A very interesting video and left with a lot to ponder over. One point just to note, “Maoism” wasn’t formed by Mao Zedong, Matt is thinking about Mao Zedong Thought which is a variation of Marxism-Leninism and is what China operated under while Mao was alive and before the Gang of Four were arrested. “Maoism” was synthesized in the 1960s/1970s in Peru by the Communist Party of Peru and is considered Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Slight nuance there in semantics but an important distinction nonetheless.
Zhou Enlai succeeding Mao Zedong after his death would have made for an excellent alternate timeline. He was in many ways the opposite of Mao: intelligent, cultured, cosmopolitan. Henry Kissinger called him "one of the two or three most impressive men I have ever met", and he first proposed many of the policies that would be implemented under Deng Xiaoping.
Eh Deng was a revisionist just like Gorbachev and Khrushchev…If anything Khrushchev was the reason the split happened because Mao correctly called them revisionists.
Many believe that even the collapse of the Iron Curtain could have been prevented had Khrushchev not come to power and done so much damage to the economy and political reality of the USSR. People like Gorbachev wouldn’t be able to even come to power and destroy the USSR like he did. Gorbachev was a consequence of how damaged the Party was. Because of Khrushchev’s reforms after Stalin it paved the foundation for all the corruption in the USSR and just how infiltrated the USSR was by the CIA later on.
The split would have happened even if Stalin had been still alive. Didn't Stalin say to Beria after seeing off Mao at the airport "We're going to have trouble with him."? Stalin just didnt live to see it. Mao wasn't going to be second fiddle yo anyone and with 800 million Chinese at his call, he didn't have to
For future reference q in Pinyin would sound very roughly like something between “ch” and “j” to an English speaker. Just with regard to some of the pronunciations of names here.
@@modmaker7617 I know that no sound exists like that in English. I am saying that that is the closest approximation to the actual sound using examples of English sounds for comparison. I definitely agree ch is the closest sound in English and is how most English speakers will pronounce it.
If the Sino Soviet split never happened, then India might get closer to the West earlier, while Pakistan ally itself closer to the Soviets. This would mean that India might become richer quite earlier on, while the Soviets might never invade Afghanistan
@@bakthihapuarachchi3447no. Our main enemy was not China. We had the motto of Hindi Chini Brothers. And pak won't join the Soviets who were basically anti islamic culture. India would stay non aligned but good ties with the sino Soviets.
Don’t forget that Indonesia almost certainly would have become Communist and the CIA backed genocide would never have happened. Essentially this split saved the USA as well, because they would have had to fight a Vietnamese and Indonesian War against communism and would have lost.
Thank you for bringing up nuclear proliferation as a possible outcome of this scenario. Not to mention the definite possibility of other WMDs throughout East and South Asia. As a consequence of this proliferation, clearly the United States, would have thrown its full weight behind the Republic of China and possibly concluded an agreement to base nuclear capable aircraft on the Island of Taiwan, in addition to the massive military installations at Clark Air Base and Subic Bay in the Philippines as well as Andersen Air Base on Guam. Naturally in exploiting the fear of a United global communist movement, the western allies would have developed Pakistan and possibly India into yet another location where nuclear capable aircraft would have been based. All in all, a very bad situation, with the potential for igniting WWIII and the end of human civilization.
Khrushchev's opponents for control were Georgi Malenkov, Vyacheslav Molotov, and Lavrenti Beria. Fortunately, the first three combined to defeat and have the sadistic and murderous MGB (as the KGB was then named) executed. So I wonder how Mao would have gotten along with either Malenkov or Molotov?
The ONLY way I see this happening is if Khrushchev doesn’t come to power. This was why many Socialist powers didint like the USSR much in the 50’s because of Khrushchev. Even the collapse of the USSR could have been probably been avoided without the damage Khrushchev did to the political system in the USSR/Economy. Same with China. If Dengist revisionists didn’t come to power as well.
Deng wasn't a revisionist. He adapted China to their material conditions. By the time Deng made reforms, Sino Soviet split has been going on for 22 years. ButJrushchev was definitely a revisionisti in the sense that DeStalinization happened and all the lies poured over Stalin. There were large portraits of Stalin and Lenin in Tiananmen square till 1990, but Stalin's portraits were immediately taken down after 1957. Who do you think was the revisionist? You can make policies that suits to your country's conditions, but you cannot focking lie about a great leader and get away with it. As long as Stalin's name is stained with lies, Communists around the world are bound to lose.
