Pondering China post-Feb 1945 Victory

Without Soviet intervention in Asia (1945), who wins the Chinese Civil War?

  • Nationalists!

    Votes: 24 72.7%
  • Communists!

    Votes: 9 27.3%

  • Total voters
    33
Apologies if this topic has come up before but I've hit a snag while building a timeline that I could use input on:

Thanks to some differences in starting conditions for the Second World War (unimportant to this discussion) Japan surrenders six months early, in February, 1945. Since the arrangement with the Soviet Union concerning Japan stipulated that the Soviets wouldn't get involved in Asia until after Germany's surrender, an early Japanese surrender would mean that the Soviets wouldn't invade Manchuria or Korea.

Here's where I can't make up my mind: Without Soviet intervention in Asia, who wins the Chinese Civil War?
 

Kapellan23

Banned
The Republic of China controls almost the entire country. Without direct Soviet intervention, terrorists have no chance of success.
 
I have no specific information, but I think Soviet occupation of Manchuria was a significant boost to the Communists.

BTW, IMO it's not necessary that Japan surrender six months early. Three months would do it. Stalin promised to enter the Pacific war three months after Germany surrendered; that was what happened, but in fact the Soviets moved two weeks before they were entirely ready to get in before Japan surrendered to the atom bombings.

One question: suppose that after Japan announces surrender, the Soviets decide to march into Manchuria. Can the RoC take control of Manchuria first, thus placing the Soviets in the position of invading a friendly country? How quickly can RoC "tripwire" forces be moved to the borders there? Can the US help with air transport?
 
I have no specific information, but I think Soviet occupation of Manchuria was a significant boost to the Communists.?
As I recall it was vital - the arms surrendered by the Japanese to the Red Army were then handed over to the Chinese Communists. The KMT then became badly over-extended trying to retake Manchuria which led to their collapse.

One question: suppose that after Japan announces surrender, the Soviets decide to march into Manchuria. Can the RoC take control of Manchuria first, thus placing the Soviets in the position of invading a friendly country? How quickly can RoC "tripwire" forces be moved to the borders there? Can the US help with air transport?
For that matter, how quickly can the Red Army move in March 1945? They're still fighting the battle of Berlin. Of course there were substantial forces in the Soviet Far East - but would they have been able to overrun Manchuria? The place is huge.
 
One question: suppose that after Japan announces surrender, the Soviets decide to march into Manchuria. Can the RoC take control of Manchuria first, thus placing the Soviets in the position of invading a friendly country? How quickly can RoC "tripwire" forces be moved to the borders there? Can the US help with air transport?

For that matter, how quickly can the Red Army move in March 1945? They're still fighting the battle of Berlin. Of course there were substantial forces in the Soviet Far East - but would they have been able to overrun Manchuria? The place is huge.

As I understand it the Soviets were totally on board with the Japanese non-aggression treaty because it freed up the majority of the East Asia forces to fight in Europe. Soviet forces on the Chinese/Russian border in February were around or less than half of what would come charging across in August IRL and roughly equal to the 700 000 strong Japanese Kwantung Army held there 'just in case' (even if Japanese numbers were made up of raw troops and not veterans).

With an early end to the Pacific war and the need to police the area until the Chinese can take it up themselves, it would not surprise me in the least if the Allies left the Kwantung Army in place while the Chinese prepared to take over responsibility in stages. Doing that might keep the region out of communist hands long enough for the RoC to take full control of the region. IF that happens I'd call it a firm Nationalist victory but I'm open to suggestions and/or ways for Mao to pull the dragon out of his cap and win anyway.
 
Since the arrangement with the Soviet Union concerning Japan stipulated that the Soviets wouldn't get involved in Asia until after Germany's surrender, an early Japanese surrender would mean that the Soviets wouldn't invade Manchuria or Korea.

That's not necessarily true at all. Stalin at Yalta committed himself to join the war against Japan "two or three months" after Germany surrendered, but that hardly has to be read as a commitment that he wouldn't join it earlier! It is certainly conceivable that if the end of the Pacific War were in sight in February 1945, he would join in at the last minute as he was to do months later in OTL--this would not seriously interfere with the war in Europe, since the defeat of Germany was by then in sight. (And Japan being Japan it would hardly surrender out of the blue; there would have to be prior signs of desperation which Stalin could see as well as anyone else, and prepare accordingly.)
 
That's not necessarily true at all. Stalin at Yalta committed himself to join the war against Japan "two or three months" after Germany surrendered, but that hardly has to be read as a commitment that he wouldn't join it earlier! It is certainly conceivable that if the end of the Pacific War were in sight in February 1945, he would join in at the last minute as he was to do months later in OTL--this would not seriously interfere with the war in Europe, since the defeat of Germany was by then in sight. (And Japan being Japan it would hardly surrender out of the blue; there would have to be prior signs of desperation which Stalin could see as well as anyone else, and prepare accordingly.)

