WI The USSR went ahead with its planned attack on China?

Typo

Banned
Also if there weren't like 20+ ethnicities and godknowshowmany tribes that would be pissed at you no matter what government you set up. If the Rusisians were to install a Soviet regime it would look pretty much the same as under Mao, just more localized and perhaps less crazy. Manchuria could actually make a viable independent nation.
Except you are ignoring the forces of Han nationalism which made this sort of stuff impossible in modern times, instead of having several factions going against you you will have one unified faction going against you. As already said this is basically just a repeat of Manchuko except with a regime that is bound to collapse a decade or two after its establishment and a China that has an actual unified national government instead of warlordism.
 
Except you are ignoring the forces of Han nationalism which made this sort of stuff impossible in modern times, instead of having several factions going against you you will have one unified faction going against you. As already said this is basically just a repeat of Manchuko except with a regime that is bound to collapse a decade or two after its establishment and a China that has an actual unified national government instead of warlordism.
On the flip side, did the DDR burst into guerrilla fighting after 1949 (I mean West Germany, with a unified central government, was right across the border)? Why didn't Japan, a nation renowned for its wartime fanaticism, not wage an endless insurgency against the US occupiers? I don't think we can assume that a Soviet-occupied Manchuria would necessarily lead to a massive guerrilla war. It probably depends on how the Russians choose to manage the place. Will they leave whatever regime they set up there to its own devices (as long as they're still allied to Russia and don't want to reunify)? Will they try to exploit the natural or human resources (like Japan did)? All of these things matter when it comes to predicting how the locals will react.
 
Except for Afghanistan isn't magically the only place where guerrilla warfare is going to cause problems, even assuming that the conventional part of the war can be won by the Soviets at an acceptable cost, whatever Chinese territory occupied by the USSR will be the target of Chinese guerrilla attacks armored warfare is poor to deal with. Armored forces isn't the magical solution to insurgencies even in well developed territory as Iraq have shown.Those forces would be supplied by at least what will still be a great power, and would be densely populated by ethnic Chinese in case of Manchuria. The point isn't for the population of Manchuria to rise up and throw out the Soviets, but to attrition them. The cost of the war and the occupation means the Soviets will most likely collapse even faster than OTL.

I raise an eyebrow at a response to a discussion of geographic and demographic facts that opens by referring to my arguments as "magical." Repeatedly.

You're discussing things as if the Chinese position is going to be utterly stable after having their asses handed to them in conventional warfare. You're also ignoring the importance of Manchuria to China, something I highlighted earlier. They've put too much into the place to smuggle in partisans and wait for the Russians to tire. Taking a strategy that might force the Russians to get tired and go away after 5 years would be a heinous loss of face, one the men in power could never afford. They aren't even going to try to do the job with guerrillas. They're going to bring in and/or form new armies and throw them into the meatgrinder.

Once that's failed, there'd be a crisis in the leadership. Either they push the button and get squashed even worse in reply, or whoever ends up on top makes peace.

Partisans aren't magic either.
 

Typo

Banned
On the flip side, did the DDR burst into guerrilla fighting after 1949 (I mean West Germany, with a unified central government, was right across the border)? Why didn't Japan, a nation renowned for its wartime fanaticism, not wage an endless insurgency against the US occupiers? I don't think we can assume that a Soviet-occupied Manchuria would necessarily lead to a massive guerrilla war. It probably depends on how the Russians choose to manage the place. Will they leave whatever regime they set up there to its own devices (as long as they're still allied to Russia and don't want to reunify)? Will they try to exploit the natural or human resources (like Japan did)? All of these things matter when it comes to predicting how the locals will react.
Because of WWII, unless you can somehow replicate the same moral and physical Gotterdammerung up to and including nuclear weapons on China it's not gonna happen. But sure, do keep using video game logic and assume hitting a button you can just create puppet country and cherry pick on the few exceptions to back it up.
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
I raise an eyebrow at a response to a discussion of geographic and demographic facts that opens by referring to my arguments as "magical." Repeatedly.

