WI: The Sino-Soviet conflict escalates to a full war
- Thread starter Circle of Willis
- Start date
Extremely unlikely if your talking about a major nuclear strike to decapital the CCP, let alone the chaos that would follow. Even worse if the Soviets then try and impose their rule over much of the region. Even apart from the fact that by 1969 Mao's main killings are already in the past. Your more likely to make him a martyr and his 'ideas' more accepted in China.
Possibly but possibly not.
Again far from certain.
Why do you conclude that? Even if China manages to hit a few targets in Siberia a trashed China potentially frees up a hell of a lot of Soviet resources.
And while would liberal democracy be any weaker because of something a communist dictatorship does? Even if left wing elements controlled Europe which anyone who knows Europe knows that isn't the case.
Last edited:
1.What China? KMT would take part,soviet too,and the rest would belong to warlords.
2.Cambodia was made by China,and Ethiopia by soviets - who would now do not have resources to fuck with Africa.So,both would be saved.
3.Without soviet fucking - yes,it would be better place.
4.trashed China mean occupation,and soviets would must spend more on it.So,they would go bancrupted earlier.
5.Becouse their poster boys attacked each other instead of helping world workers.Remember,Mao started that shit.And when soviets would nuke him,it would be end of their popularity,too.
1) We're talking about tens of millions of deaths, probably even more in the outcome your proposing. This is likely to make the still very large number of Chinese very unhappy with the people who have done this to them and hence quite probably see the previous government as the 'good guys'. Think of the way that many Russians still think of Stalin as some sort of hero/great leader for instance.
2) Cambodia was made by Soviet influence in and support for Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge that rose to power there ended up as allies of China in large part because both were at odds with Vietnam. With China in chaos then things will be different but don't rule out the US still fouling up the Vietnamese war as OTL, which is likely to cause a fair amount of chaos there.
3) Even assuming no Soviet 'fucking' - which is by no means certain - you still have American fucking and the issues with colonial problems - formally in the Portuguese colonies and informally in Rhodesia and S Africa. Along with other sources of tension and conflict there. At best if Soviet influence did disappear then it ceases to be a priority area of influence for the west - other than some key raw material supply areas and is allowed to sort itself out. Which is still probably going to cause a lot of problems and suffering.
4) That's your assumption but I'm doubtful. Trashing China, especially if on a large scale makes occupation unnecessary. The Soviets will want some border points, possibly also much of Xinjiang but that's fairly thinly populated and a long way from the heartland of what's left of China. They now no longer have to worry about a serious threat emerging on their SE border which would free up a lot of resources.
5)
- I think your letting your political bias getting the better of your. The current centre left in Europe - and given your views I suspect you mean both those groups - are nothing to do with communism. Your a lot close to the Nazis than they are to communism in any form.1) We're talking about tens of millions of deaths, probably even more in the outcome your proposing. This is likely to make the still very large number of Chinese very unhappy with the people who have done this to them and hence quite probably see the previous government as the 'good guys'. Think of the way that many Russians still think of Stalin as some sort of hero/great leader for instance.
2) Cambodia was made by Soviet influence in and support for Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge that rose to power there ended up as allies of China in large part because both were at odds with Vietnam. With China in chaos then things will be different but don't rule out the US still fouling up the Vietnamese war as OTL, which is likely to cause a fair amount of chaos there.
3) Even assuming no Soviet 'fucking' - which is by no means certain - you still have American fucking and the issues with colonial problems - formally in the Portuguese colonies and informally in Rhodesia and S Africa. Along with other sources of tension and conflict there. At best if Soviet influence did disappear then it ceases to be a priority area of influence for the west - other than some key raw material supply areas and is allowed to sort itself out. Which is still probably going to cause a lot of problems and suffering.
4) That's your assumption but I'm doubtful. Trashing China, especially if on a large scale makes occupation unnecessary. The Soviets will want some border points, possibly also much of Xinjiang but that's fairly thinly populated and a long way from the heartland of what's left of China. They now no longer have to worry about a serious threat emerging on their SE border which would free up a lot of resources.
5)
1.Sralin win.Mao would lost pitifully - so nobody in China would back him.Deaths are terrible,but in long run it not change much.
2.USA would certainly fuck Vietnam - but without soviet support there,nothing bad would happen.
3.USA certainly fucked Rhodesia,but compared to what sovets did it was nothing.
4.Then they would have border with bandit mini states.Which would still need a lot of resources to cover.
5.Scholz was supporting soviets before they falled.Current leftist are commies who replaced workers with lgbt+52 and womans,but their goals are the same.
1) your talking of probably at least +100M deaths, which is a lot more than Mao at his worst achieved and the total could be far, far larger. Plus when such slaughter is committed by a foreign power it tends to mean the people who oppose it are seen as martyrs.
