PRC in an Axis victory world

[The Federalist]

Is it possible for a People's Republic of China, much like the one in OTL, to exist in an Axis victory world?

The basic scenario is; the Nazis win in Europe and America wins in the Pacific as in OTL and the two superpowers are locked in a Cold War. The Chinese go on to win the Civil War as in OTL and Mao establishes the PRC around the same time in the late 40's or early 50's.

Now the US has a reason to support the PRC ITTL in that they want a major Communist power, within some proximity to the Reich (which extends to Turkestan ITTL), to act as a buffer and to fill in the void left by the rump USSR. I imagine the US pouring funds and military support into the PRC and supporting Mao's newfound goal of spreading the "world revolution". This leads to the cultivation of a militant "Cultural Revolution" atmosphere that sticks and China eventually becomes a giant North Korea, primarily directed against Germany.

ITTL, there are two guerilla wars, one in the Urals, supported by the rump USSR (like in Fatherland) and another one in Central Asia, supported by China.

Is it all plausible and what else could happen in such a TL?

 

[Sol Invictus]

Is it possible for a People's Republic of China, much like the one in OTL, to exist in an Axis victory world?

The basic scenario is; the Nazis win in Europe and America wins in the Pacific as in OTL and the two superpowers are locked in a Cold War. The Chinese go on to win the Civil War as in OTL and Mao establishes the PRC around the same time in the late 40's or early 50's.

Now the US has a reason to support the PRC ITTL in that they want a major Communist power, within some proximity to the Reich (which extends to Turkestan ITTL), to act as a buffer and to fill in the void left by the rump USSR. I imagine the US pouring funds and military support into the PRC and supporting Mao's newfound goal of spreading the "world revolution". This leads to the cultivation of a militant "Cultural Revolution" atmosphere that sticks and China eventually becomes a giant North Korea, primarily directed against Germany.

ITTL, there are two guerilla wars, one in the Urals, supported by the rump USSR (like in Fatherland) and another one in Central Asia, supported by China.

Is it all plausible and what else could happen in such a TL?

It's fairly plausible, the axis will find it difficult to influence the outcome of the Chinese Civil war, and the USA having lost its European markets (as Hitler will form a trading bloc) will seek new ones, as well as new allies.

The USA will either turn a blind eye to the evils of communism, or maybe turn a little left wing itself and very hyprocritical at the same time.

I can see the alliance lasting, until at least China develops nuclear weapons and we get the situation with 2.5 Superpowers.

 

[Northstar]

How much of Europe has Germany conquered? Is Britain still here?! Or did Germany launch some kind of amphibious landing at Skegness or Brighton or something?

If so what would the name of such an operation be?

 

[xchen08]

The thing is that despite what Chinese schools now teach, the communists played only a very small role in the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. They were weak as hell, with their home base in barren worthless land. The Japanese invasion had saved them from destruction, but their big break came when the Soviets gave them Manchuria after taking it off the Japanese, the most heavily developed and industrialized part of China. If the Nazis took down the Soviet Union, then the Chinese Communists are not getting Manchuria. Manchuria would instead surrender to the Americans when Japan surrenders, and the U.S. would hand it over to the Nationalists. It's still just barely in the realm of possibility for the Communists to win the civil war thanks to the Nationalists internal weakness, but the Communists are now a lot weaker while the nationalists are a lot stronger.

 

[nbcman]

Why would the US switch between backing the KMT and the Communists? And why would the US not support the KMT to the fullest since the Chinese would be the only potential major ally for the US left in a cold war between Germany and the US?
Certainly Germany wouldn't help the Communists.
So it is ASB that Mao and the Communists could win the Chinese Civil war.

 

[greg8263]

How much of Europe has Germany conquered? Is Britain still here?! Or did Germany launch some kind of amphibious landing at Skegness or Brighton or something?

If so what would the name of such an operation be?

Even if the Germans did manage an amphibious landing, Skegness might not be the best place, they'd have half the coastline of England to sail up to get there and have you ever seen the place! They'd try to avoid it like the plague like everyone else does

 

[Northstar]

Have I seen the place!!!!!
I used to go on Caravan holidays with my mum when I was younger!
Thats why I know the Germans would find it so aluring...........
Avoid it like the plague! Tcht!