You're discussing things as if the Chinese position is going to be utterly stable after having their asses handed to them in conventional warfare. You're also ignoring the importance of Manchuria to China, something I highlighted earlier. They've put too much into the place to smuggle in partisans and wait for the Russians to tire. Taking a strategy that might force the Russians to get tired and go away after 5 years would be a heinous loss of face, one the men in power could never afford. They aren't even going to try to do the job with guerrillas. They're going to bring in and/or form new armies and throw them into the meatgrinder.

Once that's failed, there'd be a crisis in the leadership. Either they push the button and get squashed even worse in reply, or whoever ends up on top makes peace.

Partisans aren't magic either.
Except we both acknowledge that the conventional war is going to be over at some point, in which case the armies going into Manchuria will stop. Unless the Chinese state is liquidated there will certainly be at some point covert supply of partisans in Manchuria. In other words there doesn't need to be an active war, or for that matter even a particularly stable state, to supply partisans. For that matter fighting a conventional war in Manchuria -and- supplying partisans at the same time are not mutually exclusive either.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, Maoist era strategy strongly emphasized the "People's war", which is basically mass guerrilla warfare
 
Last edited:
Well I'd argue that geography plays a critical role in an insurgency. Tactics that revolutionized US efforts in Iraq, for example, are quite useless in the endless mountain valleys of Afghanistan.

Manchuria is pretty close to the prototype of a region suited for set-piece battles. Flat solid terrain. Winters freezing things solid without crippling levels of snow. Little tendency to turn to mud. Excellent local logistical support. The enemy population is largely not native, but immigrants within the last generation. Native minorities that feel (and are) imperiled. What isn't fertile plain is desert ill-suited to supporting guerilla groups (find the water, find the enemy). The corridor between China and Manchuria is (relatively small).

Afghanistan, meanwhile, is inaccessible. It's mountainous. It has universal weapon ownership and tribalism - both key. It's people have been there, for all intents and purposes, indefinitely. There's no distinct group to cooperate with - only individuals with interests you can not forever support. It has strong native religious movements. It has places to hide.

Manchuria was, at the time, China's showpiece. It's most-modern-spot. The area that was being built up and colonized and developed to emphasize the state's core goals. The Chinese could no more rely on guerilla warfare to fight for the region than the Soviets could have relied on partisans to retrieve the Ukraine from the Nazis. A Viet Cong situation isn't on the table - it's the Tet Offensive or nothing, over and over again. And the Soviets can handle human waves.

I'm sorry I didn't answer earlier, life you know regretting getting one.

I can't comment on what kind of anti guerilla tactics USSR deployed 1969 and later nor if the area compromising "Manchuria" (again what regions are we talking about as there is no Manchuria and only a Mancukoku before) is more or less geographically suited to conduct said operations in. This "short" border could be about 200+ miles as shortest going through some densely populated areas in china whit Han Chinese on both sides. There is the Yellow sea lane and all of Mongolia to have as secondary routs if not North Korea decides to repay the gratitude debt by helping whatever regime in Beijing (or any new capital, probably Shanghai) out.

The Manchurians is Han Chinese by all practice and standards in China, they viewed themselves as those and the rest of China does so to. So the ethnic minorities that could feel ill will against China is Mongols and Koreans and. They are very few (in comparison to the Han Chinese in the area 1969) as most Koreans in the area today immigrated first 1990 and onwards and almost all Mongols that is not absorbed into the Han Chinese identity is in inner Mongolia and there were never that many Manchurians to begin whit. I would like to point out that there is a very strong Chinese nationalism and identity that CCP played a lot on during the long civil war (and they were not alone in this) that actually encompass all these minorities as Chinese (the Koreans less so). North Korea has also a large "debt" of gratitude to pay back to china for the many soldiers they got to borrow during the Korean war and this gratitude is felt by the Koreans in the region (but not by the south Koreans).

The population of the area is large, about 10-15% of the Chinese population lived in the area of old Manchukoku 1965-75 (this is uncertain as the census data is unreliable for the period) giving the area a population of 70-150 Million people. That's a lot of people to police, even if again what areas is broken lose. So the force needed there would end up being taken from the European front, anything the US and western countries would approve of so some tactic support to China to bind more troops in the area is well spent money.

