More Active Dixie Mission to Mao

[Catspoke]

What if the Dixie mission and the diplomats assigned to the Chinese communists were more successful in convincing their higher up of Mao's competence and the USA hedges their bets and support the communists equally and then more than equally, dumping the Nationalists, creating a non aligned Mao?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Mission

Could the Korean war be avoided?
Could Chinese markets be opened and vice versa war earlier?
Could China be like Yugoslavia?
What happens to Taiwan?

 

[LeX]

The CCP was the ISIS of the day. The US isn't going to ditch the ROC for the reds, especially not on the basis of better arguments.

 

[Japhy]

Firstly it would he a waste of resources, Cold War "Revisionists" aside the Communist forces we could have supplied were fighting the Japanese even less then the KMT.

After that Mao and the Communists are still going to be, well, Communists. And unlike Tito and his "backwater" on the peripheral of Europe that was willing to deal with Capitalist trade, China was always in the US National Interest, to the extent that the majority of the would be Neo Isolationists in the WWII wanted it to remain in the US sphere.

The American political aspiration with the KMT was that they would get around to liberalization and creating a multiparty Democracy, that was the logic behind US discussions about replacing Chiang with Sun Fo and it was the basis for the Marshall Mission negotiations after the war between the KMT and the CPC. With the KMT investment always offered the hint of that eventual payoff, with Mao there wouldn't be that long term goal.

During WWII the US backed Communist insurgencies across Europe and SEAsia, in none of those instances did the investment follow off with a meaningful break with Moscow in the Stalinist era, Tito only looked west because Stalin wanted him dead.

There are ways to develop an earlier Sino-Soviet split or at least a frosting of relations that might deter Communist China from sending troops to Korea but that's pushing it because for the Communists in China the US was an Imperial power, the US's interests in that era were firmly in contrast to their goals and no amount of Lend Lease that can make it over the Hump and though KMT China to them is going to make a big difference with that.

The Dixie Mission hands get boosted a lot now because they did pick the right horse but outside of "Mao is going to win" they didn't really have a leg to stand on in regards to their views of a US-Maoist relation. And it wasn't until Sino-Soviet relations collapsed on their own that that changed.

 

[Japhy]

The CCP was the ISIS of the day.

Thats an intensely baseless statement.

 

[Catspoke]

Firstly it would he a waste of resources, Cold War "Revisionists" aside the Communist forces we could have supplied were fighting the Japanese even less then the KMT.

After that Mao and the Communists are still going to be, well, Communists. And unlike Tito and his "backwater" on the peripheral of Europe that was willing to deal with Capitalist trade, China was always in the US National Interest, to the extent that the majority of the would be Neo Isolationists in the WWII wanted it to remain in the US sphere.

The American political aspiration with the KMT was that they would get around to liberalization and creating a multiparty Democracy, that was the logic behind US discussions about replacing Chiang with Sun Fo and it was the basis for the Marshall Mission negotiations after the war between the KMT and the CPC. With the KMT investment always offered the hint of that eventual payoff, with Mao there wouldn't be that long term goal.

During WWII the US backed Communist insurgencies across Europe and SEAsia, in none of those instances did the investment follow off with a meaningful break with Moscow in the Stalinist era, Tito only looked west because Stalin wanted him dead.

There are ways to develop an earlier Sino-Soviet split or at least a frosting of relations that might deter Communist China from sending troops to Korea but that's pushing it because for the Communists in China the US was an Imperial power, the US's interests in that era were firmly in contrast to their goals and no amount of Lend Lease that can make it over the Hump and though KMT China to them is going to make a big difference with that.

The Dixie Mission hands get boosted a lot now because they did pick the right horse but outside of "Mao is going to win" they didn't really have a leg to stand on in regards to their views of a US-Maoist relation. And it wasn't until Sino-Soviet relations collapsed on their own that that changed.

Thanks. Nice summary with good info. That is general jist I get from reading some books, that traditional USA politics wouldn't allow such a thing, the Nationalists were well connected politically. and regardless the Chinese communists (as run by Mao) were kind of purist freaks that having a normal relationship wasn't really possible.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Thats an intensely baseless statement.

