Effects of a Soviet Manchurian Puppet

What would be the effects of after WWII the Soviets declare that Manchuria shall be independent once more and go about installing their own Manchuko style regime with the People Republic of Manchuria joining the Warsaw Pact ect.

Would they get away with it?

If so what would be the effects?
 

wormyguy

Banned
The Chinese Communists are immediately effected by a split between the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist factions. The Marxist-Leninists flee to Manchuria, while Mao, unable to significantly increase his territory and with his manpower base cut by a third or so, loses the Chinese Civil War (although clashes with isolated Communist guerrillas continue until the mid-1960s). Relations between the Nationalist Chinese and the Soviets hit the deep freeze, with the Soviets having made puppets of Mongolia, (ITTL) Manchuria, and (most likely ITTL) Sinkiang, as well as annexing Tyva, all Chinese territory. The ANZUS alliance is instead the CHANZUS alliance. China likely recovers somewhat faster - given the absence of the Korean War (unlikely to happen at all ITTL, Stalin would never give Kim the go-ahead as OTL), and no idiotic economic policies. The Manchurian puppet is incredibly unpopular among the people, given that Stalin had stripped Manchuria of its industries and shipped them to the Soviet Union, and that they had been under fake puppet governments and warlords for almost 40 years now. This is despite the fact that referendums show that 99.8% of the population supports independence.

Eventually, by the 60s and without Stalin, Manchuria, Sinkiang, and possibly Mongolia are slowly transfered back to China in exchange for friendly trade relations and a demilitarized border. Unlike OTL, ITTL Manchuria is less developed than the rest of China, and the rest of China must subsidize its development in a way similar to West and East Germany after reunification. However, capitalism in a united China allows it to become the world's largest economy by 1998.
 
The Chinese Communists are immediately effected by a split between the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist factions. The Marxist-Leninists flee to Manchuria, while Mao, unable to significantly increase his territory and with his manpower base cut by a third or so, loses the Chinese Civil War (although clashes with isolated Communist guerrillas continue until the mid-1960s). Relations between the Nationalist Chinese and the Soviets hit the deep freeze, with the Soviets having made puppets of Mongolia, (ITTL) Manchuria, and (most likely ITTL) Sinkiang, as well as annexing Tyva, all Chinese territory. The ANZUS alliance is instead the CHANZUS alliance. China likely recovers somewhat faster - given the absence of the Korean War (unlikely to happen at all ITTL, Stalin would never give Kim the go-ahead as OTL), and no idiotic economic policies. The Manchurian puppet is incredibly unpopular among the people, given that Stalin had stripped Manchuria of its industries and shipped them to the Soviet Union, and that they had been under fake puppet governments and warlords for almost 40 years now. This is despite the fact that referendums show that 99.8% of the population supports independence.

Eventually, by the 60s and without Stalin, Manchuria, Sinkiang, and possibly Mongolia are slowly transfered back to China in exchange for friendly trade relations and a demilitarized border. Unlike OTL, ITTL Manchuria is less developed than the rest of China, and the rest of China must subsidize its development in a way similar to West and East Germany after reunification. However, capitalism in a united China allows it to become the world's largest economy by 1998.

So a better world then?
 
Eventually, by the 60s and without Stalin, Manchuria, Sinkiang, and possibly Mongolia are slowly transfered back to China in exchange for friendly trade relations and a demilitarized border.

I was with you until this point. Not sure I accept the Soviet dealing away territory ... The lasting effect would be a Chinese split after WW2. A definite Soviet sphere, a Nationalist China and possible a Mao area/region too if Chang doesn't eliminate them. A more European cold war feel to Asia as a result with packs and rival governments around.
 
I've often wondered how plausible a "Harbin Pact" would have been, comprising the USSR, North Korea, Mongolia, East Turkestan (it obviously wouldn't be called Xinjiang if not under Chinese control), Manchuria, and if the Soviets can get there in time, Communist Hokkaido.
 
Yeah, even the KMT despite all their faults should be able to beat the Communists without Manchuria in Mao's control. Mao is going to be royally pissed at the Soviets claiming soverign Chinese land too, though there's not much he can do about it.

I don't know if the Nationalists would be better than the Communists as far as a "better world" is concerned. The KMT always struck me as "quasi-fascist" with their single party system.

Even if Mao does manage to beat the Nationalists again with his smaller base, he's going to remember Stalin's betrayal and they won't be friends.

So basiclly by making Manchuria a satelite state Stalin ensures China is his enemy from then on out.
 
