RousseauX

Donor
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?
No, there was nothing inevitable about it

The Korean war itself was basically an accident: it literally happened because Stalin misread US diplomatic communique as signaling they don't care about South Korea that much

that being said though I don't see the US allying itself with Mao -while- the KMT is still on the mainland
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
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.
The US did support Mao against Brezhnev USSR which was much much nicer than Stalin's USSR
 
Come to think of it, if Mao were to become an ally of the USA as early as 1946, then I can see the Soviets trying to get Manchuria split off just to spite those Chinese "traitors"; unless that's out of the question.
 
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.

Don't forget the 1-5 million people who died during the cultural revolution. Aswell as millions if others who were tortured or maimed. That was no famine.
 
. . . That was no famine.
I've read that manipulating floods which were occurring anyway (probably by busting levees) was used during the Chinese Civil War in the '40s.

And in the '50s, famine was manipulated. Famine was used as a weapon against groups perceived to be disloyal to the Communist cause, and/or ethnic groups held in suspect. And this is a common time and method of genocide, something we should be familiar with and at least have a fighting chance of intervening effective (whether militarily or any other skillful method).

I most emphatically am not saying this is the only cause of human rights abuses.
 
Last edited:
I've read that manipulating floods which were occurring anyway (probably by busting levees) was used during the Chinese Civil War in the '40s.

And in the '50s, famine was manipulated. Famine was used as a weapon against groups perceived to be disloyal to the Communist cause, and/or ethnic groups held in suspect. And this is a common time and method of genocide, something we should be familiar with and at least have a fighting chance of intervening effective (whether militarily or any other skillful method).

I most emphatically am not saying this is the only cause of human rights abuses.

Obviously famine has been used as a tool for ethic cleansing, the Holodomer being the best example. I was taking about the cultural revolution, the people who died then were murdered.
 
Came we get back to discussing the ramifications of an early positive Chicom-US relationship? I think we have already established that Mao is a mass murdering pr--k for as far as I'm concerned.
 
And, to be fair, Mao only became a mass-murdering prick after he took power. He's cleaner than Chiang in 1945 AFAIC.
Also, how could the Chinese pro-Chiang lobby be dealt with?
 
And, to be fair, Mao only became a mass-murdering prick after he took power. He's cleaner than Chiang in 1945 AFAIC.
Also, how could the Chinese pro-Chiang lobby be dealt with?
I didn't know that Mao in 1945 is different than he was after 1949; though he still is a scummy dude.

As for the Chinese lobby, my good guess is that they either get ignored or split up into two camps: pro-Mao and anti-Mao.
 
The US did support Mao against Brezhnev USSR which was much much nicer than Stalin's USSR
The USSR was the US's designated strategic enemy at that point, and the PRC was still far from an ally. The scenario we're discussing is World War II--as you said yourself, the US would not ditch the KMT if it were still a viable force on the mainland.
 
The USSR was the US's designated strategic enemy at that point, and the PRC was still far from an ally. The scenario we're discussing is World War II--as you said yourself, the US would not ditch the KMT if it were still a viable force on the mainland.
Then our best bet is have the KMT weakened by the time WWII ends; perhaps a few more decisive Japanese victories during WWII, while not truly damaging to China, would wound up weakening the KMT more so than OTL.
 
Obviously famine has been used as a tool for ethic cleansing, the Holodomer being the best example. I was taking about the cultural revolution, the people who died then were murdered.
I think starvation is at least as nasty a weapon as shooting, and can be just as deliberative.

And for people unfamiliar with the term, the Holodomor is what Stalin did to the Ukraine.
 
Could this work?
OTL Sino-American relations could experience detente because Mao was confident of his strategic standing in relation to the US - they were able to get on par with them in Korea. Without this experience Mao will always be paranoid of the "white imperialists".
 
What if Mao had two senior lieutenants who wore good at getting things done and implementing his policies, but who generally took the attitude, this shit will come back and bite us in the ass. Meaning, directly abusive practices were not the best way, and not by a country mile!

No, he's not likely to fire them precisely because they are good at getting things done. And this seemingly small change might be enough to make Mao a middle-of-the-roader. Yes, really.

Please note, usually the main lieutenants are more hardcore, more vengeful, more abusive, more everything than the principle. But what if this time was different, and just through a happy accident of history? ?
 
Last edited:
Top