Not really. They weren't as evil as ISIS (obviously) but they were what was considered a terrorist organization in control of territory of a recognized country (ROC).

Indeed, until the 1970s the Taiwan based ROC was considered the rightful China with their mainland overrun by Communist rebels.

 

[Japhy]

Not really. They weren't as evil as ISIS (obviously) but they were what was considered a terrorist organization in control of territory of a recognized country (ROC).

Indeed, until the 1970s the Taiwan based ROC was considered the rightful China with their mainland overrun by Communist rebels.

By stretching things out to that stage you could argue the American Patriots during the Revolution were the ISIS of their age. It's ridiculous. And ignores the on the ground and diplomatic situation in Civil Wars era China.

 

[BBadolato]

From what I've Mao always considered U.S aid a possibility, the only problem is the U.S never went for it.

There are ways to develop an earlier Sino-Soviet split or at least a frosting of relations that might deter Communist China from sending troops to Korea but that's pushing it because for the Communists in China the US was an Imperial power, the US's interests in that era were firmly in contrast to their goals and no amount of Lend Lease that can make it over the Hump and though KMT China to them is going to make a big difference with that.

The problem is an earlier frosting of relations was already there, the Soviets under Stalin never gave a damn about the CCP, and treated them more like an imperialist power. Mao and company had basically forced out the pro-Moscow 21 Bolsheviks during the Long March, leaving Mao with an unorthodox party. After the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, more specifically after Operation Barbarossa, Sheng Shicai of Xinjiang betrayed Stalin, and Stalin basically let Jiang take the resource-rich if politically unstable back under KMT control. I do wonder if Sheng killing Mao's only surviving sibling could be placed on Stalin, or that Mao knew Stalin backed Sheng? Hell, by the time the Soviets declared war they would do so, after getting assurances of their privileges in Xinjiang and Manchuria despite not having the latter since 1905, and the Soviets wouldn't bother with backing the CCP in China.

If the U.S could show more interest in the CCP, I could Mao willing to ignore the Soviets, after all he thought China would have to be responsible for its own liberation, so I could see ditching the Soviets as an option.

 

[LeX]

Thats an intensely baseless statement.

No it's not.

 

[Japhy]

From what I've Mao always considered U.S aid a possibility, the only problem is the U.S never went for it.

The problem is an earlier frosting of relations was already there, the Soviets under Stalin never gave a damn about the CCP, and treated them more like an imperialist power. Mao and company had basically forced out the pro-Moscow 21 Bolsheviks during the Long March, leaving Mao with an unorthodox party. After the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, more specifically after Operation Barbarossa, Sheng Shicai of Xinjiang betrayed Stalin, and Stalin basically let Jiang take the resource-rich if politically unstable back under KMT control. I do wonder if Sheng killing Mao's only surviving sibling could be placed on Stalin, or that Mao knew Stalin backed Sheng? Hell, by the time the Soviets declared war they would do so, after getting assurances of their privileges in Xinjiang and Manchuria despite not having the latter since 1905, and the Soviets wouldn't bother with backing the CCP in China.

If the U.S could show more interest in the CCP, I could Mao willing to ignore the Soviets, after all he thought China would have to be responsible for its own liberation, so I could see ditching the Soviets as an option.

I am aware of the issues inherent in the relationship of the Soviets/COMINTERN and the Maoist party faction. At the end of the day though the KMT fits better with the US political goals in China and their economic goals. The US had major investments in China, and the US had learned in 1918 that investments in Communist countries come to nothing when the Communists take over. The high cost for vague potentials on the US side don't really beat the low cost, concrete potentials that Mao is assured from the Soviet Union.

Mao knew that Sheng was backed by Moscow. The NKVD knew who was getting killed. They were able to work on it anyway. Because Maoist China would not have anywhere else to go. Because the United States wasn't going to support a one party dictatorship by a regime that was going to overthrow everything they hoped to get out of China. They were so reluctant to support a one party regime, on the basis of them being a one party regime, that they saw its ouster from the mainland in 1949 simply over the nature of it being a dictatorship IOTL.

No it's not.

Oh, well in that case I guess I'm wrong.

The Communists in China were't comparable in position to ISIS. At best they were the Naxalites in India or the M23 Movement in the Congo.