Now this is not the Afghanistan tit for tat as you so nicely point out but it's still a gnarly situation for soviet as even if the red guardists and any other fanatic group is more than welcome to make their revolution in any "occupied area" by any new regime even if they die. The more infraction fighting the more people sent on crusades against Manchuria to keep the image up that just this faction is actually fighting the Imperialists to the north.

I don't know if it makes any difference but the communist party have also a long history if guerrilla fighting in hostile territory and were preparing to defend china by human waves of guerilla in this epoch.
 
Because of WWII, unless you can somehow replicate the same moral and physical Gotterdammerung up to and including nuclear weapons on China it's not gonna happen. But sure, do keep using video game logic and assume hitting a button you can just create puppet country and cherry pick on the few exceptions to back it up.
Okay, what about the Polish Soviet government? They didn't have to be nuked in order for a puppet to be installed without endless warfare. I don't think that invasion automatically equals guerrilla war; like I said earlier, it depends on the ethnic and socioeconomic makeup of the region, in addition to what the invader's goals and intentions are. Manchuria was mostly Han (making rule by a central government easier) and its population was already used to authoritarian socialist rule, which honestly wouldn't really change in the event of puppetization. A further, more debatable topic is the validity of nationalist fervor in the Cultural Revolution, where the Orwellian madness was at it's height. I submit that the emotions of the time were so politicized (rather than genuinely inspired like in WW2) that the Han population would be hard-pressed to get the will to resist occupation, especially after all "Olds", or stuff associated with what makes China Chinese, had been downtrodden for a few years already.

Now then you still have to consider the Soviet's approach. If they do everything right to play according to the local zeitgeist, I believe that it would not be hard to avoid a guerrilla war and set up a replacement regime. However the Russians could (likely) make some stupid mistakes and end up pissing off the locals or just not interact with them very well, which would indeed lead to a whole host of consequences. Especially if they tried something silly like stealing all of their industry or otherwise raping the economy (unlikely to happen on purpose) or enslaving the population to Russian masters (impossible since Soviets weren't Nazis, not in 1969), then you'd have embittered resistance.

And please do not assume that I use video game logic. I've played HOI and I was actually annoyed that puppets don't have problems with partisans, ever.
 
Except we both acknowledge that the conventional war is going to be over at some point, in which case the armies going into Manchuria will stop. Unless the Chinese state is liquidated there will certainly be at some point covert supply of partisans in Manchuria. In other words there doesn't need to be an active war, or for that matter even a particularly stable state, to supply partisans. For that matter fighting a conventional war in Manchuria -and- supplying partisans at the same time are not mutually exclusive either.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, Maoist era strategy strongly emphasized the "People's war", which is basically mass guerrilla warfare

Sure enough, that's fair. What I take issue with is the idea that the insurgency is necessarily going to bleed the Soviet Union dry and force an early collapse. The Poles, for example, were really good at it, but the Soviets just kept squashing them until they knuckled under. Now admittedly you have Solidarity popping up a generation later, and that did play a real role in Soviet collapse. But that's not because one of the subject peoples was resisting so much as because of the Brezhnev years and the manner of responding to Solidarity.

An insurgency isn't a game breaker, especially not when you can "liberate captive nationalities" (read: enact partial ethnic cleansing of the colonizing groups). I'm looking at the Boer War for reference here.

Not that Manchuria will just stop being a problem forever - far from it. But let's face it, none of the Soviet sphere nations were going to be happy and helpful forever - it's the nature of empire.
 
Last edited:
I can't comment on what kind of anti guerilla tactics USSR deployed 1969 and later nor if the area compromising "Manchuria" (again what regions are we talking about as there is no Manchuria and only a Mancukoku before) is more or less geographically suited to conduct said operations in.

Ah. And the homeland of the Manchu peoples, the founders of the Qing state? That'd be the state under which a specific region to the north east of traditional China proper was legally defined as different from the rest - with Han settlement discouraged. Rough depictions of that region have been on maps since the 17th century. I think we know what we're talking about.

This "short" border could be about 200+ miles as shortest going through some densely populated areas in china whit Han Chinese on both sides.

I have a strong tendency to come off unreasonable when misquoted. I apologize for it. Perhaps you can take comfort in the fact that I said it is "relatively small," not "short." Or by referring to the fact that it actually is small relative to Manchuria, especially if you take into account the fact that much of the "corridor" is part of the Gobi.

