Is a Maoist-US alliance Feasible?

[Grouchio]

In December of 1945 George Marshall was sent by Truman to broker a compromise between the KMT under Chiang Kai-Shek and the CPC under Mao Zedong. Historically, he was able to reach an agreement with the two that lasted a mere six months or so before Chiang launched an attack on Mao that would horribly backfire and send the KMT packing to Taiwan after a three year curb-stomp. The KMT lost for many reasons including a lack of morale base from his army, treating the liberated provinces worse than shit, and hyperinflation. Mao in fact had the moral high ground in this war considering he continuously promised land reforms for the disaffected and turned the civil war into a popular revolution. (He only lost it when he enacted his failed Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution policies in the 50s-60s.)

So let's say that Truman (for CYOA purposes), instead of broadly applying George Kennan's rhetoric against Stalin towards every communist regime, more properly interprets Kennan's warnings and decides to send feelers to both capitalist and communist regimes alike opposite of Stalin.

Let's say that he tells Marshall that he should really look into Mao's character, his ambitions, policies and goals, take notes and report back to central of his true goals (namely, not communist world domination but protection for China from imperialist interests, the revival of the ruined national and domestic sector, and that he dislikes Stalin as much as Truman). Let's say this works and the White House decides that they could possibly strike a deal with Mao and support them over the failed semi-fascist KMT state. They also make such distinctions between Stalin's goals and other communist leader's goals known to the public at large, re-directing the future red scare towards the soviets and the soviets alone.

The result of this is that China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, and other communist groups not firmly in cahoots with Stalin are not seen as enemies of American interests, and are instead made allies as possible buffers against Soviet aggression (at least as long as Stalin lives). In addition, populist regimes seeking domestic reforms in Latin America are given preference over reactionary dictatorships, preventing the likes of Operation Condor, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, and other mishaps.

Could this work?

 

[The Byronic Hero]

The Chinese lobby in America was Nationalist. American business had a lot to lose should the communists prove victorious. A lot of political clout to overcome there.

Would Mao even trust the West? With our years of support for the Kuomintang and opinions regarding Communism; Mao would need to be more flexible than he ever proved in history.

And should the Korean War still occur and Truman holds MacArthur back following the ChiCom tide, he will find his legacy tarnished and be lucky if he isn't impeached and/or tried for treason appearing a fool at best and a communist sympathizer at worst. Forget the presidential pension for life created for Truman in his later years.

I just don't see public opinion supporting aiding a communist state in the era of the Red Scare, Stalin's aggression, and with the Nationalists having already secured American support.

 

[Theoretical_TJ]

You need the European War to go far worse (like on the scale of a North and South France and a North and South Norway level of bad). You also need the KMT to suffer a collapse right after the Japanese withdraw. If Mao's the only game in town to stand up to the Bear, then it's possible the West seeks him out as "not Stalin"

For both of these to happen requires multiple calamities in planning and logistics that border on ASB.

 

[DaveBC]

I'm not sure I can see this right out of the gate. It is conceivable at some point some farsighted U.S. analysts anticipate the Sino-Soviet split and do what they can to exacerbate it, but I'm not sure that would count as a genuine "alliance" so much as a temporary case of sharing a common adversary.

 

[Grouchio]

The Chinese lobby in America was Nationalist. American business had a lot to lose should the communists prove victorious. A lot of political clout to overcome there.

Would Mao even trust the West? With our years of support for the Kuomintang and opinions regarding Communism; Mao would need to be more flexible than he ever proved in history.

And should the Korean War still occur and Truman holds MacArthur back following the ChiCom tide, he will find his legacy tarnished and be lucky if he isn't impeached and/or tried for treason appearing a fool at best and a communist sympathizer at worst. Forget the presidential pension for life created for Truman in his later years.

I just don't see public opinion supporting aiding a communist state in the era of the Red Scare, Stalin's aggression, and with the Nationalists having already secured American support.

It's not possible in early 1946, (a few years before McCarthy launched the Red Scare) for Truman to start a journalist campaign observing and reporting on Kuomintang treating re-occupied Chinese provinces like shit (brutal conscription, hyperinflation, etc) to the public presses in an effort to shift public opinion?

