Japan loses before Soviet declaration of War, does this prevent Mao?

Suppose either earlier bomb or better yet no bomb and Japan talked into coming to terms to avoid risk of Soviet occupation.

So no Soviet forces in Manchuria.

Does this prevent Mao taking over

also what impact on Vietnam and Korea
 

Deleted member 1487

How do they lose before Soviet entry? That would require US invasion and occupation of Korea and China....which is a big problem.
 
It does matter how the war ends without Soviet intervention- Stalin waits until after the first atomic bomb drops to declare war so that option is off the table

That would leave a negotiated settlement between America and Japan or America persuing a Pacific First strategy

If the Americans are going Pacific First, then Chiang will get the American help to restore the KMT to power

If somehow, the Japanese and America come to terms, then the Japanese in China will have to surrender to the Chinese and Chaing gets control over the country

Korea is never partitioned and the US probably gets to occupy it. Vietnam I'm not sure about. The French will try to get it back but doubt if they're strong enough. The Chinese will probably object to that
 
That would leave a negotiated settlement between America and Japan or America persuing a Pacific First strategy

If the Americans are going Pacific First, then Chiang will get the American help to restore the KMT to power

If somehow, the Japanese and America come to terms, then the Japanese in China will have to surrender to the Chinese and Chaing gets control over the country

Korea is never partitioned and the US probably gets to occupy it. Vietnam I'm not sure about. The French will try to get it back but doubt if they're strong enough. The Chinese will probably object to that
Half a chance the U.S. agrees to Japan's surrender per Atlantic Charter, allowing Japan to keep an Emperor (if not, necessarily, Hirohito).

So, without Sov weapons & equipment, Mao loses the Civil War. Korea, as noted, is not partitioned.

Vietnam probably remains unchanged, unless this all happens while FDR is alive & he cuts a deal to recognized a free (fascist, "anti-Communist") Vietnam--or he, or Truman, tells France to go screw, recognizing France needs the U.S. in Europe as much as the U.S. needs France. (Postwar, France needs the U.S. rather more....)

If Vietnam is a U.S. ally postwar, does this keep Burma from going Communist?
 
Naa, Mao was already carving out his piece of China fighting the Japanese. And I doubt if Chiang will have the power to oust him without maasive help from the US, and I doubt that without a communist China in the first place, the US will have the willpower to embark on a new war just after they finished the previous one. The best outcome for all participants would be a negotiated settlement with the US, the USSR and that new idea of them, the UNO working out some power sharing deal. The best outcome for Mao alone would be a permanent East and West China (or North and South, depending on who can get what piece of Japanese Manchuria)
 
How do they lose before Soviet entry? That would require US invasion and occupation of Korea and China....which is a big problem.

Japan had already lost long before Soviet entry, they just hadn't surrendered yet. To get that requires the Japanese leadership to come to enough of a consensus to surrender in late-July (at the latest) 1945 rather then mid-August '45. How one gets that happen is a different matter, but if it happens the Soviets don't really have the political wiggle room to attack.
 
Last edited:
If Japan surrenders before the USSR declares war or is prepared to declare war...

Then the USSR cannot invade Manchuria and very likely can't get into Korea. The USSR may still issue a nominal declaration of war to grab Karafuto and the Kuriles; but if Japan has already agreed to evacuate them, then why?

Any way, no Soviet occupation of Manchuria I think prevents the Chinese Communists from establishing control of outer Manchuria and from receiving massive arms from the Soviets and from captured Japanese stocks.

I don't know that this stops the Communists dead, but it sure weakens them.
 
A Japanese surrender before a Soviet invasion of Manchuria would possible result in either a longer Chinese civil war with the Nationalists winning eventually, or China being divided into a communist "North" China and a fascist/democratic "South" China.

Korea will not be divided, resulting in a Republic that has control over the entire peninsula.

Vietnam largely depends on which Chinese faction wins the civil war and shares a border with Vietnam. I highly doubt a nationalist China would allow any Indochinese state on it's border to go communist, not just Vietnam. So either Vietnam becomes a fascist/democratic state supported by America and the West, or a communist state that is invaded by China and becomes a puppet state.
 
A ROC invasion raises an interesting conundrum: does the U.S. support ROC, or the Viet freedom fighters? Because you're going to get another extended war; there is no way in hell the Viets aren't going to resist.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Naa, Mao was already carving out his piece of China fighting the Japanese. And I doubt if Chiang will have the power to oust him without maasive help from the US, and I doubt that without a communist China in the first place, the US will have the willpower to embark on a new war just after they finished the previous one. The best outcome for all participants would be a negotiated settlement with the US, the USSR and that new idea of them, the UNO working out some power sharing deal. The best outcome for Mao alone would be a permanent East and West China (or North and South, depending on who can get what piece of Japanese Manchuria)

My understanding was that Mao and the communists left most of the fighting the Japanese to the Nationalist forces concentrating instead on rebuilding the communists.
 
Top