Chinese Protectorate of Vietnam

Let's say when Nixon is negotiating with China in 1972, he asks them to invade and conquer North Vietnam, installing a pro-PRC government in the North. That way the Chinese have a buffer state between the PRC and SVN, and don't have to worry about that part of their border. Would Chou and Mao agree to this?
 

Germaniac

Donor
no... The Only way to have a chinese protectorate in Vietnam would be immedietly following the second world war. chiang kai shek was offered French Indochina from Roosevelt, but Shek refused. Is Shek decides to take the territory and create a semi independent government then survive the war Geeze lol thats alot
 

Hendryk

Banned
no... The Only way to have a chinese protectorate in Vietnam would be immedietly following the second world war.
Agreed. It wouldn't have worked in the 1970s, the short Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979 showed that the Vietnamese forces would have been able to make an invasion painful for the PRC.

chiang kai shek was offered French Indochina from Roosevelt, but Shek refused. Is Shek decides to take the territory and create a semi independent government then survive the war Geeze lol thats alot
"Shek" is the second syllable of his personal name (in the obsolete Wade-Giles transliteration), not his family name.
 
PRC was ideologically anti-imperialist and an aggressive promoter of international revolution and decolonization. So no, invading Vietnam is impossible.

It would be an interesting scenario if Chiang Kai-shek accepted control of Vietnam. When he lose the civil war he would probably move his government there. I wonder how long that would last.
 
It could have lead to World War 3. China attempted an invasion of Vietnam in 1979 fortunately it didn't last long. The Soviet Union may have attacked China to support the North Vietnamese.

The Chinese would have had the problems the American had except they would have been worse as the Vietnamese have historically regard China as an enemy and Ho Chi Minh is reputed to have preferred the French. A country that has fought France, Japan and the United States isn't going to meekly accept Chinese rule and I imagine Mao and Cho had motre sense than to get bogged down
 
The whole idea is quite silly.

In seriousness, I agree with Hendryk.
The fact of the matter is China never attempted to occupy another communist country. Not even its erstwhile territory of Outer Mongolia. The later war with Vietnam was not a war of conquest. That was fought over Vietnamese invasion of the Chinese ally of Cambodia, more to the point, to counter a Vietnam-Soviet alliance which China found threatening.

In 1972 the Chinese and Vietnamese were allies. They were allies since the days of the war against Japan. The succession of a younger generation of Vietnamese leaders following Ho Chi Min's death down graded the relations somewhat, but it's far from adversarial. Making a deal with the US to occupy Vietnam was just out of the question. China saw Vietnam as its ideological offspring. They didn't have a crystal ball for the future.
 
Last edited:
The fact of the matter is China never attempted to occupy another communist country. Not even its erstwhile territory of Outer Mongolia. The later war with Vietnam was not a war of conquest. That was fought over Vietnamese invasion of the Chinese ally of Cambodia, more to the point, to counter a Vietnam-Soviet alliance which China found threatening.

Outer Mongolia was specifically renounced during Sino-Russian friendship, and who else is their for China to invade? And, for that matter, what would the Chinese have done if they had somehow neatly prevailed in Vietnam, just left everything as it was? The Soviets didn't think they were conquering anything in '56 or '68. All the evidence we have (other communist countries, other Chinese invasions) argues against inherent scruples. That only evidence for the idea that they wouldn't is that they didn't, rather contrary to the spirit of AH.

In 1972 the Chinese and Vietnamese were allies. They were allies since the days of the war against Japan. The succession of a younger generation of Vietnamese leaders following Ho Chi Min's death down graded the relations somewhat, but it's far from adversarial. Making a deal with the US to occupy Vietnam was just out of the question. China saw Vietnam as its ideological offspring. They didn't have a crystal ball for the future.

I never said the original scenario was plausible, I in fact agreed that it wasn't.
 
Outer Mongolia was specifically renounced during Sino-Russian friendship, and who else is their for China to invade? And, for that matter, what would the Chinese have done if they had somehow neatly prevailed in Vietnam, just left everything as it was? The Soviets didn't think they were conquering anything in '56 or '68. All the evidence we have (other communist countries, other Chinese invasions) argues against inherent scruples. That only evidence for the idea that they wouldn't is that they didn't, rather contrary to the spirit of AH.
I take exception to two points.

First you're equating scruples to institutionalized ideological dogma. These are not one and the same. Abandoning long held ideology is not something taken at a whim in China. Not even Mao can do that without starting a major internal crisis. Mao was a true believer leading the country by appealing to the far left. The Chinese of that time were much more concerned with ideological purity than the Soviets ever were.

Second you're using examples of Soviet actions to interpret the workings of Chinese politics. They are no more alike than Europe is to Asia. The historical context of anti European imperialism and denouncement of the Chinese imperial system among Chinese communists is very different than the European experience. The fact that China had earlier recognized Mongolian independence due to its existing communist status would not be something the Soviets would have accepted on principle, nor would they have been bound by a treaty.
 
Last edited:
I take exception to two points.