There is the Yellow sea lane and all of Mongolia to have as secondary routs if not North Korea decides to repay the gratitude debt by helping whatever regime in Beijing (or any new capital, probably Shanghai) out.

Mongolia's a Soviet puppet, dude.

I'm not arguing the Russians have extended the Great Wall to 500 feet here. I'm arguing that it won't be easy to smuggle in partisans to fight the kind of insurgency the Soviets would fight.

The Manchurians is Han Chinese by all practice and standards in China, they viewed themselves as those and the rest of China does so to.

I'm about to get on a plane, so I'm going to have to make an unsupported statement here. This is the spot to tear apart if you're so inclined.

I disagree, and have seen what I believe to be legitimate sources that argue that only those Machu who became nobility in China proper under the Qing felt as you describe. The Manchurians did not like losing their privileges over their homeland, having little stake in its development, and being bred out of existence.

I'm interested in seeing sources if you have them.

Anyway, I'm out of time. I see you make a fair point below in terms of demographics, but no time to analyze. We can spar/eye gouge/compromise/whatever later.

Cheers!
 

Typo

Banned
Sure enough, that's fair. What I take issue with is the idea that the insurgency is necessarily going to bleed the Soviet Union dry and force an early collapse. The Poles, for example, were really good at it, but the Soviets just kept squashing them until they knuckled under. Now admittedly you have Solidarity popping up a generation later, and that did play a real role in Soviet collapse. But that's not because one of the subject peoples was resisting so much as because of the Brezhnev years and the manner of responding to Solidarity.
I doubt the Polish resistance was ever able to mount a serious threat to the Soviets, not after Warsaw anyway, on the scale that Manchuria would equal to them. For that mater, Manchuria isn't nearly close nor strategic enough to the Russian heartland to make an equation.
An insurgency isn't a game breaker, especially not when you can "liberate captive nationalities" (read: enact partial ethnic cleansing of the colonizing groups). I'm looking at the Boer War for reference here.
I doubt the Soviets can actually pull that off in the time frame, but insurgency isn't meant to be a "game breaker" it's just meant to make Manchuria too expensive to make sense to occupy.
 

Typo

Banned
I disagree, and have seen what I believe to be legitimate sources that argue that only those Machu who became nobility in China proper under the Qing felt as you describe. The Manchurians did not like losing their privileges over their homeland, having little stake in its development, and being bred out of existence.
It's actually completely irrelevant, since the Manchus were pretty much never a problem after the Qing, and are so few in number the native speakers of their language ranges in the dozens today.
 
Ah. And the homeland of the Manchu peoples, the founders of the Qing state? That'd be the state under which a specific region to the north east of traditional China proper was legally defined as different from the rest - with Han settlement discouraged. Rough depictions of that region have been on maps since the 17th century. I think we know what we're talking about.

I meant more precise descriptions, I know you mean the disembogues northern parts of China but what provinces of China or parts of these. Heilongjiang is a given so are Jilin and I guess you envision taking parts of the autonomous region Inner Mongolia to this (it would be logical) and parts or the whole of Liaoning. Do you see the northern parts of Hebei up to Beijing and Tianjin areas being included also? The Manchu areas (historical) is a bit fluxing as historically controlled areas usually are. It would be good to know if we are talking about the old Manchukoku area or some new northern China puppet state dusted off from Stalin's old idea box.


I have a strong tendency to come off unreasonable when misquoted. I apologize for it. Perhaps you can take comfort in the fact that I said it is "relatively small," not "short." Or by referring to the fact that it actually is small relative to Manchuria, especially if you take into account the fact that much of the "corridor" is part of the Gobi.



I would point out that the "shortest" rout is not the best rout in supplying a guerilla. But I wanted more to point out that the patrolling of this border is going to depend on where you draw the line for this Manchurian state and this line not necessary is easily patrolled even if it's the shortest possible.



Mongolia's a Soviet puppet, dude.