Also how far back would you have to go to prevent the Korean War or at least prevent Chinese intervention?

 

[RousseauX]

The Chinese lobby in America was Nationalist. American business had a lot to lose should the communists prove victorious. A lot of political clout to overcome there.

Would Mao even trust the West? With our years of support for the Kuomintang and opinions regarding Communism; Mao would need to be more flexible than he ever proved in history.

And should the Korean War still occur and Truman holds MacArthur back following the ChiCom tide, he will find his legacy tarnished and be lucky if he isn't impeached and/or tried for treason appearing a fool at best and a communist sympathizer at worst. Forget the presidential pension for life created for Truman in his later years.

I just don't see public opinion supporting aiding a communist state in the era of the Red Scare, Stalin's aggression, and with the Nationalists having already secured American support.

The red scare and mccarthyism occured because of the Korean War occuring right on the heels of the "loss of china", it's quite possible if mao make friendly overtures to the US and the Korean war doesn't happen, or the chinese doesn't intervene in it the Chinese and the Americans make the anti-Soviet alliance 10-15 years ahead of schedule.

 

[DaveBC]

It's not possible in early 1946, (a few years before McCarthy launched the Red Scare) for Truman to start a journalist campaign observing and reporting on Kuomintang treating re-occupied Chinese provinces like shit (brutal conscription, hyperinflation, etc) to the public presses in an effort to shift public opinion?

Also how far back would you have to go to prevent the Korean War or at least prevent Chinese intervention?

To what end, though? I'm not sure in the American political psyche, even before the events of the 1950s, that you're likely to get far supporting self-proclaimed communists simply because their adversaries are abusing human rights, nor are you likely to get a politician farsighted enough (even if he could sell it to the public) to see that it was worth sponsoring a communist regime in China as a means of splitting the communist world.

McCarthy perfected the anti-communist hysteria but he didn't invent it.

 

[Grouchio]

To what end, though? I'm not sure in the American political psyche, even before the events of the 1950s, that you're likely to get far supporting self-proclaimed communists simply because their adversaries are abusing human rights, nor are you likely to get a politician farsighted enough (even if he could sell it to the public) to see that it was worth sponsoring a communist regime in China as a means of splitting the communist world.

McCarthy perfected the anti-communist hysteria but he didn't invent it.

So would you say that the chain of events in-between 1945-50 in China/Korea were inevitable, and that Truman could not have been able to change a thing?

 

[raharris1973]

Sure - but only if the ChiNat regime is conquered by the Japanese, surrenders to them or collaborates with them, leaving Mao the only game in town.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . that you're likely to get far supporting self-proclaimed communists simply because their adversaries are abusing human rights, . . .

But that almost seems like the default position, that we care about where the rubber hits the road and how a government treats its citizens.

In the late '40s, anti-communism was just recently a "thing" (although latent during the Depression and New Deal for a certain percentage of the citizenry). It came about firstly because Stalin and the Soviets cheated in eastern Europe. Of course we ourselves cheated in Greece and elsewhere. But one of the traits of human beings is that we're never as aware of own cheating!

Anyway, wasn't as entrenched in the late '40s. When I was in junior high in the mid '70s (ages 11 - 14), it was.

 

[thezerech]

Insinuating that Mao ze dong ever had any moral authority what so ever is a disservice to the tens of millions he murdered.

A Nationalist Communist alliance is very unlikely. Remove Chiang Kai Shek and Mao, if you've got some one like Wiang Jingwei who is more willing to compromise and ostensibly left wing this becomes far more likely. Obviously you'd have to stop him from collaborating w/ Japan.

 

[Richard V]

In the late 40s the Communist leadership was generally hopeful of friendly ties with the US, being encouraged by lack of direct intervention by the Americans in the civil war, and long standing suspicion of the Soviet Union. Mao was personally actively cultivating American ties. What made Chinese intervention in the Korean War inevitable was the US refusing to recognize Beijing after coming to power and Truman ordering the 7th fleet into the Taiwan Strait on June 27, 1950. After this point Mao picked the Soviet side.