First you're equating scruples to institutionalized ideological dogma. These are not one and the same. Abandoning long held ideology is not something taken at a whim in China. Not even Mao can do that without starting a major internal crisis. Mao was a true believer leading the country by appealing to the far left. The Chinese of that time were much more concerned with ideological purity than the Soviets ever were.

They were very much concerned with in their internal policies, but we're not talking about announcing the abolition of the communism. Would installing a pliant government in Vietnam under hypothetical circumstances be so very much worse than being photographs shaking hands with Nixon?

Second you're using examples of Soviet actions to interpret the workings of Chinese politics. They are no more alike than Europe is to Asia.

I was using an an analogy to demonstrate that "war of conquest" is not a subjective term. I never suggested they were identical.

The historical context of anti European imperialism and denouncement of the Chinese imperial system among Chinese communists is very different than the European experience.

You haven't answered an important hypothetical question: if China had somehow beaten Vietnam, what then?

The fact that China had earlier recognized Mongolian independence due to its existing communist status would not be something the Soviets would have accepted on principle, nor would they have been bound by a treaty.

Er, you lost me.
 
They were very much concerned with in their internal policies, but we're not talking about announcing the abolition of the communism. Would installing a pliant government in Vietnam under hypothetical circumstances be so very much worse than being photographs shaking hands with Nixon?
Vietnam was already pliant in 1972. Invading an ally to undermine their war of national unification which China had supported from the beginning makes no sense.
I was using an an analogy to demonstrate that "war of conquest" is not a subjective term. I never suggested they were identical.
We will call them bad examples then.
You haven't answered an important hypothetical question: if China had somehow beaten Vietnam, what then?
I assume you're referring to the war of '79-'89? The objective of that war was to save Cambodia and deter a Soviet military build up in Vietnam. The former objective failed, the latter was arguably successful. Had China been more successful, no doubt the Khmer Rouge would have ruled Cambodia longer. It would not have resulted in Chinese installed government in Vietnam.
Er, you lost me.
I'm contrasting a difference between Chinese and Soviet approach to dealing with other communist countries. Specifically that China does not engage in wars of conquest against them due to strong ideological prohibition. Your explanation is that rather than ideological it was due to practical limitations, such as treaty obligation in the case of Mongolia. I say the Soviet Union would not have let that get in the way. The Soviets would not hesitate to install puppet rulers in other communist states but there is no pattern of this in PRC history. Therefore a deal with Nixon for China to divide Vietnam would be a highly unlikely outcome.

Chinese and Soviet policy has strong ideological difference when it comes to intervention in the internal affairs of fellow communist states. This difference was real, was rooted in their very different experiences with imperialism, not simply rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Vietnam was already pliant in 1972. Invading an ally to undermine their war of national unification which China had supported from the beginning makes no sense.

I repeat: I never said the 1972 scenario was plausible (I said it wasn't), I just expressed a general doubt at your faith in China to never ever even contemplate the establishment of puppet government ever.

We will call them bad examples then.


Bad examples of what?

I assume you're referring to the war of '79-'89? The objective of that war was to save Cambodia and deter a Soviet military build up in Vietnam. The former objective failed, the latter was arguably successful. Had China been more successful, no doubt the Khmer Rouge would have ruled Cambodia longer. It would not have resulted in Chinese installed government in Vietnam.

I am referring to it in hypothetical terms. If China had won a neat and complete military victory and secured the destruction of Vietnamese armed resistance (which if os course impossible), are we to believe they would have slapped the government on the wrist and told them not to do it again?

I'm contrasting a difference between Chinese and Soviet approach to dealing with other communist countries. Specifically that China does not engage in wars of conquest against them due to strong ideological prohibition.

And I'm stating that they could be violently antagonistic to communist countries, they accused communist countries of being treachorously non-ideological, they could invade countries and take them over, and they could pursue a not-sctrictly-idelogical foreign policy. Taking these together, it seems wholly reasonable to assume they would in hypothetical situations install puppet or at kleast sympathetic governments in invaded communist states, and there does not exist a single example of their not doing this when they could have because they never had the possibility.

Your explanation is that rather than ideological it was due to practical limitations, such as treaty obligation in the case of Mongolia. I say the Soviet Union would not have let that get in the way.

I said the China recognised the independence of Mongolia as part of a Russo-Chinese agreement (the Soviets did, however, allow them to wolf down Xinjiang). But The reason the Chinese never invaded Mongolia after that was firstly that China and the USSr were allies and so it wasn't an "impliable regime" and second because it was right under the Soviet military umbrella. The Soviets, for another analogy, never got rid of Tito because NATO wouldn't have been happy, for all they would have liked to.

The Soviets would not hesitate to install puppet rulers in other communist states but there is no pattern of this in PRC history. Therefore a deal with Nixon for China to divide Vietnam would be a highly unlikely outcome.

I repeat again that the proposed scenraio is not plausible, but I don't think that alternate history can rule out a possibility just because it never actually happened.

Chinese and Soviet policy has strong ideological difference when it comes to intervention in the internal affairs of fellow communist states. This difference was real, was rooted in their very different experiences with imperialism, not simply rhetoric.