Other nations puppet states don't automatically spell untreatable, what army of Mongolia patrol every inch of its vast border whit china every morning, afternoon and night? Is the Mongols in Mongolia so fanatically loyal to Soviet that there couldn't be people there that wants to profit in trafficking arms etc? And god forbid if the disgruntled minority card could be used in reveres on Soviet by Chinese nationalists. Now for easy to smuggle in guerilla men, arms and supplies I don't know, all I know is that there is many possible routes and along these there is willingly participants until Soviet actually station troops to check every one of them every day. These troops have to come from somewhere and they should not be easily bribed.


I'm not arguing the Russians have extended the Great Wall to 500 feet here. I'm arguing that it won't be easy to smuggle in partisans to fight the kind of insurgency the Soviets would fight.

You might be right in this, my point is only that it is impossible for Soviet to keep everything out if China goes determined to fuck things up for them.


I'm about to get on a plane, so I'm going to have to make an unsupported statement here. This is the spot to tear apart if you're so inclined.

I disagree, and have seen what I believe to be legitimate sources that argue that only those Machu who became nobility in China proper under the Qing felt as you describe. The Manchurians did not like losing their privileges over their homeland, having little stake in its development, and being bred out of existence.

I'm interested in seeing sources if you have them.

Have a good trip, my sources on Chinese ethnical unity is mostly modern (Wang Can and Wang Pingxing and Rhodes off course) and I would not challenge you on that there IS privilege Manchurians that feel and felt this way. I personally know Han Chinese that still feel that the Communist China took there families privileges away unjustly. The come from Taiwan thou. The census data I collect from official Chinese census data and then estimate the provincial and ethnical amount (as china didn't do yearly census each year for every province before 1982). So my numbers differs in the millions and you get the confidence interval of 90-95% that is a bit of spitball and evened out. Hope you don't take offense that I don't do any more significantly statistically correct estimations but I only want to give a inkling of what the problem whit the northern provinces is, not present a population growth chart whit density calculations as that would take to long time.


Anyway, I'm out of time. I see you make a fair point below in terms of demographics, but no time to analyze. We can spar/eye gouge/compromise/whatever later.

Cheers!

What I know is that when Communist china officially recognized them as a separate group from the Han Chinese 1952 they did in fact encourage many people in the northern provinces to reclaim the heritage of being Manchu after having hiding it during the period of Manchukoku. This led to a dramatic increase in "Manchu" people in the official statistics whit nearly 1-1.5 million 1953 (from about 1 to 1,5 million) to 2,5 million in 1953 years big census. Between 1982 and 1990 many Han Chinese applied for being officially recognized as Manchu and again doubling the number of Manchurians to today's about 10 millions. So if we regard these families seeing themselves as Manchurian all the time but not bothering registering (even if they received a small reward for it) in the 1950is there should only be about 5 to 6 million of them spread out in the northern parts of china all the way down to south of Beijing in 1969. If all of them are loyal to the new Soviet puppet there is a core of loyal citizens in a sea of Han Chinese anyway. So there is at least a large group of people still present for the red guardists to hide among given that any Soviet soldiers known and could spot the difference between them. If I only include the populations of the provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning in 1969 there should only be around 60-70 million people living in this area, much more manageable for the 240 million or so Soviets.

Would it not easier for Soviet to split off Xingjian and maybe even Tibet (reaching it through Xingjian) and add inner Mongolia to Mongolia. In these areas there is ethnic minorities ready to throw out any Han Chinese present (or could be compelled/forced to by the Soviet). There is ample of opportunity to split off areas of the Provinces of Gansu, Qinghai and Sichuan whit majority of these ethnicities in them. This would "secure" large stretches of border without binding large amount of troops and in the same time give China a bloody nose and the west hiccup.

I could see Mao Zedong collect the country around it, write many speeches and then do nothing about it except glare frostily at USSR until he dies.

Have a safe trip. MVH Herr Stjernkjempe
 
It's actually completely irrelevant, since the Manchus were pretty much never a problem after the Qing, and are so few in number the native speakers of their language ranges in the dozens today.

Really. Any chance you could post a link? The airport wifi can't seem to handle wikipedia for some reason.

Assuming you're right then I agree, the Manchu are then irrelevant.
 
Really. Any chance you could post a link? The airport wifi can't seem to handle wikipedia for some reason.

Assuming you're right then I agree, the Manchu are then irrelevant.