Hmm. I would think that the Soviets would put everything they grab in China into this Manchurian Puppet--IDK if that would match Japan's Manchuko borders or not.

This totally screws Mao; Chiang will win the Civil War, but Sinkiang will probably plunge deeper into the Soviet Sphere of Influence.

Chiang will probably wind up as a Strong US Ally in a situation where the Soviets have grabbed territory.

What this is likely to mean is that in the end of the Cold War, on a similar basis to the fall of Eastern Europe, there is likely to be a fall of Central Asia. The Manchurian government would be imposed on its people and they'd be rid of it. Xinjiang and Mongolia may wind up annexed by China, or they may drift into alliance or neutrality with them, depending on who counterfactually leads China. North Korea is going to be heavily reliant on the People's Republic of Manchuria ITTL, and is likely to get wiped out when Manchuria falls.

Note, also, that this could become a possible WWIII Flashpoint. China post WW2 did have some warlords to consider, Sheng Shicai among them. The Consolidation of China into Nationalist and Communist blocs in this fashion may not be a pretty affair. That said, given the situation at hand, I don't think Chiang was insane enough to attack North, and in OTL, The Soviets managed to avoid a full scale war with the Chinese, despite their border clashes. A Similar situation to Europe applies--Mongolia, Xinjiang, Manchuria and North Korea form a "Harbin Pact", opposite Japan, South Korea, Nationalist China, and other Pro-US Governments in the region.

This doubles the land borders between the Soviet and Western Blocs, and it will have interesting implications for Soviet Power in places like Afghanistan and Iran, but I think this is just going to look like a somewhat remixed OTL; there would be no Vietnam War--perhaps a Cuban War instead?
 
What happens with Tibet then?

USSR-PRC tensions lead to an arms race and Tibet either does not get invaded or it des in a show of force to the Soviets?
 
Well...

Tibet in OTL was a zone of British influence. If the UK pulls out of India on a similar basis to OTL, the UK is going to want to throw Tibet to Nationalist China. They probably do so to some degree, but much of the situation is going to depend on the counterfactual situation of India and Pakistan in a world with a Friendly China.

If China and India are hostile, India is going to want Tibet to remain independent, as will the Soviet Union. If China and India can work out an arrangment for themselves, China gets what it wants and India does too. But this gets very deep into the counterfactuals of relationships that are going to be very different than OTL. Tibet is likely to remain independent and neutral, unless China and India team up to take it.

There is also the possibility that the Soviets want to expand into Tibet; this would now be on the border of their influence. While actually experiencing communism tends to be repulsive, Pre-occupation Tibet was a somewhat medeival country with many abuses in its own right, and it hard to gauge what the average Tibetan is going to think about the situation.

In all likelihood, Tibet is at the very center of the Cold War in this scenario. A Proxy war, an Austrian Style neutrality or the whole nation swinging between the Soviet and Allied camps are all possible.
 

wormyguy

Banned
To make a long story short, I think that the most likely scenario for Tibet is that it is under de jure Chinese sovereignty but de facto split into Chinese, Indian, and Soviet spheres of influence, the borders of which ebb and flow as the forces in the region fluctuate. India will probably be pushed out by the late 60s, and the Soviets by the 80s.

I said that the Soviets would relinquish their puppets to the Chinese because the Soviets actually coveted Chiang as an ally immensely, and would IMHO certainly trade quasiloyal puppets for a (super)powerful ally in Asia to check US interests in Japan and Indochina.
 
Well without the Communists there would be no Great Leap Forward, no Cultural Revolution, and in short no 70 + million people killed. That seems like a good thing.
 
To make a long story short, I think that the most likely scenario for Tibet is that it is under de jure Chinese sovereignty but de facto split into Chinese, Indian, and Soviet spheres of influence, the borders of which ebb and flow as the forces in the region fluctuate. India will probably be pushed out by the late 60s, and the Soviets by the 80s.

I said that the Soviets would relinquish their puppets to the Chinese because the Soviets actually coveted Chiang as an ally immensely, and would IMHO certainly trade quasiloyal puppets for a (super)powerful ally in Asia to check US interests in Japan and Indochina.

Wormy;

I think if the Soviets have decided to grab Manchuria they've given up on a friendly China in the first place.
 
Well without the Communists there would be no Great Leap Forward, no Cultural Revolution, and in short no 70 + million people killed. That seems like a good thing.

There will still be (maybe tens of) millions killed, famines, warlords and repressions. But maybe the overall numbers will be less, depending on how heavily the Americans get involved.
 
Top