@@morningstararun6278it is interesting to me that you tie so called “revisionism” so closely to the person of Stalin. Actual revisionism has little to due with the myth of Stalin and the idea of Stalin that existed in the USSR after his death. While yes “destalinization” was a hammer used against the anti-revisionist faction in the USSR this was only a necessity due to the closeness of the individuals who led this faction (I.e. Molotov and Kaganovich) to Stalin during the purge years. The excess and the uncertainty of those years were used against those individuals to discredit them, make them part of the “Stalinist terror apparatus,” justifying khrushchev eventual decision to boot them from the party. In essences “destalinization” was merely a tactic used by khrushchev to achieve eliminations of his rivals. Why risk the destabilizing effects of this policy for no material gain. Compare this to the situation in China in 1976. By then Stalin was a dead figure ,mythologized for all ages in propaganda, but his actions as General Secretary of the USSR where not politically relevant to the situation the 2 opposing factions in the CPC at the time, the gang of 4 and the reformers. Again I ask the question of why risk the effects of “destalinzation” (though in this case they would have been far less severe) for no material gain. Deng had nothing to gain by dragging Stalin’s name through the dirt because he could not implicate his rivals in those crimes! Compare this to what Deng said about Mao later on, condemning the cultural revolution and in so doing discrediting “conservative” factions of the party that wanted to continue Mao’s legacy. This brings me to my final point, revisionism is a serices of misinterpretations of Marxism, willful or otherwise, that distort its goals and objectives and lead to materially incorrect policy that ultimately lead to the dismantling of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the restoration of capitalism. It is anti Marxist “great man history” to act like the figure of Stalin, while a great anti revisionist and Marxist in his own right, and the acceptance thereof is the primary litmus test of whether someone is a revisionist or not. While a good indicator, it is important to looks at the material policies of the people and parties of different socialists states and organizations and there effect on the strength of socialism in there nations or movements. This NEEDS to be how we judge who and who is not a revisionist because otherwise it is very possible for those who wish ill to the communist movement and the expansion of socialism to pull the wool over our eyes by pretending to love Stalin in spirit but oppose what he stood for in practice (even the modern Russian chauvinist and fascist pretend to love Stalin to gain the support of the Russian worker. Are they anti-revisionist because they pay lip service to the man of steel?)
@@Khatep-the-Ancient I don't understand. You think that the gang of 4 were Pro Stalin and actual fighters of the Marxist cause? I certainly don't think so. The gang of 4 were nothing but Anti growth "Socialists". There are instances where Zhou En Lai protected the Chinese intelligentsia several times from the gang of 4, and their stupid understanding of Marxism. If Deng didn't do what he did, there won't be a China today to fight the American imperialism. China would have been destroyed right after the collapse of USSR. A tactical retreat is not something to be denounced. Even Lenin's NEP was a tactical retreat. what Krushchev and Deng did were both completely opposite.
If mao did die early, there could have been a power struggle, even civil war that is more bloody than the famine. As much cult of personality it was, Mao was able to hold the country. With many purges that killed many people that were innocent. Mao alive or not and the famine is debatable. Sure if he died the famine could be less severe. But the country was right after a scorch earth tactic againist the Japanese. Not to mention the drought suffered in China with bad timing right after a war. The population outgrown and was too urbanized that can't be supported by rural population's bad harvest. (Partially also due to bad centralized planning agriculture, cooruption, but the biggest problem was the weather. A trend from ancient china, drought=90% of the reason for peasant uprising) This leading to government seize food from rurual area to distribute to the city, leading to massive death toll among the population). Economic trouble and disallowing food import made the situation worse. Thee whole great leap forward was not approve of the soviets not because our perspective that it caused a lot of death (we are seeing this with hindsight) to create steel in backyard, rather it will create a industrial china that would directly challenge the soivet export to china at the time. The soviets stopped aids because they wanted to keep china as semi-satelite country that rely on soviets exports. Not a industrial china. Simply put china was outgrowing the way soviets wanted.
Well it should be mentioned communist countries almost always hated each other. Warsaw pact and USSR, USSR and China, USSR and Albania, USSR and Yugoslavia, and China and Vietnam just to name a few
if teh Sino soviet split didnt happen you would see a way stronger bloc of other left leanining idealigoes being more accepted by the reds. Syndicalism, socialism and zapatista, The middle east would properly continue modernization with no theocratic take over. Britain may also stay as a third superpower in this timeline.
A very interesting video and left with a lot to ponder over. One point just to note, “Maoism” wasn’t formed by Mao Zedong, Matt is thinking about Mao Zedong Thought which is a variation of Marxism-Leninism and is what China operated under while Mao was alive and before the Gang of Four were arrested. “Maoism” was synthesized in the 1960s/1970s in Peru by the Communist Party of Peru and is considered Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Slight nuance there in semantics but an important distinction nonetheless.