I was under the impression that August 1945 was the earliest the Soviets could manage an offensive of sufficient strength to ensure they wouldn't get bogged down by the Japanese/Manchukuo forces still in the region. If that sort of land grab wasn't feasible, Stalin might well write off the lost opportunity and sit back and watch what happened.
 
The Republic of China controls almost the entire country. Without direct Soviet intervention, terrorists have no chance of success.

Almost the entire country? Hardly. "By the time of their 1945 surrender,. Mao's party-army held sway over almost 100 million people mainly in North, Northeast, and North Central China." https://www.jstor.org/stable/189281?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

(The CCP did of course use terror--as did the GMD--but it is misleading to dismiss a movement which had a functioning government controlling so much territory and so many people--and a large army-- as merely terrorists.)
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that August 1945 was the earliest the Soviets could manage an offensive of sufficient strength to ensure they wouldn't get bogged down by the Japanese/Manchukuo forces still in the region. If that sort of land grab wasn't feasible, Stalin might well write off the lost opportunity and sit back and watch what happened.

As I said, the Japanese surrender isn't going to come out of the blue. The Japanese are going to show signs that they are on their last legs considerably before that, and this will give Stalin time to prepare.
 
As I said, the Japanese surrender isn't going to come out of the blue. The Japanese are going to show signs that they are on their last legs considerably before that, and this will give Stalin time to prepare.
Between December 1944 and February 1945 the Soviets were still fighting their way across Poland and into Germany, would they have the resources spare to start a new front?
 
Why are we limited to a Nationalist or a Communist victory? Why is a situation where neither side wins a total victory inconceivable? It should at least be an option in the poll. (Granted, for the CCP to survive, some sort of Soviet aid was probably necessary but there are all sorts of ways the USSR could --and did--help apart from OTL's invasion of Manchuria.) Given the number of times the GMD had "almost" destroyed the Communists but somehow failed to do so, there should be some skepticism about the notion that the Communists are doomed if they don't win control of all of China.
 
Why are we limited to a Nationalist or a Communist victory?
I didn't include 'neither/stalemate' as an option because I don't think either side would accept a partition of China between them regardless of outcome.
If you can come up with a scenario where a stalemate is reasonable, I'm all ears.
 
I didn't include 'neither/stalemate' as an option because I don't think either side would accept a partition of China between them regardless of outcome.
If you can come up with a scenario where a stalemate is reasonable, I'm all ears.

The issue isn't whether they would "accept" it; the issue is whether either of them could do something about it. Nobody wants a partition but if your side is strong enough to survive but not strong enough to win the whole country, a partition (even if only de facto) is what you get.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The issue isn't whether they would "accept" it; the issue is whether either of them could do something about it. Nobody wants a partition but if your side is strong enough to survive but not strong enough to win the whole country, a partition (even if only de facto) is what you get.
That depends on whether there is actually a defensible border or not. If yes, there could be a stalemate, in which China is de facto split, but there might still be low-level warfare for decades as neither side recognizes the other. If not, the war will go on until one side loses.
 
I wonder how much the people who are voting for a nationalist victory actually know about the Chinese Civil War. The key elements of communist victory, that is their positively massive political support among the Chinese populace and the base camps set-up throughout eastern China inside territory occupied by the Japanese, were already in place by February of 1945. So the communists are still favored to win.

As I recall it was vital

It was not. The quantity of IJA weaponry turned over to the Communists paled in comparison to the steady stream of American-made weaponry the Communists were able to either steal or buy from the corrupt nationalist camp (Mao at one point declared that Chiang Kai-Shek was "our supply officer") and much of the more technically complex gear (namely tanks and artillery) was unusable until enough nationalist Chinese troops who actually had the skills to use them defected to the communists.

The KMT then became badly over-extended trying to retake Manchuria which led to their collapse.

What led to the KMT's collapse was their corruption, incompetence, and ineffectiveness as a government leading them to become horribly unpopular among the Chinese population. This led to entire armies defecting to the communists side. The Manchurian overextension was useful to the communists, but it was hardly vital. It's liable to happen anyways as well... as it was, the nationalists had to beg the Soviets to stay for several actual months in order to keep order in Manchuria because their own armies simply could not move north fast enough. Despite the Americans going out of their way to airlift some nationalist units north, the nationalists simply could not move fast enough to secure Manchuria before the communists. One constant of the Chinese Civil War was of Communist formations superior mobility over that of their nationalist counterparts: they were trained to move faster and over terrain the nationalists couldn't. A sudden Japanese surrender in February of 1945 is liable to result in a massive vacuum across northeast China (not just Manchuria) which the Communists are in a better position to fill before the nationalists can. Then all the communists have to do is lie low and let the nationalists in so that when the fighting actually starts they can then cut them off and destroy them... assuming they don't just switch sides like many nationalist formations did in such situations.