 

[greg8263]

On the bright side, any landings would be foiled, the tide is always a mile out and the roads leading from the place are terrible, until you reach Yorkshire that is. But then again what is in God's county that isn't great?

 

[Northstar]

What isn't great in Yorkshire?
Nope, you got me, nothing as far as I can remember.

But Hamburger still hasn't let us know if we've been invaded or not.
I think its quite important for us to be able to talk about the OP!

 

[ninebucks]

Without a strong USSR to back it, the Chinese Communists are doomed to insignificance.

(And Skegness is lovely!)

 

[tallwingedgoat]

The thing is that despite what Chinese schools now teach, the communists played only a very small role in the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. They were weak as hell, with their home base in barren worthless land. The Japanese invasion had saved them from destruction, but their big break came when the Soviets gave them Manchuria after taking it off the Japanese, the most heavily developed and industrialized part of China. If the Nazis took down the Soviet Union, then the Chinese Communists are not getting Manchuria. Manchuria would instead surrender to the Americans when Japan surrenders, and the U.S. would hand it over to the Nationalists. It's still just barely in the realm of possibility for the Communists to win the civil war thanks to the Nationalists internal weakness, but the Communists are now a lot weaker while the nationalists are a lot stronger.

The Soviets did not "give" the Chinese Communists Manchuria. Rather they gave the Nationalists Manchuria, including all the industrial centers but accommodated the Communists in the countryside.

The Soviets did not openly support the Chinese Communists at all. In fact you might say they were hedging their bets. They had a long history of alliance with the Nationalists and had serious doubts the Communists could win. The main support provided to the Communists consisted of turning over Japanese weapons captured during August Storm. But this was after Chiang Kai-shek resumed the civil war in 1946.

This time line depends a great deal on the war in Russia. If the Soviets were defeated in Europe they may turn their attention against Japan and Manchuria. The Chinese Communists may become a greater asset to them in such a dire scenario.

 

[darthbalmung]

while backing Mao might be the better option due to Chiang Kai-Shek being incompetent, the U.S isn't going to back a communist power, unless germany weds itself to the KMT.

 

[XiaoXiao]

Mao wasn't some kind of magical hero figure. It was inevitable at that stage of Chinese history for some sort of radicalized leader to wrest control from Jiang because he was completely incompetent. Jiang was considered "too weak to rule yet too strong to overthrow". With any sort of Japanese invasion happening, he becomes too weak for anything against internal enemies and is forced to make peace. The only significant internal enemy by the 1930's is the Communists. That doesn't change at all. Soviet Union didn't really do jack squat for the communists until after they won. Rather, it was Jiang's own stupidity and the popular hate against the nationalist government that led to their downfall. Jiang would still have had to sign the 1946 peace treaty approved by Marshall, and he would still backstab the communists afterwards, and he would still lose the 3 NE provinces and go on to lose everything. The americans bet everything on Jiang and lost that bet while the Soviets just sat out basically. Only after the Communists actually won did the Soviets give significant help.

Note also that the US at that time in history wasn't against communism - it was allied with communist nations to oppose fascism. To the US leadership in WW2, it was acceptable to prop up communist nations (Soviets) as long as they fight the Axis.

 

[The Federalist]

Why would the US switch between backing the KMT and the Communists? And why would the US not support the KMT to the fullest since the Chinese would be the only potential major ally for the US left in a cold war between Germany and the US?
Certainly Germany wouldn't help the Communists.
So it is ASB that Mao and the Communists could win the Chinese Civil war.

Because Chiang was not Winston Churchill, it was well known that he was an incompetent leader who led a highly corrupt and unpopular government. The US wouldn't support the Communists in the Civil War but after it, once they've won, for the reasons stated in the OP, to provide a powerful buffer against Germany and to fill in the void left by the USSR.

How much of Europe has Germany conquered? Is Britain still here?! Or did Germany launch some kind of amphibious landing at Skegness or Brighton or something?

If so what would the name of such an operation be?

Britain I guess is still a free country ITTL, just because I couldn't find a plausible way for the Germans to take over there.