Zhou Enlai succeeding Mao Zedong after his death would have made for an excellent alternate timeline. He was in many ways the opposite of Mao: intelligent, cultured, cosmopolitan. Henry Kissinger called him "one of the two or three most impressive men I have ever met", and he first proposed many of the policies that would be implemented under Deng Xiaoping.
Eh Deng was a revisionist just like Gorbachev and Khrushchev…If anything Khrushchev was the reason the split happened because Mao correctly called them revisionists.
Many believe that even the collapse of the Iron Curtain could have been prevented had Khrushchev not come to power and done so much damage to the economy and political reality of the USSR.
People like Gorbachev wouldn’t be able to even come to power and destroy the USSR like he did. Gorbachev was a consequence of how damaged the Party was. Because of Khrushchev’s reforms after Stalin it paved the foundation for all the corruption in the USSR and just how infiltrated the USSR was by the CIA later on.
The split would have happened even if Stalin had been still alive. Didn't Stalin say to Beria after seeing off Mao at the airport "We're going to have trouble with him."? Stalin just didnt live to see it. Mao wasn't going to be second fiddle yo anyone and with 800 million Chinese at his call, he didn't have to
For future reference q in Pinyin would sound very roughly like something between “ch” and “j” to an English speaker. Just with regard to some of the pronunciations of names here.
No sound in English that's in between ch and j. From audio-clips ch is the closest sound English has.
@@modmaker7617 I know that no sound exists like that in English. I am saying that that is the closest approximation to the actual sound using examples of English sounds for comparison. I definitely agree ch is the closest sound in English and is how most English speakers will pronounce it.
Would have been interesting to hear about India's place in this world, as well as what might have happened with Afghanistan in the 80s.
If the Sino Soviet split never happened, then India might get closer to the West earlier, while Pakistan ally itself closer to the Soviets. This would mean that India might become richer quite earlier on, while the Soviets might never invade Afghanistan
@@bakthihapuarachchi3447no. Our main enemy was not China. We had the motto of Hindi Chini Brothers.
And pak won't join the Soviets who were basically anti islamic culture.
India would stay non aligned but good ties with the sino Soviets.
Don’t forget that Indonesia almost certainly would have become Communist and the CIA backed genocide would never have happened. Essentially this split saved the USA as well, because they would have had to fight a Vietnamese and Indonesian War against communism and would have lost.
2:59 that's Superman Red Son.
Thank you for bringing up nuclear proliferation as a possible outcome of this scenario. Not to mention the definite possibility of other WMDs throughout East and South Asia. As a consequence of this proliferation, clearly the United States, would have thrown its full weight behind the Republic of China and possibly concluded an agreement to base nuclear capable aircraft on the Island of Taiwan, in addition to the massive military installations at Clark Air Base and Subic Bay in the Philippines as well as Andersen Air Base on Guam. Naturally in exploiting the fear of a United global communist movement, the western allies would have developed Pakistan and possibly India into yet another location where nuclear capable aircraft would have been based. All in all, a very bad situation, with the potential for igniting WWIII and the end of human civilization.
I was literally thinking about this today wtf
Khrushchev's opponents for control were Georgi Malenkov, Vyacheslav Molotov, and Lavrenti Beria. Fortunately, the first three combined to defeat and have the sadistic and murderous MGB (as the KGB was then named) executed. So I wonder how Mao would have gotten along with either Malenkov or Molotov?
Could China join the Warsaw pact in this world and if so when?
The ONLY way I see this happening is if Khrushchev doesn’t come to power. This was why many Socialist powers didint like the USSR much in the 50’s because of Khrushchev.
Even the collapse of the USSR could have been probably been avoided without the damage Khrushchev did to the political system in the USSR/Economy.
Same with China. If Dengist revisionists didn’t come to power as well.
Deng wasn't a revisionist. He adapted China to their material conditions. By the time Deng made reforms, Sino Soviet split has been going on for 22 years. ButJrushchev was definitely a revisionisti in the sense that DeStalinization happened and all the lies poured over Stalin. There were large portraits of Stalin and Lenin in Tiananmen square till 1990, but Stalin's portraits were immediately taken down after 1957. Who do you think was the revisionist? You can make policies that suits to your country's conditions, but you cannot focking lie about a great leader and get away with it. As long as Stalin's name is stained with lies, Communists around the world are bound to lose.
