Korean War WIs....

Bmao, your points are good, and indeed sending US ground troops into China would have been a trap. However, once the UN troops have reached and fortified the Yalu, Red China has basically lost the war. Mao can't realistically go on with the war forever. He has not the means to wage a guerrilla war in Korea from Manchuria, and in a conventional war, the UN can keep on massacrating inferior-quality Chinese troops and smashing Chinese industrial and logistic potential with air and artillery power, until the PRC is without any more decent conventional troops. Or they can simply threat to smash China into the Stone Age with a dozen well-placed nukes if they don't give up Korea. Stalin won't choose WWIII to save Mao since that would be suicide: in 1950 the US had 369 nukes vs. URSS' 5, in 1951 the US had 640 vs. URSS' 25. The US had the means to wipe out the Red Army and the Soviet economy to oblivion, with at worst losing only an handful of armies or cities in the Western camp, if the Soviet second strike got really lucky in the death throes of the Soviet state, which is rather doubtful.

In recogntion of your good points, I change the TL as follows:

Truman and MacArthur sent warnings through covert diplomatic channels that the UN forces would unleash "total destruction" of China if a truce that would leave Korea united and safe from Communist aggression would not be established once they had reached and consolidated positions on the whole Korean border. It was not explictly stated, but it was implied that this would involve nuclear bombing of mainland China. By October, the UN forces had reached and consolidated positions on the whole Yalu river portion of the Korean border, up to Hyesanjin, and were pressing on Chongjin. Truce talks were resumed. The UN command and the USA government were stern that offensive operation would not cease until the whole Korean territory was cleared of Communist presence. Bombing of Manchuria targets was intensified. On November 12, the outskirts of Chongjin were reached and the Communist Chinese command agreed to pull their troops out of Korea. On November 27, 1951 an armistice between the UN and the Chinese Communists was signed. The UN and the USA had won a decisive victory in the Korean War.


Mao has the armies to keep throwing at the US for a while.

Here's what might happen though. Mao might decide to employ some psychological warfare by sending unarmed civilians across the Yalu river with peasant tools, putting a real moral dillemma on the UN troops. Mao had millions upon millions of peasants that he didn't care about throwing away, many of whom he was actually keen to be rid of, such as the remnants of the 'kulak' class, and this would be used basically as 'penal batallions'. Thus saving Mao his combat ready troops.

Here is where I will agree with you though. In this scenario, it'll have to take the US threatening to use nukes on China for Mao to back down. Or it may in fact take the UN having to use a warning nuke to show them that they were dead serious. Yet nukes will be only a weapon of last resort for Truman.

Nuking China will not look good in the International Community, no matter what justification the US can use. If the US is going to use nukes, they would probably have to go it alone, and perhaps even prompt a division within NATO and the UN. Yeah, China's communist, but the US will rightly be seen as an object of fear rather than a source of good in the world.

Regardless of what you think of the Chinese Communists, they did have a legitimate cause for war, as they had warned repeatedly to the US that if they got to the Yalu river, they would intervene militarily to protect their borders.
 

General Zod

Banned
Mao has the armies to keep throwing at the US for a while.

Six months to an year, perhaps ? To keep throwing human waves to the Yalu defense line is going to be even much more of a huge meat-grinder than 38th Parallel IOTL.

Here's what might happen though. Mao might decide to employ some psychological warfare by sending unarmed civilians across the Yalu river with peasant tools, putting a real moral dillemma on the UN troops. Mao had millions upon millions of peasants that he didn't care about throwing away, many of whom he was actually keen to be rid of, such as the remnants of the 'kulak' class, and this would be used basically as 'penal batallions'. Thus saving Mao his combat ready troops.

I'm utterly unconvinced that this would turn out to any real advantage for the Communist camp, instead of one big propaganda loss, as this leads to huge Chinese mass defections to the Western lines, as those unwilling conscripts surrender to UN lines en masse, get sended to Taiwan to bolster Nationalist China, and the Western propaganda gets a massive load of evidence that Mao's rule is based on cohercion and terror.

Here is where I will agree with you though. In this scenario, it'll have to take the US threatening to use nukes on China for Mao to back down. Or it may in fact take the UN having to use a warning nuke to show them that they were dead serious. Yet nukes will be only a weapon of last resort for Truman.

Of course, if Truman wants to show moderation, he can just allow Mao a "grace period", so to speak, to acknowledge that Korea is lost to Communist China, while UN forces on the Yalu happily keep slaughtering inferior PRC combat troops with airpower and artillery. And threaten to use the nukes after, say, six months of this charade. The strategic balance, and the outcome, wouldn't change one bit. It simply differs whether Truman wants to appease public opinion in other Western countries more, by showing he uses nukes as a last resort, or American public opinion, by putting a quick end to the war.

Nuking China will not look good in the International Community, no matter what justification the US can use. If the US is going to use nukes, they would probably have to go it alone, and perhaps even prompt a division within NATO and the UN. Yeah, China's communist, but the US will rightly be seen as an object of fear rather than a source of good in the world.

In this case, using nukes on China would look much like using nukes on Japan: i.e. an extreme means to end a bloody war and impose peace on an aggressive nation. The Western countries and the UN have not started the war nor are trying to invade Communist China, they are doing wahtever is necessary to protect Korea from further Communist aggression. As a matter of fact, if Mao can't be persuaded to leave Korea alone when his troops have been pushed back beyond the Yalu, using nukes to end its aggression might be seen as a more moderate move than invading mainland China itself. But anyway simple threat to use nukes would suffice: this is a game that can only end in annihilation for the Communist camp if pushed to the extreme, therefore if need be, Stalin would rein in Mao rather than risk nuclear confrontation with the USA. And even if Mao gets an apocalyptic bug, and starts taking his farnetications seriously about China being able to survive a nuclear war, I'm rather doubtful that the reast of the CCP would share his opinion.

Regardless of what you think of the Chinese Communists, they did have a legitimate cause for war, as they had warned repeatedly to the US that if they got to the Yalu river, they would intervene militarily to protect their borders.

Nonetheless, claiming a buffer zone in North Korea is a rather questionable way to "protect your border", when Korea has not been under Chinese suzerainety for centuries. Moreover, ITTL they have tried, and failed, to enforce that strategic buffer by military means. Stubbornly continuing the war to enforce Chinese Communist control of Korea when it is lost and in all evidence irrecoverable can be hardly construed as pacific or defensive.
 
IMO, the fundamental question is, would Mao invade at all if Mac doesn't go all the way to the Yalu? It was once compared to China coming up Mexico toward Texas.... So, WI Mac does stop?
 
Top