Reciprocal constructions, Volume 1-5 editid by Vladimir Petrovich Nedi︠a︡lkov, Published 2007, Gives in fact that there is almost 4,7 million Native speakers of the Manchu dialect of Mandarin (a subgroup of the Northeast Dialect Bei that Beijing dialect (or official government dialect) also is included in) but there is only 60 known speakers of the Original Tungusic Manchu language.
 
I meant more precise descriptions, I know you mean the disembogues northern parts of China but what provinces of China or parts of these. Heilongjiang is a given so are Jilin and I guess you envision taking parts of the autonomous region Inner Mongolia to this (it would be logical) and parts or the whole of Liaoning. Do you see the northern parts of Hebei up to Beijing and Tianjin areas being included also? The Manchu areas (historical) is a bit fluxing as historically controlled areas usually are. It would be good to know if we are talking about the old Manchukoku area or some new northern China puppet state dusted off from Stalin's old idea box.

Being perfectly honest, I don't have a specific area in mind. Honestly, I (and we) have been largely sidetracked in the discussion for want of paying attention. I honestly thought Manchuria is the least likely of the three candidate regions (that, Inner Mongolia, and Sinkiang) to be "permanently" separated from China in the peace. Having gotten a better idea of the demographics involved has only strengthened the impression for me. Assuming the figures quoted above are accurate, even Tibet is probably more likely.

I think what happened is that it was discussed because Manchuria is the place where the war's large battles would all be decided. When peace was made, the question would be whether or not the Russians were standing on the place, and how firm their hold was. A response to this went off on the inflitration-partisan issue. Then rather than just addressing the key issue (that partisans wouldn't be used because of the loss of face entailed), I also responded to the argument that it would be worse than Afghanistan. The latter was really beside the point, but it was such an apples and oranges thing I couldn't help myself. We've been on that since.

I would point out that the "shortest" rout is not the best rout in supplying a guerilla. But I wanted more to point out that the patrolling of this border is going to depend on where you draw the line for this Manchurian state and this line not necessary is easily patrolled even if it's the shortest possible.

Other nations puppet states don't automatically spell untreatable, what army of Mongolia patrol every inch of its vast border whit china every morning, afternoon and night? Is the Mongols in Mongolia so fanatically loyal to Soviet that there couldn't be people there that wants to profit in trafficking arms etc? And god forbid if the disgruntled minority card could be used in reveres on Soviet by Chinese nationalists. Now for easy to smuggle in guerilla men, arms and supplies I don't know, all I know is that there is many possible routes and along these there is willingly participants until Soviet actually station troops to check every one of them every day. These troops have to come from somewhere and they should not be easily bribed.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

Have a good trip, my sources on Chinese ethnical unity is mostly modern (Wang Can and Wang Pingxing and Rhodes off course) and I would not challenge you on that there IS privilege Manchurians that feel and felt this way. I personally know Han Chinese that still feel that the Communist China took there families privileges away unjustly. The come from Taiwan thou. The census data I collect from official Chinese census data and then estimate the provincial and ethnical amount (as china didn't do yearly census each year for every province before 1982). So my numbers differs in the millions and you get the confidence interval of 90-95% that is a bit of spitball and evened out. Hope you don't take offense that I don't do any more significantly statistically correct estimations but I only want to give a inkling of what the problem whit the northern provinces is, not present a population growth chart whit density calculations as that would take to long time.

What I know is that when Communist china officially recognized them as a separate group from the Han Chinese 1952 they did in fact encourage many people in the northern provinces to reclaim the heritage of being Manchu after having hiding it during the period of Manchukoku. This led to a dramatic increase in "Manchu" people in the official statistics whit nearly 1-1.5 million 1953 (from about 1 to 1,5 million) to 2,5 million in 1953 years big census. Between 1982 and 1990 many Han Chinese applied for being officially recognized as Manchu and again doubling the number of Manchurians to today's about 10 millions. So if we regard these families seeing themselves as Manchurian all the time but not bothering registering (even if they received a small reward for it) in the 1950is there should only be about 5 to 6 million of them spread out in the northern parts of china all the way down to south of Beijing in 1969. If all of them are loyal to the new Soviet puppet there is a core of loyal citizens in a sea of Han Chinese anyway. So there is at least a large group of people still present for the red guardists to hide among given that any Soviet soldiers known and could spot the difference between them. If I only include the populations of the provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning in 1969 there should only be around 60-70 million people living in this area, much more manageable for the 240 million or so Soviets.

