Where could Cold War proxy wars happen if Asia was US-friendly?

SO, let's assume that somehow, the KMT wins the Chinese Civil War post-1945 and that closes off Asia to Communist influence (including Indochina, Korea, etc). With the Soviet Union's eastern border effectively being controlled by US-friendly regimes, where else could Cold War proxy conflicts crop up? Africa? The Middle East? Could there be more conflicts in Latin America?
 
SO, let's assume that somehow, the KMT wins the Chinese Civil War post-1945 and that closes off Asia to Communist influence (including Indochina, Korea, etc). With the Soviet Union's eastern border effectively being controlled by US-friendly regimes, where else could Cold War proxy conflicts crop up? Africa? The Middle East? Could there be more conflicts in Latin America?

Is this kind of assuming that, in the absence of proxy conflicts in Asia, more would spring up in other locales to replace them?

I'm not sure if that's a valid hypothesis. It seems to be based on the idea that there had to be a certain number of proxy conflicts in the Cold War, and if X number of them weren't happening in Asia, they would happen somewhere else.

But, let's say(just off the top) that there were 16 proxy conflicts in Asia. With a western-allied China and Sinosphere, isn't it just as likely that the overall global count for these sorts of conflicts will simply be reduced by 16?

OR...

Can it be assumed that, since they're not spending cash and material propping up Asian Communists, the Soviets will logically divert those resources to conflicts elsewhere, AND find willing takers?
 
Can it be assumed that, since they're not spending cash and material propping up Asian Communists, the Soviets will logically divert those resources to conflicts elsewhere, AND find willing takers?
How much more would the Soviets have to spend defending agaisnt Chinese (or worse case USAF based in northern China) threats from the south? Would this not potentially give them even less money as well as using US money to support China?
 
How much more would the Soviets have to spend defending agaisnt Chinese (or worse case USAF based in northern China) threats from the south? Would this not potentially give them even less money as well as using US money to support China?

Yeah, possibly. Maybe they could just re-station western-front troops over to the east, with no net loss of money, manpower, or equipment, but then, who would be on guard against NATO?
 
Yeah, possibly. Maybe they could just re-station western-front troops over to the east, with no net loss of money, manpower, or equipment, but then, who would be on guard against NATO?

The strategic rocket troops? The only problem is that an ICBM can’t shoot protesters in a Warsaw Pact puppets capital.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
SO, let's assume that somehow, the KMT wins the Chinese Civil War post-1945 and that closes off Asia to Communist influence (including Indochina, Korea, etc). With the Soviet Union's eastern border effectively being controlled by US-friendly regimes, where else could Cold War proxy conflicts crop up? Africa? The Middle East? Could there be more conflicts in Latin America?
In OTL Post 1960 almost all of USSR borders except eastern Europe was hostile
So I dont see that changing much
 

Khanzeer

Banned
China and Asia which is not communist is more prone to infighting due to competing nationalist and separatist tendencies

Will a solidly pro west china ,korea and Vietnam be neccesarily more stable politically?

Maybe we will see a sino-Japanese war in the 60s ?
 
A triumph of the KMT in China does not preclude Cold War proxy wars in Asia, when you consider that China itself is likely to prove fertile ground for communist insurgencies. Even if the KMT is successful and popular, communist insurgencies at a small scale in a few Chinese provinces can still be a massive security challenge in an absolute sense.
 
The USSR supports the Second East Turkestan Republic and just keeps funnelling guns to Mao and his successors until the ROC gets Nuclear weapons.
 
It seems inevitable that a KMT Big China that survives through the 50s and properly gets its shit together will immediately start growing like crazy, go its own way and may even become a rival to the US much earlier than the PRC did. Especially since a strong KMT China probably means a much weaker Japan, at least...until the US needs a counterweight to said KMT China. To me, this means that the Soviets and Chinese might not be as unfriendly as one might think by the 60s and 70s.

By the present day, a strong KMT China not properly and carefully "managed" would probably surpass the US economically, possibly culturally and maybe even militarily.
 
A more aggressive sponsorship in Africa and the Middle East would make sense. If the Soviet Union's finances are in order, they might be able to pull some of the Arab Nationalists into their sphere just by giving them funding. That would turn the Middle East into a hotbed with the West attempting to undermine Soviet involvement in the area.
 
It seems inevitable that a KMT Big China that survives through the 50s and properly gets its shit together will immediately start growing like crazy, go its own way and may even become a rival to the US much earlier than the PRC did. Especially since a strong KMT China probably means a much weaker Japan, at least...until the US needs a counterweight to said KMT China. To me, this means that the Soviets and Chinese might not be as unfriendly as one might think by the 60s and 70s.

By the present day, a strong KMT China not properly and carefully "managed" would probably surpass the US economically, possibly culturally and maybe even militarily.
Before the 1970s they would be in the same situation as India, and may stay that way. China joining the free market earlier doesn’t mean they’ll surpass their OTL counterpart(s) at all.
 
A KMT China could see the growth of entrenched interests that block economic reforms down the road (for comparison, see the BJP's voter base blocking all sorts of reforms and liberalizations in OTL India).
 
Top