Mao doesn't commit troops to Korean War

Under the threat of American Nuclear attack, Chairman Mao doesn't commit troops to bulster Kim Jung Sungs army.

This would have led to the UN Force defeating the North Koreans would it?

Which implications would this have had on Chinese support for the North Vietnamese?

/Fred
 
Without Chinese support, the North Koreans would surely have been defeated and annexed into South Korea. This could lead to one of two things. Either the American position in Asia is much stronger than in OTL, or the Koreans no longer see the need for US support, so there is a decline in strength in Korea. The latter seems very unlikely, as there is still the Red Chinese to worry about. I wonder how lack of North Korean support would have affected Vietnam in the later war there. Probably not much.
 
Without Chinese support, the North Koreans would surely have been defeated and annexed into South Korea. This could lead to one of two things. Either the American position in Asia is much stronger than in OTL, or the Koreans no longer see the need for US support, so there is a decline in strength in Korea. The latter seems very unlikely, as there is still the Red Chinese to worry about. I wonder how lack of North Korean support would have affected Vietnam in the later war there. Probably not much.

If Red China had been backed down from support the North Koreans because of the threat of US Nuclear attack. Would they have nerve to try again?
 
Kim Il Sung's army would collapse under the force of the UN army, led by the Americans. That would probably make the North Vietnamese think twice, too - and perhaps it makes China consider staying to themselves, which has effects for lots of places in Asia and Africa.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The North had already lost the war when the PRC came into the conflict. It has always struck me that Mao ready McArthur exactly right; 'Ol Dougout Doug was going to go straight over the Yalu and make a beeline of the CCP headquarter in what we now call Beijing & "unlose" China.

If the PLAN doesn't engage when it does, even if it only waits until spring of 1951, allowing the UN lines of communication to stabilize, the PRC intervention might have failed. That, in a way would have been worse than no intervention at all. A failed intervention would be seen as a gilded invitation for the U.S. to try to topple the PRC and reestablish the ROC as the rulers of China. (& wouldn't that have been a bloody mess?).

No PRC intervention probably means no Vietnam, at least not as it evolved. If it happened you would probably see the U.S., and most likely, the UK, hit Hanoi and General Giap's forces with a full on assault, crushing the communist government (like they had in ALT Korea).

The entire second half of the 20th Century would likely be unrecognizable.
 
If Red China had been backed down from support the North Koreans because of the threat of US Nuclear attack. Would they have nerve to try again?

Well depends. Chinese support of North Vietnam came in response from Soviet support. Both sides were trying to outdo the other at times, China gives AA weapons, Russians donate SAMs, and so on. I'd think the Chinese would be even more encourgaed to support North Vietnam.

First reason, the Americans and a united ROK already threaten China on the Yalu, no need to give the USA another base to threaten them from. Next there will be the competition issue with the USSR which I assume kept up its support of North Korea and Vietnam.
 
Well depends. Chinese support of North Vietnam came in response from Soviet support. Both sides were trying to outdo the other at times, China gives AA weapons, Russians donate SAMs, and so on. I'd think the Chinese would be even more encourgaed to support North Vietnam.

First reason, the Americans and a united ROK already threaten China on the Yalu, no need to give the USA another base to threaten them from. Next there will be the competition issue with the USSR which I assume kept up its support of North Korea and Vietnam.
Nice world, and them hippie's wouldn't have the chance to have said "I told you so".
 
If Red China had been backed down from support the North Koreans because of the threat of US Nuclear attack. Would they have nerve to try again?

As soon as they had their own nuclear deterrent (which would probably be made an even higher priority than in OTL) I imagine they would.
 
As soon as they had their own nuclear deterrent (which would probably be made an even higher priority than in OTL) I imagine they would.

So lets image in TTL that there was no Confrontation with Red China in Korea or in Vietnam.

Lets say the chinese get their bomb. Would have had a real confration on Taiwan in 60s? Insteed of Vietnam?
 
I think this would change how the UN is seen, no? A highly successful military intervention by the UN. But one that is seen by many as being driven by US interests.
 
So lets image in TTL that there was no Confrontation with Red China in Korea or in Vietnam.

Lets say the chinese get their bomb. Would have had a real confration on Taiwan in 60s? Insteed of Vietnam?

I could see China still getting involved with Vietnam; others have mentioned several good reasons for them intervene, and China became a nuclear power in 1964 in OTL.

One possible knock-on effect is that states probably would be even more eager to acquire nuclear weapons than OTL, since there would be a powerful and public demonstration of their deterrent value against non-nuclear states.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I could see China still getting involved with Vietnam; others have mentioned several good reasons for them intervene, and China became a nuclear power in 1964 in OTL.

One possible knock-on effect is that states probably would be even more eager to acquire nuclear weapons than OTL, since there would be a powerful and public demonstration of their deterrent value against non-nuclear states.

The PRC, in 1964 (actually October 1964), was a nuclear power like North Korea is a nuclear power today, albeit with a better design, it was 1967 before the PRC had any reasonable deliverable weapons. They had detonated a test device, but did not have a deliverable weapon. As late as the 1970's the PRC was, in nuclear terms, capable of "the last great act of defiance" relating to the United States; able to hit Japan, Tawain, & South Korea, including American bases in Japan & the ROK (and of course, Vietnam), but completely incapable of striking the CONUS. This meant the Beijing government could inflict damage on U.S. surrogates or U.S. military forces, but would expose itself to crushing counterstrikes on the PRC proper.

The PRC had sufficient deterrent to hold India at arm's length, perhaps even make the USSR think twice about a full scale invasion by the late '60s, but any deterrent vis a via the U.S. had to wait until the first, fairly primitive, PLAN sub launchable weapons. It could be argued that the PRC had only achieved any reasonable deterrent againt U.S. action in the 1990s.
 
The PRC, in 1964 (actually October 1964), was a nuclear power like North Korea is a nuclear power today, albeit with a better design, it was 1967 before the PRC had any reasonable deliverable weapons. They had detonated a test device, but did not have a deliverable weapon. As late as the 1970's the PRC was, in nuclear terms, capable of "the last great act of defiance" relating to the United States; able to hit Japan, Tawain, & South Korea, including American bases in Japan & the ROK (and of course, Vietnam), but completely incapable of striking the CONUS. This meant the Beijing government could inflict damage on U.S. surrogates or U.S. military forces, but would expose itself to crushing counterstrikes on the PRC proper.

The PRC had sufficient deterrent to hold India at arm's length, perhaps even make the USSR think twice about a full scale invasion by the late '60s, but any deterrent vis a via the U.S. had to wait until the first, fairly primitive, PLAN sub launchable weapons. It could be argued that the PRC had only achieved any reasonable deterrent againt U.S. action in the 1990s.


Yes, the Chinese at first, that being in the 60's had the test type weapons. But took a little time to make them deliverable to regional targets.

Even to this day, I think the Chinese manage just a few ICBM's..
I suppose this is why we hear in the news fairly often of someone in the U.S selling nuclear or weapons technology information to the Chinese.
 
I've often wondered if one of the best things the allies could have done was to not totally destroy NK... instead, stop about the 40th Parallel or so and annex that part of the country to SK... and leave that little bit left north of the 40th, and let it remain as NK... would the PRC intervene to save part of NK, provided allied troops never actually threatened to reach the Yalu? Plus, that little bit of NK remaining would be dirt poor... most of the population and arable land in NK would be gone. What remains of NK would be eternally in hock to China and the USSR, sucking up massive amounts of aid. SK would grow to be even wealthier, with more land and people. Of course, with MacArthur in command, this scenario would never happen, so you'd need somebody else...
 
Top