Okay. The numbers speak. I'd been thinking of the region as more the chief bargaining chip / battleground and one of the less likely candidates for puppetization. Given that many ethnic Chinese and the apparent condition of the minorities the latter drops out. The Soviets would probably be more likely to knock a few edges off in the far north than to try to divorce the whole from China. Though I still think their strategy would be to occupy it - forcing the Chinese to bleed themselves in attempts to reclaim it.

Would it not easier for Soviet to split off Xingjian and maybe even Tibet (reaching it through Xingjian) and add inner Mongolia to Mongolia. In these areas there is ethnic minorities ready to throw out any Han Chinese present (or could be compelled/forced to by the Soviet). There is ample of opportunity to split off areas of the Provinces of Gansu, Qinghai and Sichuan whit majority of these ethnicities in them. This would "secure" large stretches of border without binding large amount of troops and in the same time give China a bloody nose and the west hiccup.

Hahaha. That's actually about the scenario I had in mind, originally. Got side-tracked defending what was possible as opposed to saying what I thought would be done. Ah well, at least we seem to be on the same page.

I suspect the mess in Manchuria is used to break the Chinese (although a line south of Beijing is possible as well). Then when someone shows up at the table, they're graciously informed that Manchuria will be returned but, of course, there are certain issues of national self-determination that simply must be considered....

I could see Mao Zedong collect the country around it, write many speeches and then do nothing about it except glare frostily at USSR until he dies.

Hrm.... I know Tibet's a less likely inclusion, but I can't help but wonder when the place began to be romanticized so in the West. Certainly a theocracy dependent on Soviet support would be a little less idealized!

Have a safe trip. MVH Herr Stjernkjempe

Thankee kindly.
 
Hrm.... I know Tibet's a less likely inclusion, but I can't help but wonder when the place began to be romanticized so in the West. Certainly a theocracy dependent on Soviet support would be a little less idealized!
I think it became more focused after Tiananmen, but was around more or less since the Dalai Llama was forced into exile. Here it would still be the same "save Tibet from the communist dictatorship!" thing though (theocracy and communism usually don't mix. NKorea is the exception).

I'm not sure how likely Tibet is though. For all pro-Soviet India was I always thought it was more of a "friends are better far away" thing.
 
Being perfectly honest, I don't have a specific area in mind. Honestly, I (and we) have been largely sidetracked in the discussion for want of paying attention. I honestly thought Manchuria is the least likely of the three candidate regions (that, Inner Mongolia, and Sinkiang) to be "permanently" separated from China in the peace. Having gotten a better idea of the demographics involved has only strengthened the impression for me. Assuming the figures quoted above are accurate, even Tibet is probably more likely.

I think what happened is that it was discussed because Manchuria is the place where the war's large battles would all be decided. When peace was made, the question would be whether or not the Russians were standing on the place, and how firm their hold was. A response to this went off on the inflitration-partisan issue. Then rather than just addressing the key issue (that partisans wouldn't be used because of the loss of face entailed), I also responded to the argument that it would be worse than Afghanistan. The latter was really beside the point, but it was such an apples and oranges thing I couldn't help myself. We've been on that since.

[...]

I suspect the mess in Manchuria is used to break the Chinese (although a line south of Beijing is possible as well). Then when someone shows up at the table, they're graciously informed that Manchuria will be returned but, of course, there are certain issues of national self-determination that simply must be considered....

Sorry I didn't answer earlier. Seems like the discussion is at an ends anyway.

I should say that I got a bit sidetracked myself by the whole "holding Manchuria down" idea knowing how well populated the area were and are. Even if I agree that it is the best possible area for the main battle to defeat any units of the Chinese red army there is in the area.

