Does the USSR prop up Mao in Manchuria if Chiang wins the Chinese Civil War?

Had Chiang won the Chinese Civil War, would the USSR have propped up Mao in Manchuria or would they have allowed Chiang to take Manchuria as well?

FTR, the logic behind propping up Mao in Manchuria is that it would make it much easier for the USSR to move materials, equipment, supplies, etc to North Korea. The USSR's border with North Korea was only 12 km but Manchuria has a very long border with North Korea. Indeed, if Manchuria falls to Chiang, Kim Il-Sung might be very vulnerable in North Korea.
 

Deleted member 1487

Define Chang winning. Other than that...I don't know. The Stalin didn't particularly like Mao and him losing the CW would likely make him even less enamored, but at the same time repairing the relationship with Chang and the KMT after having setting up Mao in Manchuria in 1945 might be hit or miss. Stalin might try anyway and just let Mao lose as a peace offering. After all he doesn't want a hostile, US aligned China on his Eastern flank, which would exist even if Manchuria remained independent and under Mao, so trying to mend fences might go further than backing the loser of a CW.
 

thorr97

Banned
How much of Manchukuo did the Soviets give over to Mao in this ATL? If Chiang somehow proved victorious in the ensuing conflict, how much overall Chinese territory was in Communist hands at that time? I can't really see the Soviets calmly handing over land they'd otherwise bled to get just because Mao lost.

So, much would depend on that definition of "Chiang winning."
 
Define Chang winning. Other than that...I don't know. The Stalin didn't particularly like Mao and him losing the CW would likely make him even less enamored, but at the same time repairing the relationship with Chang and the KMT after having setting up Mao in Manchuria in 1945 might be hit or miss. Stalin might try anyway and just let Mao lose as a peace offering. After all he doesn't want a hostile, US aligned China on his Eastern flank, which would exist even if Manchuria remained independent and under Mao, so trying to mend fences might go further than backing the loser of a CW.
Why did Stalin allow Mao to set up a base in Manchuria if he didn't particularly like him?

Also, if Stalin tries to mend fences with Chiang, wouldn't there still be a risk of China turning hostile later on?
 
How much of Manchukuo did the Soviets give over to Mao in this ATL?

As much as they did in our TL.

If Chiang somehow proved victorious in the ensuing conflict, how much overall Chinese territory was in Communist hands at that time?

Just Manchuria.

I can't really see the Soviets calmly handing over land they'd otherwise bled to get just because Mao lost.

To be fair, though, the Soviets didn't bleed very much when they captured Manchuria.
 

Deleted member 1487

Why did Stalin allow Mao to set up a base in Manchuria if he didn't particularly like him?
He saw a chance as the KMT was weakened by the war and Mao was building a strong power base, so he seemed like the better bet rather than trying to back a declining Chang. Stalin didn't like Hitler, but he dealt with him when expedient.

Also, if Stalin tries to mend fences with Chiang, wouldn't there still be a risk of China turning hostile later on?
Sure
 
I distinctly remember this scenario being brought up in a book called What If, I cant remember the full title. Basically they said that the USSR would outright control Manchuria and would lead to a Stalinist government continuously allied to the USSR. How they survive post the end of the Cold War would be interesting. Also of note is that without Red China, if the Korean War breaks out the DPRK will be completely destroyed in the war and Korea would be united under a right wing military dictatorship for quite some time I imagine Manchuria would be a base for raiding Korean communists.
 
He saw a chance as the KMT was weakened by the war and Mao was building a strong power base, so he seemed like the better bet rather than trying to back a declining Chang. Stalin didn't like Hitler, but he dealt with him when expedient.

So, Stalin backed Chiang when he was strong and abandoned him when he was weak?


That's more of an incentive to keep Manchuria, no? Plus, if Mao is ever causing too much trouble, the USSR can purge him and replace him with someone more obedient and compliant.

