance over Tibet. They were themselves using the exigency of war argument for their own invasion of neutral Iran.
 
Who's "we"? FDR wouldn't mind at all, in fact he wanted Chiang Kai-shek to run French Indo-China after the war.

The British were using Chinese troops to help defend India and liberate Burma, they were hardly going to cause a rift in the alliance over Tibet. They were themselves using the exigency of war argument for their own invasion of neutral Iran.

I agree with you. As I already said several times, I don't think that any of the Western Allies would actually complain if the KMT invaded Tibet during the war.
 
We only did the "angry letter' thing because
1.) We were busy in Korea at the time
and
2.) We had zero leverage over the PRC.

As I have already said, I don't think we would have complained if the KMT had invaded Tibet during WWII. If they did invade, though, and we wanted to stop them, we actually had leverage over them. We could have just cut back on our aid... This is especially true if this happens after 1943 or 1944, when it became clear that it was not worth trying to bomb Japan from air bases in China.

That certainly is true.
 
Top