What's surprise me is that nobody suggested that USSR defeat the Red army, does some border adjustments to Mongolia and splits off Tibet and Sinkiang from mainland China and then install the more Soviet friendly Lin Biao (as he is known very well in Soviet so he is acceptable for them, forget Liu Shaoqi he is practically dead 1969). This humiliates Mao and the party enough for a leader change and Lin Biao is known to want a closer relationship whit Soviet Union so the party would switch leader and "retire" Mao (hard task to do but whit a defacto lost war this could save face as the cult of Mao can blame Liu Shaogi for this too). This way you would avoid angering the large mass of Han Chinese and offend their sense of nationalism and at the same time get some real puppets and maybe a close ally in Asia (that could weaken the USA for real there).

Now if Soviet is really unlucky the confusion of this all leads to the downfall of Mao, a general mistrust of him and his cult and Deng Xiaoping take power. If Liu Shaogi really were negotiating a return or incorporation of the Nationalist government on Taiwan into mainland China this is the time for the implications of this to strengthen china and its economic and come the fall of Soviet union a stronger China is there and "retake" what the claim is there's.

The victory is not only meet in the battlefield but also in the poetical front, a won war mean a political change in China, and if that is in favor for Soviet the really luck out and can integrate the Chinese economy to their economy. If USA luck out there is a emerging China into the global market making a united front whit Taiwan and arming itself against Soviet Union. This is the real considerations Soviet leaders have to take into account. A cold war neutral China is better than a USA friendly China is the conclusion they reach IOTL (and if there is a domino effect of India drifting towards USA as a result of the events in China there is two really big countries in the western sphere lost to Soviet).

I could see a scenario where the fact of the battlefield gives Soviet the desired Puppet states and border changes before the secrete ninth congress of Chinese communist party were held. Mao Zedong calls of the culture revolution and is discredited for weakening the country by his opponents (Deng Xiaopings supporters) and is forced to give over all the power to Lin Biao in the now much very public congress. He dust off Liu Shaogi, give him enough medicine to survive, and send him to Taipei to negotiate the details of a United front against Soviet Union after electing him state president. Deng Xiaoping plan for economic recovery is voted through in record pace and he is sent to USA to negotiate a more open trade policy and dialogue between USA and China (a cutoff of soviet supplies to north Vietnam is one of the bargaining chips they could offer 1970-71).

At the same time Indira Gandhi is indeed ousted by the Indian congress 1969 (this was a close call for here as it were) as the soviet takeover of Tibet sends shockwaves of fear through the leading elite of India. The Nationalizations of the banks never happens as Indira (smart as she is) reshape here political platform and come back in force 1971 whit a much more anti Soviet stance.

This scenario is the good and all is more rosier scenario as this leads to a much more developed China and India by the time Soviet falls and maybe a quicker fall of Soviet union.
 
You know, the consequences of this for India and Pakistan should definitely be explored in more detail.

There is so many things happening that is already in movement in this area of the world by 1969 that there is no way to avoid many of the IOTL crisis that occurred.

The first that comes to mind is that their test of its first nuclear weapon might happen earlier. Probably not before any Indo-Pakistan war over Independence of East Pakistan, a split of Pakistan that had been brewing for a long time. Also to secure the border against Tibet there might be a greater push for the whole of Kashmir. India nuking Pakistan seems unrealistic but could be in the cards if the conflict is post pond due to the changes in China.

Jayaprakash Naraya and the Sarvodaya movement is a tuff thing for Indira Ghandi to tackle if she really would like to reform the country (and gain the power of India). If she is voted out from the parliament 1969 and she don't attack the banking system in classic socialist way (that is that Naraya take that roll and become PM 1969) I could see here attacking the corruption and substitute herself as the leader of the Bihar Movement (or its equaling) instead of IOTL Naraya attacking Indira over the same issue, only four or five years earlier (I could see hare go to court and we would have a reverse situation of IOTL only earlier). This would only speed up the Indian Emergency (now whit Naraya as dictator instead of Indira), especially if this happens during or after a war whit Pakistan. This would split the congress party and redraw the Indian political landscape.

There is many many other issues to consider of this. A Indira Ghandi that stays in opposition 1969-197? might draw other conclusions and institute other reforms when she comes to power leading to a different Green Revolution in India. Both of this and of other kind of economic policies made by Naraya during this timeframe.

[FONT=&quot]I could not even begin to guess what kind of mess this would do to Pakistan.[/FONT]
 
Top