Had Truman continued his policy of non-intervention with Taiwan, China would eventually take over removing the biggest obstable in Sino-American difficulties. If you picture the relationship absent ongoing US support for Taiwan and Chinese support for North Korea the relationship would be compleltely different. There would still be conflict of interest in Indochina and Mao's domestic policies which were antithetical. Probably too many differences for actual alliance until the post Mao era, but better ties overall and perhaps something beyond the late Cold War tacit alliance of the 70s and 80s.

 

[KuboCaskett]

IIRC, there was a plan to have Chiang assassinated by having him fall out of a plane with a defective parachute; I think that might do the trick to get the US on Mao's good side or at least put one step in that direction.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Sorry to double post, but I must make a point:

Had Truman continued his policy of non-intervention with Taiwan, China would eventually take over removing the biggest obstable in Sino-American difficulties. If you picture the relationship absent ongoing US support for Taiwan and Chinese support for North Korea the relationship would be compleltely different. There would still be conflict of interest in Indochina and Mao's domestic policies which were antithetical. Probably too many differences for actual alliance until the post Mao era, but better ties overall and perhaps something beyond the late Cold War tacit alliance of the 70s and 80s.

You know the idea of a Sino-American alliance with the Maoists at the helm just after the Chinese Civil War would have a lot of butterflies upon the world; for one we could see India get made into more of a Soviet ally than OTL and that the Cold War might get less about ideologies than it is about Soviet vs. American interests in mostly non-ideological terms.

 

[Grouchio]

IIRC, there was a plan to have Chiang assassinated by having him fall out of a plane with a defective parachute; I think that might do the trick to get the US on Mao's good side or at least put one step in that direction.

Where can I find this bit?

 

[Richard V]

Sorry to double post, but I must make a point:

You know the idea of a Sino-American alliance with the Maoists at the helm just after the Chinese Civil War would have a lot of butterflies upon the world; for one we could see India get made into more of a Soviet ally than OTL and that the Cold War might get less about ideologies than it is about Soviet vs. American interests in mostly non-ideological terms.

Sino-Indian relations were quite good in the early 50s, it broke down largely due to US/Indian support for the 1958 Tibetan insurgency. The territorial disputes between them are not inherently unresolvable. In fact the terms India want China to accept today is what the Chinese offered and the Indians rejected prior to the 1962 war. I do not believe formal alliance with Maoists is likely, however I think it's too deterministic to say India would be a Soviet ally because of improved Sino-American relations. US support to China would only extend toward countering the Soviets and Indian support to USSR would not include hostility toward the US.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Where can I find this bit?

It's somewhere in the book, China 1945, which oddly enough deals with how the Chinese communists came to hate the USA.

Sino-Indian relations were quite good in the early 50s, it broke down largely due to US/Indian support for the 1958 Tibetan insurgency. The territorial disputes between them are not inherently unresolvable. In fact the terms India want China to accept today is what the Chinese offered and the Indians rejected prior to the 1962 war. I do not believe formal alliance with Maoists is likely, however I think it's too deterministic to say India would be a Soviet ally because of improved Sino-American relations. US support to China would only extend toward countering the Soviets and Indian support to USSR would not include hostility toward the US.

I see but still the butterflies from a Maoist China alliance with the US are still huge; for one thing the US might not be supporting much rightwing dictatorships during TTL's Cold War as OTL's did.

 

[GeographyDude]

Insinuating that Mao ze dong ever had any moral authority what so ever is a disservice to the tens of millions he murdered.

I agree one hundred percent, and we've got to take it a step further! We've got to be like doctors trying to solve diphtheria for example (arguably, the first real achievement of modern medical science).

So, if we want to prevent genocide, as I think most of us do, we've got to goddamn study it. Most of the genocide under Mao was committed by manipulating famines which were already taking place, and much of it was in slow motion. I think these two factors are the case for many, perhaps the majority, of acts of genocide.

 

[LeX]

If China gets to the point where we have to support Mao, then I'd say we have Stalin as an example of how relations with a totalitarian communist dictator would turn out.

 

[KuboCaskett]

If China gets to the point where we have to support Mao, then I'd say we have Stalin as an example of how relations with a totalitarian communist dictator would turn out.

And if Mao is made out to be the "good guy" in comparison to Stalin ITTL, then things can go wrong; just imagine what kind of fanbase he'll get, probably more so than OTL.