2 & 3 Apart from Europe after 1945 where democracy was both established and an important symbol in the war against communism the US has a long track record of backing military juntas and dictators around the world. As such its likely to continue doing that in Vietnam and places like Rhodesia as well. How long will it continue to maintain forces in Vietnam and would it be willing to do what it signally failed to do OTL in terms of making the government there popular? With states like Rhodesia, S Africa and the Portuguese colonies minority dictatorships can't survive for long and direct military aid would be political impossible unless the US really, really loses the plot as well as most of its human rights probably.
4) Possibly but possibly not. Bandit mini states are more likely to be clashing with each other and it would be risky for one of them to pick a fight with a superpower, especially one with a history of brutal use of force and also of use of nuclear weapons to settle arguments.
5) Delusional. Your definition of communist is pretty much anyone who isn't a fascist.
One other thing that should be noted with this scenario is that a major use of nuclear weapons - i.e. probably at least a couple of dozen and perhaps many more is going to change international thought on the possession and military use of nuclear weapons. Your likely to see the genocide movement - calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament being more active and loader but likely to be ignored. Going to be a lot more interest in obtaining nuclear weapons by assorted powers who don't have them and for the smaller powers who do have them to make a secure deterrent as strong as possible. Depending on how bad the deaths and destruction are you are likely to see a much higher level of concern in democratic states about using nukes but probably less in some less democratic ones. In this scenario you could see a low level nuclear war in the ME or say between India and Pakistan. Or possibly somewhere in Latin America or E Asia.
1.Tactical nukes would not kill 100M.maybe 10M,including other war victims.
2.Compare Rhodesia to what red blacks do with that.CIA puppets would be better for everybody including blacks.
3.The same goes for Vietnam - commies genocided there about 1M,and fucked economy.Unless you belive,that destroing catholic churches made them good....
4.bandits would raid anybody becouse they were bandits.And do not cared what soviets did to cyviians in retaliation.
5.Nope.Leftist are basically Frankfurt school,which are commies who decide to fuck morality instead of economy.Which worked for them,becouse they rule in USA and West Europe,when commies had only Nort Korea now.
P.S fascist killed less then 1000 people in Italy before 1943.Compared to commies they were boy scouts.
And nuclear weapons mean no wars - North Korea was not attacked,just like Pakistan.
1) That depends on how many are used and the latter collateral damage. If your talking about decapitating the Chinese government a lot of big cities are going to be hit and given the size and lack of accuracy of weapons in that time period tactical probably means 100kton and greater. Let alone if any Soviet cities are hit the retaliation is going to be very nasty. Plus if your destroying China as an organised state, even at the level of development it had in 1969 a hell of a lot more people are going to die in the chaos that follows. Let alone the fall-out and refugees issues.
2) Zimbabwe after the fall of Rhodesia was a disaster but that was due to the monster that gained power there. Not majority rule being established.
3) In Vietnam the communist regime was evil, although it was more sending people to camps and other fleeing than outright mass murder as you suggest. However I'm doubtful in the scenario being produced the US would be able to change its own and the local leaderships views of their role to get a stable government with enough support to maintain itself under pressure from the north.
4) Not if they wanted to live. Plus even with occasional bandit raiders being stupid enough to attack across the border that's going to need less forces and resources to guard against than a nuclear equipped giant state with ~1billion population.
5) You really need to learn what's going on in the modern world as opposed to your delusions. Saying that the Democrats, let alone the Republicans in the US - which control so much of the country are communists is laughable. Similarly the UK would have been markedly better off if for the last 40 years we had been run by supporters of the Frankfurt school rather than the cancerous parasites that we're suffered.
6) Don't know where you got that figure from but we know they killed tens, probably hundreds of thousands in E Africa, definitely hundreds of thousands in Spain and then tens of millions in WWII.
7) Interesting to argue that nuclear weapons on both sides mean no wars when the scenario we're discussing is exactly a nuclear exchange between two such nations. Such a conflict is going to have a huge impact in many areas and no one knows what the longer term impacts will be.
1.so,maybe 20M
2.He is commie.And every african country taken by commies suffered.Now,they would have only normal dictators.Much less dead,better economy.
3.They fought commies till USA stopped supporting them.Now,with weaker commies and USA support,they would hold.
4.bandits would not care to what happen with chineese cyviians who would face soviet wrath.Those cyviians would die,not bandits.
5.Democrats certainly are Marcuse children,the same goes for England.Look for lgbt + 52 madness there.sexual minority replaced workers as their poster boys.
6.Fascist.Which mean italians.Yes,they killed many cyvilians in conqered Libya and Ethiopia,but in Europe maybe 1000 till 1943.
And even in Africa it was less then million.
If you mean german genociders,they were national socialists,not fascists.
7.Nuclear confict do not happened in OTL between India and Pakistan,and USA attacked Libya and Iraq,but not North Korea.Why ? becouse they had A bombs.