But we haven't heard any evidence of this. The Chinese could treat other communist countries as enemies and fight them. They could set up a puppet government and call it liberation (anyone can do that). They simply marched in and took over countries on occasion. They were to violate strict socialist priniciples in foreign affairs. All this suggests to me that if they had been left in the occupation of a smaller rival communist country they would not of let the enemy leadership walk free.
 
I'm going to recap my points in a nutshell.

Addressing the original topic, in the world of 1972, it is impossible for China to invade Vietnam due to ideological restrictions (Vietnam being a friend and ally). Nixon did not make this deal for a reason, it cannot be done. I do not claim that China would not do it under ANY circumstances, as clearly a war broke out in 1979 when Vietnam became a military threat to China by inviting Soviet military build up in Vietnam. It's important to appreciate the change of strategic landscape in the post Vietnam War era. The war of 1979 was not aimed at overthrowing the Vietnamese government. It was a limited punitive operation similar in concept to the Sino-Indian War of 1962.

If you want to engage in a hypothetical, like what if the Vietnamese regime collapsed in 1979 like the proverbial house of cards, would the Chinese install a friendly leadership, etc. Well that may be a practical thing to do, but regime change was not the intention of the 1979 operation and therefore have no conflict on ideological ground.

For China to occupy Vietnam when it DID NOT present a threat would require a fundamental change to it's institutionalized ideological dogma. The Chinese communists were reluctant to overthrow fellow communist governments because it would be blatantly imperialistic, something the Soviets don't have a problem with, but would cause all sorts of problems in China. And in fact China has never done this. Even today they are reluctant to do a regime change in North Korea despite the fact that that government has become obnoxious to them.

My issue with your arguments is your lack of understanding that such a difference exists between the Chinese and Soviet communist world view. It is a real difference that played out in how the two countries behaved in the Cold War and to some extant even today. The Chinese are loath to do military intervention when they don't have to.
 
I'm going to recap my points in a nutshell.

Addressing the original topic, in the world of 1972, it is impossible for China to invade Vietnam due to ideological restrictions (Vietnam being a friend and ally). Nixon did not make this deal for a reason, it cannot be done.

Agreed, but where you see ideological strictures, I see common sense. Countries don't invade their friends and allies, ideological or not.

I do not claim that China would not do it under ANY circumstances, as clearly a war broke out in 1979 when Vietnam became a military threat to China by inviting Soviet military build up in Vietnam. It's important to appreciate the change of strategic landscape in the post Vietnam War era. The war of 1979 was not aimed at overthrowing the Vietnamese government. It was a limited punitive operation similar in concept to the Sino-Indian War of 1962.

Also agreed. What I take issue with is the idea that the Chinese communists were simply too righteous to conduct cynical diplomacy like everybody else, which is based on the fact that they never did invade and overthrow a communist government. Well, obviously: they never got a reason or a chance to do so. But all the evidence (China could pursue a non-dogamtic policy, China invaded other countries, China fought other Communists, and so on) seems to suggest that the Chinese would have had no scruples.

If you want to engage in a hypothetical, like what if the Vietnamese regime collapsed in 1979 like the proverbial house of cards, would the Chinese install a friendly leadership, etc. Well that may be a practical thing to do,

Exactly. My argument is that, barring mistakes, which are of course common, everybody does what is practical or they think is practical in their diplomacy. That China (and America) warmed their relations at all seems to me clear indication that both were pragmatic in their foreign affairs.

but regime change was not the intention of the 1979 operation and therefore have no conflict on ideological ground.

I didn't say it was, I merely said that if the Chinese were so gentle with other communists, whatever happened in 1979? Your last phrase slipped me by.

For China to occupy Vietnam when it DID NOT present a threat would require a fundamental change to it's institutionalized ideological dogma.

And common sense. Nobody embarks on costly and risky operations when they don't have to. No ideology required.

The Chinese communists were reluctant to overthrow fellow communist governments because it would be blatantly imperialistic, something the Soviets don't have a problem with, but would cause all sorts of problems in China.

Such as? I've not seen any evidence besides "Well, they didn't, did they?", which as I said is not really appropriate to an alternate history site.

And in fact China has never done this. Even today they are reluctant to do a regime change in North Korea despite the fact that that government has become obnoxious to them.

And also they're showing the world a friendly face, they're part of a multilateral process and unilateral action would alienate all other parties, military operations would be costly and risky, nobody wants millions of North Korean refugees landing on them, and invading the fief of a nuclear madman is generally a stupid thing to do. Occam's razor.

My issue with your arguments is your lack of understanding that such a difference exists between the Chinese and Soviet communist world view.

There was an enormous difference, but all I did was call in Soviet anaolgies. I call in analogies which aren't carbon copies all the time.

It is a real difference that played out in how the two countries behaved in the Cold War and to some extant even today. The Chinese are loath to do military intervention when they don't have to.

As I said, everyone is loathe to do it when it's unnecessary. Nothing diplomats hate like loosing their sails to the winds of military fortune. I really don't see any reason why the Chinese are mentally incapable of installing a firendly regime.
 
Top