@@morningstararun6278it is interesting to me that you tie so called “revisionism” so closely to the person of Stalin. Actual revisionism has little to due with the myth of Stalin and the idea of Stalin that existed in the USSR after his death. While yes “destalinization” was a hammer used against the anti-revisionist faction in the USSR this was only a necessity due to the closeness of the individuals who led this faction (I.e. Molotov and Kaganovich) to Stalin during the purge years. The excess and the uncertainty of those years were used against those individuals to discredit them, make them part of the “Stalinist terror apparatus,” justifying khrushchev eventual decision to boot them from the party. In essences “destalinization” was merely a tactic used by khrushchev to achieve eliminations of his rivals. Why risk the destabilizing effects of this policy for no material gain. Compare this to the situation in China in 1976. By then Stalin was a dead figure ,mythologized for all ages in propaganda, but his actions as General Secretary of the USSR where not politically relevant to the situation the 2 opposing factions in the CPC at the time, the gang of 4 and the reformers. Again I ask the question of why risk the effects of “destalinzation” (though in this case they would have been far less severe) for no material gain. Deng had nothing to gain by dragging Stalin’s name through the dirt because he could not implicate his rivals in those crimes! Compare this to what Deng said about Mao later on, condemning the cultural revolution and in so doing discrediting “conservative” factions of the party that wanted to continue Mao’s legacy. This brings me to my final point, revisionism is a serices of misinterpretations of Marxism, willful or otherwise, that distort its goals and objectives and lead to materially incorrect policy that ultimately lead to the dismantling of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the restoration of capitalism. It is anti Marxist “great man history” to act like the figure of Stalin, while a great anti revisionist and Marxist in his own right, and the acceptance thereof is the primary litmus test of whether someone is a revisionist or not. While a good indicator, it is important to looks at the material policies of the people and parties of different socialists states and organizations and there effect on the strength of socialism in there nations or movements. This NEEDS to be how we judge who and who is not a revisionist because otherwise it is very possible for those who wish ill to the communist movement and the expansion of socialism to pull the wool over our eyes by pretending to love Stalin in spirit but oppose what he stood for in practice (even the modern Russian chauvinist and fascist pretend to love Stalin to gain the support of the Russian worker. Are they anti-revisionist because they pay lip service to the man of steel?)
@@Khatep-the-Ancient I don't understand. You think that the gang of 4 were Pro Stalin and actual fighters of the Marxist cause? I certainly don't think so. The gang of 4 were nothing but Anti growth "Socialists". There are instances where Zhou En Lai protected the Chinese intelligentsia several times from the gang of 4, and their stupid understanding of Marxism. If Deng didn't do what he did, there won't be a China today to fight the American imperialism. China would have been destroyed right after the collapse of USSR. A tactical retreat is not something to be denounced. Even Lenin's NEP was a tactical retreat. what Krushchev and Deng did were both completely opposite.
Can You make What if space race never ended and What if gorbochev secsesfully reformed ussr and What if partition of india never happens
I mean thats For all Mankind on Apple TV.
Aaaah
Best Timeline.
This sounds more like a what if Mao hadn't been leader of China scenario and no Sino-Soviet Split would have been an effect of that.
With a less "thawed" China, the UK might be more tempted to keep Hong Kong past 1999.
doesn't matter, they couldn't hold it
What if Shays rebellion actually went somewhere
If mao did die early, there could have been a power struggle, even civil war that is more bloody than the famine. As much cult of personality it was, Mao was able to hold the country. With many purges that killed many people that were innocent.
Mao alive or not and the famine is debatable. Sure if he died the famine could be less severe. But the country was right after a scorch earth tactic againist the Japanese. Not to mention the drought suffered in China with bad timing right after a war. The population outgrown and was too urbanized that can't be supported by rural population's bad harvest. (Partially also due to bad centralized planning agriculture, cooruption, but the biggest problem was the weather. A trend from ancient china, drought=90% of the reason for peasant uprising)
This leading to government seize food from rurual area to distribute to the city, leading to massive death toll among the population). Economic trouble and disallowing food import made the situation worse.
Thee whole great leap forward was not approve of the soviets not because our perspective that it caused a lot of death (we are seeing this with hindsight) to create steel in backyard, rather it will create a industrial china that would directly challenge the soivet export to china at the time. The soviets stopped aids because they wanted to keep china as semi-satelite country that rely on soviets exports. Not a industrial china. Simply put china was outgrowing the way soviets wanted.
' Solving 9-11 By Christopher Bollyn . '
A beautiful timeline.
what if malenkov succeeded to stalin
Well it should be mentioned communist countries almost always hated each other. Warsaw pact and USSR, USSR and China, USSR and Albania, USSR and Yugoslavia, and China and Vietnam just to name a few
You look like gale beotticher from breaking bad
But if Everyone had nuclear weapons, none would dare to fight 😂
if teh Sino soviet split didnt happen you would see a way stronger bloc of other left leanining idealigoes being more accepted by the reds. Syndicalism, socialism and zapatista, The middle east would properly continue modernization with no theocratic take over. Britain may also stay as a third superpower in this timeline.
Xion Xina would become the leader of China