I distinctly remember this scenario being brought up in a book called What If, I cant remember the full title. Basically they said that the USSR would outright control Manchuria and would lead to a Stalinist government continuously allied to the USSR. How they survive post the end of the Cold War would be interesting. Also of note is that without Red China, if the Korean War breaks out the DPRK will be completely destroyed in the war and Korea would be united under a right wing military dictatorship for quite some time I imagine Manchuria would be a base for raiding Korean communists.

I doubt that there would have been a Korean War if China doesn't go Red.

Also, an independent Communist Manchuria will probably end up being a giant North Korea after the end of the Cold War. After all, it's going to be much poorer than its much larger southern neighbor and is thus going to be an extremely oppressive police state so that it's people never find out just how good life is on the other side. This is exactly what's happening with North Korea today.
 

Deleted member 1487

So, Stalin backed Chiang when he was strong and abandoned him when he was weak?
Not exactly; they cut aid to Chiang to placate the Japanese in 1939 to solidify their non-aggression pact. Later when they were free to take sides again Mao was on the ascent and Chiang was too weak to risk backing.

That's more of an incentive to keep Manchuria, no? Plus, if Mao is ever causing too much trouble, the USSR can purge him and replace him with someone more obedient and compliant.
Depends on whether Stalin wants to work with a loser that threw away a sure thing. Mao probably ends up purged to start with and someone else found to head up Manchuria.

I doubt that there would have been a Korean War if China doesn't go Red.
Likely no.

Also, an independent Communist Manchuria will probably end up being a giant North Korea after the end of the Cold War. After all, it's going to be much poorer than its much larger southern neighbor and is thus going to be an extremely oppressive police state so that it's people never find out just how good life is on the other side. This is exactly what's happening with North Korea today.
They'd be a North Korea, but won't be poor due to it's natural resources like oil. North Korea wasn't really poor either until the USSR fell and the rest of the capitalist world threw sanctions on them to get the communist regime to collapse, which failed but economically crippled NK. NK was actually richer than SK until the 1970s when major US investments in SK (IIRC in part due to SK sending large numbers of troops to Vietnam), but it wasn't doing too poorly until it's trade bloc of communist states fell apart in the late 1980s-early 1990s, but it too suffered from declining aid from China and the USSR, plus a huge military budget and general stagnation like the rest of the Communist world from the late 1970s-80s. Manchuria is a lot bigger and more resource rich than even NK, so it is unlikely to be doing too poorly all things considered, especially if it exports oil to the rest of China. The rest of China probably would suffer a bit from the lack of having Manchuria part of it, plus of course having the KMT run things; I think even the US would have economic limits trying to prop them up.
 
Not exactly; they cut aid to Chiang to placate the Japanese in 1939 to solidify their non-aggression pact. Later when they were free to take sides again Mao was on the ascent and Chiang was too weak to risk backing.

To put it in detail: In the immediate end of WWII and the beginning of the Chinese Civil War, Stalin did not support Mao and actually forced Mao to go to armistice negotiation with Chiang in 1945. Stalin only changed his stance when Mao's success became apparent. Even then, Stalin tried to persuade Mao to stop invading Southern China with the intention to spilt China into two countries, one ruled by Chiang and the North ruled by Mao.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14682741003619447?src=recsys&journalCode=fcwh20
Abstract
This article attempts to resolve the historical controversy over Stalin's attitude and action toward the Chinese Communist Party in early 1949. It specifically deals with the question of whether Stalin had indeed persistently tried to persuade the CCP not to cross the Yangtze River, a move that would have resulted in a divided China. With the aid of newly discovered telegrams sent to Moscow by the Soviet embassy in China, this article reinterprets the telegrams exchanged between Stalin and Mao Zedong in January 1949. On the basis of these, this article proposes a new analysis as to whether or not Stalin actually dissuaded the river-crossing; asserting that Stalin's telegram and the so-called ‘coalition government’ urged by Anastas Mikoyan in late January 1949, lend strong support for the argument in favour of Stalin's dissuasion of the river-crossing.
 