Almost the entire county? Hardly. "By the time of their 1945 surrender,. Mao's party-army held sway over almost 100 million people mainly in North, Northeast, and North Central China."

It should further be noted that even in areas that were officially under nationalist control, there were large communist base camps set-up with significant guerrilla forces embedded within the populace. These forces simply lied in wait until the opportune moment when they could rise-up and seize control of the region. And the communist leadership was very good at timing these uprisings for moments where they would cut-off the maximum number of nationalist troops.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the counterpoint, ObssesedNuker, I was hoping for this sort of feedback when I started this thread.

Given that Chaing Kai-sheck was willing to negotiate with the Soviets to maintain order in Manchuria in the immediate post-war, would it be reasonable that he (with Allied backing) would ask the Japanese to delay their withdrawal from the region until KMT troops could take over and prevent that vacuum? That should put the KMT in a better position for 1947 when the fun begins. Wouldn't that reduce the rate of defections after Jinzhou and Changchun and prevent the domino of defeats in the Liao-Shen that turned the war in the CPC's favour?
I'm tempted to have Chaing suffer a leg injury so he'd let Wei Lihuang get on with it unimpeded, just to see what happens.

For the record, I have pretty good ideas on what China's rough course will be depending on who wins, I just can't decide which side would (hence this thread).
Thanks for the feedback, everyone!
 
Given that Chaing Kai-sheck was willing to negotiate with the Soviets to maintain order in Manchuria in the immediate post-war, would it be reasonable that he (with Allied backing) would ask the Japanese to delay their withdrawal from the region until KMT troops could take over and prevent that vacuum?

They did that OTL as well. Problem was that communists often already had base camps in those areas anyways (the Beijing area camps had been fully established by 1944). Japanese control over huge swathes of the country was even more theoretical then real then it was for the nationalists. That said, having less incompetent leadership in the nationalists park would indeed help... although without a PoD earlier then '44 I'm dubious about it being enough for them to win or even "not lose" as opposed to dragging it out longer.
 
It was not. The quantity of IJA weaponry turned over to the Communists paled in comparison to the steady stream of American-made weaponry the Communists were able to either steal or buy from the corrupt nationalist camp (Mao at one point declared that Chiang Kai-Shek was "our supply officer") and much of the more technically complex gear (namely tanks and artillery) was unusable until enough nationalist Chinese troops who actually had the skills to use them defected to the communists.
Happy to be corrected on this. I still think a KMT victory is possible but only with a much earlier PoD than 1945. Probably have to go back to 1941 or earlier.
 
Happy to be corrected on this. I still think a KMT victory is possible but only with a much earlier PoD than 1945. Probably have to go back to 1941 or earlier.

The best POD to save the KMT if you want to go pre war is to keep Chiang out of power. He masterminded the betrayal of the Chinese Communists, sealed the break with the Shanghai Massacre, then utterly failed to finish them off during the Long March. He profited off immense corruption, stomped out the seedlings of democracy in China, and overall ensured that the common people had no stake in keeping him in power. Worse, when the USA more or less told him to broker power sharing with Mao because they didn't think he could win the war, the dumb bastard pushed his luck and lost, just like everyone said he would.

Chiang was the worst thing to ever happen to the KMT. Give him a heart attack and have whoever takes over form a government of national unity with Mao, which IIRC Marshall tried to broker OTL
 
The best POD to save the KMT if you want to go pre war is to keep Chiang out of power. He masterminded the betrayal of the Chinese Communists, sealed the break with the Shanghai Massacre, then utterly failed to finish them off during the Long March. He profited off immense corruption, stomped out the seedlings of democracy in China, and overall ensured that the common people had no stake in keeping him in power. Worse, when the USA more or less told him to broker power sharing with Mao because they didn't think he could win the war, the dumb bastard pushed his luck and lost, just like everyone said he would.

Chiang was the worst thing to ever happen to the KMT. Give him a heart attack and have whoever takes over form a government of national unity with Mao, which IIRC Marshall tried to broker OTL
Without the Xi'an incident or the Sino-Japanese war, would Chiang have wiped out the communists? The Long March hit them hard, and they were on their last legs by '36 when Chiang's kidnapping happened. After the Shanghai massacre, it seems more likely that the conflict would only be settled militarily (one side either wins a civil war or gets wiped out by the other). A peaceful coalition government/government of national unity seems like the least likely option post 1945.

A more distant POD may be necessary to prevent a communist China by preventing the Civil War from happening. If the Shanghai massacre never occurs, would the Communist Party retain a mostly urban and industrial support base? If so it would be less likely to launch a civil war, but some leftist force would probably turn peasant communism if Mao didn't.

If the Left KMT or a noncommunist force embraced land reform it could monopolize the peasant support for the communists from OTL.
 
Top