The Soviets fell out with the Nationalists in China towards the end of WW2 (for various reasons) and the ChiComs manipulated the Soviets rather well. Their diplomatic team managed to get the Soviets to make a real attempt at living up to their words (which is one of the reasons why the Soviets ended up backing the formation of a single unified China (except for Outer Mongolia, where the Soviets were able to get the ChiComs to accept the loss of that territory)). If the ChiComs fail to oust Chiang from the mainland, I think they would definitely back the retention of a Communist China in Manchuria.

fasquardon
 

Kaze

Banned
Firstly, it would depend on how much he won.

If Mao was still in China with the remains of some support or some sort of army - the Soviets would do what they did for Castro - keep funding him, sending him "advisers", and arms until he is victorious.

If Mao is not still in China, but in say Mongolia (or Manchuria) with some support or some sort of army - the Soviets might press him to lead Mongolia (or Manchuria).

If Mao is in total retreat and is no where in the neighborhood - well, there would be no support to back Mao. They would likely wait until the Chiang government looked weak, which economics suggests that post war there was going to be much weakness for a Maoist political party to exploit. Where in Stalin would send money and "advisers" to help the party.
 
I agree that the USSR would continue to back a Communist Manchuria but Mao himself would be purged as (a) he had just presided over a massive failure; and (b) he was not liked, trusted or sufficiently obsequious for them.
 
I agree that the USSR would continue to back a Communist Manchuria but Mao himself would be purged as (a) he had just presided over a massive failure; and (b) he was not liked, trusted or sufficiently obsequious for them.

Yep. Mao gets called to Moscow for "Consultations". If he's smart, he disappears. If he's not smart, he gets a 9mm bullet in the skull on the way there.
 
I agree that the USSR would continue to back a Communist Manchuria but Mao himself would be purged as (a) he had just presided over a massive failure; and (b) he was not liked, trusted or sufficiently obsequious for them.

On the other hand, they felt the same about most foreign Communist leaders, so far as I can tell.

Usually, that wasn't enough to try assassinating them.

fasquardon
 
I'd honestly think that the butterflies which allow Chiang to win the Civil War are rather more important then whether the Communists are able to hold on in Manchuria (with or without Soviet assistance). That implies a radically different KMT and hence a radically different China then the one which existed OTL in ~1944-49.

Interestingly it wasn't the communist bases in Manchuria established in 1945-46 that were the important ones but the bases that had been established in the rural areas immediately north and south of Beijing during the war with Japan, right under the Japanese noses. Those were the ones that allowed the CCP to cut the nationalists off when they moved their armies into Manchuria in 1946.
 
On the other hand, they felt the same about most foreign Communist leaders, so far as I can tell.

Usually, that wasn't enough to try assassinating them.
Mao might in his own way have been as big a monster (or worse) than Stalin but he wasn't a lackspittle jackal like Klement Gottwald in Czechoslovakia or Boleslaw Bierut in Poland or the pre 1956 leader in Hungary whose name escapes me (all of whom actually make Vidkrun Quisling or Philippe Petain look respectable). Nor was he overawed by and striving to slavishly imitate Moscow like the (pre Ceasceau) Romanian and Bulgarian CPs. Mao was a potential deviationist and Stalin was well aware of that. And in those circumstances the Chinese CP would have been dependent for continued survival and at least a toehold on power upon military support from the USSR. So they would have been acquiescent like the Mongolian CP were when the Soviets disposed of their leader if they indeed did not allow themselves to be choreographed into actively seeking his expulsion and execution for crimes against the Party and the Chinese people.
 
On the other hand, they felt the same about most foreign Communist leaders, so far as I can tell.

Usually, that wasn't enough to try assassinating them.

fasquardon

To be fair, most other foreign communist leaders wouldn't have presided over a failure of a war.
 
Top